The Development of Southeastern Archaeology

cover

cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

next page >

The Development of Southeastern Archaeology Johnson, Jay K. University of Alabama Press 0817306005 9780817306007 9780585140919 English Archaeology--Southern States, Indians of North America-Southern States--Antiquities, Southern States-Antiquities. 1992 CC101.U6D48 1993eb 975/.01 Archaeology--Southern States, Indians of North America-Southern States--Antiquities, Southern States-Antiquities.

cover

next page >

file:///C|/...loads/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/cover.html[20/10/2010 11:26:32]

page_iii

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

The Development of Southeastern Archaeology Edited by Jay K. Johnson The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa & London

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_iii.html[20/10/2010 11:26:34]

page_iv

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

Copyright © 1993 by The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America designed by zig zeigler

The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Development of southeastern archaeology / edited by Jay K. Johnson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8173-0600-5 1. ArchaeologySouthern States. 2. Indians of North America Southern StatesAntiquities. 3. Southern StatesAntiquities. I. Johnson, Jay K. CC101.U6D48 1993 975´.01dc20 92-22915 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data available

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_iv.html[20/10/2010 11:26:34]

page_v

< previous page

page_v

next page > Page v

for Kermit Isaac and Violet Lani Johnson

< previous page

page_v

next page >

file:///C|/...ads/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_v.html[20/10/2010 11:26:35]

page_vii

< previous page

next page >

page_vii

Page vii

Contents Preface Jay K. Johnson

ix

Acknowledgments

xiii

1 Changing Paradigms in the Explanation of Southeastern Prehistory David S. Brose

1

2 Ceramics Jon L. Gibson

18

3 Lithics Jay K. Johnson

36

4 Physical Anthropology Maria O. Smith

53

5 Ethnohistory Patricia K. Galloway

78

6 Zooarchaeology Elizabeth J. Reitz

109

7 Paleoethnobotany Kristen J. Gremillion

132

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_vii.html[20/10/2010 11:26:35]

page_viii

< previous page

next page >

page_viii

Page viii 8 Archaeometry Ronald L. Bishop and Veletta Canouts

160

9 Multispectral Digital Imagery W. Fredrick Limp

184

10 Conclusion Jay K. Johnson

207

References Cited

215

Contributors

327

Index

331

< previous page

page_viii

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_viii.html[20/10/2010 11:26:36]

page_ix

< previous page

page_ix

next page > Page ix

Preface This book is a good example of serendipity. Not that it does not represent hard work as well, but it never hurts to be in the right place at the right time. It all started when I attended a workshop on remote sensing and archaeology at Boston University in the summer of 1987. Among the many interesting people I met there was Anna Roosevelt, whose primary geographical emphasis is the lower Amazon. Two years later, when the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was planning a meeting in New Orleans for February 1990, the program committee decided that a session on southeastern archaeology would be appropriate. There were no southeastern archaeologists on the program committee, and in fact, I know of no southeastern archaeologists who are members of the AAAS, a point which may or may not say something about southeastern archaeology. At any rate, Roosevelt, who is a member of the AAAS, remembered that I was a southeastern archaeologist and asked if I would be interested in organizing a symposium. When I said yes, she teamed me up with Rolfe Sinclair, a physicist with a passion for archaeology and many years of experience in organizing symposia for the AAAS. As long as it dealt with southeastern archaeology, the focus of the symposium was pretty much up to me. In the past few years I have become interested in the history of the development of archaeology, how what was done and published in 1970 affects us today and how that is a response to what was done and published in 1940 and so on. It may be a mark of professional middle age but I find this topic fascinating and decided it might have some appeal to the audience of scientists and informed laymen I was told would attend the meeting. I also hoped to find

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_ix.html[20/10/2010 11:26:36]

page_x

< previous page

page_x

next page > Page x

other archaeologists in the Southeast who wanted to examine the professional roots of their own subdisciplines in the way I intended to do for lithic analysis. I was not disappointed. Several phone calls filled a session with 30minute presentations by David Brose, Pat Galloway, Jon Gibson, Jack Eddy, and me. I collected the abstracts, and Sinclair put together the paperwork for the symposium. Late in the summer of 1989 I was contacted by Susan McMurry, an editor for the AAAS, who asked if I would be interested in expanding the session into a book. I had just recovered from editing a collection of papers on lithic technology two years earlier and was reluctant to start another so soon. Nevertheless, the topic and the publisher lured me in. I agreed to expand the volume by adding chapters on topics that we would not have time to cover in the symposium and to produce a book proposal. We all showed up in New Orleans the day before the session. Sinclair had organized a dinner that included all of the archaeologists on the program, primarily members of our session and a session on the Southwest. We went to a small neighborhood restaurant somewhere northeast of the French Quarter, which I could not find again on a bet. The seafood was good and several of us drank Dixie beer in honor of the fact that we were in New Orleans. The session the next day was nearly as much fun as the dinner the night before. Clearly, the development of archaeology is something that other archaeologists also find interesting. We had the makings of what appeared to me to be a fine book. I heard from the AAAS in March 1990. Their reviewers had concluded that "While such a treatment of the subject is definitely useful, it is more regional in nature than the kind of volume for which we have an established market. Perhaps a publisher in your geographical area, particularly one specializing in anthropology, would be better able to reach the target audience for such a collection than can AAAS." As it turns out, this was excellent advice. Judith Knight, the editor for anthropology books at The University of Alabama Press, has been enthusiastic and supportive from our first inquiry until our last deadline. A glance at the table of contents will show that all but Jack Eddy were able to provide a manuscript. Eddy's talk was on archaeoastronomy and it was well received at the meeting, but other commitments prevented him from contributing to the book. Five other chapters were solicited, and after several late nights spent in word processing, I turned over a first draft of the manuscript to Judy Knight at the Southeastern Conference meeting held in Mobile early in November 1990. Having the whole thing in the same format and printed out on a laser printer made it look like a book and I was pleased with the content. Still, I was relieved

< previous page

page_x

next page >

file:///C|/...ads/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_x.html[20/10/2010 11:26:37]

page_xi

< previous page

page_xi

next page > Page xi

when both of the reviews came back positive in March 1991. The next five months were spent in the second round of revisions. Now you know how we got to this point and you might wonder if it was worth the effort. I think so, but that is hardly an unbiased evaluation. You will have to decide. But I do think we can agree that such a book has been needed. The Southeast has contributed a great deal to the development of American archaeology as a science, but the contribution has not been constant through time or across the subdisciplines. The format of this book allows the mosaic nature of this development to be examined and related to special features of the landscape and history of the Southeast. Also, I spent three weeks collating and checking the references and I can say that there are a staggering number of them. The access they provide to the literature on southeastern archaeology should prove valuable. I was pleased to note that the author of the largest number of cited references is James Ford. While a simple count may not always be a good measure of the importance of a contributor's work (only two of Joffre Coe's works are cited), in this case it is. Scientists have often observed that they stand on the shoulders of those who came before. If nothing else, this collection gives us some idea of who these people have been and how broad their shoulders were. In my initial correspondence to contributors I asked that they relate changes in method to changes in theory in their areas of specialty, and one of the working titles for the manuscript was "Method and Theory in Southeastern Archaeology." Both of the reviewers, however, noted that the following essays emphasize method more than theory, and the title was not only presumptuous, it was inaccurate. One of the things clearly documented in this book is that the Southeast has not taken part in either the theoretical exchange that led to the new archaeology of the 1960s or the reaction that produced the postprocessual archaeology of the 1990s. As one reviewer commented, southeastern archaeologists have been "mostly theory consumers rather than generators." This was not always the case. During the 1930s and 1940s, the heyday of culture history, the Southeast led the way in both method and theory. Why were southeastern archaeologists prime conspirators in the earlier revolution and bystanders to the events that followed? Certainly it has nothing to do with the nature of the archaeological record. As these reviews demonstrate, you can do new archaeology just as well (or as badly) in the Southeast as you can in the Southwest. While it is true that the Southeast is a conservative place, this also is a constant. It was just as conservative in the 1930s, when change was the order of the day in archaeology. Anticipating a point that is made in more detail in the conclusion, I

< previous page

page_xi

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_xi.html[20/10/2010 11:26:37]

page_xii

< previous page

page_xii

next page > Page xii

believe that the difference has to do with the structure of the two revolutions. Culture history was a product of the federal relief programs of the depression, and the Southeast was a major focus of such programs. Photographs of immaculate profiles 70 feet long and 20 feet high in the shell mounds of the central Tennessee River valley are eloquent testimonies to scale of the excavations and their potential for culture history studies. New archaeology, on the other hand, grew in an academic setting, and Ph.D. programs in anthropology in the Southeast have been limited to a few universities until quite recently. Each chapter of this book documents the introduction of new archaeology into the Southeast as a consequence of cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology, and there is no greater consumer of theory than CRM. Regardless of whether it is a producer or consumer, the Southeast has provided a fertile testing ground for theory. The rich and complex prehistoric record in combination with a diversified environment provide the opportunity for southeastern archaeologists to produce results that have importance beyond the region. The following essays document this to have been the case in the past and point to the potential for the future. JAY K. JOHNSON

< previous page

page_xii

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_xii.html[20/10/2010 11:26:38]

page_xiii

< previous page

page_xiii

next page > Page xiii

Acknowledgments It seems as if I have been working on this book for a long time and there are several people I would like to recognize. First, I thank Anna Roosevelt and Rolfe Sinclair for their part in bringing about the symposium that started the whole thing. Of course, I am grateful for the cooperation of the contributors who believed in the project enough to take on another research commitment. Judith Knight is a patient and supportive editor whose guidance has been essential. I am grateful to Ian Brown and an anonymous reviewer for liking the manuscript well enough to recommend publication and for many valuable suggestions. Countless evening hours were spent doing the mindless word processing needed to transform files, collate references, standardize headings, and ensure general consistency. I thank the Atlanta Braves for having the kind of season in 1991 that made this bearable. And, as always, I thank Anne, my wife, who became a Braves fan in spite of herself.

< previous page

page_xiii

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_xiii.html[20/10/2010 11:26:39]

page_1

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

Chapter 1 Changing Paradigms in the Explanation of Southeastern Prehistory David S. Brose In 1990 the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was held in New Orleans. Rolfe Sinclair, director of physical sciences at the National Science Foundation, wished to give participants some sense of the place in which they were meeting. He asked Jay Johnson to chair a symposium acquainting them with changing interpretations of the local southeastern archaeological record, based on some of the more recent and more science-like studies. Johnson convinced me to deliver a broadly historical nontechnical introduction for that expected audience of curious physicists. It was easy to resist the temptation to integrate the results of a century of increasingly critical theory and rigorous methodology into a 30-minute presentation about southeastern archaeology. That approach seemed certain to lose the attention of scientists contemplating what they might learn from attending a technical session on experimental results in their own subdiscipline, or what they might learn by conducting Bourbon Street experiments on their own. And more than a year before that AAAS symposium was held, the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) celebrated its golden anniversary in the same city by convening a plenary session at which several distinguished scholars spoke on the theme ''Theory and Method in American Archaeology Commemorating Fifty Years of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference.'' I had little expectation that I would be more insightful or profound than James A. Brown, Robert C. Dunnell, Christopher S. Peebles, or Patty Jo Watson had been. Therefore, I chose to vignette a discussion of what the relatively recent marriage of physical sciences and archaeology had meant and might yet mean for the Southeast by

< previous page

page_1

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_1.html[20/10/2010 11:26:39]

page_2

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

presenting the "riddle of the mounds," a topic I hoped would be of general interest to nonarchaeological scientists. But that was then, and this is now. The informal presentations in Jay Johnson's AAAS symposium have grown into myriad-detailed topical presentations. The audience of this new scholarly publication is archaeologists who are not preoccupied by ephemeral attractions. This new audience is certainly acquainted with current assessments of the changes in anthropological theory and method that underlay many changing interpretations in American archaeology in general and the repercussions of these changing anthropological paradigms in the particular archaeology of the Southeast. If not, readers are referred to Charles Redman's Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology (Redman 1991), or to those recently published SEAC papers (Brown 1990; Dunnell 1990; Peebles 1990; Watson 1990) whose scope and quality confirm my initial hesitation. Still, this book does contain a version of the paper I gave at that AAAS symposium. I trust it will do more than satisfy idle curiosity as to what physicists could possibly want to learn about new archaeological theories despite the concurrent distractions of sessions in their own field and the ambiance of the French Quarter. My presentation is here recast not to provide a comprehensive overview of theoretical changes in southeastern archaeology (which it was never meant to be), but to address what interest southeastern archaeologists may have about new theories in the physical sciences that alter or complement the ways they have come to interpret their data. The Moundbuilders When pioneers entered the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Tennessee river valleys in the 1700s, they were amazed by the richness of the land and its game. They were also amazed by the sizes and shapes of the many earthen mounds and walls that had been built there. Many of these were covered by very old trees. Some wondered when they had been built. The Native Americans living in those regions did not claim to have built these mounds. Most people and many historians guessed that these mounds and earthworks had been made by an ancient race of people whom they called the Moundbuilders (Squier and Davis 1848; Thomas 1894). After digging a mound on his property in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson became one of a few cautious scientists to claim that the bones and the tools of the Moundbuilders were not much different than those of Native Americans still living in parts of the country (see Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980; Dunnell 1990). This was not a popular opinion. Dozens of

< previous page

page_2

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_2.html[20/10/2010 11:26:40]

page_3

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

books offered to prove how and when the mounds had been built, and why their builders had disappeared. Even more books were written to explain that the Moundbuilders had come from Ireland or Carthage, or had been ancient Israelites, who had probably been destroyed by the savage race of American Indians (Silverberg 1968). Even during the interesting historical phase in American archaeology that occurred during the Federal and Antebellum periods, mythical history and religion, strongly colored by expedient political theory, provided the logical framework within which the mounds of the Southeast and those who had built them were understood (compare Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980; Watson 1990). In the decades before the Civil War self-taught archaeologists dug into many of these ancient mounds. Excavations from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast were reported by private scholars from Mississippi to Massachusetts (see Caldwell and Hall 1964; Brose and Greber 1979). While their studies nearly all agreed that the mounds and earthworks had not all been made in the same way, few of these authors believed that the Moundbuilders were North American Indians (Squier and Davis 1848; Thomas 1894; Willey and Phillips 1958; Fitting 1973). Ready functions were invented for distinct forms of mounds and earthworks. Many mounds seemed to have been built as platforms for the support of structures. Mounds of an older vintage frequently covered crypts, tombs, or altars. Some earthworks seemed to have been designed to isolate and protect their makers, whereas others seemed to have been created to realize Platonic or zoomythic ideals (see Thomas 1894; Silverberg 1968; Brose and Greber 1979). Many of the most enigmatic southeastern mounds were similar to those scattered across southern Ohio, where the farm of Captain Hopewell gave a name to the complex. Often surrounded by elaborate geometrical walls of earth, Hopewell mounds seem to have been the scenes of ritual activities that took place in structures of different sizes and shapes. Great accumulations of functional, ornamental, and even musical artifacts were placed with some interred burials. Many of these artifacts displayed technological and artistic ability that purportedly surpassed that of modern artisans, and many were made of materials that had come from locations as much as 2,000 miles away (Caldwell and Hall 1964; Brose and Greber 1979; Brose et al. 1985). Although there were no earthworks in Illinois, the river bluffs were covered with mound groups in which people had similar, though fewer, artifacts. Ohio Hopewell artifacts were also found at burial mounds in the Appalachians (near ancient mica mines); in irregular stone mounds on hill-tops in Tennessee, northern Georgia, and Alabama; and in large villages

< previous page

page_3

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_3.html[20/10/2010 11:26:40]

page_4

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

and mounds built on terraces along the Cumberland, Tennessee, Tombigbee, Alabama, and Chattahoochee rivers. And similar, though always smaller and less varied, sets of such materials, along with Illinois chert points and Illinois ceramic motifs, were found with mound burials in earthwork rings on broad river terraces in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and along the Gulf Coast from Texas to the west side of Mobile Bay. From Mobile Bay to the Everglades various small and large mounds had been used and rebuilt with flattened tops, ramps and causeways, and large earthworks. In the valley of the Tennessee River, cutting through the Southeast, there were massive carved pipes of local stone, nearly identical to some that had been found in Ohio mounds. Even along the old Indian trails on upland ridges from Memphis to Natchez there were mounds with imported artifacts (Griffin 1967; Brose and Greber 1979; Brose et al. 1985). Discussion of the significance of such unexpected mounds, earthworks, and materials quickly generated competing interpretations (compare Silverberg 1968; Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980; Dunnell 1990; Watson 1990). Nonetheless, nearly all of these were within the contemporary paradigms of European history (White 1976). The earliest explanations were derived from the studies of military strategy: any earthwork on a hilltop or in closed form became a fort. The mounds with these forts were believed to contain rear guard warriors, fallen in defense of the Moundbuilders' southward retreat from the Native American hoards. Some of the mounds were in earthworks of precise Euclidean shape, with no obvious defensive value. The ritual nature of their graves and artifacts suggested to some archaeologists and historians that religion offered a better explanation (Squier and Davis 1848). Those in the mounds with whom the artifacts had been buried were believed to be missionaries, bringing enlightenment to the heathen (Thomas 1894). Some mound and earthwork shapes appeared to be duplicated in different parts of the country. So did many of the artifacts within the mounds of any region, and often even raw materials appeared to have been brought from surprising distances. This suggested to many researchers that a vast commercial system had once existed in the Southeast. Having brought the latest and most sophisticated goods to the third world of their day, presumably in return for crude raw materials (and possibly strategic information), those in the mounds were the local representatives or agents of a business empire who had died "on station" (Caldwell and Hall 1964). Even though early writers provided very little evidence for their conclusions, few early readers required much (Haven 1856). Frontier sentiment, nascent antiquarianism, and soon even federal policy coincided

< previous page

page_4

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_4.html[20/10/2010 11:26:41]

page_5

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

in the conviction that Native Americans had no long-term legitimate claim to the once civilized heart of the continent. The reported discovery of golden nuggets from a stream in the hills of northern Georgia and the reported discovery of golden tablets from a mound in northern New York occurred in the same year, and within the decade both resulted in epic westward journeys. The United States of President Andrew Jackson were not the United States of President Thomas Jefferson, and the gold, which really was "in them thar hills," resulted in the forced removal westward of most of the Cherokee, and eventually in taking a significant portion of the land belonging to other groups of southeastern Native Americans. Joseph Smith's report of the discovery and translation of golden tablets resulted in a new American religion, which, by claiming the prehistoric earthworks as Israelite constructions, took from the southeastern Native Americans a significant part of their past (Smith 1833). Thus, throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, those concerned with the archaeology of the Southeast employed the methods and imposed either the biases of self-serving popular prejudice or the historical paradigms of the late Enlightenment on their subject (White 1976). Washington Digs for the Truth From the end of the Civil War to the end of the First World War, interest in the interpretation of ancient American mounds turned from the origin of their builders to a study of their forms, their contents, and their distributions in time and space (Thomas 1894; Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980; Meltzer et al. 1986; Watson 1990). While many know that Radical Republicans took political control of the southeastern states in the 1870s, few remember that in 1882 they also took control of the state of Utah. Nascent feminism and smoldering resentment over recollected Mormon adventures had converted the former heartland of abolitionism to a hotbed of antiMormonism. Although few northern activists believed that the mounds had been built by Native Americans, even fewer of them believed that they had been built by sanctified polygamists. In the appropriation for 1882 one congressional representative from northeast Ohio forced $5,000 upon an unwilling Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE), demanding an answer to the question of whether the mounds were the works of any ancient Old World peoples (compare Brose 1984). Perhaps it is more than historical coincidence that the year 1894 not only marked what Frederick Jackson Turner called the passing of the American frontier, but also marked the publication of Cyrus Thomas's report of mound explorations in the twelfth Annual Report of

< previous page

page_5

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_5.html[20/10/2010 11:26:41]

page_6

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution (Thomas 1894). For the unequivocal conclusion of that massive volume was that the mounds in different parts of the country had been built by Native Americans (see Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980; Meltzer et al. 1986; Smith, ed. 1978, 1990). The BAE investigations suggested that while some of the large mounds in the Southeast contained materials similar to those of the Ohio Hopewell, many of them contained materials that were of a later date. Along the Mississippi River and its lower tributaries, there were mounds that were not merely covered crypts or tombs, but that were accretional platform earth lodges and substructure truncated pyramids (Thomas 1894). Excavations revealed that the earliest in the sequence of these mounds, with ceramics that W. H. Holmes (1886, 1903) was to call Mississippian, were mounds with small groups of burials accompanied by elaborate and exotic artifacts with stylistic and iconographic motifs seen in early historic drawings. Thomas (1894) even reprinted excerpts from early explorers who had actually described the Native Americans building mounds, because, especially in the Southeast, Spanish and possibly French and English artifacts had been found in some of the mounds. Although the historical records seemed clear that some of these are the remains of the tribal societies of agricultural, town-dwelling Native Americans, the latest of the prehistoric Mississippian societies appeared to be separated by abandoned territory, and major sites seemed to show that this was a typical defensive posture (Smith 1978; Steponaitis 1986). Still, across the Southeast the distribution of such mounds and the artifacts their few burials contained were seen to represent the remains of leaders who controlled warfare and what appeared to be tribute in some subsistence resources, as had been the case for elite members of hierarchical political groups described by some of those early explorers recorded by Thomas in 1894. Southeastern archaeology bears the legacy of the reckless application of ethnolinguistic labels to archaeological societies, a practice that originated during these years (see Griffin, ed. 1952; Willey and Phillips 1958), and vivid examples of attempts to link late pre-historic complexes and particular tribes can still be found (Hudson 1976; M. T. Smith 1987). The issues of relative chronology were an increasing concern of southeastern archaeology during this half century. The earliest descriptions of American antiquities concentrated upon deriving a sequence for the mounds and earthworks by comparison of the artifacts they contained. Crude stone tools from buried deposits, river banks, wells, and mines were compared to materials recovered from European Pleistocene deposits, but human occupation of the New World was not considered

< previous page

page_6

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_6.html[20/10/2010 11:26:42]

page_7

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

to be of great antiquity (Meltzer et al. 1986). The sites that were subjected to detailed scrutiny turned out to be of dubious antiquity. Of course, nowhere in this country, least of all in the BAE, was there any concept of a static, synchronic past. Rather there were two critical issues from the 1870s through the 1920s. First, what was the duration of the Quaternary (and a number of both relative and absolute estimates were proposed); and second, how reliable was the evidence adduced to place North American artifacts in geological contexts that could be equated with the apparently early Quaternary deposits in Europe. For both portions of this issue, there were positions staked out by prehistorians covering all points of each continuum. The BAE position on this issue was predominantly controlled by its political need not to disagree with the adamant position of Hrdlicka, the National Museum's renowned physical anthropologist. Hrdlicka argued (correctly) that nowhere in the Americas had there been any skeletal remains recovered that were not fully modern, and nowhere was there unambiguous evidence for preglacial occupation. He unfortunately accepted the short absolute geological chronology based upon Lord Kelvin's temperature measurement curves (which would have been accurate enough except that Kelvin was unaware of geothermal radioactivity). If one ignores the absolute dates that Hrdlicka thus acceptedand, in more respectable historiographic fashion, looks at the geological associations that Hrdlicka took those dates to represent, then the BAE position of the 1880s is seen to still govern the Smithsonian position of the 1980s. Nonetheless, from 1890 to 1920 understanding changes in the archaeological record found in the exploration of the mounds was hampered by a chronological framework of limited duration (see Spaulding 1985; Meltzer et al. 1986). The newer Americanist extension of the earlier Old World historical explanation was couched in terms of waves of Eskimo, Algonquian, and Iroquoian populations displacing one another through space and time. This approach was largely based on the purported similarities of a few chosen prehistoric and historic artifact types (Fitting 1973; Willey and Sabloff 1980). To some extent these explanations sought, and often found, confirmation from physical anthropology, whose approaches to prehistory were conditioned by the presumption that differences in modern human populations were largely racially derived. Without question, many of these approaches resulted in interpretations flawed by an uncritical willingness to attribute the behavior of living peoples studied by ethnographers to the remains of prehistoric groups under investigation. Many such problems colored the explanations of the next generation of southeastern archaeologists, and some

< previous page

page_7

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_7.html[20/10/2010 11:26:42]

page_8

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

still persist in various current syntheses (Smith, ed. 1978; Brose and Greber 1979), and even more recent writers (Carr 1985). Yet some attempts to explain the Southeast's archaeology in ethnographic terms (e.g., Smith 1910) successfully presented a picture of once-living social groups that foreshadowed, if they did not directly influence, later explanations that called themselves "conjunctive" or "new" (Taylor 1948; Binford 1964b, 1983). Family Relationships From the 1920s through the Second World War, many southeastern archaeologists followed the lead of those cultural anthropologists seduced by the broad explanatory potential in the classificatory approaches of biological and social evolution (White 1959; Spaulding 1960). They adopted another set of interpretative frameworks for the study of southeastern prehistory, moving beyond the earlier culture history paradigm (Willey and Sabloff 1980; Watson 1990). During this period many southeastern archaeologists sought to recognize and to measure the strength of the social contacts between different prehistoric southeastern societies. They created complex social taxonomies in which the presence or absence of ritual objects, the similarities of burial details, and the minutia of shared or copied designs on pottery were seen as quasi-biological indices of relationship, even inheritance (Ford and Willey 1941; Griffin 1943; Keel 1988). Because the paradigmatic structure for these studies had such obvious genealogical analogues, southeastern archaeologists pioneered new types of comparative studies in material culture to reveal the chronological relationships between artifacts, sites, and entire regions (Ford 1938b). Accepting the assumption that the social processes of adoption or modification were akin to inevitable biological processes, and already involved in inventing comparative numerical rankings for groups of objects and behaviors, southeastern archaeology soon began to employ real, probability-derived statistics (and somewhat less solidly based data manipulations) to wring information concerning rates of change in various regions from frequencies of artifact and even mound types (see Griffin 1943, appendix A; Spaulding 1953a). Other archaeologists used these data to relate chronological sequences across the Southeast (e.g., Waring and Holder 1945). The logical interdependence of these two approaches was seldom clear to the discipline. While many of the techniques pioneered by southeastern archaeology during this phase of its development were to become important elements in later paradigms, it was seldom clear that there were dangers in

< previous page

page_8

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_8.html[20/10/2010 11:26:43]

page_9

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

accepting a paradigm in which numerical analyses of vague classificatory similarities were offered as explanation for particular social events (see Brown 1990). Worse yet, many of the archaeological conclusions were easily misused by social anthropologists, who rejected the underlying assumptions and sought explanations for southeastern archaeology in terms of other paradigms. For example, the Poverty Point site contained a huge bull'seye-like series of earthworks over 30 feet high in a swampy bend of a minor river. Based on the comparative structural adaptive paradigms that were strong at the end of this era, the sociological explanation for such construction activities was sought where such a process had greater sway, even if thousands of miles away in South America. This lapse of critical judgement can be inferred from subsequent pronouncements of Lévi-Strauss (1974). Science in Archaeology The implausibility of some of the conclusions derived from such sociobiological paradigms soon became overwhelming, despite several serious theoretical attempts to divorce the issues of time and space from formal or functional similarity (Griffin 1952; Caldwell 1958). With the start of WWII, southeastern archaeology turned to the hard sciences, whose rigorous methods and clear-eyed pragmatism seemed likely to offer enlightenment (see Willey and Sabloff 1980). This was not merely an analytical shift in which southeastern archaeology began to employ new methods for site and artifact studies. It entailed southeastern archaeology's espousal of the evaluative criteria promulgated by the empirical sciences that provided those methods (Binford 1965; Redman 1973), despite the long-known problems in such an approach (see Kant 1783; Heisenberg 1958). For the southeastern archaeologists who worried about such things, it also resulted in a wholehearted acceptance of the positivist view of reality that seemed to characterize empirical science (as clearly noted by Watson et al. 1971). Radiocarbon dating led the way in 1950. Studies by Shepard (1956) and Semenov (1964) opened new vistas in the study of the artifacts themselves (Brothwell and Higgs 1963), and within a decade scientific syntheses of physiochemical techniques were used to determine the sources of raw materials or artifacts in the mounds and their routes of transport. Artisans were asked to replicate the steps of artifact manufacture and function, and engineers were coerced into estimating manufacturing or relative production costs of artifacts (see Spaulding 1960; Sears 1961; Fritz and Plog 1970; Butzer 1971). These studies revealed the scope of the ancient southeastern taste for imported luxuries. New methods of absolute

< previous page

page_9

next page >

file:///C|/...ds/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_9.html[20/10/2010 11:26:43]

page_10

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

dating soon revealed the great span of time over which southeastern mounds were constructed. The Poverty Point site was as old as 1400 B.C.; Hopewell was pretty much the temporal equivalent of Imperial Rome; many Early Mississippian mounds had been built in the twelfth century A.D.; and in the next two centuries there had been a cessation of major earthwork construction and geographic expansion (compare Smith, ed. 1978, 1990; Steponaitis 1986; Galloway 1989). New excavation and recovery methods found plant and animal remains from dozens of southeastern Mississippian and Hopewell sites. It was shown that during Mississippian times the Native American dietary complex of maize, beans, and squash had been dominant, and a few fragments of cobs or kernels of maize were even recovered from Hopewell mounds and campsites in the Southeast (Ford 1986). Most archaeologists thought the large and complicated mounds or earthworks could only have been built by a society with political or religious control of large numbers of workers fed by farmers. Since maize was the major crop of the Mississippian period, explanations of the spread and decline of Hopewellian mounds were based on paleoecological models in which societies in the Southeast were agriculturalist (Griffin 1952; Caldwell 1958). But even more recently careful methods for the recovery of plant and animal remains from hundreds of southeastern Hopewell-related sites have revealed that most of the diet then came from acorns and nuts, although hunting, fishing, and gathering of mollusks were still important (Ford 1986; B. D. Smith 1986). Sophisticated botanical investigations of plant morphology, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and genetic studies bolstered by analyses of recombinant DNA suggested that many oily or starchy seeds of weeds and grasses and of squash or pumpkin were being carefully harvested, and that Hopewell maize was only a rare garden plant, not a food crop. The application of a host of techniques from nuclear physics and biochemistry applied to human skeletal materials not only showed that maize played no important role in that early diet, but that many later prehistoric southeasterners had gotten so little else to eat that their health was impaired (Brose and Greber 1979; Brose et al. 1985). Neo-Anthropological Archaeology Although applied physics and chemistry and the quantitative aspects of geology and biology had certainly shown themselves capable of providing solutions to many what, where, and when problems that had troubled southeastern archaeology in its explanations of objects and sites, they seemed incapable of addressing what were soon seen as more

< previous page

page_10

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_10.html[20/10/2010 11:26:44]

page_11

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

important, if less crystalline, why and how issues about the prehistoric societies themselves. Numerous philosophically inclined historians of archaeology (Watson et al. 1971; Spaulding 1985; Meltzer et al. 1986; Dunnell 1990; Watson 1990; Redmond 1991), argued that during the late 1960s archaeology brought social anthropology back to an explanation of the past. Walter Taylor (1948) is frequently cited as the originator of this approach, but Lewis Binford (1962, 1964b, 1965) has been its patron saint in America, and David Clarke (1968) its Old World avatar. However, that paradigmatic shift was less a reintroduction of social science than it was an application of supposedly deductive logical theory and the mathematical precision of the experimental physical sciences to the resolution of universal problems about the causes of human behavior and its changesproblems hitherto imperfectly addressed by archaeology and history as humanities. This new effort, in which ''confirm or reject'' experimental hypothesis testing methods were let loose on the problems of willful collective human behavior, was not confined to southeastern archaeology, but seems symptomatic of many of the unconsciously quasi-imperialistic American programs that promised success in understanding and enhancing third world economic development. Once this interpretive paradigm for archaeological data focused on the roles of prehistoric ritual, exchange, corporate energy structure, and social interaction in that southeastern world of the past, its interpretation slipped into the hands of practitioners trained by comparative evolutionary ethnologists and ecologically sensitized social anthropologists (Steward 1955; White 1959). The resulting studies of southeastern mounds and those who had built them were increasingly phrased in the atemporal and universal jargon of social ethnology and economic geography (see Sears 1961; Caldwell and Hall 1964). Plausible reconstructions of family and lineage structures and analogies derived from studies of gift giving and ritual feasting in nonindustrial societies were invoked to explain the presence of exotic artifacts in southeastern mounds (Sears 1961; Winters 1968), with anthropological paradigms calling for noneconomic exchange of statusrelated materials and styles to maintain a variety of social ties (Winters 1968). Recent archaeological extensions of this approach use econometric formulas to create indices of values that nonlocal artifacts might have acquired prior to local disposition. Data derived from circular down-the-line systems; focused or point-to-point exchange; convenience or constriction nodes; zero-sum, two-person games; and satisficer patterns were crunched in computers to suggest that the individuals or families in southeastern Hopewell mounds were participants in the same form of exchange re-

< previous page

page_11

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_11.html[20/10/2010 11:26:45]

page_12

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

ported by Malinowski in Melanesia during the First World War (see Brose and Greber 1979). From differing frequencies and types of artifacts and odd burial patterns in Mississippian mounds archaeologists inferred prehistoric southeastern social statuses akin to those once found only in quite different areas of the world during other epochs of human development (Brown 1971; compare Peebles 1990; Watson 1990). From a few of the largest mounds, materials appropriate for sumptuary clothing and artifacts symbolic of Mississippian control were supposed to have moved in marketlike exchange to secondary centers and to non-Mississippian sites at the edge of the Southeast, and it seemed likely that dried fish and meat, maize and beans, salt, and furs or hides also moved in those networks. High-status individuals, and occasionally their sacrificed retainers, had quantities of such artifacts, which southeastern archaeology heralded as evidence for growing social complexity, approaching that seen in such political states as existed in Mesopotamia during the fifth millennium B.C. (see Galloway 1989; B. D. Smith, ed. 1990; Peebles 1990). Although this new focus brought greater acuity to seeing linkages between details of southeastern prehistory among other areas (Schiffer 1976; Watson 1990), its attempt to provide illustrative data for global ethnological comparison resulted in many of the general processes proposed in the newer applications (Butzer 1971, 1980; Gould 1980; Carr 1985; Moore and Keene 1985) being inapplicable to any specific site or phase in southeastern prehistory. At the same time, most of the general explanations seemed either tautological or trivial. Although their excesses have been caustically parodied by Flannery (1972), these approaches to what adherents call "law-like generalization" are seldom out of print for long (e.g., Binford 1983). In the past few years, southeastern archaeology has added to this approach the paradigmatic qualifiers of contingency so useful in quantified environmental science (Butzer 1971; Redman 1973; Asch 1975; Mueller 1975). Because study of past human societies in the Southeast did not reveal the invariable cause-and-effect relationships some archaeologists supposed existed in real science, many southeastern archaeologists adopted methods for discovering statistical tendencies they could use to construct an understanding of prehistoric cultural change, reliable at, say, a five percent confidence interval (Watson et al. 1971; Redmond 1973; Clarke 1977). High-speed computers were used to create simulation models that linked physiochemical, socioeconomic, and ecological data through the stochastic mechanisms of general systems theory. Calculations of catchment areas for natural resources, degrees of patchiness, indices of optimal or seasonal group foraging strategies, ca-

< previous page

page_12

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_12.html[20/10/2010 11:26:45]

page_13

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

loric and trace element nutritional requirements, and potentially irrelevant crop yields were blended with models of information loss and inferred demographic and social stress to provide answers for the then current chicken-andegg question of agricultural intensification and population growth (see Peebles 1990; B. D. Smith 1990). There has been an accelerating effort to predict (or retrodict) the locations and even the structure and contents of prehistoric villages and mounds in the Southeast. Much of this work was called forth by federal mandates to find and understand southeastern prehistory before it was destroyed (McGimsey 1972). Unfortunately, the forthcoming predictions (or retrodictions) proved to be either too gross to be useful or were wildly incomparable. Although the computational methods for this newly modified paradigm seemed reliable enough to take us to the moon and back, they did not seem to take us reliably very far into the past. Despite the optimism of those who touted the logic of such scientific archaeology (Watson 1990; Redman 1991), most southeastern archaeologists were all too aware of their inability to justify any coherent picture of regular prehistoric cultural processes, much less of their causes. The paradigmatic shift, heralded as the new or the processual archaeology, came to be seen as less than a complete success. Some (Trigger 1968) seem to have never cared for this approach. Indeed, even the past two centuries' improvement of our knowledge of many details, regions, and events in southeastern prehistory had not spared southeastern archaeologists from that lack of faith in universal workable solutions that characterized the 1980s (Brown 1986). Into the Future Southeastern archaeology seeks new paradigms, but those recently promoted seem maladapted from confrontational or culturally relative political theory. On the one hand, we are presented with the deconstructive paradigm derived from relatively recent movements in literary criticism based on the approach of Jacques Derrida (1976). He avowed that literary works are not merely data, given by their author; rather, the meaning of the literary work is the interaction of what the author wrote (regardless of what that author thought it meant) and the readers' varied backgrounds and hence each reader's individual understanding (see Eagleton 1983). On the other hand, the rise of what has been politely called "folk archaeology" now claims that each ethnic group is, in like fashion, given license to discover its own interpretation of what it loosely believes to be the archaeological texts of its past (Hodder 1982a, 1986; Hodder, ed. 1982; Miller and Tilley 1984; Leone and Potter 1988). If the

< previous page

page_13

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_13.html[20/10/2010 11:26:46]

page_14

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

Cherokee claim to have only recently come east of the Mississippi River, which Anglo-American archaeologist is free enough of racial biases to say they are wrong? If the Creek believe that their ancestors built Poverty Point, there are surely archaeological data that can be interpreted to fit this belief. Accepting this paradigm will hold little future for southeastern archaeology, for only comparative literary aesthetics can legitimately evaluate alternative mythic histories. There is surely some benefit to professional archaeological advocacy (or as some see it, apostasy) of a sensitivity to the dangers of authoritarian scientific interpretations. Earlier and more moderate demurrals of the hubris of the new archaeologists (e.g., Trigger 1968) may convince southeastern archaeologists that calories are not the only things that count, and that emic explanations may supplement reductive etic analyses (see Knight 1986; Brown 1990; Price and Kroll 1990; Bettinger 1991). But Marxism has claimed the theoretical higher ground in this, as in other folk movements. We are told that all archaeologists must acknowledge that their earlier paradigms served only to conceal bourgeois propaganda (Miller and Tilley 1984; Leone et al. 1987). Old interpretations of southeastern archaeology present the need for neoMarxist revision; correctly understood, they are really just another story of class oppression. The mounds, whether early or late, are fossils of economic systems predestined for the ash can of history, their occupants patriarchal despots or sycophantic exemplars of privilege earned by the sweat of others. In this more politically correct view of the deconstructive paradigm, although everyone's interpretation of the past is equal, some interpretations are more equal than others. Landau (1984) has drawn some disturbing conclusions from the hidden racism in these approaches, and Earle and Preucel (1987) offered a cogent and appropriately hostile overview of the danger that such paradigms may be seen to represent a problematic escape from verification. Let's hope there is something preferable to either of these postprocessual archaeological paradigms based on emotion rather than on critical thought. Let's hope southeastern archaeology need not admit that, after having tried all prescribed methods, it cannot begin to explain how prehistoric societies of the Southeast became the historic societies of the present. Let's hope a bit of archaeological pessimism may be alleviated, not by rejecting all of those older approaches that have brought southeastern archaeology partial success, but by thinking about how they might be modified by paradigms that employ the concepts of location, simultaneity, and cause and effect in physics. It has long been clear to physicists that the behavior of photons pass-

< previous page

page_14

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_14.html[20/10/2010 11:26:46]

page_15

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

ing through diffraction gratings or very small slits is perturbing. Experiments indicate that each photon must have been in several different places at the same time (see Heisenberg 1930; d'Abro 1957). Even more disturbing, experiments in quantum electrodynamics suggest that some discontinuous causes might have instantaneous effects (Feynman 1985). Beyond phenomena of light, many of the experimental studies of heat and physical chemistry also resulted in a non-Newtonian paradigm of quantum behavior of energy (Heisenberg 1958; Penrose 1989). Nor could these disturbing behaviors be reconciled with initial attempts by Einstein and Weyl to dismiss them as due to variables yet to be discovered embedded in relativistic space-time (d'Abro 1957; Hawking 1988). Since neither Newtonian nor relativistic paradigms were able to deal with replicable experimental results, Erwin Schrodinger suggested that photons and other members of the subatomic menagerie could be considered neither particles nor waves, but rather they were only real in the sense that they were a "stochastic waveform," each supposed particle of which was only a real probability of actually existing everywhere until the waveform collapsed and the final location or momentum (not both) was observed (Heisenberg 1930; Penrose 1989). Because this concept was first dismissed as due to the observer's ignorance of "real particles," Schrodinger created a "thought experiment" involving photon's behavior causing a cat to be both ''really'' dead and "really" alive, demonstrating that the temporal and spatial uncertainty of quantum behavior was not merely a statement about an observer's lack of certain knowledge, but that in fact matter simply could not be said to exist anywhere until its resulting effects were observed. As if these unfamiliar realms of (meta)physics were not conceptually intractable enough, the paradigm of chaos has now brought together several lines of investigation, from fluid mechanics to the fractal geometry of Mandlebrot sets (see Jensen 1987; Penrose 1989). According to this view, embedded in even the most regular and predictable phenomena there exist small regions of unpredictable, random disorder. Evidence of these minor factors had been generally discounted in the interest of simplifying mathematical models. Frequently, however, the models were unable to predict subsequent phenomenal states. The paradigm contends that reiterative processes in minute disorderly regions may lead to large-scale deviations from expected behavior, resulting in the formation of patterns (likely also containing regions of disorder hidden from observation) unpredictable from observations of the initial phenomena. Thus recent investigations of hitherto unobserved regions of space troubled evolutionary astrophysics until complex computer simulations sug-

< previous page

page_15

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_15.html[20/10/2010 11:26:47]

page_16

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

gested that with the extraordinary conditions in that rapidly expanding early universe, minor temporal/gravitational imperfections could account for the subsequent hot and cold clusters of all energy and matter. Here, despite their counterintuitive drawbacks, are scientific paradigms to gladden the hearts of southeastern archaeologists. While not directly applicable to southeastern archaeology, they surely suggest alternative ways to conceive of the simplified connections between cause and effect, or relationships of time, space, and matter, that structured those older archaeological paradigms of ethnic history, biocultural evolution, or social ecology. The comparatively short-lived and locally unprecedented existence of the Poverty Point earthworks may be more clearly understood by studying yet undescribed or even ignored regions of disorder in Late Archaic systems than by any invocation of cultural traditions or trajectories. Many puzzling aspects of the apparently simultaneous appearance of the new pattern of Mississippian communities with platform mounds in a number of southeastern river valleys may be explained by analogy to a waveform-like collapse of the distribution of Late Woodland societies. And even the classic paradigms of relativity, suggesting that a consideration of denser and therefore chronologically differing regions of activity in the extraordinarily expansive universe of the southeastern Paleoindian, may well offer insights into the subsequent clusters of southeastern Early Archaic complexes, successful and unsuccessful. Conclusion I have tried to show some conceptual changes in southeastern archaeology by reviewing changing explanations for the mounds that first attracted attention to the prehistory of this region. To their chagrin, southeastern archaeologists too frequently and too casually adopted whatever point of view held theoretical or social prominence at the time (although there always remained a residue of older paradigms in their new interpretations). But if it is true that the most productive paradigms for southeastern archaeology have not and will not appear like those of classical science, it is also true that its subjectthe millennial interactions of differing human societies and their environmentsexhibits behavior far more complex than that of most classical science. In physics, only the most radical new paradigms appear effective to understand such complexity. To its credit, southeastern archaeology has not exhibited Kuhnian paradigmatic shifts (big or little) within a single discipline. It has drawn, and it should continue to draw, both classical and radical paradigms from a broader suite of disciplines than those traditionally sci-

< previous page

page_16

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_16.html[20/10/2010 11:26:47]

page_17

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

entific. But it must do so with less passion than it has shown in the past. Despite knowing that all that glitters on the far theoretical horizon is not gold, southeastern archaeologists have been easily enthralled. Some southeastern archaeologists too willingly castigated the cherished products of their earlier labors when they lost faith in the paradigms with which those products had been generated. They often act like Euripides' Medea. I do not mean to argue that because southeastern archaeology is not classical science, it must become classical tragedy. Yet if southeastern archaeologists have displayed some of Medea's heroic faults in the past, then the final chorus of Euripides' Medea might offer a motto for them in the future: And the end men looked for commeth not, And a path is there where no man thought; So hath it fallen here.

< previous page

page_17

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_17.html[20/10/2010 11:26:48]

page_18

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

Chapter 2 Ceramics Jon L. Gibson Ceramic Analysis is a southern tradition, like sippin' juleps on the veranda and laissez les bons temps rouler dans le bayou. Since the beginning of the modern archaeological era over fifty years ago, pottery has been the most important resource in the South. Its long and faithful service prompted Haag (1961:18) to liken pottery to Greek handmaidens. Nevertheless, no longer can it be said that southern archaeology is pottery or it is nothing. Recent years have seen the near-religious devotion to ceramics lessen as other materials, such as lithics and biological remains, have gained analytical importance and as understanding of the formation of the archaeological record has become more sophisticated. Ceramics have even come to be viewed, in some quarters, as broken dishes, the physical metaphors of past behavioral conditions. Still, whether regarded as handmaidens or just cracked pots, ceramics continue to be of major interest to southern archaeology. Most of southern prehistory is little more than ceramic history, and that, in turn, has been a result of how ceramics have been conceptualized over the past half century. To really understand southern archaeology requires recognition of these theoretical-analytical frameworks and their roles as shapers of data and sources of research directions and interpretive disagreements. Here I examine the major frameworks that have guided southern ceramic studies and molded southern archaeology. This examination reveals that the South has been both a part of and apart from mainstream American archaeology, and the emphasis on ceramics, particularly the culture historical dimension of ceramics, has in large measure determined this relationship.

< previous page

page_18

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_18.html[20/10/2010 11:26:48]

page_19

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

Geographically, the South, or the Southeast if one prefers, consists of those contiguous states lying southeast of the Mississippi and Tennessee river valleys. This is the Old South, the land of cotton and Br'er Rabbit. This is the Confederacy, the home of General Lee and Miss Scarlet. This is Dixie, where ol' times are not forgotten and everybody still says "ma'am." This is the South in all its stereotyped glory, and these images and the ideas and attitudes they evoke are, I suspect, as much to blame for the South's contemporary status as a culture area as is any objective measure of prehistoric cultural uniformity. The modern social and political fences erected around the South have been rather permeable at times and in places but have still managed to enclose a sectionalism stronger than most other parts of the United States. As this examination discloses, southern archaeology has always been slightly out of kilter with American archaeological development in general, a relationship aptly summed up by one rock musician's comment, "The South is the only place we play where everybody can clap to the off-beat" (Marcus 1975:149). This review is an effort to expose the tenets of southern ceramic studies in the context of southern archaeology in particular and American archaeology in general; it is one person's attempt to identify the beat to which southern archaeology has been clapping. The Social Status of Southern Archaeology Junior Samples often said, "I don't know nuthin', but I suspect a lot of things" (quoted in Reed 1986:68). This admission is certainly epistemologically appropriate to southern archaeology. How southern archaeology has come to suspect what it does has been a consequence of its method, theory, and epistemology, and most of that conceptualizing has been about ceramics. Talking about method and theory in southern archaeology may seem like a contradiction in terms, for if there is one thing that characterizes southern archaeology, it has been its disdain for theoretical discourse in general and its virtual nonparticipation in the polemics that have raged over method and theory during the past 30 years (Dunnell 1990). This nonparticipation should not be regarded as a case of being uninformed, because archaeologists domiciled in the southeastern states have always made up one of the largest regional contingents of the Society for American Archaeology, whose journal, American Antiquity, has featured this paradigm-crisis literature. On the contrary, the South seems not to have been caught up in this rhetorical maelstrom, probably because it main-

< previous page

page_19

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_19.html[20/10/2010 11:26:49]

page_20

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

tained a strong commitment to culture history, which was the major source of dissatisfaction to the new archaeology. Why this has been so is hard to say: perhaps because there really is an essential time-defying conservatism in the South; perhaps because the South continues to pay allegiance to a heroic past that saw it lead the culture historical reform of the 1930s and 1940s; or perhaps because the South, in its objective detachment, has seen little emerge from the inflated discourse of the past three decades to change its mind about how to do archaeology. Whatever the reasons, southern aloofness is nowhere more apparent than in the pages of American Antiquity. Only slightly more than 30 percent of the articles on southeastern archaeology published in that journal have appeared in the 35-year period since 1965, a convenient point for the onset of the new archaeology, and over one-fourth of those articles came under a single editor, a southern sympathizer. This means that close to 70 percent of all the published record of southeastern archaeology in the journal was produced during the preceding 30-year span. In fact, nearly as much was published during a single decade of the earlier span (19451954), a period during which ceramic typology and time/space systematics were in the forefront of American archaeology, as was published during the last 35 years. Another way of portraying this situation is to compare volume contents for 1953 and 1973, years which represent respective peaks for the historic versus processual orientations. In 1953 over nine percent of volume contents and six and one-half percent of society membership were southern; in 1973 less than two percent of the contents dealt with the South, although southern membership had climbed to more than nine percent. It seems that the South was listening but not talking very much, at least not very loudly beyond the Mason-Dixon line. Still, southern archaeological literature was flourishing. It was simply being published at home. The South has always had a strong regional publishing base. The Southeastern Archaeological Conference proceedings and newsletters have dispensed much of the literature, and state geological departments and professional-caliber state archaeological society journals have also been important outlets. More recently, southern universities have begun to assume an expanded role. Despite the increasing parochialism, which strikes me as being more of a quiet withdrawal to more familiar and friendlier surroundings than of real dialectal squabbling, southern archaeology remains as robust as ever. But now, like American archaeology in general, that vigor is spread across many topical issues and concerns. Although it no longer commands the undivided

< previous page

page_20

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_20.html[20/10/2010 11:26:49]

page_21

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

attention it once did, pottery continues to be a vital tool in southern archaeological research. Method and Theory in Southern Ceramic Studies Culture History Southern ceramic studies have been dominated by a lone paradigmculture history. This approach did not spring out of harsh dialectical revolt but coalesced in a gentler fashion with the older generation being subtly ousted with praises as great men (National Research Council 1932:96) or by just being ignored (Haag 1961:17). Haag (1961:17) has noted the absence of a Young Turks contingent in the waxing days of the movement, but still one can sense an unbridled excitement in Faye-Cooper Cole's pronouncements at the momentous Conference on Southern Pre-History held in Birmingham in 1932: "here we are, a group of beardless youths, attempting to solve the problems of prehistory. Apparently times have changed, and, perhaps, our attitudes toward our materials have likewise changed" (quoted in National Research Council 1932:74). Dunnell (1986:29) sees the emergence of the culture history approach as consensual and links it to the realization that chronology offered an empirically testable and hence scientific approach. I suspect that greater motivation lay in the simple yearning to know how old artifacts were. How often have we been confronted by the artifact-bearing novice, who inevitably asks the same three questions in the same order: What is it? How old is it? How much is it worth? Archaeology has always had a difficult time answering the first question, particularly when no analogues were known, and has considered it unethical to answer the third. That left chronology and its humanistic side, culture history, as the most logical line of inquiry, at least the only logical one that promised some success given the methods and verification strategies of the day. Culture history became the rallying point in the intellectual void left by solving the mound-builder problem (Thomas 1894). Ceramic Typology. The culture history movement rested on a foundation of ceramic typology. Typology provided a means for reducing the mountains of pottery produced by the explorations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to their basic chronological infrastructure. The first step toward effective typology came with descriptive conventionality; ceramic details, such as temper, texture, decoration, and form, be-

< previous page

page_21

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_21.html[20/10/2010 11:26:50]

page_22

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

came part of normal description (Guthe 1927). Then came descriptive standards (e.g., March 1934; Hargrave and Smith 1936; Shepard 1936). Nevertheless, Shepard's (1936) calls for exacting technological analysis as a means of ensuring descriptive rigor and objectivity went largely unheeded in early typological construction. Recognition of ceramic spatial variability was another important typological cornerstone. Actually, W. H. Holmes had recognized broad divisions of southern ceramics as early as the late nineteenth century (Holmes 1886). By 1903 he had formalized six ceramic provinces in the South (Holmes 1903), and Stirling (1932:2231, Figure 7) would eventually increase these to 13. Nevertheless, there was an overriding ethnographic component to these divisions (Meltzer 1985:255). I suspect that the assumption that the ceramics of any given area were products of the historic tribes who lived in those areas was responsible for creating the rather flat chronological perspective of the early twentieth century, as well as a fertile ground for age-area thinking with its attendant emphasis on physical (artifactual) traits and their distributions (Griffin 1985b:269). Griffin (1985b:269) sees the emphasis on traits, such as was apparent in the presentations at the Conference on Southern Pre-History (National Research Council 1932), as a primary impetus behind McKern's Midwestern Taxonomic Method (McKern 1936, 1939). McKern's method of forming culture units by means of a hierarchical ordering of traits was a major breakthrough in archaeological classification (Guthe 1952:9). McKern's system was elegant because its units were based strictly on relative similarity. Neither function nor time figured in their makeup. Yet it is precisely these omissions that weighed most heavily against McKern's method and stimulated the creation of typologies and classifications that did convey chronology. Gaining control of the time dimension was the real key to typologies that could effectively conduct culture historic interests. Unlike the spatial dimension, which could be conveniently related to any scale or mapped phenomenon, such as tribal territories, the time dimension was, until the early 1930s, largely undivided and indeed largely indivisible. Chronology-producing methods were available in pretypology days but were inadequate for the then new brand of archaeology waiting in the wings. The Direct Historical Approach was generally appreciated (e.g., Collins 1932:39; Stirling 1932:21; Ford 1935a, 1936a:103), but the difficulties in finding and proving historic tribal locations made this method of limited utility, even to the minor segment of ceramics that fell at the edge of prehistory. There was even a trace of age-area thinking: "the checker-stamped pottery has extremely wide distribution, which of itself argues for its relatively great antiquity. . . . the presumption is that

< previous page

page_22

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_22.html[20/10/2010 11:26:51]

page_23

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

since no painted or incised or curvilinearly stamped ceramics are found mixed with the checker-stamped ware of the Indian River country [Florida], they were not in existence" (Nelson 1918:9899). This means of reconciling time, however, never made much headway in the South, and N. C. Nelson, one advocate who used it in his Florida work, was actually more instrumental in developing the stratigraphic method, which would quickly revolutionize southwestern and subsequently southeastern archaeology (Nelson 1916). Even after stratigraphic techniques became commonplace in the South during the early 1930s, the earliest ceramic typologies did not utilize stratigraphic data in the actual formalizing of types themselves. Types were created first and then related to stratigraphy later. James Ford's first typological efforts in the Lower Mississippi Valley are excellent cases in point. Both his "index" (Ford 1935b) and "analytical formula" (Ford 1936b) typologies were based strictly on morphological similarities, modes (see Rouse 1939), and combinations of attributes. Both schemes were soon abandoned in the face of the rapidly maturing concept of historical type (Krieger 1944; Ford 1954a) and accompanying binomial nomenclature (e.g., Guthe 1934; Griffin 1938, 1939; Caldwell and Waring 1939a; Ford and Willey 1939a, 1939b; Haag 1939). There is a certain irony in Ford's early historical typologies. Ford (1936b:1718) claimed they were too subjective, too unwieldy, and only semisystematic. Nevertheless, when the type-variety system was popularized nearly a quarter century later (Phillips 1958; Wheat et al. 1958; Gifford 1960), virtually all of Ford's "index" types proved to be refined enough to be converted into varieties without any re-sorting of sherds (Phillips 1970; Brown 1978:28; Gibson 1979: Table 3; Johnson and Sparks 1982). Thus one may understand why Ford (1961a:113114) objected to the type-variety system, which he saw as only a switch in terminology. His "analytical formula" types were based on decorative attribute associations (Ford 1936b:1923), and despite being analytical (Rouse 1960), the same associations appeared often enough in the same stratigraphic order to be identified as "marker types," or culturally diagnostic decorations (Ford 1936b:2526). Basically, Ford's "analytical formula" types and Spaulding's (1953a:305313) statistical ones were both analytical formulations, something that neither archaeologist brought out in their heated debate over the nature of types (Spaulding 1953b, 1954; Ford 1954a, 1954b). Although Ford had already abandoned his ''analytical formula'' types by the time Spaulding (1953a:305313) presented his method for defining types, it is obvious that an analytical framework still underpinned Ford's type concept (Ford 1954a, 1954b:391). The crux of the Ford-Spaulding disagreement rested on fundamental

< previous page

page_23

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_23.html[20/10/2010 11:26:51]

page_24

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

differences in aims and methodology. Ford saw ceramic typology as a way of divvying up culture into historically and geographically meaningful segments. Spaulding saw typology as a means of not only setting forth cultural chronology but of describing "assemblages in terms of patterns of human behavior" (Spaulding 1954). Spaulding (1954) implied that Ford's types were no better than attribute counts for chronological ranking and were, thereby, inefficient for both historical and descriptive purposes and "without any cogent reason for existence." Spaulding believed his own method for creating typesby statistical discovery of attribute combinationswas more empirical and therefore more powerful than Ford's, which he viewed as essentially intuitive and unduplicatable. Nevertheless, Ford's early types, his "analytical formula" and "index" types, did represent attribute combinations (or rather, attribute associations) similar to those Spaulding was recommending. But they were paradigmatic and taxonomic as well. They were paradigmatic because they were based on mutually exclusive attributes within three categories of decoration: motif, element, and arrangement. The occurrence of one attribute meant that another could not occur at the same place on the same sherd. Rigorous mathematics were not needed to discover these combinations; the association was already on the sherd just waiting to be identified. Ford's types were also taxonomic because the order in which attributes were observed was crucial to their construction. Although Ford in describing his types included attributes other than those of decoration (e.g., temper, texture, hardness, forms, color, etc.), he set them off, calling them "usual accompanying characteristics." Decoration was the key to Ford's types. The other things were merely descriptive addenda. Spaulding, however, did propose to integrate these other attributes fully in his type formulation, and thus his types represented clusters of several categories of attributes. By the time of the Ford-Spaulding debate (19531954), Ford had already dropped his systematic "analytical formula" and "index" typologies in favor of the binomial one. In the transfer, Ford kept only those old ''formulae" or "indexes'' that had proved historically useful. Some of the attributes used in the "formulae" and "indexes" were lost in the transfer, since they had not proved chronologically or spatially sensitive. Thus binomial types became reduced versions of Ford's originals, and the binomial system offered the perfect means of accommodating these stripped down, simplified, or evolved types. Spaulding seems not to have appreciated the fact that Ford's binomial types and typology had evolved from types and a typological approach very much like the one Spaulding himself was proposing. Ford's binomial types were survivors, reduced to their most temporally and

< previous page

page_24

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_24.html[20/10/2010 11:26:52]

page_25

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

spatially sensitive nucleus. They were not any more intuitive than Spaulding's. Spaulding's typology was no more empirical than Ford's, Spaulding's statistical knowhow no more powerful than Ford's associational observation. Ford's types were based on empirical ones too, ones that had been baptized under the fire of culture history and had emerged finely tempered. Although rhetoric suggests otherwise, Ford's and Spaulding's typological approaches were not that different. The fight was really about archaeological purpose, with Ford choosing to do culture history and Spaulding emphasizing culture behavior (function). This match was a portent of disagreements to come a decade later. Two means of producing ceramic chronology were primarily responsible for nurturing the new culture history paradigm. They arrived together, like twins, these techniques of stratigraphic excavation and occurrence seriation. Neither technique was new to American archaeology; they had been used in the Southwest for two decades (Kroeber 1916; Nelson 1916; Spier 1917; Kidder 1924). They were not really unknown in the South, but they had been employed casually and unsystematically. Then under Ford's guidance (Willey 1969), they were integrated, and out of this merger came a full-scale culture history approach. The approach was facilitated by the adoption of the historical type concept and the southwestern system of binomial nomenclature. Both the concept and naming procedure were "endorsed" by consensus of the professional establishment at the 1938 Conference on Southeastern Pottery Typology (Ford and Griffin 1938), a meeting heralded as the maiden Southeastern Archaeological Conference (Williams 1960). Types were supposed to be based on mutually exclusive features (surface finish and decoration), be easily recognizable, and most of all be historically useful (Ford 1938a; Ford and Griffin 1938). Types were not supposed to be formalized just to describe or classify all the material. The initial series of types was defined for the southern Appalachian region (Jennings and Fairbanks 1939a, 1939b), the southern Atlantic coast (Caldwell and Waring 1939a, 1939b), the Tennessee Valley (Haag 1939), and the Lower Mississippi Valley (Ford and Willey 1939a, 1939b)regions where large-scale federal works programs had been undertaken (Haag 1985). The Conference on Southeastern Pottery Typology served to standardize type names, and it also established the operational precedent of certifying types through publication. Types now had official names instead of strings of numbers or Greek letters (Kelly 1938) and that not only eased communication but facilitated the task of cultural classification, which had become the primary goal of southern and American archaeology (see Steward and Setzler 1938).

< previous page

page_25

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_25.html[20/10/2010 11:26:52]

page_26

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

Standard binomial typology held forth for two decades without substantial modification or rival. This does not mean, however, that the span was static. On the contrary, the number of types grew by leaps and bounds. By 1967 hundreds of types had been defined (Broyles 1967). Much of the growth was normal as temporal and spatial gaps were filled in. Willey's Florida Gulf Coast work provides a classic example (Willey and Woodbury 1942; Willey 1945, 1948, 1949), but similar activities were ongoing throughout the South, for example, the Atlantic Coast (Griffin 1945; Sears and Griffin 1950; Rouse 1951; Evans 1955), the Central Gulf coast (Wimberly 1953, 1960), the Lower Mississippi Valley (Ford and Willey 1940; Quimby 1942, 1951, 1957; Ford and Quimby 1945; Cotter 1951, 1952; Phillips et al. 1951), the Red River Valley (Webb and Dodd 1941; Krieger 1946; Newell and Krieger 1949; Suhm et al. 1954), and the "interior" (Jennings 1941; Haag 1942; Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Wauchope 1948, 1950, 1966; Coe and Lewis 1952; Griffin and Sears 1950; Sears and Griffin 1950; Cotter and Corbett 1951; Sears 1952, 1956). The Southeastern Archaeological Conference periodically took stock of type holdingscompiling and discussing old types and publishing new ones (e.g., Broyles 1967, 1968; Chase 1967, 1969; Thorne and Broyles 1968; Hanson 1969). Such attention was more like admiring trophies in a showcase than monitoring. No reins were pulled to slow the inflation of types. As long as only a handful of close associates were making up the types, the situation remained under control, manageable. But as the personal familiarity of the older federal-projects archaeologists gave way to the independence of the younger institutional archaeologists, the situation got out of hand. Phillips (1958:122) described the situation as "a condition bordering on anarchy." The main attempt to deal with this problem was the type-variety system. Once again, a typological method developed for the Southwest (Wheat et al. 1958) was refined and applied to southeastern materials (Phillips 1958). Basically, the system was hierarchial; types were recast as higher order units made up of one or more formal varieties. Old binomial types and common variations of those types formed the varieties. The scheme was methodical. It had ground rules concerning sortability, utility, and continuity (Phillips 1970:28). And it was an excellent means of implementing the then new strategy of culture historical integration (Phillips and Willey 1953; Phillips 1955; Willey and Phillips 1958), which quickly became standard operating procedure in the 1960s. To be sure, the type-variety scheme was still historical typology, pure and simple (see Krieger 1944; Ford 1954a). Ford (1961a), in fact, saw little difference in it and the old binomial system except terminology, and

< previous page

page_26

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_26.html[20/10/2010 11:26:53]

page_27

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

Sears (1960:324329) believed that simple description was better than formal varieties. Ford's conclusion was an oversimplification, but it is true that differences were matters of degree, not kind. Two salient points about the type-variety system should be made. The first concerns its relationship with culture historical integration and the general matter of level of classification. Standard types were considered appropriate for large-scale cultural classification (Phillips 1958:123), but by the late 1950s, there seems to have been a general feeling that most of the basic classification had been done (e.g., Ford and Willey 1941; Griffin 1946). As a result, archaeologists changed their focus to smaller areas and finer culture units. Phases provided those finer scale units (Willey and Phillips 1958:122). Phillips (1958:122) equated phases with ceramic complexes, which he defined as coherent groups of ceramic varieties and modes (see Ford 1935a, 1936b, for a different definition of complex). Thus, from the outset, types, varieties and phases were inextricably linked. The second point involves the matter of nomenclatural economy. Because rules and structure were explicitly spelled out for the type-variety system and were implicit in traditional typology, Phillips (1958:122) believed that the type-variety system would curb the runaway proliferation of types. Perhaps if the rules had been followed to the letter or had been more restrictive, or if there had been some sort of trial approval procedure or the like, then Phillips's system might have had the anticipated effect. What really happened was just the opposite. Varieties sprang up "like weeds on a vacant lot" (Gibson 1988:79). At least part of that proliferation was due to factors besides ceramic differences, a trend started years earlier. Institutional domainsresearch area jurisdictions and state linesbecame typological criteria as assuredly as were the physical attributes themselves. Each new survey or excavation yielded another potential array of types and varieties. Raw distance became a segregating criterion even when morphological differences were undetected. The procedure was essentially ontological. Due to institutional and demographic circumstances, southern archaeology no longer enjoyed a familiarity on the sherd-sorting level, and as a result archaeologists were no longer sure that their proposed categories truly differed from anyone else's. However, because the rule of continuity recommended segregation under such uncertainty, varieties were created in many cases just because they came from different sites or localities. Because literally any criterion, objective or prospective, could be used to justify a variety, the need for "careful study" and comparison to avoid "crowding the literature with types" (Ford and Griffin 1938) became

< previous page

page_27

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_27.html[20/10/2010 11:26:53]

page_28

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

passé. Defining and naming varieties became a sort of coming-of-age ceremony for young southeasternershow apprentice braves earned their first split cane link. The landmark volume by Phillips, Ford, and Griffin (1951) on Lower Mississippi culture history provides a case in point (Dunnell 1985). Completed before the type-variety system was developed, this study employed 41 decorated types and 8 provisional ones. After implementing the type-variety system, Phillips and associates at Harvard raised the number to 77 types and 197 varieties (Phillips 1970; Brown 1979a). If we were to include varieties produced by other Lower Mississippi specialists, the total number would be larger still. Thus, despite Phillips's (1958) hope, varieties did not stop or even slow rampant typological growth. It seems to me that some of the runaway inflation was produced by conditions and forces outside the system. The splitter premise basic to the type-variety system dovetailed with the changing organization of postdepression-era archaeology. The old familiar cooperative spirit split into many independent spirits as universities and museums took over archaeology from the government. Institutional independence led, in some cases, to social isolation, and this in turn hampered the free exchange of information, a situation further aggravated by the formation of cliques that ignored or disparaged all work but their own. However, the dispersal and independence of southern archaeologists, which helped bring about the proliferation in the first place, were also partially responsible for slowing it down. The increasing diversification of archaeological aims and practices issuing out of new archaeology and contract archaeology provided the means to restrain the type-variety bandwagon, restraint which the system itself did not have. The bandwagon has slowed but still carries much of the typological load, as illustrated by the following examples from the Mississippi valley (Steponaitis 1981a; Brown 1982, 1985; Stewart-Abernathy 1982a; Neitzel 1983; Williams and Brain 1983; Marshall 1988; Toth 1988; Brain 1989), the Tombigbee-Mobile and Black Warrior valleys (e.g., Jenkins 1981, 1983; Steponaitis 1983; Jenkins and Krause 1986), and the ChattahoocheeApalachicola valley (Schnell et al. 1981; J. Scarry 1985). No other typology has gained at the expense of the type-variety system. Spaulding's (1953a, 1954, 1977, 1982) statistical clustering approach never made much headway, but then the South was always dominated by Ford's methodology. Other methods, such as numerical taxonomy (Sokal and Sneath 1963) and Whallon's (1972, 1982) dendriform arrangement of attribute combinations, failed to make substantial inroads. Paradigmatic taxonomy (Dunnell 1971), dormant since Ford's early "index"

< previous page

page_28

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_28.html[20/10/2010 11:26:54]

page_29

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

and "analytical formula" schemes, has reappeared in Schambach's (1981) innovative descriptive system for southern Arkansas and even more explicitly in Whitlam's (1981) reanalysis of Mobile Bay ceramic chronology. What has gained the most ground has not been another kind of typology but an attitude that holds typology to be heuristic, not explanatory. It is not an overstatement to say that at the peak of time/space systematics, pottery types (varieties) were indeed answers for the questions being asked, that is, what culture/time period was indicated, what kinds of pottery were present, did site A have the same types as site B? Since then, ceramic typology has been increasingly relegated to the role of an investigative tool, and as a result no single typology (or typology per se) is considered to be suitable for all the different kinds of problems now under investigation. This downplayed view of typology does not seem to have grown out of theoretical dissatisfaction with typology or classification (e.g., Arnold 1985:412), but instead seems to have been an outgrowth of empirical practicality, especially regarding spatial and functional matters. Types, whether archetypal, varietal, or paradigmatic, were always more time than space sensitive. Furthermore, because types were based on stylistic criteria and on sherds rather than on whole vessels, function or functionally related features were not generally incorporated. The spatial limits of existing types (and varieties) were illusory, figments created by the way the rule of continuity was applied. Thus types (and varieties) were normally inappropriate even when used for such simple traditional tasks as plotting the geographic extent of pottery complexes (e.g., phases, cultures, variants, etc.). To do such plotting required that one ignore standard categories with their boundaries present by ecological or jurisdictional criteria and focus on the inherent variability (attributes, combinations of attributes, or more typological modes). There seems to be a general feeling that we may have overclassified, carried typology beyond the limits of utility even for chronological hair splitting. Some time ago, Brew (1946:65) opined, "we need more rather than fewer classification." I am not sure all would agree today. A focus on ceramic variability, regardless of whether it is expressed directly as modes or attributes or as some kind of typological unit, is being increasingly assumed. I anticipate that the realigning of taxonomic versus analytic values (see Rouse 1960), as inherent in such an emphasis, will ultimately produce more empirical and less historically biased characterizations of ceramic distributions and, in turn, more powerful accountings of that variability. Despite the growing pragmatic view of typology, traditional histori-

< previous page

page_29

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_29.html[20/10/2010 11:26:54]

page_30

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

cal typology remains deeply rooted in southern archaeology. It is still the usual means of communicating, and like most vernaculars, it serves as a vehicle of social identity and a measure of commitment. Much of the practice of southern archaeology continues to be conducted under its guiding structure. Cultures and Chronology. The culture history approach congealed around chronology (Willey and Sabloff 1980:83; Dunnell 1986:2932), and in the South, pottery was the main chronology-conveying vehicle. Lithics did not become important until later, and in fact, other than whole projectile points and a few other tools, stone artifacts were rarely even collected in the early days of the approach. From the outset the culture history approach was committed to the construction of cultural sequences, that is, to the defining of cultures and their temporal order. In terms of systematics, the approach focused on pottery decoration, and the resulting cultural unitscultures, culture periods, stages, phases, and so forthwere essentially ceramic stylistic units, no matter how extensively embellished with nonceramic traits (Stoltman 1973:142143). The earliest broad outlines of cultural succession, such as the midwestern Archaic-Woodland-Mississippian scheme (see National Research Council 1936; Griffin 1946, 1952) and Ford and Willey's (1941) Archaic-Burial Mound-Temple Mound scheme, manifested the continuity principle, the premise of gradual directional change across time and space. Continuity also basically underwrote the first regional culture sequences, such as in the South Appalachian region (Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Wauchope 1948, 1966; Sears 1952), the Florida Gulf Coast (Willey and Woodbury 1942; Willey 1945, 1948, 1949), the South Atlantic Coast (Caldwell and McCann 1941; Goggin 1947; Rouse 1951; Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952), and the Lower Mississippi Valley (Ford 1936a, 1951; Ford and Willey 1940; Quimby 1942, 1951, 1957; Ford and Quimby 1945). Such formulations laid the foundation of southern archaeology, and subsequent chronology building became basically a matter of refinement. Refinement brought a different principle into play, the tenant of cultural discontinuity, which essentially held that there were real schisms in the archaeological record resulting from "social groups and historic events" (Phillips 1970:3). To find and describe those "real world" discontinuities required smaller scale-classification units and thence came varieties and their spawn, archaeological phases (Phillips 1958; Willey and Phillips 1958). Fundamentally then, southern culture history is a product of two interlocking factors: stylistically characterized ceramic variability, and a

< previous page

page_30

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_30.html[20/10/2010 11:26:55]

page_31

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

time/space fabric woven from strands colored by discontinuity and continuity perspectives. In addition to these premises, southern culture historical systematics employed several methods for ordering cultural units in time. The age-area and Direct Historical Approaches were the earliest procedures, but the bulk of sequencing was accomplished by means of stratigraphy and seriation. Radiocarbon dating, lauded as archaeology's crowning achievement of the mid-twentieth century (Haag 1961), was primarily a confirming and refining tool. It had little to do with the actual setting forth of chronological order. In effect, southeastern cultural chronology, areally, regionally, and locally, was overwhelmingly a product of stratigraphy and seriation, often used in concert. Although stratigraphic and seriational methods were used in the Southwest nearly 20 years earlier than in the Southeast (Kroeber 1916; Nelson 1916; Spier 1917; Kidder 1924), their appearance in the Southeast seems to be largely a matter of independent invention rather than diffusion, an outgrowth of routine percentage graphing, familiar geological principles, and plain old common sense. Whatever their origin, these methods, particularly their joint application, came to fruition in southeastern archaeology, thrusting the South into the forefront of American archaeology (Dunnell 1990:19). James Ford was the dominant figure and catalyst in this movement (Willey and Sabloff 1980:99, 103); his Lower Mississippi successional outline of Marksville-Deasonville/Coles Creek-Historic culture periods is a classic example of an explicit methodology integrating the direct historical approach, occurrence seriation, and stratigraphic analysis (Ford 1936a, 1936b, 1938b). But the speed and completeness with which culture historical methodology swept through southern and American archaeology was due in large measure to stimulation among the talented corps of archaeologists running the federal relief program excavations, most notably the veterans of the University of Chicago Kincaid field schools (Griffin 1976:28; Haag 1985:278). Occurrence, or linking (Ford 1962: Figure 1), seriation preceded the more familiar frequency seriation. Linking seriation was really little more than a commonsensical argument based on assemblage type-sharing. Ford's (1935b, 1936a) Louisiana outline, mentioned previously, provides an early case. His sequence was chronologically anchored by the documentary identification of historic tribal pottery complexes, namely Natchez, Choctaw, and Tunica. His distinctive Coles Creek complex shared some types with these tribal complexes or at least had types that resembled the historic ones. Coles Creek, however, shared other types

< previous page

page_31

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_31.html[20/10/2010 11:26:55]

page_32

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

with another complex, called Deasonville, which did not have any historic types or similar counterparts. And Deasonville shared some types with still another complex, Marksville, which had neither historic nor Coles Creek types. With a little stratigraphy from his Peck site excavation thrown in, Ford (1935b, 1936b) was able to arrive at the proper chronological order by simply noting which types occurred together and which did not (Ford 1936b, 1938b). More sophisticated seriational methods, using type frequencies rather than mere occurrences, were developed. The earliest was Ford's (1949, 1951, 1952, 1962; Phillips et al. 1951:219236) graphic method, which produced order by manipulating strips of paper bearing bars representing pottery type percentages from various sites until the bars formed "battleship-shaped" patterns. It was used mainly in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Ford 1951; Phillips et al. 1951) and Mobile Bay locality (Trickey 1958). On a grander scale, Ford (1952) seriationally aligned regional chronologies across the South from the Florida Gulf Coast to the Caddoan area in East Texas in a general illustration of ceramic diffusion and evolution. Frequency seriation was never used as extensively as stratigraphy, nor has it enjoyed any significant boost in popularity lately despite the development of more powerful mathematical and computer adaptations (e.g., Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951; Meighan 1959; Kuzara et al. 1966; Hole and Shaw 1967; Johnson 1968) and efforts to iron out its technical, methodological, and epistomological difficulties (e.g., M. Ascher 1959; R. Ascher 1963; M. Ascher and R. Ascher 1963; Cowgill 1968; Dunnell 1970; McNutt 1973; Marquardt 1978). In fact, the growing sophistication of the method actually seems to have curtailed rather than encouraged use, and the old-fashioned graphic method, more suited to the less quantitatively minded, was so battered with criticism that it fell into disuse (Ascher 1963; Opler 1963; Cowgill 1968). Actually, the decline in seriational analysis occurred at the time when radiocarbon dating was on the ascent and when most places in the South were finalizing their culture sequences, at least in the main. This not only shifted chronological resolution onto the less controversial shoulders of radiocarbon dating but opened the door to other nonchronological interests. The New South As previously noted, southern archaeology has been dominated by the culture history paradigm and was a leader in bringing that paradigm to fruition nationally. Culture history may still be the heart and soul of southern archaeology, but for the last two decades its mind has begun

< previous page

page_32

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_32.html[20/10/2010 11:26:56]

page_33

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

to wander in different directions, directions imparted by the new archaeology and the ensuing postprocessual reaction. While debate over whether the change was truly paradigmatic or simply methodological continues even now, there is no doubt that archaeology was stimulated by the prospect that something besides chronology and culture history could be squeezed from the archaeological record. In the South, pottery began to lose some of its proprietary claim on interpreting the past, and the past became more than just a stack of empty boxes called cultures or phases. Lithics, biological remains, sediments, trace elements, and all manner of artifactual and contextual data acquired new relevance as more and more about the past was deemed knowable. At first there was a common feeling that anything we could not learn about the past was due to our lack of imagination rather than to some inherent omission in the archaeological record. But this soon gave way to a more realistic view of the archaeological record as a contemporary transformation of the past, not an exact fossilized imprint (Schiffer 1976). Subsistence, settlement, exchange, and a host of revitalized and even new systemic issues grew in importance. After a short-lived denouncement by proponents of the new archaeology, chronology resurfaced as not only a legitimate but a critical concern. The systems approach, or structure, placed a premium on establishing contemporaneity, for a system cannot work with diachronic parts. This perspective, however, cast chronology as a vital investigative tool rather than as an end itself, and therein lay a major change from culture history days. Although ceramics lost their analytical preeminence, they continued to be the major provider of chronological structure. They also began to yield many other kinds of information relevant to cultural system interpretation (Plog 1980; Bishop et al. 1982; Braun 1983; Arnold 1985; Nelson 1985). Much of the new information came about as archaeologists sought ways to identify and evaluate the mutual effects that behavior and nature had on the formation of the contemporary archaeological record. Arguments linking present to past through specification of behavioral-natural formational processes were called middle-range theory (Binford 1981, 1983). Although the South had little to do with epistomological matters, it did engage in actual theory building. Much of that building was done with ceramics. Attention focused primarily on ceramic technology, function, chemical composition, and style, generally in that order (Bishop et al. 1982; Braun 1983). Material science analysis, which has unloosened promising new sources of data, has not yet been widely applied in the South (Skibo

< previous page

page_33

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_33.html[20/10/2010 11:26:57]

page_34

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

et al. 1989), although nearby midwestern shell-tempered Mississippian pottery has been studied (Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Mabry et al. 1988; Bronitsky 1989; Feathers 1989; Stoltman 1989). In the tradition of Shepard (1956) and Matson (1965), physical analyses have been used to identify or describe various ceramic features, such as the organic material used in fiber-tempered pottery (Weaver 1963; Brain and Peterson 1971; Crusoe 1971) and the black coating on Moundville pottery (Steponaitis 1980). Physical analyses and manufacturing simulation studies have also been used to ascertain the efficacy of various temper types, untempered fabrics, and different kinds of raw clay (Million 1975; Mitchem 1982; Gertjejansen et al. 1983; Cordell 1987). Technological analyses have helped segregate nonlocal from local and secular from sacred Weeden Island (Cordell 1980, 1983), coastal Georgian (Saffer 1980), and Moundvillian ceramics (van der Leeuw 1981; Steponaitis 1983), providing crucial data for exchange and socioreligious system modeling. Nance and Mentzer (1980) have explored the implications that ceramic technology, particularly the relationships between checkstamping, vessel wall thickness, and flat vessel lips, has for the issue of horticulture and concomitant storage needs. Functional studies have focused on the relationship between use and vessel shape, size, and surface wear pattern. Hally's (1982, 1983, 1984, 1986) investigation of late prehistoric and protohistoric ceramics from inland Georgia has been the most extensive, but materials from coastal Georgia (Kenion 1988), Moundville (Steponaitis 1983), and northeastern Arkansas (Dye 1987) have also been examined. The main cultural issues investigated have been food habits (Braun 1983; Hally 1984) and occupational span/permanence (Hally 1983). Demographic questions have not been as vigorously pursued in the South as elsewhere (Turner and Lofgren 1966; Cook 1972; Shapiro 1984). Elemental, or chemical, analyses have primarily utilized petrographic and X-ray diffraction techniques in order to separate local from nonlocal wares and facilitate investigations of the cultural contexts of exchange. Rice's (1980) work with the complicated secular-sacred distributional patterns of Weeden Island ceramics has been notable, but important studies of ''Woodland'' ceramics from central Arkansas (Stewart-Abernathy 1982b) and coastal Georgia (Donahue 1983) have also been conducted. Despite the commanding attention given to style under the culture history paradigm, stylistic analysis has assumed a relatively minor role in nonhistorical ceramic investigations. Broyles (1968) and Saunders (1985) have inquired after stylistic variability in Swift Creek complicated stamped pottery; Broyles (1968) discovered pottery made by

< previous page

page_34

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_34.html[20/10/2010 11:26:57]

page_35

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

the same paddle more than 100 miles apart. Hardin (1981) sought the individual in Moundville pottery, and Canouts (1985) identified social and ritual contextual effects on Middle Woodland bird design variability. Conclusion Ceramics in the New South have been deregulated. The culture historical approach is no longer totally in charge of ceramic studies, nor does it chart the only course that southern archaeology follows. New questions are being asked, new issues being raised, and old solutions being reexamined from different angles. Ceramics have gone from hand-maidens to broken dishes, but the pieces are being assembled in a variety of ways. No single way of putting the pieces back together has emerged; there is no new synthesis. No new paradigm has arisen in the wake of the receding culture historical approach. Nevertheless, the New South has so far escaped the archaeological agnosticism that has surfaced elsewhere under the rubric "critical archaeology" (Hodder 1982b; Leone 1986). Critical archaeology doubts that the past is knowable because it sees human nature as being just too complicated to be elucidated solely from disturbed material residues, given our present-day cultural biases (Watson 1986:450). Southern archaeology appears to be going through its own version of the Busk, bitter tea and all. But one needs to recall that the ritualistic dismantling of the old brought renewal and reassertion of common welfare. Current directions in New South archaeology reflect a reaffirmation of faith in a knowable past (Watson 1986:452). I think that even if we were to find that the real past has gone with the wind, the search itself will be ample reward. Besides, no matter how strong or from which direction the wind blows, it is not likely to blow away the potsherds.

< previous page

page_35

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_35.html[20/10/2010 11:26:58]

page_36

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

Chapter 3 Lithics Jay K. Johnson This chapter concentrates on the development of chipped stone analysis in southeastern archaeology. In this, trends are illustrated by examining a representative sample of major analyses in chronological perspective. What was done in these analyses is discussed and, to the extent it is possible, the analytical techniques employed are related to the immediate goals of the analyses and overall theoretical perspective. The intellectual heritage of the analyses are traced using the citations and acknowledgments contained in each report. Nineteenth-Century Beginnings Lithic analysis in the Southeast got off to a remarkable start when W. H. Holmes began his first job in archaeology with the excavation of the Piney Branch quarries in suburban Washington, D.C. Although his assignment was to evaluate the superficial resemblance between early stage quarry rejects and bifaces from the Old World Paleolithic, his reports (1890, 1892, 1894, 1897) go well beyond this initial problem. He developed a comprehensive production trajectory model based on a systematic consideration of tools, rejects, and experimental results, which he documented qualitatively using a clearly defined stage typology. Moreover, Holmes related this production trajectory model to settlement and subsistence strategies in a remarkably modern way. Recent lithic analysts are just beginning to appreciate the perceptiveness of Holmes's contribution (Sharrock 1966; Muto 1971; Hester 1975; L. Johnson 1978; J. Johnson 1984, 1989a).

< previous page

page_36

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_36.html[20/10/2010 11:26:58]

page_37

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

It is instructive to contrast Holmes's reports with one published by Harlan Smith (1910) on excavations at Fox Farm in Kentucky in 1895, just six years after the work at Piney Branch. In many ways, the Fox Farm report reflects changes in anthropology that had an important impact on archaeology. This analysis marks an incomplete transition from the grand evolutionary schemes of the nineteenth century to the historical particularism of the twentieth. Although Smith presents a detailed and credible discussion of the production of chipped stone tools, as well as ceramic and bone tools, and draws conclusions about the relative amount of tool production activity that was carried out at the site, the report lacks the typological sophistication of Holmes's work. More important, there is no attempt to explain the behavior represented by the Fox Farm artifacts in any general way. The report is interesting in that the discussion is organized using headings that are found more commonly in the ethnologies of the period, such as, "Securing Food," "Preparation of Food," ''Tools Used by Men," and "Dress and Adornment." Nevertheless, like these same ethnologies, the discussion is entirely descriptive. The only hint of things to come in archaeology is a concluding section in which the material is assigned to the "Fort Ancient culture.'' Culture History The Stallings Island report (Claflin 1931) is a good early example of the major emphasis of North American archaeology during the first half of this century. The site is a shell midden located on an island in the Savannah River at the boundary between South Carolina and Georgia. The primary importance of the report is that it provides a baseline description of what proved to be a very early ceramic complex in the region and documents its stratigraphic priority. Stone tools were recovered in "every stage of manufacture," and Claflin (1931:34) concludes, on the basis of abundant "chippings," that bifaces were made in quantity at the site. Nevertheless, like the ceramic analysis, the major concern is with stratigraphic chronology, and a group of stemmed bifaces is designated as the characteristic product of the Stallings Island people. Actually, archaeologists working in the culture historical paradigm were not generally as successful as Claflin in deriving chronological information from stone tools. The Pickwick report (Webb and DeJarnette 1942) is more typical of the place of lithic studies in the Southeast prior to 1950. This river-basin project consisted of extensive excavations in the large shell mounds found in the middle portions of the Tennessee River in northwest Alabama, central Tennessee, and northeast Mississippi. In

< previous page

page_37

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_37.html[20/10/2010 11:26:59]

page_38

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

spite of the clear stratigraphy and remarkable potential for culture history, the lithic analysis was purely descriptive. In fact, the account of the analytical procedure and its results mark this as one of the few typologies in southeastern archaeology that is completely abstract. That is, there were no goals other than description, and classes were established solely on the basis of form. Types were defined and given numerical designations in the lab without reference to function or provenience. The only criterion was whether or not the tool was the "same" or "different" from types that had already been designated. The numbered Pickwick stone tool types were used extensively in the report to tabulate the content of features, levels, and sites, but there was little success in the search for chronological trends. This failure was clearly the result of the abstract procedure used in naming the types. The shell middens span the period of time from the Middle Archaic to initial Woodland in one of the deepest and best-stratified sequences in the Southeast. Chronological trends are clearly present, as Ford's (Ford and Webb 1956) seriation of selected combinations of the Pickwick lithic types demonstrates. Nevertheless, these trends were masked as a result of the method employed in the analysis. The Pickwick shell middens were also the site of extensive biface production activities based on the abundant and high-quality Fort Payne chert in the adjoining shoals of the Tennessee River. This activity is evident in the lower strata of most of the mounds, which contained abundant flakes leading to the designation of a "workshop level" (Webb and DeJarnette 1942: Figure 99). Once again, an excellent opportunity in lithic analysis was lost as a result of the typological method employed. And once again, the data on biface production strategies during the Archaic in Pickwick can be accessed through careful reanalysis of the published data (Johnson and Brookes 1989). In fact, the ceramic analysis in the Pickwick report is much more successful, establishing some of the basic typological distinctions for the region (Haag 1942). It is no coincidence that the early breakthroughs in chronological control occurred using ceramics rather than lithics. Coe (1964) reviews some of the reasons that underlie the concentration on ceramics during the developmental phases of the culture historical school. In contrast with pots, projectile points have relatively long use lives, are likely to be transported long distances, and change relatively slowly. Another problem resulted from naive assessments of tool kit diversity. Many archaeologists working with relatively shallow, mostly upland sites made the assumption that co-occurring forms were contemporaneous and defined components whose variety of hunting

< previous page

page_38

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_38.html[20/10/2010 11:26:59]

page_39

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

and fishing tools would rival "the selection of sporting equipment at Abercrombie and Fitch" (Coe 1964:8). Coe uses his own Baden complex (Coe 1952) as an example of a tool kit that upon reanalysis contained types spanning most of the Early Archaic. The solution to this problem came during the late 1940s in North Carolina when Coe began the excavation of a series of deep, stratified sites situated in depositional settings in the piedmont stream bottoms. This work, reported in one of the most important statements of the culture historical paradigm in lithic analysis (Coe 1964), produced the primary sequence for projectile point chronology in the Southeast. It was based on a strict reliance on stratigraphy in defining projectile point types and the assertion that "when an occupation zone can be found that represents a relatively short period of time the usual hodgepodge of projectile point types are not foundonly variations of one specific theme" (Coe 1964:9). Work at stratified sites in Tennessee (Lewis and Lewis 1961), Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962), and Virginia (Broyles 1966) served to validate the method and confirm the sequence established by Coe in his North Carolina work. By the mid-1960s the culture history contribution of lithic analysis had been clearly established with regional sequences and elaborate projectile point typologies. Much of the fieldwork reported in the monographs of the early 1960s was carried out in the late 1940s and 1950s, and early results were available in regional journals (e.g., Kneberg 1956). The quintessential product of the culture historical school of lithic analysis in the Southeast was Lewis and Kneberg's 1959 American Antiquity article entitled "The Archaic Culture in the Middle South." This summary of several years of work in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama illustrates the fundamental contribution of the paradigm as well as its ultimate sterility. Careful descriptions of several phases and their regional variants are presented along with detailed tabulations of the artifact types that make up each phase. It would be impossible to conduct research of any kind on the Archaic in this part of the Southeast without making reference to these hard-won data. However, Lewis and Kneberg rely on their trait lists in a way that is the hallmark of this era of North American archaeology. Beginning with a presence/absence trait list, which includes entries as diverse as "sedentary food gathering economy" and ''raccoon baculum bodkins," a similarity coefficient advocated by Kroeber (1940) was used to group components into phases and to compare phases. Two different traditions were delineated and related to migrations into the area from different directions. From today's perspective, this "explanation" of similarities and differences is extremely unsatisfying.

< previous page

page_39

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_39.html[20/10/2010 11:27:00]

page_40

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

There is, however, a foreshadow of things to come in Lewis and Kneberg's discussion of the relationship between the Early Lithic (Paleoindian) and Archaic. They conclude that the lack of coincidence for artifacts from two complexes that they consider to be at least partially contemporaneous is the result of marked differences in subsistence and settlement patterns, which they relate to an early consideration of Holocene ecology. The single and essential contribution of culture history in both lithic and ceramic analysis was the fine-tuned typologies in which chronological trends were delineated on the basis of stratigraphy and, to a lesser extent in lithics, seriation. In fact, the projectile point types may have been too detailed for solely chronological purposes. The redundancy of the typology became evident when the concept of type clusters was introduced in volume one of the Normandy reports (Faulkner and McCollough 1973). This first of several reports of the Normandy Reservoir project in central Tennessee detailed the typology to be used throughout the duration of the research. In this introductory work, Faulkner and McCollough (1973:142) note that several of the existing named projectile point types "share a majority of attributes but exhibit variations in the shape of the blade edges and lateral edges and base of the stem." They propose that these variations are the result of differences in workmanship, raw material, and use history and that the types should therefore be lumped into "projectile point clusters." Eleven named clusters subsume 46 numbered types and are presented as hypotheses to be tested on the basis of association in subsequent Normandy research. Support for the validity of the cluster concept came in a multivariate exploration of typological variability in the mostly Middle and Late Archaic bifaces recovered from the Yellow Creek project area in northeast Mississippi (Johnson 1981). A key developed to distinguish types on the basis of several metric attributes (Johnson 1981: Figure 9-2) could be converted to a cluster key (Johnson 1981: Figure 9-3) by dropping the final level of distinction, thereby increasing the accuracy of reclassification from 73 percent to 86 percent. Since the key was developed without reference to clusters, there is the implication that this upper level grouping is inherent in the data. That is, in order to distinguish types, you must first distinguish clusters. Although the Yellow Creek results are methodologically interesting, the real test of the type cluster concept is that proposed by its authors, how well it works in doing chronology. Several applications in the Midsouth (e.g., Chapman 1977; Ensor 1981; Futato 1983a) have put the concept to good use. Methodologically, the use of levels in typological

< previous page

page_40

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_40.html[20/10/2010 11:27:00]

page_41

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

analysis is clearly related to the type-variety system of ceramic analysis, and an early application of the concept to stemmed bifaces in the Midwest (Fowler 1959:269) cites the early literature on type-variety. There is an interesting contrast between ceramic and lithic analysis pointed up by this parallel. Whereas ceramicists have used levels to divide existing classes, splitting types into varieties, lithic analysts have lumped types into clusters. This is a direct result of the primary goal of typology in both caseschronologyand the nature of change through time for ceramic and lithic artifacts. As Coe (1964:9) pointed out, bifaces simply do not change as rapidly through time as ceramics do. There is another factor involved in the need to lump projectile point types if chronology is the only goal. Whereas ceramic types are based on attributes that appear to be primarily stylistic, many lithic types are distinguished on the basis of characteristics that may be the result of technological or functional differences. Although the distinctions may be chronologically significant, they are not always. This point was one of the main themes in a remarkably prophetic paper delivered by Witthoft at the 1968 Southeastern Archaeological Conference in Knoxville. While maintaining that the type fossil concept is a powerful tool in deriving chronological information from lithics, Witthoft (1969) warned that there are pitfalls in going too far in this direction and cited the French Paleolithic typological elaboration as an example. In the search for more and more sophisticated mechanisms for marking time, the typology, according to Witthoft, lost track of the purpose of the technology, making tools. He talked briefly on the potential of wear pattern analysis, citing a pretranslation version of Semenov's book (1964), discussed fracture patterns, and argued that when viewed as the result of utilization and resharpening techniques many of the existing typological distinctions in southeastern lithics disappear. The paper included the insightful statement that "In the study of technology of ancient times, the broken fragments are far more important than the whole specimens and in many cases the very tiny broken fragments are more important than the large pieces" (Witthoft 1969:5). Witthoft was followed on the program by Wyckoff's (1969) discussion of the value of flake analysis in determining lithic source area preference for a series of sites in Oklahoma. It is interesting to note that neither Witthoft nor Wyckoff are southeastern archaeologists. The transcribed discussions that followed each presentation document an apparent lack of sophistication about lithic technology among the membership of the Southeastern Conference.

< previous page

page_41

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_41.html[20/10/2010 11:27:01]

page_42

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

Processual Archaeology Nevertheless it was not too long before Witthoft's observations about reduction trajectories and typology were convincingly demonstrated in one of the most influential master's theses to come out of the Southeast (Goodyear 1974). Among the people mentioned in the acknowledgments were Don Crabtree and Dan Morse. Goodyear attended Crabtree's flintknapping school in 1972 and was one of the first archaeologists to bring this experience to southeastern lithic analysis. Morse (1971a) had laid the groundwork for Goodyear's study of Dalton period biface production in his description of preforms and finished bifaces from a Dalton cache in Arkansas. In the Brand site report, Goodyear (1974) used technological and metric attributes to demonstrate that the varied Dalton forms recovered from this small site in northeast Arkansas were the result of a series of resharpening and use episodes rather than different stylistic traditions. The transitional Paleoindian-Archaic placement of Dalton bifaces puts Goodyear's analysis at the edge of the relatively long tradition of relatively more detailed technological analyses of Paleoindian points that began during the early 1950s (Goggin 1950; McCary 1951), continued into the 1960s (Cambron and Hulse 1961; Fitting 1965), and culminated in the Southeast in Callahan's (1979) replicative study of fluted points. There are at least three reasons for the unusual amount of attention that lithic analysts have paid to Paleoindian technology. The first is the complexity of the technology. Paleoindian biface production is among the most sophisticated to be found in the Southeast. Second is the antiquity; it is also the oldest. Finally, there is the remainder of the assemblage that accompanies most Paleoindian points. It too is elaborate, often including specific tool forms and technologies that are rare or absent during later time periods. For all of the technological sophistication of many of the analyses of Paleoindian material, the analytical goals of the studies cited above have generally been limited to culture historical comparisons or to reconstructing tool production behavior without much regard to fitting that behavior into a broader interpretative framework. The other class of lithics with a fairly long history of production technology modeling in southeastern archaeology is cores. Once again, it is the complexity of the technology that has fascinated the analysts, and several good, early descriptions exist. Haag provides one of the earliest in his identification of a gravel-based core technology in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Haag 1951). This microlith industry was first described for the Jaketown site in western Mississippi but later identified at the contemporaneous Poverty Point site in Louisiana (Haag and Webb 1953;

< previous page

page_42

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_42.html[20/10/2010 11:27:01]

page_43

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

Ford and Webb 1956), where early wear pattern analyses attempted to determine the function of the distinctive, blade-based Jaketown perforators (see Yerkes 1983 for a more recent evaluation). This terminal Archaic period technology is all the more intriguing since it is associated with evidence for complex, long-distance trade and elaborate mound-based ritual at an unusually early time at the Poverty Point site (Gibson 1974) and it has continued to attract interest (Webb and Gibson 1981; Johnson 1983). A similar coincidence between complex social organization and core technology in the Southeast occurs on a much later horizon with the Cahokia microlith industry. This technology with apparent ties with Early Mississippian material from the paramount mound center of Cahokia in the Midwest has been identified and modeled at the Zebree site in Arkansas (Morse 1975; Sierzchula 1980), the Palm Court site in Florida (Morse and Tesar 1974), the Carson site in Mississippi (Johnson 1987), and the Lubbub Creek site in Alabama (Ensor 1990). The more recent core technology studies (Johnson 1983, 1987; Ensor 1990) have explored the implications of the relationship between core technology and complex social organization in addressing questions of trade, production, and craft specialization. Perhaps the most important impetus in making the transition from description to explanation in southeastern lithic studies was the rise of cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology and the initiation of several large contract projects in the early 1970s. The selection process in contract archaeology demands competitive proposals, and during the early 1970s these proposals became decidedly deductive, with the discovery and explanation of change through time as the primary goal. Perhaps because lithic analysis had been a stepchild during the culture historical period of southeastern archaeology, the principal investigators on many of these projects had little expertise in lithics and the responsibility for designing, applying, and interpreting the lithic typology was delegated to junior members of the research team. This turns out to have been fortunate for, in many cases, these were fresh Ph.D.'s with new and sometimes programmatic ideas about the way archaeology should be done. Because many of these projects were for long terms, employing legions of graduate students, these ideas were effectively spread throughout the discipline. The Normandy project (Faulkner and McCollough 1973), run out of the University of Tennessee, has already been mentioned and is a good example of the impact of CRM in the Southeast. Thousands of pages, in eight monographs, detail an evolving understanding of prehistory in which lithic analysis played a new and important role. This project

< previous page

page_43

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_43.html[20/10/2010 11:27:02]

page_44

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

served in many ways as a model for subsequent projects run by the University of Tennessee, most notably Tellico in eastern Tennessee (overviewed in Chapman 1985) and Columbia in central Tennessee (Hofman 1984; Amick 1987). Other large-scale projects during the 1970s that made important contributions to lithic analysis were the Thunderbird project in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Gardner 1974), Haw River in North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982), Interstate 77 (House and Ballenger 1976) and Laurens-Anderson (Goodyear et al. 1979) in South Carolina, Little Bear Creek (Futato 1975) and Bear Creek (Futato 1983a) in northwest Alabama, Yellow Creek in northeast Mississippi (Johnson 1981), and Cache River in northeast Arkansas (Schiffer and House 1975). Most of these projects, especially the multiseason surveys with large and changing lab crews, needed standardized typologies to ensure consistency. One of the primary benefits of the need to codify lab manuals was that, for the first time in many places, lithic typologies were operationalized (Thomas 1970). Rather than the traditional, intuitive classes that could only be learned by apprenticeship, there was a conscious effort to specify the defining criteria for each type. This, in turn, led to a greater concern with systematics. The goals for these projects varied. Nevertheless, all realized the need for chronological control, and lithics played a central role. This led to refinements of the sort already reviewed in the discussion of type clusters (Faulkner and McCollough 1973; Ensor 1981; Johnson 1981; Futato 1983a). Some projects dealt with deeply stratified sites such as those on the Haw River (Claggett and Cable 1982) and the Little Tennessee River (Chapman 1973, 1975, 1977), which allowed critical evaluation of existing typologies. The Haw River sites were situated in a depositional environment that produced several occupation floors separated by sterile strata. This made it possible to document gradual change in stemmed biface form during the Early Archaic and showed the types defined by Coe (1964) to be segments of a continuum. The co-occurrence of two traditional point types, St. Albans and Small Kirk Corner-notched, in a single strata (Claggett and Cable 1982:396402) led to the hypotheses that they either represent separate, contemporaneous technological adaptations at the point where they overlap near the limits of their ranges or that they are alternative tool forms within the same technological adaptation (Claggett and Cable 1982:777). Similarly, Custer and Bachman (1986) report two distinct biface types from a sealed, single-component site in Delaware. In this case, wear pattern analysis indicates that each type was used for a different set of tasks, suggesting a correspondence between form and function that runs contrary to the current conventional wisdom.

< previous page

page_44

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_44.html[20/10/2010 11:27:03]

page_45

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

Both cases call into question what Brennan (1967) has called the "Coe axiom." This view of the nature of the lithic sequence, implied in Coe's seminal 1964 monograph, holds that only one stemmed biface form was being produced at any one time in any specific location. If, upon excavation, you recover more than one type, you are dealing with a mixed deposit. Although this assertion has been essential to the development of lithic chronologies and is certainly closer to the truth than the Abercrombie and Fitch model it replaced, it is likely a simplification of a much more complex situation. Wear pattern analysis could provide one means for exploring this problem. Nevertheless, such studies have been conspicuously absent in the Southeast. The few examples that do exist have been largely preliminary (e.g., Ford and Webb 1956; Custer and Bachman 1986; Johnson 1986). In some areas, the Carolina Piedmont for example with a heavy reliance on quartzite, raw material is unsuitable for such analysis. This, however, is certainly not the case for much of the Southeast. The only apparent explanation is that wear pattern analysts are relatively rare and none have chosen to work with material from this region. Many of the regional surveys of the 1970s developed detailed typologies of raw material sources (Faulkner and McCollough 1973; Futato 1975; House and Ballenger 1976) that relied on techniques of macroscopic identification advocated by Wyckoff (1969) and Blakeman (1977). Analysis of the spatial distribution of raw material relative to source area and across time has provided provocative insight into changes in mobility (Gardner 1974; Chapman 1977; Goodyear 1979; Futato 1983b; Meltzer 1984; Amick 1987; Anderson and Hanson 1988; Sassaman et al. 1988) and exchange (Gibson 1974, 1980; Webb 1977; Lehmann 1982; Johnson and Brookes 1988, 1989). Relatively little has been done using trace element analysis of chipped stone material (Hoffman 1981; Goad 1984). Some of the greatest advancements in lithic technology during the last two decades have been made in production trajectory modeling. In this, the systemics of new archaeology have combined with an increased knowledge of lithic technology derived in part from French Paleolithic typology (Montet-White 1968; Faulkner and McCollough 1973), but mostly from study with replicators, either Crabtree (e.g., Goodyear 1974; Purdy 1981) or Callahan (e.g., Custer and Bachman 1986; Custer 1987). The characteristic expression of the melding of these two intellectual traditions is the flowchart. Schiffer and House (1975: Figure 1) provide a good early example in which arrows connect boxes depicting production and use activities along the life history trajectory for various tools. At their best, these diagrams are the source of fruitful hypotheses about prehistoric tool production and use activities and their distribution in

< previous page

page_45

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_45.html[20/10/2010 11:27:03]

page_46

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

the archaeological record. At their worst, such flowcharts formalize untested assumptions based on speculation and are presented as some kind of conclusion to the lithic analysis section of a site report. Bifaces predominate among the formal tools in most southeastern sites and have been the focus of most of the production trajectory analyses in the region. The major project reports of the 1970s were no exception. Actually, the biface production trajectories for some of the early projects are perfunctory; the Normandy typology includes only two, poorly defined unfinished stages (Faulkner and McCollough 1973:83) and the Cache River project recognized only one (Schiffer and House 1975:67). The South Carolina projects analyses (House and Ballenger 1976; House and Wogaman 1978; Goodyear et al. 1979) are based on a somewhat clearer blank-preform-finished typology that is augmented by a flake classification explicitly designed to measure biface thinning activity. In fact, the inclusion of flakes in the lithic analysis is one of the signs of maturity in the subdiscipline, and Raab, Cande, and Stahle (1979) incorporated ideas derived from the South Carolina biface reduction model to conduct an attribute scale analysis of experimentally derived debitage as well as material recovered from prehistoric sites in Arkansas. They plotted edge angle and flake length and introduced the concept of trajectory length to compare the different assemblages. Long trajectory sites are those that contain evidence for all or most of the activities involved in biface manufacture. Short trajectory sites contain only a segment of the trajectory. Jefferies (1982) put the trajectory length concept to good use in his study of debitage from north Georgia. In that study, weight, amount of cortex, and proportion of cores were related to site setting. The Yellow Creek project (Johnson 1981) dealt with source area material from several sites in northeast Mississippi that contained abundant evidence for biface production, and trajectory modeling was the major focus of the analysis. Bifaces were placed in the trajectory using a ratio scale attribute derived by dividing the weight by the plan view area. This thinning index allowed several ordinal and nominal attributes such as flake scar type, thermal alteration, and production failure types (Johnson 1979) to be placed in the production trajectory. Similar analytical techniques have been applied to bifaces from central Tennessee (Amick 1985, 1986). Flakes at Yellow Creek were studied using mass analysis, a multivariate technique based on size and weight characteristics (see Ahler 1989), as well as more traditional attributes such as platform faceting, lipping, and edge wear. The Yellow Creek biface industry is based on tabular chert whereas the majority of the stone tools in Mississippi were made from much more common gravel cherts. A second biface and flake typology was devel-

< previous page

page_46

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_46.html[20/10/2010 11:27:04]

page_47

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

oped to deal with this material (Johnson and Raspet 1980; Morrow 1984), which emphasizes the distribution of cortex on both flakes and bifaces. This typological system has been applied to several large and small CRM projects in the Midsouth, and its analytical success has been evaluated in a recent article (Johnson 1989b). A remarkably similar flake paradigm was independently developed to deal with material from the Cloudsplitter Rockshelter in Kentucky (Cowan et al. 1981). One aspect of biface technologies that has not received sufficient attention in the Southeast is their potential as sources of flakes to be used as expedient tools. The Haw River analysis provides a remarkable exception (Claggett and Cable 1982:281283) in a discussion of biface as cores that cites the master's thesis in which Kelly first developed the ideas presented in his recent article on the role of biface technology at a series of sites in Nevada (Kelly 1988). Bifacial cores are likely to be confused with and probably served an alternative role as preforms in a biface reduction trajectory. This possibility must be taken into account in attempts to explain the place of biface reduction in a settlement system. Likewise, the importance of amorphous or unpatterned, expedient core technologies has only recently been appreciated in the Southeast (Wright 1984; Johnson 1985, 1986; Custer 1987). Perhaps one of the reasons these tools have been ignored is because they are by their nature technologically uninteresting and almost invisible in many lithic assemblages. They are, however, an important, perhaps major component of the technological systems of most source area assemblages. A recent consideration of the relationship between mobility and lithic technology (Parry and Kelly 1987) suggests that amorphous cores played an important role in the adaptation of sedentary groups regardless of source distance because of the ability to stockpile resources and thereby take advantage of the significant reduction in tool production effort that this technology represents. The generally undistinguished nature of the lithics from many Mississippian period sites in the Southeast takes on new meaning in this light. Refitting analysis of material recovered during the Columbia project has demonstrated another blind spot in traditional trajectory analyses. By fitting together the flakes from individual cores, Hofman (1984) unequivocally documented several production sequences, including one in which an amorphous core was transformed into a biface preform. It seems likely that this is not an isolated incidence and that prehistoric production trajectories were much less linear than we would like to believe. This opportunistic nature of lithic technology makes modeling more difficult. Refitting is another analytical technique that goes back to Holmes

< previous page

page_47

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_47.html[20/10/2010 11:27:04]

page_48

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

(1890) but was ignored for much of this century. Recent studies in the Southeast include analyses of Paleoindian material at the Thunderbird site (Gross 1974) and Fifty site (Carr 1986), two components of the Thunderbird complex in Virginia, and the work by Hofman (1981a, 1981b, 1984) at the Cave Springs site in central Tennessee. As Hofman (1981a:691) has pointed out, the current resurgence of interest in refitting is likely the result of an appreciation of the potential of the technique in providing data that are important in archaeology today. Among these are clearly documented production, use, and recycling sequences; identification of tools that were produced at the site but discarded elsewhere by piecing together sets of debitage; evaluation of site integrity; and identification of activity areas, which sometimes relate to some rather discrete lithic reduction activities. The search for activity areas as evidenced by patterning in the distribution of artifacts within a single stratum has been one of the major focuses of assemblage-level lithic analysis during the past two decades. The most successful of these begin with artifact categories that resulted from production and use trajectory analyses. The Brand site report (Goodyear 1974) and Thunderbird site report (Gross 1974) provide good early examples. Although results were largely negative, Windy Ridge (House and Wogaman 1978) is also a careful consideration of the problems and potential of intrasite analysis. More recent studies, such as the Haw River sites (Claggett and Cable 1982) and Harney Flats (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987), have emphasized statistical techniques for pattern discovery without much success. The Hawthorne site analysis (Custer and Bachman 1986; Custer 1987) is more like the earlier studies in its emphasis on careful analysis of tool use, production, and production by-products in combination with a primarily visual evaluation of spatial patterning, but it convincingly demonstrates the value of these techniques at sites where relatively little postdepositional disturbance has occurred. In fact, part of the difficulty in finding patterns at Windy Ridge, a small upland site in South Carolina, is undoubtedly the result of multiple occupations at a site that is not located in a depositional environment. Each occupation served to obliterate patterns left by previous occupants and it is impossible to allocate most flakes and many tools to time periods. This is the primary reason that Coe (1964) turned away from these sites in his Archaic period research in North Carolina. Given his commitment to culture history, this was a correct decision; such sites are useless for his purpose. Nevertheless, the current interest in upland sites nicely illustrates the change in perspective brought on by the shift in

< previous page

page_48

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_48.html[20/10/2010 11:27:05]

page_49

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

research goals that occurred during the 1970s in the Southeast. Goodyear and his co-workers (House and Ballenger 1976; Goodyear et al. 1979) concentrated their research on similar sites in South Carolina because they were multicomponent. They argued that since the same locations were reoccupied countless times over thousands of years, there should have been a constant reason for living there, which should have produced a constant set of artifacts. In searching for support for this hypothesis, the analysis shifted in level from artifact to assemblage. Actually, the search for patterning at the assemblage level in southeastern lithic analysis has antecedents best illustrated by Lewis and Kneberg's (1959) comparison of Archaic site collections. Stoltman's 1967 dissertation on excavations conducted in South Carolina (published in 1974) avoids some of the difficulties noted in the Lewis and Kneberg (1959) analysis by restricting his intersite comparisons to lithic tool types, including cores and a limited number of flake classes. Nevertheless, his comparisons are not as rigorous as the 1959 analysis and his goals are primarily culture historical. The search for behavioral correlates in the distribution of different types of artifact assemblage across the landscape began in earnest early in the 1970s and had its roots, naturally enough, in settlement pattern archaeology. In fact Morse (1971b), in an early and influential exploration of the settlement expectations of the Dalton period occupation of northeastern Arkansas, combined hunter and gatherer ethnographic data from Alaska (Cambell 1968) with models from one of the benchmark publications in settlement pattern studies (Beardsley et al. 1956). He introduced the now familiar base camp/special activity camp settlement model and outlined the lithic assemblage characteristics of this dichotomy. The model was refined by Morse and Goodyear (1973) in a consideration of the distribution of Dalton adzes and by Goodyear (1974) in the Brand site analysis. It also provided one of the central themes of the Cache River project (Schiffer and House 1975) as well as other Arkansas projects (e.g., Klinger 1978). Goodyear and House (House and Ballenger 1976; House and Wogaman 1978; Goodyear et al. 1979) took the model with them to South Carolina, where it was applied in the analysis of upland settlement in the Piedmont. Faulkner's (1973) distinction between dispersed and nucleated settlement systems in central Tennessee grew from similar ideas but was based less on lithics and more on site location, site size, and indicators of sedentism. It has been evaluated on the basis of lithic assemblage characteristics by Johnson (1977) and Dickson (1979). Both relied in part on a series of indices first developed in the Normandy report, following ana-

< previous page

page_49

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_49.html[20/10/2010 11:27:05]

page_50

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

lytical techniques common in the French Paleolithic typology (Faulkner and McCollough 1973:67). These indices attempted to measure activities such as woodworking or plant processing by summing the tools presumed to relate to specific functions and dividing the result by the total number of lithic artifacts in the collection. Such devices have not been particularly useful in distinguishing patterns in intrasite or intersite activities and have seen limited application in the Southeast. In a third conceptualization of the base camp/special activity camp model, Gardner (1974) distinguishes base camps, quarry sites, and processing stations on the basis of location relative to resources and lithic assemblage composition for a group of Paleoindian sites in Virginia. Custer and his co-workers (Custer, Cavallo et al. 1983) have applied Gardner's ideas elsewhere in the Southeast. The remarkable thing about the Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia development of this model is that they appear to be unrelated. There is no cross reference between the three. However, by the second half of the 1970s, a common set of citations began to develop when the base camp/special activity site model was related to the Binfords' (Binford and Binford 1966) distinction between maintenance activity sites and short-term extraction sites (House and Ballenger 1976; Raab et al. 1979). The model was further refined by incorporating Binford's (1979, 1980) concepts of curation and logistic/residential mobility, both derived from ethnographic work in Alaska. According to the model, hunters and gatherers employ two strategies in exploiting resources. Foragers use residential mobility to move the people to the resources. Collectors use task groups to move the resources to the people, what Binford calls logistic mobility. This distinction has been operationalized in lithic analysis by arguing that, since collectors are more likely to anticipate specific resource extraction activities, logistic mobility should correlate with relatively more curated toolsthat is, tools created and maintained in anticipation of a specific task. The Haw River analysis made use of these concepts to examine diachronic trends during the Early Archaic. Claggett and Cable (1982) conclude, on the basis of a decrease in formal curated tools, that there is a shift toward residential mobility early in the Archaic sequence in this part of North Carolina, which they relate to climatic change. Anderson and Schuldenrein (1983) use a similar argument in an overview of Early Archaic sites in Georgia and the Carolinas and reach a similar conclusion. Amick (1984, 1987) independently applied the same Binford concepts to Middle and Late Archaic data from central Tennessee to conclude that there is a shift from residential mobility to logistic mobility, which may be related to climatic change.

< previous page

page_50

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_50.html[20/10/2010 11:27:06]

page_51

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

The important aspect of most of the recent studies of lithic technology and settlement, whether they are searching for change through time or across space, is a realization that each technology represents an alternative solution to a relatively small range of problems and is responsive in a systemic way to differences in resource availability, settlement strategy, and social organization. This ecological perspective on lithic technology has been referred to as the organization of technology, another concept which can be attributed to Binford (1979). The power of this approach is currently being explored in southeastern lithic analysis (Claggett and Cable 1982; Goodyear 1982; Anderson and Schundenrein 1983; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Johnson and Morrow 1987; Anderson and Hanson 1988; Johnson 1989b). Conclusion So, in a real sense, lithic analysis has come full circle, returning to Holmes's early concern with tool production and the way in which it articulates with site setting. This is clearly the result of a coincidence of interest; both the nineteenth-century evolutionists and the processual archaeologists have explanation as their primary goal. In fact, the relative importance of lithic analysis at any one time in the history of southeastern archaeology is a direct reflection of the predominant theoretical orientation of that period. At no time was this better illustrated than during the first half of the twentieth century, when culture history was in ascendancy. Stone tools, by their nature, are not as useful for chronology as ceramics, a point which is well documented by the relatively late contribution of lithic analysis to culture history studies. The rise of new archaeology marked a new era for lithic analysis in which data derived from stone tools became a central focus of many research programs. In fact, it would be hard to imagine lithic analysis in the Southeast without the influence of Lewis R. Binford, a man who has not worked in the region since the 1950s (Binford 1964a) and last published specifically on lithics in the early 1960s (Binford and Papworth 1963; Binford and Quimby 1963). The concept of culture as an adaptive system is central to Binford's perspective, and the strength of this model in explaining the past is documented by the popularity of new archaeology in North America during the past two decades. Lithic analysis and new archaeology grew together. The mid-1970s was an exciting time to be doing lithic analysis; the processual school was in ascendancy, and very clearly, some of the behavioral models that were being proposed could best be addressed through careful analysis of patterns in stone tool

< previous page

page_51

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_51.html[20/10/2010 11:27:06]

page_52

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

production, use, and discard. And although the Southeast is not well represented in the major literature of new archaeology, some of the earliest and best applications come from this region. There is currently a strong commitment to processual archaeology among lithic analysts, which is easy to understand. We have just begun to explore the paradigm.

< previous page

page_52

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_52.html[20/10/2010 11:27:07]

page_53

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

Chapter 4 Physical Anthropology Maria O. Smith In 1980 the first edited volume devoted to the physical anthropology of the prehistoric skeletal populations of the Southeast was published. The volume (Willey and Smith 1980) contained seven original research articles and, in ensuing years, has been frequently cited. What is not generally known is that 35 letters were mailed to solicit contributors before seven were collected. The fact that three out of the seven papers were authored by individuals from the home department of the editors might suggest, and perhaps rightfully so, that little active research was being conducted on southeastern skeletal material and that the outlook for southeastern skeletal biology was grim. By the end of the decade, however, a second edited volume with a focus on southeastern skeletal biology appeared with a different suite of contributors (Levy 1986), and a third recently published (Powell et al. 1991) argues effectively for a burgeoning interest. This proliferating interest is attributable to, among other things, a shift in the role of prehistoric skeletal biology in reconstructing southeastern prehistory. Nevertheless, the paucity of ongoing research at the time of the publication of the Willey and Smith volume requires explanation. A retrospective examination of the history of physical anthropology in the Southeast will clarify this as well as provide a backdrop for an assessment of the current and future impact of the recent interest, particularly in light of the repatriation issue. Defining the Southeast for the purpose of retrospective review is complicated by the fact that political boundaries do not coincide with natural ones. I have adopted a conservative definition after Steponaitis (1986), with the exception of a substitution of Kentucky for Arkansas. The impact of C. E. Snow and Indian Knoll on southeastern skeletal bi-

< previous page

page_53

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_53.html[20/10/2010 11:27:07]

page_54

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

ology precludes its omission. The states that I consider in addition to Kentucky are Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and non-Caddoan Louisiana. The history of physical anthropology in the Southeast may be divided into two phases broadly corresponding to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The earlier phase focused on the nature and meaning of human variation. For Americanists, this meant pursuing the question of the origin and taxonomic position of Native Americans. An integral part of this inquiry into human variation was the development of explanatory paradigms for the existence of human races. Several individuals from the Southeast played integral roles in the development of polygenism, the paradigm that defined the nineteenth-century American School of Physical Anthropology. The a priori assumptions derived, in part, from polygenism were incorporated into the first of the two paradigms that characterized the second phase of physical anthropology in the Southeast. This first paradigm, known as cranial typology, is coincident with the large-scale salvage archaeological projects of the earlier part of this century. The second and current paradigm of the twentieth century is the biocultural approach, a key but not exclusive factor in the growing research interest in southeastern prehistoric skeletal biology. The Nineteenth Century Moundbuilders The initial phase of southeastern physical anthropology began with the nineteenth-century speculations concerning the identity of the mound builders. Mounds generously freckle the landscape of the eastern United States. These features were frequently observed in the territories west of the Appalachian mountains by the homesteading pioneers who moved into the Ohio country and points west after the American Revolution. These man-made structures were considered to be too sophisticated to have been made by the contemporary Indians, who were also generally ignorant of their origin and function. This elitist attitude was not simply the ethnocentric perceptions of the invading pioneers, but rooted in Enlightenment social philosophy of men like Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau (Penniman 1935; Spencer 1986). Their evaluation of the natural man, be this man simply base (Hobbes) or a noble savage (Rousseau), was that he was presocietal and demonstrated the original condition of mankind. The division of humankind into discrete types or races by Linnaeus (1735) and most notably by Blumenbach (1776), although there certainly were others (e.g., Daubenton 1764;

< previous page

page_54

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_54.html[20/10/2010 11:27:08]

page_55

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

Camper 1792; Edwards 1841), included hierarchical assessments of social and intellectual capabilities as part of discriminating criteria. From the position of the living Indians in this hierarchy, it followed that the identity of the mound builders must be sought among non-Indians. Information to the contrary was available from the Southeast through Bartram (1791) and the de Soto expedition (de la Vega 1951; Elvas 1973) but was either forgotten or ignored. The commitment to biblical inerrancy and the perception, as interpreted by Silverberg (1968), that the mounds in history-less America were true cultural links to Old World cairns, tumuli, ziggurats, and pyramids spurred the imagination to construct plausible candidates for the identity of the mound builders among historic and biblically referenced peoples. The list includes Mongols (Ranking 1827), Celts (Finch 1824), Egyptians (Delafield 1839), Vikings (Clinton 1818), the Welsh (Stoddard 1812), as well as Etruscans, Trojans, Carthagenians, Scythians, Polynesians, Ethiopians, Malayans, Hindus, survivors of Atlantis, and of course, the ten lost tribes of Israel (Haven 1856; Silverberg 1968). An enduring image of this pre-Indian mound builder resides in the legend of the pale-skinned and bearded Toltecs, as personified by their first leader Quetzalcóatl. According to Aztec tradition, these pre-Aztec people migrated into Mexico and established a regime before being displaced. The perception that the Natchez Indians were remnants of the Moundbuilder ''race'' and that the similarity between the flat-topped mounds in the two areas were not coincidental suggested a north-south migration of the non-Indian mound builders in the wake of incoming barbarous tribes (Silverberg 1968, emphasis added). This unsubstantiated scenario of displacement/migration was an enduring one in the Southeast, lasting into the early decades of the twentieth century. Within the context of speculation on the identity of the architects of the mounds, in 1839 a treatise universally acknowledged to be of milestone importance in the history of American physical anthropology, Crania Americana by Samuel George Morton (17991851), was published. This monograph was an attempt to determine objectively the racial affinities of the human skull. The project was an outgrowth of a need for specimens (as Morton was a physician and teacher of anatomy in Philadelphia) to illustrate the five races of man as defined by Blumenbach (17521840) in the late eighteenth century. The examination provided an opportunity to address the unsolved question of the biological unity/plurality of the American Indian objectively (Atwater 1820; M'Culloh 1829). For his monograph, Morton's North American sample consisted of nine crania; two of these represented the Southeast and four were recent Indians used as controls. The paucity of his North American data belies the fact that he had a large sample to evaluatejust not much from any

< previous page

page_55

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_55.html[20/10/2010 11:27:08]

page_56

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

one place. The importance of Morton's work lies in the attempt to quantify objectively the discriminating features of each of the predefined races. He used 13 measurements, several of which are precursors of standard measurements used in the twentieth century. His particular contribution to the mound-builder question was his observation that the inhabitants of America were all of the same race. However, as no person resides in a vacuum, because of the "self evident" complex technological and cultural achievements of the mound builders, he subdivided the race into two families, predictably identified as the "Toltecan" and the "Barbarous.'' Morton's treatise, an instant success and internationally praised (but see Squier 1847), was of particular importance for the Southeast because arguments touched on in it evolved into what was to be known as the American School of Physical Anthropology. Several personalities from the Southeast played a pivotal role in the development of the definitive paradigm of the nineteenth century. Monogenism/Polygenism Preceding the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, inquiry into human diversity in the United States was bound by adherence to biblical orthodoxy. Evolutionary theory, however, was by no means orthodoxy's initial challenge. The recognition of the scope of human diversity generated much speculative interest in the divinely inspired mechanism that produced such a wide spectrum of morphological differences. Loyal to the Mosaic account of Creation, Blumenbach had argued for climatic influence to account for the existence of his five races. Lord Kames (a.k.a. Henry Home, 16961782) wrote a four-volume treatise (published posthumously in 1788) arguing that the morphological differences between the defined human races were too great to be accounted for by climate, given the time since Creation (4004 B.C. as calculated in the mid-seventeenth century by Archbishop Ussher), and arguing for a God who, in his wisdom, created man to fit his surroundingsseveral times. This heretical position of multiple creations was not a new idea. It was suggested as early as 1655 by Isaac de la Peyrere and refuted in 1721 by Fabricius (Penniman 1935). For this heresy, the published manuscripts of Peyrere were publicly burned. The endurance of the issue in the early nineteenth century clearly suggests sustained discord between observable natural phenomena and the presumed inerrancy of the biblical account of Creation. In response to Kames, the American theologian and president of Yale University Samuel Stanhope Smith (17501819) vigorously defended the concept of the unity of man (1810), but the presumed tone

< previous page

page_56

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_56.html[20/10/2010 11:27:09]

page_57

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

of the publication prompted a reply from the Southeast by North Carolina-born Charles Caldwell (17721853). A physician, Caldwell was reputedly blessed with an overinflated sense of his own genius (Stanton 1966). He avidly embraced the subjective pseudoscience of phrenology and authored several scientifically unfounded articles that have subsequently soured his reputation as a scholar (see Barzun 1965; Gould 1981). Nevertheless, Caldwell's reputation notwithstanding, he articulated his argument against the unity of man convincingly (for example, the clinal distribution of races is due to admixture, not climate [1811, 1814, 1830]) and, while personally avoiding taking sides, effectively drew the battle lines for the controversy between monogenism and polygenism. Caldwell accused Smith of dogmatism and declared the arrogant condemnation of the polygenist perspective as heresy. He argued that the social consequences of being labeled a heretic would stifle scientific inquiry and even argued that Smith himself undermined the Bible by championing a particular interpretation. Smith was apparently so taken aback by this interpretation of his arguments that it reportedly contributed to his death before a reply could be drafted (Stanton 1966). Ironically, Caldwell himself played a pivotal role in stifling broader scientific inquiry. The issue of the interpretation of human variation was inextricably tied to biblical orthodoxy, not to the broader consideration of natural causes. Therefore, evolutionary thought would establish no early toehold in America. Events in Europe, particularly Cuvier's much publicized debunking of St. Hilaire and Lamarck in 1840 (Erickson 1974) simply helped confine the arguments to single or multiple creations, that is, monogenism versus polygenism. This was the core issue of what was to be known as the American School of Physical Anthropology. In Crania Americana, while affirming that the Indians constituted a single race, Morton cautiously avoided taking a position on the unity of man issue. He argued that the discrete races were credited to the Creator and dismissed any influence of climate (effectively dooming his monograph to relative obscurity after 1859). His association and collaboration (Crania Aegyptiaca, 1844) with George Robins Gliddon (18091857) was apparently instrumental in coaxing Morton into polygenism (Stanton 1966). The antiquity (based on Ussherian chronology) of the distinctive racial types and Negro slavery (based on data being recovered at this time from dynastic Egypt) not only made a strong case for multiple creations but implied a natural social order. This issue stirred public interest and created a broader arena for the biological issues of unity/plurality. This was particularly true in the part of the Southeast that constituted the slaveholding Old South. The third founder of the American School of Physical Anthropology

< previous page

page_57

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_57.html[20/10/2010 11:27:09]

page_58

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

was from the SoutheastJosiah Clark Nott (18041873). Nott, a Mobile physician, was born in Columbia, South Carolina. Apart from having an exemplary family background and being described as the archetypal southern gentleman, Nott was an exceptionally skilled and highly regarded surgeon (Stanton 1966; Bean 1974; Brace 1974). He earned a well-deserved footnote in the history of medicine by observing that yellow fever could only be spread by an intermediate host (Polk 1913; Carmichael 1948; Downs 1974). Although Nott had considerable experience as an anatomist and was a perceptive observer, his knowledge of natural science was limited. This was due to the limited available knowledge, his reliance on scientific hearsay, and his belief in divinely created natural order in nature (Barzun 1965; Stanton 1966). In spite of his documented care and compassion for slaves, Nott accepted the social order of slavery and could most certainly be counted in the ranks of the masses who accepted racial inequalitya pervasive belief not limited to the slaveholding South. The opportunity to express his convictions came in 1843 when he published "The Mulatto a HybridProbable Extermination of the Two Races if the Whites and Blacks Are Allowed to Intermarry." His observations of the differential survival rate of mulattoes (in, among other things, yellow fever) corroborated the results of the census of 1840 and demonstrated, in Nott's view, a lack of vigor between the two "species." Owing to the entrenchment of racially defined social hierarchies, other interpretations were not offered (such as social and/or economic factors). The positive response to the article (including the initiation of regular correspondence with Morton himself) prompted Nott (1844) to venture further into anthropological theory building by openly advocating multiple creations as the only viable explanation for the distinct forms of humanity. For the remaining tenure of the American School, polygenism was touted as mainline "scientific'' interpretation. This was politically popular in the slaveholding Southeast in spite of the fact that it was biblical heresy. Although most scientists prudently sidestepped the issue, the challenge to monogenism predicted, and delivered, heated exchanges particularly with conservative clergy. With the added ballast of Louis Agassiz (18071873) and the evidence on the side of polygenism, Glidden was reported to have characterized fundamentalist opponents to multiple creations as "skunks" (see Stanton 1966). One of these "skunks" was a formidable opponent, indeed. A clergyman, he was the pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina, a city Stanton (1966) characterizes as one of the three intellectual centers of the antebellum United States. Apart from appropriate theological credentials to argue for the unity of man, the Rev. Dr.

< previous page

page_58

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_58.html[20/10/2010 11:27:10]

page_59

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

John Bachman (17901874) had a reputation as a naturalist as high as Nott had in medicine. He corresponded regularly with the leading naturalists in the United States and abroad and coauthored with his good friend of many years, John James Audubon, various editions of The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. He was also a frequent correspondent with Morton, even exchanging specimens with him. Bachman was also a caustic writer (apparently the antithesis of his personality), which predicted a spicy exchange with the polygenists. He began in 1850 with two publications, one for the Charleston Medical Journal, the other a book entitled The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race Examined on the Principles of Science (1850a). Although Bachman, like the polygenists, took for granted the fixity of species, he argued convincingly from his knowledge of natural history for a pattern of congruence between climate and morphology. Bound by his adherence to biblical inerrancy, he was unable to apply his evolutionary model to the origin of species. He denied any resemblance of his view of morphological change with the "heretical" Lamarck (an accusation of the polygenists), although he did indeed flirt with heresy in straining biblical chronology to accommodate morphological change. Stanton (1966) argues that Bachman is the preDarwinian American who comes closest to proposing evolution. Stanton suggests that had he left his congregation to fend for itself and spent more time as a field naturalist, Bachman might have abandoned his theological constraints and earned a place for himself in the pantheon of protoevolutionists. Morton died in 1851 and Glidden in 1857, leaving Nott and Agassiz to continue to argue for multiple creations. Editorial efforts by Nott and Glidden (1854, 1857) prior to the latter's death attempted to present the case for polygenism definitively; they presented no new arguments, however, and essentially spawned predictable dissent. As events drew the Southeast ever closer to civil war, the repetitive arguments grew tedious as evidenced by the lukewarm reception of Nott's and Glidden's final corroborative effort (1857). With war imminent, Nott became increasingly preoccupied with his medical responsibilities (see Polk 1913; Carmichael 1948; Bean 1974; Brace 1974). The final curtain for the American School came predictably from two directionsCharles Darwin and Fort Sumter. Interregnum With science in the Southeast a shambles after the Civil War and the monogenism/polygenism controversy superseded by Darwinism, sustained interest in physical anthropology continued elsewhere, but even

< previous page

page_59

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_59.html[20/10/2010 11:27:10]

page_60

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

that proceeded as a series of broken threads until the turn of the century (Hrdlicka 1914; Quade 1971). This interregnum between the two phases of physical anthropology in the Southeast is punctuated by the first monographs specifically devoted to archaeologically derived southeastern prehistoric human osteological remains. Because of the impact of Darwinian evolution on physical anthropology, it is also marked by the growing interest in the antiquity of humans in the Americas. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the three centers of physical anthropological activity were Philadelphia, Boston, and Washingston, D.C. With the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution in 1846, the Army Medical Museum in 1866, and the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1879, physical anthropology became linked to the goals of these institutions. The successors of Morton in Philadelphia were Joseph Leidy (18231899) and J. Atkins Meigs (18231891). The former was the curator of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, to which Morton's extensive cranial collection was posthumously donated. Although responsibilities for the collection fell to the latter, Leidy, also a professor of anatomy at the University of Pennsylvania and an accomplished naturalist, periodically contributed to anthropology. Noteworthy with respect to the Southeast was his evaluation of the presumed antiquity of the Natchez pelvis and the Osprey, Florida, material (1889), a subject which will be addressed below. Among his students, besides the notable Edward Drinker Cope, were two individuals who were among the few who studied archaeologically derived material from the Southeast: Joseph Jones (18331896) and Harrison Allen (18411897). Jones's Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee (1876) is much influenced by the craniometrics of Morton and Meigs and stands out as the first evaluation of skeletal remains to consider pathological conditions. Harrison Allen, whose work was much lauded by Hrdlicka (1914), wrote "The Crania from the Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida" (1896). Perhaps reflective of a high level of archaeological activity in Tennessee at this time (e.g., Dunning 1872; Lyon 1872; Stephenson 1872; Williams 1872; Clark 1878), Lucien Carr (18291915) published Observations on the Crania from Stone Graves in Tennessee (1878). Jeffries Wyman (18141874), who along with Carr was a contributor to physical anthropology from the Boston locus, published "Human Remains in the Shell Heaps of the St. John's River, East Florida" in 1874. These reports, largely undertaken by medically trained individuals, were essentially descriptive analyses and foreshadowed the biological type-focused analysis characteristic of the first half of the twentieth century. The growth of biological anthropology during this interregnum was Eurocentered, and sustained evaluation of

< previous page

page_60

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_60.html[20/10/2010 11:27:11]

page_61

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

skeletal remains from the Southeast would have to wait until the initiation of the massive salvage archaeological operations in the twentieth century. Early Man in the New World After 1859, with the abandonment of the confining Mosaic chronology and stimulated by the fossil discoveries in Europe (Engis, Paviland, and the various Neandertal finds) the issue of American Indian antiquity came into focus. Fossil humans in the Americas were eagerly anticipated. This was encouraged by the geological similarities between Europe and America (Lyell 1845, 1849; Whittlesey 1869) and the periodic reports of human remains found in conjunction with extinct megafauna (see Koch 1839; Foster 1873; Eiseley 1946). By the end of the century, there were a number of "fossil" candidates and a large proportion of these skeletal remains came from the Southeast. However, the status of these remained controversial owing to the absence of a geological (specifically glacial) chronology (Chamberlain 1892, 1893; Wright 1892, 1893a, 1893b; Claypole 1893a, 1893b; Thurston 1893) and the doubtful integrity of the archaeological context of the skeletal material. The material from the Southeast consisted of: New Orleans (1844), Natchez (1846), Lake Monroe, Florida (18521853), Charleston (n.d.), and Osprey, Florida (18711888). More recently recovered but equally relevant material includes Vero Beach (1916) and Melbourne (1925), both in Florida. The New Orleans discovery of 1844 consisted of poorly preserved human remains discovered between tree roots under 16 feet of sediment (Drake 1850). The material was lost soon after, and little is known about it other than that the impossible date of 57,000 years was ascribed to it. Significance was attached to it by Usher (1854) in the context of the polygenism controversy. The Natchez pelvis was discovered by Montroville W. Dickeson (Anonymous 1846). The pelvis was reportedly found in association with extinct megafauna including Mastodon and Megalonyx. Lyell (1863) and Leidy (1889) were skeptical of this context, but its antiquity was argued elsewhere (e.g., Schmidt 1871). Lyell (1863:4445) was also skeptical of the Lake Monroe material, which was of unclear provenience but encrusted with coral reef limestone that to some implied great antiquity (Agassiz 1854). The Charleston remains, which were also later lost, consisted of human fragments also in association with Mastodon. Although Schmidt (1871) argued for its antiquity, Leidy (1889) noted the association of pottery fragments and dismissed the material. Human remains from in and around Osprey, Florida, were recovered episodically between 1871 and 1887 (Heilprin 1887; Leidy 1889). The material was also encrusted with limestone, and Leidy again argued that encrus-

< previous page

page_61

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_61.html[20/10/2010 11:27:11]

page_62

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

tation was no guarantee of antiquity. The sites were later revisited by Hrdlicka (1907) and found to be geologically recent and likely associated with nearby shell mounds. Vero Beach (Sellards 1916; Sellards et al. 1917) and Melbourne (Gidley and Loomis 1926) human remains were discovered in the Indian River area of eastern coastal Florida. Both sets of human remains were found in association with Pleistocene megafauna; however, the geological context of the human material was also often questioned (e.g., Chamberlain in Sellards et al. 1917; Hrdlicka in Sellards et al. 1917; Sellards 1937; Rouse 1950, 1951; Heizer and Cook 1952). The above material, with generally shaky provenience, fueled part of the long chronology/short chronology controversy that continued into the twentieth century until the pivotal discovery at Folsom (Figgins 1927). Early proponents of the long chronology included F. W. Putnam, McGee (1889), Abbott (1876, 1889), and T. Wilson (1895), who undertook a fluorine comparison of the Natchez pelvis and associated fauna and "confirmed" their contemporaneity. The short chronology was championed by Holmes (1890) and physical anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka (1907, 1925, 1937; Spencer 1986), the father of American physical anthropology, who argued effectively if iconoclastically that Amerindian antiquity was no more than a few thousand years old. His zeal was attributable, in part, to establishing a standard of rigor for fledgling American physical anthropology. He summarily dismissed the evidence for "glacial man" in America based on the absence of iron-clad provenience and by his rather subjective evaluation of skeletal features referred to as morphological dating (see below) (Hrdlicka 1907, 1918, 1925, 1937; Stewart 1949; F. Smith 1976). He was also a successfully intimidating personality (Kidder 1936; Roberts 1940). In his zeal, however, he ignored the relevant fluorine dating of the Natchez material (Stewart 1951) and was uncharacteristically careless in evaluating the Melbourne, Florida, skull (Stewart 1946). Although Hrdlicka was not opposed to the existence of early man in America (1907:98), he did believe that the skeletal data available to him did not unequivocally make the case. Part of his defense of a recent chronology was that antique skulls should look the part, and the American "fossils" summarily did not. This assessment of the antiqueness of a particular specimen is referred to as morphological dating. His improper reconstruction of the Melbourne cranium, however, undermined the morphological dating of the specimen in particular and helped to undermine the concept in general (Stewart 1949). Recent reevaluation of the concept of morphological dating has been more generous in its assessment of its merits (F. Smith 1977; Spencer and Smith 1981).

< previous page

page_62

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_62.html[20/10/2010 11:27:12]

page_63

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

The accumulated results of the current dating techniques of aspartic acid racemization and C-14 (accelerator mass spectrometry) are that no human skeletal remains appear to be reliably older than (approximately) 12,000 years B.P. (Bada et al. 1984; Owen 1984; Bada 1985; Taylor et al. 1985). In deference to Hrdlicka, this is certainly consistent with the morphological dating of the specimens, but certainly older than the few thousand years he proposed. In recent years, Florida has continued to yield early skeletal remains but within the context of this adjusted time frame. For example, the Windover site, located in central Florida and radiometrically dated at 7,500 years B.P. (Doran and Dickel 1988) has yielded skeletal material including a subadult exhibiting a severe neural tube defect (spina bifida) (Dickel and Doran 1989). There are also two mandibles from Warm Mineral Springs (southeast of St. Petersburg), one of which argues for occupation of Florida concurrent with Clovis in the western United States (Haeussler et al. 1990). Even a recent redating of the Natchez pelvis by accelerator mass spectrometry falls within the adjusted time frame at 5,580 +/- 80 B.P. in contrast with its presumed associated megafauna, which has been dated to just under 18,000 B.P. (Cotter 1991). Although the antiquity of the skeletal remains of prehistoric Americans is consistent, and certainly not "fossil," the issue of the antiquity of humans in America is by no means resolved (see Meltzer 1989). Since this issue is a basic one, continued energy directed at answering the question is a foregone conclusion. The Twentieth Century Cranial Typology and New Deal Archaeology The second phase in the history of physical anthropology in the Southeast in linked to the growth of the profession in general and the parallel maturing of archaeology. Physical anthropology in the United States is essentially a twentieth-century phenomenon, owing much of its definition and growth to the efforts of Ales Hrdlicka (18691943) and E. A. Hooton (18871954). The early growth of the discipline in America focused on creating a well-defined discipline and establishing baseline information in a wide range of areas such as growth, paleopathology, comparative anatomy, and paleoanthropology, to name a few (see Hunt 1959, 1981; Shapiro 1959; Quade 1971; Krogman 1976; Druian 1978; Pollitzer 1981; Spencer 1981; Armelagos, Carlson et al. 1982; Brace 1982; Ubelaker 1982; Birdsell 1987). Up until that time, the discipline was largely a European phenomenon, fluorescing at numerous European an-

< previous page

page_63

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_63.html[20/10/2010 11:27:13]

page_64

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

thropological societies, and fed by fossil discoveries and a flurry of craniological treatises on European collections. As a result, American physical anthropology was energized by increasingly standardized craniometrics (St. Hoyme 1953) and metrical analyses (e.g., Pearson 1896, 1926; Pearson and Davin 1924). But more fundamental, fledgling American physical anthropology was transfused with a long-standing tradition of intuitively based hierarchical racial typologies, which were nurtured by the social climate of European nationalism and the vestiges of colonialism. The paradigm of typology had its roots in Linnaean principles of classification and the racial subdivisions of Blumenbach and others. It was also a holdover from the principles underlying polygenism (both here and abroad) and the mound-builder myth in the United States with its unsubstantiated scenarios of population migration and replacement (Meigs 1866; see also Silverberg 1968). Essentially, typology was based on the conviction that human variation may be reduced to a small number of discrete races or "types." The discriminating features were presumed to be inherited and only token acknowledgment was given to environmental influences, and then only in an evolutionary context. The discriminating criteria for the osteologist consisted of a small constellation of (principally) cranial features, the most prominent of these being the cephalic index (Retzius 1842), which were used to classify individual crania for the ultimate purpose of historical reconstruction. Cultural change was attributed to population replacement or admixture, and ideally, cultural histories could be reconstructed by identifying the racial components of a given sample. Now discarded, typology was the prevailing paradigm until (at least) the middle of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, usage of typologically derived categories continued to be used into the 1970s. Retrospectively, typology has frequently been critically evaluated (Stewart and Newman 1951; Hunt 1959; Weiss and Maruyama 1976; Armelagos, Carlson et al. 1982). At the turn of the century, exemplary summary works that reflected the typological paradigm for European samples included Deniker (1900) and Ripley (1900). It was only natural that similar classificatory frameworks be constructed for American samples (Haddon 1909; Hrdlicka 1922, 1940; Eickstedt 1934; Bonin and Morant 1938). The classification of American crania into types culminated in the elaborate system of Georg Neumann (1952, 1959a, 1959b). His system superseded the other classifications and exerted the greatest influence on descriptive morphometrics. When viewed collectively, the classifications were not totally isomorphic to each other and, owing to the unsound biological basis,

< previous page

page_64

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_64.html[20/10/2010 11:27:13]

page_65

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

made little sense temporally or spatially, as a review of the southeastern material will presently demonstrate. Between the turn of the century and the initiation of the salvage archaeological projects of the 1930s, the amount of evaluation of southeastern material grew from a sprinkling to a healthy drizzle. Much of the work was undertaken by Hrdlicka, who traveled extensively through the Southeast, partly in conjunction with the question of the evidence for Pleistocene humans in the western hemisphere (1907, 1909, 1922, 1927, 1940). The early work also included Fuller's dissertation on stonebox burials from Tennessee (1915) and pre-New Deal reports by W. Funkhouser (Webb and Funkhouser 1928, 1930, 1931) and Collins (1927a). The evaluations are exclusively descriptiveand, of course, typological. During this time, Hooton undertook the first evaluation of mound-builder material (Hooton and Willoughby 1920; Hooton 1922) and in 1930 wrote the definitive typological examination of what was then the largest available archaeologically derived samplePecos Pueblo. Although Hooton's typology for Pecos focused on Old World antecedents of New World populations (after Dixon 1923), he was instrumental in establishing the standards for the osteological report and, of course, the entrenchment of the typological paradigm (1937). Since cranial typology and detailed osteometric descriptions were the focus of osteological evaluations, skeletal data were, not unexpectedly, of peripheral importance for the archaeologist (Willey and Sabloff 1980; Gruber 1981; DePratter 1986). It is therefore not surprising that skeletal assessments were relegated to the appendix of site reports, or even occasionally dispensed with altogether. Although peripheral to archaeological problem solving, the growth of physical anthropology in the Southeast is intimately linked to the salvage archaeological projects of the New Deal era (specifically, 19341942). These federal (WPA, TVA, NPS) and, to varying degrees, state and institutional recovery projects focused on total site recovery and yielded large samples of skeletal material, which even today form the bulk of the osteological resources in the Southeast. The prominent osteological evaluations of the era are, predictably, appendixes of either site or reservoir final reports. Along the Tennessee River, these include the W. Funkhouser report on Wheeler Basin (1939), Newman and Snow for Pickwick Basin (1942), and Kneberg for the Kentucky Lake area (Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Lewis and Lewis 1961). Others include the Norris Basin in Tennessee (Funkhouser 1938), the Chiggerville (Skarland 1939), Rickets Mound (Hertzberg 1940a), and Wright sites (Hertzberg 1940b) in Kentucky, Peachtree (Stewart 1941) in North Caro-

< previous page

page_65

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_65.html[20/10/2010 11:27:14]

page_66

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

lina, Irene Mound (Hulse 1941) in Georgia, Bynum Mound in Mississippi (Newman 1951), and Tchefuncte sites (Collins 1941; Snow 1945) in Louisiana. Brief osteological evaluation is also found in the Bessemer site report from Alabama (DeJarnette and Wimberly 1941), and other reports include the Georgia sites of Stalling's Island Mound, a pre-New Deal recovery (Claflin 1931), and various smaller articles on Moundville (Snow 1940, 1941a, 1941b, 1943a). The definitive southeastern osteological site report, however, was undertaken by C. E. Snow on the large collection from Indian Knoll (1948). Because of the size and the excellent preservation of the collection, the sample became the definitive Archaic collection in the eastern United States. Snow's stature and continued research focus in the eastern United States (e.g., 1942a, 1942b, 1943b; Webb and Snow 1974) helped to retain the typological approach in eastern North American skeletal biology. Of course, not all sites yield skeletal remains. Interment practices and/or unfavorable soil conditions are usually responsible for lack of preservation (e.g., Ford and Willey 1940; Webb and Wilder 1951). For various reasons, definitive osteological reports are sometimes omitted in the final site report in spite of adequate osteological recovery (e.g., Etowah Mound [Moorehead 1932]). Since osteologically derived data were irrelevant to archaeological problem solving, the data were never missed. What did this irrelevant data consist of? Basically, they were appendixed reports of descriptive osteological catalogs with a focus on (male) craniometrics. Pathological conditions are also descriptively relayed with little or no evaluation. The definitive report, therefore, was a reservoir of data rather than information. The only data considered archaeologically relevant were the applications of cranial typology to document population movement and admixture. The individual crania are segregated into types, the principle categories being the ends of the normal spectrum of cranial form, which consisted of a broad-headed (notwithstanding coincidental artificial deformation) type ostensibly from the Southeast and a long-headed type from the Northeast. Intermediate forms, and every site had them, were interpreted as evidence of admixture. As might be expected, samples were not easily typified, inasmuch as every site was peppered with a range of types. This complexity confounded historical reconstruction and only exacerbated the peripheral status of skeletally derived information. For example, in the Norris Basin, Funkhouser (1938) concluded that the inhabitants were homogeneous and not unlike Kentucky remains he was experienced with (e.g., Webb and Funkhouser 1928, 1930, 1931). He concluded that they were an indigenous brachycephalic type, although

< previous page

page_66

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_66.html[20/10/2010 11:27:14]

page_67

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

he did identify dolichocephalic individuals, which he interpreted as evidence of an invasive ''Iroquoian" (that is, northeastern) variety. Perhaps indicative of the commitment to typology was his misdiagnosis of two scaphocephalous individuals (premature sagital suture closure resulting in an abnormally long cranium) at Ausmus Cave, Tennessee, as indicative of these long-headed intruders (see Tucker 1989). In Wheeler Basin, Funkhouser sampled fewer individuals (17 males) and concluded that the remains also suggested an indigenous brachycephalic group (1939). The Pickwick Basin skeletal evaluation (Newman and Snow 1942), under typical deadline pressure, was completed before all the material could be analyzed. In spite of the incompleteness, the report is a model of thoughtful and comprehensive typological evaluation reminiscent of the thoroughness exhibited in Hooton's analysis of Pecos Pueblo (1930). This is not surprising since Newman and Snow were among the huge flock of students produced under Hooton's tutelage. Basically, they identified two typolocal units: an earlier dolichocephalic (Shell Mound) and a later intrusive brachycephalic (Koger). This was a transposition of the sequence of types seen in the Norris material, but one that was repeated by Neumann at Mammoth Cave (1938) and proposed as a pattern for the Southeast through Hrdlicka in his evaluation of Florida material (1922). The personal impact of Hrdlicka, Neumann, and Snow certainly helped to entrench this pattern and artificial cranial deformation "verified" it. Perhaps this scenario may even be interpreted as an unconscious holdover of the mound-builder myth (long heads supplanted by round heads) (Meigs 1866; Putnam 1888; Silverberg 1968). Round heads were characteristic of Stalling's Island (Claflin 1931), Wright Mounds (Hertzberg 1940b), and Rickets Mound (Hertzberg 1940a), whereas long heads characterized Chiggerville (Skarland 1939). Peachtree (Stewart 1941) was regarded as typologically variablemeaning admixed. So was Hiwassee Island (Lewis and Kneberg 1946) and Eva (Lewis and Lewis 1961), prompting Kneberg to hypothesize a mesocephalic antecedent to both the long- and broad-headed types, thus suggesting that neither was the indigenous type (Lewis and Kneberg 1946). Irene Mound (Hulse 1941) was also found to be admixed, with an added complexity of a number of individuals exhibiting what was described as an unusual bun-shaped occiput. Adhering to the prevailing paradigm, the material was ascribed to the southeastern brachycephalic type on the basis of general similarity to Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida material. Hulse, another Hooton student, also typologically evaluated the material for Old World contributions (à la Pecos Pueblo) and identified a "proto-negroid" component (see Dixon 1923; Hooton 1930). In Louisiana, Tchefuncte material was evaluated by Collins (1941)

< previous page

page_67

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_67.html[20/10/2010 11:27:15]

page_68

< previous page

page_68

next page > Page 68

and Snow (1945). The crania were determined to be dolichocephalicmost decidedly the southernmost representative of that type. Nevertheless, there were representatives of other cranial types in the sample, and Collins concluded that Copell (Pecan Island), a Tchefuncte site, aligns more with geographically distant Indian Knoll. Collins, in attempting to make sense of the complex typological picture, suggested that the indigenous Gulf Type (Hrdlicka 1922) was the result of the admixture of all of these elements. Last but not least, the Indian Knoll skeletal evaluation was undertaken by Snow (1948) and may be regarded as the eastern American version of the Pecos Pueblo study. Snow wrote a detailed typological report characterizing the collection as mesocephalic with a tendency toward dolichocephaly. It was regarded as homogeneous (attributed to inbreeding) and not the result of a complex history of admixture. Indian Knoll, the archetypal Archaic sample for the eastern United States, introduced the typological paradigm to many who otherwise had no occasion to browse the appendixes of site and/or reservoir final reports. This brief survey of the types identified in the Southeast quickly reveals glaring inconsistencies over time and space. For example, which are the indigenes, the dolichocephalics of Shell Mound in Pickwick Basin or brachycephalics in adjacent Wheeler? Or might it be neither, as Kneberg suggested? The inconsistencies did not escape the notice of contemporaries (e.g., Caldwell 1952:314), but the commitment to genetic racial markers as manifested on the cranium prevented the abandonment of the typology. The detailed and widespread use of Neumann's classification (although criticized at the outset [Stewart and Newman 1954]) exerted a profound influence on skeletal biology in the Southeast (e.g., Bass 1956; Jennings et al. 1957; St. Hoyme and Bass 1962; Pollitzer 1971; Saunders 1972; Loveland and Bass 1983; Shaivitz 1986) and elsewhere (see Buikstra 1979) and meant that nothing short of a total replacement of the paradigm would significantly after the role of skeletal biologyas the catalog of skeletal metrics relegated to the appendix. The Biocultural Approach After World War II, the paradigm began to shift. The biological definition of race was increasingly problematic (e.g., Coon et al. 1950; Dunn 1951; Morant 1951), and the development of population genetics and its application to evolution shifted the observational focus from the individual cranium to the population. This began with a focus on features of known genetic basis, such as blood polymorphisms, rather than the assumed osteological ones. Nevertheless, the use of blood group frequencies as ersatz racial markers was submerged by the end of the fifties

< previous page

page_68

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_68.html[20/10/2010 11:27:15]

page_69

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

by the association of certain blood polymorphisms with endemic disease, specifically malaria (Allison 1960). Indiscriminate use of calipers came under criticism (Kaplan 1950), and by 1960 form was less isomorphic with race than it was to function or adaptation (e.g., Hunt 1959; Moss and Young 1960; Weiner 1964:236). Therefore the a priori assumptions essential to the acceptance of typology were increasingly challenged. During the 1950s, physical anthropology was also becoming an increasingly diverse discipline. The perennially small number of biological anthropologists became increasingly focused in their research interests, unlike their literal or spiritual mentors, founding fathers Hooton and Hrdlicka, whose bibliographies graphically demonstrate otherwise. As that generation fulfilled its role as mentors, the discipline, still best defined by its youth, undertook frequent stocktaking and redefining (e.g., Washburn 1951; Garn 1954; Kaplan 1955; Lasker 1970). In this environment of increasing breadth and redefinition, it is apparent that by the time Zinj and Jane Goodall were capturing the spotlight, the subarea of skeletal biology unequivocally stagnated (Meiklejohn 1975). In the Southeast, as elsewhere, this meant that skeletal biology was confined to the description of skeletal remains in the site report appendix. Because of a basic dearth of skeletal biologists, little, if any, further evaluation of the large collections recovered during the New Deal era or later was undertaken. The only exception was the continued use of the large Indian Knoll sample (Johnston 1961, 1962; Johnston and Snow 1961; Stewart 1962; Sarnas 1964; Higel 1965). In the mid-1960s, interest in skeletal biology per se was on the upswing with the increasing application of multivariate morphometrics to osteological samples. This new analytic tool, however, did not significantly affect research in skeletal biology in the Southeast until the early seventies. The reasons are twofold. First, as the ''baby boom" generation entered the university system across the United States and later matriculated in similar proportion into the ranks of an increasingly diverse biological anthropology, departments that offered advanced degrees in biological anthropology increased in number. The number of anthropology departments in the Southeast offering advanced degrees in some aspect of biological anthropology grew from 3 in 1976 to 14 in 1986. The result for skeletal biology was an increased number of advanced degree students for whom large, often inhouse, osteological collections gleaned from the New Deal era and subsequent recovery projects provided opportunities to engage in original analytic research. The second reason was a new paradigmthe biocultural approach. The biocultural approach, introduced in the mid-1970s, is an inter-

< previous page

page_69

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_69.html[20/10/2010 11:27:16]

page_70

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

pretive framework that acknowledges the relationship between biological, cultural, and environmental variables (Buikstra 1976; Blakely, ed. 1977). The paradigm is an outgrowth of the new archaeology of the mid-1960s, which focused on subsistence strategies and ecological models rather than on tool typologies and ceramic sequences. The integration of biological and archaeological research objectives greatly broadened the research base of skeletal biology. According to Buikstra (1979), a pivotal developer of the biocultural paradigm, these biological contributions fall into four major areas: biological relationships, demography, biosocial dimensions of mortuary behavior, and nutrition/pathology. Of the four, the greatest expansion has been in the areas of nutrition and paleopathology (see Blakely, ed. 1977; Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Buikstra and Konigsberg 1985; Goodman et al. 1988; Buikstra et al. 1990). The importance of the incorporation of Selyen stress (disease or nutritional stress [see Goodman et al. 1988]) into the biocultural paradigm cannot be overestimated. The utility of using pathological conditions, such as porotic hyperostosis/cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasia, and earlier in the paradigm Harris lines and fluctuating dental asymmetry, as well as other biological parameters, such as growth and infectious diseases, to document the shifts in subsistence strategies and the biological consequences of social structure (rank, division of labor) has been amply demonstrated in the literature over the past 16 years. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to catalog the literature here, let it suffice to say that much ground-breaking research was conducted by researchers such as Armelagos, Van Gerven and associates with the ample Nubian skeletal material (e.g., Van Gerven et al. 1979; Armelagos, Huss-Ashmore et al. 1982; Martin et al. 1984), and Buikstra, Cook and associates for midwestern (principally Illinois) prehistoric material (e.g., Buikstra 1976, 1979, 1981a; Cook 1979, 1981; Cook and Buikstra 1979). Current skeletal biology in the Southeast is unquestionably characterized by the adoption of the biocultural approach. The most extensive application of this paradigm has been at recently recovered sites where the dovetailing of archaeological and osteological goals is most manifest. These include examination of the St. Catherine's Island skeletal sample (e.g., Larsen 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984), Santa Catalina de Guale (Larsen 1990), the Averbuch site in the Nashville Basin (e.g., Guagliardo 1980; Berryman 1981; Jablonski 1981; Eisenberg 1986), and Toqua, a Dallas phase site in the Tellico Reservoir (e.g., Parham and Scott 1980; Parham 1982; M. Smith 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988; Richardson 1988; Langdon 1989). Although the site has received archaeological attention in the past, it has been the subject of more recent archaeological interest and a comprehensive biocultural evaluation by

< previous page

page_70

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_70.html[20/10/2010 11:27:16]

page_71

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

Powell (1986, 1988, 1991). Previous skeletal biology at Moundville, including work by Snow, has been rooted in the preceding paradigm (Bass 1956; Coleman 1965). The Etowah site report omitted osteological evaluation (Moorehead 1932), and the recent efforts of Blakely in examining the material have been decidedly biocultural in orientation (e.g., Blakely and Matthews 1975; Blakely 1980; Blakely and Beck 1981, 1984). Blakely included a demographic evaluation of the site in his edited volume Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, an early publication specifically focused on the new paradigm (1977). In recent years there has also been renewed interest in a number of the New Deal osteological collections such as Chiggerville, Kentucky (Sullivan 1977; Wyckoff 1977), and the various reservoirs in Tennessee and northern Alabama (e.g., Hutchinson 1979; Donisi 1982; Bridges 1985, 1989a, 1989b, 1991). Predictably, research interest in the Indian Knoll sample has been sustained since the adoption of the biocultural approach (Sundick 1972; Perzigian 1976; Ruff 1980; Tappen 1983; Finkenstaedt 1984). Although the focus of biocultural inquiry is analytical and not descriptive, the shift in research objectives has not been overlooked in the site report. The orientation of such final reports entitled: Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area (Caddell et al. 1981) and "Bioarchaeology of Two Late Woodland Sites . . . from the Tombigbee River MultiResource District, Mississippi" (Rose et al. 1980) is unmistakable. A topical review of some of the biocultural research demonstrates several things. First, the bulk of research activity in the Southeast was undertaken after 1970. Second, much of the original research is found in theses and dissertations, with a steadily increasing number of subsequent publications in refereed journals. And third, the pace of southeastern research is increasing. Biological Relationships. Multivariate morphometrics have been used in the biocultural paradigm to test biological relationships between skeletal samples. The use of the various statistical procedures increased dramatically in the 1970s, concomitant with the wider use of computers. By the end of the decade, due to overzealous application of some of the procedures (and often inappropriate use), there were critical objections to multivariate statistical analyses (e.g., Corruccini 1978; Cheverud et al. 1979). Also, although the biological basis of multivariate studies differs theoretically from typological studies, these have also been criticized as I.D.-and-sort approaches to skeletal biology (Armelagos, Carlson et al. 1982). More recently, however, judicious use and more sophisticated applications of multivariate procedures have redeemed the analytical tool (see Buikstra et al. 1990).

< previous page

page_71

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_71.html[20/10/2010 11:27:17]

page_72

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

Multivariate statistical analyses based on southeastern skeletal data have tested hypotheses based on typological assumptions, that is, that culture and biology are isomorphic and that culture change is attributable to population movement. Specifically, the cultural affinities of an eastern Tennessee phase (Mouse Creek) with a middle Tennessee (Middle Cumberland), rather than with an adjacent eastern Tennessee (Dallas) phase, suggested a westto-east population movement (Kneberg 1952). This hypothesis was initially tested with conflicting results (Berryman 1975, 1980; Boyd 1984, 1986). Nevertheless, more recently, using canonical discriminate analysis in conjunction with archaeological and ethnohistoric data, Boyd and Boyd (1991) align Dallas with Mouse Creek, citing concurrence with both the biological and cultural data. This association will shed light on hypothesized sociopolitical reorganization during the protohistoric period. The dovetailing here of biological, archaeological, and ethnohistorical data in anthropological problem solving highlights the integral role biological data now enjoy. Other studies using multivariate methods include testing the affinities of populations such as the Dallas phase with the subsequent Cherokee (Wright 1974), Archaic and Mississippian affinities in northern Alabama (Hutchinson 1979), affinities of the poorly preserved Copena material (Turner 1980), and overall Mississippian homogeneity (Wolf 1977). Demography. The second area of biocultural endeavor is paleodemography. Patterns of mortality distributions may reveal culturally meaningful results, such as gender differences or age-specific stress episodes (especially in subadults). Although the applicability of demographic techniques to skeletal samples has been questioned (Bocquet-Appel and Masset 1982; Buikstra and Konigsberg 1985), when judiciously applied paleodemography continues to be a most useful and informative tool. The earliest paleodemographic consideration in the Southeast is found in the Hiwassee Island report (Lewis and Kneberg 1946). In a rare discussion of subadults, Kneberg described the mortality patterns for the sample by subdividing the total sample into age cohorts and presenting the data in tabular form. Recent paleodemography benefits from more sophisticated analytic and interpretive frameworks, of course. The paleodemographical studies recently generated in the Southeast include Blakely's examination of Etowah (1977; Blakely and Beck 1981) and an earlier, more general examination of mortality profiles between the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian subsistence strategies (1971). Magennis (1977) contrasted the Middle and Late Archaic horizons of Eva, G. Funkhouser examined the King site in Georgia (1978), H. H. Wilson (1982) studied the McFaydon Burial Mound in North Carolina, and

< previous page

page_72

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_72.html[20/10/2010 11:27:17]

page_73

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

Mensforth (1990) examined Carlston Annis in Kentucky. Demographic assessments are also frequently included as basic data in more comprehensive studies of skeletal material (e.g., Joerschke 1983; Boyd 1986; Eisenberg 1986; Powell 1986). Nutrition and Pathology. In the new role that paleopathological examinations play in bioarchaeology, assessments are regarded as part of basic data collection and are less likely to be reports of frequencies or of individual idiosyncratic pathological conditions. The focus is on the cultural relevance of the pathology as indicative of social and/or subsistence circumstances. Studies that have focused on specific problems include topics such as trauma. For example, Lahren and Berryman (1984), in their evaluation of trauma at Chucalissa in western Tennessee, observe that high-status males exhibit the most fractures, particularly cranial and the presumptive defensive forearm ("parry") fractures. This differs from Powell's (1988) data from Moundville, but there may not necessarily be a congruence of status between the two samples. Donisi (1982) carefully examined fracture patterns between eastern and western samples (by gender, subsistence strategy) from the central Tennessee valley. While Stewart (1972) examined the frequency of forearm fractures among Tennessee Valley Archaic samples, a biocultural examination by M. Smith (1990) of samples from the same geographic area revealed subsistence strategy but no gender differences in forearm fractures between the Archaic and the Mississippian periods. Other pathologies that have merited specific publications include arthritis (Hudson et al. 1975; Rothschild et al. 1989), spondylolysis (Bridges 1989a, 1991), and spina bifida (Dickel and Doran 1989; M. Smith 1991). A frequent subject is dentition. Early papers on the Southeast include pathological analyses by Rabkin (1942, 1943) and by Mehta (1969). The most recent research, not unexpectedly, has often been oriented toward social and subsistence-related issues. For example, Guagliardo (1980, 1982) and Jablonski (1983) examined fluctuating dental asymmetry, and Jablonski (1983) examined microscopic enamel hypoplasias in order to document subsistencerelated evidence of stress. Their research suggested more stress among agriculturalists than in preceding subsistence strategies. There are many other foci such as periodontal disease, caries, and attrition that are being addressed bioculturally (Larsen 1980, 1981; Larsen et al. 1980; Hill-Clark 1981; M. Smith 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989; Blakely and Beck 1984; Islar et al. 1985; Iscan 1989). Owing primarily to the paucity of appropriate temporally displaced data, temporal change in tooth size has only sporadically been considered (Hinton et al. 1980; Smith et al. 1980; Larsen 1983c; Boyd 1988).

< previous page

page_73

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_73.html[20/10/2010 11:27:18]

page_74

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

Temporal change has been examined in long-bone structure. Larsen (1981a, 1981b; Ruff et al. 1984) noted a decrease in adult maximum femur length and an increase in sexual dimorphism with a transition to agriculture in the St. Catherine's Island sample. Bridges (1985, 1989b) documented an increase in cross-sectional femoral area (i.e., femoral strength) in material from the Pickwick basin, Alabama. However, Boyd and Boyd (1989) report no differences with the transition to agriculture, which they attribute to regional adaptive response. Evidence for Precolumbian trepanemal diseases has not been neglected in the Southeast (Robbins 1978; Eisenberg 1986; Powell 1988; Reichs 1989); indeed A. K. Bullen's (1972) examination of trepanemal disease in Florida has been regarded as exemplary osteological evaluation in that state (see Iscan and Miller-Shaivitz 1983). Mycobacterial disease (for example, tuberculosis) has been reported by Powell (1988) and Kelley and Eisenberg (1987). Because of a well-established association of cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis with anemia, these pathological conditions are frequently reported in southeastern literature (e.g., Phillips and Weaver 1979; Parham and Scott 1980; Rathbun et al. 1980; Hill-Clark 1981; Parham 1982; Owsley 1984; Eisenberg 1986; Richardson 1988; Langdon 1989). An important adjunct in paleodietary reconstruction are the strides made in trace element analysis (Price 1989). Because of methodological difficulties and the destructive nature of the analysis, trace element analysis has understandably been judiciously applied in the Southeast (Schoeninger and Peebles 1981; Buikstra et al. 1988; Iscan 1989; Myster 1989; Rathbun and Crist 1990). Biosocial Dimensions. An important consequence of the social extrapolations made from mortuary behavior is the indication of differential health conditions between low- and high-status individuals. The most frequently referenced example of status difference manifested in biology is Hatch's examination of stature and status in Dallas society (Hatch and Willey 1974; Hatch and Geidel 1983; Hatch et al. 1983). High-status individuals are taller, and presumably better nourished, than lowstatus individuals. This approach has been repeated for the site of Chucalissa in western Tennessee (Robinson 1976). Although Buikstra (1979) considered the biosocial dimensions of mortuary practice an independent research focus, more often than not, status differences are another variable in a more general study of paleopathology. For example, Langdon (1989) evaluated status differences in porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia in conjunction with cranial deformation and found, as one might expect, lower frequencies of both pathological conditions

< previous page

page_74

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_74.html[20/10/2010 11:27:18]

page_75

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

among high-status males. Interestingly, there was a higher frequency of cranial deformation among low-status males, suggesting that they were the offspring of low-status females who cradle-boarded their infants in order to continue to do work. In contrast, Blakely (1980) found no status difference for eight different skeletal pathologies at Etowah, which he interpreted as evidence of achieved, rather than ascribed status. Health and status differences were the principle focus of Powell's (1988) evaluation of Moundville. Summary The biocultural paradigm in the Southeast is thriving in the research objectives of the current generation of students and the few professional researchers whose research focus is in the Southeast. The ranks of bioarchaeologists (an appropriate title inspired by the current paradigm) who focus on the Southeast are predicted to grow slowly and steadily as students who currently focus in the area continue to do so as professionals. In spite of the rapid increase in analytical osteological research since 1970, and particularly after 1980, the current status is a small reflection of the potential for the Southeast. The large collections found in this ecologically, geographically, and culturally diverse area remain largely untapped. As the results of this initial flurry of research activity disseminate, the Southeast will acquire a higher profile as an area of focused osteological research. It is ironic that the development of a biologically and culturally more meaningful paradigm is concomitant with mounting fervor to rebury prehistoric skeletal samples. Much has been written on both sides of the repatriation issue (e.g., Buikstra 1981b; Buikstra and Gordon 1981; Cheek and Keel 1984; Anderson 1985; Riemschneider 1985; Ubelaker and Grant 1989), and it is inappropriate here to review the salient issues. However, some of the paradigms discussed in this retrospective directly affect the reburial issue. As the future of skeletal biology depends on a compromise between valuing skeletally derived information and a repugnance (on a variety of levels) to retain skeletal material for study, it is important to consider these paradigms. Two in particular that seem to have the greatest impact are the New Deal-era typological inquiry and the Enlightenment social philosophy, which affected the unity of man issue and the mound-builder question. Human skeletal remains, inextricably associated in our society with the grisly or the macabre, are more vulnerable to repatriation than projectile points or potsherds because a wide range of sensitivities (emo-

< previous page

page_75

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_75.html[20/10/2010 11:27:19]

page_76

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

tional, political, religious) overshadow the informative potential of the material. Nevertheless, this informative value of skeletal remains is undermined by the legacy of New Deal-era osteological reports. Because the skeletally derived information was viewed as peripherally important (that is, only meriting a descriptive appendix to site reports), there exists a willingness even among anthropologists to sacrifice the skeletal remains if the cultural remains (the source of archaeologically relevant data) are retained for study. If this present retrospective accomplishes little else, it should highlight the fact that since the publication of Morton's Crania Americana, the biocultural paradigm is the first biologically sound analytical approach to skeletal remains and is essential to anthropological problem solving. Unfortunately, its recent introduction (barely 16 years ago) has not completely overridden the stereotype of the previous role of skeletal studies. Therefore, protestations against repatriation that argue the essential value of skeletal material are often ignored on the basis of an outmoded understanding of the current techniques and goals of physical anthropology. In Crania Americana, although he attempted to prove craniometrically the biological unity of the Native American (past and present), Morton was unable to overcome the Enlightenment's "presocietal" stereotype of the American Indian. He subdivided the material into the "Toltecan" mound builder and the "Barbarous'' contemporary Indian. Although the biological unity of the American Indian and the credit for mound construction are no longer disputed, the underlying social philosophy that spawned these arguments is still firmly entrenched in contemporary society and greatly affects the way Native American prehistory is perceived and valued. The Enlightenment stereotype of the Native American as "presocietal" or "natural man'' is most vividly remembered as Rousseau's "noble savage." this image is currently thinly disguised in the New Age philosophy, which borrows heavily from Native American images, and the environmentalist movement, which employs the image of the Native American as living in harmony with and as the preserver of nature. The most vivid recent incarnation of the image of the noble savage is the 1990 movie Dances with Wolves and the popular revisionist book Conquest of Paradise (Sale 1990), which will undoubtedly further entrench the stereotype. This image is a convenient Eurocentric stereotype, for if Native Americans are part of the natural environment like the buffalo and Monument Valley rather than the architects of Moundville and members of complex stratified agricultural societies, then there is little prehistory to preserve. Repatriation then becomes synonymous with dismissal as well as placation, and the Native American stereotype of the "natural man" is preserved. Native American history then becomes de-

< previous page

page_76

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_76.html[20/10/2010 11:27:20]

page_77

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

fined by and restricted to Euroamerican culture, and the Native American's role remains entrenched as the romanticized victim of Western expansionism. The archetypal Native American "natural man" is the Indian of the northern Great Plains. This pervasive stereotype has intruded into the Southeast, where it becomes a second wave of cultural imperialism, and accoutrements more reminiscent of Sitting Bull than Sequoyah appear in greater frequency. Because of the time depth of European contact in the Southeast, history in the northern plains is already buried prehistory in the Southeast. If the integrity of the Southeast as a unique and complex culture area is to be maintained, then bioarchaeological inquiry is essential. We are entering an era of historical revisionism characterized by the buzzword "multiculturalism." This trend seeks to depart from the European male-dominated image of American culture and history in order to replace it with one more commensurate with the changing ethnic profile of the American people. If the Native American is to contribute more than the image of the displaced noble savage, then the focus in the Southeast must be an exploitation of all the relevant resources available to serve the collective interest of southeastern native populations. Otherwise, we simply enter a new age of unenlightened curiosity over the mound builders and derive our ethnography from revisionist cowboy movies.

< previous page

page_77

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_77.html[20/10/2010 11:27:20]

page_78

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

Chapter 5 Ethnohistory Patricia K. Galloway Archaeologists in the Southeast have long made use of ethnographic data from historical sources to establish the ethnic identities of the people who inhabited archaeological sites and to explain the fragmentary material evidence they left behind. Yet ethnohistorical evidence has rarely been fully exploited and has often been misused. Some of this difficulty has arisen from naïveté, both in historical method and in archaeologists' understanding of it. Some has come from general trends in American archaeological method and theory that have at different times denigrated either history as a discipline or the materials of history as evidence. Contempt for the discipline has often come from archaeologists' stumbling into the moribund normal science of an outworn historiography; contempt for historical evidence has come from a failure to understand the ways in which it can be validly used. Both attitudes have led to impoverishment of archaeological studies of late pre-history, either through not using historical sources at all (Trigger 1983) or through proceeding as though there were no special methods required in using them. But by far the biggest stumbling block to the effective use of ethnohistorical evidence by archaeologists in the Southeast was the introduction of that evidence into the discourse on southeastern ethnography by the ethnologist John R. Swanton in the first half of the twentieth century, rather than by a historian versed in rigorous historical method. The problem of arriving at some kind of coherent intellectual history of the use of ethnohistorical evidence in southeastern archaeology is very much in the same category with that of establishing a coherent prehis-

< previous page

page_78

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_78.html[20/10/2010 11:27:21]

page_79

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

toric cultural chronology for the region. Intellectual trends are just as erratic as trends in pottery decoration, with polygenesis often interpreted as diffusion and vice versa. We can define a crashingly significant scholarly event that affected everyone, like the radiocarbon revolution, but where scholarly discoveries are not so significant, tracing them and their influence is as inconclusive as attempting the microstylistic analysis of projectile points. The southeastern story is not quite the same as that of other areas of the country for the development of history or archaeology because it is replete with ideographic flotsam not only riding atop nomothetic currents but sometimes rechanneling them. To tell it in a reasonably unified way I have limited myself to the region defined by the union of the archaeological concept of the Lower Mississippi Valley and the historical concept of the Old Southwest: the Mississippi River valley from about the junction of the Mississippi and the Ohio southward, and eastward to include the Tombigbee-Alabama basin. The history of the use of ethnohistorical evidence in southeastern archaeology is a history affected by change in three areas: change in the lives of Indian peoples themselves; change in the academic view of history and what it is supposed to constitute; and change in the aims of archaeology. To provide a historical perspective on these developments, I examine tandem developments in the disciplines of history and archaeology and attempt to show how they interacted with one another and with the continuing history of southeastern Indian cultures themselves, which is still having a significant influence on the course of southeastern archaeology. Under the heading of history I include ethnography, because it used and produced historical materials; under that of archaeology I include the theoretical developments in anthropology that sometimes motivated archaeological use of historical data. I have also roughly periodized the discussion of ethnohistory's applicability to southeastern archaeology, focusing on developments both in the historical record itself and in methods of approaching it, and naming the periods with reference to the actual use of ethnohistorical materials by archaeologists. The first period, prehistory (14921800), is the time from first contact between Indian and European to the establishment of a single hegemony, that of the new American nation, over the Indians; this is the period during which the creation of ethnohistorical documents took place. The second period, from 1800 to 1920, is referred to as protohistory because it was dominated by the emergence of the historical and archaeological disciplines as academic pursuits. The third period, 19201960, is referred to as history because it constitutes the es-

< previous page

page_79

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_79.html[20/10/2010 11:27:21]

page_80

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

tablishment of the first versions of "normal science" in those two disciplines. Similarly, the last period, from 1960 to the present, is referred to as posthistory because of the challenges to culture history in the archaeological discipline and the challenges to political history in the historical discipline, both of which have had significant effects upon attitudes toward ethnohistory. Prehistory, 14921800 Late Prehistoric/Colonial Indians (Indians, 14921800) Native peoples of the Americas were caught in 1492 in the middle of their usual pursuits, and until they realized that European disease and European technology did not wish them well and had the power to wipe them from the face of the earth, theyor at least the powerful among them for whom anything other than continuance meant losscontinued their usual pursuits as long as they were able. This meant in practice longer in some places than in others, but clearly most North American natives had heard of the coming of an alien race by the early sixteenth century, and by the middle of that century most had been impinged upon in one way or another by it. Where actual conquest or disease or both had direct effects, radical changes took place as societies were unable to reproduce themselves; where rumor was all that reached them, rumor was often enough to hasten prior trajectories of change. What did not change, however, was the fact that no North American group had developed a written form of its language, so that none had preserved its history in written form. The special implications of this culture contact for archaeology were two. On the material side, new elements like epidemic disease and large, pitched battles with edged weapons introduced new site formation processes when their results strained the capacities of normal burial practices (M. T. Smith 1987). On the nonmaterial side, in the realm of feeling and belief and power and doctrine, ideological systems and individual preferences had to accommodate the strains of violent innovation or else collapse (Peebles 1986). In either case, the resulting changes were less difficult to study archaeologically, in spite of the fact that they could be responsible for all kinds of peculiar variation in the archaeological record. After the first shock of European contact, personal or microbial, an enduring response had to be forged. This response was not immediately forthcoming, for except where the conquerors found existing power structures useful, those whose business it was to conduct the business and maintain the traditions of the corporate group were in most cases

< previous page

page_80

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_80.html[20/10/2010 11:27:22]

page_81

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

dead, and the survivors made the best piecemeal adaptations they could manage (Dobyns 1983); and kept making them, as seemed best to them at the time, taking up, most significantly, a new set of usual pursuits. Creation of the Ethnohistorical Documents (History, 14921800) The only witnesses to these radical changes in native lifeways who were equipped to tell the tale in a way that is now accessible to us were the perpetrators themselves, the European conquerors and colonials. They saw what happened, and sometimes they wrote down what they understood of it. This historical evidence has the potential to explain at least some aspects of the nonmaterial components of culture change that so indelibly marked this most extraordinary of encounters. The materials of history have never been considered value-free by historians themselves, who since classical times have sought independent verification of oral or documentary evidence. To begin with, a fundamental distinction has been made between the historical document, which represents in material form the speech act of one or several individuals, and the history proper, which represents a conscious interpretation of one or more historical documents. This distinction, which few historians since about the seventeenth century have failed to make but which archaeologists have by and large ignored, is particularly important for the earliest period of contact between natives and Europeans in the Southeast. Because the standards of historiography in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were so much different from our own, the evidentiary values of histories and historical documents from that period are very different indeed. The documents of this first period are nevertheless of special interest to the archaeologist. Simply because it is the earliest period of contact it provides a good number of the historical documents and many of the histories that purport to describe the most dramatic native culture change. The documents from this period, it has been hoped, may offer a glimpse of native lifeways in a relatively pristine state, before European contact had a chance to work its acculturative effect on the details of native custom. To use colonial materials effectively, however, the historian undertakes specific kinds of preliminary study that the archaeologist ignores at his or her peril. To understand the document we have to understand its author, the milieu in which he wrote, his qualifications as an observer, and the purpose for which he wrote. We also have to understand why any given document and not another is what comes to us, inasmuch as it is certain that many millions of such documents have been lost. Finally, we have to evaluate the form in which it comes to usholograph or

< previous page

page_81

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_81.html[20/10/2010 11:27:22]

page_82

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

copyand its authenticity. Individual colonial documents mentioning Indians were mostly written in some sense as management documents, and are usually quite selective in the topics they cover. The documents of early contact in the Southeast are of two general kinds: extended individual narratives stemming from expeditions or captivities and the normal letters and reports made by individuals in the course of their duties connected with early exploration or settlement. The individual narrativesonly a few of which actually survive in their original formseldom constitute mundane reportage of daily fact, but are instead ripping yarns of continentspanning adventure, more epic than history, and probably seldom based upon notes taken at the time. The most significant of these for the history of Indians in the Southeast are the account of the Narváez expedition by Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (Cabeza de Vaca 1972); accounts of the Hernando de Soto expedition by Luis Hernandez de Biedma, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, an anonymous Portuguese, and Garcilaso de la Vega (Swanton 1939); accounts of the voyage of Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet (Shea 1852); narratives of the expedition of RenéRobert Cavelier de La Salle down the Mississippi by Father Zenobius Membré, Henri de Tonti, and Nicolas de la Salle (Galloway 1982); and accounts of the early explorations of the Lower Mississippi Valley by such observers as Henri Joutel, Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, André Penicaut, Louis Jucherau de Saint-Denis, and Jean-Baptiste Bénard de La Harpe (Giraud 1974). Letters and reports, on the other hand, although they are seldom as fruitful in ethnographic material as the narratives, were written generally at or close to the time of the events or observations in question and relied much less precariously on memory. Such documents are generally collected in the official archives of the colonizersthe Archivo de Indias at Seville, the Archives Nationales in Paris, and the Public Record Office in Londonor in such archives of the colonies themselves as remainthe Cabildo Records in New Orleans and the colonial records held by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. For the Old Southwest the activities that these records document are the missionization of the Indians in the Spanish province of Florida, the British trans-Appalachian Indian trade from South Carolina and Georgia, and the French administration of Louisiana. Early colonial period histories are colored by two basic assumptions: that conquest colonialism is at least to some degree right and justified, and that a history is meant to be edifying rather than absolutely true to the facts. In addition, the earliest historians of the region, Spaniards who reported the events and process of conquest, had to use as most of their

< previous page

page_82

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_82.html[20/10/2010 11:27:23]

page_83

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

source materials the individual narratives just described. It is little wonder that such histories have been influenced by the tone of their sources. For the later part of the colonial period, after the establishment of sustained contact, a large body of materials in three languages is extant. This is the period of actual colonization, when colonials establishing long-term relationships with American natives began to try consciously to change those natives' societies and lifeways for the benefit of the colony or of themselves. The documentary records of settlers, traders, and colonial officials thus record the progress of acculturation. Histories exist from this period also, but they tend to combine verifiable documentary materials and eyewitness observation by the historians themselves and are much more prosaic in character. The Humanity of Savages (Anthropology, 14921800) Interest in and description of alien peoples is as old in the Western tradition as the histories of Herodotus, who bequeathed the descriptive categories of marriage customs, religious practices, burial programs, clothing, dwelling, and eating habits, war-making capabilities, and language to a formal ethnology that did not develop until the eighteenth century (Hodgen 1964:23). At the time of the discovery of the New World, however, medieval legends of monsters populating unknown regions and sensational travelers' tales made it difficult for the ordinary person to recognize common humanity in New World natives, even if the merchants and missionaries of the period had made practical use of just that insight. But as contacts with non-Europeans increased, two themes entered contemporary discourse on the nature of mankind: one was the propriety of cross-cultural comparison of specific cultural traits; the other was the issue of monogenesis versus polygenesis, with all the implications it entailed. Herodotus's categorical descriptions found their truest heirs in the Renaissance fervor for collecting vast compendiums of facts. With some means of organizing those facts at a premium, the categories of cultural traitsreligion, marriage, death, costume, and so forthwere so adopted, and the inevitable result was not only comparison against the so-called norm of European culture, but intercultural comparison on the traits themselves. Here a sort of ethnographic present already held sway, since cultural traits were gathered for comparative purposes from classical and medieval sources as readily as from the latest history of the New World. The logical conclusion was the use of "savage" but contemporarily observable customs to throw light upon the cultures of European antiquity and barbarian Europe (see Lafitau 1724).

< previous page

page_83

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_83.html[20/10/2010 11:27:23]

page_84

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

Yet all these comparisons did not hide the fact that they implied the comparability of their data: that non-Europeans were human. They raised the question, however, of explaining the extraordinary range of differentiation that the data displayed. If the student accepted the scriptural assertion of a single creation, and most did, then cultural differentiation had to have a historical explanation, and Renaissance efforts to fit the peoples of Africa and the Americas into this scheme led to the intricate arguments, familiar from our eighteenth-century sources on southeastern Indians and bolstered by cross-cultural and cross-temporal comparisons, for the derivation of American natives from the lost tribes of Israel via migration from Asia (see Adair 1775). The further implication of diffusion of culture from a monogenetic source had buried in it a moral judgment of the "savage" cultures of Africa and the Americas that linked this diffusion with degeneration and moral decline. This belief had the convenient benefit of justifying the conquest and conversion of savages, but it was not the final word on their humanity. That issue was raised first by Spanish New World conquerors themselves in the person of Bartolomé de las Casas, whose arguments for the humanity, rationality, and rightful autonomy of Indians changed Spanish law and missionary practice, although it did not return conquered territory to its rightful rulers (Hanke 1949). Abetted by the strength of the golden age topos in the neoclassical literature of the Renaissance and by the tendency to equate savagery with classical simplicity, a positive image of American natives began to emergesometimes, it is true, echoing Tacitus's use of Germanic barbarism to critique contemporary society, but also reflecting the more pragmatic experience of colonial administrators who had to deal with Indian leaders on a sustained basis. The culmination of this strain was Rousseau's noble savage at the end of the eighteenth century: a savage all the more noble because of the pathos of his declining numbers, which by removing his threat and inconvenient prior occupancy allowed him to be fully subsumed in the nostalgic golden age topos. Protohistory, 18001920 Reduction to Museum Specimens (Indians, 18001920) From the time that the American Revolution was won and a single European entity took control of Indian policy, the fate of Indian peoples east of the Mississippi was decided. The original goal of assimilation was replaced by a policy of removal west of the Mississippi, but both goals, propped and buttressed by the efforts of rapacious factors and earnest

< previous page

page_84

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_84.html[20/10/2010 11:27:24]

page_85

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

missionaries, meant the extinction of Indian culture. Not all the southeastern Indians were removed, however, even after war was waged against some of them; nor were they assimilated. But daily contact with whitestheir debt peonage system, their religious teachings, their landholding conventions, and most seriously of all, their diseaseswore away at least the outward forms of Indian culture or forced its structures into new disguises. Indians still existed east of the Mississippi after the removals of the 1830s, all right, but where they remained legally, they were forced to take up individual land allotments or to lose their land entirely (Young 1962) and to live under American law without enjoying the dubious benefit of the American citizenship that their western relatives obtained in return for allotment (and the loss of good chunks of their land) under the Dawes Act of 1887. They survived in the Southeast as a sharecropping underclass forced into the interstices of both white society and of the land that whites now controlled (see, e.g., Peterson 1971), struggling to define themselves as other than black. The Indians of the Old Southwest, however, were mostly ignored by the government and thereby escaped its efforts to destroy Indian culture as they escaped the recognition that would have supplied some benefits; as Ernest Downs has observed, "the penalty for tribal alliances with a colonial government other than the one the United States had rebelled against was consignment to oblivion" (1979:73). Everywhere they continued to die from European disease and poor health care (apparently it was only west of the Mississippi that newly buried bodies were dug up by free-lance body snatchers to be studied by the likes of Louis Agassiz at Harvard, Franz Boas, and craniologist Samuel G. Morton of Philadelphia [Bieder 1986:6567, 92]); yet they awkwardly also seemed to begin to stage a population recovery toward the end of the period (Thornton 1987). As anthropology gained status as a discipline they submitted patiently and politely to having their skulls measured and their kinship terms elicited, but it was mostly the acculturated English speakers who served as informants (Spoehr 1947). Genocide by Any Other Name (History, 18001920) Most of the documentary materials for the early American period are government documents that belong, revealingly enough, to the records of the War Department. Government policy persistently sought to remove Indians living east of the Mississippi River and to settle themand manage them as wards of the stateon unfamiliar lands to the west of the river, which as everyone knows worked just fine until something desirable was discovered on those lands. Where Indians were given the opportunity to claim land and remain

< previous page

page_85

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_85.html[20/10/2010 11:27:24]

page_86

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

east of the river, bodies of land-claim data with associated kinship information began to accumulate. Names, settlement patterns, and demographic data are all still buried in these documents awaiting systematic examination by historians (Galloway and Kidwell 1988). In some ways, however, documents like these have remained invisible to historians and archaeologists just because they are unmediated by analysis. They are still data, not information. There had to be a bureaucracy to manage Indians both before and after removal, a web of Indian agents, factors, and other such officials. Whereas some of these people were truly reprehensible in character, others were not; whereas cavalry officers wrote hair-raising stories of Indian massacres, factors, teachers, and reservation agents gathered descriptions of lifeways and traditional tales, sharing the sad conviction that this was their last chance, as their charges were doomed to extinction. Thus were created a first generation of self-consciously ethnographic documents. Archaeologists have made some use of the records of early ethnographers, but here analysis has done more harm than good. Believing as they did that ''savage'' culture had undergone little change from its beginnings, these ethnographers invented an ethnographic present, constructing descriptions of past cultures from what they were able to understand of the memories and practices of living Indians. It was thought that basic traits of past cultures had survived in living memory, and that complete reconstructions could thus be achieved (Dunnell 1986:35). Men like Schoolcraft (1860) and Gatschet (1884, 1888) collected migration legends, details of material culture, kinship diagrams; they made dictionaries of native languages and collected contemporary artifacts for museums. But they saw Indians as people without history, so they did not collect any of that. Meanwhile American history emerged fully as a discipline in the United States after the Civil War; before the outcome of that upheaval proved to the new nation and the world that the United States was in fact a going concern, what passed for history first amounted to personal reminiscences by American Revolution participants and gatherings of old papers, then to the works of such romantic nationalist historians as Sparks and Bancroft, telling "the American people what they wanted to hear about their past" (Kraus 1953:108). Exploration and colonization by non-Anglo groups were either ignored or much slighted in these works, which viewed American history as the inevitable progress of Anglo-Saxons toward a pinnacle of liberty (Grob and Billias 1982:5). Alone during the late nineteenth century to treat the colonial history of the Old South-

< previous page

page_86

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_86.html[20/10/2010 11:27:25]

page_87

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

west in detail was the work of Charles Gayarré, whose serious history of French Louisiana (1903) depended heavily and accurately upon French documents then unavailable in the United States. Fortunately, historians between the 1780s and 1850s gathered and preserved papers relating to the early history of the colonies, forming the core of noted private collections, university libraries, and state and federal government archives. For our region, the exceptional Catholic historian John Gilmary Shea (1852, 1861) and the home-grown B. F. French (18461853) began their efforts to seek out, translate, and publish materials relevant to the French colonization of the Mississippi valley, while Buckingham Smith (1857) sought to collect and publish materials for Spanish colonial history. After the Civil War, with the spirit of nation building reaffirmed, histories began to appear to explain the inevitable teleology of the Manifest Destiny then playing itself out in search of its last frontier. Native Americans began the period bearing the character of murdering savages and ended it nearly invisible, painted on the backdrop against which the heroic American character came into its maturity. It is worth noting that by 1860 all the early histories of the Hernando de Soto expedition were in print in some form, and the documents relating to the earliest French efforts of La Salle and the Sieur d'Iberville had followed by 1888. In addition, large quantities of archival materials for French and Spanish colonial efforts had been copied for the Library of Congress or state archival bodies by 1920. In other words, nobody had the excuse that most of the important documents were not available, even if all of them were not. If archaeologists have failed to use the histories written during this period, they have not missed much, but unfortunately it is just these histories that seem to have given history as a discipline such a bad reputation among the more "scientific" social sciences. This is the period of Francis Parkman's forest romances of the struggle between England and France, representing the last gasp of the tradition of amateur historians; and Frederick Jackson Turner's theory of the nation-nurturing frontier, a first important advance by the new academic history influenced by Darwinian ideas. It is the period during which American historians sought self-consciously to claim for their country a unique historical trajectory to mark it as greater than Europe in spite of its extreme youth. But for all these historians, history emphatically began in 1492. Parkman's Indian "will not learn the arts of civilization, and he and his forest must perish together" (Kraus 1953:148); Turner's frontiersman "fits himself into the Indian clearings and follows the Indian trails'' (Turner 1961:39), but the Indian seems conveniently to have vanished, done away with

< previous page

page_87

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_87.html[20/10/2010 11:27:25]

page_88

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

through his greed for trade. The work of these writers, however, was a model of temperate balance compared to that of the more popular historians of the period, whose favorite phrase was "bloodthirsty savages." Ancient Peoples and Places (Archaeology, 18001920) Not that archaeology was doing much better during this same period. At the beginning of American archaeological investigations, of course, almost no use at all of historical documents was made, because the first American antiquarians considered that the greatest remaining monuments and ruins had nothing to do with the historic tribes in the first place. The exception to this situation, interestingly enough, belongs to the first years of the American period, when despite the assertions of southeastern natives that they were not the builders of the mounds seen everywhere, Thomas Jefferson investigated them anyway and concluded that they offered no evidence of having been made by anyone else (Jefferson 1788:103108). This enlightened attitude, however, was overshadowed by the endemic racism of the early antiquarians, who ascribed the major human constructions on the continent to a race of giant Moundbuilders, usually also assumed to be Caucasian. The Moundbuilder myth was overturned by the widespread activities of a group of scientific observers determined to record and otherwise investigate such prehistoric ruins as they could find. Mounds and other earthworks of southeastern river valleys were of particular interest, and the investigations by Cyrus Thomas for the Smithsonian, by Warren K. Moorehead for Phillips Academy, and by C. B. Moore for his own amusement conclusively established the native origins of such sites. The prevailing mode of investigation was inventory; in many ways it paralleled the efforts of contemporary nationalist historians as it sought to prove the new country as rich in antiquities as the Old World (Trigger 1980:663), and to fill the cases of museums to demonstrate the claim. Governed by Morgan's coarse evolutionary sequence from "savagery" to "barbarism" to "civilization," however, the archaeological investigators of this period provided no permanently useful analysis of their data, although their presentation of the data itself has seen much use. Among the inheritors of this tradition but much less careful in their publication and preservation of the materials they found were perhaps the most prolific data gatherers of the region, the members of the Alabama Anthropological Society. Between 1909 and 1937 these weekend collectors managed to pillage most of the major historic Upper Creek sites in the region of Montgomery of literally thousands of burials; only a few of their collections were donated to the Alabama Department of Archives and History (Sheldon 1974:1415). Drawing upon the romantic

< previous page

page_88

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_88.html[20/10/2010 11:27:26]

page_89

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

retelling of Alabama history by Albert Pickett, Peter Brannon identified the sites as dating to before 1700 simply because relatively few European artifacts were found and identified sites containing urn burials as those of Alabama Indians (Brannon 1938). Meanwhile in Mississippi the geologist Calvin Brown upheld the "cabinet of curiosities" tradition by publishing a summary of artifacts in major collections (1926), making almost no reference to actual ethnohistorical texts at all. History, 19201960 Struggle for Recognition (Indians, 19201960) For roughly the first half of the present century southeastern Indian people west of the Mississippi in Oklahoma and Texas were coerced toward assimilation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). East of the river they struggled on in the shadows resisting assimilation, keeping to themselves, keeping out of sight, andastonishinglykeeping their language and even deeply inscribed custom (Wolfe 1987:16). While their removed cousins profited briefly and often tragically from Oklahoma oil, the easterners kept sharecropping. They served in two wars; their languages, which had stubbornly refused to die in spite of being banned from their children's classrooms, became an asset to military command and control structures and they were rewarded with citizenship after serving in the first of these Great Wars. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934the so-called Indian New Dealbenefited reservation tribes that were allowed for the first time to organize themselves as tribes again, but there were very few of those in our area of interest, as the federal government was reluctant to recognize them. The Mississippi Band of Choctaws received an agency in 1918, but did not have a reservation until 1944; the Chitimachas of Louisiana were recognized in 1925. No sooner had Indian tribes once again become communal concerns, than the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, supposedly a means by which Indians could finally be properly compensated for claims against the government, ushered in a policy of termination that would relieve the government of its treaty responsibilities for good. To native people still resident in the Old Southwest, these policies all became active at once. Because many of the few tribes that became federally recognized had to struggle for so long to establish recognition, the positive aspects of the Indian New Deal were long past by the time they reached that goal; the Koasati were not recognized until 1971, the Tunica-Biloxi until 1981! Many tribal remnants in the region remain unrecognized today.

< previous page

page_89

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_89.html[20/10/2010 11:27:26]

page_90

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

To make their way into the future as sanely as possible, Indians were again called upon to be polite to anthropologists, who were considered the only expert witnesses as to where Indians had lived at the time their broken treaties were first made. This did have the advantage of enticing anthropologists to look at historical documents, but the Indian people who hired them were not yet ready to assert the validity of their traditional history. Great Red Men and Political History (History and Ethnography, 19201960) The efforts of Herbert Bolton, who as a student of Turner followed an interest in sectionalism to define the first southern frontier as the Spanish Borderlands (Bolton 1921), made a beginning at defining Spain's role in the colonization of North America and thus encouraged studies in the documentary materials relating to Spain in the Southeast (Scardaville 1985). But Bolton and his followers were still too interested in the great and noble deeds of Europeans to be particularly interested in Indians except as backdrop, although they were instrumental in assuring that the general public became more aware of the historic Spanish presence in the Southeast. For the Mississippi valley the same favor was done for the French colonial effort by the Jesuit scholar Jean Delanglez, who was likewise more interested in his European colonists than in the Indians they met. Nevertheless, Delanglez was unusual in this period and outstanding at any time for the extreme critical rigor with which he treated historical sources. Delanglez made special contributions to the study of southeastern cartography of the exploration period (1943, 1945), French Jesuit missionaries in colonial Louisiana (1935), and the explorations of La Salle (1938, 1939, 1940). Although Delanglez did not turn his hand specifically to ethnohistory, his work provided an indispensable groundwork for French colonial studies of the Mississippi valley. As British colonial historians also sought a more sophisticated analysis of the political forces that shaped the new country, a new interest in the cast of native thousands arose. Two exceptional historians, the first especially considered a maverick by his colleagues, paid special attention to the role of southeastern Indians in the protracted colonial struggle over the region by Spain, England, and France. Verner Crane's The Southern Frontier (1928) and John Alden's John Stuart and the Southern Colonial Frontier (1944) covered the colonial period and the Indian role in it exceptionally wellbut from the point of view of Eurocentric and even Anglocentric political history. For the first time vast numbers of the English colonial management documents were consulted, but the aim was

< previous page

page_90

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_90.html[20/10/2010 11:27:27]

page_91

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

simply to document events on the Indian side; neither historian was much concerned with Indian motives or with explaining Indian cultural development, and both made inaccurate generalizations based more on ethnographic stereotypes than on documented facts. Ample use of historical evidence from all three colonial powers was made by the major ethnographer of the southeastern Indians, John R. Swanton. Swanton's shadow over the field is gigantic; in nearly fifty years of work at the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE), Swanton wrote major monographs treating all of the southeastern tribes and all aspects of tribal life (e.g., Swanton 1911, 1922, 1931, 1939, 1946). His work so definitively created the field of southeastern ethnography and so indelibly manufactured descriptions of individual cultures that anyone writing about southeastern Indians today cannot proceed without taking account of Swanton's work. Swanton's intellectual background is significant to the mindset he brought to his work and the shape he gave it. His 1900 doctorate in linguistics was taken at Harvard, but his dissertation was supervised by Franz Boas, and clearly it was the Boasian ideal of particularlistic regional studies that influenced Swanton's work (see Hatch 1973; Berkhofer 1978). After joining the BAE in 1900, he carried out some fieldwork in Alaska and British Columbia but soon settled down to his work on the Southeast, carrying out fieldwork from 1907 to 1919 and again in 1929 (Sturtevant 1985). It was Swanton who, aided and abetted by European archival copying programs being carried out under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Institution, the Library of Congress, and several state archives, was the first ethnologist to quote from and make extensive use of European colonial documents. This was a great step in the right direction, but the ethnographic present, which the Boasian school of cultural anthropology had not discarded, continued to bias interpretations. Swanton, too, believed that native culture was basically atemporal, and his ethnographies reconstructed "aboriginal" cultural systems by juxtaposing details taken from living informants with tidbits extracted out of the context of documents of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. Thus because he found that the Houma Indians of 1907 did not behave like the Houma Indians of 1700, he declared the modern group not to be "real" Houma Indians entitled to Indian recognition by the governmenta status that continues to plague the tribe today (Stanton 1979:99100). In addition, because he did not travel abroad to consult archival sources and was thus at the mercy of the progress of ongoing archival copying programs and American library resources, Swanton did not have access to the complete range of documentary materials that later became available. Still, as we

< previous page

page_91

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_91.html[20/10/2010 11:27:28]

page_92

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

have noted, the major sources were in fact then available to him, although his choices were biased heavily in favor of printed sources. Finally, because the bulk of Swanton's accomplishment was completed before much new archaeological evidence was known or assimilated, he did not take account of it either. This was particularly damaging in the case of Swanton's report on behalf of the U.S. De Soto Commission, which he headed and which was charged to determine where de Soto had gone; although he carried out a painstaking effort to correlate topographic descriptions in the expedition accounts with actual topography, Swanton was satisfied with almost any evidence at all that indicated Indian occupation, whether it was four thousand years old or four hundred. Other ethnographers working in the region followed Swanton's lead, but as more began to be understood about the region's temporal sequence and as the fiction of the ethnographic present began to fall into disuse, younger researchers began to focus their use of historical documents on the reconstruction of cultures at specific historical moments for a very good reason: a more specific use of historical documents became a crucial issue as ethnographers were called to give expert testimony before the Indian Claims Commission in an attempt to establish specific historical claims to lands by specific tribes. Frank Speck's work was much in this vein (on the Powhatan/Rappahannock in 19191940, the Houma in 1943, and the Creeks in 19471949; see Williams 1979), and in several instances he contradicted Swanton's earlier judgments of lack of tribal integrity. Anthropologists Fred Eggan (1937) and Alexander Spoehr (1947) undertook to study in depth some of the areas that Swanton had adumbrated, like kinship, and were able to establish more widespread patterns than Swanton had seen. But although their work both exposed and began to cure some of Swanton's errors, they still aimed at reconstructing precontact cultural patterns on the basis of evidence from living informants, making less use of ethnohistorical evidence than Swanton had. Direct Historical Approach (Archaeology, 19201960) Historians of American archaeology have pointed to the first half of the twentieth century as a period during which archaeologists, as their discipline developed methods suitable for coping with conditions different from those in Europe, concentrated almost exclusively on the concerns of culture history: time/space systematics and the development of regional chronologies (Willey and Sabloff 1980; Dunnell 1986; Peebles 1990). An increasing pace of economic development in the first three decades saw larger numbers of sites being disturbed and investigated. The

< previous page

page_92

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_92.html[20/10/2010 11:27:28]

page_93

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

New Deal put hundreds of laborers to work on large-scale archaeological projects. In this way the existing archaeological database was dramatically increased. There was a need to explain all this new evidence, and many archaeologists began to be dissatisfied with the dry mechanics, the "timeless and spaceless categories" of the Midwestern Taxonomic Method (Steward 1942:339). In the Southeast, the work of John Swanton was particularly influential. He "had assembled documentary evidence on the location of many sites of historic tribes" (Steward 1942:338)never mind that the evidence dated from many different periods and was of quite variable value. As Steward points out, Henry B. Collins (1927b) and James Ford (1936b) were among the earliest to take that evidence and work with it, defining marker pottery types for many historic tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and the Old Southwest and then using this Direct Historical Approach to carry their classificatory sequences into the protohistoric and prehistoric past, thus connecting them at least to the fictional people described by ethnographic reconstructions. Moreover, the identification of archaeological complexes with historical people opened up the use of both contemporary ethnographic description and the ethnohistorical record to archaeologists for interpretive purposes. But while the major concern of practitioners of this approach remained the documentation and explanation of culture history and thus of culture change, there was still a degree of atemporality to actual practice, as archaeologists sought to construct ethnographic comparisons cross-temporally as they did cross-culturally. Part of this atemporality came from the famous "short chronology": until the radiocarbon revolution, archaeologists in the Southeast as well as everywhere else believed that the age of Indian occupation in the New World was to be counted in hundreds of years rather than in thousands. But a good chunk of this attitude may be ascribed to the venerable belief that "primitive" equaled "old," thus modern "primitive" lifeways bore a documentary value for prehistoric ''primitive" lifeways (Hodgen 1964:295353). The earliest and certainly the most persistent application of the Direct Historical Approach in the Southeast was made by the founders of the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS), which has dominated archaeological research in the Lower Mississippi Valley for almost all of the 50 years of its existence. The first hint of this bias, a natural one to its culture historical approach to chronology building, came in James Ford's publication in 1936 of his analysis of surface collections from Mississippi and Louisiana. In defining pottery complexes identified with the Choctaw, Natchez, Caddo, and Tunica Indians, Ford depended completely on Swanton's ethnographic work (1911, 1922, 1931) to reconstruct his own

< previous page

page_93

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_93.html[20/10/2010 11:27:29]

page_94

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

ethnographic present for the lower Mississippi region, dated around 1700. The first significant publication of the LMS group itselfPhilip Phillips, Ford, and James Griffinwas the 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 19401947, which has set the tone for the use of ethnohistorical data by archaeology in the region even to the present. In that book the collaboratorsFord attributed most of this segment of the work to Phillipsfirst defined the two contact periods, 15411543 and 16741690, now recognized as bracketing the protohistoric period. They then called upon the ethnohistorical data from both the early de Soto expedition and the later French expeditions of Marquette and Jolliet, La Salle, Joutel, and Tonti to elucidate the late prehistoric archaeology of the central part of the valley. The first part of the historical essay in Phillips, Ford, and Griffin (1951) addressed Swanton's reconstruction of the route of the de Soto expedition. Referring to the Direct Historical Approach as a "categorical imperative" (Phillips et al. 1951:347) and following methodologically in Swanton's footsteps with respect to the historical documents, they first produced an account of de Soto's route from Chicasa to Quigate that was "a rather free compilation of all four primary sources . . . carefully screened for exaggeration and sheer invention" (Phillips et al. 1951:349). They did not say how they carried out this screening or what were the principles by which the free compilation was made apart from a ranking of the sources, but for important points they did directly quote more than one of the sources. Then in reconstructing the route they went beyond what Swanton had been able to do by attempting to make historical source, topography, and archaeology coincide. They concluded that Swanton's reconstruction of 1939 was not supported by the crucial third ingredient of archaeological evidence, which they felt could now be addressed more systematically on the basis of their survey. But they also felt that their conclusion was not conclusive, because their survey had emphasized surface collections. Turning to the French period in the Mississippi valley, which they referred to (with great perspicacity) as "the really practicable contact period" for archaeological purposes in the region (Phillips et al. 1951:392), the collaborators were fortunately abandoned by Swanton, who had not concerned himself with creating a unified ethnography of the Quapaw, and instead they called upon the researches of the historian Jean Delanglez to guide them in the identification of sites found in the survey. Interestingly, they remarked at some length upon Delanglez's revelation of the danger of using historical maps as though they portrayed ground

< previous page

page_94

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_94.html[20/10/2010 11:27:29]

page_95

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

truth, but felt that Delanglez's researches were critical enough of the documents that they need have no such reservations about taking his interpretations as gospel (Phillips et al. 1951:392). They then offered their own effort at a sourcebook: a paraphrase and critique of the Dablon "Marquette"; a synoptic version of the La Salle expedition; an account of Tonti's establishment of a post in 1686; Joutel's account of the second expedition's trek through the region in 1687; Tonti's trip down the Mississippi in 1690; and the accounts of missionaries arriving in the region in 16981700. From these accounts they reconstructed village locations and population changes among the Quapaw during this beginning phase of French contact and attempted to correlate archaeological evidence to produce village locations for the 16821690 dateline. The use by Phillips, Ford, and Griffin of ethnohistorical data offered a model still being followed, as the authors attempted to work out a method for identifying sites by means of historical documents. But the conviction they shared with their contemporaries, that historical evidence requires no special expertise in handling and use, has also stood as a model, as they reinforced Swanton's practice of reconstructing a seamless account from diverse and often incommensurate sources. Several other related projects during the period shared this relatively uncritical use of historical evidence. French historical data was used rather after the fact in the case of the Bayou Goula site, which was chosen for investigation by the Louisiana Archaeological Survey on the basis of "ethno-historical documentation and archaeological prediction" (Quimby 1957:97) in an effort to discover what a historic period assemblage might look like in the southern part of the Mississippi valley. The historian Andrew Albrecht recommended a general area said to have been occupied by the Bayougoula, while the archaeologist Doran was sent there to look for a site combining French trade goods and Natchezan pottery (Albrecht 1941, 1944, 1946, 1948). Referring extensively to Swanton's compendium of data on the Bayougoula to interpret the materials found on the site, George Quimby concluded that the double-mound site had been occupied by the Bayougoula, Acolapissa, Houma, and possibly Chitimacha from about 1723 to 1739 but conceded that an earlier component dating to ca. 17001715 might be present on the site (1957:164165). But Quimby may have both expected too much of Albrecht's historical data and accordingly allowed his own data to be overdetermined. Recent revaluations of the evidence have suggested that the historic component of the site may not have been Indian at all, but the buildings of a French concession superimposed upon a prehistoric Natchezan component (Brown 1976; Giardino 1984).

< previous page

page_95

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_95.html[20/10/2010 11:27:30]

page_96

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

Ford made further use of the French colonial evidence for the Quapaw in his work on the Menard site, which he maintained was the Osotouy Quapaw village of the French documents (1961b). Ford drew naturally on the 1951 publication, and further referred in more detail to the Joutel account of La Salle's stragglers trailing through Tonti's Arkansas post to identify Menard rather than Wallace as the Osotouy village. Again, however, particular historical sources may have been allowed to focus the vision of the conclusion. Ford did not even consider the possibility that the locality represented pre-seventeenth-century settlement as well, although Swanton had argued that it should have been the site of the de Soto-period protohistoric settlement of Quigate (1939), and more recent work, while not agreeing with Swanton on the identification of such settlement (now thought to be Anilco), also considers it a protohistoric settlement location (Hudson 1985:78). Furthermore, recent archaeological investigations suggest the widespread presence of late prehistoric materials throughout the locality. Finally, although there is a very late aboriginal component on the Menard site, there were no European-style structures and few European artifacts on the site; Ford depended on his own identification of the geomorphology described in the Joutel account rather than on solid archaeological evidence of the French presence to identify the site as Osotouy and therefore as Quapaw (Jeter et al. 1990). Robert Stuart Neitzel (1965) followed the guidance of Swanton, Albrecht, Ford, and Quimby in delving deeply into the French colonial documentary record to understand the evidence he both inherited from earlier excavators and obtained himself in reexcavating the Fatherland site, which he identified as the Grand Village of the Natchez Indians. Neitzel went beyond this identification to suggest the identity of the burials that Moreau Chambers had found in one of the mounds and to allocate the mounds themselves to temple and chief's house. In additional excavations some years later, Neitzel even discovered the French siege trench that had been dug after the Natchez revolt in 1729 (1983). As has been recently suggested by James Brown, however, Neitzel's familiarity with the French sources may have hampered rather than assisted his interpretation of the archaeological evidence (Brown 1990). All of these efforts of the LMS and its allies are classic culture historical work, concerned with identifying specific historical moments for the purpose of elucidating the cultures that expressed them. Perhaps the summa of the method appeared in 1958 with Willey and Phillips's Method and Theory in American Archaeology, where the clearest statement of all of the relevance of history to culture historical archaeology may be

< previous page

page_96

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_96.html[20/10/2010 11:27:30]

page_97

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

found. For Willey and Phillips, American archaeology's ''service to history in the narrower sense, i.e., as the record of events in the past with the interest centered on those events, is extremely limited, because for pre-Columbian America there is in effect no such history" (1958:1). Thus although Willey and Phillips and presumably the other members of the culture historical school freely used the term historical to describe their own efforts at establishing specific applications of generic evolutionary cultural stages, clearly their model of history was based upon the narrative presentation of data from detailed written records of events constituting the political history of hegemonic elitesthe same kind of history already by then being rejected by European historians, who were developing a new approach much closer to the notion of cultural history than Willey and Phillips actually got. This notion of history may be what blighted the use of ethnohistorical materials by the researchers of the LMS, since it implied an ethnocentric, unexamined use of those materials without correcting for European bias or indeed for the genres of European writing. One fortunate exception to this stricture was the work of Chambers, Spaulding, and Jennings on the sites of the eighteenth-century Chickasaws in northeast Mississippi, much of it carried out in advance of the development of the Natchez Trace Parkway. Chambers himself worked with the benefit of new translations of the relevant French documents then being prepared under the aegis of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, his employer (e.g., Rowland and Sanders 1927). Spaulding and Jennings drew on that material, amplified by the researches of the fine Natchez Trace historian Dawson Phelps. None of these researchers had to solve the problem of ethnicity; the residence of Chickasaws in the Tupelo region in the eighteenth century was amply demonstrated by excellent French maps, and limited concentrations of Fatherland Incised pottery, like nothing else in the area, attested plainly the well-documented temporary presence of Natchez refugees. Such problems of interpretation as might have arisen never came to light because the excavations received only superficial reporting (and still remain locked in undigested field notes; Jennings's 1941 summary only skims the surface of these notes). Thus to the extent that the culture historical interpretations I have discussed drew upon Delanglez and directly upon unambiguously authentic primary historical sources they were successful in making a lasting contribution. It is significant, however, that all of those that depended importantly on Swanton's biased selection of passages, without going behind it to examine the documents critically, have undergone

< previous page

page_97

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_97.html[20/10/2010 11:27:31]

page_98

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

revision as the sources themselves have been more closely examined. Swanton's work has thus been of unquestionable use as a pointer to the existence of ethnohistorical materials, but it has been a fallible guide to them because of the impression of authoritativeness that it conveys. Posthistory, 1960Present New Age Indians (Indians, 1960Present) Meanwhile, those ever-dependable bearers of native culture began, some time when their fans were not looking, to do things with that culture that made scholars who had built careers on it very uncomfortable. Under the stresses of the termination threat, and with a new-found knowledge of lawyers and the effectiveness of legal coercion learned from the Indian Claims Commission episode, Indians followed the example of other minorities and became militant (Deloria 1969). Although they had repeatedly failed to do so when first confronted by Europeans, they finally decided to recognize the commonality of their concerns and attempted to unite against their common foe. Political unity led to a measure of cultural unity as a spirit of pan-Indianism led to the adoption of Plains dances by many younger Indian males and the southwestern peyote cult by the American Indian Church. Anthropologists were appalled at this sullying of cultural purity. Anthropologists were even more appalled as Indians ceased to be so polite to them and began to assert that they themselves might be competent experts on their own cultures and the directions they ought to take. This was especially hard on physical anthropologists and archaeologists, who were not prepared for the subjects of their studies to demand that their dead be treated according to the laws that applied to everyone else. The resulting confrontations have had the effect of creating a subtext in anthropological discourse in which echoes of "good Indian" and "bad Indian" can almost be heard, with the growing unanimity of Indian opinion on this subject moving the valuation of "good" mostly to the side of the dead Indians. With the reburial issue Indians have come at last to demand that they and their ancestors be seen as individuals, not as anonymous examples of culture bearers. They assert thus that they belong to the particularity of one kind of history, not to the nomothetic anthropology of "law-like generalizations." Trigger (1983) has argued that this attitude will and should continue to prevail as long as archaeologists do not see part of their work as the reconstruction of the history of the people they study,

< previous page

page_98

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_98.html[20/10/2010 11:27:31]

page_99

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

a history that those people can thus reclaim. This compelling moral stance on the part of Native Americans may have enough effect on official policy that archaeologists will be forced to face history and even their own place in it (see Holder 1986). Social History Finds the People Without It (History and Ethnohistory, 1960Present) The paradigm shift from the narrative sweep of political history to the analytic focus of social history occurred in the United States, not surprisingly, in the 1960s and 1970s. It occurred under the influence of the introduction first of the work of the French Annales historians, who in the 1940s had developed their concern with the details of daily life as a key to large and hidden historical trends (Burke 1990), and second of the use of computers to reduce the unmanageable data of censuses and other such large bodies of material to statistical trends. The interesting thing about this development in history was that the kinds of evidence it sought were not very different from the kinds of evidence archaeologists found in the ground: in both cases the evidence was left behind unintentionally and only made sense when seen in aggregate, so that patterns could emerge. It was the kind of history that could be seen by no contemporary or near-contemporary observer, because its scale was too large for any one participant observer to grasp. The social history paradigm did not take over the bastion of colonial period American history easily, nor did the well-entrenched practitioners there deign to pay much attention to the non-Anglo colonial history that had touched so many more Native Americans during the early contact period so important to establishing the protohistoricprehistoric connection. Ethnohistory as a self-conscious discipline emerged, therefore, first from the ranks of anthropologists, as people who had earlier called themselves ethnographers began to attain a diachronic perspective when the demands of the Indian Claims Commission cases began to call into question the Boasian ethnographic present. Accordingly, the view they took of their evidence began to expand: "Historical documents cannot be taken at face value nor used as an historian might. They must be analyzed in terms of cultural dynamics and in categories of modern ethnographic field investigation" (Euler 1972:202). The American Indian Ethnohistoric Conference, with its journal Ethnohistory, was founded in 1954 to bring such researchers together; in 1966 this group became the American Society for Ethnohistory. As the specialization began to define itself, it took advantage of the methodological work of Africanists on oral sources (Vansina 1965) and of the increasingly detailed findings of ar-

< previous page

page_99

next page >

file:///C|/...s/Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_99.html[20/10/2010 11:27:32]

page_100

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

chaeologists. Most important, under the umbrella of ethnohistory, researchers with anthropological and historical backgrounds began to talk to one another and share methods and techniques, so that today ethnohistory is seen as a hybrid approach to human history that makes use of historical method and cultural anthropological theory (Axtell 1978:114). A further influence in the development of modern ethnohistory has been the neo-Marxist focus on world economic history seen as the development of expansionist capitalism, specifically led by Immanuel Wallerstein's worldsystem model (Wallerstein 1974) and anthropologist Eric Wolf's development of its viewpoint to address specifically the history of culture contact and culture change worldwide (Wolf 1982). Parallel work with a world perspective by historians of epidemiology and demography like MacNeill (1977) and Crosby (1986) has brought additional perspectives to bear on the history of Native Americans both before and after contact. Historians, in other words, have increasingly made use of traditional anthropological data, including the archaeological. The ethnohistorical bookshelf for the southeastern region being considered here has accordingly become much enriched of late years, although in many general studies it continues to be seen as a marginal region on the fringe of the main story (a problem that continues to arise because of the Anglocentric focus of historians and university history departments). The most controversial of these new studies, Dobyns's historical demography of the contact period Southeast (Dobyns 1983), draws upon predominantly Spanish historical materials and such archaeological evidence as is available. Daniel Usner's study of the Indians of Louisiana (Usner 1992), focusing upon the European-Indian frontier interface, and Michael Foret's extension of Crane's Southern Frontier story to the end of the French colonial period (Foret' 1990) both draw heavily upon the French documentary evidence to establish the history of European-Indian interaction in the Old Southwest region. The region appears more marginal from the viewpoint of James Axtell's recent work (1988), based as it is in the traditional colonial history of the Atlantic littoral, but in future volumes even Axtell intends to give closer attention to the Mississippi valley. John Hann's new book on the Apalachee (1988) brings the rich Spanish documentary record of the seventeenth century to bear on his subject, and manages to cast a few glances westward. Perhaps the most innovative and truly ethnohistorical recent work referring to the region, however, has been written from a well-integrated historical/anthropological viewpoint: Richard White's The Roots of Dependency, which treats historic culture change among the colonial period Choctaws from the perspective of dependency theory developed from

< previous page

page_100

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_100.html[20/10/2010 11:27:32]

page_101

< previous page

page_101

next page > Page 101

Wallerstein's world-system approach, combined with a strong element of environmental history (White 1981, 1990). Richard White's work partakes also of the latest trend in historiography, which takes its cue from the techniques of close reading and linguistic analysis of texts developed first by structuralists, then by deconstructionists, and lately by reader-response and reception theorists. This movement, which tends toward detailed critiques of historical sources as texts, has not yet had a serious impact in American historical circles, although Hayden White's historiographical criticism (e.g., 1987) is beginning to be taken seriously by colonial historians. But Hayden White's work demonstrates that its impact upon "ethnohistorical" archaeology can be profound, since it offers for the first time tools for dealing explicitly with the ethnocentrism and intertextuality of the historical sources. New versus Postmodern (Archaeology, 1960Present) The cataclysm of the new archaeology burst upon the old culture historians in 1962 with Binford's classic paper, and the movement to eject culture history begar by branding it as "ideographic," particularist, and contingent. The new archaeology, like everything else in the sixties, shouted the relevance of its efforts but betrayed a naïve confidence in an almost quaint neo-Newtonian natural law that historians had abandoned by the end of the eighteenth century. It proclaimed itself a "nomothetic" science that would retrieve "law-like generalizations" from the patterns of findings in the earth and thereby make scientific progress in the study of humanity. Henceforth archaeologists would hypothesize and test and hypothesize again. The new archaeology not only had some unanswerable objections to the old; it also brought with it some new approaches to the analysis of sites and groups of sites. Best of all, its results were measurable, and soon it had not only become the dominant paradigm in the field, but with the rise of large federal programs of cultural resource management, its use became a virtual condition of funding for archaeological programs across the country. It ran directly counter to the Southeast's strong culture historical tradition in archaeology, but federal requirements became inarguable as funding for academic programs in archaeology dwindled. For this reason the most extended southeastern regional example of the treatment given to ethnohistorical data by the new archaeology can be found in a sort of lumpen-new archaeological work carried out under contract to the federal government on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Spending most of their time both keeping to excavation schedules and just dealing with massive accumulations of data, archaeologists adopted little theory from the new

< previous page

page_101

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_101.html[20/10/2010 11:27:33]

page_102

< previous page

page_102

next page > Page 102

archaeology, but much method. Unfortunately, part of that theory included an aversion to history and historical data and a preference for prehistoric periods. Although ethnohistory clearly also reflected such trends as cultural relativism and quantitative approaches and thus had to be included to complete the archaeological picture (although one wonders to what extent this was because of popular demand), it was stuck rather ungracefully onto the end of chronological sequences (see Lankford 1983) specifically to hang names on cultures; there was even comparatively little interest in using ethnographic analogy for interpretation, probably because there was so little time for interpretation anyway. Meanwhile, careful application to archaeological research design and excavation analysis of anthropological and ecological theories began to be made, mostly by carpetbaggers from midwestern universities. Thus several archaeologists analyzed old data and produced new data in aid of the exploration of hypotheses derived fromwait for itethnographic reconstructions that were based in turn upon ethnohistorical evidence. Alas, the evidence was being seen at two removes, usually through the optic of Swantonian time compression, and sometimes even good archaeological evidence was ignored. In this way James Brown turned to Du Pratz as seen by Swanton to reconstruct and then analyze structurally the mortuary practices of the Natchez (Brown 1971), ignoring the historical source's emphatic mention of a range of variability not then (or since) represented in existing archaeological evidence. In some ways Brown's approach was anomalous (incorporating as it did the suspect theories of French structuralism), but it has had greater influence as Brown has extended his symbolic/structuralist researches into the iconography of Mississippian political systems. The Mississippian period has also been of interest to C. S. Peebles, who wrote his dissertation on Moundville, and his research group, who have combined Binfordian hypothesis testing with hypotheses from cultural anthropology. Their use of ethnohistorical data has been sparing, and because it has focused more upon the French evidence has not been as susceptible to condemnation for lack of source criticism. In fact, Peebles's group, by establishing the date of the decline of Moundville as a multilevel chiefdom before the Spanish entradas in the sixteenth century (Peebles 1987), has managed to avoid the entire ethnohistorical problem quite neatly, using ethnohistorical evidence rather for ethnographic parallels and theory building than for any sort of Direct Historical application. The LMS, meanwhile, remained pretty much unreconstructed, and the culture historical paradigm continued to have solid adherence among archaeologists working in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Willey and

< previous page

page_102

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_102.html[20/10/2010 11:27:33]

page_103

< previous page

page_103

next page > Page 103

Phillips's Method and Theory was still being reprinted as late as 1970). Depending mostly on private funding or money from entities such as the National Geographic Society that were answerable only to popular interest, its work continued to make strong use of ethnohistorical data. A 1974 article by Jeffrey Brain, Alan Toth, and Antonio Rodriguez-Buckingham asserted this commitment by detailing the role of ethnohistorical data in an ''ethnohistoric [sic] archaeology." Brain and his co-workers to define the task of the archaeology of aboriginal cultures during the historic period as of necessity a multidisciplinary pursuit, combining archaeology, historiography, and ethnography in apparently equal parts; yet there seemed to be a good deal of confusion in their definition, since the ethnographic data to be used were clearly to be taken from historical documents and were simply to be interpreted ethnologically (or anthropologically). The concept was not fully expounded theoretically in this paper. Rather, it was exemplified by a case study, that of the entrada of Hernando de Soto and its implications for solving the problem of which archaeological cultures corresponded to the Quizquiz, Aquizo, and Casqui provinces observed by de Soto's chroniclers. Referring to the expedition as "exceptionally well documented" by four narratives that were "remarkably detailed," Brain, Toth, and Rodriguez-Buckingham immediately pointed to the necessity for dealing with contradictions in the evidence: "These discrepancies, and the equally serious reverse situation of omission, are common problems of historiography, but in this case they may be resolvable by the rigid application of certain criteria to the interpretation and evaluation of the records (historiography), counterbalanced by ethnographic and archaeological data" (1974:234). To give them due credit, the authors attempted the most rigorous look at the documentary sources for the de Soto expedition yet (and even yet) carried out, setting up a dichotomy of statistical and descriptive data to be found in the accounts and paying attention to the circumstances of their composition in deciding on the reliability of these data. But while setting forth serious standards for the judgment of the sources, they applied them without uniformity: Thus they had to doubt Elvas for descriptive and statistical evidence because though an eyewitness his identity was unknown; Biedma was an eye-witness but his account was too brief to be strong evidence for anything; Ranjel's statistical data should have been good, but his descriptive data were doubtful because the data were filtered through Fernández de Oviedo's narration and thus possibly warped by the latter's personal experiences as a conquistador; Garcilaso's statistical data were confused because his several eyewitnesses contradicted one another, but his de-

< previous page

page_103

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_103.html[20/10/2010 11:27:34]

page_104

< previous page

page_104

next page > Page 104

scriptive data were excellent because "mental pictures of specific events are not easily forgotten or contradicted" (1974:242). Hence they would use Ranjel for statistical data, Garcilaso for descriptive data, and Biedma and Elvas as corroboration to both. This judgment represented an interesting rehabilitation of Garcilaso, whose work had been substantially discarded by Swanton, and an inconsistent one as well, because surely Garcilaso's rearing as an Inca princess's son in Peru must have created at least as much likelihood that he was reconceiving the descriptive data to fit his own experiences as that Fernández de Oviedo was! In proceeding to examine the competing hypotheses for de Soto's crossing of the river, the authors first subjected them to a test against known archaeological evidence, with objections found to each one. They then proceeded with what was ostensibly a close reading of the evidence according to principles already established. Yet these principles were repeatedly laid aside when the "approved" text for one kind of evidence contradicted the archaeology. Ultimately the authors simply concocted a composite version of the itinerary using a method that differed little from the one Swanton had used, apart from the far more vigorous application of archaeological data. In fact, it can be said with justice that this study was more notable for its use of archaeological evidence to correct the historical picture than the reversebut then Willey and Phillips had already said that aboriginal tribes had no history that could help archaeology anyway. The regionwide project led by anthropologist Charles Hudson to reconstruct the whole of de Soto's route through the Southeast has focused on both documentary and archaeological evidence from the beginning. Born in a graduate seminar, the project has grown to encompass the advice of archaeologists of many persuasions across the Southeast and to influence the expenditure of significant enough funds to lead to a good deal of acrimony as well. This is clearly an effort that has considerable spiritual affinity with the culture historical approach, and in fact for the region that was treated by Phillips, Ford, and Griffin there is much agreement with them in the actual reconstruction of the route. What is not ostensibly the same is the approach being taken to the documents. Hudson has made strong claims for the influence on his use of the documents of the theories and methods of the Annales school of historiography, especially the work of Fernand Braudel. Yet although the ultimate aim of the project is to use archaeological and historical evidence to reconstruct the long-term rhythms of culture change in the region as Braudel sought to reconstruct the longue durée for the Mediterranean region of the same period, the actual use of documents by Hudson and his colleagues to reconstruct the route differs very little from Phillips,

< previous page

page_104

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_104.html[20/10/2010 11:27:34]

page_105

< previous page

page_105

next page > Page 105

Ford, and Griffin's and even Swanton's approach (but very much from what an Annales historian would do): The various accounts of the expedition are drawn from with about as much method and discipline as Brain, Toth, and Rodriguez-Buckingham demonstrated in their more limited effort, to arrive at a composite narrative against which the archaeological evidence can be tested (Hudson 1987:1). Hudson has attached a great deal of significance to the reconstruction of the whole of the route and has made use of the accounts of other expeditions into the fringes of the area de Soto traversed to anchor different points of it; yet with the exception of the account of the supplementary Pardo route, whose translation and annotation he commissioned (Hudson 1990), Hudson and his colleagues have been as little concerned with the lack of historical criticism of the expedition accounts as everyone else. Nor has the project accorded any importance to a thorough knowledge of all the evidence by any single archaeologist; instead, it has drawn upon the expertise of individual regional specialists, depending upon Hudson's anthropological expertise to tie the whole construction together. The result has been an interesting set of internecine professional squabbles, none of them based upon detailed critical rereading of the ethnohistorical evidence itself and some of them based upon very odd misreadings not only of the historical documents but of the archaeological evidence as well (compare Hudson, Smith, and DePratter 1990; Johnson and Lehmann 1990). Clearly, however, this particular effort, combined with the competing but more focused research of the LMSrelated group in the Mississippi valley, has drawn new attention to the use of historical evidence in general and to the problems it can raise in particular. Jeffrey Brain's own work, in which the de Soto route problem stands simply as one of a series of research questions, commenced with the excavation of the Winterville site in 1969 but went on to investigate a string of Tunica and other historic sites on the lower Yazoo, the extraordinary loot from Tunica burials uncovered by a treasure hunter (Brain 1979), and the actual burial ground from which those burials were taken (Brain 1988). It marked a long-term commitment to the reconstruction of the protohistoric-colonial history of the Tunica people; Brain has even taken the unusual step of writing a popular account of his researches for the benefit of the tribe. Work he was associated with, like Brown's (1985) and Steponaitis's (1974) investigations in the Natchez region, added additional dimension to the Tunica project. Both Brain and Brown have spent considerable energy and effort in the examination of the eighteenth-century French colonial documents in order to seek a deeper understanding of culture change; Brown has even accumulated experience in using French documents to interpret French colonial sites, an experi-

< previous page

page_105

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_105.html[20/10/2010 11:27:35]

page_106

< previous page

page_106

next page > Page 106

ence that offered sober lessons in the limitations of the documentary record (Brown 1979b). Brown made a serious attempt to solve the problem of the mixed ethnicity of eighteenth-century Natchez populations, using the suggestive evidence of the rich documentary record for the Natchez to construct hypotheses for testing (Brown 1985:210); what he found was that the evidence in the ground did confirm the suggestions of the documentary record to some degree, but it was inevitably more ambivalent than a historian would prefer that it be (1985:195196). On the western side of the Mississippi, expanding on Ford's work discussed previously, ethnohistorical documents are material to several important problems of ethnic identification: Quapaws, Tunicans, Koroas, and Caddos. Perhaps the most hotly contested problem is that of Quapaw origins (see Hoffman 1986, 1990), because there is a very positive native tradition about a relatively late prehistoric arrival in the Arkansas River region that does not square with the clear continuity of ceramics in the archaeological phases of that same region. European documentary evidence cannot solve this problem, because the earlier (de Soto) accounts probably do not use a similar ethnic name and the identification of specific archaeological phases with the peoples portrayed in the accounts is problematic, while the later French accounts from Marquette and Jolliet and Joutel present a rather confused picture of the distribution of settlement sites that also does not square with the archaeological evidence. In spite of extended work to resolve this so-called Quapaw Paradox, the use made of the historical evidence has failed to reveal the fact that the Spanish and French sources are fundamentally different in kind and cannot be expected to yield commensurate results. Another example of problems of ethnic identity being tackled west of the Mississippi lies in Jeter's work with the archaeological Tillar phase and his attempts to identify that phase with Tunican groups on the basis of archaeological similarities and documentary suggestions (Jeter 1986). Again the nearly legendary quality of the Spanish accounts contrasts starkly with the more immediate French ones, making identifications of northwest Mississippi/northeast Arkansas locations for Tunican peoples at a 1540 dateline much more conjectural than southeast Arkansas and northeast Louisiana locations for them at a 1670 dateline. Kidder's related work on the Koroas calls the historical evidence for those people's location "so vague as to be useless" (Kidder 1988:1), and makes use of it rather for the establishment of suggestions as to the Koroas' ethnography and relationships with other peoples of the lower Mississippi region than for specific locational suggestions. All of this work tends to use archaeology to amplify the historical record rather than the reverse, and none

< previous page

page_106

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_106.html[20/10/2010 11:27:35]

page_107

< previous page

page_107

next page > Page 107

of it is able to establish any but a very few locations with absolute certainty. Finally, George Sabo's efforts to go beyond ethnic identification to ethnographic interpretation with the aid of ethnohistorical data should be mentioned here, because it introduces the use by an archaeologist of the methods of critical close reading now receiving so much attention in historical circles. One crucial aspect of Sabo's work is that it concentrates on the fully historic period, when site identifications are certain and the relationships between the material evidence of archaeology and the written record are far less tenuous than is the case with the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century identifications. Sabo has also concentrated on specific, detailed documentary descriptions of individual events in an attempt to elucidate, through close reading of the historical documents amplified by the corroboration of archaeological evidence, the public behaviors of Indian groups and their sociopolitical implications (Sabo 1987, 1988a, 1988b). Postscript We have seen that as the continuing history of American Indians became enmeshed in the history of a past being constructed for them by historians and archaeologists of the Southeast, many kinds of stakes began to have serious value. One trend that may bode ill for the use of ethnohistorical data to establish prehistoric-historic cultural continuity and to enrich archaeological evidence is the understandable and perhaps quite unconscious tendency for archaeologists to protect access to the database on which their professional future depends by looking instead for the temporal or cultural discontinuity that would remove skeletal material and accompanying cultural materials from the claims of historic tribal groups. In this way archaeologists may be able to avoid dealing directly with such concerns for a time and continue undisturbed in their study of the remains of native peoples. Very recent studies, however, including not only the mitochondrial DNA studies of rarely preserved soft tissues in archaeological deposits but also the more recent discovery that DNA may be recoverable from skeletal materials, may soon make that obfuscation moot. In the meantime, however, as Native American groups take to picketing archaeological excavations, we are likely to see an increasing reticence about ethnic identifications on the part of archaeologists and even an increasing avoidance of historic Indian archaeology by non-Indian archaeologists. At the same time, there seems to be a movement afoot on the part of the federal preservation establishment to create preservation entities

< previous page

page_107

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_107.html[20/10/2010 11:27:36]

page_108

< previous page

page_108

next page > Page 108

among Indian tribes; clearly the ideal would be something on the order of a hybrid of the Navajo Nation Archaeological Department and the state historic preservation offices, to oversee the archaeology of reservation lands and to influence the practice of archaeology in the region once arguably covered by tribal lands. What use of ethnohistorical sources may be made by native archaeologists remains to be seen, but at the very least preservation efforts will probably lead to the collection and preservation of the rich oral traditional material that still remains unknown to outsiders.

< previous page

page_108

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_108.html[20/10/2010 11:27:37]

page_109

< previous page

page_109

next page > Page 109

Chapter 6 Zooarchaeology Elizabeth J. Reitz Zooarchaeology refers to the study of animal remains from archaeological sites. This field applies biological, ecological, and anthropological concepts and methods to the study of archaeological faunal data. From its beginnings in the 1800s, zooarchaeology has changed from a tool for the study of zoogeographical relationships by zoologists and geologists to a complex and multifaceted discipline. Although zooarchaeologists continue to draw heavily upon paleontology for methods and objectives, many researchers now include in their work analytical and synthetic studies of human behavior that depend upon ecology for important concepts and methods. The increase of zooarchaeological research in the Southeast is a development that owes much to a growing awareness among archaeologists of the importance of ecological relationships on human behavior. Zooarchaeology in the southeastern United States has responded to three major sources of theories and methods. One of these sources is biology, primarily zoology, paleontology, and ecology. The second source has been anthropological theory, especially those theories defining the human/environmental relationship. The third source of theories and methods is archaeology. Over the years zooarchaeology's role in southeastern archaeological research and the questions that zooarchaeologists address have responded to shifts in prevailing archaeological research interests. The influence of methods and theories from biology, anthropology, and archaeology on zooarchaeology is clearly seen throughout the history of the specialty. In part as a result of this background, there have been three main components to zooarchaeological research: examination of biological topics using subfossil materials

< previous page

page_109

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_109.html[20/10/2010 11:27:37]

page_110

< previous page

page_110

next page > Page 110

from archaeological sites, exploration of anthropological concerns, and consideration of methodological issues. A review of zooarchaeological method and theory and their role in southeastern archaeological studies shows that these interests have all influenced the field. Defining the boundaries for a survey such as this is difficult. A temporal boundary was provided by the editor. Although much interesting and innovative work has been done by zooarchaeologists with southeastern historic materials, the present discussion is confined to prehistoric studies. The geographical boundaries of the Southeast are themselves vague (B. Smith 1986), and are kept so here. The intellectual boundaries are more difficult. Zooarchaeologists typically work in more than one geographical region, transporting theories and methods from one region to another, and this is true of southeastern zooarchaeologists as well. In some cases important directions in zooarchaeological research have been defined by scholars who have little or no association with the Southeast, but whose work has nonetheless been influential here. It is impossible to discuss the role of zooarchaeology in southeastern archaeology without reference to these works, although lack of space means that many developments cannot be adequately reviewed and that landmark studies receive superficial treatment. Biology or Anthropology? Since the study of animal remains from archaeological sites first became part of the scientific scene in the 1800s, it has drawn upon a combination of zoological, paleontological, and anthropological components. Zoological research includes exploration of zoogeographical distributions, morphological characteristics, population structure, paleoenvironmental conditions, and ecological relationships of extant fauna using subfossil or archaeological materials to provide historical depth. Paleontological research includes exploration of these same topics involving Quaternary and earlier fauna. (In the following discussion these two interests are included under the general term biology.) Many of these topics can be studied without reference to the anthropological component, although the human, and therefore ''unnatural," element has been recognized by biologists, usually as an unfortunate source of bias (Wintemberg 1919; Weigelt 1989:62). When surveying theories and associated methods in faunal studies, it is apparent that biology has been an important source of both. Although in recent years anthropological questions have figured prominently in studies of faunal remains from archaeological sites, basic biological research remains fundamental to the study of these data (Davis 1987:19). The role of faunal studies in archaeological

< previous page

page_110

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_110.html[20/10/2010 11:27:38]

page_111

< previous page

page_111

next page > Page 111

research has reflected these changes in biological interests, especially the increased prominence of ecological research. Anthropologists, of course, are primarily interested in characterizing the unfortunate bias, that is, in studying the cultural factors involved in forming the archaeological deposit. Although most would agree with Bruce Smith's definition of the field as "the identification and analysis of nonhuman skeletal remains from archaeological sites" (1976:277), a wide range of topics is covered by this definition, and even this broad definition is not sufficient because it appears to exclude important studies of nonvertebrates. One reason for this diversity is that anthropology in general and archaeology in particular have operated under a succession of theoretical positions regarding the human/environmental relationship that have influenced the study of animal remains. Another factor is that in spite of the debate over whether zoologists (Reed 1963; Chaplin 1965) or anthropologists (Daly 1969; Reed 1978) should be responsible for studying faunal remains, in reality the person working with them may have a background in animal physiology, human osteology, veterinary science, zoology, paleontology, ecology, and/or anthropological archaeology. This combined biology and anthropology background is reflected in the search for a name for the field. One of the leading contenders for a name is zooarchaeology. This is probably the most commonly used term in the southeastern United States and reflects the position that the role of faunal remains from archaeological sites is to provide evidence of human behavior (Olsen and Olsen 1981). Although R. Lee Lyman (1982a) proposed that zooarchaeology be confined to studies of paleoenvironments, the term has more often been used to signify a cultural emphasis rather than a zoological one. The term zoologico-archaeologist was used by John Lubbock (1865:169) to refer to Danish and Swiss scholars who studied animal remains from archaeological sites and their relationships with humans. Peter Bobrowsky (1982) suggested that zooarchaeology be used to refer to an anthropological (as opposed to zoological) emphasis in the study of faunal remains. Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish argued that zooarchaeology indicates one is doing archaeology with zoological materials (1985:3). Although not commonly used in the southeastern United States until the 1960s, most workers in the Southeast tend to emphasize the human aspects of faunal remains over the zoological aspects and can be properly termed zooarchaeologists in this sense. The other principle alternative emphasizes the biological role subfossil faunal remains can play rather than the anthropological one. Archaeozoology is commonly used by Europeans and is widely recognized here both because many North American faunal specialists work overseas as

< previous page

page_111

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_111.html[20/10/2010 11:27:38]

page_112

< previous page

page_112

next page > Page 112

well as in the Southeast and because it appears in the official title of the International Council of Archaeozoology, in which many southeasterners participate. Strictly interpreted, archaeozoology means "old zoology" or paleontology (Legge 1978). Although Bobrowsky (1982) proposed that archaeozoology be used to subsume both zoological and archaeological interests, Sandra and John Olsen (1981) interpreted archaeozoology to mean the study of animal remains divorced of any relationship to human behavior. Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish argued that archaeozoology indicates one is doing zoology with archaeological materials (1985:3). There are numerous examples from the Southeast of important studies that could truly be called archaeozoology. In fact, many people who use the term zooarchaeology have published studies that are primarily biological rather than anthropological in nature. In spite of widespread recognition of the name, and frequency of research that is primarily biological in orientation, the term archaeozoology is not widely used in the Southeast. Two other terms have also been used in the Southeast. These are ethnozoology and osteoarchaeology. Ethnozoology refers to the study of human/animal relationships from the participant's viewpoint rather than from the observer's viewpoint, but has been used in an archaeological context. For example, Henry Boekelman was curator of archaeo- and ethno-conchology in the 1930s at the Louisiana State Museum. Although the term has been used for studies of subfossil materials from archaeological sites (Baker 1941; Cleland 1966; Curren 1974), it primarily is used in reference to ethnographic studies of modern human/animal interactions. Hans-Peter Uerpmann (1973:322) defined osteoarchaeology as the study of animal bones from archaeological sites. This term was used by Charles Reed (1963) in an article that had widespread impact on the field; however, throughout the text of this article Reed uses zooarchaeology instead of osteoarchaeology. Osteoarchaeology appeared in the title of B. Miles Gilbert's Mammalian Osteo-archaeology: North America (1973), although in the second edition this title was changed to Mammalian Osteology (1980). Osteoarchaeology implies study only of vertebrate bone (Olsen and Olsen 1981), and hence might properly be used by Gilbert for a reference on mammal bone identification but might not be accurately used to include studies of groups such as mollusks or to such vertebrate structures as scales, teeth, or horn. Since most faunal analysts recognize that both vertebrates and invertebrates might have been important components of any subsistence strategy and that a variety of both vertebrate and invertebrate remains may contribute important biological information, few use a term that excludes invertebrates. In many ways the question of whether biological or anthropological

< previous page

page_112

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_112.html[20/10/2010 11:27:39]

page_113

< previous page

page_113

next page > Page 113

issues should be emphasized reflects the wide variety of exciting roles that can be played by animal remains in archaeological studies, not all of which are of interest to both anthropologists and biologists. Depending upon faunal specialists' training and interests in combination with the research objectives of the project funding the work, faunal analysis may include studies of all vertebrate and/or invertebrate classes, or focus only on one group. Hair, blood residue, feces, fur, scales, horn, eggshell, or hide recovered from archaeological contexts may be central to a faunal study, occasionally examined, or ignored altogether. One may wish to explore human impact on faunal successions, population characteristics of animals in response to predation, nutritional consequences of a given subsistence strategy, or socioeconomic parameters involved in redistribution of meat. All of these topics can be studied using faunal remains, but the research might respond to current biological rather than anthropological theories. These differences in emphasis are reflected in the various names proposed by people to refer to the field. Although this discussion over a name may seem trivial, it nonetheless reflects the fact that there are two potentially distinct ways to look at animal remains: as sources of biological data or of anthropological data. Fortunately, most faunal analysts do not consider the biological and anthropological perspectives to be mutually exclusive. They recognize that humans are animals, that humans have had a profound impact on the world around them, and that in turn humans are responsive to the same biological principles that govern the behavior of other organisms. It is the unique combination of both that makes the field interesting. Hence most faunal analysts try to avoid being strictly biologists or strictly anthropologists. Many people who identify animal remains have chosen to avoid the whole issue, referring to their work as faunal analysis (Smith 1976) or animal bone archaeology (Hesse and Wapnish 1985). On the other hand, one might argue that zooarchaeology and archaeozoology are alternate ways to work with the same materials. It is not so much important that biology or anthropology take priority, but that they are combined. An exchange between biological and anthropological research has probably been one of the most significant factors in the development of the field. Biology, of course, has not remained unchanged since the early days when archaeological animal remains provided evidence that morphological changes had taken place over time, that humans and now-extinct animals were once associated, and that zoogeographical distributions are not static. Zoology itself has turned away from natural history and organismal studies toward cellular and molecular biology, while paleontology also has other research interests. In fact, it could not be said that

< previous page

page_113

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_113.html[20/10/2010 11:27:39]

page_114

< previous page

page_114

next page > Page 114

the study of animal remains from archaeological sites was ever a major component of biological research, except perhaps among scholars interested in the Quaternary. Although many of the major figures in zooarchaeology were trained as biologists, most have spent at least part of their careers in departments of anthropology and many of their students are anthropologists. It seems, therefore, that the anthropological aspects of faunal studies have generally received more attention in the Southeast than the biological ones. Hence it is appropriate that zooarchaeology be used in the following discussion, at the same time remembering that zooarchaeology is both strengthened and enlivened by the diverse interests subsumed under this name. The biology/anthropology question has another facet that has had a profound impact on the relationship between zooarchaeology and anthropological archaeology. While long ago it was recognized by zooarchaeologists that animal remains in archaeological sites are artifacts that have passed through the ''cultural filter" (Reed 1963:210; Daly 1969), it is still common to find that most archaeologists, even those who may budget thousands of dollars for faunal studies, do not consider them "artifacts" unless they are modified, regardless of the theoretical paradigm being employed. Biologists recognized the artifactual nature of unmodified as well as modified animal remains found in archaeological contexts more quickly than archaeologists (Weigelt 1989). Anthropological Theory There is a natural relationship between environmental studies and anthropology (Vayda and Rappaport 1968). Ernst Haeckel is credited with defining the term ecology in 1870 as "the body of knowledge concerning the economy of naturethe investigation of the total relations of the animal both to its inorganic and to its organic environment" (quoted in Kormondy 1969:xiii). This definition reflects the position that ecology has inseparable biological and behavioral components, with human behavior a logical part of the whole. The importance of the human component in ecology was recognized by such naturalists as Charles Darwin and Baron Alexander von Humboldt (Hardesty 1977:8). At the same time, exploration of environmental relationships has been a constant theme in anthropology (Vayda and Rappaport 1968:478479). Anthropology and ecology examine many of the same phenomena: carrying capacity, limiting factors, populations, adaptations, feedback relationships, commensalism, symbiosis, dominance, succession, niche width, buffer zones, use of energy, and communities being just a few. Since the middle part of the nineteenth century there have been sev-

< previous page

page_114

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_114.html[20/10/2010 11:27:40]

page_115

< previous page

page_115

next page > Page 115

eral shifts in anthropological thought regarding the relationship between environment, technology, populations, and other aspects of cultural life. These may be broadly classified as environmental determinism, environmental possibilism, and ecological anthropology (Vayda and Rappaport 1968; Netting 1971; Hardesty 1977). The diverse views of the human/environment relationship represented by each of these theories have had a fundamental impact on the way animal remains from archaeological sites have been interpreted and their role in archaeological research. As one or the other of these theories has gained ascendancy, the emphasis on biological or anthropological studies of faunal remains from archaeological sites has also shifted. Environmental Determinism At the turn of the century one of the most prevalent theories was that the environment had a causal effect on cultural phenomena. Environmental determinists argued that environmental factors put limits on material culture and technology and in fact environments determined the level of cultural development achieved. Environmental factors might be climate, topography, vegetation, or soil, but regardless of the identity of the causal agent, culture was a passive rather than an active agent. Cultural phenomena could be explained by the environment. This perspective was not particularly antithetical to faunal studies. Many of the major early works involving faunal remains from archaeological sites were done by scholars influenced by the determinist perspective. For example, J. W. Fewkes, who is known to zooarchaeologists as one of the first to publish a descriptive list of invertebrates (1896), was an environmental determinist. His primary purpose in describing the invertebrates from his excavations was to support his interpretation about the origin of ritual behavior at the site. Archaeological use of animal remains was primarily limited to such discussions rather than to exploration of other aspects of the archaeofaunal record. Environmental Possibilism In response to the causal relationships proposed by environmental determinists, environmental possibilists argued that the environment was not the significant factor in explaining the origin of cultural traits. A. L. Kroeber interpreted a decline in interest in environmental factors as a consequence of "a sharpening of specific anthropological method and the consequent clearer perception of culture forms, patterns, and processes as such" (1939:3). This was accompanied by an increased interest in diffusion and the association of cultural elements such as art, social organization, ceremony, and mythology into complexes. At the

< previous page

page_115

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_115.html[20/10/2010 11:27:41]

page_116

< previous page

page_116

next page > Page 116

same time there was a reduction in interest in history, technology, material culture, economics, politics, and subsistence, with historic and geographic interests kept alive only due to "archaeological preoccupation" according to Kroeber (1939:3). Cultures could be understood primarily in terms of cultural factors rather than environmental ones (1939:205). In Kroeber's discussion of culture areas, the environment is a limiting factor that explains the absence of traits, although not the presence of them. This reflects the position that environments could permit certain cultural developments, but that there were always cultural alternatives. Environmental possibilists argued that cultures act selectively, or even capriciously, on their environments. In terms of cultural developments, the environment was a passive element. Many of the culture areas defined by environmental possibilists correlated cultural and natural areas, with the relationship explained in terms of what a natural area would or would not permit. Clark Wissler (1917) attempted to base his culture areas on food areas. Thus the eastern United States was in the maize area because the temperate climate permitted the necessary growing season for farming (Hardesty 1977:5). Interestingly, Kroeber also noted that "every culture is conditioned by its subsistence base" (1939:3). Later he wrote that "no culture is wholly intelligible without reference to the noncultural or so-called environmental factors with which it is in relation and which condition it" (1939:205). Wissler wrote that environments influenced the formation of culture areas (1926:216217). As a result Kroeber included descriptions of geographical and ecological factors in the lists by which he defined culture areas. Similar lists of traits are found in the archaeological literature, including lists of animals available in a given area, although usually the archaeological remains themselves were not studied. Apparently, if the animal was locally available, it would be in the site and therefore no practical examination of the archaeological remains was necessary to confirm this. In the absence of any anthropological theories of relevance to the study of subfossil materials, most of the research conducted using them focused on biological issues and rarely were published in anthropological sources. Cultural Ecology A different perspective on the human/environmental relationship was provided by Julian H. Steward's definition of cultural ecology. Steward argued that cultures and environments were part of a total web of life (1955:31). That is, each could be defined in terms of the other, with environment playing an active rather than just a limiting or passive role

< previous page

page_116

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_116.html[20/10/2010 11:27:41]

page_117

< previous page

page_117

next page > Page 117

in human affairs. Cultural ecology was to study the processes involved as an unpredictable number of cultural features are influenced by adaptations to the environment (1955:30). Steward proposed that subsistence and economy are more strongly related to environmental relationships than other cultural phenomena were. Characteristics associated with these features constituted the culture core. Secondary features were less strongly related to the culture core and might be determined by purely cultural-historical factors. Steward argued that attention should be paid to resources of specific habitats in order to identify subsistence and demographic patterns which in turn influenced political and social relationships. Cultural ecology provided a framework within which the study of subfossil materials had a clear contribution to make to the study of archaeological phenomena. It was at this point that the anthropological aspects of faunal materials began to interest archaeologists again. Ecological Anthropology Recently, cultural ecology as defined by Steward has been criticized (Vayda and Rappaport 1968; Ellen 1982). In recent years concepts associated with plant and animal ecology have dominated efforts to explain the interaction between humans and their environments, with emphasis on holistic and systemic models. While some emphasize ecological populations (Vayda and Rappaport 1968:494; Moran 1979), others focus on the complex network of the ecological system (Geertz 1963). A consequence of such studies was the development of a holistic view of human life and an awareness of the complex relationship that exists among cultural systems, human populations, and the environments within which they operate. These studies require examination of subsistence as well as other aspects of human/animal interactions. Cultures are currently viewed by many anthropologists as forms of human adaptation, with the relationship between cultures and environments a dynamic and functional one. The selection and consequences of food acquisition and intake are based on cultural, environmental, and technological considerations. Theoretical concepts are drawn from information theory, niche breadth, evolutionary ecology, and systems theory (Coe and Flannery 1964; Flannery 1971; Nietschmann 1973; Jochim 1976; Hardesty 1977; Rhoades 1978; Winterhalder and Smith 1981). It is within this framework that zooarchaeology has a clear contribution to make to archaeological research. Archaeological Research Objectives Although trends in anthropological theory have influenced the role that zooarchaeology has played in archaeological research, there have

< previous page

page_117

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_117.html[20/10/2010 11:27:42]

page_118

< previous page

page_118

next page > Page 118

also been developments in archaeology itself. As interests in zoology and paleontology turned to other issues, and as anthropological concepts of the human/environmental relationship became more complex, archaeological research has also experienced shifts in research interests from simple descriptions of artifacts or culture history to explanations, or at least models, of human behavior and cultural patterns. During the previous century, faunal remains were studied by biologists for important zoogeographical and temporal information but there were also efforts to explore human use of animals. This period was followed by almost a half century in which archaeologists were uninterested in environmental topics, although biologists continued to use archaeofaunal remains for their research. Beginning in the 1940s analytical and synthetic studies of human behavior that depended upon ecology for important concepts and methods became more common. These shifts have influenced the ways faunal data are interpreted and their prominence relative to other archaeological interests. Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries Following a period of largely unfounded speculation about the relationship between the environment and human society, archaeologists turned to factual description of objects (Taylor 1948; Willey and Sabloff 1980). In the middle part of the nineteenth century scholars became aware of the need to gather evidence to support or refute popular perceptions of human history and to collect this information in a systematic fashion. Efforts were made to make the study of archaeological phenomena more scientific and factual. Many of these early studies included descriptions of animal remains. For example, O. C. Marsh (1866) listed animals found in an Ohio burial mound and hypothesized on their use. Edward Cope (1875), the well-known zoologist, briefly noted vertebrate and mollusk species recovered from a midden in Maryland. Cope also identified the elements and discussed the habitats of some of the fish identified. Jeffries Wyman (1868a, 1868b, 1875) applied his training in natural history to a discussion of vertebrate and invertebrate taxa found in shell middens in Maine and Florida, providing unquantified species lists in some cases. Although his observations are not quantified, Wyman clearly showed an interest in developing improved analytical approaches in his discussion of shell middens on the St. Johns River, Florida (1875). While many of these early accounts were largely descriptive, in some there were early efforts at interpretation. In a study of Rhode Island shell mounds, G. F. Eaton (1898) provided unquantified lists of identified ver-

< previous page

page_118

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_118.html[20/10/2010 11:27:42]

page_119

< previous page

page_119

next page > Page 119

tebrate and invertebrate species. His lists were accompanied by zoological and geological notes, a discussion of human remains, descriptions of stone tools and worked faunal remains, observations on butchering habits and other modifications unrelated to tool manufacture, a suggestion that the shell mounds were occupied throughout the year, and a zoogeographical note related to extinct Great Auk remains. Twenty barrels of faunal materials were sent from the Baum village to the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society for study (Wintemberg 1919). William C. Mills's publications on these materials and those from other Ohio sites (1904, 1906) included descriptions of both modified and unmodified animal remains, estimates of dietary contributions, and discussions of food preparation techniques. In these publications, the animal remains received more attention than did either lithic or ceramic materials. F. B. Loomis and D. B. Young (1912) published quantified lists of the vertebrates and invertebrates identified from shell middens in Maine. They included descriptions of the species recovered, hypotheses about their dietary importance based on frequency and butchering patterns, inferences about the season of occupation, descriptions of modified animal remains, and comparisons of their results with those of Mills. They also noted the presence of the Great Auk bones and observed that while most of the remains in the shell middens were from animals used as food, some might not have been. In the Southeast, Harlan I. Smith (1910) classified bone remains from the Fox Farm site in Kentucky in terms of their use to secure food or prepare food, other functional uses, and considered what they might mean about the division of labor. One of the interesting uses of animal remains during this time was by William Dall, a biologist who participated in excavations of shell mounds in the Aleutian Islands. Dall defined the strata of the mounds using animal remains, the weapons used to obtain these animals, and the utensils used to process them. His three strata were defined as Echinus (sea urchin), fish bone, and mammal layers (Dall 1877). This was also a time when scientific geology and Darwinian concepts of evolution were developing. Fundamental to these developments was a need to understand how much time had passed since life began on earth. Archaeological evidence was important to demonstrate that human life was much more ancient than had been thought. Identification of faunal remains from archaeological sites was critical for establishing the association of humans with extinct forms of life as well as evidence that changes had taken place in the ranges of nonhuman species both in the Southeast (Wyman 1868b, 1875; Mercer 1897; Hay 1902) and elsewhere (Wyman 1868a; Carr 18761878; Eaton 1898; Loomis and Young

< previous page

page_119

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_119.html[20/10/2010 11:27:43]

page_120

< previous page

page_120

next page > Page 120

1912). These were important contributions and ones which involved geologists, anthropologists, and zoologists as their vision of the world enlarged. Chronology and Trait Lists Successful efforts to achieve improved and more accurate descriptions of archaeological materials were followed by more interest in ordering these materials chronologically and an increased awareness of the importance of methodology (Taylor 1948; Willey and Sabloff 1980). Stratigraphic concerns dominated archaeological research in the early part of the twentieth century, with descriptive typologies used to establish chronologies and culture histories for local and regional units. Although a great deal of archaeological work was done in the Southeast under the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s, few faunal analysts appear to have benefited from this federal sponsorship. These relief projects were designed to employ large numbers of people in excavations at major sites rather than a few specialists, and the archaeologists in charge were most concerned about defining classificatory units that related archaeological cultures through time and space. Nor did environmental possibilism encourage archaeologists to include studies of unmodified animal remains in their research. Typical of the time period were archaeological accounts in which only those faunal remains found in association with human burials were reported (for example, Webb [1928] in the Southeast) or consisted of brief notes describing modified faunal remains (e.g., Boekelman 1936, 1937). While archaeologists interested in chronological objectives did not incorporate the analysis of faunal remains in their studies, and environmental possibilism did not require it, many biologists were interested in the information that could be derived from subfossil materials from archaeological sites. W. J. Wintemberg (1919) suggested that biologists might obtain information on animal distributions, extinct forms, morphological change, and pathologies from archaeological materials. Lyndon Hargrave (1938) included anthropological as well as zoological and ecological topics on his list of contributions that could be made by faunal remains. Hargrave was urging archaeologists to have bones identified by a zoologist rather than to be satisfied with wild guesses. Most of the publications on faunal materials from the early 1900s reflect these biological interests. Alexander Wetmore (1922) reported finding extinct fauna in archaeological deposits from Puerto Rico, and Gerrit Miller (1929a, 1929b) observed extinct mammalian remains found in association with human remains from Hispaniola. Jesse Figgins (1927) and Samuel Eddy and Albert E. Jenks (1935) reported the association of hu-

< previous page

page_120

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_120.html[20/10/2010 11:27:43]

page_121

< previous page

page_121

next page > Page 121

mans with extinct bison, Eddy and Jenks observing that many of the bones they studied had been cut by implements. Hildegarde Howard (1929) published an account of the avifauna from the Emeryville, California, shell mound in which she discussed the habitats represented around the site in terms of plant and animal communities. Following a largely technical description of the bird remains, she considered modified bones, exploitation of juvenile cormorants, hunting range, and evidence for year-round occupation of the site. In what is actually a fairly large literature, only occasionally were anthropological topics addressed. For example, Frank C. Baker periodically noted that some of the invertebrates he identified could provide evidence for trade routes in the Southeast and attempted to interpret vertebrate and invertebrate remains in terms of meat resources, but primarily he concentrated on biological issues (e.g., 1923, 1931, 1932, 1941) as did Morrison (1942). It is indicative of the state of anthropological theory and archaeological interests at this time that most of these papers were published in biological rather than anthropological sources. Growing methodological sophistication was common in most fields at this time, and this is reflected in a series of papers that addressed the importance of proper recovery and preservation of faunal remains. Howard (1929) included a brief discussion of archaeological recovery methods in her publication on the avifauna from the Emeryville shell mound, as well as diagnostic descriptions and illustrations of bird bones. She also noted that while paleontologists might not consider archaeological bone to be in good condition, most zoologists were unimpressed with such dirty fragments (Howard 1929:311). There are references to factors effecting bone preservation as well as calls for the recovery, retention, and study of all bone fragments (Wintemberg 1919; Hargrave 1938). Hargrave (1938) urged his colleagues to save all faunal materials for further study in the future. Methodological concerns were also reflected in notes about accurate identifications (Merriam 1928). Context and Function In the 1940s archaeologists began to develop research interests that required knowledge of the context and function of the artifacts being excavated in addition to their place in time (Taylor 1948; Willey and Sabloff 1980). There was growing awareness that artifacts provide evidence of cultural behavior and that they could be used to study ancient lifeways in addition to establishing chronologies. One source of information about cultural behavior was settlement location, which could provide evidence of adaptations to natural and social features. Interest in cultural adaptations required more consideration of the role that local

< previous page

page_121

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_121.html[20/10/2010 11:27:44]

page_122

< previous page

page_122

next page > Page 122

fauna played in human endeavors. As a simple indicator of a slowly developing interest in biological remains among archaeologists, by the end of the 1940s the number of articles involving biological materials had increased dramatically in American Antiquity. Nevertheless, most of this increase was in methodological rather than in substantive or theoretical contributions. Although logically functional concepts required a systematic collection and analysis of faunal samples for anthropological rather than biological interpretations, most of the increase in faunal studies was in unquantified, nonanthropological descriptions. A great deal of attention was paid to vertebrate or invertebrate tools and ornaments, which were often the only faunal remains reported both in the Southeast (e.g., Gut and Neill 1953) and elsewhere (Hadlock 1943; Tyzzer 1943). Sometimes worked bones and shells recovered in the Southeast were reported in the text and unmodified materials in a brief appendix or note (e.g., Caldwell and McCann 1941; Webb and DeJarnette 1942; W. Webb 1946; Rouse 1951; C. Webb 1959; Waring and Larson 1977). Elsewhere there was archaeological interest in the association of humans with extinct fauna (e.g., Cressman and Laughlin 1941; Eiseley 1945). There were, however, few anthropological considerations of animal remains. This scarcity of substantive interpretations suggests that archaeologists continued to look upon faunal identifications as subsidiary to ''significant" cultural studies, well below lithics and ceramics in importance. In fact, animal remains continued to be considered noncultural debris rather than cultural artifacts and were often discarded unless modified. Still operating under the influence of environmental possibilism, environmental factors continued to be viewed as unimportant in the formation of cultural phenomena. There were signs that interest in anthropological rather than biological studies of animal remains was growing. An important factor in development of such studies was Walter W. Taylor's recommendation of the conjunctive approach, defined as a study of the interrelationships that exist within a culture (Taylor 1948:7; 1972). Using the conjunctive approach, archaeologists were to examine associations and relationships rather than simply to classify archaeological materials by taxonomic relationships. Taylor called for holistic studies, arguing that in order to construct a lifeway it is necessary to direct more attention to the relationship between people and their environment. To study human subsistence, archaeologists should collect adequate faunal samples and have them studied (Taylor 1948:188189). Taylor recognized that zoologists and paleontologists either had little interest in looking at these subfossil materials or had their own research agenda when doing so. He suggested

< previous page

page_122

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_122.html[20/10/2010 11:27:44]

page_123

< previous page

page_123

next page > Page 123

that funding for specialized studies be provided and that specialists be encouraged to look upon archaeological studies as part of a legitimate research program rather than as spare-time projects (1948:200). He also stressed the importance of publication and quantification (1948:156, 169) and edited a volume on the identification of what he called "non-artifactual" archaeological materials (1957). Although few archaeologists accepted Taylor's recommendation that specialist laboratories be subsidized in order to encourage specialists to devote themselves to archaeological research (1948:201), zooarchaeology was clearly beginning to play a greater role in archaeological studies and was developing into a recognized field. Up to this time there had been no zooarchaeological specialists. Most identifications had been made by biologists, although people with no training whatsoever also got drafted to this service by archaeologists (Belmont 1983). Biologists increasingly looked upon archaeological identifications as either incidental or an adjunct to their own studies as their fields began to explore ecological topics. Raymond Gilmore notes that most identifiers considered archaeological identifications "an unmitigated drudge" (1949:163), adding that archaeologists always wanted a report as soon as possible, thereby interrupting the identifier's other work. Furthermore, most biologists now specialized in single groups of animals and hence could not do an integrated study of the archaeological materials, nor did they have an anthropological background for interpreting faunal remains. Gilmore (1946, 1949) and Taylor (1948) agreed that one way to get biologists to cooperate was to encourage them to publish in biological journals. While biologists understood that they could look to archaeology for osteological materials for their own studies, with few exceptions all the archaeologist might expect in exchange was a list of identified taxa. Of course, without a thoughtful research objective for the archaeological project in general and the faunal data in particular, little could be expected from biologists other than lists. Gilmore provided biologists and archaeologists with examples of the information that could be contained in faunal remains by publishing in both American Antiquity (1946) and Journal of Mammalogy (1949). Clement Meighan and his colleagues (1958) published a two-part series on ecological interpretations using archaeological materials, and similar admonitions are found in the southeastern literature (e.g., Neill et al. 1956). Gilmore (1946) recommended that archaeologists become involved in preparing comparative skeletal collections, which were quite rare at the time, as a way for them to develop an understanding of the kinds of information that animal remains might contain. As interest in context and function increased and faunal specialists

< previous page

page_123

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_123.html[20/10/2010 11:27:45]

page_124

< previous page

page_124

next page > Page 124

such as Gilmore came to be more closely involved in archaeological projects, more attention was paid to methodological concerns. Theodore E. White published a series of important methodological papers (1952, 1953b, 1954, 1955) that were based primarily on butchering marks and techniques. White also introduced to archaeologists a technique used by paleontologists (e.g., Shotwell 1955) to estimate the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) as a step toward estimating dietary contributions (1953a). Other methods for estimating dietary components and population size as steps toward examining ecological factors were also proposed (Cook 1946; Cook and Treganza 1947, 1950). Papers similar to those by White were published by John E. Guilday and Paul W. Parmalee using Pennsylvania materials (Guilday 1958; Guilday and Parmalee 1962; Guilday et al. 1965). At the same time, there was growing awareness of biases to be found in faunal assemblages both in the Southeast and elsewhere (Byers 1951; Neill 1953). The problems encountered as increasing numbers of archaeologists attempted to get their faunal samples identified competently, but also quickly, are reflected in discussions about problems associated with the identification and interpretation of faunal remains (Gilmore 1946; Taylor 1957; Meighan et al. 1958). Belmont's description (1983) of his work on materials excavated in the 1950s in Mississippi (eventually sent to Barbara Lawrence and Richard Johnson for study) probably reflected an unfortunate effort to presort materials before sending them to be studied. This approach was taken in order to reduce the imposition on the specialist, as recommended, for example, by Gilmore (1946). This approach was opposed by Paul W. Parmalee (1957) and is not recommended today. Others suggested studying only a portion of the recovered materials (White 1956; Olsen 1961b). Barbara Lawrence (1957) urged that changing the emphasis from identification to interpretation would make the problem exciting intellectually and attract more people to the work. A number of interesting faunal papers with some anthropological tendencies were published during this period. Gilmore's study of Mexican materials (1947) excavated by Walter W. Taylor began by stating that ecological interpretations are as important to the archaeologist as the species list is. His paper included an extensive description of the current environmental setting; a species list, including counts; a critique of identification problems; and a lengthy discussion of the habits, habitats, and zoogeographical distribution of the taxa identified. He followed this with a discussion of mammals not identified, concluding that these absences are associated with Liebig's law of the minimum and Shelford's law of tolerance. It may be no accident that Gilmore's publication on the materials excavated by Taylor is one of the best faunal reports of the time,

< previous page

page_124

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_124.html[20/10/2010 11:27:45]

page_125

< previous page

page_125

next page > Page 125

since Taylor could articulate his research agenda clearly to Gilmore, thereby giving both scholars a framework within which the faunal materials could be examined. Perhaps because southeastern archaeologists were still concerned with chronological questions, most of the significant faunal studies done during this time were based on materials excavated outside the region. Apart from discussions of modified remains, biological issues remained the principle use of southeastern faunal studies (Houck 1951; Neill and Bullen 1955; Weigel 1958). Only a few southeastern collections were studied from the perspective of topics such as dietary importance of identified taxa, seasonal rounds, habitats exploited, or butchering techniques (Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Neill et al. 1956). Process and Cultural Resource Management A new emphasis in archaeological research developed in the 1960s, characterized by interest in processual explanations. Archaeological research was to be guided by explicit hypotheses and the results should be contributions to general laws. Ecological principles were often used to develop explanatory hypotheses about the interaction between humans, animals, technology, and environment (Steward 1955; Binford 1962; Willey and Sabloff 1980:186). Systemic, holistic, and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of human behavior and cultural adaptations were advocated. Ecological principles were combined with archaeological data to develop and then test theories about human behavior and environmental relationships. Since ecology emphasizes functional relationships rather than historic or structural ones, these ecological interpretations resulted in an increase in functional analysis of remains and a decrease in symbolic and structural analysis (Leone and Potter 1988). Ecological anthropology combined with this shift in archaeological focus toward processual studies resulted in accomplishing the change in the role of subfossil faunal materials in archaeological research advocated earlier by Taylor. Because they were one of the few sources of direct evidence of the interaction between humans and their environment, the identification and analysis of biological materials became critical to a complete archaeological study. Many of the studies produced after 1960 were more analytical and more anthropological than any that had preceded them, focusing primarily on adaptive aspects of behavior, especially subsistence strategies. A consequence of these developments was that the number of zooarchaeological studies in the Southeast increased dramatically. The goal of most of this zooarchaeological research was to study fundamental relationships between humans and their environ-

< previous page

page_125

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_125.html[20/10/2010 11:27:46]

page_126

< previous page

page_126

next page > Page 126

ment, with primary emphasis on the biological aspects of environment. It also became important for anthropologically oriented scientists to be involved in these studies (Reed 1963, 1978; Chaplin 1965, 1971; Daly 1969). This trend was reflected in the Southeast by the establishment of two significant zooarchaeology laboratories by Paul Parmalee and Elizabeth Wing. Although these researchers were zoologists by training, both laboratories had close ties with departments of anthropology. A dominant factor in the development of zooarchaeology in the Southeast and elsewhere after 1960 was the increase in mitigation projects. These were often multiyear, regional programs. In an effort to develop competitive bids that were theoretically oriented, many contractors included subsistence, site function, and seasonality in their proposals. To address such questions it was occasionally, although not always, considered necessary to budget funds for zooarchaeological identifications. Often the budgets and time schedules of these projects did not allow for thoughtful integration of zooarchaeological findings with other information learned about the site or region, yet the funding made available by these contracts contributed to a substantial growth in the field. Under this stimulus, as well as in response to a general postwar growth in university research and sources of funding, the number of zooarchaeologists and the amount of research being conducted expanded rapidly. While the growth in zooarchaeological research reflected the increased archaeological interest in functional explanations rather than description or culture history, biological aspects of archaeofaunal remains continued to be important to southeastern zooarchaeologists. Data from the Southeast made contributions to biogeography by demonstrating the association of humans with extinct fauna and suggesting range extensions and/or contractions (Brodkorb 1960; Parmalee 1960a, 1963; van der Schalie and Parmalee 1960; Barkalow 1961; Duffield 1974; Parmalee et al. 1980, 1982; Graham et al. 1981; Parmalee and Bogan 1986; Starnes and Bogan 1988). Faunal remains also provided information on paleoenvironmental conditions and population characteristics (McMillan 1976; Bobrowsky and Gatus 1984; Parmalee and Klippel 1984, 1986; Parmalee 1988; Hales and Reitz 1992). Southeastern subfossil materials have also been examined for morphological information (Witt 1960; Bogan et al. 1980; Morey 1983; Claassen 1985a, 1986a, 1986b; Quitmyer et al. 1985; Hales and Reitz 1992). An increase in subsistence studies has been one of the most characteristic features of zooarchaeological analysis since the 1960s. Subsistence research requires study of both the biological needs that influence subsistence strategies and the associated procurement strategies. The biological aspects of subsistence involve human nutritional requirements

< previous page

page_126

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_126.html[20/10/2010 11:27:46]

page_127

< previous page

page_127

next page > Page 127

as well as the nutritional contribution that can be made by specific taxa. Human nutritional requirements have not been given much consideration by zooarchaeologists since the pathologies that indicate nutritional inadequacies are studied primarily by biological anthropologists. Zooarchaeologist Elizabeth Wing and biological anthropologist Antoinette Brown (1979) demonstrated the value and importance of examining faunal remains within the context of human nutrition. Few have followed the avenues indicated by this study, in part perhaps because so much work in the Southeast has been in response to mitigation projects, which have encouraged neither integrated studies nor publication of biological data. Some research has been conducted into the nutritional value of specific taxa (Parmalee and Klippel 1974), and efforts have continued to find ways to translate nutritional values into estimates of dietary contributions (Smith 1974a, 1975b; Cumbaa 1976; Reitz and Cordier 1983; Reitz, Quitmyer et al. 1987). Procurement strategies include predator/prey relationships, subsistence technologies, and ritual aspects of the human/animal relationship. This is probably the area on which most southeastern zooarchaeological research has been concentrated. There have been many efforts to identify general subsistence patterns (van der Schalie and Parmalee 1960; Parmalee 1962; Wing 1963a, 1963b, 1965, 1977, 1978, 1987; Cleland 1965; Duffield 1974; Stansbery 1974; Stoltman 1974; Curren 1978; Springer 1980; Reitz 1982a, 1982b, 1985; Reitz, Marrinan, et al. 1987; Reitz and Quitmyer 1988; Carder 1989); seasonal characteristics (Aten 1981; Claassen 1983, 1985a, 1986a, 1986b; Pearson 1983; Quitmyer et al. 1985; Russo 1991; Hales and Reitz 1992); settlement pattern and population characteristics (Curren 1974; Byrd 1976; Hale 1984); catchment areas (Parmalee 1960b; Autry and Loftfield 1976; Barber 1983); and exchange networks, socioeconomic characteristics, and economic changes (Bogan 1982; Robison 1982). Many of these studies consider more than one aspect of a procurement strategy. Ecological predictive models such as niche width, energy flow, and game strategies are less common in the southeastern zooarchaeological literature (e.g., Smith 1974a, 1974b, 1975a). Domestication is a form of procurement uncommon in southeastern prehistory. Nevertheless, faunal remains from prehistoric southeastern sites provided opportunities to study domestic dogs as companions, hunting aids, and food. Such studies have long been conducted using southeastern data (Cope 1893; Allen 1920; Skaggs 1946; Haag 1948; Houck 1951), and they continued after 1960 (Olsen 1970; Curren 1974; Smith 1975a; Parmalee and Bogan 1978; Belmont 1983). Examination of faunal remains for evidence of subsistence technologies has been common in the southeastern United States; however,

< previous page

page_127

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_127.html[20/10/2010 11:27:47]

page_128

< previous page

page_128

next page > Page 128

worked faunal remains are not typically sent to zooarchaeologists except by mistake. Nonetheless there have been zooarchaeological studies of subsistence technology, including remains modified into tools (Parmalee 1975; Curren 1978; Barber 1983). More common have been studies of capture techniques and butchering methods based on differential representation of body parts identified and the location of marks associated with butchering (Wing 1965; Wood 1968; Curren 1974, 1978; Duffield 1974; Parmalee 1975; Connaway 1982). Symbolic concepts of animals and the natural world are an important aspect of subsistence. Even operating under the influence of functional interests, zooarchaeologists have recognized that humans associate food and animals with important symbolic attributes. This awareness is demonstrated in the Southeast by studies in which animals associated with important symbolic meanings in ethnohistoric accounts are found in archaeological deposits (Bogan 1982; Hale 1984). Few have discussed the significance of ornaments showing animals or animal remains modified into ornaments in terms of the symbolic or structural relationships due to the fact that these are rarely sent to zooarchaeologists (Parmalee 1959). Fradkin (1983) used ethnohistoric and linguistic information on the Cherokee language to supplement her analysis of faunal remains. Efforts to increase the explanatory role of faunal data have been accompanied by extensive methodological research. In part due to the presence of specialists in zooarchaeology and due to the rigor required when hypotheses are tested, zooarchaeologists have become increasingly aware of biases in faunal data. The debate over whether zoologists or archaeologists should do faunal studies can be seen as an outgrowth of this concern about methodological rigor. In order to test explanatory hypotheses, faunal reports became more quantitative after 1960. Reports usually (although not always) included species lists in tabular form, with counts, weight, and an estimate of the MNI. Often reports included additional tables with estimates of age at death, lists of elements identified, and butchering marks, especially for deer. These tables were usually accompanied by discussions of seasonal rounds and subsistence strategies, butchering and skinning patterns, manufacture and utilization methods for tools, ceremonial uses of animals, and procurement patterns. These methodological concerns have had a pronounced impact on zooarchaeology in the Southeast. Numerous analytical methods have been proposed and evaluated in the Southeast (Smith 1975b; Reitz and Cordier 1983; Parmalee 1985; Reitz, Quitmyer et al. 1987; Jackson 1989), reflecting trends elsewhere (Matteson 1960; Krantz 1968; Thomas 1971; Casteel 1972, 1978; von den Driesch 1976; Stewart and Stahl 1977; Binford 1978; Gilmore 1978; Grayson 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1981a, 1981b,

< previous page

page_128

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_128.html[20/10/2010 11:27:48]

page_129

< previous page

page_129

next page > Page 129

1984, 1989; Fieller and Turner 1982; Horton 1984; Munson 1984; Lyman 1986; Jones and Metcalfe 1988; Metcalfe and Jones 1988). Site formation processes (Isaac 1967; Behrensmeyer and Hill 1980; Brain 1981; Gifford 1981; Lyman 1984, 1985, 1987; Grayson 1989) and excavation methods (Struever 1968a; Thomas 1969; Payne 1972; Grayson 1973; Clason and Prummel 1977) also received extensive attention in southeastern research (Watson 1974; Parmalee et al. 1976; Dye and Moore 1978; Bogan 1982; Hale 1984; Klippel et al. 1987; Reitz and Quitmyer 1988). Actualistic studies of modern site formation processes have been important to faunal analysis in the Southeast (Klippel and Parmalee 1982), once again mirroring trends elsewhere (Lyon 1970; Yellan 1977; Brain 1981; Payne and Munson 1985). Southeastern zooarchaeologists have also contributed identification aids (Olsen 1964, 1968; Simons 1986; Kozuch and Fitzgerald 1989) and bibliographies (Olsen 1961a; Bogan and Robison 1987) to the zooarchaeological literature. While some archaeologists in the Southeast have been eager to incorporate faunal data into their research designs, many archaeologists in the southeastern United States still appear to be operating under the influence of environmental possibilism and preprocessual research interests more appropriate to the 1940s than the 1990s. It is common to find modified faunal remains interpreted as artifacts worthy of study and unmodified remains classified as unimportant. This is reflected in the numerous publications in which modified bone and shell are discussed in the main body of the publication while unmodified animal remains continue to be reported in appendixes (e.g., Neitzel 1965; Williams and Brain 1983), or omitted altogether. Reflecting this sad state of affairs, a graduate student just recently expressed skepticism that zooarchaeological research could be presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Shifts in the Role of Faunal Studies in Archaeology The objective of this review of method and theory in southeastern zooarchaeology is to seek evidence of paradigm shifts. The most pronounced paradigm shift in archaeology has been the increased interest in the scientific study of ecological phenomena, which appeared in the 1940s and grew rapidly in the 1960s. Zooarchaeology has certainly benefited from this shift in emphasis to ecological aspects of archaeological phenomena in terms of increased employment opportunities and access to data. Nevertheless, it may be inaccurate to say that zooarchaeology experienced a paradigm shift that originated within anthropological archaeology along with this increased amount of work. Particularly during

< previous page

page_129

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_129.html[20/10/2010 11:27:48]

page_130

< previous page

page_130

next page > Page 130

the important time when ecological principles were becoming influential in anthropology, many of the practitioners in zooarchaeology were biologists well trained in scientific methods and equally if not more aware of developments in ecology than were anthropologists. Although these biologists responded to ecological trends in biology, it is unlikely that events in anthropology were responsible for this development. In fact, the reverse seems more probable. Bruce Smith (1976) argued that zooarchaeology suffers from what Mark Leone (1972) called ''paradigm lag." While one group of zooarchaeologists has been actively engaged in ecological research, another is still "twitching off" to compose descriptive species lists. A third group continues to follow biological objectives. It may be that while biologists continue to pursue primarily biological research, the other two groups trace their roots to the fundamental difference between two anthropological concepts about the human/environmental relationship: environmental possibilism and ecological anthropology. Archaeologists interested in descriptive and chronological questions still operate under the constructs of environmental possibilism. This influence is evident in studies in which discussions of environmental aspects of the archaeological record comprise but a thin cover for a basically descriptive study. In such reports faunal remains are just one more thing to list, and the person doing the listing need not be well trained. Few southeastern archaeologists are committed to ecological studies of archaeological phenomena. Ecological studies must be systemic, integrated studies and this requires cooperation and coordination among many researchers. All parties must take the time to look at their data from a variety of perspectives and share their insights freely with collaborating scholars. Only in such a context can zooarchaeologists engage in meaningful ecological research. When working with archaeologists who are not committed to truly ecological studies, zooarchaeologists still produce laundry lists for the Southeast. This deficiency in southeastern archaeology cannot necessarily be attributed to either qualitative or quantitative problems, but rather to a continuing interest in culture history by many archaeologists encouraged by the overpowering influence of large cultural resource management projects on fieldwork. Significant ecological research requires a long-term commitment to time-consuming data collection on a regional and interregional basis. Small test excavations at a few sites along a river valley seldom produce sufficiently large samples for sophisticated analysis based on information theory, evolutionary ecology, or systems theory. What is needed are research projects such as that currently being conducted by William Marquardt in south Florida and David Hurst Thomas

< previous page

page_130

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_130.html[20/10/2010 11:27:49]

page_131

< previous page

page_131

next page > Page 131

on the Georgia coast. This work can produce a more sophisticated level of ecological analysis due to the fact that many large samples over a large area will be available for analysis. A commitment is being made in these cases to enhance the study of human/environmental relationships. Archaeologists interested in culture history and involved in cultural resource management projects do not bear the entire burden of blame. Equally important is the tendency for a final project report to be filed with no concluding professional publication by the consulting zooarchaeologist. This lack of commitment to publication and its attendant thoughtful analysis is clearly evidenced in this survey, which has excluded reference to manuscripts on file, contract reports, theses, and dissertations. While some of these unpublished sources contain interesting ecologically oriented analyses, it is anticipated that few will be readily available to scholars in the years to come, so that the long-term influence of most of these sources will probably be minimal. Much zooarchaeological research in the Southeast is driven by methods and theories that come from outside anthropology and uses materials that are not southeastern. Although space has not permitted discussion of this fact, zooarchaeologists are not dependent upon anthropological archaeology for most of their theories or on the Southeast for most of their materials. To the extent, however, that events in southeastern archaeology have influenced zooarchaeology, it might be appropriate to consider the relationship not so much a matter of paradigm shifts or paradigm lags, but as a reflection of current, and opposing, views of the human/environmental relationship as well as of a continuing interest in culture history rather than ecology. Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Paul W. Parmalee, Bruce D. Smith, and Elizabeth S. Wing for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

< previous page

page_131

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_131.html[20/10/2010 11:27:49]

page_132

< previous page

page_132

next page > Page 132

Chapter 7 Paleoethnobotany Kristen J. Gremillion Analysis and interpretation of plant remains has lagged behind other avenues of archaeological investigation in the South-This is largely because most of the data needed to answer questions about the origins, nature, and significance of food production and its antecedents have only been made available within the past 20 years. Accordingly, the period from 1930 to 1960 is best characterized as one of speculation and formulation of hypotheses about subsistence in the Southeast. During that time paleoethnobotany, although a distinct field of study, had little occasion to devise special methods for analyzing and interpreting archaeological plant remains. The subsequent implementation of water separation (flotation) for recovery of such materials initiated a new phase of paleoethnobotanical research in the Southeast. The period between 1960 and 1980 was consequently an active one for the establishment of paleoethnobotanical research facilities, refinement of quantitative and analytic methods, and acquisition of data relevant to the origins and development of plant husbandry in the Southeast. The decade or so since 1980 has brought forth the botanical and archaeological evidence needed to document thoroughly the independent domestication of indigenous plants in the Eastern Woodlands. Other recent developments include the recognition of variability in the timing and significance of the introduction of maize and in the importance of indigenous crops. In addition, paleoethnobotanical research has been increasingly applied to interpretation of subsistence at the time of initial colonization of the Southeast by foraging populations and, much later, by European groups. Today paleoethnobotanists working in the Southeast are armed with an ecologically oriented view of domestication, the powerful tool of accelerator dating, advanced quantitative methods, and new techniques for the study of cultigens.

< previous page

page_132

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_132.html[20/10/2010 11:27:50]

page_133

< previous page

page_133

next page > Page 133

Despite changes in focus, theoretical orientation, and methodological sophistication, one thread of scholarly interest runs more or less continuously through the fabric of southeastern paleoethnobotany. This common concern is with the origins of plant husbandry, its antecedents in foraging subsistence systems, and its intensification. Recent years have seen a tendency to reject the forager/farmer dichotomy and to recognize that these categories do not offer an adequate range of alternatives for characterizing prehistoric subsistence systems. Instead, researchers have learned to examine plant domestication and agricultural intensification as processes and to recognize that they are distinct developments and are likely to require different explanations. It has also been recognized that multiple origins of plant husbandry should be expected and that more than one explanatory scheme will be needed to account for its evolution in different locales. What is perhaps most important, ethnocentric biases about the food value and economic potential of prehistoric seed crops are losing influence as evidence for their consumption, domestication, and utility accumulates. In terms of large-scale studies, the Southeast was a relative latecomer to the paleoethnobotanical scene. Consequently, the region has benefited greatly from theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions from geographically peripheral areas, particularly west-central Illinois, the Ozark plateau, and the Ohio River valley. In recognition of these influences, some of the significant findings from areas that have contributed to the development of paleoethnobotany in the Southeast are briefly discussed here. I have, however, tried to limit detailed consideration to more geographically central localities. In a review of this length, some omissions of potentially relevant information are unavoidable. I have not attempted to cite all of the many valuable reports that have enhanced our knowledge of prehistoric plant utilization in the Southeast. In terms of the types of data available for consideration, I focus on evidence obtained from plant food remains. Justification for this approach is provided by the fact that this class of materials is responsible for most of our information about prehistoric subsistence in the Southeast, although studies of wood charcoal, pollen, and phytoliths have made valuable contributions. 19301960: Establishment of Research Goals and Formulation of Hypotheses Although several brief reports of plant remains from the Southeast pre-date the 1930s (e.g., Young 1910; Nelson 1917; Harrington 1924;

< previous page

page_133

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_133.html[20/10/2010 11:27:50]

page_134

< previous page

page_134

next page > Page 134

Funkhouser and Webb 1929), it was not until that decade that the first scientific reports by professionals trained in botany and anthropology were written. Before specialized recovery techniques were developed, only unusually well preserved and rich collections of plant remains were brought to the attention of specialists. Unfortunately, such finds were not common. Advances in paleoethnobotany during this decade were also constrained by the predominant interest of 1930s archaeology in chronology, artifact typology, and culture historical sequences (Willey and Sabloff 1980; Jennings 1986). Nevertheless, the 1930s were marked by the beginnings of scientific description of archaeological plant remains and the formation of paleoethnobotany as a distinctive research specialty in North American archaeology. Research Activity Despite the prevailing intellectual climate in southeastern archaeology, paleoethnobotany began to gain a foothold as a recognized field of scientific study in the 1930s and 1940s. This development was largely due to the establishment of the Ethnobotany Laboratory at the University of Michigan, which became operative in 1930 with Melvin Gilmore as its first director. Volney Jones managed the laboratory after Gilmore's death in 1940. Jones's 1941 statement about the methods, goals, and prospects of ethnobotany served to formalize the discipline's boundaries. He urged the study of all aspects of human/plant relationships, and recognized the special problems involved in the study of plant use through archaeological remains. The 1940s and 1950s saw increased attention to settlement, environment, and diet, but recovery techniques were still inadequate for addressing detailed questions about subsistence. Reports on plant remains were rare and often constituted little more than a list of taxa with no enumeration of quantities. A perusal of the papers in Griffin (ed., 1952) demonstrates that subsistence was not of primary concern to the region's most prominent archaeologists. Before the 1960s, the subsidiary role of subsistence studies and pessimism about the likelihood of recovering prehistoric plant remains in the humid Southeast tended to be mutually reinforcing. Most of the paleoethnobotanical and related research in the Southeast during this period was applied to questions concerning the nature and development of plant husbandry. Debate about the possibility of an independent origin of agriculture in the Eastern Woodlands was stimulated by the landmark studies of important collections from dry rockshelters by Gilmore (1931) and Jones (1936). The potential subsistence significance of pre-maize plant husbandry was resisted both by those

< previous page

page_134

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_134.html[20/10/2010 11:27:51]

page_135

< previous page

page_135

next page > Page 135

who supported the likelihood of Woodland period agriculture (of mesoamerican origin) and by those who rejected it (in favor of effective foraging). Little paleoethnobotanical evidence was available to confirm or refute any of these positions. Much of the history of paleoethnobotanical research in the Southeast from 1930 to 1960 is therefore an account of the competition between various assumptions and speculations. Agricultural Origins and the Question of Independent Domestication in the Southeast Given its precocious role in the development of North American paleoethnobotany, it is no surprise that the University of Michigan produced the earliest scientific reports on plant remains relevant to southeastern prehistory. These studies provided the first material evidence for the domestication of small grains in the East, hypothesized by Linton (1924) on the basis of food preparation differences between the Woodlands and the Southwest. For many years to come, the reports provided by Gilmore (1931) and Jones (1936) on the abundant and extraordinarily well preserved plant remains from dry rockshelters in the Ozarks and eastern Kentucky were to provide the best record of pre-maize plant husbandry in the eastern United States. Gilmore (1931) studied some of the botanical materials collected by Harrington (1924) at a number of rockshelters in the Ozark highlands. Harrington had noted grass-lined storage pits filled with sunflower, maize, beans, and other seeds; large quantities of nut remains; and sunflower heads and squash rind and seeds in bags. Gilmore's largely descriptive report confirmed these findings and added that chenopod (thought to be Chenopodium nuttalliae or a similar species), amaranth (Amaranthus sp.), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), marsh elder (identified as Iva xanthifolia), and Carolina canary grass (Phalaris caroliniana) were probably cultivated, based upon their association with known cultigens in storage contexts. He also noted the unusually large size of the Ozark sunflower seeds, and the large size and light color of ragweed fruits from the shelter. Gilmore observed that many of the plants which he suspected had been cultivated prefer to grow ''near human habitations, in ground which has undergone disturbance due to human occupation" (1931:87). This relationship between human-mediated environmental disturbance and plant domestication was to remain a recurring component of theories of agricultural origins for decades to come. Jones's (1936) analysis of plant remains from the Newt Kash shelter in eastern Kentucky, undertaken while he was an assistant at the University of Michigan Ethnobotany Laboratory, produced findings substan-

< previous page

page_135

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_135.html[20/10/2010 11:27:51]

page_136

< previous page

page_136

next page > Page 136

tially the same as Gilmore's. Newt Kash, like the Ozark collections, contained squash, chenopod, maygrass (Gilmore's "Carolina canary grass"), and maize. Also present were sumpweed (marsh elder) and sunflower achenes and seeds of unusually large size. Jones concluded that the sunflower (Helianthus annuus) was cultivated. He argued similarly for cultivation of sumpweed, adding that it had been stored along with known cultigens and, like maygrass, was possibly beyond its natural range in eastern Kentucky. Based on these characteristics of the plant remains and their stratigraphic position relative to maize, he suggested that certain native plants were domesticated before the diffusion of the tropical agricultural complex (except perhaps for squash and bottle gourd). Jones concluded that, although proportions of foods in the diet were difficult to estimate, agriculture at Newt Kash was not intensive. He was able to support his inferences about diet by examining human paleofeces. The Newt Kash report reflects a holistic orientation to paleoethnobotany that has been largely replaced in recent years by a more specialized approach. The notion of an independent eastern agricultural tradition received continued attention in subsequent decades. One of its proponents, George Carter, proposed that such a tradition existed in Arkansas and Kentucky by about 2000 B.C. and that well-developed agriculture based on mesoamerican crops was established by about 700 B.C. (1945:130). More cautious scholars, such as Jones (1946), were reluctant to accept Carter's thesis on the grounds that it was unsupported by archaeological evidence (interestingly, Carter seems to have been correct about the independent domestication of a form of squash, Cucurbita pepo, in the eastern United States). In a paper presented in 1957 but not appearing in print until over a decade later, Fowler (1971) also proposed that plant cultivation began in the East before the introduction of maize, as early as the Late Archaic. Fowler based his inferences on a model first introduced by Anderson (1952) that linked the ecological relationships between increased sedentism, soil enrichment, and colonization of human-disturbed habitats by "camp-follower" weeds. He also cited evidence of land clearance and pre-maize agriculture in other regions. Many archaeologists, however, remained skeptical of the economic potential and autonomous origin of indigenous agriculture. This attitude is reflected in the fact that evidence for the food-producing economic base of Hopewellian (Griffin 1960) and Poverty Point (Jackson 1986:3) societies was sought in the form of maize remains, not those of indigenous grain crops. One source of this bias was the tendency to ascribe mesoamerican origins to a multitude of cultural elements, a "standard practice" in eastern North American archaeology for many years (Griffin 1985a:57). Consequently, it was implicit in discussions of subsistence that

< previous page

page_136

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_136.html[20/10/2010 11:27:52]

page_137

< previous page

page_137

next page > Page 137

hypothesized agricultural systems were products of diffusion from Mesoamerica, despite the virtual lack of paleoethnobotanical evidence for this assumption (Ford and Willey 1941; Griffin 1952). In addition, archaeological and historical evidence of cultivation of small seed crops was decidedly scarce, whereas references to the maizebeans-squash triad abounded in ethnohistoric descriptions of the Southeast. To some extent, the temporal sequence of existing paleoethnobotanical finds supported the linkage of earliest eastern North American agriculture with Mesoamerica. For example, indigenous crops were associated with premaize deposits in Kentucky, but nowhere were they known to have antedated the appearance of cucurbits, which were then thought to be exclusively mesoamerican in origin. This fact encouraged southeastern archaeologists to view native plant husbandry as a merely incidental addition to a tradition of ultimately external derivation. The possibility that mesoamerican crops and the "idea" of agriculture preceded the domestication of local plants was thought to ensure that southeastern agriculture was dependent on outside influences. Instead of rejecting the importance of native crops in favor of mesoamerican influences in pre-Mississippian times, Caldwell (1958) argued that the hunting and gathering way of life was an optimal adaptation to the Eastern Woodlands environment. The assumption that populations not engaged in maize agriculture were by default foragers is implicit in his discussion of Hopewell subsistence (1958:30). Thus Woodland period populations, although they had a form of "home-grown horticulture," at least in the Upper Mississippi Valley and in the Adena area (1958:18), were best characterized as foragers. The paucity of cultivated plant remains at Woodland period sites indicated that "food production, where it occurred, was supplementary in the local economies" (1958:19). Instead, pre-Mississippian plant food subsistence in the Southeast was thought to have been based upon exploitation of forest resources such as hickory and acorn. Like many of his contemporaries, Caldwell viewed the adoption of agriculture as a decision motivated by the depletion of naturally occurring foods. Despite the inability of the archaeological record of the time to address adequately many of the questions it raised, Caldwell (1958) foreshadowed the later preoccupation of southeastern archaeology with subsistence and its material record and provided a stimulus for later discussion of this topic. The debate about pre-Mississippian agriculture continued, with a few exceptions, in the absence of the paleoethnobotanical evidence needed to challenge or confirm conflicting views. Before the era of flotation recovery, reports on plant remains were few and far between. Most often they noted only nutshell and, at later sites, maize (e.g., Lewis

< previous page

page_137

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_137.html[20/10/2010 11:27:52]

page_138

< previous page

page_138

next page > Page 138

and Kneberg 1946; Webb 1946). Additionally, the inability to place the Ozark and Newt Kash plant remains chronologically or to date the introduction of maize to the East hampered assessment of the independent domestication hypothesis. Evidence for Hopewell maize was meager, although some had been recovered from appropriate contexts (Morgan 1952). Nevertheless, Jones was able to report that maize from Hopewell sites was "exceedingly scarce and elusive" (1949:245). Similarly, the record of utilization of native grains was spotty and of uncertain significance before the advent of specialized recovery techniques. An illustration of the interpretive difficulties and biases associated with this data base is provided by Goslin's 1957 report on plant food remains from Adena sites. His discussion displays both a cautious acceptance of Adena husbandry and a reluctance to relinquish the notion that it was maize-based. For instance, Goslin contends that sedentism, and by implication agriculture, can be inferred from the presence of mounds. Consequently, he concedes the possibility of maize cultivation for these groups, although no trace of this crop had been found at Adena sites (whereas cucurbits, sunflowers, and masses of chenopod had been amply documented). A further consequence of this limited data base was the prominent role played by negative evidence in arguments against the independent development of plant husbandry in the Southeast. Caldwell, for instance, cited the absence of cultivated plants from the Kellogg site in northern Georgia as evidence that the Kellogg people were "definitely not food producers" (1958:25). Caldwell's conclusions about Kellogg phase subsistence have not been challenged by later studies (Yarnell and Black 1985), although his panregional generalizations about the minimal importance of pre-Mississippian food production have turned out to be insupportable. Interestingly, a similar lack of archaeological evidence of maize was not used by Goslin (1957) to rule out its cultivation by Adena populations. These contrasting interpretations of negative evidence illustrate how the combination of inadequate recovery techniques and diffusionist bias delayed the acceptance of the potential significance of indigenous agriculture in the Southeast. Even scholars who recognized that absence of archaeological evidence did not necessarily constitute a strong argument against independent domestication were pessimistic about the possibility of recovering the necessary data. Fowler (1971), for example, feared that moist climatic conditions would prevent acquisition of evidence to support his Archaic agriculture hypothesis, and urged instead attention to tool assemblages, settlement patterns, and pollen studies. Fortunately, this attitude toward recoverability of plant remains was modified in later years as adequate

< previous page

page_138

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_138.html[20/10/2010 11:27:53]

page_139

< previous page

page_139

next page > Page 139

techniques became available for isolating and preserving the charcoal so often found in quantity on southeastern sites. Contributions from Other Disciplines In general, the 1940s and 1950s included few developments in the independent domestication controversy in the form of new evidence of interpretations (Yarnell 1989). Nevertheless, contributions to paleoethnobotany from other disciplines had far-reaching effects upon future research. The advent of radiocarbon dating in the late 1940s ultimately made possible the chronological placement of key finds. It was then possible to assess the timing of the introduction of maize and other mesoamerican crops and to compare it with the record of husbandry involving native eastern North American plants. In botany, Blake's 1939 study of sumpweed from rockshelter sites confirmed its cultigen status and formally described the domesticated variety (later revised as Iva annua var. macrocarpa by Jackson [1960]). Studies of sunflower by Heiser (1955) and of maize by Anderson and Cutler (1942) and Brown and Anderson (1947) laid the groundwork for later paleoethnobotanical analyses of these corps in the prehistoric Southeast. These botanical studies would not, however, find their greatest applicability to archaeological research until the 1960s, when new field methods revolutionized the recovery of plant remains in the Southeast. 19601980: Establishment of a Regional Data Base The two decades between 1960 and 1980 comprise a key period in the development of southeastern paleoethnobotany. Perhaps the most significant development of these years, one that made possible the establishment of a regional paleoethnobotanical data base, was the introduction and subsequently widespread use of water separation techniques for recovering plant remains. This technical development equipped southeastern archaeologists with the evidence needed to test hypotheses about subsistence that were accumulating as anthropologists increasingly turned their attention to the operation of ecological systems. Large-scale archaeological projects, many of them federally funded, generated the necessary data while a new generation of graduate students provided much of the skilled labor required for such study. During the 1970s, paleoethnobotanical recovery techniques were refined, methods of quantification established, and regional sequences of considerable time depth assembled. The controversy over the independent domestication of indigenous plants was fueled by a wealth of evidence that both supported and seemed to contradict it. Documentation of Hopewellian

< previous page

page_139

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_139.html[20/10/2010 11:27:54]

page_140

< previous page

page_140

next page > Page 140

and Poverty Point subsistence patterns allowed scholars to dispense with the notion that both relied upon cultivation of mesoamerican crops. At the extremes of the temporal scale, closer examination of Archaic and Mississippian plant use patterns revealed more diversity than speculative reconstructions had predicted. The Flotation Revolution It was early in this period that Stuart Struever (1962) was able to recover large quantities of small seeds from the Snyders site in Illinois using flotation, a strategy first suggested to him by Hugh Cutler. Struever continued to advocate the use of this technique (which used water and/or chemicals to separate charcoal from heavier materials) for recovery of small-scale subsistence remains, including carbonized seeds usually lost during processing of archaeological soils. Struever (1965, 1968a) eventually described the process devised by him and his colleagues in some detail, and the basic tools and techniques of the procedure became widely known. Yarnell had some reservations about the destructive potential of flotation (although it recovered greater quantities of plant remains than field screening through relatively large mesh), and expressed a preference for dry sieving in the laboratory (Yarnell 1963; Munson et al. 1971). Nevertheless, soils are almost always intractable without some water processing, and flotation proved to be superior to pressurized water screening (Yarnell 1982:2; Wagner 1988a). It rapidly became apparent that earlier pessimism about the ability to recover archaeological plant remains in the Southeast was largely unwarranted. Clearly, scholars could no longer hold that prehistoric subsistence patterns could be inferred only through speculation or analysis of artifactual and settlement data. Flotation was taken up at the University of Tennessee in the 1960s and the procedure quickly became standard in the large reservoir projects and related investigations initiated there. Watson (1976) reviewed available types of apparatus for flotation and described the successful Shell Mound Archaeological Project (SMAP) machine used in west-central Kentucky. By the late 1970s flotation was commonly used and would soon be established as a standard (and by some archaeologists, obligatory) field procedure. Unfortunately, adequate recovery and analysis of plant remains is still a low priority on some projects, and consequently the first item to be cut when budgets are trimmed. As flotation became more widely used, professional paleoethnobotanists developed the methods of analysis, quantification, and interpretation necessary for managing the growing data base. Quantification quickly became a standard procedure as the amount and variety

< previous page

page_140

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_140.html[20/10/2010 11:27:54]

page_141

< previous page

page_141

next page > Page 141

of recovered plant materials increased. Asch, Ford, and Asch (1972) were among the first to explore the application of quantitative techniques to paleoethnobotanical data, including percentage, comparison ratios, and ubiquity. Richard Yarnell also developed methods of laboratory processing, sorting, and quantifying that were widely emulated (e.g., Yarnell 1974b). These technical advances greatly enhanced analysts' ability to interpret paleoethnobotanical data. For example, Yarnell's (1974b) analysis of Salts Cave paleofeces was used to detect significant associations of plant foods that allowed inferences about storage and seasonal variation in diet. Munson, Parmalee, and Yarnell (1971) also incorporated consideration of differential preservation of plant remains into their discussion of subsistence at a Middle Woodland Illinois site. For the most part, such efforts to determine the subsistence significance of archaeological plant remains from the Southeast proceeded along similar lines, with improvements, throughout the 1970s (e.g., Cowan 1978b; Crites 1978b, 1978c; Kline and Crites 1979). Some analyses, however, were largely descriptive and were appended to archaeological reports with no attempt at integration. Although of somewhat limited usefulness, even these products of the ''flotation revolution" contributed to later regional syntheses (e.g., Yarnell and Black 1985). Research Activity These methodological advances were accompanied by the establishment of new paleoethnobotanical laboratories in the Southeast. One of these was associated with Yarnell, who left Michigan to take a position at Emory University in 1963 before eventually settling at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1971. C. Earle Smith began a joint appointment in anthropology and biology at the University of Alabama in 1970 and attracted a number of students, including Gloria Caddell and Elisabeth Sheldon. At the University of Tennessee, Jefferson Chapman (who learned macrobotanical analysis techniques from Yarnell) helped institute a strong paleoethnobotanical tradition. There, Paul and Hazel Delcourt also contributed to the training of Gary Crites, Patricia Cridlebaugh, and Andrea Brewer Shea. And at Michigan, Richard Ford carried on the paleoethnobotanical tradition begun by Gilmore and Jones. His students there included C. Wesley Cowan and C. Margaret Scarry. At the same time, the work of David Asch, Nancy Asch Sidell, Richard Ford, Stuart Struever, Leonard Blake, and Patty Jo Watson in the Midwest was to prove particularly influential in introducing techniques and research questions that would be applied to paleoethnobotanical research in the Southeast. Several large-scale federally funded archaeological projects (most of

< previous page

page_141

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_141.html[20/10/2010 11:27:55]

page_142

< previous page

page_142

next page > Page 142

them inundation studies for proposed reservoirs) kept this new generation of paleoethnobotanists busy producing reports and documenting subsistence change on a regional scale. The Normandy Reservoir project of central Tennessee was particularly productive in terms of new information about the process of plant domestication (Faulkner 1973; Bacon 1975; Faulkner et al. 1976; Cobb and Shea 1977; Faulkner and McCullough 1977; Crites 1978a, 1978b, 1978c, 1982, 1985; Shea 1978; Kline and Crites 1979; Kline et al. 1982; McMahan 1983). The Tellico Reservoir project in the lower Little Tennessee River valley also made significant contributions (Chapman 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981; Chapman and Shea 1981; Cridlebaugh 1981; Baden 1983; Russ and Chapman 1983; Schroedl et al. 1983; Schroedl and Shea 1986). The Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway project began in the 1970s and helped fund the archaeological research that enabled Gloria Caddell (1982a, 1982b, 1982c, 1983) to establish a paleoethnobotanical data base for west-central Alabama. In the Midwest, the FAI-270 project in the American Bottom (Johannessen 1984) and other investigations in west-central Illinois (Asch and Asch 1985) produced a bounty of paleoethnobotanical data. Given this high level of archaeological research activity and the wide use of flotation, the increase in reports on plant remains from southeastern sites from only 10 before 1960 and 10 in the 1960s to 60 in the 1970s reported by Yarnell and Black (1985:93) is hardly surprising. Coincident with these empirical and methodological developments was an increasing theoretical interest in prehistoric subsistence and ecology, a trend that dates back to the 1950s (Jennings 1986). This research movement was also provided additional impetus by the resurgence of evolutionary approaches in anthropology (Willey and Sabloff 1980). These shifts in orientation within the North American community of archaeologists are easily traced in the pages of American Antiquity, on which articles on subsistence appear with increasing frequency beginning in the late 1960s. Until the late 1970s, however, the few articles on plant remains and domestication pertained largely to the American Southwest, Central America, and South America. In regional syntheses, discussion of subsistence issues was not yet considered obligatory; its role in such treatments ranged from minimal (Sears 1964) to integral (Griffin 1967). Applications of the growing data base to questions about prehistoric subsistence were influenced by the systemsoriented, largely functional approaches to cultural ecology that were then current. Consequently, the operation of human/environment systems was central to explanatory models of the origins of agriculture. Disruption of homeostasis, most often by population pressure, was frequently assigned a role in agricul-

< previous page

page_142

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_142.html[20/10/2010 11:27:55]

page_143

< previous page

page_143

next page > Page 143

tural origins (e.g., Binford 1968; Watson 1974:235; Asch et al. 1979). Origins of domestication and agricultural intensification were typically conflated into a single issue, for which a single explanation was expected. Despite the growing tendency to view subsistence as a component of cultural systems, the notion of agriculture as a unitary cultural element persisted (Griffin 1967; Webb 1968). Origins and Intensification of Plant Husbandry In this intellectual climate, debates about the origin and intensification of agriculture in the prehistoric Southeast flourished. With the accumulation of paleoethnobotanical data (particularly from Tennessee and Illinois), it became apparent that indigenous crop plants had considerable subsistence importance outside the previously studied rockshelter and cave areas. Recovery of remains of both mesoamerican and native crop plants from adequately dated contexts allowed construction of a tentative timetable for the domestication and introduction of cultigens. Struever and Vickery (1973) were able to summarize evidence from the Midwest that strengthened the longstanding hypothesis of an eastern agricultural complex. Yarnell continued to study the question of independent agricultural origins in the East, at first supporting the hypothesis cautiously (1965) and later more strongly as evidence in its favor accumulated (1977). Considerable emphasis was still placed on the issue of the temporal priority of mesoamerican cultigens in the East. Although evidence was inadequate for settling this question, a persuasive argument could be made for early plant husbandry systems based primarily upon indigenous crops in the Southeast. One component of this argument was the subsistence significance of native domesticates such as sunflower and sumpweed, which was strongly supported by examination of human paleofeces and intestinal contents from Salts Cave and Mammoth Cave (Yarnell 1969, 1974b). Chenopod (Chenopodium sp.) was also a significant component of the Salts Cave feces, and Yarnell concluded that even if not cultivated it was probably protected. About 42 percent of total food represented in Salts Cave paleofeces was estimated to have come from garden cultivation, and another 32 percent from weedy sources of seeds and greens (1974b). Analysis of flotation samples from Salts (1974a, 1974b) and fecal samples from nearby Mammoth Cave (Marquardt 1974; Stewart 1974) further supported the importance of food production in Early Woodland subsistence. Thus the Salts Cave data clearly indicated that agriculture involving native plants must have been initiated before 1000 B.C. (Watson and Yarnell 1969). Despite this evidence, some skeptics continued to question the human origin of the feces and the dietary importance of

< previous page

page_143

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_143.html[20/10/2010 11:27:56]

page_144

< previous page

page_144

next page > Page 144

domesticates outside the caves (see discussions in Yarnell 1974a; Watson 1985; Gardner 1987). The role played by mesoamerican cultigens in these early agricultural systems was still uncertain; however, the absence of maize and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) from Salts Cave paleofeces indicated that it was limited to the cultivation of cucurbits (Cucurbita pepo and/or bottle gourd, Lagenaria siceraria). In fact, neither cucurbits nor native crops could initially be assigned temporal priority (Watson and Yarnell 1969:76). However, later analysis of the Salts Cave flotation samples in fact indicated that cucurbits appeared only in the upper stratigraphic levels (Yarnell 1974b), leading Yarnell to conclude that sunflower and sumpweed cultivation preceded the introduction of cucurbits in Kentucky (Yarnell 1977:867). Meanwhile, Illinois was generating a wealth of data on Woodland period subsistence. In the lower Illinois River valley, Struever (1964, 1968b) was able to establish the importance of both cucurbits and native grain crops (including chenopod, knotweed [Polygonum], and sumpweed) during the Middle Woodland. A contemporaneous rise in archaeological representation of these small grains in west-central Illinois was indicated by research carried out during the 1970s. Asch, Farnsworth, and Asch (1979) recognized their increasing importance, although they questioned Struever's (1968b) hypothesis concerning the settlement and subsistence changes contributing to the emergence of Illinois Hopewell. Several localities in Tennessee also produced important evidence of early agriculture. Of particular significance was the report of cultigensized sunflower seeds from a Terminal Archaic level at the Higgs site dated to ca. 900 B.C., found in association with large numbers of chenopod seeds (Brewer 1973). In addition, Early Woodland Cucurbita was reported from the Normandy Reservoir (Bacon 1975), and chenopod, sunflower, and sumpweed were found in association with cucurbits at the Early Woodland Patrick site in the Tellico Reservoir (Schroedl 1978). Plant husbandry based on these crops continued in central Tennessee, where Middle Woodland populations were found to have utilized chenopod, maygrass, and sunflower as well as Cucurbita and maize, the latter appearing late in the sequence (Cobb and Shea 1977; Crites 1978c). Evidence of pre-maize agriculture was also accumulating elsewhere in the Southeast. Miller (1960) reported a mass of carbonized chenopod seeds from Russell Cave, Alabama, in contexts suggesting that they were harvested for use as food. The same specimens were in fact later found by Smith (1985b) to exhibit morphological traits associated with domestication. In eastern Kentucky, excavations began at Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, which later proved to be a rich source of Late Archaic and Early

< previous page

page_144

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_144.html[20/10/2010 11:27:56]

page_145

< previous page

page_145

next page > Page 145

Woodland cultigen remains (Cowan et al. 1981; Cowan 1985). Meanwhile, Cowan's research at two nearby rockshelter sites, Rogers and Haystack, established that cultivation of native plants persisted into the Late Woodland period (Cowan 1979a, 1979b). Human paleofeces from Haystack also provided evidence of seasonal dietary stress (Cowan 1978b), and Rogers produced a large and important collection of cucurbit remains (Cowan 1979b). Like the rockshelters, peat deposits associated with the Tchefuncte occupation of the Morton shell mound in Louisiana were characterized by exceptional preservation of organic materials. Abundant seeds of Polygonum (the genus that includes the knotweeds and smartweeds) were preserved there along with cucurbit seeds and rind (Byrd 1976). As new findings caused revision of the chronology for domestication of native plants in the Southeast, cucurbits were simultaneously being found in earlier contexts than ever before. Mesoamerican cultigens seemed to have won the temporal priority contest when the discovery of cucurbits in Missouri and western Kentucky indicated their presence in the East by ca. 2300 B.C. (Chomko and Crawford 1978). This evidence was readily accepted as an indication that ''the eastern horticultural complex was not an independent development but was a regional adaptation of the concept of horticulture that originated in Mesoamerica" (1978:405). Although the existence of an indigenous eastern agricultural tradition was well established by this time, the persistence of the notion that domestication was an idea rather than a process diminished the significance of native husbandry in the face of the earlier arrival of cucurbits. Of course, the last word had not been said in the independent domestication debate, which was revived by the appearance of new evidence in the 1980s. The timing of the introduction of maize was also being reexamined. It was evident that cucurbits and native crops had preceded it, but by how long? Yarnell (1965) concluded that maize seemed to be absent from Early Woodland sites in the East, although claims for late Early Woodland and Middle Woodland maize in the central Mississippi and Ohio valleys were not infrequent (Struever and Vickery 1973:1212). Many of the Middle Woodland dates were problematic. Nevertheless, it seemed by the late 1970s that maize was at least as early as ca. A.D. 400 to 500 in south-central and eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1973; Crites 1978b; Chapman and Keel 1979:160). The struggle to establish a chronology for the introduction of maize to the Southeast was inevitably linked to debates concerning the relationship between agriculture and cultural evolution. Finally, the paleoethnobotanical evidence needed to assess the importance of agriculture

< previous page

page_145

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_145.html[20/10/2010 11:27:57]

page_146

< previous page

page_146

next page > Page 146

in Hopewell and Poverty Point economies was available. It was demonstrated that maize was entirely absent from samples of Poverty Point period plant remains, although limited agriculture based on squash and chenopod was deemed possible (Shea 1979). Maize was either absent from or present only in small quantities at Middle Woodland sites in Illinois (Asch et al. 1979) and was not considered a significant component of Hopewell diet (Ford 1979). Many examples of Hopewell maize were later discredited with the advent of direct accelerator dating (Conard et al. 1983; Yarnell 1986). Nevertheless, agriculture based on native crops (particularly the starchy seeds chenopod, knotweed, and maygrass) was well established in Hopewellian communities in west-central Illinois (Asch et al. 1979). The importance of maize agriculture in Mississippian economies had long been recognized, but improved recovery techniques brought with it the realization that native crops and weeds also played a significant subsistence role in some parts of the Southeast. Not surprisingly, before the widespread implementation of flotation, reports of plant remains from Mississippian and contemporaneous sites were limited to maize, beans, nutshell, and large and/or sturdy seeds such as sunflower, pawpaw (Asimina triloba), and plum (Prunus sp.) (e.g., Griffin 1966). Archaeologists working in the 1970s, however, recognized considerable diversity in Mississippian subsistence and settlement (Smith 1978; Griffin 1985a:58). Newly acquired paleoethnobotanical evidence also indicated a diversified plant resource base for Mississippian populations. Yarnell's (1976) analysis of Pisgah phase plant remains from the Warren Wilson site in western North Carolina indicated that sumpweed was still grown as a crop along with beans and squash as part of a largely maize-based agricultural system. Kline and Crites (1979) found that maize and squash were only minor components of a crop plant assemblage dominated by chenopod, knotweed, and maygrass at the Early Mississippian Ducks Nest site in south-central Tennessee. These findings encouraged archaeologists to recognize that the introduction of maize did not produce an instantaneous intensification of agricultural production. Rather, in some locales it was incorporated into existing husbandry systems as an initially unimportant crop and did not entirely replace native plants even after its rise to dominance in later Mississippian economies. Early Holocene and Postcontact Studies New paleoethnobotanical data from Archaic components also indicated considerable variability among preagricultural foraging systems of the Southeast. Cleland (1976:6768) pointed out that Late Archaic subsistence was characterized by the scheduling of multiple activities as well

< previous page

page_146

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_146.html[20/10/2010 11:27:57]

page_147

< previous page

page_147

next page > Page 147

as by some degree of specialization, a trend initiated in the Middle Archaic as a consequence of the climatic amelioration that eventually eliminated big game. The characterization of Early Holocene populations as "focal" in adaptation (Cleland 1976) was called into question by evidence from Tennessee, where fruit and weed seeds were identified along with abundant nutshell (Chapman 1975, 1977, 1979). These findings supported Griffin's (1967:176) assertion that there was no reason to assume that early post-Pleistocene populations relied exclusively on game. In general, plant foods were found to have played an important role in Archaic subsistence in the Southeast. The discovery of cultigens in Late Archaic contexts established that the period was marked not only by increasing sedentism, but by the intensification of the ecological relationships that stimulated plant domestication. A relatively new focus of paleoethnobotanical research in the 1970s was the postcontact period. Sheldon (1978) summarized the archaeological distribution of peach pits in the Southeast and proposed that the presence of this introduced domesticate be used as an indicator of European contact. In eastern Tennessee, the University of Tennessee excavated several Cherokee settlements as part of the Tellico project. Brief reports of plant remains from the vicinity of Tuskegee (Guthe 1978) and Tomotley (Guthe and Bistline 1978) were published, but the bulk of data from the Cherokee sites was not to appear until the 1980s. Botanical Research As paleoethnobotanical data accumulated, studies of specific cultigens became increasingly important tools for determining the subsistence role of indigenous and mesoamerican crops in the Southeast. Some of these were produced by professionals working primarily in other disciplines, such as Jackson's 1960 revision of the genus Iva. Cutler and Whitaker (1961) applied their expertise to archaeological cucurbits in the New World. Charles Heiser (1978) continued to publish studies of sunflower variation and evolution and turned his attention to domesticated chenopods as well (Heiser and Nelson 1974; Wilson and Heiser 1979). Nevertheless, it was research conducted by paleoethnobotanists that would combine botanical, ecological, and anthropological knowledge in ways which would prove especially useful for subsistence studies. For example, Payne and Jones (1962) revised earlier opinions that giant ragweed was a prehistoric cultigen by showing that archaeological achene size was within the range of variation of modern populations. Similarly, Asch and Asch's (1977) detailed study of modern and archaeological Chenopodium did not produce convincing evidence of morphological change under domestication, although it did note some of the distinctive

< previous page

page_147

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_147.html[20/10/2010 11:27:58]

page_148

< previous page

page_148

next page > Page 148

characteristics (e.g., truncate fruit margins and thin seed coats) diagnostic for cultigen forms of Chenopodium berlandieri (Smith 1984, 1985a, 1985b). Most results, however, were more positive. For example, Yarnell's (1972, 1978) compilation of data on sumpweed made a strong case for its prehistoric domestication, building on earlier research by Black (1963). A similar increase in achene size over time was demonstrated for sunflower (Yarnell 1978). This conclusion was further supported by Asch and Asch (1978), who studied the nutritional and ecological attributes of sumpweed in order to assess its role as a crop in west-central Illinois. Along similar lines, Cowan (1978a) summarized phytogeographical and archaeological evidence that maygrass was cultivated. The newly established paleoethnobotanical data base, improved methods of recovery and analysis, and a more refined understanding of the development of plant husbandry in the Southeast provided specialists with an impressive array of tools for addressing the research questions of the 1980s. Many trends, including publication of numerous reports, continued. In addition, new research results necessitated reassessment of the origin of domesticated cucurbits and the independent domestication of seed-bearing plants. 1980Present: New Light on the Origins and Intensification of Plant Husbandry The last ten years or so have brought about substantial revisions of opinions regarding the origins and intensification of agriculture in the Southeast. These changes can be attributed in large part to increasing sophistication in recovery, quantification, and interpretation of paleo-ethnobotanical data. Evidence for premaize plant husbandry has continued to accumulate. The assumption that the earliest cucurbit remains in the Eastern Woodlands represented cultigen forms of mesoamerican origin has been questioned, reestablishing the probable temporal priority of indigenous crops. Simultaneously, the belief that the geographical origin of the earliest cultigens determines the autonomy of agricultural traditions has been largely replaced by the attitude that external influences do not render local processes of domestication irrelevant. This shift in attitude accompanied attention to domestication as an ecological process. As the paleoethnobotanical data base has grown, recognition of regional variability in plant use by contemporary populations has become increasingly common. Subsistence systems once assumed to be highly focal are

< previous page

page_148

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_148.html[20/10/2010 11:27:58]

page_149

< previous page

page_149

next page > Page 149

now known to have been more broad-based and variable than previously supposed. The nature and importance of food production among Mississippian and contemporary societies has been shown to be as variable as the relationship between agricultural intensification and the evolution of complex social systems. Methodological Advances The 1980s brought additional opportunities for maximizing the effectiveness of the flotation technique, which had become a standard field procedure. Analysts working with paleoethnobotanical remains from the Southeast were able to benefit from their colleagues' experiments with methods of separating materials (Bodner and Rowlett 1980), subsampling (Schaaf 1981), and assessing recovery (Munson 1981; Wagner 1982). Wagner (1988a) continued to emphasize the superiority of flotation over other recovery methods and the importance of ensuring comparability between paleoethnobotanical data sets. Concern with the specific problems involved in interpreting subsistence using paleoethnobotanical data continued. One approach to these problems involved investigation of the effects of context and preservational variables on assemblages (Hally 1981; Yarnell 1982). Another focus of attention was the relationship between energetic costs and the exploitation of particular plant species (Munson 1984). Methods of documenting morphological variability in domesticates were addressed by King (1987a, 1987b). Interpretation was also aided by the investigation of various statistical methods. Scarry (1986) provides an example of the effective application of one such approach (exploratory data analysis) to paleoethnobotanical data. Similar themes were addressed in the papers assembled by Hastorf and Popper (1988). In addition to its application to questions about subsistence, the growing paleoethnobotanical data base was also sometimes used by archaeologists to test hypotheses about other aspects of the archaeological record, such as feature function (Dickens 1985). Improvement of existing analytic methods was accompanied by appropriation of two new research techniques. One of these, the application of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating to archaeological specimens, resolved doubts about the temporal context of some early cultigens. This was possible because the AMS method can utilize very small quantities of material, allowing for the determination of the age of cultigen remains themselves, rather than associated material (Conard et al. 1983). A second technique, that of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), was found to be a valuable tool for morphometric study of cultigens. Use of the SEM aided Bruce Smith (1984, 1985a, 1985b) in identi-

< previous page

page_149

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_149.html[20/10/2010 11:27:59]

page_150

< previous page

page_150

next page > Page 150

fication and documentation of aspects of seed morphology related to domestication in Chenopodium. Paleoethnobotanists also began increasingly to take advantage of the findings obtained by colleagues engaged in the study of the chemical composition of human bone. Interpretations of prehistoric subsistence based on paleoethnobotanical evidence were largely confirmed and amplified by results obtained from analysis of trace elements and carbon isotopes (Bender et al. 1981; Lynott et al. 1986; Ambrose 1987; Buikstra et al. 1987). Research Activity Research activity in southeastern paleoethnobotany intensified during the 1980s. The increasing recruitment of paleoethnobotanists by contract archaeologists helped fill the gap left by the completion of some of the large federally funded projects. Several doctoral candidates acquired their degrees during the decade, in many cases augmenting already significant bodies of work (e.g., Cowan 1985; Crites 1985; Fritz 1986; Scarry 1986; Wagner 1987; Gremillion 1989b). Completion of large-scale archaeological projects initiated in the 1970s resulted in publication of several syntheses of paleoethnobotanical research, including Chapman and Shea (1981) on the Tellico Reservoir project and Johannessen (1984) on the FAI-270 project in the American Bottom. Chapman et al. (1982) used the extensive Tellico data to chart the relationship between environmental disturbance, food production, and settlement in the lower Little Tennessee River valley. Asch and Asch (1985) summarized paleoethnobotanical research in west-central Illinois. On a larger geographical scale, Yarnell and Black (1985) took on the entire southeastern region in their synthesis of Archaic and Woodland period trends in plant use. A far-reaching shift in theoretical orientation among paleoethnobotanists was precipitated by the publication of David Rindos's The Origins of Agriculture (1984). He characterized the initiation of plant domestication as a natural outcome of the ecological relationships between humans and their food plants. Viewed as a coevolutionary process, domestication was not dependent upon intentional human actions or demographic stress. Instead, it was gradually intensified by human behaviors (such as habitat enrichment, seed dispersal, and eventually husbandry) and changes in the domesticate that benefited both species. Agricultural systems involving extreme mutual dependence of human and plant populations were a potential (but not inevitable) outcome of these coevolutionary processes (Rindos 1984:206). Rindos's depiction of human/plant interdependence as a continuum ranging from opportunistic to obligate proved to be useful for interpreting the paleoethnobotanical record. It no longer seemed necessary or

< previous page

page_150

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_150.html[20/10/2010 11:28:00]

page_151

< previous page

page_151

next page > Page 151

appropriate to invoke population/resource imbalance to explain the initiation of food production, although the interactions between sedentism, population dynamics, and food supply were still seen as factors in agricultural intensification. The perception of plant domestication as either a population response to demographic stress or a detachable, diffusible cultural trait was incompatible with this new orientation. Smith (1987b, 1989) proposed that human/plant coevolution in the context of continually disturbed river margin habitats during the Middle Holocene (ca. 50002000 B.C.) provided the initial stimulus for the gradual development of plant husbandry in the interior Eastern Woodlands. Rindos's (1984) model of domestication was also used as an explanatory framework for more specific analyses of changing plant use in the Southeast (Crites 1987a; Gremillion 1989a; Rindos and Johannessen 1991). The Independent Domestication Issue and the Introduction of Maize During the 1980s, evidence of pre-maize plant domestication continued to accumulate in central and eastern Tennessee. Further examples of Late Archaic cucurbits were recovered from the Bacon Bend and Iddins sites in the Tellico Reservoir (Chapman 1981). Crites (1987b) found Cucurbita rind at the Hayes site that produced an AMS date of ca. 3400 B.C. Starchy and oily grains also continued to be reported from Late Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian contexts in eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1981; Cridlebaugh 1981; Knott 1981). The earliest of these were cucurbits, chenopod, and maygrass, which appeared in the lower Little Tennessee River valley in the Late Archaic. By the Early Woodland period, cultigen sumpweed and sunflower were grown, although knotweed was apparently not added there until Early Mississippian times (Chapman and Shea 1981:7778). The Late Woodland saw the addition of maize to cucurbits and native seed crops in the Normandy Reservoir (Crites 1982; McMahan 1983). Further evidence of plant husbandry was also forthcoming from Kentucky. Cowan (1985) was able to document Early Woodland utilization of cucurbits, sumpweed, sunflower, chenopod, and maygrass at the Cloudsplitter Rockshelter in the Red River Gorge. He suggested that Early Woodland food production represented a drastic and fairly abrupt shift from the foraging pattern characteristic of Late Archaic levels at the site (Cowan et al. 1981). Nevertheless, direct dating of cultigen chenopod from the Cloudsplitter and Newt Kash shelters later revealed that domestication of this crop began before 1500 B.C. in eastern Kentucky (Smith and Cowan 1987). Gremillion (1992) reported cultigen chenopod from Early Woodland and possible Late Woodland contexts at two additional eastern Kentucky shelters (Cold Oak and Thor's Hammer, respec-

< previous page

page_151

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_151.html[20/10/2010 11:28:00]

page_152

< previous page

page_152

next page > Page 152

tively) as well as Terminal Archaic specimens of knotweed, squash, cultigen sumpweed, and maygrass. In westcentral Kentucky, additional dates and plant remains from the Salts Cave vestibule supported the importance of gardening there during the Early Woodland and established the presence of early cucurbits (Gardner 1987). Elsewhere in the Green River drainage, food production was a relatively minor aspect of Late Archaic subsistence at shell mound sites, although nearby Peter Cave seemed to represent a trend in the direction of the Salts Cave agricultural pattern (Crawford 1982). Other parts of the Southeast and neighboring regions continued to produce evidence of pre-maize gardening. In Illinois, starchy seeds were found to be of major importance in the Middle Woodland (Johannessen 1984; Asch and Asch 1985). In the American Bottom, they remained significant resources after the introduction and subsequent intensification of maize agriculture (Johannessen 1984). Fritz (1984, 1986) studied the Ozark material first examined by Gilmore in the 1930s and was able to place this important evidence of prehistoric plant husbandry (including examples of cultigen chenopod and amaranth) in chronological context. Remarkable finds of cucurbits and other plant food remains at the Hontoon Island and Windover sites in eastern Florida brought new evidence to bear on the problem of Archaic cucurbits and illustrated the potential of wet sites for preserving paleoethnobotanical remains in the Southeast (Purdy and Newsom 1985; Decker and Newsom 1988; Newsom 1988). Studies of specific taxa resulted in the identification of several new crops as well as assessing the potential subsistence importance of prehistoric domesticates. Morphological studies of Chenopodium fruits from the Ozarks (Wilson 1981) set the stage for the work of Bruce Smith (1984, 1985a, 1985b), who identified indicators of selection under domestication in Chenopodium. The cultigen form Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum was initially described on the basis of Early and Middle Woodland collections from Russell Cave, Alabama, and Ash Cave, Ohio (Smith 1984, 1985a, 1985b; Smith and Funk 1985). Fritz and Smith (1988) further documented Chenopodium domestication in the Eastern Woodlands. Asch and Asch (1983) first identified an abundant grass type at the Smiling Dan site in Illinois as little barley (Hordeum pusillum). Like maygrass, archaeological little barley is not morphologically distinguishable from its modern wild counterpart. Nevertheless, it merits crop plant status due to its abundance and frequent association with cultigens. Since publication of its description, little barley has been identified in the Southeast in prehistoric as well as postcontact contexts (Gremillion 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1989e; Gardner 1990). The question of domestication of knotweed was addressed by Fritz (1987b), who documented differences in pericarp

< previous page

page_152

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_152.html[20/10/2010 11:28:01]

page_153

< previous page

page_153

next page > Page 153

thickness and achene dimensions between prehistoric and modern samples of this species (although overlap was found to occur between wild and suspected cultigen populations). Harvesting experiments and nutritional analyses also strengthened the case for pre-maize husbandry (Crites and Terry 1984; Smith 1987a). Taxonomic and morphological studies of Cucurbita pepo were to have a particularly profound effect on interpretations of independent domestication of indigenous plants in the Eastern Woodlands. Decker (1988) revised the species to include two subspecies, a Mexican cultigen and an eastern North American taxon. The latter (ssp. ovifera) includes both a wild vareity (var. texana) and a cultigen (var. ovifera) likely to have been domesticated in the Eastern Woodlands prehistorically. Morphological studies of archaeological and modern cucurbits resulted in identification of significant temporal trends and established tentative guidelines for distinguishing between cultigen and weed forms (Kay et al. 1980; King 1985; Decker and Newsom 19880. These findings resulted in a reinterpretation of Middle and Late Archaic cucurbit remains from Florida (Newsom 1988), Illinois (Conard et al. 1983; Asch and Asch 1985), and Tennessee (Crites 1987b) that had recently been added to the roster of early cucurbit finds. The determination that early occurrences of C. pepo rind probably represented a wild or weedy form or an incipient local domesticate rather than an exotic cultigen eroded crucial support for the temporal priority of mesoamerican cultigens in the Southeast (King 1985; Smith 1987b; Decker 1988). In the context of these findings Smith (1987b, 1989) was able to make a strong case for independent domestication of indigenous plants in the central part of the eastern United States (at the northwestern limits of the Southeast). With this development, the obsession with temporal priority seems to have largely evaporated and been replaced by a concern with ecological processes (an orientation that Struever [1964] tried to promote some twenty years earlier). Like the earlier discovery of the true nature of Hopewell gardening, continuing Poverty Point period research helped dislodge the assumption that mesoamerican-inspired maize agriculture was a prerequisite for mound building and community-level cooperative enterprise. Investigations by Jackson (1986) at the Copes site supported Shea's (1979) conclusion that plant husbandry was a minor aspect of the Poverty Point subsistence system, which was characterized by a mixed strategy involving hunting, fishing, gardening, and gathering. Meanwhile, direct AMS dates showed that suspected Middle Woodland maize from Illinois represented contamination from later deposits, a finding that supported the interpretation that it was not a significant component of Hopewellian diet (Conard et al. 1983). Of maize from

< previous page

page_153

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_153.html[20/10/2010 11:28:01]

page_154

< previous page

page_154

next page > Page 154

Hopewell contexts in Ohio, some proved to be relatively late, although some produced AMS dates in the third century A.D. (Ford 1987). Carbon isotope studies provided additional support for a limited or nonexistent role for maize in Hopewell diets (Bender et al. 1981; Price and Kavanagh 1982). AMS dating was thus instrumental in establishing a Middle Woodland age for maize in the Southeast as well as discrediting some purportedly Archaic and Woodland finds. Maize from Icehouse Bottom in eastern Tennessee produced a direct date of 1775 ± 100 B.P.: A.D. 175 (Chapman and Crites 1987). Reports of earlier maize pollen at Fort Center in southern Florida (Sears 1982) are currently regarded with some skepticism due to the potential for contamination from later deposits (Yarnell 19860 and the lack of corroboration in the form of macrobotanical remains. The evidence so far amassed indicates that although maize was being grown in parts of the Southeast at least by the second century A.D., nowhere did it rise to importance as a crop until late in the Late Woodland (Yarnell and Black 1985:104). Agricultural Intensification and the Role of Maize in the Late Prehistoric Period Agricultural intensification was not an immediate or inevitable consequence of the diffusion of maize, but may have been dependent on, among other things, the evolution of productive and storable local forms (Wagner 1988b; Rindos and Johannessen 1991). In some regions, such as eastern Tennessee, maize remains at a low level of archaeological visibility from its appearance in Middle Woodland times until the Early Mississippian period (Chapman and Shea 1981:79). It was utilized at similarly low levels during the Middle Woodland in central Tennessee (Kline et al. 1982:63). Maize also remained a minor dietary component in west-central Illinois for hundreds of years before becoming a staple, according to evidence from ratios of stable carbon isotopes in human bone (Buikstra et al. 1987). The subsistence context into which maize was introduced is also relevant in explaining regional variability in Mississippian and contemporary agricultural systems. In the American Bottom, it was added to a well-established suite of starchy grain crops (Johannessen 1984), as was the case for south-central Tennessee (Kline et al. 1982). At the Westmoreland-Barber site on the Tennessee River, small quantities of maize remains were found in a seventh century A.D. Late Woodland feature in association with abundant chenopod (Gremillion and Yarnell 1986). Native plants seem to have retained considerable importance within largely maize-based agricultural systems in these areas (Chapman and Shea

< previous page

page_154

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_154.html[20/10/2010 11:28:02]

page_155

< previous page

page_155

next page > Page 155

1981; Johannessen 1984). In contrast, the starchy grain crops so important in the Late Woodland in southern Ohio were largely replaced by maize by Fort Ancient times (Wagner 1987). In central Alabama the intensive maize production of the late Late Woodland and Early Mississippian represented greater discontinuity with antecedent populations, which exhibited less reliance on food production than groups to the north and west. Scarry's (1981, 1986) research in the Black Warrior valley demonstrated that maize was not simply incorporated into an existing agricultural system, although indigenous cultigens were present in West Jefferson phase (Late Woodland) contexts. Instead, the intensification of agriculture that began in West Jefferson times (ca. A.D. 9001050) represented a significant change in the existing economic base. Scarry's cluster analysis of maize from central Alabama indicated (1986) that greater effort was devoted toward developing and maintaining crop varieties (presumably with the goal of enhancing productivity and reducing risk) during Moundville I. Caddell (1982c, 1983) found similarly that maize was not a chief carbohydrate source for central Alabama populations until after the Late Woodland. Prior to that time, gathered resources were primary, although native cultigens were grown throughout the sequence. Recognition of regional variability in the relationship between the social developments of the Mississippi period and agricultural intensification was also stimulated by paleoethnobotanical data acquired in the 1980s. Fritz (1988) was able to show that the relatively early (ca. A.D. 700) development of large-scale cooperative social activity evident at the Toltec site in Arkansas was associated with exploitation of native grain crops rather than maize. Thus she was able to conclude that maize agriculture was not necessarily a causal factor in the initial development of ranked societies in the Southeast. In the eastern Ozarks and Mississippi valley, the Mississippian emergence was apparently not dependent on maize (although the later shift to large sedentary villages and civic and/or ceremonial centers was accompanied by a change to heavy maize consumption) (Lynott et al. 1986). In central Alabama, however, agricultural intensification seems to have preceded the emergence of the Moundville chiefdom (Scarry 1986:409). There, maize agriculture may have played a permissive (if not strictly determinative) role in the development of complex social organization by removing some of the constraints on largescale social manipulation of goods inherent in the subsistence systems that preceded it (Steponaitis 1986:392). Or instability in maize agriculture may have stimulated the development of stratification and centralization, as Rindos and Johannessen (1991) suggest for the American Bottom. The compilation of paleoethnobotanical data in recent years in the

< previous page

page_155

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_155.html[20/10/2010 11:28:02]

page_156

< previous page

page_156

next page > Page 156

Southeast has supported the recent acknowledgment that late prehistoric subsistence patterns were not focused on maize to the exclusion of other resources, although most were maize-based to some extent. Early Caddoan subsistence (ca. A.D. 7501350) was found to include a wide variety of foods; maize was an important food source but not the focus of a specialized economy (Perttula et al. 1982; Perttula and Bruseth 1983). Gardner (1985) showed that the Mississippian population of Beaverdam Creek in Georgia utilized a broad range of plant resources, a pattern characterized as midway between highly focal and highly diffuse. Johnson et al. (1983) found a similarly heterogenous assemblage at a Mississippi site. A large body of data representing the period from ca. A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1700 from the North Carolina Piedmont illustrated a similarly diversified plant resource base that included native and mesoamerican crops and weedy sources of fleshy fruits and greens as well as Old World introductions during the Historic period (Gremillion 1987, 1988, 1989b). A strikingly divergent pattern is apparent in southern Florida, where maize (if it was grown at all) was not a dietary staple (Scarry et al. 1989). Early Holocene and Postcontact Studies Although much of the paleoethnobotanical research of the 1980s focused on subsistence in relatively complex southeastern societies, the nature of early Holocene foraging was reassessed as well. Meltzer and Smith (1986) examined Paleoindian and Early Archaic subsistence in the context of current ecological models of diet breadth. They pointed out that the early Holocene climatic amelioration often invoked as motivating a shift from big-game hunting to broad-based foraging (Cleland 1976) had little impact in the Southeast. The generalized foraging predicted for species-rich habitats like the southern forests is in fact supported by the limited available paleoethnobotanical (and zooarchaeological) evidence (Meltzer and Smith 1986; B. Smith 1986). Investigation of plant use during the Historic period, so neglected in southeastern paleoethnobotany before the late 1970s, received continued attention. It became apparent that the impact of European contact on aboriginal subsistence varied regionally in nature and extent. In the Cherokee and Creek areas, some degree of acculturation was achieved that included the incorporation of Old World cultigens into existing subsistence systems (Chapman and Shea 1981; Baden 1983; Schroedl and Shea 1986; Gremillion 1989e). In other regions, such as the North Carolina Piedmont, smaller aboriginal populations used a largely traditional set of plant resources (except for two nonstaple introductions, peach and watermelon) until the apparent abandonment of the region early in the eighteenth century (Gremillion 1989b). The flow of cultural knowledge

< previous page

page_156

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_156.html[20/10/2010 11:28:03]

page_157

< previous page

page_157

next page > Page 157

and practice concerning plant foods seems often to have been from Native American to European, as studies of Spanish colonial settlements have shown (Reitz and Scarry 1985; Scarry 1985; Ruhl 1988). In sum, the 1980s have seen several significant modifications of our understanding of prehistoric plant husbandry in the Southeast. Domestication of plants began as early as the Late Archaic in parts of the Southeast (although the ecological processes involved were initiated long before) and proceeded, as far as we know, independently of mesoamerican influences. The assumption that native crops are unworthy of the serious attention of prehistoric farmers has been gradually dislodged by paleoethnobotanical evidence and interpretations. The tendency to dichotomize foragers and maize-focused agriculturalists has given way to a recognition of subsistence diversity along a continuum from reliance on wild resources to dependence on food production. An important outcome of these new interpretations is the acknowledgment that prehistoric agriculture in the Southeast is not a single phenomenon. Rather, native plant husbandry developed independently of mesoamerican influence, whereas the Mississippian pattern represented increased subsistence effectiveness based on maize and continued use of native crops (Yarnell 1988:6). The Southeast as it is usually defined may not have participated in the earliest agricultural developments in the Eastern Woodlands. Current evidence indicates instead that local centers of domestication cluster in the westcentral portion of the Eastern Woodlands in the interior riverine heartland of the United States (Smith 1987b). There are certainly indications that the native starchy and oily grains (for example, sunflower, sumpweed, maygrass, and chenopod) were not as important in the lower Southeast as they were in the central Mississippi River valley, Kentucky, and Tennessee (Scarry 1988, 1990). As paleoethnobotanical evidence from these regions accumulates, we should be able to characterize the processes contributing to the development and intensification of plant husbandry there. Conclusion These methodological, theoretical, and empirical advances in paleoethnobotany have been responsible for significant contributions to archaeological research in the Southeast. This phenomenon, however, is relatively recent. Not so long ago, the characteristic products of the paleoethnobotanist were detailed but anecdotal descriptive reports that were necessarily limited to materials of unusual quantity and quality. Such items were the only remnants of prehistoric plant use likely to sur-

< previous page

page_157

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_157.html[20/10/2010 11:28:04]

page_158

< previous page

page_158

next page > Page 158

vive the excavation procedures of the period, which were themselves in an incipient stage of development. Nevertheless, these still-tentative efforts to document and interpret prehistoric plant use were linked to an important (and, as it turned out, ongoing) debate on the nature of premaize agricultural traditions in the Eastern Woodlands. This issue was addressed largely in the absence of paleoethnobotanical evidence until after 1960. It was during this period that the development and wide implementation of specialized techniques for recovery of archaeological plant remains allowed the construction of a regional data base. This trend was made possible by (and simultaneously reinforced) the popularity of ecology and subsistence as topics of archaeological research. Along with botanical investigations of plant morphology, it generated important empirical evidence needed to evaluate the hypothesis of pre-maize plant husbandry. The growing data base was also instrumental in determining the nature of the long-debated economic basis of the Poverty Point, Hopewellian, and Mississippian cultural developments of the Southeast and surrounding regions. It was not until the 1980s, however, that ecological theory, improved paleoethnobotanical analysis techniques, new dating methods, and botanical research together yielded the evidence needed to establish that plant husbandry evolved in parts of the Southeast largely (or completely) independently of mesoamerican influences. A related development of this decade was the recognition of geographical variation in the subsistence importance of maize (as well as its indigenous predecessors) in the region. Thus the history of paleoethnobotany in the Southeast has been one of continual empirical and methodological improvement. For example, revovery techniques initially restricted to the collection of shovel loads of organic debris of mixed provenience have been refined to include water-mediated recovery of even the smallest carbonized seeds. The resulting data can be employed in detailed comparisons of specific deposits within or between sites. Study of the vast quantities of plant remains generated by these improved recovery methods has been greatly enhanced by the ability to observe plant micromorphology using tools such as SEM. The associated methods of quantifying paleoethnobotanical data have increased greatly in sophistication since numbers and weights of seeds and other plant remains were initially reported. Fortunately, these methodological advances have been accompanied by greater familiarity with ecological theory, plant morphology and taxonomy, and related topics, as well as a willingness to defer to or collaborate with other specialists when the depth of understanding of such matters is in doubt. These successful applications of paleoethnobotany as a tool for in-

< previous page

page_158

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_158.html[20/10/2010 11:28:04]

page_159

< previous page

page_159

next page > Page 159

vestigating past subsistence patterns in the Southeast bode well for its influence and continued maturation in the future. A particularly promising area is the identification and documentation of change in morphological characters closely coupled to the domestication process. Empirical research of this kind benefits greatly from the application of quantitative techniques that enable analysis of changes in plant use and crop morphology over time. An especially welcome contribution would be the development of quantitative remedies for the interpretive difficulties introduced by the incomplete nature of the archaeological record of plant use. As paleoethnobotanists turn more frequently to such explicitly scientific techniques, greater communication with specialist colleagues both within anthropology and in other disciplines will become an increasingly valuable asset. Zooarchaeological and osteological analyses are particularly likely to confirm our findings or confound them, stimulating additional research and resulting in more reliable conclusions. Within archaeology, flotation will continue to be viewed as an essential component of field research, even if it remains an unwelcome burden to some investigators. Thus if funding does not evaporate, we should acquire the paleoethnobotanical data we need for parts of the Southeast where the record is most incomplete (Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia). This continuing expansion of the existing data base may cause our recently acquired assumptions to be shaken and displaced by future findings, no matter how well they are supported by currently available data. These inevitable empirical and theoretical transformations should be welcomed as an essential aspect of scientific endeavor. This attitude allows us to work with existing assumptions without clinging to them in the face of contradictory evidence. By doing so, we can use imperfect knowledge acquired in the past to propel us toward a more complete understanding in the future.

< previous page

page_159

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_159.html[20/10/2010 11:28:05]

page_160

< previous page

page_160

next page > Page 160

Chapter 8 Archaeometry Ronald L. Bishop and Veletta Canouts In recent years, southeastern archaeologists have begun to write the history of their intellectual development. This exercise has been caused in part by the golden anniversaries of archaeological societies such as the Society for American Archaeology (Watson, ed. 1985) and more particularly, the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (Knight 1990); by the need to educate younger archaeologists to the nuances of a profession that has been slow to chronicle or to honor the contributions of archaeologists nearing retirement, except through plenary sessions at regional meetings; and by the need to understand the philosophical and political positions that have shaped current interpretations of the archaeological record. Where some writers have turned to substantive themes (Watson 1990), federal sponsorship (Haag 1985; Keel 1988), and biographies (Willey 1988) to illustrate major trends, we review the application of certain archaeometric analyses in southeastern research, principally those involved in materials characterization. An archaeometric analysis simply involves the application of techniques derived from the physical and chemical sciences to characterize archaeological materials. Its distinguishing feature is the scientific objectification of observational data. We make no attempt to be exhaustive in our coverage of either technique or specific application. General reviews of archaeological applications of techniques may be found in Tite (1972), Aiken (1974), Goffer (1980), Parks (1986), Leute (1987), Mommsen (1986), Bishop et al. (1982, 1990). These general works may be supplemented with issues of Archaeometry, the Journal of Archaeological Science, and the Archaeological Chemistry series of the American Chemical Society. Our examples are selected

< previous page

page_160

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_160.html[20/10/2010 11:28:05]

page_161

< previous page

page_161

next page > Page 161

to exemplify archaeometric activity in the Southeast. The choice of materials that have been analyzed and therefore form the corpus for review is the direct result of the interest of archaeologists working within identifiable research paradigms. Even though the geographic focus of this article is the Southeast, our comments will necessarily crosscut natural and even cultural boundaries. The natural properties of the materials being characterized set up conditions of study as do the procurement and distribution systems in which the materials circulated. From a cultural standpoint, it appears that, at times, material needs were met wholly within the Southeast, whereas at other times, especially in the quest for sumptuary items needed to reflect heightened social or economic worth, materials were obtained via long-distance interaction, outside the Southeast proper (Steponaitis 1986). Materials Characterization of Exotics in the Southeast Materials characterization of an archaeological object is used to answer such questions as, What is it made of? Where did it come from? How do its properties influence its performance? (See also Kingery 1982.) By far the most common questions asked by archaeologists have related to raw material procurement and redistribution systems, especially the long-distance exchange of exotics or sumptuary artifacts. Hopewell ''exotic'' materials circulating in the Middle Woodland period were among the first objects to undergo characterization studies. The reasons behind their selection and the reasons for a lack of similar studies for other temporal periods, although not explicit, appear to be historical. Certainly, many of these same "exotics" circulated over long distances during the Late Archaic and Mississippian periods (Winters 1968; Ottesen 1979; Johnson 1992), but the models that discuss the possible mechanisms for such exchange have only lately been proposed (e.g., Winters 1968; Marquardt 1985; Brown et al. 1990). In contrast, Hopewell long-distance exchange was modeled in an exchange sphere or interaction sphere with the nodes or sites identified by the presence of nonlocal, raw materials and well-finished artifacts of these same materials in the assemblages (Struever 1964; Struever and Houart 1972). A certain level of social complexity must exist for materials characterization to lead to supportable inferences about exchange. The description of an exchange sphere by Binford as the "areal (matrix) of regular and institutionally maintained intersocietal articulation" (1965:208) specifies the operational criteria that must be met. The regular maintenance of the flow of goods is a necessary condition for materials charac-

< previous page

page_161

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_161.html[20/10/2010 11:28:06]

page_162

< previous page

page_162

next page > Page 162

terization studies that attempt to delimit sources of raw materials. These sources must be used repeatedly in order to see patterning beyond randomized, individualized extraction events. Indeed the patterning must be robust enough to compensate for the comparatively few samples that compress hundreds of years. Archaeologists have relied primarily on the criteria of abundance and fall-off models to identify raw material sources for Hopewell artifacts (see Seeman 1979). For materials that occur under restricted conditions, archaeologists may need only a geologic map to narrow possibilities relative to access. But difficulties arise when more than one equally accessible source exists or when the source implies unexpected levels of complexity in procurement or distribution. To help overcome these difficulties with the Hopewell exotics, several types of raw material that figured prominently in Hopewell exchange have been the subject of materials characterization. The studies of obsidian, native copper, and galena, which are continental or interregional in terms of source identification, introduce some of the methodological procedures and problems associated with interpretations of multiple-source data. Obsidian Trace elemental analysis of Hopewell obsidian artifacts was the first materials characterization study to gain widespread recognition among archaeologists working in the Eastern Woodlands (Gordus et al. 1968). The virtual absence of Hopewell obsidian artifacts outside of Ohio and the observation that the closest obsidian sources were to be found in the western United States, Alaska, and Mexico at once highlighted the possible magnitude of the Hopewell interaction sphere and suggested an alternative to down-the-line exchange. The obsidian project, begun in 1964, was the first of many undertaken at the University of Michigan. At the urging of James Griffin, Adon Gordus, a professor of chemistry, took time away from his study of ancient coins to apply instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), which he was using, to obsidian (Gordus 1967; Gordus et al. 1968; Griffin et al. 1969; see also Gordus et al. 1967; Griffin 1976:35). Colleagues were quick to supply obsidian materials to the scientists, and it helped that similar investigations of obsidian were also begun about the same time (e.g., Cann 1968; Renfrew et al. 1968). The initial screening of samples was carried out using only two elements, sodium and manganese, which limited the possible sources to "Obsidian Cliff in Yellowstone National Park, a source in Idaho, and a source in Mexico" (Gordus et al. 1968:93). The final attribution to Yellow-

< previous page

page_162

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_162.html[20/10/2010 11:28:06]

page_163

< previous page

page_163

next page > Page 163

stone was based on five to ten additional elemental determinations. These additional elemental analyses were made possible by instrumentation equipped with a NaI (Tl) scintillation detector, single channel analyzer, printer, and paper tape storage. Although this was a early application of the analytical technique, it was methodologically advanced in the following ways: attention was given to maximizing the analytical precision; standards were used in each irradiation so that elemental determinations could be kept to a constant reference base; and the process was semiautomated to provide for numerous sample throughput. These methodological procedures remain basic, and analytical rigor is dependent upon how well they are followed (Bishop et al. 1990). Native Copper From a methodological perspective, the analytical history of native copper is interesting for it has been the subject of investigation by at least three groups of researchers who used different analytical approaches. While all the native copper studies concentrated on analytic issues, one of the researchers, Sharon Goad, interpreted her results archaeologically. In her dissertation (1978) and subsequent articles (1979, 1980; Goad and Noakes 1978), Goad demonstrated that much of the copper found in the Middle Woodland period was derived from the copper sources of the Great Lakes, particularly from the Keweenaw Peninsula and Isle Royale. Other sources were also identified for the Middle Woodland artifacts, including sources from Wisconsin, and several southeastern ore sources in the Appalachians. The attribution of southeastern copper artifacts to local southeastern sources supported increasingly regionalized interpretations of Hopewell participation (Brose and Greber 1979). Although copper may be considered an exotic when it came into the Southeast from the Great Lakes, local ores were also available. By demonstrating that local sources were used even sporadically, Goad (1979) was able to suggest alternate exchange patterns. For example, the Southeast panregional exchange centers in the Southeast might have been able to supplement local distribution through the locally manufactured items. This supplementation is thought to have been a late development that culminated in the Mississippian period when procurement focused on the exploitation of sources indigenous to the Southeast with only minor representation from the northern sources (Goad 1978). Data for Goad's study were produced by optical emission spectroscopy through collaboration with scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, and Reston, Virginia. In brief, a solution containing

< previous page

page_163

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_163.html[20/10/2010 11:28:07]

page_164

< previous page

page_164

next page > Page 164

the dissolved copper sample was heated to a sufficiently high temperature to cause the elements in the sample to emit unique spectral lines. The lines were recorded on a photographic plate and scanned by a microphotometer for a determination of the wavelength intensity of each line. Following various background subtractions and other spectral analysis, the concentrations were calculated relative to calibration curves. Results obtained from this mode of analysis were only semiquantitative (Goad 1978:254). Goad acknowledges that the analytical precision of the technique rests on multiple factors, but she does not give a estimate of the error in the data. Given the compromises that are made, for example in sample preparation, use of standards, and equipment errors such as plate fogging, precision with an error rate in the 1020 percent range would be reasonable for emission spectrographic analysis (Mitteldorf 1965:217; see also Jones 1986: Table 2.2). Goad proceeded to summarize the analytical data beginning with a cluster analysis followed by a discriminant analysis. Outlier samples were removed and the clusters of sources formed with Ward's method using previously obtained principal component scores. Attribution of the artifactual data to probable source groups was based on a pooling of the source and artifact data, reclustering, and subsequent discriminant analysis. The resultant groups were not exclusive, showing overlap usually with source materials that were geologically adjacent to one another (Goad 1978:6382). Hindsight suggests that Goad's research was limited by the choice of an analytical technique that in its earlier form generally suffered from low sensitivity and precision (Harbottle 1982a:21). The use of wavelength intensities, rather than absolute concentrations calculated relative to given standards, further limits the use of the data by others. Finally, the data analysis, while thoughtful, was hardly rigorous with disproportionate reliance being placed on discriminant analysis (see Bishop and Neff 1989). These musings aside, Goad's research represents a valuable contribution to methodological development and to substantive understanding of the archaeological issues she set out to address. She was able to distinguish between the use of northern and southern copper ores, but a more precise technique is necessary to distinguish within source variability. A limited program of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) was carried out by Goad in collaboration with John Noakes. Although the greater sensitivity of the technique produced a greater number of usable elemental concentration, the interpretative value of their analysis was inconclusive (Goad and Noakes 1978:341). One problem that they cite concerned the masking of the gamma spectra due to the

< previous page

page_164

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_164.html[20/10/2010 11:28:07]

page_165

< previous page

page_165

next page > Page 165

activity of silver. The cause of their problem is unclear because this particular masking effect was not found in a study of native copper conducted by Emil Veakis (1979). Veakis analyzed native copper source samples from Michigan, Alaska, and Arizona in a effort to assess the extent of intrasource variation through the application of INAA. Copper artifacts were subsequently evaluated as to their agreement with the elemental variability observed in the source materials. A central component of this study revolved about the determination of an optimal program of standards evaluation, analytical sample size, irradiation, cooling, and gamma ray spectroscopy. Several of the samples contained a high silver content. Based on Veakis's study, the "silver" masking effect noted by Goad and Noakes is more likely to have been the result of an insufficient cooling period to permit the activity of the copper isotope to decay with spectrographic problems compounded by Goad and Noakes's use of a detector with less resolution than that used by Veakis. Veakis does not report the resolution of the detector but at that time the detector in use at the Brookhaven Laboratory was on the order of 1.9 keV compared to the 2.3 keV resolution reported by Goad and Noakes (1978:338). Drawing more exact comparisons between the two studies is hampered further because Goad and Noakes do not report the length of counting time. Since 1966 George Rapp has conducted an extensive program of analysis of native copper from North America, studying in particular the within-source variation in copper from northern Michigan (Rapp et al. 1980; Rapp and Allert 1984; Rapp et al. 1990). Over 1,200 samples have been analyzed in the ensuing 24 years. While the results of these analyses now comprise an impressive data bank, at least in terms of sheer numbers, the utility of these data for further comparative analyses is somewhat questionable. Rapp and his co-workers have taken what might be called a "rationalizing geological perspective" to the variation that might be found in native copper deposits. Over the years, they made changes in analytical procedure, involving not only the gamma spectrometry but also the use of standards. Rapp and his associates first used emission spectrography, similar to Goad's work, but later abandoned it in favor of the increased precision of INAA. They also changed standards in 1973 and changed again to yet a third set in 1981 (Rapp and Allert 1984:274). Although different standards can be used (see Harbottle 1982b), they report no attempt to normalize the data to a common analytical standard reference base but rather state that their data are "unhomogeneous" (Rapp and Allert 1984:274). Nevertheless, "it is [their] contention that the inherent heterogeneity of the raw materials and the lack of any ancient technology

< previous page

page_165

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_165.html[20/10/2010 11:28:08]

page_166

< previous page

page_166

next page > Page 166

to remove impurities probably combine to make measured differences in trace element concentrations of less than one-third of an order of magnitude . . . insignificant in provenance studies of prehistoric copper and bronze artifacts" (Rapp and Allert 1984:274, emphasis added). There is no doubt that even though some sources of raw materialsfor example, jadeites (Bishop et al. 1992) or turquoise (Garman Harbottle, tle, work in progress)exhibit a great range of variation, differences among sources can still be determined, partially overcoming analytical error. Accumulated analytical errors, however, can have adverse impacts when attribution to a specific source among related sources is the issue: an analytically induced heterogeneity in the data base will compromise attempts to summarize the data using various statistical programs that draw on interelemental correlation properties (for example, discriminant analysis). Rapp and his associates (1980; Rapp and Allert 1984) formed five groupings of possible native copper source areas in Michigan based on a rank-ordered partitioning of the elemental concentrations, but it is difficult to assess whether these groups are the result of natural or analytical heterogeneity. For now and in the immediate future, Goad's emission spectroscopic work will provide the analytical and comparative baseline for an interpretation of native copper procurement and distribution. Ultimately, more sensitive and precise techniques can and must be used if the specificity of source attribution is to be improved. Instrumental neutron activation analysis can and has been used, but a data base that reflects close attention to analytical precision and accuracy has yet to be developed to address issues of interest to southeastern archaeology. Galena In "an attempt to attack quantitatively the problem of Hopewellian diffusion" Walthall and his collaborators (Walthall et al. 1980:21) engaged in a compositional characterization of galena. Galena samples from several geological sources in the eastern United States were studied along with artifacts from sites representing occupation from the Archaic through Historic periods (Walthall 1981). Early on, the artifacts were analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy, but only some of the source samples were so analyzed. The remaining source elemental concentration values were obtained from the literature or from personal communication, and these values were based on emission spectrographic analysis. By 1981 it appears that most of the source samples had been analyzed by atomic absorption, thus bringing the source materials into a more readily comparative level with the artifacts (Walthall 1981). Walthall, Stow, and Karson (1980) relied on discriminant analysis to

< previous page

page_166

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_166.html[20/10/2010 11:28:08]

page_167

< previous page

page_167

next page > Page 167

attribute artifacts to three "districts." They concluded that rather than exploiting sources in the more immediate area, the occupants of the Middle Woodland Copena Mounds obtained their galena from sources in the WisconsinIllinois-Iowa region of the Upper Mississippi Valley. A more extensive analysis using a total of 252 galena samples representing 83 archaeological sites revealed that two of six characterized districts, the Upper Mississippi Valley and Southeastern Missouri I (Bonneterre), were the most heavily exploited sources for Eastern Woodland galena (Walthall 1981:36). Galena is a naturally occurring material that can form in very different environments and can undergo various stages of alteration yielding secondary minerals. The extent of variation among the elements that were determined in the analyzed galena had to be derived empirically for each district. The wide ranges of elemental concentrations within a given district are not surprising nor are they necessarily larger than that observed for other naturally occurring materials, such as turquoise or jadeite. Indeed, this step of actually determining the elemental abundance in galena is far easier than that of deciding what constitutes a useful characterization. All samples from a district or a source appear to have been included in the subsequent stage of discriminant analysis (Walthall et al. 1980; Walthall 1981). That is, there was no attempt made to refine a group through the elimination of outliers nor was there an attempt to extend the sampling of some sources to determine whether or not "dirty" galena was present (Walthall et al. 1980:29). We do not know to what extent those galena with extreme values within a district might, in fact, suggest that multiple, "natural" compositional patterns are present within a given formation. In 1981 Walthall stated that further analyses using atomic absorption supported his previous conclusions, but he did not present the geological source data or the statistical data. Given the potential variation within the formation environment, the often extreme univariate overlap in analytical composition, and reliance on discriminant analysisa technique that tends to support the grouped data whether they represent separate groups or notwe can only concur with Walthall, Stow, and Karson's (1980:31) earlier statement that "it is surprising that the galena sources can be distinguished as well as they can." Localized Extraction, Production, and Exchange in the Southeast The scale of exchange often determines how archaeologists differentiate between exotic/nonlocal and local materials. The success of sourc-

< previous page

page_167

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_167.html[20/10/2010 11:28:09]

page_168

< previous page

page_168

next page > Page 168

ing long-distance "exotics" raised the possibility that similar studies could be carried out on materials derived from local sources and used locally in the Southeast. Information about local sources has most often been used to reconstruct settlement-subsistence rounds of activities that link populations to the repetitious use of resources in spatially defined areas. Differential distribution of artifacts produced from materials that are found within a region may also reflect exchange, however, especially if the material is valued for its technological or socioreligious attributes. Distinguishing between intraregional exchange and direct procurement of materials depends not only on the natural distribution of these materials, but upon the organizational complexity of the procurement and redistribution systems as well. Materials characterization can provide data not only on source area, but also on functional and sociotechnical patterns. Many of the materials characterization studies carried out to date have been primarily methodological, as analysts search for techniques to define the range of natural and cultural variation. The techniques of materials characterization when used to answer questions about localized exchange or localized adaptive strategies require observation and measurement of physicochemical differences on very fine scales. Such refinement or control is particularly difficult to achieve in the Southeast, where materials, particularly those used for subsistence purposes, are uniformly distributed throughout the region. The Southeast is an old geologic regime that supports a richly diverse biota: rivers flowing through eroded uplands sweep widely over the coastal plains depositing rich alluvium before meandering out to sea. These broad distributary systems transect similar geological zones, and although the effects of incline can be seen in the vegetation, there is a great deal of geophysical homogeneity between distributary systems. Despite this overall homogeneity, material resources being exploited from mixed riverine alluvial deposits or from residual exposures may be highly localized, and thus may be differentiated. The mapping of microzonal variation in biotic resources has facilitated archaeological reconstruction of the biological resource base and subsistence-related activities. Because similar mapping of the geochemical variation within and across geological outcrops has yet to be realized, the cultural significance of compositional differences in the material assemblages may not be as immediately obvious. To the extent that highly localized resources can be characterized compositionally, material (artifact) attribution may be very specific. The converse, of course, also holds true. Should a compositional profile of a group or class of artifacts fail to match the patterns of the characterized material resource, the archaeologist cannot neces-

< previous page

page_168

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_168.html[20/10/2010 11:28:10]

page_169

< previous page

page_169

next page > Page 169

sarily conclude that the resource was not used. There may be simply too much variation within the deposit, variation that may not have been sampled, to rule out possible exploitation. Some biological species, such as shell, which take on the geochemical characteristics of specific drainages, can be difficult to map, as the geochemistry of these microzones changes over time. Materials that are found embedded in a number of different types of geological formations, such as soapstone or chert deposits, are equally difficult to distinguish as the range of variation with a single deposit often dictates the need for an extensive analytical sampling strategy that can overwhelm the limited analytical resources available. Relaxing the parameters that define the variation can have contradictory effects. The concatenation of sparsely sampled regions into a single compositional reference unit may so pertubate the parameters that attributing artifacts to a "source" becomes spurious. The observed range of variation that is due to sampling is only one of the factors contributing to the total range of variation that has to be filtered before exploitative patterns become apparent. In addition to the natural variation in the materials and the analytical variation imposed by instrumentation and sampling, the compositional profile of the artifacts is also the result of cultural variation. That is, there is variation beyond that related to idiosyncratic extraction activities. In most cases, the cultural variation relative to material resources pertains to selective criteria, which is the exploitation pattern being sought, but in other cases, especially in ceramics, this variation pertains to the modification and admixture of materials collected in their natural state. Although the cultural variation contributes to sourcing problems, this variation also becomes a focus of study in materials characterization analyses that attempt to determine the performance or functionality of the artifact, such as ceramic performance. The modification of materials is usually intentional, and further analysis may lead to an understanding of how technological developments improve adaptive responses. Depending on the scale of the study, some modifications may be correlated with technical knowledge or conventions that differ between production units. In such cases, the organization of production is also being monitored. Shell The use of marine shell artifacts dates from the Early Archaic but was particularly extensive and widespread in the southeastern United States during Middle Woodland and Mississippian times (Ottesen 1979). Shell was involved in diverse social contexts, as inferred by its use as

< previous page

page_169

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_169.html[20/10/2010 11:28:10]

page_170

< previous page

page_170

next page > Page 170

utilitarian items by coastal peoples and as religious objects or as symbols of status among inland groups (e.g., Peebles 1971; Peebles and Kus 1977). Recent attention has been called to the possibility that among Mississippian societies, marine shell, usually in the form of beads, was used as a form of wealth (Prentice 1987), as wampum was in postcontact times. Trade is inferred when the shell is found in an inland archaeological context, away from possible marine source areas. As for other "exotic" materials, the attribution of shell to its source area(s) would serve to focus, more sharply, directionality in trade. When certain shell artifacts retain sufficient identifying characteristics to ascribe the shell to a particular species (e.g., Goad 1979), an attribution to a broadly defined source might be possible, although the range of species habitats along the southeastern coast can be extensive. With many smaller artifacts, attribution to any particular region is far more speculative. Common sense tells us that sources for marine shell lie along the Gulf and Atlantic shores and in the mouths of tidal rivers. In an attempt to impart more locational specificity, Katherine Miller (1980) investigated the extent of chemical variation among quahog or hard-shell clams (M. mercenaria). Under the guidance of members of the Chemistry Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Miller carried out instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and atomic absorption spectrometry on specimens from along the Atlantic seaboard: Maine, Massachusetts, Long Island, and Georgia. INAA was an important choice for analysis as the small sample size necessarily meant that, if successful, the technique could be extended to include small objects or small samples taken from large but elaborately carved objects. Atomic absorption, although necessitating an appreciably larger sample, nonetheless affords an opportunity to obtain data on additional elements, including those that are important in influencing the calcite to aragonite ratio of the shell. Since the chemical makeup of the shell for a given species is influenced by the immediate conditions of temperature, salinity, and ions available from the drained geological environment, it was reasoned that chemically distinct zones along the Atlantic shore might be identifiable. Ten elemental concentrations with acceptable levels of analytical precision were quantified; six of these were determined to be useful for differentiating among the sampled regions. Although Miller's preliminary findings indicated that it was possible to differentiate among shells of M. mercenaria at an interregional level, other findings, such as an inability to compare, in a meaningful manner, archaeological and modern shell and the need to measure more fully the chemical variation within the shell, have limited the rush of others to-

< previous page

page_170

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_170.html[20/10/2010 11:28:11]

page_171

< previous page

page_171

next page > Page 171

ward chemical investigation of this material. A notable exception, however, is the work by Cheryl Claassen (1985b, 1987, 1988; also Coughlin and Claassen 1982) who has continued to pursue chemical characterization of marine shell within a single region (that is, M. mercenaria from North Carolina) using atomic absorption. The findings from her studies demonstrate that chemical elements which were absorbed by the marine shellfish resulted in compositionally specific signatures among North Carolina's watersheds (Coughlin and Claassen 1982; Claassen 1988). Claassen (1988) also has reported on the analysis of three Busycon shells by X-ray fluorescence. In addition, David Brose (Claassen 1988) has submitted archaeological and modern Busycon shell for analysis by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP). To our knowledge, however, the results of the latter study have not appeared. Miller's initial study and the more recent investigations by Claassen serve to illustrate the inherent difficulty encountered in attempts to characterize marine shell. At the present time, the studies remain exploratory, primarily methodological refinements of technique as well as identification of sources of variation. Atomic absorption or ICP requires substantially larger samples for analysis than INAA, large enough, in fact, to probably exclude the sampling of small beads or elaborately carved artifacts. Without fast adherence to secondary standards or ''comparators'' and careful attention paid to analytical precision, the chemical data produced by one technique may not be relatable to that obtained by others, leading to noncomparable data sets. Additionally, providing that a given technique can provide data of requisite sensitivity and precision, the basic notion of what constitutes a "source" will require modification. Unlike the sources for many other types of raw materials found in the archaeological record, the marine shell "source area" is one that might move location over time, depending on species, and would therefore be influenced chemically by new environments. It is clear that efforts to determine the source locations for marine shell have a long way to evolve before substantive interpretations can be made. Soapstone The analytical sourcing of soapstone has received more "archaeometric" than "archaeological" attention. In a series of articles, chemist Ralph Allen and various associates discuss a neutron activation program for soapstone analysis (Allen et al. 1975; Luckenbach et al. 1975; Allen and Pennel 1978; Allen et al. 1982). Similar methodological approaches have also been applied to an investigation of soapstones in Labrador (Rogers et al. 1983). Geochemical considerations of variable parent materials evaluated with principals of ionic substitution caused the researchers to

< previous page

page_171

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_171.html[20/10/2010 11:28:11]

page_172

< previous page

page_172

next page > Page 172

place primary reliance on patterns found for the rare earth elements when normalized to chondrite abundances. A source area is represented by an average chondrite-normalized profile whose distribution curve is then compared to the curves for other sources. Analyzed soapstone artifacts that are considered to be matches for a characterized source profile are used to suggest extraction-distribution patterns. The choice of data summarization, based on the normalized distribution curves, presents little opportunity to consider the extent of variation among the characterized sources or within a given source. To date, the reconstruction of soapstone procurement and distribution "routes" is seemingly based on a very limited number of artifact analyses. As mentioned above, the soapstone program has been predicated upon expected elemental behavior given certain assumptions about soapstone formation processes. These assumptions made by Allen and his coworkers have recently been called into question by data presented by Moffat and Buttler (1986) in their study of rare earth distribution patterns in Shetland soapstone sources. Moffat and Buttler conclude that it is unlikely to expect that steatites found within a given complex will have a similar rare earth profile throughout the complex given the nature of the formation process and involvement of different parent materials; unrelated sources may have a similar rare earth compositional profile as a result of the formation process; and from a consideration of fractionation, there is no reason to believe that rare earth elements will be evenly distributed in steatite minerals (1986:113). It seems obvious that more than just average normalized profiles must be reported before we can assess the extent of inter- and intrasource variation let alone the extent of artifact correspondence. Chert The sheer quantity of chert artifacts recovered from southeastern sites would suggest that an adequate program to relate artifacts to sources would provide data on extractive and redistributive activities. Traditionally, chert sources have been classified and attributed to regional sources on the basis of visual properties, that is, luster, inclusions, texture, and particularly color (Futato 1983b; Prothero and Lavin 1990). That chert receives different varietal names based on its color and impurities suggests that petrographic analysis would be a useful approach to its characterization. At the same time, it is an indication of the potential variation that can be encountered in a chemical analysis. Analytical difficulties arise because chert forms in a sedimentary environment, most frequently derived as a replacement product in a carbonate host rock

< previous page

page_172

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_172.html[20/10/2010 11:28:12]

page_173

< previous page

page_173

next page > Page 173

(usually limestone) or as a product from ephemeral silica-rich alkaline lake environments. Other than macroscopic impressions, however, chemical analysis of chert appears to be the preferred approach to source identification of southeastern cherts, but the material has been recalcitrant. Depending upon the amount of impurities such as clay, hematite, or calcite (each of which have their own variable trace elemental pattern), the degree of chemical variation within a source can be large, and thus extensive analyses of sources and artifacts would be necessary for a characterization projector, if the variation is too great, the observable variation could easily preclude a chemically based investigation. Furthermore, trying to classify varieties can be extremely difficult because at a given level of analysis macroscopic differences, such as color, might not correspond to chemical differences. In a study of Fort Payne chert from Mississippi (Futato 1983b), the elemental concentrations of K, Ca, Fe, and Na were found to occur at the trace level (below 100 parts per million) and to be fairly homogeneous across different color zones in a ca. nine by eight meter exposure. In another study carried out by Hoffman (1981), a combination of petrographic, structural, and chemical analysis was used to locate sources of chert recovered in a survey area within Tishomingo County, Mississippi. Qualitative and semiquantitative chemical analyses were obtained by emission spectrometry and quantitative data by atomic absorption spectrometry. X-ray diffraction confirmed the predominant quartz component of the chert. Hoffman's results also revealed that in spite of color differences, the chemical analyses demonstrated considerable homogeneity, indicating that specific sources could not be inferred for chert found in the study area. In the case of chert, as well as other types of materials, questions surround the extent of localization of an analyzed sourcewhether or not the "homogeneity" viewed by a subset of attributes by one analytical technique is useful for discriminating among nearby or more distant sources. The most extensive investigations of trace element characterization of chert have been carried out by Barbara Luedtke (1978, 1979; Luedtke and Meyers 1984; see also Ives 1984, 1985). Like other studies that use trace elemental characterization to differentiate among the products of different sources, the study was predicated on the assumption that a material source can be considered to be compositionally similar and relatively dissimilar to other characterized sources. Luedtke's investigation of compositional variation in American midwestern chert clearly revealed that a single source can be extremely variable, which would ap-

< previous page

page_173

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_173.html[20/10/2010 11:28:12]

page_174

< previous page

page_174

next page > Page 174

pear to vitiate the use of a trace elemental approach for chert (Luedtke 1978; Luedtke and Meyers 1984). Nevertheless, Luedtke's careful sampling and attention to the variation within a source area permitted her to reach archaeologically useful conclusions. Outside of the United States similar conclusions were reached by Mark Tobey (1986; see also Tobey et al. 1986). Focusing on the variation within the chert-bearing region about the site of Colha in Belize, Tobey and his coworkers concluded that compositional separation into several relatively homogeneous groups was possible despite the apparent variation within the source area. Unfortunately, the Colha program of trace elemental analysis has not included chert sources outside of the Colha chert area. Therefore, it is not surprising that the researchers parsimoniously concluded that the extensive chert source area in immediate proximity to the site of Colha was the source for the Colha chert! Where, then, do these studies leave the Southeast? Certainly, the work of Luedtke and Meyers (1984) within the Burlington formation offers hope that a trace element investigation of chert sources and artifacts might be successfully carried out in the Southeast. Such a chemically based investigation will need to be extensive in order to sample multiple source areas within a region and to analyze a sufficient number of artifacts so that the artifactual variation can be meaningfully compared to the sources. Ceramics A few years ago, Jerry Milanich, commenting on PIXE ceramic analyses, wondered if "Twinklebell [sic]" would be next (1985:177). If, as he implied, PIXE applications were being treated as something magical, a technique that could stave off laborious rites of passage in the quest for analytical data, there is indeed a flirtation with Twinklebell. Proton induced X-ray emission spectroscopy (PIXE) is a technique of microanalysis that is capable of obtaining major and minor concentrations of elemental data at a greater sensitivity than X-ray fluorescence (Kullerud et al. 1979). Glen Doran (1984, 1985) has investigated the use of PIXE as a relatively quick and very inexpensive means of obtaining analytical data on pottery. He cites the vast disparity in cost between neutron activation analysis at the commercial rate of $450 per sample and PIXE at approximately $10 per sample (1984:115; 1985:104). In reality, of course, no archaeological program could afford INAA at such a commercial rate, and thus the comparison is rather spurious. Doran proposes a further cost-saving technique of using a scraped sample rather than preparing the more usual pelletized one, realizing a

< previous page

page_174

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_174.html[20/10/2010 11:28:13]

page_175

< previous page

page_175

next page > Page 175

savings in time of approximately 80 percent. More cost cutting is achieved by not employing analytical standards, relying instead upon the proportional intensities of the emitted X-ray spectrum. Determinations on 13 elements are obtained routinely, but these determinations are ratios of the amount of silicon and aluminum. Doran has thus gained time and saved money, but at what cost? One problem pertains to the extent to which a single analysis of scraped ceramic paste is representative of a sampled sherd. With microanalytical techniques only a small amount of variation is measured at any one point. Therefore, multiple analyses are usually made at each of several locations and then averaged in order to assure representativeness (see De Atley et al. 1982; Swann 1982a, 1982b). Assuming an adequately representative analysis, the program described by Doran would appear to be well suited for extensive archaeological use except for the lack of analytical standards (see Bishop et al. 1990). While the greatest abundance of silicon or aluminum in pottery probably occurs in the base clay fraction, these elements may also enter the ceramic sample from other sources. The same ratio expression can arise from additives in the clay rather than the clay itself. Ratio data cannot discriminate among different components nor can they be subjected to statistical procedures based on normal distribution curves (Bishop et al. 1982:300). An even more fundamental problem, however, is that spectral intensities are instrumentally specific. The energy spectra are influenced by the size of the detector and thus the ratios among the isolated peaks will differ from one detector to another. Internal consistency within a program may be maintained over time, but results are highly likely to differ among laboratories. This project-specific aspect places severe limitations on an attempt to generate a data base that will be used by other investigators. With alternative analytical resources available, through collaborative programs or through purchase, we see no reason why analytical time should be spent on a less than fully quantitative analysis. Doran raised the possibility that PIXE could function in a "screening" mode, and should the level of discrimination not be sufficient, a more sensitive technique could be used. A similar use of PIXE was advocated by Fishbeck et al. (1989) for a study of pottery from the Arkansas basin and Ozark highlands of eastern Oklahoma. In the latter investigation, the PIXE generated major elemental data was used to eliminate clays that obviously did not correlate with the pottery. The clays that did show chemical similarity to the pottery could then be, but were not in this case, evaluated using a more sensitive method of analysis (e.g., INAA).

< previous page

page_175

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_175.html[20/10/2010 11:28:14]

page_176

< previous page

page_176

next page > Page 176

This is not an unreasonable approach yet a certain level of cynicism causes us to wonder how often the multiple step process will be employed to move beyond the instrumental findings of the PIXE "exploration" approach. Although already mentioned as having greater sensitivity for elemental analysis, instrumental neutron activation has received little attention in the Southeast. Indeed, relative to more than three decades of application in the Old World and in Mesoamerica, INAA analysis in North America has been largely ignored. Prudence Rice, a mesoamerican scholar, carried out a limited INAA investigation of Weeden Island pottery (Rice 1980). This effort was largely exploratory, resulting in the description of paste variability among 49 ceramic samples and their relationship to the variation observed in 12 analyzed clay samples. This preliminary study served to highlight the need for greater sampling of ceramic resources and better temporal control of the pottery while revealing that the Weeden Island assemblage was constituted from pottery made locally and pottery imported from several unlocated production areas (see also Rice and Cordell 1986). Twenty-five specimens of Mississippian pottery from sites in the northern Mississippi valley (Mero, Armstrong, Aztalan) and in the central Mississippi and Ohio valleys (Cahokia and Angel) were also subjected to neutron activation analysis as part of a program of technological and compositional analysis "[begun] in an attempt to explain not only the role of shell tempering, but also why such an innovation was so widely accepted" (Stimmell et al. 1982:220221). The chemical analysis pointed out the general similarity of the pottery under study. In all the samples, the elemental concentrations were inversely correlated with the abundance of calcium, most likely resulting from the shell temper. The mineralogical and textual analyses were used to estimate the firing temperature. Although the INAA data failed to support the authors' hypothesis, they nonetheless suggest that NaCl was added to the pottery to promote sintering (Stimmell et al. 1982:226227). The Mississippian pottery study was expanded, again as a methodological statement, to include ceramic specimens from Northern Ontario and Hokkaido, Japan (Stimmell et al. 1986). The study concludes with a cautionary warning about the potential complexity of the ceramic system and how INAA data obtained from coarse-tempered pottery might be difficult to interpret (compare Neff et al. 1988, 1989). The authors also failed to observe the level of homogeneity they expected to find in the analyzed clays of the Mississippi valley. With their limited sampling of the clays and pottery, however, they were unable to

< previous page

page_176

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_176.html[20/10/2010 11:28:14]

page_177

< previous page

page_177

next page > Page 177

look for possible geographic and chemically derived paste compositional covariation that could form a basis for differentiating production loci along the Mississippi drainage. In marked contrast to the ceramic studies referred to above, the mineralogical and technological investigations of Floridian pottery by Ann Cordell represent a model of systematic research. Beginning with the study of Weeden Island pottery (Cordell 1980, 1983, 1984; see also Milanich et al. 1984) and more recently with pottery from southwest Florida (Cordell 1989, 1992; see also Marquardt 1986), Cordell has focused on standardizing observations of ceramic compositional and technological features in order to document systematically the temporal and spatial variation within a target region. Obviously aware of the limiting effects of small samples, she uses the binocular microscope as a primary device for differentiating among what is mostly undecorated pottery; her sampling is extensive. Cordell's binocular-based paste classifications are augmented as necessary through the use of petrographic examination. The compositional attributes of the ceramic pastes are supplemented by information about paste color, hardness, rim form, rim thickness, and vessel form. Additional information, such as refired paste color, is obtained from samples that are selected judgmatically. She has been able to find covariation among the different attributes, which enables her to differentiate imported from locally produced pottery, and she is also able to apply the sensitivity of compositional and technological features toward refining the regional chronology. Her efforts to demonstrate a direct relationship between ceramic composition and specific occurrences of clay deposits have been somewhat less successful. In spite of this limitation, the characterization of the ceramics informed by the "Criterion of Abundance" can be used to approximate production loci (Bishop et al. 1982:301). The systematic nature of Cordell's investigations tends to build in a regional manner so that lacunae in the data of today are likely to be filled in by future efforts. In the above studies, we have reviewed only part of what is subsumed under ceramic technology, that is, compositional studies. Ceramic technology as a related group of activities or techniques includes, for example, consideration of materials preparation, choice of temper, drying and firing practices, decoration, and finish. Although observations about these features have been made for over a century (e.g., Powell 1886:lx; Nordenskiöld 1893), what has changed is our ability to achieve greater resolution of the effects of these features through better technology.

< previous page

page_177

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_177.html[20/10/2010 11:28:15]

page_178

< previous page

page_178

next page > Page 178

In her discussion of ceramic technology, with particular emphasis on the American Southwest, Suzanne De Atley outlines three reasons for the study of ceramic technology, the first two of which are modified from Shepard (1936:389): tracing the history of the ceramic craft; using ceramic technology as an applied science to derive social or cultural inferences; and using "technological behavior" to articulate production techniques and artifact use requirements with other aspects of the cultural system (De Atley 1991). Various applications of ceramic technology have appeared in the southeastern literature. Influential studies that have been applied to pottery similar to that of the Southeast, especially Woodland and Mississippian pottery, include those of David Braun (1983, 1985), Klemptner and Johnson (1983), and especially Vincas Steponaitis (1983). If the significance of a work is judged by the number of times that it is cited, then the ceramic technological studies carried out by Vincas Steponaitis (1981b, 1983) are phenomenally important. Steponaitis borrowed techniques from the field of materials engineering to describe ceramic attributes. His studies provide a glimpse into the history of the ceramic craft as practiced at Moundville. Although his experiments and observations were based on but a few samples, a weakness he readily acknowledges (1983:45), he attempted to elevate the use of description to a higher level of interpretation, suggesting that the "potters maintained the distinction between coarse and fine wares for reasons that were fundamentally technological, rather than purely aesthetic" (1983:45). Several of Steponaitis's conclusions rest heavily upon the acceptance of many assumptions that are made: that the sampling, however limited, was adequate; that the lack of kaolin detected in the fired pottery was a function of firing temperature; that the "black-filmed" wares of Moundville were produced by postoxidization firing smudging; that observations drawn from thermal shock experiments carried out on sherds can be extrapolated directly to whole vessels. By pointing to these assumptions we are not suggesting that any of them are necessarily wrong, but they have yet to be tested. For example, shell heated to 650°C900°C is generally presumed to expand in volume during an irreversible alteration from aragonite to calcitea presumption that still has to be verified in the laboratory (Klemptner and Johnson 1983:104). Following from this assumption, if crushed and sintered shell were to be added to pottery as a temper, it would strengthen the ceramic body, avoiding expansion that could lead to spalling when heated and providing resistance to thermal shock. Given the disclaimer that Steponaitis made about his conclusions, it is

< previous page

page_178

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_178.html[20/10/2010 11:28:15]

page_179

< previous page

page_179

next page > Page 179

unfortunate that his work has been taken beyond his intent, when, for example, David Hally accepts the Moundville study and infers that shell temper in pottery is used to minimize thermal shock (Hally 1986:278). Specifics aside, Steponaitis joined more traditional archaeological approaches with insights and methods derived from the recently emerging field of materials science. Investigators approaching the ceramic record in this manner seek to understand the "performance" of a ceramic by examining the stages of fabrication (mining, mixing, forming, firing, and finishing) as they relate to characteristics of composition and texture and how all of these factors affect thermal expansion and conductivity and mechanical strength (Klemptner and Johnson 1983: Fig. 1; see also Bronitsky 1986; Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; for a geological approach to similar issues, see Gertjejansen et al. 1983). Discussion Points With certain significant exceptions, materials characterization, upon which our review is based, is not routinely practiced in the Southeast. Reflecting over the totality of the analyses in the Southeast, we can appreciate only clusters of intensive research performed in isolation. Such an evaluation, however, can only be made from a perspective that somehow stands in contrast. Certainly, archaeology as a whole is not benefiting from the full potential that can be achieved with physical and chemical scientific techniques (Crown 1991; De Atley and Bishop 1991; Bishop 1992). Beginning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s interest in processual archaeology led archaeologists to believe that if sources of materials could be identified, more specificity could be ascribed to the processes of procurement and distribution. Scientific techniques could be used to test hypotheses about extraction, distinctive processing techniques, or directionality of exchange. "For a while it seemed that with sufficient ingenuity, an emphasis on deductive inference, and use of new-fangled equipment and techniques . . . we could say something interesting, significant, and true about any part of the archaeological record" (Watson 1986:440). Even if Dunnell's (1990) contention that southeastern archaeologists avoided most of the excesses of the new archaeology is true, the complexity of the archaeological record in the Southeast involving long-distance trade and the evolving complexity of indigenous societies caused them, like others, to look to the promises of new technology for baseline, if essentially descriptive, data. How have these data contributed to models of southeastern developments? Recent reviews of the state of southeastern archaeology do little

< previous page

page_179

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_179.html[20/10/2010 11:28:16]

page_180

< previous page

page_180

next page > Page 180

more than mention the fact that such studies have been undertaken (Steponaitis 1986; Johnson 1992b). The large amount of effort necessary to characterize the materials is distilled into one or two archaeologically relevant statements that are then cited over and over in the literature. Instead of raising new or more refined questions, the results gain unquestioned acceptance but limited application as archaeologists acquire new data and begin to refine previous models. The variable impact of these studies on the development of new interpretive models, while due in part to the difficulty of assessing techniques and methods falling outside the traditional boundaries of archaeology, is also due to the research matrix in which such studies take place. There is no overgeneralization intended in the statement that archaeological investigations into the properties and sources of artifactual materials have greatest utility when they are carried out in the theoretical and substantive context of wider investigations. Decisions about what properties to study or the extent to which compositional groups must be refined are contextual; there must be feedback between archaeological information and analytical data. The theoretical umbrella provides the transformational bridge between the raw data (information) and systematized knowledge. Although not conceived in these terms, this need for context and linkage between analysis and knowledge may have been behind Alfred Kidder's and J. O. Brew's warning to Anna Shepard that she avoid working in the Southeast. In the late 1940s, under urging from the director of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Vannevar Bush, Shepard was seeking a new region in which to conduct ceramic technological research. In spite of the recognition of a new crop of "young archaeologists"Gordon Willey, James Ford, Philip Phillips, and James Griffinthey cautioned her that it would be many years before enough was understood of the region's prehistory to make her work worthwhile. She would be better served, Brew suggested, to continue to work in the American Southwest or to look toward the classic cultures of the Mediterranean (letters from J. O. Brew to Anna O. Shepard, 28 November 1947, and A. V. Kidder to Anna O. Shepard, 28 October 1947). The role of linkages has been well illustrated in the recent work on obsidian (Hatch et al. 1990). Not only do the researchers refine the source locations, but they do so in order to use the information in another application, hydration dating. The hydration rates, which are used to calculate the date of obsidian artifacts, are specific as to the source area. With information on the dates of acquisition and the number of sources used, the researchers have begun to formulate more specific questions about the complexity of Hopewell exchange in terms of size and magnitude.

< previous page

page_180

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_180.html[20/10/2010 11:28:17]

page_181

< previous page

page_181

next page > Page 181

This study stands in sharp contrast to the majority of materials characterization studies, which stop with the identification of the source. Long-distance trade or exchange figures prominently in attempts to monitor ideological, political, social, or economic contact external to a social group. Materials or objects of obsidian, copper, galena, and shell have been identified as items susceptible to movement over long distances, from the point of raw materials procurement to the final (archaeological) recovery locale. Obsidian from site X can be related to the flows of Yellowstone Park; copper can be attributed to the characterized sources of the Great Lakes area or to the more proximal southeastern sources. The commodity, at least in its material sense, has been identified as having a single vector extending from source to site. Even broad changes over time, such as the shift indicated between the early use of northern copper sources to later use of those of the Southeast, are discernable. Source and directionality, however, represent only two out of several characteristics of exchange networks that have been identified by Fred Plog (1977:128129). For example, what was being exchanged: finished product or raw material? We may not be sure of which is the actual commodity that is being exchanged from source location to final receptor. The context of the exchanged material often is illusive. Materials characterization studies are usually too limited in scope, sometimes requiring long periods of methodological testing before archaeologically significant results are forthcoming. Without specifically defined problems with specifically defined parameters, the results of the analyses are vague, indicating little about the magnitude, symmetry, or complexity of the exchange system. Seeman's (1979) model of Hopewellian exchange anticipates just such difficulties. Although Seeman's analysis did not benefit from the later analyses of galena or native copper, he was able to identify potential source areas that have been subsequently supported by the analyses. Yet Seeman's model and the analytical data both overlook a significant aspect of the exchange. Seeman suggests that the occurrence of costly acquired (distant) items could not support the continuous operation and maintenance of an exchange system (1979:304). But he does not clearly distinguish between local materials used in stylistic copying and the importation and brokerage of distant (costly) preferred raw materials. That is, he does not consider fully the distribution of finished goods with regard to composition, a deficiency which calls into question his evaluation of important commodities in the exchange network when he equates range and frequency with cost and access (Canouts 1986:7879). Goad's (1979) finding that southern sources of copper were used for

< previous page

page_181

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_181.html[20/10/2010 11:28:17]

page_182

< previous page

page_182

next page > Page 182

Hopewell artifacts is significant. Her suggestion that such use would affect exchange patterns has been expanded upon by Bender (1985), who suggests that the continued growth of Hopewell phenomena in the South meant that southerners were siphoning off exotic goods before these goods could reach their northern neighbors. Both the stylistic copying model and this expanding economy model depend on different conditions of production that would be effected through more localized extraction and processing. Unfortunately, if materials characterization studies are to go beyond just identifying far-removed sources and acknowledging that the Southeast, as a region, did not exist in a cultural vacuum, more refined compositional studies must be undertaken. The labor and time needed to conduct intraregional characterization studies, particularly ones involving ceramics, are costly. To be successful, they are also strongly dependent upon either the extent of variation in the natural environment or upon the degree of standardization during the stages of raw material processing and production. Some ''signal'' must stand out above the "background"be it natural or cultural. The broad geological, geomorphological similarities of many regions of the Southeast place severe limitations on our ability to discern "sufficiently" discrete subregional patterns among similar materials that can be translated into useful cultural differences. We stated initially that materials characterization was not routinely practiced. Part of the problem relates to the social and technical matrix in which research is conducted. There is a social dimension involved in the conduct of archaeometric investigation and it is one, that by virtue of the need for access to instrumentation, places an archaeologist in a client-patron relationship with physical scientists. Use of facilities or recourse to the scientists' expertise is obtained through their goodwill. Those areas of the world that have been the beneficiaries of intensive and extensive programs of archaeometric investigation have been the focus of laboratories that had both the necessary resources and scientists dedicated to physical methods of analysis. Long-term programs in Mesoamerica were established by the efforts of Edward Sayre and Garman Harbottle at Brookhaven National Laboratory and programs in Greece and the Mediterranean by scientists at McGill University, Canada, the British School in Athens, the Research Laboratory for Archaeology at Oxford, and at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. One of us (Bishop) recalls the time that he discussed the possibility of taking a postdoctoral study with a noted geochemist only to be advised that nothing so serious could be undertakento the effect, "when we work with archaeology, you have to realize that we are bored and want to have some fun!" This is a singularly stark recognition that what

< previous page

page_182

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_182.html[20/10/2010 11:28:18]

page_183

< previous page

page_183

next page > Page 183

we do must have appeal for the collaborating scientist. With such recognition, it is probably no accident that the geographical areas referred to above are those whose histories of development have witnessed exceptional achievements in the arts that are expressed in lithics, ceramics, and other classes of artifacts. We have caricatured the above role of the scientists to draw attention to the potential volatility of the crossdisciplinary interaction required for most archaeometric research. With the possible exception of the Ceramic Laboratory of the Florida Natural History Museum, no group endeavor resembling the above cross-disciplinary studies exists for the Southeast. In contrast, the southeastern archaeological investigations that employ techniques of the physical sciences have been exceptionally individualist and of limited duration, usually not extending beyond that necessary to satisfy dissertation research requirements. Before closing our discussion, we wish to draw attention to the type of individuals who are needed to assemble the data bases that are necessary for materials characterization analyses. Few investigators engaged in archaeometric activities would claim to be "archaeometrists," preferring to be recognized according to their primary fields of expertise (physical chemists, organic chemists, physicists, archaeologists, etc.). Part of the reason may derive from the training that directs the research orientation and the interpretation of the results of the analysis. Part of the reason undoubtedly relates to the perception of how science is conducted. While we are not opposed to a scientific archaeology, we believe that archaeologists do not conduct investigations in the same manner as do laboratory scientists. It has been pointed out elsewhere that archaeology does not have trained laboratory technicians (Kelley and Hanen 1988:150), but the distinction between a technician and scientist or researcher is unwarranted in this case. Scientists for the most part recognize the need for routine analyses in applied research. They are far more apt to work in teams. In contrast, archaeologists still operate in a field where single authorship is the standard and where innovative research, whether or not significant applications are forthcoming, is rewarded (see also Kelley and Hanen 1988:136137, 152159). In order to produce a body of data large enough to monitor variation, several investigators working on common problems within a cooperative matrix must become the norm rather than the exception.

< previous page

page_183

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_183.html[20/10/2010 11:28:18]

page_184

< previous page

page_184

next page > Page 184

Chapter 9 Multispectral Digital Imagery W. Fredrick Limp All who have had the pleasure to do fieldwork in the Southeast can attest that it is simultaneously an environment of extraordinary archaeological richness and one which presents almost insurmountable impediments to fieldwork with profuse vegetation, extensive swamps, muggy heat, and no end to things that crawl, bite, and otherwise make life outdoors uncomfortable. One modern technology that improves the chances of discovery of the archaeological resources of the region while diminishing the impact of the vegetation and swamps (nothing can be done about the bugs) is multispectral digital imagery. Multispectral digital imagery can be initially defined as the production of digital "photographs" of the surface of the earth that are the result of the measurement of reflected or emitted electromagnetic radiation. In many schemes multispectral digital imagery is viewed as part of the larger suite of techniques known as remote sensing. For many archaeologists remote sensing techniques, and particularly those of multispectral digital imagery, are a suite of methodologies whose application has had little impact on the doing of archaeology, particularly within the southeastern United States. Remote sensing has been presented as having great "potential"; as an example, about fifteen years ago Gumerman and Kruckman said, "the unrealized potential of remote sensing is a reflection of the archaeologists' failure to use these techniques, and not a reflection of the current state of remote sensing technology" (1977:15). Eight years later Sever and Wiseman stated, "The almost untapped potential that remote sensing, coupled with computerenhanced graphics and analysis holds for the

< previous page

page_184

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_184.html[20/10/2010 11:28:19]

page_185

< previous page

page_185

next page > Page 185

study of the evolution of human cultures seems beyond measure" (1985:2). Given these statements the question immediately arises as to whether the methodologies have achieved their projected technical potential and, if they have, why have they apparently not had more substantial impact on archaeology, particularly southeastern archaeology. Since the time of the Gumerman and Kruckman article there have been profound developments in multispectral sensors and in the processing of these data. These developments have considerable impact on archaeological research. Conversely, however, application of these methodologies increasingly requires a substantial professional commitment to understanding the highly technical characteristics of the systems, their strengths, and their limitations. Remote sensing in archaeology, like all fields where there is an invariable link between technology and research, has gone through three stages. In the first stage the new technique has just become available, and as researchers first realize its potential, great expectations are raised. Because of limitations in the technology or perhaps fundamental problems not initially understood, the initial promise of the technique falls below the exaggerated expectations. A period of disenchantment sets in, but committed researchers continue. From time to time new individuals join the field with a great burst of enthusiasm only to follow the same pattern. At the same time that disenchantment is common, however, independent developments are occurring both in directly applicable techniques as well as in collateral ones. The final phase is one of hardearned maturity, in which both the weaknesses and the strengths of the technology are appreciated. In the case of remote sensing, sensors of much greater sensitivity and finer spatial resolution have been developed; collaterally, computer hardware has improved manyfold in its capabilities while declining in cost. Substantial developments in geographical information systems technologies and ancillary data sets have also been achieved. At the same time as the multispectral imaging related technologies have improved, an even more important process has taken place: the recognition that such data as provided by these multispectral systems are most effectively utilized in a comprehensive data processing environment that includes geographic information systems, regional or larger scale data bases, spatial statistics, and the computational hardware, software, and staff to make such analyses feasible. For many archaeologists the organizational infrastructure, not to mention individual expertise, is not available to utilize this suite of techniques. Thus the lack of applications of the technologies can be viewed, at least in some major way, as

< previous page

page_185

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_185.html[20/10/2010 11:28:19]

page_186

< previous page

page_186

next page > Page 186

due to organizational lack of commitment by archaeological research units. It is my hope that this review and the larger, technical report from which it has been drawn (Limp 1989) will indicate the potential rewards that could be obtained by individuals and organizations willing to make the necessary commitment to achieve successful results, as well as the pitfalls to avoid. Introduction to Principles of Multispectral Digital Imagery Multispectral digital images are the digital product of remote sensing systems that simultaneously measure spectrally and spatially delimited electromagnetic radiation emitted or reflected from the earth's surface (Kahle and Goetz 1983:27). Visible light is the most familiar form of electromagnetic radiation but is only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The images are recorded by sensors that react to different portions of the spectrum. For a sensor to record an image, a radiation source is needed; often this source is the sun. The radiation travels from the source, strikes a surface, and is reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Any object may interact with various portions of the spectrum in different ways. For example, a typical leaf strongly reflects (and/or transmits) energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum and absorbs both blue and red portions, while green is moderately reflected. Other substances have quite different characteristics. Based on the particular properties of a given sensor, specific portions of the spectrum cause the sensor to itself emit electrical pulses, which are recorded. The stronger or "brighter" the radiation, typically the larger the pulse. Like photographic cameras, multispectral sensors have a field of view. When this field of view is projected onto the image surface, it includes a specific area of the surface, the instantaneous field of view (IFOV). Resolution can be defined as "the ability of an imaging system . . . to record detail in a distinguishable manner" (Estes and Simonett 1975:879). For multispectral systems, resolution has four elements: spectral, radiometric, spatial, and temporal. Spectral resolution "refers to the dimension and number of specific wavelength intervals in the electromagnetic spectrum to which a sensor is sensitive" (Jensen 1986:4). Radiometric resolution refers to the sensitivity of the sensor to detect differences in the electromagnetic energy striking its surface. Spatial resolution is the most obvious sensor feature. For most multispectral digital imaging sensors, we can simply use the IFOV (ground IFOV) as the measure of spatial resolution (see Forshaw et al. 1983). Temporal resolution refers to

< previous page

page_186

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_186.html[20/10/2010 11:28:20]

page_187

< previous page

page_187

next page > Page 187

how often a sensor obtains data from a given location. For airborne sensors this varies from situation to situation. For satellite systems, temporal resolution is based on orbital characteristics; for example, the Thematic Mapper satellite typically obtains an image from a particular location only once every 16 days. Structure of the Data and Its Processing The information produced by the sensor is essentially a rectangular matrix of numbers, in which the digital values correspond to the measured radiation from a specific location on the surface. In order to convert these numeric values into useful archaeological data, it is necessary to classify the spectral groupings that exist in the matrix. The process of classification can be broadly divided into visual interpretation and digital analysis. Both processes are important, but I concentrate here on the analytic techniques called digital classification. Visual interpretation essentially involves the same skills as the visual interpretation of conventional photographic images. Computer-assisted enhancements may be applied but the key component in the process is the analyst visually examining the image for meaningful patterning. Digital analysis, in contrast, is essentially an automated task performed by the computer software. The digital brightness values of each pixel in each band are quantitatively evaluated for various statistical patterning. The product of a digital classification is a set of spectral classes. These classes group locations that have statistically similar reflective (or emissive) characteristics in the multiple bands imaged by the sensor. In order to make these groups meaningful, it is necessary to associate these pixels with specific ground phenomena. In practice this commonly involves comparing a display of the pixels with maps of the area of interest or visiting the location with the classification in hand. The position of various pixels "on the ground" is determined. The location's properties, such as vegetation type, is evaluated, as is the distribution of the brightness values in each band. These data allow the evaluation of the "information class" associated with the specific combinations of brightness values in each band. The approach described here characterizes what is commonly termed unsupervised classification. In unsupervised classification the computer system alone determines the groupings based on their numeric properties. After the groups are identified, then the analyst has to determine what particular set of conditions produced these results, which are the information classes. In a supervised classification, the analyst identifies locations on the image that are homogeneous and have merit for the study. The processing system would then essentially be

< previous page

page_187

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_187.html[20/10/2010 11:28:21]

page_188

< previous page

page_188

next page > Page 188

told, "these pixels go together. Identify others that statistically share their spectral properties." Multispectral Digital Sensor Systems Three satellite systemsLandsat Multispectral Sensor (MSS), Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), and SPOThave had a significant impact on examinations of cultural resources. Some satellite systemsSEASAT, Large Format Camera, and SIRhave been used in limited studies, and still more are being developed. A number of aircraft system have also been used: Bendix, Daedalus 1260, TIMS, CAMS, ARIES, and Xybion. Satellite sensors produce widely available, standardized data of known character. Data can be obtained from a single source and require relatively little preprocessing to make them useful. In addition, satellite sensor properties are well known and there is a massive amount of comparative literature. Nevertheless, satellite sensors frequently do not have sufficient spatial and/or spectral resolutions. Currently the best multispectral digital data resolution routinely available from a commercial satellite source is 20 m, although this will shortly improve. In contrast, aircraft data at 5 m and even below 1 m are now common. Aircraft sensors have spectral ranges (for example, TIMS) not available in any satellite. Development of satellite sensors is very costly ($250 million!), and the data must therefore be useful to many audiences. An airborne sensor can be much cheaper (frequently under $1 million and now even cheaper) and thus more specialized in its focus. The process of acquisition of aircraft data, however, can be more complicated in that it requires scheduling of aircraft and air crews along with careful coordination with the sensor's owners. Also the computer processing of aircraft data is more complex due to the lower stability of the aircraft platform. Satellite Sensors Landsat 13 Multispectral Sensing System. Although there were previous orbiting imaging satellites (for example, TIROS launched in 1960) and aircraft multispectral scanners, it was with the Landsat system that the study and use of multispectral images really became consequential. The Landsat MSS has a nominal IFOV of 79 m by 79 m and a radiometric range from 0127. The image corresponds to roughly 185 km by 178 km. The satellite was above any given location once every 18 days. The Landsat 13 systems were replaced with the Landsats 4 and 5, more commonly referred to as Thematic Mapper (TM).

< previous page

page_188

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_188.html[20/10/2010 11:28:21]

page_189

< previous page

page_189

next page > Page 189

Landsat 4 and 5, Thematic Mapper (TM). The first thematic mapper sensor system was launched in 1982 and the second in 1984. Landsat 5 has now reached the end of its design life, but continues to produce high-quality data. The TM system includes a seven-band sensor (see Engel 1980). The IFOV is 30 m by 30 m (or slightly less than one-fourth of an acre). The satellite can image the same location once every 16 days. TM digital products can be obtained as quarter scenes that cover 90 km by 90 km areas. In addition to improvements in spectral and spatial resolution, the TM sensor also has superior radiometric resolution with a range of 0255. SPOT (Systeme Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre). In 1986 the French launched the SPOT satellite, developed by the Centre National d'Études Speciales (Begni 1982). It has only three multispectral bands compared with TM's seven. The resolution of the sensors is 20 m. The sensors can also operate in a panchromatic mode producing an image at a 10-m resolution. A particular location can be imaged as frequently as once every one to five days compared to the 16-day lapse for the TM sensor. Radiometric range in both the multispectral and pan mode is 0255. A single SPOT scene is 60 m by 60 m. Other Satellite Sensors. There are a number of operational former Soviet multispectral satellites. Unfortunately, little is known of their characteristics. Within the last few years the former USSR has taken a much more active role in promoting these products and they are now becoming available in the West. There are also a number of other orbital sensors that may be useful in cultural resource studies. These include the Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR) systems and SEASAT. Both systems are imaging radars. Information on areas imaged are available in Southworth (1985). Aircraft Scanners In general, design and overall characteristics of aircraft scanners follow the same principles as sensors on satellite platforms. Aircraft platforms differ in some important ways, however. Since the aircraft can move in three dimensions, complex distortions of the image can be caused by aircraft movement. Before such images can be effectively studied, these errors must be corrected. While the ground IFOV of the satellite systems are fixed, the IFOV of an aircraft is a function of the altitude of the aircraft. The maximum width of a single swath of the sensors is also a function of the height for a typical airborne sensor.

< previous page

page_189

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_189.html[20/10/2010 11:28:22]

page_190

< previous page

page_190

next page > Page 190

Daedalus DS1260/DS2600. The Daedalus DS1260 sensor is an 11-channel sensor with relatively narrow spectral band width. A significant number of images have been obtained using these sensors. BENDIX MSS. At least two Bendix multispectral sensors have been described in the literature. One is an 11channel system with roughly comparable band positioning as the Daedalus system (Morain et al. 1981) and the second a 24-channel unit (Kahle et al. 1980). Only the thermal spectral characteristics of the second unit were discussed in Kahle et al. (1980:2280). TIMS. The Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner is a relatively new scanner operated by NASA-STL (Space Technology Laboratory) with substantial potential for cultural resource investigations. The six-channel sensor focuses on the thermal infrared region of the spectrum. TIMS data can be used to obtain surface temperatures accurate to within one-half degree centigrade (Palluconi and Meeks 1985:5; Stanich 1986). Xybion MSS Video Camera. The Xybion MSS camera has the potential to be an effective, low-cost source for certain multispectral data. Its first use for archaeological application was at Corinth, Greece, by a group from Boston University's Center for Remote Sensing (Hemans et al. 1987). The device can be generically compared to a portable video camera, but it uses a silicon charge coupled device (CCD) as the sensor. The cost for the unit in 1987 was $12,000. The unit is small enough to be flown in a small aircraft or (as done in Corinth) a tethered balloon. Such low altitudes make very high resolution imagery possible. For the Greek images, resolution was 20 cm (centimeters!). ARIES. The ARIES is a two-channel infrared radiometer. Data is typically acquired at spatial resolutions of from one to two meters from a low-flying aircraft platform (e.g., 630 m altitude for 1 m). The digital data is transformed into thermal values (in range of 0255) (Perisset and Tabbagh 1981:170, Scollar et al. 1990:614ff.). Detailed specifications for the system are found in Monge et al. (n.d.). CAMS. A sensor developed by NASA-STL has substantial potential for cultural resource studies and clear potential for landscape mapping. This is the Calibrated Airborne Multispectral Sensor. CAMS was developed as an outgrowth of the airborne Thematic Mapper Simulator. Whereas the TIMS sensor is a calibrated thermal sensor, the CAMS is

< previous page

page_190

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_190.html[20/10/2010 11:28:22]

page_191

< previous page

page_191

next page > Page 191

calibrated throughout its spectral bands, which include thermal, mid-infrared, and visible portions of the spectrum. Detecting Landscape Properties and Archaeological Sites Perhaps the most substantial literature in remote sensing consists of applications using data for vegetation/land-use mapping (see Carnegie et al. 1983; Heller and Ulliman 1983; Jensen 1983; Myers 1983; Salomon-son 1983). In general, these studies focus on the current landscape conditions, such as current crop, forest, or land-use type. This information is pertinent to archaeological studies at two levels. Differences in land use may reflect more fundamental landscape differences that may be clues to archaeological site detection. In addition, different vegetation types affect field survey and observation conditions, thereby creating a potential source of bias. Archaeologists, however, are concerned with issues beyond the characteristics of the modern environment. They would, in short, like to look "through" the modern vegetation to the more fundamental landscape characteristics that may help to predict and understand archaeological resources. We know that human use of the landscape is complex and multivariate. Different areas were subjected to different uses, which may have changed through time. It is also likely that location selection was a complex process with many factors significant in determining land use. We can also assume that land use was based on the characteristics of the immediate location as well as those in the vicinity and at some distance. Finally, we can be fairly certain that we will be unable to measure many of the relevant factors directly, because the landscape has been substantially transformed through time. For example, a particular location might have been selected prehistorically because there were many nut-bearing trees in the area. Forest changes and timbering make it unlikely that these tree types will be present to be scanned by our modern sensors. Nevertheless, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that certain combinations of moisture, exposure, and nutrients were important determinants of the trees' location. Today these locations may have a specific (but different) vegetation or they may otherwise have similar spectral properties. If so, we can map such important locations through these surrogates. When most archaeologists initially view a spectrally derived map, they are immediately confused by the heterogeneous nature of the classes. Often an intuitive sense of the landscape would have it mapped

< previous page

page_191

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_191.html[20/10/2010 11:28:23]

page_192

< previous page

page_192

next page > Page 192

in larger more homogeneous units. The disparity lies in large measure in the difference between the methods used to classify land as well as the technical characteristics of the data. Essentially, there are three methods that can be used to classify land: genetic, parametric, and landscape (Mabbutt 1968). Genetic classifications are well known to archaeologists who commonly use geologic mapping methods in which a genetic map unit might be ''Holocene floodplain natural levee.'' With genetic knowledge of an area, it may be possible to infer individual attributes. Parametric classification views the landscape according to its physical/chemical/engineering properties. Mapping of units with similar characteristics such as soil permeability, pH, and particle size is an example of this approach. The final method is landscape classification (Christian and Stewart 1968). In this approach, each unit of land is assumed to be unique and it is classified on the basis of a large number of complex attributes of landform, soil character, and vegetation. If there are three landform types, three soil characteristics, and three vegetation types, there may be up to 27 landscape units capable of being mapped. Landscape classification is more popular in Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom (Brink et al. 1966), Canada (Canadian Land Inventory 1970), and the former Soviet Union (Chikishev 1973) than in the United States. Townshend (1981) has a valuable discussion of the approach. Robinove (1981) has pointed out clearly that multispectral classification is unlikely to achieve a mapped classification comparable to the genetic "Holocene floodplain natural levee." Instead, Robinove proposes that multispectral classification is ideal for the landscape classifications. If we reflect on the usefulness of the commonly used genetic classified maps for archaeological site locations, we note that in fact these maps themselves require substantial reclassification. With the exception of possible chronological information, a genetic unit per se has little usefulness in predicting or improving our understanding of archaeological sites. When we use such a genetic unit as the Holocene floodplain natural levee, what we do is mentally transform it into its common characteristics such as well-drained soils, nearness to water, and so forthattributes that were potentially significant to prehistoric and historic populations. In contrast, parametric or landscape classifications divide the map into units that directly identify these attributes. We can be certain that prehistoric peoples did not choose to use a "Holocene floodplain natural levee." Their choice was based instead on a desire to use a location that was well drained and near water. Thus the most modern of technologies might more accurately represent the way prehistoric peoples viewed the landscape than do the methods with which we are more familiar. The use of multispectral imagery, therefore, requires a different

< previous page

page_192

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_192.html[20/10/2010 11:28:24]

page_193

< previous page

page_193

next page > Page 193

perspective from the one commonly held by many archaeologists. This new viewpoint arguably is more appropriate if the map is being designed to display landscape properties relevant to the distribution of prehistoric activities. A second reason for the observed heterogeneity of many multispectral maps is technical and is a direct outgrowth of spatial resolution. The large IFOVs of (particularly) early satellite scanners included a wide diversity of surface within one IFOV and generated what can be referred to as mixels. A large IFOV relative to the phenomena of interest means that multiple, different combinations of the area's environmental features could be included within one IFOV. For example, one IFOV might have one-half pine and one-half oak while another might be one-third pine and two-thirds oak and so on. Each different combination could produce a different spectral class. Thus there may be relatively more mixels created, which create artificial landscape units when compared to sensors with smaller IFOVs. Our next question becomes, What multispectral sensor-analytical method combinations are likely to produce spectral classifications of parametric or landscape categories useful to southeastern archaeological investigations? One of the most fruitful parametric areas is in the determination of soil/vegetation moisture. Moisture availability is one of the more central edaphic characteristics influencing vegetation and, particularly within wetland zones, is an important component of location suitability for prehistoric and historic habitation. Work by Crist and Cicone (1984a, 1984b) and Musick and Pelletier (1986) indicates that ratios of TM bands may be effective in subtle determinations of soil moisture content. Band ratioing of TM data has also been shown to be useful in identification of clay content of soils and carbonates (Goetz et al. 1983). The TIMS scanner has been successful in identification of a variety of rock types (Kahle and Goetz 1983), as has data from the now defunct Bendix scanner (Kahle and Rowan 1980). In both instances, extensive band ratioing and other transformations were required. The TIMS scanner has also proved successful in direct mapping of alluvial fans, allowing various fans to be identified as to their parent materials (Gillespie et al. 1984). Subtle differences in soil chemicals may also be sensed. Work by Collins and his co-workers (1983), for example, indicates that the spectral reflection of plants can be shifted due to the presence of a number of compounds in the soil. Although this is not yet routinely identifiable by satellite and/or airborne sensors, these studies demonstrate that a wide range of soil properties are subject to remote sensing. In addition to those already mentioned are texture, structure, organic matter, and min-

< previous page

page_193

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_193.html[20/10/2010 11:28:24]

page_194

< previous page

page_194

next page > Page 194

eral content (Campbell 1987:464). We should emphasize that multispectral landscape mapping also allows the identification of landscape features that would remove evidence of archaeological occupations. The landscape is a dynamic medium, and processes such as colluvial and alluvial burial are frequent. As we have noted, certain multispectral sensor system methods may assist in determining where such processes have occurred and thus where cultural resources are not present, at least not on the surface. Archaeological Sites Over the last 12,000 years, almost every location in the Southeast accessible to humans has been the locus of some, albeit limited, human activity. Identification of archaeological sites must, of necessity, focus on locations with material expression in the present. These material expressions are artifacts, features, and anthropic soil horizons/anomalies of soil chemistry (McManamon 1984:226). Spectral Dimensions of Sites Although artifacts are the most common material constituents of archaeological sites, followed by features and anthropic soils, the importance of these classes for remote sensing is reversed, with the most important group of site constituents for remote sensing being anthropic soils and anomalies in soil chemistry, followed by features, then artifacts. Effects of Anthropic Soils/Anomalous Soil Chemistries. Under this heading we can group organic matter and a variety of chemicals including nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, manganese, sulfur, and calcium. In general, organic matter increases the moisture retention of soils, while the various chemicals can alter the vegetation vigor of the location. Moisture retention directly influences both soil temperatures and the vegetation type and/or vigor. The degree of contrast is related to the overall environmental conditions. In uniformly wetter conditions there will be little contrast, except that some organically enhanced soils may retain so much moisture as to be detrimental to the growth of particular vegetation types. As conditions move toward drier circumstances, enriched soils, which have a coarser texture than sandy loam, will have improved moisture availability as compared to the unenhanced soils. Soils of the texture of sandy loam or finer textures, when organically enriched, will retain less moisture and be less advantageous for plants needing moisture. Un-

< previous page

page_194

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_194.html[20/10/2010 11:28:25]

page_195

< previous page

page_195

next page > Page 195

der very dry conditions, there will be little contrast except for sandy soils. Human activities can also substantially alter soil chemistry by producing chemicals from a variety of human refuse classes. Currently the major impact of these various chemicals on remote sensed imagery is their indirect effect on vegetation growth as they serve as nutrients. It may also be the case, however, that presence of these chemicals and amino acids may have measurable enhancements on the far infrared (thermal) emissivity of the site location in contrast to the surrounding areas background emissivity (Sever 1983:25). If so, the TIMS sensor and similar future systems have particularly great potential. There is clear evidence that soil chemical modifications due to human residues are long lasting, particularly within the time range of human occupation of the Southeast. This is particularly true of calcium, magnesium, and phosphates. It is also true for nitrogen when soil pH is neutral to basic and humus colloids are not mobile. Effects of Features. Another site property of interest is the differential soil aggregation and compaction that results from various features. Examples of features that increase soil compaction include house floors, plazas, and intensely used surfaces. Increased aggregation due to physical disturbances can be found in a variety of excavated features such as storage, burial, and fire pits, as well as filled borrow pits. Additionally, organic matter added to the matrix of these features increases and stabilizes aggregates (Carr 1982:72). Some archaeological sites have stone architecture (for example, historic buildings). In addition to the linear regularities of such structures, the stone frequently represents material of substantially different thermal properties than the surrounding matrix. Larger complexes may also alter water movement and retention. Builders' trenches and associated construction features have similar effects as those of earthen pits discussed earlier. Numerous prehistoric groups, as well as historic ones, modified the land surface, causing both large and small terrain variations. Small-scale terrain variation may be due to collapsed structures or the result of repeated use of one area creating small mounds. In locations with large earthen mounds, often many tens of meters in height and linear dimension and associated with depressions such as borrow pits, the variation in surface relief affects the immediate location's moisture distribution and vegetation potential. Feature size and contrast between the feature's composition and that of the surrounding matrix vary widely. In damp environments even minor terrain variation can generate

< previous page

page_195

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_195.html[20/10/2010 11:28:25]

page_196

< previous page

page_196

next page > Page 196

Table 1. Effective Minimum Site Size Based on 60 IFOVs to Allow Acceptable Classification Accuracies Sensor Nominal Site Nominal Site Area Diameter 581 m 26.5 ha Landsat-MSS 262 m 5.4 ha TM 175 m 2.4 ha SPOT-MSS 87 m 0.6 ha DS1260 at 10 m 22 m 0.04 ha TIMS at 2.5 m substantially different surface vegetation (see Bruder et al. 1975; Ehrenhand 1980; Newman and Byrd 1980). Effects of Artifacts. In general the presence of artifacts, per se, would appear to have little effect on the potential for a location to have specific spectral properties. Spatial Dimensions of Sites In this section I consider the relationship between the spatial resolution of various sensors and the spatial characteristics of a large group of known archaeological sites in the Southeast. Unfortunately, there is substantial misunderstanding of the nature of sensor resolution (Forshaw et al. 1983). Linear features such as roads, which are smaller than the sensors' nominal IFOV, are often visible on imagery. With the exception of such features, however, the equivalent photographic resolution of digital remote sensed data is commonly less than the quoted IFOV. Landsat MSS, for example, has an IFOV of 79 m, but the equivalent photographic resolution is on the order of 200 m (Forshaw et al. 1983). The situation is made more complex when the analysis of the data focuses on the discovery of spectral classes. Jensen (1986:3233) indicates that, as a useful rule of thumb for forestry and agricultural applications, an area of interest must be of some 60 IFOVs to be classified with acceptable accuracy. To allow acceptable classification accuracy, the minimum size of sites that can be detected by various sensors was determined using Jensen's rule (Table 1). Using the Arkansas AMASDA data base (Hilliard and Riggs 1986), we can extract the sizes of numerous archaeological sites within the state of Arkansas (Table 2). This data base contains extensive information on

< previous page

page_196

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_196.html[20/10/2010 11:28:26]

page_197

< previous page

page_197

next page > Page 197

Table 2. Size Classes for Archaeological Sites in Arkansas Size-Class Count Percent 263 2.0 Greater than 10 ha 535 4.1 4.0 to 10.0 ha 814 6.2 2.0 to 4.0 ha 2,911 22.3 0.5 to 2.0 ha 3,995 30.7 0.1 to 0.5 ha 2,751 21.1 0.01 to 0.1 ha 929 7.1 0.001 to 0.01 ha 838 6.4 Less than 0.001 ha 13,036 99.9 Total Source: Arkansas Archeological Survey Automated Site Files the more than 20,000 known archaeological sites in the state and one observation in the data base is the site's size class. Size-class data is available for roughly one-half of the sites, and size-class limits are those in the data base. The potential spatial limitations of many of the current sensor systems are evident when we compare these tables. Based on Jensen's "rule," and assuming that the surfaces of the sites were spectrally homogeneous (a best-case scenario), less than two percent of all the sites in Arkansas with known dimensions would be accurately classified by Landsat MSS. The number increases to less than six percent for TM and 12 percent for SPOT. Even at 10 m resolution, the airborne scanners would be unable to accurately classify more than one-half of the sites. Unfortunately, many of the 13,000 sites may consist of only a light surface scatter of occupational materials. Table 3 displays size information, but only for those 873 sites that have the presence of midden deposits and the 543 that have aboriginal mounds reported. These two categories were chosen to select sites with possible anthropic soil, (probable) anomalous soil chemistries, and small and large terrain relief. In general, sites with mounds present, in addition to large terrain relief, also have anthropic soils. It must be emphasized, however, that the accuracy of the size and even the presence or absence of midden for any particular site may be questionable. The data base was gathered from many sources over almost 50 years and should be used with caution. If we consider those sites that are likely to have relatively intense

< previous page

page_197

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_197.html[20/10/2010 11:28:27]

page_198

< previous page

page_198

next page > Page 198

Table 3. Size Classes for Arkansas Archaeological Sites Where Midden Deposits and Aboriginal Mounds Are Reported Sites With Midden Sites With Mounds Size-Class Count Percent Count Percent 38 4.4 38 7.0 Greater than 10 ha 66 7.6 55 10.0 4.0 to 10.0 ha 87 10.0 61 11.2 2.0 to 4.0 ha 261 29.9 150 27.6 0.5 to 2.0 ha 238 27.3 157 28.9 0.1 to 0.5 ha 144 16.5 71 13.1 0.01 to 0.1 ha 34 3.9 11 2.0 0.001 to 0.01 ha 5 0.6 0 0.0 Less than 0.001 ha 873 100.2 543 99.9 Total Source: Arkansas Archeological Survey Automated Site Files evidence, a somewhat better picture of percentages emerges than is true for all sites, but the total number declines. For sites with midden reported, Landsat MSS would accurately classify less than five percent, TM doubles its percentage with less than 12 percent, and SPOT increases to slightly under 22 percent accurately classified. With 10 m resolution, however, more than one-half of these sites could be accurately classified, and at 2.5 m resolution roughly 80 percent of the sites could be classified based on their size. This is a substantial improvement. We must realize, however, that even though 80 percent of the sites reported as having midden present have fallen within Jensen's rule, this still represents only 700 sites or only five percent of the total 13,000 for which size limits are reported. Sites with mounds reported are generally larger than those with midden reported, with comparable increases in sites accurately classified. At the 2.5 m resolution, only some 10 percent of the sites with mounds fall below the threshold for accurate classification. Again, we must emphasize that those above this threshold only encompass a few hundred sites out of the statewide total of more than 20,000. It is likely, however, that the numbers of sites with midden are underrepresented in the AMASDA data base. Site Summary. Summarizing these data presents a mixed picture for the current application of multispectral digital imagery in the Southeast

< previous page

page_198

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_198.html[20/10/2010 11:28:27]

page_199

< previous page

page_199

next page > Page 199

but an even more favorable one for the future. The previous data indicate that currently accessible satellite systems can be successfully used for the delineation of survey parameters prior to fieldwork, for environmental mapping, and for significant contributions to site probability zone mapping. They are unlikely to be successful in sitespecific identification efforts. Primary limitations follow from the spatial resolution of the imagery as well as from the spectral band selection. Newer sensors currently in design will provide substantially improved data. Nevertheless, controversy about the specific characteristics of the Earth Observing System (EOS), an American system proposed for the late 1990s, is clouding the situation. In any event it is essentially certain that satelliteborne sensors with improved spatial and spectral resolution will be lofted by other countries if not by the United States. Airborne sensors, in contrast, are currently capable of providing both site and within-site feature identification. The primary limitation of such systems is not technical but due to the lack of knowledge of the systems by archaeologists and the relatively high cost of data acquisition and data processing. Previous Archaeological Studies Using Digital Multispectral Imagery In this section I review the use of digital multispectral imagery for the location and analysis of prehistoric and historic cultural resources in the Southeast. The focus, as it is throughout the study, is on digital analysis of multispectral data. Therefore, I have not considered the important and substantive body of aerial photography, which has a long and productive history in archaeology. Archaeological digital processing studies have used a variety of techniques and sensors to achieve different goals. Satellite-based Studies Landsat MSS. Only a single suite of applications of the earlier Landsat MSS imagery was noted for the "greater" Southeast. Wells and Custer and their associates (Wells et al. 1981; Custer, Evenleigh et al. 1983; Custer et al. 1984, 1986) integrated MSS data with a variety of other landscape data for each 400 m by 400 m quadrant, which was the study's unit of analysis. The MSS data was classified using a supervised classification, which generated 16 classes. Logistic regression methods were then used to develop a probability surface for the study area.

< previous page

page_199

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_199.html[20/10/2010 11:28:28]

page_200

< previous page

page_200

next page > Page 200

Thematic Mapper. One of the earliest archaeological studies to utilize the thematic mapper data was in the Southeast and was performed by the Mid-America Remote Sensing Center in 1983. An aircraft-based Thematic Mapper simulator (TMs) was used. In the study, both 10 m and 30 m data were considered. Aircraft flightlines were directed to the locations of substantial archaeological sites in the Ohio River valley, including Kincaid, Shawnee, and Twin Mounds. Sites ranged in size from under 2 ha to more than 50 ha and most included both extensive occupational evidence ("dark midden") and earthen mounds. One site studied, Kincaid, is more than 1.5 km in length and is described in the report as the "second or third largest in southeastern U.S." (Mid-America Remote Sensing Center 1983:28). No distinct archaeological signatures for any of the sites were determined utilizing the 30-m data. Since "successive features associated with the various sites were more limited after each run" (1983:39), the authors concluded that "having such information could eliminate the possibility of a total field survey and direct the archaeologist to specific areas of high probability. TMs data offer indirect evidence of possible site localities'' (Mid-America Remote Sensing Center 1983). Airborne thematic mapper simulator (TMs) data were acquired in 1985 by Bennett and his associates (1985) but results of this study have not yet been reported. Hargrove and others (1985) used a classified TM image along with other data as a data base for an environmental zone/site distribution study. Madry (1986) used a TM photograph to assist in vegetation zone delineation. TMs data have also been acquired for the Poverty Point site. Poverty Point is a huge site with extensive earthworks located in northern Louisiana. It is apparently one of the earliest sites with such earthworks anywhere in the United States and thus is one of considerable importance. The complex earthworks have been the subject of a variety of evaluation and there remains substantial controversy on their precise character. At this time only preliminary results of the studies are available (Gibson 1984, 1987; Sever and Wiseman 1985:3233). The data were processed for visual analysis including histogram stretching and ratioing. Results of classifications have not yet been reported. Resolution was 5 m. The visual examination of the data presented a number of significant results. The TMs enhanced imagery indicated the presence of a previously undetected feature within the plaza area of the site. Excavation in the area encountered an extremely hard surface 1020 cm below the surface unlike any other area of the site excavated to date (Gibson 1987:131134). Further excavation and discussion with local informants led to the con-

< previous page

page_200

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_200.html[20/10/2010 11:28:29]

page_201

< previous page

page_201

next page > Page 201

clusion that the area was the location where a quantity of trees and brush was burned in the 1970s. Johnson and his associates (1988) have reported interesting results of an ongoing project in Mississippi integrating TM imagery and a geographic information system. In this project, an unsupervised maximum likelihood classification of an April 1984 TM scene produced 22 classes. These were combined into six groups representing water, open fields, pine, hardwood, pasture, and gullied land/scrub (Johnson et al. 1988). These ground-cover classes were then used, along with physiographic zones and related data, to organize a field sampling program. They concluded that although site specific signatures were not realistic "it is possible to use TM data to detect environmental characteristics which are markers for high probability site locations." They further concluded that "even in north Mississippi which is completely reforested, it will be possible to detect broad patterns of environmental differentiation" (Johnson et al. 1988:130). Johnson (1991) later discussed using the TM data to subset a survey area for more detailed investigation by the TIMS scanner. Johnson used the TM image to classify locations as pasture or scrub vegetation. TIMS data gathered for these areas were then studied. The results of the TIMS analysis are discussed below. SPOT Results. Two studies using the SPOT sensor have been reported for the Southeast. Both were located in Arkansas (Limp 1987, 1989). I first investigated an area within the Arkansas River valley in Arkansas. The initial Frog Bayou study area encompassed ca. 3,400 ha between the mouths of Frog Bayou and the Mulberry River in the Arkansas River lowlands (Limp 1987). The area included largely floodplains and terraces of the major river but nearby uplands were included. Following initial prescreening, all three bands of the midsummer 1987 SPOT image were subjected to an unsupervised maximum likelihood classification. Eighteen classes were identified. The classified image was georeferenced and transferred to a geographic information system. Archaeological site locations were digitized from USGS 7.5 minute quads. The archaeological site data layers were then compared to the georeferenced image. Seventy-five archaeological sites were present and represented 1,943 cells, or some 77.7 ha total. Site size ranged from more than 32 ha to less than 0.1 ha. In total, archaeological evidence represented some 2.3 percent of the study area. It is significant to note that in this study archaeological sites were not treated as individual points but were themselves areal features. Isolated artifacts, although recorded, were not included in this study.

< previous page

page_201

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_201.html[20/10/2010 11:28:29]

page_202

< previous page

page_202

next page > Page 202

The distribution of cells (20 m by 20 m) without archaeological sites was compared to those with occupational evidence. I reported that site occurrences were high in three spectral classes. Collectively, these represented 30 percent of the area but 50 percent of the site locations. These figures compare favorably with those of Inglis et al. (1984). As an aside, the Frog Bayou area has active alluviation like many floodplains. Thus there is the likelihood that buried deposits are present. The second study reported (Limp 1989) involved an area of some 9 km by 9 km in the Lee Creek valley, a tributary of the Arkansas River in westernmost Arkansas. The area had been subjected to intensive survey and 55 sites were reported. I conducted a number of visual examinations and enhancements and then used the three bands as well as band ratioing (band 1 and 2) in a maximum likelihood classification, which produced 23 classes. The imagery data was integrated with the AMASDA statewide site data base using a GIS. The correlation between the site data base and three spectral classes in particular were of interest. The three represented only 17 percent of the area but included 37 percent of the site areas with midden, 61 percent of the Mississippian site area, and 49 percent of the historic site areas. I concluded that the spectral classes related to agricultural practices in the study area and the success in ''predicting" archaeological sites was not direct. Nevertheless, the correlation of particular sites and specific agricultural practices may provide useful surrogate measures. Aircraft-based Studies Only a limited number of airborne sensors studies have been reported for the Southeast. The sensors used were the TIMS and Daedalus-MSS, in addition to the airborne TM simulator noted above. TIMS. Three archaeological applications of the TIMS have been reported in the Southeast or nearby areas. Work reported by Bennett et al. (1985) was conducted in the alluvial valley of the Red River in eastern Oklahoma. The primary goal of the project was "to develop a model for the distribution of sites across the floodplain landscape." Data were acquired at 5-m resolution. Data were initially subjected to a discriminant analysis and only three channels were selected for further analysis. Classification was not performed but the images were enhanced for various visual examinations. Bennett and his coworkers (1985:37) describe the identification of anthropogenic signatures obtained by visual examination of locations with known archaeological materials. The exact number of such signatures is not indicated but described as "several." TIMS data were acquired for the Poverty Point site, as was TMs.

< previous page

page_202

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_202.html[20/10/2010 11:28:30]

page_203

< previous page

page_203

next page > Page 203

TIMS data were acquired at 5-m resolution and digitally enhanced for visual examination. A number of features were evident in the imagery. One is a "buried ramp" or "isle" that extends from the main Poverty Point mound to the central area of the site. This feature was evident in a 1934 aerial photograph but is no longer evident. The feature was quite clear in enhanced TIMS imagery (Thomas Sever, personal communication, 1989). Another feature of unknown character is a rectanguloid area in the northern portion of the plaza (Thomas Sever, personal communication, 1989). Continuing fieldwork at the site by Gibson (1984, 1987) has, as one of its goals, the investigation of areas on the site suggested as worthy of study by the remotely sensed imagery. An important use of the TIMS scanner is that by Johnson (1991). Johnson first isolated those parts of the study area that were classified as scrub or pasture using the TM imagery and were also identified as archaeological sites. Three classes were identified in the TIMS imagery for these locations. When these classes were applied to the entire surveyed area no apparent patterning was observed with respect to sites versus nonsites. In one iteration 68 percent of the scene was not classified into the site present category but included 64 percent of the known site area. In other words the classification was not successful in identifying site locations (Johnson 1991:117). Johnson then used data from a large Mississippian site, Lyons Bluff, to serve as the basis for a supervised classification. The TIMS data from the site area had yielded a high return in band 4. Areas of the site with midden were used to develop spectral classes, which were then applied to the remaining surveyed areas. This effort was also unsuccessful in developing site specific spectral classes. The 1991 report discusses work in progress, and although Johnson describes the results to date as frustrating, he is hopeful that future, more detailed analyses, particularly those involving band ratioing and other manipulations of the data, will provide positive results. DAEDALUS DS1260. I (Limp 1987) reported initial results of use of the DS1260 scanner for archaeological resources in the White River valley of Arkansas. Data were acquired by an Environmental Protection Agency aircraft under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands management. Intensive archaeological survey had not been performed in the area, but some archaeological sites were known to be present. IFOV for the area was 10 m. For initial study, I used only three bands. Thirty spectral classes were obtained using a maximum likelihood classification. The study area I used was largely wetlands with natural levee crests along the White River and terraces to the west. A total of 1,480 ha were

< previous page

page_203

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_203.html[20/10/2010 11:28:30]

page_204

< previous page

page_204

next page > Page 204

considered, but only four sites were reported. These represented less than 0.6 percent of the area. These small numbers mean the results must be viewed with caution. Archaeological sites were common in three spectral classes. These represent 27.8 percent of the area, but 69.9 percent of the site cells. The wide range of bands along with relatively low cost of data acquisition suggested that the DS1260 might be a useful sensor for archaeological purposes. Because its platform is a propeller-driven aircraft and due to the recorder's variable data acquisition rate, low-altitude flights with small IFOVs are possible. Data were acquired for example (but is as yet unexamined) from the Kay County, Oklahoma, lithic quarry areas at a 2-m resolution. The promise of this sensor has been borne out by data acquired at very high resolution over the presumed locations of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Spanish sites located in Florida. The project by the University of Florida and the Space Remote Sensing Center has not yet been published, but digital enhancement of the imagery produced clear evidence of subsurface features that were previously unknown. Field efforts have confirmed these features as the locations of a fort and a mission. Methods used to enhance the data involved band ratioing, filtering, and principal components analysis. The structures were evident, however, in the raw data, particularly in the thermal band (David Wagner, personal communication, 1989). Other Approaches Work by O'Brien and associates (1982) did not involve the acquisition of digital imagery; instead, color infrared aerial photos of a large Mississippian site in southeastern Missouri were digitized in the lab into a single band. (As an aside, it is currently feasible to digitize a color infrared image into a three-band multispectral image by digitizing the photo three times with different filters; such a method could very likely increase the information yield beyond the already substantial amounts reported by O'Brien.) O'Brien's work, however, illustrates the potential available for high-resolution MSS analyses for intrasite studies, particularly large later prehistoric towns and villages, common in the Southeast. The procedures used by O'Brien and his coworkers were adapted from those of Scollar, who has published extensively on the digital processing of archaeological aerial photography (see esp. Scollar et al. 1990). The digitizing process involved placing the photo under a video digitizer. The combination of photo size and digitizer parameters yielded an

< previous page

page_204

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_204.html[20/10/2010 11:28:31]

page_205

< previous page

page_205

next page > Page 205

effective spatial resolution of 20.2 cm, essentially equivalent to a sensor's IFOV. Due to unusual flooding, much of the surface soil had been removed, leaving substantial archaeological material including in situ charred whole pottery vessels and clear soil markings indicative of prehistoric structures and features (O'Brien et al. 1982:176177). Because of differential wetting and drying it was difficult visually to isolate areas on the color infrared photos. Relatively dry prehistoric features had similar coloring, as did wet areas without prehistoric materials. A variety of techniques were applied to standardize the image to reduce the visual effect of the differential dampness. O'Brien and his group were able to recognize previously obscure features and to confirm their presence in the field. Combinations of pattern and intensity presented clear indications of both prehistoric houses and features. Summary When we look at archaeological studies, we see from the earliest ones using Landsat MSS data that it was impossible to derive site spectral classes. The data were useful in land form-ecological zone studies, however, which directly benefited archaeological investigations. Landsat MSS data also began to be used in quantitatively sophisticated studies focusing on the predictive modeling of site locations. In these projects, multispectral data was one dimension in a multidimensional data set. As ever higher resolution sensor systems become available it appears increasingly likely that direct site classification may be obtained under certain settings. The work by Sever, Tabbagh, and Wagner points in this direction. Multispectral data will continue to be used for sampling designs (e.g., Johnson et al. 1988) and for predictive studies (e.g., Wells et al. 1981). Multispectral imagery also has great potential for within-site studies (e.g., O'Brien et al. 1982; David Wagner, personal communication, 1989), but it is only very recently that sensors with sufficient spatial and spectral resolution have become available for such work. Acknowledgments. Because the topic of this paper focuses on the Southeast and because readers can refer to a much more complete presentation in The Use of Multispectral Digital Imagery for Archeological Investigations (Limp 1989), this chapter has necessarily overlooked the important and extensive research conducted in the Southwest (particularly the NPS Remote Sensing Center) by Lyon, Hitchcock, and Ebert, and in Europe by Tabbagh, Hesse, Scollar, and others. The work done by these pioneers has made much of the research discussed here possi

< previous page

page_205

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_205.html[20/10/2010 11:28:32]

page_206

< previous page

page_206

next page > Page 206

ble. I would also like to thank those others who have contributed information, assistance, or reprints of otherwise difficult to find items, in particular: Larry Banks, Scott Madry, Tom Sever, and James Weisman. Much of the background research was made possible with support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division. My thanks also to Jay Johnsonhis editorial fist was always in a velvet glove.

< previous page

page_206

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_206.html[20/10/2010 11:28:32]

page_207

< previous page

page_207

next page > Page 207

Chapter 10 Conclusion Jay K. Johnson I am done with imposing on my friends to add another manuscript deadline to already full schedules. I am done with writing cajoling letters when they miss that deadline. I am done with wrestling word processors. I am done with editing. Now comes the fun part. As the first person to read (and reread) these papers as a group, I have been in a unique position to benefit from the perspective they provide. I cannot resist this opportunity to overview the development of archaeology in the Southeast. Since I am an archaeologist, it should come as no surprise that this review is chronological, and a comparison of the chronologies in the various chapters is revealing. In the first place, some of the summaries trace the roots of their subdiscipline into the nineteenth century, while others are conspicuously twentieth-century phenomena. Some, archaeometry and remote sensing for example, rely on technological advances dating primarily to the last couple of decades. Ceramic and lithic analyses, on the other hand, grew in response to the demands of culture history during the first 60 years of this century. It is interesting to note that the first major publications in each which dealt with southeastern material were authored by W. H. Holmes (1886, 1890), one of the last of the great nineteenth-century culture evolutionists. Nevertheless, in lithics especially, the excellent beginning was lost only to be rediscovered by a new generation of analysts in the post-1960 era of processual studies. Those subdisciplines with strong nineteenth-century roots are the ones that rely upon methods and techniques borrowed from other major fields of study: anatomy, botany, zoology, and history, for example. Although the nineteenth century is distinguished by the rise of culture evo-

< previous page

page_207

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_207.html[20/10/2010 11:28:33]

page_208

< previous page

page_208

next page > Page 208

lution as the central paradigm in anthropology, there is little evidence of the influence of this school in the research dealing with the prehistoric Southeast. Major topics included mound builders, polygenesis, lost tribes, and the like. While cultural evolution had little impact on the archaeology of the Southeast, the theoretical orientation that replaced it in American anthropology at the turn of the century dominated the development of southeastern archaeology for most of its history. Dunnell (1986) has nicely detailed the factors that led to the popularity of historical particularism in American anthropology and its expression as culture history in American archaeology. Essentially, the two were made for one another. North American ethnography was attempting to reconstruct aboriginal cultures that had been heavily disrupted by four centuries of European expansion. In doing this there was a strong emphasis on comparison, relying primarily upon static trait lists. The stated goal was to document actual culture histories rather than hypothetical evolutionary sequences in order to search for regularities (Boas 1896). Archaeologists, with new-found stratigraphic techniques, were far more successful in reconstructing sequences than the ethnographers were. Some subdisciplines fared better than others during the culture historical reign in the Southeast. Physical anthropology, zooarchaeology, and paleoethnobotany were reduced to trait lists and relegated to appendixes since nobody had quite figured out what to do with traits once they were listed. When the data produced by these specialists were used, they were used to address questions typical of the culture historical orientation, such as documenting the invasion of the long heads or the mesoamerican origin of agriculture. Until the discovery of chronological variation in stemmed bifaces during the late 1940s, lithic studies suffered a similar fate. Ironically, ethnohistory, a potentially important participant in the culture historical era of southeastern archaeology, was blinded by one of the central constructs of historical particularism, the ethnographic present, and did not truly become ethnohistory until the dynamic nature of the historic record was realized in the 1950s. The undisputed monarch of southeastern archaeology during the culture historical period was ceramic analysis. As archaeologists rarely tire of recounting, ceramics are ideally suited for documenting change through time as a result of their durability, abundance, and stylistic variability. Since chronology was the goal, ceramic analysis dominated southeastern archaeology for most of this century. Major portions of most site reports published from the 1930s through the 1960s are devoted to the analysis and description of potsherds. James Ford, a major player in the development of culture history and

< previous page

page_208

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_208.html[20/10/2010 11:28:33]

page_209

< previous page

page_209

next page > Page 209

ceramic analysis in American archaeology, was also one of the pioneers of southeastern archaeology (Brown 1978). As Gibson (this volume) points out, the Ford-Spaulding debate (Spaulding 1953a; Ford 1954a) can only be understood in light of Ford's commitment to culture history. Ford never doubted that patterns existed in ceramic assemblages and that these patterns could be discovered using the techniques which Spaulding advocated (Ford 1954a:45). What he doubted was whether such types would be of any use to the archaeologist. For Ford, a useful type was one that was based on attributes common during a limited period of time and easily distinguished on the basis of sherds. That is, they were good chronological markers. Such attributes could only be identified by studying several assemblages from different time periods (Cowgill 1963). McKern's midwestern taxonomic system was never very important in the Southeast. Ford (1936b:7) specifically rejects it in one of his earliest methodological statements and there are few foci or aspects in the southeastern literature. And although Ford spent some effort on identifying historic ethnic groups in his earliest comprehensive typology (Gibson and Galloway, this volume), his ceramic analyses were guided by the need to measure time from the first (Ford 1936b) to the last (Phillips et al. 1951). This tradition has been carried on and elaborated by the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS), of which Ford was a founding member. This emphasis in culture history has culminated in the type-variety system, which has had the LMS as its major advocate in the Southeast (e.g., Phillips 1970; Williams and Brain 1983; Brain 1989). Whereas the type-variety system in the Maya area was introduced as an answer to all the tasks a typology could be asked to perform from chronology through trade to social relationships (Gifford 1960), it is typical of the Southeast that it was proposed as a purely chronological device (Phillips 1958). The result has been fine-tuned local chronologies that are direct descendants of Ford's original typologies (Johnson and Sparks 1982). The culture historical period in the Southeast has produced some of the earliest and best ceramic typologies in North American archaeology. There are few places in the region where fine-scale chronological assignment is not possible given a sufficient sample of sherds. Nevertheless, having established the chronology, archaeologists have been challenged to do something with it. Nowhere is the explanatory inadequacy of the culture historical paradigm better illustrated than in the Lake George report (Williams and Brain 1983), a recent product of the LMS. The bulk of the monograph is devoted to detailing an elegant and useful ceramic typology. You cannot do archaeology in the Yazoo Basin without making reference to this work. As Gibson emphasized, even new archaeologists need to control time. But in the concluding chapter, "The Yazoo and

< previous page

page_209

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_209.html[20/10/2010 11:28:34]

page_210

< previous page

page_210

next page > Page 210

Cultural Dynamics in the Lower Mississippi Valley,'' explanation takes the form of "connections" and "contact," usually ceramic, which are dramatically illustrated on maps in that chapter by arrows swooping into the Yazoo Basin from the Midwest or the Gulf Coast. First markers of a dissatisfaction with the explanatory potential of culture history in American archaeology began to appear as early as the late 1930s (Steward and Setzler 1938; Kluckhohn 1940; Taylor 1948). As Reitz points out, not only did Taylor (1948) call for a cooperation between archaeologists and specialists as a major component of his conjunctive approach, his north Mexican faunal material was the subject of a detailed analysis. Settlement pattern studies arose in the late 1940s and emphasized many of the same things that were central to the new archaeology of the 1960s (Beardsley et al. 1956). Still, these early calls for something different had little impact on archaeology in the United States and even less in the Southeast. One of the things that this collection of essays underscores nicely is the inclusive nature of new archaeology. It seems to me that the "revolution" succeeded in large part because it served as a bridge between the subdisciplines. All of the stepchildren based in the biological sciences responded immediately to the call for an archaeology that emphasized ecology, evolution, and systems theory. After all, these concepts were borrowed from the disciplines in which these specialists had trained. Archaeometry was stimulated by evolutionary models based on changes in the way nonlocal materials were procured and distributed. Lithic analysts were never very good at culture history; their types tend to span hundreds and often thousands of years and were only relied on for chronology during the Archaic, when there was nothing better. What lithic analysts could do is document behavior with a precision that was not appreciated until people started talking about behavioral archaeology. Even ceramic analysts realized, somewhat belatedly, that pots could be considered tools and sherds were useful for something beyond chronology. Only ethnohistory, as it was applied to southeastern archaeology, remained out of step. It either continued to be used, often naively, as culture history or, more rarely, served as the source for hypotheses to be tested using archaeological data. Still, new archaeology was late in coming to the Southeast. Early statements began to appear at the beginning of the 1960s (Binford 1962; Deetz 1965; Hill 1966; Longacre 1966; Flannery 1967) and the publication of New Perspectives in Archaeology in 1968 serves as a good marker for the coming of age of the paradigm (Binford and Binford 1968). In the Southeast the first articles reflecting ideas advocated in that book as cited in the previous chapters of this book occur in 1974 (lithics, zooarchae-

< previous page

page_210

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_210.html[20/10/2010 11:28:34]

page_211

< previous page

page_211

next page > Page 211

ology, and paleoethnobotany), 1975 (ceramics), and 1977 (physical anthropology). It is interesting to contrast the two major paradigms in twentieth-century American archaeology and their impact on the Southeast. Culture history came early and stayed late in the Southeast. As Gibson emphasizes, most of the major journal articles dealing with southeastern data rely on that paradigm. The Southeast was a leader in the development of the method and theory underlying culture history (Dunnell 1986). In fact, Method and Theory in American Archaeology (Willey and Phillips 1958), the final codification of the school, was authored by two archaeologists who grew up in southeastern archaeology. On the other hand, with a few notable exceptions, the Southeast was slow to embrace new archaeology (Dunnell 1990:19). The reasons for the difference between the two revolutions, as I see them, are uncomfortably historic coming from someone raised in the processual tradition. Two things came together to foster the growth of culture history in the Southeast, ideas and opportunity. Others have noted the importance of the federal relief programs during the 1930s to the development of southeastern archaeology (Dunnell 1986, 1990). Eager young men from mostly midwestern universities combined with local talent to direct huge field crews in multiyear regional research projects. As Reitz points out, the projects were designed to provide work for unskilled labor, not specialists, and relatively little other than description and chronology was done. The more important reason that paleoethnobotany, zooarchaeology, physical anthropology, and for that matter, lithic analysis were neglected during the heyday of WPA archaeology is that they did not provide data relevant to the major questions being asked by the florescent culture historical paradigm. Southeastern Archaeological Conference meetings during this timeat which the major activity was crosschecking regional sequenceswere eloquent testimonies to the focus of southeastern archaeology. Most people would agree that the Southeast is a conservative place, and as Gibson has suggested, this may have been a factor in the reluctant shift from culture history to new archaeology in the region. Nevertheless, it seems that timing was once again a critical factor. This time ideas and opportunity did not come together, at least not in the Southeast. Since the beginnings of new archaeology preceded the boom in cultural resource management support by more than a decade, the archaeology upon which it was based was primarily academic. As several contributors have noted, graduate programs in the Southeast were limited until recently. Once again, the revolution began in the Midwest and most of the substantive examples, when there are any in the early programmatic

< previous page

page_211

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_211.html[20/10/2010 11:28:35]

page_212

< previous page

page_212

next page > Page 212

statements, are from the Midwest or the Southwest, the major research focus of midwestern universities. Only one of the articles (Winters 1968) in New Perspectives in Archaeology deals with the Southeast. Nearly every chapter in this book dwells on the importance of CRM funding in the introduction of new archaeology into the Southeast. And there were a large number of carpetbaggers in the region during the 1970s and 1980s. But unlike their predecessors in the 1930s, when the money dried up during the late 1980s, so did their research interest in the Southeast. I would argue that these people had little direct lasting effect on archaeological theory in the Southeast. In order to compete for CRM projects, however, southeastern archaeologists were forced to formulate research designs that went beyond culture history. Moreover, large-scale, multiyear CRM projects allowed several southeastern universities to expand and upgrade their archaeology programs. The University of Tennessee projects are a good example of what happened at several institutions in the region. A whole generation of graduate students found funding and dissertation topics within a research environment that demanded hypotheses, research designs, quantification, an ecological orientation, and the other trappings of new archaeology. What is more important, many of them graduated and got soft-money jobs at southeastern universities, which they were able to parlay into tenured positions. As Smith, Reitz, and Gremillion have pointed out, this growth in the institutional base in the Southeast has been critical in the growth of specialist studies in southeastern archaeology. Moreover, since the roots of this growth can be traced in part to CRM and its theoretical base in new archaeology, the archaeologists being produced by southeastern universities are raised in the paradigm. The final factor involved in the spread and maintenance of processual archaeology in the Southeast involves the nature of specialist studies. Once southeastern archaeologists began to make use of archeometrists, paleoethnobotonists, and the like, they opened the doors to a literature that is panregional. While ceramic sequences are by their nature provincial, if you know how to model core production or subsistence behavior in the Southeast, you can apply the same techniques to Mesoamerica or the Midwest. Like zooarchaeologists (Reitz, this volume), many specialists work in more than one region and keep track of the literature in many, since the techniques they employ are universal. This also means that they become conversant with theoretical developments beyond their specialty and specific regional emphasis. Having finally gained the high ground, new archaeology appears to be firmly entrenched in the Southeast. The most immediate documentation of this statement is the fact that postprocessual archaeology is con-

< previous page

page_212

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_212.html[20/10/2010 11:28:36]

page_213

< previous page

page_213

next page > Page 213

sidered in only one chapter in this book, Brose's introductory overview of theoretical trends. Although most such recent reviews (e.g., Watson 1986) have offered varied opinions about the success and viability of new archaeology, this book demonstrates that it is alive and well in the Southeast. Actually, I suspect that a similar collection from any other region in the United States would produce the same results. In putting together the book, I sought out people who are actively engaged in research in their subdiscipline. One of the things this collection clearly documents is the debt most specialists owe the processual paradigm. We now produce data that are of central concern to archaeology. No longer are we relegated to the appendixes when consulted at all. Moreover, many of us who are still identifying, measuring, and counting artifacts are not convinced that the paradigm is exhausted. To continue a theme introduced by Gibson in his conclusion, there are few agnostics in the trenches. The proprocessual bent of these papers is understandable given their methodological emphasis. As Redman (1991) has pointed out, the primary contribution of new archaeology has been methodological; how do we test what we think we know. Still, the Southeast has not escaped the postprocessual depression and this is partially the result of that very same methodological sophistication. As we have learned more and more about the archaeological record, the picture has become remarkably more complex. Patterns that we thought were there have melted away. Temple mounds no longer begin with the Mississippian. Corn appears but does not become important during the Middle Woodland. Complex ritual exchange over broad areas occurs during the Middle Archaic, while redistribution of subsistence goods cannot be documented for the Mississippian. It is clear that the answers are not going to come as easily as the new archaeology promised. There has been a retrenchment. At the Mobile SEAC meeting in 1990 a renewed interest in culture history was evident. There was a particular emphasis on the late prehistoric and early historic periods (43 out of 115 papers), while only three dealt with lithic technology. I believe that the protohistoric has been neglected not because of any dark agenda (Galloway, this volume), but because of the relative scarcity of sites and the methodological difficulty of relating archaeological constructs to ethnic entities. Nevertheless, many of the tools forged by new archaeology show promise of allowing us to deal with the movement of peoples during this dynamic period in a productive way. Above all, the Mobile program reflects a diversity of interests and a vitality that is encouraging. However you classify it, archaeology in the Southeast is living up to the rich heritage that the chapters in this book document.

< previous page

page_213

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_213.html[20/10/2010 11:28:36]

page_215

< previous page

page_215

next page > Page 215

References Cited Abbott, Charles C. 1876. On the Discovery of Supposed Paleolithic Implements from the Glacial Drift in the Valley of the Delaware River, near Trenton, New Jersey. Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 10(2). Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1889. Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in Eastern North America. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 37:293315. Salem, Massachusetts. Adair, James 1775. The History of the American Indians. Edward and Charles Dilly, London. Agassiz, Louis 1854. Of the Natural Provinces of the Animal World and Their Relation to the Different Types of Man. In Types of Mankind, by Josiah C. Nott and George R. Glidden, pp. lviiilxxvi. Lippincott and Grambo, Philadelphia. Ahler, Stanley A. 1989. Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 85118. Archeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Aiken, Martin J. 1974. Physics and Archaeology. 2d ed. Oxford University Press, London. Albrecht, Andrew C. 1941. Ethnohistorical Data Pertaining to an Early Historic Tribe of Louisiana, the Bayougoula. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 2(4):27.

< previous page

page_215

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_215.html[20/10/2010 11:28:37]

page_216

< previous page

page_216

next page > Page 216

1944. The Location of the Historic Natchez Villages. Journal of Mississippi History 6:6788. 1946. Indian-French Relations at Natchez. American Anthropologist 48:321354. 1948. Ethical Precepts among the Natchez Indians. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 31:569595. Alden, John 1944. John Stuart and the Southern Colonial Frontier. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Allen, Glover M. 1920. Dogs of the American Aborigines. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 63:9. Harvard. Allen, Harrison 1896. The Crania from the Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences 10:367448. Philadelphia. Allen, Ralph O., Hany Hamroush, and C. G. Holland 1982. Patterns of Soapstone Procurement in the Southeastern United States. In The Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry, edited by A. Aspinall and S. W. Warren, pp. 404410. University of Bradford, United Kingdom. Allen, Ralph O., A. H. Luckenbach, and C. G. Holland 1975. The Application of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis to a Study of Prehistoric Steatite Artifacts and Source Materials. Archaeometry 17:6983. Allen, Ralph O., and S. Edith Pennell 1978. Rare Earth Element Distribution Patterns to Characterize Soapstone Artifacts. In Archaeological Chemistry II, edited by Giles F. Carter, pp. 230257. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 171, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Allison, A. C. 1954. Protection Afforded by Sickle Cell Trait Against Subtertian Malarial Infection. British Medical Journal 1:290294. 1961. Genetic Factors in Resistance to Malaria. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 91:710729. New York. Ambrose, Stanley H. 1987. Chemical and Isotopic Techniques of Diet Reconstruction in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 87107. Occasional Papers No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

< previous page

page_216

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_216.html[20/10/2010 11:28:37]

page_217

< previous page

page_217

next page > Page 217

Amick, Daniel S. 1984. Designing and Testing a Model of Raw Material Variability for the Central Duck River Basin, Tennessee. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brian M. Butler and Ernest E. May, pp. 167184. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1985. Late Archaic Fort Payne Biface Manufacture at the Topsy Site (40WY204), Buffalo River Basin, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):134151. 1986. Calculating Artifact Planview Area. Lithic Technology 15:9095. 1987. Lithic Raw Material Variability in the Central Duck River Basin: Reflections of Middle and Late Archaic Organizational Strategies. Publications in Anthropology No. 50. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville. Anderson, Duane C. 1985. Reburial Is It Reasonable? Archaeology 38(5):4851. Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson 1988. Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262286. Anderson, David G., and J. Schuldenrein 1983. Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope: A View from the Rucker's Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist 4:177210. Anderson, Edgar 1952. Plants, Man, and Life. University of California Press, Berkeley. Anderson, Edgar, and Hugh C. Cutler 1942. Races of Zea mays I: Their Recognition and Classification. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 29:6988. Anonymous 1846. Note on the Natchez Pelvis Bone. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 3:106107. Philadelphia. Armelagos, George J., David S. Carlson, and Dennis P. Van Gerven 1982. The Theoretical Foundations and Development of Skeletal Biology. In A History of American Physical Anthropology, 19301980, edited by Frank Spencer, pp. 305328. Academic Press, New York. Armelagos, George J., Rebecca Huss-Ashmore, and Debra L. Martin 1982. Morphometrics as Indicators of Dietary Stress in Prehistoric Nubia. Museum Applied Science, Center for Archaeology Journal 2:2226. Arnold, Dean E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_217.html[20/10/2010 11:28:38]

page_217

< previous page

page_217

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_217.html[20/10/2010 11:28:38]

page_218

< previous page

page_218

next page > Page 218

Asch, David L. 1975. On Sample Size Problems and the Uses of Nonprobabilistic Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 110191. University of Arizona, Tucson. Asch, David L., and Nancy B. Asch 1977. Chenopod as Cultigen: A Reevaluation of Some Prehistoric Collections from Eastern North America. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2:345. 1983. Archeobotany. In Excavations at the Smiling Dan Site: Delineation of Site Structure and Function During the Middle Woodland Period, edited by Barbara D. Stafford and Mark B. Sant, pp. 635725. Reports of Investigations No. 137. Contract Archaeology Program, Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois. 1985. Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 149204. Anthropological Papers No. 75. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Asch, David L., Kenneth B. Farnsworth, and Nancy B. Asch 1979. Woodland Subsistence and Settlement in West Central Illinois. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 8085. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Asch, Nancy B., and David L. Asch 1978. The Economic Potential of Iva annua and its Prehistoric Importance in the Lower Illinois Valley. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 301341. Anthropological Papers No. 67. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Asch, Nancy B., Richard I. Ford, and David L. Asch 1972. Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: The Archaic Horizons. Report of Investigations No. 24. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Ascher, Marcia 1959. A Mathematical Rationale for Graphic Seriation. American Antiquity 25:212214. Ascher, Marcia, and Robert Ascher 1963. Chronological Ordering by Computer. American Anthropologist 65:10451052. Ascher, Robert 1963. Review of A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology, by James A. Ford. American Antiquity 28:570571. Aten, Lawrence E. 1981. Determining Seasonality of Rangia cuneata from Gulf Coast Shell Middens. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 52:179200.

< previous page

page_218

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_218.html[20/10/2010 11:28:39]

page_219

< previous page

page_219

next page > Page 219

Atwater, Caleb 1820. Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States. Archeologia Americana: Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society 1:105299. Worcester, Massachusetts. Autry, William O., Jr., and Thomas C. Loftfield 1976. Species Content of North Carolina Coastal Shell Middens and Their Cultural Implications. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 19:7681. Axtell, James 1978. The Ethnohistory of Early America: A Review Essay. William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 35:111144. 1988. The Invasion Within. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bachman, John 1850a. The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race Examined on the Principles of Science. Canning, Charleston, South Carolina. 1850b. On the Question of Hybridity in Animals Considered in Relation to the Unity of the Human Species. Charleston Medical Journal 5:466508. 1854. Review of Types of Mankind, by J. C. Nott and Geo. R. Glidden. Charleston Medical Journal 9:627659. Bacon, Willard S. 1975. Additional Data on Site 40FR47, Franklin County, Tennessee. Tennesse Archaeologist 31:98103. Bada, Jeffrey L. 1985. Aspartic Acid Racemization Ages of California Paleo-indian Skeletons. American Antiquity 50:645647. Bada, Jeffrey L., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowlett, and R. E. M. Hedges 1984. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Ages of Amino Acid Extracts from California Paleoindian Skeletons. Nature 312:442444. Baden, William W. 1983. Tomotley: An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village. Report of Investigations No. 36. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville. Baker, Frank C. 1923. The Use of Molluscan Shells by the Cahokia Mound Builders. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 16:328334. Springfield. 1931. Additional Notes on Animal Life Associated with the Mound Builders of Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 23(3):231235. Springfield. 1932. Molluscan Shells from the Etowah Mounds. In Etowah Papers I, Exploration of the Etowah Site in Georgia, edited by Warren K. Moorehead

< previous page

page_219

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_219.html[20/10/2010 11:28:40]

page_220

< previous page

page_220

next page > Page 220

pp. 145149. Department of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. 1941. A Study of Ethnozoology of the Prehistoric Indians of Illinois. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 32(1):5177. Philadelphia. Barber, Russell J. 1983. Analysis of Molluscs. In Excavations at Lake George, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 19581960, by S. Williams and J. P. Brain, pp. 471474. Papers, vol. 74. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Barkalow, Frederick S., Jr. 1961. The Porcupine and Fisher in Alabama Archaeological Sites. Journal of Mammalogy 42:544545. Bartram, William 1791. Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Country of the Muscolgulges, or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Choctaws. James and Johnson, Philadelphia. Barzun, Jacques 1965. Race: A Study in Superstition. 2d ed. Harper and Row, New York. Bass, William M. 1956. Indian Crania from Moundville, Alabama. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bean, William B. 1974. Josiah Clark Nott, A Southern Physician. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 50(4):529535. Beardsley, Richard K., Betty J. Meggers, Preston Holder, John B. Rinaldo, Alex D. Krieger, and Paul Kutsche 1956. Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. In Seminars in Archaeology: 1955, edited by Robert Wauchope, pp. 129158. Memoir No. 11. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Begni, Gerard 1982. Selection of the Optimum Spectral Bands for the SPOT Satellite. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 48:16131620. Behrensmeyer, Anna K., and Andrew P. Hill (editors) 1980. Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Belmont, John S. 1983. Analysis of the Bone and Shell. In Excavations at Lake George, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 19581960, by Stephen Williams and Jeffrey P. Brain, pp. 451469. Papers, vol. 74. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

< previous page

page_220

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_220.html[20/10/2010 11:28:41]

page_221

< previous page

page_221

next page > Page 221

Bender, Barbara 1985. Prehistoric Developments in the American Midcontinent and in Brittany, Northwest France. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp. 2157. Academic Press, Orlando. Bender, Margaret M., David A. Baerreis, and Raymond L. Steventon 1981. Further Light on Carbon Isotopes and Hopewell Agriculture. American Antiquity 46:346353. Bennett, W. James, Mark Laustrap, and Lawson Smith 1985. The Red River Archaeological Project, 19841985: The Application of Remote Sensing. Manuscript submitted to the Oklahoma Archaeological Society, Oklahoma City. Berkhofer, Robert F., Jr. 1978. The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present. Knopf, New York. Berryman, Hugh E. 1975. A Multivariate Study of three Prehistoric Tennessee Skeletal Populations: Mouse Creek, Dallas, and Middle Cumberland. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1980. Mouse Creek, Dallas and Middle Cumberland: A Multivariate Approach. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 114. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. 1981. The Averbuch Skeletal Series: A Study of Biological and Social Stress at a Late Mississippian Period Site from Middle Tennessee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Bettinger, Robert L. 1991. Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Plenum Press, New York. Bieder, Robert E. 1986. Science Encounters the American Indian, 18201880: The Early Years of American Ethnology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Binford, Lewis R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217225. 1964a. Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigation of Cultural Diversity and Progressive Development among Aboriginal Cultures of Coastal Virginia and North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1964b. A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425441.

< previous page

page_221

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_221.html[20/10/2010 11:28:41]

page_222

< previous page

page_222

next page > Page 222

1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31:203210. 1968. Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 313341. Aldine, Chicago. 1978. Nunamuit Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1978. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255273. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:420. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, London. Binford, Lewis R., and Sally R. Binford 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68:238295. Binford, Lewis R., and Mark L. Papworth 1963. The Eastport Site, Antrim County, Michigan. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, by Anta M. White, Lewis R. Binford, and Mark L. Papworth, pp. 71123. Anthropological Papers No. 19. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Binford, Lewis R., and George I. Quimby 1963. Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake Michigan Area. Fieldiana: Anthropology 36:277307. Binford, Sally R., and Lewis R. Binford (editors) 1968. New Perspectives in Archeology. Aldine, Chicago. Birdsell, Joseph P. 1987. Some Reflections on Fifty Years in Biological Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:112. Palo Alto, California. Bishop, Ronald L. 1992. Instrumentation and the Future of Archaeology. In Quandries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, edited by LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 158167. Occasional Paper No. 20. Center for Archaeological Investigations and Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Bishop, Ronald L., and Hector Neff 1989. Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, edited by Ralph O. Allen, pp. 5786. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 220. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Bishop, Ronald L., Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley 1982. Ceramic Compositional Modeling in Archaeological Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 275331. Academic Press, New York.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_222.html[20/10/2010 11:28:42]

page_222

< previous page

page_222

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_222.html[20/10/2010 11:28:42]

page_223

< previous page

page_223

next page > Page 223

Bishop, Ronald L., Edward V. Sayre, and Joan Mishara 1992. Compositional and Structural Characterization of Maya and Costa Rican Jadeitites. In Studies of Precolumbian Jade, edited by F. W. Lange. University of Utah Press, in press. Bishop, Ronald L., Veletta Canouts, Suzanne P. De Atley, and Patricia L. Crown 1990. Sensitivity, Precision, and Accuracy: Their Roles in Ceramic Compositional Data Bases. American Antiquity 55:537546. Black, M. Jean 1963. The Distribution and Archaeological Significance of the Marsh Elder, Iva annua L. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 48:541547. Blake, S. F. 1939. A New Variety of Iva ciliata from Indian Rock Shelters in the South Central United States. Rhodora 41:8186. Blakely, Robert L. 1971. Comparison of the Mortality Profiles of Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Middle Mississippian Skeletal Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 34:4354. 1977. Sociocultural Implications of Demographic Data from Etowah, Georgia. In Biocultural Adaptations in Prehistoric America, edited by Robert L. Blakely, pp. 4566. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society No. 11. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1980. Sociocultural Implications of Pathology Between the Village Area and Mound C Skeletal Remains from Etowah, Georgia. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 2838. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Blakely, Robert L. (editor) 1977. Biocultural Adaptations in Prehistoric America. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society No. 11. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Blakely, Robert L., and Lane Beck 1981. Trace Elements, Nutritional Status, and Social Stratification at Etowah, Georgia. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by A. E. Cantwell, James B. Griffin and Nan A. Rothchild. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 376:417431. 1984. Tooth-Tool Use Versus Dental Mutilation: A Case Study from the Prehistoric Southeast. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9:269284. Blakely, Robert L., and David S. Matthews 1975. Demographic Model of the Etowah Village Population. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Sciences 33:168179.

< previous page

page_223

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_223.html[20/10/2010 11:28:43]

page_224

< previous page

page_224

next page > Page 224

Blakeman, Crawford H., Jr. 1977. The Application of Macroscopic Analysis to the Classification of Chert from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 23:7186. Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich 1776. De Generis Humani Harietate Nativa. Vandenhoek, Goettingae. Boas, Franz 1896. The Limitation of the Comparative Method of Anthropology. Science 4:901908. Bobrowsky, Peter T. 1982. Olsen and Olsen's Identity Crisis in Faunal Studies. American Antiquity 47:180183. Bobrowsky, Peter T., and Thomas W. Gatus 1984. Archaeomalacological Significance of the Hall Shelter, Perry County, Kentucky. North American Archaeologist 5:89110. Bocquet-Appel, Jean-Pierre, and Claude Masset 1982. Farewell to Paleodemography. Journal of Human Evolution 11:321333. Bodner, Connie Cox, and Ralph M. Rowlett 1980. Separation of Bone, Charcoal and Seeds by Chemical Flotation. American Antiquity 45:110116. Boekelman, Henry J. 1936. A Shell Trumpet from Arizona. American Antiquity 2:2731. 1937. Two Probable Shell Trumpets from Ontario. American Antiquity 2:295296. Bogan, Arthur E. 1982. Archaeological Evidence of Subsistence Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 7:3850. Bogan, Arthur E., Paul W. Parmalee, and Richard R. Polhemus 1980. A Review of Fossil Tapir Records from Tennessee with Descriptions of Specimens from Two New Localities. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 55(1):1014. Bogan, Arthur E., and Neil D. Robison 1987. The Zooarchaeology of Eastern North America: History, Method and Theory, and Bibliography. Miscellaneous Papers No. 12. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Bolton, Herbert E. 1921. The Spanish Borderlands: A Chronicle of Old Florida and the Southwest. Yale University Press, New Haven. Bonin, Gerhardt von, and Geoffrey Miles Morant 1938. Indian Races in the United States. A Survey of Previously Published Cranial Measurements. Biometrika file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_224.html[20/10/2010 11:28:43]

page_224

30:94139.

< previous page

page_224

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_224.html[20/10/2010 11:28:43]

page_225

< previous page

page_225

next page > Page 225

Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr., and Donna C. Boyd 1991. A Multidimensional Investigation of Biocultural Relationships among Three Late Prehistoric Societies in Tennessee. American Antiquity 56:7588. Boyd, Donna C. 1984. A Biological Investigation of Skeletal Remains from the Mouse Creek Phase and a Comparative Analysis of Two Populations from Middle and East Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1986. A Comparison of Mouse Creek Phase to Dallas and Middle Cumberland Culture Skeletal Remains. In Skeletal Analysis in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Janet E. Levy, pp. 103126. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 24. Raleigh. 1988. A Functional Model for Masticatory-Related Mandibular, Dental, and Craniofacial Microevolutionary Change Derived from a Selected Southeastern Indian Skeletal Temporal Series. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Boyd, Donna C., and C. Clifford Boyd, Jr. 1989. A Comparison of Tennessee Archaic and Mississippian Maximum Femoral Lengths and Midshaft Diameters: Subsistence Change and Postcranial Variability. Southeastern Archaeology 8:107116. Brace, C. Loring 1974. The ''Ethnology'' of Josiah Clark Nott. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 50(4):509528. 1982. The Roots of the Race Concept in American Physical Anthropology. In A History of American Physical Anthropology, 19301980, edited by Frank Spencer, pp. 1130. Academic Press, New York. Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted?: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Brain, Jeffrey P. 1979. Tunica Treasure. Papers, vol. 71. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1988. Tunica Archaeology. Papers, vol. 78. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1989. Winterville, Late Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Archaeological Report No. 23. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Brain, Jeffrey P., and Drexel Peterson 1971. Palmetto Tempered Pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 13:7081.

< previous page

page_225

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_225.html[20/10/2010 11:28:44]

page_226

< previous page

page_226

next page > Page 226

Brain, Jeffrey P., Alan Toth, and Antonio Rodriguez-Buckingham 1974. Ethnohistoric Archaeology and the de Soto Entrada into the Lower Mississippi Valley. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology, Papers 7:232289. Brainerd, George W. 1951. The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16:301313. Brannon, Peter A. 1938. Urn-Burial in Central Alabama. American Antiquity 3:228235. Braun, David P. 1983. Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, pp. 108136. Academic Press, New York. 1985. Ceramic Decorative Diversity and Illinois Woodland Regional Integration. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 128153. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Brennan, Louis A. 1967. The Taconic Tradition and the Coe Axiom. Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological Association 14:1225. Brew, J. O. 1946. The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy. In Archeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, by J. O. Brew, pp. 4466. Papers, vol. 21. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1947. Letter to Anna O. Shepard of 28 November 1947. Anna O. Shepard Archives, Museum, University of Colorado, Boulder. Brewer, Andrea J. 1973. Analysis of Floral Remains from the Higgs Site (40LO45). In Excavation of the Higgs and Doughty Sites, I-75 Salvage Archaeology, by Major C. R. McCollough and Charles H. Faulkner, pp. 141144. Miscellaneous Papers No. 12. Tennessee Archaeological Society, Knoxville. Bridges, Patricia S. 1985. Changes in Long Bone Structure with the Transition to Agriculture: Implications for Prehistoric Activities. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1989a. Spondylolysis and Its Relationship to Degenerative Joint Disease in the Prehistoric Southeastern U.S. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:321329. 1989b. Changes in Activities with the Shift to Agriculture in the Southeastern U.S. Current Anthropology 30:385394. 1991. Skeletal Evidence of Changes in Subsistence Activities Between the Archaic and Mississippian Time Periods in Northwestern Alabama. In

< previous page

page_226

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_226.html[20/10/2010 11:28:45]

page_227

< previous page

page_227

next page > Page 227

What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology, edited by Mary L. Powell, Patricia S. Bridges, and Ann M. Wagner Mires, pp. 89101. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Brink, A., J. Mabbitt, R. Webster, and P. Beckett 1966. Report of the Working Group on Land Classification and Data Storage. MEXE Report No. 940. Christchurch, England. Brodkorb, P. 1960. Great Auk and Common Murre from a Florida Midden. Auk 77:342343. Bronitsky, Gordon R. 1986. The Use of Materials-Science Techniques in the Study of Pottery Construction and Use. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 209276. Academic Press, New York. 1989. Ceramics and Temper: A Response to Feathers. American Antiquity 54:589593. Bronitsky, Gordon R., and Robert Hamer 1986. Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Material on Impact and Thermal Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51:89101. Brose, David S. n.d. Henry Reynolds and the B. A. E. excavation of the Baum Mound in 1889 and 1890: A Reconstruction from the original notes in the Smithsonian Institution Anthropological Archives. Manuscript in possession of the author. Brose, David S., James A. Brown, and David Penney 1985. Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians. Harry Abrams, New York. Brose, David S., and N'omi Greber (editors) 1979. Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Brothwell, Don, and Eric S. Higgs 1963. Science in Archaeology. Basic Books, New York. Brown, Calvin 1926. Archeology of Mississippi. Mississippi Geological Survey, University. Brown, Ian W. 1976. A Reexamination of the Houses of the Bayou Goula Site, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 3:193205. 1978. James Alfred Ford, the Man and His Works. Special Publication No. 4. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis.

< previous page

page_227

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_227.html[20/10/2010 11:28:45]

page_228

< previous page

page_228

next page > Page 228

1979a. Decorated Pottery of the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Sorting Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Lower Mississippi Survey, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1979b. Early Eighteenth Century French-Indian Culture Contact in the Yazoo Bluffs Region of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence. 1982. The Southeastern Check Stamped Pottery Tradition, A View from Louisiana. Special Paper No. 4. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Kent, Ohio. 1985. Natchez Indian Archaeology: Culture Change and Stability in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Archaeology Report No. 15. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Brown, James A. 1971. The Dimensions of Status in the Burials at Spiro. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James Brown, pp. 92112. Memoir No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1986. Food for Thought: Where has Subsistence Analyses Gotten Us? In Foraging, Collecting and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 315330. Occassional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1990. Archaeology Confronts History at the Natchez Temple. Southeastern Archaeology 9:110. Brown, James A. (editor) 1971. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Memoir No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Brown, James A., Richard A. Kerber, and Howard D. Winters 1990. Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the Beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 251280. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Brown, William, and Edgar Anderson 1947. The Northern Flint Corns. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 34:130. Broyles, Bettye J. 1966. Preliminary report: The St. Albans site, Kanawha County. West Virginia Archeologist 19. 1968. Reconstructed Designs from Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Sherds. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 8: 4955. Broyles, Bettye J. (editor) 1967. Pottery Type Descriptions. Special Publication. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Morgantown, West Virginia.

< previous page

page_228

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_228.html[20/10/2010 11:28:46]

page_229

< previous page

page_229

next page > Page 229

Bruder, J. Simon, Elinor G. Large, and Barbara L. Stark 1975. A Test of Aerial Photography in an Estuariane Mangrove Swamp in Veracruz, Mexico. American Antiquity 40:330337. Buikstra, Jane E. 1976. Hopewell in the Lower Illinois Valley: A Regional Study of Human Biological Variability and Prehistoric Mortuary Behavior. Scientific Papers No. 2. Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Evanston, Illinois. 1977. Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study: A Regional Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptations in Prehistoric America, edited by Robert L. Blakely, pp. 6784. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society No. 11. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1979. Contributions of Physical Anthropologists to the Concept of Hopewell: A Historical Perspective. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 220233. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. 1981a. Mortuary Practices, Paleodemography, and Paleopathology: A Case Study from the Koster Site (Illinois). In The Archaeology of Death, edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, pp. 123132. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1981b. A Specialist in Ancient Cemetary Studies Looks at the Reburial Issue. Early Man 3:2627. Buikstra, Jane E., William Autry, Emanuel Breitberg, Leslie Eisenberg, and Nicolaas van der Merwe 1988. Diet and Health in the Nashville Basin: Human Adaptation and Maize Agriculture in Middle Tennessee. In Diet and Subsistence: Current Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Brenda V. Kennedy and Genevieve M. LeMoine, pp. 143259. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary (Chacmool). Buikstra, Jane E., Jill Bullington, Douglas K. Charles, Della C. Cook, Susan R. Frankenberg, Lyle W. Konigsberg, Joseph B. Lambert, and Liang Xue 1987. Diet, Demography, and the Development of Horticulture. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 6785. Occasional Papers No. 67. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Buikstra, Jane E., Susan R. Frankenberg, and Lyle W. Konigsberg 1990. Skeletal Biological Distance Studies in American Physical Anthropology: Recent Trends. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:18. Buikstra, Jane E., and Claire C. Gordon 1981. The Study and Restudy of Human Skeletal Series: The Importance of Long-term Curation. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by A. E. Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and

< previous page

page_229

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_229.html[20/10/2010 11:28:47]

page_230

< previous page

page_230

next page > Page 230

Nan A. Rothchild. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 376:449465. Buikstra, Jane E., and Lyle W. Konigsberg 1985. Paleodemography: Critiques and Controversies. American Anthropologist 87:316333. Bullen, Adelaide K. 1972. Paleoepidemiology and Distribution of Prehistoric Trepanemamiasis (Syphilis) in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:133175. Burke, Peter 1990. The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 192989. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Butzer, Karl 1971. Environment and Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. 1980. Context in Archaeology: An Alternative Perspective. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:417422. Byers, Douglas S. 1951. On the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 16:262263. Byrd, Kathleen M. 1976. Tchefuncte Subsistence: Information Obtained from the Excavation of the Morton Shell Mound, Iberia Parish, Louisiana. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 19:7075. Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez 1972. The Narrative of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca. Edited and translated by Fanny Bandelier. The Imprint Society, Barre, Massachusetts. Caddell, Gloria 1982a. Plant Remains from the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoirs. In Archaeological Investigations in the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoirs, edited by Eugene M. Futato, pp. 335350. Reports of Investigations No. 29. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1982b. Plant Remains from the Yarborough Site. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yarborough Site (22CL814), edited by Carlos Solis and Richard Walling, pp. 134140. Reports of Investigations No. 30. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1982c. Plant Resources, Archaeological Plant Remains and Prehistoric Plant-Use Patterns in the Central Tombigbee River Valley. Bulletin No. 7. Alabama Museum of Natural History, University. 1983. Floral Remains from the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality. In Prehistoric Agricultural Communities in West Alabama, edited by Christopher S. Peebles, pp. 194271. Vol. 2: Studies of Material Remains from

< previous page

page_230

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_230.html[20/10/2010 11:28:47]

page_231

< previous page

page_231

next page > Page 231

the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Submitted to Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta. Caddell, Gloria M., Anne Woodrick, and Mary C. Hill 1981. Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area. Reports of Investigations No. 14, vol. 4. University of Alabama, Office of Archeological Research, University. Caldwell, Charles 1811. An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. American Review of History and Politics 2:128166. 1814. An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. Port-Folio 4 (series 3):833, 148163, 252271, 447457. 1830. Thoughts on the Original Unity of the Human Race. Bliss, New York. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1952. The Archeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 31221. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1958. Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Memoir No. 88. American Anthropological Association, Springfield, Illinois. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Catherine McCann 1941. Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia. Series in Anthropology No. 1. University of Georgia, Athens. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Antonio J. Waring 1939a. Pottery Type Descriptions. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(5). 1939b. Pottery Type Descriptions. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(6). Caldwell, Joseph R., and Robert Hall (editors) 1964. Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Papers No. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Callahan, Errett 1979. The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flint-knappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1):1180. Cambell, John M. 1968. Territoriality among Ancient Hunters: Interpretations from Ethnography and Nature. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited by Betty J. Meggars, pp. 121. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_231

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_231.html[20/10/2010 11:28:48]

page_232

< previous page

page_232

next page > Page 232

Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse 1961. A Comparative Study of Some Unfinished Fluted Points and Channel Flakes from the Tennessee Valley. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 7:88105. Campbell, James B. 1987. Introduction to Remote Sensing. Guilford Press, New York. Camper, Peter 1792. Uber den Naturlichen Unterschied der Gesichtzuge in Menschen verschiedener Gegenden und verschiedenen Alters. Voss, Berlin. Canadian Land Inventory 1970. Objective, Scope, and Organization. Canadian Land Inventory Report No. 1. Queens Printer, Ottawa. Cann, J. R. 1968. Obsidian and the Origins of Trade. Scientific American 218:3846. Canouts, Veletta 1985. Bird Motifs on Middle Woodland Ritual Ware. Paper presented at the 42nd Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham. Abstract in Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 28:19. 1986. The Effects of Boundary Conditions on the Archaeological Record: A Stylistic Analysis of Havana Hopewell and Marksville Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Carder, Nanny 1989. Faunal Remains from Mixon's Hammock, Okefenokee Swamp. Southeastern Archaeology 8:1930. Carmichael, Emmett B. 1948. Josiah Clark Nott. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 22:249262. Carnegie, D., B. Schrumpf, and D. Movat 1983. Rangeland Applications. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2d ed., edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 23252384. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Carr, Christopher 1982. Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying: Interpretation of Data from Earthen Archeological Sites. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston, Illinois. Carr, Christopher (editor) 1985. For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis. Westport Press, Kansas City. Carr, Christopher, and Derek W. G. Sears 1985. Toward an Analysis of Exchange of Meteoritic Iron in the Middle Woodland. Southeastern Archaeology 4:7992.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_232.html[20/10/2010 11:28:49]

page_232

< previous page

page_232

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_232.html[20/10/2010 11:28:49]

page_233

< previous page

page_233

next page > Page 233

Carr, Kurt W. 1986. Core Reconstruction and Community Patterning at the Fifty Site. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 2:7992. Carr, Lucien 18761878. Report of the Exploration of a Mound in Lee County, Virginia, etc. Report of the Peabody Museum 2:80. 1878. Observations on the Crania from Stone Graves in Tennessee. Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology No. 11. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Carter, George F. 1945. Plant Geography and Culture History in the American Southwest. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 5. Casteel, Richard W. 1972. Some Archaeological Uses of Fish Remains. American Antiquity 37:404419. 1978. Faunal Assemblages and the "Weigemethode" or Weight Method. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:7277. Chamberlain, Thomas C. 1892. Geology and Archeology Mistaught. The Dial 13:303306. 1893. Professor Wright and the (United States) Geological Survey. The Dial 14:79. Chaplin, Raymond E. 1965. Animals in Archaeology. Antiquity 39:204211. 1971. The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, New York. Chapman, Jefferson 1973. The Icehouse Bottom Site: 40Mr23. Report of Investigations No. 13. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1975. The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. Report of Investigations No. 14. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1977. Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley1975: Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Report of Investigations No. 18. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1978. The Bacon Farm Site and a Buried Site Reconnaissance. Report of Investigations No. 23. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1979. The Howard and Calloway Island Sites. Report of Investigations No. 27. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1980. The Jones Ferry Site (40Mr76). In The 1979 Archaeological and Geological Investigations in the Tellico Reservoir, edited by Jefferson Chapman, pp.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_233.html[20/10/2010 11:28:49]

page_233

< previous page

page_233

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_233.html[20/10/2010 11:28:49]

page_234

< previous page

page_234

next page > Page 234

4358. Report of Investigations No. 29. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1981. The Bacon Bend (40Mr25) and Iddins (40LD38) Sites: The Late Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations No. 31. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1985. Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 137153. University of Alabama Press, University. Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary D. Crites 1987. Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity 52:352354. Chapman, Jefferson, Paul A. Delcourt, Patricia A. Cridlebaugh, Andrea B. Shea, and Hazel R. Delcourt 1982. Man-Land Interaction: 10,000 Years of American Indian Impact on Native Ecosystems in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 2:115121. Chapman, Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel 1979. Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina and their Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 157161. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea B. Shea 1981. The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6:6184. Chase, David W. 1967. New Pottery Types from Central Alabama. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 5:4149. 1969. New Pottery Types from Alabama. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 10: 1725. Cheek, Annetta L., and Bennie C. Keel 1984. Value Conflicts in Osteo-archaeology. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Ernestene L. Greene, pp. 194207. The Free Press, New York. Cheverud, James M., Jane E. Buikstra, and Elizabeth Twitchell 1979. Relationships Between Non-metric Skeletal Traits and Cranial Size and Shape. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 50:191198. Chikishev, A. 1973. Landscape Indicators. Consultants Bureau, New York.

< previous page

page_234

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_234.html[20/10/2010 11:28:50]

page_235

< previous page

page_235

next page > Page 235

Chomko, Stephen A., and Gary W. Crawford 1978. Plant Husbandry in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Evidence for Its Development. American Antiquity 43:405408. Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart 1968. Methodology of Integrated Survey. In Aerial Survey and Integrated Studies, pp. 233280. UNESCO, Paris. Claassen, Cheryl 1983. Prehistoric Shellfishing Patterns in North Carolina. In Animals and Archaeology: Shell Middens, Fishes, and Birds, edited by J. CluttonBrock and C. Grigson, pp. 211223. BAR International Series No. 183, London. 1985a. Shellfish Utilization during Deptford and Mississippian Times in Escambia Bay, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 38:124135. 1985b. Steps Toward Sourcing Shell. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham. 1986a. Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 51:2137. 1986b. Temporal Patterns in Marine Shellfish-Species Use along the Atlantic Coast in the Southeastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 5:120137. 1987. Sourcing Marine Shell. Paper presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto. 1988. Sourcing Marine Shell Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference, Selected Papers, edited by Charles Hayes and Lynn Ceci, pp. 1721. Research Records No. 20. Rochester Museum and Science Center, New York. Claflin, William H. 1931. The Stalling's Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers, vol. 14(1). Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable 1982. The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Report No. 23386. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan. Clark, William M. 1878. Antiquities of Tennessee. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1877:269276. Washington, D.C. Clarke, David L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London. Clarke, David L. (editor) 1977. Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

< previous page

page_235

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_235.html[20/10/2010 11:28:51]

page_236

< previous page

page_236

next page > Page 236

Clason, A. T., and W. Prummel 1977. Collecting, Sieving, and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:171175. Claypole, Edward W. 1893a. Major Powell on ''Are There Evidences of Man in the Glacial Gravels?'' Popular Science Monthly 43:696699. 1893b. Professor G. F. Wright and His Critics. Popular Science Monthly 43:765. Cleland, Charles E. 1965. Appendix 2: Analysis of the Faunal Remains of the Fatherland Site. In Archaeology of the Fatherland Site: The Grand Village of the Natchez, edited by R. S. Neitzel, pp. 96101. Anthropological Papers, vol. 51. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1966. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers No. 29. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 1976. The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:5976. Clinton, D. H. 1818. Memoir of the Antiquities of the Western Part of the State of New York. Albany. Cobb, James E., and Andrea Brewer Shea 1977. The Identification of Helianthus annuus L. from the Owl Hollow Site, 40Fr7, Franklin County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 2:190198. Coe, Joffre L. 1952. The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1964. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society No. 54. Philadelphia. Coe, Joffre L., and Ernest Lewis 1952. Dan River Series Statement. In Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Coe, Michael D., and Kent V. Flannery 1964. Micro-environments and Mesoamerican Prehistory. Science 143:650654. Cohen, Mark N., and George J. Armelagos (editors) 1984. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Academic Press, New York. Coleman, W. H. 1965. Anthropometric and Morphological Studies on Cranii of the Moundville Indian. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Biology, University of Alabama, University.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_236.html[20/10/2010 11:28:52]

page_236

< previous page

page_236

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_236.html[20/10/2010 11:28:52]

page_237

< previous page

page_237

next page > Page 237

Collins, Henry B. 1927a. Archeological and Anthropometrical Work in Mississippi. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 78(1). 1927b. Potsherds from Choctaw Village Sites in Mississippi. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 17:259263. 1932. Archaeology of Mississippi. In Conference on Southern Pre-History, pp. 3742. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1941. Relationships of an Early Indian Cranial Series from Louisiana. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 31(4):145155. Collins, William, Sheng-Huei Chang, Gary Raines, Frank Canney, and Roger Ashley 1983. Airborne Biophysical Mapping of Hidden Mineral Deposits. Economic Geology 78:737749. Colwell, Robert N. 1983. Manual of Remote Sensing. 2d ed. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Conard, Nicholas, David L. Asch, Nancy B. Asch, David Elmore, Harry Gove, Meyer Rubin, James A. Brown, Michael D. Wiant, Kenneth B. Farnsworth, and Thomas G. Cook 1983. Prehistoric Horticulture in Illinois: Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating of the Evidence. Nature 308:443446. Connaway, John M. 1982. The Sturdivant Fishweir, Amite County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 1:138163. Cook, Della C. 1979. Subsistence Base and Health in Prehistoric Illinois Valley: Evidence from the Human Skeleton. Medical Anthropology 3:109124. 1981. Mortality Age Structure and Status in the Interpretation of Stress Indicators in Prehistoric Skeletons: A Dental Example from the Lower Illinois Valley. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, pp. 133144. Cambridge University Press, London and New York. Cook, Della C., and Jane E. Buikstra 1979. Health and Differential Survival in Prehistoric Populations: Prenatal Dental Defects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51:649664. Cook, Sherburne F. 1946. A Reconsideration of Shell Mounds with Respect to Population and Nutrition. American Antiquity 12:5053. 1972. Can Pottery Residues Be Used as an Index to Population? In Miscellaneous Papers on Archaeology, pp. 1739. Contributions No. 14. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

< previous page

page_237

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_237.html[20/10/2010 11:28:52]

page_238

< previous page

page_238

next page > Page 238

Cook, Sherburne F., and Adan E. Treganza 1947. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Comparative Physical and Chemical Analysis of Two California Indian Mounds. American Antiquity 13:135141. 1950. The Quantitative Investigation of Indian Mounds. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 40:223262. Coon, Carleton S., Stanley M. Garn, and Joseph P. Birdsell 1950. Races: A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield. Cope, E. D. 1875. On an Indian Kitchen Midden. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 27:255. Philadelphia. 1893. On a Jaw of an Indian Dog in C. B. Moore's Certain Shell Heaps of the St. John's River, Hitherto Unexplored. American Naturalist 27:614. Cordell, Ann S. 1980. Preliminary Report on Technological Investigations of McKeithen SiteWeeden Island Pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22:1922. 1983. Patterns of Resource Selection in the Manufacture of North Florida Weeden Island Pottery. Southeastern Archaeology 2:8497. 1984. Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramics Notes No. 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. 1987. Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. Paper presented at the 44th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston. 1989. Chronological Potential of Plain Pottery in Southwest Florida. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida. 1992. Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William Marquardt, pp. 105189. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Corruccini, Robert S. 1978. Morphometric Analysis: Uses and Abuses. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 21:134150. Cotter, John L. 1951. Stratigraphic and Area Tests at the Emerald and Anna Mound Sites. American Antiquity 17:1832. 1952. The Gordon Site in Southern Mississippi. American Antiquity 18:110126. 1991. Update on Natchez Man. American Antiquity 56:3639.

< previous page

page_238

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_238.html[20/10/2010 11:28:53]

page_239

< previous page

page_239

next page > Page 239

Cotter, John L., and John M. Corbett 1951. Archeology of the Bynum Mounds Mississippi. Archeological Research Series, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Coughlin, Elizabeth, and Cheryl Claassen 1982. Establishing Environmental Baselines from Archaeological Materials. Paper presented at the 184th meeting of the American Chemical Society, Kansas City, Missouri. Cowan, C. Wesley 1978a. The Prehistoric Use and Distribution of Maygrass in Eastern North America: Cultural and Phytogeographical Implications. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 263288. Anthropological Papers No. 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1978b. Seasonal Nutritional Stress in a Late Woodland Population: Suggestions from Some Eastern Kentucky Coprolites. Tennessee Anthropologist 3:117128. 1979a. Excavations at the Haystack Rock Shelters, Powell County, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4:133. 1979b. Prehistoric Plant Utilization at the Rogers Rockshelter, Powell County, Kentucky. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky. 1985. From Foraging to Incipient Food Production: Subsistence Change and Continuity on the Cumberland Plateau of Eastern Kentucky. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Cowan, C. Wesley, H. Edwin Jackson, K. Moore, A. Nickelhoff, and T. Smart 1981. The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:6075. Cowgill, George L. 1963. Review of A Quantitative Method for Deriving Culture Chronology, by James A. Ford. American Anthropologist 65:696699. 1968. Archaeological Applications of Factor, Cluster, and Proximity Analysis. American Antiquity 33:367375. Crane, Verner 1928. The Southern Frontier, 16701732. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Crawford, Gary W. 1982. Late Archaic Plant Remains from West-Central Kentucky: A Summary. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:205224. Cressman, L. S., and W. S. Laughlin 1941. A Probable Association of Mammoth and Artifacts in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. American Antiquity 6(4):339342.

< previous page

page_239

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_239.html[20/10/2010 11:28:54]

page_240

< previous page

page_240

next page > Page 240

Cridlebaugh, Patricia A. 1981. The Icehouse Bottom Site: 1977 Excavations. Report of Investigations No. 35. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Crist, Eric P., and Richard C. Cicone 1984a. Application of the Tasseled Cap Concept to Simulated Thematic Mapper Data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50:343352. 1984b. A Physically Based Transformation of TM Data: The TM Tasseled Cap. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 22:256269. Crites, Gary D. 1978a. Analysis of Floral Remains from the Wiser-Stephens I Site (40CF81). In Sixth Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project, edited by Major C. R. McCollough and Charles H. Faulkner, pp. 435449. Report of Investigations No. 21. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1978b. Paleoethnobotany of the Normandy Reservoir in the Upper Duck River Valley, Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1978c. Plant Food Utilization Patterns during the Middle Woodland Owl Hollow Phase in Tennessee: A Preliminary Report. Tennessee Anthropologist 3:8092. 1982. An Analysis of Botanical Remains from the Parks Site. In Seventh Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project, edited by Charles H. Faulkner and Major C. R. McCollough, pp. 538542. Report of Investigations No. 32. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1985. Middle Woodland Paleoethnobotany of the Eastern Highland Rim of Tennessee: An Evolutionary Perspective on Change in Human-Plant Interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1987a. Human-Plant Mutualism and Niche Expression in the Paleoethnobotanical Record: A Middle Woodland Example. American Antiquity 52:725740. 1987b. Middle and Late Holocene Paleoethnobotany of the Hayes Site (40ML139): Evidence from 990N918E. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:315. Crites, Gary D., and R. Dale Terry 1984. Nutritive Value of Maygrass, Phalaris caroliniana. Economic Botany 38:114120. Crosby, Alfred 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 9001900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

< previous page

page_240

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_240.html[20/10/2010 11:28:54]

page_241

< previous page

page_241

next page > Page 241

Crown, Patricia L. 1991. Appraising the Legacy: A Thematic Synthesis. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, pp. 383393. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Crusoe, Donald L. 1971. The Missing Half: The Analysis of the Ceramic Fabric. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 13:108114. Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976. A Reconstruction of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. Florida Anthropologist 29:4959. Curren, Cailup B., Jr. 1974. An Ethnozoological Analysis of the Vertebrate Remains of Little Bear Creek Site (1 Ct0 8). Journal of Alabama Archaeology 20:127182. 1978. The Zooarchaeology of the D'Olive Creek Site (1 Ba 196), Baldwin County, Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 24:3351. Custer, Jay F. 1987. Core Technology at the Hawthorn Site, New Castle County, A Late Archaic Hunting Camp. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 4563. Westview Press, Boulder. Custer, Jay F., and David C. Bachman 1986. Analysis of Projectile Point Morphology, Use Wear, and Activity Areas at the Hawthorn Site (7NC-E46). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 2:3762. Custer, Jay F., John A. Cavallo, and R. Michael Stewart 1983. Lithic Procurement and Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns on the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. North American Archaeologist 4:263276. Custer, Jay F., Timothy Eveleigh, and Vytautus Klemas 1983. A LANDSAT-Generated Predictive Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Delaware's Coastal Plain. Bulletin of Archaeological Society of Delaware 14(n.s.):1938. Custer, Jay F., Timothy Eveleigh, Vytautus Klemas, and Ian Wells 1986. Application of Landsat Data and Synoptic Remote Sensing to Predictive Models for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: An Example from the Delaware Coastal Plain. American Antiquity 51:572588. Custer, Jay F., Patricia Jehle, Thomas Klatka, and Timothy Eveleigh 1984. A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Planning Study of the Proposed Route 13 Relief Corridor, New Castle and Kent Counties, Delaware. Location and Environmental Studies Office, Division of Highways, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover.

< previous page

page_241

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_241.html[20/10/2010 11:28:55]

page_242

< previous page

page_242

next page > Page 242

Cutler, Hugh, and Thomas W. Whitaker 1961. History and Distribution of the Cultivated Cucurbits in the Americas. American Antiquity 26:469485. d'Abro, A. 1957. The Evolution of Scientific Thought from Newton to Einstein. 2d ed. Dover, New York. Dall, William H. 1877. On Succession in the Shell-heaps of the Aleutian Islands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Contributions to North American Ethnology 1:4191. Daly, Patricia 1969. Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34:146153. Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker 1987. Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York. Daubenton, Louis Jean Marie 1764. Sur les Differences de la Situation du grand trou Occiptal dans l'Homme et dans les Animaux. Memoire Academie Royale Sciences (Paris), pp. 568575. Davis, Simon J. M. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. Yale University Press, New Haven. Dawson, Jerry, and W. James Judge 1969. Paleo-Indian Sites and Topography in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 14:149163. De Atley, Suzanne P. 1991. Potter's Craft of Analyst's Tool? A Century of Ceramic Technology Studies in the American Southwest. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, pp. 205223. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. De Atley, Suzanne P., and Ronald L. Bishop 1991. Toward an Integrated Interface for Archaeology and Archaeometry. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, pp. 358382. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. De Atley, Suzanne P., M. James Blackman, and Jacqueline S. Olin 1982. Comparison of Data Obtained by Neutron Activation and Electron Microprobe Analyses of Ceramics. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin, pp. 7988. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_242

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_242.html[20/10/2010 11:28:56]

page_243

< previous page

page_243

next page > Page 243

Decker, Deena S. 1988. Origin(s), Evolution and Systematics of Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Economic Botany 42:415. Decker, Deena S., and Lee A. Newsom 1988. Numerical Analysis of Archaeological Cucurbita pepo seeds from Hontoon Island, Florida. Journal of Ethnobiology 8:3544. Deetz, James 1965. The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology No. 41. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. DeJarnette, David L., Edward B. Kurjack, and James W. Cambron 1962. Stanfield-Whorley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology, vols. 1 and 2. DeJarnette, David L., and S. B. Wimberly 1941. The Bessemer Site, Excavation of Three Mounds and Surrounding Village Areas near Bessemer, Alabama. Paper No. 17. Alabama Museum of Natural History, University. Delafield, J. 1839. An Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of America. Colt Burgess and Company, New York. Delanglez, Jean 1935. The French Jesuits in Lower Louisiana (17001763). Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1938. Some La Salle Journeys. Institute of Jesuit History, Chicago. 1939. Tonti Letters. Mid-America 21:209238. 1940. La Salle's Expedition of 1682. Mid-America 22:337. 1943. The Sources of the Delisle Map of America, 1703. Mid-America 25:275298. 1945. El Rio del Espiritu Santo. Monograph Series No. 21. Catholic Historical Society, Washington, D.C. de la Vega, Garcilaso 1951. The Florida of the Inca. Translated by John G. Varner and Jean J. Varner. University of Texas Press, Austin. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1969. Custer Died For Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Macmillan, New York. Deniker, Joseph 1900. The Races of Man. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York. DePratter, Chester B. 1986. Introduction to The Late Prehistoric Southeast: A Source Book, edited by Chester B. DePratter, pp. xiiilxxiii. Garland Press, New York.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_243.html[20/10/2010 11:28:56]

page_243

< previous page

page_243

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_243.html[20/10/2010 11:28:56]

page_244

< previous page

page_244

next page > Page 244

Derrida, Jacques 1976. Of Grammatology. Translation by Gayrati Spivak. Originally published 1967. Penguin Books, Baltimore. Dickel, David N. 1990. Maxillary Anterior Attrition and Molar Lingual Root Polish from the Florida Early Archaic. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:215. Dickel, David N., and Glen H. Doran 1989. Severe Neural Tube Defect Syndrome from the Early Archaic of Florida. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 80:325334. Dickens, Roy S. 1985. The Form, Function, and Formation of Garbage-Filled Pits on Southeastern Aboriginal Sites: An Archaeobotanical Analysis. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 3459. University of Alabama Press, University. Dickeson, Montroville, W. 1846. Note on the Natchez Pelvis Bone. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 3:106107. Philadelphia. Dickson, D. Bruce 1979. Deduction on the Duck River: A Test of Some Hypotheses about Settlement Distribution using Surface Site Survey Data from Middle Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4:113138. Dixon, Roland B. 1923. The Racial History of Man. Scribner, New York. Dobyns, Henry 1983. Their Number Become Thinned. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Donahue, J. 1983. Temper Types in St. Catherines Pottery. Paper presented at the 40th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia. Donisi, Michael P. 1982. The Incidence and Patterns of Long Bone Fractures in Selected Human Skeletal Series from the Central Tennessee River Valley of Alabama. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, University. Doran, Glen H. 1984. Proton Induced X-ray Emission Analysis of Prehistoric Florida Ceramics. Florida Anthropologist 37:115119. 1985. PIXE analysis of Gulf Islands Ceramics from Northwest Florida. Florida Anthropologist 38:104109.

< previous page

page_244

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_244.html[20/10/2010 11:28:57]

page_245

< previous page

page_245

next page > Page 245

Doran, Glen H., and David N. Dickel 1988. Radiometric Placement of the Windover Archaeological Site. The Florida Anthropologist 41:365380. Downs, Ernest C. 1979. The Struggle of the Louisiana Tunica Indians for Recognition. In Southeastern Indians Since the Removal Era, edited by Walter L. Williams, pp. 7289. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Downs, Wilbur G. 1974. Yellow Fever and Josiah Clark Nott. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 50(4):499508. Drake, Daniel 1850. Systematic Treatise, Historical, Etiological, and Practical, on the Principal Disease of the Interior Valley of North America, as They Appear in the Caucasian, African, Indian, and Esquimaus Varieties of its Populations. Cincinnati. Druian, Benjamin R. 1978. The Rise and Fall of Classical Morphology: The Influence of Society on the History of Physical Anthropology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Duffield, Lathel F. 1974. Nonhuman Vertebrate Remains from Salts Cave Vestibule. In Archaeology of Mammoth Cave, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 123134. Academic Press, New York. Dunn, L. C. 1951. Race and Biology. In Race and Science, UNESCO, pp. 263301. Columbia University Press, New York. Dunnell, Robert C. 1970. Seriation Method and Its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35:305319. 1971. Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York. 1985. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 19401947: A Landmark Study in American Archaeology. American Antiquity 50:297300. 1986. Five Decades of American Archaeology. In American Archaeology, Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 2349. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1990. The Role of the Southeast in American Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9:1121. Dunning, E. O. 1872. Account of Antiquities in Tennessee. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1870:376389. Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_245

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_245.html[20/10/2010 11:28:58]

page_246

< previous page

page_246

next page > Page 246

Dye, David W. 1987. Functional Analysis of Photohistoric Ceramics from Northeastern Arkansas. Paper presented at the 44th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston. Dye, David H., and Katherine H. Moore 1978. Recovery Systems for Subsistence Data: Water Screening and Water Flotation. Tennessee Anthropologist 3:5969. Eagleton, Terry 1983. Literary Theory. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Earle, Timothy K., and Robert W. Preucel 1987. Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28:501538. Eaton, G. F. 1898. The Prehistoric Fauna of Block Island as Indicated by Its Ancient Shellheads. American Journal of Science 6:137159. Eddy, Samuel, and Albert E. Jenks 1935. A Kitchen Middens [sic] with Bones of Extinct Animals in the Upper Lakes Area. Science 81:535. Edwards, William F. 1841. Des Caracteres Physiologiques des Races Humaines Consideres dans Leurs Rapports avec l'Histoire. Memoire Société Ethnologie (Paris) 1:109129 (reprinted). Eggan, Fred 1937. Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System. American Anthropologist 39:3452. Ehrenhard, John E. 1980. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Big Cypress Swamp: An Experiment in Remote Sensing. In Remote Sensing and Nondestructive Archaeology, edited by T. R. Lyons and F. T. Mathien, pp. 105117. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Eickstedt, Egon von 1934. Rassenkunde und Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. Enke, Stuttgart. Eiseley, Loren C. 1945. Myth and Mammoth in Archaeology. American Antiquity 11:8487. 1946. Men, Mastodons, and Myth. Scientific Monthly 62(6):517524. Eisenberg, Leslie E. 1986. Adaptation in a ''Marginal'' Mississippian Population from Middle Tennessee: Biocultural Insights from Paleo-Pathology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_246.html[20/10/2010 11:28:58]

page_246

< previous page

page_246

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_246.html[20/10/2010 11:28:58]

page_247

< previous page

page_247

next page > Page 247

Ellen, Roy 1982. Environment, Subsistence, and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Elvas, Gentleman of 1973. Discovery of Florida, The True Relation by a Fidalgo of Elvas. In Narratives of the Career of Hernando de Soto in the Conquest of Florida, edited by E. G. Bourne, vol. 1. Reprinted. AMS Press, New York. Originally published 1922, Allerton Book Company, New York. Engel, J. L. 1980. Thematic Mapper, an Interim Report on Anticipated Performance. Paper No. 80-1915. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, D.C. Ensor, H. Blaine 1981. Gainesville Lake Area Lithics: Chronology, Technology and Use. Report of Investigations No. 14, vol. 3. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1990. Lithic Craft Specialization in the Southeast: Data from the Lubbub Creek Locality. Manuscript in possession of the author. Erickson, Paul A. 1974. The Origins of Physical Anthropology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Estes, Jack E., and D. S. Simonett 1975. Fundamentals of Image Interpretation. In Manual of Remote Sensing, edited by R. G. Reeves, pp. 8691076. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Euler, Robert C. 1972. Ethnohistory in the United States. Ethnohistory 19:201207. Evans, Clifford 1955. A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Bulletin No. 160. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Faulkner, Charles H. 1973. Middle Woodland Subsistence-Settlement Systems in the Highland Rim. In Salvage Archaeology at 40Fr47, by Willard S. Bacon and H. L. Merryman, pp. 3445. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11. Tennessee Archaeological Society, Knoxville. Faulkner, Charles H., Michael W. Corkran, and Paul W. Parmalee 1976. Report on Floral and Faunal Remains Recovered in 1972 Excavations on the Banks III Site (40CF108). In Third Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, edited by Major C. R. McCollough and Charles H. Faulkner, pp. 217238. Report of Investigations No. 16. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_247.html[20/10/2010 11:28:59]

page_247

< previous page

page_247

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_247.html[20/10/2010 11:28:59]

page_248

< previous page

page_248

next page > Page 248

Faulkner, Charles H., and Major C. R. McCollough (editors) 1973. Introductory Report on the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project: Environmental Setting, Typology and Survey. Report of Investigations No. 11. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1977. Fourth Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project. Report of Investigations No. 19. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Feathers, James K. 1989. Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics: Response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54:579588. Fewkes, Jesse W. 1896. Pacific Coast Shell from Prehistoric Tusayan Pueblos. American Anthropologist 9:359367. Feynman, Richard P. 1985. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Fieller, N. R. J., and A. Turner 1982. Number Estimation in Vertebrate Samples. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:4962. Figgins, Jesse D. 1927. The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27(3):229239. Finch, John 1824. On the Celtic Antiquities of America. American Journal of Science and Arts 7:149161. Finkenstaedt, Elizabeth 1984. Age at First Pregnancy among Females at the Indian Knoll OH-2 Site. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 45:5154. Lexington. Fischbeck, Helmut J., J. Daniel Rogers, Stuart R. Ryan, and Fern E. Swenson 1989. Sourcing Ceramics in the Spiro Region: A Preliminary Study Using Proton-induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) Analysis. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 14:317. Fitting, James E. 1965. A Quantitative Examination of Virginia Fluted Points. American Antiquity 30:484491. Fitting, James E. (editor) 1973. The Development of North American Archaeology. Doubleday Press, New York. Flannery, Kent V. 1967. Culture History v. Culture Process: A Debate in American Archaeology. Scientific American 217(2):119122.

< previous page

page_248

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_248.html[20/10/2010 11:29:00]

page_249

< previous page

page_249

next page > Page 249

1971. Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Man's Imprint from the Past, edited by J. Deetz, pp. 341365. Little, Brown, Boston. 1972. Archaeology with a Capital S. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by Charles L. Redman, pp. 4753. Wiley, New York. Ford, James A. 1935a. An Introduction to Louisiana Archeology. Louisiana Conservation Review 4:811. 1935b. Ceramic Decoration Sequence at an Old Indian Village Site Near Sicily Island, Louisiana. Anthropological Study No. 1. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge. 1936a. Archaeological Methods Applicable to Louisiana. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sciences 3:102105. 1936b. Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Anthropological Study No. 2. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge. 1938a. An Examination of Some Theories and Methods of Ceramic Analysis. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1938b. A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity 3:260264. 1949. Cultural Dating of Prehistoric Sites in Viru Valley, Peru. In Surface Survey of the Viru Valley, Peru, pp. 3178. Anthropological Papers, vol. 43, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1951. Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Papers, vol. 44, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1952. Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States. Anthropology Papers, vol. 44, pt. 3. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1954a. The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:4254. 1954b. Comment on A. C. Spaulding, "Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types." American Antiquity 19:390391. 1954c. Spaulding's Review of Ford, I. American Anthropologist 56:109112. 1961a. In Favor of Simple Typology. American Antiquity 27:113114. 1961b. Menard Site: The Quapaw Village of Osotouy on the Arkansas River. Anthropological Papers, vol. 48, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1962. A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Technical Manual No. 1. Pan-American Union, Washington, D.C. Ford, James A., and James B. Griffin 1938. [A Proposal for a] Conference on Pottery Nomenclature for the Southeastern United States. Reprinted 1960, Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 7 (1):59.

< previous page

page_249

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_249.html[20/10/2010 11:29:01]

page_250

< previous page

page_250

next page > Page 250

Ford, James A., Philip Phillips, and William G. Haag 1955. The Jaketown Site in West-Central Mississippi. Anthropological Papers, vol. 45, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Ford, James A., and George I. Quimby, Jr. 1945. The Tchefuncte Culture, an Early Occupation of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Memoir No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Ford, James A., and Clarence H. Webb 1956. Poverty Point, A Late Archaic Site in Louisiana. Anthropological Papers, vol. 46, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Ford, James A., and Gordon R. Willey 1939a. Pottery Type Descriptions. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(3):212. 1939b. Pottery Type Descriptions. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(4):18. 1940. Crooks Site, A Marksville Period Burial Mound in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Study No. 3. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge. 1941. An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43:325363. Ford, Richard I. 1979. Gathering and Gardening: Trends and Consequences of Hopewell Subsistence Strategies. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 234238. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. 1986. Prehistoric Food Production in North America. Anthropological Papers No. 75. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 1987. Dating Early Maize in the Eastern United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago. Foret, Michael 1990. On the Marchlands of Empire: Trade, Diplomacy, and War on the Southeastern Frontier, 17331763. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, College of William and Mary. Forshaw, M., A. Hashell, P. Miller, D. Stanley, and J. Townshend 1983. Spatial Resolution of Remotely Sensed Imagery, a Review Paper. International Journal of Remote Sensing 4:497520. Foster, John W. 1873. Prehistoric Races of the United States of America. Griggs, Chicago. Fowler, Melvin L. 1959. Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic site in Southern Illinois. American Antiquity 24:257270.

< previous page

page_250

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_250.html[20/10/2010 11:29:01]

page_251

< previous page

page_251

next page > Page 251

1971. The Origin of Plant Cultivation in the Central Mississippi Valley: A Hypothesis. In Prehistoric Agriculture, edited by Stuart Struever, pp. 122128. Natural History Press, New York. Fradkin, Arlene 1983. Linguistic Data and the Zooarchaeological Record: An Examination of Part of the Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Cherokee Animal World. In Animals and Archaeology: Shell Middens, Fishes, and Birds, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 253260. BAR International Series No. 183. London. French, B. F. 18461853. Historical Collections of Louisiana, 5 vols. Various publishers. Fritz, Gayle J. 1984. Identification of Cultigen Amaranth and Chenopod from Rockshelter Sites in Northwest Arkansas. American Antiquity 49:558572. 1986. Prehistoric Ozark Agriculture: The University of Arkansas Rockshelter Collections. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1987b. The Trajectory of Knotweed Domestication in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Ethnobiology Conference, Gainesville. 1988. Adding the Plant Remains to Assessments of Late Woodland/Early Mississippi Period Plant Husbandry. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix. Fritz, Gayle J., and Bruce D. Smith 1988. Old Collections and New Technology: Documenting the Domestication of Chenopodium in Eastern North America. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13:327. Fritz, John M., and Fred T. Plog 1970. The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35:405412. Fuller, R. G. 1915. Crania of the Tennessee Stone Graves. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Funkhouser, Gary 1978. Paleodemography of the King Site. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Funkhouser, William D. 1938. A Study of the Physical Anthropology and Pathology of the Osteological Material from the Norris Basin. In An Archeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee, by William S. Webb, pp. 225252.

< previous page

page_251

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_251.html[20/10/2010 11:29:02]

page_252

< previous page

page_252

next page > Page 252

Bulletin No. 118. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1939. A Study of the Skeletal Remains. In An Archaeological Survey of the Wheeler Basin, by William S. Webb, pp. 109125. Bulletin No. 122. Bureau of American Ethnology. Funkhouser, William D., and William S. Webb 1929. The So-Called "Ash Caves" in Lee County, Kentucky. Publications of the University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology and Archaeology 1:33112. Futato, Eugene M. 1975. Archaeological Investigations in the Little Bear Creek Reservoir. Research Series No. 1. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1983a. Archaeological Investigations in the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoirs. Report of Investigations No. 29. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1983b. Patterns of Lithic Resource Utilization in the Cedar Creek Reservoir Area. Southeastern Archaeology 2:118131. Galloway, Patricia K. 1982. Sources for the La Salle Expedition of 1682. In La Salle and His Legacy: Frenchmen and Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Patricia K. Galloway, pp. 1140. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson. Galloway, Patricia K. (editor) 1989. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Galloway, Patricia, and Clara Sue Kidwell 1988. Choctaw Land Claims in Mississippi. NEH Grant Proposal. Copy in possession of the author. Gardner, Paul S. 1985. Paleoethnobotany. In Archaeological Investigations at the Beaverdam Creek Site (9EB85), Elbert County, Georgia, by James L. Rudolph and David J. Hally, pp. 400411. University of Georgia, Athens. Prepared for the National Park Service, Archaeological Services, Atlanta, Contract No. CX 5000-0-4043. 1987. New Evidence Concerning the Chronology and Paleoethnobotany of Salts Cave, Kentucky. American Antiquity 52:358366. 1990. Excavations at the Amity Site: Final Report of the Pomeiooc Project, 19841989. Archaeological Research Report No. 7. Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.

< previous page

page_252

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_252.html[20/10/2010 11:29:03]

page_253

< previous page

page_253

next page > Page 253

Gardner, William M. 1974. The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleoindian to Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 197173 Seasons, edited by William M. Gardner, pp. 548. Occasional Publication No. 1. Archeology Laboratory, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Garn, Stanley M. 1954. On the Education of the Physical Anthropologist. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12:607609. Gatschet, Albert S. 1884, 1888. A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, vols. 1 and 2. D. G. Brinton, Philadelphia. Gayarre, Charles Etienne Arthur 1903. History of Louisiana. F. F. Howsell, New Orleans. Geertz, Clifford 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia. University of California Press, Berkeley. Gertjejansen, Doyle J., J. Richard Shenkel, and J. O. Snowden 1983. Laboratory Simulation of Tchefuncte Period Ceramic Vessels from the Pontchartrain Basin. Southeastern Archaeology 2:3763. Giardino, Marco 1984. Documentary Evidence for the Location of Historic Indian Villages in the Mississippi Delta. In Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave Davis, pp. 232257. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Gibson, Jon L. 1974. Poverty Point, the First North American Chiefdom. Archaeology 27(2):96105. 1979. Perceptions of Atchafalaya Drainage Basin Archaeology. Manuscript on file with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. 1980. Speculations on the Origin and Development of Poverty Point Culture. In Poverty Point and Caddoan Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Clarence Hungerford Webb, edited by Jon L. Gibson. Louisiana Archaeology 6:319348. 1984. The Earthen Face of Civilization, Mapping and Testing at Poverty Point, 1983. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Center for Archaeological Studies, Lafayette. 1987. The Ground Truth about Poverty Point. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Center for Archaeological Research, Lafayette. 1988. Review of Preliminary Archaeological Testing Near Mound A, Buford (22TL501) Site, Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, by Richard A. Marshall. Mississippi Archaeology 23(2):7680.

< previous page

page_253

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_253.html[20/10/2010 11:29:03]

page_254

< previous page

page_254

next page > Page 254

Gidley, J. W., and F. B. Loomis 1926. Fossil Man in Florida. American Journal of Science 12 (series 5):254264. Gifford, Diana P. 1981. Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 365438. Academic Press, New York. Gifford, James C. 1960. The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25:341347. Gilbert, B. Miles 1973. Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. Special Publication. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. 1980. Mammalian Osteology. Modern Printing, Laramie, Wyoming. Gillespie, A., Ann Kahle, and Frank Palluconi 1984. Mapping Alluvial Fans in Death Valley Using Multichannel Thermal Infrared Images. Geophysical Research Letters 11:11531156. Gilmore, Melvin R. 1931. Vegetal Remains of the Ozark Bluff-Dweller Culture. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 14:83102. Gilmore, Raymond M. 1946. To Facilitate Cooperation in Identification of Mammal Bones from Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 12:4950. 1947. Report on the Collection of Mammal Bones from Archaeological Cave Sites in Coahuilla, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 28:147165. 1949. The Identification and Value of Mammal Bones from Archeological Excavations. Journal of Mammalogy 30:163169. 1978. Reconstructing Proximal Communities: A Discussion of Shotwell's Method of Paleoecological Reconstruction. Paleobiology 4:7781. Giraud, Marcel 1974. A History of Louisiana, vol. 1. Translated by Joseph Lambert. LSU Press, Baton Rouge. Goad, Sharon I. 1978. Exchange Networks in Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. 1979. Middle Woodland Exchange in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by D. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 239246. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_254.html[20/10/2010 11:29:04]

page_254

1980. Patterns of Late Archaic Exchange. Tennessee Anthropologist 5:116.

< previous page

page_254

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_254.html[20/10/2010 11:29:04]

page_255

< previous page

page_255

next page > Page 255

1984. Chert Utilization in Georgia. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brian M. Butler and Ernest E. May, pp. 7186. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Goad, Sharon I., and John Noakes 1978. Prehistoric Copper Artifacts in the Eastern United States. In Archaeological Chemistry II, edited by Giles F. Carter, pp. 335346. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 171, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Goetz, Alexander, B. Rock, and L. C. Rowan 1983. Remote Sensing for Exploration: An Overview. Economic Geology 78:573590. Goffer, Zvi 1980. Archaeological Chemistry: A Sourcebook on the Applications of Chemistry to Archaeology. Chemical Analysis, vol. 55. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Goggin, John M. 1947. A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114127. 1950. An Early Lithic Complex from Central Florida. American Antiquity 16:4649. Goodman, Alan H., R. Brooke Thomas, Alan C. Swedlund, and George J. Armelagos 1988. Biocultural Perspectives on Stress in Prehistoric, Historical, and Contemporary Population Research. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 31:169202. Goodyear, Albert C. 1974. The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research Series No. 7. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1982. Tool Kit Entropy and Bipolar Reduction: A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variability among PaleoIndian Sites in the Northeastern United States. Manuscript on file, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W. Ackerly 1979. Laurens-Anderson: An Archeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont. Anthropological Studies Series No. 4. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

< previous page

page_255

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_255.html[20/10/2010 11:29:05]

page_256

< previous page

page_256

next page > Page 256

Gordus, Adon A. 1967. Quantitative Non-Destructive Neutron Activation Analysis of Silver Coins. Archaeometry 10:7886. Gordus, Adon A., W. C. Fink, M. E. Hill, J. C. Purdy, and T. R. Wilcox 1967. Identification of the Geologic Origins of Archaeological Artifacts: An Automated Methods of Na and Mn Neutron Activation Analysis. Archaeometry 10:8795. Gordus, Adon A., G. A. Wright, and J. B. Griffin 1968. Obsidian Sources Characterized by Neutron Activation Analysis. Science 26:382384. Goslin, Robert M. 1957. Food of the Adena People. In The Adena People II, edited by William S. Webb and Raymond S. Baby, pp. 4146. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus. Gould, Richard A. 1980. Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gould, Stephen J. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. Norton and Company, New York. Graham, Russel W., D. L. Johnson, and M. Kay 1981. Kimmswick: A Clovis-Mastodon Association in Eastern Missouri. Science 213:11151116. Grayson, Donald K. 1973. On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 38:432439. 1978a. Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 43:5365. 1978b. Reconstructing Mammalian Communities: A Discussion of Shotwell's Method of Paleoecological Analysis. Paleobiology 4:7781. 1979. On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 199237. Academic Press, New York. 1981a. A Critical View of the Use of Archaeological Vertebrates in Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:2838. 1981b. The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:7788. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando. 1989. Bone Transport, Bone Destruction, and Reverse Utility Curves. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:643652. Gremillion, Kristen J. 1987. Plant Remains from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites. In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_256.html[20/10/2010 11:29:06]

page_256

< previous page

page_256

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_256.html[20/10/2010 11:29:06]

page_257

< previous page

page_257

next page > Page 257

Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 259277. Monograph Series No. 1. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1988. Plant Remains. In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 95117. Southern Indian Studies 3637. 1989a. The Development of a Mutualistic Relationship Between Humans and Maypops (Passiflora incarnata L.) in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Ethnobiology 9:135155. 1989b. Late Prehistoric and Historic Period Paleoethnobotany of the North Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1989c. Plant Remains from 31Ce41, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Manuscript in possession of the author. 1989d. Plant Remains from Two Sites in the Upper Catawba River Valley. Report submitted to David Moore, North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Archaeology Branch, Western Office, Asheville. 1989e. Preliminary Report on Plant Remains from Fusihatchee Village (1EE191). In Archaeological Excavations at the Early Historic Creek Indian Town of Fusihatchee (Phase I, 19881989), by Gregory A. Waselkov, John W. Cottier, and Craig T. Sheldon, Jr., pp. 109128. Report to the National Science Foundation, Grant No. BNS-8718934. 1992. Evidence of Plant Domestication from Kentucky Caves and Rockshelters. In Agricultural Origins in the Midcontinent, edited by William Green. Report No. 19. Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, in press. Gremillion, Kristen J., and Richard A. Yarnell 1986. Plant Remains from the Westmoreland-Barber and Pittman-Alder Sites, Marion County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 11:120. Griffin, James B. 1938. The Ceramic Remains from Norris Basin, Tennessee. In An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee, by William S. Webb, pp. 253358. Bulletin No. 118. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1939. Report on the Ceramics of Wheeler Basin. In An Archaeological Survey of Wheeler Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama, by William S. Webb, pp. 127165. Bulletin No. 122. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1943. The Fort Ancient Aspect. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1945. The Significance of the Fiber-Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 35:218223. 1946. Cultural Change and Continuity in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America, edited by Frederick Johnson, pp. 3795. Papers, vol. 3. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, Massachusetts.

< previous page

page_257

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_257.html[20/10/2010 11:29:06]

page_258

< previous page

page_258

next page > Page 258

1952. Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archeology. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 352364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1960. Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause of the Growth and Decline of Northern Hopewellian Culture. Wisconsin Archaeologist 41:2133. 1966. The Fort Ancient Aspect. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1967. Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175191. 1976. A Commentary on Some Archaeological Activities in the Mid-Continent 19251975. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:538. 1985a. Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the Eastern United States. In Alabama and the Borderlands: From Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp. 4063. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1985b. The Formation of the Society for American Archaeology. American Antiquity 50:261271. Griffin, James B. (editor) 1952. Archeology of Eastern United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Griffin, James B., Adon A. Gordus, and G. A. Wright 1969. Identification of the Sources of Hopewellian Obsidian in the Middle West. American Antiquity 34:114. Griffin, James B., and William H. Sears 1950. Certain Sand-Tempered Pottery Types of the Southeast. In Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Grob, Gerald N., and George Athan Billias 1982. Interpretations of American History, vol. 2, 4th ed. The Free Press, New York. Gross, J. Ivor 1974. Some Patterns of Chipping Activity of the Thunderbird Clovis Component. In The Flint Run PaleoIndian Complex: A Preliminary Report 197173 Seasons, edited by William M. Gardner, pp. 100105. Occasional Publication No. 1. Archeology Laboratory, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Gruber, Jacob W. 1981. American Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Historical Perspective. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:473482. Guagliardo, Mark F. 1980. Fluctuating Dental Asymmetry and Stress at the Averbuch Site (40DV60), Nashville, Tennessee. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

< previous page

page_258

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_258.html[20/10/2010 11:29:07]

page_259

< previous page

page_259

next page > Page 259

1982. Tooth Crown Size Differences Between Age Groups: A Possible New Indicator of Stress in Skeletal Samples. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58:383389. Guilday, Joan E. 1958. The Prehistoric Distribution of the Opossum. Journal of Mammalogy 39:3943. Guilday, Joan E., and Paul W. Parmalee 1962. Animal Remains from the Sheep Rock Shelter (36 HU 1), Huntington County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32(2):5983. Guilday, Joan E., Paul W. Parmalee, and D. P. Tanner 1965. Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at the Eschelman Site (36 La 12) Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35(1):3449. Gumerman, George, and Laurence Kruckman 1977. The Unrealized Potential of Remote Sensing in Archeology. In Aerial Remote Sensing Techniques in Archeology, edited by Thomas Lyon and Robert Hitchcock, pp. 1533. National Park Service, Chaco Center. Gut, H. James, and Wilfred T. Neill 1953. Bone Artifacts Resembling Projectile Points from Preceramic Sites in Volusia County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 6:9394. Guthe, Alfred K. 1981. Test Excavations in the Area of Tuskegee, An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village, Monroe County, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 24. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Guthe, Alfred K., and Marian E. Bistline 1981. Excavations at the Tomotley Site (40Mr5), Monroe County, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 24. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Guthe, Carl E. 1927. A Method for Ceramic Description. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 3:2329. 1934. A Method of Ceramic Description. In Standards of Pottery Description, by Benjamin March, pp. 16. Occasional Contribution No. 3. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1952. Twenty-five Years of Archaeology in the Eastern United States. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 112. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Haag, William G. 1939. Description of Pottery Types. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(3). 1942. A Description of Pickwick Pottery. In An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi,

< previous page

page_259

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_259.html[20/10/2010 11:29:08]

page_260

< previous page

page_260

next page > Page 260

and Tennessee, by William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette, pp. 509526. Bulletin No. 129. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1948. An Osteometric Analysis of Some Aboriginal Dogs. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology 7(3):107264. 1951. The Jaketown Flint Industry. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 3:79. 1961. Twenty-five Years of Eastern Archaeology. American Antiquity 27:1623. 1985. Federal Aid to Archaeology in the Southeast, 19331942. American Antiquity 50:272280. Haag, William G., and Clarence H. Webb 1953. Microblades at Poverty Point Sites. American Antiquity 14:269275. Haddon, Alfred C. 1909. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. Milner, London. Hadlock, Wendall S. 1943. Bone Implements from Shell Heaps Around Frenchman's Bay, Maine. American Antiquity 8:341353. Haeussler, A. M., D. H. Morris, and C. F. Merbs 1990. A Paleoindian Mandible from Warm Mineral Springs. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:233. Hale, H. Stephen 1984. Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation Around Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3:173187. Hales, L. Stanton, and Elizabeth J. Reitz 1992. Historical Changes in Age and Growth of Atlantic Croaker, Micropogonias undulatus (Perciformes: Scia enidae). Journal of Archaeological Science 19:7399. Hally, David J. 1981. Plant Preservation and the Content of Paleobotanical Samples: A Case Study. American Antiquity 46:723742. 1982. The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. Paper presented at the 39th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis. 1983. The Interpretive Potential of Pottery from Domestic Contexts. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8:163196. 1984. Vessel Assemblages and Food Habits: A Comparison of Two Aboriginal Southeastern Vessel Assemblages. Southeastern Archaeology 3:4664. 1986. The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267295.

< previous page

page_260

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_260.html[20/10/2010 11:29:08]

page_261

< previous page

page_261

next page > Page 261

Hanke, Lewis 1949. The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America. University of Oennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Hann, John H. 1988. Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Hanson, Lee H., Jr. 1969. Pottery Types from the Hardin Village Site. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 10:116. Harbottle, Garman 1982a. Chemical Characterization in Archaeology. In Context for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Jon E. Ericson and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 1351. Academic Press, New York. 1982b. Provenience Studies Using Neutron Activation Analysis: The Role of Standardization. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin, pp. 6778. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Hardesty, Donald L. 1977. Ecological Anthropology. University of Nevada, Reno. Hardin, Margaret A. 1981. The Identification of Individual Style on Moundville Engraved Vessels: A Preliminary Note. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:108110. Hargrave, Lyndon L. 1938. A Plea for More Careful Preservation of All Biological Material from Prehistoric Sites. Southwestern Lore 4(3):4751. Hargrave, Lyndon L., and Watson Smith 1936. A Method for Determining the Texture of Pottery. American Antiquity 2:3236. Hargrove, T., D. Lewarch, C. Brown, S. Madry, and I. von Essen 1985. A Cultural Resources Survey at U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, N.C. Report submitted to the National Park Service, Atlanta. Harrington, Mark R. 1924. The Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. American Anthropologist 26:121. Hastorf, Christine A., and Virginia S. Popper (editors) 1988. Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hatch, Elvin 1973. Theories of Man and Culture. Columbia University Press, New York. Hatch, James W., and Richard A. Geidel file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_261.html[20/10/2010 11:29:09]

page_261

1983. Tracing Status and Diet in Prehistoric Tennessee. Archeology 36:5659.

< previous page

page_261

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_261.html[20/10/2010 11:29:09]

page_262

< previous page

page_262

next page > Page 262

Hatch, James W., Joseph W. Michels, Christopher M. Stevenson, Barry E. Scheetz, and Richard A. Geidel 1990. Hopewell Obsidian Studies: Behavioral Implications of Recent Sourcing and Dating Research. American Antiquity 55:461479. Hatch, James W., and Patrick S. Willey 1974. Stature and Status in Dallas Society. Tennessee Archeologist 30:107131. Hatch, James W., Patrick S. Willey, and Edward E. Hunt 1983. Indications of Status Related Stress in Dallas Society: Transverse Lines and Cortical Thickness in Long Bones. Midcontinental Journal of Archeology 8:4971. Haven, Samuel F. 1856. Archaeology of the United States, or, Sketches, Historical and Bibliographical, of the Progress of Information and Opinion Respecting Vestiges of Antiquity in the United States. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 8(2):1172. Hawking, Stephen W. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, London. Hay, Oliver P. 1902. On the Finding of the Bones of the Great Auk (Plautus impennis) in Florida. Auk 19:255258. Heilprin, Angelo 1887. The Skeletal Remains from Hanson's Landing. Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science 1:1415. Philadelphia. Heisenberg, Werner 1930. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1958. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Harper and Row, New York. Heiser, Charles B., Jr. 1955. The Sunflower among the North American Indians. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95:432448. Philadelphia. 1978. Taxonomy of Helianthus and Origin of Domesticated Sunflower. In Sunflower Science and Technology, edited by Jack F. Carter, pp. 3153. Agronomy No. 19. Madison, Wisconsin. Heiser, Charles B., Jr., and David C. Nelson 1974. On the Origin of the Cultivated Chenopods. Genetics 78:503505. Heizer, Robert, and Sherburne F. Cook 1952. Fluorine and Other Chemical Tests of Some North American Human and Animal Bones. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10:289303.

< previous page

page_262

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_262.html[20/10/2010 11:29:10]

page_263

< previous page

page_263

next page > Page 263

Heller, R., and J. Ulliman 1983. Forest Resource Assessment. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2d ed., edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 22292324. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Hemans, Fredrick, J. Wilson Myers, and James Wiseman 1987. Remote Sensing from a Tethered Blimp in Greece. Technical Paper No. 2. Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University. Hertzberg, H. T. E. 1940a. The Skeletal Material from Rickets Mound. In Rickets Site Revisited, Site 3, Montgomery County, Kentucky, by William S. Webb and W. D. Funkhouser, pp. 233257. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 3(6). Lexington. 1940b. Skeletal Material from the Wright Site, Montgomery County. In The Wright Mounds, Sites 6 and 7, by William S. Webb, pp. 83102. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 5(1). Lexington. Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish 1985. Animal Bone Archeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Manuals on Archaeology No. 5. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C. Hester, Thomas R. 1975. Comment on ''The Structure of a Prehistoric Industry in Mesoamerica,'' by Payson D. Sheets. Current Anthropology 16(3):382. Higel, T. E. 1965. An Analysis of Ninety-one Indian Knoll Skeletons. Manuscript on file, Office of State Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Hill, James N. 1966. A Prehistoric Community in Eastern Arizona. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22:930. Hill, Mary C. 1979. The Alabama River Phase: A Biological Synthesis and Interpretation. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Hill-Clark, Mary C. 1981. The Mississippian Decline in Alabama: A Biological Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54:233. Hilliard, Jerry, and John Riggs 1986. AMASDA Site Encoding Manual. Technical Paper No. 1. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hinton, Robert J., Maria O. Smith, and Fred H. Smith 1980. Tooth Size Changes in Prehistoric Tennessee Indians. Human Biology 52:229245.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_263.html[20/10/2010 11:29:10]

page_263

< previous page

page_263

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_263.html[20/10/2010 11:29:10]

page_264

< previous page

page_264

next page > Page 264

Hodder, Ian 1982a. Some Options about Recovering Mind. American Antiquity 47:742760. 1982b. The Present Past. Pica Press, New York. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodder, Ian (editor) 1982. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodgen, Margaret T. 1964. Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Hoffman, Bruce F. 1981. A Trace Element Distribution of the Mississippian Fort Payne Chert of Northeast Mississippi. In Lithic Procurement and Utilization Trajectories: Analysis, Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi, vol. 2, by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 291347. Publications in Anthropology No. 28. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville. Hoffman, Michael P. 1986. The Protohistoric Period in the Lower and Central Arkansas River Valley in Arkansas. In The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South: 15001700, edited by David Dye and Ronald Brister, pp. 2437. Archaeological Report No. 18. Mississippi Department of Archives and History. 1990. The Terminal Mississippian Period in the Arkansas River Valley and Quapaw Ethnogenesis. In Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi, edited by David Dye and Cheryl Anne Cox, pp. 208226. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Hofman, Jack L. 1981a. The Refitting of Chipped-stone Artifacts as an Analytical and Interpretive Tool. Current Anthropology 22:691693. 1981b. Test Excavation at a Buried Middle Archaic Component on the Duck River, Middle Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:4448. 1984. Contextual Studies of the Middle Archaic Component at Cave Spring in Middle Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Hole, Frank, and Mary Shaw 1967. Computer Analysis of Chronological Seriation. Rice University Studies, Vol. 53(3). Houston.

< previous page

page_264

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_264.html[20/10/2010 11:29:11]

page_265

< previous page

page_265

next page > Page 265

Holmes, William Henry 1886. Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 18821883:367465. Washington, D.C. 1890. A Quarry Workshop of the Flaked-stone Implement Makers in the District of Columbia. American Anthropologist 3:126. 1892. Modern Quarry Refuse and the Paleolithic Theory. Science 20:295297. 1894. Natural History of Flaked Stone Implements. Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology, pp. 120139. Chicago. 1897. Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province. Annual Report of Bureau of American Ethnology 18931894:13157. Washington, D.C. 1903. Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 18991900. Washington, D.C. Home, Henry 1788. Sketches of the History of Man. 2d ed., 4 vol. W. Creech, Edinburgh. Hooton, Ernest A. 1922. Notes on the Skeletal Remains. In The Turner Group of Earthworks, Hamilton County, Ohio, by Charles C. Willoughby and Ernest A. Hooton, pp. 99132. Papers, vol. 8(3). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1930. The Indians of Pecos Pueblo: A Study of Their Skeletal Remains. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1937. Aboriginal Racial Types in America. In Apes, Men and Morons, by Ernest A. Hooton, pp. 155186. Macmillan, New York. Hooton, Ernest A., and Charles C. Willoughby 1920. Indian Village Site and Cemetary Near Madisonville, Ohio. Papers, vol. 8(1). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Horton, D. R. 1984. Minimum Numbers: A Consideration. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:255271. Houck, Margaret van Winkle 1951. Animal Remains from South Indian Field. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 45:5160. New Haven. House, John H., and David L. Ballenger 1976. An Archeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Research Manuscript Series No. 104. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. House, John H., and Ronald W. Wogaman 1978. Windy Ridge, a Prehistoric Site in the Inter-riverine Piedmont in South Carolina. Anthropological Studies Series No. 3. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_265.html[20/10/2010 11:29:12]

page_265

< previous page

page_265

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_265.html[20/10/2010 11:29:12]

page_266

< previous page

page_266

next page > Page 266

Howard, Hildegarde 1929. The Avifauna of Emeryville Shellmound. University of California Publications in Zoology 32(2):301394. Hrdlicka, Ales 1907. Skeletal Remains Suggesting or Attributed to Early Man in America. Bulletin No. 33. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1909. Report on an Additional Collection of Skeletal Remains from Arkansas and Louisiana. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, ser. 2, 14(1):173249. 1914. Physical Anthropology in America: An Historical Sketch. American Anthropologist 16:508554. 1918. Recent Discoveries Attributed to Early Man in America. Bulletin No. 66. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1922. The Anthropology of Florida. Publications of the Florida State Historical Society No. 1. 1925. The Origin and Antiquity of the American Indian. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1923:481495. Washington, D.C. 1927. Catalogue of Human Crania in the United States National Museum Collections. The Algonkin and Related Iroquois; Siouan, Caddoan, Salish and Sahaptin, Shoshonean, and California Indians. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 69(5):1127. Washington, D.C. 1937. Early Man in America: What Have the Bones to Say. In Early Man, edited by George G. McCurdy, pp. 93104. Lippincott, Philadelphia. 1940. Indians of the Gulf States. Catalog of Human Crania in the United States National Museum Collections. Smithsonian Institution 87:315464. Hudson, Charles 1976. The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1985. De Soto in Arkansas: A Brief Synopsis. Field Notes of the Arkansas Archaeological Society 205:312. 1987. The Uses of Evidence in Reconstructing the Route of the Hernando de Soto Expedition. De Soto Working Paper No. 1. Alabama De Soto Commission, Tuscaloosa. 1990. The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 15661568. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Hudson, Charles, Ronald Butler, and Dennis Sikes 1975. Arthritis in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43:5762. Hudson, Charles, Marvin Smith, and Chester DePratter 1990. The Hernando de Soto Expedition: From Maila to the Mississippi River. In Towns and Temples along the Mississippi, edited by David Dye and Cheryl Anne Cox, pp. 181207. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

< previous page

page_266

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_266.html[20/10/2010 11:29:12]

page_267

< previous page

page_267

next page > Page 267

Hulse, Fred S. 1941. The People Who Lived at Irene: Physical Anthropology. In Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia, edited by J. Caldwell and Catherine McCann, pp. 5764. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Hunt, Edward E. 1959. Anthropometry, Genetics and Racial History. American Anthropologist 61:6487. 1981. The Old Physical Anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:339346. Hutchinson, J. F. 1979. A Study of Biological Relationships Between Archaic and Mississippian Skeletal Populations in Northern Alabama. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, University. Inglis, Michael, Thomas Budge, and James Ebert 1984. Preliminary Evaluation of Simulated SPOT Data for Cultural Resource Assessment Management, New Mexico. SPOT Simulation Applications Handbook, pp. 7382. Isaac, Glynn L. 1967. Toward the Interpretation of Occupation Debris: Some Experiments and Observations. The Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 37:3157. Iscan, M. Yasar 1989. An Odontometric Profile of a Prehistoric Southeastern Florida Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:38. Iscan, M. Yasar, Morton H. Kessel, and Susanna Marits 1989. Spectrographic Analysis of Trace Elements in Archaeological Skeletal Material from Florida: A Preliminary Report. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:483488. Iscan, M. Yasar, and Patricia Miller-Shaivitz 1983. A Review of Physical Anthropology in the Florida Anthropologist. Florida Anthropologist 36:114123. Isler, Robert, Jed Schoen, and M. Yasar Iscan 1985. Dental Pathology of a Prehistoric Human Population in Florida. Florida Scientist 48:139146. Ives, David 1984. Neutron Activation Analysis Characterization of Selected Prehistoric Chert Quarrying Areas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. 1985. Chert Sources and Identification in Archaeology: Can a Silk Purse be Made from a Cow's Ear? In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by S. C. Vehik, pp. 211224. Occasional Paper No. 4. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

< previous page

page_267

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_267.html[20/10/2010 11:29:13]

page_268

< previous page

page_268

next page > Page 268

Jablonski, Kathleen A. 1981. Enamel Calcification Patterns in the Averbuch Population. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1983. An Analysis of Dental Stress Indicators in Skeletal Populations from Tennessee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Jackson, H. Edwin 1986. Sedentism and Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Subsistence Strategies during the Poverty Point Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1989. The Trouble with Transformations: Effects of Sample Size and Sample Composition on Meat Weight Estimates Based on Skeletal Mass Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:601610. Jackson, R. C. 1960. A Revision of the Genus Iva L. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 41:793876. Jefferies, Richard W. 1982. Debitage as a Indicator of Intraregional Activity Diversity in Northwest Georgia. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:99132. Jefferson, Thomas 1788. Notes on the State of Virginia. Prichard and Hall, Philadelphia. Jenkins, Ned J. 1981. Gainesville Lake Area Ceramic Description and Chronology. Report of Investigations No. 4, vol. 2. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1983. Ceramic Summary Descriptions and Chronology. In Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Study of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee System Corridor, Vol. 1, Archaeology, by David Brose, Ned J. Jenkins, and Russell Weisman, pp. 73156. Manuscript on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama. Jenkins, Ned J., and Richard A. Krause 1986. The Tombigbee Watershed in Southeastern Prehistory. University of Alabama Press, University. Jennings, Jesse D. 1941. Chickasaw and Earlier Indian Cultures of Northeast Mississippi. Journal of Mississippi History 3:155227. 1986. American Archaeology, 19301985. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 5362. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_268

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_268.html[20/10/2010 11:29:14]

page_269

< previous page

page_269

next page > Page 269

Jennings, Jesse D., and Charles G. Fairbanks 1939a. Description of the Pottery Type Lamar Complicated Stamped. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1. 1939b. Type Description Napier Complicated Stamp. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1. Jennings, Jesse D., Gordon R. Willey, and Marshall T. Newman 1957. The Ormond Beach Mound, East Central Florida. Bulletin No. 164. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Jensen, John R. 1983. Urban/Suburban Land Use Analysis. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2d ed., edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 15711666. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. 1986. Introductory Digital Image Processing. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Jensen, Rodrick V. 1987. Classical Chaos. American Scientist 75:168181. Jeter, Marvin D. 1986. Tunicans West of the Mississippi: A Summary of Early Historic and Archaeological Evidence. In The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South, 15001700, edited by David Dye and Ronald Brister, pp. 3863. Archaeological Report No. 18. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Jeter, Marvin D., Kathleen H. Cande, and John J. Mintz 1990. Goldsmith Oliver 2 (3PU306): A Protohistoric Archeological Site near Little Rock, Arkansas. 2 vols. Report submitted by the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, to the Federal Aviation Administration, S.W. Region, Fort Worth, Texas. Jochim, Michael A. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. Academic Press, New York. Joerschke, Bonnie C. 1983. The Demography, Long Bone Growth, and Pathology of a Middle Archaic Skeletal Population from Middle Tennessee: The Anderson Site (40WM9). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Johannessen, Sissel 1984. Paleoethnobotany. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter, pp. 197214. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Johnson, Jay K. 1977. Prehistoric Settlement Systems in the Middle Duck River Drainage, Columbia, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 2:142151.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_269.html[20/10/2010 11:29:14]

page_269

< previous page

page_269

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_269.html[20/10/2010 11:29:14]

page_270

< previous page

page_270

next page > Page 270

1979. Archaic Biface Manufacture: Production Failures, A Chronicle of the Misbegotten. Lithic Technology 8:2535. 1981. Lithic Procurement and Utilization Trajectories: Analysis, Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi, vol. 2. Publications in Anthropology No. 28. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville. 1982. Archaic Period Settlement Systems in Northeastern Mississippi. Mid-continental Journal of Archaeology 7:185204. 1983. Poverty Point Period Blade Technology in the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Lithic Technology 12:4956. 1984. Measuring Prehistoric Quarry Site Activity in Northeastern Mississippi. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brian M. Butler and Ernest E. May, pp. 225235. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1985. Patterns of Prehistoric Chert Procurement in Colbert Ferry Park, Northwest Alabama. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by Susan C. Vehick, pp. 153164. Occasional Paper No. 4. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1986. Amorphous Core Technology in the Mid-South. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 11:135151. 1987. Cahokia Core Technology in Mississippi: The View from the South. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 187206. Westview Press, Boulder. 1989a. Biface Production Trajectory Modeling in Historic Perspective. Paper presented at the 88th annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. 1989b. The Utility of Production Trajectory Modeling as a Framework for Regional Analysis. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 119138. Archeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. 1991. Settlement Patterns, GIS, Remote Sensing and the Late Prehistory of the Black Prairie in East Central Mississippi. In Applications of Space-Age Technology in Anthropology, edited by C. Behrens and T. Sever, pp. 111119. NASA, Science and Technology Lab, John C. Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. 1992. Prehistoric Exchange in the Southeast. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in Eastern North America, edited by Timmothy C. Baugh and Jonathan E. Ericson. Plenum Press, New York, in press. Johnson, Jay K., and Samuel O. Brookes 1988. Rocks from the Northeast: Archaic Exchange in North Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 23(2):5363.

< previous page

page_270

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_270.html[20/10/2010 11:29:15]

page_271

< previous page

page_271

next page > Page 271

1989. Benton Points, Turkey Tails and Cache Blades: Middle Archaic Exchange in the Midsouth. Southeastern Archaeology 8:134145. Johnson, Jay K., and Geoffrey R. Lehmann 1990. Sociopolitical Devolution in Northeast Mississippi and the Timing of the de Soto Entrada. Paper presented at the Disease and Demographic Collapse in the Spanish Borderlands symposium, American Association of Physical Anthropologists annual meeting, Miami. Johnson, Jay K., and Carol A. Morrow (editors) 1987. The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press, Boulder. Johnson, Jay K., and Carol A. Raspet 1980. Delta Debitage. Mississippi Archaeology 15(1):311. Johnson, Jay K., Abigayle Robbins, and Andrea B. Shea 1983. Prehistoric Subsistence in the Natchez Bluffs, Jefferson County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 18(2):412. Johnson, Jay K., Thomas L. Sever, Scott Madry, and Harry T. Hoff 1988. Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis in Large Scale Survey Design in North Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 7:124131. Johnson, Jay K., and John T. Sparks 1982. The Three Faces of Gordon: Ceramic Site Sampling at the Gordon Mounds Site in Jefferson County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 1:103114. Johnson, Leroy, Jr. 1968. Item Seriation as an Aid for Elementary Scale and Cluster Analysis. Bulletin No. 15. Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon. Johnson, Lucy L. 1978. A History of Flint-knapping Experimentation, 18381976. Current Anthropology 19:337372. Johnston, Francis E. 1961. Sequence of Epiphyseal Union in a Prehistoric Kentucky Population from Indian Knoll. Human Biology 33:6681. 1962. Growth of the Longbones of Infants and Young Children at Indian Knoll. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 20:249254. Johnston, Francis E., and Charles E. Snow 1961. The Reassessment of the Indian Knoll Skeletal Population: Demographic and Methodological Aspects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 19:237244. Jones, Joseph 1876. Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge No. 22. Washington, D.C. file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_271.html[20/10/2010 11:29:16]

page_271

< previous page

page_271

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_271.html[20/10/2010 11:29:16]

page_272

< previous page

page_272

next page > Page 272

Jones, K. T., and D. Metcalfe 1988. Bare Bones Archaeology: Bone Marrow Indices and Efficiency. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:415423. Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. British School at Athens, Athens, Greece. Jones, Volney 1936. The Vegetal Remains of Newt Kash Hollow Shelter. In Rock Shelters in Menifee County, Kentucky, edited by William S. Webb and William D. Funkhouser, pp. 147165. Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology No. 3. University of Kentucky, Lexington. 1941. The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany. Chronica Botanica 6:219221. 1946. Review of Plant Geography and Culture History in the American Southwest, by George F. Carter. American Antiquity 11:262265. 1949. Maize from the Davis Site: Its Nature and Interpretation. In The George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas, edited by H. Perry Newell and Alex D. Krieger, pp. 241249. Memoir No. 5. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Kahle, Ann, and Alexander Goetz 1983. Mineralogic Information from a New Airborne Thermal Infrared Multispectrum Scanner. Science 22:2427. Kahle, Ann, Dayrl P. Madura, and James M. Soha 1980. Middle Infrared Multispectral Aircraft Scanner Data: Analysis for Geological Applications. Applied Optics 19:22792290. Kahle, Ann, and Lawrence Rowan 1980. Evaluation of Multispectral Middle Infrared Aircraft Images for Lithographic Mapping in the East Tintic Mountains, Utah. Geology 8:234239. Kant, Immanuel 1783. Prologemena to Any Future Metaphysics. Translated and edited by Paul Carus. Reprinted 1967, Open Court Press, LaSalle, Illinois. Kaplan, Bernice A. 1950. The Scope of Physical Anthropology: What Is to Be Taught? Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 6:2537. 1955. More on the Education of the Physical Anthropologist (from the Point of View of General Anthropology). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 13:351355. Kay, Marvin, Frances B. King, and Christine K. Robinson 1980. Cucurbits from Phillips Spring: New Evidence and Interpretations. American Antiquity 45:806822.

< previous page

page_272

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_272.html[20/10/2010 11:29:16]

page_273

< previous page

page_273

next page > Page 273

Keel, Bennie C. (editor) 1988. Advances in Southeastern Archaeology 19661986, Contributions of the Federal Archaeological Program. Special Publication No. 6. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Kelley, Jane H., and Marsha P. Hanen 1988. Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Kelley, Marc A., and Leslie E. Eisenberg 1987. Blastomycosis and Tuberculosis in Early American Indians. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:89116. Kelly, Arthur R. 1938. A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Ga. Bulletin No. 119. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Kelly, Robert L. 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717731. Kenion, Rita 1988. A Functional Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage of a Deptford Phase Midden. Paper presented at the 45th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. Abstract in Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 31:31. Kidder, Alfred V. 1924. An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition No. 1. Phillips Academy, New Haven. 1936. Speculations on New World Prehistory. In Essays in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber, edited by Robert H. Lowie, pp. 143152. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1947. Letter to Anna O. Shepard of 28 October 1947. Anna O. Shepard Archives, Museum, University of Colorado, Boulder. Kidder, Tristram R. 1988. The Koroa Indians of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Archaeology 23(2):142. King, Frances B. 1985. Early Cultivated Cucurbits in Eastern North America. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 7398. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1987a. Analysis of Prehistoric Corn. Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Society for Ethnobiology, Gainesville. 1987b. The Evolutionary Effects of Plant Cultivation. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_273.html[20/10/2010 11:29:17]

page_273

< previous page

page_273

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_273.html[20/10/2010 11:29:17]

page_274

< previous page

page_274

next page > Page 274

5165. Occasional Paper No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Kingery, David W. 1982. Plausible Inferences from Ceramic Artifacts. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Jacqueline S. Olin and Alan D. Franklin, pp. 3746. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Klemptner, L. J., and P. F. Johnson 1983. An Analytical Approach to the Technological Development of Mississippian Pottery. In Ancient Technology to Modern Science, edited by W. D. Kingery, pp. 101112. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 1. The American Ceramic Society, Columbus. Kline, Gerald W., and Gary D. Crites 1979. Paleoethnobotany of the Ducks Nest Site: Early Mississippi Plant Utilization in the Eastern Highland Rim. Tennessee Anthropologist 4:82100. Kline, Gerald W., Gary D. Crites, and Charles H. Faulkner 1982. The McFarland Project: Early Middle Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in the Upper Duck River Valley in Tennessee. Miscellaneous Paper No. 8. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Klinger, Timothy C. 1978. Lowland Environmental Variability and Prehistoric Settlement Behavior in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 3:285332. Klippel, Walter E., and P. W. Parmalee 1982. Prey of a Wintering Long-eared Owl in the Nashville Basin, Tennessee. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:418420. Klippel, Walter E., Lynn M. Snyder, and Paul W. Parmalee 1987. Taphonomy and Archaeologically Recovered Mammal Bone from Southeast Missouri. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:155169. Kluckhohn, Clyde 1940. The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by Clarence L. Hay, Ralph L. Linton, Samuel K. Lothrop, Harry L. Shapiro, and George C. Vaillant, pp. 4151. D. Appleton-Century, New York. Kneberg, Madeleine 1952. The Tennessee Area. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 190198. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1956. Some Important Projectile Points Found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee Archaeologist 12(1):1728. Knight, Vernon J. 1986. The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51:675687.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_274.html[20/10/2010 11:29:18]

page_274

< previous page

page_274

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_274.html[20/10/2010 11:29:18]

page_275

< previous page

page_275

next page > Page 275

Knight, Vernon James, Jr. (editor) 1990. Special Fiftieth Anniversary Issue: History and Theory in Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9(1). Knott, Laura L. 1981. The Botanical Remains from Phipps Bend. In The Phipps Bend Archaeological Project, by Robert H. Lafferty, pp. 397407. Report of Investigations No. 4. University of Alabama Office of Archaeological Research, University. Koch, A. C. 1839. The Mammoth. American Journal of Science 36:198200. Kormondy, Edward J. 1969. Concepts of Ecology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Kozuch, Laura, and Cherry Fitzgerald 1989. A Guide to Identifying Shark Centra from Southeastern Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 8:146157. Krantz, G. S. 1968. A New Method of Counting Mammal Bones. American Journal of Archaeology 72:286288. Kraus, Michael 1953. The Writing of American History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Krieger, Alex D. 1944. The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271288. 1946. Culture Complexes and Chronology in Northern Texas. University of Texas Publication No. 4640. Austin. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1916. Zuni Potsherds. Anthropological Papers, vol. 18, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 38. University of California, Berkeley. 1940. Statistical Classification. American Antiquity 7:2944. Krogman, Wilton M. 1976. Fifty Years of Physical Anthropology: The Men, the Material, the Concepts, the Methods. Annual Review of Anthropology 5:114. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d rev. ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kullerud, G., R. M. Steffen, P. C. Simms, and F. A. Rickey

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_275.html[20/10/2010 11:29:19]

page_275

1979. Proton Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE)A New Tool in Geochemistry. Chemical Geology 25:245256.

< previous page

page_275

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_275.html[20/10/2010 11:29:19]

page_276

< previous page

page_276

next page > Page 276

Kuzara, Richard S., George R. Mead, and Keith A. Dixon 1966. Seriation of Anthropological Data: A Computer Program for Matrix Ordering. American Anthropologist 68:14421455. Lafitau, Joseph 1724. Mæurs des Sauvages Ameriquains Comparées aux Mæurs des Premiers Temps. Paris. Lahren, Craig H., and Hugh E. Berryman 1984. Fracture Patterns and Status at Chucalissa (40SY1): A Biocultural Approach. Tennessee Anthropologist 9:1521. Landau, Misia 1984. Human Evolution as Narrative. American Scientist 72:262268. Langdon, Stephen P. 1989. Porotic Hyperostosis and Artificial Cranial Deformation in Dallas Society. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lankford, George 1983. Ethnohistory: A Documentary Study of Native American Life in the Lower Tombigbee Valley. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Study of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee System Corridor, Alabama, vol. 2. Department of Geology and Geography, University of South Alabama, Mobile. Larsen, Clark S. 1979. Subsistence and the Human Skeleton: A Case Study from the Georgia Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1980a. Dental Caries: Experimental and Biocultural Evidence. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 7580. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. 1980b. Human Skeletal and Dental Health Changes in the Prehistoric Georgia Coast. In Excursions in Southeastern Geology: The Archaeology-Geology of the Georgia Coast, edited by J. D. Howard, C. B. DePratter, and R. W. Frey, pp. 192201. Geological Society of America, Atlanta. 1981a. Skeletal and Dental Adaptations to the Shift to Agriculture on the Georgia Coast. Current Anthropology 22:422423. 1981b. Functional Implications of Postcranial Size Reduction on the Prehistoric Georgia Coast. Journal of Human Evolution 10:489502. 1982. The Anthropology of St. Catherine's Island 3. Prehistoric Biological Adaptation. Anthropological Papers, vol. 57, pt. 3. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1983a. Behavioral Implications of Temporal Change in Cariogenesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:18.

< previous page

page_276

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_276.html[20/10/2010 11:29:19]

page_277

< previous page

page_277

next page > Page 277

1983b. Subsistence Role Behavior and the Infectious Disease Experience on the Prehistoric Georgia Coast. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:216. 1983c. Deciduous Tooth Size and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Georgia Coast Populations. Current Anthropology 22:422423. 1984. Health and Disease in Prehistoric Georgia: The Transition to Agriculture. In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark N. Cohen and George J. Armelagos, pp. 367392. Academic Press, New York. Larsen, Clark S. (editor) 1990. The Archaeology of Mission Santa Catalina de Guale: 2. Biocultural Interpretations of a Population in Transition. Anthropological Papers, vol. 68. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Lasker, Gabriel W. 1970. Physical Anthropology: Search for General Process and Principles. American Anthropologist 72:18. Lawrence, Barbara 1957. Zoology. In The Identification of Non-Artifactual Archaeological Materials, edited by Walter W. Taylor, pp. 4142. Publication No. 565. National Academy of Science-Natural Resource Council, Washington, D.C. Legge, A. J. 1978. Archaeozoologyor Zooarchaeology? In Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, edited by Donald R. Brothwell, K. D. Thomas, and Juliet Clutton-Brock, pp. 129132. Occasional Publication No. 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London. Lehmann, Geoffrey R. 1982. The Jaketown Site: Surface Collections from a Poverty Point Regional Center in the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Archaeological Report No. 9. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Leidy, Joseph 1889. Notice on Some Fossil Human Bones. Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science 2:912. Philadelphia. Leone, Mark P. 1972. Issues in Anthropological Archaeology. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. P. Leone, pp. 1427. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 1986. Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology, Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 415438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_277

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_277.html[20/10/2010 11:29:20]

page_278

< previous page

page_278

next page > Page 278

Leone, Mark P., and Parker B. Potter, Jr. 1988. Introduction: Issues in Historical Archaeology. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by Mark Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 122. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Leone, Mark P., and Parker B. Potter, Jr. (editors) 1988. The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Leone, Mark P., Parker B. Potter, Jr., and Paul A. Shackel 1987. Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28:283302. Leute, Ulrich 1987. Archaeometry: An Introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology the History of Art. VCH published, New York. Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1974. The Raw and The Cooked. Pelican Books, Baltimore. Levy, Janet E. (editor) 1986. Skeletal Analysis in Southeastern Archaeology. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 24. Raleigh. Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg 1946. Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1959. The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25:161183. Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg Lewis 1961. Eva, An Archaic Site. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Limp, W. Fredrick 1987. The Identification of Archeological Site Patterning Through Integration of Remote Sensing, Geographic Information Systems and Exploratory Data Analysis. In Proceedings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sixth National Symposium on Remote Sensing, pp. 232262. 1989. The Use of Multispectral Digital Imagery for Archeological Investigations. Research Series No. 34. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Linnaeus, Carollus 1735. Systema Naturae. Leyden. Linton, Ralph 1924. North American Maize Culture. American Anthropologist 26:345359. Longacre, William A.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_278.html[20/10/2010 11:29:21]

page_278

1963. Archaeology vs Anthropology: A Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. 1966. Changing Patterns of Social Integration: A Prehistoric Example from the American Southwest. American Anthropologist 68:94102.

< previous page

page_278

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_278.html[20/10/2010 11:29:21]

page_279

< previous page

page_279

next page > Page 279

Loomis, F. B., and D. B. Young 1912. On the Shell Heaps of Maine. American Journal of Science 34(199):1742. Loveland, Carol J., and William M. Bass 1983. Cranial Studies of the Caddo Indians from the Kaufman-Williams Site. In Southeastern Natives and Their Past, edited by Don G. Wyckoff and Jack L. Hofman, pp. 241258. Studies in Oklahoma's Past No. 11. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman. Lubbock, John, Sir (Lord Avebury) 1865. Prehistoric Times, As Illustrated By Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. 1st ed. Williams and Norgate, London. Luckenbach, A. H., C. G. Holland, and R. O. Allen 1975. Soapstone Artifacts: Tracing Prehistoric Trade Patterns in Virginia. Science 187:5758. Luedtke, Barbara E. 1978. Chert Sources and Trace Element Analysis. American Antiquity 43:413423. 1979. The Identification of Sources of Chert Artifacts. American Antiquity 44:744756. Luedtke, Barbara E., and J. Thomas Meyers 1984. Trace Element Variation in Burlington Chert: A Case Study. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies From the Midcontinent, edited by B. M. Butler and E. E. May, pp. 287298. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lyell, Charles 1845. Travels in North America in the Years 184142, with Geological Observations on the United States, Canada, and Nova Scotia. Willey and Putnam, New York. 1849. A Second Visit to North America. Willey and Putnam, New York. 1863. The Antiquity of Man. John Murray, London. Lyman, R. Lee 1982a. Archaeofaunas and Subsistence Studies. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 331393. Academic Press, New York. 1984. Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:259299. 1985. Bone Frequencies: Differential Transport, in situ Destruction, and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:221236. 1986. On the Analysis and Interpretation of Species List Data in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Ethnobiology 6:6781. 1987. Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy: A General Consideration. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:93117.

< previous page

page_279

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_279.html[20/10/2010 11:29:21]

page_280

< previous page

page_280

next page > Page 280

Lynott, Mark J., Thomas W. Boutton, James E. Price, and Dwight E. Nelson 1986. Stable Carbon Isotopic Evidence for Maize Agriculture in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. American Antiquity 51:5165. Lyon, Patricia J. 1970. Differential Bone Destruction: An Ethnographic Example. American Antiquity 35:213215. Lyon, S. S. 1872. Report of an Exploration of Ancient Mounds in Union County, Kentucky. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1870:392405. Washington, D.C. Mabbutt, J. A. 1968. Review of Concepts of Land Classification. In Land EvaluationPapers of a CSIRO Symposium, pp. 1128. MacMillian of Australia, Melbourne. Mabry, Jonathan, James M. Skibo, Michael B. Schiffer, and Kenneth Kvamme 1988. Use of a Falling-Weight Tester for Assessing Ceramic Impact Strength. American Antiquity 53:830893. McCary, Ben C. 1951. A Workshop Site of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity 17:917. M'Culloh, James H. 1829. Researches, Philosophical and Antiquarian, Concerning Aboriginal History of America. F. Lucas, Baltimore. McGee, William J. 1889. Paleolithic Man in North America: His Antiquity and Environment. Popular Science Monthly 34:2057. McGimsey, Charles R. 1972. Public Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. McKern, William C. 1936. Certain Culture Classification Problems in Middle Western Archaeology. In The Indianapolis Archaeological Conference, pp. 7082. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1939. The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301313. McMahan, J. David 1983. Paleoethnobotany of the Late Woodland Mason Phase in the Elk and Duck River Valleys, Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. McManamon, Frank 1984. Discovering Sites Unseen. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 223292. Academic Press, New York.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_280.html[20/10/2010 11:29:22]

page_280

< previous page

page_280

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_280.html[20/10/2010 11:29:22]

page_281

< previous page

page_281

next page > Page 281

McMillan, R. Bruce 1976. The Dynamics of Cultural and Environmental Change at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. In Prehistoric Man and His Environments: A Case Study in the Ozark Highlands, edited by W. R. Wood and R. B. McMillan, pp. 211232. Academic Press, New York. MacNeill, William H. 1977. Plagues and Peoples. Doubleday, New York. McNutt, Charles H. 1973. On the Methodological Validity of Frequency Seriation. American Antiquity 38:4560. Madry, Scott 1985. Remote Sensing Data Acquisition and Analysis. In A Cultural Resource Survey at U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point N.C., by T. Hargrove, D. Lewarch, C. Brown, S. Madry, and I. von Essen, pp. 6171. Report submitted to National Park Service, Atlanta. 1986. Regional Archeological Spatial Modeling: A Test Case from the Upper Neuse River Basin, North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Magennis, Ann 1977. Middle and Late Archaic Mortuary Patterning: An Example from the Western Tennessee Valley. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. March, Benjamin 1934. Standards of Pottery Description. Occasional Contributions No. 3. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Marcus, Greil 1975. Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock 'n Roll Music. E. P. Dutton, New York. Marquardt, William H. 1974. A Statistical Analysis of Constituents in Human Paleofecal Specimens from Mammoth Cave. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 193202. Academic Press, New York. 1978. Advances in Archaeological Seriation. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 266314. Academic Press, New York. 1985. Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters: An Example from the Eastern United States. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp. 5998. Academic Press, Orlando. 1986. The Development of Cultural Complexity in Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 5:6370.

< previous page

page_281

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_281.html[20/10/2010 11:29:23]

page_282

< previous page

page_282

next page > Page 282

Marsh, O. C. 1866. Description of an Ancient Sepulchral Mound near Newark, Ohio. American Journal of Science and Arts 42:111. Marshall, Richard A. 1988. Preliminary Archaeological Testing Near Mound A, Buford (22TL501) Site, Tallahatchie County, Mississippi. Report of Investigations No. 5. Cottonlandia Museum and Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. Mississippi State, Mississippi. Martin, Debra L., George J. Armelagos, Alan H. Goodman, and Dennis P. Van Gerven 1984. The Effects of Socioeconomic Change in Prehistoric Africa: Sudanese Nubia as a Case Study. In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark N. Cohen and George J. Armelagos, pp. 193214. Academic Press, New York. Matson, Frederick R. 1965. Ceramic Ecology: An Approach to the Study of the Early Cultures of the Near East. In Ceramics and Man, edited by Frederick R. Matson, pp. 202217. Aldine, Chicago. Matteson, Max R. 1960. Reconstruction of Prehistoric Environment Through the Analysis of Molluscan Collections from Shell Middens. American Antiquity 26:117120. Mehta, J. D. 1969. A Comparative Study of the Dentition of the Shell Mound Indians of Alabama. Alabama Journal of Medicine Science 6:208212. Meighan, Clement W. 1959. A New Method for the Seriation of Archaeological Collections. American Antiquity 25:203211. Meighan, C. W., D. M. Pendergast, B. K. Swartz, Jr., and M. D. Wissler 1958. Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology: Parts 1 and 2. American Antiquity 24:123, 24:131195. Meigs, J. Atkins 1866. Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines, Based upon Specimens Contained in the Collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 18:197235. Philadelphia. Meiklejohn, Christopher 1975. The Old and the New: Re-Examining Physical Anthropology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 19:137139. Meltzer, David J. 1984. On Stone Procurement and Settlement Mobility in Eastern Fluted Point Groups. North American Archaeologist 6:124.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_282.html[20/10/2010 11:29:23]

page_282

< previous page

page_282

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_282.html[20/10/2010 11:29:23]

page_283

< previous page

page_283

next page > Page 283

1985. North American Archaeology and Archaeologists, 18791934. American Antiquity 50:249260. 1986. Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 330. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1989. Why Don't We Know When the First People Came to North America? American Antiquity 54:471490. Meltzer, David J., Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff (editors) 1986. American Archaeology, Past and Future. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Mensforth, Robert P. 1990. Paleodemography of the Carlston Annis (Bt-5) Late Archaic Skeletal Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:81100. Mercer, Henry C. 1897. The Finding of the Remains of the Fossil Sloth at Big Bone Cave, Tennessee, in 1896. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 36:3670. Philadelphia. Merriam, C. Hart 1928. Why Not More Care in Identification of Animal Remains. American Anthropologist 30:731732. Metcalfe, Duncan, and Kevin T. Jones 1988. A Reconsideration of Animal Body-part Utility Indices. American Antiquity 53:486504. Mid-America Remote Sensing Center 1983. Determination of the Utility of Remote Sensing for Land Use/Cover Analysis in the Lower Appalachia Region. Final Report No. NAS13200. NASA-Earth Resources Lab, Mississippi. Milanich, Jerald T. 1985. Discussion and Comments. Florida Anthropologist 38:175177. Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle 1984. McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200900. Academic Press, New York. Miller, Carl F. 1960. The Use of Chenopodium Seeds as a Source of Food by the Early Peoples in Russell Cave, Alabama. Southern Indian Studies 12:3132. Miller, Daniel, and Christopher Tilley (editors) 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

< previous page

page_283

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_283.html[20/10/2010 11:29:24]

page_284

< previous page

page_284

next page > Page 284

Miller, Gerrit S. 1929a. Mammals Eaten by Indians, Owls, and Spaniards in the Coast Region of the Dominican Republic. Miscellaneous Collections 82(5). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1929b. A Second Collection of Mammals from Caves near St. Michael, Haiti. Miscellaneous Collections 1(9). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Miller, Katherine 1980. Chemical Characterization of Archaeological Shell. Unpublished Senior Honors thesis, Department of Chemistry, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Million, Michael 1975. Ceramic Technology of the Nodena Phase Peoples. Southeastern Archeological Conference, Bulletin 18: 201208. Mills, William C. 1904. Explorations of the Gartner Mound and Village Site. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 13(2):129189. 1906. Baum Prehistoric Village. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 16(2):113193. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1982. Experiments in the Manufacturing Technology of Pasco Series Ceramics from Peninsular Florida. Paper presented at the 39th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis. Mitteldorf, A. J. 1965. Emission Spectrochemical Methods. In Trace Analysis. Physical Methods, edited by G. H. Morrison, pp. 193244. Interscience Publishers, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Moffat, D., and S. J. Buttler 1986. Rare Earth Element Distribution Patterns in Shetland SteatiteConsequences for Artifact Provenancing Studies. Archaeometry 28:101115. Mommsen, Hans 1986. Archäometrie. Neuere naturwissenschaftliche Methoden und Erfolge in der Archäologie. B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart. Monge, J., L. Pontier, and F. Sirou n.d. Le Radiometre ARIES. Manuscript on file at Space Remote Sensing Lab, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. Montet-White, Anta 1968. The Lithic Industries of the Illinois Valley in the Early and Middle Woodland Period. Anthropological Papers No. 35. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Moore, James S., and Arthur S. Keene (editors) 1985. Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Academic Press, New York. file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_284.html[20/10/2010 11:29:25]

page_284

< previous page

page_284

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_284.html[20/10/2010 11:29:25]

page_285

< previous page

page_285

next page > Page 285

Moorehead, Warren K. 1932. The Etowah Papers. Yale University Press, New Haven. Morain, Stanley, Thomas Budge, and Amelia Komarek 1981. An Airborne Spectral Analysis of Settlement Sites in Chaco Canyon. In Remote Sensing: Multispectral Analysis of Cultural Resources, edited by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 137. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Moran, Emilio F. 1979. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts. Morant, Geoffrey Miles 1951. The Significance of Race Differences. In Race and Science, UNESCO, pp. 301342. Columbia University Press, New York. Morey, Darcy F. 1983. Archaeological Assessment of Seasonality from Freshwater Fish Remains: A Quantitative Procedure. Journal of Ethnobiology 3:7595. Morgan, Richard C. 1952. Outline of Cultures in the Ohio Region. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 8398. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Morrison, J. P. E. 1942. Preliminary Report on Mollusks Found in the Shell Mounds of the Pickwick Landing Basin in the Tennessee River Valley. In An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, edited by William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette, pp. 337392. Bulletin no. 129. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Morrow, Carol A. 1984. A Biface Production Model for Gravel-based Chipped Stone Industries. Lithic Technology 13:2029. Morse, Dan F. 1971a. The Hawkins Cache: A Significant Dalton Find in Northeast Arkansas. The Arkansas Archaeologist 12:920. 1971b. Recent Indications of Dalton Settlement Pattern in Northeast Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 13:510. 1975. Report of Excavations at the Zebree Site, 1969. Research Report No. 4. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. Morse, Dan F., and Albert C. Goodyear 1973. The Significance of the Dalton Adze in Northeast Arkansas. Plains Anthropologist 18:316322. Morse, Dan F., and Louis D. Tesar 1974. A Microlithic Tool Assemblage from a Northwest Florida Site. Florida Anthropologist 27:89106. file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_285.html[20/10/2010 11:29:25]

page_285

< previous page

page_285

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_285.html[20/10/2010 11:29:25]

page_286

< previous page

page_286

next page > Page 286

Morton, Samuel George 1839. Crania Americana; or, a Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America. John Penington, Philadelphia. Morton, Samuel G., and George Robins Glidden 1844. Crania Aegyptiaca; or, Observations on Egyptian Ethnography. John Penington, Philadelphia. Moss, Melvin, and R. W. Young 1960. A Functional Approach to Craniology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 18:281292. Mueller, James W. 1975. Sampling In Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Munson, Patrick J. 1981. Notes on the Use and Misuse of Water-Separation (''Flotation'') for the Recovery of Small-Scale Botanical Remains. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6:123126. 1984. Teeth of Juvenile Woodchucks as Seasonal Indicators on Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:395404. Munson, Patrick J. (editor) 1984. Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America. Prehistory Research Series 7(2). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Munson, Patrick J., Paul W. Parmalee, and Richard A. Yarnell 1971. Subsistence Ecology of Scovill, a Terminal Middle Woodland Village. American Antiquity 36:410431. Musick, H. Brad, and Ramona E. Pelletier 1986. Response of Some Thematic Mapper Band Ratios to Variation in Soil Water Content. Photogemmetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 52:16611668. Muto, Guy R. 1971. A Stage Analysis of the Manufacture of Chipped Stone Implements. In Great Basin Anthropological Conference 1970: Selected Papers, edited by C. M. Aikens, pp. 109118. Anthropological Papers No. 1. University of Oregon, Eugene. Myers, V. 1983. Remote Sensing Applications in Agriculture. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2d ed., edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 21112228. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Myster, Susan M. 1989. A Trace Element Analysis of the Gordon Town Site (40DV6): An Examination of Intra-Individual Variation and Dietary Inference. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

< previous page

page_286

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_286.html[20/10/2010 11:29:26]

page_287

< previous page

page_287

next page > Page 287

Nance, C. Roger, and E. Hollis Mentzer 1980. Changing Woodland Ceramic Functions and Technologies on the Northern Gulf Coastal Plain. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22:5155. National Research Council 1932. Conference on Southern Pre-History. Division of Anthropology and Psychology, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1936. The Indianapolis Archaeological Conference. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, and Edward V. Sayre 1988. A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:159172. 1989. More Observations on the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:5769. Neill, Wilfred T. 1953. Notes on the Supposed Association of Artifacts and Extinct Vertebrates in Flagler County, Florida. American Antiquity 19:170171. Neill, Wilfred T., and Ripley P. Bullen 1955. Muskrat Remains from a Prehistoric Indian Site in Jackson County, Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 36:138. Neill, Wilfred T., H. James Gut, and Pierce Brodkorb 1956. Animal Remains from Four Preceramic Sites in Florida. American Antiquity 21:383395. Neitzel, Robert S. 1965. Archaeology of the Fatherland Site: The Grand Village of the Natchez. Anthropological papers, vol. 51, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1983. The Grand Village of the Natchez Revisited: Excavation of the Fatherland Site, Adams County, Mississippi, 1972. Archaeological Report No. 12. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Nelson, Ben A. 1985. Reconstructing Ceramic Vessels and Their Systemic Contexts. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 310329. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Nelson, Nels C. 1916. Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 18:159180. 1917. Contributions to the Archaeology of Mammoth Cave and Vicinity, Kentucky. Anthropological Papers, vol. 22, pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

< previous page

page_287

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_287.html[20/10/2010 11:29:27]

page_288

< previous page

page_288

next page > Page 288

1918. Chronology in Florida. Anthropological Papers, vol. 22, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Cummings, Menlo Park. Neumann, Georg K. 1938. The Human Remains from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. American Antiquity 3:339353. 1952. Archeology and Race in the Amerindian. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 1334. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1959a. Diagnostic Morphological Traits for the Walcolid Variety and Amerindians. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences 69:6972. Indianapolis. 1959b. Origin of the Indians of the Middle Mississippi Area. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences 69:6668. Indianapolis. Newell, H. Perry, and Alex D. Krieger 1949. The George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Memoir No. 5. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Newman, Marshall T. 1951. Skeletal Material. In Archeology of the Bynum Mounds, Mississippi, edited by J. L. Cotter and J. M. Corbett, pp. 4347. Archeological Research Series No. 1, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Newman, Marshall T., and Charles E. Snow 1942. The Skeletal Material from Pickwick Basin. In An Archaeological Survey of the Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, by William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette, pp. 393508. Bulletin No. 129. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Newman, Robert W., and Kathleen Byrd 1980. Aerial Imagery in Locating and Managing Archaeological Resources Along the Louisiana Coast. Louisiana Archaeology 7:101108. Newsom, Lee A. 1988. The Paleoethnobotany of Windover (8Br246): An Archaic Period Mortuary Site in Florida. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix. Nietschmann, Bernard 1973. Between Land and Water. Seminar Press, New York. Nordenskiöld, Gustaf E. A. 1893. The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde, Southwestern Colorado: Their Pottery and Implements. P. A. Norstedt and Sons, Stockholm.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_288.html[20/10/2010 11:29:27]

page_288

< previous page

page_288

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_288.html[20/10/2010 11:29:27]

page_289

< previous page

page_289

next page > Page 289

Nott, Josiah C. 1843. The Mulatto a HybridProbable Extermination of the Two Races if the Whites and Blacks Are Allowed to Intermarry. American Journal of Medical Science 6:252256. 1844. Two Lectures on the Natural History of the Caucasian and Negro Races. Dade and Thompson, Mobile. Nott, Josiah C., and George Robins Gliddon 1854. Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon their Natural, Geographic, Philological, and Biblical History. Lippincott and Grambo, Philadelphia. 1857. Indigenous Races of the Earth: Or, New Chapters of Ethnological Enquiry. Lippincott, Philadelphia. O'Brien, Michael, John L. Beets, Robert E. Warren, Tachpong Hotra-Bhavananda, Terry W. Barney, and Eric Voigt 1982. Digital Enhancement and Grey-Level Slicing of Aerial Photographs: Techniques for Archaeological Analysis of Intrasite Variability. World Archaeology 14:173189. Olsen, Stanley J. 1961a. A Basic Annotated Bibliography to Facilitate the Identification of Vertebrate Remains from Archaeological Sites. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 30:216221. 1961b. The Relative Value of Fragmentary Mammalian Remains. American Antiquity 26:538540. 1964. Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites. Part 1. Southwestern and Southeastern United States. Papers, vol. 56(1). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1968. Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites. Papers, vol. 56(2). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1970. Two Pre-Columbian Dog Burials from Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 28:6972. Olsen, Sandra L., and John W. Olsen 1981. A Comment on Nomenclature in Faunal Studies. American Antiquity 46:192194. Opler, Morris E. 1963. Cultural Anthropology: An Addendum to a Working Paper. American Anthropologist 65:897903. Ottesen, Ann I. 1979. A Preliminary Study of Acquisition of Exotic Raw Materials by Late Woodland and Mississippian Groups. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York.

< previous page

page_289

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_289.html[20/10/2010 11:29:28]

page_290

< previous page

page_290

next page > Page 290

Owen, Roger C. 1984. The Americas: The Case Against an Ice-Age Human Population. In The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence, edited by Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer, pp. 517563. Liss, New York. Owsley, Douglas W. 1984. Cribra Orbitalia and Porotic Hyperostosis in an Overhill Cherokee Skeletal Population. Tennessee Anthropologist 8:123132. Palluconi, Frank, and Gerald Meeks 1985. Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner (TIMS): An Investigator's Guide to TIMS Data. Publication No. 85-32. Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, California Parham, Kenneth R. 1982. A Biocultural Approach to the Skeletal Biology of the Dallas People from Toqua. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Parham, Kenneth R., and Gary T. Scott 1980. Porotic Hyperostosis: A Study of Disease and Culture at Toqua (40MR6), A Late Mississippian Site in Eastern Tennessee. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 3951. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Parks, P. A. 1986. Current Scientific Techniques in Archaeology. St. Martin's Press, New York. Parmalee, Paul W. 1957. Zoology. In The Identification of Non-Artifactual Archaeological Materials, edited by Walter W. Taylor, pp. 4546. Publication No. 565. National Academy of Science-Natural Resource Council, Washington, D.C. 1959. Use of Mammalian Skulls and Mandibles by Prehistoric Indians of Illinois. Transactions Illinois Academy of Science 52(3, 4):8595. Springfield. 1960a. A Prehistoric Record of the Fisher in Georgia. Journal of Mammalogy 41:409410. 1960b. Vertebrate Remains from the Chucalissa Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 16:8490. 1962. Faunal Remains from the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8:112114. 1963. A Prehistoric Occurrence of Porcupine in Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 9:604605.

< previous page

page_290

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_290.html[20/10/2010 11:29:29]

page_291

< previous page

page_291

next page > Page 291

1975. A General Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna from Cahokia. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by James A. Brown, pp. 137155. Bulletin No. 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1985. Identification and Interpretation of Archaeologically Derived Animal Remains. In The Analysis of Prehistoric Diets, edited by R. I. Gilbert, Jr., and J. H. Mielke, pp. 6195. Academic Press, Orlando. 1988. A Comparative Study of Late Prehistoric and Modern Molluscan Faunas of the Little Pigeon River System, Tennessee. American Malacological Bulletin 6(2):165178. Parmalee, Paul W., and Arthur E. Bogan 1978. Cherokee and Dallas Dog Burials from the Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 3:100112. 1986. Molluscan Remains from Aboriginal Middens at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Site, Roane County, Tennessee. American Malacological Bulletin 4(1):2537. Parmalee, Paul W., and Walter E. Klippel 1974. Freshwater Mussels as a Prehistoric Food Resource. American Antiquity 39:421434. 1984. The Naiad Fauna of the Tellico River, Monroe County, Tennessee. American Malacological Bulletin 3(1):4144. 1986. A Prehistoric Aboriginal Freshwater Mussel Assemblage from the Duck River in Middle Tennessee. Nautilus 100(4):134140. Parmalee, Paul W., Walter E. Klippel, and Arthur E. Bogan 1980. Notes on the Prehistoric and Present Status of the Naiad Fauna of the Middle Cumberland River, Smith County, Tennessee. Nautilus 94(3):93105. 1982. Aboriginal and Modern Freshwater Assemblages (Pelecypoda: Unionidae) from the Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee. Brimleyana 8:7590. Parmalee, Paul W., R. Bruce McMillan, and F. B. King 1976. Changing Subsistence Patterns at Rodgers Shelter. In Prehistoric Man and His Environments: A Case Study in the Ozark Highlands, edited by W. Raymond Wood and R. Bruce McMillan, pp. 141162. Academic Press, New York. Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly 1987. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285304. Westview Press, Boulder. Payne, Sebastian 1972. Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 4964. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

< previous page

page_291

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_291.html[20/10/2010 11:29:29]

page_292

< previous page

page_292

next page > Page 292

Payne, Sebastian, and Patrick J. Munson 1985. Ruby and How Many Squirrels? The Destruction of Bones by Dogs. In Paleobiological Investigations: Research Design, Methods, and Data Analysis, edited by N. R. J. Fieller, D. D. Gilbertson, and N. G. A. Ralph, pp. 3140. BAR International Series No. 266, Oxford. Payne, Willard W., and Volney H. Jones 1962. The Taxonomic Status and Archaeological Significance of a Giant Ragweed from Prehistoric Bluff Shelters in the Ozark Plateau Region. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 47:147163. Pearson, Charles E. 1983. Seasonality in Coastal Georgia: The Use of the Quahog Clam as a Seasonal Indicator. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 20/21:141152. Pearson, Karl 1896. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. III. Regression, Heredity and Panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series A 187:253318. 1926. On the Coefficient of Racial Likeness. Biometrica 18:109117. Pearson, Karl, and A. Davin 1924. On the Biometric Constants of the Human Skull. Biometrica 16:328363. Peebles, Christopher S. 1971. Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations of Mortuary Practices II. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James A. Brown, pp. 6891. Memoir No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1986. Paradise Lost, Strayed, and Stolen: Prehistoric Social Devolution in the Southeast. In The Burden of Being Civilized: An Anthropological Perspective on the Discontents of Civilization, edited by Miles Richardson and Malcolm C. Webb, pp. 2440. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Mississippian in Western Alabama: The Moundville and Summerville Phases, A.D. 1000 to 1600. Mississippi Archaeology 22(1):131. 1990. From History to Hermeneutics: The Place of Theory in the Later Prehistory of the Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 9:2334. Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus 1977. Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42:421448. Penniman, T. K. 1935. A Hundred Years of Anthropology. Gerald Duckworth and Company, London.

< previous page

page_292

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_292.html[20/10/2010 11:29:30]

page_293

< previous page

page_293

next page > Page 293

Penrose, Roger 1989. The Emporer's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Perisset, M. C., and A. Tabbagh 1981. Interpretation of Thermal Prospection on Bare Soils. Archaeometry 23:169187. Perttula, Timothy K., and James E. Bruseth 1983. Early Caddoan Subsistence Strategies, Sabine River Basin, East Texas. Plains Anthropologist 28:921. Perttula, Timothy K., Cathy J. Crane, and James E. Bruseth 1982. A Consideration of Caddoan Subsistence. Southeastern Archaeology 1:89102. Perzigian, Anthony J. 1976. The Dentition of the Indian Knoll Skeletal Population: Odontometrics and Cusp Number. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 39:8796. Peterson, John 1971. The Indian in the Old South. In Red, White, and Black: Symposium on Indians in the Old South, edited by Charles Hudson, pp. 116133. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Association No. 5. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Phillips, K. A., and David S. Weaver 1979. Interaction of Diet and Disease at the Donnaha Site, Yadkin County, North Carolina. Journal of Man 10:5775. Phillips, Philip 1955. American Archaeology and General Anthropological Theory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:246250. 1958. Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Antiquity 24:117125. 1970. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 19491955. Papers, vol. 60. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 19401947. Papers, vol. 25. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Phillips, Philip, and Gordon R. Willey 1953. Method and Theory in American Archaeology: An Operational Basis for Culture-Historical Integration. American Anthropologist 55:615633. Plog, Fred 1977. Modeling Economic Exchange. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson, pp. 127140. Academic Press, New York. file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_293.html[20/10/2010 11:29:31]

page_293

< previous page

page_293

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_293.html[20/10/2010 11:29:31]

page_294

< previous page

page_294

next page > Page 294

Plog, Stephen 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Polk, William M. 1913. Josiah C. Nott. American Journal of Obstetrics 77:957958. Pollitzer, William S. 1971. Physical Anthropology of the Indians of the Old South. In Red, White and Black: Symposium on Indians in the Old South, edited by Charles M. Hudson, pp. 3143. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Association No. 5. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1981. The Development of Genetics and Population Studies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:483490. Powell, John W. 1886. Accompanying Papers. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 18821883:liilxiii. Washington, D.C. Powell, Mary Lucas 1986. Late Prehistoric Community Health in the Central Deep South: Biological and Social Dimensions of the Mississippian Chiefdom at Moundville, Alabama. In Skeletal Analysis in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Janet E. Levy, pp. 127150. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 24. Raleigh. 1988. Status and Health in Prehistory: A Case Study of the Moundville Chiefdom. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1991. Ranked Status and Health in the Mississippian Chiefdom at Moundville. In What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology, edited by Mary L. Powell, Patricia S. Bridges, and Ann M. Wagner Mires, pp. 2251. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Powell, Mary Lucas, Patricia S. Bridges, and Ann M. Wagner Mires (editors) 1991. What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Prentice, Guy 1987. Marine Shells as Wealth Items in Mississippian Societies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:193223. Price, Douglas T., and Ellen Kroll (editors) 1990. The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York. Price, T. Douglas, and Maureen Kavanagh 1982. Bone Composition and the Reconstruction of Diet: Examples from the Midwestern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:6179.

< previous page

page_294

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_294.html[20/10/2010 11:29:31]

page_295

< previous page

page_295

next page > Page 295

Price, T. Douglas (editor) 1989. The Chemistry of Prehistoric Bone. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Prothero, Donald R., and Lucianne Lavin 1990. Chert Petrography and its Potential as an Analytical Tool in Archaeology. In Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by Norman P. Lasca and Jack Donahue, pp. 561584. Geological Society of America, Centennial Special Vol. 4. Boulder. Purdy, Barbara A. 1981. Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Purdy, Barbara A., and Lee Ann Newsom 1985. Significance of Archaeological Wet Sites: A Florida Example. National Geographic Research 1:564569. Putnam, Frederic Ward 1888. Annual Report of the Peabody Museum. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Quade, Lawrence G. 1971. American Physical Anthropology: A Historical Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Quimby, George I. 1942. The Natchezan Culture Type. American Antiquity 7:255275. 1951. The Medora Site, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Series, vol. 24. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1957. The Bayou Goula Site, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Fieldiana: Anthropology 47(2). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quitmyer, Irvy R., H. Stephen Hale, and D. S. Jones 1985. Paleoseasonality Determination Based on Incremental Shell Growth in the Hard Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, and Its Implications for the Analysis of Three Southeast Georgia Coastal Shell Middens. Southeastern Archaeology 4:2740. Raab, L. Mark, Robert Cande, and David Stahle 1979. Debitage Graphs and Archaic Settlement Patterns. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4:167182. Rabkin, Samuel 1942. Dental Conditions among Prehistoric Indians of Northern Alabama. Journal of Dental Research 21:211222. 1943. Dental Conditions among Prehistoric Indians of Kentucky. Journal of Dental Research 22:355366.

< previous page

page_295

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_295.html[20/10/2010 11:29:32]

page_296

< previous page

page_296

next page > Page 296

Ranking, John 1827. Historical Researches on the Conquest of Peru, Mexico, Bogota, Natchez, and Talomeco, in the Thirteenth Century, by the Mongols, Accompanied by Elephants. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, London. Rapp, George, Jr., and James Allert 1984. Trace Element Discrimination of Discrete Sources of Native Copper. In Archaeological Chemistry III, edited by Joseph B. Lambert, pp. 273293. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 205, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Rapp, George, Jr., Eiler Henrickson, and James Allert 1990. Native Copper Sources of Artifact Copper in Pre-Columbian North America. In Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by N. P. Lasca, and J. Donahue, pp. 479498. Centennial Special, vol. 4. Geological Society of America, Boulder. Rapp, George, Jr., Eiler Henrickson, M. Miller, and S. E. Aschenbrenner 1980. Trace-Element Fingerprinting as a Guide to the Geographic Sources of Native Copper. Journal of Metals 32:35. Rathbun, Ted A., and T. A. Crist 1990. Bone and Soil Mineral Analysis, Diagenesis, Gender and Age of 19th Century South Carolina Slaves. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:284. Rathbun, Ted A., James Sexton, and James Michie 1980 Disease Patterns in a Formative Period South Carolina Coastal Population. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 5274. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Redman, Charles L. 1991. Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: In Defense of the SeventiesThe Adolescence of New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 93:295307. Redman, Charles L. (editor) 1973. Research and Theory in Current Archaeology. Wiley, New York. Reed, Charles A. 1963. Osteoarchaeology. In Science in Archaeology, edited by D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, pp. 204216. Thames and Hudson, New York. 1978. Foreword. In Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. ixxi. Bulletin No. 2. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

< previous page

page_296

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_296.html[20/10/2010 11:29:33]

page_297

< previous page

page_297

next page > Page 297

Reed, John S. 1986. Southern Folk, Plain and Fancy. Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures No. 29. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Reichs, Kathleen J. 1986. The Dickerson Skeletal Series: Bits and Pieces of Carolina Prehistory. In Skeletal Analysis in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Janet E. Levy, pp. 6178. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Publication No. 24. 1989. Trepanematosis: A Possible Case From the Late Prehistoric of North Carolina. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:289304. Reitz, Elizabeth J. 1982a. Availability and Use of Fish along Coastal Georgia and Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 1:6588. 1982b. Vertebrate Fauna from Four Coastal Mississippian Sites. Journal of Ethnobiology 2:3961. 1985. A Comparison of Spanish and Aboriginal Subsistence on the Atlantic coastal Plain. Southeastern Archaeology 4:4150. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Dan Cordier 1983. Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis. In Animals and Archaeology: Shell Middens, Fishes, and Birds, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 237252. BAR International Series No. 183, London. Reitz, Elizabeth J., Rochelle Marrinan, and Susan L. Scott 1987. Survey of Vertebrate Remains from Prehistoric Sites in the Savannah River Valley. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:195221. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and C. Margaret Scarry 1985. Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish Florida. Special Publication Series No. 3. Society for Historical Archaeology, Ann Arbor. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Irvy R. Quitmyer 1988. Faunal Remains from Two Coastal Georgia Swift Creek Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 7:95108. Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H. Stephen Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth S. Wing 1987. Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52:304317. Renfrew, C., J. E. Dixon, and J. R. Cann 1968. Obsidian and Early Culture Contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32:3072. London. Retzius, Anders A. 1842. Om Formen af Nordeboernes Cranier. Forhandl Skandinaviske Naturforsk 3:157201 (German translation 1845, Muller's Archiv, pp. 84129).

< previous page

page_297

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_297.html[20/10/2010 11:29:33]

page_298

< previous page

page_298

next page > Page 298

Rhoades, Robert E. 1978. Archaeological Use and Abuse of Ecological Concepts and Studies: The Ecotone Example. American Antiquity 43:608614. Rice, Prudence M. 1980. Trace Elemental Characterization of Weeden Island Pottery: Implications for Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22:2935. Rice, Prudence M., and Ann S. Cordell 1986. Weeden Island Pottery: Style, Technology, and Production. In Technology and Style, edited by W. D. Kingery, pp. 273295. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 2. American Ceramic Society, Columbus, Ohio. Richardson, Rick R. 1988. Infant/Weanling Mortality in Tennessee's Prehistory: A Comparative Approach. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Riemschneider, Bea 1985. The Question of Reburial. Archaeology 38(5):4. Rindos, David 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, New York. Rindos, David, and Sissel Johannessen 1991. Human-Plant Interactions and Cultural Change in the American Bottom. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, pp. 3545. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Ripley, William Z. 1900. The Races of Europe: A Sociological Study. Appleton, New York. Robbins, Louise 1978. Yawslike Disease Process in a Louisiana Shell Mound Population. Medical College of Virginia Quarterly 14(1):2431. Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1940. Developments in the Problem of the North American Paleo-Indian. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100:51116. Robinove, Charles J. 1981. The Logic of Multispectral Classification and Mapping of Land. Remote Sensing of Environment 11:231244. Robinson, Ronald K. 1976. Social Status, Stature, and Pathology at Chucalissa (40SY1), Shelby County, Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_298.html[20/10/2010 11:29:34]

page_298

< previous page

page_298

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_298.html[20/10/2010 11:29:34]

page_299

< previous page

page_299

next page > Page 299

Robinson, W. S. 1951. A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16:293301. Robison, Neil D. 1982. A Critical Review of Mississippian Hunting Patterns and Their Antiquity. Tennessee Anthropologist 7:6274. Rogers, M., R. O. Allen, Chris Nagle, and William Fitzhugh 1983. The Utilization of Rare Earth Element Concentrations for the Characterization of Soapstone Quarries. Archaeometry 25:186195. Rose, Jerome C., Pier H. Moore-Jansen, and E. B. Ribbick 1980. Bioarcheology of Two Late Woodland Sites (221T537 and 22LO530) from the Tombigbee River MultiResource District, Mississippi. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, under contracts DACWO1-79-C-0203 and DACWO1-79-C-1036. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Rothschild, Bruce M., Kenneth R. Turner, and M. A. DeLuca 1989. Symmetrical Erosive Peripheral Polyarthritis in the Late Archaic Period of Alabama. Science 241:14981501. Rouse, Irving 1939. Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Publications in Anthropology No. 21. Yale University, New Haven. 1950. Vero and Melbourne Man: A Cultural and Chronological Interpretation. Transactions of the New York Academy of Science 12:220224. New York. 1951. A Survey of Indian River Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44:153189. New Haven. 1960. The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313323. Rowland, Dunbar, and Albert Godfrey Sanders (editors and translators) 1927. Mississippi Provincial Archives: French Dominion, vol. I. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Ruff, Christopher B. 1980. Age Differences in Craniofacial Dimensions Among Adults from Indian Knoll, Kentucky. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 53:101108. Ruff, Christopher B., Clark S. Larsen, and W. C. Hayes 1984. Structural Changes in the Femur with the Transition to Agriculture on the Georgia Coast. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64:125136. Ruhl, Donna L. 1988. Old Customs in New Terrain: A Look at Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Paleoethnobotanical Data from La Florida. Paper presented at

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_299.html[20/10/2010 11:29:35]

page_299

< previous page

page_299

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_299.html[20/10/2010 11:29:35]

page_300

< previous page

page_300

next page > Page 300

the 45th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. Russ, Kurt C., and Jefferson Chapman 1983. Archaeological Investigations at the Eighteenth Century Overhill Cherokee Town of Mialoquo. Report of Investigations No. 37. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Russo, Michael 1991. A Method for the Measurement of Season and Duration of Oyster Collection: Two Case Studies from the Prehistoric Southeast U.S. Coast. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:205221. Sabo, George, III 1987. Reordering their World: A Caddoan Ethnohistory. In Visions and Revisions: Ethnohistoric Perspectives on Southern Cultures, edited by George Sabo and William Schneider, pp. 2547. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1988a. How Did They See It? Interpreting Native American Views of Contact with Europeans. Paper presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Ethnohistory, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1988b. In the Service of Kings and Gods: Medal Chiefs and Eighteenth Century Caddoan Interaction with Europeans. Paper presented at the 46th Plains Conference Wichita, Kansas. Saffer, Marion 1980. Technological Analysis of Some Sapelo Island Pottery: Social and/or Functional Differences. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22:3538. St. Hoyme, Lucille E. 1953. Physical Anthropology and Its Instruments. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:408430. St. Hoyme, Lucille E., and William M. Bass 1962. Human Skeletal Remains from the Tolliferro and Clarksville Sites, John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Virginia. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 182:329400. Sale, Kirkpatrick 1990. The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbia Legacy. Knopf, New York. Salomonson, V. 1983. Water Resources Assessment. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2d ed., edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 14971570. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia. Sarnas, Karl V. 1964. The Dentition of Indian Knoll Man. Dental Decay. Odontologisk Revy 15:424444.

< previous page

page_300

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_300.html[20/10/2010 11:29:36]

page_301

< previous page

page_301

next page > Page 301

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Glen T. Hanson, and Tommy Charles 1988. Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7:7994. Saunders, Linda P. 1972. Osteology of the Republic Groves Site. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Saunders, Rebecca A. 1985. Design Variability in Swift Creek Complicated Stamp Ceramics. Paper presented at the 42nd Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham. Abstract in Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 28:39. Scardaville, Michael 1985. Approaches to the Study of the Southeastern Borderlands. In Alabama and the Borderlands: From Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp. 184196. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Scarry, C. Margaret 1981. Plant Procurement Strategies in the West Jefferson and Moundville I Phases. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:9496. 1985. The Use of Plant Foods in Sixteenth Century St. Augustine. Florida Anthropologist 38:7080. 1986. Changes in Plant Procurement and Production during the Emergence of the Moundville Chiefdom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1988. Variability in Mississippian Crop Production Strategies. Paper presented at the 45th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. 1990. Plant Remains. In Archaeological Investigations at the Sanders Site (22Cl917), an Alexander Phase Midden on the Tombigbee River, Clay County, Mississippi, by John W. O'Hear, pp. 8096. Report of Investigations No. 6, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. Scarry, C. Margaret, Lee A. Newsom, and Marilyn A. Masson 1989. Calusa and Tequesta Plant Use: Evidence Gleaned from Archaeobotanical Data. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa. Scarry, John F. 1985. A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type-Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist 38:199233. Schaaf, Jeanne M. 1981. A Method for Reliable and Quantifiable Subsampling of Archaeological Features for Flotation. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6:219248.

< previous page

page_301

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_301.html[20/10/2010 11:29:36]

page_302

< previous page

page_302

next page > Page 302

Schambach, Frank F. 1981. A Description and Analysis of the Ceramics. In The Shallow Lake Site (3UN9/52) and Its Place in Regional Prehistory, by Martha A. Rolingson and Frank F. Schambach, pp. 101176. Research Series No. 12. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. Schiffer, Michael B. 1976. Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York. Schiffer, Michael B., and John H. House 1975. The Cache River Archeological Project: An Experiment in Contract Archeology. Research Series No. 8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Schmidt, Emil 1871. Zur Uhrgeschichte Nordamerikas. Archives 5:237259. Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and Gail S. Schnell 1981. Cemochechobee, Archaeology of Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History No. 3. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Schoeninger, Margaret J., and Christopher S. Peebles 1981. Notes on the Relationship Between Social Status and Diet at Moundville. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:9697. Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe 1860. Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, vol. 1. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Schroedl, Gerald F. 1978. The Patrick Site (40Mr40), Tellico Reservoir, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 25. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Schroedl, Gerald F., R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., and Clifford C. Boyd, Jr. 1983. Archaeological Contexts and Assemblages at Martin Farm. Report of Investigations No. 39. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Schroedl, Gerald F., and Andrea B. Shea 1986. Plant Remains. In Overhill Archaeology at Chota-Tanassee, edited by Gerald F. Schroedl, pp. 515530. Report of Investigations No. 38. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Scollar, Irwin Alain, Albert Hesse Tabbagh, and Irmela Herzog 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sears, William H. 1952. Ceramic Development in the South Appalachian Province. American Antiquity 18:101110.

< previous page

page_302

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_302.html[20/10/2010 11:29:37]

page_303

< previous page

page_303

next page > Page 303

1956. Excavations at Kolomoki, Final Report. Series in Anthropology No. 5. University of Georgia, Athens. 1960. Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:324329. 1961. The Study of Social and Religious Systems in North American Archaeology. Current Anthroplogy 2:223246. 1964. The Southeastern United States. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 259287. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1982. Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Sears, William H., and James B. Griffin 1950. Fiber-Tempered Pottery of the Southeast. In Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Seeman, Mark F. 1979. The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity. Prehistory Research Series No. 5(2). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Sellards, E. H. 1916. Human Remains and Associated Fossils from the Pleistocene of Florida. Annual Report of the Florida Geological Survey 8:121160. Tallahassee. 1937. The Vero Finds in the Light of Present Knowledge. In Early Man, edited by George G. MacCurdy, pp. 193210. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Sellards, E. H., Rollin T. Chamberlain, T. Wayland Vaughan, Ales Hrdlicka, O. May, and George G. MacCurdy 1917. Symposium on the Age and Relations of the Fossil Human Remains at Vero, Florida. Journal of Geology 25:162. Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M. W. Thompson. Barnes and Noble Books, New York. Sever, Thomas 1983. Feasibility Study to Determine the Utility of Advanced Remote Sensing Technology in Archaeological Investigations. Report No. 227. NASA-Earth Resources Lab, Mississippi. Sever, Thomas, and James Wiseman 1985. Remote Sensing and Archeology. NASA-Earth Resources Lab, Mississippi. Shaivitz, Patricia Miller 1986. Physical and Health Characteristics of Indians from the Fort Center Site. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

< previous page

page_303

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_303.html[20/10/2010 11:29:38]

page_304

< previous page

page_304

next page > Page 304

Shapiro, Gary 1984. Ceramic Vessels, Site Permanence, and Group Size: A Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 49:696712. Shapiro, Harry 1959. The History and Development of Physical Anthropology. American Anthropologist 61:371379. Sharrock, Floyd W. 1966. Prehistoric Occupations in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Cultural Area. Anthropological Papers No. 77. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Shea, Andrea B. 1978. An Analysis of Plant Remains from the Middle Woodland and Mississippian Components on the Banks V Site and a Paleoethnobotanical Study of the Native Flora of the Upper Duck Valley. In Fifth Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project, edited by Charles H. Faulkner and Major C. R. McCollough, pp. 596699. Report of Investigations No. 20. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1979. Botanical Remains. In The Peripheries of Poverty Point, by Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., and L. Janice Campbell, pp. 245278. Report of Investigations No. 12. New World Research, Pollock, Louisiana. Shea, John Gilmary 1852. Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley. Redfield, New York. 1861. Early Voyages Up and Down the Mississippi. Joel Munsell, Albany. Sheldon, Craig Turner 1974. The Mississippian-Historic Transition in Central Alabama. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Sheldon, Elisabeth Shepard 1978. Childersburg: Evidence of European Contact Demonstrated by Archaeological Plant Remains. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Special Publication 5:2829. Shepard, Anna O. 1936. The Technology of Pecos Pottery. In The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2, by Alfred V. Kidder and Anna O. Shepard, pp. 389587. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition No. 7. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1956. Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication No. 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Shotwell, J. A. 1955. An Approach to the Paleoecology of Mammals. Ecology 36:327337.

< previous page

page_304

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_304.html[20/10/2010 11:29:38]

page_305

< previous page

page_305

next page > Page 305

Sierzchula, Michael C. 1980. Replication and Use Studies of the Zebree Microlithic Industry. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Silverberg, Robert 1968. Moundbuilders of Ancient America. New York Graphic Society, Ltd., Greenwich, Connecticut. Simons, Erika H. 1986. A Guide for Identifying Otoliths from Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 5:138145. Skaggs, Opal 1946. A Study of the Dog Skeletons from Indian Knoll with Special Reference to the Coyote as Progenitor. In Indian Knoll, by W. S. Webb, pp. 341355. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 4(3), pt. 1. Lexington. Skarland, Ivar 1939. The Skeletal Material. In The Chiggerville Shell Heap in Ohio County, by William S. Webb and William G. Haag, pp. 2849. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 4(1). Lexington. Skibo, James M., Michael B. Schiffer, and Kenneth C. Reid 1989. Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122146. Smith, Bruce D. 1974a. Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations: A Predictive Model. American Antiquity 39:274291. 1974b. Predator-Prey Relationships in the Southeastern Ozarks: A.D. 1300. Human Ecology 2:3143. 1975a. Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. Anthropological Papers No. 57. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1975b. Toward a More Accurate Estimation of Meat Yield of Animal Species at Archaeological Sites. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. Clason, pp. 99108. American Elsevier, New York. 1976. ''Twitching'': A Minor Ailment Affecting Human Paleoecological Research. In Cultural Changes and Continuity, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp. 275292. Academic Press, New York. 1978. Variation in Mississippian Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 479503. Academic Press, New York. 1984. Chenopodium as a Prehistoric Domesticate in Eastern North America: Evidence from Russell Cave, Alabama. Science 226:165167.

< previous page

page_305

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_305.html[20/10/2010 11:29:39]

page_306

< previous page

page_306

next page > Page 306

1985a. Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum: Evidence for a Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 4:107133. 1985b. The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-Maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 4:5172. 1986. The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to DeSoto, 10,500 B.P.-500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology, vol. 5, edited by Fred Wendorf and Angela Close, pp. 192. Academic Press, New York. 1987a. The Economic Potential of Chenopodium berlandieri in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:2954. 1987b. Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 347. Occasional Paper No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1989. Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:15661571. Smith, Bruce D. (editor) 1978. Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York. 1990. Mississippian Origins. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Smith, Bruce D., and C. Wesley Cowan 1987. Domesticated Chenopodium in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Accelerator Dates from Eastern Kentucky. American Antiquity 52:355357. Smith, Bruce D., and Vicki A. Funk 1985. A Newly Described Subfossil Cultivar of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Phytologia 57:445448. Smith, Buckingham 1857. Coleccion de varios documentos para la Historia de la Florida y Tierras Adjacentes, vol. 1. Truloner and Co., London. Smith, Fred H. 1976. The Skeletal Remains of the Earliest Americans: A Survey. Tennessee Anthropologist 1:116147. 1977. On the Application of Morphological "Dating" to the Hominid Fossil Record. Journal of Anthropological Research 33:302316. Smith, Fred H., Maria O. Smith, and Robert J. Hinton 1980. Evolution of Tooth Size in the Prehistoric Inhabitants of the Tennessee Valley. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 81103. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville.

< previous page

page_306

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_306.html[20/10/2010 11:29:40]

page_307

< previous page

page_307

next page > Page 307

Smith, Harlan I. 1910. The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. Anthropological Papers, vol. 6, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Smith, Joseph 1833. The Book of Mormon. The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, Kirtland, Ohio. Smith, Maria O. 1982. Patterns of Association Between Oral Health Status and Subsistence: A Study of Aboriginal Skeletal Populations from the Tennessee Valley Area. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1986. Caries Frequency and Distribution in the Dallas Skeletal Remains from Toqua (40MR6), Monroe County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 11:145155. 1987. Pattern of Antemortem Tooth Loss Between Selected Aboriginal Populations of the Tennessee Valley Area. Tennessee Anthropologist 12:128138. 1988. Periodontal Disease in Prehistoric Tennessee Valley Indians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 75:272. 1989. Anterior to Posterior Tooth Wear Between Two Skeletal Samples from the Tennessee Valley. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:305. 1990. Pattern and Frequency of Forearm Fractures among Prehistoric Aboriginal Populations from the Tennessee Valley. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:296. 1991. The Incidence of Spina Bifida in Prehistory: A Possible Patterned Difference Seen in Tennessee Valley Amerindians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 12:164. Smith, Marvin T. 1987. Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Smith, Samuel Stanhope 1810. An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. Simpson, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Snow, Charles E. 1940. Condylo-diaphysial Angles of Indian Humeri from Northern Alabama. Paper No. 16. Alabama Museum of Natural History, University. 1941a. Indian Skeletons from the Museum Burials and Moundville. Alabama Museum of Natural History, Paper 15(2):552. University. 1941b. Possible Evidence of Scalping at Moundville. Alabama Museum of Nural History, Paper 15(2):5359. University. 1942a. The Skeletal Remains from the C and O Mounds. In The C. and O. Mounds at Paintsville, Kentucky, by William S. Webb, pp. 350357. Uni-

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_307.html[20/10/2010 11:29:40]

page_307

< previous page

page_307

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_307.html[20/10/2010 11:29:40]

page_308

< previous page

page_308

next page > Page 308

versity of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 5(4). Lexington. 1942b. The Skeletal Remains from the Robbins Mound. In The Robbins Mounds, by William S. Webb and J. B. Elliot, pp. 447487. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 5(5). Lexington. 1943a. Two Prehistoric Indian Dwarf Skeletons from Moundville. Paper No. 21. Alabama Museum of Natural History, University. 1943b. The Skeletal Remains from the Landing Site. In The Riley Mound and the Landing Mound, by William S. Webb, pp. 613639. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 5(7). Lexington. 1945. Tchefuncte Skeletal Remains. In The Tchefuncte Culture: An Early Occupation of the Lower Mississippi Valley, by James A. Ford and George I. Quimby, pp. 99109. Memoir No. 10(3). Society of American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. 1948. Indian Knoll Skeletons of Site Oh2, Ohio County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 4(3), pt. 2. Lexington. 1962. Indian Burials From St. Petersburg, Florida. Contributions in Social Sciences No. 8. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Sokal, Robert R., and Peter H. A. Sneath 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Southworth, C. Scott 1985. Characteristics and Availability of Data from Earth Imaging Satellites. Bulletin No. 1631. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Spaulding, Albert C. 1953a. Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305313. 1953b. Review of Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in Southeastern States, by James A. Ford. American Anthropologist 55:588591. 1954. Reply (to Ford). American Anthropologist 56:122114. 1960. The Dimensions of Archaeology. In Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White, edited by Gertrude E. Dole and Robert I. Carneiro, pp. 437456. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York. 1977. On Growth and Form in Archaeology: Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 33:115. 1982. Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, pp. 120. Kampsville Seminars in Archeology, vol. 1. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois. 1985. Fifty Years of Theory. American Antiquity 50:301308.

< previous page

page_308

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_308.html[20/10/2010 11:29:41]

page_309

< previous page

page_309

next page > Page 309

Spencer, Frank 1981. The Rise of Academic Physical Anthropology in the United States (18801980): A Historical Overview. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:353364. 1986. Ecce Homo: An Annotated Bibliographic History of Physical Anthropology. Greenwood Press, New York. Spencer, Frank, and Fred H. Smith 1981. The Significance of Ales Hrdlicka's "Neandertal Phase of Man": A Historical and Current Assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:435460. Spier, Leslie 1917. An Outline for Chronology of Zuni Ruins. Anthropological Papers, vol. 46. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Spoehr, Alexander 1947. Changing Kinship Systems. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series 33(4):155235. Springer, James Warren 1980. An Analysis of Prehistoric Food Remains from the Bruly St. Martin Site, Louisiana, with a Comparative Discussion of Mississippi Valley Faunal Studies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5:193223. Squier, Ephraim G. 1847. Observations on the Uses of the Mounds of the West, with an Attempt at Their Classification. American Journal of Science and Arts (n.s.) 3:237248. Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis 1848. Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Contributions to Knowledge No. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Stanich, Chuck 1986. The TIMS Instrument. In TIMS Data Users Workshop, p. 86. Publication No. 86-38. Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, California. Stansbery, David H. 1974. Identification of Subfossil Shell from Salts Cave. In Archaeology of Mammoth Cave, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 135136. Academic Press, New York. Stanton, Max 1979. Southern Louisiana Survivors: The Houma Indians. In Southeastern Indians since the Removal Era, edited by Walter Williams, pp. 90109. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Stanton, William 1966. The Leopard's Spots: Scientific Attitudes Toward Race in America, 18151865. 2d ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_309.html[20/10/2010 11:29:42]

page_309

< previous page

page_309

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_309.html[20/10/2010 11:29:42]

page_310

< previous page

page_310

next page > Page 310

Starnes, Lynn B., and Arthur E. Bogan 1988. The Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Tennessee. American Malacological Bulletin 6(1):1937. Stephenson, M. F. 1872. Account of Ancient Mounds in Georgia. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1870:380381. Washington, D.C. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1974. The Late Prehistory of the Natchez Region: Excavations at the Emerald and Foster Sites, Adams County, Mississippi. Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. 1980. Some Preliminary Chronological and Technological Notes on Moundville Pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22:4651. 1981a. Plaquemine Ceramic Chronology in the Natchez Region. Mississippi Archaeology 16(2):619. 1981b. A Possible Technological Explanation for the Distinction Between Coarse and Fine Shell-tempered Ceramics in Mississippian Assemblages. Paper presented at the third annual meeting of the Society for Archaeological Sciences, San Diego. 1983. Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York. 1986. Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 19701985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363404. Steward, Julian H. 1942. The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337343. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Steward, Julian H., and Frank M. Setzler 1938. Function and Configuration in Archaeology. American Antiquity 4:410. Stewart, Frances L., and Peter W. Stahl 1977. Cautionary Note on Edible Meat Poundage Figures. American Antiquity 42: 267270. Stewart, Robert B. 1974. Identification and Quantification of Components in Salts Cave Paleofeces, 19701972. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 4148. Academic Press, New York. Stewart, T. Dale 1941. Skeletal Remains from the Peachtree Site, North Carolina. In The Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina, by Carl Setzler and Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 8199. Bulletin No. 131. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

< previous page

page_310

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_310.html[20/10/2010 11:29:42]

page_311

< previous page

page_311

next page > Page 311

1946. A Reexamination of the Fossil Human Skeletal Remains from Melbourne, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 106(10), Washington, D.C. 1949. The Development of the Concept of Morphological Dating in Connection with Early Man in America. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5:116. 1951. Antiquity of Man in America Demonstrated by the Fluorine Test. Science 13:391392. 1962. Comments on the Reassessments of the Indian Knoll Skeletons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 20:143148. 1972. Nonunion of Fractures in Antiquity, with Descriptions of Five Cases from the New World Involving the Forearm. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 50(6):876891. Stewart, T. Dale, and Marshall T. Newman 1951. An Historical Resume of the Concept of Difference in Indian Types. American Anthropologist 53:1936. 1954. Review of Archeology and Race in the American Indian, by Georg K. Neumann. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12:137141. Stewart-Abernathy, Judith C. 1982a. Ceramic Studies at the Toltec Mounds Site: Basis for a Tentative Cultural Sequence. In Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture, edited by Martha Ann Rolingson, pp. 4453. Research Series No. 18. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. 1982b. X-Ray Diffraction: Examination of an Objective Technique to Distinguish Regionally Local and Nonlocal Ceramic Remains. Paper presented at the 39th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis. Stimmell, Carole A., Robert B. Heimann, and Ronald G. V. Hancock 1982. Indian Pottery from the Mississippi Valley: Coping with Bad Raw Materials. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Jacqueline S. Olin and Alan D. Franklin, pp. 219228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Stimmell, Carole A., J. Pilon, and Ronald G. V. Hancock 1986. Problems in Coarse Ware Analysis. In Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, edited by J. S. Olin and M. J. Blackman, pp. 407418. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Stirling, Mathew W. 1932. The Pre-Historic Southern Indians. In Conference on Southern Pre-History, pp. 2031. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Stoddard, Amos 1812. Sketches, Historical and Descriptive of Louisiana. Matthew Carey, Philadelphia.

< previous page

page_311

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_311.html[20/10/2010 11:29:43]

page_312

< previous page

page_312

next page > Page 312

Stoltman, James B. 1973. The Southeastern United States. In The Development of North American Archaeology, edited by James E. Fitting, pp. 116150. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York. 1974. Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality. Monographs No. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1989. A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54:147160. Struever, Stuart 1962. Implications of Vegetal Remains from an Illinois Hopewell Site. American Antiquity 27:584587. 1964. The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 85106. Scientific Papers No. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 1965. The "Flotation" Process for Recovery of Plant Remains. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 3:3235. 1968a. Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-Scale Archaeological Remains. American Antiquity 33:353362. 1968b. Woodland Subsistence-Settlement Systems in the Lower Illinois Valley. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 285312. Aldine, Chicago. Struever, Stuart, and Gail L. Houart 1972. An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen, pp. 4779. Anthropological Papers No. 46. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Struever, Stuart, and Kent D. Vickery 1973. The Beginnings of Cultivation in the Midwest-Riverine Area of the United States. American Anthropologist 75:11971220. Sturtevant, William C. 1985. Foreword. In Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission, by John R. Swanton, pp. vviii. Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Suhm, Dee Ann, Alex D. Krieger, and Edward B. Jelks 1954. An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Bulletin No. 25. Texas Archaeological Society, Dallas. Sullivan, Norman C. 1977. The Physical Anthropology of Chiggerville: Demography and Pathology. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

< previous page

page_312

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_312.html[20/10/2010 11:29:44]

page_313

< previous page

page_313

next page > Page 313

Sundick, Richard I. 1972. Human Skeletal Growth and Dental Development as Observed in the Indian Knoll Population. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Swann, C. P. 1982a. The Proton Probe as a Tool in the Elemental Analysis of Archaeological Artifacts. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin, pp. 135144. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1982b. The Study of Archaeological Artifacts Using Proton Inducing X-rays. Nuclear Instruments and Methods 197:237242. Swanton, John R. 1911. Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin no. 43. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1922. Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bulletin No. 73. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1931. Sources for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Bulletin No. 103. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1939. Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. U.S. House of Representatives Document 71. 76th Congress, First Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1946. Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin No. 137. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Tappen, Neil C. 1983. The Development of the Vermiculate Pattern in the Brow Region of Crania from Indian Knoll, Kentucky. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:523537. Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Slota, Jr., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowlett, R. E. M. Hedges, A. J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel, D. J. Donahue, and R. Berger 1985. Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50:136140. Taylor, Walter W. 1948. The Study of Archeology. Memoir No. 69. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin. 1972. Old Wine and New Skins: A Contemporary Parable. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Mark P. Leone, pp. 2833. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Taylor, Walter W. (editor) 1957. The Identification of Non-Artifactual Archaeological Materials. National Academy of Science-Natural Resource Council Publication 565:164.

< previous page

page_313

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_313.html[20/10/2010 11:29:44]

page_314

< previous page

page_314

next page > Page 314

Thomas, Cyrus 1894. Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 18901891:3742. Washington, D.C. Thomas, David H. 1969. Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 34:392401. 1970. Archaeology's Operational Imperative: Great Basin Projectile Points as a Test Case. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology, University of California 12:2860. Los Angeles. 1971. On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36:366371. Thorne, Robert M., and Bettye J. Broyles (editors) 1968. Bibliography of Pottery Type Descriptions from the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin No. 4. Morgantown, West Virginia. Thornton, Russell 1987. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Thurston, Robert H. 1893. Criticism of the U.S. Geological Survey. Science 21:6768. Tite, Michael 1972. Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology. Seminar Press, London. Tobey, Mark Hathaway 1986. Trace Element Investigations of Maya Chert from Belize. Papers of the Colha Project No. 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Tobey, Mark Hathaway, Harry J. Shafer, and Marvin W. Rowe 1986. Trace Element Investigations of Mayan Chert from Belize. In Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, edited by J. S. Olin and M. J. Blackman, pp. 431440. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Toth, E. Alan 1988. Early Marksville Phases in the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Study of Culture Contact Dynamics. Archaeological Report No. 21. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Townshend, John R. G. 1981. Terrain Analysis and Remote Sensing. George Allen and Unwin, London. Trickey, E. Bruce 1958. A Chronological Framework for the Mobile Bay Region. American Antiquity 23:388396.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_314.html[20/10/2010 11:29:45]

page_314

< previous page

page_314

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_314.html[20/10/2010 11:29:45]

page_315

< previous page

page_315

next page > Page 315

Trigger, Bruce G. 1968. Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. 1980. Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662676. 1983. American Archaeology as Native History: A Review Essay. William and Mary Quarterly 40:413452. Tucker, Carole E. 1989. A Reanalysis of the Osteological and Cultural Remains from Ausmus Burial Cave, Claiborne County, Tennessee (3CE20). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Turner, Christy G., and Laurel Lofgren 1966. Household Size and Prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22:117132. Turner, Frederick Jackson 1961. Frontier and Section: Selected Essays of Frederick Jackson Turner. Originally published 1893. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs. Turner, Kenneth R. 1980. Affinities of the Copena Skeletal Series from Site 1SE42. In The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States, edited by Patrick S. Willey and Fred H. Smith, pp. 1527. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Tyzzer, E. E. 1943. Animal Tooth Implements from Shell Heaps of Maine. American Antiquity 8:355362. Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1982. The Development of American Paleopathology. In A History of American Physical Anthropology, 19301980, edited by F. Spencer, pp. 337358. Academic Press, New York. Ubelaker, Douglas H., and Lauryn G. Grant 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Preservation or Reburial? Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 32:249287. Uerpmann, Hans-Peter 1973. Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A Critical Study of ''Osteo-Archaeological'' Method. World Archaeology 4:307322. Usher, William 1854. Geology and Paleontology in Connection with Human Origins. In Types of Mankind, by Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, pp. 327372. Lippincott and Grambo, Philadelphia.

< previous page

page_315

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_315.html[20/10/2010 11:29:46]

page_316

< previous page

page_316

next page > Page 316

Usner, Daniel H., Jr. 1992. Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Van der Leeuw, Sander E. 1981. Preliminary Report on the Analysis of Moundville Phase Ceramic Technology. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 24:195208. van der Schalie, Henry, and Paul W. Parmalee 1960. Animal Remains from the Etowah Site, Mound C, Bartow County, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 8:3754. Van Gerven, Dennis P., David S. Carlson, and George J. Armelagos 1979. Racial History and Biocultural Adaptation of Nubian Archaeological Populations. Journal of African History 14:555564. Vansina, Jan 1965. Oral Tradition. Aldine, Chicago. Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport 1968. Ecology, Cultural and Noncultural. In Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, edited by J. A. Clifton, pp. 477497. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. Veakis, Emil 1979. Archaeometric Study of Native Copper in Prehistoric North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook. von den Driesch, Angela 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Bulletin No. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Wagner, Gail E. 1982. Testing Flotation Recovery Rates. American Antiquity 47:127132. 1987. Uses of Plants by Fort Ancient Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. 1988a. Comparability among Recovery Techniques. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 1735. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1988b. The Implications of the Adoption of Northern Flint Corn. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix. Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press, New York.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_316.html[20/10/2010 11:29:46]

page_316

< previous page

page_316

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_316.html[20/10/2010 11:29:46]

page_317

< previous page

page_317

next page > Page 317

Walthall, John A. 1981. Galena and Aboriginal Trade in Eastern North America. Scientific Papers No. 17. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Walthall, John A., Stephen H. Stow, and Marvin J. Karson 1980. Copena Galena: Source Identification and Analysis. American Antiquity 45:2142. Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder 1945. A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist 43:134. Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Lewis H. Larson, Jr. 1977. The Shell Ring on Sapelo Island. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 263278. Papers, vol. 58. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Washburn, Sherwood L. 1951. The New Physical Anthropology. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser. 2, 13:298304. New York. Watson, Patty Jo 1974. Prehistoric Horticulturalists. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 233238. Academic Press, New York. 1976. In Pursuit of Prehistoric Subsistence: A Comparative Account of Some Contemporary Flotation Techniques. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:77100. 1985. The Impact of Early Horticulture in the Upland Drainages of the Midwest and Midsouth. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 99148. Anthropological Papers No. 75. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 1986. Archaeological Interpretation, 1985. In America Archaeology, Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 439458. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1990. Trend and Tradition in Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9:4354. Watson, Patty Jo (editor) 1974. Archeology of the Mammoth Cave Area. Academic Press, New York. 1985. Fiftieth Anniversary Issue. American Antiquity 50(2). Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman 1971. Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York. Watson, Patty Jo, and Richard A. Yarnell 1969. Conclusions: The Prehistoric Utilization of Salts Cave. In The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 7178. Reports of Investigations No. 16. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

< previous page

page_317

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_317.html[20/10/2010 11:29:47]

page_318

< previous page

page_318

next page > Page 318

Wauchope, Robert 1948. The Ceramic Sequence in the Etowah Drainage of Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 13:201209. 1950. The Evolution and Persistence of Ceramic Motifs in Northern Georgia. American Antiquity 16:1622. 1966. Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia, with a Test of Some Cultural Hypotheses. Memoir No. 21. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Weaver, Elizabeth C. 1963. Technological Analysis of Prehistoric Lower Mississippi Ceramic Materials: A Preliminary Report. American Antiquity 29:4956. Webb, Clarence H. 1959. The Belcher Mound. Memoir No. 16. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. 1968. The Extent and Content of Poverty Point Culture. American Antiquity 33:297321. 1977. The Poverty Point Culture. Geoscience and Man 17. Webb, Clarence H., and Monroe Dodd, Jr. 1941. Pottery Types from the Belcher Mound Site. Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Bulletin 13:88116. Webb, Clarence H., and Jon L. Gibson 1981. Studies of the Microflint Industry at the Poverty Point Site. Geoscience and Man 22:85101. Webb, William S. 1946. Indian Knoll, Site Oh2, Ohio County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 4(3). Lexington. Webb, William S. 1928. A Prehistoric Village Site in Greenup County. American Anthropologist 30:268281. 1946. Indian Knoll. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 4(3). Lexington. Webb, William S., and David L. DeJarnette 1942. An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Bulletin No. 129. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Webb, William S., and William D. Funkhouser 1928. Ancient Life in Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, Frankfort. 1930. The Page Site in Logan County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 3:117232. Lexington. 1931. The Tolu Site in Crittenden County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 1(5). Lexington.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_318.html[20/10/2010 11:29:48]

page_318

< previous page

page_318

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_318.html[20/10/2010 11:29:48]

page_319

< previous page

page_319

next page > Page 319

Webb, William S., and Charles E. Snow 1974. The Adena People. Reprinted. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Originally published 1945, University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 6, Lexington. Webb, William S., and C. G. Wilder 1951. An Archaeological Survey of the Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington. Weigel, Penelope H. 1958. Great Auk Remains from a Florida Shell Midden. Auk 75:215216. Weigelt, Johannes 1989. Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and Their Paleobiological Implications. Translated by Judith Schaefer. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Weiner, Jacob S. 1964. The Biology of Social Man. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 94(2):230240. Weiss, Kenneth M., and T. Maruyama 1976. Archeology, Population Genetics and Studies of Human Racial Ancestry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44:3149. Wells, Ian, Jay Custer, and Vytautas Klenas 1981. Locating Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Using Landsat. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium in Remote Sensing of Environment 2:771779. Ann Arbor. Wetmore, Alexander 1922. Bird Remains from the Caves of Puerto Rico. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 46:298333. Whallon, Robert, Jr. 1972. A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37:1333. 1982. Variables and Dimensions: The Critical Step in Quantitative Typology. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, pp. 127161. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology, vol. 1. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois. Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford, and William Wasley 1958. Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24:3447. White, Hayden 1976. Metahistory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_319.html[20/10/2010 11:29:49]

page_319

White, Leslie A. 1959. The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York.

< previous page

page_319

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_319.html[20/10/2010 11:29:49]

page_320

< previous page

page_320

next page > Page 320

White, Richard 1981. The Roots of Dependency. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1990. Environmental History, Ecology, and Meaning. Journal of American History 76(4):11111116. White, Theodore E. 1952. Observations on the Butchering Techniques of Some Aboriginal Peoples No. 1. American Antiquity 17:337338. 1953a. A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18:396398. 1953b. Observations on the Butchering Techniques of Some Aboriginal Peoples No. 2. American Antiquity 19:160164. 1954. Observations on the Butchering Techniques of Some Aboriginal Peoples Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. American Antiquity 19:254262. 1955. Observations on the Butchering Techniques of Some Aboriginal Peoples Nos. 7, 8, and 9. American Antiquity 21:170178. 1956. The Study of Osteological Materials in the Plains. American Antiquity 21:401404. Whitlam, Robert G. 1981. Problems in Ceramic Classification and Chronology: An Example from the Mobile Bay Area, Alabama. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6:179206. Whittlesey, Charles 1869. On the Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in the United States. Proceedings of the American Association of the Advancement of Science 17:268288. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Willey, Gordon R. 1945. The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition. American Antiquity 10:225254. 1948. Culture Sequence in the Manatee Region of West Florida. American Antiquity 13:208218. 1949. Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 113. Washington, D.C. 1969. James Alfred Ford, 19111968. American Antiquity 34:6271. 1988. Portraits in American Archaeology: Remembrances of Some Distinguished Americanists. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958. Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1980. A History of American Archaeology. 2d ed. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_320.html[20/10/2010 11:29:49]

page_320

< previous page

page_320

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_320.html[20/10/2010 11:29:49]

page_321

< previous page

page_321

next page > Page 321

Willey, Gordon R., and Richard B. Woodbury 1942. A Chronological Outline for the Northwest Florida Coast. American Antiquity 7:232254. Willey, Patrick S., and Fred H. Smith (editors) 1980. The Skeletal Biology of Aboriginal Populations in the Southeastern United States. Miscellaneous Paper No. 5. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville. Williams, H. C. 1872. On Antiquities in Some of the Southern States. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1870:367369. Washington, D.C. Williams, Stephen 1960. A Brief History of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 7(1):24. Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain 1983. Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 19581960. Papers, vol. 74. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Williams, Walter L. (editor) 1979. Southeastern Indians since the Removal Era. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1965. An Outline of Early Man Studies in the United States. American Antiquity 31:172192. Wilson, H. H. 1982. An Analysis of Skeletal Material from Bw67, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1986. The Archaeology and Paleodemography of the McFayden Burial Mound (31Bw67). In Skeletal Analysis in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Janet E. Levy, pp. 2948. Publication No. 24. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh. Wilson, Hugh D. 1981. Domesticated Chenopodium of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers. Economic Botany 35:233239. Wilson, Hugh D., and Charles B. Heiser, Jr. 1979. The Origin and Evolutionary Relationships of 'Huazontle' (Chenopodium nuttalliae Safford), Domesticated Cheponod of Mexico. American Journal of Botany 66:198206. Wilson, Thomas 1895. On the Presence of Fluorine as a Test for the Fossilization of Animal Bones. American Naturalist 29:301317, 719725.

< previous page

page_321

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_321.html[20/10/2010 11:29:50]

page_322

< previous page

page_322

next page > Page 322

Wimberly, Stephen B. 1953. Bayou La Batre Tchefuncte Pottery Series. In Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1960. Indian Pottery from Clarke County and Mobile County, Southern Alabama. Museum Paper No. 36. Alabama Museum of Natural History, University. Wing, Elizabeth S. 1963a. Vertebrate Remains from the Wash Island Site. Florida Anthropologist 16:9396. 1963b. Vertebrates from the Jungerman and Goodman Sites near the East Coast of Florida. In Papers on the Jungerman and Goodman Sites, Florida, edited by D. F. Jordan, E. S. Wing, and A. K. Bullen, pp. 5170. Bulletin, Social Sciences No. 10. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1965. Animal Bones Associated with Two Indian Sites on Marco Island, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 18:2128. 1977. Subsistence Systems in the Southeast. Florida Anthropologist 30:8187. 1978. Subsistence at the McLarty Site, Indian River County. Florida Anthropologist 31:37. 1987. Preliminary Study of the Animal Remains Excavated from the Hontoon Island Site. Florida Anthropologist 40:4046. Wing, Elizabeth S., and Antoinette Brown 1979. Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New York. Wintemberg, W. J. 1919. Archaeology as an Aid to Zoology. Canadian Field Naturalist 33:6372. Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric Alden Smith (editors) 1981. Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archeological Analyses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Winters, Howard D. 1968. Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late Archaic in the Midwest. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 175221. Aldine, Chicago. Wissler, Clark 1917. The American Indian: An Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World. D. C. McMurtrie, New York. 1926. The Relation of Nature to Man in Aboriginal America. Oxford University Press, New York. Witt, Arthur 1960. Length and Weight of Ancient Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens, Calculated from Otoliths Found in Indian Middens. Copeia 3:181185.

< previous page

page_322

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_322.html[20/10/2010 11:29:51]

page_323

< previous page

page_323

next page > Page 323

Witthoft, John 1969. Lithic Material and Technology. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 9:38. Wolf, David J. 1977. Middle Mississippian: A Prehistoric Cultural System Viewed from a Biological Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, edited by Robert L. Blakely, pp. 2744. Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society No. 11. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Wolf, Eric R. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wolfe, Cheri L. 1987. "Something Tells Me This Feeling About the Land is the Old Choctaw Religion": The Persistence of Choctaw Culture in Mississippi since 1830. In Persistence of Pattern in Mississippi Choctaw Culture, edited by Patti Carr Black, pp. 1027. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Wood, W. Raymond 1968. Mississippian Hunting and Butchering Patterns: Bone From the Vista Shelter, 23R20, Missouri. American Antiquity 33:170179. Wright, G. F. 1892. Man and the Glacial Period. New York. 1893a. Mr. Holmes' Criticism Upon the Evidence of Glacial Man. Science 21:6566. 1893b. Some Detailed Evidence of an Ice-age Man in Eastern America. Science 21:6768. Wright, Moira H. 1974. A Metrical Analysis of the Morphological Relationships Between Prehistoric Dallas and Historic Cherokee Skeletal Populations in East Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Wright, Newell O. 1984. Analysis of the Lithic Industry at Augusta Bluff, a Late Archaic Site on the Leaf River, Perry County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 19(1):4259. Wyckoff, Don G. 1969. Prehistoric Lithic Preferences: Aids to Site Analysis. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 9:1719. Wyckoff, L. M. 1977. The Physical Anthropology of Chiggerville: Biological Relationships and Growth. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

< previous page

page_323

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_323.html[20/10/2010 11:29:52]

page_324

< previous page

page_324

next page > Page 324

Wyman, Jeffries 1868a. An Account of Some Kjoekkenmoeddings, or Shell-heaps, in Maine and Massachusetts. American Naturalist 1(11):561584. 1868b. On the Fresh-Water Shell-Heaps of the St. John's River, East Florida. American Naturalist 2(8):393403. 1874. Human Remains in the Shell Heaps of the St. John's River, East Florida. American Naturalist 8:403414. 1875. Fresh-water Shell Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida. Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science 4:394. Salem. Yarnell, Richard A. 1963. Comments on Struever's Discussion of an Early "Eastern Agricultural Complex." American Antiquity 28:547548. 1965. Early Woodland Plant Remains and the Question of Cultivation. Florida Anthropologist 18:7782. 1969. Contents of Human Paleofeces. In The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 4154. Report of Investigations No. 16. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 1972. Iva annua var. macrocarpa: Extinct American Cultigen? American Anthropologist 74:335341. 1974a. Intestinal Contents of the Salts Cave Mummy and Analysis of the Initial Salts Cave Flotation Series. In Archeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 109112. Academic Press, New York. 1974b. Plant Foods and Cultivation of the Salts Caverns. In Archeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 113122. Academic Press, New York. 1976. Plant Remains from the Warren Wilson Site. In Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region, by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 217224. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1977. Native Plant Husbandry North of Mexico. In The Origins of Agriculture, edited by Charles A. Reed, pp. 861875. Mouton, The Hague. 1978. Domestication of Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North America. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 289300. Anthropological Papers No. 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1982. Problems of Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains of the Eastern Woodlands. Southeastern Archaeology 1:17. 1986. A Survey of Prehistoric Crop Plants in Eastern North America. Missouri Archaeologist 47:4759. 1988. The Importance of Native Crops During the Late Archaic and Woodland. Paper presented at the 45th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. 1989. Investigations Relevant to the Native Development of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: A Brief and Reasonably True Account. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Iowa City.

< previous page

page_324

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_324.html[20/10/2010 11:29:52]

page_325

< previous page

page_325

next page > Page 325

Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black 1985. Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4:93106. Yellan, John E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present. Academic Press, New York. Yerkes, Richard W. 1983. Microwear, Microdrills and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48:499518. Young, Bennett R. 1910. The Prehistoric Men of Kentucky. Filson Club Publications No. 25. John P. Morton, Louisville, Kentucky. Young, Mary 1962. Redskins, Ruffleshirts, and Rednecks: Indian Allotments in Alabama and Mississippi, 18301860. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

< previous page

page_325

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_325.html[20/10/2010 11:29:53]

page_327

< previous page

page_327

next page > Page 327

Contributors RONALD L. BISHOP is a Senior Research Archaeologist at the Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution. He has spent the last 15 years analyzing ceramics and jades from Mesoamerica and Central America and ceramics and turquoise from the Greater Southwest. His mathematical modeling of instrumental neutron activation data incorporates both geological and cultural aspects of material production and exchange. DAVID S. BROSE, educated at the University of Michigan, is Associate Director, Curatorial, at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Firmly believing both that recycled theories inapplicable to substantive archaeological data are seldom worth rereading and that those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes, Brose has written numerous theoretically constrained, if historically tainted monographs on archaeological sites in the Eastern Woodlands. VELETTA CANOUTS is a Staff Archeologist at the Archeological Assistance Division, National Park Service, and Research Associate at the Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution. She has carried out archaeological research in the Southeast, Midwest, Greater Southwest, and Costa Rica. Her interests include ecological modeling, stylistic analysis with an emphasis on developing computerized applications, computerized information management systems, and historic preservation.

< previous page

page_327

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_327.html[20/10/2010 11:29:53]

page_328

< previous page

page_328

next page > Page 328

PATRICIA K. GALLOWAY is Special Projects Officer in the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. She has translated and edited French colonial documents and has written on the explorations of La Salle in La Salle and His Legacy. Most recently she has edited Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, and she is presently completing a study of protohistoric Choctaw ethnogenesis and editing a book of essays on the historiography of the Hernando de Soto expedition. JON L. GIBSON is a Professor and past Department Head in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Director of the Center for Archaeological Studies at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. His research has been centered primarily in the Lower Mississippi Valley, especially at the Poverty Point site and other Late Archaic-Early Woodland sites in Catahoula Lake and Teche-Vermilion localities in Louisiana. Major publications include monographs, edited volumes, and journal articles. KRISTEN J. GREMILLION is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the Ohio State University. Her graduate studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, focused on the paleoethnobotany of the Eastern Woodlands of North America. She has used paleoethnobotanical data to explore various aspects of human/plant interaction, including the effects of European contact on aboriginal subsistence in North Carolina and the relationships between crop morphology, garden ecology, and agricultural practices. She is currently investigating evidence of plant domestication from Kentucky caves and rockshelters. JAY K. JOHNSON is a Professor of Anthropology and the Associate Director of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Mississippi. He has been working in southeastern archaeology since he was an undergraduate at Florida State University in the late 1960s. A longtime interest in lithic analysis led to the coediting of The Organization of Core Technology, a collection of articles on stone tools. Recent research interests include remote sensing and GIS as well as the protohistoric and historic Chickasaw. W. FREDERICK LIMP is the Director of the Center for Advanced Spatial Technology and Associate Professor in the Anthropology and Geography departments at the University of Arkansas. In addition to archaeological questions his current research interests focus on geographic information systems, computer applications, and multispectral digital imagery. He is Director of the National Center for Resource Innovation, a congressio-

< previous page

page_328

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_328.html[20/10/2010 11:29:54]

page_329

< previous page

page_329

next page > Page 329

nally mandated program for GIS technology transfer. He is the 1990 recipient of the International GAIA Award. Recent publications include the monograph Multispectral Digital Imagery for Archeological Analysis, as well as a number of articles on the topic. ELIZABETH J. REITZ is an Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 1979. Her work has involved zooarchaeological analysis of faunal remains from prehistoric as well as historic sites from the southeastern United States, Caribbean, and Peru. She has examined subsistence strategies of human populations as well as the impact of human and other environmental variables on the growth of cattle, deer, and Atlantic croaker. MARIA O. SMITH is an Assistant Professor in the Anthropology Department at Northern Illinois University and a Research Associate at the Frank H. McClung Museum in Knoxville, Tennessee. Her research interests include dental anthropology and paleopathology. She has focused her biocultural examinations on the prehistoric inhabitants of the eastern and western Tennessee valley. Her current research interest is the osteoarchaeological evidence of warfare.

< previous page

page_329

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_329.html[20/10/2010 11:29:55]

page_331

< previous page

page_331

next page > Page 331

Index A Abbott, Charles C., 62 Accelerator mass spectrometry, 63, 132, 146, 149, 151, 153 Acculturation, 81, 83, 85, 156 Acolapissa Indians, 95 Acorns, 10, 137 Activity areas, 48 Adaptation, 121, 147, 168 biocultural, 69, 71, 74 and cultural ecology, 114, 117 and new archaeology, 51, 125 postcontact, 81 and primary forest efficiency, 137 technological, 44, 47, 169 Adena, 137, 138 Agassiz, Louis, 58, 59, 85 Age-area, 22 Aiken, Martin J., 160 Airborne sensors, 188, 190, 191 Aircraft scanners, 189 Alabama, 3, 37, 39, 43, 44, 66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 89, 142, 144, 152, 155 Alabama Anthropological Society, 88 Alabama Department of Archives and History, 88 Alabama River, 4, 79 Alaska, 50, 91, 162, 165 Albrecht, Andrew C., 95, 96 Alden, John, 90 Aleutian Islands, 119 file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_331.html[20/10/2010 11:29:55]

page_331

Allen, Harrison, 60 Allen, Ralph O., 171, 172 Amaranth, 135, 152 American Antiquity, 19, 20, 39, 122, 123 American Bottoms, Illinois, 142, 150, 152, 154, 155 American Indian Ethnohistoric Conference, 99 American School of Physical Anthropology, 56-58 American Society for Ethnohistory, 99 Amick, Daniel S., 50 Anderson, David G., 50 Anderson, Edgar, 136, 139 Angel site, Indiana, 176 Anthropic soil, 194, 195, 197 Antiquity of man in the New World, 6, 7, 36, 60-63, 119 Apalachee Indians, 100 Apalachicola River, 28 Appalachian Mountains, 3, 25, 30, 82, 163 Aragonite, 178 Archaeological Chemistry, 160 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947, 94 Archaeometry, 9, 33, 45, 160-83, 207, 210 Archaeometry, 160 Archaic, 38-40, 42, 48, 49, 66, 68, 72, 73, 138, 140, 144, 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 166, 210 Early, 16, 39, 44, 50, 156, 169 Late, 16, 40, 43, 50, 72, 136, 144, 146, 147, 151, 153, 157, 161 Middle, 38, 40, 50, 72, 147, 153, 213 Archives Nationales in Paris, 82 Archivo de Indias at Seville, 82 ARIES sensor, 188, 190 Arizona, 165 Arkansas, 4, 29, 34, 42-44, 46, 49, 50, 96, 106, 136, 155, 196, 201-3 Arkansas Basin, 175

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_331.html[20/10/2010 11:29:55]

page_331

Arkansas River, 106, 202 Armelagos, George J., 70 Armstrong site, Wisconsin, 176 Army Medical Museum, 60 Arthritis, 73 Asch, David L., 141, 144, 150, 152 Asch, Nancy B., 147, 150, 152 Ash Cave, Ohio, 152 Aspartic acid racemization, 63 Atlantic coast, 25, 26, 30, 100, 170 Atomic absorption spectroscopy, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173

< previous page

page_331

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_331.html[20/10/2010 11:29:55]

page_332

< previous page

page_332

next page > Page 332

Attributes, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 42, 46 Audubon, John James, 59 Ausmus Cave, Tennessee, 67 Australia, 192 Averbuch site, Tennessee, 70 Axtell, James, 100 Aztalan site, Wisconsin, 176 B Bachman, David C., 44 Bachman, John, 59 Bacon Bend site, Tennessee, 151 Baden complex, 39 Baker, Frank C., 121 Bancroft, Hubert H., 86 Banks, Larry, 206 Bartolome de las Casas, 84 Bartram, William, 55 Base camp, 49, 50 Baum village site, Ohio, 119 Bayougoula Indians, 95 Bayou Goula site, Louisiana, 95 Beans, 10, 12, 135, 137, 146 Bear Creek project, Alabama, 44 Beaverdam Creek site, Georgia, 156 Belize, 174 Belmont, John S., 124 Bender, Barbara, 182 Bendix sensor, 188, 190, 193 Bennett, W. James, 200, 202 Berryman, Hugh E., 73

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_332.html[20/10/2010 11:29:56]

page_332

Bessemer site, Alabama, 66 Biedma, Luis Hernandez de, 82, 103, 104 Biface: chronology, 44, 208 as cores, 47 production, 36-38, 42, 46 typology, 40, 41, 44 Binford, Lewis R., 11, 50, 51, 101, 102, 161 Binford, Sally R., 50 Binocular microscope, 177 Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, 71 Biocultural anthropology, 54, 69-75 Biosocial analysis, 74-76 Bishop, Ronald L., 160, 182 Black, M. Jean, 142, 148, 150 Black Warrior River, 28, 155 Blake, S. F., 139, 141 Blakely, Robert L., 71, 72, 75 Blakeman, Crawford H., Jr., 45 Blood types, 68 Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich, 54-56, 64 Boas, Franz, 85, 91 Bobrowsky, Peter T., 111, 112 Boekelman, Henry J., 112 Bolton, Herbert E., 90 Boston University, 190 Botany, 134, 139 Bottle gourd, 136, 144 Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr., 72, 74 Boyd, Donna C., 72, 74 Brain, Jeffrey P., 103, 105 Brand site, Arkansas, 42, 48, 49

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_332.html[20/10/2010 11:29:56]

page_332

Brannon, Peter A., 89 Braudel, Fernand, 104 Braun, David P., 178 Brennan, Louis A., 45 Brew, J. O., 29, 180 British, 6, 82, 90 British Columbia, 91 British School in Athens, 182 Brookhaven National Laboratory, 165, 170, 182 Brose, David S., 171, 213 Brown, Antoinette, 127 Brown, Calvin, 89 Brown, Ian W., 105 Brown, James A., 1, 96, 102 Brown, William, 139 Broyles, Bettye J., 34 Buffer zone, 114 Buikstra, Jane E., 70, 74 Bun-shaped occiput, 67 Bureau of American Ethnography, 5-7, 60, 91 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 89 Burial Mound Stage, 30 Bush, Vannevar, 180 Busycon, 171 Butchering, 119, 124, 125, 128 Buttler, S. J., 172 Bynum Mounds, Mississippi, 66 C Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez, 82 Cabildo Records, New Orleans, 82 Cable, John S., 50 Cache River project, Arkansas, 44, 46, 49

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_332.html[20/10/2010 11:29:56]

page_332

Caddell, Gloria, 141, 142, 155 Caddo Indians, 93, 106, 156 Cahokia site, Illinois, 43, 176 Calcite, 178 Caldwell, Charles, 57 Caldwell, Joseph R., 137, 138 California, 121

< previous page

page_332

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_332.html[20/10/2010 11:29:56]

page_333

< previous page

page_333

next page > Page 333

Callahan, Errett, 42, 45 CAMS sensor, 188, 190 Canada, 192 Cande, Robert, 46 Canouts, Veletta, 35 Carlston Annis site, Kentucky, 73 Carnegie Institution, 91, 180 Carolina canary grass, 135, 136 Carolina Piedmont, 45, 156 Carr, Lucien, 60 Carrying capacity, 114 Carson site, Mississippi, 43 Carter, George F., 136 Cave Springs site, Tennessee, 48 Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University, 190 Cephalic index, 64 Ceramics, 18-30, 32-35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 51, 211 and culture history, 21-32, 207-210 ethnic identification, 93, 106 functional analysis, 29, 34, 169, 210 raw material source determination, 34, 169, 176, 177, 182 regional specialization, 212 stylistic analysis, 29, 30, 34, 35 technological analysis, 34, 176-80 trace element analysis, 22, 34, 174-79 Chambers, Moreau, 96, 97 Chaos theory, 14-16 Chapman, Jefferson, 141, 150 Chattahoochee River, 4, 28 Chenopod, 135, 138, 143, 144, 146, 147, 150-52, 154, 157

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_333.html[20/10/2010 11:29:57]

page_333

Cherokee Indians, 5, 14, 72, 128, 147, 156 Chert, 4, 169 Burlington, 174 Fort Payne, 38, 173 gravel, 46 sourcing, 172-74 tabular, 46 Chickasaw Indians, 97 Chiggerville site, Kentucky, 65, 67, 71 Chitimacha Indians, 89, 95 Choctaw Indians, 31, 89, 93, 100 Chronology, 21, 24, 44, 51, 125, 134, 177 Biblical, 61, 62 ceramic, 21-24, 29-33 and culture history, 8, 92, 93, 120, 208-11 lithic, 37-41 maize introduction, 145 nineteenth century, 6, 7 plant domestication, 145, 152 Chucalissa site, Tennessee, 73, 74 Cicone, Richard C., 193 Civil War, 5, 59, 86, 87 Claassen, Cheryl, 171 Claggett, Stephen R., 50 Clams, 170 Clarke, David L., 11 Cleland, Charles E., 146 Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Kentucky, 47, 144, 151 Clovis, 63 Coe, Joffre L., 38, 39, 41, 44, 48 Coe axiom, 45 Cold Oak Rockshelter, Kentucky, 151

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_333.html[20/10/2010 11:29:57]

page_333

Cole, Faye-Cooper, 21 Coles Creek complex, 31 Colha site, Belize, 174 Collins, Henry B., 65, 67, 93, 193 Colonialism, 64, 82 Color infrared aerial photography, 204 Columbia Reservoir project, Tennessee, 44, 47 Commensalism, 114 Comparative method, 83 Computers, 12, 15, 32, 71, 99, 184, 185, 187, 188 Conference on Southeastern Pottery Typology, 25 Conference on Southern Pre-History, 21, 22 Conjunctive approach, 8, 122, 210 Cook, Della C., 70 Cope, E. D., 118 Cope, Edward Drinker, 60 Copell site, Louisiana, 68 Copena complex, 72, 167 Copes site, Louisiana, 153 Copper, 162-66, 181 Cordell, Ann S., 177 Cores, 42, 46, 47, 49 expedient, 47 microlith, 42, 43 Corinth, Greece, 190 Cowan, C. Wesley, 141, 145, 148, 151 Crabtree, Don E., 42, 45 Crane, Verner, 90, 100 Crania Americana, 55, 57, 76 Cranial deformation, 66, 67, 74 Cranial typology, 54, 63-68 Creek Indians, 14, 88, 92, 156

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_333.html[20/10/2010 11:29:57]

page_333

Cribra orbitalia, 70, 74 Cridlebaugh, Patricia A., 141 Crist, Eric P., 193 Crites, Gary D., 141, 146, 151 Crosby, Alfred, 100 Cultural anthropology, 8, 9, 11, 91, 100, 102

< previous page

page_333

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_333.html[20/10/2010 11:29:57]

page_334

< previous page

page_334

next page > Page 334

Cultural resource management archaeology, 47, 150, 212 increases the data base, 139 limitations of, 127, 130 and new archaeology, 13, 43, 101, 126, 211 Normandy example, 43, 141 promotes institutional growth, 212 Culture area, 77, 116 Culture core, 117 Culture history, 8, 16, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37-41, 48, 80, 94, 98, 131, 207-13 ceramics, 20-33 continued interest in, 130, 131 ethnohistory, 92-97 lithics, 51 technology, 42, 43, 49 zooarchaeology, 118, 126 Cumberland River, 4 Curation, 50 Custer, Jay F., 44, 50, 199 Cutler, Hugh, 139, 140, 147 Cuvier, Georges, 57 D Daedalus sensor, 188, 190, 202-4 Dall, William H., 119 Dallas phase, 70, 72, 74 Dalton phase, 42, 49 Dances with Wolves, 76 Darwin, Charles, 56, 59, 114 Darwinism, 59, 60, 87, 119 Dawes Act of 1887, 85 Deasonville complex, 31, 32

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_334.html[20/10/2010 11:29:58]

page_334

De Atley, Suzanne P., 178 Decker, Deena S., 153 Deconstructionist analysis, 13, 14, 101 Deer, 128 Delanglez, Jean, 90, 94, 97 Delaware, 44 Delcourt, Hazel, 141 Delcourt, Paul, 141 Demography, 13, 34, 71-73, 86, 100, 117, 150, 151 Deniker, Joseph, 64 Dental attrition, 73 Dental caries, 73 Derrida, Jacques, 13 De Soto, Hernando, 55, 82, 87, 92, 94, 96, 103-6 Dickeson, Montroville W., 61 Dickson, D. Bruce, 49 Diffusion, 32, 115, 136-38, 154, 166 Direct Historical Approach, 22, 31, 93, 94, 102 Disease, 69, 73, 74, 80, 85 DNA, 10, 107 Dobyns, Henry, 100 Dogs, 127 Domestication: animal, 127 plant, 132, 133, 135-39, 142-45, 147-53, 157, 159 Dominance, 114 Donisi, Michael P., 73 Doran, Glen H., 95, 174, 175 Downs, Ernest, 85 Duck's Nest site, Tennessee, 146 Dunnell, Robert C., 1, 21, 179, 208 E

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_334.html[20/10/2010 11:29:58]

page_334

Earle, Timothy K., 14 Earth Observing System, 199 Earthworks, 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 88, 200 Eastern agricultural complex, 143, 145 Eaton, G. F., 118 Ecological anthropology, 115, 117, 125, 130 Ecology, 109, 131, 142, 158 behavioral component of, 114 cultural, 16, 116-18, 142 definition of, 114 lack of commitment in archaeology, 130 new archaeology, 12, 125, 210 zooarchaeology, 109, 111, 130 Eddy, Samuel, 120 Eggan, Fred, 92 Einstein, Albert, 15 Eisenberg, Leslie E., 74 Electromagnetic radiation, 186 Elite, 6, 12 Elvas, Gentleman of, 82, 103, 104 Emeryville shell mound, California, 121 Emic, 14 Emory University, 141 Enamel hypoplasia, 70, 73 Environmental determinism, 115 Environmental possibilism, 115, 116, 120, 122, 129, 130 Environmental Protection Agency, 203 Ethnobotany Laboratory, University of Michigan, 134, 135 Ethnographic present, 83, 86, 91-93, 99, 208 Ethnography, 12, 49, 50, 78, 79, 91, 94, 103, 106, 208 Ethnohistory, 72, 78-108, 137, 208, 210 Ethnohistory, 99

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_334.html[20/10/2010 11:29:58]

page_334

Etowah site, Georgia, 66, 71, 72, 75 European conquest, 80-83 Eva site, Tennessee, 72 Everglades, 4 Evolution: biological, 8, 59, 60, 68, 117, 119, 130, 133 cultural, 8, 11, 16, 37, 51

< previous page

page_334

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_334.html[20/10/2010 11:29:58]

page_335

< previous page

page_335

next page > Page 335

56, 57, 88, 97, 142, 145, 149, 151, 185, 207, 208, 210 Extinct fauna, 126 F Fabricius, 56 FAI-270 project, Illinois, 142, 150 Fatherland Incised pottery, 97 Fatherland site, Mississippi, 96 Faulkner, Charles H., 40, 49 Federal relief projects, 25, 31, 65, 93, 120, 211 Feedback, 114 Fewkes, Jesse W., 115 Fifty site, Virginia, 48 Figgins, Jesse D., 120 Fish, 10, 12, 118, 119, 153 Fishbeck, Helmut J., 175 Flake, 38, 41, 46-49 Florida, 23, 26, 30, 32, 43, 60-63, 67, 74, 82, 118, 130, 152, 153, 154, 156, 177, 183, 204 Florida Museum of Natural History, 183 Flotation, 10, 132, 137, 140-44, 146, 149, 159 Flowchart, 45 Fluorine dating, 62 Focal/diffuse model, 147, 148, 156 Folk archaeology, 13 Folsom, New Mexico, 62 Ford, James A., 23, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 38, 93-96, 104-6, 180, 208, 209 Ford, Richard I., 141 Ford-Spaulding debate, 23-25, 209 Foret, Michael, 100 Fort Ancient site, Ohio, 37, 155 Fort Center site, Florida, 154

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_335.html[20/10/2010 11:30:00]

page_335

''Fossil'' man: Charleston, 61 Lake Monroe, 61 Melbourne, 61, 62 Natchez, 60-62 New Orleans, 61 Osprey, 60-62 Vero Beach, 61, 62 Fowler, Melvin L., 136, 138 Fox Farm site, Kentucky, 37, 119 Fracture patterns: lithic, 41 osteological, 73 Fradkin, Arlene, 128 French, 96 artifacts, 6, 95, 96 colonial period, 82, 87, 90, 94, 96, 100, 105 documents, 87, 95-97, 102, 105, 106 exploration 87, 94, 95, 106 Jesuit missionaries, 90 satellite, 189 siege trench, 96 French, B. F., 87 French Annales historians, 99, 104, 105 French structuralism, 102 Fritz, Gayle J., 152, 155 Frog Bayou, 201, 202 Fuller, R. G., 65 Funkhouser, William, 65, 66 Funkhouser, Gary, 72 G Galena, 162, 166, 167, 181

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_335.html[20/10/2010 11:30:00]

page_335

Gamma ray spectroscopy, 165 Garcilaso de la Vega, 82, 103 Gardner, Paul S., 156 Gardner, William M., 50 Gatschet, Albert S., 86 Gayarre, Charles E. A., 87 Gender, 72, 73 Genetic relationships, 71, 72 Geographic Information Systems, 185, 201 Geography, 11, 116 Geology, 61, 109, 119, 168 and archaeometry, 162, 179 concepts borrowed from, 10, 31 mapping units, 192 southeastern, 168, 182 Georgia, 3, 5, 34, 37, 46, 50, 66, 72, 82, 138, 156, 159, 170 Giant ragweed, 135, 147 Gibson, Jon L., 203, 209, 211, 213 Gilbert, B. Miles, 112 Gilmore, Melvin R., 134, 135, 141, 152 Gilmore, Raymond M., 123-25 Glidden, George Robins, 57-59 Goad, Sharon I., 163-66, 181 Goffer, Zvi, 160 Goodall, Jane, 69 Goodyear, Albert C., 42, 49 Gordus, Adon A., 162 Goslin, Robert M., 138 Great auk, 119 Great Lakes, 3, 163, 181 Greece, 182 Green River, 152

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_335.html[20/10/2010 11:30:00]

page_335

Gremillion, Kristen J., 151, 212 Griffin, James B., 28, 94, 95, 104, 105, 134, 147, 162, 180 Guagliardo, Mark F., 73 Guilday, Joan E., 124 Gulf Coast, 3, 4, 26, 30, 32, 170, 210 Gumerman, George J., 184 H Haag, William G., 18, 21, 42 Habitat, 117, 118, 121, 124, 125, 136, 150, 151, 156, 170 Haeckel, Ernst, 114 Hally, David J., 34, 179 Hann, John H., 100

< previous page

page_335

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_335.html[20/10/2010 11:30:00]

page_336

< previous page

page_336

next page > Page 336

Harbottle, Garman, 182 Hardin, Margaret A., 35 Hargrave, Lyndon L., 120, 121 Hargrove, T., 200 Harney Flats site, Florida, 48 Harpe, Jean-Baptiste Benard de la, 82 Harrington, Mark R., 135 Harvard University, 28, 85, 91 Hastorf, Christine A., 149 Hatch, Elvin, 74 Haws River project, North Carolina, 44, 47, 50 Hawthorne site, Delaware, 48 Hayes site, Tennessee, 151 Haystack Rockshelter, Kentucky, 145 Heiser, Charles B., Jr., 139, 147 Herodotus, 83 Hesse, Brian, 111, 112 Hickory, 137 Higgs site, Tennessee, 144 Historical documents, 81, 82, 88, 92, 94, 99 Historical particularism, 37, 91, 208 Historic period, 14, 22, 31, 78, 88, 92-97, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 156, 213 History, 4, 11, 78, 79, 81-83, 85-88, 90, 91, 99-101, 207 Hiwassee Island site, Tennessee, 67, 72 Hobbes, Thomas, 54 Hoffman, Bruce F., 173 Hofman, Jack L., 47, 48 Hokkaido, Japan, 176 Holmes, William Henry, 6, 22, 36, 37, 47, 51, 62, 207 Hontoon Island site, Florida, 152

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_336.html[20/10/2010 11:30:01]

page_336

Hooton, Earnest A., 63, 65, 67, 69 Hopewell, 3, 6, 10, 11, 136-39, 144, 146, 153, 158, 161, 162, 163, 166, 180-82 Houma Indians, 91, 92, 95 House, John H., 45, 49 Howard, Hildegarde, 121 Hrdlicka, Ales, 7, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69 Hudson, Charles, 104, 105 Hulse, Fred S., 67 Humbolt, Baron Alexander von, 114 Hydration dating, 180 Hypothesis testing, 11, 101, 102, 125, 128, 179, 212 I Iberville, Pierre le Moyne d', 82, 87 Icehouse Bottom site, Tennessee, 154 Idaho, 163 Iddins site, Tennessee, 151 Illinois, 3, 4, 70, 133, 140-44, 146, 148, 150, 152-54, 167 Illinois River, 144 Image classification, 187, 188 Indian activism, 98, 99, 107, 108 Indian Claims Commission, 92, 98, 99 Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, 89 Indian Knoll site, Kentucky, 53, 66, 68, 69, 71 Indian removal, 84-86, 89 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 89 Indigenous agriculture: chronology, 137, 143, 148 independent origin, 132, 136, 139, 145, 153 subsistence role, 138, 143, 147, 155 Inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy, 171 Information theory, 117 Inglis, Michael, 202

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_336.html[20/10/2010 11:30:01]

page_336

Instantaneous field of view, 186, 188, 189, 193, 196, 203-5 Instrumental neutron activation analysis, 162, 164, 165, 170, 171, 174-76 Interaction sphere, 161, 162 International Council of Archaeozoology, 112 Interstate 77 project, South Carolina, 44 Iowa, 167 Irene Mound, Georgia, 66, 67 Isle Royale, Michigan, 163 J Jablonski, Kathleen A., 73 Jackson, Andrew, 5 Jackson, H. Edwin, 153 Jackson, R. C., 139, 147 Jadeitite, 166, 167 Jaketown perforators, 43 Jaketown site, Mississippi, 42 Jefferies, Richard W., 46 Jefferson, Thomas, 2, 5, 88 Jenks, Albert E., 120 Jennings, Jesse D., 97 Jensen, John R., 196, 198 Jesuits, 90 Jeter, Marvin D., 106 Johannessen, Sissel, 150, 155 Johnson, Jay K., 1, 49, 156, 201, 203 Johnson, P. F., 178 Johnson, Richard, 124 John Stuart and the Southern Colonial Frontier, 90 Jolliet, Louis, 82, 94, 106

< previous page

page_336

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_336.html[20/10/2010 11:30:01]

page_337

< previous page

page_337

next page > Page 337

Jones, Joseph, 60 Jones, Volney, 134-36, 138, 141, 147 Journal of Archaeological Science, 160 Journal of Mammalogy, 123 Joutel, Henri, 82, 94-96, 106 K Kames, Lord, 56 Kaolin, 178 Kelley, Marc A., 74 Kellogg site, Georgia, 138 Kelvin, Lord, 7 Kentucky, 37, 39, 47, 65, 66, 71, 73, 119, 135-37, 140, 144, 151, 157 Kentucky Lake, 65 Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan, 163 Kidder, Alfred V., 106 Kidder, Tristram R., 180 Kincaid site, Illinois, 200 King, Frances B., 149 King site, Georgia, 72 Kinship, 85, 86, 92 Kirk Corner-notched projectile point, 44 Klemptner, L. J., 178 Kline, Gerald W., 146 Kneberg, Madeline, 39, 49, 65, 67, 68, 72 Knotweed, 144-46, 151, 152 Koasati Indians, 89 Koroa Indians, 106 Kroeber, Alfred L., 39, 115, 116 Kruckman, Laurence, 184 Kuhn, Thomas, 16

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_337.html[20/10/2010 11:30:02]

page_337

L Labrador, 171 Lahren, Craig H., 73 Lake George site, Mississippi, 209 Lamarck, Jean Baptiste, 57, 59 Land allotments, 85 Land claims, 86, 92 Landau, Misia, 14 Landscape classification, 192, 193 Langdon, Stephen P., 74 Large Format Camera, 188 Larsen, Clark S., 70, 74 La Salle, René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de, 82, 87, 90, 94-96 Laurens-Anderson project, South Carolina, 44 Lawrence, Barbara, 124 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 182 Lee Creek, 202 Leidy, Joseph, 60, 61 Leone, Mark P., 130 Le Page du Pratz, Antoine, 102 Leute, Ulrich, 160 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 9 Lewis, Thomas M. N., 39, 49 Library of Congress, 87, 91 Liebig's law of the minimum, 124 Limp, W. Fredrick, 201-3, 205 Linnaeus, Carolus, 54 Linton, Ralph, 135 Lithics, 33, 36-52, 210, 213 and culture history, 30, 37-41, 207, 208, 210, 211 functional analysis, 41, 44, 45, 49-51 nineteenth century analysis, 36, 37, 207

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_337.html[20/10/2010 11:30:02]

page_337

source area determination, 45, 172-74 technological analysis, 41-43, 45-49 Little barley, 152 Little Bear Creek project, Alabama, 44 Little Tennessee River, 44, 142, 150, 151 Locke, John, 54 Logical positivism, 9 Logistic/residential mobility, 50 Long bone structure, 74 Long heads, 66-68, 208 Long Island, 170 Loomis, F. B., 119 Lost tribes, 3, 55, 84, 208 Louisiana, 4, 31, 42, 66, 67, 82, 87, 89, 90, 93, 100, 106, 145, 159, 200 Louisiana Archaeological Survey, 95 Louisiana State Museum, 112 Lower Mississippi Survey, 96, 97, 102, 105, 209 Lubbock, John, 111 Lubbub Creek site, Alabama, 43 Luedtke, Barbara E., 173, 174 Lyman, R. Lee, 111 Lyons Bluff, Mississippi, 203 M McCollough, Major C. R., 40 McFaydon Burial Mound, North Carolina, 72 McGee, William C., 62 McGill University, 182 McKern, William C., 22, 93, 209 MacNeill, William H., 100 Madry, Scott, 200, 206 Maine, 118, 119, 170 Maize, 10, 12, 116, 132, 135-39, 144, 145, 157, 158, 213

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_337.html[20/10/2010 11:30:02]

page_337

Mesoamerican origin, 136 Mississippian, 146, 154-56 Woodland, 138, 144-6, 151-55 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 12

< previous page

page_337

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_337.html[20/10/2010 11:30:02]

page_338

< previous page

page_338

next page > Page 338

Mammalian Osteology, 112 Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, 67, 143 Manifest destiny, 87 Marksville complex, 31, 32 Marquardt, William H., 130 Marquette, Father Jacques, 82, 94, 95, 106 Marsh, O. C., 118 Marsh elder, 135, 136 Marxism, 14, 100 Maryland, 118 Massachusetts, 170 Mass analysis, 46 Mastodon, 61 Maygrass, 136, 144, 146, 148, 151, 152, 157 Mediterranean Sea, 180, 182 Megalonyx, 61 Mehta, J. D., 73 Meighan, C. W., 123 Meigs, J. Arkins, 60 Melanesia, 12 Meltzer, David J., 156 Membré, Father Zenobius, 82 Menard site, Arkansas, 96 Mensforth, Robert P., 73 Mentzer, E. Hollis, 34 Mercenaria, 170 Mero site, Wisconsin, 176 Mesoamerica, 135-37, 139, 140, 142-45, 147, 148, 153, 156, 157, 158, 176, 182, 208 Mesopotamia, 12 Method and Theory in American Archaeology, 96, 103, 211

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_338.html[20/10/2010 11:30:03]

page_338

Methodology, 128 archaeometry, 74, 162-64, 168, 171, 176, 181 ceramic, 24, 209 culture history, 31, 32 ethnohistory, 94, 99, 213 lithic, 40 and new archaeology, 33, 120, 213 paleoethnobotany, 133, 141, 142, 149, 150, 157, 158 remote sensing, 184, 185 zooarchaeology, 110, 121, 122, 124, 128 Mexico, 55, 124, 162, 163, 210 Mica, 3 Michigan, 165, 166 Mid America Research Center, 200 Middle Cumberland phase, 72 Middle-range theory, 33 Midsouth, 40, 47 Midwest, 34, 41, 43, 70, 102, 141-43, 210-12 Milanich, Jerald T., 174 Miller, Carl F., 144 Miller, Gerrit, 120 Miller, Katherine, 170 Mills, William C., 119 Minimum Number of Individuals, 124, 128 Missionary, 84, 85, 90, 95 Mississippi, 4, 40, 42-44, 46, 66, 89, 93, 97, 124, 159, 173, 201 Mississippian period, 6, 10, 12, 16, 34, 47, 72, 73, 102, 140, 146, 149, 151, 155-58, 161, 163, 169, 176, 178, 202, 203, 204, 213 Early, 10, 43, 146, 151, 154, 155 Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 97 Mississippi River, 2, 6, 14, 82, 87, 90, 94, 95, 100, 155, 176 Mississippi Valley: central, 145, 157, 176 file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_338.html[20/10/2010 11:30:03]

page_338

lower, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 42, 79, 82, 93, 94, 102, 106, 210 upper, 137, 167, 176 Missouri, 145, 167, 204 Mixels, 193 Mobile Bay, 4, 29, 32 Mobile River, 28 Modes, 23, 27, 29 Moffat, D., 172 Mommsen, Hans, 160 Monge, J., 190 Montesquieu, de La Brède et de, 54 Moore, C. B., 88 Moorehead, Warren K., 88 Morgan, Lewis Henry, 88 Mormons, 5 Morphological dating, 62 Morrison, J. P. E., 121 Morse, Dan F., 42, 49 Morton, Samuel George, 55-60, 76, 85 Morton shell mound, Louisiana, 145 Moundbuilders, 2-5, 21, 54-56, 64, 67, 75, 76, 88, 208 Mounds, 2-7, 10-14, 16, 43, 54, 55, 60, 76, 88, 138, 153, 195, 197, 198, 200, 203 burial, 2-4, 6, 10, 65-67, 72, 95, 118, 167 shell, 37, 38, 62, 67, 68, 118, 119, 121, 140, 145, 152 stone, 3 temple, 3, 4, 6, 16, 43, 55, 66, 96, 213 Moundville site, Alabama, 34, 35, 66, 71, 73, 75, 76, 102, 155, 178, 179 Mouse Creek phase, 72 MSS sensor, 188, 196-99, 205 Mulattoes, 58 Mulberry River, 201 Multiculturalism, 77

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_338.html[20/10/2010 11:30:03]

page_338

< previous page

page_338

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_338.html[20/10/2010 11:30:03]

page_339

< previous page

page_339

next page > Page 339

Musick, H. Brad, 193 Myers, V., 174 N Nance, C. Roger, 34 Narváez, Pánfilo de, 82 Nashville Basin, 70 Natchez Indians, 31, 55, 93, 95-97, 102, 106 Natchez region, 105 Natchez Trace Parkway, 97 National Geographic Society, 103 National Park Service, Remote Sensing Center, 205 Navajo Nation Archaeological Department, 108 Neandertal, 61 Neitzel, Robert S., 96 Neumann, Georg K., 64, 67, 68 New archaeology, 45, 51, 126, 179, 212 archaeometry, 179 biocultural anthropology, 70 ceramics, 32-35 ethnohistory, 101, 102 foreshadows of, 8, 207 goals, 28, 51, 125, 210 lithics, 42-51 shortcomings, 13, 14, 213 southeastern participation in, 20, 210-13 zooarchaeology, 125 Newman, Marshall T., 65, 67 New Perspectives in Archaeology, 210, 212 Newt Kash shelter, Kentucky, 135, 136, 138, 151 Niche width, 114, 117, 127

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_339.html[20/10/2010 11:30:04]

page_339

Noakes, John, 164, 165 Noble savage, 54, 76, 77, 84 Nomothetic, 79, 98, 101, 125 Normandy reservoir project, Tennessee, 40, 43, 46, 49, 142, 144, 151 Norris Basin, 65-67 North Carolina, 39, 44, 48, 50, 65, 72, 146, 159, 171 Nott, Josiah Clark, 58, 59 Nubia, 70 Numerical taxonomy, 28 Nutrition, 13, 73, 74, 113, 126, 127, 148, 153 Nuts, 10, 135, 137, 146, 147 O O'Brien, Michael, 204 Obsidian, 162, 163, 180, 181 Ohio, 3-5, 54, 118, 119, 152, 154, 155, 162 Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, 119 Ohio River, 2, 79, 133, 145, 176, 200 Oklahoma, 41, 89, 175, 202, 204 Old Southwest, 79, 82, 85, 87, 89, 93, 100 Olsen, John, 112 Olsen, Sandra, 112 Ontario, 176 Optical emission spectroscopy, 163 Organization of technology, 51 Origin of Species On the, 56 Origins of Agriculture, The, 150 Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo Fernández, 82, 103 Ozark Mountains, 133, 135, 138, 152, 155, 175 P Paleoenvironment, 110, 111, 126 Paleoethnobotany, 10, 132-59, 208, 211 Paleofeces, 136, 141, 143, 145

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_339.html[20/10/2010 11:30:04]

page_339

Paleoindian, 16, 40, 42, 48, 50, 132 Paleolithic, 6, 36, 41, 50 Paleontology, 109-13, 118 Paleopathology, 63, 70, 74 Palm Court site, Florida, 43 Pardo, Juan, 105 Parkman, Francis, 87 Parks, P. A., 160 Parmalee, Paul W., 124, 126 Patrick site, Tennessee, 144 Pawpaw, 146 Payne, Sabastian, 147 Peach, 147, 156 Peachtree site, North Carolina, 65, 67 Peat, 145 Peck site, Louisiana, 32 Pecos Pueblo, New Mexico, 65, 67 Peebles, Christopher S., 1, 102 Pelletier, Ramona E., 193 Penicaut, André (French traveler), 82 Pennsylvania, 124 Periodontal disease, 73 Peter Cave, Kentucky, 152 Peyrere, Isaac de la, 56 Phase, 27, 29, 30, 33, 39 Phelps, Dawson, 97 Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, 60 Phillips, Philip, 26-28, 94-96, 97, 103-5, 180 Phillips Academy, 88 Phrenology, 57 Physical anthropology, 7, 53-77, 208, 211 Physical science, 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, 33, 160, 179, 183

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_339.html[20/10/2010 11:30:04]

page_339

Physiology, 111 Pickett, Albert, 89

< previous page

page_339

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_339.html[20/10/2010 11:30:04]

page_340

< previous page

page_340

next page > Page 340

Pickwick Basin project, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, 37, 38, 65, 67, 68, 74 Piney Branch site, Washington D.C., 36, 37 Pisgah phase, 146 Plog, Fred, 181 Plum, 146 Polygenesis, 54, 56-59, 83, 208 Popper, Virginia S., 149 Porotic hyperostosis, 70, 74 Postprocessual archaeology, 14, 33, 35, 212 Poverty Point period, 136, 140, 146, 153, 158 Poverty Point site, Louisiana, 9, 10, 14, 16, 42, 43, 200, 202 Powell, Mary Lucas, 71, 73-75 Powhatan/Rappahannock Indians, 92 Predation, 113 Preucel, Robert W., 14 Primary forest efficiency, 137 Procurement strategies: food, 126-28 raw material, 161-63, 166, 168, 172, 179, 181 Protohistoric period, 6, 34, 72, 93, 94, 96, 99, 105, 213 Proton induced X-ray spectroscopy (PIXE), 174, 175 Public Record Office in London, 82 Puerto Rico, 120 Pumpkin, 10 Putnam, Frederic Ward, 62 Q Quapaw Indians, 94-96, 106 Quarry sites, 36, 50, 204 Quimby, George I., 95, 96 R file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_340.html[20/10/2010 11:30:05]

page_340

Raab, L. Mark, 46 Rabkin, Samuel, 73 Race, 7, 54-59, 64, 68, 69, 88 Radical Republicans, 5 Radiocarbon dating, 9, 31, 32, 79, 93, 139 Ranjel, Rodrigo, 103, 104 Rapp, George, Jr., 165, 166 Redistribution, 113, 161, 168, 213 Redman, Charles L., 2, 213 Red River, 26, 151, 202 Reed, Charles A., 112 Refitting artifacts, 47 Reitz, Elizabeth J., 210-212 Remote sensing, 184-207 Repatriation, 53, 75-77, 98, 107 Replication, 9, 36, 42, 45 Research Laboratory for Archaeology at Oxford, 182 Resolution in remote sensing, 186, 187 Rhode Island, 118 Rice, Prudence M., 176 Rickett's Mound, Kentucky, 65, 67 Rindos, David, 150, 151, 155 Ripley, William Z., 64 Ritual, 3, 4, 8, 11, 35, 43, 115, 127, 213 Robinove, Charles J., 192 Rodriguez-Buckingham, Antonio, 103, 105 Rogers Rockshelter, Kentucky, 145 Roots of Dependency, The, 100 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 54, 76, 84 Russell Cave, Alabama, 144, 152 S Sabo, George, 107

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_340.html[20/10/2010 11:30:05]

page_340

St. Albans projectile point, 44 St. Catherine's Island, Georgia, 70, 74 Saint-Denis, Louis Jucherau de, 82 St. Hilaire, Bishop of Poitiers, 57 St. Johns River, 60, 118 Salts Cave, Kentucky, 141, 143, 152 Sample bias, 110, 111, 124, 128 Samples, Junior, 19 Satellite sensors, 188, 189 Saunders, Rebecca A., 34 Savannah River, 37 Sayre, Edward, 182 Scanning electron microscope (SEM), 10, 149 Scaphocephalous, 67 Scarry, C. Margaret, 141, 149, 155 Schambach, Frank, 29 Schiffer, Michael B., 45 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 86 Schrodinger, Erwin, 15 Schuldenrein, J., 50 Scollar, Irwin Alain, 204, 205 Sears, William, 27 SEASAT sensor, 188, 189 Seasonality, 119, 126, 127, 145 Seasonal round, 125, 128 Sea urchin, 119 Sedentism, 47, 49, 136, 138, 147, 151, 155 Seeman, Mark F., 181 Selyen stress, 70 Semenov, S. A., 9, 41 Sequoyah, Cherokee chief, 77 Seriation, 25, 31, 32, 38, 40

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_340.html[20/10/2010 11:30:05]

page_340

Settlement pattern, 12, 33, 49, 127, 134, 150, 168, 210 documentary evidence, 86 faunal studies, 127 lithics, 49, 51 Mississippian, 146 Paleoindian, 40

< previous page

page_340

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_340.html[20/10/2010 11:30:05]

page_341

< previous page

page_341

next page > Page 341

production technology, 36, 47 subsistence implications, 121, 138, 140 Woodland, 144 Sever, Thomas, 184, 205 Shawnee site, Kentucky, 200 Shea, Andrea B., 141, 150, 153 Shea, John Gilmary, 87 Sheldon, Elisabeth Shepard, 141, 147 Shelford's law of tolerance, 124 Shell, 10, 112, 118, 122, 129, 169, 171 trace, 169-71, 181 Shell midden, 37, 38, 118, 119 Shell Mound Archaeological Project, 140 Shepard, Anna O., 9, 22, 34, 178, 180 Sidell, Nancy Asch, 141 Silverberg, Robert, 55 SIR sensor, 188, 189 Site formation, 33, 80, 129 Sitting Bull, Dakota chief, 77 Slavery, 57, 58 Smartweeds, 145 Smiling Dan site, Illinois, 152 Smith, Bruce D., 111, 130, 144, 149, 151-53, 156 Smith, Buckingham, 87 Smith, C. Earle, 141 Smith, Fred H., 53 Smith, Harlan I., 37, 119 Smith, Joseph, 5 Smith, Maria O., 73, 212 Smith, Samuel Stanhope, 56, 57

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_341.html[20/10/2010 11:30:06]

page_341

Smithsonian Institution, 6, 7, 60, 88 Snow, Charles E., 53, 65-69, 71 Snyders site, Illinois, 140 Soapstone, 169, 171, 172 Society for American Archaeology, 19, 160 soil/vegetation moisture, detection of, 194, 195 South Africa, 192 South America, 9, 142 South Carolina, 37, 44, 46, 48, 49, 82, 159 South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 82 Southeast, boundaries of, 19, 53, 110 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 1, 2, 20, 25, 26, 41, 129, 160, 211, 213 Southern Frontier, The, 90 Southwest, 25, 26, 31, 135, 142, 178, 180, 205 Space Remote Sensing Center, Stennis Space Center, 204 Space Technology Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, 190 Spanish, 82 artifacts, 6 colonial period, 82, 87, 90 documents, 84, 100, 106 exploration, 103-5 Spanish Borderlands, 90 Sparks, Jared, 86 Spaulding, Albert C., 28, 97 Speck, Frank, 92 Spina bifida, 63, 73 Spoehr, Alexander, 92 Spondylolysis, 73 SPOT sensor, 188, 189, 196-98, 201 Squash, 10, 135-38, 144-48, 151-53 Stahle, David, 46 Stallings Island site, Georgia, 37, 66

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_341.html[20/10/2010 11:30:06]

page_341

Stanton, William, 59 Statistics, 25, 39, 46, 48, 69, 72, 99, 149, 159, 187, 199 chi-square, 23, 28 cluster analysis, 164 discriminant analysis, 164, 166, 167 maximum likelihood classification, 201, 203 multivariate, 71 parametric, 175 probabilistic, 8, 12 spatial, 185 Steponaitis, Vincas, P., 53, 105, 178, 179 Steward, Julian H., 93, 116, 117 Stewart, T. Dale, 73 Stirling, Mathew W., 22 Stoltman, James B., 49 Stratigraphy, 23, 25, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44, 119, 120, 208 Struever, Stuart, 140, 141, 143, 144, 153 Style, 11, 34, 208 Subsistence, 36, 40, 109-60, 168, 212 and health, 72, 73 new archaeology, 33, 70 redistribution, 6, 213 trace element analysis, 13, 74 Succession, 113, 114 Sumpweed, 136, 139, 143, 144, 146, 148, 151, 157 Sunflower, 135, 136, 138, 139, 143, 144, 146, 147, 151, 157 Swanton, John R., 78, 91-97, 102, 104, 105 Swift Creek complicated stamped pottery, 34 Symbiosis, 114 Symbolism, 12, 102, 128, 170 Systems theory, 12, 33, 34, 51, 100, 117, 130, 142, 210 T

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_341.html[20/10/2010 11:30:06]

page_341

Tacitus, Publlus Cornelius, 84 Taylor, Walter W., 11, 122-25, 210

< previous page

page_341

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_341.html[20/10/2010 11:30:06]

page_342

< previous page

page_342

next page > Page 342

Tchefuncte period, 145 Tchefuncte site, Louisiana, 66, 67 Tellico reservoir project, Tennessee, 44, 70, 142 Temple Mound Stage, 30 Tennessee, 3, 37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48-50, 60, 65, 67, 71-74, 142-47, 151, 153, 154, 157 Tennessee River, 2, 4, 19, 25, 37, 38, 65, 73, 154 Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, 101, 142 Texas, 4, 32, 89 Thinning index, 46 Thomas, Cyrus, 5, 6, 88 Thomas, David Hurst, 130 Thor's Hammer Rockshelter, Kentucky, 151 Thunderbird project, Virginia, 44 Thunderbird site, Virginia, 48 TIMS sensor, 188, 190, 193, 195, 196, 201-3 Tite, Michael, 160 TM sensor, 188, 189, 193, 196-98, 200, 201, 203 Tobey, Mark Hathaway, 174 Toltec site, Arkansas, 155 Tombigbee River, 4, 28, 71, 79 Tomotley site, Tennessee, 147 Tonti, Henri de, 82, 94-96 Toqua site, Tennessee, 70 Toth, E. Alan, 103, 105 Townsend, John R. G., 192 Trade, 4, 11, 34, 161-63, 167, 168, 179-81, 209 ceramic, 34 colonial, 82, 88, 95 copper, 163, 164 faunal evidence, 121, 127

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_342.html[20/10/2010 11:30:07]

page_342

lithic, 45 Middle Archaic, 213 new archaeology, 11, 33, 179 obsidian, 162, 163 Poverty Point, 43 shell, 170 Trait lists, 30, 39, 130, 208 Trajectory length, 46 Trauma, 73 Trepanemal disease, 74 Tribute, 6 Trigger, Bruce G., 98 Tuberculosis, 74 Tunica Indians, 31, 89, 93, 105, 106 Turner, Frederick Jackson, 5, 87, 90 Turquoise, 166, 167 Tuskegee site, Tennessee, 147 Twin Mounds site, Kentucky, 200 Type cluster, 40, 44 Type-variety, 23, 26-28, 41, 209 Typology: binomial, 23-26 descriptive, 21, 25, 38 historical, 23, 25 operationalization, 44, 50 paradigmatic, 24, 28 proliferation, 26-28 spatial, 22, 24, 30 taxonomic, 22, 24, 26, 29, 122, 209 U U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 203 U.S. De Soto Commission, 92

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_342.html[20/10/2010 11:30:07]

page_342

U.S. Geological Survey, 163 U.S. War Department, 85 Uerpmann, Hans-Peter, 112 United Kingdom, 192 University of Alabama, 141 University of Florida, 204 University of Michigan, 134, 135, 141, 162 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 141 University of Pennsylvania, 60 University of Tennessee, 43, 140, 141, 147, 212 Usher, William, 61 Usner, Daniel H., Jr., 100 USSR, 189, 192 V Van Gerven, Dennis P., 70 Veakis, Emil, 165 Veterinary science, 111 Vickery, Kent D., 143 Villages, 4, 13, 95, 96, 155, 204 Virginia, 2, 39, 44, 48, 50 W Wagner, David, 205 Wagner, Gail E., 149 Wallace site, Arkansas, 96 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 100, 101 Walthall, John A., 166, 167 Wapnish, Paula, 111, 112 Warfare, 6, 85 Warm Mineral Springs site, Florida, 63 Warren Wilson site, North Carolina, 146 Watermelon, 156 Watson, Patty Jo, 1, 140, 141

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_342.html[20/10/2010 11:30:07]

page_342

Webb, William S., 120 Weeden Island complex, 34, 176, 177 Wells, Ian, 199 West Jefferson phase, 155 Westmoreland-Barber site, Tennessee, 154 Wetmore, Alexander, 120 Weyl, Hermann, 15 Whallon, Robert, Jr., 28 Wheeler Basin project, Alabama, 65, 67, 68 Whitaker, Thomas W., 147 White, Hayden, 101 White, Richard, 100

< previous page

page_342

next page >

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_342.html[20/10/2010 11:30:07]

page_343

< previous page

page_343 Page 343

White River, 203 Whitlam, Robert G., 29 Willey, Gordon R., 26, 30, 96, 97, 104, 180 Willey, Patrick S., 53 Wilson, H. H., 72 Wilson, Thomas, 62 Windover site, Florida, 63, 152 Windy Ridge site, South Carolina, 48 Wing, Elizabeth S., 126, 127 Wintemberg, W. J., 120 Winterville site, Mississippi, 105 Wisconsin, 167 Wiseman, James, 184, 206 Wissler, Clark, 116 Witthoft, John, 41, 42 Wolf, Eric R., 100 Woodland period, 34, 72, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 178 Early, 38, 143-45, 151, 152 Late, 16, 71, 145, 151, 154, 155 Middle, 35, 141, 144-46, 152-54, 161, 163, 167, 169, 213 Wright's site, Kentucky, 65, 67 Wyckoff, Don G., 41, 45 Wyman, Jeffries, 60, 118 X X-ray diffraction, 173 X-ray fluorescence, 171, 174 Xybion MSS video camera, 188, 190 Y Yale University, 56 Yarnell, Richard A., 140-46, 148, 150 file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_343.html[20/10/2010 11:30:08]

page_343

Yazoo Basin, 105, 209, 210 Yellow Creek project, Mississippi, 40, 44, 46, 173 Yellowstone National Park, 162, 181 Young, D. B., 119 Z Zebree site, Arkansas, 43 Zinjanthropus, 69 Zooarchaeology, 109-31, 159, 208, 211, 212 Zoology, 109-13, 118

< previous page

page_343

file:///C|/.../Archaeology/Johnson%20-%20The%20Development%20of%20Southeastern%20Archaeology/files/page_343.html[20/10/2010 11:30:08]