Citation
Coastal Mississippian period sites at Kings Bay, Georgia

Material Information

Title:
Coastal Mississippian period sites at Kings Bay, Georgia
Creator:
Smith, Robin Laurie, 1951- ( Dissertant )
Fairbanks, Charles H. ( Thesis advisor )
Wing, Elizabeth S. ( Reviewer )
Milanich, Jerald T. ( Reviewer )
Rice, Prudence M. ( Reviewer )
Hetrick, Virginia R. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1982
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Coasts ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Eggshells ( jstor )
Fish ( jstor )
Middens ( jstor )
Oysters ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Savannas ( jstor )
Seasons ( jstor )
Species ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic--Antrhopology--UF
Kings Bay ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage:
United States -- Geogia -- Kings Bay

Notes

Abstract:
This study interprets archeological evidence from two coastal Mississippian period sites and explains the infrastructure of the late prehistoric culture in terms of a general model of coastal adaptation. A model of Mississippian period coastal subsistence and settlement is refined and used to generate specific hypotheses tested with the primary data. Two sites at Kings Bay were examined. Ceramic data are used to infer temporal provenience and plot the spatial extent of each component. Faunal data provide information on biotope exploitation, seasonality, and subsistence technology. A formal inference procedure is employed to evaluate general questions concerning coastal settlement and subsistence and specific questions concerning social group size, season of occupation, and primary function for each site. The Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site was a homestead occupied most of the year. Primary subsistence pursuits included fishing, shellfishing, and hunting. Horticulture would have been feasible but no direct evidence was found. The Killion Site was a small camp, occupied in early spring by a few families, during a period of subsistence stress. Coastal settlement exhibits ecotonal location on the oak-forested rim of high land along the salt marsh; points providing direct access to the marsh, estuary, and freshwater creeks were favored. Faunal remains indicate a subsistence strategy emphasizing animals of the low-maturity marsh/estuary system. Invertebrates were gathered, small fishes were netted, and larger fishes were hooked or speared. Terrestrial fauna were secondary resources. Though not archeologically represented, forest plants must have been important, and ethnohistoric accounts indicate some reliance on horticultural products. Coastal horticulture systematically reduced forest maturity, allowing opportunistic growth of annual crops. Because arable coastal soils are severely limited in fertility and extent, cultigens never became major dietary staples. This pattern contrasts sharply with the meander-belt Mississippian farming of nutrient-subsidized floodplain soils. The difference in energy base explains the different manifestation of Mississippian technology and ideas among coastal populations as compared to interior populations. Strong continuities between the earlier Coastal Tradition infrastructure and the late period coastal energy base are seen as a long-standing pattern of adaptation to a low-maturity environment.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references (542-553).
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09359861 ( OCLC )
ABW4009 ( LTUF )
0028815117 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














COASTAL MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD SITES AT KINGS BAY, GEORGIA:
A MODEL-BASED ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS




BY


ROBIN LAURIE SMITH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1982

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


It is a pleasure to recall the many people I have met and worked

with in the course of this project. Although I cannot mention every

name, I hope that each one of you will accept my thanks for your help

and encouragement, both personal and professional, during the last

five years.

Providing guidance as members of my supervisory committee, Drs.

Charles Fairbanks, Jerald Milanich, Virginia Hetrick, Elizabeth Wing,

and Prudence Rice have always been available to comment on my work

from their own unique perspectives. Especially appreciated are the

many hours set aside to read and criticize drafts of this study.

This project, sponsored by the U.S. Navy, was generously funded,

in large part due to the efforts of William D. Elder of OICC Trident.

Bill has worked hard to ensure that both Navy and academic interests

are served by this research. In addition, he has regularly provided

encouragement and advice as one professional to another, a gesture

deeply appreciated by one accustomed to the marginal status of

"student." I would also like to thank the administration and staff at

Kings Bay for their good-natured tolerance of our irregular hours and

unusual work habits.

More than 50 individuals participated in the survey and testing

fieldwork and each made his or her special contribution. Nina











Borremans, Chad Braley, and Mimi Saffer were competent and responsible

colleagues and loyal friends. Mary Herron supervised the fieldwork

while I was away and kept track of a great many details which would

have gotten badly out of hand without her help. Bill Hunt, Alan

Bailey, Betty Leigh Hutcheson, Bert Rhyne, Judd Kratzer and Eli

Willcox were especially conscientious members of the crew, as well as

valued friends.

Bert and Gina Rhyne provided a home and family during my stay in

Camden County. Thanks.

During laboratory analysis important contributions were made by

Robbie Owens, Jennifer Hamilton, Helen Doney, and Betty Leigh

Hutcheson. Dr. William Maples of the Florida State Museum contributed

an analysis of osteological remains and Irv Quitmyer took time out

during a critical period in his own research to analyze

zooarcheological materials for me. Dr. Elizabeth Reitz produced a

synthesis of faunal information based on the work of many people in

the Zooarcheological Laboratory under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth

Wing. Lucy Wayne and Mimi Saffer handled editing and production of

the final project report with skill and dispatch, and were incredibly

patient with the authors.

On a daily basis, the support of the faculty, staff, and students

of the Department of Anthropology has made this research possible.

Among the many friends who have helped me solve problems and who have

discussed the ones that couldn't be solved are: Lydia Deakin, Darla

Wilkes, Donna McMillan, Nain Anderson, Jill Loucks, Theresa Singleton,

Ray Willis, Sue Mullins, Ray Crook, Tom Eubanks, Linda Wolfe, Leslie











Lieberman, Gary Shapiro, Lucy Wayne, Chad Braley, Nina Borremans, Mimi

Saffer, Betsy Reitz, Betty Leigh Hutcheson, Ann Cordell, Tom DesJean,

and Nick Honerkamp.

Dr. Fairbanks has been my advisor since I began graduate school.

It has been a privilege to work with him, to share insights arising

from his long experience in archeology, and to benefit from his

patient coaching and occasional prodding. His approach to archeology

is based on generosity, intellectual honesty, and respect for others,

both as scholars and as individuals. I only hope a little of this has

rubbed off on me.

This work rests heavily on the work of others who have visited

the coast before me. Drs. Charles Pearson, Ray Crook and Lewis Larson

are especially to be thanked for making their ideas available. If I

have been critical, it is because their work was thought-provoking:

the meatiest studies have been chewed the most. I hope others will

find time to criticize my work.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for support, shelter,

and continually expressed confidence. My husband, Nicholas, has

waited long and patiently without complaining. It is largely the

prospect of our shared research in the future which has motivated me

to complete this project.


L










CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . .. . . .* * ii

LIST OF FIGURES . .... .. . . . ... ix

ABSTRACT . . .... . ............. ... xii

I. INTRODUCTION . .... .. . . . 1

Description of Research . .... .. * *. 1
Description of Fieldwork . .... . . 10
Organization of This Study . .... .. . 19

II. NATURAL SETTING . . ...... .. . 21

Climate and Terrain . .... . . 21
Flora and Fauna . .... . . 26

III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH . .... . .. . . 36

Larson's Subsistence Study . .... . 36
Northern St. Simons Island . .... . . 39
Southern St. Simons Island . .... . . 50
Sapelo Island ...... .. . . . 52
Ossabaw Island . . . . 59
New Ethnohistoric Perspectives ..... . . 67
Summary . . . .... . 72

IV. THEORETICAL CONTEXT . .... . . . 75

The Use of Models ........ . . . 75
Ecological Models . . . . 77
Cultural Materialism . . . . 78
Archeological Inference .... . . 81
Summary . . . . . 89

V. MODELS OF COASTAL ADAPTATION . .... . 91

Introduction ........ .... ..... . 91
The Late Emergence of Coastal Adaptations ..... 91
Marine Ecosystem Structure ...... . . 95
Basic Features of Coastal Adaptations ...... 99
Applications of Coastal Adaptation Model . . 105
Mississippian Period Models . . . .. 114
Hypotheses . . ........... 128
Summary . . . . . . 140











. . . . 142


The Nature of the Sites . .... . . 142
Level and Kinds of Data Generated . . ... .147
Methods . ... . . . . 149
Summary . . . . . . 169

VII. RESULTS . ..... .. . . . 170

Survey Results . .... . . 170
The Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . ... .. . 179
The Killion Site, 9Cam179 . . . ... .364

VIII. EVALUATION OF RESULTS . . .... . 422
Hypothesis I . . .... . . 423
Hypothesis II . . .... . . 427
Hypothesis III . . . . . 445
Hypothesis IV . . .... . . 457
Hypothesis V . . . . . 466
Hypothesis VI . . .... .. . . 475
Hypothesis VII . . .... . . 484
Hypothesis VIII . . .... . 492
Review and Summary . .... . . 499


IX. CONCLUSIONS . . .... . . 502

Introduction . .... . . . 502
Results . .... . . . . 503
Evaluation of the Model . .. . . 519
Evaluation of Inference Methodology . ... 528
Interior Compared to Coastal Adaptations . ... 529
Coastal Adaptations . .... .. ..... 534

REFERENCES CITED . . .... . . 542

APPENDIX A. AVIAN SEASONALITY IN THE KINGS BAY VICINITY .... .554

APPENDIX B. CROSS TABULATIONS OF SURFACE TREATMENT AND PASTE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR POTTERY FROM 9CAM171A AND
9CAM171B . . . . . 558

APPENDIX C. CLUSTERING ROUTINE USED TO GROUP POTTERY FROM
9CAM171 AND 9CAM179 . . . . 571

APPENDIX D. CERAMIC TYPE TOTALS BY UNIT FOR 9CAM171A AND
9CAM171B . . .... . . 573

APPENDIX E. BUSYCON DATA FOR SAVANNAH CONTEXTS AT 9CAM171 . 585

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . .. . . 589


VI. METHODS . . .











LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. Components Present at Kings Bay Sites Subjected to
Secondary Testing . . .... . . 15
Table 2. Crook's Annual Cycle for the Sixteenth Century Guale 121
Table 3. Midden Formation Processes . .... . 145
Table 4. Aboriginal Ceramic Paste Inclusions Observed in
Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Cam179 Assemblages . .. .156
Table 5. Aboriginal Ceramic Surface Treatments Observed in
Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Cam179 Assemblages . .. .158
Table 6. Lithic Form Attributes Observed in Analysis of
9Caml71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages . .... 164
Table 7. Lithic Material Attributes Observed in Analysis of
9Caml71 and 9Cam179 Assemblages . .... 165
Table 8. Attributes Recorded in Analysis of Busvcon spp.
Shells from 9Caml71 and 9Caml79 .......... 167
Table 9. Survey Results for Aboriginal Sites at Kings Bay .171
Table 10. Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery by Provenience
at 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B . . . .. 202
Table 11. Vertical Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A
and 9Caml71B . . .... . . 202
Table 12. Distribution of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71A and
9Caml71B . .... . . . 204
Table 13. Vertical Distribution of Lithic Artfacts at 9Caml71A
and 9Caml71B ......... . . 204
Table 14. Soils Analysis Data for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 205
Table 15. Ceramic Attribute Clusters for Segments of the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . . . 213
Table 16. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71 . .... . . 235
Table 17. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71A 237
Table 18. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71B 239
Table 19. Correlations of Wear Variables for Busycons from
Savannah Contexts at 9Caml71 . . .. 262
Table 20. Mollusc Sample Analysis Data for 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B 273
Table 21. Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Samples from the
Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . . . 276
Table 22. Vertebrate Species List for 1/4 In. Screened Zone
Material from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings
Bay Site . . . .... . 289
Table 23. Vertebrate Species List for 1/4 In. Screened Zone
Material from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71B . .... . . 291
Table 24. Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for 1/4 In.
Screened Material from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 294
Table 25. Ranking of Mammal Importance in Zone Samples from the
Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . .... . 295
Table 26. Vertebrate Species List for Savannah Period Features
from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . .. . 298











Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.
Table 40.

Table 41.
Table 42.

Table 43.

Table 44.
Table 45.


viii


Vertebrate Species List for St. Johns Period Features
from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . ... 300
Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for Features
Analyzed from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . .. 301
Distribution of Elements for Fauna Identified from
the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . . .. 306
Vertebrate Species List for Two Column Samples from
the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A 307
Pearson Correlation of Unit Type Frequency Totals for
9Caml71A . . . . . 313
Vertical Distribution of Artifacts at the Killion Site,
9Cam179 . . . .... . 376
Intermidden Comparative Data for the Killion Site,
9Caml79 . . . . . 392
Ceramic Group Occurrence by Unit at the Killion Site,
9Caml79 . . ... . . 393
Mollusc Sample Analysis Data from Four Column Samples
at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . ... 395
Soils Analysis Data for Four Column Samples from the
Killion Site, 9Cam179 ................ 396
Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for the
Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . ... .399
Summary of Ceramic Analysis Data for All Excavation
Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . ... 403
Vertebrate Species List for the Killion Site, 9Cam179 405
Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Four Oyster Shell
Samples from the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . ... 413
Summary of Ceramic Types for the Killion Site, 9Caml79 417
Preliminary Classification of Productivity of Coastal
Resources Available to Mississippian Period Populations 429
Occurrence of Subsistence Resource Groups in Eight
Assemblages from Three Sites at Kings Bay ...... 435
Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results . ... .439
Summary of Pearson's Settlement System Data from
Ossabaw Island (1979) . . . ... .447










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1. The Central Portion of the Southeastern U.S. Coast
Showing the Location of the Research Area (from
R. Smith et al. 1981:3) . .... .. .. 6
Figure 2. Locations of Historic and Prehistoric Period
Archeological Sites Defined During the 1977-78
R. Survey of Kings Bay (from Smith et al. 1981:11) 8
Figure 3. The Hypothetico-Analog Method of Inductive Inference 85
Figure 4. A Diagram of Coastal Adaptation Based on Yesner's
Model . . .. .. . . 104
Figure 5. A Hypothetical Coastal Settlement Pattern Based on
Seasonal Variations Described by Crook . ... .124
Figure 6. Soils Map of the Kings Bay Area (from R. Smith et al.
1981:45) . . . .. .. . 175
Figure 7. A 5 km Radius Circular Catchment Basin Superimposed
on the Kings Bay Area (based on Georgia Department
of Transportation 1974) . . . ... .178
Figure 8. Southern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the San
Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A .. 183
Figure 9. Excavation Plan for 9Caml71A . . .... 185
Figure 10. Northern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the St.
Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B .. 187
Figure 11. Excavation Plan for 9Caml71B . . .... 189
Figure 12. East Profile of Unit 354 Showing Plow Zone Over
Aboriginal Feature at 9Caml71A . .... 196
Figure 13. South Profile of Unit 357 Showing Undisturbed
Aboriginal Midden at 9Caml71A . . .... 198
Figure 14. Representative Profile Sections from One Transect at
9Caml71A . . . . . 201
Figure 15. Representative Profile Section from One Transect at
9Caml71B . . . .... . 208
Figure 16. Variants of Cord Marking on Sherds from the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . . . 218
Figure 17. Part of a San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped Jar from
the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . .. 220
Figure 18. San Marcos Series Pottery from the Kings Bay Site,
9Caml71 . . . . . 223
Figure 19. St. Johns Incised Sherds from the Kings Bay Site,
9Caml71 . . . . . . 226
Figure 20. Savannah Fine Cork Marked Sherds from Feature 36
in the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . ... 230
Figure 21. Irene Incised Jar from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 .. 233
Figure 22. Quartz Artifacts from the St. Johns Segment of the
Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B . .. . 242
Figure 23. Chert Tools from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71A . ... .. . . 245
Figure 24. Chert Tools from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings
Bay Site, 9Caml71B . ... .. . . 248











Figure 25.

Figure 26.
Figure 27.

Figure 28.

Figure 29.

Figure 30.

Figure 31.
Figure 32.
Figure 33.
Figure 34.

Figure 35.

Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Figure 38.
Figure 39.
Figure 40.
Figure 41.
Figure 42.
Figure 43.
Figure 44.
Figure 45.
Figure 46.
Figure 47.
Figure 48.
Figure 49.
Figure 50.

Figure 51.

Figure 52.
Figure 53.
Figure 54.
Figure 55.
Figure 56.
Figure 57.
Figure 58.
Figure 59.
Figure 60.
Figure 61.

Figure 62.
Figure 63.

Figure 64.


Miscellaneous Stone Artifacts from the Kings Bay Site,
9Caml71 . . . . ... .. . 250
Majolica Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 255
Two Heavily Utilized Busycon spp. Shells from the
Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . . . 259
Relationship of Basewear to Size for Busycon Shells
from Savannah Contexts . . . . 264
Relationship of Shoulder Wear to Size for Busycon
Shells from Savannah Contexts . . .. 266
Relationship of Apex Wear to Size for Busycon Shells
from Savannah Contexts. . . . .268
Radiocarbon Dates for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 279
Distribution of St. Simons Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 319
Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 320
Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at
9Caml71A . . . . ... .. . 321
Distribution of Wilmington/Savannah Series Pottery
at 9Caml71A . . . . .. 322
Distribution of San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 323
Distribution of St. Johns Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 324
Distribution of Check Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71A .325
Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml71A .326
Distribution of Mission Red Filmed Pottery at 9Caml71A 327
Distribution of Olive Jar Sherds at 9Caml71A .... .328
Distribution of Majolica Sherds at 9Caml71A ..... 329
Distribution of Spanish Ceramics at 9Caml71A ..... .330
Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A . 331
Distribution of Busycon Shells at 9Caml71A . .. 332
Distribution of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71A .... .333
Distribution of Vertebrate Faunal Remains at 9Caml71A 334
Distribution of St. Simons Series Pottery at 9Caml71B 337
Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Caml71B 338
Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at
9Caml71B . . . . .. .. 339
Distribution of Wilmington/Savannah Series Pottery at
9Caml71B . . . . . 340
Distribution of San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml71B 341
Distribution of St. Johns Series Pottery at 9Caml71B 342
Distribution of Check Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71B 343
Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml71B 344
Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71B . 345
Distribution of Busycon Shells at 9Caml71B . .. .346
Distribution of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71B .... .347
Distribution of Vertebrate Faunal Remains at 9Caml71B 348
Location of the Killion Site, 9Cam179 . ... 366
Shell Midden Features Composing the Killion Site,
9Cam179 . . . .... . 371
Killion Site Excavation Plan . . . 374
Profiles of Representative Nonsite Units at the Killion
Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . .380
Profiles of Representative Nonmidden Units at the
Killion Site, 9Cam179 . . . ... .382











Figure 65.

Figure 66.

Figure 67.

Figure 68.

Figure 69.

Figure 70.

Figure 71.


Profiles of Representative Subsurface Midden Units at
the Killion Site, 9Cam179 .......... 384
Profiles of Two Surface Midden Units at the Killion
Site, 9Caml79 . . . .. .. .... 386
Profiles of a Surface Midden Unit at the Killion Site,
9Cam179 . . . .... .... 388
South Profile of Unit 115 Showing Surface Midden at
the Killion Site, 9Cam179 . . .... 391
Representative Artifacts from the Killion Site,
9Caml79 . . . . 402
Site Boundary Derived from Surface Feature Locations
at the Killion Site, 9Cam179 . . . 410
A Hypothetical Grouping of the Middens at the Killion
Site Suggesting Contemporaneity . . .. 451
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


COASTAL MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD SITES AT KINGS BAY, GEORGIA:
A MODEL-BASED ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS


By

Robin Laurie Smith

August 1982


Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks

Major Department: Anthropology


This study interprets archeological evidence from two coastal

Mississippian period sites and explains the infrastructure of the late

prehistoric culture in terms of a general model of coastal adaptation.

A model of Missisippian period coastal subsistence and settlement is

refined and used to generate specific hypotheses tested with the

primary data.

Two sites at Kings Bay were examined. Ceramic data are used to

infer temporal provenience and plot the spatial extent of each

component. Faunal data provide information on biotope exploitation,

seasonality, and subsistence technology. A formal inference procedure

is employed to evaluate general questions concerning coastal

settlement and subsistence and specific questions concerning social

group size, season of occupation, and primary function for each site.










The Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site was a homestead

occupied most of the year. Primary subsistence pursuits included

fishing, shellfishing, and hunting. Horticulture would have been

feasible but no direct evidence was found. The Killion Site was a

small camp, occupied in early spring by a few families, during a

period of subsistence stress.

Coastal settlement exhibits ecotonal location on the oak-forested

rim of high land along the salt marsh; points providing direct access

to the marsh, estuary, and freshwater creeks were favored. Faunal

remains indicate a subsistence strategy emphasizing animals of the

low-maturity marsh/estuary system. Invertebrates were gathered, small

fishes were netted, and larger fishes were hooked or speared.

Terrestrial fauna were secondary resources. Though not

archeologically represented, forest plants must have been important,

and ethnohistoric accounts indicate some reliance on horticultural

products. Coastal horticulture systematically reduced forest

maturity, allowing opportunistic growth of annual crops. Because

arable coastal soils are severely limited in fertility and extent,

cultigens never became major dietary staples. This pattern contrasts

sharply with the meander-belt Mississippian farming of

nutrient-subsidized floodplain soils. The difference in energy base

explains the different manifestation of Mississippian technology and

ideas among coastal populations as compared to interior populations.

Strong continuites between the earlier Coastal Tradition

infrastructure and the late period coastal energy base are seen as a

long-standing pattern of adaptation to a low-maturity environment.


xiii

















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Description of Research

Problem

This study examines recent progress in the investigation of late

prehistoric period cultural adaptations to the environment of the

southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States. A model of

Mississippian period settlement and subsistence based on research by

Crook (1978) is used to generate hypotheses which are tested with the

primary data from Kings Bay. Results are compared with two other

adaptation models: the Coastal Tradition and the Mississippian

adaptation. The Coastal Tradition is a marsh-oriented adaptive

pattern which developed following the stabilization of sea level at

about 3000 B.C. The Missisippian adaptation, as expressed at interior

river valley sites, is defined as a cultural adaptation to a specific

habitat situation entailing a particular level of sociocultural

integration (B. Smith 1978b:480). These models are further discussed

in Chapter 5. Major differences between the Kings Bay sites and

interior Mississippian sites are explained in terms of environmental

differences. Differences between the Kings Bay sites and the earlier

Coastal Tradition sites in the same region are explained in terms of

technological change--the addition of horticulture to the coastal

subsistence complex.











Approach

Cultural materialism provides the paradigmatic framework for this

study, as it does for much of the archeology undertaken in the United

States today. As a research strategy, cultural materialism recognizes

productive and reproductive subsystems as the infrastructure of a

cultural system. Since these are the subsystems best represented in

the archeological record (in the form of settlement/subsistence

patterns and demographic patterns) it is possible to address cultural

materialist hypotheses using archeological data.

The approach recognized as cultural ecology is grounded in the

work of Julian Steward (1955). As practiced by ethnologists, cultural

ecology tends to emphasize detailed synchronic schemata for the energy

exchanges between the cultural and natural systems in a specific

environmental setting; comparisons of cultural manifestations in

different environments are also of interest. Archeologists,

predictably, specialize in a diachronic perspective on

cultural/ecological relations which tends to reveal evolutionary

change.

While the theoretical basis for cultural ecology as practiced by

archeologists is cultural materialism, many of its basic principles

are left implicit. It will be shown in this study that self-conscious

application of cultural materialism is as important as explicit

hypothesis formulation to the process of archeological reasoning.

Marvin Harris, the chief spokesman for the cultural materialist

school of anthropology, has recently presented an elaboration of his

position (1979). Included is a scheme for classifying the provenience


i










of anthropological data resulting from ethnological research.

Depending upon the point of view from which an observation is made and

the world view through which it is filtered, the resulting

interpretation or conclusion can take qualitatively different forms.

Harris' presentation, which is examined in more detail in Chapter 4,

is of interest to archeologists because of the inaccessibility of some

of the perspectives routinely employed by ethnographers and because of

the fragmentary nature of the archeological record. These conditions

have led to the substitution of ethnoarcheology, experimental

archeology, and simulation studies in order to derive data

supplementary to the excavated material remains. Uncritical use of

data from these sources is likely to confound, rather than clarify,

the interpretation of past behavior.

While Harris emphasizes control over the observational stage of

research, archeologists have recently expended much energy in

attempting to systematize the process of interpreting observations

through the use of formal hypothesis testing. The process of making

observations--perhaps because it is so often equated with "dirt

archeology"--is generally relegated to methodological status and

considered to be under good control. Application of hypothesis

testing, on the other hand, has been a topic of much debate and

division. Bruce Smith's (1977) presentation of the hypothetico-analog

method of inductive confirmation (H-A method) is a useful summary of

the "struggle" to systematize interpretation. It is suspected that

Smith's article was calculated to win converts from all camps: he

suggests that the H-A method is basically what most of us have been








4

doing all along, with a few improvements. The H-A method is discussed

in more detail in Chapter 4 and is applied in Chapter 8.



Materials

The primary data incorporated in this study are derived from two

phases of archeological research conducted by the University of

Florida between 1977 and 1981 at the request of the U.S. Navy. The

research was initiated to satisfy federal cultural resource management

requirements in conjunction with the development of a Naval Submarine

Support Base at Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia. The survey phase

was funded as a subcontract with PLANTEC Corporation, a subsidiary of

Reynolds, Smith and Hills, the Navy's prime contractor for the

Environmental Impact Statement. The testing phase was conducted under

U.S. Department of the Navy contract number N00025-79-C-0013.

The first phase of research consisted of intensive survey of a

3608 ha mainland area located on a bay which communicates with the

intracoastal waterway west of Cumberland Island (see Figure 1).

Thirty-four prehistoric and historic archeological sites were

identified and inventoried (Figure 2). The second phase of research

was designed to test and evaluate ten of these sites, selected on the

basis of anticipated construction impacts. Two of the ten are

reported here: 9Caml71, the Kings Bay Site, and 9Cam179, the Killion

Site. The former is a large, linear, multicomponent aboriginal site

which extends along the edge of the mainland for a distance of 4.4 km

and averages 100 m in width. The latter is a small, single component

aboriginal site located on a freshwater creek 800 m inland.
















































Figure 1. The Central Portion of the Southeastern U.S. Coast Showing
the Location of the Research Area (from R. Smith et al. 1981:3).


L













'BLACKBEARD I


WOLF L


LITTLE ST. SIMONS I.


GA


ATLANTIC OCEAN


KINGS BAY VICINITY


FLA


UTTLE TALBOT 1.
FORT GEORGE I.


MLES
0 10
KLOMETRS





































Figure 2. Locations of Historic and Prehistoric Period Archeological
Sites Defined During the 1977-78 Survey of Kings Bay (from R. Smith
et al. 1981:11).









































































































SITE LOCATIONS


KLOMETERS
0 1 2










Method

Two important contributions to the investigation of late

prehistoric period settlement and subsistence systems will form a

comparative framework for assessment of the primary data. The

Mississippian adaptation in the Middle Mississippi area is the subject

of a case study by Bruce Smith (1978b). A general model for interior,

riverine Mississippian manifestations is provided by the same author

as a summary chapter in a compendium of settlement system analyses

from 14 sites (1978a). For the lower Atlantic coastal area, Ray Crook

has formulated an integrated model of Mississippian period subsistence

and settlement based on ethnohistoric records, environmental data, and

archeological information from Sapelo Island, Georgia (1978). Crook's

model follows the earlier lead of Lewis Larson (1969, 1980a) whose

data were derived from both archeological excavations on the Georiga

coast and 16th century Spanish documents. The coastal model is used

to generate hypotheses for testing with Kings Bay observations.



Results

Survey results are found to confirm expectations of a general

model for coastal settlement which has been used in other Georgia

coastal studies and which undergirds more specific models.

Mississippian age components at the Kings Bay Site provide evidence of

occupations during several seasons of the year and evidence of

relatively small-scale settlements. The evidence from Kings Bay is

insufficient to substantiate the level of settlement hierarchy modeled

by Crook. It is concluded that the late prehistoric coastal










Mississippian period cultures represent Mississippian ideas and

horticultural technology applied to the Coastal Tradition with a

resulting specialized subsistence/settlement/sociocultural system.



Description of Fieldwork

Primary data used in this study were generated in the course of

intensive survey and evaluative testing phases of research at Kings

Bay. These results were used to recommend data recovery procedures

for the excavation phase of research which is now in progress at three

sites. The following sections describe key aspects of each of these

levels of investigation.



Survey

Intensive survey of Kings Bay was carried out by the author and a

crew of four surveyors over a 9-month period in summer and fall of

1977 and winter of 1978. Fieldwork was preceded by one month of

archival research and followed by five months of analysis and report

preparation (R. Smith 1978).

The surveyed area may be characterized as low, predominantly wet

land with heavy vegetation considerably altered from its natural

state. The salt marsh, swamps, creek drainages, and pine flatwoods

are probably close to their prehistoric condition, but all of the

drier uplands--pine plantation, southern mixed hardwoods, early

successional systems and developed lands which together compose 58.2

percent of the survey area--have been subjected to some degree of

historic or recent alteration. In general, heavy forest, understory,










ground cover, and leaf litter result in little readily available

surface information for site location.

The survey area was divided into two sampling strata: Stratum 1,

consisting of all high ground near water and Stratum 2, consisting of

inland flatwoods. None of the soils composing Stratum 2 would have

been optimal for aboriginal cultivation, while most of Stratum 1 is

composed of Cainhoy Fine Sand, the best local soil for agriculture.

The survey strategy called for examination of the entire area at a low

level of intensity; archeologically sensitive areas, defined on the

basis of inclusion in Stratum 1 or by the presence of known sites,

were subjected to closer inspection. With the exclusion of salt

marsh, ponds, fresh marsh, wooded swamps and open water, the surveyed

area comprised 3272 ha. This area was covered by surface

reconnaissance of 100 percent of the availability sample provided by

the network of wide, deeply plowed firelanes on government-owned

property and the narrower firelanes, ditches, and dirt roads in the

adjacent easement areas. On the basis of reconnaissance results, no

intensification of sampling in Stratum 2 was deemed necessary; only

20th century sites were found in this stratum. Stratum 1, which

included all areas that would have supported southern mixed hardwoods

in the late prehistoric period, was sampled with systematic transects

of shovel tests placed on or near the 10-ft contour at intervals of 25

m. Additional transects of systematically placed shovel tests were

executed across artifact producing areas in order to discover site

boundaries. In view of resource management requirements, the survey

was designed to maximize site discovery. It is believed that all of


1











the major and most of the minor sites at Kings Bay were found.

Further methodological details and a discussion of assumptions and

biases are provided in the survey report (R. Smith 1978).

Historical research, surface reconnaissance and subsurface

testing resulted in the discovery of 34 archeological sites. Twelve

of these contain evidence of historic period occupations and 23

exhibit prehistoric occupations (one has both). The aboriginal sites

are primarily oystershell middens deposited along the edge of the

bluff overlooking the salt mar-'. They appear as a layer of mollusc

shells, food bone, pottery, and occasional stone tools which varies in

thickness from a few cm to almost 1 m and in horizontal extent from 50

square m to more than 100 ha. Historic sites are often superimposed

on the aboriginal middens, from which they are distinguished by the

presence of Euro-American ceramics, glass, brick, tabby and metal

artifacts, along with mollusc shells and the bones of both wild and

domesticated animals.

A more detailed presentation of survey results is supplied in

Chapter 7. At this point it is important to note the level of

information provided by the survey data. Small assemblages of

artifacts were recovered, using 0.5 in. screen, from the fill of the

shovel tests (which averaged 0.125 cubic m in volume). These samples

were combined to produce a site inventory, composed primarily of

pottery. For the 22 aboriginal sites, assemblages ranged from 1 sherd

to 1102 sherds, and averaged 219 sherds. It was often the case that

at least half of the ceramic collection consisted of plain, eroded or


L










otherwise undiagnostic sherds. Thus the sample which was useful in

determining temporal provenience averaged about 100 sherds per site.

In addition to the artifacts collected from each test,

stratigraphic information was recorded which allowed description of

the depth, density and nature of the cultural deposit. Horizontal

extent was estimated by enclosing all positive tests with a boundary

line and measuring the area of the resulting figure. The immediate

physiographic and biological environment was also noted.

These data-ceramic inventory, character of deposit, and site

area--compose the information base which was used to make management

recommendations and which was available for preparing a secondary

testing research design. The resulting research program and goals are

described in the next section.



Secondary Testing

Secondary testing of six prehistoric and four historic sites was

undertaken by the author and three colleagues, with a crew of 20

persons, during the six months from November 1979 through April 1980.

A 12-month period of analysis and documentation followed.

The ten sites were selected by the Navy from among those located

during the survey on the basis of their interference with construction

plans, not on the grounds of archeological representativeness,

research potential, or the nature of their cultural contents. The

resulting "sample" is a mixed bag, including both the largest and

smallest historic sites, several single component sites, a large,

horizontally stratified site, the only site with standing structural








14

remains, and a site which exhibits no surface evidence. The physical

condition of the sites is also variable; most of them are heavily

wooded and to some extent disturbed. Several are located in hardwood

hammock, several in artificial clearings, and several in planted pine,

while two appear to be covered by undisturbed natural vegetation.

Site data are summarized in Table 1.

Two of these sites were originally selected for study by the

author because of their anticipated potential for allowing comparison

of the subsistence and settlement adaptations of two late prehistoric

coastal populations. Two horizontal strata within the Kings Bay Site

appeared, on the basis of survey data, to be identifiable as St. Johns

lib and Savannah components. The Killion Site was also believed to be

a late prehistoric site and its relationship to one or both of the

Kings Bay components was of interest. The focus of the present study

is further narrowed to include just the Savannah component of the

Kings Bay Site and the Killion Site as examples of Mississippian

period coastal adaptations, without imputing cultural differences.

Testing of the remaining eight sites was directed by co-workers and is

reported in full elsewhere (Smith, Braley, Borremans and Reitz 1981).

The initial research design for these two sites anticipated

comparison of as many subsets of the material culture as possible. To

this end, a sampling strategy chosen to allow quick delineation of

target areas and generation of comparable size samples from each was

implemented. A linear, coastwise transect of 2-m square tests at 25-m

intervals was used to determine the approximate limits of the

components of interest at the Kings Bay Site. A grid of 2-m square











Table 1. Components Present at Kings Bay Sites Subjected to Secondary Testing.


Estimated Occupation Periods


Site Area St. Swift
No. (ha) Simons Deptford Creek Wilmington


St.
Savannah Johns Mission


Mill Creek

Kings Bay

King
Plantation

Marianna
Plantation

Point Peter
Road

Hercules
Club

Devil's
Walkingst ick

Araminta
Sowerby

Killion

Bolingbroke


166 0.06

171 43.50


172 7.25


174 21.00


175 0.85 X


176 2.00


177 12.00


0.40

0.25

0.70


Site
Name


Plan-
tation


X n










tests at 25-m intervals was then executed over the entirety of each

component. For the smaller Killion Site, a 10-m interval was

employed. These procedures resulted in the excavation of 99 units in

the target areas of the Kings Bay Site and 32 units at the Killion

Site.

The size and nature of the resulting samples suggests that the

two components of the Kings Bay Site are very much alike in both

structure and content. While similar to these in content, the Killion

Site is organized differently. Details of these contrasts are

presented in Chapter 7.

Each sample consisted of a large pottery assemblage, a very small

lithic assemblage and collections of vertebrate and invertebrate

faunal remains. Only the faunal materials from unambiguous contexts

were processed. Among the invertebrates, the Busycon spp. shells were

treated as artifacts and 100 percent of the sample was analyzed. The

overwhelming majority of these materials was derived from sheet-midden

contexts; relatively few features were encountered. At the Kings Bay

Site features included hearths, refuse pits, post holes, and a single

human burial.

As a result of the coarseness of the excavation grid and the

small sample size, horizontal stratification of the Kings Bay Site was

not intuitively obvious. However, due to the sheet midden derivation

of most samples, interpretation of the assemblage relied heavily on

spatial associations among artifacts. These were inferred from

distribution maps generated by SYMAP.










Among the conclusions drawn from analysis are the following

observations. It can be demonstrated that different areas of the

Kings Bay Site functioned as occupation foci at different points in

time. The Late Archaic period is represented by a St. Simons

component, the Woodland period by Deptford and Swift Creek components,

the Mississippian period by a lumped Wilmington/Savannah component and

a St. Johns-derived component, and the post-Mississippian period by a

Sutherland Bluff component. While these components differ in specific

ceramic characteristics, the overall composition of the midden is

uniform, suggesting similar depositional processes for the various

components. General characteristics of coastal adaptation, including

heavy exploitation of the intertidal and estuary zones, linear

settlement pattern, and cooperative resource exploitation, are

expressed in the Kings Bay Site.

The Killion Site represents a single component Mississippian

period occupation. A second major contrast with the larger site is

seen in the spatial organization of cultural debris. Discrete middens

with a very low level of cultural debris in the intervening areas

attest to the brevity of the occupation. No post holes, refuse pits,

hearths or other features are evident. The site probably functioned

repeatedly as a seasonal, short-term camp.



Data Recovery

Three of the ten sites subjected to secondary testing were

determined by the Navy to be immediately threatened by construction.

A proposal for data collection excavations at these sites was prepared










at approximately the midpoint of analysis of secondary testing

results. Several prominent characteristics and potentials of the

sites, defined in testing, were addressed in the proposed research

(Wayne and Smith 1980). This research is now in progress.

It is anticipated that excavated data from the Kings Bay Site

will ultimately be used to address questions concerning 1) the nature

of human settlement and adaptation on the cultural ecotone between the

St. Johns and Georgia coast archeological regions, 2) the effects of

European contact on Late Savannah period cultures, and 3) differences

and similarities between Late Woodland period (Swift Creek) and

Mississippian period (Savannah) adaptations to the coastal

environment. The research program also provides for investigation of

Late Archaic and Early to Middle Woodland components at the Devils

Walkingstick Site (9Cam177) to determine the function, age and place

in the regional system of this village-like collection of middens.

Analysis of data excavated from the historic period Kings Bay

Plantation Site (9Caml72) is expected to focus on the social and

economic systems and how this middleclass planter's household

articulated with the coastal settlement and transportation networks.

In addition to these three site-specific studies, the proposal

for final excavations commissions special analyses of zooarcheological

data sets from all sites and of pottery assemblages from all

aboriginal components. While it is expected that faunal and mineral

resource utilization will be discussed in a synchronic context for

individual site assemblages, highly significant diachronic analyses

will be possible because of the unified project structure.










Organization of This Study

This study relies heavily on previous research to provide a

context and comparative scale for interpretation of primary data. The

remaining chapters are arranged to allow presentation of a number of

perspectives on coastal adaptations while gradually narrowing the

focus to a level appropriate for the Kings Bay sites. Chapter 2

provides a brief sketch of the natural setting within which adaptive

processes must have occurred. In view of the numerous ecological

studies which have been conducted in the coastal zone during the past

decade and of the many summaries and syntheses which have been

included in recent archeological reports, only major descriptive

categories are covered. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the

substantive contributions of several recent studies of late

prehistoric period sites on the Georgia coast. These results compose

a framework within which the plausibility of questions about coastal

cultures may be judged. Despite the criticisms offered here, this

body of prior research is an essential and major part of the present

study, representing much information that otherwise would not have

been available, as well as a few errors which can now be recognized

and avoided.

Chapter 4 presents the author's theoretical orientation, which is

the result of personal and practical choices among the prevailing

paradigms in anthropological thought. Cultural materialism is

selected as the best organizational tool for dealing with questions

which involve interactions between environmental and technological

phenomena. The observation of archeological evidence entails special








20

problems which may be controlled using categories described by Marvin

Harris (1979). Interpretation of observations presents different

problems which may be solved using the hypothetico-analog method of

inductive inference (B. Smith 1977).

The general cultural phenomenon of adaptation to the coastal

environment is the topic of Chapter 5. A series of models, each of

which deals primarily with environmental-technological interactions,

is presented. These models describe sets of postulated relationships

among elements of a cultural system and serve to generate hypotheses

for testing in specific cases. Interior and coastal models of

adaptation for the late prehistoric period are compared and

contrasted. The coastal model is used to derive hypotheses for

testing with information from the Kings Bay sites.

Chapter 6 describes methods used in the present study, especially

as they affect the kinds of questions under consideration. The

depositional history and present physical condition of the sites also

present constraints on the range of inquiry. Results of survey phase

research and of secondary testing at two sites are presented in

Chapter 7. The Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71, and the Killion Site,

9Cam179, contain the late prehistoric period contexts of particular

interest in this study. Chapter 8 evaluates the hypotheses presented

in Chapter 5 in light of the results of survey and secondary testing.

The final chapter summarizes conclusions supported by this study.

















CHAPTER 2
NATURAL SETTING


The southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast has been described, analyzed

and summarized by many authors in the flurry of ecological and

archeological studies which has appeared in the course of the last

decade. In part, this recent intensification of coastal research is a

result of the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in

1969 and the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. Two major

ecological syntheses specific to the research area are used

extensively in the following environmental sketch (Johnson, Hillestad,

Shanholtzer and Shanholtzer 1974; Hillestad, Bozeman, Johnson,

Berisford and Richardson 1975). Instead of simply paraphrasing

previous descriptions, this section highlights the significance for

human populations of selected aspects of the coastal environment.



Climate and Terrain

As attested by its reputation as a resort area, the coastal

region of Georgia possesses a mild, subtropical climate; seasonal

extremes are ameliorated by the thermal properties of the Gulf Stream.

Summers are warm and humid; winters are cool with occasional brief

cold spells and very rare snow. In Camden County frosts seldom occur

earlier than mid-November or later than late March. Average daily

temperatures recorded at Brunswick, Georgia, are 53 degrees F in










winter and 81 degrees F in summer. Rainfall, averaging 51.5 in.,

occurs throughout the year but is heaviest from June to September when

summer thunderstorms are common. Average relative humidity is 60

percent at midafternoon, increasing at night to a dawn average of 90

percent (Rigdon and Green 1980).

As a consequence of the mild climate, aboriginal inhabitants

would have found it unnecessary to invest in heavy clothing or

substantial shelter. Sleeping quarters protected from the cold would

have been desirable for a few months during the winter; such

structures may have been temporary, lightly built shelters intended to

last only for the season. During the summer a roof capable of

shedding rain and a raised floor would have been preferable but walls

may have been omitted. It is unlikely that tubular skin clothing

would have been used; such garments are typical of more temperate and

northern latitudes.

If these speculations are accurate, then the implications for the

archeological record are generally negative. One would not expect to

find extensive, deep foundations as might be required for permanent

structures. Hide working and sewing tools might be fewer than in a

culture emphasizing skin clothing.

A prominent feature of the coastal biome is the tidal cycle: its

effects on estuarine biota would have dictated the basic rhythms and

specific technologies of aboriginal resource procurement. Tides in

the study area exhibit a mean range of 6.8 ft and a spring range of

8.0 ft (U.S. Department of Commerce 1949:302). The twice daily change

results in constantly fluctuating water levels in estuaries, marshes,










tidal creeks, rivers, and freshwater creeks. Mud flats, bars,

beaches, and banks are periodically exposed and inundated. Because

the tide follows the lunar day of 24 hr and 51 min, the changes occur

almost an hour later each day. This means that behavior which is

coordinated with both the position of the sun and the height and

direction of the tide varies from day to day. Moreover, since tidal

occurrence is affected by the conformation of the waterways, effects

vary from place to place.

The implications of a tidal environment for aboriginal behavior

rest primarily upon the habitat complexity introduced by this factor.

Various species gather and feed at different times in different places

from day to day and accessibility is governed largely by water level.

Successful exploitation of this biome would have required an equally

complex scheduling of efforts or a broad-range strategy.

Kings Bay is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic

province. Details of the geologic history and character of this area

have been provided elsewhere (R. Smith et al. 1981:38-55). Two major

aspects of the local environment which would have directly affected

aboriginal settlement are discussed here: the surface soils and the

freshwater drainages.

The coastal landscape exhibits low relief and gentle slopes that

are the result of wind and water erosion of several former Pleistocene

shorelines. The Pamlico, Princess Anne and Silver Bluff Formations

represent the three most recent episodes of sea level rise and can be

identified by their general range of elevations. In the study area

the Pamlico formation occurs as two areas of higher elevation (25 to










30 ft above mean sea level) located 3 to 5 km from the coast. These

knolls consist of marine silts, clays and sand deposited during the

Sangamon Interglacial (R. Smith et al. 1981:40). More prominent and

extensive, the Princess Anne Formation composes the 15 ft bluffs along

the present coastline. The bluffs exhibit steep faces where tidal

creeks flow against the shore and a more gradual slope where the salt

marsh abuts the land. This deposit is composed primarily of

unconsolidated sands and silts. The youngest of the marine terraces,

the Silver Bluff Formation, rises 5 to 8 ft above mean sea level.

Silver Bluff deposits underlie the salt marshes, the intracoastal

flats and the barrier islands. These three Pleistocene formations are

covered by a Holocene deposit consisting of aeolian sands on higher

ground and alluvial sands, silts and clays from Piedmont sources in

submerged areas.

Upland surface soils in this area are acid and are naturally low

in fertility. Except for Cainhoy and Pottburg sands, drainage is

generally poor. Cainhoy and Pottsburg sands occur on the ridgetops of

marine terraces; Cainhoy dominates the Princess Anne shoreline and

Pottsburg is associated with the Pamlico knolls (see Figure 2). These

soils make up only 3 percent by area of Camden County. They are the

best land for community development. Because, with liming and

fertilization, they will support cultivation of row crops, Cainhoy and

Pottsburg sands have been occupied and utilized throughout the

historic period.

Superimposed on these soils are midden soils of more restricted

extent. The prehistoric and historic middens, consisting of mollusc








25

shell, charcoal, bone, and various artifacts in a matrix of dark gray

brown fine loamy sand, which have accumulated over the last four

millenia, may be viewed as culturally altered soil horizons. It is

probable that anthropogenic effects of early occupations, especially

enhancement of soil fertility through deposition of organic and

lowered pH, affected the behavior of later populations. Surely late

aboriginal horticulturalists would have noted a differential in

productivity between midden and nonmidden soils and would have

cultivated the former whenever possible.

The major drainages of the Coastal Plain are rivers which arise

in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces and in the Coastal Plain.

They form natural corridors through the pine barrens from the coast to

the interior and probably served as primary communication and

transportation routes in the prehistoric period. Where they flow into

the Atlantic, deep sounds separate the barrier islands. These rivers

furnished the sediments which formed the vast stretches of salt marsh

between the mainland and barrier islands. Kings Bay lies between the

St. Marys River, which arises in the Okeefenokee Swamp, and the

Satilla River, which is also of Coastal Plain origin.

At the local level, freshwater creeks were probably important

determinants of aboriginal settlement location. Between the Pamlico

and Princess Anne terraces at Kings Bay are several long, narrow

upland wet areas, oriented parallel to the shoreline, which accumulate

and store surface runoff; excess water is channeled out to the salt

marsh via low velocity natural streams. Interrupting the coastline at










intervals of 0.5 to 1.5 km, these tannin-stained freshwater runs cut

through the Princess Anne formation on their way to the marsh.



Flora and Fauna

The biotic environment of the coastal region may be characterized

as highly productive and highly diverse. The diversity is in part due

to subtropical location and conforms to a global clinal pattern of

high species diversity at low latitudes and low diversity at high

latitudes. Diversity may also be attributed to the particular habitat

mix of the coastal region and to the extensive edge area between

terrestrial and estuarine biotopes. Productivity is a consequence of

high levels of energy conversion by grasses, benthic algae and

phytoplankton in the vast areas of salt marsh and, to a much lesser

degree, to lush terrestrial vegetation fostered by moderately high

rainfall.

Biotopes within the coastal biome have been examined in detail,

with regard to aboriginal subsistence, by Larson (1980a:6-22). He

divides the coastal sector of the southeastern coastal plain into a

strand section, a lagoon and marsh section, and a delta section.

Archeological and ethnohistoric evidences for aboriginal use of the

strand and delta sections are minimal, probably because neither of

these sections could compete with the lagoon and marsh section in

offering abundant, easily obtained resources. While they may have

been visited to obtain seasonally localized resources, these areas

were not occupied with any degree of permanence (1980a:22).








27

The marsh and lagoon section, as defined by Larson, includes two

important biotopes: the salt marsh together with its drainage system

of tidal creeks and rivers, and the high ground, including swamps and

their freshwater creek drainages (1980a:15-20). The former is a

basically aquatic system while the latter is predominantly

terrestrial. Constellations of characteristic flora and fauna are

described below and listed more completely in Johnson et al. (1974)

and Hillestad et al. (1975).



Salt Marsh System

Saltmarsh flora vary with respect to frequency, depth and

duration of tidal inundation. Areas which for several hours daily are

covered by salt water support only smooth cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora). At higher elevations where inundation averages an hour

per day, glasswort (Salicornia virginica) and saltwort (Salsola kali)

prevail. Salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) is limited to the

rim of the marsh where flooding occurs several times a week while

needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) grows on infrequently flooded ground

(Johnson et al. 1974:72-74).

Sediments underlying the marsh are composed of fine silts and

clays. As a consequence of unstable bottom conditions and the

constant wash of the tides, the creeks and rivers exhibit little

aquatic vegetation.

As the marsh grasses are assorted with respect to tidal action,

so are the molluscs. Among those of aboriginal economic importance,

the quahog clam (Mercenaria spp.), the whelks (Busycon spp.), and the










stout razor clam (Tagelus plebeius) are found in the creeks and

estuaries. The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the

saltmarsh periwinkle (Littorina irrorata) inhabit the mud flats which

are exposed at low tide, while the Atlantic ribbed mussel (Geukensia

desmissa) is often found near the high tide line along the rim of the

marsh. Several species of crab are marsh dwellers; the blue crab

(Callinectes sapidus) and the stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) are

aquatic while the fiddlers (Uca spp.) are more visible because of

their preference for high marsh areas.

Remains of shrimp have not been reported from archeological sites

on the southeastern U. S. coast and were not recovered during

secondary testing. However, shrimp have recently been identified in

fine screened (1/16 in. mesh) samples from mitigation phase

excavations at Kings Bay (Irv Quitmyer, personal communication).

Several species are found in the estuaries at the present time and it

is quite possible that shrimp were an abundant and important resource

in the prehistoric period.

The only reptile resident in the marsh is the diamondback

terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). This small turtle is commonly

identified among aboriginal food remains and was also highly prized in

early 20th century northern gourmet circles (Johnson et al. 1974:79).

Alligators (Alligator mississipiensis) are occasionally encountered in

the salt marsh but probably should be considered residents of swamps

and freshwater creeks.

Fishes frequenting the estuary system are numerous and vary with

season, water temperature, and salinity, among other factors. Reitz










has given detailed consideration to the interplay of local

availability and human selectivity in the use of fish in this region

(1979a). A review of marine conditions between Santa Elena, South

Carolina, and St. Augustine, Florida, indicates a species gradient in

terms of abundances along the coast, although the same species are

present throughout. Recent studies of Cumberland Sound supply species

composition and abundance figures for the lower coast which are

assumed to be valid for the prehistoric period (Reitz 1982). On the

basis of trawl catch biomass, star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus) is

abundant while the sea catfish (Arius felis), spot (Leiostomus

xanthurus), sea trout (Cynoscion spp.), silver perch (Bairdiella

chrysoura), kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.), and croaker (Micropogonias

undulatus) are common. Reitz notes that although mullets (Mugil spp.)

were among the fishes each composing less than 1.1 percent of total

biomass and considered rare, this could be due to their ability to

evade trawls (1979a:8).

In addition to the boney fishes, sharks and rays frequent the

estuary and apparently were of some economic importance to prehistoric

populations. Among the cartilaginous fishes common in the study area

are several of the Requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) and stringrays

(Dasyatidae).

Although many species of birds visit the salt marsh, three are

integral members of the marsh community: the long-billed marsh wren

(Telmatodytes palustris), the clapper rail or marsh hen (Rallus

longirostris) and the seaside sparrow (Amnospiza martima). The

clapper rail has in recent years been an important game bird (Johnson










et al. 1974:76). Other large birds which would have been attractive

to aboriginal populations are the great blue heron (Ardea herodias),

the common egret (Casmerodius albus), and the double-crested cormorant

(Phalacrocorax auritus). Because the coastal region is within the

southern portion of the Atlantic flyway, many species of migratory

waterfowl are present for limited periods of time during the year.

Larson lists four ducks--mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), lesser scaup

(Aythya affinis), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and

red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)-as having been utilized in

the late prehistoric period.

In the coastal sector raccoons (Procyon lotor) spend much of

their time feeding in the marsh. Though not normally active at

midday, if low tide occurs near noon these animals can be found on the

mudflats. Usually they spend the daylight hours sleeping in trees

along the marsh rim. Mammals which rest as well as feed in the marsh

are limited to the rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) and aquatic forms

such as the bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and other small

whales, the manatee (Trichechus manatus) and formerly, as an

occasional visitor, the monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) which is now

extinct.

The resources of the saltmarsh biotope which would have been

available to aboriginal inhabitants are almost entirely faunal.

Although the vast expanses of marsh grass are highly significant as

primary producers, these grasses are not directly usable by humans.

Faunal resources are distinguished by their variety in kind and in

season and place of availability. Perhaps the most important








31

observation that can be made is that no single saltmarsh species could

have served as a year-round staple in the diet of coastal populations.



Oak Hammock System

The second important biotope within the marsh and lagoon section

is composed of high ground and associated freshwater drainages. The

characteristic floral complex along the bluff line is Maritime Live

Oak forest in which Quercus virginiana is dominant because of its

tolerance for salt spray and low soil fertility. Other hardwoods

occur in varying proportions, including several oaks, palms, hollies,

bays, and hickories. Small stands of hickory (primarily Carya glabra)

are found in the coastal region and it is thought that they represent

secondary succession climaxes, whereas live oak forest is the product

of primary succession (Johnson et al. 1974:50). It is possible that

aboriginal activities may have promoted the development of hickory

stands. A practice such as fire clearing the brush and leaves beneath

the hickories to facilitate collection of fallen nuts would have had

the effect of maintaining open, park-like nut groves. Shrubs, woody

vines, and herbs in the Maritime Live Oak forest are numerous and

varied.

West of the Princess Anne formation on the mainland, the somewhat

lower, less well-drained soils are covered by pine flatwoods, composed

predominantly of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The lowest areas, where

the water table is at or near the surface throughout the year, support

hardwood swamps composed primarily of cypress (Taxodium ascendens),

red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). It










is these wetlands which feed the freshwater streams flowing through

the oak hammock into the marsh.

Further inland, stretching from the upper limits of tidal

influence to the fall line, the dominant floral complex of the coastal

plain is what Larson has described as the pine barrens (1980a:35-65).

Formerly composed of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), this forest is

interrupted by broadleaf species only in the floodplains of rivers and

streams. Because the longleaf forest offered virtually no game or

other resources of interest to aboriginal inhabitants, prehistoric

occupation of the coastal plain was limited to the tidewater region

and the river floodplains (Larson 1980a:51; Snow 1977). Terrestrial

fauna of the coastal plain river valleys are essentially the same as

those enumerated below for the live oak hammocks of the coast.

As elsewhere in the southeast, deer, turkey, and raccoon were the

primary live oak forest animals used for food. The behavior,

distribution and exploitation of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus) have been described by Hudson (1976:274-279), Larson

(1980a:166-172) and B. Smith (1974). As the largest herbivores of the

southeastern woodlands, deer were the target of a well-developed

hunting tradition. It has been suggested that the culling and

population control of hunting, together with the provisioning which

followed fire-clearing, resulted in semidomestication of the deer

(Hudson 1976:276-77). The only larger mammal used as food was the

black bear (Ursus americanus), valued for the fat which it contributed

to an otherwise lean diet.










Besides the raccoon (Procyon lotor), other small mammals

associated with the oak hammock or its edges are the oppossum

(Didelphis virginiana), the cottontail rabbit (Silvilagus floridanus),

the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and the fox squirrel (Sciurus

niger).

Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are the largest of the oak

hammock birds, but Larson indicates that they were not much used in

this part of the southeast during the Mississippian period. Other

wild fowl which would have been available include several of the

migratory geese, the wood duck (Aix sponsa), which is a permanent

resident, and the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). The Eastern

Carolina Parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis carolinensis), which was

once plentiful in the coastal region, may have been hunted by the

Indians. This bird was rapidly extirpated from the southeast

following white settlement due to its destructive effects on maize

crops and fruit orchards. Its preference for flocking and its

unsuspicious, easily approachable nature facilitated extermination.

These habits might also have promoted aboriginal garden-hunting of the

bird. By 1849 Le Conte reported that, in the maritime districts,

"scarcely any are now to be found" (Burleigh 1958:313). Some of the

migratory ducks mentioned earlier in connection with the saltmarsh

system might also have been hunted when they visited the freshwater

marshes and ponds associated with the oak hammock system.

Of the terrestrial reptiles, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus

polyphemus), the box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and several species

of snakes are the most conspicuous. Snake remains appear regularly in








34

faunal collections from coastal sites and Pearson has pointed out that

a Le Moyne drawing shows the preparation of snake as food (Pearson

1979:155). Several freshwater turtles were also used; the alligator

mentioned previously is another reptile associated with this habitat.

Fishes found in the freshwater streams which drain the uplands

are much more limited in variety. Probably the most important were

catfish (Ictaluridae). Anadromous species frequenting the freshwater

rivers of the coastal plain may have been of seasonal importance in

the aboriginal diet. These include American shad (Alosa sapidissima),

alewife (A. pseudoharengus), glut herring (A. aestivalis), striped

bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and

shortnosed sturgeon (A. brevirostrum).

No invertebrates of the oak hammock system seem to have been

important subsistence items. Several terrestrial snails regularly

occur in small numbers in shell middens, but these are generally

interpreted as commensal detritus feeders. Only Euglandina rose

would have been large enough to be rewarding; collection of

significant numbers would have been difficult.

The specific botanical composition of any tract within the forest

is a product of many factors, including soil type, elevation, drainage

and forest maturity. High diversity and low equitability are

characteristic. It is important to note that aborginal populations in

the late prehistoric period must have contributed to this diversity

through the practice of swidden horticulture.

While the remains of mammals are the most conspicuous evidence of

oak hammock exploitation appearing in the archeological record, they










probably do not represent the most critical resource. Wild plant

foods, especially the protein- and fat-rich nuts of oak and hickory

trees, must have been seasonal staples. Fruits and berries,

especially persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black cherry (Prunus

serotina), grapes (Vitis spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),

blackberries (Rubus sp.), palm fruit (Sabal palmetto), and saw

palmetto berries (Serenoa repens) would have been important sources of

carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. In addition,

gums and saps, honey, starchy roots (especially Smilax spp.), pot

herbs, teas (including Ilex vomitoria), and various seasonings, though

not in evidence archeologically, are likely to have been used. Other

forest products such as 1) wood and vines for construction of houses,

canoes and tools, 2) pitch as an adhesive, 3) firewood, and 4) mosses

and other fibers for fabric, nets, and twine, are among the oak

hammock resources which would have been important in maintaining

coastal lifeways.

It is likely that aboriginal communities were frequently based

within the Maritime Live Oak forest belt along the coast to take

advantage of the natural shelter and clear floor of the hammock, the

good drainage and freedom from flooding afforded by the high bluffs,

the fruit, nut, and seed products of the varied vegetation, proximity

to freshwater runs draining the interior pine forest, availability of

firewood, and proximity to estuarine and marsh resources. The linear

distribution of hardwood forests would have affected spatial patterns

of settlement and may have conditioned migration patterns.

















CHAPTER 3
PREVIOUS RESEARCH


Although archeological research has been conducted in coastal

Georgia since the late 19th century, it is only within the last decade

that systematically excavated samples adequate for addressing

culture-environment interactions have become available. The earlier

studies are reviewed in several sources and will not be further

discussed here (see Chance 1974; DePratter 1976, 1979; Martinez 1975;

Wallace 1975). This chapter is concerned with summarizing recent

research which focuses on late prehistoric period populations.



Larson's Subsistence Study

The current generation of ecologically oriented studies of

southeastern coastal archeology has been strongly influenced by the

work of Lewis H. Larson (1969;1980a). Larson inventories

environmental, ethnohistoric and archeological information concerning

late prehistoric and protohistoric period aboriginal subsistence

practices and presents his impression of the relative importance of

the varied resources of this region.

Beginning with a description of three of the major sectors within

the Coastal Plain, Larson lists dominant species and species of

potential or documented importance to aboriginal populations, arranged

by habitat. The Coastal Sector, South Florida Sector and Pine Barrens










Sector are covered. Subsequent chapters present details concerning

the nutritional value, behavior, seasonality, technological

availability, abundance and yield of the best-known species. Where

available, archeological examples are included. Especially

interesting are analyses of ethnohistorical references to specific

resource procurement techniques in light of contemporary information

concerning the habitat and behavior of species involved.

While Larson's treatment is comprehensive and contains impressive

detail, it is essentially a preliminary survey of the topic. It was

possible, on the basis of archeological data available in 1969, to

indicate general resource procurement patterns, principal targets of

subsistence efforts, and a range of variation in strategies. However,

quantification of these data was not attempted. Where numbers are

used for comparison, they are somewhat misleading because simple

totals of individuals for a particular species at a particular site

are given, without regard to relative occurrence, extent of excavation

or collection techniques. Conclusions, where offered, are based on a

subjective analysis of these data and should be treated as hypotheses

for testing with the samples which have become available since 1969.

For example, the statement that fishing was, at best, a secondary and

seasonal subsistence activity which did not approach the productive

importance of gathering wild plant food (1980a:126) deserves closer

examination. It cannot, at present, be regarded as empirically

verified because, as Larson notes, "the archeological evidence for the

aboriginal use of plants on the Coastal Plain during the Mississippi

period is almost nonexistent" (1980a:184).










It is doubtful that direct comparison of archeological remains

from different classes of subsistence resources is a productive line

of inquiry. Differential representation, deposition and preservation

present serious analytical problems, despite recent advances in

recovery and identification techniques. Larson's concluding chapter

contains an interesting but flawed attempt to measure the importance

of plant foods by reconstructing the caloric contribution of animal

foods represented in a midden at the Pine Harbor Site (1980a:224-226).

This analysis is discussed in Chapter 4 in an examination of

archeological reasoning.

The value of Larson's contribution lies in the emphasis he places

on four criteria governing resource importance: value, availability,

abundance and yield. Once these variables have been quantified for

individual species at individual sites in specific local environments,

it will be possible to make precise statements about late aboriginal

subsistence patterns in the Coastal Plain.

A second recent contribution by Larson is a brief report

concerning the Spanish presence in the vicinity of Sapelo Island

(1980b). Previously unpublished data on Spanish period structures at

two sites are presented. At both the north end of Harris Neck and

Fort King George there is evidence of closed-corner, wall-trench

structures which are divided into sections by interior walls and lack

indoor hearths. In contrast, the earlier Pine Harbor Site exhibits

only a cluster of individually set posts. In addition to these data,

reference is made to evidence of cultigens from several Spanish period

sites. What is hinted at in this paper, but not discussed, is the










likelihood that evidence of acculturative change during the Spanish

period will be found in both settlement and subsistence patterns. If

significant change under the influence of Spanish explorers, soldiers,

and missionaries is postulated, then care must be exercised in using

analogies drawn from ethnohistoric sources for the interpretation of

prehistoric cultures.

Three doctoral dissertations based primarily on archeological

data from late aboriginal coastal sites have been produced within the

last decade. These are Wallace's synchronic study of a mainly

prehistoric Guale site on St. Simons Island (1975), Crook's

examination of Mississippian period community organization on Sapelo

Island (1978) and Pearson's explicitly diachronic study of late

aboriginal culture change using data from Ossabaw Island (1979).

While a common geographic region and temporal period furnish unifying

themes, these studies are widely disparate in approach, methodology,

inference techniques and conclusions. Important similarities and

differences are discussed following a brief exposition of each.



Northern St. Simons Island

In his investigation of Guale cultures on the lower Georgia coast,

Ronald Wallace brings together three lines of evidence in an attempt

to reconstruct protohistoric period social organization and

technological adaptation (1975). Burial data from three skeletal

series excavated on St. Simons Island, associated architectural

features, and subsistence samples from a nearby midden constitute the

archeological evidence. Ethnohistoric information is taken from two










secondary sources: Swanton's 1922 synthesis and a manuscript by

Larson (1953). Biochemical data resulting from strontium analysis of

osteological samples provides the third line of evidence. Although

there is some discussion of hypotheses in the opening chapter,

Wallace's approach is clearly reconstructive rather than inferential.

Where statistical analyses fail to produce significant results, the

argument is bolstered with ethnohistoric details. Each of the primary

data bases is examined in turn below.

Excavations of aboriginal skeletal remains from three sites on

the north end of St. Simons Island provide a sample totaling 33

burials and containing at least 51 individuals. The sites are Taylor

Mound, descri-ed as a ceremonial mound with burials, Couper Field,

which consisted of a cluster of burials in association with a

hypothetical charnel house, and Indian Field, a cluster of burials

associated with a large oval longhouse or pavilion. All are located

on Cannons Point, a 4.25 km long by 0.75 km wide peninsula. Taylor

Mound is near the neck of the peninsula, about 100 m from the marsh

edge. The two village sites are 3 km north-northwest of Taylor Mound

and separated from each other by a distance of 300-400 m. Analysis

was focused on burial practices; an in-depth osteological analysis of

the skeletal materials was conducted separately (Zahler 1976).

The Taylor Mound sample includes almost half of the 24 interments

originally present in the mound. Earlier excavation of 30 percent of

the site by Charles Pearson and Fred Cook removed 13 burials; 8 of

these were accompanied by aboriginal grave goods only and three others

included European materials (Pearson 1977a). Pearson interprets the










site as a late Savannah phase burial mound with intrusive early

historic period burials. The date for the mound is apparently derived

from 74 Savannah series sherds recovered from the fill. Wallace

infers a different temporal association. Based on an east side cache

containing Irene and San Marcos pots and European iron artifacts and

on the presence of European artifacts in the upper layers of the mound

fill, he suggests a protohistoric affiliation. Only three of

Wallace's burials are associated with aboriginal artifacts (shell

beads); none are associated with European materials.

The Couper Field sample consists of 16 burials (18 individuals)

recovered from below-ground grave pits. Six of these were accompanied

by aboriginal artifacts; only one, an adult male, included more than

one kind of artifact.

Using a set of nine general descriptive features, Wallace

analyzed these two samples and found very little difference between

them. While one might argue with an analytical scheme which assigns

the same weight to a single flint chip as is assigned to a slate celt,

a stemmed point and two flint chips, it is possible to agree that the

two sets of burial practices are very similar. All burials in both

sets are primary, flexed interments. The most common artifacts are

personal ornaments-shell beads, a shell ear plug, a bone pin--but

these occur with fewer than one third of the individuals in each

sample. Unmodified marine shell is present with more than half of

each sample but its significance appears to vary from accidental

inclusion as midden material to deliberate lining of a grave pit. A










single individual, in the Couper Field sample, is distinguished by a

relative abundance and variety of grave goods.

The third burial sample, from Indian Field, differs markedly from

the first two in that it contains extended and bundle burials, an

isolated skull burial and bones which show evidence of mechanical

defleshing. Associated artifacts fall within the ranges of kind and

frequency observed at Taylor Mound and Couper Field and the only

relatively richly accompanied individual is an adult male.

Architectural information associated with each skeletal sample is

given extended discussion by Wallace but may be briefly summarized.

Taylor Mound was a small structure consisting of a rectangular shell

core covered by a single stage of borrow pit fill. The argument

presented by Wallace for architectural elaboration and ceremonial

function is unconvincing. The Couper Field burials were not

associated with structural remains of any sort. A mortuary structure

was hypothesized on the basis of clustering of burials and the

occurrence of "empty" burial pits which imply disinterments. The

Indian Field burials occur immediately south of a cluster of post

holes interpreted as a 9 m by 15 m oval longhouse or pavilion. The

presence of pits containing cooking debris suggests a domestic

function for the structure.

Wallace takes the similarities between the Taylor and Couper

Field assemblages to be evidence that they are samples of the same

sociocultural population. This decision is made despite the facts

that 1) the two sites are separated by a distance of 3 km, 2) the

village site nearest the mound was not sampled, and 3) it is stated










that the Taylor Mound population is later than the Couper Field

population. He then combines them for the purpose of further

analysis; the principal reason for lumping was to obtain a sample

large enough for the use of certain statistical tests. No significant

correlation was found between sex and presence of exotic grave goods.

(Exotic grave goods are not defined--nor is their cultural

significance shown.) No significant correlation was found between sex

and sex of nearest neighbor. However, despite the statistical

evidence, Wallace suggests that a matrilocal post-marital residence

pattern may be inferred.

Two serious objections to this analytical approach should be

mentioned; both have to do with the fact that the nearest neighbor

technique is a form of spatial analysis. First, the sampling area for

Wallace's nearest neighbor analysis of Taylor Mound is essentially

doughnut-shaped, a consequence of Pearson's prior excavation of the

mound's center. Surely some of the individuals removed by Pearson and

Cook were originally nearest neighbors to some of Wallace's

individuals. If burial proximity had the cultural significance

suggested by Wallace, this is a serious loss. A further

methodological consideration is the need to control for boundary

effects when using nearest neighbor techniques (Hodder and Orton

1976:41-43). Second, in the process of combining mound and mortuary

samples an essentially three-dimensional, permanent burial arrangement

has been combined with a two-dimensional, presumably temporary burial

arrangement. It is questionable whether proximity in the mound would

have had the same cultural significance as proximity in the mortuary.








44

One additional conclusion derived from the analysis of the burial

samples is open to question. Having stated that similar burial

practices at Taylor Mound and Couper Field indicate membership in the

same sociocultural population, Wallace extends this to mean membership

in the same, contemporary residence group. Mortuary treatment, he

says, is diagnostic of differential group prestige: "In this

instance, the fact that one group received primary burial in a

ceremonial mound, a second group was buried in what was probably a

mortuary structure (from which they were occasionally removed), and a

third group of burials were distributed along the southern wall of a

longhouse is diagnostic, we believe, of a ranking of these aboriginal

groups during life" (1975:143). Having combined spatially separate

behaviors, he then turns around and states that spatial differences

within the combined group are significant. While burial practices are

clearly variable, it is not demonstrated that rank is the best or only

explanation for this variability.

The ethnohistorical reconstruction offered by Wallace contains an

assessment of the reliability of the documents and supplies a useful

synthesis of the information available in translated and secondary

sources. It is, however, an essentially synchronic reconstruction,

since no effort was made to distinguish between early and late

historic period observations to detect changes in the coastal

populations through the eyes of the different ethnohistoric observers

who left records over the course of the mission period. In addition,

we now know that at least some of the ethnohistoric material formerly

believed to be applicable to the Guale area may refer to Siouan










populations in northern South Carolina (J.T. Milanich, personal

communication).

The final source of information used in the St. Simons study is

subsistence analysis, including zooarcheological examination of food

bone, identification of shellfish, analysis of the strontium content

of human bone and identification of botanical remains. The two faunal

analyses were conducted on 1/4 in. screened samples from two arbitrary

levels of a block of midden having a total volume of 9 cubic m. The

fact that this volume of midden yielded only 101 fragments of bone (28

MNI) is indicative either of relatively poor preservation or of the

minor importance of vertebrates.

The small sample size does not completely negate the value of the

Couper Field subsistence data but it does severely limit the kinds of

inferences which can be made. Accepted standards for adequacy of a

sample are based on the degree to which the sample reflects the range

and proportion of species present in the site as a whole. For

Southeastern coastal sites minimum vertebrate faunal samples of 1400

fragments or 200 MNI have been recommended (Wing and Brown

1979:118-121; Reitz 1982). The Couper Field sample cannot be said to

demonstrate any more than the presence of identified species: it

cannot be used to evaluate absence or relative proportion and

certainly is inadequate for assessment of change through time. It is

interesting to note that the most frequently encountered species in

each level is Bagre cf. marinus, sea catfish (cf. gafftopsail) The

malacological analysis indicates almost exclusive exploitation of

oyster Crassostrea virginica) with five other species occurring in










incidental amounts (less than 0.5 percent by weight). These general

findings agree with more recently excavated samples which will be

discussed later.

Strontium analysis is a biochemical technique for evaluating the

trophic level of an animal by comparing the amount of stable isotopic

strontium in a specimen of skeletal material to the amount in a

specimen from a known animal of known diet in the same environment.

In general, herbivores exhibit higher concentrations than carnivores.

Wallace found a statistically significant difference between the

mean strontium concentrations for samples of five burials each from

Taylor Mound and Couper Field. The direction of the difference

indicates a higher trophic level for the mound sample than for the

charnel house sample. (For this interpretation, the mound is said to

be later than the charnel house.) At face value this would suggest a

decreasing reliance on horticulture through time. However, three

cases exhibit higher strontium levels than the reference herbivore.

In light of the uniformly high concentration of strontium in marine

fish and shellfish, Wallace explains the observed decrease in human

tissue concentration over time "as evidence of a change from a

marine-oriented, fishing-and-shellfishing economy (with consequently

high strontium readings) to one that is predominantly horticultural"

(1975:233).

In addition to the confounding factor of marine components in the

diet, recently published data cited in the following table suggest

further complications in strontium level interpretations (Gilbert

1977:88):










Elemental Strontium Levels in Four Food Groups

Component mean Sr concentration (ppm)

Grains and cereals 3.00
Vegetables (including legumes, tubers
and leafy materials) 1.90
Meats (excluding fish and shellfish) 2.00
Nuts 60.00


Nuts, including several species of acorns and several species of

hickory nuts, are believed to have been an important resource for

coastal aboriginal groups in the late prehistoric period (Larson

1969:316). Considering that elemental strontium is 20 times more

abundant in nuts than in any other of the food sources listed, it

seems likely that hunting-gathering groups would have had tissue

strontium levels higher than strictly horticultural peoples. In view

of the high strontium concentrations in two important subsistence

resources--seafoods and nuts--it is likely that any change resulting

from an increased or decreased reliance on horticulture would be

masked. Of more interest than the inter-sample difference reported by

Wallace is the intra-sample variability: for both samples the range

of values is greater than the difference between the two sample means.

This is evidence of a differential distribution of resources which may

be socially significant.

Ethnobotanical evidence from Couper Field consisted of three

identified specimens recovered from "food pits" near a shell midden.

The low recovery rate for botanical remains is typical of coastal

sites and two of the three specimens are common local flora (Polygonum

sp., reported as "knotweed" and Celtis sp., reported as "hackberry").








48

The third specimen, also identified only to genus level, Vigna sp., is

assigned the common name of "black-eyed pea or cowpea" and is

interpreted as "direct evidence of aboriginal edible plants"

(1975:236,238). This presents an interesting dilemma. The genus

Vigna, which includes some of the earliest domesticated and most

widely cultivated legumes, contains many species. Among these is

Vigna sinensis, the black-eyed pea, which is of Ethiopian origin (Duke

1981:302). If Wallace's pea is in fact V. sinensis, as implied by the

common name, it is either highly significant evidence for the early

introduction of this cultigen, or, most likely, a contaminant from

plantation period or modern agricultural activities. If it is not V.

sinensis but some other member of the pea family, it may be a native

pea collected by coastal peoples or accidentally included in the pit

fill. Larson has commented on the misuse of taxonomic names by

archeologists (1980a:75). The preceding discussion illustrates the

danger of imprecise use of common names.

It is possible to question most of the interpretations offered by

Wallace. However, he has presented interesting data and attempted

some ambitious analyses. The repeated use of statistical tests,

whether or not significant findings result, has the extremely useful

effect of requiring quantified observations. As a consequence,

reassessments and future comparative studies are possible.

The osteological analysis of the St. Simons skeletal series is

perhaps the best direct evidence yet available for the nutritional

status of the late aboriginal coastal peoples. James Zahler analyzed

the St. Simons materials and compared his findings with Hulse's Irene








49

mound skeletal data (Zahler 1976; Hulse 1941). He concluded that both

series were samples from the same, relatively heterogeneous population

(1976:44). Two differences between the series are important. First,

dental caries are "rather frequent" at the St. Simons settlement,

suggesting "an increased consumption of carbohydrates (maize) possibly

at the expense of nutritionally varied ecotone resources"

(1976:49-50). Second, "the incidence of bone pathology attributed to

anemia among the inhabitants of the St. Simons settlement does suggest

that the general health of the coastal population had deteriorated

during the contact period" (1976:49). Neither this indicator of

subsistence stress nor frequent caries were reported by Hulse for the

somewhat earlier Irene population.

It is also interesting to note that the osteological data fail to

confirm Wallace's hypothesized matrilocal residence pattern. Both

males and females appear to be about equally homogeneous in cranial

measurements (1976:46). In a matrilocal society, it would be expected

that the females would show less variability than the males. This is

true for the Savannah period skeletal series from the Irene Site but

not for the Irene period series from the Irene Site nor for the Irene

period series from the St. Simons sites. The decrease in the

difference between males and females is attributed by Zahler

(following Hulse 1941) to an increase in population density and

heterogeneity. It is assumed that a matrilocal postmarital residence

pattern was still in effect at historic contact, but there is no

osteological evidence for this (1975:46-47, 51).










Southern St. Simons Island

Another St. Simons Island mound excavation will be briefly

discussed before going on to the second major study concerning coastal

Georgia. Fred Cook has reported excavations at the Irene phase Kent

Mound on the south end of St. Simons Island (1978). He describes 32

burials (including 35 individuals), presents microseriation data based

on the mound construction sequence and attempts to quantify

subsistence data from the premound, early Irene shell midden. These

data constitute an important comparative sample for evaluation of

Wallace's northern St. Simons assemblage.

The burial excavations are described but not summarized or

analyzed in any way, a curious omission since this is the largest

recently excavated skeletal series from the coast. Twelve of the

burials were accompanied by aboriginal artifacts and two, which Cook

dates at A.D. 1550 to 1600, were furnished with both aboriginal and

historic grave goods. While the majority (20) are primary, flexed

interments, one primary prone burial, one bundle burial, one mass of

disarticulated bones representing three individuals, and two trophies

attest to a variety in burial practices not observed at Taylor Mound.

This perhaps calls for re-evaluation of the status differences

inferred from burial practices in Wallace's study.

Several interesting observations concerning micro-changes in the

Irene ceramic complex, both temporal and spatial, are reported. The

Kent Mound Irene pottery assemblage contains "significant" numbers of

sherds with grit and sherd or clay paste inclusions, in contrast to

the exclusively grit or gravel inclusions at the Irene Site. Recent










work with coastal clays suggests that this is an environmental

variable (Saffer 1979). Changes in the apparent popularity of several

rim decorative styles are seriated and, together with several other

attributes, suggest that the later mound pottery is transitional

between Irene and San Marcos. The incised variety of Irene pottery is

reported as increasing from virtual absence in the early Irene,

premound midden to over 80 percent in the latest burial. While this

is reported as a function of time, it seems likely that a

sacred/secular dichotomy may be reflected. Although Cook reports wear

and charring of "several" vessels as evidence of utilitarian usage,

these phenomena are not quantified. Mary Herron has studied the

multifunctional nature of ceramic surface treatment (1978). Check

stamping, in her St. Johns series sample, appears to have enhanced

heat transfer efficiency and to have facilitated handling of slippery

vessels. With regard to the Kent Mound mortuary vessels, Cook notes

"that over half of these vessels have a combination of surface

treatment that includes both filfot stamping and incising" (1978:93).

It would be interesting to know whether it is the stamped vessels

which exhibit charring.

Subsistence data from the early Irene premound midden are

presented. Biomass calculations, using a variety of techniques, are

offered but several methodological problems result in figures which

are neither mutually comparable within the sample nor directly

comparable with any other coastal faunal assemblage. Two examples

which illustrate the nature of these problems follow. First, meat

weight for oysters is calculated but is compared with live weight for








52

vertebrates (rather than usable meat weight). Second, the live weight

figure used for deer is the average of the midpoints of the ranges of

weights for male and female deer in North America (194 pounds).

Coastal and island deer are considerably smaller; Johnson et al. cite

an average weight of 60 pounds for Blackbeard Island specimens

(1974:59). Despite these difficulties, Cook's biomass figures are

probably valid as a basis for ranking the importance of major

subsistence resources. In decreasing order of importance, fish,

oysters, deer and raccoon are the major contributors. Other species

account for less than one percent of the total biomass. It is

interesting that Cook identified no sharks or rays, nor any birds, in

his sample. Floral remains included bedstraw (Gallium sp.),

copperleaf (Alcalypha virginica), maize (Zea mays), pokeweed

(Phytolacca americana) and squash or gourd (Curcurbita sp.). In

general, the faunal remains reflect the same pattern of usage seen at

other late prehistoric coastal sites and the floral sample confirms

ethnohistoric records of aboriginal horticulture.



Sapelo Island

Sapelo Island, on the central Georgia coast, is the location of a

second major archeological study of the late prehistoric period (Crook

1978). Ray Crook excavated a portion of the large Kenan Field Site,

which is a 60 ha area containing 589 shell middens and 2 earthen

mounds. In addition to new archeological data on the Savannah period,

a major contribution of this study is the well-integrated distillation











of ecological and ethnohistoric information which is offered as a

subsistence/settlement model.

Crook sees the Savannah phase adaptation as a dynamic system

composed of four distinctive, sequential subsystems, in each of which

the form of the social group is a response to the nature of the target

resources and the exploitive technology (1978:64). These are roughly

correlated with the seasons of the year and may be summarized as

follows (1978:46-64). Summer was the swidden harvest season and also

one of the two peak periods for fishing. Wild fruits, such as grapes,

persimmons and plums, would have been collected at this time. The

temporary surplus from swidden horticulture allowed aggregation of the

coastal population at strategically located town sites which, in turn,

facilitated information exchange and planning of future subsistence

pursuits. At the close of the harvest season, the towns emptied as

matrilineage groups of 20 to 25 persons moved into the oak forests to

harvest acorns and hickory nuts. A small group, probably the mico's

matrilineage, may have been resident year-round at the town site. In

addition, large segments of the population returned briefly to the

town for ceremonies at intervals throughout the year. Communal hunts

of white-tailed deer, attracted by oak mast and aggregated for their

breeding season, would have taken place at this time. While some

stored cultigens may have been eaten, the emphasis would have been on

accruing further supplies against the leaner winter and spring seasons

ahead. During the winter, subsistence efforts shifted to the

estuaries where fish were again plentiful and oysters were in prime

condition. Camps were located to provide estuarine access although










some upland hunting continued on an individual basis. The spring

planting season was the period of maximum population dispersal and

minimum social group size--one or two nuclear families. This

settlement shift was a response to the patchy distribution of soils

suitable for horticulture and to the general scarcity of food

resources. This time of subsistence stress came to an end with the

first harvests in mid-summer.

Crook's model is presented in narrative form but the

archeologically recoverable correlates of the described behavioral

system may be easily specified:

1) Small sites with spring/early summer species scattered

across best agricultural soils are probably swidden

plot camps.

2) Medium sites with fall species in oak forest areas are

hunting/nutting camps.

3) Medium sites with winter species located adjacent to

estuaries are fishing/shellfishing camps.

4) Large sites with a wide range of seasonal indicators on

best agricultural soil adjacent to estuaries are towns.

This is, of course, a simplified picture of the system. In reality, a

wide variety of intermediate, special purpose and combination

settlement types would be expected.

The model is constructed from two kinds of information: current

environmental data and ethnohistoric observations of coastal

populations. Keeping in mind the effects of historic period

agriculture on upland ground cover and consequent silting, most








55

archeologists grant that modern environmental conditions are close to

those of the late prehistoric period. The applicability of

ethnohistoric information to earlier periods (as early as the

beginning of the Savannah period, A.D. 1000) is open to question.

Some vacillation on Crook's part concerning just what is represented

in the Spanish narratives is apparent in contrasting two statements he

makes during discussion of his model:


since it is predominantly constructed with evidence
contained in accounts of early historic period (pre-
1600), elements of a purely aboriginal form should be
represented. The most intensive acculturation of the
Guale accompanied the renewed mission efforts that fol-
lowed the 1597 Guale revolt. (1978:46)

Certain elements of the system were certainly already
affected by European influences, since the model is
constructed with data from between 1560 and 1600, more
than 40 years after Allyon's first contact with the
coastal groups and in the midst of deliberate accultur-
ation attempts by the early missionaries. (1978:70)

Though contradictory, these statements are useful in that they

illustrate the need for archeological corroboration of the accuracy of

ethnohistoric interpretations. Because of the nature of the contact

situation, "elements of a purely aboriginal form" cannot be assumed

simply on grounds of early observation. Since Crook wrote, evidence

of repeated contacts during the period 1515-1530 has been presented by

Hoffman (1980).

Archeological data from Kenan Field, including subsistence

information, architectural detail and spatial distribution of

artifacts, were evaluated in light of the implications of this model.

Crook dates most of the excavated contexts to the Savannah phase which










he brackets at A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1540. If, as intended, the

ethnohistoric/ecological model is valid for the Savannah phase, then

the portion of Kenan Field which was studied can be described as a

town. It is a large site located on a preferred agricultural soil

type adjacent to the estuary. Faunal materials representative of

every season of the year were found. An earthen mound and several

large, post-supported structures indicate an occupation of

considerable permanence involving a major population aggregation.

These features are perhaps the most interesting finds at Kenan Field

as they represent communal buildings of a form and scale hitherto

unreported for the Georgia coast. Crook interprets the structures as

large, low platforms which accomodated both domestic and public

functions. These large buildings constitute the best archeological

evidence for the level of organization of coastal cultures inferred

from ethnohistoric sources.

Through a series of hypotheses and loosely related test

implications, Crook attempts to demonstrate that Savannah society was

segmented, ranked and organized according to a formal spatial plan.

While limited aspects of these hypotheses are well-substantiated, for

the most part the implications are stated in such general terms that

virtually any observation of non-random distribution would constitute

a positive implication. For example, a "formal village plan which

reflects the adaptations of a ranked society to environmental factors"

is hypothesized. Test implications are "patterned arrangement of

structural remains," "socially and/or functionally distinct

structures," etc. (1978:9). The problem is that archeological data










from a non-ranked society might also be expected to show patterned

arrangements and social/functional distinctions.

The analysis of subsistence data from Kenan Field is innovative

and somewhat unorthodox. Crook reports selected results for different

structures and features; selections vary according to what aspects are

being interpreted. As there is no summary table, it is difficult to

compare the assemblage as a whole with results from other coastal

sites. What is most valuable, however, is the attempt to confront the

problem of determining seasonality of archeological assemblages from

the southeastern coast. Three primary categories of seasonality

indicators are used: fish, reptiles and molluscs. Of these, the

quahog clam data is most convincing (but compare Clark's 1979

differing interpretation). Season of death, based on terminal growth

ring measurement, is consistently a fall/winter occurrence. Oysters

are interpreted as being primarily a late fall/winter resource because

1) in the spring, summer, and early fall oysters are in poor condition

due to spawning and disease, and 2) because they are found in

association with the fall/winter-dated quahogs. While this seems

reasonable enough, it actually involves interpretation by ethnographic

analogy, projecting modern cultural preferences on aboriginal

behavior. Crook relies heavily on this interpretation of oysters as

winter food in his assessment of the Kenan Field data. The use of

reptiles as seasonal indicators, based on winter dormancy and

therefore inaccessibility, is questionable for a different reason.

Although activity is reduced in winter, the climate of the Georgia

coast is relatively mild and snakes can be seen basking in sunny spots










on midwinter afternoons. In fact, one might argue that snakes would

be more frequently added to the midden in winter since when it is cold

they move slowly and are easily killed. On a presence/absence basis,

reptiles cannot be considered reliable seasonality indicators; in a

large sample relative proportions might be significant.

Fish compose the most abundant class of animals recovered from

coastal sites and their potential use to infer season of occupation

is, for this reason, promising. The comparative sample used by Reitz

(1979a), Crook (1978), Pearson (1979) and others is based on modern

trawl catches (Dahlberg 1975; Mahood, Harris, Music, and Palmer 1974).

One important limitation of the trawl data as a predictor of

aboriginal resource availability is the technological difference

between aboriginal and modern fishing practices. While the Indians

may have used nets, weirs, hook and line, and spears, and probably

employed dugout canoes to reach a variety of estuarine habitats, the

trawl sample was limited to the major waterways and larger tidal

creeks and involved one type of net only. These data, with recognized

limitations, are probably accurate reflections of the varying species

composition of estuarine waters. However, unless archeological

samples are large enough so that relative abundances, not simple

presence or absence, can be observed, seasonality interpretations

based on fish are inconclusive. Although individual species as

seasonal indicators are often ambiguous, aggregates of indicators

should produce fairly reliable bracketing of occupation. Again, large

sample size seems to be the key to accuracy.










While interpretation of relative importance of various species

was not a major goal in the Kenan Field study, the screening routine

resulted in a sample which probably underestimates the occurrence of

smaller animals, especially fish. Quarter-inch screen was used to

sift 94 percent of the sample; only 6 percent was fine-screened. The

apparent emphasis on white-tailed deer may be a consequence of this

bias.

Although more rigorous hypothesis testing procedures would be

desirable, this does not detract from the significance of the

empirical data. Crook's major contributions are a well-integrated

subsistence/settlement model, new information on the scale and

complexity of coastal public architecture, and a direct confrontation

with the complexities of determining seasonality in coastal

subsistence assemblages. He presents convincing evidence that quahogs

were harvested in winter and that aboriginal use of oysters produced

beneficial effects on oyster growth by "thinning" the population.



Ossabaw Island

The third major study utilizes data from Ossabaw Island on the

north portion of the Georgia coast. Charles Pearson surveyed the

island and conducted limited test excavations at some of the 65

Mississippian period sites in the sample of 203 aboriginal sites

(Pearson 1979). The purpose of the study was to compare the

settlement/subsistence patterns of the two late prehistoric

archeological cultures, Savannah and Irene, with the expectation that

contrasts would reflect adaptive changes. Continuities between the










Savannah and Irene assemblages are strong, indicating in-place

development through time of a single cultural group.

Pearson's settlement sample consisted of surface collections from

the set of 65 Mississippian period sites containing 12 Savannah phase

(A.D. 1150-1350) and 61 Irene phase (A.D. 1350-1550) components.

Surface area was the only metric variable available from all sites.

It is important to note that area is not a direct measure of intensity

or duration of occupation. Also, depending on historic period

agricultural practices and erosion, the density of surface artifacts

could vary widely. Surface area was used to develop ranked groups of

sites presumed to reflect some functional differences. These groups

were then evaluated against environmental and cultural variables to

determine whether differences correlated with size could be detected.

Subsistence information was derived from 26 middens at 5 sites, 3

Irene and 2 Savannah. Vertebrate faunal samples were collected from

1-m square units in each midden using 1/4 in. mesh screens. These

samples yielded 47 MNI for the 2 Savannah sites (13 middens) and 37

MNI for the 3 Irene sites (13 middens). Invertebrate species were

analyzed for 3 middens using 2 to 4 kg complete matrix column samples.

These samples were also used to reconstruct the total contents of the

midden for the purpose of comparing molluscan and vertebrate

contributions to the diet.

In a site size distribution comparison of the two samples,

Pearson observed that, while both systems appeared to be dominated by

a single centrally and optimally located primate settlement, other

significant differences in system structure existed. Since the term








61

"primate" has a very different meaning for geographers than it has for

anthropologists, a brief explanation is warranted. A primate

settlement distribution is one in which there are gaps in the array of

site sizes so that one or two very large (primate) sites dominate the

settlement system. In contrast, a system conforming to the rank-size

rule exhibits a log-normal distribution in which the site sizes form a

continuum (Hodder and Orton 1976:69-73). The Savannah pattern is

described as nucleatedd" and is characterized by the dominance of a

single very large site over very few small and relatively few

medium-size sites. The Irene pattern seems to include many small

sites which may represent temporary or seasonal occupations associated

with a single or narrow range of activities (1979:66). For this

reason, it is described as "dispersed." When sites in each size class

are examined with respect to four key environmental variables, it is

found that the largest sites occupy the most favorable settlement

locations. It is the smallest sites in the Irene system which exhibit

the most variability with respect to environmental characteristics.

Pearson has convincingly demonstrated differences between the

Savannah and Irene phase settlement structures which can be summarized

in terms of nucleation or dispersal of the population. Similarities

are apparently related to environmental factors affecting efficient

exploitation of marsh-estuary resources, conditions for year-round

settlement and feasibility of agriculture (1979:124). The shift from

a nucleated to a dispersed settlement structure is explained as a

reflection of the pan-Southeastern breakdown of the highly complex and

structured Mississipppian socio-political organization which resulted











in the less complex historic groups for which we have ethnohistoric

records. According to Pearson, this change took place on the Georgia

coast before European contact (1979:125). The relationship between

nucleation and warfare is noted and it is suggested that eventual soil

exhaustion may have necessitated the dispersal of horticultural plots.

Subsistence information was examined to determine whether the

observed differences in settlement could be attributed to subsistence

pattern differences. The samples described earlier were evaluated

with respect to species, relative abundance, seasonality and temporal

contrasts. Major conclusions are reviewed below.

1) Mammals provided 96 and 98 percent of the estimated non-

molluscan meat yield (White's method) for Savannah and

Irene phases (respectively). White-tailed deer accounted

for 78 and 85 percent of the corresponding totals, with the

remainder coming from only two sources, raccoon and marsh

rabbit.

2) Fish constituted the second most important vertebrate food

source, providing 3.3 and 1.6 percent of the Savannah and

Irene estimated meat yields.

3) No significant difference was found between the two phases

in the range of species exploited, and concentration indices

showed no significant differences in intensity of exploita-

tion.

The rank ordering of subsistence contribution by species as

observed by Pearson is substantially different from that found at

Kings Bay and in several other coastal samples. The apparent emphasis










on mammals at Ossabaw is probably a consequence of the use of 1/4 in.

screen. This can be demonstrated by evaluating vertebrate remains

from Pearson's 1/16 in. screened column samples (1979:182-186). Total

osseous weights for the three middens are as follows: mammal 1.3 g

(6.9 percent), nonmammal vertebrate 16.02 g (85.1 percent) and

unidentified 1.51 g (8.0 percent). While osseous weight is not

directly comparable to other measures of importance, it is obvious

that the premier ranking of mammals is not substantiated.

The observed narrow range of mammalian exploitation and the

absence of differences between Savannah and Irene inventories may be a

consequence of sample size. The small sample simply underestimates

the occurrence of rare events so that they appear to be nonexistent.

The recommended adequate sample of 200 MNI (Wing and Brown

1979:118-121) should be obtained before prehistoric extirpation of

missing species is posited, as Pearson does here.

A final major conclusion derived from Pearson's subsistence

samples concerns the relative importance of molluscan versus

vertebrate species based on complete matrix column samples. The high

estimated potential invertebrate meat yield (85.3, 95.1, and 98.7

percent) is said to demonstrate an extremely heavy reliance on

molluscs (1979:190). While this is true for the computations

performed on the measurements of these archeologically recovered

materials, several assumptions are necessary to extend this conclusion

to the diet of the Ossabaw Mississippian population in general. Three

examples are given below. First, it must be assumed that vertebrate

and invertebrate materials are deposited in the same refuse piles in










proportions representative of their dietary importance. Since no

nonshell midden contexts were sampled, differential deposition

patterns, if present, would not have been apparent. Second, it must

be assumed that molluscan and nonmolluscan remains are preserved and

recovered in representative proportions. Given the greater fragility

of bone in the face of mechanical and chemical breakdown, this is

unlikely. Finally, it must be assumed that the sampled middens are

representative of year-round subsistence emphases. Crook has argued

that oyster exploitation would have been much more efficient during

the winter season than at other times (1978:251). Given the

scattered, seasonal character of most coastal resources, it is

unlikely that a single type of context, for example a winter oyster

midden, would be representative of year-round subsistence, even at a

permanently occupied site.

In view of the problems indicated above, it is doubtful that

direct comparison of estimated meat yields for vertebrate and

invertebrate midden contents gives an accurate picture of relative

dietary importance. I would be reluctant to accept Pearson's

conclusion of the "overwhelming importance" of the shellfish

contribution to the faunal segment of the diet (1979:191-192). This

is not to argue that oysters were not a critical resource. It is

simply reluctance to accept the implied seasonal, spatial and

preservational homogeneity.

Evidence for floral components in the diet is limited, as

expected from the experience of other coastal researchers. Specimens










reported are pignut hickory nut fragments (Carya glabra) and palm

berry (Sabal palmetto) (Pearson 1979:197,237-253).

Pearson's study of Ossabaw Island represents the first

Southeastern coastal settlement pattern study founded on a

comprehensive data base from a naturally defined locality. For this

reason, his observations have a coherence lacking in individual site

studies or compendia of site studies. He has provided convincing

evidence of a shift in settlement pattern between the Savannah and

Irene phases and has hypothesized functional distinctions between

levels of each settlement hierarchy. It is suggested that the

settlement shift may be related to horticultural intensification

during the Mississippian period. Two recurrent problems in

archeological interpretation present obstacles to the direct

application of Pearson's results. The first is the assumption that

surface site size is directly proportional to population size. For a

single occupation, area occupied probably is the best archeological

estimator of population. However, it is very difficult to tell the

difference between a single, large, concurrently occupied area

representing a large population aggregate and a large, sequentially

occupied accretion representing many small groups over a period of

time. This is especially true in coastal shell midden sites. Thus,

important structural differences may be masked when a single

parameter, such as site size, is used to estimate population.

A second, related interpretive problem lies in Pearson's

chronological assumptions. When both Savannnah and Irene are treated

as prehistoric cultures, the cause of the settlement shift must be










sought in prehistoric processes. If, as some authors have suggested,

Irene is a protohistoric, not prehistoric, phenomenon, explanatory

hypotheses incorporating acculturative processes and demographic

consequences (such as effects of introduced diseases) are readily

formulated. The dating of the Irene phase is anything but secure.

Pearson assigns a range of A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1550, on the basis of

Irene mound stratigraphy and radiocarbon determinations from St.

Catherines Island. However, the most frequently cited source for the

St. Catherines dates contains no determinations for Irene contexts and

does not discuss the Irene phase at all (Caldwell 1971:88-92). Irene

mounds containing European materials are common and similarities

between Irene ceramic types and mission phase San Marcos series

pottery suggest continuity (Cook 1978:127-133). The possibility that

the settlement pattern shift observed by Pearson is causally related

to European contact during the pre-mission, exploration period is an

alternative hypothesis which should be considered, at least until

better control of coastal chronology is achieved.

Pearson offers a comparative analysis of Savannah and Irene

subsistence data as evidence that the settlement shift is not related

to a change in subsistence patterns. It is probable, however, that

the sample is too small to permit distinctions to be made between

intraphase and interphase variability, especially in view of the

seasonality of resources and mobility of population that are expected

in the coastal environment.













New Ethnohistoric Perspectives

In addition to the preceding studies based on archeological

evidence from recent research, a re-examination by Grant Jones of the

documentary record furnishes yet another interpretation of Guale

subsistence, settlement and sociopolitical patterns. Jones believes

that Guale subsistence was based on a combination of horticulture,

hunting and collecting sufficiently productive to support "permanent

towns, a chiefdom level of social organization, temporary federations

of chiefdoms under centralized leadership, and long distance trade

networks. The chiefdoms were characterized by dual features of

political organization and an emphasis on matrilineal succession"

(1978:179). Jones' confidence in Guale horticulture is based on

documentary references to the large amounts of cultivated foods

furnished to the Spaniards and on references to the availability of

stored maize as late in the year as April. He rejects Larson's

characterization of the settlement pattern, claiming that the Jesuit

reports of small, shifting communities were exaggerated and misleading

(1978:191). Larson has interpreted this pattern as an adaptation to

the low fertility and scattered distribution of small areas of soil

suitable for horticulture which is typical of the coastal region

(1980a:206-209). Jones contends that, in fact, the Guale dispersed in

an effort to escape Jesuit interference in their affairs, so that what

the missionaries reported was an evasive action, not a subsistence

strategy. Jones quite clearly would reject Crook's

subsistence/settlement model:










While it seems possible that domesticated animals ef-
fected a reduction in winter hunting activity and thus a
change in a hypothetical pattern of winter residential
mobility, there is no reported pattern of mobility for
even earliest periods of Guale history. While the ab-
sence of evidence does not assure us that the pattern did
not exist, there is ample evidence that at least the prin-
cipal towns were occupied during the winter. While small
hunting parties undoubtedly went out for short periods,
the faunal resources of the Coastal Sector were suffi-
ciently diverse, rich, and compact that residential mobil-
ity was probably not necessary. (1978:194)

It must be noted that the statement "there is no reported pattern of

mobility for even earliest periods of Guale history" is predicated on

a flat rejection of Jesuit reports of just such a pattern (Larson

1980a:206-209). Laudonniere and Le Moyne also reported a winter

dispersal pattern, but this refers to the Timucuan populations in the

St. Johns River area (Bennett 1975:15-16; 1968:44).

Sites which may represent the camps of small hunting parties have

recently been identified on the mainland. Major habitation sites are

located on high ground adjacent to the salt marsh, but sporadic

aboriginal use of interior areas within the tidewater region is

apparent. Richard Zurel, Tom Gresham and David Hally surveyed

portions of the Big Mortar-Snuff Box Swamp Watershed in Long and

McIntosh Counties, west of Sapelo Island (1975). They recorded a

large number of small, low artifact density sites (including Savannah

and Irene sites) in this predominantly low, poorly-drained region.

These are interpreted as representing very brief occupations by small

numbers of people for the purpose of exploiting distinctive resources

of the freshwater swamp-forest ecological zone. The authors do not

indicate what resources may have been sought in this zone but soils











most suitable for horticulture are distributed along two sand ridges

which define the southeastern and southwestern margins of the

watershed. The Barrier Island Sand Ridge composes the eastern margin

of the mainland and corresponds to the major linear zone of aboriginal

occupation at Kings Bay. The Altamaha Sand Ridge parallels the

Altamaha River along the southwestern boundary of the watershed and

includes soils which elsewhere on the coast are good predictors of

aboriginal site location. Well-drained soils suitable for

horticulture are almost nonexistent in the interior portion of the

watershed. On the basis of ceramic similarities, the authors suggest

that these sites and contemporaneous sites on the nearby barrier

islands are the product of a single population. No permanent

occupation of the interior watershed region is indicated

(1975:107,118).

As an alternative model of the Guale settlement/subsistence

pattern, Jones proposes the "dispersed town" (1978:192). These

ceremonial and food storage centers consisted of a few public

buildings and a chunky ground located near the salt marsh with

individual houses and associated garden plots scattered through the

adjoining forest. It should be noted that this relatively fixed

arrangement of horticultural plots around an administrative nucleus is

based on observations from the close of the mission period (1666,

1670, 1696). By this time, population reductions would have relieved

pressure to disperse and Carolinean depredations would have fostered

nucleation for defense. It cannot be claimed, on the basis of










available evidence, that permanent dispersed towns are reflective of

prehistoric or even protohistoric settlement patterns.

Significantly, Jones believes the principal towns and the

majority of the population was located on the mainland along the major

rivers prior to 1607. This would suggest that later, relocated

mission towns would be established on sites lacking major

accumulations of early mission period debris. Conversely, early

period primary towns would lack significant deposits of late

materials. While this improves prospects for separation of contexts,

it means that archeological evidence reflective of acculturative

change during the mission period is not likely to be forthcoming from

a single site. Currently available information about mainland sites

does not confirm Jones' population distribution hypothesis since the

only really large site on the coast is the Irene Site on the Savannah

River. However, very little large-scale survey work has been

completed on the mainland. A recent report of survey work in the

northeastern corner of Camden County indicates that Mississippian

period occupations are well-represented in this area. Eight of the

nine sites reported by Kirkland yielded Savannah phase artifacts; the

ninth produced no artifacts. Over 75 percent of the sample from the

largest site (3.2 ha) was assignable to Wilmington and Savannah series

(Kirkland 1979). This is an indication of how much remains to be

learned about late prehistoric period coastal population size and

distribution.

Arguing that the Guale possessed a productive economy and

permanent settlements, Jones goes on to claim that their











sociopolitical organization and cultural development was considerably

more complex than has been acknowledged by previous researchers. He

has reconstructed, based on documentary clues to "intercommunity

social relations," three chiefdoms consisting of pairs of primary

towns and associated constellations of secondary towns and

settlements. The towns of individual chiefdoms seem to have

participated frequently in joint ceremonies and feasts, while the

chiefdoms were capable of effectively uniting against a common enemy.

There are no indications that such federations existed prior to the

arrival of the Spaniards.

In other details of social and political organization Jones

generally agrees with previous readings of the documents. His major

contribution is an emphasis on tighter chronological control in

evaluation of the ethnohistoric data. He defines three periods within

which generalizations can be extended and between which comparisons

can be made. These are 1526-1586, from Allyon's colony to the

abandonment of Santa Elena, 1587-1607, encompassing the precipitation

and aftermath of the 1597 rebellion and representing Guale political

strength at its peak, and 1607-1684, during which the island chain of

missions was solidified but the Guale people suffered decline. As

noted earlier, first contact is now believed to have occurred between

1514 and 1516, which would lengthen the first period by about a decade

(Hoffman 1980). To the extent that archeological sites can be

assigned to one or another of these periods, it will be possible to

confirm or reject many of Jones' interpretations.










Summary

It is clear from the preceding discussion that, while there is

general agreement among active researchers on what questions should be

asked at coastal sites, there is little accord on how these questions

should be asked. Different sampling and analysis techniques prevent

intersite comparison of subsistence patterns, except at a very general

level. Yet subsistence is the single most commonly addressed topic.

In the remainder of this study the results of previous coastal

research will be used selectively, with emphasis on the data and

topics best handled in each project. Thus Larson's work will be used

for its comprehensive subsistence resource descriptions, Wallace's

work for data on burial practices, Crook's study for the

subsistence/settlement model, and Pearson's research for settlement

pattern information.

The basic picture of coastal adaptation which emerges from these

studies is of a broad spectrum economy in which fish, shellfish and

deer were primary sources of animal protein. Little direct evidence

for the use of wild plant foods has been found but it is agreed that

acorns and hickory nuts must have been seasonal staples. The

importance of horticulture is a topic for which there are widely

varying opinions backed by minimal evidence. All of these foods would

have exhibited seasonal peaks of abundance resulting in a diet which

varied in composition through the year. Resources, including

horticultural soils, were patchy in distribution, preventing large

population aggregates of long duration. Two strategies for coping

with this environmental limitation have been hypothesized: a dispersed











town settlement pattern and a pattern of seasonal fissioning and

mobility. Pearson's data indicate an increasing tendency through time

toward dispersion. It is not known whether this was seasonal,

shifting dispersal or permanent, low density settlement, nor is it

clear whether the change occurred before or after contact. Some

degree of segmentation of the population may be indicated by the

burial data. There is, however, no evidence of the rich ceremonial

material culture found elsewhere in the Southeast at this time. The

few somewhat richly accompanied burials are of adult males, perhaps

indicative of chiefly status but there is no consistent evidence for a

class of elevated status. The differences in burial practices thought

to mark class differences when found in mound versus cemetery contexts

at one site occur all together in a mound at another site on the same

island. Mounds, large-scale buildings, and palisades attest to

communal construction efforts presumably directed by a chiefly

authority and subsidized by communal stores of food.

At least half a century elapsed between initial contact (during

which time there were repeated contacts) and recording of "early"

ethnohistoric accounts at the beginning of the mission effort. It is

now evident that the processes which resulted in extinction of the

coastal aboriginal way of life a century later were set in motion

quite early in the 1500s. The next task is to identify which elements

of the system were earliest affected, in order to more accurately

employ ethnohistoric accounts in modeling prehistoric cultures.

This chapter has presented the substantive findings of several

recent, major studies of the late prehistoric period. These results,








74

together with their supporting ethnographic and ethnohistoric

analogies, constitute a set of criteria for judging what questions may

reasonably and practically be considered at coastal sites. In terms

of the method of inductive confirmation introduced in the next

chapter, the previous research for this locality provides a set of

plausibility considerations for formulating hypotheses applicable to

the Kings Bay data.

















CHAPTER 4
THEORETICAL CONTEXT


The Use of Models

The problem focus of this study is the task of assessing an

anthropological/archeological model to evaluate its explanatory power

and its value as an approximation of past reality. It is important to

specify the significance of the term "model" as used here because this

term has become a popular buzzword in archeological literature and is

sometimes invoked to lend substance to insubstantial discussions. Two

major essays on model use have reviewed the many types and

applications of models which are currently fashionable (Haggett and

Chorley 1967; Clarke 1972). In general, a model may be described as a

simplified and intelligible representation of reality. The elements

of the model are articulated in a known manner which is presumed to

accurately reflect the articulation of the real elements in the

phenomenon of interest. If a reasonable degree of correspondence

between model elements and interrelationships and real world elements

and interrelationships can be achieved, then the model may be used to

predict the nature of those aspects of the phenomenon which are not

susceptible to observation. This approach to knowing is reflected in

a discussion of ecosystem structure by the ecologist Margalef

(1963:357-358):










The main point is that the "real" structure of
an ecosystem is a property that remains out of reach,
but this complete structure is reflected in many
aspects of the ecosystem that can be subjected to
observation: in the distribution of individuals into
species, in the pattern of the food net, in the dis-
tribution of total assimilatory pigments in kinds of
pigments, and so on.


The process of creating close correspondence between the model

and the real world--tuning the model--results in a higher level of

detail and specificity and in better predictions. In as much as any

model is a simplification and approximation of reality, it is expected

that the model will go through many iterations before a provisionally

acceptable form will be realized.

Models thus form a bridge between the observational and

theoretical levels of investigation; in the process they serve several

functions. They are conceptual tools which facilitate the

visualization and comprehension of a complex or diverse phenomenon;

they are organizational tools which aid in the collection and ordering

of relevant data; and they are logical devices which explain how the

parts of a whole are related or how events precipitate an occurrence

(Haggett and Chorley 1967:24). It is the logical function which is

important in the present context. The model to be evaluated in this

study is composed of a series of interrelated, interlocking hypotheses

concerning settlement and subsistence strategies in a particular

region. It is not the model itself which will be formally tested, but

the individual hypotheses. Rejection of a hypothesis would not, then,

negate the validity of the model; rather, it would require revision of

the related portion of the model.










Ecological Models

Ecologically-based models are frequently used by archeologists.

This approach is founded on the premise that the structure and

dynamics of the cultural subsystem of a region's ecosystem may be

studied in the same manner as other biological subsystems. Important

energy exchanges between the cultural system and the environment are

most easily seen when both are modeled in similar terms.

The ecological paradigm seeks explanations of cultural

similarities and differences in an analysis of solutions developed by

cultures for the problems of making a living and perpetuating life.

These solutions involve interactions with both the natural and social

components of the environment. Material interactions are most easily

and most often studied, but it is recognized that information

exchanges may also have critical survival value.

Subsistence is the primary material interaction susceptible to

archeological analysis; the food quest is a principal topic of the

studies reviewed in Chapter 3 and of the coastal adaptation models

described in Chapter 5. Given the dispersed, diverse natural

resources and the marginal conditions for horticulture which

characterize the southeastern coastal region, it should be possible to

describe a subsistence/settlement strategy which solves both universal

and uniquely coastal problems and evokes characteristic social and

ideological arrangements. This contention--that the manner in which

energy exchanges with the environment are handled by a human

population affects the form of more abstract aspects of culture--is a

basic tenet of cultural materialism.










Cultural Materialism

Cultural materialism is a well-developed theoretical stance in

anthropology which states that the subsystems of a cultural system are

hierarchically arranged and deterministically interconnected. The

three primary subsystems are the infrastructure, consisting of

productive and reproductive arrangements, the structure, composed of

the domestic and political economies, and the superstructure,

encompassing a variety of esthetic, athletic and intellectual

pursuits. It is the infrastructure which constitutes the

culture/environment interface and conditions the form and content of

the structure and superstructure (Harris 1979:51-53).

Since it was first offered in 1968, Harris' version of the

cultural materialist paradigm has gained wide acceptance among

archeologists. In a recent restatement of his position, Harris has

chosen to emphasize the observational process by which this underlying

structure is revealed. He contends that there are at least four valid

domains of observation in the study of human behavior. These four

categories are formed by the intersection of two observational

perspectives with two modes of action: the emic and etic points of

view with the behavioral and mental realms of activity. What Harris

stresses is that, in any single situation, there can be at least four

different observations, each of which is valid within its own frame of

reference. This scheme is shown below; the example of the Georgia

oyster is substituted for the well-known Kerala sacred cow:

















Behavioral




Mental


Domains of Anthropological Observation

Emic Etic

I II
No oysters Summer
are eaten oysters are
in summer, sometimes eaten.

III IV
Summer oysters Gather oysters
are bad to when other
eat. (thin and foods are scarce.
milky)


The value of knowing the contents of all four domains, if one

wishes to thoroughly understand the habitat and niche interactions of

a particular population, is obvious. According to the cultural

materialist principle of infrastructural determinism, "the etic

behavioral modes of production and reproduction probabalistically

determine the etic behavioral domestic and political economy, which in

turn probabalistically determine the behavioral and mental emic

superstructure" (1979:55-56).

In the case of an ethnographic study, completion of the chart is

a relatively straightforward exercise, although, as Harris notes, it

is difficult to state "the locus of the reality" of rules I and IV

(1979:38). However, in an archeological situation, only one domain

(II) is readily satisfied. Assessment of the remaining three is much

more tenuous, as there are no informants to query for domains I and

III and the procedures for arriving at IV are seldom explicit. Two

sources of information are commonly substituted for direct observation

in archeological studies: ethnohistoric data and ecological data.











The manner in which these are employed is indicated in the following

chart:


Domains of Archeological Observation

Emic Etic


Behavioral








Mental


Although it is often the case that all of these types of information

will be accounted for somewhere in an archeological study, it is

seldom true that each is presented clearly and separately before being

freely combined in the customary "synthesis." Thus one of the reasons

it is difficult to specify exactly our empirical knowledge to date of

late prehistoric adaptations is that few studies allow extraction of

just their Etic/Behavioral observations. Once the boundaries between

the domains of ethnohistoric/graphic analogy, archeological data,

ecological analogy and inference are relaxed, the resulting

reconstruction is difficult to evaluate objectively. Harris has

commented on this relaxation of intellectual vigilance (1979:33-34):


I II
Possibly reported Direct archeological
in ethnohistoric data, e.g. oyster
sources; ethnograph- shell deposit con-
ic analogy from training summer
modern population in seasonality indica-
same or comparable tors.
environment.

III IV
Inferred from eco- Inferred from model;
logical data, i.e. usually thought to
an educated guess be most accurate
at aboriginal rea- interpretation of
sons for choices, adaptive niche.










All notions of replicability and testability fly
up the chimney when the world as seen by the observed
is capriciously muddled with the world as seen by the
observer. .research strategies that fail to distin-
guish between mental and behavioral stream events
and between emic and etic operations cannot develop
coherent networks of theories embracing the causes
of sociocultural differences and similarities.


Archeological Inference

While Harris has been primarily concerned with ways of knowing

and with the epistemology of anthropological theories, archeologists

have been wrestling with the problem of interpreting observations.

Since a review of this struggle would encompass an intellectual

history of the new archeology and is clearly beyond the scope of the

present study, it is convenient that Bruce Smith has recently analyzed

patterns of archeological reasoning (1977). He reviews Merrilee

Salmon's argument that the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method, which

has long been claimed as a hallmark of the new archeology, is not in

fact deductive, nor is it what archeologists who claim to employ

scientific methods of reasoning actually do (B. Smith 1977:600; Salmon

1976). Simply stated, archeologists do not employ the H-D method

because their observational predictions (test implications) are not

deduced from their hypotheses. That is to say, the logical

relationship that the predictions must be true if the hypothesis is

true does not hold (B. Smith 1977:602). The hypothetico-analog (H-A)

method of inductive inference which Smith proposes as an alternative

is based on work by Wesley Salmon (1967, 1973) and Merrilee Salmon

(1976) with modifications for application to specifically

archeological situations. Salient characteristics of the H-A method










are listed in a stepwise fashion below:

1) limitation of alternative hypotheses: plausibility consider-

ations are employed to determine whether a hypothesis has

sufficient prior probability to merit serious consideration.

Analogies drawn between attributes of behavior or debris

patterns under investigation and attributes of a reference

class of relevant cases (ethnohistoric, ethnographic, eco-

logical, geographical) gauge the plausibility of the hypothe-

sized explanation.

2) multiple working hypotheses: alternative explanations of

approximately equivalent plausibility are entertained.

3) inductive format: observational predictions (test impli-

cations) are inferred from hypotheses.

4) bridging arguments: arguments of relevance establishing

a logical link between each observational prediction and

its hypothesis are explicitly stated.

5) evaluation of hypotheses: hypotheses are checked by compar-

ing archeological observations with observational predictions

and assessing results in terms of:

a. number of observational predictions found to be empir-

ically true.

b. variety of observational predictions found to be empir-

ically true.

c. significance of the observational predictions found to be

empirically true.

d. simplicity of the hypothesis.










e. number of observational predictions found to be empir-

ically false.

The process of H-A inductive inference is diagramed in Figure 3.

It is the fourth step which is probably most frequently neglected

in archeological reasoning. Although it is often acknowledged that

assumptions should be stated, there has not previously been a formal

place for this in the reasoning process. The process itself is, as

Smith says, "lengthy, complicated, and often frustrating" (some would

say tedious) but it provides a framework within which conclusions can

be evaluated without reference to the experience or other credentials

of the investigator (1977:614). It is this objectivity that makes the

difference between useful, substantive contributions and archeological

just-so stories.

As an illustration of the type of reasoning common in current

research, and of the explication necessary to bring it into line with

the procedures described above, an example from the Georgia coast will

be evaluated (Larson 1980a:224-226). The problem area is aboriginal

dietary composition and the hypothesis states that "in the coastal

sector the plant resources probably provided an equal, if not greater,

part of the total subsistence" than animal resources (1980a:224).

Though unstated, a plausibility consideration that must have

influenced entertainment of this hypothesis is the ethnographic data

on the contribution of plant foods to the diets of modern

hunter/gatherers. The observational prediction to be checked against

the archeological data--though not stated--seems to be that remains of

animal resources would account for half or fewer of the nutrients







































W
cu





ul
V


r_
0)


S'8










0)
-4







0








0
-4
0










0)






bo
-4
0
U

0)

0



0)




0)
5-

".







85





*
_ ..
,D ..Iu


+0 +++
SII


+000


0 0


1101 0
0.4
0. 0
0~


Q4~ (I (A,


K
U,
r-
aC




0
C



0
E
o










ZCr~
o


c
o,
0>


"0




.1


.








86

required by the population. Reconstruction of the midden contents and

estimation of the person/days represented is presented in narrative

fashion and incorporates the bridging arguments given below. The

items in parentheses are unstated assumptions or corrections.

1) The midden represents the refuse accumulation of one winter

season, a four-month period.

a. blue crab claws were found in the midden.

b. blue crabs move into deep water after mid-December and

are not available for the remainder of the winter.

c. there has been no marked climatic change in the last 500

years.

d. therefore, the crabs probably were not caught later than

early December.

e. (by analogy to ethnohistorically documented behavior,

winter camps were established in early winter and aban-

doned at the beginning of the agricultural season.)

f. abandonment would have occurred after the last killing

frost, in mid-March.

2) One midden is said to represent the refuse produced by one

nuclear family composed of five persons.

a. (each family generated one and only one midden.)

3) The number of Kcal provided from animal sources can be deter-

mined by calculating the biomass represented by a shell mid-

den.

a. (the midden is homogeneous.)

b. for molluscs, meat weight is directly proportional to










shell weight.

c. (remains representing all animal Kcal are present in the

midden in amounts proportional to their use.)

d. (food remains in the midden were deposited there in the

same season in which the food was procured and eaten.)

4) The midden biomass divided by 120 days and 5 people represents

12 oz of oyster meat and 4 oz of other meat per person-day.

a. "the nutritional value of oysters is roughly equivalent

to beef and probably to venison also" (1980a:226). (This

is not accurate: oysters contain 66 Kcal, 8.4 g protein

and 1.8 g fat per 100 g of raw meat while venison contains

126 Kcal, 21 g of protein and 4 g of fat per 100 g of raw

meat (Watt and Merrill 1975:42, 65). Very lean cuts of

beef are comparable to venison but most beef contains

larger amounts of fat and therefore more Kcal.

b. the oysters and other meat provided 650 to 800 Kcal per

day. (In fact the quantities of meat calculated actually

represent about 370 Kcal and 52 g of protein.)

c. Kcal from meat would not have satisfied the individual

daily requirement, ranging from 1400 to 3700 Kcal, so

large amounts of plant food must have been consumed.

d. (few plants produce significant edible materials in the

period December to March) so "acorns, hickory nuts, maize

and beans must have been stored in considerable quantity

against the winter needs" (1980a:226).




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E52094TPO_925VYJ INGEST_TIME 2011-06-30T22:21:47Z PACKAGE UF00102812_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

COASTAL MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD SITES AT KINGS BAY, GEORGIA: A MODEL-BASED ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS BY ROBIN LAURIE SMITH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1982

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to recall the many people I have met and worked with tn the course of this project. Although I cannot mention every name, I hope that each one of you will accept my thanks for your help and encouragement, both personal and professional, during the last five years. Providing guidance as members of my supervisory committee, Ors. Charles Fairbanks, Jerald Milanich, Virginia Hetrick, Elizabeth Wing, and Prudence Rice have always been available to comment on my work from their own unique perspectives. Especially appreciated are the many hours set aside to read and criticize drafts of this study. This project, sponsored by the U.S. Navy, was generously funded, 1n large part due to the efforts of William D. Elder of OICC Trident. Bill has worked hard to ensure that both Navy and academic interests are served by this research. In addition, he has regularly provided encouragement and advice as one professional to another, a gesture deeply appreciated by one accustomed to the marginal status of "student." I would also like to thank the administration and staff at Kings Bay for their good-natured tolerance of our irregular hours and unusual work habits. More than 50 individuals participated tn the survey and testing fieldwork and each made his or her special contribution. Nina ll

PAGE 3

Borr e mans, Chad Braley, and ~imi Saffer were competent and responsible colleagues and lo y al friends. Mary Herron supervised the fieldwork while I was away and kept track of a great many details which would have gotten badly out of hand without her help. Bill Hunt, Alan Bailey, Betty Leigh Hutcheson, Bert Rhyne, Judd Kratzer and Eli Willcox were especially conscientious members of the crew, as well as valued friends. Bert and Gina Rhyne provided a home and famil y during m y sta y 1n Camden County. Thanks. During laboratory analysis important contributions were made by Robbie Owens, Jennifer Hamilton, Helen Done y, and Betty Leigh Hutcheson. Dr. William Maples of the Florida State Museum contributed an analysis of osteological remains and Irv Quitmyer took time out during a critical period in his own research to anal y ze zooarcheological materials for me. Dr. Elizabeth Reitz produced a synthesis of faunal information based on the work of many people 1n the Z ooarcheolo g ical Laboratory under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Win g Lucy Wa y ne and Mimi Saffer handled editing and production of the final project report with skill and dispatch, and were incredibl y patient with the authors. On a dail y b asis, the support of the faculty, staff, and students of the Department of Anthropology has made this research possible. Among the man y friends who have helped me solve problems and who have discussed the ones that couldn't be s olved are: L y dia Deakin, Darla W il k es, Donna ~ tc M ill a n, N ain Anderson, Jill Louc k s, Theresa Sin g leton, Ra y W illis, Sue t! ull i ns, Ra y C r o o k Tom Eub a nks, L i nda W ol f e, Lesl ie 111

PAGE 4

Lieberman, Gary Shapiro, Lucy Wayne, Chad Braley, Nina Borremans, Mimi Saffer, Betsy Reitz, Betty Leigh Hutcheson, Ann Cordell, Tom DesJean, and Nick Honerkamp. Dr. Fairbanks has been my advisor since I began graduate school. It has been a privilage to work with him, to share insights arising from his long experience in archeology, and to benefit from his patient coaching and occasional prodding. His approach to archeology is based on generosity, intellectual honesty, and respect for others, both as scholars and as individuals. I only hope a little of this has rubbed off on me. This work rests heavily on the work of others who have visited the coast before me. Drs. Charles Pearson, Ray Crook and Lewis Larson are especially to be thanked for making their ideas available. If I have been critical, it is because their work was thought-provoking: the meatiest studies have been chewed the most. I hope others will find time to criticize my work. Finally, I would like to thank my family for support, shelter, and continually expressed confidence. My husband, Nicholas, has waited long and patiently without complaining. It is largely the prospect of our shared research in the future which has motivated me to complete this project. lV

PAGE 5

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES . LI ST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT I. INTRODUCTION Description of Research. Description of Fieldwork Organization of This Study I I. NATURAL SETTING Climate and Terrain Flora and Fauna III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Larson's Subsistence Study Northern St. Simons Island Southern St. Simons Island Sapelo Island Ossabaw Island New Ethnohistoric Perspectives Summary . IV. THEORETICAL CONTEXT The Use of Models Ecological Models Cultural Materialism Archeological Inference Summary . . . V. MODELS OF COASTAL ADAPTATION Introduction ...... The Late Emergence of Coastal Adaptations Marine Ecosystem Structure Basic Features of Coastal Adaptations .. Applications of Coastal Adaptation Model Mississippian Period Models Hypotheses Surmnary . . . . . V 11 vii lX xii 1 10 19 21 21 26 36 36 39 so 52 59 67 72 7 5 75 77 78 81 89 91 91 91 95 99 105 114 128 140

PAGE 6

VI. ~ETHODS The Nature of the Sites Level and Kinds of Data Generated Methods Summary VII. RESULTS VIII. IX. Survey Results The Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 The Killion Site, 9Caml79 EVALUATION OF RESULTS Hypothesis I Hypothesis II Hypothesis II I Hypothesis IV Hypothesis V Hypothesis VI Hypothesis VII Hypothesis VIII Review and Summary CONCLUSIONS Introduction Re su 1 ts . Evaluation of the Model . . Evaluation of Inference Methodology Interior Compared to Coastal Adaptations Coastal Adaptations REFERENCES CITED APPENDIX A. AVIAN SEASONALITY IN THE KINGS BAY VICINITY . APPEND IX B. CROSS TABULATIONS OF SURFACE TREATMENT AND PASTE CHARACTERISTICS FOR POTTERY FROM 9CAM171A AND 142 142 147 149 169 17 0 17 0 179 . 364 4 22 423 4 27 445 45 7 466 4 7 5 484 49 2 499 502 502 so 3 519 5 28 5 29 534 542 554 9CAM17 lB 558 APPENDIX C. CLUSTERING ROUTINE USED TO GROUP POTTERY FROM 9CAM17 1 AND 9CAM179 . 57 1 APPEND IX D. CERAMIC TYPE TOTALS BY UNIT FOR 9CAM l 7 lA AND 9CAM l 7 lB 5 7 3 APPENDIX E. BUSYCON DATA FOR SAVANNAH CONTEXTS AT 9CAl'1171 585 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 589

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Components Present at Kings Bay Sites Subjected to Secondary Te sting . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2. Crook's Annual Cycle for the Sixteen th Century Gu ale 121 Table 3. Midden Formation Processes . . . . . 145 Table 4. Aboriginal Ceramic Paste Inclusions Observed in Analysis of 9Caml 7 1 and 9Caml79 Assemblages . . 156 Table s. Aboriginal Ceramic Surface Treatments Observed in Analysis of 9Caml 71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages 158 Table 6. Lithic Form Attributes Observed in Analysis of 9Caml 71 and 9 Caml79 Assemblages . . . . 164 Table 7. Lithic Material Attributes Observed in Analysis of 9Caml 7 1 and 9Caml79 Assembla g es . . . 1 6 5 Table 8. At tributes Recorded in Analysis of Busvcon spp. Shells from 9Caml 7 1 and 9Caml79 . . . 16 7 Table 9 Survey Results for Aboriginal Sites at K ings Bay 171 Table 10. Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery by Provenience at 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 lB . . . . . 202 Table 11. Vertical Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 1B . . . . . . . . . 202 Table 12. Distribution of Li thic Artifacts at 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 lB . . . . . . . . 204 Table 13. Vertical Distribution of Lithic Artfacts at 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 1B . . . . . . . . . . 204 Table 14. Soi ls Analysis Data for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 . 205 Table 15. Ceramic At tribute Clusters for Segments of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . . . . 2 13 Table 16. Summary of Lithic Ar ti fact Anal y sis Data for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . . . . 235 Table 1 7 Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71A 2 37 Table 18. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71B 239 Table 19. Correlations of Wear Variables for Busy cons from Savannah Contexts at 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . 26 2 Table 20. Mollusc Sample Analysis Data for 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 1B 273 Table 21. Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Samples from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . 2 76 Table 22. Vertebrate Species List for l / 4 In. Screened Zone Ma teria 1 from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Table 23. Vertebrate Species List for 1/ 4 In. Screened Zone Material from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1B . . . . . . . . 291 Table 24. Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for 1/ 4 In. Screened Material from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71 294 Table 25. Ranking of Mammal Importance 10 Zone Samples from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71 . . . . . . . 29 5 Table 26. Vertebrate Species List for Savannah Period Features from the Kings Bay Site 9Caml 7 l . . . . . 2 98 Vil

PAGE 8

Table 27. Vertebrate Species List for St. Johns Period Features from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71 . . . . 300 Table 28. Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for Features Analyzed from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . 301 Table 29. Distribution of Elements for Fauna Identified from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . 306 Table 30. Vertebrate Species List for Two Column Samples from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 lA 307 Table 31. Pearson Correlation of Unit Type Frequency Tota ls for 9Caml71A . . . . . . . . . 313 Table 32. Vertical Distribution of Artifacts at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . . . . . 376 Table 33. In te rmi dden Comparative Data for the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . . 39 2 Table 34. Ceramic Group Occurrence by Unit at the Killion Site, Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Table 40. Table 41. Table 42. Table 43. Table 44. Table 45. 9Caml79 . . . . . . 393 Mollusc Sample Analysis Data from Four Column Samples at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . 395 Soils Analysis Data for Four Column Samples from the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . 396 Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . 399 Summary of Ceramic Analysis Data for All Excavation Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 403 Vertebrate Species List for the Killion Site, 9Caml79 405 Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Four Oyster Shell Samples from the Killion Site, 9Caml79 413 Summary of Ceramic Types for the Killion Site, 9Caml79 417 Preliminary Classification of Productivity of Coastal Resources Available to Mississippian Period Populations 429 Occurrence of Subsistence Resource Groups 1n Eight Assemblages from Three Sites at Kings Bay 435 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results 439 Summary of Pearson's Settlement System Data from Ossabaw Island (1979) . . . 447 Vlll

PAGE 9

LI ST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Central Portion of the Southeastern U.S. Coast Showing the Location of the Research Area (from R. Smith et al. 1981:3) . 6 Figure 2. Locations of Historic and Prehistoric Period Archeological Sites Defined During the 1977-78 R. Survey of Kings Bay (from Smith et al. 1981:11) 8 Figure Figure 3. The Hypothetico-Analog Method of Inductive Inference 85 4. A Diagram of Coastal Adaptation Based on Yesner's Mod el . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Figure Figure 5. A Hypothetical Coastal Settlement Pattern Based on Seasonal Variations Described by Crook 124 6. Soils Map of the Kings Bay Area (from R. Smith et al. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure l6. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 2 2. Figure 2 3. Figure 24. 1981:45) 175 A 5 km Radius Circular Catchment Basin Superimposed on the Kings Bay Area (based on Georgia Department of Transportation 1974) Southern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Cam171A Excavation Plan for 9Caml71A Northern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Cam171B Excavation Plan for 9Caml 7 lB . East Profile of pnit 354 Showing Plow Zone Over 17 8 18 3 18 5 187 189 Aboriginal Feature at 9Caml71A 196 South Profile of Unit 357 Showing Undisturbed Aboriginal Midden at 9Cam171A 198 Representative Profile Sections from One Transect at 9Caml 7 lA . . . . . Representative Profile Section from One Transect at 9Caml 7 lB . . . . . . . . Variants of Cord Marking on Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 ........ ... Part of a San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped Jar from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71 San Marcos Series Pottery from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . . St. Johns Incised Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 . . . . . . Savannah Fine Cork Marked Sherds from Feature 36 1n the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 Irene Incised Jar from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 Quartz Artifacts from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B ...... Chert Tools from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71A . . . Chert Tools from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B . . .... lX 201 208 218 220 223 2 26 2 30 233 242 245 248

PAGE 10

Figure 25. Miscellaneous Stone Artifacts from the Kings Bay Site, Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure SO. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 5 5. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 6 2. Figure 63. Figure 64. 9Caml71 . . . . 250 Majolica Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 255 Two Heavily Utilized Busycon spp. Shells from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1 259 Relationship of Basewear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts 264 Relationship of Shoulder Wear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts 266 Relationship of Apex Wear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts. . . 268 Radiocarbon Dates for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 279 Distribution of St. Simons Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 319 Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Caml71A 320 Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71A . . . . 321 Distribution of Wilmington/Savannah Series Pottery at 9Caml 7 lA . . . . . . . . San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml71A St. Johns Series Pottery at 9Caml71A Check Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71A Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml71A Mission Red Filmed Pottery at 9Caml71A Olive Jar Sherds at 9Caml71A. 322 32 3 324 325 326 327 328 Majolica Sherds at 9Caml71A Spanish Ceramics at 9Caml71A Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A Busycon Shells at 9Caml71A Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71A Distribution of Vertebrate Faunal Remains at 9Caml71A Distribution of St. Simons Series Pottery at 9Carnl71B Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Carnl71B Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at 9Caml 7 lB . . . . . . . Distribution of Wilmington/Savannah Series Pottery at 9Caml 7 lB . . . . . . Distribution of San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml 7 lB Distribution of St. Johns Series Pottery at 9Caml71B Distribution of Check Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71B Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml71B Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71B Distribution of Busycon Shells at 9Caml71B Distribution of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71B Distribution of Vertebrate Faunal Remains at 9Caml71B Location of the Killion Site, 9Caml79 Shell Midden Features Composing the Killion Site, 9Caml 79 . . . . . Killion Site Excavation Plan .. 329 330 331 332 333 334 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 366 371 374 Profiles of Representative Killion Site, 9Caml79 Profiles of Representative Killion Site, 9Caml79 Nonsite Units at the Killion . 380 Nonmidden Units at the 38 2 X

PAGE 11

Figure 65. Profiles of Rep re sen ta tive Subsurface Midden Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . 384 Figure 66. Profiles of Two Surface Midden Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . . . 386 Figure 67. Profiles of a Surface Midden Unit at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . . . . . 388 Figure 68. South Profile of Unit 115 Showing Surface Midden at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . 391 Figure 69. Representative Artifacts from the Killion Site, 9Caml79 . . . . . . . . . . . 402 Figure 70. Site Boundary Derived from Surface Feature Loe at ions at the Killion Site, 9Cam179 . . . . . . 410 Figure 7 1. A Hypothetical Grouping of the Middens at the Killion Site Suggesting Contemporaneity . . . . 451 Xl

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COASTAL MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD SITES AT KINGS BAY, GEORGIA: A MODEL-BASED ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS By Robin Laurie Smith August 1982 Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks Major Department: Anthropology This study interprets archeological evidence from t"'10 coastal Mississippian period sites and explains the infrastructure of the late prehistoric culture in terms of a general model of coastal adapation. A model of Missisippian period coastal subsistence and settlement is refined and used to generate specific hypotheses tested with the primary data. Two sites at Kings Bay were examined. Ceramic data are used to infer temporal provenience and plot the spatial extent of each component. Faunal data provide information on biotope exploitation, seasonality, and subsistence technology. A formal inference procedure is employed to evaluate general questions concerning coastal settlement and subsistence and specific questions concerning social group size, season of occupation, and primary function for each site. Xll

PAGE 13

The Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site was a homestead occupied most of the year. Primary subsistence pursuits included fishing, shellfishing, and hunting. Horticulture ~uld have been feasible but no direct evidence was found. The Killion Site was a small camp, occupied in early spring by a few families, during a period of subsistence stress. Coastal settlement exhibits ecotonal location on the oak-forested rim of high land along the salt marsh; points providing direct access to the marsh, estuary, and freshwater creeks were favored. Faunal remains indicate a subsistence strategy emphasizing animals of the low-maturity marsh/estuary system. Invertebrates were gathered, small fishes were netted, and larger fishes were hooked or speared. Terrestrial fauna were secondary resources. Though not archeologically represented, forest plants must have been important, and ethnohistoric accounts indicate some reliance on horticultural products. Coastal horticulture systematically reduced forest maturity, allowing opportunistic growth of annual crops. Because arable coastal soils are severely limited in fertility and extent, cultigens never became major dietary staples. This pattern contrasts sharply with the meander-belt Mississippian farming of nutrient-subsidized floodplain soils. The difference 1n energy base explains the different manifestation of Mississippian technology and ideas among coastal populations as compared to interior populations. Strong continuites between the earlier Coastal Tradition infrastructure and the late period coastal energy base are seen as a long-standing pattern of adaptation to a low-maturity environment. Xlll

PAGE 14

Problem CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Description of Research This study examines recent progress in the investigation of late prehistoric period cultural adaptations to the environment of the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States. A model of Mississippian period settlement and subsistence based on research by Crook (1978) is used to generate hypotheses which are tested with the primary data from Kings Bay. Results are compared with two other adapatation models: the Coastal Tradition and the Mississippian adaptation. The Coastal Tradition is a marsh-oriented adaptive pattern which developed following the stabilization of sea level at about 3000 B.C. The Missisippian adaptation, as expressed at interior river valley sites, is defined as a cultural adaptation to a specific habitat situation entailing a particular level of sociocultural integration (B. Smith 1978b:480). These models are further discussed in Chapter S. Major differences between the Kings Bay sites and interior Mississippian sites are explained in terms of environmental differences. Differences between the Kings Bay sites and the earlier Coastal Tradition sites in the same region are explained in terms of technological change--the addition of horticulture to the coastal subsistence complex.

PAGE 15

2 Approach Cultural materialism provides the paradigmatic framework for this study, as it does for much of the archeology undertaken in the United States today. As a research strategy, cultural materialism recognizes productive and reproductive subsystems as the infrastructure of a cultural system. Since these are the subsystems best represented in the archeological record (in the form of settlement/subsistence patterns and demographic patterns) it is possible to address cultural materialist hypotheses using archeological data. The approach recognized as cultural ecology is grounded in the work of Julian Steward (1955). As practiced by ethnologists, cultural ecology tends to emphasize detailed synchronic schemata for the energy exchanges between the cultural and natural systems in a specific environmental setting; comparisons of cultural manifestations in different environments are also of interest. Archeologists, predictably, specialize in a diachronic perspective on cultural/ecological relations which tends to reveal evolutionary change. While the theoretical basis for cultural ecology as ?racticed by archeologists is cultural materialism, many of its basic principles are left implicit. It will be shown in this study that self-conscious application of cultural materialism is as important as explicit hypothesis formulation to the process of archeological reasoning. Marvin Harris, the chief spokesman for the cultural materialist school of anthropology, has recently presented an elaboration of his position (1979). Included is a scheme for classifying the provenience

PAGE 16

3 of anthropological data resulting from ethnological research. Depending upon the point of view from which an observation is made and the world view through which it is filtered, the resulting interpretation or conclusion can take qualitatively different forms. Harris' presentation, which is examined in more detail in Chapter 4, is of interest to archeologists because of the inaccessibility of some of the perspectives routinely employed by ethnographers and because of the fragmentary nature of the archeological record. These conditions have led to the substitution of ethnoarcheology, experimental archeology, and simulation studies in order to derive data supplementary to the excavated material remains. Uncritical use of data from these sources is likely to confound, rather than clarify, the interpretation of past behavior. While Harris emphasizes control over the observational stage of research, archeologists have recently expended much energy in attempting to systematize the process of interpreting observations through the use of formal hypothesis testing. The process of making observations--perhaps because it is so often equated with "dirt archeo logy"--is generally re legated to methodological status and considered to be under good control Application of hypothesis testing, on the other hand, has been a topic of much debate and division. Bruce Smith's (1977) presentation of the hypothetico-analog method of inductive confirmation (H-A method) is a useful surmnary of the "struggle" to systematize interpretation. It is suspected that Smith's article was calculated to win converts from all camps: he suggests that the H-A method is basically what most of us have ~een

PAGE 17

4 doing all along, with a few improvements. The H-A method 1s discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 and is applied in Chapter 8. Materials The primary data incorporated in this study are derived from two phases of archeological research conducted by the University of Florida between 1977 and 1981 at the request of the U.S. Navy. The research was initiated to satisfy federal cultural resource management requirements 1n conjunction with the development of a Naval Submarine Support Base at Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia. The survey phase was funded as a subcontract with PLANTEC Corporation, a subsidiary of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, the Navy's prime contractor for the Environmental Impact Statement. The testing phase was conducted under U.S. Department of the Navy contract number N00025-79-C-0013. The first phase of research consisted of intensive survey of a 3608 ha mainland area located on a bay which co11U11unicates with the intracoastal waterway west of Cumberland Island (see Figure 1). Thirty-four prehistoric and historic archeological sites were identified and inventoried (Figure 2). The second phase of research was designed to test and evaluate ten of these sites, selected on the basis of anticipated construction impacts. Two of the ten are reported here: 9Caml71, the Kings Bay Site, and 9Caml79, the Killion Site. The former is a large, linear, multicomponent aboriginal site which extends along the edge of the mainland for a distance of 4.4 km and averages 100 min width. The latter is a small, single component aboriginal site located on a freshwater creek 800 m inland.

PAGE 18

Figure 1. The Central Portion of the Southeastern U.S. Coast Showing the Location of the Research Area (from R. Smith et al. 1981:3).

PAGE 19

6 BLACKBEARD I LITTLE ST SIMONS I. ATLANTIC OCEAN KINGS BAY VICINITY L__ FLA t N I MLES 0 1 0 KLOMETERS 0 1 0 ,.

PAGE 20

Figure 2. Locations of Historic and Prehistoric Period Archeological Sites Defined During the 1977-78 Survey of Kings Bay (from R. Smith et al. 1981:11).

PAGE 21

8 0 SITE LOCATIONS K L O METERS

PAGE 22

9 Method Two important contributions to the investigation of late prehistoric period settlement and subsistence systems will form a comparative framework for assessment of the primary data. The Mississippian adaptation in the Middle Mississippi area is the subject of a case study by Bruce Smith (1978b). A general model for interior, riverine Mississippian manifestations is provided by the same author as a sumnary chapter in a compendium of settlement system analyses from 14 sites (1978a). For the lower Atlantic coastal area, Ray Crook has formulated an integrated model of Mississippian period subsistence and settlement based on ethnohistoric records, environmental data, and archeological information from Sapelo Island, Georgia (1978). Crook's model follows the earlier lead of Lewis Larson (1969, 1980a) whose data were derived from both archeological excavations on the Georiga coast and 16th century Spanish documents. The coastal model is used to generate hypotheses for testing with Kings Bay observations. Results Survey results are found to confirm expectations of a general model for coastal settlement which has been used in other Georgia coastal studies and which undergirds more specific models. Mississippian age components at the Kings Bay Site provide evidence of occupations during several seasons of the year and evidence of relatively small-scale settlements. The evidence from Kings Bay is insufficent to substantiate the level of settlement hierarchy modeled by Crook. It is concluded that the late prehistoric coastal

PAGE 23

Mississippian period cultures represent Mississippian ideas and horticultural technology applied to the Coastal Tradition with a resulting specialized subsistence/settlement/sociocultural system. Description of Fieldwork 10 Primary data used in this study were generated 10 the course of intensive survey and evaluative testing phases of research at Kings Bay. These results were used to recormnend data recovery procedures for the excavation phase of research which is now in progress at three sites. The following sections describe key aspects of each of these levels of investigation. Survey Intensive survey of Kings Bay was carried out by the author and a crew of four surveyors over a 9-month period in summer and fall of 1977 and winter of 1978. Fieldwork was preceded by one month of archival research and followed by five months of analysis and report preparation (R. Smith 1978). The surveyed area may be characterized as low, predominantly wet land with heavy vegetation considerably altered from its natural state. The salt marsh, swamps, creek drainages, and pine flatwoods are probably close to their prehistoric condition, but all of the drier uplands--pine plantation, southern mixed hardwoods, early successional systems and developed lands which together compose 58.2 percent of the survey area--have been subjected to some degree of historic or recent alteration. In general, heavy forest, understory,

PAGE 24

ground cover, and leaf litter result in little readily available surface information for site location. 11 The survey area was divided into two sampling strata: Stratum 1, consisting of all high ground near water and Stratum 2, consisting of inland flatwoods. None of the soils composing Stratum 2 would have been optimal for aboriginal cultivation, while most of Stratum l is composed of Cainhoy Fine Sand, the best local soil for agriculture. The survey strategy called for examination of the entire area at a low level of intensity; archeologically sensitive areas, defined on the basis of inclusion in Stratum 1 or by the presence of known sites, were subjected to closer inspection. With the exclusion of salt marsh, ponds, fresh marsh, wooded swamps and open water, the surveyed area comprised 3272 ha. This area was covered by surface reconnaissance of 100 percent of the availability sample provided by the network of wide, deeply plowed firelanes on government-owned property and the narrower firelanes, ditches, and dirt roads in the adjacent easement areas. On the basis of reconnaissance results, no intensification of sampling in Stratum 2 was deemed necessary; only 20th century sites were found in this stratum. Stratum 1, which included all areas that would have supported southern mixed hardwoods 10 the late prehistoric period, was sampled with systematic transects of shovel tests placed on or near the 10-ft contour at intervals of 25 m. Additional transects of systematically placed shovel tests were executed across artifact producing areas in order to discover site boundaries. In view of resource management requirements, the survey was designed to maximize site discovery. It 1s believed that all of

PAGE 25

the maJor and most of the minor sites at Kings Bay were found. Further methodological details and a discussion of assumptions and biases are provided in the survey report (R. Smith 1978). 12 Historical research, surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing resulted in the discovery of 34 archeological sites. Twelve of these contain evidence of historic period occupations and 23 exhibit prehistoric occupations (one has both). The aboriginal sites are primarily oystershell middens deposited along the edge of the bluff overlooking the salt mar ~ ~ They appear as a layer of mollusc shells, food bone, pottery, and occasional stone tools which varies 1n thickness from a few cm to almost 1 m and in horizontal extent from 50 square m to more than 100 ha. Historic sites are often superimposed on the aboriginal middens, from which they are distinguished by the presence of Euro-American ceramics, glass, brick, tabby and metal artifacts, along with mollusc shells and the bones of both wild and domesticated animals. A more detailed presentation of survey results is supplied 1n Chapter 7. At this point it is important to note the level of information provided by the survey data. Small assemblages of artifacts were recovered, using O .5 in. screen, from the fi 11 of the shovel tests (which averaged 0.125 cubic min volume). These samples were combined to produce a site inventory, composed primarily of pottery. For the 22 aboriginal sites, assemblages ranged from 1 sherd to 1102 sherds, and averaged 219 sherds. It was often the case that at least half of the ceramic collection consisted of plain, eroded or

PAGE 26

otherwise undiagnostic sherds. Thus the sample which was useful in determining temporal provenience averaged about 100 sherds per site. In addition to the artifacts collected from each test, stratigraphic information was recorded which allowed description of the depth, density and nature of the cultural deposit. Horizontal extent was estimated by enclosing all positive tests with a boundary line and measuring the area of the resulting figure. The immediate physiographic and biological environment was also noted. 13 These data-ceramic inventory, character of deposit, and site area--compose the information hase which was used to make management recommendations and which was available for preparing a secondary testing research design. The resulting research program and goals are described in the next section. Secondary Testing Secondary testing of six prehistoric and four historic sites was undertaken by the author and three colleagues, with a crew of 20 persons, during the six months from November 1979 through April 1980. A 12-month period of analysis and documentation followed. The ten sites were selected by the Navy from among those located during the survey on the basis of their interference with construction plans, not on the grounds of archeological representativeness, research potential, or the nature of their cultural contents. The resulting "sample" is a mixed bag, including both the largest and smallest historic sites, several single component sites, a large, horizontally stratified site, the only site with standing structural

PAGE 27

14 remains, and a site which exhibits no surface evidence. The physical condition of the sites is also variable; most of them are heavily wooded and to some extent disturbed. Several are located 1n hardwood hammock, several 1n artificial clearings, and several in planted pine, while two appear to be covered by undisturbed natural vegetation. Site data are summarized in Table 1. Two of these sites were originally selected for study by the author because of their anticipated potential for allowing comparison of the subsistence and settlement adaptations of two late prehistoric coastal populations. Two horizontal strata within the Kings Bay Site appeared, on the basis of survey data, to be identifiable as St. Johns Ilb and Savannah components. The Killion Site was also believed to be a late prehistoric site and its relationship to one or both of the Kings Bay components was of interest. The focus of the present study is further narrowed to include just the Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site and the Killion Site as examples of Mississippian period coastal adaptations, without imputing cultural differences. Testing of the remaining eight sites was directed by co-workers and is reported 1n full elsewhere (Smith, Braley, Borremans and Reitz 1981). The initial research design for these two sites anticipated comparison of as many subsets of the material culture as possible. To this end, a sampling strategy chosen to allow quick delineation of target areas and generation of comparable size samples from each was implemented. A linear, coastwise transect of 2--m square tests at 25-m intervals was used to determine the approximate limits of the components of interest at the Kings Bay Site. A grid of 2--m square

PAGE 28

Table I. Components Present at Kings Bay Sites Subjected to Secondary Testing. Estimated Occupation Periods Site Site Area St. Swift St. PlanName No. (ha) Simons Deptford Creek Wilmington Savannah Johns Mission tat ion Mi 11 Creek 166 0.06 ? ? ? ? ? ? Kings Bay 17 1 43.50 X X X X X X X King Plantation 17 2 7.25 X Marianna Plantation 17 4 21 .00 X Paint Peter Road 17 5 0 .8 5 X X X Hercules Club 176 2.00 X Devi 1 's Walkingstick 177 12 .00 X X X Aramin ta Sowerby 17 8 0.40 X Killion 179 0.25 X X Bolingbroke 180 0. 70 X ,_. V1

PAGE 29

16 tests at 25-m intervals was then executed over the entirety of each component. For the smaller Killion Site, a 10-m interval was employed. These procedures resulted in the excavation of 99 units in the target areas of the Kings Bay Site and 32 units at the Killion Site. The size and nature of the resulting samples suggests that the two components of the Kings Bay Site are very much alike in both structure and content. While similar to these in content, the Killion Site is organized differently. Details of these contrasts are presented in Chapter 7. Each sample consisted of a large pottery assemblage, a very small lithic assemblage and collections of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains. Only the faunal materials from unambiguous contexts were processed. Among the invertebrates, the Busycon spp. shells were treated as artifacts and 100 percent of the sample was analyzed. The overwhelming majority of these materials was derived from sheet-midden contexts; relatively few features were encountered. At the Kings Bay Site features included hearths, refuse pits, post holes and a single human buria 1. As a result of the coarseness of the excavation grid and the small sample size, horizontal stratification of the Kings Bay Site was not intuitively obvious. However, due to the sheet midden derivation of lll)St samples, interpretation of the assemblage relied heavily on spatial associations among artifacts. These were inferred from distribution maps generated by SYMAP.

PAGE 30

17 Among the conclusions drawn from analysis are the following observations. It can be demonstrated that different areas of the Kings Bay Site functioned as occupation foci at different points 1n time. The Late Archaic period is represented by a St. Simons component, the Woodland period by Deptford and Swift Creek components, the Mississippian period by a lumped Wilmington/Savannah component and a St. Johns-derived component, and the post-Mississippian period by a Sutherland Bluff component. While these components differ in specific ceramic characteristics, the overall composition of the midden is uniform, suggesting similar depositional processes for the various components. General characteristics of coastal adaptation, including heavy exploitation of the intertidal and estuary zones, linear settlement pattern, and cooperative resource exploitation, are expressed in the Kings Bay Site. The Killion Site represents a single component Mississippian period occupation. A second major contrast with the larger site is seen 1n the spatial organization of cultural debris. Discrete middens with a very low level of cultural debris 10 the intervening areas attest to the brevity of the occupation. No post holes, refuse pits, hearths or other features are evident. The site probably functioned repeatedly as a seasonal, short-term camp. Data Recovery Three of the ten sites subjected to secondary testing were determined by the Navy to be immediately threatened by construction. A proposal for data collection excavations at these sites was prepared

PAGE 31

at approximately the midpoint of analysis of secondary testing results. Several prominent characteristics and potentials of the sites, defined in testing, were addressed in the proposed research (Wayne and Smith 1980). This research is now 1n progress. 18 It is anticipated that excavated data from the Kings Bay Site will ultimately be used to address questions concerning 1) the nature of human settlement and adaptation on the cultural ecotone between the St. Johns and Georgia coast archeological regions, 2) the effects of European contact on Late Savannah period cultures, and 3) differences and similarities between Late Woodland period (Swift Creek) and Mississippian period (Savannah) adaptations to the coastal environment. The research program also provides for investigation of Late Archaic and Early to Middle Woodland components at the Devils Walkingstick Site (9Caml77) to determine the function, age and place in the regional system of this village-like collection of middens. Analysis of data excavated from the historic period Kings Bay Plantation Site (9Caml72) is expected to focus on the social and economic systems and how this middleclass planter's household articulated with the coastal settlement and transportation networks. In addition to these three site-specific studies, the proposal for final excavations commissions special analyses of zooarcheological data sets from all sites and of pottery assemblages from all aboriginal components. While it is expected that faunal and mineral resource utilization will be discussed in a synchronic context for individual site assemblages, highly significant diachronic analyses will be possible because of the unified project structure.

PAGE 32

19 Organization of This Study This study relies heavily on previous research to provide a context and comparative scale for interpretation of primary data. The remaining chapters are arranged to allow presentation of a number of perspectives on coastal adaptations while gradually narrowing the focus to a level appropriate for the Kings Bay sites. Chapter 2 provides a brief sketch of the natural setting within which adaptive processes must have occurred. In view of the numerous ecological studies which have been conducted in the coastal zone during the past decade and of the many summaries and syntheses which have been included in recent archeological reports, only maJor descriptive categories are covered. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the substantive contributions of several recent studies of late prehistoric period sites on the Georgia coast. These results compose a framewrk within which the plausibility of questions about coastal cultures may be judged. Despite the criticisms offered here, this body of prior research is an essential and major part of the present study, representing much information that otherwise wuld not have been available, as well as a few errors which can now be recognized and avoided. Chapter 4 presents the author's theoretical orientation, which is the result of personal and practical choices among the prevailing paradigms in anthropological thought. Cultural materialism is selected as the best organizational tool for dealing with questions which involve interactions between environmental and technological phenomena. The observation of archeological evidence entails special

PAGE 33

20 problems which may be controlled using categories described by Marvin Harris (1979). Interpretation of observations presents different problems which may be solved using the hypothetico-analog method of inductive inference (B. Smith 1977). The general cultural phenomenon of adaptation to the coastal environment is the topic of Chapter S. A series of models, each of which deals primarily with environmental-technological interactions, is presented. These models describe sets of postulated relationships among elements of a cultural system and serve to generate hypotheses for testing in specific cases. Interior and coastal models of adaptation for the late prehistoric period are compared and contrasted. The coastal model is used to derive hypotheses for testing with information from the Kings Bay sites. Chapter 6 describes methods used in the present study, especially as they affect the kinds of questions under consideration. The depositional history and present physical condition of the sites also present constraints on the range of inquiry. Results of survey phase research and of secondary testing at two sites are presented in Chapter 7. The Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71, and the Killion Site, 9Caml79, contain the late prehistoric period contexts of particular interest in this study. Chapter 8 evaluates the hypotheses presented in Chapter S in light of the results of survey and secondary testing. The final chapter summarizes conclusions supported by this study.

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 2 NATURAL SETTING The southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast has been described, analyzed and summarized by many authors in the flurry of ecological and archeological studies which has appeared in the course of the last decade. In part, this recent intensification of coastal research is a result of the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969 and the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. Two major ecological syntheses specific to the research area are used extensively in the following environmental sketch (Johnson, Hillestad, Shanholtzer and Shanholtzer 1974; Hillestad, Bozeman, Johnson, Berisford and Richardson 1975). Instead of simply paraphrasing previous descriptions, this section highlights the significance for human populations of selected aspects of the coastal environment. Climate and Terrain As attested by its reputation as a resort area, the coastal region of Georgia possesses a mild, subtropical climate; seasonal extremes are ameliorated by the thermal properties of the Gulf Stream. Summers are warm and humid; winters are cool with occasional brief cold spells and very rare snow. ln Camden County frosts seldom occur earlier than mid-November or later than late March. Average daily temperatures recorded at Brunswick, Georgia, are 53 degrees Fin 21

PAGE 35

22 winter and 81 degrees Fin summer. Rainfall, averaging 51.5 in., occurs throughout the year but is heaviest from June to September when summer thunderstorms are cormnon. Average relative humidity is 60 percent at midafternoon, increasing at night to a dawn average of 90 percent (Rigdon and Green 1980). As a consequence of the mild climate, aboriginal inhabitants would have found it unnecessary to invest in heavy clothing or substantial shelter. Sleeping quarters protected from the cold ~uld have been desirable for a few months du ring the winter; such structures may have been temporary, lightly built shelters intended to last only for the season. During the summer a roof capable of shedding rain and a raised floor would have been preferable but walls may have been omitted. It is unlikely that tubular skin clothing would have been used; such garments are typical of more temperate and northern latitudes. If these speculations are accurate, then the implications for the archeological record are generally negative. One would not expect to find extensive, deep foundations as might be required for permanent structures. Hide ~rking and sewing tools might be fewer than in a culture emphasizing skin clothing. A prominent feature of the coastal biome is the tidal cycle: its effects on estuarine biota ~uld have dictated the basic rhythms and specific technologies of aboriginal resource procurement. Tides in the study area exhibit a mean range of 6.8 ft and a spring range of 8.0 ft (U.S. Department of Commerce 1949:302). The twice daily change results in constantly fluctuating water levels in estuaries, marshes,

PAGE 36

23 tidal creeks, rivers, and freshwater creeks. Mud flats, bars, beaches, and banks are periodically exposed and inundated. Because the tide follows the lunar day of 24 hr and 51 min, the changes occur almost an hour later each day. This means that behavior which is coordinated with both the position of the sun and the height and direction of the tide varies from day to day. Moreover, since tidal occurrence is affected by the conformation of the waterways, effects vary from place to place. The implications of a tidal environment for aboriginal behavior rest primarily upon the habitat complexity introduced by this factor. Various species gather and feed at different times in different places from day to day and accessibility is governed largely by water level. Successful exploitation of this biome would have required an equally complex scheduling of efforts or a broad-range strategy. Kings Bay is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. Details of the geologic history and character of this area have been provided elsewhere (R. Smith et al. 1981:38-55). Two major aspects of the local environment which would have directly affected aboriginal settlement are discussed here: the surface soils and the freshwater drainages. The coastal landscape exhibits low relief and gentle slopes that are the result of wind and water erosion of several former Pleistocene shorelines. The Pamlico, Princess Anne and Silver Bluff Formations represent the three most recent episodes of sea level rise and can be identified by their general range of elevations. In the study area the Pamlico formation occurs as two areas of higher elevation (25 to

PAGE 37

24 30 ft above mean sea level) located 3 to 5 km from the coast. These knolls consist of marine silts, clays and sand deposited during the Sangamon Interglacial (R. Smith et al. 1981:40). More prominent and extensive, the Princess Anne Formation composes the 15 ft bluffs along the present coastline. The bluffs exhibit steep faces where tidal creeks flow against the shore and a more gradual slope where the salt marsh abuts the land. This deposit is composed primarily of unconsolidated sands and silts. The youngest of the marine terraces, the Silver Bluff Formation, rises 5 to 8 ft above mean sea level. Silver Bluff deposits underlie the salt marshes, the intracoastal flats and the barrier islands. These three Pleistocene formations are covered by a Holocene deposit consisting of aeolian sands on higher ground and alluvial sands, silts and clays from Piedmont sources in submerged areas. Upland surface soils in this area are acid and are naturally low 1n fertility. Except for Cainhoy and Pottburg sands, drainage is generally poor. Cainhoy and Pottsburg sands occur on the ridgetops of marine terraces; Cainhoy dominates the Princess Anne shoreline and Pottsburg is associated with the Pamlico knolls (see Figure 2). These soils make up only 3 percent by area of Camden County. They are the best land for community development. Because, with liming and fertilization, they will support cultivation of row crops, Cainhoy and Pottsburg sands have been occupied and utilized throughout the historic period. Superimposed on these soils are midden soils of more restricted extent. The prehistoric and historic middens, consisting of mollusc

PAGE 38

25 shell, charcoal, bone, and various artifacts in a matrix of dark gray brown fine loamy sand, which have accumulated over the last four millenia, may be viewed as culturally altered soil horizons. It is probable that anthropogenic effects of early occupations, especially enhancement of soil fertility through deposition of organics and lowered pH, affected the behavior of later populations. Surely late aboriginal horticulturalists would have noted a differential in productivity between midden and nonmidden soils and would have cultivated the former whenever possible. The major drainages of the Coastal Plain are rivers which arise in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces and in the Coastal Plain. They form natural corridors through the pine barrens from the coast to the interior and probably served as primary communication and transportation routes in the prehistoric period. Where they flow into the Atlantic, deep sounds separate the barrier islands. These rivers furnished the sediments which formed the vast stretches of salt marsh between the mainland and barrier islands. Kings Bay lies between the St. Marys River, which arises in the Okeefenokee Swamp, and the Satilla River, which is also of Coastal Plain origin. At the local level, freshwater creeks were probably important determinants of aboriginal settlement location. Between the Pamlico and Princess Anne terraces at Kings Bay are several long, narrow upland wet areas, oriented parallel to the shoreline, which accumulate and store surface runoff; excess water is channeled out to the salt marsh via low velocity natural streams. Interrupting the coastline at

PAGE 39

intervals of 0.5 to 1.5 km, these tannin-stained freshwater runs cut through the Princess Anne formation on their way to the marsh. Flora and Fauna 26 The biotic environment of the coastal region may be characterized as highly productive and highly diverse. The diversity is 1n part due to subtropical location and conforms to a global clinal pattern of high species diversity at low latitudes and low diversity at high latitudes. Diversity may also be attributed to the particular habitat mix of the coastal region and to the extensive edge area between terrestrial and estuarine biotopes. Productivity is a consequence of high levels of energy conversion by grasses, benthic algae and phytoplankton in the vast areas of salt marsh and, to a much lesser degree, to lush terrestrial vegetation fostered by moderately high rainfall. Biotopes within the coastal biome have been examined in detail, with regard to aboriginal subsistence, by Larson (1980a:6-22). He divides the coastal sector of the southeastern coastal plain into a strand section, a lagoon and marsh section, and a delta section. Archeological and ethnohistoric evidences for aboriginal use of the strand and delta sections are minimal, probably because neither of these sections could compete with the lagoon and marsh section in offering abundant, easily obtained resources. While they may have been visited to obtain seasonally localized resources, these areas were not occupied with any degree of permanence (1980a:22).

PAGE 40

27 The marsh and lagoon section, as defined by Larson, includes two important biotopes: the salt marsh together with its drainage system of tidal creeks and rivers, and the high ground, including swamps and their freshwater creek drainages (1980a:15-20). The former is a basically aquatic system while the latter is predominantly terrestrial. Constellations of characteristic flora and fauna are described below and listed more completely in Johnson et al. (1974) and Hillestad et al. 0975). Salt Marsh System Saltmarsh flora vary with respect to frequency, depth and duration of tidal inundation. Areas which for several hours daily are covered by salt water support only smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). At higher elevations where inundation averages an hour per day, glasswort (Salicornia virginica) and saltwort (Salsola kali) prevail. Salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) is limited to the rim of the marsh where flooding occurs several times a week while needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) grows on infrequently flooded ground (John son e t a 1. 1 9 7 4 : 7 27 4 ) Sediments underlying the marsh are composed of fine silts and clays. As a consequence of unstable bottom conditions and the constant wash of the tides, the creeks and rivers exhibit little aquatic vegetation. As the marsh grasses are assorted with respect to tidal action, so are the molluscs. Among those of aboriginal economic importance, the quahog clam (M ercenaria spp. ), the whelks (B usycon spp. ), and the

PAGE 41

28 stout razor clam (Tagelus plebeius) are found in the creeks and estuaries. The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the saltmarsh periwinkle (Littorina irrorata) inhabit the mud flats which are exposed at low tide, while the Atlantic ribbed mussel (Geukensia desmissa) is often found near the high tide line along the rim of the marsh. Several species of crab are marsh dwellers; the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and the stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) are aquatic while the fiddlers (Uca spp.) are more visible because of their preference for high marsh areas. Remains of shrimp have not been reported from archeological sites on the southeastern U. S. coast and were not recovered during secondary testing. However, shrimp have recently been identified 1n fine screened (1/16 1n. mesh) samples from mitigation phase excavations at Kings Bay (Irv Quitmyer, personal conununication). Several species are found in the estuaries at the present time and it is quite possible that shrimp were an abundant and important resource 1n the prehistoric period. The only reptile resident in the marsh is the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). This small turtle is commonly identified among aboriginal food remains and was also highly prized 1n early 20th century northern gourmet circles (Johnson et al. 1974: 79). Alligators (Alligator mississipiensis) are occasionally encountered in the salt marsh but probably should be considered residents of swamps and freshwater creeks. Fishes frequenting the estuary system are numerous and vary with season, water temperature, and salinity, among other factors. Reitz

PAGE 42

29 has given detailed consideration to the interplay of local availability and human selectivity in the use of fish 1n this region (1979a). A review of marine conditions between Santa Elena, South Carolina, and St. Augustine, Florida, indicates a species gradient 1n terms of abundances along the coast, although the same species are present throughout. Recent studies of Cumberland Sound supply species composition and abundance figures for the lower coast which are assumed to be valid for the prehistoric period (Reitz 1982). On the basis of trawl catch biomass, star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus) 1s abundant while the sea catfish (Arius felis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), sea trout (Cynoscion spp.), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.), and croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) are common. Reitz notes that although mullets (Mugil spp.) were among the fishes each composing less than 1.1 percent of total biomass and considered rare, this could be due to their ability to evade trawls (1979a:8). In addition to the boney fishes, sharks and rays frequent the estuary and apparently were of some economic importance to prehistoric populations. Among the cartilaginous fishes common 1n the study area are several of the Requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) and stringrays (Dasyatidae). Although many species of birds visit the salt marsh, three are integral members of the marsh community: the long-billed marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris), the clapper rail or marsh hen (Rallus longirostris) and the seaside sparrow (Arnnospiza martima). The clapper rail has in recent years been an important g ame bird (Johnson

PAGE 43

30 et al. 1974:76). Other large birds which would have been attractive to aboriginal populations are the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), the common egret (Casmerodius albus), and the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Because the coastal region is within the southern portion of the Atlantic flyway, many species of migratory waterfowl are present for limited periods of time during the year. Larson lists four ducks--mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)--as having been utilized 1n the late prehistoric period. In the coastal sector raccoons (Procyon lotor) spend much of their time feeding in the marsh. Though not normally active at midday, if low tide occurs near noon these animals can be found on the mudflats. Usually they spend the daylight hours sleeping in trees along the marsh rim. Mammals which rest as well as feed in the marsh are limited to the rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) and aquatic forms such as the bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and other small whales, the manatee (Trichechus manatus) and formerly, as an occasional visitor, the monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) which 1s now extinct. The resources of the saltmarsh biotope which would have been available to aboriginal inhabitants are almost entirely faunal. Although the vast expanses of marsh grass are highly significant as primary producers, these grasses are not directly usable by humans. Faunal re~ources are distinguished by their variety in kind and 1n season and place of availability. Perhaps the most important

PAGE 44

31 observation that can be made is that no single saltmarsh species could have served as a year-round staple in the diet of coastal populations. Oak Hammock System The second important biotope within the marsh and lagoon section 1s composed of high ground and associated freshwater drainages. The characteristic floral complex along the bluff line is Maritime Live Oak forest in which Quercus virginiana ts dominant because of its tolerance for salt spray and low soil fertility. Other hardwoods occur in varying proportions, including several oaks, palms, hollies, bays, and hickories. Small stands of hickory (primarily~ glabra) are found in the coastal region and it is thought that they represent secondary succession climaxes, whereas live oak forest is the product of primary succession (Johnson et al. 1974:50). It is possible that aboriginal activities may have promoted the development of hickory stands. A practice such as fire clearing the brush and leaves beneath the hickories to facilitate collection of fallen nuts would have had the effect of maintaining open, park-like nut groves. Shrubs, woody vines, and herbs in the Maritime Live Oak forest are numerous and varied. West of the Princess Anne formation on the mainland, the somewhat lower, less well-drained soils are covered by pine flatwoods, composed predominantly of lob lolly pine (Pinus taeda). The lowest areas, where the water table 1s at or near the surface throughout the year, support hardwood swamps composed primarily of cypress (Taxodium ascendens), red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua). It

PAGE 45

1s these wetlands which feed the freshwater streams flowing through the oak hammock into the marsh. 32 Further inland, stretching from the upper limits of tidal influence to the fall line, the dominant floral complex of the coastal plain is what Larson has described as the pine barrens (1980a:35-65). Formerly composed of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), this forest is interrupted by broadleaf species only in the floodplains of rivers and streams. Because the longleaf forest offered virtually no game or other resources of interest to aboriginal inhabitants, prehistoric occupation of the coastal plain was limited to the tidewater region and the river floodplains (Larson 1980a:51; Snow 1977). Terrestrial fauna of the coastal plain river valleys are essentially the same as those enumerated below for the live oak hammocks of the coast. As elsewhere in the southeast, deer, turkey, and raccoon were the primary live oak forest animals used for food. The behavior, distribution and exploitation of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been described by Hudson (1976:274-279), Larson (1980a:166-172) and B. Smith (1974). As the largest herbivores of the southeastern woodlands, deer were the target of a well-developed hunting tradition. It has been suggested that the culling and population control of hunting, together with the provisioning which followed fire-clearing, resulted in semidomestication of the deer (Hudson 1976:276-77). The only larger mammal used as food was the black bear (Ursus americanus), valued for the fat which it contributed to an otherwise lean diet.

PAGE 46

33 Besides the raccoon (Procyon lotor), other small mammals associated with the oak hammock or its edges are the oppossum (Didelphis virginiana), the cottontail rabbit (Silvilagus floridanus), the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and the fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are the largest of the oak hammock birds, but Larson indicates that they were not much used in this part of the southeast during the ~ississippian period. Other wild fowl which would have been available include several of the migratory geese, the wood duck (Aix sponsa), which is a permanent resident, and the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). The Eastern Carolina Parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis carolinensis), which was once plentiful 1n the coastal region, may have been hunted by the Indians. This bird was rapidly extirpated from the southeast following white settlement due to its destructive effects on maize crops and fruit orchards. Its preference for flocking and its unsuspicious, easily approachable nature facilitated extermination. These habits might also have promoted aboriginal garden-~unting of the bird. By 1849 Le Conte reported that, in the maritime districts, "scarcely any are now to be found" (Burleigh 19 58: 313). Some of the migratory ducks mentioned earlier in connection with the saltmarsh system might also have been hunted when they visited the freshwater marshes and ponds associated with the oak hammock system. Of the terrestrial reptiles, the gopher tortoise (Gooherus polyphemus), the box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and several species of snakes are the most conspicuous. Snake remains appear regularl y in

PAGE 47

34 faunal collections from coastal sites and Pearson has pointed out that a Le Mayne drawing shows the preparation of snake as food (Pearson 1979: 155). Several freshwater turtles were also used; the alligator mentioned previously is another reptile associated with this habitat. Fishes found in the freshwater streams which drain the uplands are much more limited in variety. Probably the most important were catfish (Ictaluridae). Anadromous species frequenting the freshwater rivers of the coastal plain may have been of seasonal importance in the aboriginal diet. These include American shad (Alosa sapidissima), alewife (~. pseudoharengus), glut herring (~. aestivalis), striped bass (Marone saxatilis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnosed sturgeon (~. brevirostrum). No invertebrates of the oak hammock system seem to have been important subsistence items. Several terrestrial snails regularly occur 1n small numbers in shell middens, but these are generally interpreted as connnensal detritus feeders. Only Euglandina rosea would have been large enough to be rewarding; collection of significant numbers would have been difficult. The specific botanical composition of any tract within the forest ts a product of many factors, including soil type, elevation, drainage and forest maturity. High diversity and low equitability are characteristic. It is important to note that aborginal populations 1n the late prehistoric period must have contributed to this diversity through the practice of swidden horticulture. While the remains of mammals are the most conspicuous evidence of oak hammock exploitation appearing 1n the archeological record, they

PAGE 48

35 probably do not represent the most critical resource. Wild plant foods, especially the proteinand fat-rich nuts of oak and hickory trees, must have been seasonal staples. Fruits and berries, especially persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), grapes (Vitis spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), blackberries (Rubus .:!E.), palm fruit (Sabal palmetto), and saw palmetto berries (Serenoa repens) would have been important sources of carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. In addition, gums and saps, honey, starchy roots (especially Smilax spp. ), pot herbs, teas (including Ilex vomitoria), and various seasonings, though not in evidence archeologically, are likely to have been used. Other forest products such as 1) wood and vines for construction of houses, canoes and tools, 2) pitch as an adhesive, 3) firewood, and 4) mosses and other fibers for fabric, nets, and twine, are among the oak hammock resources which would have been important in maintaining coastal lifeways. It is likely that aboriginal communities were frequently based within the Maritime Live Oak forest belt along the coast to take advantage of the natural shelter and clear floor of the hammock, the good drainage and freedom from flooding afforded by the high bluffs, the fruit, nut, and seed products of the varied vegetation, proximity to freshwater runs draining the interior pine forest, availability of firewood, and proximity to estuarine and marsh resources. The linear distribution of hardwood forests would have affected spatial patterns of settlement and may have conditioned migration patterns.

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH Although archeological research has been conducted in coastal Georgia since the late 19th century, it is only within the last decade that systematically excavated samples adequate for addressing culture-environment interactions have become available. The earlier studies are reviewed in several sources and will not be further discussed here (see Chance 1974; DePratter 1976, 1979; Martinez 1975; Wallace 1975). This chapter is concerned with summarizing recent research which focuses on late prehistoric period populations. Larson's Subsistence Study The current generation of ecologically oriented studies of southeastern coastal archeology has been strongly influenced by the work of Lewis H. Larson (1969; 1980a). Larson inventories environmental, ethnohistoric and archeological information concerning late prehistoric and protohistoric period aboriginal subsistence practices and presents his impression of the relative importance of the varied resources of this region. Beginning with a description of three of the major sectors within the Coastal Plain, Larson lists dominant species and species of potential or documented importance to aboriginal populations, arranged by habitat. The Coastal Sector, South Florida Sector and Pine Barrens 36

PAGE 50

Sector are covered. Subsequent chapters present details concerning the nutritional value, behavior, seasonality, technological availability, abundance and yield of the best-known species. Where available, archeological examples are included. Especially interesting are analyses of ethnohistorical references to specific resource procurement techniques in light of contemporary information concerning the habitat and behavior of species involved. 37 While Larson's treatment is comprehensive and contains impressive detail, it is essentially a preliminary survey of the topic. It was possible, on the basis of archeological data available in 1969, to indicate general resource procurement patterns, principal targets of subsistence efforts, and a range of variation in strategies. However, quantification of these data was not attempted. Where numbers are used for comparison, they are somewhat misleading because simple totals of individuals for a particular species at a particular site are given, without regard to relative occurrence, extent of excavation or collection techniques. Conclusions, where offered, are based on a subjective analysis of these data and should be treated as hypotheses for testing with the samples which have become available since 1969. For example, the statement that fishing was, at best, a secondary and seasonal subsistence activity which did not approach the productive importance of gathering wild plant food (1980a:126) deserves closer examination. It cannot, at present, be regarded as empirically verified because, as Larson notes, "the archeological evidence for the aboriginal use of plants on the Coastal Plain during the Mississippi period is almost nonexistent" Cl980a:184).

PAGE 51

38 It is doubtful that direct comparison of archeological remains from different classes of subsistence resources is a productive line of inquiry. Differential representation, deposition and preservation present serious analytical problems, despite recent advances in recovery and identification techniques. Larson's concluding chapter contains an interesting but flawed attempt to measure the importance of plant foods by reconstructing the caloric contribution of animal foods represented in a midden at the Pine Harbor Site (1980a:224-226). This analysis is discussed in Chapter 4 in an examination of archeological reasoning. The value of Larson's contribution lies in the emphasis he places on four criteria governing resource importance: value, availability, abundance and yield. Once these variables have been quantified for individual species at individual sites in specific local environments, it will be possible to make precise statements about late aboriginal subsistence patterns in the Coastal Plain. A second recent contribution by Larson ts a brief report concerning the Spanish presence 1n the vicinity of Sapelo Island (1980b). Previously unpublished data on Spanish period structures at two sites are presented. At both the north end of Harris Neck and Fort King George there is evidence of closed-corner, wall-trench structures which are divided into sections by interior walls and lack indoor hearths. In contrast, the earlier Pine Harbor Site exhibits only a cluster of individually set posts. In addition to these data, reference is made to evidence of cultigens from several Spanish period sites. What is hinted at in this paper, but not discussed, is the

PAGE 52

39 likelihood that evidence of acculturative change during the Spanish period will be found in both settlement and subsistence patterns. If significant change under the influence of Spanish explorers, soldiers, and missionaries is postulated, then care must be exercised in using analogies drawn from ethnohistoric sources for the interpretation of prehistoric cultures. Three doctoral dissertations based primarily on archeological data from late aboriginal coastal sites have been produced within the last decade. These are Wallace's synchronic study of a mainly prehistoric Guale site on St. Simons Island (1975), Crook's examination of Mississippian period community organization on Sapelo Island (1978) and Pearson's explicitly diachronic study of late aboriginal culture change using data from Ossabaw Island (1979). While a common geographic region and temporal period furnish unifying themes, these studies are widely disparate in approach, methodology, inference techniques and conclusions. Important similarities and differences are discussed following a brief exposition of each. Northern St. Simons Island In his investigation of Guale cultures on the lower Georgia coast, Ronald Wallace brings together three lines of evidence in an attempt to reconstruct protohistoric period social organization and technological adaptation (1975). Burial data from three skeletal series excavated on St. Simons Island, associated architectural features, and subsistence samples from a nearby midden constitute the archeological evidence. Ethnohistoric information is taken from two

PAGE 53

40 secondary sources: Swanton's 1922 synthesis and a manuscript hy Larson (1953). Biochemical data resulting from strontium analysis of osteological samples provides the third line of evidence. Although there is some discussion of hypotheses in the opening chapter, Wallace's approach is clearly reconstructive rather than inferential. Where statistical analyses fail to produce significant results, the argLmlent is bolstered with ethnohistoric details. Each of the primary data bases is examined in tum below. Excavations of aboriginal skeletal remains from three sites on the north end of St. Simons Island provide a sample totaling 33 burials and containing at least 51 individuals. The sites are Taylor Mound, descri ~ ~ d as a ceremonial mound with burials, Couper Field, which consisted of a cluster of burials in association with a hypothetical charnel house, and Indian Field, a cluster of burials associated with a large oval longhouse or pavilion. All are located on Cannons Point, a 4.25 km long by 0.75 km wide peninsula. Taylor Mound is near the neck of the peninsula, about 100 m from the marsh edge. The two village sites are 3 km north-northwest of Taylor Mound and separated from each other by a distance of 300-400 m. Analysis was focused on burial practices; an in-depth osteological analysis of the skeletal materials was conducted separately (Zahler 1976). The Taylor Mound sample includes almost half of the 24 interments originally present in the mound. Earlier excavation of 30 percent of the site by Charles Pearson and Fred Cook removed 13 burials; 8 of these were accompanied by aboriginal grave goods only and three others included European materials (Pearson 1977a). Pearson interprets the

PAGE 54

41 site as a late Savannah phase burial mound with intrusive early historic period burials. The date for the mound is apparently derived from 74 Savannah series sherds recovered from the fill. Wallace infers a different temporal association. Based on an east side cache containing Irene and San Marcos pots and European iron artifacts and on the presence of European artifacts in the upper layers of the mound fill, he suggests a protohistoric affiliation. Only three of Wallace's burials are associated with aboriginal artifacts (shell beads); none are associated with European materials. The Couper Field sample consists of 16 burials (18 individuals) recovered from below-ground grave pits. Six of these were accompanied by aboriginal artifacts; only one, an adult male, included more than one kind of artifact. Using a set of nine general descriptive features, Wallace analyzed these two samples and found very little difference between them. While one might argue with an analytical scheme which assigns the same weight to a single flint chip as is assigned to a slate celt, a stemmed point and two flint chips, it is possible to agree that the two sets of burial practices are very similar. All burials in both sets are primary, flexed interments. The most common artifacts are personal ornaments--shell beads, a shell ear plug, a bone pin--but these occur with fewer than one third of the individuals in each sample. Unmodified marine shell is present with more than half of each sample but its significance appears to vary from accidental inclusion as midden material to deliberate lining of a grave pit. A

PAGE 55

single individual, in the Couper Field sample, is distinguished by a relative abundance and variety of grave goods. 42 The third burial sample, from Indian Field, differs markedly from the first two in that it contains extended and bundle burials, an isolated skull burial and bones which show evidence of mechanical defleshing. Associated artifacts fall within the ranges of kind and frequency observed at Taylor Mound and Couper Field and the only relatively richly accompanied individual is an adult male. Architectural information associated with each skeletal sample is given extended discussion by Wallace but may be briefly summarized. Taylor Mound was a small structure consisting of a rectangular shell core covered by a single stage of borrow pit fill. The argument presented by Wallace for architectural elaboration and ceremonial function is unconvincing. The Couper Field burials were not associated with structural remains of any sort. A mortuary structure was hypothesized on the basis of clustering of burials and the occurrence of "empty" burial pits which imply disinterments. The Indian Field burials occur immediately south of a cluster of post holes interpreted as a 9 m by 15 m oval longhouse or pavilion. The presence of pits containing cooking debris suggests a domestic function for the structure. Wallace takes the similarities between the Taylor and Couper Field assemblages to be evidence that they are samples of the same sociocultural population. This decision is made despite the facts that 1) the two sites are separated by a distance of 3 km, 2) the village site nearest the mound was not sampled, and 3) it is stated

PAGE 56

43 that the Taylor Mound population is later than the Couper Field population. He then combines them for the purpose of further analysis; the principal reason for lumping was to obtain a sample large enough for the use of certain statistical tests. No significant correlation was found between sex and presence of exotic grave goods. (Exotic grave goods are not defined--nor is their cultural significance shown.) No significant correlation was found between sex and sex of nearest neighbor. However, despite the statistical evidence, Wallace suggests that a matrilocal post-marital residence pattern may be inferred. Two serious objections to this analytical approach should be mentioned; both have to do with the fact that the nearest neighbor technique is a form of spatial analysis. First, the sampling area for Wallace's nearest neighbor analysis of Taylor Mound is essentially doughnut-shaped, a consequence of Pearson's prior excavation of the mound's center. Surely some of the individuals removed by Pearson and Cook were originally nearest neighbors to some of Wallace's individuals. If burial proximity had the cultural significance suggested by Wallace, this is a serious loss. A further methodological consideration is the need to control for boundary effects when using nearest neighbor techniques (Hodder and Orton 1976:41-43). Second, in the process of combining mound and mortuary samples an essentially three-dimensional, permanent burial arrangement has been combined with a two-dimensional, presumably temporary burial arrangement. It is questionable whether proximity in the mound would have had the same cultural significance as proximity in the mortuary.

PAGE 57

44 One additional conclusion derived from the analysis of the burial samples is open to question. Having stated that similar burial practices at Taylor Mound and Couper Field indicate membership in the same sociocultural population, Wallace extends this to mean membership in the same, contemporary residence group. Mortuary treatment, he says, is diagnostic of differential group prestige: "In this instance, the fact that one group received primary burial in a ceremonial mound, a second group was buried in what was probably a mortuary structure (from which they were occasionally removed), and a third group of burials were distributed along the southern wall of a longhouse is diagnostic, we believe, of a ranking of these aboriginal groups during life" (1975: 143). Having combined spatially separate behaviors, he then turns around and states that spatial differences within the combined group are significant. While burial practices are clearly variable, it is not demonstrated that rank is the best or only explanation for this variability. The ethnohistorical reconstruction offered by Wallace contains an assessment of the reliability of the documents and supplies a useful synthesis of the information available in translated and secondary sources. It is, however, an essentially synchronic reconstruction, since no effort was made to distinguish between early and late historic period observations to detect changes in the coastal populations through the eyes of the different ethnohistoric observers who left records over the course of the mission period. In addition, we now know that at least some of the ethnohistoric material formerly believed to be applicable to the Guale area may refer to Siouan

PAGE 58

populations in northern South Carolina (J.T. Milanich, personal communication). 45 The final source of information used in the St. Simons study is subsistence analysis, including zooarcheological examination of food bone, identification of shellfish, analysis of the strontium content of human bone and identification of botanical remains. The two fauna! analyses were conducted on 1/4 in. screened samples from two arbitrary levels of a block of midden having a total volume of 9 cubic m. The fact that this volume of midden yielded only 101 fragments of bone (28 MNI) is indicative either of relatively poor preservation or of the minor importance of vertebrates. The small sample size does not completely negate the value of the Couper Field subsistence data but it does severely limit the kinds of inferences which can be made. Accepted standards for adequacy of a sample are based on the degree to which the sample reflects the range and proportion of species present in the site as a whole. For Southeastern coastal sites minimum vertebrate faunal samples of 1400 fragments or 200 MNI have been reconmended (Wing and Brown 1979:118-121; Reitz 1982). The Couper Field sample cannot be said to demonstrate any more than the presence of identified species: it cannot be used to evaluate absence or relative proportion and certainly is inadequate for assessment of change through time. It is interesting to note that the most frequently encountered species 1n each level is Bagre cf. marinus, sea catfish (cf. gafftopsail) The malacological analysis indicates almost exclusive exploitation of oyster Crassostrea virginica) with five other species occurring in

PAGE 59

incidental amounts (less than 0.5 percent by weight). These general findings agree with more recently excavated samples which will be discussed later. 46 Strontium analysis 1s a biochemical technique for evaluating the trophic level of an animal by comparing the amount of stable isotopic strontium in a specimen of skeletal material to the amount in a specimen from a known animal of known diet in the same environment. In general, herbivores exhibit higher concentrations than carnivores. Wallace found a statistically significant difference between the mean strontium concentrations for samples of five burials each from Taylor Mound and Couper Field. The direction of the difference indicates a higher trophic level for the mound sample than for the charnel house sample. (For this interpretation, the mound is said to be later than the charnel house.) At face value this would suggest a decreasing reliance on horticulture through time. However, three cases exhibit higher strontium levels than the reference herbivore. In light of the uniformly high concentration of strontium in marine fish and shellfish, Wallace explains the observed decrease in human tissue concentration over time "as evidence of a change from a marine-oriented, fishing-and-shellfishing economy (with consequently high strontium readings) to one that is predominantly horticultural" 0975: 233). In addition to the confounding factor of marine components in the diet, recently published data cited in the following table suggest further complications 1.n strontium level interpretations (Gilbert 19 77: 88):

PAGE 60

Elemental Strontium Levels in Four Food Groups Component mean Sr concentration (ppm) Grains and cereals Vegetables (including legumes, tubers and leafy materials) Meats (excluding fish and shellfish) Nuts 3.00 1.90 2.00 60.00 47 Nuts, including several species of acorns and several species of hickory nuts, are believed to have been an important resource for coastal aboriginal groups in the late prehistoric period (Larson 1969:316). Considering that elemental strontium is 20 times more abundant in nuts than in any other of the food sources listed, it seems likely that hunting-gathering groups would have had tissue strontium levels higher than strictly horticultural peoples. In view of the high strontium concentrations 1n two important subsistence resources--seafoods and nuts--it is likely that any change resulting from an increased or decreased reliance on horticulture would be masked. Of more interest than the inter-sample difference reported by Wallace is the intra-sample variability: for both samples the range of values is greater than the difference between the two sample means. This is evidence of a differential distribution of resources which may be socially significant. Ethnobotanical evidence from Couper Field consisted of three identified specimens recovered from "food pits" near a shell midden. The low recovery rate for botanical remains is typical of coastal sites and two of the three specimens are connnon local flora (Polygonum sp., reported as "knotweed" and Celt is sp., reported as "hackberry").

PAGE 61

48 The third specimen, also identified only to genus level, Vigna sp., 1s assigned the common name of "black-eyed pea or cowpea" and is interpreted as "direct evidence of aboriginal edible plants" (1975:236,238). This presents an interesting dilemma. The genus Vigna, which includes some of the earliest domesticated and most widely cultivated legumes, contains many species. Among these is Vigna sinensis, the black-eyed pea, which is of Ethiopian origin (Duke 1981:302). If Wallace's pea is in fact y_. sinensis, as implied by the common name, it is either highly significant evidence for the early introduction of this cultigen, or, most likely, a contaminant from plantation period or modern agricultural activities. If it is not V. s1nens1s but some other member of the pea family, it may be a native pea collected by coastal peoples or accidentally included in the pit fill. Larson has commented on the misuse of taxonomic names by archeologists (1980a:75). The preceding discussion illustrates the danger of imprecise use of connnon names. It is possible to question most of the interpretations offered by Wallace. However, he has presented interesting data and attempted some ambitious analyses. The repeated use of statistical tests, whether or not si g nificant findin g s r e sult, has the extremel y useful effect of requirin g quanttfied observations. As a consequence, reassessments and future comparative studies are possible. The osteological analysis of the St. Simons skeletal series 1s perhaps the best direct evidence yet available for the nutritional status of the late abori g inal coastal peoples. James Z ahler anal y zed the St. Simons materials and compared his findin g s with Hulse's Irene

PAGE 62

49 mound skeletal data (Zahler 1976; Hulse 1941). He concluded that both series were samples from the same, relatively heterogeneous population (1976:44). Two differences between the series are important. First, dental caries are "rather frequent" at the St. Simons settlement, suggesting "an increased consumption of carbohydrates (maize) possibly at the expense of nutritionally varied ecotone resources" (1976:49-50). Second, "the incidence of bone pathology attributed to anemia among the inhabitants of the St. Simons settlement does suggest that the general health of the coastal population had deteriorated during the contact period" (1976:49). Neither this indicator of subsistence stress nor frequent caries were reported by Hulse for the somewhat earlier Irene population. It is also interesting to note that the osteological data fail to confirm Wallace's hypothesized ma tri local res id enc e pattern. Both males and females appear to be about equally homogeneous in cranial measurements 0976:46). In a matrilocal society, it would be expected that the females would show less variability than the males. This is true for the Savannah period skeletal series from the Irene Site but not for the Irene period series from the Irene Site nor for the Irene period series from the St. Simons sites. The decrease in the difference between males and females is attributed by Zahler (following Hulse 1941) to an increase in population density and heterogeneity. It is assumed that a matrilocal postmarital residence pattern was still in effect at historic contact, but there is no osteological evidence for this (1975:46-47, 51).

PAGE 63

50 Southern St. Simons Island Another St. Simons Island mound excavation will be briefly discussed before going on to the second major study concerning coastal Georgia. Fred Cook has reported excavations at the Irene phase Kent Mound on the south end of St. Simons Island (1978). He describes 32 burials (including 35 individuals), presents microseriation data based on the mound construction sequence and attempts to quantify subsistence data from the premound, early Irene shell midden. These data constitute an important comparative sample for evaluation of Wallace's northern St. Simons assemblage. The burial excavations are described but not summarized or analyzed in any way, a curious omission since this is the largest recently excavated skeletal series from the coast. Twelve of the burials were accompanied by aboriginal artifacts and two, which Cook dates at A.O. 1550 to 1600, were furnished with both aboriginal and historic grave goods. While the majority (20) are primary, flexed interments, one primary prone burial, one bundle burial, one mass of disarticulated bones representing three individuals, and two trophies attest to a variety in burial practices not observed at Taylor Mound. This perhaps calls for re-evaluation of the status differences inferred from burial practices in Wallace's study. Severa 1 interesting observations concerning micro-changes in the Irene ceramic complex, both temporal and spatial, are reported. The Kent Mound Irene pottery assemblage contains "significant" numbers of sherds with grit and sherd or clay paste inclusions, 1n contrast to the exclusively grit or gravel inclusions at the Irene Site. Recent

PAGE 64

51 work with coastal clays suggests that this is an environmental variable (Saffer 1979). Changes in the apparent popularity of several rim decorative styles are seriated and, together with several other attributes, suggest that the later mound pottery is transitional between Irene and San Marcos. The incised variety of Irene pottery 1s reported as increasing from virtual absence in the early Irene, premound midden to over 80 percent in the latest burial. While this is reported as a function of time, it seems likely that a sacred/secular dichotomy may be reflected. Although Cook reports wear and charring of "several" vessels as evidence of utilitarian usage, these phenomena are not quantified. Mary Herron has studied the multifunctional nature of ceramic surface treatment ( 1978). Check stamping, in her St. Johns series sample, appears to have enhanced heat transfer efficiency and to have facilitated handling of slippery vessels. With regard to the Kent Mound mortuary vessels, Cook notes "that over half of these vessels have a combination of surface treatment that includes both filfot stamping and incising" 0978:93). It would be interesting to know whether it is the stamped vessels which exhibit charring. Subsistence data from the early Irene premound midden are presented. Biomass calculations, using a variety of techniques, are offered but several methodological problems result in figures which are neither mutually comparable within the sample nor directly comparable with any other coastal faunal assemblage. Two examples which illustrate the nature of these problems follow. First, meat weight for oysters is calculated but is compared with live weight for

PAGE 65

52 vertebrates (rather than usable meat weight). Second, the live weight figure used for deer is the average of the midpoints of the ranges of weights for male and female deer in North America (194 pounds). Coastal and island deer are considerably smaller; Johnson et al. cite an average weight of 60 pounds for Blackbeard Island specimens (1974:59). Despite these difficulties, Cook's biomass figures are probably valid as a basis for ranking the importance of major subsistence resources. In decreasing order of importance, fish, oysters, deer and raccoon are the major contributors. Other species account for less than one percent of the total biomass. It ts interesting that Cook identified no sharks or rays, nor any birds, in his sample. Floral remains included bedstraw (Gallium sp.), copperleaf (Alcalypha virginica), maize (Zea mays), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) and squash or gourd (Curcurbita sp.). In general, the faunal remains reflect the same pattern of usage seen at other late prehistoric coastal sites and the floral sample confirms ethnohistoric records of aboriginal horticulture. Sapelo Island Sapelo Island, on the central Georgia coast, 1s the location of a second major archeological study of the late prehistoric period (Crook 1978). Ray Crook excavated a portion of the large Kenan Field Site, which is a 60 ha area containing 589 shell middens and 2 earthen mounds. In addition to new archeological data on the Savannah period, a major contribution of this study is the well-integrated distillation

PAGE 66

of ecological and ethnohistoric information which 1s offered as a subsistence/settlement model. 53 Crook sees the Savannah phase adaptation as a dynamic system composed of four distinctive, sequential subsystems, in each of which the form of the social group is a response to the nature of the target resources and the exploitive technology (1978:64). These are roughly correlated with the seasons of the year and may be summarized as follows (1978:46-64). Swmner was the swidden harvest season and also one of the two peak periods for fishing. Wild fruits, such as grapes, persimmons and plums, would have been collected at this time. The temporary surplus from swidden horticulture allowed aggregation of the coastal population at strategically located town sites which, in turn, facilitated information exchange and planning of future subsistence pursuits. At the close of the harvest season, the towns emptied as matrilineage groups of 20 to 25 persons moved into the oak forests to harvest acorns and hickory nuts. A small group, probably the mica's matrilineage, may have been resident year-round at the town site. In addition, large segments of the population returned briefly to the town for ceremonies at intervals throughout the year. Communal hunts of white-tailed deer, attracted by oak mast and aggregated for their breeding season, would have taken place at this time. While some stored cultigens may have been eaten, the emphasis would have been on accruing further supplies against the leaner winter and spring seasons ahead. During the winter, subsistence efforts shifted to the estuaries where fish were again plentiful and oysters were in prime condition. Camps were located to provide estuarine access although

PAGE 67

some upland hunting continued on an individual basis. The spring planting season was the period of maximum population dispersal and minimum social group size--one or two nuclear families. This settlement shift was a response to the patchy distribution of soils suitable for horticulture and to the general scarcity of food resources. This time of subsistence stress came to an end with the first harvests in mid-summer. Crook's model is presented 1n narrative form but the archeologically recoverable correlates of the described behavioral system may be easily specified: 1) Small sites with spring/early summer species scattered across best agricultural soils are probably swidden plot camps. 2) Medium sites with fall species in oak forest areas are hunting/nutting camps. 3) Medium sites with winter species located adjacent to estuaries a re fishing/shellfish ing camps. 4) Large sites with a wide range of seasona 1 indicators on best agricultural soi 1 adjacent to estuaries are towns. 54 This is, of course, a simplified picture of the system. In reality, a wide variety of intermediate, special purpose and combination settlement types would be expected. The model is constructed from two kinds of information: current environmental data and ethnohistoric observations of coastal populations. Keeping in mind the effects of historic period agriculture on upland ground cover and consequent silting, most

PAGE 68

55 archeologists grant that modern environmental conditions are close to those of the late prehistoric period. The applicability of ethnohistoric information to earlier periods (as early as the beginning of the Savannah period, A.O. 1000) is open to question. Some vacillation on Crook's part concerning just what is represented 1n the Spanish narratives is apparent in contrasting t~ statements he makes during discussion of his model: since it is predominantly constructed with evidence contained in accounts of early historic period (pre1600), elements of a purely aboriginal form should be represented. The most intensive acculturation of the Guale accompanied the renewed mission efforts that fol lowed the 1597 Guale revolt. (1978:46) Certain elements of the system were certainly already affected by European influences, since the model is constructed with data from between 1560 and 1600, more than 40 years after Allyon's first contact with the coastal groups and in the midst of deliberate accultur ation attempts by the early missionaries. 0978:70) Though contradictory, these statements are useful in that they illustrate the need for archeological corroboration of the accuracy of ethnohistoric interpretations. Because of the nature of the contact situation, "elements of a purely aboriginal form" cannot be assumed simply on grounds of early observation. Since Crook wrote, evidence of repeated contacts during the period 1515-1530 has been presented by Hoffman (1980). Archeological data from Kenan Field, including subsistence information, architectural detail and spatial distribution of artifacts, were evaluated in light of the implications of this model. Crook dates most of the excavated contexts to the Savannah phase which

PAGE 69

56 he brackets at A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1540. If, as in tended, the ethnohistoric/ecolo g ical model is valid for the Savannah phase, then the portion of Kenan Field which was studied can be described as a town It is a large site located on a preferred agricultural soil type adjacent to the estuary. Faunal materials representative of every season of the year were found. An earthen mound and several large, post-supported structures indicate an occupation of considerable permanence involving a major population aggregation These features are perhaps the most interestin g finds a t Kenan Field as they represent communal buildings of a form and scale hitherto unreported for the Georgia coast. Crook interprets the structures as large, low platforms which accomodated both domestic and public functions. These large buildings constitute the best archeological evidence for the level of organization of coastal cultures inferred from ethnohistoric sources. Through a series of hypotheses a nd loosel y related test implications, Crook attempts to demonstrate that Savannah societ y was segmented, ranked and organized according to a formal spatial plan. While limited aspects of these hypotheses are well-substantiated, f or the most part the implications are stated in such general terms that virtually any observation of non-random distribution would constitute a positive implication. For example, a "formal village plan which reflects the adaptations of a ranked society to environmental factors" is hypothesized. Test implications are "patterned arrangement of structural remains," "socially and/or functionally distinct structures," etc. (1 9 7 8 : 9 ). The problem is that archeolo g ical d ata

PAGE 70

from a non-ranked society might also be expected to show patterned arrangements and social/functional distinctions. 57 The analysis of subsistence data from Kenan Field is innovative and somewhat unorthodox. Crook reports selected results for different structures and features; selections vary according to what aspects are being interpreted. As there is no summary table, it is difficult to compare the assemblage as a whole with results from other coastal sites. What is most valuable, however, is the attempt to confront the problem of determining seasonality of archeological assemblages from the southeastern coast. Three primary categories of seasonality indicators are used: fish, reptiles and molluscs. Of these, the quahog clam data is most convincing (but compare Clark's 1979 differing in te rpre tat ion). Se a son of death, based on terminal growth ring measurement, is consistently a fall/winter occurrence. Oysters are interpreted as being primarily a late fall/winter resource because 1) in the spring, summer, and early fall oysters are in poor condition due to spawning and disease, and 2) because they are found in association with the fall/winter-dated quahogs. While this seems reasonable enough, it actually involves interpretation by ethnographic analogy, projecting modem cultural preferences on aboriginal behavior. Crook relies heavily on this interpretation of oysters as winter food in his assessment of the Kenan Field data. The use of reptiles as seasonal indicators, based on winter dormancy and therefore inaccessibility, is questionable for a different reason. Although activity is reduced in winter, the climate of the Georgia coast is relatively mild and snakes can be seen basking in sunny spots

PAGE 71

58 on midwinter afternoons. In fact, one might argue that snakes would be more frequently added to the midden in winter since when it is cold they move slowly and are easily i-:i1led. On a presence/absence basis, reptiles cannot be considered reliable seasonality indicators; 1n a large sample relative proportions might be significant. Fish compose the most abundant class of animals recovered from coastal sites and their potential use to infer season of occupation is, for this reason, promising. The comparative sample used by Reitz (1979a), Crook (1978), Pearson (1979) and others is based on modern trawl catches (Dahlberg 1975; Mahood, Harris, Music, and Palmer 1974). One important limitation of the trawl data as a predictor of aboriginal resource availability is the technological difference between aboriginal and modern fishing practices. While the Indians may have used nets, weirs, hook and line, and spears, and probably employed dugout canoes to reach a variety of estuarine habitats, the trawl sample was limited to the major waterways and larger tidal creeks and involved one type of net only. These data, with recognized limitations, are probably accurate reflections of the varying species composition of estuarine waters. However, unless archeological samples are large enough so that relative abundances, not simple presence or absence, can be observed, seasonality interpretations based on fish are inconclusive. Although individual species as seasonal indicators are often ambiguous, aggregates of indicators should produce fairly reliable bracketing of occupation. Again, large sample size seems to be the key to accuracy.

PAGE 72

59 While interpretation of relative importance of various species was not a major goal 1n the Kenan Field study, the screening routine resulted in a sample which probably underestimates the occurrence of smaller animals, especially fish. Quarter-inch screen was used to sift 94 percent of the sample; only 6 percent was fine-screened. The apparent emphasis on white-tailed deer may be a consequence of this bias. Although more rigorous hypothesis testing procedures would be desirable, this does not detract from the significance of the empirical data. Crook's major contributions are a well-integrated subsistence/settlement model, new information on the scale and complexity of coast a 1 pub lie arc hi tee ture, and a direct confrontation with the complexities of determining seasonality in coastal subsistence assemblages. He presents convincing evidence that quahogs were harvested in winter and that aboriginal use of oysters produced beneficial effects on oyster growth by "thinning" the population. Ossabaw Island The third major study utilizes data from Ossabaw Island on the north portion of the Georgia coast. Charles Pearson surveyed the island and conducted limited test excavations at some of the 65 Mississippian period sites in the sample of 203 aboriginal sites (Pearson 1979 ). The purpose of the study was to compare the settlement/subsistence patterns of the two late prehistoric archeological cultures, Savannah and Irene, with the expectation that contrasts would reflect adaptive changes. Continuities between the

PAGE 73

Savannah and Irene assemblages are strong, indicating in-place development through time of a single cultural group. 60 Pearson's settlement sample consisted of surface collections from the set of 65 Mississippian period sites containing 12 Savannah phase (A.O. 1150-1350) and 61 Irene phase (A.O. 1350-1550) components. Surface area was the only metric variable available from all sites. It is important to note that area is not a direct measure of intensity or duration of occupation. Also, depending on historic period agricultural practices and erosion, the density of surface artifacts could vary widely. Surface area was used to develop ranked groups of sites presumed to reflect some functional differences. These groups were then evaluated against environmental and cultural variables to determine whether differences correlated with size could be detected. Subsistence information was derived from 26 middens at S sites, 3 Irene and 2 Savannah. Vertebrate faunal samples were collected from 1~ square units in each midden using 1/4 in. mesh screens. These samples yielded 47 MNI for the 2 Savannah sites (13 middens) and 37 MNI for the 3 Irene sites (13 middens). Invertebrate species were analyzed for 3 middens using 2 to 4 kg complete matrix column samples. These samples were also used to reconstruct the total contents of the midden for the purpose of comparing molluscan and vertebrate contributions to the diet. In a site size distribution comparison of the two samples, Pearson observed that, while both systems appeared to be dominated by a single centrally and optimally located primate settlement, other significant differences in system structure existed. Since the term

PAGE 74

61 "primate" has a very different meaning for geographers than it has for anthropologists, a brief explanation is warranted. A primate settlement distribution is one in which there are gaps in the array of site sizes so that one or two very large (primate) sites dominate the settlement system. In contrast, a system conforming to the rank-size rule exhibits a log-normal distribution in which the site sizes form a continuum (Hodder and Or ton 1976: 6973). The Savannah pattern is described as "nucleated" and is characterized by the dominance of a single very large site over very few small and relatively few medium-size sites. The Irene pattern seems to include many small sites which may represent temporary or seasonal occupations associated with a single or narrow range of activities (1979:66). For this reason, it is described as "dispersed." When sites 1.n each size class are examined with respect to four key environmental variables, it is found that the largest sites occupy the most favorable settlement locations. It is the smallest sites 1n the Irene system which exhibit the most variability with respect to environmental characteristics. Pearson has convincingly demonstrated differences between the Savannah and Irene phase settlement structures which can be summarized in terms of nucleation or dispersal of the population. Similarities are apparently related to environmental factors affecting efficient exploitation of marsh-estuary resources, conditions for year-round settlement and feasibility of agriculture 0979: 124). The shift from a nucleated to a dispersed settlement structure is explained as a reflection of the pan-Southeastern breakdown of the highly complex and structured Mississipppian socio-political organization which resulted

PAGE 75

62 10 the less complex historic groups for which we have ethnohistoric records. According to Pearson, this change took place on the Georgia coast before European contact (1979: 125). The relationship between nucleation and warfare is noted and it is suggested that eventual soil exhaustion may have necessitated the dispersal of horticultural plots. Subsistence information was examined to determine whether the observed differences in settlement could be attributed to subsistence pattern differences. The samples described earlier were evaluated with respect to species, relative abundance, seasonality and temporal contra st s. Major cone lusions a re reviewed below. l) Mammals provided 96 and 98 percent of the estimated non molluscan meat yield (White's method) for Savannah and Irene phases (respectively). White-tailed deer accounted for 78 and 85 percent of the corresponding totals, with the remainder coming from only two sources, raccoon and marsh rabbit. 2) Fish constituted the second most important vertebrate food source, providing 3 .3 and 1.6 percent of the Savannah and Irene estimated meat yields. 3) No significant difference was found between the two phases 1n the range of species exploited, and concentration indices showed no significant differences in intensity of exploita tion. The rank ordering of subsistence contribution by species as observed by Pearson is substantially different from that found at Kings Bay and in several other coastal samples. The apparent emphasis

PAGE 76

63 on mammals at Ossabaw is probably a consequence of the use of 1/4 in. screen. This can be demonstrated by evaluating vertebrate remains from Pearson's 1 / 16 in. screened column samples ( 19 79: 18 2-186). To ta 1 osseous weights for the three middens are as follows: mammal 1.3 g (6.9 percent), nonmammal vertebrate 16.02 g (85.1 percent) and unidentified 1.51 g (8.0 percent). While osseous weight is not directly comparable to other measures of importance, it is obvious that the premier ranking of mammals is not substantiated. The observed narrow range of mammalian exploitation and the absence of differences between Savannah and Irene inventories may be a consequence of sample size. The small sample simply underestimates the occurrence of rare events so that they appear to be nonexistent. The reconmended adequate sample of 200 MNI (Wing and Brown 1979: 118-121) should be obtained before prehistoric extirpation of missing species 1s posited, as Pearson does here. A final major conclusion derived from Pearson's subsistence samples concerns the relative importance of molluscan versus vertebrate species based on complete matrix column samples. The high estimated potential invertebrate meat yield (85.3, 95.1, and 98.7 percent) is said to demonstrate an extremely heavy reliance on molluscs ( 1979: 190). While this is true for the computations performed on the measurements of these archeologically recovered materials, several assumptions are necessary to extend this conclusion to the diet of the Ossabaw Mississippian population in general. Three examples are given below. First, it must be assumed that vertebrate and invertebrate materials are deposited in the same refuse piles in

PAGE 77

64 proportions representative of their dietary importance. Since no nonshell midden contexts were sampled, differential deposition patterns, if present, would not have been apparent. Second, it must be assumed that molluscan and nonmolluscan remains are preserved and recovered in representative proportions. Given the greater fragility of bone in the face of mechanical and chemical breakdown, this is unlikely. Finally, it must be assumed that the sampled middens are representative of year-round subsistence emphases. Crook has argued that oyster exploitation would have been much more efficient during the winter season than at other times (1978:251). Given the scattered, seasonal character of most coastal resources, it is unlikely that a single type of context, for example a winter oyster midden, would be representative of year-round subsistence, even at a permanently occupied site. In view of the problems indicated above, it is doubtful that direct comparison of estimated meat yields for vertebrate and invertebrate midden contents gives an accurate picture of relative dietary importance. I would be reluctant to accept Pearson's cone lusion of the "overwhelming importance" of the shellfish contribution to the faunal segment of the diet 0979: 191-192). This is not to argue that oysters were not a critical resource. It 1s simply reluctance to accept the implied seasonal, spatial and preservational homogeneity. Evidence for floral components 10 the diet is limited, as expected from the experience of other coastal researchers. Specimens

PAGE 78

reported are pignut hickory nut fragments(~ glabra) and palm berry (Sabal palmetto) (Pearson 1979: 197 ,237-253). 65 Pearson's study of Ossabaw Island represents the first Southeastern coastal settlement pattern study founded on a comprehensive data base from a naturally defined locality. For this reason, his observations have a coherence lacking in individual site studies or compendia of site studies. He has provided convincing evidence of a shift in settlement pattern between the Savannah and Irene phases and has hypothesized functional distinctions between levels of each settlement hierarchy. It is suggested that the settlement shift may be related to horticultural intensification during the Mississippian period. Two recurrent problems in archeological interpretation present obstacles to the direct application of Pearson's results. The first is the assumption that surface site size is directly proportional to population size. For a single occupation, area occupied probably is the best archeological estimator of population. However, it is very difficult to tell the difference between a single, large, concurrently occupied area representing a large population aggregate and a large, sequentially occupied accretion representing many small groups over a period of time. This is especially true in coastal shell midden sites. Thus, important structural differences may be masked when a single parameter, such as site size, is used to estimate population. A second, related interpretive problem lies in Pearson's chronological assumptions. When both Savannnah and Irene are treated as prehistoric cultures, the cause of the settlement shift must be

PAGE 79

66 sought in prehistoric processes. If, as some authors have suggested, Irene is a protohistoric, not prehistoric, phenomenon, explanatory hypotheses incorporating acculturative processes and demographic consequences (such as effects of introduced diseases) are readily formulated. The dating of the Irene phase is anything but secure. Pearson assigns a range of A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1550, on the basis of Irene mound stratigraphy and radiocarbon determinations from St. Catherines Island. However, the most frequently cited source for the St. Catherines dates contains no determinations for Irene contexts and does not discuss the Irene phase at all (Caldwell 1971:88-92). Irene mounds containing European materials are common and similarities between Irene ceramic types and mission phase San Marcos series pottery suggest continuity (Cook 1978:127-133). The possibility that the settlement pattern shift observed by Pearson is causally related to European contact during the pre-mission, exploration period is an alternative hypothesis which should be considered, at least unti.l better control of coastal chronology is achieved. Pearson offers a comparative analysis of Savannah and Irene subsistence data as evidence that the settlement shift is not related to a change in subsistence patterns. It i.s probable, however, that the sample is too small to permit distinctions to be made between intraphase and interphase variability, especially 1n view of the seasonality of resources and mobility of population that are expected in the coastal environment.

PAGE 80

67 New Ethnohistoric Perspectives In addition to the preceding studies based on archeological evidence from recent research, a re-examination by Grant Jones of the documentary record furnishes yet another interpretation of Guale subsistence, settlement and sociopolitical patterns. Jones believes that Guale subsistence was based on a combination of horticulture, hunting and collecting sufficiently productive to support "permanent towns, a chiefdom level of social organization, temporary federations of chiefdoms under centralized leadership, and long distance trade networks. The chiefdoms were characterized by dual features of political organization and an emphasis on matrilineal succession" (1978:179). Jones' confidence in Guale horticulture is based on documentary references to the large amounts of cultivated foods furnished to the Spaniards and on references to the availability of stored maize as late in the year as April. He rejects Larson's characterization of the settlement pattern, claiming that the Jesuit reports of small, shifting communities were exaggerated and misleading (1978: 191). Larson has interpreted this pattern as an adaptation to the low fertility and scattered distribution of small areas of soil suitable for horticulture which is typical of the coastal region (1980a:206-209). Jones contends that, in fact, the Guale dispersed 1n an effort to escape Jesuit interference in their affairs, so that what the missionaries reported was an evasive action, not a subsistence strategy. Jones quite clearly would reject Crook's subsistence/settlement model:

PAGE 81

While it seems possible that domesticated animals ef fected a reduction in winter hunting activity and thus a change in a hypothetical pattern of winter residential mobility, there is no reported pattern of mobility for even earliest periods of Guale history. While the ab sence of evidence does not assure us that the pattern did not exist, there is ample evidence that at least the prin cipal towns we re occupied du ring the winter. While sma 11 hunting parties undoubtedly went out for short periods, the faunal resources of the Coastal Sector were suffi ciently diverse, rich, and compact that residential mobil ity was probably not necessary. 0978: 194) 68 It must be noted that the statement "there is no reported pattern of mobility for even earliest periods of Guale history" is predicated on a flat rejection of Jesuit reports of just such a pattern (Larson 1980a:206-209). Laudonniere and Le Moyne also reported a winter dispersal pattern, but this refers to the Timucuan populations 1n the St. Johns River area (Bennett 1975:15-16; 1968:44). Sites which may represent the camps of small hunting parties have recently been identified on the mainland. Major habitation sites are located on high ground adjacent to the salt marsh, but sporadic aboriginal use of interior areas within the tidewater region is apparent. Richard Zurel, Tom Gresham and David Hally surveyed portions of the Big Mortar-Snuff Box Swamp Watershed in Long and McIntosh Counties, west of Sapelo Island (1975). They recorded a large number of small, low artifact density sites (including Savannah and Irene sites) in this predominantly low, poorly-drained region. These are interpreted as representing very brief occupations by small numbers of people for the purpose of exploiting distinctive resources of the freshwater swamp-forest ecological zone. The authors do not indicate what resources may have been sought in this zone but soils

PAGE 82

69 most suitable for horticulture are distributed along two sand ridges which define the southeastern and southwestern margins of the watershed. The Barrier Island Sand Ridge composes the eastern margin of the mainland and corresponds to the maJor linear zone of aboriginal occupation at Kings Bay. The Altamaha Sand Ridge parallels the Altamaha River along the southwestern boundary of the watershed and includes soils which elsewhere on the coast are good predictors of aboriginal site location. Well-drained soils suitable for horticulture are almost nonexistent in the interior portion of the watershed. On the basis of ceramic similarities, the authors suggest that these sites and contemporaneous sites on the nearby barrier islands are the product of a single population. No permanent occupation of the interior watershed region is indicated (1975: 107,118). As an alternative model of the Guale settlement/subsistence pattern, Jones proposes the "dispersed town" (1978: 192). These ceremonial and food storage centers consisted of a few public buildings and a chunky ground located near the salt marsh with individual houses and associated garden plots scattered through the adjoining forest. It should be noted that this relatively fixed arrangement of horticultural plots around an administrative nucleus is based on observations from the close of the mission period (1666, 1670, 1696). By this time, population reductions would have relieved pressure to disperse and Carolinean depredations would have fostered nucleation for defense. It cannot be claimed, on the basis of

PAGE 83

available evidence, that permanent dispersed towns are reflective of prehistoric or even protohistoric settlement patterns. 70 Significantly, Jones believes the principal towns and the majority of the population was located on the mainland along the major rivers prior to 1607. This would suggest that later, relocated mission towns would be established on sites lacking major accumulations of early mission period debris. Conversely, early period primary towns would lack significant deposits of late materials. While this improves prospects for separation of contexts, it means that archeological evidence reflective of acculturative change during the mission period is not likely to be forthcoming from a single site. Currently available information about mainland sites does not confirm Jones' population distribution hypothesis since the only really large site on the coast is the Irene Site on the Savannah River. However, very little large-scale survey work has been completed on the mainland. A recent report of survey work in the northeastern corner of Camden County indicates that Mississippian period occupations are well-represented in this area. Eight of the nine sites reported by Kirkland yielded Savannah phase artifacts; the ninth produced no artifacts. Over 75 percent of the sample from the largest site (3 .2 ha) was assignable to Wilmington and Savannah series (Kirkland 1979). This is an indication of how tmJch remains to be learned about late prehistoric period coastal population size and distribution. Arguing that the Guale possessed a productive economy and permanent settlements, Jones goes on to claim that their

PAGE 84

7 1 sociopolitical organization and cultural development was considerably more complex than has been acknowledged by previous researchers. He has reconstructed, based on documentary clues to "intercommunity social relations," three chiefdoms consisting of pairs of primary towns and associated constellations of secondary towns and settlements. The towns of individual chiefdoms seem to have participated frequently 1n joint ceremonies and feasts, while the chiefdoms were capable of effectively uniting against a common enemy. There are no indications that such federations existed prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, In other details of social and political organization Jones generally agrees with previous readings of the documents. His major contribution is an emphasis on tighter chronological control 1n evaluation of the ethnohistoric data. He defines three periods within which generalizations can be extended and between which comparisons can be made. These are 1526-1586, from Allyon's colony to the abandonment of Santa Elena, 1587-1607, encompassing the precipitation and aftermath of the 1597 rebellion and representing Guale political strength at its peak, and 1607-1684, during which the island chain of missions was solidified but the Guale people suffered decline. As noted earlier, first contact 1s now believed to have occurred between 1514 and 1516, which would lengthen the first period by about a decade (Hoffman 1980). To the extent that archeological sites can be assigned to one or another of these periods, it will be possible to confirm or reject many of Jones' interpretations.

PAGE 85

72 Summary It is clear from the preceding discussion that, while there is general agreement among active researchers on what questions should be asked at coastal sites, there is little accord on how these questions should be asked. Different sampling and analysis techniques prevent intersite comparison of subsistence patterns, except at a very general level. Yet subsistence is the single most cormnonly addressed topic. In the remainder of this study the results of previous coastal research will be used selectively, with emphasis on the data and topics best handled in each project. Thus Larson's work will be used for its comprehensive subsistence resource descriptions, Wallace's work for data on burial practices, Crook's study for the subsistence/settlement model, and Pearson's research for settlement pattern information. The basic picture of coastal adaptation which emerges from these studies is of a broad spectrum economy in which fish, shellfish and deer were primary sources of animal protein. Little direct evidence for the use of wild plant foods has been found but it is agreed that acorns and hickory nuts must have been seasonal staples. The importance of horticulture is a topic for which there are widely varying opinions backed by minimal evidence. All of these foods would have exhibited seasonal peaks of abundance resulting in a diet which varied in composition through the year. Resources, including horticultural soils, were patchy in distribution, preventing large population aggregates of long duration. Two strategies for coping with this environmental limitation have been hypothesized: a dispersed

PAGE 86

73 town settlement pattern and a pattern of seasonal fissioning and mobility. Pearson's data indicate an increasing tendency through time toward dispersion. It is not known whether this was seasonal, shifting dispersal or permanent, low density settlement, nor is it clear whether the change occurred before or after contact. Some degree of segmentation of the population may be indicated by the burial data. There is, however, no evidence of the rich ceremonial material culture found elsewhere 1n the Southeast at this time. The few somewhat richly accompanied burials are of adult males, perhaps indicative of chiefly status ~ut there is no consistent evidence for a class of elevated status. The differences in burial practices thought to mark class differences when found in mound versus cemetery contexts at one site occur all together in a mound at another site on the same island. Mounds, large-scale buildings, and palisades attest to communal construction efforts presumably directed by a chiefly authority and subsidized by communal stores of food. At least half a century elapsed between initial contact (during which time there were repeated contacts) and recording of "early" ethnohistoric accounts at the beginning of the mission effort. It is now evident that the processes which resulted in extinction of the coastal aboriginal way of life a century later were set in motion quite early in the 1500s. The next task is to identify which elements of the system we re earliest affected, in order to more accurately employ ethnohistoric accounts in modeling prehistoric cultures. This chapter has presented the substantive findings of several recent, major studies of the late prehistoric period. These results,

PAGE 87

74 together with their supporting ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogies, constitute a set of criteria for judging what questions may reasonably and practically be considered at coastal sites. In terms of the method of inductive confirmation introduced in the next chapter, the previous research for this locality provides a set of plausibility considerations for formulating hypotheses applicable to the Kings Bay data.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL CONTEXT The Use of Models The problem focus of this study is the task of assessing an anthropological/archeological model to evaluate its explanatory power and its value as an approximation of past reality. It is important to specify the significance of the term "model" as used here because this term has become a popular buzzword in archeological literature and 1s sometimes invoked to lend substance to insubstantial discussions. Two major essays on model use have reviewed the many types and applications of models which are currently fashionable (Haggett and Chorley 1967; Clarke 1972). In general, a model may be described as a simplified and intelligible representation of reality. The elements of the model are articulated in a known manner which is presumed to accurately reflect the articulation of the real elements in the phenomenon of interest. If a reasonable degree of correspondence between model elements and interrelationships and real world elements and interrelationships can be achieved, then the model may be used to predict the nature of those aspects of the phenomenon which are not susceptible to observation. This approach to knowing is reflected 1n a discussion of ecosystem structure by the ecologist Margalef (1963:357-358): 75

PAGE 89

The main point is that the "real" structure of an ecosystem is a property that remains out of reach, but this complete structure is reflected in many aspects of the ecosystem that can be subjected to observation: in the distribution of individuals into species, in the pattern of the food net, in the dis tribution of total assimilatory pigments in kinds of pigments, and so on. 76 The process of creating close correspondence between the model and the real world--tuning the model--results in a higher level of detail and specificity and in better predictions. In as much as any model is a simplification and approximation of reality, it is expected that the model will go through many iterations before a provisionally acceptable form will be realized. Models thus form a bridge between the observational and theoretical levels of investigation; in the process they serve several functions. They are conceptual tools which facilitate the visualization and comprehension of a complex or diverse phenomenon; they are organizational tools which aid in the collection and ordering of relevant data; and they are logical devices which explain how the parts of a whole are related or how events precipitate an occurrence (Haggett and Chorley 1967:24). It is the logical function which is important in the present context. The model to be evaluated in this study is composed of a series of interrelated, interlocking hypotheses concerning settlement and subsistence strategies in a particular region. It is not the model itself which will be formally tested, but the individual hypotheses. Rejection of a hypothesis would not, then, negate the validity of the model; rather, it would require revision of the related portion of the model.

PAGE 90

77 Ecological Models Ecologically-based models are frequently used by archeologists. Th is approach is founded on the premise that the structure and dynamics of the cultural subsystem of a region's ecosystem may be studied in the same manner as other biological subsystems. Important energy exchanges between the cultural system and the environment are most easily seen when both are modeled in similar terms. The ecological paradigm seeks explanations of cultural similarities and differences in an analysis of solutions developed by cultures for the problems of making a living and perpetuating life. These solutions involve interactions with both the natural and social components of the environment. Material interactions are most easily and most often studied, but it is recognized that information exchanges may also have critical survival value. Subsistence is the primary material interaction susceptible to archeological analysis; the food quest is a principal topic of the studies reviewed in Chapter 3 and of the coastal adaptation models described in Chapter 5. Given the dispersed, diverse natural resources and the marginal conditions for horticulture which characterize the southeastern coastal region, it should be possible to describe a subsistence/settlement strategy which solves both universal and uniquely coastal problems and evokes characteristic social and ideological arrangements. This contention--that the manner in which energy exchanges with the environment are handled by a human population affects the form of more abstract aspects of culture--is a basic tenet of cultural materialism.

PAGE 91

78 Cultural Materialism Cultural materialism 1s a well-developed theoretical stance in anthropology which states that the subsystems of a cultural system are hierarchically arranged and deterministically interconnected. The three primary subsystems are the infrastructure, consisting of productive and reproductive arrangements, the structure, composed of the domestic and political economies, and the superstructure, encompassing a variety of esthetic, athletic and in te llec tual pursuits. It is the infrastructure which constitutes the culture/environment interface and conditions the form and content of the structure and superstructure (Harris 1979:51-53). Since it was first offered in 1968, Harris' version of the cultural materialist paradigm has gained wide acceptance among archeologists. In a recent restatement of his position, Harris has chosen to emphasize the observational process by which this underlying structure is revealed. He contends that there are at least four valid domains of observation in the study of human behavior. These four categories are formed by the intersection of two observational perspectives with two modes of action: the emic and etic points of view with the behavioral and mental realms of activity. What Harris stresses is that, in any single situation, there can be at least four different observations, each of which is valid within its own frame of reference. This scheme is shown below; the example of the Georgia oyster is substituted for the well-known Kerala sacred cow:

PAGE 92

79 Domains of Anthropological Observation Ernie Etic I II No oysters Summer Behavior a 1 are eaten oysters are in summer. sometimes eaten. III IV Summer oysters Gather oysters Men ta 1 are bad to when other eat. ( thin and foods are scare e. milky) The value of knowing the contents of all four domains, if one wishes to thoroughly understand the habitat and niche interactions of a particular population, is obvious. According to the cultural materialist principle of infrastructural determinism, "the etic behavioral modes of production and reproduction probabalistically determine the etic behavioral domestic and political economy, which 1.n turn probabalistically determine the behavioral and mental em1.c superstructure" ( 19 79: 5556). In the case of an ethnographic study, completion of the chart is a relatively straightforward exercise, although, as Harris notes, it is difficult to state "the locus of the reality" of rules I and IV (1979:38). However, in an archeological situation, only one domain (II) is readily satisfied. Assessment of the remaining three is much more tenuous, as there are no informants to query for domains I and III and the procedures for arriving at IV are seldom explicit. Two sources of information are connnonly substituted for direct observation in archeological studies: ethnohistoric data and ecological data.

PAGE 93

The manner in which these are employed 1s indicated in the following chart: Behaviora 1 Men ta 1 Domains of Archeological Observation Ernie I Possibly reported in ethnohistoric sources; ethnograph ic analogy from modern population 1n same or comparable environment. III Inferred from eco logical data, i.e. an educated guess at aboriginal rea sons for choices. Et ic II Direct archeological data, e.g. oyster shell deposit con taining summer seasonality indica tors. IV Inferred from model; usually thought to be most accurate interpretation of adaptive niche. Although it is often the case that all of these types of information will be accounted for somewhere in an archeological study, it is 80 seldom true that each is presented clearly and separately before being freely combined 1n the customary "synthesis." Thus one of the reasons it is difficult to specify exactly our empirical knowledge to date of late prehistoric adaptations is that few studies allow extraction of just their Etic/Behavioral observations. Once the boundaries between the domains of ethnohistoric/graphic analogy, archeological data, ecological analogy and inference are relaxed, the resulting reconstruction is difficult to evaluate objectively. Harris has commented on this relaxation of intellectual vigilance (1979:33-34):

PAGE 94

All notions of replicability and testability fly up the chimney when the ,;..urld as seen t>y the observed is capriciously muddled with the ,;..urld as seen by the observer .... research strategies that fail to distin guish between mental and behavioral stream events and between emic and etic operations cannot develop coherent net,;..urks of theories embracing the causes of sociocultural differences and similarities. Archeological Inference While Harris has been primarily concerned with ways of knowing and with the epistemology of anthropological theories, archeologists have been wrestling with the problem of interpreting observations. Since a review of this struggle ,;..uuld encompass an intellectual history of the new archeology and is clearly beyond the scope of the 81 present study, it is convenient that Bruce Smith has recently analyzed patterns of archeological reasoning (1977). He reviews Merrilee Salmon's argument that the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method, which has long been claimed as a hallmark of the new archeology, is not in fact deductive, nor is it what archeologists who claim to employ scientific methods of reasoning actually do ( B. Smith 1977:600; Salmon 1976). Simply stated, archeologists do not employ the H-D method because their observational predictions (test implications) are not deduced from their hypotheses. That is to say, the lo g ical relationship that the predictions must be true if the hypothesis is true does not hold (B. Smith 1977:602). The hypothetico-analog (H-A) method of inductive inference which Smith proposes as an alternative is based on work by Wesley Salmon (1967, 1973) and ~errilee Salmon (1976) with modifications for application to specifically archeological situations. Salient characteristics of the H-A method

PAGE 95

82 are listed in a stepwise fashion below: 1) limitation of alternative hypotheses: plausibility consider ations are employed to determine whether a hypothesis has sufficient prior probability to merit serious consideraton. Analogies drawn between attributes of behavior or debris patterns under investigation and attributes of a reference class of relevant cases (ethnohistoric, ethnographic, eco logical, geographical) gauge the plausibility of the hypothe sized explanation. 2) multiple working hypotheses: alternative explanations of approximately equivalent plausibility are entertained. 3) inductive format: observational predictions (test impli cations) are inferred from hypotheses. 4) bridging arguments: arguments of relevance establishin~ a logical link between each observational prediction and its hypothesis are explicitly stated. 5) evaluation of hypotheses: hypotheses are checked by compar ing archeological observations with observational predictions and assessing results in terms of: a. number of observational predictions found to be empir ically true. b. variety of observational predictions found to be empir ically true. c. significance of the observational predictions found to be empirically true. d. simp lie ity of the hypo th es is.

PAGE 96

e. number of observational predictions found to be empir ic ally false. The process of H-A inductive inference is diagramed in Figure 3. 83 lt is the fourth step which is probably most frequently neglected 1n archeological reasoning. Although it is often acknowledged that assumptions should be stated, there has not previously been a formal place for this in the reasoning process. The process itself is, as Smith says, "lengthy, complicated, and often frustrating" (some would say tedious) but it provides a framework within which conclusions can be evaluated without reference to the experience or other credentials of the investigator (1977:614). It is this objectivity that makes the difference between useful, substantive contributions and archeological just-so stories. As an illustration of the type of reasoning common 1n current research, and of the explication necessary to bring it into line with the procedures described above, an example from the Georgia coast will be evaluated (Larson 1980a:224-226). The problem area is aboriginal dietary composition and the hypothesis states that "in the coastal sector the plant resources probably provided an equal, if not greater, part of the total subsistence" than animal resources (1980a:224). Though unstated, a plausibility consideration that must have influenced entertainment of this hypothesis is the ethnographic data on the contribution of plant foods to the diets of modem hunter/gatherers. The observational prediction to be checked against the archeological data--though not stated--seems to be that remains of animal resources would account for half or fewer of the nutrients

PAGE 97

Figure 3. The Hypothetico-Analog Method of Inductive Inference.

PAGE 98

POSE QUESTION I, TEST PLAUSIBILITY a define attribute classes YES b choose refer ence class c. make analogy PLAUSIBLE ? NO .., PLAUSIBILITY CONSIDERATION .. r state alternatlves -~2 I H 3 2 IHs I 3 ) 4 5 6 I IHcl 2 3 4 state bridging Infer arguments pred lctions FORMULATION apply data + 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 BEST EXPLANATION FURTHER EVALUATION NEEDED REJECT evaluate results co EVALUATION V,

PAGE 99

86 required by the population. Reconstruction of the midden contents and estimation of the person/days represented is presented in narrative fashion and incorporates the bridging arguments given below. The items in parentheses are unstated assumptions or corrections. 1) The midden represents the refuse accumulation of one winter season, a four-month period. a. blue crab claws were found 1n the midden. b. blue crabs move into deep water after mid-December and are not available for the remainder of the winter. c. there has been no marked climatic change in the last 500 years. d. therefore, the crabs probably were not caught later than early December. e. (by analogy to ethnohistorically documented behavior, winter camps were established 1n early winter and aban doned at the beginning of the agricultural season.) f. abandonment would have occurred after the last killing frost, 1n mid-March. 2) One midden 1s said to represent the refuse produced by one nuclear family composed of five persons. a. ( each family generated one and only one midden.) 3) The number of Kcal provided from animal sources can be deter mined by calculating the biomass represented by a shell mid den. a. (the midden is homogeneous.) b. for molluscs meat wei g ht is directly proportional to

PAGE 100

87 sh e 11 we i g ht. c. (remains representing all animal Kcal are present 1n the midden in amounts proportional to their use.) d. ( food remains in the midden were deposited there in the same season 1n which the food was procured and eaten.) 4) The midden biomass divided by 120 days and 5 people represents 12 oz of oyster meat and 4 oz of other meat per person-day. a. "the nutritional value of oysters is roughly equivalent to beef and probably to venison also" (l980a:226). (This 1s not accurate: oysters contain 66 Kcal, 8.4 g protein and 1.8 g fat per 100 g of raw meat while venison contains 126 Kcal, 21 g of protein and 4 g of fat per 100 g of raw meat (Watt and Merrill 1975:42, 65). Very lean cuts of beef are comparable to venison but most beef contains larger amounts of fat and therefore more Kcal. b. the oysters and other meat provided 650 to 800 Kcal per day. (In fact the quantities of meat calculated actually represent about 370 Kcal and 52 g of protein.) c. Kcal from meat would not have satisfied the individual daily requirement, ranging from 1400 to 3700 Kcal, so large amounts of plant food must have been consumed. d. (few plants produce significant edible materials in the period December to March) so "acorns, hickory nuts, maize and beans must have been stored in considerable quantity against the winter needs" (1980a:226).

PAGE 101

88 If one grants that the number of person days assumed 1s realistic and that the midden contents accurately reflect the diet, then it does in fact appear that animal resources provided less than 1/2, perhaps less than 1/4 of an individual's caloric requirement. Note, however, that if one assumes sufficient Kcal from other sources to meet energy needs this quantity of meat 1o.Uuld be adequate for daily protein requirements. Larson concludes that (1980a:226): at the Pine Harbor site, the Guale obtained the bulk of their winter protein from oysters. Deer were hunted, but along with other mammals, fish and mollusk species they provided only the needed supplement of animal food. Plant foods, particularly acorns, hick ory nuts, and maize, were a nutritionally critical and quantitatively significant part of the diet. Clearly, there is direct archeological evidence only for the first and second statements. One might also note that it was caloric content, not protein which was analyzed. The third statement is based on ethnohistoric analogy, ethnographic analogy and ecological data. It is not contradicted by the archeological evidence, nor is it confirmed. In sum, the Pine Harbor analysis 1s a credible interpretation of the data. It was never intended as a model of the H-A method and so it would be unfair to criticize the structure of the argument. However, it 1s a useful exercise to specify what would be necessary to place the Pine Harbor analysis 1n an H-A frame\oOrk. Three primary aspects require modification: 1) Alternative hypotheses. The overall argument would be strengthened if equally plausible alternative hypotheses were

PAGE 102

89 formulated and tested but not confirmed. For example, one might hypothesize that animal resources provided the bulk of the diet. 2) Additional observational predictions. A heavy reliance on plant foods should have observable consequences which could be be predicted and checked. For example, a high proportion of storage containers, charred plant remains, grinding and shel ling implements, etc., would be expected to appear in the artifact assemblage. 3) Stronger and more explicit bridging arguments. These must be internally logical statements. The blue crab claws, for example, provide a terminus ante quern for the beginning of the deposition of the midden. They do not indicate how long before early Dec ember the midden began to accumulate nor how long afterwards deposition continued. This analysis does not invalidate Larson's conclusions. In fact, the lower, recomputed caloric contribution from midden contents simply enhances the argument that resources not represented in the midden must have been important. The note that an adequate protein allowance could be derived from midden resources means that a very large proportion of the daily caloric requirement could have been derived from low protein, non-animal foods. Sunnnary The preceding discussion of model use, ecological models, cultural materialism and archeological inference is intended as a set

PAGE 103

90 of g uidelines and g oals for the present study. Consistent use of Harris' four domains to classify archeological observations should allow greater comparability among studies conducted by reseachers with different perspectives. Use of the H-A method of inductive inference is reconmended as a tool for enforcing objectivity. This method of reasoning can and should be applied to ethnohistoric interpretation as well as archeological data. For example, Grant Jones' interpretation of the Jesuit relations, cited in Chapter 3, could be phrased as a set of hypotheses and tested with observations from doc umen ta ry sources. Jones seems to feel that the Jesuits were falsifying their reports, perhaps to justify to their superiors a notable lack of success in proselytization. If it 1s hypothesized that the Jesuits were simply exaggerating the degree of Guale winter dispersal, then one might predict non-Jesuit reports of winter aggregation, one might predict inconsistencies in other Jesuit-reported ethnographic details, and so on. It would certainly be desirable to rely on the merits of the argument rather than the author's reputation and familiarity with the documents in deciding which of two conflicting ethnohistoric interpretations to accept. Cultural materialism is a broad research strategy which will admit both cultural reconstruction and processual modeling as research goals. "The intent is neither to convert etics to emics nor emics to etics, but rather to describe both and if possible to explain one 1n terms of the other" (Harris 1979:36). Careful categorization of observations and disciplined inference are the keys to successful research within this paradigm.

PAGE 104

CHAPTER 5 MODELS OF COASTAL ADAPTATION Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide a context within which to evaluate the archeological information retrieved at Kings Bay. Discussion begins with a broad consideration of coastal adaptation as an evolutionary development. The spatial and temporal parameters are then progressively narrowed until the late prehistoric period on the southeastern Georgia coast is brought into sharp focus. The chapter concludes with statements of the eight hypotheses which are evaluated in Chapter 8 using data presented in Chapter 7. The Late Emergence of Coastal Adaptations From an evolutionary and worldwide perspective, human adaptation to the coastal environment is a relatively recent phenomenon. Evidence for coastal sites 1s limited to the last 200,000 years with no major human occupation of the littoral until about 10,000 years ago (Fitzhugh 1975: 342). In Africa, Osborn finds no indications of intensive exploitation prior to 70-80,000 B.C. and none for the interval 40,000 to 15,000 B.C. Dated coastal archeological sites in Africa cluster temporally in the 3000 to 1000 B.C. range (1977:~7). It is surprising that this is so, in view of the prevailing belief 91

PAGE 105

92 among anthropologists and others that the coast provides a very permissive environment for human habitation. Numerous authors have pictured the ocean shore as a veritable cornucopia of subsistence resources which are abundant and continually renewed, easily procured and in need of little processing. It is thought that this setting would have been more hospitable to early hominids than environments requiring specialized tools and subsistence strategies. While there seems to be no generally accepted explanation for the late emergence of coastal adaptations, it is also possible that we simply lack evidence for early coastal sites. Pleistocene sea level change and tectonic uplift have produced fluctuations of sufficient magnitude that simple equivalence of past and present coastline configurations cannot be assumed. Alan Osborn has recently attempted to explain why human populations occupied and exploited almost all of the other major portions of the biosphere--including savannas, deserts, tundra, boreal forest, and tropical rainforest--before shifting toward an increased reliance upon marine food resources (1977:70). His argument focuses first on exploding the myth of the "coasta 1 cornucopia," which seems to be a product of oversimplification and generalization. Unfortunately, Osborn's reasoning is based on a similarly broad generalization. He expresses marine productivity in terms of average productivity for the marine hydrosphere, rather than for those portions of the ocean directly exploited by human populations. As is discussed later, estuaries and coastal systems in general are highly productive compared to the open ocean. In terms of net primary

PAGE 106

93 productivity, the oceans as a whole are less than half as productive as the continents, but represent more than twice the area. This, he notes, is a result of limitations to the penetration of solar energy and of the inaccessibility of nutrients which sink to the floor of the ocean; consequently, photosynthesis is restricted to a relatively shallow stratum of water. Localized enrichment due to upwelling currents and to therma Uy-induced and storm-induced mixing of the water colu1IU1 results in limited areas of high productivity. In addition to differing 1n primary productivity, the terrestrial and marine systems differ in the length and structure of their food chains. The biomass produced by most terrestrial systems is available for human consumption in the form of large herbivores. Marine systems generally contain few large herbivores; large mammals readily available for exploitation are mostly carnivores, for example the pinnipeds and the toothed whales. An illustration contrasting te rre stria 1 and ma r1ne re sou re es 1s supplied by Osborn. He computed the primary productive area required to support an idealized hunter/gatherer family of eight in two adjacent arctic environments. With a subsistence strategy based on caribou hunting this group would indirectly exploit 4.88 square km of artic tundra per year. A family of seal hunters on the coast would indirectly exploit the primary production of 694.85 square km of ocean 0977:326-330). The disparity--a factor of more than 140--reflects the differing trophic levels of the two human groups and the structures of the ecosystems they exploit.

PAGE 107

While Osborn intends the illustration to show the importance of com-parable units of analysis for the evaluation of different ecosystems, it does not prove that marine resources are "less-than-optimal." In fact it shows that a strategy which allows harvest of the upper trophic levels of a low productivity system effectively extends the exploitive range (in other words, the catchment basin) of the coastal inhabitant. 94 Additional examples are supplied by Osborn to demonstrate that: 1) marine resources can be energetically expensive to exploit (shellfish); 2) may contain Kcal which cannot be directly metabolized (high fat-to-lean-ratio meats such as walrus; and, 3) may be available only for periods of limited duration (anadromous fish and other migrating species). He concludes that marine resources would have provided a less-than-optimal subsistence base that was not exploited early in human evolution. Since predecessors of Homo sapiens evolved as hunter-gatherers on land, it may have taken !! sapiens a long time to develop appropriate behaviors for coastal resource exploitation. Three selective contexts which may have led to the expansion of terrestrial hunting and gathering economies to include marine resources are suggested (1977:291-298): 1) population expansion above the threshhold at which exploita tion of less-than-optimal resources became advantageous, 2) adaptation to environments which exhibit marked fluctuations in terrestrial production, especially where peak marine and peak terrestrial production are out of phase with each other, and

PAGE 108

95 3) situations in which there is restricted access to terrestrial resources (e.g. seasonal flooding). Regardless of the causality behind the shift to coastal resources, Osborn's perspective is useful in that it raises questions concerning the costs and compromises of a marine-based economy. These questions simply do not exist as long as it is assumed that the sea offers an unrestricted larder. This attitude of healthy skeptic ism is echoed by Barbara Voorhies in a consideration of the view "that permanent occupation took place along water bodies prior to its inception in other regions" 0978:17). She connnents: It seems to me possible that this view has been condi tioned at least in part by the belief that aquatic food resources are in some way either significantly more stationary, abundant, nonseasonal, or predictable than terrestrial resources. In other words, aquatic resources, including nearshore coastal ones, have been viewed as relatively nonfluctuating in availability to humans and, where sufficiently abundant, capable of supporting localized human population aggregates either without agriculture or when plant domestication was in its early stages. This view may be an accurate one, but its assessment requires more detailed resource character ization of both coastal and upland environments than has been assembled to date. 0978: 17) Marine Ecosystem Structure Although global figures for marine primary productivity are useful for general discussion, human populations interact not with the marine system as a whole but with spatially restricted portions of the ocean. Most commonly, interactions occur at the sea/land interface, in continental shelf, bank, estuary and upwelling zones which are very different in character from the open ocean. These differences may be

PAGE 109

96 sunnnarized in terms of the differences between immature and mature ecosystems. Ramon Margalef has provided a synthetic discussion of succession, that is, of the process of maturation in which excess energy is exchanged for biomass as an ecosystem matures (1963, 1968). Mature systems display a constellation of interrelated traits which are a consequence of succession. Stability, structural complexity, length of food chains, number of elements and diversity of elements all tend to increase as an undisturbed system matures. This complex structure is rich in information and more predictable than an immature system; it requires less energy for maintenance and has a high level of homeostasis. Fauna compose a greater proportion of the biomass than flora and tend to be specialized, long-lived, and well-integrated into the ecosystem. Their reproductive strategies involve investment in a small number of well-protected offspring; dispersal is limited and territoriality well-developed. In contrast, species adapted to immature ecosystems are generalized and short-lived, produce numerous offspring, disperse easily and are able to colonize rapidly. Energy utilization is inefficient and there is a high level of free nutrients. These and other attributes of maturing systems are discussed at length by Margalef (1963, 1968). A gradient incorporating these contrasts may be sketched for the marine environment: the open ocean is a mature system while the littoral is very immature; the nearshore falls between these extremes. Coastal waters are prevented from building a mature, stable system by the continual inputs of energy, nutrients and disturbances from the surrounding environment. Riverine sediments, tidal action, currents

PAGE 110

97 and thermal capture by shallow waters, among other factors, contribute to a state of turbulence which maintains a low level of maturity. Some animal species make use of these contrasting systems 1n an interesting way. Individuals of species such as anadromous fish spend their adult lives 1n mature ecosystems but later enter immature systems to reproduce. Offspring are thus able to take advantage of the low competition, high energy characteristics of the less efficiently maintained system for growth during a vulnerable period (Margalef 1963:368-369). As a foundation for model building, I suggest that key features of the settlement/subsistence strategy of a coastal population may be understood by examining the maturity, measured in terms of biomass production per unit area, of the ecosystem(s) to which the adaptation 1s adjusted. In general, coastal adaptations are designed to exploit immature (high productivity) ecosystems. This means that they should exhibit features related to subsistence resources which have prolific, rapid growth reproductive strategies, to a resource assemblage of low diversity and low equitability in which localized monospecific clustering is common, to an environment which undergoes major fluctuations, and to resources which display a generalized, opportunistic adaptive strategy. But few coastal adaptations focus exclusively on marine resources. Indeed, the opportunity to exploit two or more distinct ecosystems is one of the major attractions of the littoral. It is important, therefore, to consider the character of the terrestrial systems near the coast.

PAGE 111

98 A second broad-scale gradient may be of some utility in analyzing differences and similarities between coastal adaptations at different latitudes. Thermal environment and available water together determine the actual amount of solar energy that can be captured by plants; in general energy capture is negatively correlated with latitude. Plant biomass per unit area is greater near the equator than near the poles. What this means for human subsistence is that there are more Kcal available from vegetative production at low latitudes than there are at high latitudes. At high latitudes virtually all Kcal, as well as proteins and other nutrients, must be derived from animal resources. At low latitudes, adequate Kcal to meet energy requirements are easily obtained from vegetative production and it is possible to thrive on a diet which includes just enough meat to supply essential amino acids. Osborn addresses this gradient in a discussion of three hunting strategies: caloric optimization (available Kcal/kg live weight); protein optimization (kg protein/kg live weight); and time optimization (3000 Kcal consumer days/activity day)(l977:135-287). The first should best explain subsistence choices of aboriginal groups in high latitude settings; the second should be applicable ln warmer climates; the third might explain technological choices in either setting. These formulations represent the operationalization of notions about differences in coastal subsistence strategies that have been around for some time. Lee, for example, has suggested that hunting should predominate at high latitudes, fishing in cool temperate zones, and gathering in warm temperate, subtropical and tropical regions (Lee 1968:42). The value of Osborn's strategy

PAGE 112

99 analyses is that they allow comparisons across zoological class and phylum boundaries, e.g. fish can be compared with shellfish or seals. With appropriate information and assumptions, it may be possible to include plant Kcal and proteins in these models. Basic Features of Coastal Adaptations The construction of subsistence strategy models based on environmental and ethnographic data is just the first phase of inquiry into prehistoric coastal adaptations. General models must then be fitted to specific environments and archeological correlates of the expected behaviors must be postulated. The special characteristics of human adaptation to the Middle American maritime environment are explored in a collection of studies edited by Barbara Stark and Barbara Voorhies (1978a). These authors define an adaptation as coastal when there is evidence for "direct involvement of humans within the saltwater ecosystem" 0978a:2). Coastal cultures are expected to exhibit specialized subsistence and economic pursuits and to utilize coastal waters as a transportation network. The case studies suggest a variety of approaches to solving subsistence problems, including reliance on indigenous domesticated animals as a protein reserve (Wing 1978), seasonal settlement shifts between inland agricultura 1 fields and coasta 1 fishing/callee ting stations (Magnus 1978) and exchanges of excess Kcal for excess protein between inland farmers and coastal fishers (Stark and Voorhies 1978). Despite the fact that the unifying rationale for this collection 1s the notion that coastal biotopes differ in some fundamental ways

PAGE 113

100 from noncoastal biotopes, the editors never squarely confront the definition of these differences. It is likely that the temporal ranges of the sites studied and the accompanying differences in technological level are too great to allow useful generalizations. While the particular cases presented are important contributions, the volume fails to establish a groundwork for general study of prehistoric coastal adaptations. A more successful attack on this problem proceeds from a discussion of maritime adaptations at the hunter-gatherer level of technology. In this study, David Yesner sketches ten characteristics of maritime populations and their environment which begin to fill the gap in middle range theory identified above (1980). He defines maritime populations as "those for whom marine foods form the largest portion of the intake of either calories or protein in the diet" (1980:728; emphasis in original). These characteristics are summarized below in Yesner's terms (1980:728-732). Coastal adaptations exhibit: 1) High resource biomass. Specialized portions of the maritime environment exhibit a high availability of edible biomass; upwelling zones and estuaries are particularly productive. Primary productivity is high and the many mammals, birds, fish and shellfish directly dependent on this productivity are concentrated in the coastal zone. 2) Resource diversity. As a consequence of the high density of ecological niches in the coastal zone, seasonal fluctu ations 1n the availability of key subsistence resources

PAGE 114

are buffered by the presence of alternate food items. 3) Environmen ta 1 stability. Both long-term and seasona 1 resource fluctuations occur in the coastal environment but they are less pronounced than for terrestrial biomes at the same latitude. 10 l 4) Unearned resources. Migratory species, which are "unearned" in the sense that the local environment did not support their growth, are often available in coastal zones. 5) Coastal settlement. A linear settlement pattern is typical, with emphasis on location near bays, freshwater outflows, upwellings, shellfish beds and landings. 6) Sedentism. Coastal settlements are often situated centrally with respect to a variety of different subsistence resources; the use of boats commonly extends the size of the area sup porting the central connnunity. The degree of sedentism is greater than would be possible without this settlement pat tern, but is not necessarily complete. 7) Technological complexity and cooperation 1n resource exploi tation. Certain maritime resources (especially "big game") require a considerable amount of cooperation and specialized equipment, both of which affect social organization. 8) Lower dependency ratios. A significant proportion of the diet can be contributed by children and old people (who would otherwise be dependent on the group) through collection of slow game and shellfish.

PAGE 115

9) High population densities. The preceding eight character istics make this aspect of coastal settlement possible. Greater longevity and larger elderly populations may also characterize coastal populations. 10) Territoriality, resource competition, and warfare. These features are more pronounced than among noncoastal hunters and gatherers. 102 Far from being simply a set of working hypotheses, these "common denominators" may be viewed as the structural elements of a general model of coastal adaptation. Important interrelationships are identified and causality can, in some cases, be specified. A diagram based on Yesner's discussion is constructed in Figure 4. Arrows indicate only the more obvious linkages; possible mechanisms are suggested 1n the notes. Most of the criticisms elicited by this model seem to result from Yesner's attempt to provide a general theory of coastal adaptation and specific bridging arguments for middle range theories related to more specific environments in one fell swoop. Basic differences between maritime hunter-gatherers and maritime populations practicing food production in addition to hunting-gathering are difficult to subsume in a single model. Similarly, contrasts between productivity of littoral and interior continental environments which are generally valid at high latitudes are much less marked nearer the equator. Fundamental differences between the subsistence strategies of northern coastal hunters and equatorial coastal hunter-gatherers also strain the model. It seems wise, therefore, to narrow the regional focus

PAGE 116

Figure 4. General Model of Coastal Adaptation Based on Yesner 1980. Notes on linkages indicated by arrows: 1. Seasonal migrations. 2. Both exploit and contribute to high biomass. 3. Derived from a variety of habitats. 4. Closely-packed niches. 5. Productive peaks related to conditions in other habitats. 6. Procurement scheduling around successive peaks in produc tivity of different resources. 7. Central-based foraging. 8. Concentration of a variety of resources in a spatially restricted littoral zone. 9. Different technologies required for different resources. 10. Some cooperative technologies (wiers, large seines) not readily portable. 11. Restricted number of optimal access points. 12. Certain resources obtainable by very young/old. 13. Efficiency; cooperation in technology a precursor to social cooperation. 14. Lower dependency ratio tends to increase potential for population increase. 15. Population pressure creates subsistence, social stresses.

PAGE 117

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTER ISTICS SETTLEMENT/ SUBSISTENCE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE BASE HIGH POP. COASTAL DENSITY AL/TY, COMPETITION, WARFARE LINEAR RESOURCES COMPLEX ...... o . +:'

PAGE 118

before attempting to delineate a more specific adaptive structural frame'loX>rk. The following section presents several specific models which have been advanced to explain adaptive strategies at various points along the east coast of North America. Application of Coastal Adapatation Models 105 Although explicit modeling of the coastal environment 1n relation to human adaptation is a relatively recent addition to the archeological literature, several detailed case studies are already available. Four examples from the east coast of North America are discussed below. These are William Fitzhugh's 1972 survey of Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, a review of the evidence for Eastern New England (Braun 1974), Jerald Milanich's delineation of a Coastal Tradition 10 the southeastern coastal plain (1971a) and Charles Pearson's models for late prehistoric period adaptations on 0ssabaw Island, Georgia (1979). Each study emphasizes a different aspect of the process of adaptation and the geographical and temporal frames vary, but it 1s possible to discern some of Yesner's "common denominators" in each. Following this exposition, two regional models for the Mississippian period will be examined, with reference to application at Kings Bay. Bruce Smith O978b) has formulated a model based on interior meander-belt manifestations of Mississippian culture while Ray Crook has modeled a coastal variant for this period 0978).

PAGE 119

106 Northern Maritime Adaptations Working with information from extensive survey and testing at Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Fitzhugh identified a range of variability within the general adaptation type he calls Northern Maritime 0972, 1975). Four subtypes--Modified Interior, Interior-Maritime, Modified Maritime and Maritime--are defined on the basis of degree of specialization for intensive marine hunting and fishing. A fifth subtype, Riverine, is an adaptation relying primarily on riverside fishing but also exhibiting interior and maritime characteristics. Although cast as types and defined by trait lists, these subtypes should not be viewed as isolated, static constellations of adaptive features, but instead as points on a continuum representing the process of adjustment to a distinctive resource complex. According to Fitzhugh, an interior adaptation was the precursor for all Northern Maritime types. Seasonal shifts tn subsistence base and settlement pattern were the mechanism by which "maritime adaptations were originated by interior hunting peoples beginning to utilize coastal resources or through the increasingly coastal orientation of a rtvenne adaptation" 0975:379). A Northern Maritime Technological Complex, which is found throughout the circumpolar zone, is characterized by elements related to the functional requirements of maritime hunting and fishing, including large skin or wooden boats, tailored waterproof clothing, thong, oil heating, and specialized hunting and butchering implements (1975:378). The greater security resulting from addition of predictable and productive marine resources

PAGE 120

107 to the diet contributed to cultural stability which Fitzhugh credits with the following developments (1975:379): 1. Increased population density 2. Concentration of population within seasonal or permanent settlements 3. Intensification of religious expression through external contact (Ipiutak) and expansion of cultural sphere (Moorehead Cult) 4. A trend towards specialization of labor and religion 5. Expansion of culture area and intensification of ex te ma 1 contact 6. Growth of trade and economic relationships beyond the subsistence area of the society 7. Persistence of industrial traditions and artifact styles 8. Elaboration of social structure (bilateral to clan types) 9. Tendency toward establishment of property rights. It is readily apparent that observations 1 and 2 are subsumed under Yesner's "Sedentism" and "High Population Densities" and that item 9 1s related to "Territorialism, Resource Competition and Warfare." The remainder of Fitzhugh's observations deal with the structural and superstructural realms of culture and he does not elaborate on the mechanisms by which they articulate with the infrastructural adaptive base. If diagramed 1n Figure 4, these developments would fall 1n a fourth and fifth plane and would exhibit complex linkages with the other levels. Since Fitzhugh very clearly states his belief that "the economic and cultural stability of maritime adaptations has frequently provided a basis for further complex cultural developments similar to those seen in agricultural societies" it is to be expected that these developments will be more explicitly modeled in future work. The important feature of Fitzhugh's analysis in the present context is his modeling of subtypes within the general coastal

PAGE 121

108 adaptive type. Since these subtypes are cast as dynamic states rather than as normative entities, the model retains the capacity for explaining processes in several dimensions. These include 1) synchronic adaptive change across the interior-to-coast ecological spectrum, 2) diachronic adaptive change in response to changes in ecological conditions and, 3) diachronic evolutionary change in response to technological innovations. Model flexibility of this nature will be important in considering similarities and differences of interior Mississippian versus coastal Mississippian period adaptations and Coastal Tradition versus Mississippian period adaptations on the coast. Coastal New England A more narrowly focused study, Braun's 1974 paper is a test of two hypotheses concerning the adoption of shellfish exploitation by eastern New Eng land populations in the Late Archaic and Early Wood land periods. The Archaic period economy involved forest hunting, riverine fishing and occasional, probably seasonal, visits to the coast for sea mammal hunting and offshore fishing. In Fitzhugh's terms, this would have been an Interior-Maritime subtype adaptation; some familiarity with coastal resources is implied. One hypothesis, advanced by Ritchie (1969) and Snow 0972), holds that shellfish utilization and subsequent shifts in the species exploited can be explained in terms of a gradual accumulation of knowledge about marine resources and development of appropriate technologies. According to this "learning" model, the most visible

PAGE 122

109 and accessible species were earliest exploited; deeply burrowing and mobile forms were overlooked or unobtainable at first. An alternative hypothesis, offered by Braun, explains the subsistence shifts in terms of environmental changes related to stabilization of sea level and coastlines in the region. In evaluating the learning model, Braun finds that many of the assumptions concerning the accessibility of various shellfish species are incorrect. These inaccurate assumptions appear to have crept into the argument as contemporary emic mental observations (the archeologist's beliefs about the difficulty of obtaining different molluscs) which are treated as prehistoric etic behavioral data (difficulties actually encountered by the Indians in collecting molluscs). Further, the hypothesis fails to account for the fact that marked shifts in the rates of utilization of the four major mollusc species (as recorded by Ritchie) are simultaneous with a marked deceleration in the rate of sea level rise for southern New England. Nor is there any evidence of preferential species utilization in the Late Woodland mollusc assemblage; rather, modem ratios of species occurrence are reflected. Braun's own data show a perfect correlation between a decrease in the frequency of warm-water molluscs in the middens and a major prehistoric decrease in water temperatures. At the same time, exploitation of the cold-water soft clam increased to nearly 100 percent. Even without reviewing all of the evidence and arguments, it 1s clear that the environmental change model is a more efficient explanation of the observed adaptive shifts than is the somewhat

PAGE 123

110 mentalistic learning model. Support for this hypothesis does not exclude the possibility of other plausible hypotheses, but alternatives would have to take into account the observed correlations between environmental changes and behavioral changes. To Braun, the results of this study are suggestive of "local adaptive strategies capable of direct adjustment to variations in the availability of different shellfish species" (1974:594). Opportunistic use of a resource to the extent of its availability is in keeping with the role of molluscs, as modeled by Yesner and others, as a seasonal, back-up resource. In this capacity, molluscs are seen as a critical, but not a staple, resource. The two preceding models treat northern ( circumpolar and cool temperate) coastal adaptations in which resources such as marine mammals and anadromous fish figured prominently. Also, they are concerned with identifying pivotal factors in the process of adaptation to the maritime environment, rather than in detailing the nature of that adaptation. In contrast, the following two secti an i:; examine models formulated for the Southeastern coastal region which focus on the outcome, rather than the origins, of this adaptive process. The Coastal Tradition The concept of a Coastal Tradition in the Southeast is formalized by Milanich in a discussion of the economic continuity which prevailed from the Late Archaic period until the beginning of the Mississippian period (1971a). The Coastal Tradition is defined as a distinctive way

PAGE 124

111 of life in which persistent themes dominate. Archeologically it appears as a complex of traits which occur in specific natural-environmental biotopes. Larson has detailed these biotopes in his description of the Coastal Sector (see Chapter 2 of this study). The tradition is seen as coalescing during the pre-ceramic Archaic with the appearance of key features: increasing sedentism, a marsh-oriented economy and specialized exploitive techniques. Although Milanich does not address the question of whether or not marsh resources would have been available prior to this time, other researchers seem to agree that present-day oyster beds are a product of marsh development that took place following the stabilization of sea level about 5000 years ago (DePratter 1976: 17; Marrinan 1975: 89-90). Thus it appears that when molluscs became available they were utilized almost immediately; the situation is analogous to that proposed by Braun for New England. The salt marshes present along the coast today were the focus and foundation of the Coastal Tradition. They did not exist at the last minimal sea stand of the Pleistocene (18,000 B.P.), when the coastline was about 90 km east of its present position. With a sea level of -100 mat this time, the major rivers of the coastal plain would have traversed what 1s now the continental shelf and run off the edge into the Atlantic. The rocky shoreline, with deep water immediately offshore, would not have permitted development of marshes. During the period from 18,000 to 6000 B.P. the gradual but continuous advance of the sea corresponding to glacial retreat would have flooded and drowned any incipient marshy areas on the continental shelf. Only

PAGE 125

112 with stabilization of sea level and silting in of the lagoons behind the barrier islands were conditions favorable for marsh formation. At the same time, climatic conditions changed so that the xeric savannah-like vegetation prevalent from 18,000 to 6000 B.P. was replaced by coniferous forest. A rising groundwater level resulted in further amelioration of conditions for human habitation as freshwater ponds and streams formed together with live oak hammock and associated biota. While Early and Middle Archaic nomadic hunters probably visited the ocean shore, it was not until the period 6 to 4000 years ago that the saltmarsh/estuary system was sufficiently established to allow a somewhat more sedentary existence and specialization in coastal foraging. At the heart of the Coastal Tradition is the addition of marsh and lagoon fauna to the Archaic period hunting-gathering complex. Milanich infers that efficient exploitation of these resources would have required technological developments such as rakes and baskets for shellfish collecting, use of canoes, and nets and weirs for fishing O97la:214). Availability of these added resources, and the impressive accumulations of mollusc remains that resulted, prompt the inference of increasing sedentism. So, in these fundamental concepts, the Coastal Tradition model conforms to Yesner's general model. More detailed considerations of the initial phases of the Coastal Tradition by DePratter 0976) and Marrinan (1975) are also in agreement with this depiction of the economic base.

PAGE 126

113 Mississippian Period Adjustments No direct investigations of the Wilmington phase on the Georgia coast have yet shed light on the process of transition from Coastal Tradition to Mississippian Tradition. However, Pearson's recent study of settlement and subsistence changes from the Savannah to Irene phases of the Mississippian period has interesting implications. As described in Chapter 3, a shift in settlement from a focused to a diffuse pattern was observed but no change in the subsistence base was detected. Pearson provides a descriptive model of the settlement systems on the basis of his findings. Both systems were characterized by a primate distribution: the Savannah sites included one very large site and a moderate number of medium size sites; the Irene assemblage consists of one moderately large site, several medium size sites and many small sites. The settlement location strategies for the two periods appear to be quite similar: the largest sites are optimally located with respect to forest type, soil type, proximity to the marsh edge and proximity to creeks. In terms of location, the Mississippian period sites adhere very closely to the pattern described by DePratter for the Shellmound Archaic (1976) and by Yesner for coastal adaptations in general (1980). The general strategy is one of minimizing distance to certain environmental amenities which are not uniformly distributed along the coast. Seen against this baseline continuity, the proliferation of small sites in the Irene phase might be viewed as an epiphenomenon rather than a fundamental shift in adaptation. Further investigation of the

PAGE 127

functional nature of the small sites will be required to confirm Pearson's suggestion that these indicate population dispersal to exploit small plots of soil suitable for horticulture. 114 The subsistence pattern models offered by Pearson deal almost exclusively with faunal resources. In view of this fact and of sample size limitations noted earlier, it is not surprising that no differences are observed between the Coastal Tradition, marsh-oriented model of subsistence and Ossabaw Island Mississippian subsistence. The three primary subsistence targets indentified are shellfish (especially oyster), fish, and mammals (especially deer, raccoon and rabbit). Pearson concludes that because there is no significant difference between subsistence patterns, the observed settlement difference was caused by factors other than subsistence change. An equally plausible alternative is that because subsistence parameters related to horticulture were not studied, no difference was observed. The settlement pattern shift might be related to the adoption or intensification of horticulture. The lack of techniques for investigating floral resource utilization in coastal sites remains a major obstacle to understanding coastal adaptation. Mississippian Period Models This section presents a comparison of two models which deal specifically with the Mississippian period but are set in contrasting regional biomes. Both models aim at the integration of subsistence and settlement pattern data, an objective which has been problematic in archeology due to the different dimensions of these two systems.

PAGE 128

115 When settlement patterns are studied, the research 1.s usually conducted at the regional scale and often involves only survey, or survey and limited testing, data. Subsistence analysis, on the other hand, is frequently confined to site scale studies in which there is often intensive excavation but little information about the larger system of which the site 1.s a part. Also, analysis techniques and even basic theoretical orientations frequently differ: subsistence studies tend to borrow from ecology and ethnology while spatial studies look toward geographical theory. It 1s a premise of this study that settlement pattern and subsistence pattern are aspects of human adaptation so intimately interconnected that neither can be understood without reference to the other. Although it is often the case that a single archeological excavation will fail to produce complete data sets for each, the information which is recovered ought to be analyzed within a framework which will accomodate the complete adaptive system. In this manner, the results of subsequent and auxilliary studies can ~e unified with initial findings to produce a holistic study. Interior Mississippian Adaptation In several recent publications, Bruce Smith has discussed elements of a model for the type of Mississippian period adaptive system typical of the interior river valleys of the Eastern deciduous woodlands 0974, 1975, 1978b, 1978c). The following description is taken from his synthesis of these ideas in an analysis of settlement pattern variation (1978b). Smith defines Mississippian as "a cultural

PAGE 129

116 adaptation to a specific habitat situation, and as a particular level of sociocultural integration" (1978b:480). The original appearance and major development of this adaptation occurred within the meander-belt zone of the Lower Mississippi valley while expansion took place chiefly along the major floodplain valley corridors communicating with the Mississippi River. The habitat associated with the Mississippian adaptation has two distinctive components: circumscribed, linear bands of easily tilled alluvial soils and zones of concentrated biotic resources. Smith emphasizes that this is a naturally subsidized system. Waterborne nutrients, in addition to solar energy, support a high primary productivity and a high biomass. As they meander, the rivers carrying the silt, sand and nutrients that replenish the alluvial soils define a complex topography. Vertical and horizontal differentiation, the former due to variation in elevation, soil and drainage, and the latter a consequence of the extensive, curvilinear interface between biotic communities, result in a complex habitat zone adjacent to the alluvial bottoms. Of spatial significance is the isolation of this river-valley habitat from the surrounding uplands by parallel tracts of backswamp. Thus the Mississippian habitat was a circumscribed area containing a finite amount of richly productive land. The niche occupied by Mississippian populations is characterized by a dual subsistence strategy: selective utilization of wild plants and animals and selective replacement of wild vegetation with domesticated plants. Smith lists the five important wild species groups as follows (1978b:483):

PAGE 130

1. Backwater species of fish. 2. Migratory waterfowl. 3. The terrestrial trinity (white-tail deer, raccoon, and turkey). 4. Nuts, fruits, and berries (primarily hickory nuts, walnuts, acorns, persimmons, cherries, plums and hackberries). S. Seed-bearing pioneer plant species (primarily Po lygonum, and Ch enopod ium). 117 The domesticants were, primarily, maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus sp.) and squash (Curcurbita ~) and, secondarily, sunflower (Helianthus annus), marsh elder (Iva sp.) and gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) (1978b:483). The nutritional significance of the first two groups of resources is illustrated with the estimate that fish and waterfowl contributed at least SO percent of the population's protein intake (1978b:485). Having defined "Mississippian" in terms of an adaptive niche occupied by a population with a distinctive (ranked) level of social organization, Smith is able to construct a model which simultaneously summarizes the projected structural relationships among the subsystems of the adaptive system and suggests specific targets for investigation. The essence of the model is contained 1n the following formulation of three variables for the comparison of subsistence-settlement pattern variation among Mississippian populations (1978b:486-487): 1. The total net external energy subsidy that any floodplain-segment support area was able to capture in a form that could be successfully utilized by Mississi pian populations. This variable could be quantified in terms of (a) the total energy subsidy flowing through any floodplain segment (streamflow volume); (b) the total area of well-drained, easily tilled land within the floodplain segment; and (c) the total area of per manent lakes and seasonally flooded low areas occurring within the floodplain segment.

PAGE 131

2. The subsistence pattern of the Mississippian popula tion. This variable could be quantified in terms of (a) the relative importance of different species of plants and animals as energy sources; (b) the degree to which these energy sources were selectively utilized; and (c) the seasonality of exploitation of these energy sources. 3. The settlement pattern of the Mississippian popula tion. This variable could be quantified in terms of (a) the number of different categories of Mississippian settlements in terms of size (rank-size hierarchy) and the relative size of settlements in each of these cate gories; (b) the number of settlements in each size category (rank-size ratio); and (c) the spatial distri bution of settlements within the floodplain segment support area. 118 The model is designed to facilitate comparisons of Mississippian adaptations in terms of environmental variables. A second potential source of variability must be considered: the dynamic tension created by the conflicting settlement strategies of dispersal for efficient resource exploitation versus aggregation for cohesiveness and defense. These opposing forces would operate not only 1n space but through time, being affected by seasonal resource peaks and by longer-term changes 1n population size. The basic response observed in Mississippian settlement systems 1s some version of a fortified nucleus with satellite homesteads. A final major source of differences between systems lies 1n their respective levels of sociopolitical complexity. Commonly, Mississippian settlement systems exhibit a level of organization above the fortified village which functions as a central place and is interpreted as a ceremonial center. Sociocultural complexity may be linked directly to the infrastructure as an index of natural environmental productivity and extractive efficiency but also must

PAGE 132

119 represent a response to the level of stress created by the internal and external social environments. In ecological systems terms, the complexity of a system represents energy invested in information capture. The higher the information content of a system, the more predictable its future states and the less subject it is to extreme fluctuations resulting from external perturbations. Social organization as an adaptive response to problems of making a living 1n the coastal environment can be considered 1n this framework. While it is not likely that variability resulting from structural and superstructural forces will be successfully analyzed until the infrastructural base is accurately modeled, the latter cannot be studied in a vacuum. Smith's model leaves room for quantifying non-material variables once suitable units of analysis are found. In this respect it preserves the potential for holistic modeling in future research. Coastal Mississippian Period Adaptation Ray Crook's model for the Mississippian period subsistence/ settlement system on the Georgia coast was introduced in Chapter 3. The coastal environment is described in Chapter 2 and 1s treated more extensively by Larson 0980a) with special reference to the Mississippian period. Prominent features of significance in assessing the habitat occupied by aboriginal populations include: the ecotonal juxtaposition of terrestrial and marine biomes; the high biomass of the naturally subsidized, ecologically immature estuarine system; the low fertility and patchy distribution of tillable coastal soils; the

PAGE 133

120 linear arrangement of the productive oak hammock biotope along the coastal margin and river courses; the inland waterway as a communication and transportation route; and separation of the coastal sector from the interior coastal plain by the Pine Barrens. The adaptive niche developed by coastal populations is modeled by Crook using ethnohistoric accounts of aboriginal behavior during the Spanish period and ecological data concerning the potential resources of the natural environment. The emphasis is on seasonal scheduling of subsistence pursuits and concomitant shifts in settlement location to accomodate exploitation of spatially separate resources. Social group size is labile, decreasing when resources are scarce or scattered and increasing when resources are abundant or concentrated, or when communal labor is required to exploit them. The elements of the annual subsistence cycle are listed in Table 2 (from a graphic presentation by Crook 1978:47). The archeological correlates for each season may be inferred as follows: 1. Winter. Winter sites are of medium size and are located to provide direct access to the estuary. They show heavy accumulations of oyster and other mollusc shell and include many bones of estuarine fish and deer. 2. Spring. Spring sites are small and are located on Cainhoy or Lakeland sands (the best soils for agriculture). Mod erate mollusc accumulations include many bones of anadromous fish and some of estuarine fish.

PAGE 134

121 3. Summer. Summer sites are large to very large in area but show relatively little accumulation of shell; faunal remains include many estuarine fish. 4. Fall. Fall sites are of medium size and are located on Cainhoy or Lakeland soils (which would have supported oak hammock); they include many bones of deer and much nut processing debris. Table 2. Crook's Annual Cycle for the Sixteenth Century Guale. Season Winter Mid-Dec. to Mid-Mar. Spring Mid-Mar. to July Summer July to Mid-Sept. Fall Mid-Sept. to Mid-Dec. Socia 1 Group Ma tr i lineage One or Two Nuclear Families Aggregated Population Ma tr i lineage Settlement Focus Adjacent to Estuarine System Dispersed in Oak Fore st near Swidden Plots; Possible Excur sions into Interior Areas Strategically Loe ated Town Sites Oak Forest Subsistence Focus Estuarine Fish Molluscs Deer Subsistence Stress: Anadromous Fish Some Molluscs and Estuarine Fish; Stored Foods Swidden Harvests Estuarine Fish Acorns Hickory Nuts Deer

PAGE 135

122 A schematic drawing of a possible spatial arrangement for one annual round is shown in Figure 5. The mainland and island habitats are arranged as mirror images of each other, with the intracoastal waterway as the reflective surface. A high degree of mobility is assumed. Some seasonal movement was undoubtedly by dugout canoe along the rivers, tidal creeks and main estuaries, but much must have been accomplished on foot, following the general north-south trend of the hardwood hammock belt a long the marsh edge and perhaps traveling along the linear, open ecotone between the hammock and the pine flatwoods. It is assumed that storage of horticultural produce would have taken place at the central, large summer settlement and that periodic returns to this location in subsequent months allowed provisioning as well as ceremonies of social renewal. Crook's model is intended as a heuristic device to stimulate hypotheses about the subsistence/settlement system. As such it embodies maximum plausible differentiation and maximum movement among, and specialization of, seasonal settlements. Clearly this did not necessarily always occur. In the vicinity of Kings Bay, the nut-producing forests, the best soils for horticulture and the well-drained bluffs providing access to the estuary are frequently coterminous with the remnant Silver Bluff formation deposits of Cainhoy sand. For this reason, all maJor subsistence activities could have been accomplished within a spatially restricted area, for example, within 10 km of a central estuarine access point. This means that, in some cases, a shift in subsistence focus could have been made without a shift in residential location. Only when population size

PAGE 136

Figure 5. A Hypothetical Coastal Settlement Pattern Based on Seasonal Variations Described by Crook.

PAGE 137

fPINE =t"!. OAK HAMMOCK -spring {{ 1swidden plot A winier fishing c omp AA foll hunting/ nulling comp ....... AAAsummer village N +" AA ATLANTIC OCEAN

PAGE 138

125 exceeded the carrying capacity of the limited number of such optimally located sites would settlement shifts have been required. Comparison of Interior and Coastal Models There are striking parallels which may be drawn between the structures of the the interior and coastal habitats modeled in the foregoing. Five important similarities are noted below: 1) Ecotones. Both environments are centered on a long, convo luted land/water interface which exhibits a diverse array of microhabitats. Consequently, there is a relatively high density and diversity of species in each. 2) Subsidies. Both environments receive a waterborne energy subsidy: in the meander-belt this is an annunal flood deposited charge of silt and nutrients; on the coast this is riverborne nutrients and the turbulence created by tides and currents. 3) Unearned Resources. Important groups of animal species enter both environments for portions of their life cycles and thus are available as unearned resources. Migratory birds traveling the Mississippi flyway are attracted to the oxbow lakes in the meander-belt zone, while along the Atlantic flyway the coastal marshes provide similar resting and feeding places. Fish are a second class of unearned resources occuring in both environments. In the meander-belt zone fish carried from the main channel to oxbow lakes ~y floodwaters are an important resource. On the coast anadromous fish enter the rivers to spawn and other fish

PAGE 139

126 which use the salt marsh as a nursery are seasonally abundant th ere. 4) Circumscription. In both environments the focal high produc tivity area is segregated from its surroundings. In the meander-belt zone parallel tracts of low backswamp bordered by low fertility uplands occur adjacent to the river bottom. Along the coast linear swamps representing relict interdune lagoons parallel the hannnock belt and beyond these lie exten sive areas of low productivity pine flatwoods. 5) Linearity. The overall structure in both the interior and coastal systems is linear (or more exactly, curivilinear) with a major transportation/communication route at the center. These habitat similarities are impressive but a maJor difference may have nearly equal weight in determining niche dimensions. The disposition of the energy subsidy received by the two environments 1s radically different and this has implications for the ability of human populations to harness and manage the resulting high productivity. In the meander-belt zone the subsidy of flood deposited silt and nutrients fostered a high level of vegetative production. This productivity was managed by selective replac ement of naturally occuring species with domesticants. On the coast, however, the subsidy was received by the sa ltma rsh/e stuary system where it fostered a high level of vegetative production by the Spartina grasses which was only available to the human population after one or more transfers up the food chain. The shellfish and fish resources supported by this

PAGE 140

subsidy could be harvested, but not managed, by aboriginal populations. Thus, despite the high productivity, there was a technological limit on enhancement of this naturally subsidized system. 127 Further increasing the productivity differential between the subsidized alluvial soils of the interior and the unsubsidized coastal soils is the inherently low horticultural potential of the latter. Coastal soils are sandy, low in ferti.lity, and poor in water capacity. Also, their distribution 1s often patchy so that only a small total area suitable for cultivation occurs 1n any one locality. Aboriginal horticulture thus relied on a system of small, scattered gardens vulnerable to drought which were quickly exhausted and required long fallow periods. In contrast to the interior potential for intensive and extensive cultivation, the energy contribution of coastal cultigens was strictly limited. Ultimately, some balance between level of reliance on horticulture and level of population density would have to have been achieved. Although the same major species of terrestrial fauna were present 1n both habitats, evidence points to considerably different hunting patterns. Of the "terrestrial trinity" important at interior Mississippian sites, all three members were available to coastal Mississippian period populations. However, while deer and raccoon occur regularly in coastal sites, turkey is rare. Migratory birds, which together with fish account for over half of the animal protein at interior sites (B. Smith 1978b:485), seem to have been pursued only rarely on the coast. Seasonally available fish were heavily exploited

PAGE 141

128 on the meander-belt but anadromous species on the coast were not similarly targeted (Reitz 1982:2). Collectable saltmarsh fauna, including shellfish, crabs and turtles (especially Malaclemys terrapin), composed a significant portion of the coastal diet. It may be speculated that animals such as fre shwa te r mussels, crayfish and turtles made a similar contribution at interior sites but suitable comparative data are lacking. Collected flora are presumed to have composed significant portions of the diet in both environments, but preservation problems prevent quantification for comparison. I would expect that the wild vegetative production of the meander-belt would have been considerably greater than that of the coast, due to superior soil fertility and periodic enrichment. Several major differences are noted in the above discussion. The single most important is the combination of low soil fertility and scattered soil zone distribution which would have limited horticultural potential on the coast as compared to the interior. Since significant energy input from maize horticulture is the sine qua non of the Mississippian adaptation and the material basis for further characteristic cultural elaborations, it is questionable whether it is useful to use the term Mississippian with reference to late prehistoric coastal populations, except as employed here: to indicate their temporal association. Hypotheses As stated earlier, this study centers on an evaluation of a recently proposed model for the Mississippian period

PAGE 142

129 subsistence/settlement adaptation in coastal Georgia. The model itself is used as a starting point for generating hypotheses to be tested with data from Kings Bay and from other recent excavations in the area. A review of previous research (Chapter 3) provides the context within which plausibility of individual hypotheses may be judged. Several preliminary assumptions are stated below. These assumptions could also be treated as auxiliary hypotheses to accompany specific research hypotheses as needed, but they are placed here to avoid needless repetition. Following each hypothesis, bridging arguments and observational predictions are listed. In most cases the number of observational predictions exceeds the expected number of comparative observations from the field data. Not all predictions can be tested with the data at hand. These "extra" predictions are left as part of a framework for holistic inquiry which can be reused and expanded. In lieu of parroting the tired phrase "more research 1.s needed," these unevaluated observational predictions are intended to specify exactly what categories of data should be targeted in future research. Assumptions The primary assumptions underlying the research hypotheses have to do with extractive efficiency. A cost-benefit optimization strategy is reflected, with distance from residence to resource the major cost taken into account. Different staple resources with different seasonal maxima of productivity are assumed to be spatially segregated in the coastal habitat.

PAGE 143

130 Archeological sites are cumulative records of past behavior and similar behavioral choices can be made for different reasons. Sites, therefore, may embody material correlates of similar choices made at different times or of similar choices made for different reasons. For example, a site consisting of debris from repeated occupations over many years might include a village established at a central location for accessibility and camps located by an estuary for oystering. Because of these possibilities and because multiple causality (a single choice made for several reasons) is also likely, predictions are often phrased in terms of presence/absence, rank order, or relative occurrence (i.e. seldom, often). Quantitatively specified predictions are not always used. It is widely assumed that present day environmental conditions are not qualitativly different from those that prevailed in the late prehistoric period. Thus growth and behavior characteristics of present day flora and fauna may be used to estimate prehistoric foodstuff availabilities. Quantitative alterations are recognized, for example in wildlife abundance, native vegetation, water and air quality and extirpated species, but in general it is considered possible to accurately project precontact conditions. Except when storage of food or curation of materials is specified, it is assumed that animal remains at a site represent animals that were killed and used during the season that the site was occupied. Wild and domestic plant remains are assumed to represent food harvested, processed and used at the site.

PAGE 144

The following hypotheses represent attempts to frame specific aspects of a system in terms that will allow an evaluation of the statement. There is no requirement that the hypotheses be independent. In fact, it is assumed that some of them reflect related, interlocking parts of a single adaptive system. The first two hypotheses are general statements about coastal adaptation rather than specific Mississippian period model derivatives. They will be evaluated using survey data as well as information from site specific excavations. Hypothesis I 131 Optimally located areas were selected for aboriginal settlement. Bridging Arguments: Optimal location may be defined in terms of access to important resources, including: the oak hammock vegetative community ; a well-drained living area; a source of fresh water; saltmarsh animals; estuarine animals and transportation routes. If environmental and technological level are held constant, the pattern of settlement selection should be repeated through time. Observational Predictions: 1. Aboriginal sites will often be found in optimal locations. 2. Aboriginal sites will seldom be found tn nonoptimal locat i ons.

PAGE 145

3. Largest aboriginal sites will often be found 1n optimal locations. 4. Small aboriginal sites will often be found 1n nonoptimal locations. 5. Multicomponent occupations will often be found 1n optimal lac at ions. 6. Single component occupations will often be found 1n non optimal locations. Hypothesis II Optimally productive resources were selected for by the aboriginal subsistence strategy. Bridging Arguments: Productivity may be defined in terms of a composite score for characteristics of the individual resource, including: 1. Nutritional value using a protein or calorie scale. 2. Availability combined search and pursuit time or exploitation costs including technological and organi zational investments. 3. Abundance individual size, number of individuals and density of occurrence. 4. Yield net usable nutrients minus processing cost. 5. Other considerations predictability, personal risk, storability, etc. 132

PAGE 146

Observationa 1 Predictions: 1. High productivity resources will be found at most sites. 2. Low productivity resources will be found at few sites. 3. High productivity resources will be found in large quantities. 133 4. Low productivity resources will be found in small quantities. 5. High productivity resources will be found in most temporal components. 6. Low productivit y resources will be found 1n few temporal components. The third, fourth and fifth hypotheses are site-specific questions which compare selected aspects of the Killion Site excavation data with expectations based on the model. Hypothesis III A. The Killion Site was a nuclear family encampment. B. The Killion Site was a lineage encampment. C. The Killion Site was a village. Bridging Arguments: The occupation area observed is, 1n part, a function of size of resident group. Multiple occupations of a settlement location wi 11 be at least partially overlapping so that both densit y and area increase through time. The total area will be less than the sum of the areas of individual components. The nuclear

PAGE 147

134 family constituted the minimal unit of social integration. Minimal spatial units of occupation correspond to minimal social units. Incrementation of total area occupied occurs as social units are incremented, rather than as individuals are added. Community integration above the level of the minimal social unit will be reflected in a) patterning of minimal spatial units, and b) differentiation in form of spatial units. Occu pation areas corresponding to different levels of community integration will be modally, rather than continuously, distributed due to a) overlapping reoccupations and b) unit incrementation of size rather than continuous growth. These modal clusters will be visible in a plot of occupation against number of sites. Obse rv at iona 1 Pre diet ions: A. (Nuclear Family) 1. A single social unit correlate will be 1n evidence (a single structure, hearth, or refuse midden). 2. The total occupation area will be small (on a scale derived from Pearson's settlement data). 3. No formal differentiation of spatial units will be seen (i.e. specialized structures, palisades, earth works). 4. No formal patterned spatial arrangement will be disc ernab le.

PAGE 148

135 B. (Lineage) 1. Several (more than one and probably fewer than six) social unit correlates will be in evidence (structures, hearths, or re fuse middens). 2. The tota 1 occupation area wi 11 be moderate ( on a scale derived from Pearson's settlement data). 3. No formal differentiation of spatial units will be seen (i.e. specialized structures, palisades, earth works). 4. A formal patterned arrangement of structures might be observed. C. (Village) 1. Many (more than five) social units will be 10 evidence (hearths, structures, or refuse middens). 2. The total occupation area will be large (on a scale derived from Pearson's settlement data). 3. Specialized or communal structures will be evident. 4. A formal patterned arrangement of structures is likely to be observed. 5. A cemetery or burial mound will be present. Hypothesis IV A. The Killion Site was occupied during the cold season (mid-December to mid-March). B. The Killion Site was occupied during the warm season (mid-March to mid-December).

PAGE 149

136 C, The Killion Site was occupied year round. Bridging Arguments: Due to the relatively mild coastal climate, the frost/frostless division of the seasons reflects the most significant environ mental constraints on food supply and thus on aboriginal economic behavior. Food production, as well as food gathering, was affected by this seasonal change. Observational Predictions: A. (Cold Season) 1. Animals which leave the estuary 1n cold weather will be absent (blue crab, sea catfish, red drum, shark, tripletail). 2. Estuarine animals which adjust their growth rate to the water temperature will reflect a cold-weather season of death (quahog clam, fish scales). 3. Evidence, on deer crania, of shed antlers will be present. 4. Ages of subadult deer will reflect a cold-weather season of death. 5. Age of other young animals will reflect a cold-weather season of death. 6. Migratory birds which spend the winter 1n the vicinity might be present (Appendix A). 7. Migratory birds which spend the summer 1n the vicinity will not be present (Appendix A).

PAGE 150

137 8. Refuse from plant foods will be absent. 9. Horticultural tools will be absent. B. (Warm Season) 1. Animals which leave the estuary during cold weather will be present (blue crab, sea catfish, red drum, shark, tripletail). 2. Estuarine animals which adjust their growth rate to the water temperature will reflect a warm-weather season of death (quahog clam, fish scales). 3. Attached antlers on deer crania will be observed. 4. Age of subadult deer will reflect a warm-weather season of death. 5. Ages of other young animals will reflect a warm-weather season of death. 6. Migratory birds which spend the winter 1n the vie inity will be absent (Appendix A). 7 Migratory birds which spend the summer 1n the vicinity will be present (Appendix A). 8. Remains of plant foods wi 11 be present. 9. Horticultura 1 tools will be pre sent. C. (Year Round) 1-13. Positive indicators of occupation for both cold and warm-weather seasons will be present: A2, A3, A4, AS, A6, Bl, B2, B3, B4, BS, B7, B8, B9. 14. Structures might be present. 15. Formal burial arrangements might be present.

PAGE 151

Hypothesis V A. The principal economic activity at the Killion Site was fishing. B. The principal economic activity at the Killion Site was horticulture. C. The principal economic activity at the Killion Site was hunting. Bridging Arguments: 138 Assuming that, as modeled by Crook, there were distinct seasonal shifts in the economic foci of Mississippian populations, these might be discernible in assemblages from short term occupations. The site location should reflect its primary function and the artifacts, by-products and refuse will be weighted toward associated activities. Ob se rv at iona 1 Predict ions: A. (Fishing) 1. Site location will provide immediate access to the estuary. 2. Site location might not provide optimal access to good soils for horticulture. 3. Fish bone will not be absent from food remains. 4. Food remains will include significant amounts of fish bone.

PAGE 152

5. Bone tools used in fishing might be present (hooks, leister points). 6. Evidence of nets (e.g. net weights), traps, or weirs might be found. 7. Fish drying racks might be represented. 8. Canoes and canoe manufacturing implements might be in evidence. B. (Horticulture) 1. Site location might not be convenient for estuarine access. 2. Site location will provide immediate access to good horticultural soil. 3. Food remains will include evidence of cultigens. 4. Maize processing tools might be present (husking pins, shelling graters, mealing implements). 5. Fauna! remains might include appreciable amounts of "garden hunted" species ( deer, rabbit, raccoon, box turtle). 6. Hoes might be present. C. (Hunting) 1. Site location may be less than optimal for estuarine access. 139 2. Site location may be less-than-optimal for horticulture. 3. Faunal remains will include major amounts of hunted terrestri a l ~nimals (deer, raccoon, rabbit, turkey). 4. Deer bone will be present.

PAGE 153

5. Projectile points might be pre~ent (stone, bone). 6. Butchering and processing tools might be present (scrapers, knives). 140 The next set of three hypotheses is also site specific; basic parameters of the model are examined in light of information from the Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site. Hypothesis VI Savannah component size 1s established through application of the h y potheses, arguments and predictions developed for III above to the late prehistoric period component at 9Caml71A. Hypothesis VI I Savannah component seasonality is established through application of the hypotheses, arguments, and predictions developed for IV above to the late prehistoric period component of 9 Caml71A. Hypothesis VI II Savannah Component function is established through application of the hypotheses, arguments and predictions developed for V above to the late prehistoric period component of 9 Caml71A. Summary This chapter has presented the concept of coastal adaptation in terms of a series of models which were progressivel y more specific, detailed and relevant to the data from K in gs B a y It was seen that

PAGE 154

141 adaptation to the littoral is a relatively recent development and that it was the ecological immaturity of the coastal setting which made settlement there attractive to human populations. In temperate latitudes the major manifestation of this immaturity is high productivity in the form of fish and shellfish. This is the basis of the "marsh-oriented" economy which appeared in the Late Archaic period and persisted at least until the beginning of the Mississippian period and probably until European contact. Important similarities between the M ississippian culture of the interior Southeast and the Mississippian period adaptations on the coast were highlighted by contrasting the respective models developed by Bruce Smith and Ray Crook. Crook's model was used to generate a series of hypotheses to be tested through comparison with the information from Kings Bay. These propositions address aspects of the data base which are reasonably well-represented 1n the available sample. Other aspects of the coastal adaptation will be discussed 1n a l e ss formal manner following the hypothesis evaluations 1n Chapter 8. The next chapter provides a summary of the methods which were used to collect the primary data for this stud y Two points are emphasized. First the assemblage is the product of an intermediate stage of research: secondary testing. Characteristics of the sample size and distribution limit the detail in which research questions can be formulated. Second, the sites are surface shell middens which have undergone extensive post-depositional transformations as a result of natural forces, aboriginal occupations, historic settlement and modern development. These transformations also affect the '. < i nds of questions which may be posed with reasonable expectation of useful results.

PAGE 155

CHAPTER 6 METHODS Methods employed in data recovery and analysis are documented in this chapter. In some cases the approaches described here were found to be inadequate or inappropriate for the intended purpose, given the depositional conditions encountered in the field. Recommendations for alternative approaches in future work at these and similar sites have already been made (Wayne and Smith 1980; R. Smith et al. 1981). However, since the choices which were made affect the kinds and amounts of information available for analysis in the present study, they will be described. Two important factors determine the kinds and amounts of information derived from a site and the types of questions that can be addressed using the resulting data. These factors are: 1) the level of research undertaken and 2) the nature of the site itself. The latter will be addressed in the first section of this chapter. The Nature of the Sites Coastal shell midden sites present a special set of data recovery and interpretation problems, many of which as yet lack satisfactory solutions. The problems and limitations of shell midden investigations in general were reviewed in the secondary testing report. These include: poor preservation of plant remains; extreme 142

PAGE 156

143 fragmentation of faunal remains; differential preservation of faunal classes; difficulty in defining universally appropriate recovery techniques; cost and time required for analysis; and, consequently, practical limits on the size of the sample which may he studied (R. Smith et al. 1981: 156-166). In addition to the above, the Kings Bay sites presented special difficulties with repect to determining relationships among different midden components. These relationships are the end product of depositional history and structure and may be approached as a spatial problem. Several types of shell deposits commonly occur along the Georgia coast. These include annular rings, large circular and oval mounds, linear heaps, sheet middens and clusters of small, individual mounds. The two sites used in this study fall into different categories: the Killion Site is a cluster of small, discrete mounds while the Kings Bay Site is an extensive sheet midden. An important consideration is whether these are functionally different kinds of deposits or simply different stages in the same depositional process occurring at different times and in different places. Followin g presentation of the testin g results, it will be apparent that the Kings Bay Site can be construed as the result of hundreds of small occupations. These occurred at different times, were adjacent, partiall y overlapping and superimposed, and ultimately were leveled by natural processes and by historic and modem agricultural and land development processes. Among the depositional and postdepositional processes which are bel i eved to h ave occurre d at the Kin g s Bay Site are those in T able 3

PAGE 157

144 below. It is obvious that all of these types of transformations would have affected the structure of the midden as it existed just prior to secondary testing. In addition to cultural transformations, natural processes affecting the spatial relationships within the site may be delineated. As mentioned earlier, areas of the site targeted for intensive testing were selected so as to eliminate as many as possible of the transformations attributable t0 ~istoric period and modem occupations. That is, "relatively undisturbed" sections were chosen. It should be noted that aboriginal occupations account for no small proportion of the cultural transformations which may have affected any deposit. It is doubtful that there really exists, or ever existed, an entity which can be labeled an "undisturbed" site. Recognition of these transformation processes is, then, a first step toward controlling variability in the sample which is available. Natural processes affecting midden formation may be broadly categorized as physicochemical, animal, and plant forces. \ -load and Johnson have reviewed a variety of turbation processes and their effects on archeological sites (1978:315-381). Of the forces operating in the heavily wooded Kings Bay vicinity, tree root action and tree falls probably account for a large portion of the postdepositional rearrangement of middens. Except for removal of food refuse by scavengers, most natural disturbances would have resulted 1n vertical or limited horizontal movement, leaving general spatial patterns intact. Weathering of sherds lying exposed on the midden surface (rather than being buried and protected by sand and humus) may account for a rather high proportion of unidentifiable sherds in the

PAGE 158

Table 3. Midden Formation Processes. Cu ltura 1 Natura 1 Depositional Aboriginal discard, loss, burial activities. Reuse of discarded mater ials. Abandonment. Redistribution and trade, manufacture, butchering, food processing, construc tion. Traffic, construction, fires. Weathering of exposed materials. Floral turbations, especi ally tree falls. Scavenging animals. Postdeposit iona 1 Aboriginal reoccupation: traffic, construction, fires. Recycling of 145 shell, stone, sherds. Historic period occupations: traffic, construction, clear ing and cultivation. Mining shell for tabby and r oa d bu i 1 d in g Recent period occupations: traffic, construction, road building, pine cultivation. Po thunt ing. Weathering, leaching, disaggregation. Floral turbations, espec ally tree falls. Faunal turbations, especi ally hurrowing invertebrates, tortoises, gophers, rabbits. assemblage. Warm temperatures, heavy rainfall and excessively well-drained soils would have produced a fluctuating moisture content which resulted in rapid decay and leaching of plant materials. Conditions for bone preservation, however, are ameliorated by the presence of shell which buffers the natural acidity of the soil. The net effect of these forces, acting on the kinds of materials and patterns of deposition at the Kings Bay Site, is a large sheet deposit which exhibits little vertical stratification of the shell

PAGE 159

146 zone. Many levels contain temporally mixed artifact material and few features are distinguishable. At the Killion Site, the pattern of deposition is more distinct due to lack of reoccupation but the deposits underwent heavy weathering and leaching. In view of the nature and structure of the sites and samples available, methods emphasizing quantitative analysis of elements and interpolation of general patterns were adopted. Two primary topics were addressed using these methods: spatial patterns of pottery distribution and patterns of subsistence resource selection. These phenomena are evident in different archeological dimensions (space and form) and demand different methods of detection, identification and analysis. Ultimately, they are major components of the subsistence/settlement system and may be reaggregated as the basis of an adaptive pattern. Spatial patterns of artifact type distributions (primarily pottery types) within the Kings Bay midden were assumed to reflect macroactivity areas representing the horizontal zones occupied by temporally distinct populations. It 1s assumed that the limits of a ceramic scatter represent most of the domestic living area associated with an occupation. In this respect a living area 1s analogous to the parameter "house floor area" which can !:Je measured 1n sites with definable domestic structures. However, since the temporal unit which can be defined using pottery from these contexts is on the order of 200 to 300 years, the domestic activity areas are "macro" in a temporal, as well as spatial, sense. They represent cumulative cultural patterns, not individual communities.

PAGE 160

14 7 The method of spatial pattern detection employed for the Kings Bay Site was based on the assumption that materials originally deposited together will remain more closely associated (through most transformation processes) than materials resulting from separate depositional processes. Clusters of paired ceramic attributes were defined on the basis of pottery type descriptions which have heen established as temporally meaningful at other coastal sites. Total sherd counts for each cluster were then summed for each test unit. Unit totals were plotted as density distribution contour maps using the SYMAP package (Dougenik and Sheehan 1975). The resulting spatial clusters are compared on a descriptive level. Given the sample size (one 2-m square unit from each 25-m square grid unit or 0.64 percent), the interpolated portion of these patterns is quite extensive. Subsistence pattern analysis for the Kings Bay Site is accomplished in terms of vertebrate faunal abundance measures as an indicator of formal variation within the assemblage. The pattern observed at Kings Bay is compared with the patterns seen at other Mississippian sites on the coast and at one Coastal Tradition site from the Late Archaic period. Evaluation is based on MNI as a means for ranking the importance of different species and species groups. It is these ordinal level series which are actually compared. Level and Kinds of Data Generated It is also important to consider the level of investigation undertaken as it relates to the nature of the data base at hand. Archeological research can be viewed as a dynamic process which is

PAGE 161

148 hierarchically structured. The position within this hierarchy of a particular phase of research determines the questions that can be posed and the detail with which they can be answered (R. Smith et al. 1981: 145). Reconnaissance and survey activities belong to the discovery phase of research, in which sites are found and assigned preliminary descriptions. Samples of artifacts are usually small and are analyzed for presence or absence of types which are reliable chronological and functional markers. Appropriate research questions address the average spatial, temporal and formal dimensions of human activity at the site level of aggregation and in a regional context. Secondary testing, as employed at Kings Bay, constitutes the exploration phase of research. The focus of investigation is narrowed to the site with attention to ranges of variability in spatial, temporal and formal aspects. Emphasis is placed on extensive, rather than intensive, sampling and the composite sample size is still a small part of the total site area. Procedures can usually be designed to obtain representative collections of most categories of data. However, associations among categories, especially spatial associ?tions, are likely to be poorly predicted. Delineation of any spatial features which may be de tected, such as activity areas and structures, usually must await more intensive excavation. Questions appropriate for this level of research deal with the temporal span and relative intensities of occupations, the range of activities represented and detection of site-wide spatial patterns.

PAGE 162

149 A third level of archeological research involves data recovery planned according to the results of the discovery and exploration phases. One might label this stage "exploitation," in order to emphasize the extractive but destructive character of major excavations. Research questions, sample size and categories of data recovered are highly variable, depending on the potentials demonstrated in earlier stages of research. This study is based upon information from the discovery and exploration stages of research at Kings Bay. As such, it treats general relationships among widely distributed traits. Samples are relatively small and from widely dispersed points; they are adequate for detection of large scale pattern but not for close delineation of pattern detail. Methods Survey Survey methods and results are briefly reviewed in Chapter 1. The exploration strategy combined systematic and judgmental sampling and is believed to have located all of the maJor and most of the minor residential sites at Kings Bay. Secondary testing samples confirmed the temporal range predictions which had been made on the basis of survey samples; only one unpredicted component was discovered in the ten sites tested.

PAGE 163

150 Secondary Testing Field Methods Excavation units were placed according to a site-wide grid laid out using a theodolite and chain. Vertical control was maintained by line level and hand tape, with excavation depths measured from the highest comer of each unit. Vertical relationships among units can be compared using topographic maps but, in general, this was not very informative because small variations in elevation were masked by other differences: the sites are shallow and extensive; the test pits were widely dispersed; recent surface disturbances a re extensive; and topographic relief 1s minimal. The dispersal of test pits across each site was designed to obtain information about the extent and nature of the entire deposit. Placement was systematic and aligned, with occasional minor deviations from grid intersection points 1n order to avoid large trees. A 10-m grid was used at the Killion Site and a 25-m grid at the larger Kings Bay Site. The collections used in this study are derived from a total of 99 excavation units located 1n the two extensively tested portions of the Kings Bay Site and from 32 excavation units distributed over the entirety of the Killion Site. Procedures used to identify the relatively undisturbed sections of the Kings Bay Site which were then subjected to extensive testing are detailed in the secondary testing report (R. Smith et al. 1981:381-393). Since much of the information collected in this preliminary assessment was used primarily for management purposes, it is not further discussed here.

PAGE 164

15 l The standard excavation unit selected for secondary testing was a 2-m square. Test pits were excavated 1n arbitrary 10-cm levels within naturally defined zones so that proveniences could be recombined as either natural zones or arbitrary levels, as appropriate for analysis. Excavation continued until at least one culturally sterile level had been dug. Soil was removed by shoveling off a few cm at a time; extremely hard-packed oystershell midden was first loosened with a rake. All fill was screened through 1/4 1n. mesh except for feature fill and column samples, which were screened through 1/8 1n. mesh with the soil retained for water screening. Small samples of this fine-screened soil were reserved for chemical analysis (pH and Ca). It should be noted that the mesh sizes and resulting sample fractions are described 1n English units of measurement. Although 1/4 in. and 1/8 in. meshes are the functional equivalents of 0.635 cm and 0.3175 cm meshes, respectively, the specific choice of sample fraction was based (in part) on available sizes of hardware cloth. Field specimens were collected from three types of contexts: levels, features and column samples. Level materials retained include all artifacts and bone larger than 1/4 in. and all Busycon spp. shells. Other molluscs were discarded unless evidence of cultural alteration (e.g. perforation or incising) was noted. In addition to these standard samples, features and column samples were processed to yield soil samples (100 percent) for botanical and chemical analysis and shell samples for mollusc analysis ( 100 percent of material larger than 1/4 in.).

PAGE 165

15 2 Initial processing of the field specimen collections was accomplished at a field laboratory located in the city of St. Marys about 9 km south of Kings Bay. Artifacts were washed, boxed, labeled for permanent curation, rough sorted and weighed. Bone was brushed clean and packed for transfer to the zooarcheology laboratory. Shell samples were rinsed, dried and packed; soil samples were washed through window screen, dried and boxed. Laboratory turn-around time was less than one week, so it was possible to use preliminary analyses to assess progress and revise strategies. At the close of the field season, all samples had been prepared for detailed analysis and a catalog showing the kinds and amounts of materials recovered was available. Secondary Testing Laboratory Techniques Laboratory analysis of materials from the Kings Bay and Killion Sites was accomplished in two concurrent operations. Although animal bone was separated from the remainder of the materials in each field specimen collection and 1s curated in a different department of the museum, faunal collections retain the identifying number originally assigned in the field to all materials from that provenience. Vertebrate faunal materials Faunal remains were identified by zooarcheologists working under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Wing of the Department of Natural Sciences, Florida State Museum. Analysis and interpretation of these

PAGE 166

15 3 data was provided by Dr. Elizabeth Reitz utilizing methods summarized below (R. Smith et al. 1981: 135-142). Identifications of faunal materials were made using standard zooarcheological procedures and the comparative skeletal collection of the Florida State Museum. Species lists were developed for each site indicating bone fragment counts, Minimum Numbers of Individuals (MNI), bone weight in grams, and biomass. MNI was determined for each feature individually and for sheet deposits collectively using paired elements as well as age. Biomass was calculated using allometric scaling as discussed by Wing and Brown (1979) and by Reitz (1979b). The constants used in the allometric formulae are tabulated in the secondary testing report (R. Smith et al. 1981: 140). Artifact assemblage Artifact analyses were performed by the author except for Busvcon spp. and mollusc sample measurements, which were carried out b y ass is tan ts under direct supervision by the author. Only a few of the infinite number of measurable attributes of each artifact were selected for anal y sis. Those recorded in this study were chosen to reflect the most widely distributed traits, i.e. those which could be observed on the largest number of specimens. Thus, while rim form can be a highly informative attribute, it was not recorded since rim sherds of sufficient size to allow its observation constituted a very small fraction of the assemblage. On the other hand, paste inclusions and surface treatment, which can be observed for any sherd were universally recorded. Since p aste inclusions and

PAGE 167

154 surface treatment are the maJor criteria used to assign sherds to traditional ceramic types, an analysis scheme was developed to record both but allow either independent sorting or type name assignment. This approach permitted comparison of Kings Bay data with information from other archeological studies from the Georgia coast. Variables recorded for each class of artifact are discussed 1n more detail below. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software package was employed as a data base management tool (Helwig and Council 1979). Computing was done throu g h the facilities of the Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC) located on the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville. Using the rough sort data compiled during field laboratory analysis, a master file was created which included complete provenience information and a breakdown of artifacts by material category. Separate data files, keyed to the master file by field specimen number, were then developed for each category. Standard recording forms were designed, in order to elicit consistent responses in a format which could be entered directly into a computer file. These analysis forms are reproduced in the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:Appendix E). Ceramic analysis. A majority of the potsherds collected were aboriginal earthenwares; a minority group of Spanish wares was also recovered. Spanish potsherds were identified using the type collection housed at the Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, and with reference to works by Goggin (1960, 1968) and Lister and Lister 0974). In view of the limited number and variety of types encountered, no special form was developed for this cate g orv.

PAGE 168

15 5 Aboriginal pottery was analyzed in the following manner. Each field specimen collection was sorted into two groups: sherds having no dimension greater than 1/2 in. (13 mm) and sherds larger than 1/2 in. Members of the first group were considered too small for analysis of surface treatment because design elements are often larger than 1/2 1.n. Since total sherd counts and weights for each field specimen were available from rough sort data, the small sherds were discarded without further analysis. Each of the remaining sherds was then examined individually. A fresh break was made along one edge with a pair of pliers. This surface was scanned under 70X magnification using a binocular microscope. Aplastic inclusions in the paste were noted and their average size was measured by compar1.son with an eyepiece micrometer. On the basis of examination of at least three fields, a decision was made as to the identity and size of the major aplastic. Aplastic inclusion categories are defined in Table 4. This attribute was recorded prior to examination of surface treatment, 1.n order to avoid biasing the decision on the basis of expected paste characteristics. Once the entire field specimen collection had been grouped according to paste category, each subgroup was sorted into surface treatment categories as defined in Table 5. For each bivariate subgroup, the total number of sherds and the number of rimsherds were recorded. A brief discussion of terminology is warranted at this point. It 1.s generally acknowledged that traditional coastal pottery types are recognized chiefly on the basis of "temper" and "decoration," ( e.g.

PAGE 169

156 Table 4. Aboriginal Ceramic Paste Inclusions Observed 1n Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages. Variable Name FIBER FIBERSND SPO~E SPNGSAND FINE SAND SAND SANDGRIT FEWGRIT MANY GRIT CL.\Y CLAY SAND De fin it ion Fiber Inclusions. Vermiculation occurs in otherwise fine, dense paste. Fiber and Sand Inclusions. Quartz granules less than 0.5 mm 1n diameter occur regularly in vermiculated paste. Sponge Spicule Inclusions (Chalky). Clear, needle-shaped spicules of fresh water sponges, observable under 70X magnification, occur throughout paste. Sponge Spicule and Sand Inclusions. Quartz granules less than 0.5 mm in diameter occur regularly at a rate of more than 3 per field, together with sponge spicules. Fine Sand Inclusions. Quartz granules less than O .2 mm 1n diameter occur regularly in fine, compact paste. Sand Inclusions. Quartz granules, predominantly in the range 0.2 to 0.5 mm diameter, occur regularly. Sand and Grit Inclusions. Quartz granules in size classes 0.2 to 0.5 mm and 0.5 to 1.0 mm occur in approximately equal amounts. Sand and Sparse Grit Inclusions. Quartz particles in the size class 0 .5 to 1.0 mm account for less than 10 percent of the area of each field; sand size quartz particles are present throughout. Grit Inclusions. Quartz particles in the size range 0.5 to 1.0 mm account for more than 50 percent of each field; few sand size particles occur. Clay Inclusions. Inclusions appear to be fragments of dried or fired clay ranging in size from 0.5 to 5 mm. Clay and Sand Inclusions. Inclusions are fragments of dried or fired clay, ranging in size from 0.5 to 5.0 mm and containing sand size quartz particles; sand size quartz is also present throughout the paste.

PAGE 170

15 7 Table 4 continued. CLSNDSHL CLAYMICA NOSNDGRT SHELL Clay, Sand and Shell Inclusions. In addition to inclusions as defined for CLA.YSAND, mollusc shell fragments 0.5 to 2.0 mm in diameter occur at a frequency greater than 3 per field. Clay and Mica Inclusions. In addition to inclusions as defined for CLAY, flecks of mica 0 .1 to 0 .4 mm in diameter occur throughout the paste. Sparse Grit Inclusions. Grit size (0.5 to 1.0 mm) quartz particles occur as defined for FEWGRIT but sand size quartz particles are absent. Shell Inclusions. Mollusc shell fragments 0.5 to 2.0 mm in diameter occur at a frequency greater than 3 per field.

PAGE 171

158 Table 5. Aboriginal Ceramic Surface Treatments Observed 1n Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages. Variable Name ERODED PLAIN BURNI SHD PU NC TAT INCISED SIMPLE XSIMPLE CHECK LINCH ECK CORDMK XCORDMK De fin it ion Eroded Surface. Exterior surface weathered to the extent that original surface treatment cannot be determined. Plain Surface. Includes range of finishes from "smooth plain" to "rough plain" exterior. Burnished Surface. Polished exterior surface. Punctated Surface. Plain exterior surface marked with separate depressions made with a stylus on wet or leather-dry paste. Incised Surface. Plain exterior surface marked with linear cuts caused by use of stylus on wet or leather-dry paste. Simple Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with linear, parallel lands and grooves. Cross Simple Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with linear parallel lands and grooves, overstamped to produce raised rectangles in a depressed grid. Check Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle producing a raised grid and depressed squares; checks less than 5 mm across. Linear Check Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle or roulette producing depressed rectangles or squares and raised grid with lines parallel to one axis more prom in en t than those para lle 1 to the other. Cord Marked Surface. Exterior surface impressed with parallel lines of twisted cord; cord impressions less than 3 rrnn wide. Cross Cord Marked Surface. Exterior surface impressed with parallel lines of twisted cord; overstamped at per;,endicular or acute angle; cord impressions less than 3 mm wide.

PAGE 172

159 Table 5 continued. HEVYCORD COMPLIC CURVCOMP RECTCOMP SWFTCRK SMXSIMP SMCOMP SMRDFLM OTHRD SMCHECK CORDDOWL Heavy Cord Marked Surface. Exterior surface impressed with parallel lines of twisted cord 3 mm or wider; may be overstamped. \ Complicated Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle; sherds of insufficient size to determine design detail. Curvilinear Complicated Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle; design composed of curvi linear elements; fragments too small for specific identification. Rectilinear Complicated Stamped. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle; design composed of straight lines. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle; design similar to published examples of Swift Creek ceramics. San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with parallel lands and grooves; overstamped at right angles in regular pattern; deeply impressed. San Marcos Complicated Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle design composed of both curved and straight lines; overstamped; design similar to published and type collection examples. San Marcos Red Filmed Surface. Interior or Exterior surface covered by thin, burnished layer of hematite or hematite-stained clay; SMXSIMP on reverse or heavy grit temper in paste. Other Red Filmed Surface. Exterior surface covered by a thin, burnished layer of hematite or hematite-stained clay; paste lacks San Marcos series characteristics. San Marcos Check Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle producing raised grid and depressed squares; impressions are faint. Cord Wrapped Dowl Impressed Surface. Exterior surface is marked with parallel impressions of what appears to be a slender (5 mm diameter) straight stick wrapped with a fine (1 lllD), twisted cord.

PAGE 173

160 Table 5 continued. REEDPUNCT HERRINGBN FABRIC BO LDC HECK SM INC I SD COBMKD CORDPNCT NESTDIAM BURNINGS Reed Punctated Surface. Plain exterior surface marked with depressed rings as result of using a hollow reed stylus. Herringbone Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with carved paddle bearing herringbone design. Fabric Impressed Surface. Exterior surface impressed with woven twisted cords. Bold Check Stamped Surface. with carved paddle producing squares; checks more than 5 Exterior surface impressed raised grid and depressed mm across. San Marcos Incised Surface. Incised or punctated pattern at base of wide, folded rim or on sherd also decorated with SMXSIMP. Cob Marked Surface. Exterior surface roughened with rows of marks which appear to have been produced by cupules of an empty corn cob. Cord Marked and Punc ta ted Surface. Exterior surface bears both CORDMK and PUNCTAT treatments. Nested Diamond Stamped Surface. Exterior surface impressed with paddle bearing design of nested diamonds. Burnished Incised Surface. Exterior surface bears both BURNISHD and INCISED treatments.

PAGE 174

16 1 Caldwell and Waring 1968; DePratter 1979). Both of these terms have connotations which mask potentially significant correlates of aboriginal behavior. "Decoration" implies that the primary consideration in application of surface treatment was esthetic. In attributing decorative value to the mode of surface treatment, the archeologist makes assumptions about the emic mental rules which governed pottery manufacture. While many surface treatments may well have been as esthetically pleasing to aboriginal eyes as they are to Western eyes, studies have shown that they also hold the potential for enhancing functional efficiency. For example, Herron has demonstrated that a check stamped surface on St. Johns pottery transmits heat more rapidly than a smoothed surface (1978: 19). A number of authors have suggested that the textured surface produced by paddle stamping resulted in a more easily handled cooking vessel. These two functional traits--efficient heat transfer and a nonslip surface--would have resulted tn a superior cooking ware. There 1s no reason to assume that makers and users of "decorated" wares did not value both esthetic and functional apects of the textured surfaces For this reason, "surface treatment" is the preferred, neutral term. The use of the term "temper" is similarly fraught with implications: among others, it suggests a deliberate modification of the ceramic paste by the addition of aplastic inclusions. Coastal archeologists have commonly assumed that even naturally occurring aplastics, such as quartz sand and grit, were deliberately added to clay to achieve the desired paste characteristic. For example, DePratter states that "at some time around 1100 B.C., changes in the

PAGE 175

16 2 ceramic tempering materials began on the Georgia coast. Sand and grit were gradually added to the fiber-tempered St. Simons ceramics, until eventually the sand and grit completely replaced the fibers" (1979:117). It may indeed be that this well-known development was the result of aboriginal manipulation of natural materials. However, an alternative hypothesis deserves consideration. It is possible that the observed differences are a result of a shift in raw material sources, perhaps triggered by environmental change. A change in general climatic conditions or in ground water levels might have made old clay sources inaccessible or might have facilitated exploitation of new beds. This hypothesis does not rule out the possibility of concomitant tech no logical innovations, such as the c oi 1 construct ion technique or paddle maleation. Alterations 1n technique would be expected in working with different materials and descriptions of early Refuge period pottery certainly are suggestive of experimentation with unfamiliar materials and techniques. A recent study by Marian Saffer documents the natural occurrence of quartz sand and grit in clays from the lower Georgia coast. She demonstrates that some of the variability in late prehistoric period coastal pottery may be explained by variability in local clays 0979: 143). Similar studies are needed for other periods and localities. Despite much interest in coastal pottery, very little 1s known about the distribution, nature and availability of the clays from which it was made. The important point 1s that the appropriate technological terminolo g y--aplastic inclusions--invites alternative hypotheses about

PAGE 176

16 3 variability which has heretofore been attributed to cultural factors. Similarly, the term "surface treatment" invites consideration of non-esthetic functions. Although a technological analysis of the pottery assemblage is beyond the scope of this study, an attempt was made to work within a ceramic technological framework in order to facilitate comparisons and future, more detailed studies. Lithic analysis. As expected in the coastal setting, lithic artifacts recovered from the Kings Bay Site were few in number. For purposes of quantification and comparative analysis, the variables shown in Tables 6 and 7 were independently observed and recorded. Two primary attributes we re examined: form and ma teria 1. Form attribute states are general shape classes intended to convey descriptive information. Edges of all flakes were examined under l0X magnification for regular, minute chipping attributable to use-wear. Those flakes lacking evidence of wear were categorized, according to maximum diameter, as small (less than 1.0 cm), medium (1.0 to 2.0 cm) or large (greater than 2.0 cm). A flake of any size with secondary chipping on one side of at least one edge was classified as retouched. The remaining categories are based on form and inferred major function. The material attribute was selected as a potential key to lithic raw material sources. Thermally altered chert is distinguished from unaltered chert on the basis of a vitreous luster and a pinkish cast (Purdy 1971:40-59). Silicified coral is identifiable by the fossilized coral skeletons visible macroscopically. The remaining material categories are self-explanatory.

PAGE 177

164 Table 6. Lithic Artifact Form Attributes Observed in Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages. Variable Name SMLLFLK MEDFLK LRGFLK UTILFLK RETOUCHD BI FACE BURIN POINT KNIFE AXE CHUNK PEBBLE PEBTOOL Definition Small Flake. Lithic debitage lacking evidence of wear and less than 1.0 cm diameter. Medium Flake. Lithic debitage lacking evidence of wear and 1.0 to 2.0 cm diameter. Large Flake. Lithic debitage lacking evidence of wear and larger than 2.0 cm diameter. Utilized Flake. Lithic debitage with evidence of use wear. Retouched Flake. Lithic flake bearing secondary chip ping on at least one side of one edge. Bifacially Chipped Tool. Bifacially chipped lithic ob ject with secondary chipping on both sides of at least one edge. Burin. Biface with burin-like projection or corner. Projectile Point. Triangular biface, essentially bi laterally syme tr ic al. Knife. Biface with large, rectangular, or assymetrical blade. Ground Stone Axe. Pecked and ground metamorphic rock; ungrooved. Chunk. Amorphous blocky lithic debitage lacking flake scars. Pebble. Waterworn, small, round or oval stone; no evidence of cultural modification. Pebble Tool. Waterworn stone with one or more rough flakes removed.

PAGE 178

16 5 Table 7. Lithic Artifact Material Attributes Observed in Analysis of 9Caml71 and 9Caml79 Assemblages. Variable Name CHERT HTDCHERT SI LC ORAL QUARTZ De fin it ion Chert. Opaque, cryptocrystalline quartz, usually white, tan, or yellow. Heat Treated Chert. Evidence suggestive of thermal al teration of chert: vitreous luster and pink or red color. Silicified Coral. Fossiliferous chert in which fossils are identifiable as c ora 1. Quartzite. Metamorphosed quartz sandstone; usually transluscent white. It is acknowledged that the definition of form used here does convey some assumptions about tool functions which are untested. However, in view of the small size of the lithic assemblage, it was not considered appropriate to formulate an array of descriptive terms for cross tabulation with material categories. The result would have been many unique attribute combinations with little clustering. Busycon analysis. All of the Busycon spp. shells and shell fragments were collected. Some small body fragments were probably overlooked while sorting shell debris retained by the 1/4 in. screen, but most apical, shoulder, columellar and basal fragments of this genus are quite distinctive and were consistently collected. The purpose of collecting a 100 percent sample was to eliminate biases commonly resulting from the archeologist's perception of what constitutes a shell tool. Pottery is easily recognized as an artifact, whether it is a sherd or a whole pot and whether or not it

PAGE 179

166 shows signs of wear. But there is a tendency to regard a shell as an artifact only if it exhibits wear and/or modification, even if found in archeological context. Since these evidences may be subtle, especially after weathering and breakage, shell tool studies have focused on the more extreme or obvious examples. It was postulated that the Busycon assemblage resulted from both food use and tool use/manufacture activities. Table 8 lists attributes chosen to allow characterization of variability in the assemblage related to both of these functions. Relationships among these parameters were assessed using descriptive statistics and measurements of association. Mollusc analysis. Shell samples comprising 100 percent of the fragments larger than 1/4 in. in each provenience were collected from all features and column samples. Column samples were 0.5-m square and were excavated by natural zones. The volume of a typical O .25-m deep column sample would be 6 .25 1. Due to the large volume of material thus generated, these samples were subsampled prior to analysis. The total samples were weighed, emptied into a wheelbarrow, and stirred to mix large and small fragments. An arbitrary subsample of 2.0 1 was taken and the remainder of the shell was discarded. This subsample was sorted and weighed by species, using Abbott (1974) for identifications. No attempt was made to specifically identify terrestrial gastropods or barnacles. Only samples from subsistence-related aboriginal features and from column samples were subjected to analysis; shell samples from post holes were discarded.

PAGE 180

16 7 Table S. Attributes Recorded in Analysis of Busycon spp. Variable Name SPECIES MASS LENGTH WIDTH COLLECTD CHARRED LIP BASE SPIRE SPINES BODYWHRL INERWHRL COLUMELA NUMPERFS VERTLOC HORIZLOC P LENGTH Shells from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71. De fin it ion One of the following was assigned, with reference to Abbott ( 1974): Busycon carica eliceans Busycon canaliculatum Busycon spp. Unidentifiable gastropod Mass of the cleaned, dry shell in grams. Maximum length of whole or partial shell 1n mm. Maximum width measured perpendicular to length, 1n mm. Presence or absence of evidence that the shell was collected after death of the animal, e.g. presence of oysters or barnacles inside aperture. Presence or absence of evidence that shell was exposed to intense heat, e.g. blue-gray discoloration, checking of surface. Each of these is an estimate of the percent remaining, to the nearest 20 percent, of each major segment of the shell: lip, base, spire, spines, exterior body whorl, inner whorls, columella. Number of perforations in shell which appear to be human made (kill-holes, hafting holes, suspension holes). The vertical location-above shoulder, on shoulder or below shoulder-of the largest perforation. The horizontal location, with respect to the aperture, of the primary perforation, measured in degrees clockwise from the aperture, looking down at the top of the spire. Maximum vertical dimension of primary perforation, 1n mm.

PAGE 181

168 Table 8 continued. P WIDTH SMOOTHED LIPNOTCH SPINWEAR HORIZLOC NUMBER DEGREE APEXWEAR DEGREE BASEWEAR BASESHAP Maximum horizontal dimension of primary perforation 1n mm. On a scale of 1 (ragged), 2 (rounded), or 3 (smooth), the condition of the margin of the primary perforation. Presence or absence of a notch which can be regarded as a purposeful modification of the outer lip as an aid in hafting. Presence or absence of wear on the spines of the shoulder row. Location, with respect to the aperture, of the heaviest spine \./ear, in degrees clockwise from aperture looking down at the top of the shell. The number of shoulder row spines showing wear. On a scale of 1 (no wear) to 6 (spine worn completely away) the maximum amount of wear exhibited by shoulder row spines. Presence or absence of attrition at apex of spire attributable to pounding or battering. On a scale of 1 (unmodified) to 5 (apex reduced to flat surface) the amount of attrition of the spire. Presence or absence of modification of the siphonal canal or columella base On a scale of l (no modification) to 5 (very heavil y worn, distal 20 percent or more of base missing) the degree of basal modification.

PAGE 182

169 Disposition of Collection All field records, notes, photographs and maps, together with the field specimen collection, are curated at the Florida State Museum. Zooarcheological materials and records are held in the Department of Natural Sciences while all other data are located in Anthropology. The museum accession number for the survey materials 1s 79-45; the secondary testing collection was assigned number 81-22. The secondary testin g faunal materials, which are part of the zooarcheology collection in the department of Natural Sciences, were accessioned under number 27 1. S umma ry This chapter has reviewed the procedures used in data collection at Kings Bay together with certain constraints on the size and level of resolution of the resulting data base. Chapter 7 contains a descriptive presentation of survey and secondary testing results and some preliminary comparisons among the different components defined.

PAGE 183

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS This chapter presents information derived from fieldwork at Kings Bay, arranged in three categories, 1) survey results describing the kinds and locations of prehistoric sites in the vicinity, 2) secondary testing results for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71, and, 3) secondary testing results for the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Survey Results The intensive survey of Kings Bay resulted 1n the identification of 12 historic sites and 23 prehistoric sites. All but one of the historic occupations are superimposed on aboriginal occupations and it may be postulated that many, if not all, of the criteria which define a desirable habitation location are applicable to either period. The single exception is the McIntosh Sugar Mill, an industrial occupation designed to process a non-native cultigen using a non-native domesticated power source. It is not surprising that a different set of constraints seems to have determined the location of this site. Table 9 lists the aboriginal sites together with the descriptive information available for each. The site size is an estimate based on limited subsurface testing and extrapolation from surface indications. It may be reliable as a ranking criterion but is not intended as an 170

PAGE 184

17 1 Table 9. Survey Results for Aboriginal Sites at Kings Bay. Distance in km to Site Area CompoSoi 1 Vegetation Elev. Fresh Salt EstuNo. (ha) nents* Assn. Assn. (ft) Water Marsh ary 166 1.25 w,sv Mandarin oak/pine 5-10 0.5 0.0 0.3 scrub 16 7 1.0 SS,D,SV, Mandarin oak/pine 5-10 .5 .05 .45 SJ,SM scrub 168 0.5 I Cainhoy oak hammock 15-20 .3 .45 7 5 169 0.4 I? Ca inhoy oak hammock 15 .15 .3 .6 170 14.0 ss,o,sc Cainhoy oak hammock 15-20 0.0 .15 .15 17 1 91.5 SS,D,SC, Cainhoy oak hannnock 10-20 0.0 0.0 0.0 W,SV,SJ, I ,SB 17 5 .85 SS,D,SC Cainhoy oak hannnock 10-15 7 5 .15 .3 176 2.0 w,sv Cainhoy oak hannnock 5-10 .35 .0 5 .35 177 24 .00 ss,w,sv, Cainhoy oak hammock 5-15 .3 o.o .05 SB 179 .45 SV ,SJ Mandarin mixed oak 10-15 0.0 7 5 7 5 and pines 32 37 .s SS,D,SC Pottsburg xeric hard30-35 ? .35 .5 woods 181 0.8 w Mandarin pine flat25-30 ? 1.3 1.45 woods 184 13. 7 5 SS,D,SC, Cainhoy oak hammock 10-15 0.0 0.0 0.0 SJ,SV,SB 185 2. 7 5 ss,sc Cainhoy oak hammock 15-20 0.0 .2 .35 186 5.25 SS,D,SJ, Cainhoy oak hammock 10-15 o.o o.o o.o 187 8.9 SS,SJ,SV, Cainhoy oak hammock 5-10 .35 o.o 0.0 SB

PAGE 185

17 2 Table 9 continued. 118 11.5 probably Pottsburg oak hammock 15-20 7 5 0.0 0. 1 single 188 14 .2 SS,W,SJ, Cainhoy oak harmnock 5-10 0.0 o.o .o 5 SB 189 0.3 SV,SJ,SB Mandarin cedar 0-5 .25 0.0 .OS 190 6.5 SS,D,W, Cainhoy oak hammock 10 ? o.o 0.0 SJ 193 8.5 D,W,SV, Cainhoy oak hammock 5-15 ? 0.0 0.0 SJ 19 5 5.2 ss,w,sv, Ca inhoy oak hammock 5-15 ? 0.0 o.o SJ Note: SS=St. Simons, D=Deptford, SC=Swift Creek, W=Wi lmington, SJ=St. Johns, SV=Savannah, SB=Sutherland Bluff.

PAGE 186

17 3 absolute measure. The information conveyed is "degree of aboriginal occupation," a composite of duration, frequency and intensity. The number and identity of components is based on survey data (except for the six sites subjected to secondary testing) and must be regarded as a first approximation. The remaining descriptive characteristics are based on modern environmental data and their applicability to prehistoric period phenomena rests on an assumption of minimal change in the natural environment. Inspection of Figure 2 suggests three geographical groups of sites within the survey area: sand ridge, riverine, and coast edge. Two prehistoric sites (181 and 32) were found on the sand ridge (on the western side of the survey area) which 1s a fragment of the relict Pamlico shoreline. Riverine sites include those occuring along the North River in the southeast quadrant of the survey area (175, 176, 177, 179, 190, 193, 195). Coast edge sites include 10 prehistoric middens located on the Princess Anne shoreline (168, 169, 170, 171, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, and 189) and 4 on the Silver Bluff formation (118 166, 167, 189). On the whole, the sites show a strong tendency to cluster along the coast edge and, there, to follow the configuration of the Cainhoy soil deposit which marks the Princess Anne shoreline (Figure 6). Exceptions are small, nonresidential or special-use sites. The amenities accessible on the coast edge were described in Chapter 2 and discussed in Chapter 5. They co-occur, to a large extent, with the Cainhoy soils association. The pattern created by the erosional

PAGE 187

Figure 6. Soils Map of the Kings Bay Area (from R. Smith et al. 1981:45).

PAGE 188

UPLAND SOILS CAINHOY FINE SAND POTTSBURG SAND 0 MANDARIN FINE SAND DREDGE SPOL ~WETLAND SOLS Ml.ES 0 KI.OMETERS 0 17 5 t N I

PAGE 189

remnants of the Princess Anne formation seems to have defined the limits of intensive land-use by prehistoric coastal populations. 176 The survey area represents a very small sample of the coastal zone and care must be taken to limit inferences to questions dealing with the local level of the cultural system. The surveyed area might be considered to approximate a catchment basin centered on the bay, having a radius of just over S km and taking in approximately equal areas of terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Figure 7). (The configuration of the marshes and estuary shown in Figure 7 is probably close to the late prehistoric period configuration, except that before 1950 Marianna Creek flowed south and east into Kings Bay. The large marsh island dividing Kings Bay from Cumberland Sound 1s a natural feature which has been used as a dredge spoil dumping ground.) Catchment analyses commonly use 10 km as a normal range of activity around a hunter-gatherer camp, while cultivators are assumed to exploit a much smaller area (Roper 1979:121). Thus the survey sample probably contains only a fraction of the resource area exploited from any one residential base. It is conceivable that, due to the close juxtaposition of different habitats along the Princess Anne formation, a wide range of site types might be found in this catchment basin. However, it is also possible that sites, rather than being multi-typic, are multifunctional or that functionally distinct sites occur only at a considerable distance from the resource-packed coastal margin and are not included in this sample.

PAGE 190

Figure 7. A 5 km Radius Circular Catchment Basin Superimposed on the Kings Bay Area (based on Georgia Department of Transportation 1974).

PAGE 191

178 I I -+0 2 3 4 N Kilometers

PAGE 192

179 The Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71 Site Description The Kings Bay Site is a large, horizontally stratified aboriginal site which occupies a long, narrow strip of relatively high, well-drained soil on the coast edge at Kings Bay. The northern half of the site overlooks the marshes drained by Marianna Creek while the southern half is located directly on the bay. This is a multi-component site containing vertically and horizontally stratified deposits representing over 3000 years of human habitation. At two points the aboriginal midden is overlain by Plantation period historic sites. The total length of the site is 4.5 km; it varies 1n width, averaging 100 m and covering a total area of 91.S ha (see Figure 2). The inland extent of the cultural deposit at the Kings Bay Site is highly variable and appears to be closely correlated with the contours of the Cainhoy Fine Sand deposit which runs along the coast edge (compare Figures 2 and 6). According to early survey maps, the Cainhoy soil association along the coast was at one time forested by a continuous belt of Southern Mixed Hardwoods. Where portions of this forest survive, there is a high, dense canopy, provided by large, mature live oaks and other hardwoods, and there is relatively little underbrush. Most of the Southern Mixed Hardwood hammock on the site has a dense understory of small hardwood saplings and appears to have been underbrushed or bulldozed within the last 20 years. Large sections of former hammock have been cleared and planted in pine. One goal of the research program was to discover and define testable

PAGE 193

180 segments of the site, 1.e. areas which have survived historic period and modem disturbances with a significant portion of their archeological contents reasonably intact. It is these areas which are the focus of the present analysis. Sources of disturbance include historic period construction and plowing, late 19th and early 20th century domestic occupations, and military construction and forestry programs. Post-1950s road, ditch, railroad, munitions bunkers, utilities, and reforestation account for the majority of the site destruction which has occurred, in part because of the magnitude of mechanized land-altering activities and in part because the same high, well-drained soils which were preferred for aboriginal habitation are optimal for modern construction. Throughout the site, oyster shell midden occurs at varying densities and generally signals the presence of ceramic and faunal components. The survey phase artifact collection, from 132 screened shovel tests, indicated a wide range of temporal periods represented in the ceramic inventory of the Kings Bay Site. St. Simons, Deptford, Swift Creek, Wilmington, Savannah, St. Johns, and Sutherland Bluff period wares were identified among the 1102 sherds collected. A preliminary analysis of the horizontal stratification of these components indicated a St. Simons period occupation throughout the length of the site, a Deptford period occupation at the north end, a Wilmington/Savannah period occupation on the central and southern segments, a St. Johns II occupation on the central segment, and a Sutherland Bluff (San Marcos series pottery) occupation at the southern end, possibly extending into the central segment. (The Swift

PAGE 194

181 Creek component in the southern segment which was delineated during secondary testing at 9Caml71A was not identified during the survey.) In general, these components were confirmed for the portions of the site examined in secondary testing. As predicted, two regions within the southern 3/4 of the site emerged as intact, largely undisturbed segments suitable for intensified testing. Due to their distinctive cultural characteristics and physical separation, they were given separate designations according to the major ceramic series in each. 9Caml71A, the San Marcos segment of the Kings Bay Site, also contains significant St. Simons, Swift Creek, and Wilmington/Savannah components. 9Caml71B, the St. Johns segment of the Kings Bay Site, also contains significant amounts of Wilmington/Savannah period and Deptford period materials and minor amounts of St. Simons and Sutherland Bluff period materials. These regions of the site are described in more detail below. The San Marcos segment, 9Caml71A This segment of the site is located on a small finger of high ground which projects northwestward along the bay front from the northern edge of the Kings Bay Plantation Site (see Figure 8). The western boundary is defined by a natural slough which empties into the bay north of the site and was probably at one time a freshwater run draining the pine flatwoods further west of the site. The southern boundary is the northern edge of a clearing containing several modern structures and the remains of the King Plantation main house. The segment extends northward to the outlet of the slough but the testable

PAGE 195

Figure 8. Southern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A.

PAGE 196

9Cam171 Kings Bay Site Southern Secondary '-.. Testing Transect + two meter test location undisturbed San Marcos component "..._ c:=::==---====--200 meters unit 33 1710 171A Kings Bay + CJ D 0 parking lot 171C unit 1 + + + I 1/ 1/ i=======~====,================= === ============-::!J:.-=--=-=--=-=--=--=~-,,....-_-_-_-_-_-____ _J ______ __:_-=1 ..... (JO w

PAGE 197

184 portion ends at a point 200 m north of the clearing, where planted pine replaces the natural hardwood hammock cover and pine cultivation has seriously disturbed the archeological remains. Although aboriginal material, including San Marcos series pottery, extends southward almost to the wharf, historic period disturbance associated with the King Plantation main house and outbuildings has resulted in loss of context for most of the prehistoric component in this part of the site. Thus the area of interest is a roughly rectangular tract of land 200 m north-south by 175 m east-west, a total of 3.5 ha. The midden is predominantly oyster shell and is thickest on the eastern margin of the site, averaging 30 cm in depth. Occasionally, tests reveal profiles with only scattered shell fragments, demonstrating that the midden is not continuous along the coast. As shown 1n Figure 9, a jeep trail runs through the site parallel to the coast and about 30 m inland. Some sort of road was probably present historically, as evidenced by the fact that the midden to the east of the road does not appear to have been plowed, while to the west a 15 to 20 cm deep plow zone is present. The latter area was probably planted in Sea Island cotton during Thomas King's tenure at Kings Bay. The St. Johns segment, 9Caml71B This portion of the site is located on a high, level bluff at the south end of Marianna Creek where the creek formerly emptied into Kings Bay (Figure 10). This outflow was sealed off during development of the military base in the early 1950s by a large deposit of dredge spoil placed in the marsh below the bluff on which the site is

PAGE 198

185 9 ~ 1 ~ 1 050E 11 ~ T T T PlANTEDPIIE / '0 / 1 11 1 1150N / 391 3Q2 303 33" a 3.! 1 312 31 3 31 4 ::J a a 111 00N KNGS 3 21 322 3 23 3 24 325 3211 a a a 0 0 0 BAY 335 0 331 333 334 a 332 0 0 11 050N a 3'11 3'4 345 3'8 0 3'1 3'2 3'3 G ::J 0 G a 0 a 348 3 51 3 5 2 3 53 3 58 ::J 0 a D 3 55 3 58 O o ; 1 000N DAT\.N 3 54 0 a 3 5 7 0 (,,j: ~ ~.r 3 85 3 8 1 G G 38 2 9CAM171A G 383 SAN MARCOS COMPONENT a OF TlKNGS BAY SITc EXCAVATION PLAN I ~ 1 950N ::: TWO !AETER SQUARE lHT ,1, 11 0 0 25 / Cl.EARING ~ iiff'r u DATUM I S GEORGIA S TATE SURVEY ~NT 2 92 000N 7 0 3 000E F i~ ur e 9. E x cavation Plan f or 9 C a ml71A.

PAGE 199

Figure 10. Northern Secondary Testing Transect Defining the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B.

PAGE 200

\ \ \ 9Cam 171 Kings Bay Site Northern Secondary Tes ting Transect ... two meter test location @ undisturbed St. Johns component c::=i--====-200 meters salt marsh unit 60 171B C0 ......

PAGE 201

188 located. The site is dotted with huge live oaks accompanied by sparse herbaceous undergrowth. The area has been planted 1n pine within the last decade but the crop has not been particularly successful, probably due to the midden-induced alkalinity of the soil. A graded road defines the southern boundary of the site. Scattered shell 1s visible in the -woods south of the road but this area is heavily disturbed by clearing and cultivation; the planted pine there is 15 to 20 years old and mixed with hardwood saplings. The St. Johns segment 1s 400 m long and 80 m wide at the center, tapering at both ends; a total area of approximately 2 ha is involved (see Figure 11). The entire field between the bluff edge and the road is covered with a mantle of shell which varies in thickness from 10 to 35 cm and 1s composed primarily of oyster with a variety of other molluscs. Occasionally, strata consisting entirely of ribbed mussel shell are encountered within the midden. Data from portions of the Kings Bay Site other than 171A and 171B are discussed elsewhere (R. Smith et al. 1981:405-527). Since it was concluded that only 171A and 171B merited intensified testing, the present analysis is limited to these two segments. Sampling Plan Secondary testing was accomplished 1n three stages. The first stage was intended to secure data which would allow division of the basically linear site into segments according to state of preservation and temporal identity. To this end, a transect of 2 m tests at 25-m intervals was placed parallel to the coastline, running northward from

PAGE 202

OE r SALT MAASt-1 ~ 'f'~ 1a ~ 1r -------62 63 00 '1:! 0 0 0 221 a ---~D" o..,, Pl.A N TEOPWo. O A TI. .M CSLOCAJED 1 1002mNOAhiOf GEORG&A STATE St.A V EY MON..MENT 2 ~:>000H t!a8 OOOE .. 0 ij 211 0 w 263 2.3 '6' 232 D 233 0 F i g ur e II. Excav a ti on Plan f or 9 C aml71B. ii 212 a tr 2.3 '6' 2 .31 234 235 281 a 0 'tf Pl.ANT ED PWE 0 9CAM 171B ST JOtff> COMPOt,ENl OF n KINGS 8A Y Sile EXCAVATION PLAN a r w o METER SQUARE lH T 238 D .. ,.,.fl 13 D ... D ------------------' N 1 I OON i H ~ 2 4 .' ) a ...... CXl

PAGE 203

190 the woodsline north of the wharf for a distance of 760 m, as shown 1n Figure 8, and running south from Marianna Cemetery to the former outlet of Marianna Creek at Kings Bay, a distance of 1220 m, as shown in Figure 10. All of these tests were oriented on a north-south axis, using a hand-held compass. The inter-test interval is approximate, being measured by chain from test to test along a path cleared by machete through the underbrush. The distance inland from the coast was allowed to vary according to conditions at each test node along the transect. Obviously disturbed or eroded areas were avoided, as were areas containing large hardwoods, by moving the test either inland or closer to the bluff edge. The distance from the bluff varied between Sand 45 m and averaged 20 m. On the basis of test results along the southern (tests 1 through 33) and northern (tests 34 through 75) portions of this transect, a decision was made to omit testing of the central portion of 9Caml71. Tests 19 through 33 of the southern transect indicated that very poor preservation of aboriginal materials was to be anticipated in planted pine tracts, so no further work was planned for the 750-m interval between tests 33 and 75. Stage two of secondary testing was limited to the two distinct, well-preserved segments, 171A and 171B, defined 1n stage one. The purpose of stage two was to discover the inland extent of each segment and to examine variability in deposits as a function of distance from the coast. This was accomplished by placing transects of 2-m square tests at 25-m intervals, oriented perpendicular to the bluff line; transects were placed 50 m apart. These and subsequent tests were

PAGE 204

laid out relative to a temporary datum using a transit and chain. Each grid is tied-in to the Georgia State Survey grid. 191 The third and final stage of secondary testing consisted of excavating additional transects of tests placed so as to sample the untested portions of each segment. The completed excavation plans are shown in Figures 9 and 11. The result of stages two and three is a grid with tests at 25-m intervals over the entirety of each segment; neither grid appears uniform because it was frequently necessary to avoid large live oaks and localized surface disturbances in determining the placement of test pits. The series of tests excavated in the course of this three stage program yielded a systematic, semi-aligned sample. Data from 55 sample points are available for 171A; 44 samples points were collected at 171B. Contiguous units were opened in two cases only, specifically to solve localized problems. At 171B, unit 73 was expanded from a 2-m square test to a 3-m unit 10 order to allow excavation of a burial which was encountered in one comer of the initial test unit at a depth of l m. Also at 171B, unit 244 was opened diagonally adjacent to unit 243 in order to confirm an unusual concentration of lithic waste occurring in the latter. In addition to the 73 stage one tests and the 76 stage two and three tests, 9 column samples were collected from the two components, 5 at 171A and 4 at 171B. Column sample locations were selected on the basis of field assessments of the ceramic identities of units exhibiting a thick, undisturbed layer of shell midden. It was recognized during fieldwork, however, that such samples could be little more than token representatives of midden

PAGE 205

19 2 contents and that sampling for variability in parameters such as mollusc composition of the midden could constitute a study in itself. Description of Sample In the intensively tested portions of the Kings Bay Site, the 55 tests in 171A yielded a 0.63 percent sample by area while the 44 tests in 171B yielded a 0 88 percent sample. While both of these samples are smaller than the 1.0 percent target size which was set for secondary testing in general, in view of the systematic placement of the tests, the samples are believed to be representative of the two intensively tested areas and adequate for evaluation and general interpretation of the site. The artifact assemblage generated in excavations at the Kings Bay Site is large but limited in terms of material categories represented. The major category is aboriginal pottery; a large zooarcheological collection was also generated. Minor categories of artifact data include lithics, Spanish ceramics and glass, and shell beads. These categories are enumerated below for the site as a whole; more detailed descriptions are given for the materials from the intensively tested segments, 171A and 171B. A total of 18,229 aboriginal sherds was collected. Of these, 15,043 (82.52 percent) are larger than 1/2 in. (13 mm) in at least one dimension and were retained for attribute analysis on an individual basis. The remaining 3,186 (17.48 percent), consisting primarily of paste fragments or highly eroded sherds, were discarded.

PAGE 206

19 3 The zooarcheological collection includes three sources of information: vertebrate faunal material; shells of the genus Busycon; and shell samples from columns of midden material. Bone collected from all proveniences (except the human burial) totaled 20,576 g. In view of the labor investment required for vertebrate faunal identification, a highly restricted sample was selected for analysis, as described in the Faunal Data subsection below. ~usycon spp. shells and shell fragments were collected and handled as artifacts in analysis but it is evident that they are also important as dietary evidence. A total of 1,436 Busycon artifacts, weighing 87,430 g, was collected. Subsamples from 171A and 171B are discussed below. The third category of faunal data, shell samples, was collected from features throughout the site and from the 11 column samples in the two intensively tested areas. These same proveniences were sampled and studied for floral remains but this analysis proved largely unproductive. Lithic artifacts from the Kings Bay Site, including raw materials, debitage, and worked pieces but excluding Euro-American stone, totaled 309 items, weighing 1,805 g. Features were identified in 60 of the 149 units excavated. Forty of the 121 stratigraphic anomalies which were initially identified as cultural features proved, on complete excavation, to be interpretable as aboriginal features. The remainder were historic features (principally post holes and post ioolds), natural and recent cultural disturbances, unassignable stains, and pockets at the base of the sheet midden which, in excavation by level, appeared as discrete shell

PAGE 207

concentrations. Aboriginal features occurring 1n 171A and 171B are described in the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:477-506). Stratigraphic data 194 Both 171A and 171B are multicomponent sites consisting primarily of a sheet midden of mollusc shells and other aboriginal debris deposited on a sandy substrate. The soil matrix of the midden layer is a very dark brown fine sand; the underlying sand is stained by organic leachates from the midden. While the natural soil association at each site is Cainhoy Fine Sand, the upper 50 cm, on the average, 1s sufficiently altered 1n color, texture, inclusions, pH and other chemical properties, and zonation, to be considered a separate pedon. Specific characteristics of this anthroposol are described below. San Marcos segment stratigraphy. The shell midden at 171A 1s most dense and least disturbed along the (grid) eastern edge of the site, closest to the bluff line on the bay. West of the jeep trail which runs parallel to the waterfront, the midden 1s less concentrated and a 15 to 20 cm deep Plantation period plow zone is present. The difference between the two areas may be observed in a comparison of Figures 12 and 13 which are photographs of profiles located on the same east/west transect. ul:i!" 354 (995Nl021E) in Figure 12 illustrates the plow zone of medium brown sand with occasional shell fragments overlying an aboriginal trash pit which is intrusive into the yellow sand zone. Figure 13 shows unit 357 (lOOONllOOE) in which the 40-cm thick, undisturbed shell midden is underlain by a 10-cm leaching zone, followed by yellow sand. Variability in stratigraphy

PAGE 208

Figure 12. East Profile of Unit 354 Showing Plow Zone Over Aboriginal Feature at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 210

Figure 13. South Profile of Unit 357 Showing Undisturbed Aboriginal Midden at 9Caml7lA.

PAGE 211

J-r : ... 4 -"; , J .. ,,_ -' :~: ~ h -. __ .. ... ... . 1 00

PAGE 212

199 along the length of this transect is illustrated in Figure 14, which is composed of representative profile blocks from each unit on the 1000N line. Although considerable variation in midden thickness occurs from place to place within 171A, the general stratigraphic pattern 1s quite simple. Natural and cultural zones defined in the course of excavation, in their usual order of occurrence from the surface downward, include the following: humic sand, loose midden (plow zone), consolidated midden, aboriginal features, disturbances, leaching zone, gray sand, and yellow sand. Humic sand refers to a dark or very dark brown or gray brown fine sand containing large amounts of naturally and/or culturally deposited organic material. Loose midden is a shell midden zone characterized by highly fragmented shell which composes less than SO percent of the soil volume. It generally extends 15 to 20 cm below surface and appears to have been produced by row crop cultivation of oyster shell midden. Consolidated midden consists of densely packed, mostly whole shell composing SO percent or more of the zone volume. The soil matrix is a very dark gray brown fine humic soil. The remainder of the proveniences mentioned above are self-explanatory. These proveniences contained aboriginal pottery 1n the quantities indicated in Table 10. Almost half of the pottery occurs in consolidated shell midden; more than a quarter was recovered from the plow zone (loose midden); an additional 12 percent came from the leachig zone immediately below the midden. The only significant

PAGE 213

Figure 14. Representative Profile Sections from One Transect at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 214

---------------~ 1000N 950E 975E 1002E 1021E 1048E 1075 E 1 lOOE unit 352 unit 356 unit 353 unit 354 unit 351 : ; : : ... unit 357 unit 355 9Cam 171 A Kings Bay Site San Marcos Component Soil Profiles dark gray-brown modern duff and humus fgJ compact midden of whole and crushed shell plowzone of medium gray-brown sand with loose shell medium gray sand, leaching zone ([I tan-yellow sand D white sand scale 1:20 N 0 .....

PAGE 215

Table 10. Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery by Provenience at 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B. Sherds 17 lA 171B Provenience f 7. f % Humic Sand 61 0.9 50 0.9 Loose Midden 1898 28 .2 17 46 30 .3 Consolidated Midden 3179 47 .3 26 76 46.4 Dirt Midden 0 199 3.4 Aboriginal Features 145 2.2 156 2.7 Historic Features 1 TR 0 Disturbances 10 0 .1 29 0.5 Old Humus 0 9 0.2 Leaching Zone 797 11.9 595 10 .3 Gray Sand 3 TR 107 1.9 Yellow Sand 580 8.6 113 2.0 White Sand 0 28 0.5 Column Samples 48 0.7 63 1.1 Total 6722 5771 Table 11. Vertical Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B. Sherds 17 IA 17 lB Level f % f i. 808 12 .0 919 15 .9 2 2317 34.5 17 51 30.3 3 19 33 28.8 17 25 29 .9 4 994 14 .8 763 13.2 5 377 5.6 270 4. 7 6 138 2.1 114 2.0 7 40 0.6 37 0.6 8 18 0.3 32 0.6 9 11 0.2 14 0.2 10 3 TR 4 0 .1 11 0 3 0 .1 12 0 4 0 .1 13 0 8 0 .1 Mixed 83 1.2 127 2.2 Total 6 722 5771 202

PAGE 216

non-midden ceramic component is the 580 sherds recovered from the yellow sand zone, of which 54 percent contain fiber inclusions. 203 Table 11 illustrates the decline in ceramic density with increasing depth below surface. Over 90 percent of the sherds at 171A lie within 40 cm of the surface. Of the 587 sherds which occur below this depth, 50.4 percent have fiber inclusions. Except for this Late Archaic component, the aboriginal sherds at 171A occur as a shallow surface deposit. Lithic artifacts exhibit a similar pattern of distribution, vertically and across proveniences, as shown in Tables 12 and 13. A large proportion of the lithic assemblage was recovered from midden and leaching zone contexts. The only other productive provenience was the yellow sand layer, where many chert flakes were found together with with St. Simons sherds. Lithic artifacts tend to occur somewhat more deeply than pottery, perhaps because many are associated with the earliest occupation. However, the site still may be characterized as a shallow cultural deposit. More than 60 percent of the San Marcos segment lithics occur in the top 40 cm. In general, features could not be defined in the consolidated midden zone; they were most readily discerned at the interface between the midden and underlying leaching zone or sand. Features account for only 2.2 percent of the aboriginal sherds, thus any substantive analysis of the site must address the much larger assemblage from midden contexts. No appreciable difference was found in pH or calcium concentration for proveniences tested at the two sites. Predictably,

PAGE 217

Table 12. Distribution of Lithic Artifacts by Provenience at 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B. Lithic Artifacts 171A 17 lB Provenience f % f % Humic Sand 1 .8 6 4.2 Loose Midden 16 12.7 21 14.7 Con so lid a ted Midden 39 31.0 45 31.5 Dirt Midden 0 3 2 .1 Aboriginal Features 0 3 2 .1 Historic Features 0 NA NA Disturbances 0 1 .7 Old Humus 0 l .7 Leaching Zone 21 16. 7 29 20 .3 Gray Sand 0 11 7. 7 Yellow Sand 49 38 .9 10 7.0 White Sand 0 10 7.0 Column Samples 0 3 2 .1 Total 126 143 Table 13. Vertical Dis tr ibut ion of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 lB. Lithic Artifacts 17 1A 17 lB Level f % f i. l 3 2.4 12 8.6 2 28 22.2 35 25.0 3 23 18 .3 33 23.6 4 22 17.5 17 12.1 5 25 19 .8 18 12.9 6 12 9.5 12 8.6 7 7 5.6 6 4.3 8 4 3.2 l 0.7 9 0 1 0. 7 10 2 1.6 l 0.7 11 0 0 12 0 3 2 .1 13 0 0 14 0 0.7 Total 126 140 204

PAGE 218

205 the pH of the naturally acid Cainhoy soil is elevated 1n midden contexts; an overall average pH of 8.1 was determined for 43 soil samples from 171A and 171B. The pH 1s generally higher in lower levels, probably due to a reduction of the neutralizing effects of humic acids in the A horizon. Dissolved calcium was also measured for these proveniences and was found to be a good indicator of the relative amount of whole shell material in each. This information 1s summarized in Table 14. Table 14. Soils Analysis Data for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1. Provenience pH N Ca(ppm) N Aboriginal Features 8.2 10 1331 12 Zone A Column Samples 8.0 16 1468 16 Zone B Column Samples 8.2 12 7 20 12 Zone C Column Samples 8.2 4 268 4 Yellow Sand 8.6 1 1800 1 Average 8 .1 43 1132 45 St. Johns segment stratigraphy. A mantle of shell is present over the length of the open field at 9Caml71B. Inspection of the planted pine south of the graded road bordering this site reveals scattered shell and patches of disturbed midden, but not in sufficient amounts to suggest that a large part of the segment has been destroyed. The upper levels of the sheet midden over the entire site at 171B have been disturbed. A historic period plow zone is present on the western 1/3; the eastern 2/3 have been subjected to disturbance by heavy equipment during Army activities at Kings Bay.

PAGE 219

206 On the average the shell midden, which extends from 10 to 35 cm below surface, is thinner at 171B than at 171A. Figure 15 illustrates variability 1n zonation along a north-south transect through the widest part of the site. The stratigraphic pattern at 171B is quite similar to that observed at 171A. Three additional proveniences were defined 1n excavation of this component: dirt midden, which 1s a highly humic soil with a heavy concentration of artifacts but little shell; old humus, which was defined overlying the aboriginal burial; and white sand, which replaces yellow sand as the B soil horizon at the extreme eastern end of the site. Examination of Table 10 reveals a high degree of similarity between 171A and 171B in the distribution of the ceramic assemblage among the different proveniences occurring at each site. Again, the majority of the material occurs in, or immediately below, the midden. Ceramic artifacts from the yellow and white sand B soil horizon compose a smaller fraction of the total assemblage than at 171A, possibly because the St. Simons phase component is not well-represented in this portion of the Kings Bay Site. Table 11, which presents the vertical distribution of the ceramic assemblage, shows that almost 90 percent of the sherds were recovered from the upper 40 cm of the site. Tables 12 and 13, which list lithic distributions by natural provenience and by level, also tend to confirm a high degree of depositional similarity between 171A and 171B. The one exception, a smaller number of lithic artifacts from the yellow sand zone, may be explained by the near absence of a large

PAGE 220

Figure 15. Representative Profile Sections from One Transect at 9Caml71B.

PAGE 221

-----------------------148E--------53N 75N 98N 122N unit 233 11111111111111111111111111111 unit 66 unit 211 unit 224 9Cam 171 B Kings Bay Site St. Johns Component Soil Profiles dark gray-brown modern duff and humus crushed shell in medium gray-brown sand mJ compact midden of whole and crushed shell medium gray sand, leaching zone @ tan-yellow sand scale 1 :20 N 0 co

PAGE 222

209 Late Archaic component. Features in 171B, like those in 171A, were not easily discerned above the midden/substrate interface. A number of aboriginal refuse pits and post holes, and one burial, were defined as they intruded into the yellow sand zone. Summary. Stratigraphic data for the two intensively tested segments of the Kings Bay Site demonstrate a high degree of similarity between the segments in terms of deposit structure. Both areas exhibit shallow sheet middens composed of mollusc shells, with simple stratigraphy and considerable disturbance of the upper levels. In each case the majority of the artifacts present occur in the shell midden zone, near the surface. The San Marcos segment has a culturally distinct occupation zone beneath the midden which contains fiber inclusion ceramics in association with chert debitage. Artifact data Ceramic assemblage. The largest body of data garnered from the Kings Bay Site is derived from the pottery assemblage. Due to the nature of the site and the mode of sampling employed, the assemblage consists of a great number of small sherds, many of which are heavily eroded and few of which can be cross-mended. The nature of the site contributes to these characteristics in that the sheet midden must have accumulated as a site-wide living floor. Artifacts discarded on the surface would have been exposed to traffic and weathering before being covered by humus and subsequent discards. Only a small percentage of the total ceramic assemblage came from relatively protected contexts such as refuse pits. Historic period plowing has

PAGE 223

210 further reduced the size of the sherds in the top levels of the site and has periodically re-exposed them to weathering agents. The sampling mode, a widely dispersed systematic sample, affects analysis and interpretation in that unit assemblages come from isolated points and can be more readily related to the site assemblage as a whole than to each other. With a test interval averaging 25 m, there is no reason to expect fragments of the same pot to be recovered from adjacent units. Cross-mending within units rarely involved more than a dozen sherds and never resulted in sufficient information to reconstruct a base-to-rim profile. This type of assemblage is best suited for a population approach to analysis, emphasizing relative proportions of attribute combinations rather than individuals and unique characteristics. In the following presentation of results, cross-tabulation of two attributes, paste inclusions and surface treatment, is used to discern basic differences and similarities in sub-assemblages of the site. These cross-tabulations reveal the overall frequency with which a particular attribute state occurs in the assemblage and the frequency with which it occurs in combination with each attribute state of the complementary attribute. Appendix B contains cross-tabulations for the Kings Bay Site as a whole and for the two intensively tested segments within the site. Groups A and Bare of interest 1n the present analysis. Group A totaled 6722 sherds, among which 98 of the 465 possible bivariate attribute combinations occur. Of these, 56 combinations are present at levels of 0.1 to 1.0 percent; only 14 additional combinations occur

PAGE 224

211 at 1.0 percent or higher. Group B totaled 5771 sherds with 79 attribute combinations. Thirty-nine combinations are present at 0.1 to 1.0 percent; 17 are present at 1.0 percent or higher. As an informal measure of diversity, these figures indicate generally similar levels of ceramic heterogeneity for the two groups. The Kings Bay Site as a whole exhibits 144 attribute combinations with 57 at the 0.1 to 1.0 percent level and 20 at the 1.0 percent or greater level. In order to reduce the variety of attribute combinations at each site to a small number of clusters of combinations sharing attributes thought to have temporal significance, a subjective, nonstatistical grouping routine was formulated and applied to the data set. Criteria for grouping are the established type descriptions and temporal assignments for coastal pottery. The routine is listed in Appendix C so that specific assignments may be compared. The following assumptions were made: 1) Paste characteristics alone are sufficient to assign sherds to the St. Simons series; all fiber and fiber-sand inclusion pastes were so assigned. 2) Paste characteristics alone are sufficient to assign sherds to the St. Johns series; all sponge spicule and sponge spicule and sand inclusion pastes were so assigned. 3) Paste characteristics may be used to assign sherds to the Wilmington/Savannah series; grog inclusion and grog-sand inclusion pastes were so assigned. 4) San Marcos series sherds are characterized by quartz grit inclusion paste and/or by distinctive surface treatments

PAGE 225

(cross simple stamped, red filmed and certain incising, check stamping and complicated stamping modes). 212 5) Complicated stamped sherds constitute a single group; all complicated, curvilinear complicated, and rectilinear compli cated stamped sherds were clustered. 6) Except for San Marcos and St. Johns series pastes, red filmed wares were assigned to the Mission Red Filmed cluster. 7) The Deptford series cluster included simple stamped, cross simple stamped, and linear check stamped surface treatments. 8) A general category, Check Stamped, includes all check stamped sherds not clustered elsewhere on the basis of paste charac teristics. 9) A general category, Cord Marked, includes all cord marked sherds not clustered elsewhere on the basis of paste charac teristics. 10) Attribute combinations having no distinctive attribute state were assigned to a cluster labeled Indeterminate. The results of this clustering routine are reported at the unit level for 171A and 171B in Appendix D. This information 1.s the basis of the spatial distributions mapped 1n a later section of this chapter. Results for the two intensively tested segments are summarized in Table 15. Each cluster is discussed in more detail below. 1) St. Simons. Fiber inclusion pastes compose the single most easily identified type in the Kings Bay assemblage. Two paste variants are encountered: a fine compact clay with no apparent

PAGE 226

213 Table 15 Ceramic Attribute Clusters for Segments of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1. Group f Cluster % A B C D E Total St. Simons 539 57 100 48 0 744 8.0 1.0 11.4 6.9 5.0 Deptford 80 40 4 23 50 19 7 1.2 0.7 0.5 3.3 5.2 1.3 Complicated 485 20 18 14 4 541 Stamped 7. 2 0.3 2.1 2.0 0.4 3.6 Wilmington/ 476 187 16 32 38 749 Savannah 7.1 3.2 1.8 4.6 3.9 s.o San Marcos 107 8 45 189 26 22 1360 16.0 0.8 21.6 3.7 2.3 9 .1 St. Johns 121 1614 60 127 60 1982 1.8 28.0 6.9 18 .3 6.2 13.2 Check Stamped 128 457 5 25 141 7 56 1.9 7.9 0.6 3.6 14 .6 5.0 Miss ion Red 30 2 2 0 0 34 Filmed 0 .4 tr 0.2 0.2 Cord Marked 5 23 988 43 63 55 16 72 7.8 17 .1 4.9 9.1 S 7 11.1 Indeterminate 3262 2361 437 377 59 5 6992 48.5 40.9 so .0 48.5 61.7 46.5 Tota 1 6 722 5771 874 695 965 15027* Note: 16 surface-collected sherds omitted from this analysis.

PAGE 227

214 inclusions and fine clay with large amounts of 0.2 to 0.5 mm quartz granules. The latter is much more common, accounting for 93.l percent of the St. Simons series sherds. The presence of sand in these sherds is believed to be a consequence of the clay source used for manufacturing Late Archaic period pottery rather than being attributable to the deliberate addition of sand to the clay. Seven modes of surface treatment were observed in the St. Simons series cluster. Of these, only plain and incised varieties occur with any regularity. Most of the incised sherds are rimsherds, which suggests that incising might frequently be confined to the rim or upper portion of these vessels. Steeply beveled rims, with incising on the interior face, occur comnonly. Only straight line incising was observed; lines always occurred in parallel groups, more frequently abutting than intersecting. Incised St. Simons pottery is illustrated in the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:430). 2) Deptford. Sherds included in this cluster are those which are unambiguously assignable to the Deptford complex: simple stamped, cross simple stamped, linear check stamped, and bold check stamped. On a sherd by sherd basis it is not possible to discriminate between Deptford Check Stamped and Savannah Check Stamped pottery. In mixed contexts, the presence of the simple, cross simple, linear check and bold check stamped designs is probably a more reliable temporal indicator than check stamping alone. Obviously, omission of the most common Deptford variety, check stamped, renders this cluster non-comparable with Deptford series ceramic totals for other sites. Paste inclusions for the Deptford cluster are characteristically

PAGE 228

quartz sand or sand and grit particles. Deptford sherds from the Kings Bay Site are illustrated 1n the technical report (R Smith et a 1. 19 8 1: 43 2 ) 215 3) Complicated Stamped. Complicated stamped sherds composed a larger than expected proportion of the assemblage at 171A but were present in negligible amounts in other segments of the site. Because many of the sherds are small, faintly stamped, or overstamped, it was seldom possible to identify specific designs. Except for eight sherds that strongly resembled published Swift Creek examples, initial sorting simply recorded the presence of some form of complicated stamping, together with paste characteristics. All sherds large enough to show some design detail were set aside for re-examination. Those exhibiting the greatest relief were photographed and appear in the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:433,434,436-439). Barred ovals, concentric circles, and barred fill elements are the most common design attributes. As a group, these sherds most closely resemble Late Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery Paste characteristics of the complicated stamped pottery from 171A are quite uniform: 46 percent contain quartz sand inclusions and 47 percent contain sand and grit size quartz particles. On the basis of overall similarity in stamping, paste, color, thickness and rims, these sherds suggest a single component, rather than a mixture of Swift Creek and Savannah Complicated Stamped wares. Design motifs indicate that this is a Late Swift Creek component. 4) Wilmington/Savannah. Grog (ground sherd or, possibly, dried clay) i nclusions first appear in significant amounts i n the coastal

PAGE 229

216 pottery complex during the Wilmington period. Although the characteristic Wilmington Heavy Cord Marked surface treatment does not occur with any regularity in the Kings Bay Site, grog inclusion sherds are present in notable amounts. One of the three grog inclusion, heavy cord marked sherds occurring at 171 (all in 171B) is illustrated in Figure 16. Grog inclusions occur both alone and in combination with quartz sand, sand and shell, and mica. By far the most c0tmnon attribute state is grog and quartz sand, which accounts for 87 percent of the grog inclusion cluster for the Kings Bay Site as a whole. Grog inclusions are most prevalent at 171A; surface treatment is almost exclusively plain or eroded. While these sherds compose only a part of the Wilmington and Savannah complexes, this paste type does seem to be a good marker for Mississippian period occupations. 5) San Marcos. Sherds assigned to this cluster exhibit a relatively large variety of paste characteristics and surface treatments. San Marcos series sherds compose significant portions of the 171A assemblage. At 171A, 62 percent of San Marcos sherds combined cross simple stamping with heavy quartz grit inclusions. The second largest quartz group 1s composed of plain surface, heavy grit inclusion sherds (11 percent). A similar proportion (10 percent) 1s composed of quartz sand or sand and quartz grit inclusion, cross simple stamped sherds. Heavy quartz grit inclusions and cross simple stamping are considered to be San Marcos hallmarks and sufficient criteria for inclusion in this cluster. Figure 17 illustrates a portion of a San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped jar from Feature 37, a hearth in unit 349 of 171A. The rim 1s

PAGE 230

Figure 16, Variants of Cord Marking on Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 231

218 C 0 5 centimeters

PAGE 232

Figure 17. Part of a San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped Jar from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 233

220

PAGE 234

221 flared outward and has a 1.8-cm wide fold "tacked" down with incised crescents. This placement of decoration along the folded rim 1s characteristic of San Marcos series pottery. The pressure of the act of incising may we 11 have functioned to secure the fold to the vesse 1 wall. A common variant, employing hollow reed punctation, is illustrated in Figure 18, A through C. All of the specimens in this photograph contain quartz grit inclusions and all are from 171A. Sherds A and Bare cross simple stamped; C is a complicated stamp composed of perpendicular blocks of lines with raised dots in the intervening spaces. Incised lines and punctation decorate the n m of D, while the remainder of the vessel is cross simple stamped. Sherds E, F and G exhibit European influence in terms of vessel form. F 1s a portion of a foot ring while E and Gare plate marleys. E 1s red filmed on the top surface and plain underneath; G is plain on top and cross simple stamped underneath. These sherds, together with Spanish colonial artifacts, are indicative of a post-contact occupation at 17 lA. 6) St. Johns. Sponge spicule, and sponge spicule and quartz sand, inclusion sherds compose 13 percent of the Kings Bay assemblage and 28 percent of the 17 lB assemblage. In many cases the sponge spicule and quartz sand inclusion sherds did not feel "chalky" and were recognized as different from a simple quartz sand inclusion paste only upon microscopic examination. Approximately equal quantities of each paste variant were recovered from the Kings Bay Site; at 17 lB 55 percent contain sponge spicules while 45 percent contain both sponge spicules and quartz sand. In addition to eroded sherds, two major

PAGE 235

Figure 18. San Marcos Series Pottery from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 71.

PAGE 236

223 A B D E F

PAGE 237

224 surface treatment categories are observed: plain and check stamped. Check stamping accounts for 31 percent of the St. Johns assemblage from 171B and occurs somewhat more frequently on sponge spicule than on sponge spicule and quartz sand inclusion paste. In addition to these, a number of minor surface treatment categories are observed. Incised and punctated St. Johns paste sherds are illustrated in Figure 19. Sherd A is a zoned punctated design on a sandy paste. The pastes of B through E contain sponge spicules only; the incising appears to have been executed with the toothed edge of a shell. All of these sherds are from 171B. St. Johns Check Stamped is well illustrated 1n a recent publication (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:Figure 29) and so is not pictured here. 7) Check Stamped. Linear and bold check stamped, St. Johns Check Stamped, San Marcos Check Stamped, and check stamping on a grog inclusion paste are assigned to temporally specific clusters. The general cluster, check stamped, contains all other checked sherds, the great majority of which contain quartz sand. Since it is not possible, on a sherd by sherd basis, to determine whether a particular check stamp is Deptford or Savannah, this group of sherds cannot be attributed to one series or the other at the present level of analysis. It is possible that a detailed ceramic technological analysis would allow matching of check stamped pastes with pastes of distinctively marked Deptford or Savannah sherds. Check stamping accounts for 5 percent of the site-wide assemblage, 2 percent of 171A and 8 percent of 171B.

PAGE 238

Figure 19, St, Johns Incised Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71,

PAGE 239

226 A B C D 0 5

PAGE 240

227 8) Mission Red Filmed. This small cluster was created for the disposition of 29 fine quartz sand inclusion and 4 quartz sand inclusion sherds which are red filmed. These artifacts differ markedly from San Marcos Red Filmed in terms of paste inclusions, but in color, thickness and burnishing the red filming on the two paste types is quite similar. Filming usually occurs on the exterior surface but six of these sherds are filmed on both sides. Two are interior filmed with an eroded check stamp on the exterior; one is simple stamped on the exterior. Three small sherds bear both linear incising and red filming on the exterior surface. Three rimsherds from a plate marley are red filmed on the top surface ~ilea section of a foot ring from a small vessel or plate (estimated ring diameter of 4 cm) is exterior filmed. The variety within this cluster 1s intriguing but the sample 1s too small for statements about proportional incidence of each variant. The European vessel forms and presence of most of these sherds at 171A suggests a post-contact temporal association. 9) Cord Marked. Cord marking on St. Johns, San Marcos, and grog inclusion sherds is accounted for in those temporally specific clusters. The general category, cord marked, contains all other cord marked and cross cord marked sherds. The great majority of these (99 percent) contain quartz sand or sand and grit inclusions. While it 1s difficult, on a sherd by sherd basis, to assign any particular cord marked sherds to the Deptford, Wilmington or Savannah pottery complexes, important differences occur within the cluster. Almost all (97 percent) of the quartz sand and grit inclusion cross cord marked

PAGE 241

228 sherds from 171 occur at 171B This attribute combination is illustrated by sherd Din Figure 16. Also illustrated in this photograph are two less cormnon cord marking variants: A is a quartz grit inclusion sherd malleated with the edge of a cord-wrapped paddle; Bis quartz sand and grit inclusion paste marked with widely spaced cord impressions; C bears heavy cord marking on a grog inclusion body. Figure 20 illustrates two other common variants from a dated context. Sherd A is cord marked on a quartz sand and grit inclusion paste while Bis cross cord marked on a quartz sand inclusion paste. Both of these sherds are from the same level in Feature 36, a refuse pit 1n 171A. An oyster shell sample (F.S. 1132) from this feature was radiocarbon dated at A.O. 1340+80 (Beta-2113). Thus these particular sherds may be typed as Savannah Fine Cord Marked. Cord and cross cord marked ceramics from 171A exhibit 94 percent quartz sand inclusions. Whether or not this paste characteristic is typical of a particular temporal period cannot be determined until additional datable contexts are excavated. As with the check stamped cluster, technological analysis of paste characteristics, to define within-type variability and to allow matches with distinctive or dated paste varieties, would be highly desirable. Again, it would be most profitably invested in analysis of pottery from discrete depositional contexts, rather than from sheet midden samples. 10) Indeterminate. This cluster includes all sherds with ambiguous or non-distinctive attribute combinations, sherds which are too small to identify design motifs, and a few identifiable but rare

PAGE 242

Figure 20. Savannah Fine Cord Marked Sherds from Feature 36 1n the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml7l.

PAGE 243

230 U') 0

PAGE 244

231 sherds. Among the latter are portions of an Irene Incised vessel which occurred in Feature 137 of unit 302 at 17 lA. Figure 21 shows a portion of this squat, globular jar with a sharply flaring rim. The rim diameter is approximately 20 cm and the neck diameter is about 18 cm. The paste contains quartz sand inclusions while the surface is burnished and deeply incised. A collar of hollow reed punctations encircles the neck. A charcoal sample (F.S. 2333) from the small refuse pit which contained these sherds was radiocarbon dated at A.D. 1420!100 years (Beta-2121). Most of the punctated and incised sherds are included in this cluster because the sherds are too small to distinguish the design. Also included are a large number of surface treatment categories which have a very low incidence for the assemblage as a whole (e.g. CORDDOWL, HERRINGBN, COBMKD, etc.). The largest components of the indeterminate cluster are plain and eroded sherds. Because plain and eroded sherds with distinctive paste characteristics (fiber, sponge spicule, grit and grog inclusions) are grouped with distinctively treated sherds of similar paste, those relegated to indeterminate status are primarily quartz sand or sand-and-grit inclusion pastes. Consequently, the overall ceramic series totals for types which contain primarily quartz sand or sand and grit inclusions are deflated as compared with the St. Simons, St. Johns, San Marcos, and Wilmington/Savannah series. This should be borne in mind when comparing ceramic totals with traditional typologies from other sites which include categories such as Deptford Plain or Savannah Plain. For single component or closed context

PAGE 245

Figure 21, Irene Incised Jar from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 246

233 0 5 cen imeters

PAGE 247

234 assemblages such types might be meaningful. In view of the multicomponent, mixed provenience sheet midden which constitutes the Kings Bay Site, most of the plain and eroded sherds are not named. Lithic assemblage. The low incidence of lithic artifacts at the Kings Bay Site conforms to expectations for coastal sites in general. Together with a low frequency of artifacts, there is a very limited variety of raw materials represented in the assemblage. Table 16 summarizes lithic analysis data for the Kings Bay Site as a whole. Tables 17 and 18 display similar information categories for 171A and 171B. The same general range of lithic tool forms is present in each component; small numbers of artifacts in most categories preclude quantitative comparisons. Comparison of material classes for the two sites reveals one important difference between them. While generally similar percentages of chert and silicified coral artifacts occur in each component, quartz is a major (20 percent) constituent of the lithic assemblage at 171B but only a minor constituent (2 percent) at 171A. The quartz artifacts are small, waterworn pebbles, pebble tools, and waste flakes. Representative examples from 17 lB are shown in Figure 22. A and B are quartz pebbles with one side broken off. These breaks might be non-cultural alterations but the resulting specimen could have functioned as a crude scraper or burin. The pebbles are not local materials and must have been imported, whether collected in a broken condition or intentionally modified. C and D in Figure 22 are more readily interpreted as deliberate modifications resulting in a tool. Both pebbles are (or were) flat, oval and smooth. Two flakes have been

PAGE 248

Table 16. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71. Form Material FREQUENCY PERCENT Si liROW PCT Heated cified UnidenCOL PCT Chert Chert Coral Quartz tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Small Flake 28 9.52 62.22 13.08 7 2.38 15.56 21.88 3 1.02 6.67 33.33 7 2.38 15. 56 20.59 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Medium Flake 90 30 .61 76.27 42.06 10 3 .40 8.47 31.25 3 1.02 2.54 33.33 13 4.42 11.02 38.24 2 0.68 1.69 40.00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Large 42 8 0 0 1 Flake 14.29 2. 7 2 0.34 82.35 15.69 1.96 19.63 25.00 20 .00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Utilized 20 5 1 2 0 Flake 6.80 1. 70 0.34 0.68 71.43 17.86 3.57 7.14 9.35 15.63 11.11 5.88 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Bi face 1 0.34 100.00 0.47 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 45 15.31 118 40.14 51 17. 35 28 9.52 1 0.34 Burin 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.34 0.34 100.00 0.47 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Tota 1 214 72.79 32 10 .88 9 3 .06 34 11. 5 6 5 1.70 294 100.00 235

PAGE 249

Table 16 continued. FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Chert Heated Chert Si li cified Coral Quartz Uniden tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total Point 10 1 1 0 0 12 3.40 0.34 0.34 4.08 83.33 8.33 8.33 4.67 3.13 11.11 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Knife 3 1.02 100 .oo 1.40 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Axe 0 0 0 0 1 0.34 100.00 20 .00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Chunk 18 6.12 8 5. 71 8.41 1 0.34 4.76 3.13 l 0.34 4. 76 11.11 1 0.34 4. 76 2.94 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble 0 0 0 9 3.06 90.00 26.47 l 0.34 10 .00 20 .00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Blade l 0.34 100.00 0.47 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble Tool 0 0 0 2 0.68 100.00 5 .88 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 214 7 2. 79 32 10 .88 9 3.06 34 11. 56 5 1. 70 3 1.02 1 0.34 21 7.14 10 3 .40 1 0.34 2 0.68 294 100 .00 236

PAGE 250

Table 17. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71A. Form Material FREQUENCY PERCENT Si liROW PCT COL PCT Chert Heated Chert cified Cora 1 Quartz Uniden tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Small 11 6 1 0 0 Flake 8.73 4.76 0. 79 61.11 33.33 5.56 11. 58 27 .27 33 .3 3 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Medium 51 8 1 l 1 Flake 40.48 6.35 0.79 o. 79 0.79 82 .26 12.90 1.61 1.61 1.61 53 .68 36 .36 33 .3 3 33. 3 3 33 .33 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Large Flake 18 14.29 72 .00 18 .9 5 6 4.76 24 .00 27 .27 0 0 1 0. 79 4.00 33.33 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 18 14.29 62 49 .21 25 19 .84 Utilized 5 1 0 0 0 6 Flake 3.97 0.79 4.76 83.33 16.67 5.26 4.55 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Bi face 1 0.79 100.00 1.05 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Tota 1 95 75 .40 22 17 .46 3 2.38 3 2.38 3 2.38 1 0. 79 126 100 .oo 237

PAGE 251

Table 17 continued. FREQUENCY PERCENT SiliROW PCT COL PCT Chert Heated Chert cified Coral Quartz Uniden tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total Point 5 0 0 0 0 5 3.97 3.97 100 .00 5.26 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Knife 1 0.79 100.00 1.05 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Chunk 2 l 1 l 0 1.59 o. 79 0.79 0. 79 40.00 20 .00 20 .00 20 .00 2.11 4.55 33.33 33.33 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble 0 0 0 l 1 0. 79 0.79 50.00 50 .00 33.33 33 .33 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Blade l 0.79 100 .00 1.05 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 95 75 .40 22 17 .46 3 2.38 3 2.38 3 2.38 l 0. 79 5 3.97 2 1.59 1 0.79 126 100 .oo 238

PAGE 252

Table 18. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for 9Caml71B. Form Ma teria 1 FREQUENCY PERCENT Si liROW PCT Heated cified UnidenCOL PCT Chert Chert Coral Quartz tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Small Flake 16 l 1. 19 61.54 16.49 l o. 70 3 .8 5 11.11 2 1.40 7.69 33.33 7 4.90 26 .92 24 .14 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Medium Flake 27 18.88 62. 79 27.84 2 1.40 4.65 22.22 2 1.40 4 .65 33.33 11 7.69 25.58 37 .93 1 0. 70 2.33 50.00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Large Flake 21 14.69 91.30 21.65 2 1.40 8.70 22 .22 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Utilized 15 4 1 2 0 Flake 10.49 2 .80 o. 70 1.40 68 .18 18 .18 4.55 9.09 15.46 44.44 16 .6 7 6.90 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Point 3 0 l 0 0 2 .10 0. 70 75 .00 25.00 3.09 16.67 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Knife 2 l.40 100 .oo 2.06 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Tota 1 97 67.83 9 6.29 6 4.20 29 20 .28 2 1.40 Total 26 18.18 43 30.07 23 16.08 22 15.38 4 2.80 2 1.40 143 100 .00 239

PAGE 253

Table 18 continued. FREQUENCY PERCENT Si liROW PCT COL PCT Chert Heated Chert cified Cora 1 Quartz Uniden tified ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Axe 0 0 0 0 1 0.70 100 .00 50 .00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Chunk 13 9.09 100.00 13 .40 0 0 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble 0 0 0 7 4.90 100 .00 24 .14 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble Tool 0 0 0 2 1.40 100.00 6 .90 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ TOTAL 97 6 7 .83 9 6.29 6 4.20 29 20 .28 2 1.40 Total 1 0. 70 13 9.09 7 4 .90 2 1.40 143 100 .00 240

PAGE 254

Figure 22. Quartz Artifacts from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71B.

PAGE 255

242 A B C D E 0 cent i meters

PAGE 256

243 removed from C; D has flakes removed on all edges of both sides. Eis an unmodified pebble of the same material; the size is typical of others found at this site. Figure 23 illustrates chert tools from 171A (except for G). The large 'White chert point labeled A is from l m below surface and was found in association with fiber tempered sherds. It measures 7.4 cm long by 4.5 cm wide by 1.0 cm thick and closely resembles the Levy subtype of the Florida Archaic Stemmed spear point described by Bullen (1975:32). Bis a flat, thin point of glossy, yellow-orange, thermally altered chert. The stem is missing; what remains measures 4.5 cm long, 3.2 cm wide and 0.5 cm thick. This point exhibits some similarities to Bullen's Hillsborough type (1975:30). The long, narrow point, C, appears to be an unfinished tool begun on an irregular blank of yellow chert. It is 5.4 cm long, 2.4 cm wide, and 2.1 cm thick. Figure 23 Dis a point tip of white chert; Eis either the tip of a large, percussion flaked chopper or a blank. Fis the stem end of a pinkish 'White chert point which has been re,;.iorked as an end scraper. G is a small yellow and 'White chert Middle Mississippian triangular point measuring 1.9 cm long (minus tip) by 1.3 cm wide by 0.4 cm thick. His also a small point but is assymetric with a deeply incurvate base. This gray chert tool measures 2.0 cm long by 1.7 cm wide by 0.6 cm thick. The tool labeled I is a thin, narrow bifacially worked scraper of white chert. With the exception of A, these artifacts were recovered from midden zones and cannot be positively attributed to a particular occupation.

PAGE 257

Figure 23. Chert Tools from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A.

PAGE 258

245 B A C D F G H I 0

PAGE 259

246 Figure 24 illustrates tools from 171B. Point A is a generalized stemmed point of yellow chert measuring 5.4 cm long by 4.2 cm wide by 0.9 cm thick. Bis a percussion flaked knife of grayish yellow chert. Also of grayish yellow chert, C is the base of a long, slender spike or an unfinished point. Dis made of silicified coral and appears to be a rewrked point used as a knife and/or scraper. It measures 4.1 cm long by 3.1 cm wide by 1.1 cm thick. E 1s a flake of translucent white chert which has been used as a knife; use t.."ear is evident along the long, curved edge. Fis a Middle Mississippian triangular point of yellowish white chert measuring 3.3 cm long by 0.3 cm thick. G and Hare fragments of points made of translucent white chert. These artifacts are all from midden contexts and cannot be assigned to specific assemblages. A, G and Hare from a concentration of lithic artifacts occuring in unit 243 which also included a relatively large amount of debitage. The only ground stone tool found at Kings Bay 1s shown in Figure 25. This axe measures 11.4 cm long by 5.8 cm wide by 3.8 cm thick and weighs 389 g. The material 1s greenish gray metamorphic rock; the bit 1s polished from use. B 1n this photograph is a nodule of silicified coral from 171A; C-F are blocky chunks of chert from 171B. These artifacts probably represent raw materials which proved unsuitable for tool manufacture. None of the lithics illustrated in Figure 25 came from discrete contexts. The predictably small sample of stone artifacts includes a limited variety of materials but a wide range of forms, as can be seen by a review of Table 16. Temporally specific types include an

PAGE 260

Figure 24. Chert Tools from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay, Site, 9Caml71A.

PAGE 261

248 A B C D E F G H 0 5

PAGE 262

Figure 25. Miscellaneous Stone Artifacts from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 263

250 A C B D E F 0

PAGE 264

251 Archaic period stemmed spear point found in association with fiber tempered pottery and two small, triangular Middle Mississippian arrow points. Several generalized points and point fragments provide no temporal information, nor 1s the ground stone ax from 171B particularly informative. Because there is most connnonly only a single example of each tool type, intra-assemblage comparisons are not feasible. The only important inter-segment difference observed in the lithic assemblage is the higher incidence of quartz artifacts and debitage at 171B as compared to 171A. Although most of this material came from midden contexts, three quartz flakes were found in Feature 128 which also contained a significant amount of St. Johns series pottery. It is proposed that the use of quartz pebble tools was a part of the St. Johns adaptation to sparse coastal lithic resources and provides a contrast with the Savannah adaptation. Since the Tidewater Biome lacks lithic raw materials, the size and variety of a coastal culture's stone assemblage is an indication of the extent of the resource area it exploited and/or the range of its trade relations. Evidence from Kings Bay shows that chert, silicified coral, quartz (pebbles) and a fine-grained metamorphic stone have been imported in small quantities at various times since the Late Archaic period. The relatively small amount of debitage indicates that much of the stone was imported in the form of blanks or finished tools or that manufacturing took place else...t'lere 1n the coastal zone than on the middens. Sources for these materials can be only generally indicated; there is an urgent need for a survey of

PAGE 265

252 aboriginally accessible lithic raw materials in the lower coastal plain of Georgia. The quartz pebbles may be from alluvial deposits along any of the major river basins. Chert and silicified coral, which are the most frequently occurring materials, are suited for chipped stone tool manufacture. Chert outcroppings are known to occur in the lower Coastal Plain along the Savannah River but are not well known further south. Chert is also available in the north central Florida uplands. The silicified coral is similar to material which can be obtained in the Suwannee/Columbia/Hamilton County area near the Suwannee River in north central Florida. Since the Suwannee flows westward out of the Okeefenokee Swamp while the St. Marys River flows eastward from the same source, a possible trade or resource access route is indicated (Barbara A. Purdy, personal communication). Spanish colonial artifacts. A small assemblage of Spanish Colonial period artifacts, including ceramics and glass, was recovered from the Kings Bay Site. The great majority of these materials was found at 17 lA. Glass artifacts include three small fragments of thin, opaque red glass which appear to be part of a small, wide-mouth vessel. One fragment is a rimsherd exhibiting a straight, rounded lip. These were found south of 171A. The fourth glass artifact 1s a s,~::tll, pale yellow, heavily patinated fragment which 1s the stem and throat portion of a small goblet. It was found 1n the east-central part of 17 lA.

PAGE 266

25 3 Majolica artifacts total 29 sherds for the entire site; the greatest frequency is at 171A where 19 sherds were recovered. Olive jar sherd distribution follows the same pattern. Majolica types identified in this assemblage include Fig Springs Polychrome (four sherds), San Luis Polychrome (one sherd), and Ichtucknee Blue on White (ten sherds). On the basis of matching pastes and glazes, the remaining 14 plain white sherds include 8 additional Fig Springs Polychrome. Six sherds bear an opaque white glaze on a pale yellow body, but are not specifically identifiable. The decorated types are illustrated in Figure 26. Olive jar sherds 1n this assemblage are all body sherds with a compact, gritty paste. Fifty-seven are plain, eight bear an interior green glaze, one has an exterior green glaze and eight are paste fragments. Beads. The only artifacts recovered from the Kings Bay Site which might be regarded as personal items are 13 beads. Of these, only three came from the two intensively tested areas. One of the "beads" is an olive shell (Oliva sayana) with the apex missing. Whether or not this was a deliberate modification, it would allow suspension of the shell as a pendant or large bead. An olive shell has a very glossy, subtly patterned brownish green exterior when alive or recently dead and would have made an attractive ornament. The remaining two beads are fashioned from shell of an unidentifiable species. One, from 171A, is tubular and drilled from each end toward the center. It measures 10 mm in length and 6 mm 1n diameter with a bore which ranges from 3 .5 mm at the ends to 2 mm at the center. The second bead, from 171B, is a much shorter tubular section, 4 mm in

PAGE 267

Figure 26. Majolica Sherds from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 268

255 A B C D 0

PAGE 269

256 length and 8 mm 1.n diameter with a 2 mm hole. Both of these beads and the olive shell are white. It was expected that artifacts (other than pottery) which reflected style would be useful in distinguishing Georgia coast from Northern St. Johns occupations. The only non-technomic items recovered 1.n secondary testing were a few shell beads. The sample 1s too small to be considered representative of any single component or for comparisons between 171A and 171B. Busycons. The Busycon spp. shells collected from the Kings Bay Site totaled 1367 specimens weighing 83.8 kg. This assemblage is a 100 percent sample, from every provenience, of whole and fragmentary shells. The total sample was desired for this study because two topics were to be addressed: the use of snails as a food resource and the use of snail shells as tools. Most previous studies of this genus have been based on assemblages of shell tools selected from a shell midden context on the basis of the archeologist's concept of a shell tool. By considering all potential tools, it should be possible to avoid a bias toward study of only obvious tools or heavily worn tools. Two examples of Busycon carica eliceans shells which fit the traditional concept of a Busycon tool are illustrated in Figure 27. These shells exhibit heavy attrition of the base and spines, and bear "kill" or "hafting" holes with worn edges. A is from 171A; Bis from 17 lB. General parameters of the 9Caml71 assemblage indicate similar size specimens at the two intensively tested components. Mass, length, and width averages for the 777 specimens from 171A are 56 g,

PAGE 270

257 7.9 cm and 5.1 cm; maxima are 360 g, 19.5 cm and 12.7 cm (minima represent fragments). Only 109 perforated shells are recorded for the assemblage, representing an average of 14.0 percent of the specimens. For the 171B collection of 421 specimens, mass, length and width averages are 67 g, 8.2 cm and 5.5 cm; maxima are 339 g, 16.7 cm and 11.6 cm. A total of 61 perforated shells is present, representing 14.5 percent of the specimens. The species distribution for the site as a whole indicates that the most common type of Busycon utilized was a right-handed, knobbed whelk, ~carica eliceans. The only other type identified to the species level was~canaliculatum, the channeled whelk. These varieties composed 76.2 and 1.7 percent (respectively) of the 171 assemblage; at 171A the proportions are 79.2 and 1.9 percent; at 171B the proportions are 71.3 and 1.7 percent. In each case the balance of the collection is composed of individuals not identifiable beyond the genus level and fragments not clearly identifiable as Busycon spp. Base wear, the most direct indicator of tool use, was measured on a scale of 1 to 6. Both of the specimens illustrated in Figure 27 were rated at 6 for the high degree of attrition of the siphonal canal and the smoothing and beveling of the reduced base. For both 17 lA and 171B, the modal base wear index was 4, which indicates a laterally reduced but not blunted, awl-like modification. The majority of the perforations observed appeared to be kill holes rather than hafting holes: the perforations were either large or exhibited sharp, ragged margins. They were not small, round, and smooth-edged, as are the perforations shown in Figure 27. A notched lip which might have

PAGE 271

Figure 27. Two Heavily Utilized Busycon Shells from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71.

PAGE 272

259

PAGE 273

260 served, in conjunction with a perforation, to stabilize hafting was observed only 20 times tn the entire collection. Charring or calcination of the shell, which might indicate either roasting of the snail meat in its shell or use of the shell as a cooking vessel, was observed in 6 of 777 specimens at 171A and in 9 of 421 specimens at 17 1B. Evidence that the shell was collected after the death of the animal (i.e. the presence of oysters or barnacles inside the aperture) was present in 50 specimens at 171A and 27 specimens at 171B. This indicates either collection of empty Busycon shells, presumably for tool use, or incidental collection in the course of oyster gathering. No specimen which could be called a "cup," that is, an outer whorl with the columella and inner whorls removed, was observed, nor was any example of incising or decoration of the shell surface seen at either site. One of the questions of interest here is the relative importance of Busycons as food items and as tools. Several field observations suggest that these animals were collected alive for use as food when encountered in the course of shellfishing and that discarded shells of appropriate size were later used as tools on a casual basis. Among these observations a re the following: 1) A large proportion of the artifacts 1s composed of small shells which would not have made particularly good tools and so must have been collected for food. 2) Many of the smaller Busycons are unperforated. Apparently either the animal could be extracted through the aperture

PAGE 274

without alteration of the shell or the shell and animal were cooked whole. 261 3) Of the larger Busycon shells bearing "kill" holes, many have not been further altered for or by use as tools. Kill holes often appear to have resulted from smashing the side of the shell without regard for the size of the resulting perfora tion. The portion of the 9Caml71A sample which was derived from Savannah contexts 1s used to revise and verify the field observations stated above and to supply comparative observations for testing some of the hypotheses stated in Chapter 5. These data are contained in Appendix E and summarized in Table 19 and Figures 28 to 30. The Savannah subsample totals 69 specimens which have an average length of 8.2 cm, a width of 5.3 cm, and a weight of 63 g. No channeled whelks B. canaliculatum) were observed. Two of the shells, a small and an average specimen, show evidence of having been collected some time after the death of the animal. One shell exhibits calcination probably resulting from exposure to fire, but whether this was accidental or a result of roasting cannot be determined. Ten specimens exhibit single perforations of the body whorl while one additional specimen has four perforations. Three shells bearing lip notches were noted; two of these occur in conjuction with perforations and could indicate alteration to facilitate (or damage resulting from) hafting. Although deliberate modifications of Busycon shells are as rare 1n this subsample as they are in the collection as a whole, three

PAGE 275

Table 1 9 Correlation of Wear Variables for Busycons from Savannah Contexts at 9Caml71. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS PROBABABI LI TY NUMBER OF OBSERVATONS LENGTii WIDTH MASS SHOULDER DEGREE BASESHAP LENGTII 1.00000 0 .83870 0.81419 0.05477 -0.13789 -0 29735 0.0000 0 .000 l 0.0001 0.6969 0 .3346 0.0179 69 69 69 53 5 l 63 WIDTii 0.83870 1.00000 0.91109 0.06454 -0. 1 0700 -0.21873 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0. 646 2 0.4549 0.0850 69 69 6 9 53 51 63 MASS 0.81419 0.91109 1.00000 -0.01196 -0 .04117 -0.24458 0 .000 l 0.0001 0.0000 0. 9 323 0. 7742 0.0534 69 69 69 53 51 63 SHOULDER 0.05477 0.06454 -0.01196 1.00000 -0 .07 269 -0.01737 0 .6969 0 .646 2 0. 9 323 0.0000 0.6234 0. 9057 53 53 53 53 48 49 DEGREE -0.13789 -0.10700 -0.04117 -0.07269 1.00000 -0.1 2 792 0.3346 0.4549 0.7742 0 .6 234 0.0000 0. 3811 51 5 l 5 l 48 51 49 BASESHAP -0.29735 -0 21873 -0.24 4 58 -0.017 3 7 -0 12792 l .00000 0.0179 0.0850 0.0534 0.9057 0. 3811 0.0000 63 63 63 4 9 4 9 63 262

PAGE 276

Figure 28. Relationship of Basewear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts.

PAGE 277

16 * 14 12 * * * 10 E * u C: * * I 8 I* .* (!) *. z w _J 6 BASE WEAR INDEX VJ VJ VJ VI VJ V 4 * ... 2 2 3 4 5 6 none * 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N O' +'WIDTH in cm

PAGE 278

Figure 29. Relationship of Shoulder Wear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts.

PAGE 279

16 * 14 * * 12 * * * 10 E A. 0 ** * C I 8 I* l!> .* z w _J 6 WEAR INDEX SPINE /rlA ~ 4 2 3 4 5 6 2 AVERAGE A. SHOULDER 3 50 WEAR 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N CJ' CJ' WIDTH in cm

PAGE 280

Figure 30. Relationship of Apex Wear to Size for Busycon Shells from Savannah Contexts.

PAGE 281

16 14 12 10 E 0 C: ::c 8 I(!) z w _J 6 4 2 0 * * * * * * APEX 2 WEAR 3 INDEX 4 5 0 L __ ....__ __ ___.__ ___ _.__ __ _L. ___ J._ __ -::-------'-------;8;-------'----~, o~--J.----;,2 6 2 4 WIDTH in cm N Q'\ 00

PAGE 282

269 areas of the shell seem to be subject to frequent, heavy wear. These are 1) the siphona 1 cana 1, re fered to here as the base, 2) the spines projecting from the shoulder of the body, and 3) the apex or spire of the shell. In add it ion, damage to the lip and outer whorl of the shell is very common, but since it 1s difficult to distinguish between accidental, postdepositional breakage of this relatively fragile portion of the shell and modification attributable to use wear, this area 1s not dealt with 1n the present discussion. Wear occurring at the siphonal canal of the shell first results 1n attrition of the distal phalange of the lip, narrowing the base to the thicker portion surrounding the columella. This change is represented by values 1 through 3 for the variable BASESHAP. Unmodified bases (1) are rare in the total collection and do not occur in the Savannah assemblage. Slightly modified (2) and pointed (3) bases were connnon. Reduction of the exposed columella to an awl-like, sharpened point (4) is much less connnon and may result from a different pattern of use; only one example was seen in the Savannah sample. Further reduction, which may or may not pass through a "sharpened" stage results in blunting and broadening of the base as the columella itself is worn away (5). A few of the very worn (6) specimens showed wear in a plane diagonal to the long axis of the columella, resulting in a bevelled base (Figure 27 B). This would seem to indicate a function other than pounding, in which a constant angle was maintained, perhaps as a result of hafting. An adze or hoe would wear in this m3nner.

PAGE 283

270 Although these variable states represent a continuum in terms of removal of material from the base of the shell, and seem to imply a ranked series, in view of the possible functional differences in the behavior causing the attrition, it is better to regard them as nominal categories. Figure 28 shows the relationship between size, plotted and length on the y axis and width on the x axis, and base wear. Arbitrary partitioning of the field at two points to reflect small, medium and large specimens leads to the following observations: 1) 2/3 of the perforated specimens are large, but only 2 of these show heavy wear ( 5 or 6). 2) More than half of the medium size specimens show heavy wear and very few show only slight modification. 3) All but one of the small specimens show base wear representing more than just slight modification; none are perforated. It 1s possible that the high incidence of wear among small specimens 1s 1n part a result of their thinner, more fragile shells. It appears that heavy use of moderate size shells is responsible for the ~ak negative correlation between size and base~ar shown in Table 19. Figure 29 shows the relationship between size and use wear affecting the spines along the shoulder of the shell. This is expressed in terms of an index based on the illustrated scale. The index is calculated by finding the average amount of wear to the spines of a shell (LEASTilER + M0STilEAR)/2 and multiplying by the

PAGE 284

27 l number of worn spines (NUMWORN), Values range from 3 to 50. It appears that some shoulder wear occurs 1n all size categories with no strong relationship between size and amount of wear. This is summarized in the negligible correlation in Table 19. Figure 30 shows the relationship between size and wear affecting the apex of the shell. A negligible relationship is reflected in the graph and correlation coefficient. The most interesting result of this analysis is the evidence that appreciable amounts of wear occur on shells of all sizes, i.e. that use of Busycon shells as tools is not limited to the large, heavy specimens which are most commonly collected and illustrated. Within each size class a number of possible funtions can be suggested, The Savannah assemblage includes five small, pointed tools and one long, narrow pointed tool which may have served any of several functions-as awls, baskety fids, or husking pins. A single specimen is sharply pointed and polished and would still make an effective awl. Many of the medium-size specimens exhibit heavy wear, to the base, the shoulder, and the apex. These might represent hand-held, general purpose pounders for processing plant material, hides, or other molluscs, or for small-scale woodworking tasks. Seven of the large shells are heavily worn but an equal number show only slight modification. These seem most suited to heavy tasks such as hoeing and shaping dugout canoes; they also might have served as net sinkers. Perforation does not seem to be a good predictor of heavy wear at any of the three locations on the shell. This suggests that it was

PAGE 285

27 2 associated with the initial killing of the animal and that hafting was probably probably associated with a secondary use. There is no evidence in this assemblage for a number of functions served by large gastropod shells at aboriginal sites elsewhere in the Southeast and especially in South Florida. No shell bowls or cups were found or indicated by cut fragments. No ornamental modification, such as incising, carving or shaping into pendants was observed. Returning to the field observations stated above, a number of comments are warranted on the basis of this analysis. The assumption that small shells "would not have made particularly good tools" is not justified in view of the conmon occurrence of heavy wear on small specimens. It is likely that tool function varied with size but many Busycons may have been multipurpose tools, e.g. the lip used for scraping, the apex for pounding, and the base for chiseling. Not only are many of the smaller shells unperforated, all of the smallest group lack perforations. But many of the large shells are unperforated, also, so that extraction techniques commonly used for small specimens may have been applicable to larger animals. Finally, many large, unperforated shells lack further modification, as do many of the small and medium-size shells. Having served their purpose as a nutrient source, these Busycons may well have been discarded but regarded by the aboriginal population as potential tools or a source of raw materials for tools, rather than simply refuse. Although the food value of Busycons relative to other mollusc species and relative to vertebrate species is not measured here, a significant dietary contribution is suggested by the regularity with

PAGE 286

27 3 which these animals occur throughout the site. In view of the paucity of lithic resources in the coastal zone, their importance as heavy tools should not be underestimated. Mollusc samples. Shell samples from two types of contexts were analyzed for the Kings Bay Site: column samples of midden material and total samples of subsistence-related features. A total of 456.l kg of shell was collected; of this, subsamples totaling 58.9 kg were analyzed. Table 20 presents summary information from mollusc analysis for 1 7 lA and 1 7 1B Table 20. Mollusc Sample Analysis Data for 9Caml71A and 9Caml 7 lB. Percent by Weight of Field Specimen Collection 17 lA* 17 lB** Taxon minimum maximum mean minimum maximum mean Crassostrea 50.4 100 .o 36. 7 2.2 100.0 69.6 virginica Geukensia 0.0 36 .4 3.3 0.0 97 .6 18 .6 demissa Busycon spp. 0.0 5.5 0.2 o.o 3.4 0 .1 Littorina 0.0 0.2 0.0 irrora ta Ilyana ssa 0 .0 0.9 0.2 0.0 1. 9 0.2 obso le ta Mercenaria spp. 0.0 22.7 2.0 0.0 39 .o 2.8 My a arena ria 0.0 6.3 0.7 0.0 3.9 0.2 Tagelus spp. 0.0 36 .s 5.9 0.0 89. 7 8.0 Dinoc ard ium 0 .0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 robust um Terrestrial o.o 0.8 0 .1 o.o 0.5 o.o gastropods Bamac les 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 o.o Unidentified o.o 9.4 0.9 0.0 10.9 0.4 Note: n=27 ** n=39

PAGE 287

274 No shell tools, other than Busycon spp. shells, were noted tn the course of analysis. While this does not preclude use of shells as tools, obvious modification for special functions does not seem to occur in this assemblage. Shell midden samples were collected from two types of contexts within the Kings Bay Site-features and column samples-for analysis in conjunction with the vertebrate faunal samples from the same contexts. Because of problems encountered in completing the vertebrate faunal analysis and because of difficulties in assigning temporal provenience to some refuse pits, no detailed comparison of mollusc species counts was undertaken. Instead, implications of the summary information contained in Table 20 are presented here. The summary includes information on 14 features and 6 column samples at 17 lA and on 15 features and S column samples from 171B. Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is the most common midden constituent and is some~at roore prevalent at 171A than at 171B. This difference reflects the greater proportion of non-oyster shell refuse pits excavated at the latter site. The second and third ranking species at 171A are razor clam (Tagelus spp.) and Atlantic ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa), while at 171B the same species occupy reversed positions. The fourth ranking species at both sites is quahog clam (Mercenaria sp. ). These relationships suggest generally similar patterns of mollusc exploitation for the two components. The apparent secondary emphasis on ribbed mussel at 171B and razor clam at 171A should be explored in future research.

PAGE 288

27 5 The uniformly low representation of other species, except Busycon spp., reflects non-intensive use. These animals may have been collected accidentally or for small tools or decoration. Radiocarbon dates. Fourteen samples from the Kings Bay Site were submitted for radiocarbon dating. These samples were selected from among interpretable features and from the column samples having the least ambiguous ceramic associations. Features 36, 75, 90 and 137 are discussed further in a separate section. Table 21 lists pertinent information for all samples. All of the zone contexts are from column samples. In each case, sherds from the appropriate zone in the accompanying 2-m test unit were compared with those recovered 1:rom the column zone for the purpose of determining ceramic association. Keeping in mind the probable depositional history of the sheet midden, particularly of the upper layer, it is not surprising that the two proveniences believed to represent San Marcos midden proved to be composed of more recent sherds but much older shell. Also, the brevity of the late aboriginal period would mitigate against development of a discrete shell layer representing this occupation. Despite some questionable ceramic type/date matches, the assemblage of dates from this site is useful for demonstrating the range and continuity of aboriginal occupation at Kings Bay, as depicted in Figure 31. Radiocarbon date determinations for four features, two at 171A and two at 171B, are discussed in the previous section. Nine of the proveniences subjected to radiometric dating came from column samples in the San Marcos and St. Johns components (see Table 21).

PAGE 289

276 Table 21. Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Samples from 9Caml71. F.S. Number Unit Context Associated Ceramics Ma teria 1 Laboratory Number C-14 Age 1n Years B.P. C-13/C-12 Ratio Carree ted C-14 Age Reservoir Carree tion A.D. Date 1132 358 Fea. 36 Savannah Oyster Beta-2113 6 20+80 -0 .81 1020+80 610+80 13 40+80 1147 56 Fea. 7 5 Deptford Charcoal Beta-2114 1350+60 600+60 157 3 71 Fea. 86 Musse 1 Beta-2115 1110+60 -3 .42 1470+60 1060+60 890+60 1668 73 Fea. 90 Bone Beta-2116 1230+110 7 20+ 110

PAGE 290

277 Table 21 extended. 2357 2412 2423 2436 2437 348 69 69 75 75 Zone A2 Zone Al Zone A2 Zone A Zone B SanMarcos St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns Savannah Oyster Oyster Oyster Oyster Oyster Beta-2122 Beta-2127 Beta-2128 Beta-2129 Beta-2130 1490+90 1200+ 70 525+ 100 1060+80 1110+ 100 -0.93 -1 .09 -0 .45 -1 .66 -1 .59 1880+90 1600+ 70 9 30+ 100 1450+80 1500+ 100 1470+90 1190+70 520+ 100 1040+80 1090+ 100 48 0+ 90 760+ 70 1430+ 100 910+80 860+ 100

PAGE 291

27 8 Table 21 extended. 2248 225 1 2259 2326 2333 357 357 346 329 302 Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone A2 Fea. 137 Savannah Savannah SanMarcos Swift Crk. Irene Oyster Oyster Oyster Oyster Charcoal Beta-2117 Beta-2118 Beta-2119 Beta-2120 Beta-2121 1020+ 70 1150+90 990+90 126 0+90 530+ 100 -1 .68 -1 .60 -1. 77 -0.20 1400+ 70 15 30+90 1370+90 16 70+90 990+ 70 1120+90 960+90 1260+90 960+70 830+90 990+90 690+90 1420+ 100

PAGE 292

1500 1400 l 1300 1200 1100 ci ct 1000 r 0 .. >900 C .. "' 800 ct I 700 u 600 l t f I I 500 400 l F S 2333 1132 2259 2248 2251 2326 2357 2423 2436 1573 2437 2412 1668 Site 171A 1 7 1B Figure 31. Radiocarbon Dates for the K i ngs Bay Site, 9Caml7l.

PAGE 293

280 The dated St. Johns proveniences are two pairs of midden samples: the upper and lower halves of the shell deposit in units 69 and 75, both of which are in the eastern half of the site. In each case, the associated ceramic sample included St. Johns Check Stamped and Plain sherds. The lower part of the midden in unit 75 contained fewer St. Johns than cord marked sherds and was designated Savannah. A reconsideration, based on the bi-typical St. Johns ceramic complex defined in this analysis, suggests that this is probably also a St. Johns provenience. Problems in the use of shell midden for dating purposes a re obvious in the inverted dates for unit 69. While the dates demonstrate reversed stratigraphy, this was not visible in the profile. Despite disturbed contexts, the four 171B dates fall within the St. Johns II period and confirm aboriginal occupation of the site during the last quarter of the first millenium A.O. and during the last century prior to European contact. San Marcos segment dates were secured for five column sample proveniences: two from unit 357 (Savannah), and one each from units 346 (San Marcos), 348 (San Marcos) and 329 (Swift Creek). The two dates for Savannah proveniences are from upper and lower midden levels in the area defiend as a Savannah pottery distribution peak. These dates (A.O. 960+700 and A.O. 830+90) fall at the early end of the Savannah period. Problems of association in shell midden contexts are reflected in the two dates for San Marcos contexts. Shell samples from upper levels of units 348 and 346, which contained San Marcos series sherds,

PAGE 294

were dated at A.D. 480~90 and A.D. 990~90, respectively. This is clearly a case of late ceramic material deposited in an earlier midden. Again, the difficulty of defining discrete proveniences within an unstratified oyster shell midden is illustrated. 281 The Swift Creek ceramic context yielded a date of A.D. 690+90 years which is a believable age for these materials. The sample was taken from a unit within the arc-shaped distributional peak for this ceramic component. Figure 31, which graphically depicts radiocarbon dates, demonstrates occupation of the Kings Bay Site from the fifth through the fifteenth century, A.D. Because samples were judgementally selected to illuminate certain aspects of the data base, intensity of occupation cannot be inferred from the date distribution. Nor can it be concluded that there was a gap in occupation because of the absence of dates in the A.D. 1000-1300 range. Feature data The identification of features in the Kings Bay Site was approached optimistically but conservatively. Any substantial anomaly of the cultural or natural stratigraphy encountered in the course of excavation was assigned a feature number. These areas were then excavated and screened as separate proveniences by arbitrary levels matching the unit levels. By the time the base of each provisional feature had been reached, it was usually apparent whether the feature was cultural and interpretable, a natural anomaly, or an uninterpretable disturbance. In view of the extensive mechanical

PAGE 295

mixing of upper soil layers attributable to treefall, it ts not surprising that a large fraction of the stratigraphic anomalies observed at Kings Bay were non-cultural. Of a total of 137 prov is iona lly designated features, 31 in 17 lA and 17 lB proved interpretable, and are described in this study. 282 San Marcos segment features. The 14 aboriginal features identified in tests at 171A include three refuse pits, one hearth, eight post holes and one midden lens. In only two cases did more than one feature occur 1n a single test: a pair of post holes was defined in unit 312 and a hearth and post hole were defined 1n unit 349. However, it was not possible in either case to demonstrate an association between the two features. Individual feature descriptions and illustrations are contained 1n the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981: 477-506). St. Johns segment features. Fifteen aboriginal features were identified in 171B, including 11 refuse pits, 2 post holes, a midden lens and a human burial. In only two cases did more than one feature occur 1n a single unit: pairs of refuse pits were defined in units 201 and 237. Descriptions and illustrations of individual features appear 1n the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:477-506). Discuss ion. In most parts of the site, features proved difficult to define and troublesome to interpret. Almost all were detected only after excavation had progressed to the base of the midden zone so that the feature fill contrasted with the underlying sand zone. Interpretation of features relied heavily on regularity of shape in cross and vertical section. Initially designated cultural features

PAGE 296

but later interpreted as natural phenomena were root holes, animal burrows, and shallow pockets of midden resulting from original deposition on an irregular surface. The two most common kinds of features identified at Kings Bay were post holes and refuse pits. Post holes were recognized when relatively narrow, deep features possessed straight sides. Refuse pits appeared as basin-shaped holes of variable size and were most often circular. 283 Post holes most commonly were 20 to 30 cm diameter, cylindrical deposits of midden material which intruded into the yellow sand substrate. They are believed to represent hand-dug holes which once contained posts and, since post removal or deterioration, have become filled with midden material. In some cases it was possible to distinguish between post mold and post hole but more often the fill was uniformly heterogeneous midden. Significantly, only individually set posts were represented by the 17 lA and 17 lB features, while in another part of the site (171E) wall trenches were in evidence (see R. Smith et al. 1980:291-293). Since no more than two post holes occurred in any one unit, it was not possible to define alignments. No temporal assignments were made for post holes at either site. Certainly all the features are post-Archaic but more specific inference is hampered by several factors: in some cases pottery artifacts were absent; in some cases only non-diagnostic artifacts were recovered; and in most cases feature fill would have derived from a midden zone not necessarily generated by the structure-building occupants.

PAGE 297

284 Refuse pits exhibited a wide range of variability in form and contents. At one extreme were very small, single mollusc species deposits lacking disgnostic cultural material, for example Features 86 and 88. At the other extreme were very large deposits containing numerous species of molluscs, a large amount of bone, and both ceramic and lithic artifacts. The small features were filled with either Atlantic ribbed mussel or razor clam shell and are probably the result of food preparation activities representing a single meal. All individual features of this type occurred at 171B; a midden lens of razor and quahog clam shell was defined in 171A. These features indicate that, from time to time, specialized shellfish collection took place or that different species of shellfish were segregated prior to processing. A radiocarbon date for Feature 86 indicates this type of behavior was occurring as early as A.O. 890+60. The large refuse pits are of interest because it is assumed that they may represent secondary re-use of previously excavated storage pits and that they must have been filled over a relatively long period of time. This suggests the possibility of finding associated structures, living floors and additional storage pits. Feature 36/39, a Savannah period feature dated at A.D. 1340~80, contained large quantities of small fish bone as well as mollusc shell, and must have been filled gradually but continuously, for lensing was not evident. Although Savannah period and St. Johns period feature faunal assemblages were totaled separately for comparison, it cannot be assumed that either assemblage is representative of the subsistence

PAGE 298

285 system which generated it. Many more datable, identifiable contexts must be excavated before intra-site or intra-component variability can be measured. Without this parameter, the significance of inter-site or inter-component differences cannot be interpreted. The hearth feature at 171A was located in one of three areas which were interpreted as representing living floors. Feature 37, a Sutherland Bluff period hearth, was situated in a unit which did not contain a layer of shell midden. Instead, the midden zone was dark, sandy soil containing numerous aboriginal sherds. At 171B two suspected living floors were encountered. One, in unit 243, was characterized by an unusually large amount of chert debitage and the absence of a heavy shell midden. Twenty-six of the 143 lithic artifacts at 171B were found in this unit. The other, in unit 70, lacked a shell midden zone but exhibited an unusually high concentration of aboriginal pottery (293 sherds, 106 of which were St. Johns series) in a dark gray humic zone. Both of the unit totals just cited, ceramic and lithic, are maxima for 171B. The burial encountered in 171B is the only aboriginal human remains recovered at Kings Bay, except for isolated finds of teeth. Artifacts found in the fill above the burial appear to result from redeposition of a sparse nonshell midden. A date of A.D. 720+110 years for the buried remains indicates that by this time a ceramic assemblage including St. Johns Check Stamped was in use. This date is somewhat early for a St. Johns II occupation, particularly since Kings Bay is distant from the core of the St. Johns region. An important aspect of this find 1s that the burial seems to have been placed in a

PAGE 299

286 large pit, indicating the possibility of other human remains and perhaps an associated earthen mound substructure at this location. No surface evidence of a mound survives. Vertebrate faunal data Sample derivation. As previously discussed, vertebrate faunal materials were collected by sifting level and zone fill through 1/4 in. mesh screen and by sifting feature and column sample fill through 1/8 in. mesh. A total of 57,925 g of bone was collected from 171A; 171B yielded 16,910 g. These collections were then subsampled to obtain a manageable sample for analysis. Time and funds available for zooarcheology during secondary testing allowed processing of a total of 3972.9 g of bone, or 5.3 percent by weight of the 171A and 171B collections. This sample is composed of 64 field specimens of zone material from lO test units in 171A, 69 field specimens of zone material from 11 units in 171B, 4 specimens from 2 column samples 1n 171A, 24 field specimens from 5 Savannah features, and 15 field specimens from 5 St. Johns features. The excavation units for analysis of zone material were selected prior to completion of ceramic analysis. For each segment of the site, a graph plotting unit total weights of bone against unit total weights of sherds was drawn. From these distributions, units which exhibited average values in both dimensions were chosen for faunal analysis. It was assumed that midden samples of average density, in terms of both pottery and bone, would be most representative of modal refuse disposal patterns and associations, reflecting neither marginal nor highly specialized

PAGE 300

contexts. Because of the manner in which zones were selected for analysis, only a broad temporal affiliation can be assigned. 287 The features analyzed are those which were clearly aboriginal and which contained a sufficient number of identifiable sherds to assign temporal affiliations. It was intended that all 11 column samples be analyzed, but only two were completed. As a result of the use of two different mesh sizes, differential recovery of some species, especially fish, 1s reflected 1n the zone samples as compared to the feature and column samples. The interpretive consequences of this differential, for coastal sites where fish were a major component of the diet, have been discussed by Reitz (1982). The contrast is especially clear in comparing the biomass contribution of terrestrial mammals to that of fish. In the 1/4 in. screened zone sample mammals provide a major portion of the diet, while in the 1/8 in. screened feature sample fish stand out. The most obvious explanation of this difference i s recovery technique. However, an alternate (or supplementary) explanation is that the midden and features represent different depositional contexts and are the product of different discard behaviors. Reitz provides some evidence that this is not the case by demonstrating that an 1/8 in. screened sample of zone material (i.e., the column samples) has a species composition similar to the feature samples (Reitz 1982). Because of the difference in recovery technique, zone and feature samples are analyzed, tabulated and interpreted separately in this study. It may be said that the 1/8 in. screened sample provides a more representative sample in terms of range of species detected.

PAGE 301

288 However, the 1/4 in. sample 1s not thereby rendered valueless. If the methodological bias against small species is recognized, the data may be used to compare exploitation of large fauna between the two segments of the Kings Bay Site and to conduct specialized studies, for example, butchering, seasonality or food preparation studies. Importantly, the 1/4 in. sample provides comparative information for the evaluation of samples from other sites where this mesh size was used. Analysis of soil pH was performed for 10 feature samples and 32 midden zone samples (Table 14). These data demonstrate similarly elevated pH values for both contexts and, in part, account for the excellent state of preservation of the faunal remains. Zone samples. The results of analyzing sheet midden samples from 9Caml71A and 9Caml71B are presented in Tables 22 and 23. It will be recalled that 9Caml71B, the St. Johns segment, is located on a high bluff at the point where Marianna Creek formerly emptied into the northern end of Kings Bay. The San Marcos segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A, is located on a somewhat lower bluff directly on the bay. The two assemblages are composite samples with respect to temporal provenience but when sherd frequencies for four key types are compared, the prevailing cultural (ceramic) association in each case matches the segment identity. Summing the St. Johns, Wilmington, Savannah and San Marcos sherd frequencies, the 171B assemblage is 65 percent St. Johns while the 171A assemblage is 67 percent San Marcos. In view of the composite temporal derivation of the St. Johns segment and the San Marcos segment vertebrate faunal samples, they are best regarded as indicators of a general coastal exploitive pattern.

PAGE 302

289 Table 22. Vertbrate Species List for 1/4 In. Screened Zone Material from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A. Species Unidentified Mammal Didelphis virginiana Scalopus aquatic us Sylvilagus sp. Unidentified Rodent Sciurus sp. Cricetidae Sigmodon hispidus Neotoma floridana Procyon lotor Mustela vison Mephitis mephitis Artiodactyl Odocoileus virginianus Unidentified Bird cf. Phasianidae Unidentified Reptile Alligator mississipiensis Unidentified Turtle Kinoste rn idae Sternotherus sp. Emydidae De irochelys reticularia Ma lac lemy_! terrapin Terrapene carolina Unidentified Snake Elaphe sp. Chondrichthyes Rajiformes Unidentified Fish Amia calva Count f % 35 2 7 .5 6 2 8 3 4 2 5 1 5 5 4 6 62 18 1 2 0 .1 0.04 0 .1 0.06 0.09 0.04 0 .1 0.02 0 .1 0 .1 0.09 0 .1 1.3 0.4 0.02 0.04 1 0 .02 847 18 .o 5 1 1 .1 1 0 .02 196 4.2 2 0.04 5 3 1 .1 3 0.06 2 0.04 4 0.09 4 0.09 2 0.04 1002 21 .3 10 0.2 MNI f i. 5 1 6 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 13 7 1 2.4 0.5 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 6.3 3.4 0.5 1 0.5 13 1 2 9 1 2 4 2 3 6.3 0. 5 1.0 4.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 Weight g % 362.5 15 .2 2.4 0.2 4 .65 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.2 2.9 2.5 1.0 4 .1 321.4 7 .5 0.2 0.45 18 .8 26 7 .5 69.65 0.7 206 .1 1.05 36.9 4.7 0.3 0.6 0. 7 5 0.4 19 7 .4 0 .9 5 0 .1 0.008 0.2 0.01 0.04 0.008 0.03 0 .008 0 .1 0 .1 0.04 0.2 13 .4 0.3 0 .008 0 .02 0.8 11 .2 2.9 0 .o 3 8.6 0.04 1.5 0.2 0.01 0.03 0 .0 3 0 .02 8.3 0.04 Biomass kg 7. 6.46 0.06 0.006 0 .13 0 .009 0.03 0.006 0.02 0.006 0.075 0.06 0 .o 3 0. 1 5. 7 2 0.15 0.005 2 .81 0. 7 8 0 .02 1.82 0.04 0.58 0.09 0.003 0 .008 0.12 0.06 3 .14 0.04 21.8 0.2 0.02 0.4 0 .03 0 .1 0 .02 0.07 0.02 0.3 0.2 0 .1 0.3 19. 3 0.5 0 .o 2 9.5 2.6 0.07 6 .1 0 .1 2.0 0.3 0.01 0 .0 3 0.4 0.2 10 .6 0 .1

PAGE 303

290 Table 22 continued. LeEisosteus sp. 294 6.3 10 4.9 37 .2 1.6 Ariidae 1035 22.0 182.98 7.7 3.08 10 .4 Arius felis 216 4.6 42 20.5 44.6 1.9 0 .81 2.7 Bagre marinus 233 5.0 15 7 3 7 8 .2 3.3 1.37 4.6 Lobote s surinamensis 22 0.5 2 1.0 21.6 0.9 0.39 1.3 Archosargus ErobatoceEhalus 1 0.02 1 0.5 0.3 0 .o 1 0.005 0 .02 Sciaenidae 10 0.2 0.8 0.03 0 .o 5 0.2 Cynoscion sp. 14 0.3 6 2.9 2.7 0 .1 0 .12 0.4 Larimus fasciatus 1 0.02 1 0.5 0.4 0.02 0.02 0.07 MicroEogonias undu la tus 16 0.3 13 6.3 6.6 0.3 0.23 0.8 Pogonias c romis 81 1.7 7 3.4 41.7 1. 7 0.79 2.7 SciaenoEs ocellata 2 0.04 2 1.0 2.8 0 .1 0.09 0.3 Stellifer lanceolatus 1 0 .02 l 0.5 0.2 0.008 0 .0 1 0 .03 Mugi 1 Sp, 10 0.2 3 1.5 0. 7 0 .03 0 .0 3 0 .1 Prionotus sp. 1 0.02 1 0.5 0.7 0.0 3 0.02 0.07 Paralichthys sp. 99 2.1 13 6.3 15 .6 0.7 0 .3 3 1.1 Chi lomycterus schoeEfi 2 0.04 1 0.5 1.4 0.06 Unidentified Bone 434.7 18. 2 Total 4702 205 2390.6 29 .69

PAGE 304

291 Table 2 3. Vertebrate Species List for 1/ 4 In. Screened Zone Material from the St. Johns Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 lB. Count MNI Weight Biomass Taxon f i. f i. g i. kg i. Unidentified Mammal 127 10 .8 126 .8 19. 7 5.59 35 .1 Didel:ehis virginiana 10 0.8 4 3.6 3.8 0.6 0 .10 0.6 Sylvilagus sp. 8 0. 7 3 2.7 3.5 0.5 0.09 0.6 Sciurus sp. 2 0.2 2 1.8 0.6 0.09 0 .o 1 0.06 Unidentified Rodent 1 0.08 0.3 0 .05 0 .009 0.06 Cricitidae 4 0.3 1 0.9 0.6 0.09 0 .0 2 0 .1 Sigmodon his:eidus 2 0.2 2 1.8 0.3 0.05 0 .009 0.06 Procyon lotor 3 Q.3 2 1.8 2.1 0.3 0.05 0.3 Mustela vison 2 0.2 1 0.9 0.9 0 .1 0.02 0 .1 Me:ehit is me:ehit is 1 0.09 1 0. 9 1.3 0.2 0 .o 3 0.2 Ar tiodac tyl 5 0.4 6.7 1.0 0.17 1.1 Odocoileus virginianus 25 2.1 10 8.9 14 2 .1 22.l 2.79 17 5 Unidentified Bird 5 0.4 3 2.7 0.7 0 .1 0 .02 0 .1 Unidentified Reptile 2 0.2 8.4 1.3 Unidentified Turtle 244 20 .7 54.8 8.5 1.94 12.2 Chelydra seq~entina 44 3.7 1 0.9 26 .0 4.0 0.28 1.8 Kinostern idae 10 0.8 4 3.6 2.9 0.5 0 .1 0.6 Emydidae 13 1.1 8.7 1.4 0.19 1.2 Terra:eene carolina 2 0.2 2 1.8 2.0 0.3 0.06 0.4 Malaclemys terra:ein 20 1. 7 6 5.4 21.6 3.4 0.4 2.5 Unidentified Snake 1 0.08 1 0.9 0.3 0 .05 0.004 0.03 Bufo sp. 25 2.1 1 0.9 0.3 0.05 Chondrichthyes 5 0.4 2 1.8 1.0 0.2 0 .13 0.8 Rajiformes 33 2.8 7 6.3 6. 7 1.0 1.08 6.8 Dasyatis Sp. 3 0.3 2 1.8 0.4 0.06 0.06 0.4 Unidentified Fish 287 24 .4 47.0 7 .3 0.94 5. 9 Amia calva 1 0.09 1 0.9 0.3 0.05 0 .0 1 0.06 ----Le:eisosteus sp. 4 0.3 2 1.8 0.6 0.09 Ariidae 141 12.0 24 .4 3.8 0.44 2.8 Arius fe lis 36 3.1 12 10.7 7.7 1. 2 0 .14 0.9 Bagre marinus 40 3.4 12 10.7 20 .1 3 .1 0.82 5 .1 Pere i forme s 1 0.08 3.1 0.5 0.07 0.4

PAGE 305

29 2 Table 2 3 continued. Archosargus ErobatoceEhalus 2 0.2 2 1.8 0.6 0.09 0 .o 1 0.06 Sciaenidae 3 0.3 0.4 0.06 0.02 0 .1 Bairdiella chrysoura 1 0.08 1 0.9 0 .1 0.02 0.007 0.04 Cynoscion sp. 5 0.4 5 4.5 1.3 0.2 0.07 0.4 MicroEogonias undula tus 3 0.3 3 2.7 0.9 0 .1 0 .OS 0.3 Pogonias cromis 7 0.6 3 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.05 0.3 Stellifer lanceolatus 4 0.3 2 1.8 0 .1 0.02 0 .007 0.04 Bairdiella/ Ste 11 i fer sp. 6 0.5 1 0.9 0 .1 0.02 0 .007 0.04 Mugil sp. 15 1.3 6 5.4 1.2 0.2 0.04 0.3 Paralichthis sp. 24 2.0 7 6.3 3.8 0.6 0.10 0.6 Unid en ti f ied Bone 108.8 16. 9 Fossil Cetacea 1 0.08 Total 117 8 112 644 .3 15. 91

PAGE 306

29 3 Table 24 summarizes the species distributions by biotope groupings. When considered in terms of numbers of individual animals derived from each, the Marine Fishes group is most important 10 both samples, and the Terrestrial Animals group 1s second in importance. Marine Fishes provide over 1/2 of the individuals captured while Terrestrial Animals provide about 1/ 5. In terms of biomass, Terrestrial Animals contribute about 1/2 of the meat represented 1n each sample while Marine Fishes contribute over 1/3. In both samples, in terms of either individuals or biomass, three biotope groups make small but appreciable contributions: Aquatic Reptiles, Marine Reptiles, and Freshwater Fishes. In neither sample are Aquatic Mammals or Birds important contributing groups. No Amphibians appear 1n the zone samples, probably as a consequence of screen size. Due to its large size, the zone sample contains a sufficient number of identified individuals to allow importance rankings within one of the biotope groups above, the mammals. Considering terrestrial mammals only, a major contributor, minor contributors and incidental contributors may be identified. Table 25 summarizes rankings in descending order of importance. Deer are clearly the major mammal exploited. In terms of numbers they are hunted more than twice as often as the next greatest contibutor; in terms of biomass they provide more than 20 times as much meat as the next greatest contributor. Opossum, rabbit and raccoon regularly appear as minor contributors. While it is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of these three animals, it is interesting that the larger raccoon is not clearly more important. Other small mammals occur with

PAGE 307

294 Table 24. Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for 1/4 In. Screened Zone Materials from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71. 171A Zone Group f % Terrestrial Animals 37 Aquatic Mammals Birds 8 Aquatic Reptiles 17 Marine Reptiles 9 Freshwater Fishes 13 Marine Fishes & Sharks 114 Other 7 Total 205 18 .o 3.9 8.3 4 4 6.3 55.6 3.4 Group 17 lA Zone kg % Terre stria 1 Animals Aquatic Mammals Birds Aquatic Reptiles Marine Reptiles Freshwater Fishes Marine Fishes & Sharks Other Tota 1 6.2 0 .16 0.84 0.58 0.04 4 .40 0.04 12 .26 50.6 1.3 6.9 4.8 0.3 35.9 0.3 MNI Column Samples f % 2 2 1 1 1 42 1 so 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 84.0 2.0 Biomass* Column Samples kg % 0.13 0.04 0 .02 0 .17 0.85 0.003 1.21 10 .4 3.3 1. 7 14 .1 7 0 .3 0.2 17 1B Zone f % 24 1 3 5 6 3 65 s 11 2 21.4 0.9 2. 7 4.5 5.4 2.7 58 0 4.5 17 1B Zone k g % 3.13 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.4 0 .0 l 2.57 0 .0 3 6.56 47. 7 0.3 0.3 5.8 6 .1 0.2 39 .2 0.5 Note: Biomass not calculated for g ar, lizards, toads, alligator or burrfish.

PAGE 308

some regularity but seem not to have been important subsistence targets. Table 25. Ranking of Mammal Importance 1n Zone Samples from the Kings Bay Site. 171A 17 lB San Marcos Zone St. Johns Zone MNI Biomass MNI Biomass deer deer deer deer rabbit rabbit opossum opossum/rabbit opossum raccoon rabbit raccoon sq uirre 1/ra t/ mink/opossum squirrel/rat/ skunk raccoon/mink raccoon skunk squirre 1/skunk skunk/mink mink 29 5 Despite the screen size bias, a considerable variety of fishes 1s present 1n each zone sample. In both samples, sea catfishes (Ariidae), are most important, accounting for 45 percent of the individual fishes and 70 percent of the fish biomass at 17 lA and 35 percent of the fish biomass at 171B. Drums (Sciaenidae) are second in importance in terms of individuals at both sites and in terms of biomass at 171A. The drums are primarily average-sized individuals of large species such as black drum (Pogonias cromis) and sea trout (Cynoscion sp. ), and large individuals of middle-sized species such as croakers (Micropogonias undulatus). A single individual of a small drum species (Bairdiella sp. or Stellifer sp.) was identified in each sample, indicating that these fish are present in midden contexts (as

PAGE 309

well as features), where they are probably underrepresented due to sampling technique. 296 One interesting difference between the two zone samples is the apparent importance of cartilagenous fish at 171B. When group contribution is figured in terms of biomass, sharks and rays account for 41 percent of the fish and 8 percent of the total biomass. Estimates of the importance of this class in particular are likely to be substantially revised (in a positive direction) by allometric scaling since these animals have high body-weight-to-skeletal-weight ratios. Several other fish appear regularly in aboriginal assemblages but never make as great a contribution as do sea catfishes and drums. T\io of these, flounders (Paralichthyes sp.) and mullet (Mugil sp. ), are of moderate to minor importance in the Kings Bay zone samples. Similarly, the freshwater fishes occur regularly but in small numbers. Although grouped with freshwater species, the longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) is often found in salt water on the Georgia coast (Dahlberg 1975:33). Two unusual species were identified 1n the San Marcos zone sample: the searobin (Prionotus sp.) and the striped burr fish (Chilomycterus shoepfi). According to Reitz, these fish are found in the estuaries and may be caught in traps set for other species. It is not known whether they were used as food or merely collected as curiosities (R. Smith et al. 1981:521). Turtles as a group are important biomass contributors, accounting for 21 percent at 171A and 19 percent at 171B. The most frequently

PAGE 310

identified species 1n both samples, the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), 1s an indicator of intensive exploitation of the salt marsh. No sea turtles were identified 1n any of the Kings Bay Site samples. 297 Feature samples. In contrast to the zone materials, the faunal samples identified from features are associated with some"1llat more discrete temporal and cultural units. St. Johns features contained primarily plain and check stamped pottery with sponge-spicule inclusions, indicative of the St. Johns II period. Savannah period features contained predominantly cord marked and cross cord marked sherds with quartz sand inclusions. One refuse pit included with the Savannah features was radiocarbon dated (on shell) at A.D. 1340 + 80 (Feature 36, F.S. 1132, Beta-2113). The two feature assemblages (Tables 26 and 27) exhibit few substantive differences. The St. Johns sample is small (43 MNI) so it is possible that some differences are simply not well-represented. The feature assemblages show a marked contrast with the zone samples 1n terms of contribution from fishes, especially small species, as can be seen 1n comparing Table 24 with Table 28. This is expected 1n view of the smaller mesh size employed. When the two feature samples are examined in terms of biotope groupings and compared with the zone samples, the contribution of Terrestrial Animals in terms of biomass decreases markedly as the Fish and Sharks contribution increases. For the larger, presumably more reliable Savannah features assemblage, 1/3 of the biomass is provided by Terrestrial Animals (as compared to 1/2 1n the 171A zone

PAGE 311

298 Table 26. Vertebrate Species List for Savannah Period Features from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml 7 1. Count MNI Weight Biomass Taxon f % f i. g % kg i. Unidentified Mammal 66 2 .1 26 .6 3.6 0.54 5 3 Did el phis virginiana 2 0.06 1 0.4 0.5 0.07 0 .O l 0 .1 Scalopus aquaticus 2 0.06 l 0.4 0.3 0.04 0.009 0.09 Unidentified Rodent 3 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 l 0.003 0 .o 3 Peromyscus sp. 8 0.3 2 0.8 0.2 0 .03 0 .006 0.06 Sigmodon hispidus 10 0.3 3 1.2 1.4 0.2 0 .036 0.4 Procyon lotor 8 0.3 l 0.4 3 .1 0.4 0.07 0.7 Odocoileus virginianus 20 0.6 3 1.2 112.8 15. 2 2 .0 3 19. 9 Unidentified Bird 6 0.2 3.2 0.4 0.07 0.7 Anatidae l 0 .o 3 l 0.4 0.3 0.04 0.007 0.07 Mergus serrator 1 0.03 1 0.4 0.3 0.04 0.007 0.07 Unidentified Turtle 119 3.8 35 .5 5 4.8 0 .394 3.9 Kinosternidae 9 0.3 5 1.9 3 .1 0.4 0 .1 1.0 Kino ste rnon Sp. 3 0 .1 0.9 0 .1 0.04 0.4 Emydidae 14 0.4 9.9 1.3 0 .15 1.5 Malaclemys terrapin 44 1.4 5 1.9 44 .5 6.0 0.46 4.5 Amphibian l 0 .o 3 0 .03 0 .004 Frog/Toad 2 0.06 0 .15 0 .02 Bufo sp. 5 0.2 3 1.2 0.35 0.05 Sceloporus undula tus l 0 .03 1 0.4 0.05 0.007 Colubridae l 0 .0 3 l 0.4 0 .1 0.01 0.001 0.01 Opheod rys aestivus 3 0 .1 1 0.4 0 .1 0 .o 1 0.001 0 .o 1 Raj iformes 15 0.5 l 0 .4 0. 5 0.07 0 .008 0.8 Dasyatis sp. 1 0.03 1 0.4 0.2 0 .0 3 0 .03 0.3 Unidentified Fish 1183 37. 7 134 .9 18. 2 1.94 19 .0 Amia calva 3 0 .1 2 0.8 0.35 0 .o 5 0.015 0 .1 Lepisosteus sp. 77 2.5 5 1.9 8.35 1.1 Elops saurus 1 0 .0 3 1 0.4 0 .1 0.01 0.005 0 .o 5 Brevoortia sp. 19 0.6 3 1.2 0.5 0.07 0 .026 0.3 Si luri formes 7 0.2 0.7 0.09 0 .o 1 0 .1 Ariidae 29 3 9.3 35 .1 4.7 0 .62 6 .1 Arius felis 5 1 1.6 10 3.9 7.9 1.1 0 .15 1.5 ---Bagre marinus 217 6.9 15 5.8 85.7 11.5 1.41 13 .8 Lobotes surinamensis 45 1.4 2 0.8 40.7 5.5 0 .6 3 6.2 Archosa rgus prob a toe ep halus 5 0.2 3 1.2 1. 7 0.2 0 .026 0.3 Sciaenidae 3 1 1.0 4 .9 5 0.7 0 .15 7 1.5

PAGE 312

299 Table 2 6 continued. Bairdiella chrvsoura 3 l 1.0 11 4.3 1. 4 0.2 0.06 0.6 Cynoscion sp. 28 0. 9 10 3. 9 4.45 0 6 0 .16 1.6 Larimus fasciatus l 0 .0 3 1 0. 4 0.6 0.08 0 .o 3 0.3 Leiostomus xanthurus 5 0.2 5 1. 9 0.3 0.04 0.017 0.2 Menticirrhus sp. 1 0 .o 3 l 0.4 0 .1 0 .0 l 0 .007 0.07 MicroEogonias undulatus 7 0.2 5 1. 9 0.8 0 .1 0.047 0.5 Pogonias cromis 13 0.4 3 1. 2 2 55 0.3 0 .09 7 1.0 Stellifer lane eola tus 4 7 8 15 3 1 22 4 7 .s 17 7 2 4 0.377 3.7 Bairdiella Stelli f er sp 15 5 4 .9 14 5 4 2 8 5 0. 4 0 .10 4 1. 0 M ugil sp. 88 2 .8 7 2.7 2 9 5 0. 4 0.0 94 0. 9 Para lich thys sp. so 1. 6 6 2 .3 7 4 1. 0 0 .17 1. 7 Unidentified B one 13 6 .9 1 8 4 Total 3134 2 57 743. 2 1 0. 1 9 5

PAGE 313

Table 2 7. Ve rtebrate Species List for St. Johns Period Features from the Kings Bay Si te, 9Caml71. Count MNI Weight Biomass Taxon f % f % g % kg % Unidentified Mammal 15 2.0 6.8 11.l 0 .159 12.2 Sciurus sp. 1 0 .1 1 2.3 0.04 0.07 0 .001 0.08 Sigmodon hispidus 1 0.1 1 2.3 0.2 0.3 0 .006 0.5 Procyon lotor l 0. l l 2.3 0. l 0.2 0.003 0.2 Odocoi leus virginianus 2 0.3 1 2 .3 8.5 13. 9 0. 18 13. 8 Unidentified Bird 0 .1 l 2.3 0.3 0.5 0 .007 o.s Unidentified Turtle 27 3.5 5.7 9.3 0 .14 10.8 Kinostern idae 1 0. l 1 2.3 0.6 1.0 0.02 1.5 Siren lacertina 1 0 .1 l 2.3 0.3 0.5 0.07 5 .4 Chondrichthyes 1 0 .1 l 2.3 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.2 Raj iformes 3 0.4 2 4.7 0. l 0.2 0.04 3.1 Unidentified Fish 508 66.8 11.0 18 .0 0. 26 5 20.4 Amia calva 4 0.5 3 7.0 0.57 0.9 0 .022 1.7 ----Lepisosteus sp. 70 9.2 2 4.7 l+ 9 8.0 Ariidae 42 5.5 3 .02 4.9 0 .o 565 4.3 Arius felis 1 0 .1 1 2.3 0.2 0.3 0.004 0.3 -----Bagre marinus 13 1. 7 3 7.0 l. 9 3.1 0.094 7. 2 Oosanus tau l 0 .1 1 2.J 0.2 0.3 0 .008 0.6 Sciaeind~ 2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.014 1.1 Bairdiella chrysoura 1 0 .1 l 2.3 0.05 (). 08 0 .004 0.3 Cynoscion Sp. l 0. 1 1 2 .3 0 .1 0.2 0.007 0.5 Micropogonias undulatus 2 0.3 2 4.7 0.4 0.7 0.02 1.5 Pogonias cromis 5 0.7 2 4.7 1.1 1.8 0 .OS 3.8 Stellifer 1 anc eola tus 24 3.2 6 14 .o 0 9 3 1.5 0.04 3. 1 Bairdiella/ Stellifer sp. 11 1.4 2 4. 7 0. 6 l.O 0 .0 27 2 .1 Mugi 1 sp. 20 2.6 8 18 .6 2.2 3.6 0.058 4 .5 Paralichthys sp. 2 0.3 l 2.J 0.3 0.5 0 .009 0.7 Unidentified Bone 10.8 17. 7 Total 761 43 61.1 1.3 300

PAGE 314

Table 28. Vertebrate Species by Biotope Grouping for Features Analyzed from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71. MNI St. Johns II Savannah Group f i. f i. Terre stria 1 Animals 3 7 .0 5 1.9 Birds 1 2.3 2 0.8 Aquatic Reptiles 1 2.3 5 1.9 Marine Reptiles 5 1.9 Amphibians 1 2 .3 Freshwater Fishes 5 11.6 7 2.7 Marine Fishes & Sharks 31 7 2 .1 221 86 .0 Other 1 2.3 12 4.7 Total 43 257 Biomass St. Johns II Savannah Group kg % kg % Terre stria 1 Animals 0 .18 27 .4 2 .11 3 3 .6 Birds 0.007 1.0 0.014 0.2 Aquatic Reptiles 0.02 3.0 0 .1 1.6 Marine Reptiles 0.46 7.3 Amphibians 0.07 10 .4 Freshwater Fishes 0.022 3.3 0.015 0.2 Marine Fishes & Sharks 0 .36 54.0 3 .s 2 56.1 Other 0.006 0.9 0 .053 0.8 Tota 1 0 .67 6 .27 2 301

PAGE 315

30 2 assemblage) and over 1/2 is provided by Marine Fishes and Sharks (as compared to 1/3 in the 171A zone assemblage). Thus, the inclusion of small fishes exactly reverses the roles of marsh-exploitation and hammock-hunting, as portrayed in these samples. Looking at just the fishes, sea catfish and drums ( in that order) are the most important families; in the larger Savannah feature assemblage the sea catfish account for 1/2 the fish biomass while the drums account for 1/4. The biomass contributions by these two species are nearly equal in the St. Johns assemblage but, together, still account for nearly 3/4 of the fish biomass. Of secondary importance in the St. Johns feature sample are mullet (Mugil sp.) and cartilaginous fishes. Their contribution, however, may be inaccurately reflected in the small sample. Among the catfishes, gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), which prefers more saline waters, is more important than the sea catfish (Arius felis). In the Savannah feature sample, in terms of numbers of individuals, the star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus) is the prominent species of drum. This small fish (rarely more than 16.5 cm in length) is most abundant 1n the lower l".::!'3Ches of the estuary and in the warm seasons of the year. An unusual species which appears in the Savannah features is the tripletail (Lobotes surinamensis). The two individuals identified here are large specimens and were probably caught in the open bay rather than the small tidal creeks (R. Smith et al. 1981:516). Procurement techniques. One of the significant insights provided by these samples concerns the capture techniques which may be inferred

PAGE 316

303 from the fish species distribution. The size and large numbers of the small drums indicate the use of nets or weirs. Mullets, which do not readily take the hook, indicate similar mass capture techniques. Larson has discussed aboriginal fishing techniques and notes that, if used, fish traps were probably located on lagoons, anchored in the more stable lagoon sediments, away from the destructive wave action of the beaches (1980a: 10-11 ). He also suggests that weirs are the most likely capture techniques for the sharks found in southeastern middens (1980a:99). Nets and weirs both represent structures involving a considerable investment of labor. The implications of this type of capture technique for settlement pattern and social organization are discussed by Larson (1980a:123): Tidal traps and other kinds of impounding devices, including seines, required that numbers of people be employed in their construction, maintenance, and oper ation. Further, these devices were of such a nature that they were most effective and efficient when they served a sedentary or semisedentary population. A group constantly on the move and organized so that its size varied as its food supply varied \o.Uuld not be like ly to use tidal traps or seines. The time and effort necessarily expended in the building of a tidal trap makes these constructions impractical for groups that could use them for only a very short period before being forced to abandon them when they moved on. An effective seine required a net of considerable length, probably of several sections, each of which is one hundred or more feet long. The size of the net would have precluded its easy transport from place to place. The equally bulky, heavy or otherwise cumbersome basket traps would have had no greater attraction for a nomadic group. In light of this discussion, the quantities of small drums and mullets in the Kings Bay Site imply not only specialized impoundment techniques, but a certain degree of sedentism and social cooperation.

PAGE 317

304 While this interpretation is intriguing, it ts important to recognize that effective capture of large numbers of small fish could have been accomplished using small dip nets or cast nets, neither of which would have required large crews or a sedentary lifestyle. Exploitation of high marsh areas, where small tidal creeks form "natural weirs," would not have required the massive nets described by Larson. Both environmental characteristics and the archeological assemblage indicate a specialization in high marsh fishing at Kings Bay. Fishing in open estuarine waters ts indicated by the fact that mullet, which appear in the St. Johns feature sample 1n numbers unusual for an aboriginal site, prefer moving waters and often occupy mid-channels (R. Smith et al. 1981:517). Two of the species common 1n the collection (Micropogonias undulatus and Stellifer lanceolatus) prefer the lower reaches of the estuary. The presence of typically freshwater species (Lepisosteus sp. and Amia calva), could indicate either exploitation of the upper reaches of the estuary or spring fishing in estuarine waters diluted by rainfall runoff. The collection as a whole indicates that a number of habitats within the marsh/lagoon sector were exploited. Processing techniques. In general, the vertebrate faunal collection is uninformative with regard to food processing techniques. Few signs of butchering were observed; one distal deer humerus showed butchering marks and had been gnawed by dogs. Two elements were gnawed by rodents. The relatively low incidence of burned bone in each of the assemblages (less than 1 percent of fragments in the

PAGE 318

30 S Savannah features and the 171A column samples and 2 percent each in the St. Johns features and the two zone samples) may be interpreted 1n one or more of the following ways: 1) roasting was not a prevalent cooking technique, 2) burning for trash disposal was very efficient, 3) burning for trash disposal was not practiced extensively, or 4) burned bone was more readily leached and is thus under represented in the faunal collection. In both of the zone samples, the element distributions for deer show underrepresentation of fore and hind quarters (Table 29). This might indicate destruction in processing, as would be expected to result from marrow extraction. In the 171B zone sample, head elements are underrepresented. Discard of heads at a primary butchering location is suggested. No worked bones or bone tools were recovered. Seasonality. There is evidence for both warm season and cold season occupations 1n the vertebrate faunal sample. Among the warm season indicators are the presence of a juvenile snake vertebra, an irmnature opossum femur, an unfused deer phalanx and species of fish which leave the shallow estuarine waters in winter, including sharks and tripletail. Since, in this region, mammals are not limited to a single breeding season, the opossum and deer are not highly reliable indicators. The sole sign of winter occupation is a merganser found in the Savannah features sample. (This is the only bird identified to species level among 40 fragments from all assemblages.) Antler fragments are among the deer elements recovered but it is not possible to determine whether these were shed or attached when the animal was killed.

PAGE 319

Table 29. Distribution of Elements for Fauna Identified from the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71. Features St. Johns II Savannah Element Sm. Mammal Deer Sm. Mammal Deer Head 3 0 28 5 Vertebra 0 0 0 1 Fore limbs 0 0 1 0 Hind limbs 0 1 2 2 Feet 0 1 2 12 Total 3 2 33 20 Zone 17 lA 17 lA Columns 17 1B 306 Element Sm. Mammal Deer Sm. Mammal Deer Sm. Mammal Deer Head 21 24 1 0 15 5 Vertebra 4 2 0 0 8 1 Forelimbs 9 6 3 0 2 6 Hind limbs 8 3 0 0 6 3 Feet 3 27 0 1 2 10 Tota 1 45 62 4 l 33 25 Column samples. The significance of the results of column sample analysis for the Kings Bay assemblage (Table 30) has been discussed by Reitz (1982). She points out that both sheet midden and feature context samples exhibit higher proportions of fish remains, relative to terrestrial animals when processed through 1/8 in. screen than when 1/4 in. mesh is used. Previous assessments of Mississippian period subsistence patterns in this region are largely based on 1/4 in. screened samples. Fine screening reverses the apparent importance of

PAGE 320

307 Table 30. Vertebrate Species List for Two Column Samples from the San Marcos Segment of the Kings Bay Site, 9Caml71A. Count MNI Weight Biomass Taxon f % f % g % kg % Unidentified Mannnal 5 0.4 1.4 1.0 0.04 1.9 DidelEhis virginiana 3 0.2 1 2.0 0.2 0 .1 0 .006 0.3 Rodentia 1 0.08 1 2.0 0 .1 0.07 0 .003 0 .1 Odocoileus virginianus 1 0.08 1 2.0 5.6 4.2 0 .12 5. 7 Unidentified Bird 7 0.5 2 4.0 2.0 1.5 0.04 1.9 Unidentified Turtle 24 1.8 7.1 5.3 0 .12 5 7 Kinostemon sp. 1 0.08 1 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.02 1.0 Emydidae 1 0.08 0.5 0.4 0.02 1.0 Malaclemys terraEin 8 0.6 1 2.0 12.7 9.5 0 .17 8 .1 Chondrichthyes 1 0.08 1 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.06 2.9 Unidentified Fish 945 71.6 30 .3 22.7 0.47 22 .4 LeEisosteus sp. 46 3.5 1 2.0 7.6 5.7 Ariidae 69 5.2 11.0 8.3 0 .19 9.1 Arius fe lis 18 1.4 2 4.0 3.5 2.6 0.07 3.3 Bagre marinus S 1 3.9 s 10 .0 17 .1 12.8 0.3 14 .3 Oesanus sp. 5 0.4 1 2.0 0.5 0.4 0 .02 1.0 Sciaenidae 28 2 .1 1.4 1.0 0 .o 5 2.4 Cynoscion sp. 28 2.1 6 12.0 2.8 2.1 0 .1 4.8 Leiostomus xanthurus 2 0.2 1 2.0 0.2 0 .1 0 .o 1 o.s Menticirrhus sp. 4 0.3 1 2.0 0.3 0.2 0 .02 1.0 MicroEogonias undulatus 34 2.6 15 30 .o 4.9 3.7 0 .13 5.2 SciaenoEs ocellata 1 0.08 1 2.0 2.2 1.6 0.07 3.3 Stellifer lanceolatus 20 1.5 s 10 .o 0.7 0.5 0 .03 1.4 Mugil sp. 5 0.4 3 6.0 0.3 0.2 0 .o 1 o.s Paralichthys sp. 12 0.9 1 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.03 1.4 Unidentified Bone 19 .1 14.3 Total 1320 so 13 3. 7 2 .099

PAGE 321

308 the two major biotope groups. It is to be expected that even finer screening (1/16 in.) or floatation would reveal a continuation of this trend which would level off at either a) the point at which the sample accurately reflected the midden contents or, b) the point at which additional small fragments recovered were unidentifiable. In most respects, the column samples and the feature samples are similar. The small size of the assemblage from the two column samples analyzed for this study precludes more specific comparisons. Botanical data A concerted effort was made to recover floral material from prehistoric contexts at Kings Bay. Several hundred seeds and seed fragments were collected from 1/8 in. screened samples and from water-screened 1/16 in. fractions. Over 95 percent of these were judged, on the basis of colored seed coats or woody interiors, to be modern inclusions in the midden. No floral materials were found in subsistence-related features. The following plants were identified among the charred, non-modern seeds: Ampelopsis arborea (pepper vine), Acalypha gracilens (three-seeded mercury),~ sp. (hickory) and Phytolacca sp. (pokeweed). All of these plants are common at Kings Bay today and their presence in the midden cannot be attributed with certainty to aboriginal activity. Distribution Analysis This section contains discussions of the implications of secondary testing results. Ceramic type frequencies are displayed using the

PAGE 322

309 SYMAP contour function to allow examination of distribution patterns and descriptive data are summarized and assessed. Two well-preserved areas were defined within the Kings Bay Site and were labeled according to the most prevalent, widely distributed ceramic type in each. The ceramic assemblages consist of a large number of fairly small aboriginal earthenware sherds and a few Spanish olive jar and majolica sherds. The small size and, often, eroded condition of the sherds are attributable to the depositional context in which they are found. Except for the 2.3 percent of the combined assemblage derived from features, the sherds were recovered from a sheet midden where they accumulated, along with shell and bone, as living floor debris. There is no evidence at either site of separate midden heaps, although such deposits may once have existed and subsequently been obscured by periodic reoccupations, especially during the historic period. Because the site is composed of successive surface scatters, every portion of the midden was at one time a surface site, subject to human, animal, botanical, and elemental agents of disturbance. No really undisturbed midden layers are available for analysis of associations among individual artifacts. Therefore, large scale, population level associations are sought in this analysis. The assemblages from 171A and 171B reveal the presence of several ceramic components which were predicted to have non-uniform distributions. Distributional information is extracted in the following section and is considered to be the major type of data which can be realized from these assemblages. Distribution patterns are

PAGE 323

310 based on type frequencies (Appendix D), which are 1n turn based on selected combinations of attributes (Appendix B) observed for each sherd derived from the systematic, semi-aligned sample. Thus the patterns are several analytical steps removed from the site assemblage and must be interpreted with caution. The distributional analysis may be regarded as a descriptive routine which 1s not an end in itself but a tool to allow intuitive grasp of complex distributions. Comparisons and contrasts among the separate distributional patterns yield observations which are considered in the next section. Spatial distributions In view of the large size and mixed nature of the artifact assemblages generated for the two major excavation groups within the Kings Bay Site, a computer-assisted approach to distributional analysis was adopted. The SYMAP package was used to plot total artifact counts for each type by unit, using centroids of excavation units as data points (Dougenick and Sheehan 1975). Contour maps were generated for each cermic type discussed 1n the previous section, for total aboriginal pottery counts, and for Busycon, bone, and stone artifact groups. Figures 32 through 47 depict distributions at the San Marcos segment, 9Caml71A; Figures 48 through 59 show St. Johns segment distributions. In the following discussion reference is made to the SYMAP figures which are arranged in chronological series, by site, and grouped at the end of each section to facilitate comparisons.

PAGE 324

311 These maps are useful for identifying spatial patterns created by uneven distribution of a type within the site. They do not, however, provide any statistical evaluation of randomness or regularity of distribution. Their intended function at this point is to allow evaluation of the spatial extent of ceramic type components within each area and to detect spatially associated artifact types. Co-incident distributions does not prove contemporaneity. However, if two density patterns are similar over several excavation units, this suggests that the two types of artifacts were deposited as a result of similar patterns of human activity. The patterns should have more behavioral import and be more reliable indicators of association than simple physical proximity of artifact types in the mixed context midden. While these maps allow direct comparison of pattern from component to component, it 1s important to remember that contour intervals are scaled individually for each artifact type. Therefore, shading densities are not directly, i.e. quantitatively, comparable from map to map. A level five contour may indicate seven majolica sherds on one map and 150 San Marcos sherds on another. Actual unit totals are printed on the maps at data point locations and may be found in Appendix D. With two exceptions, contour intervals are calculated as 1/5 of the range of values for a particular type. The exceptions involve extremely low values and extremely high values. Units with no sherds are mapped 1n a separate contour interval. As a means of checking the visual assessments of correlations and the inferences of association in the following discussion a set of

PAGE 325

312 correlation coefficients was calculated. Table 31 shows Pearson coefficients for pairs of types based on unit totals for 9Caml71A, the same figures shown in the distribution maps. Each coefficient represents the overall similarity for a pair of maps. The only strong correlation is a positive association between the Deptford and Check Stamped distributions, which reinforces the conclusion, stated below, that check stamped sherds at this site are probably part of the Deptford (rather than Savannah) complex. The most interesting aspect of this set of statistics is the lack of strong correlations, which indicates that the ceramic type categories are acting as intended, segregating the depositional phenomena within this site. San Marcos segment distributions. St. Simons series sherds are mapped in Figure 32. The major concentration is in the north central portion of the site hut important amounts of fiber tempered sherds also occur on the east and west edges. These peaks occur against a moderately continuous, low-level background distribution of a few sherds per unit. Since the Late Archaic materials occur primarily in the yellow sand zone, beginning 40 to 60 cm below surface, this distribution cannot be attributed to recent disturbance and scattering of a more tighly clustered deposit. Instead, it is suggested that the pattern is the result of repeated, small group re-occupation of the same general area, resulting in a sparse, widespread deposit with a few localized concentrations. This pattern might come about if campsites contained no repairable structures for use during subsequent visits.

PAGE 326

Table 31. Pearson Corr e lation of Unit Type Frequency Tota ls for 9Caml7lA. PE A RSON CORREI.ATl0 N O F TI PE FREQUENCIES FOR 9CAM l 7 1 A 9CAl117 IA CORRE L ATION COEFFIC I ENTS / PRO B > R UND E R H0 :R J O=0 NUMBER OF OBSERVAT I ONS s INDT S STSH S DPT S COMP S STJ N SSH S WH SV S M S RF S CIIK S C ll-lK S IN DT I .00000 0 .1 7807 -0. 09267 0 .44808 0.15867 0.0 595 1 0 1 008 I 0 1 56 1 8 0 226 15 0 .0 7127 0.0000 0. 27 8 1 0 7 ) 28 0.00 1 8 0 )55) 0.6752 0.5002 0.578) 0. 229 5 0 .6579 55 )9 1 6 46 )6 52 47 1 5 JO 41 S STS H 0 .17 807 I .00000 -0.52829 0.0065 7 0.28111 -0 09)94 0 009 22 -0 .1 7 21 4 0.04 117 0 117 49 0 .27 81 0.0000 0.0 77 5 0. 9 70 6 0.15 55 0 .58 58 0.960 1 0 6 1 2 1 0 8520 0 5 364 19 )9 1 2 34 27 )6 )2 11 2) 3 0 S DPT -0 09 26 7 0.5282 9 1. 00000 0.1081 7 0.08598 -0.13)9 1 -0.20135 0.1,0146 0.873 7 2 0.0897 1 0. 7328 0.0775 0.0000 0. 28 )8 0.813) 0 .62 1 0 0.1 ,7 18 0.1,302 0 .00 46 0.7604 1 6 12 1 6 14 IO 1 6 15 6 8 1 4 S COMP 0 .44808 0.00657 0.308 17 1.00 000 -0 .0)7 2 1 -0 .0 4)58 -0.24879 -0 .28 1 11 0 I 1025 0.023 17 0.00 18 0.9706 0. 28 )8 0 0000 0.8452 0. 7814 0 I 320 0.) 10 3 0 .608 1 0 898 2 46 )1, 1 4 46 )0 4) )8 1 4 24 )) S STJN 0. 1 5867 0 2 8111 -0 08598 0 .0)7 2 1 I .00000 0.095 1,) -0 .00 )72 0.22)29 0.2005 7 -0.0 1749 0 15 5 J 0 I 5 55 0 .8 1 J) 0 .84 5 2 0.0000 0. 5913 0 9841 0. 509 J 0 .4 10) 0. 9 )24 )6 27 JO )0 )6 )4 ) I II 1 9 26 S SH 0.0 595 1 -0 .09)94 0. 1 ))91 0.04)58 0.0954) I .0 0000 -0 .10706 0 .1 2779 0. 1 5248 -0 .1)929 0.6752 o 5858 0.6210 0. 781 4 0. 5913 0.0000 0 .l,8 39 0.61,99 0 )86 0.404) 52 36 1 6 4) )4 52 45 1 5 28 )8 S WMSV 0. 1 008 1 0 .00922 0 .2 0135 0 .2 4879 0 .0037 2 -0. 107 06 I 00000 0.28 1 2 0 0.2 1 68) 0.0659 1 0. 5002 0.960 1 0 .l, 718 0 1320 0.9841 0 .48 )9 0 0000 0 .)30 I 0. 29 78 0. 7025 ,. 7 32 I 5 )8 JI 45 47 J I 25 )6 5 H SR F 0 .1 56 1 8 0. 1 121,4 0 .1 ,0J l,6 0 28 11 I 0 .22329 -0 .1 2779 0.28 1 20 I 00000 0 .1 4095 0 095 1 4 0.578) 0 6 1 2 1 0.lt302 0. 1 )0 J 0. 509 J 0 .61,99 0 .1 JO I 0.0000 0. 76 JI 0. 807 6 1 5 II 6 11, II 1 5 1 4 I 5 9 S C IJ K 0.226 1 5 0.01, 117 0.87372 0 11 025 0.20057 0. 1 5248 -0.2 1 68) 0. 1 4095 1 00000 0 .0950) 0 2 29 5 0.8520 0 .001,6 0 608 1 0 .4 10) 0 .l, )8 6 0. 29 78 0 7611 0.0000 0.6587 )0 23 8 24 19 28 25 JO 24 S C IM K 0 07 1 2 7 -0 .11 7 1 ,q 0.08971 0 .0 2) 17 -0.0 17 49 0.13929 -0 0659 1 0 09 5 J I 0.0950) I .00000 n 6579 0.5161, 0. 761Y, 0. 898 2 0. 9124 0.1,04) 0. 7025 0 .8076 0 .6587 0 .0 000 1, 1 )0 1 4 11 26 )8 1(, Q 24 4 1 w ..... w

PAGE 327

314 Figure 4 6 maps the distribution of stone artifacts at 171A. Comparison of this map with the St. Simons series sherd distribuion map does not provide strong support of the association between fiber tempered sherds and chert debitage which was observed during excavation. The highest peak on the lithics map conincides with a sterile test on the St. Simons map. However, the two second highest peaks are correlated with moderate and high density ceramic concentrations. Figure 33 shows the distribution of Deptford ceramics to be limited to two tests on the southwest margin of the site and a few low density areas on the east and west sides. Comparison of this distribution with the Check Stamped sherd distribution in Figure 35 suggests that a good portion of the Check Stamped sherds in the latter might be Deptford Check Stamped. Fairly good pattern coincidence on the west side of the site is observed. The Deptford pattern does not match any other artifact pattern. Complicated Stamped sherds are mapped in Figure 34. Two aspects of this distribution are of interest. First, there is a fairly consistent, low-level background distribution. Second, high density concentrations form an arc-shaped band across the center of the site, The apparent peaks in this band are probably a result of the point nature of the sample. More closely spaced test units would probably have produced a ridge-shaped concentration rather than a chain of peaks. As discussed earlier, it is believed that these complicated stamped sherds are attributable to a Swift Creek period occupation.

PAGE 328

315 The alternative temporal placement for some or all of this pottery would be in the Savannah series as Savannah Complicated Stamped. A Savannah period occupation would be expected to result in deposition of substantial amounts of cord marked sherds, in addition to, and in conjuction with the complicated stamped sherds. A comparison of Figures 34 and 39 shows no correlation between major complicated stamped peaks and cord marked concentrations. The single major cord marked peak does coincide with a moderate concentration of complicated stamping. Some of the check stamped pottery might also be attributable to a Savannah occupation but there 1s no correlation between complicated stamping and check stamping (see Table 31). It is possible that some of the stamped pottery is not Swift Creek material. The majority, however, is part of a discrete deposit. Wilmington/Savannah period pottery, so asssigned on the basis of grog inclusions, is shown in Figure 35. This type exhibits a low-level presence over most of the site but is concentrated near the center. These peaks do not coincide with any other ceramic type distribution, including cord marking. Since it had been assumed that grog inclusions and cord marking would co-occur in the Wilmington and/or Savannah series, if not on the same sherd, at least in the same occupation assemblage, this is an interesting finding. Figure 36 maps the distribution of San Marcos series pottery. A single high peak on the east central side of the site and five low "hills" scattered across the site are superimposed on an almost continuous low-level background distribution. Figures 41, 42, and 43 show the incidence of olive jar, majolica and combined Spanish

PAGE 329

316 sherds. Since San Marcos sherds blanket almost the entire site, all of the Spanish ceramics occur in "association" with the late aboriginal series. Both European and aboriginal distributions peak 1n the vicinity of units 348 and 349 on the eastern edge of the site; several minor concentrations are also correlated. The apparent complexity of the Spanish pottery distribution should not be taken literally since the sample is quite small and contour level differences are on the order of one sherd. The small sample also precludes comparison of majolica with olive jar distributions. Figure 40 illustrates the distribution of a pottery type called Mission Red Filmed. The map does not present convincing evidence that this pattern is associated with either San Marcos, olive jar, or majolica distributions. However, each peak in the Mission Red Filmed distribution coincides with a peak in at least one of the other distributions. Again, small sample size is an interpretive problem; it 1s quite conceivable that with a larger sample the association would be clear. St. Johns series sherds are mapped in Figure 37. The distribution shows two isolated peaks which are the result of single unit concentrations. There is no apparent correlation with any other artifact distribution. The Check Stamped pottery pattern 1n Figure 38 has already been mentioned in conjunction with the Deptford distribution, for which it provides a partial match. There is a notable lack of correlation with the Wilmington/Savannah, the Cord Marked, and the Complicated Stamped

PAGE 330

distributions. At least one of these might be expected to match if the Check Stamped sherds were primarily Savannah period material. 317 Figure 39, Cord Marked pottery, shows a single major peak centered on tests 357 and 358. Test 358 contained Feature 36/39 which was radiocarbon dated at A.O. 1340+80 (Beta-2113). It may be assumed that most of the cord marked sherds from these units are Savannah period material. It is interesting that Spanish colonial period ceramics are concentrated in the same area. This may be an indication of continuity in settlement location, possibly attributable to re-use of an old clearing. The total aboriginal ceramic assemblage is mapped in Figure 44. The two prominent peaks in this distribution are correlated with geographic features. A pair of peaks on the eastern edge of the site marks the bluff line overlooking the bay. The long, ceramically-dense ridge down the center of the site conforms to the site's topographic contours. A maximum elevation of 15 ft is reached at the center of the site; the surface slopes gently down to about 10 ft along the eastern bluffline and western slough-edge. The peak at the very center of the site (unit 335) is also a peak in the Busycon artifact and vertebrate faunal distributions, as shown in Figures 45 and 46. Figure 46, which illustrates the lithic artifact pattern, exhibits one major and two minor peaks. The major peak, in unit 327, is composed of 23 chert flakes, all of which are from the yellow sand zone, in level 4 or below. Although no fiber tempered sherds occur in this unit, the frequent association of fiber tempered sherds and chert flakes in the yellow sand zone elsewhere at this site suggests a Late

PAGE 331

--~ ----------318 Archaic provenience for the lithics. In contrast, the adjacent lithic concentration in unit 317, which also consists primarily of chert flakes, occurs in a shell midden context with Swift Creek pottery. The two minor peaks coincide with deposits of Late Archaic pottery. St. Johns segment distributions. Figure 48 shows that St. Simons series sherds at 171B are strongly clustered at the east central portion of the bluff edge. Lithic artifacts, illustrated in Figure 58, show a moderate concentration coincident with the Late Archaic ceramics. Figure 49 shows a single important peak for Deptford pottery. This concentration occurs at the extreme eastern end of the site. Two low-level occurrences near the center of the site are separated by sterile areas. Comparing this distribution with Figure 54, Check Stamped ceramics, a basic similarity in the two patterns can be discerned. Check Stamping peaks at the extreme eastern edge of 171B and is significantly concentrated along the bluff on the western central coast edge. Unit 224 is a peak in both distributions. These similarities suggest that most or all of the Check Stamped sherds are Deptford Check Stamped. Complicated Stamped ceramics are mapped in Figure 50. This minor component is concentrated around a single test, unit 64, in the western part of the site. The distribution shares a minor peak with Wilmington/Savannah pottery, shown in Figure 51. Otherwise, Complicated Stamping appears unrelated to any other artifact group. The Wilmington/Savannah component, represented by grog inclusion pottery, shows a fairly continuous distribution across the length of

PAGE 332

319 :--.,___ l 1---------I ..... 000001>+++++ l : .::::::::::::::::::::::=====::::::::::::::::: ::: :: : : : ... 1 .............. ....... OOOOOOOOI t .......................... ........ ................ r t .. ......... ----- 1 1 .................. ......... ooooooooo+++ ........... t 1 .. ........................... ....... 1 1 1 I .... .... ......... 1 1 -ooo .. ......... -. 1 I ....... .. .... ooo ......... ........... 000000000000.I ................... -oo. o:,. 1 ............ .... ooo ... 1 1 .. ... .... 000 .. 000000000 .. 1 t .... .. OOoff .. .. ... 1 I .... ........... ............ ......... I Z .. .... aooee ................... ........ ................... 2 1 ..................... ................. .................. I I ................................... ......... a. .................. 1 1 .................................... ........................................ -t .::::::~~::::::::: ::=---;;:::: :::::::::-.:::::: :::::: :: :::::::::::::::::o;::::::::::: ::::: ::: :::=== t .......... -t 1 ................................. -... ..................................... r t -................................................. oooooooooooooo_.......ooooooo- .... .. .. .. .. r I ---- ............................. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ................................... --- ....... I l ........ ..... .............. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ............. ..... ....... .... ... ........ JI 1 ...... .. .. ....... 00000000000000000000000000 .. .. .................... .... .................. 1 1 .............................. .. .... .......... .... ... ..... ................. ..... 1 I ........ ... .......................... ooOOOOOOOOOOO ......... ..................... .... ........ I I ,------.............. ... .. ... .. ..... ............ I .............................................. ooooooooo .... .. ........... ........................... oeooo I ......................... .. .. ...... .. .... .................... -.................. I I ..................................... .. .. .. .................... --................. I 1 ........ .......................................... .. .................. -.................... oo~ t 1 ... .. ........ ................... ................ ,2 .. ............ .. .. -........ o:, ..... o~ 1 I I I I I I I I 01 .. ................... ........................ 000000000 ....... os ........... -oo-.................. 00.......... ....... .. ........... ... ....................... 000000000 .. .. ................ ............. oeel 7._. 1 .. ................... ...................... ... .. .. .. ......................... .. ........... I .... ............. ... .......... .......... .. ..... ..... ..... ....... OONM........ I ....,.00000 ........................................ .. .. ..................... .. ...... oooo~........ao 1 .......aooo ............................ .. ................ ...................... 00000000000 ............ .......... ........,.000 .......... .. ................................................................ .................... ooooooooee ...... oooo 1 M ,,aoo ..................... .............................. ..... ..... OOOOZ400000o+ .. .......... ......... 000000 I 1 .. ..................................................................... -\225 .... o ....... 0000.. .......... 00000 .. t ........................................ .. ........ ................. \225 .. .. ...... 1 ------- ............................................... ----....... ooooooooooo .. .. .... ...... oo .. ..... .... .. .. s -.>-----............ .. ............ .. ..................... --00-............. 000000000 .. .. .. ... eooo ............ 1 --....................................... a.. ................... ---.............. ..... .... -1 ........... -01 ....................................... --.................. ooooo .. .... ... .a .. .. oo--1 w..,..... .......... ............................................ ---.............................. ......... -1 ..... .................................................... .. .. ............. .. ............ .... .. oo~-.... ........... o+- ................................................................. .. ................. ............... ...... 000 .. ... .. .. .... 1 11111 ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::::: :::::::: :: :::: ::: :::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::: : .. 000 .................. .......................... .. ............................................................................... ooooooooooo .. ................... I 11 .. - ........ -...................... ........... ............... .. ..................... ..................... -.......................... .... .......,.ooooeoo ........... --... ......................... .............. .. ................. .......................... ...... .......................................... r ::::::::::::::::::: ....... .................................................................................................................................... !!!!....... .... : :i:!5i:irnS= :: =;;===::: :::::~:: ::: ::::::: ::: 0 == :::::: :!!:: ::: : :::::: :: :::: ::o;:::: :: : : ::: : : ::: :::::::::oo:=: :: ooooooooeooooeo .. .. ......... -.................................................................. ................... ... ... .. ................ .... : .......... -.................................. .................................................... -o~--.. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... 1 0000000000.. ..... .... -......... .. ................... ........................................................ ----................................ I ooooooe .................. -.............................................................................................. --........ ................. 7 ............ --..... ................. .. ....... ..... .... ........... .... ---........ ... ... .... .. I o ................... --.............. .... ........... ooooooooooo .. .. .................................... .. ............ .......................... 1 ............. ..... ___ ... .............. ...... ... 000,,....ooOO ...... ............. .. ............... .... ...... .. .... .................... -I :::::::====:: .. : ::::::::: ::::::::=:::::::: ::: :::: ::: :: :::::: ::::: ::: :::: :: :o;::=== ........ -~0--....... 02 .......... ............................. ........................................ ao1 25m =_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=::: :: ::: ::: ::: :::::::=:::::: ::;.__ .: :: : : : :::::!:::::::: ::::: ::~!: ::: :::::::::::=== : ..................... .. ...... -............................. .. .............................. -I ---.......... ..... ........ 000000000 .... ..... ....... ............................... ............. ...... I ---................................ 0000 .. ......... .......... ....................................................... 1 --................... .. ................ ...... ................................ ............... I ---............. .......... .. ................................................................................ 1 -............................. .. ....... .. .................................................................................... I ............................. .. ............................................................ ......................... --... ....................................................................................... ........... 01....... I ........................... 09 ...................... ...................... -----.. .......................... I .. .. .. ...................... .. . .... ------- .... . .................... l ............................... .. ... .. ..... 0 .................. .. -------oo-. ........................ 1 ................................................... --------........ -................. .. .. ..... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .... ........ .. .. I ......................................................... .. .. .. I ........ ........... .............. ... --00-----. .... .................. .. I ................ .. ............................ ... .. .... .. I .......... ...................... -............. ...... .... .................................. ............................. ................................. ... .. ...... --. ............. .. .......... ... .... ....... .... .. . ............................. ................................. --------............ ........... .. ...................... .... _____ .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .... ................. .. ...................... .. ----.. .......... .. ................. ....... .. .. ........ .. I I I I I I I I I .............. I .. - I I I ... I l I ;;;;:--.. --z--...... J .. --------~-----6------7.. ----s---9----,-.. -1 ------z--! ANI 714 SAN NMCOS CO.-OJNT CW l( U,kiS IIA'f' SJTI! CON'tllt.M .. ._. 0~ ST. SIIIIONS Sl!RU!S C!JIIIAIC D1Sflll9UTIQN o .o .. .. oo 40S /J L \J f '.: \I .IL \JE ~ _.,. G E 4 G>DLT f 'IG T O !: CM LEVa. .. -.11.,,.u, .. !" :J :J0 0 0 .... --.. --............ 0 0 0 000000 ......... -.. -.. .. ................... 0 00000000 ................ . ... ... ... ................ .. ... ...... .. ................. ................................ I 6 I Figure 32. Distribution of St. Simons Series Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 333

320 --1------z -------1------------,------6 -----7 ----1 ---- -------~ :: : : ; ; :: ; : ; : : ; : : : : : : :=.=---__ -_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-___ -_-_-=--;;;;;;;=-=;:=;-=-=;-=-=;-=-=~= . ..................... ==--------------------------------1 ================== I I 11 ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::==-=-=-==-============ -<10 ............. --' ---...................... --: ----::::::: .,:: :::00 ---oo..................... --0----00--1 I .. -"' : --: ................. ------------1 ::::::::::::::-. ...... ---------------0---........ 1 I I I I I ] I I I I ------------ ............. -----: --------::::::::::::::::-----------------------::::::::: : -------0 ------00----:::::: !:: ::: ::::=:::~~ -----;.,... _____ -00------00-----------.::::::::: ========= ... oa -=--------==-----------====--::::::::::::::::::: ----=::============::::::::::::. I ---------------:_ 1 __ =====--==;;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~i=~~===~=------o o--==::=--:::oo-=====: \ --------.:::::::::::::::: ... ::: .......... ---------------------------.. ::::::::::====:. ~~~;;~irn~~rnmrnmm~rnint:_~~--~_ =_=== ___ -___ =_ -=---~;~~:~~~:~~}~ I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------. .... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . .. ............................ --------------.................................... -.............................. ------------.......................... --------------............................ -------00-.......... ---00--.............................. ----oo-------................................... ------..................................... ---........................... .......... ......................... -000000........... ............. ooooooooooc,0 ............ .............. 000~000......... ......... ....................... -------------------...................... -------------------....................... o ........ .. --oo. --00,----............................. --------------------........................... ------------=::-.--::-:_;::::::::::::::::: ........................ ....................... ooooee-e .... ...,o .. -----------............................ .... :;::!:!!::=:::::::: ----------------------------=-----=-----=---_-:: :: : ::: :: ===--= ........ 31.... oo...... 00------....... 01 ......... .. ...... -:=:=::::=:~~::_:_:_:_::_:_:_:_:!!;=: ................. .00-----ao .......... ----.............................. --oo-o ................... -........ ----............................. 01 ................... -~!!!!!!!!'~oo ........ ----................... .................... .......... .. ........ .. .... ......... ------.... ..... ............. ......................... .... .................. .. .. .--00....... .................................................. -..................... -..................................... ............................. ----..,..oo ................................... .. ....... .......................... ............................. ..................................... 00 ................................. ....................................... .......... .. ..... .... ................................................ .. ............ -........ ---........... ... :::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=: ======-:: .. ::::::::====-....... ................................................. 02: .......... ....................... -............. .................................................. -------------....................... .. .. ........................... -......... .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ........................ ............................... ........ ................. ----------------.... .031. ......... .. ........................................................ ----00--------........ ................... .. ............................... ............ ... ... .... .. ............................ ................... .... . . .. .. .. ... .. ... -----------........................... ... .. ::::::::; ::: :: :: : :: : : ==--=========---::::: :::::::: :: :::: :: .. ..................... .. ........... -----------------........................... ..... .. ........ .. .. .... .... .. ... ... ---------------............................... .. .... .... .. .......... .... --------------............................... ........ ... ..... ... .. -------------................................... .. ........................ ---.................. ............... t I I I z I I I I I I I I ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. 5 m ; I I I I I I I I I -.. --,------z------,----------.. --~---.. .. --,---,-----a--- S TIIA,t OaOl4I~ jlll'Q,t "'AP 9CMl7lA SAN AIICOS c o--oHe"NT r7 TH! lt lHGS e!AT 51Te: CONTOU 01' Ol"PO,tO SCA ll!S Cl!AAICS OISTA l9UT ION VALUE 4AI! 0 .o JI .. oo zct .. oo 10.oct ...... zs.o zo .. oo zs.oo ,1 .. 00 10.00 l'e:OUl!NCT OltTtauTrON DATA .-ooH WM..t.tet IN oc" l..l!WL LJ!:VU. ___ ;_ ___ !.,..!.--!.---!.---...!............................... 000000000 ......... -----..................... ..... 0 00000000 ................. S'f''Kl,.S ----....... ......... .... 0 000 0000 ........ -----................................ 000000000 ......... ----..................... ..... 000000000 ......... .. ~a.. 19 1 l Z O O I Figure 33. Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 334

321 ~---1------z---- --l---------, -------e-------1-------1--- -------1----l--:...-,a-----o I I I .................................... -------................ -------..................................... -------............... ---------------. : : :: :: : : :: : : : ; : ::: : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : :: :: : ::::-..:==::::::: .::: :: : : : ::.._:.._-::::::_-:.-. ........... -------................... ....................................... --------................... ---...... .. ................... -......... ------oo-............................ .......... ............ ................................................................ ----.............................................. ......................... -.................................... ------............................................... .. ::;: ::ai :::::: :::! ~::::: ::: : :: : : : ~~:: ::: : :: :::=;;==::::: :: :: a;::::::;~::;:::;;::::::::: .. .................................................................... ----..................... .................... ..................................................................... --.. ...................... ..................... .. ................................................................... --........................ .. ........... ......OOO- ................. ............................................................ ................... -.....000 ............................................................................................................ .................. .. I OOO ............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................... ......................... .. re 1100 .. ................................................................................ .................... .::::::.::::::::::::09 :: : : :: : : :: : : : : !~: :: :: : : :: :: :: : ~!:: :: : : : :: : : : : : Oi::: ::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: :: : I --:;=.:;:: :: :::::: :: : :::::: :::: :::::: :: : :::::: :::: :: ::::: ::: ::::::::=::::;.:::: :: : 00 ........................ ..................... ..... ................................................ .. o~==== ..... .............................................................................................. ooac.......,..-.....0000 .... ..... ............. ........................ ... ........ ........ 0000 .. ..... ...... ........ ................................ .. '0000000000~00000000000000000000000 ............................................................................. .. .. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIJOOOOOOO 0000000- .. .... .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. ......... o ooo oo oo 0000 000000 o.-eeoooooo+ ................................................................................. 000 oo ....................... +00000000 .......... ........................................................................... 0000000000 ....................... 00 0000 ........... ....... .... .. ......... .. .. .. .. ..... .. ....... ..... .. .. 00000 ........... .................................................................................... ooaoOOM,H,N ...................... ......... ........... ............... ............ .............................................. aoo ......... .................. 1 ............. ....... 00000Ml1 .... 01 ......... .......... o~ ............................................... .......................... ........ ,o .. 0000 .. ............................................. 01 ................ 01 ....... 1111111111 ................................ ...... e ... aooo ......................................................................... oooc>N3 ....... ............................................... -000000 ......... ... .. .. ..................................... ..0000 ........ .. .... .................................. .. o oo o 0 0~00000\J ......... oo 00000 o ...................................... o ooo~ .... o ...................... .. ...................... .. 0 000000 00000000 .................... 0 0000 OM00000 .. .............. .. 0000 ........ 000 ........................................ .. .. ... oo oo 0000 oo oo .............. ooooM1MMH000 ........................ .... 00000 1 ................................................................... oo .. .. .... -0000 .... --..-ooo ... .. .............................. 1 ........................................................... ........................ oooooM ... o ............................. ..-++00000000 r ................................................................. .............. .. oooooeoeea ......... .z.......................... ......... .. I .......................................................................... .. .. - .. OOOOOCO .............................. ............. 5 ............................................................................................. 000000 ooo ... N .................................... ....... .. 1 ......... 03 ............................................................................ z, 0000000 ....... ... .aoo ................ .......................................... 1 ................. .............................................. 06 ................. ...,a ....... ooo .... ............ .J6 ............................... --1 ......................................... .a 1 .... ....................... ....... ffOOOO .. .... .................. ............................. 1 ...... .................... ......................... ..................... .... .. .... IJ0000000........-0000 .. ............ ......................... ............. --.............................. .......... ..... ........................................ .. .. 00000 oo oo 0000 oo .. .......................................................... -......................... ................ .. .... ....... .. .......... ......................... ............ .. ....... .. ............................. ............. .. ................................................................................. ............ ..................................................................................... .. ................................................................................................. .......................................... .. ................................................................. .. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ -----.................................................................................................................................................................................... .. --= .. =-=-.=-~=:_~~=:_=:_.:._=:._:;_:::: :: :: :: : :: : :: : : :: : : :: : : : :: : : : : : : : ::: :: :: ; :: : : : : :: : : :===-.--.=::::: :: :: : ::: : :: : : : :: :: :~~::: :: : ---------......................................................................... 02 .................. ----.................................... .. ----------00--- .............................................. o .................................. --------00-----.. ....................... a. ...... .. -====::!!-.------::: :::: :::~~= :::: :: :: :: :::: ::::: :::: ::::: :: :::: :: =------------:::: :::: :: :::: :: :::: :: : ---======: :: :: :: :::: :: :::::: ::: :: ::: ::::: :::: ::::: :::: :: :: ::--. :: ::~!: :::: ::::::: :: :: :::: ::: ::= .. ------------....................................................................................... ---.................................................. .. ... .. ........................................................................................ ---.................................................. .. --............................................................................................... ......................................................... .. .............................................................................................. ....................................................... .. ------.......................................................................................... ............................................. MeOO -----00--................ o3 ......................... 03 ............................................. ............................ ...................... .z.3000 ----........................................................................................... 01 .................... ... .................. 0000 -----.............................................................. oJ .............................................................. ---................ ..... .... .... ....................................................................................................................... .. --.............................................................................................................................. ..................... ---.......................................................................................................................................................... --..................................................................................................................................................... .. -................................................................................................................................................ .. ..................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... --.. .......................................................................................................................... --00-.. .. .... ...... ...... ............... 04 ...... ................................. ..... .......... ............................ ----.. ................................................ ..... ...................................................... ------.............................................. _.z,oo ................................ .... ....... 01 .. ----------......................................... - .. oo .... ........ ... .. .... ... .. ... .. ... ........ .............. .... ..... -.. .. .... .... .. ................... -----------.......................................................................................... -------00---........................................................... 0 4 ...................... .. ......................................................................................... ------.................. .... ........................................................ ................ ....... .............................................. .. ............... ........ .................................... ............... .................................................................... ..... ......................................... ...................... --..................................................................... -----................................................. ...................... ........ ..... .... ...................... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----, 25m 1 I I I I I I I I I \ ~;;;;-1--------z--------1-----------, --.. ----6.......... ,-----e -----.. ---l------1--+---a---! ~ANl'11A SAN NAIIICOS cooM!"T 0~ ltlNGS 8AT S ITI! CQWl"Qllt IIAII Oil' CQIINIII.ICAT!'O 5TA .... 1!0 Cfllt.t. NICS )JSntl8UTIOH OATA v-..ue !TRl!Nl!S ARE o .o ~o.oo ~uf'!: v.u ....e: tlAMit: 4,PPl, YI JritG TC l!ACH Ll!V!L ( ,.._,., lNC. UO!O lM HtGHlll!ST 1.l!W!:L ONl. YI IMJIIIU ........... I U! : LOW 1 .. oo 1. 00 1 o .. ao 20 .. 00 1 o. ao 20 .. 60 20 .. ao 20 .. 60 JO 20 .. 00 20 .. 00 o.zo ,o.oo zo .. oo ~ltl!QU[NCY DISTRlltUTIOM OI" OATA PCIMT 'f'ALUO IN !ACH L.l!VEL LEVEL L. 1 2 l S .................... ............................................ _. ------........................... 000000000 ......... --SY-OCLS ====== :::: .. : ::: :::::::: ggggogg:g :::.e.:::: :==-=:: -----................ ..... .. 0 00:JOOOOI) ......... ------........ ............... 000000000 ............ __ ..................................................................................... ~eo.. 9 J2 t 2 z Figure 34. Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 335

322 ---1-------z-----J--...... .., 7------------------1----- -----,--.,__ ... I I I .......... --------- + I I ............... . . ---------. ,. I I .. .. ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I -------------------I ------.. ...... ................. I ----------------I I ----------. ----------I 1 -----------I --------------- ................................ I -------------..................................... ------------............ ...... ................ 1 ----------------01 .... ....... 1 o ...... .... .... ---.......... ...... ..... ............... I ---oo----..................................... 01 ............. --oo...... o .......... 04.............. ------------... .. ........................ --............... ......................... I __ ,.. __________ .... ........ ...................... -............. ...... .. I -----------............. .. .............. --......................................... I --------------- ....... ........ ............... ........................ I .................. -OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo+ ........ -.. ............................................ 2 --------- ................... ......... MOOO- .... .. -- ............. ..................... I ----------.................... ooooooooocoo~-...oo- ....... -......... .0.s...................... 1 ----------................... .. .. .................................... 1 ----o~----.................... OOOOJ20000 ......... DS~O.. ---......................................... I ___ .., _______ ....... 02 ......... ....... ---oo ......... oo---....... .... .. .. .. .... ... .... ... .... .. --------..................... ................. ........ ---.............................. I -------.......................
PAGE 336

323 :----------i-----.J--------5------6---1-----------9-----,-----,---~--.--~ l .. I I .: :: :!:::::::.::::::::::: ::: : : :: ::: : : :: : ::: : :: : : :: ::::: ::: : :: ::: :: :: :::; :: :: ::::: : : ::: : : :::::::::::E::::::: ::::: ::::::: :: : ::: : :: :: : : ::::: :: : ::: :: ::: : : ::;: :::: :::: :: : ::: :: :: :::::::::::::::::: :: :: : : ::: :: : : ::: : :: : : :: :: :: : :: :: : : :::: ::: :::i o::: :::: :::::: I : :: : :::: :::::::::::::::::: :: :: ::: : ::: :: : ::::: ::: : :: : : :: :: : :: ::: ::: :: : :: :: :::: :::: ::: : : : : : ........... .. ... ... ..... ... .. .... ....... ..... ... ....... ...... ........... .......... : : :: :: :o;:::: ::::::~:::::::::::: : .... : ::: :: : :: ::: :oe: :: :: :: : :: :: : :i::: :: :o;:: :::: :o;: :::::: ::. : : : :: : :::: :: :: : : ::::::::::::: :: : : : :: : : : :: :: : : : :: : : :: : :: :: : : : : ::: : : : : : : : : : :: :: : :: : : : :: :: : : :: :: : : 1 -=:i\ii~iiE~~i~~~~??~::: ::: :: ::: : ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::: ::: :::: :::::::::: t ----:: ::: ;:::::u: :: ::::::: ::: 7:::: ::: ;;;; ;;:o~;;; ;:::::::;::as:::::::::::;;;;:::::::: :::::: .. :: ::::: ........ : : : ::: ::: : :::::::: .. : .................................................................................................... .49. ......... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ....... ........................................................... .............. ........ .... .............. ............... .................................. ........ ..................... I ::::::::::: ::: ::::::: :: :::: ::::::::: :::: :: : :: ::: :::::::::::: ::: : :::::: ::::: :::::: ::: :::: ::::: ::: :::: ::::::: 1 ......................... .................................. ..................... ........ .............................. ........................................................ ............ .......... ( ..::::::: ::::: :::: ::::::: ::::::::::: ::: : :::: :: :: : ::: : :::::: :: ::: ::: : :::::: :: ::: ::::::::: ::::: ::: : ::: :::::: ::::: .:::::::::::.::::::::: ::::: :::: ::::::::::::: :: ::: :: :::.:.:.:: :: : :: ::::::: :::::: :: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::::: ::: :::: ::::::: i .. ............................................................. ----........................ ........................................................................ I ..................................................... ----.......................................................................... -...... .................... I ................................................ ,----............................................................................. -........... ......... : .: ....... ...... ~0 .......................... 02 ........... -----00-................... 01 ................ ii .................. ,; ................ oo...... ::............ i ........................ ++......... ..................................................... .... ............ .... ................. ................. .......... ........................... ..... ..................... I ... .......... ...... ..... .................... ............. ........................... ................. ............. .... .. .... ............ ................. ......... ... ........ ........ ............ ........ ................ I ....................................................................................................................... .... ++......... ........... .... ..... .............. ......... ........................... I ...................................................................................................................... .. --.... ... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .... ... .... .... .. ..... .. ..... ...... ..... ....... .... ........................................................................................................................... -..................................... ........ ............................ I .................................................................................................................. ., .. .......... ............. ..... ........... .......... ...... ........ ............. I ........................................................................................................................ ...................... ,..................... ......... ..... ................ ......... I .............. ...................................................................................................... .... ................ ................................................ I ...................................................................................................................... .. ............................................................................ 5 .. ............ 07 ................................................................................... .............. .. .. ................................................................. I ................................................................. .... M ................................................. .... ............................. 10 ...... ................................. -.. I .................... ....................... 03 .............................................. ...................................................................... ........................................ ... .. I ............................................. .... .. .. ........... ............... .............................. ......................... ................... ......... .......... .......... ...... ............................ I .................. ...................... ............. ............................... ........................ .......... ..................... ...................................... ........ ........................... .. ............................................................................. ............................ ............... .. ................................................. ........ -....... .......... I .................................................................................................................................... - .. .. ................................................ .. .. .... I .......................................................................................................................................................................................... .... I .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 ............................................... ......................................................................................................................................... 000000000-.. 6 .. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. oooooooooooeoooo I ............................................................................................................................................................................................ oooooe,eo......,.. 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 ............................................................................................................................. 31 ............................................................... -00 I ............... -..................... 0> ...................................................... ............................................................. .Ja ....................... .... -a .. ........... --., ........................................... 3 ..................................................................................................................... OOOOl&W II I .......... --........................................................................................................................................................................ _... I ---..................................................................................................... ....................................... ,a .............. ooooe111111111 I --........................................................................................................................................................... oMooooooooeo 1 --................................................................................................ .................................................... .. -OOIOOOOOOe l' ............................................................................................ .. ..,.--................... ............................. ........ ............... I ... ............................................................................... .. .. .. ............................................................... _..... I ................................................................................. .. .. .... ................ .............. ....... ....... ........ ............... I ............................................................................. .. .. .. -................... ................................... .......................... I ........................................................................ .. .. -................... ................... ........ ....... ......................... ........ ---o ......................... oe ......................... .. ....................................................................... 06...... I ---................................................... .. .. ........... ............................ a:7.. .... ........ ..... ... .... .......... I -................................................... .. -MO-........................................................ .......................... I .................................................................... .. I ............................................................... -..................... ..... ... ...... .... .. .... .. .... .... .... .. .. ..... ...... ...... ................ ............................................................. .......... .... .. ............. .... ....... ...... ............... ............ I ............................................................ .. --....................... ................. ................ .......................... I ..................................................................... ..................................................................... I ...................................................................................................................................................... I .. ................................................................................................................................................... t ............................................................................................................................................... .. I I ....................................... 11................................................................................................................ I I .................................................................................................................................................. -..... I I .......................................................... 03 .............................................. ,e ........................... I ...... ........................... .............................. ............. ........ .......................................................... I ........................................ ........ ......................................................... ......................... I I ...... ............ .. ................... ... ......................................... .. ................................... zs ............. I I ............................................ .......... .. ........ os.......... ................... .......... ...... ...... ...... ................. I I ...... .......... ...... ...... ... ................... .... ... ................... ...... .... ........ ........ ...... .......................... I .... .... .. .... ..... .. ..... ..... .. ..... ...... ..... .. .... ....... .... ... ............ .. ...... .. ........ ............................ I ....... ............ ........... ..... .. ..... ................. .................... ....... ........ ........... ................. I I .. .. ...... .. ...... ..................... ............ ............... ...... ............ ........ ........ ........ .................... I I .. ..... .. ......... ...... ...... ...... ........... ....... .... .. .... ............ ............... ........ ............................. J I ..... .. ..................... ....... ............. ............ ...... ..... ........ ........ ............... ........................ I I ......... ...... ... .. ...... ....... ........ ...... ....................... ................ ............ ........ ............ I I ........ ...... ..... ...... ........ .... ......... ..... .... ........ ........ ............................... I t ................. ... ... ..... ... ....... .............................. I c:::====:::::i ............................. .. .. ::::::::::.. I I : 25 m : I I I I I I I I I I ---- ---z----->---------~-.. ----<&----,----___.._------ ----a,---.-- ...... CAMtl'IA So\N CO.-O~T 0~ lllNGS IA't S!Tf: CONTOIM ..... M' .... Ol&KOS ~,ues ce:uucs QISJRUIUTION ... l61.00 A9S0L,.UTe: ""lUE ~ u,c;e: APflll.. .,, ...c; T O fc" LEVl!L. ( All lNUN INCl.uOe:O fN HIGHl!:ST Ll!:Yl!:L ONLYI .. ... ,.., .. IIAl(I NVM B~LO I .o ::, J .. 40 67.110 b 7 .. 10 10 1 .. 20 l 01 .. 20 J .. to ~IICl!NTAGf: c.TOTAi. &BSOLUTI! 'IALUI!: IUM(;I' Ailtlll. 'I' ING TO l!:ACH Ll!:Yl!L 2 0 .. oo zo .. oo zo .. oo zo .. oo 20. 00 l'~OU'!!:""'CY OISTAUUTION 0 1' D ATA PQ1NT VALUl!:S IN 1!:ACH LE'IO.. I. f:Ve:L L l :? J 4 S .............................................................. _. .. ........ ............ 000000000 ......... ----------........ ........................ 0 00000000 ......... --SYNDOL.$ -------...... ..... .......... 0000 0000 ........ ----.. ....... ... .............. ')00000000 ......... ------., ........ .... ............. 00.)000000 ............ ...... ......... ................................ ..................... 1'111!:Q.. J 2 0 l Figure 36. Distribution of San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 337

324 ---l-----z...-----.... ............ ......... ----6---------,----t -----~-----I--- l---a-~ I / I I I I I I I l I I I I ----I I ________ l I I I I :::::::::::::::::: \ .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------....... : ::==--======:=== -----------------== :: : : :::: :: :: : : ::=-------------:====:: :: ::: : : ::::=:=========~:: :::::: :: :: :: { ~--= .. -::::::::::;;;;:;:::,=::~=::=:;:::::;"-~~:~::~ l 5 ------------------ ::":::==~~=======~;=: I j ==---= :=--=== -._--........... ..... --~~-----::::::::::-::::-:-:---========= 00i -----------------................................................ -----................. =========== : \ -----------------.......................... ::::::.::::.::::.:. -------------I 1 -========== .................................... .............................................. -~======= I 1 ____ -____ ................................ .-00000000000 ...... ------.................................................. : 1 : ________ ............. :::: :: :: : ::::: :: : : :::~~:=:~:::::======== :: :: :: :: : ::: ::: ::: ::::: ::::: I : --------------.......................................... :g=:::.:;;;===-.................. ................. ______ ---_:::;;-----~:===::::::::::::::::~~ilm!i:1m!~E:::::====:::::::::::~::::::::~:::::::::::=~==~ 1 I I I I I I I I ............................ .................................................... -( .. ............................. ...................................................................................................... 1 ........................................ .......................................................................................................... I .......................................................................................................................................................................... : --_-_---=---.-----:: :::::~~: ::::::::: ::-~~=: :::::: ::::::::::: :: :: :::~;::.:::: ::::.. --=::::::::ff:~:: { 25 m ................................... -----............. ........................... ~~=::====== ...................... -I -----.................................. -----................. .. ........................ :: ........................... I -_-_-_-_-_-_; :: :::: :: :::: ::::::::::::: :: :::: :: :~~::::: :::: :: :: : :: : :: .. -----::::::::;::::::= -==:: :::: :::: :: :::: :: : : : :::::: :: :: :::: :: : :: : ::: :: :: :: : : : : : ::: : :: .. -----::: :::: :: ::::::: -......................................................................................................................... ----............................ I :: : :: : :: : : ::: : : .: :::::: ..... : : : : .. : :: : .............................................. ===..................... ;......... ; ..................................... 02 ................................................................................. --..................................... I .......................................................................................................................... --.................................... I ............................................................... 01 .................................................. ol--................................... I .............................................. -. ........ .. ................................. ............. ... .. ..................... .......................................... ...................... ............ .. l ...................................... ............................................... .,.,., ........... 03 ... ........... I ..................................................... 0................ ............ ..... ........... ..... .... J .................. ..... ... ............................................................. ., ........ ... ......... I .. ..... ... ... .. ..... .... ...... .... .. ...... .. ......................... ....... ............ ............. .. ........ .. ........................................................................... ....................... ...... l ............................................................. -...... ........................ ........ 1 ............................................................ .. ., ........................... I .. .. ... ..... ....................................... ............... ........................ I .. ...... ... ... .. ... .... ........................................ ...... ..... .. .................. ......... ............... .... .... ............................... .......... .,., ....... .... ............... I ................ .................... .. .................. ...... .... I ........ .. .. ... ............. .... ........... I ... .... ..... ............ I I l l I I I I l I I __ .. ____ 1---.. ---2-------J----- --.. .. ---1---s------9---.. --l---.. ----1----z----- SY~ a .. c1J1 .. ,Nure:s ire" .. AP ~Al71A S 4N ..._IIIICOS COPONl!NT 0 ~ ICINGS l'IAY 5 IT' CQlffQJa ... 0 .. s r .... o .... s SE A(le ce:u .. 1cs .)ISTIIIBUTtON ,., 21 .. 00 A8SCL.UTI!: Y"91JI! AMIU:01! 40PLT ING re EACH LEV~ l 111A NUii' I PCLI.OeD IN H IGH
PAGE 338

325 ------, -----z----l---------,--------6------1-----------.----1-----1--.---a--~ I I I -------------------.. ++ .... + I I .,., ___________ .. .......... .. .. .................. l I .--------------------I ........ -----------------.......................... . .. . .. . . ......... ... .. .. -----------------..................... ..... .. ------------------......................... . .. .... .......... ------......................... . .. : ...... ::::::: ... ........ -----------------......... ......... . . .. . .. . . .............. .... .. . ----------------------................................ .. . .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. ............... ---------------------. .......................... .. ... ........ .. .. ............ ........ .......... ...... ............................... .. .......... o3l! ............... :!::::: ................ ~! .... -------oo --oo--oo........ o ................................................................ .. ................................................................................ ---------............ .. ........................................................................ ............................................................................................................ -. ... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .... .... .......... ...... .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .... .... .. .... ... ... .... .. ---............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ ................................................... .. ............................................................... ............... .......................... 01.......................... ~: ........................... ................... ----0~ .................... .. ..................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................. .. ........ ................ .. ............................................................................. ................................... ---.................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... -----.................................... .. ............................................................................... -....................................................... .......................................................... .. --................................... .. ...................................................... --------............................ ............................. .. .......................... .. .. .......................... .... .... . . . .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ---I -----.......................... ............................ .. ............................. .. 1 ---------..................... ................................. I -------................... .. ................................... 1 -----~o-............................ ooao .................. 02 ..................... 01 -00 ---------oJ .. ........ .. .. +oooo ............................................ ----o~-----00-1 ----------.... .. ............................. 0000 ............................... .. .............. I ---------....................... ....................................................................... --------1 -------.......................................... ................. ...... ........ ----------------? -----------....................... ......... ...... 0 000000000000 ........ .. ........................ ----. I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I -------.... ........ .. ....................... ... .. ... ..... .. ..... ., --------................................. ................ 00000 ....... oooa ...... .. ........................ ------------------...... .... .......................... ... ............ 000 ......... 02 ........ .. -----------...................... ............... ..... 0 00.... II 100 o ....................... ........ -----.......... ....................................... 000 .... --MHGO .... .... ........................... .. ------............................................ ...... 000 ... 1000 .. .. .. ........................... ----------oo---..................................................... a-.ao .. ................................ ------------... .. ........... ... ..................... 05 ......... ... oo .............................. .. .. ----~,o-----.......... .. -------. .................. ., ... ... .... .. ... .......................... --,-----............... 01--. ------.............. .. ........................... ...... 000111 ae .. HOoo .. ........................ ------------............................ .. =----====: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::~::::::...-::=::::::::: :: :: :: :: :: : : __ --====:=:.:: .. ::: :::: :: :::: :: :: -----....... .. ...................................... ........ 00000 ........... ........ .. ----------.... ................................ .. ----..................... ........... ................................ ................................ ------....................................................... ---....................................................................................................................... ,----..................................................... .. -...................... ............................................................................ .. ................................ -----........................................................ .. -............................................................................... ......................................................... .. ......................................................... .. ......................................... .. ...................... .. .... ---..................................................... --------.. ....................................... .. 0.1 ........ .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ----------------------............ --------.............. -................................. .. ..... ........ ........... ............................ ... ............ ,-------------0 ................. ----............................................. --................................ .......... OJ .... ............ .. -------------00-----.. ........................... ---o I ......... - .... .......... -00-.. ..................... 02 ....................................... ---o~-----------.......................................................................... ---................................................................... ---------------.................................... .. ...... ........... ----.................................................... .. ........ -----------.. ....................................... -07 .. ....... .. .... -----........................................................ ------............................. -.................................................. .............. ----............................ 0000000 .. -............ --....................................... --............ ....... -............. .. .. .............. ---..... .... .... 000000000000. .. .. .................. .................. .. ........... .. ......................... .. 000000 .... .. ............................. ----...... -.-00000 ...... 0000 .................................................................. -.. .. ............................ -----...... .. ................. .. .................. ............... --.......... ......... .............. .... ----........................................................ --.......... .. ... 0000 ..... .................... .. 011e11 I 1110,00 ................................................................ --............ ooo ........ ooo .. - ....... .. ...-16a-...ooo...... oz.. ....................... o .............. --... .. .. .. 000.........aooo....... .. ___ .,,,.,,... 00 ........................................................ -----......... .. ......... o ............................................. .. ......... -00-......... ooo ........ oooo .......... .. ,___...oo ... .. ....... .. .................... .. ................. .. ---............ 000 ........ 000 .. ......... .. --..oo- ....................... .. ................... .. ----.......... ooo ... ...0000 ........... .. 1--..00 ................................ ....................... -----.... ..... .......... .... oo ..................... ........ ........ .. ............ ---... ....... 0000000000..... .. .... oo............... .. ................................ ----........ ..... ..00000000 ......... .. HOO ........................... ---------................................. .......... .. oo............... .. --------------........................... .. ...................... .. ......... -----------....................... .. ..... .. .......... .... ... ... .. ---------0 0-----..... .... ........................... ........ .. .. -..... ......... -----------.......... 02 :: ....... ... ... ..... ...... .. ---00----------------------------------------........................ ------------------..................... .. ---10-----------.. ................. ----------------................... ----------------------------------..................... -------------................. ---------------------------................. --------------. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I 2 5 m ---::==== I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I --;;;-;:--1--.. --z ------J------.. .. --e------, __ .. ---e---.. ____ ,,._ __ ... ___ _ __ .. ____ ----2---- ~Al71A S 4H l&AIIICCS C O~PONeNT O fl fH4! ic; P,1Q5 8AT S IT!! CONTOJIII .._,.Ill :J fl S T.,.,...11!0 C ll!RANIC S O ISTRIIIUTION 1 a.oo 48501.I.ITI! V ALi.if RAHGI! AP.._ 'f't MG TO f ACH LEYl!L f"AJII-.Ufll INQ.UOll!D IN HIGM!:ST 1..fYe'L D,.,.,_TI ........ u. Sfl..OW I .. oo 1.00 o ... 40 7 .so "" 1 1 .. 20 I 1 1.eo 1 .. 60 1e .. oo ~IIICl:NT&Ge; 0 1' TOlAL -48SC1,.UTII! V ALi.ii! IIAMGI: AIIIIP\.TING T O !! ACH LEYS. 20.00 20 .. 00 20 .. 00 20.00 20 .. 00 ,..,o~N:T OISTltllt\JrtCN r:, O AT& P O INT v awe:s TH f 4CH LEYS.. l.. l:Yl!L L I 2 J 5 ................................... ------............................. 0 00000000 ......... -------... .... ...................... 0 00000000 ......... SYlll!IO..S ----,. .... ................ 0000 0 000 ........ .... ---... .. .......... .. ... J O l) J0:>0 0 0 ......... -----........... .. .. .............. O O O JOOOOO ................ ................................... fl'e:a. 25 21 I I z Figure 38. Distribution of Check Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 339

326 ~-----1 --------2------1----------6---------1------------'9----- ----------,----~ I I I I t ., ., ----. . l ................ .......................... ----.............................. . .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .... .. .. ... ..... .. --------............................. ................ ------............................... .......................................... ----.............................. -............................................... .. ----................................... .. ____ ......... ... ................................ -----.................. as ............. ................................................ ---.. .................... ... ----..... .................................... ---..................................... ... ---............................................ ......................... :: : : ::;;:: :: :: : : =~~:::::: :: :: : :::~~ :: : :: ::: :: : ::;; :: :: : : :: : : :: :oi::::::;o:~:: :::o;:: :::::: :. .................................................................... --------................ ..................................................................... ---------............... ........................................................................ -----................. ............................ ... ..... ........ ... .. ...... ...... ........ ............... .......................................................................... ---------............... .. : ;;; ; : ; :;; ;: :: : :::::::::::::::: :: ::::: ::: ::::: :::::: :: :: :::: :: :: : :.. -------00;:: ::: :::; :; :; : ................. .......................................... ---------.............. .oe .. oz ................ .. .................. ....... o~ .. ---- .... ::: : :::::::: :: :: ::::::::::~::::::::: :::::: :: :: ::: ::: :: : :: :: :: ::::::: =-----:: :: : :::::::i7 :::: :: : ..................... .................................... -----...................... ................. ................... ...................... ....................... ... .................................................. .. .. __ ....................... ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ ......................................... ------.......................... .................................. ........................................ ---...... --......................... ....... .. ............................................................... . ....................... . ........................................................................... -----------........................... .. ............................................................................... .. -.. ------............................ ------................................................................... .. ...................... ..:===:::oi:::: :: : : :;;: :::: :: :::: :: :; ;; : : : ::: : ::: :: : Oj:: :::: ::::: :01===~:=:: === ::::: ::10 ::: :::::::: :: --------.................................................................... __ .. _______ .. ______ ............... o ...... .. ---.. ......................................................................... --------........................ .. ----............................................................... ------................................ -........................ .. --.... ....................................................................... __________ .. ________ .......................... -----................................................................... -.... ---------------......................... ----................................................................. ----------.. .. __________ ............................ ....... _______ ... .... ..... .... ... --0,0--------.. ---. .. -----................................................................ ---... ....... ......... -.:,0-----........................ --------................................................................. -----------.. -----------.................... ... .................................................... ----------------................ -...... c 1. ....................................................... .:,3 ............... -------.. --_ ........ .. ----------............. --....................................... 11 ........................... ... --.. ---------------00---.......... ----.... .......... ,..Jz .. ..... ..... ......... .... __ __ __ .. ___________________ .. ..... ----oa-.................................... ............ .............................. ______________ ............ ... _______ .. ____ .... -----................. ... . .. .. .. . . . .. . . ... . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . ...... ::::::====:::.. ................................................................................. --------......... .................................... .......................................... ________ ............. ........ --.......................................... .. ........................................ ............... ................... .......................................................................... ... ........................... ----................. ................................................................................. __ ............................ ----................. ........................................................................... .... ........ -.............................. --.................... ......................................................................................................................... --............. ....... .................................... .. ---.. ------............. --............................. -.................... ..... ............................. ------.................. ,:,, ................................. .. ..... .......................... ....... 0 ......... .... -----------01 .................. ....... o.J ....... --............... ....... .. .. .. .. ..... -o~----------.................................................... ..... ..... .. .. ------------............................................... --....................... ........................................... ------------............................................... -oo.............. .. .. ........... ............................... ---------................................................................................... .. ._ .............. ....... ........ -----------. ................... ....... .......... ............. .. ................. ......... ............. --.. ......... ........ .................. ........... -0000000000++ ...................................................................................................... +ooooeeeooooo ............ .... .. .. ................. .. ......................................................................................................... ... ............... 00..,....0000+ ................................................... -................................. -00 ........... .. ......... 19 ............... J z .................. 01 ............................................... ..... ..... .,. ... .... .. .. . ..... ...... .. .. .............. ................ .............. 11 ..... .... ooe.....o .. .. ............................................. .06 ......................... .. .. ....................................................................................................... 00000000000 .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .... .... .... .. ............ 0000000 .... ...................................................................... .. ................................. ....... .............................................................................................................. _... ..................................... .. ................................................................... .... .................................................................................................... .. ........................................................................................................ .......................... ......................... ... ............. . ........................... 10 .. .. .. .. oz ............. -----.......................... -. ............ .. .......... .. ..................................... -----................... .... ... --...................... .. ..................................... .. .. --~o--.................... .. .......... .. ............. ....... ----------............. ------........................ ................. ... ......... ____ .. _________ ....... ---------........................ .... .................. ---------------.. .... ----------.......... oa ....................... --.. --------.. --0 ---------.......................... .................. -------------------............. ....... .. ................. ---_ .. ____ ....... -.. ---------............................ . ... ... .. ...... ------.. -.. ----.. --------........................... .. . .. . .. . -----------.. --------........................... . .. .. . . --------------.... -------............................ . .. .. .. ----------------------............. ....... . .. .. ----------------_ .... _______ -.......................... ... ... -----------.. --.. ---........................... .. ..... ...... ... ........ \ 25m I I I I I I I I 2 I I I I I I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -.. -.. 1 ------.z------J------.... --.. "'"--_ .. __ &-----7------a-------9----- -----1----z---SY..,P o.oo .,-.ures FOR ... P 9CAl?I~ S-4N ... ,,cos c o111:,H!)tT 0 1" n..e: ltll'fGS ~AY srrl! CQHTOUllt ._ .. C, C CJIIO "'ARttl!O Cf.A AI CS O IS T~ IBUT ION .. ..... oo A95CM..UTI! VAI..Uf q,\~ aPP\..'1'1 NG TO EACH LfWl!I.. (MAXl"'U IHQ.VO!:O ZN HIGte:ST Ll!Yl!I.. ON..Y't .... .. u. ..... ..,. !ll!LOW 1 .oo 1. 00 29.&0 20 .oo 20 .. 00 se.20 s& .. eo 20.00 86. SQ I IS. 40 20.00 115. 40 OQ zo .. 00 fl'!WOU~HCY OISTRIIUTfCf,j OF DATA POINT WAU,D I,.. E4CH l..EYB.. l..~8.. L. I 2 J 4 5 ................................................................................................ ____ .. ___ .............. 0000 00000 ...... ". .... _______ .. ... OO OQQOOOQ ......... S'l'al!IO..S -----...... ... .. 0 000 00 00 ........ -.... ------. .. .... .. O OOOOOOQQ ......... ---..... .............. .... .. .. OOOQOOQOO ......... ............................................................. ................. ................. ~Al! ,J t J C 1 0 1 Figure 39. Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 340

327 1 I I I 00 0000.>+ .--00000 ,------------------------------. :: : : ::::g~g~g~~g:::: ::::::: ___________ :::: __________ -----------=:::: :::!!!~~~:~::::: ;:::::::=========::::=--===~=;-------. ... ----. .000000000 ---------------------------------------------------------~fff[[f{f~-{f{fff~ ------ OOOH.000 ................... _..,__ ...... ...... ...... ............... ... :::_-_0 0 _-:;;::gg:~gg~~!!:::::::~----~o ---oo -.o,, o =-====-=-==--=-=====-=-=====::::::::;:::::::==--===-=-====-=-===================--=-::-.:-.:-::-.............. -----------------------...... ----------........... -----------------------............ -----------------... ______________ .. == .... ::;..;:_============oo--------====--o---:.:::.-.;:::::::::::::::: -------------oo--...... ....... ------------......... 0 ........ --------............. ...... ---------------------------................. ............... -------.. ------------o --------oo------00--------..00--,0----------------01 -0 _...,_ __ -----------------------------....... -------------------.............. -------------------------................. ----------------------- ------------------------------:::: ::~g~~====::~: :===========~~ ~::===:::: ~==-:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.::.::.:. ___ --_-_:.::: :~g:.~:=g :::: .... -:::::::::::=-=-=--====----------::= :: ~m:~~: :=::..-=====;;;;;;~;;~=----------: __________ --!== -------------------.... -------------------' OOO ..... ff.OO -----------------.... ---------' ------- ---oooolOOO----------I .... I I I I I I I I I I I I ................. -----------------............ -----__ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ ---------------------------------------------- --------GO ..: --00 OI -------===::-:.:~.:=====~======--~00-----------0 ------------=--=:_===----------------_-_-__ -----=-::-::-_=::~==-=-==-=-=:::--==:!. i:: ::::.::::.:::::.:.:::: --=====----====---------------===-----=-----------.................. ------:.:-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-. .. -----oo-------oo------------oo----OOOOOOOOOOO -----------------01-------------------------00------------------... .... -......... -------------------........................ .......... ------------............... -----.......... ------------------.......... ---.......... ----------------01--------........ ... --------------------------------------------------------------00-------...... ---=~:::::: ~~:==========---------~~--------------00--.. ---------------------. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----! 25 m I I I I I I I I I ---]------S--- ---6--+---1---t---- ... ----I --~------- SY .. ..urt:s "o" ... o 9CAl71A SAN MAIIICOS c 01,11>O .. e,er a ... ft-I! l(ll'fGS : UY stTE CONTOU ,Y ISSJOJrit At:0 tllLlffO Cl!!:IIIAMICS OISTlltl9UTION .oo VAL.U! ANGI A~'f'ING TO !ACN LIVG., 1 INCLUOIO IN 11ICMC.Sf Ll['f'IIL. CJM..Yt "IINllllft.N ... ,...,.. ot!LOo 1.00 1.00 z.oo ,.oo l.oo J.00 00 s.oo s.oo o 20.00 .... ~~=--Jrite ::::~==:~::.:::!.:=:.:1.:~~::~-----..!----000000000 ........... ...... ---... . 000000000 ......... SYll90L.S ---0000 0000 ........ ------ OOOOOONO ......... ---.. 000\100000 .............. .. .... Q. 19 IO 2 I Z I Figure 40. Distribution of Mission Red Filmed Pottery at 9Cam171A.

PAGE 341

328 --l--------z---l----1-.------------1----I ---+--a---.,.._.. I I I ---------I I ---------- I I --------- I ----------------------........................... ----. I .................. _____ ,.,. _____________ .., .. ................................. -----I I --------------------- .............................................................. -----I 1 -------------------------======' I ------------------------- I I --------------------------- l I ------------------------------ ----I I -------------------------... ----- .... I --------------------------- .................. ;~::.;..: ==~====~.!.:=========~~=--==::::::::::::::::::::::oi:::: oi;: 00 I --------------... -------............. .... I t -----------------------------, ......... ... I 1 -------------------------OO0...................... I 1 --------------------....... 00000000000-....... 1 2 - .. .. .... Z 1 --------...... 0000000000000000000000.. t 1 ------------------------------...... ooa .... 0000000000000000-... o t t ---------------------.... oooMH .... eoooo~oooo... 1 ---oo---oo---.. r -------00---------... + ................. 0JMOOO++ --------------.... .... 1 ------.. I ---------------.... +oooooaooooa ........... 1 -::_-.::.::.::::.:: ____ =================:.: .. : ::::::!::::::::::=::::::::::: :------------------ .............. 00000.........,oo... 1 ............... -------------------....... .. ooo.e ....... I .. :::::::::::::-.======== --.. : -............. ------------------~--1 ......... 00++ .... .. .. .. ---.. I .. .. .. ---------------------------------------... a I .................... --------------------.. I .. .... ---------->o----------oo------oo--.N ... .. ,____ .. ::-::::::::::::::: ::==~~----=========:=: --========:: ::::=::::::::: ::-~-------.-.--_t : : : :: :: : :::::::::::: .. _._._----==--_-_--___ -_-_-_-_ .. ::=:=:::::==:::=:::::::.:: ~==::::::::::::::: =======::.. l ........................... ---------------------------------.................. ooooeoooooooo ..... -------1 ................................. ------------------------------- .. .. .. -------.. ...... ............ ---------------------------------------.. ... ........... 000 :i ...... ------, ......................... -----------------------------........ .. .. t .................... ----------------------------------- ...... .. .. .. ------I ..................... -,------... .. ................. ,-----' .................... ----------------------------.... .. ........ ... ....... ------. ... o 1 .. n --------------------------00------ .... ...... .. .... I --------------------------------.... .. .. .. .............. -----I ----------------00---------------------------- .... .. .. .. .... ----oo-1 =======----========------==--===========~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ------_-_-.:;_! ------------------------------------------.......................................... -......... ---' ................. ,_____ ...... ............. --I ................... ----------------------............ ... I ......... ------..... ........... ------------............ I ................... --------------------.... ................... --------------------------... .. OO0000-------------------------.. I ---------------------------......... oooooooo ..... --................. 1 ==============--------===:: ::;::::::::::;::::;; __ -_-_--_-_._-_-_._-_-_-_ : : : :::::::;:::::.: : -------------oo------------... H03eoo .. ---0 O---U..000 -----00,-----------00--.... I -------------------------....... ooa.00000 ..... ---------------..... ..... oNo l -----------...... 000000000 ..... ------------oo-..... +00000000000000 1 -----------------------\225 .. .. ----------........ 0000000000000 1 .... ........ ---------------...... ooooee..000000 ? .............. ---------. ........... 00 ......... ooo 1 --. .. .. ............... -----.......... -0000 ........... N.. I ..... .... .. --------- .. I .......... .. .. .......... ---.... ,... 1 .... .. .. ............. --........ ...... --oo o....... .. ............... -........... ooo -=mmmww,... 1 -------------------...... .. .. ............. 01 ........... I --.......... .. ....... ........................... 1 ========:::::-=--::::::::::::~:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::'?.=== .. ::::~:=::: -------------.................... .................. -............ 1 .............................. --------........ 1 ................... ----............ .. ooooo 1 ---------------------------------------.......... .. ...... oo r ------------------------......... .. ....... -----------------------------.............. .. .. 0000.MN0 I -----------------00------------------------............................ 0"40000 1 ----------------------------------........................... 000000 I -----------------------00----------------01 .. ------ ... I --------------------------------------... 9 ---------------------------------------oo--:: : -:::::::::::-:-_ --_:-=----=-:..--:=========-=-= __ ::_=_==_=_=_==_=::_=_=_=_=_=__ ____ ..,________ I -----------------I -------------I ----------------------I ------------------------------------------------1 ------- ---------------I -----------------------------1 --------------. ----' ----. : 25m : I I I I I I I I I I !---1 -------z-----1 -----------'! ------& -----, .. -------e-------4-----1 --------, ---------! ,.,._ a .. 061.36 INUT!S ~A lf.llP 9CA A SAIJII AACCS CDPOJi,!"'l'T O K IHGS IU T S IT~ CDNTOufll QiOL lYf: JA,t SH~D 01 STltl l'IUrtON DATA vM..ut: 1!'1H!lllll!S .t,,tl!' o .o ' 00 VALVE R AlltG! 4~TIMG TO !! AC,.. L~Yl!l. t PCLUD1!:0 ,,.. HIG~ST LEVO. a .... .,. IIIINI .... .. u .. l .OO 1 .. dO 1 .. 60 2. 20 ... 2. ea 2 .. ao 3.40 ].40 .. oo ~l!IICIIHT ACZ: oiYOTAI., A8SDLUTE 'IALIJE RAHGI[ ~ YI HG TO fACH LfVl!L 2 0 .. 00 20 .. 00 20 .. 00 z o .. oo zo .. oo ,.~CIUfffC'Y ourNTtcII or DATA POIHT VALUES tH flt.CH Lil!~L L.f:Vl!L L I l J -------... .. ................... 000000000 ......... ----... .. ..................... 000000000 ......... S Ylll!IOL S -------.. .. .. .......... 0 000 0 000 .... -----... ...... .. .......... 0 00000000 ......... -----............ ............ 0 00000000 ......... ---.. "Ea .. JO 7 I O O 5 J Figure 41. Distribution of Olive Jar Sherds at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 342

329 ----1----1-----------s----------,----------.,__---1----1--+--z__.__,i 1 I I I I I I I I I l I I I I l l I I I l I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- ............... -.............. -... .------............. --............. ---------------------.............. -----------.. -00-----I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I ---------............ ----................. ---o ..... -----............... --------------------------o 0--00 ----- .......... ------~o+.-----o~ ... oNo --oer----... ..... -----. oooo+-------................ ---- -l I I I I I I I I l l l I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r l I -...... ...... I -......................... I .......................... ----- .. .. I .. 1 .. oooo,eeooo+ 1 OOOONH.. I ... --00----. .. OOOOOI ............ I I I I I I I l 1 I I I I I I I I -= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rrri----1 - .. .. .. I ..... .. I ........ I .......... .. .. -I ..... ... --o o00 .... ..... .... ..,__ I o~........ 2 .... -o,,..._ I ... .... .... -I I I I I I I I I I I I I ...... .. .. ...... -I ............................ -. .. ............... --I ........... .............. ---l ....... --......... I --. :::::::::::::::. i ............. ---l ::::::::::::::::======= : o---.... .... -----I ----------.:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_::: :::::::::: :_:==.=.=_:.:.:.:.:.:.:: i ---------------------00---. ..... ... I I I ..... I ........... : --------------.......... : : ~~~~:==:;: -===~~ ; I -=_______ l : c::=====~ ----: ; 25m i I I I I I I l l I I I I I I .. -... STUii 9CAA SA,. .. COS CD.-0 .. NT 0,, ltlNGS IIAT S I TE 11.-. 0111' JOI.JCA O ISTIUBUT ION .. .. oo "IISC.1..UT E v L.Jf: R..,.CII! 4~11LY INCi ro "ACM l.EV~ I .. .., I .. u,., rNCL~O ,. 1-tlGHf:Sf LfVll!L O N..TI I i,,i1 '-"' "''-LO : .>J 1 .eo l. lO 2 .110 ]. 40 IIIIAX IIIIIU,. I -'O l .60 2. 20 z. 110 J.o oo 11e."Cl!:'lilf"" o r0r.. AIISC LUTI!: V AL~ ""N
PAGE 343

330 1'----__ ..., ______ I I I I I .. I I I f _;::: :::::::::::::::::;: ____________ ::: :: : : :: ::: :::: :::: ::: ::: :::::::::::-===I ; "-=~~!!!~~~!!!!~~!!!!!!~!!~!~!!l!!!~~II!!:~~ --------......................... I ------------... I -----------------... l .. .. l ----o~---------------00---- .. +oJ .. .. ..... .... .. I .... .. I ........... . ....... .. I .. .. .. .. I .. .. .. .. .. l ----------------.... I .. .. .. I -------------.. I I .... .. .. . .. . .. . ... . ------------............ .......... I .. l : .::::::::::.ii:::::----_ ... ;.======-------------.-,,_---::::::::~::::::::::::::0 ..... .. .. .. .. .... .---00----------------------------... o-----------------------------------.................... ---------------------------........................ ..... -----................... ------------------------------............ ................... ... .... .. .. . .. .. -------------------------.............. .............. ------------------J2 ------------------------------------.o 2 ....... ---------------------......... ................. ------...... ~-====== -------------................................................ ......... o,... ----------00----.................................................................... -------------<>o ----------.............................................. oz ................ --------------------00-----------------------.. ... .... .. ...... ....... .. .. ....... ... ---00--------------------------------................................................................. ---. --------------------------------........ ....................................................... ---I ---------------------- .. .......................................... -::: -= -= -=-= -= -= -=-=-= -=-= -=-= -= -= -=-= -= -=------------.... :::::.. -.--------==---_-_-_-: :::: ::::::: ::: ::::::::::::::.:::::::;: :::::::: l ............... .. ------............. .. .. .. 6 -----...................... --------....................................................... I --------------------------....... ....... .. ............................... I ------------............................. ......... .. 3000000 I ---------------------- ...... ... .......... .. ==== :_ :_ :_ :_ =_ :_ ~------_------:: :: : ::::::;:::: :: : __ .. ,._-_-:.-:.-:.-:.::.::.::.:::::::: :o; :: : :: =====-:: ::::::::::::::: I ------o..-----00----- .. ........ .. OOM ........ e I -=:~~[~~[[[[[[[[[[[[[[~~]-~-~-~~~]--.... . .. --------- .. ... ...... ----.. ++OOON ........ I ..... ........ -------., .............. ... ---00- ........ D I -........ ........... -------............................ ----...... .... ff .. OOO ........................... ----......................................... ooooeMoooo I ...... ....... ...... ......... .... .... .. ...... ff.ON I --.................................................................... -+ooooo ............ .. 1 --..................................................................... .. -000000 .... I .................... ................................ .. M .... M--.. ............................................................... oooe .... .. I ----oo-----~o---.... .. .... 02 ................................................. ....... OOJ I ------------------- .... .. .. ....... .. .. .... ..... .. o I ... OOOHe__.. ...... .,._ ..... I ------------------ .... .. ...... .. JI ...... ...... ...... .. I ............................................................. -OOONH ............. 000.. ----.......................................................... +ooo ...... H.....,.0000 .... .. I .. ... ........ .. ...... -- ....... .... 1 ----------------.... .. ..... .... ........ --.. .OOOOOO ... MOOOOOOOOOO++ 1 -..................... ----....... .. I --------------------.... ---------------------............. 000000 ..... ......... I -----------------------------------... ,. .... I --------------00-------------------- ... .. .... l ---------------------... .. .. ................ t --------------------00---------........ ... 3 ............ --............ .. 9 ...................... --......... .. I ----------------------------.. .... ----........ I -------------------------------------.. .. --00--- .. I ---------------00--- ..... ..... ---.. .. l ------------------------------.. .. .. -------- ---------------------------...... ...... ---------------------------................. ----------------------------................ ----------------------------................... --------. I I I I I I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25m ---. I I I I I I I I -,;;;;:-1-----2------!!---------~-------111-----,, ___ ------------ ------,--------l SAN AKCS CON~NT O INGS 8A't' SIT! CDlffDJ Uli Of" SP-IS" OtsTltlOUTtJfol o.o 7. 00 AS SOL VT! VALUE IUJIIICI! ""'-YING TO ACM ...... C ti,111, l HCLUOl!O IN MIC.tC.ST """"" OIC.Yt !ll!LD I JO 2.20 J .. o .... .... .... ..... l QJ 2 .. 20 J.ilO 60 .. o ? .. oo Sll!.CINTACI! o TOT .... VALU! .. APP .. TIMG TO !ACM Ll!WI. 20 .oo 20. 00 20. 00 20 .. 00 20. 00 0fSTlllll!'UTION oi, O ATA POINT VALU!'S IN UCM L.l!Vl!l,. L. I ? ] S ............................. ................. -----............ 000000000 ......... ------.... .... 000000000 ......... ----------.. ............. 0000 0000 ........ .. .................... .. '>OOOOOOJO ... ---------.. ............ 0:.0000 000 ............ ...... ............................................................. z,;i t, 7 l O Figure 43. Distribution of Spanish Ceramics at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 344

331 ---,---,-------11 I I I I I I I I I I I +++00 00 000000 000000 000 0 0 00 000 0 0 + ++++ ++++++ .. ++++ ooo 00000:, o oo 0000 ooo oo o oo ++ 000 000000000 0000 ................................ 00 00 00 00000000 000 0 0 00 00 00. + ... + + .... + + ......... + ... -+ 001)0 ooo 000000000 000 o 00000 o - --000000000000000000000000000++--_ ............................. 0000 000 0000 00 0 00 000 0 00000 00 + ............................... + + 0 00 000 00 00 0 00 0000 0 00000 0 0000 00 000 0000 00 0 000 0 0000000 9 7++ 0000 0000000 ......... 0000 0000000 00 000 0 0 000000 .. ... 000 0 000 0000000 00 0000 0000000 .. .... .. -s,0000000000000111200000000+ .... .. . .. 0000 ooooooooooooooaoo 0000000 .. ...... ,z. 6.l. . s ............... -0000 ooo ooaoooooo ooo o ooo oo oo .. .. .. .............. oooaooo ooo 0000 0000000 ++ .. . ............. . ... .... ...... ............. ............ _. ............ ................. ................ ........ ...... .. .. +oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo+ .. .. .. ... .0000000000000000000000000000000- .. .. ............... ................ t ., ............. .. ............................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ooooooo I SJOOOOOOOOOOOOO 16 .. ........ .. ...................... , ........ ...... ........................... .. ................................. 0000000000000000000000000000000 .. .. .. .... .. ..... ........................... 0000000000000000000000000000000.. .................... .................................. ........... ...................... .. ................................. .................................... _. .. .. ---OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .. .... .. .... .. ................ .... .. ......... ... .. .aoooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooooo. ..................... 00000 .......................... 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ................................. 00000000000 .. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .. .. .. --+++-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaoooooooo .. .. ~ .... ....................... 0 0000000000000000 ooaoo 0000 000000 o 000 0000 ++ 000 0 D I I I I I I I I I .......... .. oo oaoooooooooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooo 0000 11 .. .. ........... .l3 .. 7JOOOOOOOOOOOOO I asooooooooooo, 4100 ....... I .3soeoe---............. ....... .... + 0000000000000000 000000000000000 61 0 OOOMU............. o 000000000 oao 0000000 000000 00000000000 0000 .. O o ..................... .... OOGOOOGO 0000 000 000 00 0000 000000 .JO ooa 0000 ao ..... 00 ____ .. .. .............. ooooooooo 0000000000000000000 ........ oooo ............ ..... .. .. .. .. oaooooooooooooooooooooooooe4!0 ............ .. .. .. -oooaoooooooooooooooooo~ ....... I .. ............ ++..oooo++++ .. .. .......ooo 1 .. ..................... I .. .. .. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000 II I I I I I 111 I I .. 1 ........... .. ... .. ++ .... . .................. ... ............... 000000000000000 lOOOOO 000 II 111 ......... I .. ..... ........... 0000000000 160000 000 QI 111 I 1111 ... 000 .. .. ++ : :::::::::::::::.i:::::::::: ;;: :::::::,:.:~:::::::::::::::::::: =~=~~::: :::::::::::::::!~:::::::: :::::::::: :;;: :: f ++ .. oo.aooooooooooooooooo 00000Jo111111 eooocio -.. .. .. .. .. 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .. . I ........ ....... 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 .. .. I .. .. .. \225 .. .. .. .... .. .. .. 1 .................. . .................... .. .. oooooooooo .. .. 1 ....... .. ... 0000 00000 0000 ooo oo 000000 0000 00000 +o 0000 0000000000 oo 6 .. .. - .. .. .... +++oooooooooooooooooo I .. ............. oooooaooooo .. .. 00000111111111 oo r .......... ..... .. .. ooooooooo .... .. .. oooooo ... 1~ 1 .... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. 1111111111 I ............................ ........ .. II 11 Ill lleOI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. .. .. .. .J .... .. .. ooa~.l...,.. ...... ......... .. ...... l, ., .......... ......... 000000000 .......... ..... 0001 II II .. ............ .. .. .. .. .... ++ ........... ..... ........ .. .. - .. .. ... ...... ........ .... ... .... .... .. .. .. 400000000000000000000 ... oooooooooooo .. .... ...... ........ .. .. .. \225 .. ..,.oooo .... ......... .. ++++-++++++++\225 .. .. - ... .. .. ++00000000000000000000000000000000000000- .. ....... ooo...,. 11111 .... .. ... ++000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .. ++++++ooo ..... 00111 .. .. ... ++0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .. +++++oooOOM ............................ \225 .. oooooe-eoaantNOooo ........ .... -00001 76N 000000000000000 000000000000000000- .. 0000000."" ....... ................ 00000 0000 00000000000 ooo 000000000 o 1 300 .. .l oooooee .. ........................... .. 00000000000000000000000 ++0000000111, -1 11 I 111000 ............. .. 00000\225 .. ++oooooooeeeeee"" .............................. oo oo ooo 000000 000000 ... -00000 0000000000 .............. .. .. .................... 0000000000 .............................................................................................. .. ........ .............................. .......... ........................... .......... ............................................................. ........... ,00++ ... .. .. 1 I .. .. .. .. .......... ................................. .............................................. . ................................................................................ . ............................... .............. ... ...... .. ................................ ................................... ... .. .. ..... .................. .............. ..... ...................................................... ........................ .................. .. .............. .................. ......................... ...................... ....................................................................... .......................... ............ ....... . .... ................... ........ ...................... .. .... .. ................. ...................... . ............................. ........... ... ... ... ........ .. ...................... .. ... ......... .... .... . ... .. .................... .. .......... .. ........... ..... ........ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 m I ........ I I I I I ........ Oe17Jl~O lltNUTl!5 ,r()II Ill&_. SAN IIIIMC05 C O.-ONll!HT Off ftlNGS SAY SUI! 114111 0 ~ C l!SIIAIIICS DI ze.oo 29l .OO 41'1S O LUT E VAL V( ia,,.,~e l,(~PL T l "'r. re E .. CM Li!'IEl. l ... ... 1'4U ... I NCL W F. J ....... .:. P-E s r LEVF.L 0 .. L T) ze OJ 7 9 .o o .. .. 0 0 I J: JO 1 ,~ .o o 2: J 0 :) C F TO TAL 1 SUl..JT f V .t,&,. U E q.t,NG PP TI ... G TO E ACH LEVl!L 2.J. ,l ,J .. .J 00 o o Z J. 0 ") zo. 0 0 ,R !: OU"'"l"'ICY 0 15-:q r ttu T l"'l ... oir_o P r'l l" T V" AL,. u ~s ,.. E ACH LVl!L l.E',/E L t J 111, S .................................. .. ........ ,J')0. :) 0 00 ......... .. ........ 0 .J 0 :) 0000 0 ......... --S, Y'4 "1Q L S :) 0 0 ,J J,J Q O .... JO .Joo :>oo o .. .... OJ J0:,0":1 JOO ..._ ....... ..... ........ ....... ,. .. .. ..... ... .. .. .. ,. ................... Ut['l I J l ~ I 1' 1 Figure 44. Distribution of Aboriginal Pottery at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 345

332 ... ----.... -------1---l--l----;i I ............................ ............ I l .............. oooOOOO.................. I ::::::: :: ::::::::: ::: :: : : : : : : : :::::::::g~gg:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I ............................ I 1 ............................................................................. 00000000..................................................... -.. 1 1 .................................................................. --........................................ 1 I ................ +OCJOOOOOOO++ .. .. .. I 1 ......... . I I .. I 1 ....... 1 1 .. ................ .. 1 1 ............ oooooooo .. .. .... .. 1 o ....... .. ............................................... 0000000t-.. .. I ........... 000000 .. .. .. I .. .. .. .. .: :: : :::: :: :: :: l ..................... .. .. ................... .. .. .. I .............. .. - .. .. .. .. .. ++, ..... .. I ........................................ ............. .. .. .. .. I ........ o ........... .. .... .. .. .. ...... ........................... 1 ..................................................... .............................. I ........................ ... .._...... ....... .. ..................................................................... .. I ................................................ .. ........................................................... a, .. I ...................................... ............................................... ............. ................. ..................... .. I ............................................................................... .. ..................................... .. J .............................................................. ............... ..................................................... -.. .. 1 .............................................................. 000000:>ooooooooooooo ...................................................... I ................................... .................................................. .. : .................................... 0000000000000001\2251 ........................................... 1 ......................................... 0000000000000~ ..... .. .. .. ....................... .. 1 ........................................ ...... ooo .. .. ................................ .. I .............................. ......... ........................ .... .......... I ............................ ......... OOOZ 60000000~211111111111 I 4 ... 000 .. .... .. l ............ ................. .._. ,o ............. oooooooooooog1111111\225 ...... ooo .... t 1 .... .. ............. 1 .................... ...... ......... ................... o 1 .......... ......... ............... ....... .. 1 ................................ ......... ....... .,.. .. ooo .. .................... .. I ............ .. e ....... .. .. ............ .................................... 000000000 ... .....,_.. .... ooo ................................ I .. .. .. .... .. .. I .. .. .. ..-&aMe>Oo .. 1 ................... .... w1 11go ...... o, I .. ....... .. ooo..,_.........ao .. s ......... .. .. .. ..... I ........ 1 o ... .............. l .. ... .00t.. ... .. 1 .. ................... o. .09 I .............................. os ....................................... 0000N ......... ooo .. .. .................. ............ o I .......................................................................... oooo, ....... .. .. .............. .. .. 1 ....... .......... ... ............... ....................... 0000000000 ...................................... ... I ............. .. .. .. .. .................. .. I ........... .. .. .. .. ...... ...... .. ....... I ........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 6 ................................................................................. .. .. .... 0000000000000 ........... I ................ ... ... .. .. .. ... .... .... 1 .......... .. .. .. ....................... .............. oo ...... .. I ....... ........ ................................ .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ..... .. I .......... .... ... ...... 011. .....-0000 .... . .. .. ..................... .. .. ++++ ............... .. .. .. .. I ..................... 11 ............ ... .... F+ ...................... ........ 0000000000000++ ..... ..... + .. ++ I ....... .......... .. .. ................................ ... .. 000000000000 ....... ......... 00 000000 .. 1 .............................. ....... .............................................. 00000000000 .. .o .. ..0000000 I ................................................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. 7 ...................................... .. .......... ...................................... .. .. I ............................................. .. .. .. .. .......................... .. : .. :: ::: :::::::::::: :: :: :: :: :: : : :: :: : :: : ::: ::: : ::: : : : : : : : :: :: : :: : : :: :: : : : ::::::::::::::::;:: ::.:;:::::::::::::::::: i ....................................................... ................................... ...................... ... ::::::::o;:::::: :: :::::o;: :::::::::::: ::oi: :: :::::: :: : :: :: :: :::: :: :: ::: ::: : :: ::: ::!:~::::::::::!!:;:::: 1 ............................................................................. 0 ................. 1 ...................... .. 1 .................................................. .. .. ................... .. I .... .... .. .. .. .. .. ::: :::: :: :::::: :: : :::::::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :: : :::: :: :: :: :::::: :::: ::: ::: :: :: :::::.:::::::~::::::: :::: :::::::::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: : ::: ::: :: : :: : ::::: :: :: : :: :: : :: : :: ::: ::: : : ::: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::::: :::: :::::: :::::: ::: ::::: ::: : :: ::::: :: : :: :: :: : : :: :::::: :: :: :: : ::: :: : : : : :: : :: : :: :: :: :: :: : : : I ....... .. .. .. .... ..... I .............. .. 07 .. ....... ... ........... : :: : ::: : : : : : : :::: ::: :: : ::: :: :: : o;:: :: :: : : : : : :::::::: :: : : : :o;:: ::: :: : : : : :: :: : : :: : : : . ............................ .. ............................................ 1 ......................................................................................... I ........ . .. I .. .. I .. .. ... .. ............................................................................ I ..... .... .. .. I ...... ....... ... .. .. - .. .. ... :: : :: : ::: :: :: : :: : : :: :: : ::::::::::::::: :: :: ::: ::: :: : : : : :: :: :: ::: : :: : : .. ::::: :: :: : :: : : :: : : ::::::::::::: ....... : : ::: : : :: : : :: :: :: :::: :: : \ c:=====::i ... :::::::::::::::;:.. ............ :::::::::::: I I I I I I 25m I I I I -,;;:-a--l----:,--------------'1-------6-------7-----,J---- ---9 -------l ------t-----2------ .C.ual 71!Mt CQ~NV.T 01' fMI! Jtl JIIGS 1!!1 A'I SI Te CC91T'DU .. a, OISTIIIUTICN aa..uTE YM,.ul!: -., ~T(JIG r e EAOt LEV~ I ..... INCL~D IN Hll.t.ST LEVl!:L O .._-rl INI...,.. .... ,.,. 191 : 1.0 I a.lO 1. 00 I 2.+o 20 .oo 20.00 Z J.eo ]5. 20 z o.oo 3 5.20 .60 20.00 60 Sa. Jo 20. 00 ~IH!!QUl!:NC'I OISTII INT ION 04' OATA i:tQl"'IT YM,.UE5 IH !ACl1 LEVEL Ll!YE:L L l 2 J ............................................................... ------.......... 300000000 ......... -----........ ............ 000000000 ......... -----...... 000 0 0 000 ........ .... ------.. ;J OOOOOOOll ......... ------.... ......... ...... 0 00000000 ................. ............................................................... ..... l"tlll!Q I 29 1 o; J J l Figure 45. Distribution of Busycon Shells at 9 Caml71A.

PAGE 346

333 ---1----z------l--7-----e------9------l -----1 ---z-----....... .. ...... ----------------: : .::imnrnE~~~mmmmmmnnin~I=--=====-=-=--==-===---:==;_ I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --o =---=-=_=_ =_=_== I --------..................... -: =--=========-----------=:::::::::::::::::::--0~ : -======;;===-----.::::::::::::::::::====== ; -o O ------o -----------!:::::::::::::::::::::==!!==: : ----------------::::::::::::::::::::::::0:::::::::::------i _;_-:::::::::::.::.::_-.::------::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::======\ -----.::::::::::::.;.::::.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::====== : --:::::: :: : ::::;:::::::::~:::?.::::: ::: :::::::===-;;_: f --==~!----------oo--:::.::::::::::.::::::~:::::::;:::::::;-------~o1 oa .. I .... ............ ----------............... ..... -----------. ...................... ............... ----------1 ............................................ ------.......... : ----------:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::------.:::::: ::::: ---------------------............................................. -----...................... .. I -------------....................................... ---- ............ I -----------00-----------------.. ,. ..... --.. ....... I --------------------------------.. .. ,.. .... ... I ------------------00----l ....................... ,.,. .. ,. .. --------------------------------------........................ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 m ------------------------------------.----01 ........... ------------------------0 0------------------------... .. ------------------------------------------......... .. ------------------------------------------------------------....... .. ---------------------------------------........ -------------------------------------........ -....... I I I I I I I I I I --1----.11------l --- -------~-----6-----?------&-------9-------1 ------I ----z------ ...... o. ,...,Tes i-oA .. .,. 9C.t.T1~ ............ cm CD~T 01' THC! IICINGS ,...., SIT!: COWTDu a, L ITHIC AATli-.t.e.r 01 SllllftUTION ... zJ.oo .t.e ... ur!: V ALi.i!: l:tAHG.f: 4.~TIHG T O E ACH LfVfL I ...... ...... INO..UOl!!:D I N ... ,G..-:sr LfV!:L 0 ~ YI ...... ..... sa..o I ,.QO ~. 40 9,.40 9. eo 14.20 18 .. 60 ZJ .. .lO Olll!!ftCl!NTAGI[ Of' TOTAi. \IALUI: RA--.e .,..,_TtNG TO !ACH Ll!VD. ZO .JO 2 0.00 2 0 .. 00 20.olO 20. 00 "lleOUENC., OISTRUUTION O f< OAYA PCIHT \IALUD lH EAC"' L!VL. Ll!Vll!:L L l l l ................................... -------........ .......... 000000000 ................ -----. ............. 0 00000000 ......... .. a..s -----0000 JOOO ........ -------............ 0 00000000 ......... -------.... JOOOOOOOI) ......... .. f
PAGE 347

334 --1-------------------1------1-----z--_,. 1 I l .. I I f I I ............ ................ ..................... . .. ... ... .. ..... .. .. .............................................. ............................. ..................... ............................................ . .. .. .. .......... .. ... ... .. ..... ................................................. ........ ......... ............... ........................... .................... ........ ...... .......... ......... .. .................................................... . . .. ... . .. .. ... .. ......... .. .. ... . ... ... . ................. .......................................... l63. ... 156 .... ......... ........... ........... .. .. .. z3 .................... ............... zsa. ..... 7t z55 I .. ....................... .. .. .. I ......... .................................................... .... .. .................................................................................................................. .. 2 =::: :::: :: :: :: :: ::: : :: : : : : : : :: : : : : : ::: : :: :: : : : : :: : :: : :::::::::;;;;:;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 .. .................................................. ................ .... ._ ..... oooo .. 000000000000000 1 ............................................................................. .............................. 000192 I .......................................................................... 0000"4'MOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 ........ oe ...................... ....... ........ zo ........................... oooooa....0000000000000 .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .... .Z u ... .... .... .. .. .... .. ...... ....... ........ 0000000000 0000 00 0 1 ........................... ..................... .... ...................... ................................ 000000000000000000000000 1 ......... ................. ............................................................. 000000000000011110000000 1 ........................................ 0000 ... .....000 0000000000 .................. +oooooooooooooooeooooooao 1 ....................................................... ....... -..................... ooooooooooooooooooooco .J ......................................... 111 111111 .. ......, .... ooo ................... 1 ...................................... .. ,~ .... aao+ ....................... 000000000000000 1 00 ............................................... 11 .................................. o ........................... 0000000000 1 ooooo ...................................... 00 ..... ....,. ................ .,.. ..................... ""aoo ............................................ .. t 0000000000 ................... ._ .... ooo..,.......,. 111 -.00 ........................................ .. ............ -++OO.OOOe ... 111111 U l J 81 ..... ........S""NOO .... ............................ 1 oocooooooooo ...................... ................ """"""""""'" ... "" 6GD .. ............... I 000000000000000 .. _. ... .. ........ 1 000000000000000 ...................... oooooo.....,...111 11111,.,...,.., ........................... ..-.o .. .... .. 1 +ooooooo1s;s1000 .................... ,o,,..,sa ... 12la .. ......... .,..o ....................... eo9 ............... 4 ..... 000000000000 ...... o s .......... ..., .. ,.o.,.i.t""" ............... "~a 1 z ...................... . 1 ........ ooooaoooo ........................ 000000.....,..""""""""""', .. ........ 1 ................... ooo...................... ooa ... ...,...""""".,.. .................. "..,."""'""'"ao I .................... -.... .......... 000.....-,.Hlblld b 1 I I ......... 90 ...... ..... I ............................. ................ HHH............,.. ................. H ....................... O ...... .. ......... .-._ .. .... ooff.,.. .......... ..,..,.....,......,. ... "~"" .................... ..... I .. .. ........ 0 ............... 11.,....,.. .......... """ ............... ""J .. .. .. ...... I . .. OOO...._,_ Ill 7 .................... ... ... I .. .. 11 ... ...,. ................. .. .. I .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ............ I bllllelf'IM..............00 .. .. s .................................................................... o ...................................... o ....................................... I ................ .. .................. 111 ...... .................. .............aa ........................................ I .... ........... .... ... ...... ... o ... .... ..... ..... +ON~...,....,.....,..HHMOo .... .... .J57. ... I .. .... .. ............................. ................... .............aa ......................................... 121 I ................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. OO ...... H ..................... .. .. .... .... .. .. .......................................................................... oo,e,aa,e11.,.. ............... 00 ............................................... .. I ................... ...................... ............ ............. OoN._......... ... ............. .. ........ 1 ................................................................................. ..................... .. .. 1 ................ ........................... ._ ............................. -.. aoooooooooooG+ ................. ................. I .... ............. .......... ............................... .... .............. .. ........... ... ...... ................................. ...... 0000000000+ ........ ........... o ooooooooao .................................... .. I ......... .. .. .............. .. ........ 00000000000 ......... ...... ........... .. 1 .......................................... ........... .................... ................ ............. .......... .. 1 ........................... .... .. .. o~Meoooo ............................ ......... ,.coocoooooo ........................... ooaoo 1 ............................................... oao~ .............................. 01 ....... ...... ,0000000000 ................................... o,eooo ............................. .... ........ -'IO ..... .......... ..... .... ............... 0,22 ...... 1 .............. 101 .......................... ooozz3.......oo .......... ................ ........... ......... oaao 111111111 t .......................................... oo, ....... .0000 ......................... .. ............... ,0000000+ .......................... ,.oe ......... : ............................................. 000~ .. oooo ........................ .................... 00000 ........... .s + .. .... ._ 7 : :: :: : : :: :::::: :: : :: :: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :: : : : : : : : :: :: :: : :: : : :: : : : : :::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::;::::::::::=::' .................................. ............................ ............................................. ..... 04114a ....... I .. .............................. .. .. .. .. .. 1 .......... ....................... ............. ........................... .................. ..... ............... ... 1 ....................................................... ............................... ooee .... ........ .. .................... ........................................ '" .... ...................... .... .... t ........ 117 ................ ,J3 ................ o, ........................................................ oooeeeesYe.,..... 1 ....... ..................... ................ ....... ,ooe-MM ....... ..,. 1 .................................................... .. .. ............................. ...... .........,. .. .................................................................. coc111 ........... .. .... .. .. ..... .. .. ......... ....... 00 ..... _,.,.,,.. I ........... .. .. .. .................. .... 000 ..... I .......... .. ...................... .. ............. 000000 ... 1 ............................. ................... ........................................ oao r ... ==== ===: =: :: == =: === = ===:== =:= ==== == == = == ==== :: :: :: : : :: : ::: ::: ::: :: :: : ::: :::: :: :::: :: ::~: I .. ::: ::::: :::: ::: : ::: :;;:: :::: :: : : :: : :: : : :: : : : : :: : :: ::::: ::: ::: ::: : : ::: : ::: :: ::::: !:: :: : I ...... .. ........ .......... 1 ................. .. .... ... : : :: :: :: : : : : : : : : : ::::: ::: :: : :: : : :: :: : : :: : : : :: ::: : :: :: : :: : : : : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :::::. : .. : :::: ::::: ::: :: ::: : :: :: : :: : : :: :: : : :! ~= :: ::: ::: :: : :: :: : : :: : : :: :: :::: :: :::: :: I I I I l 25m ................................................................................. .............................................................................. ...... .. ..... ..... .. ..... .... ... .. .... ... .... .. ...................... .................................................................. ... .... .... .. .... .. .. ... .. ..... ... .......... ... ......... .... .. .... .. ...... . ........ ... ..... ........... .. ........ ... ... ... .. ............. .. .. .... .. .................................... ............................ .................. . ............... ............. I I I ;;;.-;----.. --z----3---------s.-------&------7-----e------9-------1------1-----1----~ o.o3eelt ,.0111 .. .C,..171.A SAN .... cm CONll'ON&ciT opr THI! ll;INGS 31A't' SIT! CDNTOJ W.~ Cl IIOJIC WRIGHT TOTM.J..EO 9'f' 16i!JT 1.00 12366.00 Ae!CJLUTt: 'IAL\.H! ctJltGI! AP9\.f (Jt,,Gi TC EACH LEVa. I I NCL~O IN l"IIGNEST Lf:Vl!L OHL.YI MINI IIIJIII ......... 1 .. oo &oo.ao 1200.60 1eoo.o zoo.20 ~00 .. 10 1200.60 1100 0 2.00.20 J 000.00 AISOW 3000.00 PeJICe:NT ACE .. TOTlll. osaa..ure: VALUI! RANil! 4P"'-. Tl HG, TO !ACM LEVl!L zo .. oo zo. 00 20. 00 zo.oo 20. .JO "At!'.OJl"-CY CISTAUUT ION Qpr DATA POINT VAILUl!S IN EA.CM LEVEL Ll!~L I .? _; 5 11 ........................ 0 00000000 ......... ... ............. ........... ........... 0 000000:>0 ...... ". 11 ........ .... STN~OLS .......... ., ...... IJOOO llOOO .... Me MttHH MM...,. ..................... 000000000 ........................... .... ................. 000 000000 ......... .......... ..... ~-l[Q 40 ) 4 ,J 4 Figure 47. Distribution of Vertebrate Faunal Remains at 9Caml71A.

PAGE 348

171B. A concentration occurs near the eastern edge of the site, an area which also contains large numbers of St. Johns series and cord marked sherds (Figures 53 and 54). 335 Figure 52 maps the small sample of San Marcos series sherds which occurs at 171B. This component is limited to the western half of the site and is focused on a single test, unit 66. Due to its limited extent, the distribution cannot be correlated with any other artifact distribution. St. Johns series ceramics create the pattern shown in Figure 53. This pottery type occurs over the entire site; no sterile tests were encountered. Significant amounts occur over the eastern 2/3 of the site with peaks along the bluff line. The St. Johns series distribution contrasts with Check Stamped pottery (Figure 54) and is highly correlated with cord marked pottery (Figure 55), except with regard to specific locations of peaks. A bi-typical pottery complex, consisting of St. Johns and Cord Marked pottery, seems typical of the St. Johns Period on this part of the coast. Cord Marking, as shown in Figure 55, is heavily distributed over the eastern 2/3 of the site. Although this distribution overlaps the peaks for Wilmington/Savannah pottery, the highly restricted distribution of the latter component and a negative correlation for the peak at unit 64 suggests that the two are not behaviorally associated. Figure 56 is a composite aboriginal pottery distribution map. An increase in ceramic density from west to east is apparent. As was observed at 171A, this occupation peak correlates with a slightly

PAGE 349

336 greater elevation across this portion of the site. In both cases the increased elevation may be partially attributable to aboriginal midden accumulation but the difference is not totally cultural: some natural variability in topographic relief is evident. Figures 57, showing the Busycon distribution pattern, and 59, showing the vertebrate faunal remains pattern, exhibit enough coincidence to suggest similar depositional patterns for these two artifact categories. The lithic artifact distribution, mapped in Figure 58, is limited to the eastern 2/3 of the site. It shows a pair of peaks which fall within the St. Johns/Cord Marked complex, and a less pronounced rise which could be correlated with either the St. Simons series or the St. Johns/Cord Marked Complex, or both. In unit 70, the lithic assemblage consists of chert flakes which are rather evenly distributed from level 2 to level 7. Upper levels in this unit were dark in color and contained many sherds but little shell. This zone was described as a living floor in the excavation notes. Fiber tempered sherds were limited to the lower levels of unit 70. Test units 243 and 244 also contained a zone having the appearance of a living floor. These tests yielded a relatively large sample, accounting for the southern member of the paired peaks in the lithic distribution. The northern peak is unit 73 which contained a human burial. The fill over the burial pit contained occasional small chert flakes and sherds but little shell. This zone was interpreted as a redeposited living floor.

PAGE 350

-. -----. --------. -------------------------------. -----. --------------------------------------------. ---------------. ---i ;; : : "" :: ::: ""' II 1:11 II I II ltll 1111111111 l l lilllllliii 1 11 1 11 1 !' II' ,111 I 111 .C -, "" I I , Q .,. "o ,, ., ,,., ( I I ,,._ illl ,. .. ~ ,., ,i i; ,. ~ i-,u u 1<1 on ,.,,...,,, ..., .. .. '" ...... ~ ... ,.,_ . ,.,_ ..... .. ... .. .. "" t ~ .... ... ., ,,~ .. ..... .. .., ..... .. ~ y I 0 1 " "'' ,,..., > U l ,> 1" " " ~ ._...,, .,...,. ,,.,~ < a
PAGE 351

. -----. __ ,._ . --. --. -. --. -. ----. ---. ---------. ----. ---. --. --. -----. --. ----. ---------. ------. ----. -_ ., -. --"I' .... :,1 1 '.I ii Iii! .. .. 11:11 111p I ,: II 11 1 : .. "I i TI I I I I 11 I I. 11 11 1 : I I I H i !! !rn l!ll\1!\l!\il!!lllll1!ii!! 1l !illll!I !! 1 ii !1!1 "l'::!lH!i!!iilll,l ,i l! l!ll l!, 11;1ii.'il 1 1 '.i.' !i!ill! !!Ii 111 ::: 1 11:1 1 1 :!fii!i! ::::: :1 ;::i "II! \\!!!!: :iii .... ,.,. ,, "~ ..... ., ... ....... r o o o, -- u .. n,.,,.,,_ .. .. ,. .. ,...--~ aoo .,. l 1..:1,.-1 ......... L ...... ,., .. ,, iii! :.;~ .,... a:;: 1~ :-c UH :-' ... ;_ ... ,. n '-u .... . I ? /Y /\1m;rn _!il\ifJ ~ ~iii il l :I. l! !!! iii ::: jj[ : 1: 25 m IT Ii I! Ii :, ii ii II 1, \ i i ii :; !! :i ii ii Ii !! ii j' : H I' ,I !i !! il ii :: II iliii: t11 :1 1 : : fl !i !l!!lii::. 11111111111!111!! "':ll !iil lfH 11 H ,i li 1 : 'I i\ ~: H : 1 11 u n -. . --.--. --. -. --. ----. --. --. ----. -.. .. ---. -. -~---. --. --. --. ---. ----. -. ---. ----------.. --. Figure 49. Distribution of Deptford Series Pottery at 9Cam171B. l.,,..) l.,,..) CX)

PAGE 352

-----.. -----.. ---------- ------------.... . .. ___________ .. _,. ______ __ .,_ .. .. ___ ._ ___ __ ., _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ . . . .. . ... -._ .. .... ----------.. .. -. --------11 o -, ~-.,, ., .. u_,.,o,, ..... Gr _1un, 11- u.,..,, ... 111. ........ ..._ ............... .... ..... ........ 0 ... ,, t:: ... .... .. ..... ... CO II UI .. OUO t .. I ... u, ... ... L .. .. :::. Y!l m urnjH irn/1m Bi~hi 25 m i Ii I : I Ii i i i j I 1 ii I I j: I i d : I I II I I ii : l f l I I I :1 j: j :.': I I I :: ! \ u i: :: I I I I I I I I I I : i l I I i1 i i 1 j \j i :1 j :: :: ii 1: jli1. ilii! ll !!1ii! 1: : !!!!!!!!!!!! !! : 111111111:11111: : :1 11::1 11 1:1: 1 : llll!i!!l\llill\ 1!! 7 J! II I :! !! jj ll l! ii -------.... ------,----.. --..... .. _. _ ___ -----------. --.---------- ---. ---------------.. -----------"----Figure 50. Distribution of Complicated Stamped Pottery at 9Caml71B. w w

PAGE 353

u _.._, .. 11r ,,. .. ..... g,., ._,..,. c.u ,._ ...... , .... ,_ ... .._.,,, a --..; t1;1 au .. .,,,.., ..... .. .. .............. .. ... .. ...... ......... :r : :: ........... .. ... ,_,.,_,,, ........... ... ..... .. -..... .. I t I .. ........ ......... ----.. .. ~\i~i\ ggigg_ fi5~!'d_ ~-~::: iii iH :;: ::: Iii :: : 'f :ii I ::: ::: :=: :i : : l i Ii !. l ii! !llll Ill !!Ii!!!! 11111111 !ill! ill 25 m in i; ; 111 111 : :.: ::: Ill i i Ii 1: II ii \! II tl !! i'' iii I I: II \" Figure 51. Distribution of Wilmington/Savannah Series Pottery at 9Caml71B. ....__ ______________________ __ __ __ !l\1 1111 1111 ii,=: :q

PAGE 354

. -. ---. ----------. --. ------. ----. -----. --. -----. -------. ---------. --- ---. --. ---. --. -. ----. ----------. ------. ---. ---. 1 l~HH : : 1.i.;.:1.11.: !. ::: unn : :::::::: nnn i ~ng~ } il111 j i ......... ..... ],I Hll!l '"""'""" '1111 j i I I, I : UI I, Ill' I I I I I I I k "' ""' .. .. ... ... "' ...... .. "" ''I I 11 I I I II I i l ' o. ''" U O I ,! I I I :::.:; :;;: ::~: , ~ " ,I I II 1! I' 1 111 ll!ll!ii j ::: :: : "; '. ; ; ,... . .. ..... :: : i: :: : :: '"" '"" """ """""""" i !. ill P l ... .. .. .. ... .... . .... ... ..... ._, ... .. _, ......... ~ === I illLIII f ,o. ~ .- . 1 a. a ~ . u I I :: : : / :r,:'mrni:mi~~ 25 m I !1 1 i ,. I __ __ --------------------., ----------------------- ------------.. ---------~ --------------.. --------__ _ ., _ _ ------! Figure 52. Distribution of San Marcos Series Pottery at 9Caml71B.

PAGE 355

. :::::,,!!llili!lllli!IJ!ill!l!!ll l lllllllllllllllllll l!!lllilii i !l !!! !i ii!Hli i I .. ,,,:t?\!l ~~=:=i i irn -, .,.,_ ....... ._ ., .....-tl ~lh ., 25m Fi g ure 53. Distribution of St. Johns Series Pottery at 9Caml71B. ------l i I I I w .i: N

PAGE 356

----. . . .. .. .. ----; .. :: uu: iii i i i : :! .. . 1uu111h111111u11 :i: .... ::: :: :: m I 11111 111: :1 : iii i:: i: j: Ii ii Iii! ii!!ll\!l\lill\1\llllllli l l lll \lllllllll, Ill ==H!\iil ..... -, __ ., ... .... C OoffDJ o,,, ,.,. ,... ~:-..: ~ : '": : ..,' ... ...... ~. .. <: -:... .. ...... .. 1;:z::"' ... = a:== . .. H:::iii.i5:5i_E$._ I U U I I :: : i uu :1111uu :: 11 1u 1 .. ; !al!l!!ll!UIUIIIU!U!Uljh ii i m . 1 1 mmm11mmmmm11mmP 1 m : !l!lll!!!!IIPll!!!i!!!!!llll!!I!!!=.: ! 1 m1 n mii11imm mn1 1 1 1 111 1 i! l 1 11 1 25 m Iii lll iii "I li: Ill : : Fi g ure 54. Distribution of Check Stamped Pott e ry at 9Caml71B. : : :: :: i. ~ n :: : : ::_ :, ;_: i_i_J 1 ii!! I I :::: ; :. llil!III ::!: llll !!1! 11 [i , : : g l,=: ,' = ,:l': , ,= . it \)illll --. ----------~------. ----. -. ---.

PAGE 357

: iil l 11 1 11 i l 'l!ii11 i i 111 \ 1 i llll\ : I 11 :! .. l i! dl' :!1 Ii I ~ .. ,, ., ._,_. -.,.._ ~ < lo U 1 1 .. ~,.,,,. ~ .,_ .. u ...-u lU <> .. .... .. ... .. .. ...... .. ... .. ....... .. .. . .... P ' J o I . .. . ....... .. .. .. ... 0, ,,. ............ ... .. .. .. ::::::::: ::::::::: : :::: ::: : HHJ:H ill!:!:!: 5:JS : ;: 0000 : 00 Ul::lU t fftt:tfft 0 --:--- 25m Figure 55. Distribution of Cord Marked Pottery at 9Caml7lB.

PAGE 358

... , ,1 ._' ,., ., I' <-, I t t , ... .. . ,.. ..... ... ... ., .. .. ..,. "" ., .. ., ., .. '" .. , ' , .... .. .. . .. .. oc ...... .. .. ' 2 5m ...... ... . ..... . .. .. ....... .... -,..,,. ., H )Ul>I UHtttlt ttttttttt ,. ., .... ,.., ,. ., U>JHCJI ,tMHffl ....... ,._, ... ,. .. ,.,. UU >DH HM .. ..... ...... . ,., 1 1,u, ,e:u ........ .. ,_ ,,,.,,. OUU~J IJ ......... ..... . ... .. .. ... . ..... .. .. ........ ... ....... II 1 II t < Figure 56. Distribut i on of Abo rigi nal Pottery at 9Caml7lB.

PAGE 359

.. . :::: : ii\iti!ii:iillllllill iiil!llii ii liiiiiliii "" '!i'(!\!iii!lllliliili < .,, .. \t, ....... ,~ ........... ., .... .. ... < > I ,. ... 0, ... ,o,, DI 11 ... .. ...... .. . :' : ~ .. . :..,...,..o'.., .. 1. ,c u ~-.u .. .. ,, 1:::: ttiii!llll I o w "" U l _, O ,._,., ,., ., u O ~ I .. a ... ., tt t I I l .. .... ,.. ... u .. ~\~~! !!. mf i~m. iiil!i!H_ m~~i ~ra 25 m i 1~ !i !n . m II ~: & .. ;;:;;:;-;: .. .... : :: H~H i 1 1 ~IHH!~: ~ . ::: ::n::: : : :: :: : : : : :: ::: :: : : : ::: :::: : ::::: : :: : : : : : : : ~:: : :. n~ ~~rrHr iil:~ lll lllii/"' ----------. ------.. -------.------------.. ------------------... ------"-. ---Figure 57. Distribution of B~s_y~o~ Shells at 9Caml71B.

PAGE 360

ii' .... ::,,:!,:iiiii!lli!liiii ll 'i :::1:qiiilillll i:11111 !I ii !!:i!':!!iiii i!.d!l1 Ii 1 !!!!1:il!l i l I! '1:11;: 1 i 1 1 : Hi! 1: lj l l')'I II liiii ii I I 1 I II Iii!! II II I !j !!iii !I ii! ii 11 !1!1 1 Ii! i ii I i! :1111 1 "1 1111 I: : I I I I I' !!!1:ii!! ! i i iii 1 :lij i I jii: i "! !!!n 1: U I 1 :!l i: . ......... ..._.,,_, C.H.,~lOL uo 1-.. 1 u. .. llO _, ., ~ .._., l l U i, .._,, . .... ... .. .. .. ,..,,._ ..... .. .. ........... ... . .... .. i'il I II I II I II l ll 111 Ji i 11 I:! iii !\l iii ii ii : t lO l O I i J O .. .. .. .......... -1101 ............ ... ... ... . .. .. . .. ..... .. . ,. ...... ... .. . ... ..... ..... . .. ... .. ............ .. ''" '' HUJ II U IIIIHHI INIMIN .. ... ... . --.... ... .... ... ..... . .. .. . ... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .... ... . 11 IT J I I I 11 I I i I I I I i i I i I I! I i: I! i Ii II !, I II i 1\ : II I I I i I I i i I :i 1 : !! Ii ii' I ii lilllll 25m ll j I I I' I :I I 1 i \-: ! I I i I I 1 : I i I I 11 ii 1: I I 11 11 ii I ... -_ ., -------. .. . .. ---------------.. -----, ---------.. ----_ __ ., ___ ____ __ _ .. ___ ---------.. -----.. .. . -. Figure 58. Distribution of Lithic Artifacts at 9Caml71B. ------

PAGE 361

. ... ;:: ::: :: : : ::::::: ii rr:1i::1lilillillllliilllllllllllllllllll "< n:::::: li i iii llii! ii Ii! __ ..,,.., ,. . ,., ..... .,_ , .... , .... .... ,. .. ... .. . -c:, . ... ... ... , + ,o O I Ho oa '"' ~"'~ ... .. UH.U '" Jo n.o, - ...; 0, ,t N, 1 .,11 ~, Uo u I H ._ , .. .,, ,,. ,. ti ' l o \ ... ............... . uuuu .. ... .. : : :: :::: : : ::: :::: ::::::: : ~:~>:::: : : :: ::: :::-:::: .. ...... ................ ,, .... .. .. . ... ... .. : .. > >_ .... :. ---:-. 111 ilii Ill lf ilil 25 m !!!!lillliilill !llt ,, ,, ,,,,, : : : :-: : : : : : : : : : : : : : t : : : : : : : ~ ::. : : : : : : : : : : : ~ :: : ~ :: :: :: : : : : : : ~l l l~i~l t l l n l] l l l ~ E { ~ :. 111 111 1111111 1 1111 1 :i:: !:::'.'.'.'.'.'.!!;:' :i; -----------------------.. ------------------"'-------------... -----------.. --------------------------------------------.. -. F ig ur e 59. Distribution of V e rt e brat e Faun a l Remains at 9Caml71B. w .i:(X)

PAGE 362

349 Summary. Artifact distribution patterns for 171A and 171B show that each component may be further subdivided into areas which represent peaks in concentrations of different types of artifacts. At 171A these peaks are fairly well separated and seem to represent occupation foci at different points in time. At 171B several of the types co-occur on the eastern 2/3 of the site while most of the rest are present in small numbers and do not form distinct patterns. The Late Archaic occupation, represented by St. Simons series pottery occuring in conjuction with chert flakes, is widely distributed at 171A but only minimally present at 171B. Deptford series pottery at both sites is spatially associated with Check Stamped sherds and the Check Stamped pattern 1s not correlated with any other pattern. This suggests a Deptford period temporal affiliation for a majority of the Check Stamped sherds. Complicated Stamped sherds are a negligible element of the 171B assemblage but at 171A they are numerous and widespread and form an arc-shaped concentration across the center of the site. On the basis of the spatially coherent pattern, design attributes, and a radiocarbon dated midden sample, this ceramic concentration is identified as a Swift Creek period occupation. Ceramic types believed to represent Mississippian period occupations form several distinct patterns at each component. In neither case is the Wilmington/Savannah (grog inclusions) series correlated with the Cord Marked series. At 171A Cord Marking seems to indicate a Savannah period occupation with a discrete distribution on the coast edge. At 171B this same series co-occurs with the St. Johns

PAGE 363

350 series, both in terms of horizontal spatial distribution and in most excavated proveniences. At 171A the contact period ceramic types--San Marcos series and Spanish Colonial artifacts--form a distribution which coincides with the Savannah period distribution, suggesting continuity with the Late prehistoric period settlement pattern at Kings Bay. Temporal distributions Late Archaic. The Late Archaic component at the Kings Bay Site was most strongly represented at 171A where plain and incised fiber tempered sherds were regularly encountered in lower levels of excavation units, in the yellow sand zone. No St. Simons period features were found; the only artifacts occurring in association with fiber tempered pottery were lithic tools and debitage. The distribuion of St. Simons series sherds at 171A shows several peaks against a fairly continuous background scatter. This is interpreted as representing repeated small group occupations over a long period of time. DePratter's analysis of Late Archaic coastal settlement and subsistence patterns includes a model in which sites of the type represented by the St. Simons component at Kings Bay are interpreted as artifact scatters representing limited occupation of marginal areas (1976:88:96). If the Kings Bay Site is contemporaneous with the Shellmound Archaic ring and simple heap sites modeled by DePra tter, then a reconsideration of such "artifact scatters" is 1n order. At Kings Bay, the St. Simons component meets five of the six locational

PAGE 364

351 criteria proposed by DePratter to explain the siting of rings and heaps. It is 1) close to a source of drinking water, 2) on high land, 3) on well-drained land, 4) provides access to the salt marsh and, 5) provides access to nonfood resources. The sixth criterion-spacing at "proper political and social distance as defined by the h1habitants of the areas"--is not a testable implication (DePrattter 1976:91) Since the site conforms to the Shellmound Archaic settlement model to this extent, it 1s reasonable to ask whether the fact that it lacks shell debris and is situated on the mainland might not indicated a special activity occupation, rather than a "marginal" occupation. It 1s possible that this site was occupied 1n a season during which shellfish were not exploited or by a group engaged in an activity incompatible with shellfish gathering. If is can be established that this nonshell site is part of the Shellmound Archaic settlement system, then a dispersed, rather than concentrated, settlement pattern 1s indicated (see DePratter 1976:88-89). Nonshell fiber tempered sites will probably prove difficult to interpret since lack of shell generally means absence of vertebrate faunal remains. No Late Archaic period features were revealed 1n secondary testing at 171A but the occupation foci indicated by distribution peaks are areas in which extensive exposure might uncover features. Woodland. The Deptford component in the Kings Bay Site was defined on the basis of distinctively decorated sherds. At both 17 lA and 171B, on the strength of spatial association, most of the Check Stamped sherds are believed to be Deptford Check Stamped. If this is

PAGE 365

35 2 true, then the Deptford ceramic component constitutes 3.1 percent of the assemblage at 171A and 8.6 percent of the assemblage at 171B. In contrast, at 171E where Deptford pottery and features were found in a nonmidden context, Deptford and Check Stamped sherds together compose 19.8 percent of the assemblage. Two of the radiocarbon determinations from column samples at 171A yielded dates which fall within the Late Deptford range. In neither case was the associated ceramic material primarily Deptford; one assemblage was identified as Swift Creek (A.D. 690+90) while the other was San Marcos (A.D. 490+90). The latter is probably a case of young sherds deposited in old midden but the former is a believable date for coastal Swift Creek, as discussed below. A Swift Creek period component was defined for 171A; a small amount of similar material occurred at 171B. This type/period assignment is based on similarities between decorative motifs observed at Kings Bay and published examples, especially Sears (1956) and Williams (1968:148). Whether these sherds are labeled Swift Creek, Deptford or Walthour Complicated Stamped, they clearly represent a Woodland rather than a Mississippian period occupation. A radiocarbon date of A.D. 690+90 (Beta-2120) was obtained on a shell sample from midden containing good examples of this ceramic type. This would be a late date for Swift Creek in central Georgia but since the Deptford culture seems to persist longer in the coastal region than elsewhere in Georgia, it is not surprising that Swift Creek occurs later. This same trend-earlier sites occurring inland and later sites on the coast--is observed on the Gulf coast (Milanich and Fairbanks

PAGE 366

35 3 1980: 120). The distribution map for complicated stamped pottery at 171A reveals and arc-shaped concentration running east-west through the approximate center of the site. This pattern is suggestive of an annular settlement plan. Horseshoe-shaped and circular Swift Creek village sites have been described for the Gulf coast area (Mi lanich and Fairbanks 1980:118). At 171A it is not possible to define precisely the limits of the shell midden refuse attributable to this period of occupation, but the ceramic concentration indicates the location of the most intensive domestic activity. No features assignable to this period were defined. However, the fact that Swift Creek sites typically contain SO percent plain pottery indicates that Swift Creek features might often be classified as indeterminate due to an absence of diagnostic ceramics. Swift Creek period sites on the Georgia coast are not well-known In fact, this period is not included in most coastal chronologies. In Florida the Swift Creek site distribution extends as far east as the western edge of the Atlantic coastal flatlands (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980: 117). This would correspond to the lower coastal plain in southeast Georgia. The only excavated example from the Swift Creek period in the Kings Bay vicinity is the Evelyn Site on the Altamaha River in Glynn County. This is a nonshell mound site containing a rectangular platform mound and four conical burial mounds. The site is important for the stratigraphic evidence derived from one of the mounds which demonstrates the temporal priority of the Deptford culture with respect to Swift Creek. Waring and Holder illustrate Late Swift Creek

PAGE 367

Complicated Stamped pottery from Evelyn which is indistinguishable from the Complicated Stamped pottery recovered from 9Caml71A (1968:Figure 47). 354 The significance of the Complicated Stamped component at Kings Bay lies in the opportunity to demonstrate the nature and extent of Swift Creek period influence in the coastal zone-whether it represents a diffusion of ideas or a movement of people. Perhaps the presence of this archeological culture will prove to be an important difference between the developmental sequence 1n the Lower and Upper Georgia coast sub-areas. Mississippian. A Wilmington/Savannah component was defined 1n the pottery assemblage on the basis of grog and grog-and-sand inclusion pastes. This is not the major component at either site; it constitutes 7 percent of the 171A assemblage and 3 percent of the 171B assemblage. The great majority of this material bears a plain surface. On the basis of information from other coastal sites, cord marking would be expected as a major surface treatment mode in both Wilmington and Savannah assemblages. The attribute combination of cord marking (any kind) with grog inclusions (any kind) occurs on only 25 sherds in the two assemblages; all of these sherds are from 171B. Cord marking on other paste types, however, is an important constituent of each assemblage: 8 percent at 171A and 17 percent at 171B. These sherds have sand or sand-and-grit inclusions. Together, grog inclusion and cord marked sherds composed 15 percent of the 171A assemblage and 20 percent of the 171B assemblage.

PAGE 368

355 In order to test the hypothesis that the Wilmington/Savannah occupation was represented at Kings Bay by an assemblage composed of both plain grog inclusion pottery and sand or sand-and-grit inclusion cord marked sherds, the spatial distributions of these types were examined. At 171A no spatial correlation was observed; it does not appear that cord marking and grog inclusion pastes were part of the same behavioral pattern. The possibility remains that these two deposits were generated at different times during the Wilmington/Savannah period. At 171B three attributes--grog inclusions, cord marking, and sponge spicule inclusions-share peaks at the eastern end of the site. In this case, it is not possible to say, on the basis of spatial association, which attributes co-occur because of behavioral patterns and which occur together due to superimposed occupations. As suggested by the ceramic assemblage of the single component Killion Site, it seems likely that the grog inclusion paste is a separate, perhaps Wilmington period, phenomenon and that cord marked sherds and sponge spicule inclusion ceramics occur together in the same cultural assemblage. St. Johns series sherds compose 28 percent of the 171B assemblage, by far the largest single pottery cluster at either site. If, as suggested above, this is a part of a bi-typical series composed of both St. Johns and cord marked wares, then the joint cluster, at 45 percent, is the majority type at 171B, eclipsing even the indeterminate group.

PAGE 369

356 The importance of demonstrating contemporaneous use of these two ceramic series at Kings Bay can be seen 10 the kinds of interpretations which have been offered 10 the past for the occurrence of St. Johns pottery on the Georgia coast. In one case, Larson has proposed a Timucuan intrusion into southeast Georgia at the end of the St. Johns I period (1958a). In another, Crook uses the presence of four St. Johns sherds in Structure 1 at Kenan Field to infer that one activity housed in the structure was control of community relations with foreign cultural systems (1978:258). Among the explanations which might be advanced for the existence of a bi-typical ceramic assemblage at Kings Bay are trade, resource variability and functional attributes. It is conceivable that a large amount of trade in conmodities best transported in ceramic containers is represented. Possibly, the two types were manufactured by a single group in the course of a seasonal transhumant movement which brought the potters within reach of different clay sources. Or, perhaps, different raw materials were selected to produce pottery with different functional applications. A parallel case of ceramic variability is observed in the Savannah period assemblage at Kenen F i eld. Grit inclusion check stamped and grog inclusion cord marked pottery from two large structures at this site are clearly contemporaneous. It is suggested by Crook and Saffer in separate analyses that social and/or functional differences in the use of two types of pottery can be demonstrated (Crook 1980:89-100; Saffer 1980: 101-108).

PAGE 370

357 Check stamping 1s an important element 1n the Savannah period assemblage at Kenan Field on Sapelo Island, where it composes 1/4 of the assemblage (Crook 1980:89-100). At Kings Bay no distributional evidence was found to suggest an association between Check Stamping and attributes which do not appear in the coastal Georgia pottery complex until the Mississippian period: grog inclusions, cord marking and sponge spicule inclusions. Post-Mississippian. The latest aboriginal component at Kings Bay is the Pine Harbor/Sutherland Bluff period occupation represented by San Marcos series and Spanish pottery. San Marcos is the dominant type at 1171A where its distribution is strongly focused at one point on the bluff edge. At 171B both Spanish majolica and San Marcos ceramics were found, but in very minor quantities. The widespread distribution of San Marcos series pottery at 171A suggests repeated, short term occupation over a period of time, while the single peak may represent an occupation of greater duration. The pattern coincidence of San Marcos and Spanish series distributions at this peak is striking. A proposition to be tested in future research is that this correlation is the result of a causal relationship, 1.e. increased aborginal sedentism due to Spanish influence. Contemporaneity of these coincident components is demonstrated by a feature in which both aboriginal and European artifacts occurred in good context. This is Feature 37, a hearth which contained San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped sherds and a single Fig Springs Polychrome majolica sherd.

PAGE 371

358 Majolica types occurring at Kings Bay are all 17th century types: Fig Springs Polychrome, San Luis Polychrome and Ichtucknee Blue on White. Their presence, together with the occurrence of olive jar sherds, may be attributed to the presence of Spanish missionaries along the coast, beginning with the Jesuits 1n 1570 and intensifying with the Franciscan effort from 1587 into the final quarter of the 17th century. The nearest documented mission station was San Pedro de Mocama on the south end of Cumberland Island (Milanich 1971b, 1972). Whether the presence at Kings Bay of Spanish material is a result of Indians visiting the island mission or of missionaries visiting the mainland Indians cannot be asserted. A second feature related to this component 1s Feature 137, which contained a large portion of an Irene Incised Jar. The feature also contained San Marcos and olive jar sherds. A date of A.D. 1420+100 years for this feature indicates continuity between preand post-contact aboriginal use of San Marcos ware. Summary Two areas within the Kings Bay Site were subjected to secondary testing. Assemblages generated by the systematic, semi-aligned samples were composed primarily of prehistoric pottery and fauna! remains. Small numbers of lithic artifacts, Spanish ceramics, and samples of shell, soil and organics for radiocarbon dating were also collected. Features intrusive into the yellow sand below the midden zone were almost all refuse pits and post holes. A single human burial was encountered in one portion of the site.

PAGE 372

359 Analysis of these materials was focused on derivation of temporally meaningful ceramic subassemblages and mapping of these subassemblages to determine component distributions. The resulting distributions are taken to represent occupation foci. Co-incidence of foci is interpreted as meaning possible contemporaneous use of the ceramic assemblages involved. It is clear from examination of distributions at 171A and 171B that different areas of the site were each occupied repeatedly at different points in time. This horizontal stratification introduces problems in the interpretation of artifacts occuring in the midden. Associations among midden materials are difficult to demonstrate; discrete deposits such as subsistence-related refuse pits are much better contexts for intensive analysis. A major insight emerging from the spatial analysis concerns the scale of aboriginal settlement represented in the Kings Bay Site. Although this site (and other coastal midden sites) appears to be a very large area of occupation, only small portions appear to have been occupied at any one time. Thus the 91.S ha Kings Bay Site is the product of many small occupations, on the order of 1-1.S ha, rather than large villages, supported by the "abundant" coastal resources, as has been assumed in the past. That the two assemblages generated in this testing program are comparable may be demonstrated by examining broad descriptive statistics for each. The sample sizes, in terms of area excavated, are both between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. The ceramic asseblages are similar in size, averaging 122 sherds per unit at 171A and 131 sherds

PAGE 373

360 per unit at 171B. These materials are very similarly distributed within the two middens, vertically and among proveniences, with one exception. This exception is the St. Simons component, which occurs at 171A but not at 171B. It is reflected in Tables 10 and 12 by the presence of a considerable amount of ceramic and lithic material in the yellow sand zone. In analysis of ceramic surface treatment and paste inclusions the assemblages also proved comparably heterogeneous: of the possible 465 bivariate attribute combinations, 98 occurred at 171A and 79 at 171B. Only 14 of these occurred in amounts of 1 percent or greater at the former while 17 equaled or exceeded the 1 percent level at the latter. The regular occurrence of lithic artifacts in association with St. Simons pottery indicates that stone tools were, even on the coast, an important element in the Late Archaic technology. The absence of lithic raw material sources in the Tidewater Biome means that St. Simons period hunters and gatherers must have traveled to, or traded with, the interior. While present, lithics occur in small amounts and in finished form, with debitage representing resharpening only. This reflects the friction of distance on the transportation of materials; lithics were probably imported in finished form. It appears that the Late Archaic settlement pattern included repeated, nonshellfishing, small camp, short-term occupations. A fairly high degree of mobility is indicated. Woodland components included Deptford and Swift Creek occupations. The former is best represented at 171B while the latter occurs almost exclusively at 171A. Deptford material 10 the St. Johns

PAGE 374

36 l component of the Kings Bay Site is concentrated at the east end of the site, were several ceramic components peak, and may be difficult to segregate from other midden constituents. Georgia coast Mississippian period components are lumped as Wilmington/Savannah due to the lack of criteria for clearly distinguishing between the two. Classic Wilmington Heavy Cord Marked pottery does not occur, nor is Savannah Check Stamped part of the assemblage. The distinctive attributes for this component--grog inclusions and cord marking-are almost mutually exclusive. At 171A these traits not only occur on different sherds but the sherd distributions have separate peaks. It is clear that there are important differences between the ceramic sequence in Camden County and the north and central coast sequences. The St. Johns-derived Mississippian component is problematic. Too few discrete contexts were excavated to allow specification of a St. Johns paste-to-sandy cord marked ratio but there does appear to be a bi-typical assemblage which is the product of a single culture. This is illustrated as a single component in the Killion Site, described below. Whether this is best viewed as a Georgia coast variant of St. Johns II or a Northern St. Johns region variant of Wilmington/Savannah cannot be specified without further information. Of primary importance is determination of the distribution of sponge spicule-bearing clays. It is possible that chalky paste wares are not as "foreign" to the Kings Bay vicinity as has been assumed in the past.

PAGE 375

362 San Marcos Cross Simple Stamped was in use at this site before contact. Change in ceramic vessel form under influence Spanish influence is evident in the presence of foot rings and plate marleys. Spanish materials are limited to ceramics and glass in very small amounts. These artifacts could represent visits by Spaniards to Kings Bay, visits by Indians to Spanish missions such as San Pedro de Mocama on Cumberland Island, or sporadic trading along the intracoastal waterway. If it 1s assumed that environment 1s held constant in comparisons between the segments of 9Caml71, then differences must be cultural. No differences in vertebrate faunal species or in Busycon utilization were detected but possibly significant differences in lithic resources and in mollusc species are indicated. At 171B quartzite is an important element in the limited lithic repertoire. Also at 171B Atlantic ribbed mussel is second in importance among shellfish exploited while this position is held by razor clam at 171A. On the whole, however, similarities between 171A and 171B outweigh differences. The Kings Bay Site exhibits several features shared with aboriginal coastal adaptations in general. It is the exigencies of adaptation to the maritime environment, together with the fact that the archeological data collected was primarily in the technoenvironmental sphere, which accounts for the essential similarity of the two spatial components. Using Yesner's definition of a maritime population as one which 1s primarily (in terms of either calories or protein) dependent on marine foods, the Kings Bay Site may be classified as maritime

PAGE 376

363 (1980:728). Although intake from plant sources 1s not known, marine fishes and sharks constitute over 50 percent of the biomass represented by vertebrate faunal remains (from 1/8 in. screened samples) and the (unmeasured) contribution of marine invertebrates must have been significant. Exploitation of the high resource biomass of the intertidal zone and estuary is a hallmark of this site and of coastal adaptations in general. Linear settlement pattern 1s a second characteristic of maritime adaptations which is expressed at Kings Bay. The archeological site itself is long and narrow, blanketing the high ground adjacent to the marsh. Aboriginal occupation at any one point in time was probably nodal within this linear zone. The linear zone provided immediate access to marsh and estuarine resources. Settlements would have occurred at points within this zone where other resources, such as fresh water, plant materials, and firewood, were available. Periodic relocation occurred as local supplies of nonmarine resources and of shellfish were depleted, resulting, over a long period of time, in a linear site. Yesner cites technological complexity and cooperation in resource exploitation as a characteristic of coastal adaptation. Several species among the fish recovered at Kings Bay-including mullet and star drum--would have been caught using nets or weirs which were probably owned and maintained by the community. Two technological aspects of the assemblage recovered at Kings Bay which are a consequence of adaptation to the coastal environment are limited li thic resources and the use of shell tools. While stone

PAGE 377

364 1s rare in the Georgia coastal region, due to the investment required to import this nonative material, it may also be scarce due to the availability of acceptable shell substitutes and due to decreased reliance on hunted terrestrial resources. Marine resources which can be netted, speared, trapped or collected do not require stone projectile points. It is surprising that there were no bone tools recovered, however. Shell tools recognized during exavation were limited to the genus Busycon. Old breaks and wear patterns on shells of other species, particularly Mercenaria spp., were noted but no definite examples of modification for, or during, tool use were found. It should be stressed, however, that due to the ubiquity of shell at coastal sites, many shells probably served as nonce tools and were discarded before distinct wear patterns could develop. This would explain many characteristics of the Busycon sample. It is inferred that these animals were collected for food; discarded shells too small for most applications are present along with larger worn and unworn specimens. Those showing heavy wear were probably hafted as permanent tools. The Killion Site, 9Caml79 Site Description The Killion Site is located near the headwaters of the North River, approximately 800 meters south-southwest of the former outflow of Marianna Creek at Sunflower Bluff, where 9Caml71B is located (see Figure 60). The North River is the major drainage system for the land within the boundaries of the base. Although the construction of

PAGE 378

Figure 60. Location of the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 379

9Cam 179 Killen Site Site Location at Head of North River Key brackish marsh I "\ firelane / paved or graded road c:::::=a-c:::::::::::11-c:::::JSOOm N I I I I I \ _______ -=. 366

PAGE 380

.--------------36 7 roads, railroads, ditches and munitions bunkers has interrupted natural drainage patterns, much of the surface runoff from the northern half of the base is still channeled into the North River via culverts and ditches. One such ditch runs tangent to the northern edge of the site. It may be a channelized tributary stream or an entirely artificial feature; dragline disturbance along both banks makes it difficult to evaluate natural contours. In either case, the main channel of the upper North River is approximately 200 m west of the Killion Site. At this point it is a tannin-stained, perennial freshwater run, 1-2 m wide and 0.5-1 m deep, contained within banks about 2 m high and 3-4 m apart. It would have been a reliable source of fresh water for prehistoric inhabitants. During the survey, several catfish skeletons were observed along the banks It is quite probable that this would have been a good location for harvesting freshwater fish (gar, catfish, large mouth bass) year round or for exploiting anadromous fish, such as American shad, glut herring, striped bass and sturgeon, in the spring. The site is located on moderately well-drained, gently sloping ground between the 10 and 15 ft contours; the soil is Mandarin Fine Sand. Less than SO m south of the southern perimeter of the site, below the 10 ft contour, is a basin-like feature within the North River floodplain where the soil 1s a sandy clay (Pelham series) and the water table is within 15 to 20 cm of the surface, with standing water part of the year. Vegetation there is tall, mature sweetgum, maple and other deciduous hardw'Oods with almost no understory.

PAGE 381

368 On the better-drained soil of the site the vegetation 1s mixed pine and hardwoods with a heavy palmetto understory. An expanse of pine flatwoods intervenes between the site and the fringe of southern mixed hardwoods along the coast. On the basis of survey data, this site was originally described as a roughly circular deposit of oyster shell 20 m 1n diameter. It was first noted due to the presence of oyster shell and aboriginal sherds in the firelane which runs along the north edge and through the center of the site. A shovel test 5 m west of the central fire lane confirmed the presence of a midden layer while a second test 20 m west encountered gray sand and a single sherd. From this evidence and the extent of scattered shell in the firelanes, it was assumed that the site was a small, isolated midden. The survey artifact collection, from 2 shovel tests and surface inspection of the firelane, consisted of 11 sherds, including 4 St. Johns Check Stamped and 7 Savannah Fine Cord Marked sherds. Secondary testing revealed a much different picture. With extensive clearing, raking and probing, the site was found to be composed of at least 26 small middens clustered together within an oval area 90 m east-west by 50 m north-south or approximately 4500 square m (0.45 ha). The site may have been as much as 10-15 m larger north-south prior to ditching; traces of shell but no middens were found north of the ditch. Categories of data recovered during secondary testing at the Killion Site include 1) the spatial pattern formed by the 26 middens and the nearly sterile areas between them, 2) assemblages of aboriginal ceramics from test pits intersecting and adjacent to

PAGE 382

369 middens (dominated by sand tempered plain, St. Johns Check Stamped and Savannah Fine Cord Marked sherds), 3) a few chert and silicified coral artifacts, 4) a few Busycon shells, 5) very small amounts of bone, and, 6) mollusc samples from four of the middens. No structural features, such as postholes or wall trenches, nor any hearths, trash pits, or storage pits were identified anywhere on the site. Sampling Plan The initial task of fieldw:>rk was definition of site boundaries and characteristics, since these had been underpredicted by the survey phase sample. Among the characteristics to be delineated were site structure, temporal range, cultural affiliation, and site function. On clearing the heavy palmetto undergrowth and raking the pine straw, it was discovered that the area contained not one but many small, discrete oyster shell deposits. It was necessary to probe the ground in order to define the edges of the middens; eventually every square m of the 0.45 ha clearing was probed. When a shell deposit was encountered, radial transects from the apparent center outward were probed at 0.5-m or smaller intervals until shell was no longer detected; these terminal points were flagged for mapping with transit and chain. The 26 middens defined in this manner range in height from 0 cm (entirely subsurface) to 21 cm, and are shown in Figure 61. Except for areas of obvious firelane plow disturbance, no amorphous or dispersed shell deposits were found. Once the spatial extent of the cluster of middens had been determined, an excavation plan was designed to sample both the middens

PAGE 383

Figure 61. Shell Midden Features Composing the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 384

titelane 9Cam179 KUUon Site Featll"ea and Modem Diattri>ancea Key fl/J ahel midden ;;;:} acellered ahel alream dllch = = = Hlm t j

PAGE 385

and the intermidden areas. This approach treats the middens as features within the site and allows detection of site boundaries on the basis of intermidden deposits, as well as midden distribution. 37 2 Due to the scale of the site (both the overall size and the average distance between middens), a sampling interval of 10 m was selected. The interval was allowed to vary in order to avoid excavating units containing trees. Where trees were present, the adjacent unit in any direction was excavated if available; in several cases units were displaced more than 2 m. At least one unit beyond the most peripheral midden on the west, south and east sides of the site was excavated. Along the northern edge of the site the 2-m deep, 5-m wide drainage ditch, paralleled on each side by a 3-m wide firelane, obviated edge-location by testing. A total of 32 tests, each 2-m square, arranged in 6 east-west transects, was completed (Figure 62). In addition, a trench 1 m wide and 14 m long was excavated, 1n 2 m sections, between two middens on the east side of the site. This trench was designed to examine the gradation of artifact concentrations between the two middens and to search for structural features. While the 32 2-m square units were excavated by the standard level and zone method, as described 1n Chapter 6, the trench sections were excavated by natural zones. When shell midden strata were intersected by the test units, they were treated as natural zones, i.e. screened through 1/4 in. mesh with collection of artifacts, bone and Busycons. Column samples were collected at the Killion Site to allow closer examination of midden contents. Four column samples were taken, one from each of the four middens showing

PAGE 386

Figure 62. Killion Site Excavation Plan.

PAGE 387

121 131 141 101 -YG:) 112 113 14 111 A~
PAGE 388

37 5 the deepest shell layers in profile. Each sample was a 0.5 m square block cut from the profile and treated as feature material. Column sample results are discussed under Feature Data in this chapter. Description of Sample Clearing, probing and mapping at the Killion Site allowed definition of 26 small shell middens. Excavation of a total of 32 tests 2-m square and 4 0.5-m square column samples demonstrated that these middens are discrete surface features of highly homogeneous composition deposited on a culturally sterile sand substrate. No other cultural features of any other nature, nor any human remains, were found. The following sections discuss the kinds of data derived from the test sample. Stratigraphic data Test pits intersecting middens, between middens, and on the periphery of the site revealed a generally simple stratigraphy altered from the natural Mandarin Fine Sand profile only in the immediate vicinity of the middens. Mandarin Fine Sand typically exhibits a very dark gray surface layer 7-10 cm thick, a light gray subsurface layer extending to a depth of 40-50 cm, a weakly cemented dark brown to black organic hardpan to a depth of 80-90 cm and light gray or white sand to 150 cm, followed by a second organic hardpan. No levels deeper than 60 cm below surface were excavated at the Killion Site; no artifacts were found below level 5 (40-50 cm). On several occasions

PAGE 389

376 the upper hardpan layer was encountered above 40 cm but in no case was there evidence of aboriginal or modern disturbance of this zone. The vertical distribution of artifacts for the site as a whole is summarized in Table 32. This tabulation shows that almost 3/4 of the artifact assemblage was found in the top 20 cm of the site. No cultural materials were found below 50 cm in any part of the site and only one artifact occurred in level 5. Because a significant portion of the ceramics was recovered from shell middens which projected 10 to 20 cm above the natural ground surface, the site contents are actually located even closer to the surface than suggested by the figures in Table 32. Table 32. Vertical Distribution of Artifacts at the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Depth Ceramics Lithics Total Artifacts Below Level Surface ( cm) f % f i. f i. 1 0 10 220 21.46 1 10 .o 221 21.35 2 10 20 526 51 .32 3 30 .o 529 51.11 3 20 30 204 19 .90 2 20.0 206 19. 90 4 30 40 3 0. 29 3 30 .o 6 o. 58 5 40 50 0 1 10 .0 1 0 .10 Zone* A 0 28 61 5.95 0 61 5.89 Zone* B 28 40 11 1.07 0 11 1.06 Total 1025 10 1035 Note: Trench units excavated by natural zones without level subdivisions.

PAGE 390

377 The cultural and natural zones encountered in excavation may be grouped in the following categories: consolidated oyster midden, loose midden, humic sand, gray sand, and leaching zone. Consolidated oyster midden refers to the shell deposits themselves in which mollusc remains compose over 50 percent of the volume, the remainder being dark gray brown fine sand. This cultural zone occurs at or very near the surface, in many cases projecting above the surface. A total of 473 aboriginal sherds, or 46 percent of the ceramic assemblage, was recovered from this zone. Only one stone artifact, a large flake of silicified coral, was found in consolidated oyster midden. In several cases only the margins of shell deposits, or very thin shell deposits, were encountered in excavation. Where shell composed less than 50 percent of the volume of a zone and the matrix was a medium to dark gray brown sand, the deposit is described as loose midden. Ninety-one aboriginal sherds (9 percent) and no lithic artifacts occurred in loose midden. Beneath the middens, both consolidated and loose, a leaching zone was found. This zone appeared as a layer of medium brown or brown-mottled fine sand containing small fragments and flecks of shell, apparently stained by leachates from the overlying midden. Fifty-foi:ir sherds (5 percent) and t-wo lithic artifacts were recovered from the leaching zone, which may be considered a cultural zon. H 1 1mic sand is the term used to describe the very dark gray A soi 1 horizon which extended, on the average, to a depth of 26 cm below the surface. Although this zone did not differ significantly in color or texture from the non-site A horizon, it contained 368 sherds (36

PAGE 391

378 percent of the ceramic assemblage) and may be considered a cultural zone. Gray sand refers to the B soil horizon, which generally began at about 26 cm below surface and was composed of fine medium to light gray sand. This zone contained only 39 sherds (4 percent) and four lithic artifacts and is primarily a natural zone. Profile drawings representative of the appearance of peripheral, midden, and between-midden portions of the site are included as Figures 63 through 67. Figure 63, showing units 127 and 151, illustrates the natural stratigraphic sequence with a layer of modern duff and humus on the surface, a dark gray sand A horizon, a light gray sand B horizon and, in unit 127, a dark brown organic hardpan layer. Both of these units are located on the periphery of the site and contained no cultural material. Figure 64 shows profiles from units 113 and 124, both of which are tests in between-midden areas near the center of the site. The same natural stratigraphic sequence that was found on the edge of the site occurs in this area. Unit 124 was culturally sterile; unit 113 yielded 21 aboriginal sherds from the dark gray sand layer. Cultural strata are illustratd in Figures 65 through 67 which show units intersecting middens. Unit 135 in Figure 65 intersected a midden which was entirely subsurface and locatable only by probing. The midden layer was composed of loosely aggregated oyster shell which produced no submidden leaching zone. The surface midden in unit 112, also illustrated in Figure 65, was composed of compact oyster shell and produced a well-defined submidden leaching zone. Units 116 and

PAGE 392

Figure 63. Profiles of Representative Nonsite Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml 79.

PAGE 393

0 50 cm 44 cm Key Unit 127 North Profile Unit 151 South Profile 9Cam 179 Killion Site Representative Profiles modern duff and humus Q dark gray sand [J light gray sand dark brown organic hardpan 380 Scale 1:20

PAGE 394

Figure 64. Profiles of Representative Nonmidden Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 395

Unit 113 South Profile Unit 124 West Profile a -~ w. !'.:": ,:, :rr::: ~ 7 f l 7:: ,ij T: 0t 7 ~! 7 ~ 1/ 7: i', 7 if ~ }: ~ A( ""' ': '."c" ;: ~ \l ,..,., ,r ~ 0, ~,,:-,, ) ~ :. !",:" ,t ~ f ] ~ "'."'." ;{ ,--. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. ..... 44 cm ........ .-_._._._.. ::-: -::_ 9Cam 179 Killion Site Representative Profiles Key modern duff and humus CJ dark gray sand [J light gray sand EJ dark brown organic hardpan Scale 1:20 382

PAGE 396

Figure 65. Profiles of Representative Subsurface Midden Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 397

West Profile Unit 135 North Profile 54 cm East Profile Unit 112 South Profile 46 cm 9Cam 179 Killion Site Representative Profiles Key A-root modern duff and humus L] dark gray sand . light gray sand dark brown organic hardpan (:] mottled medium brown sand @ compact oyster shell midden [J loose oyster shell midden Scale 1 :20

PAGE 398

Figure 66 Profiles of Two Surface M i dden Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79 I j

PAGE 399

East Profile Unit 116 South Profile 0 46 cm South Profile Unit 132 West Profile 0 40cm 9Cam 179 Killion Site Representative Profiles Key modern duff and humus CJ dark gray sand CJ light gray sand mottled medium brown sand Scale 1 :20 compact oyster shell midden medium gray brown sand with shell

PAGE 400

Figure 67. Profiles of a Surface Midden Unit at the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 401

48cm 36cm Key North Profile Unit 115 East Profile ------South Profile West Profile 9Cam 179 Killion Site Representative Profiles modern duff and humus dark gray sand light gray sand r.;;i t.:.:t Scale 1:20 dark brown organic hardpan compact oyster shell midden medium gray brown sand with shell fragments w 00 00

PAGE 402

389 132 in Figure 66 and unit 115 in Figure 67 contained middens which projected above the surface to the extent that they were visible as small mounds once the area had been cleared. The south profile of unit 115 is also illustrated in Figure 68. All three middens were composed of consolidated oyster shell and produced distinct leaching zones. Feature data The only cultural features discovered in the course of test excavations are the 26 shell middens shown in Figures 61 and 62. They have been assigned letter designations for reference. Middens E, H, I, J, Q, Wand Y were substantially sampled by test pits. Although, from a post-excavation perspective, the middens are most conveniently regarded as features, they were treated as cultural zones rather than features in the process of excavation. This means that ma teria 1 was 1/4 in. screened and shell, floatation, radiocarbon and soil samples were not collected. However, these data are provided by column samples from four of the seven middens intersected by test pits. Treating the intersected middens as a subsample of seven, midden data are summarized in Table 33. As shown in Table 34, which summarizes site-wide ceramic data, the largest ceramic samples were collected from test units intersecting or immediately adjacent to middens. All of the eight units yielding samples larger than SO sherds are from the middens described in Table 33. Two of these tests are adjacent lx2-m sections

PAGE 403

Figure 68. South Profile of Unit 115 Showing Surface Midden at the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 405

392 Table 33. Intermidden Comparative Data for the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Midden Sample E H I J Q w y Excavation unit 112 115 164/ 165 116 132 135 143 Ceramic total 58 187 139 250 54 12 211 for unit Midden volume, .08 .16 .57 .29 1.20 .32 .06 cubic meters Ceramic total 16 69 84 191 53 8 48 for midden Ceramic density 200 431 147 659 44 25 817 for midden Ceramic types in midden: % St. Johns 44 17 23 1 17 0 14 7. Savannah 44 54 43 75 60 100 67 % Plain 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 % Eroded 12 28 34 23 23 0 19 Midden volume, .03 .06 .OS .o 1 column sample Ceramic tota 1, 3 2 10 1 column sample Ceramic density, 100 33 200 100 column sample

PAGE 406

39 3 Table 34. Ceramic Group Occurrence by Unit at the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Surface Surface St. Johns Savannah Eroded Plain Series Series Unit f % f % f % f % Total 103 l 100 .00 0 0 0 1 111 0 0 4 57.14 3 42.86 7 112 21 36 .21 2 3.45 15 25.86 20 34.48 58 113 4 19 .OS 1 4.76 9 42 .86 7 33 .33 21 114 0 0 0 2 100.00 2 115 31 16. 58 1 0.53 24 12 .83 13 l 70 .05 187 116 68 27 .20 1 0.40 3 1.20 17 8 71.20 250 124 0 0 0 3 100 .00 3 125 0 0 1 50 .oo l 50.00 2 132 12 22.22 0 9 16 .6 7 33 61.11 54 133 15 48. 39 0 l 3.23 15 48 .39 31 134 4 18 .18 0 0 18 81.82 22 135 0 0 3 25.00 9 75 .00 12 142 3 42 .86 0 0 4 57 .14 7 143 50 23. 70 0 49 23.22 112 5 3 .08 211 145 1 100.00 0 0 0 l 15 2 l 100.00 0 0 0 1 16 l 2 25 .oo 0 0 6 75 .00 8 16 3 0 0 0 1 100 .00 1 164 14 24 .56 0 11 19 .30 32 56 .14 57 165 25 30 .49 1 1.22 15 18.29 41 50.00 82 166 0 0 0 4 100 .00 4 16 7 0 0 0 3 3 Total 25 2 6 144 623 1025

PAGE 407

of the trench unit which just grazed the northern edge of midden I; they may be treated as the equivalent of a 2 m square unit. 394 A general comparison of data for the seven middens suggests that variability in ceramic density may be as much a result of small sample effects as of real differences among middens. This is particularly apparent when ceramic densities for the four column samples are compared with the densities figured for their respective midden test units. In light of this variability, the differences among the midden units with respect to type composition of the ceramic assemblages may be regarded as suggestive but not conclusive. Four of seven middens show an impressive similarity in type composition. Middens H, I, Q and Y exhibit 2-5 times as many Savannah as St. Johns sherds and about 1.5 times as many eroded sherds as St. Johns sherds. The one largest and two smallest samples show highly dissimilar proportions of types. The lithic sample is too small to be used for intermidden comparison except to remark that the ten lithic artifacts were distributed over nine excavation units, three of which were midden tests. This indicates relatively even dispersal of the small lithic assemblage. Results of mollusc analysis for midden column samples of shell larger than 1/4 in. are given in Table 35. The middens are highly similar in terms of species composition, with an average of 98.3 percent oyster (Crassostrea virginica), a minor but consistently present ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) component, and sporadic representatives of other species, none in great enough numbers to be economically important. While a total of seven Busycon spp. shells was found site-wide, none occurred in the column samples.

PAGE 408

395 Tab le 35 Mollusc Sample Analysis Data from Four Column Samples at the Killion Site, 9Caml 79. Unit g Combined Sample ,:; 112 115 116 132 Samples Total 10246 3440 24449 5370 435 23 Sample Analyzed 1216 1237 1317 947 47 17 Subsample Crassostrea 1209 1196 129 2 940 4637 virginica 99.42 99 .69 98 .10 99 .25 98.30 Geukensia 4 30 23 4 61 demissa 0.33 2 .4 2 1.75 0 .11 1.29 Ilynassa 1 0 0 0 1 obso le ta 0.08 Mercena ria spp. 0 4 0 0 4 0.32 0.08 Mya 0 5 0 0 5 arenar1.a 0 .40 0 .11 Tagelus spp. 0 0 0 1 1 0.11 0.02 Terre stria 1 1 1 1 1 4 gastropods 0.08 0.08 0.08 0 .11 0.08 Barnacles l 1 l 1 4 0.08 0.08 0.08 0 .11 0.08

PAGE 409

396 Soils analysis data for the column samples are given in Table 36. The middens show a high degree of similarity, both in values for pH and calcium and in the midden to submidden changes in these values. The slightly alkaline midden and submidden environment contrasts with the acid character of nonsite Mandarin Fine Sand soil associations. As discussed in a separate section below, the very small vertebrate fauna 1 sample collected in the course of test excavations came exclusively from shell midden contexts. It is not possible to say whether this is due to midden versus nonmidden preservation conditions (soil pH) or to a cultural practice of depositing vertebrate and invertebrate faunal refuse in the same place. The fact that much of the bone was in relatively poor condition suggests that, even within the midden, a great deal of leaching occurred. Table 36. Soils Analysis Data for Four Column Samples from the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Unit 112 115 116 132 Average n=4 Shell Midden Zone pH Ca,ppm 8.0 1600 7 .9 1600 7.9 1600 7.9 1200 7 .9 1500 Submidden Zone pH Ca,ppm 8.2 91 8.2 220 8 .1 630 8.3 130 8.2 268

PAGE 410

397 Physically, the middens appear to be single episode refuse deposits. No vertical or horizontal intramidden stratification suggestive of separate depositional events was observed. Edges are well-defined in profile, generally tapering from a thicker central area. In plan, edges are entire and rounded. The structure suggests accumulation by dumping or tossing toward the center of a refuse pile with little post-depositional disturbance. An important aspect of these features with respect to site pattern 1s the absence of any overlapping or adjacent middens. The closest middens, T and U, are 1 m apart; the average distance between middens is more than twice this amount. As a group, the features are rather evenly dispersed across the site. The discrete episodes of oyster collection and consumption which seem to be indicated by these features are consistent with the site location in relation to mollusc resources. The Killion Site is approximately 800 m from the nearest estuarine habitat. Transport of oysters across this distance would probably have been accomplished 1n basketor net-loads, perhaps by parties rather than individuals. It seems likely that processing of oysters in quantity would foster the formation of discrete heaps. In contrast, individual casual collection for immediate consumption "'10uld have resulted in discard of shells along the bulff edge, away from the Killion Site. Artifact data Four kinds of artifact data were recovered from the Killion Site: vertebrate faunal remains, ceramic artifacts, lithic artifacts, and

PAGE 411

398 shell artifacts. Invertebrate fauna! remains are reported in the preceding section; vertebrate fauna are discussed in the following section. An attempt was made to recover archeobotanical evidence through diligent sorting of fine fractions from the four column samples. A total of 12 seeds was found in the 1/8-1/4 in. fraction; 112 seeds were separated from the 1/16-1/8 in. water-screened fraction. All of these seeds were found to have colored coats and/or woody interiors and were therefore judged to be modern floral ma teria 1. Shell artifacts composed the smallest artifact group and consisted of seven small to medium-size gastropod shells (4.2-9.7 cm length), three of which could be identified as Busycon carica eliceans. Of the remainder, one was labelled Busycon spp. and the others were similar but too fragmentary for positive identification. None of the shells exhibited either the typical "kill hole" in the shoulder or wear to the base, spines, lip or spire which could definitely be attributed to use as a tool. Four of the seven shells have pointed bases while a fifth is sharpened and polished. These forms suggest an awl-like function, such as use in basketry, husking corn, net-making or some other similar manipulative task. Use of the snails as food cannot be discounted, however, their relatively rare occurrence indicates that they were not the focus of intensive collection. Lithic artifacts include the ten stone objects summarized in Tab le 37. These materials occurred scattered across the site without apparent concentration in the middens. Two of the lithic objects are

PAGE 412

Table 37. Summary of Lithic Artifact Analysis Data for the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Form FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Chert Ma teria 1 Si li cified Coral Quartz ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Small Flake 1 10.00 100 .00 33.33 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Medium Flake 0 2 20 .00 100.00 40.00 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Large Flake 0 2 20 .00 100.00 40.00 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Bi face 1 10 .00 100.00 33.33 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Knife 1 10 .00 100 .oo 33.33 0 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Chunk 0 1 10.00 100.00 20 .00 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Pebble 0 0 2 20 .00 100.00 100.00 ---------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 3 30 .00 5 50 .00 2 20 .oo Total 1 10.00 2 20 .00 2 20 .00 1 10.00 1 10.00 1 10.00 2 20 .00 10 100 .00 399

PAGE 413

r------1 400 of dubious identity as artifacts; one is an irregularly shaped quartz pebble 10 mm in diameter; the other is a smooth, flat quartz stone 21 nm in diameter and 4 mm thick. Since no other small stones were found in the course of excavation, it is assumed that these are introduced materials, but their function is unclear. None of the five waste flakes showed edge wear attributable to use as a tool. The piece of silicified coral categorized as a "chunk" appeared to be unusable debris rather than a spent core. The two worked p i eces are both of chert. One is a small, bifacially worked fragment of what might have been a projectile point; it is not possible to tell whether the part represented is a tang or tip. The knife, illustrated in Figure 69, is a large, flat biface of white chert which has lost its stem. It is 60 mm long, 43 mm wide, and 8 mm thick. The round tip and localized edge wear suggest that it functioned as a multi-purpose knife/scraper tool which was probably hafted. The pottery assemblage from the Killion Site consists of 1070 sherds, 45 of which were less than 1/2 in. (13 mm) in their largest dimension and were therefore discarded as unidentifiable. The remaining 1025 were sorted into the surface and paste classes shown in Table 38. Criteria for these classes were discussed 1n the preceding Kings Bay Site pottery description. As indicated by row and column totals, sponge spicules were the dominant paste inclusion in 14 percent of the assemblage while quartz inclusions of various sizes accounted for the balance. No other paste variations were observed. The dominant surface treatment is cord marking, which occurs on 60 percent of the sherds. Check stamping occurs on 3 percent of the

PAGE 414

Figure 69. Representative Artifacts from the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 415

402 B A C D E F G H 0 5

PAGE 416

Table 38. SU11Ullary of Ceramic Analysis Data for All Excavation Units at the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Surface Paste Treatment Inc lu s ions FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Sponge Sponge Spicules Fine Spicules & Sand Sand Sand Sand & Grit ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Eroded 5 0.49 1.61 8 3 .3 3 53 5.17 17 .10 38 .41 2 0.20 0 .65 28.57 191 18 .6 3 61.61 25 .13 59 5.76 19 .0 3 5 1. 7 5 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Plain 0 68 6 .6 3 91.89 49 .28 0 5 0.49 6. 76 0.66 1 0.10 1.35 0.88 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Check Stamped 1 0 .10 3.70 16 .6 7 12 1.17 44.44 8. 70 0 0 14 1.37 51.85 12.28 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Cord Marked 0 0 5 0.49 4.39 71.43 90 8. 7 8 78. 9 5 11.84 19 1.85 16 .6 7 16 .6 7 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Cross Cord Marked 0 5 0.49 1.00 3 .62 0 47 3 46 .15 94.79 62.24 21 2 .o 5 4.21 18 .4 2 --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Heavy Cord Marked 0 0 0 1 0 .10 100.00 0 .13 0 ---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total 6 0 .59 138 13.46 7 0.68 760 7 4 .15 114 11 .12 Total 310 30 .24 74 7.22 27 2 .63 114 11 .1 2 499 48 .68 1 0 .10 1025 100 .00 403

PAGE 417

assemblage, plain surfaces on 7 percent, and eroded surfaces on 30 percent. A total of 67 sherds or 7 percent of the collection exhibited rims. Since such a small fraction of the total assemblage (representing only 9 of the 18 observed attribute combinations) included rims and many of these sherds were quite small, no separate rim attribute analysis was conducted. Notes made in the course of analys i s indicate that only simple, straight rims with either rounded or flattened lips were observed. Figure 69 illustrates check stamping on chalky paste, plain surfaced sherds with sponge spicule and sand paste inclusions, and cross cord marked sherds on sandy and sand and grit pastes. The range of lip forms is representative of the range for the assemblage as a whole. Faunal data Vertebrate faunal remains were collected from 1/4 in. screened zones in middens intersected by test pits (middens H, E, J, and I). Of these the majority (92 percent of fragments) came from H. Bone was also collected from the column samples 10 middens H, E, J, and Q; 85 percent of the column sample fragments were recovered from midden H. Zone and column sample analysis results are reported in Table 39. Biomass was not calculated due to the small size of the sample. In view of sample size and the uneven representation of the few middens which produced bone, it seems best to evaluate the combined collection 1n general terms.

PAGE 418

-l Table 39. Vertebrate Species List for the Ki 11 ion Site, 9Caml79. Zone {I/ 4 i I\ ) Column ( 1/4 in.) Co I unu1 ( I / 8 in.) Count HIii W eig ht Count HNI Weight Count HNI W t= ight % % g % % % g % % % g % -Unidentifi ed Mammal 2 1 12 .6 33. 7 26.3 5.1 0.3 3.0 23 5. 5 0. 7 1 4. 3 S ilvilagus 4 2 7. 7 4. I l. 2 7. I 50 0 I. 7 17 2 Sciu~ sp. 1.2 15 4 0 8 0.6 0.5 I 6 7 tr Cf. Sci urus 0.2 16 .7 l< Odo c o i l eus virginianus 12 7. 2 15 .4 43.9 34 3 U n id ent ifi e d Turtle 51 30 .5 17.1 I l. 3 5. I 0 1 1.0 39 9 3 I. I 22. 4 C liclydr a serpentina 1.2 7 7 2. 9 2.3 KinosterniJae 3 1.8 0.9 o. 7 Kinostcrnon Sp, 8 4 8 1 5 4 l.9 3.0 38 38.8 50.0 7.2 72 7 Tcrrapc11e carolina 1.2 7. 7 2.2 I. 7 Un id cn l i fi t!d Fish 8 4 8 I 3 1.0 4 4. I tr 23 5.5 0.1 2.0 Ari id at! 0.6 7 7 0.5 0.4 0.5 1 6. 7 tr s ~ i.:1c11i
PAGE 419

406 Preservation of faunal remains at the Killion Site is poor. Most specimens are eroded and friable compared to specimens from the Kings Bay Site midden. This is difficult to account for in terms of soil acidity alone: the four midden samples at the Killion Site had an average pH of 7.9 while 16 zone A midden samples from the Kings Bay Site had an average pH of 8.0 (Tables 36 and 14). It is unlikely that a difference this small could explain the observed difference in preservation. Figures in Table 14 suggest that deeper strata of the midden deposit are more alkaline than shallower strata, probably as a result of percolation of dissolved calcium from upper midden layers. Since all middens at the Killion Site are shallow, surface features and are loosely aggregated, it is likely that they experienced heavier leaching than lower levels of the Kings Bay Site. Thus faunal materials would have been donors, rather than recipients, of dissolved calcium. In simple terms, bone preservation at the Killion Site is poor because these single component middens lack the protective blanket of a later midden stratum. The partitioning of the assemblage into zone (1/4 in. screened) and column (1/4 in. and 1/8 in. screened) samples affords an opportunity to make several comparisons. The zones total 8 square m of midden averaging 15 cm in depth (1.2 cubic m) while the column samples represent 1 square m of midden of the same depth (0.15 cubic m). For the two 1/4 in. fractions there is a considerable difference in the density of faunal remains: 140 fragments/cubic m for zone materials as compared to 653 fragments/cubic m for column sample materials. Since most of the specimens in both 1/4 in. fractions come

PAGE 420

4ITT from the same midden, there is clearly a considerable amount of intramidden variability in bone density. The 1/4 1n. and 1/8 in. column sample fractions are derived from the same excavated material and so are suggestive of what was missed by using 1/4 in. screen to sift the zones. Even though MNI were determined for the two fractions separately, since there is no duplication of genus or species identifications, column sample MNI figures are not redundant. Of the eight MNI in the column sample, six are contributed by the 1/8 1n. fraction and these are mostly fish. The only additional taxon not found in the zone sample is Fundulus spp. As expected, more fish were recovered when the smaller mesh size was used. The overall proportions of species are not much altered, however: the five mammals, four turtles, and four fish of the zone sample and the three mammals, one turtle, and four fish of the column sample could represent the same population. The species utilized at the Killion Site reflect exploitation of both upland and estuarine areas. The squirrel (Sciurus sp.) and box turtle (Terrapene carolina), in addition to the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), indicate use of upland areas and fresh water sources. These species might also be found 1n areas near, or in, the marsh and only the box turtle is restricted to well-drained areas. Discussion Spatial attributes Three kinds of space were defined at the Killion Site: midden areas, between-midden areas, and beyond-midden areas. These divisions

PAGE 421

408 are shown in Figure 70. Midden areas are the oyster shell deposits, defined by the mapping procedure described above. Disturbed areas are reconstructed to display their estimated original dimensions. Between-midden space is all of the intervening area out to an arbitrarily defined boundary. This boundary was constructed by finding, for each of the peripheral middens, the center-to-center distance to its nearest neighbor and then projecting this distance outward, away from the center of the midden cluster. The boundary was formed by connecting these points Beyond midden areas are all terrain exterior to the above boundary and are of interest primarily as the context or setting of the site, its "resource space" in Clarke's terms (1977: 14-16). In order to study test results, it 1s of interest to examine the relationship between the distribution of artifacts within the space defined as the "site" by the middens (within the boundary described above) and within that area defined as "site" by the distribution of artifacts. The first proposition to be discussed is the following: the edge of the site may be defined in terms of the size and distribution of features so as to produce a reasonable approximation of the site as defined by artifact distribution. This is an important relationship to test because, so frequently 1n coastal studies, when the most highly visible component of a site 1s a shell deposit, it is assumed that the extent of shell distribution defines the site. In the present case it was found that the extent of the features is a good predictor of the extent of the non-feature artifact distribution. Between midden tests showed a low but fairly continuous pottery

PAGE 422

Figure 70. Site Boundary Derived from Surface Feature Locations at the Killion Site, 9Caml79.

PAGE 423

Nole : Al each vertex, a:b a:peripheral midden lo nearesl neighbor dis lance b:peripheral midden lo boundary dislance : midden cenlroid b (I .. ,,( . .. ; . 9Cam 179 Killion Site Site Boundary Derived from Surface Feature Locations = 5m

PAGE 424

411 distribution but beyond-midden tests were sterile. The seven midden tests average 150 sherds per unit while the 25.5 between-midden tests average 4.4 sherds each. Examination of the reconstructed midden distribution shown 1n Figure 70 does not reveal any obvious regular patterning of the middens, either 1n terms of size or relative spacing. Within the boundary of the site, the features are regularly dispersed, with no inter-midden interval less than 1 m and no midden separated by more than 9 m from its nearest neighbor. Looking at the middens within their resource space, however, their distribution is tightly clustered within a small portion of the available relatively well-drained land along the North River. These t'WO aspects of site patterning have important implications for the site formation questions addressed next. Temporal provenience Two aspects of temporal character are addressed in this section. Absolute temporal position, as determined by radiocarbon dating, is of interest for placement of the site within a regional developmental context and for assessing contemporaneity with other sites in the locality. Relative temporal duration is of interest in answering questions about the process of site formation and probable function. Absolute temporal position of the site 1s assessed using radiocarbon dated samples of oyster shell from the profiles of the four column samples previously identified. Samples were in each case taken from the lower half of the consolidated midden deposit (see

PAGE 425

------------------412 Figures 63 through 67). Thus it is the collection of the oysters i.n the four middens E, H, J, anuld eventually be some overlapping of middens, since the exact location of such small shell piles would not be obvious after one or two years. Neither of these conditions is observed.

PAGE 426

, 413 Table 40. Radiocarbon Date Determinations for Four Oyster Shell Samples from the Killion Site, 9Caml 79. Midden E H J Q Unit 112 115 116 132 F .S. Number 2399 2408 2405 2396 Laboratory No. Beta-2124 Beta-2126 Beta-2125 Beta-2123 C-14 Age in 1010+80 6 30+ 110 680+70 630+ 100 Years B.P. C-13/C-12 Ratio -o .57 -1 .33 -o .62 -0 .9 5 Corrected C-14 Age 1410+80 1020+ 110 1080+70 1020+ 100 Reservoir 1000+80 610+ 110 670+70 610+100 Correction A.D. Date 950+80 1340+ 110 1280+ 70 1340+ 100 Note: No dendrochronological correction has been made 410 years subtracted to correct for reservoir effect in Western Atlantic. Second, the individual middens themselves show a complete lack of internal stratification. There are no lenses of humic material which would be expected to accumulate between episodes of shell deposition if more than one episode were involved. Neither are the middens lobed or the edges interrupted 1n a manner that would suggest horizontal stratification of the sort resulting from separate shell deposits close together forming a larger pile. Instead, the middens appear to have accumulated by dumping or tossing toward a single central point (with the exception of P which has an arc shape). The resulting piles are thickest in the center and taper toward the edges, or else are pancake-shaped with well-defined edges.

PAGE 427

I 414 Third, none of the excavated middens showed any evidence of disturbance which could be attributed to human reoccupation of the area, for example, hearth building, postholes or wall trenches, trash pits, or shell removal to clear a sand floor. This suggests a single, or very few, occupation(s) during which activities that would affect the surface soils were carried out between, rather than on, middens. Fourth, the inter-midden area of the site is relatively free of the scattered shell and other cultural debris which one ,;,;ould expect to be deposited there over the course of several reoccupations. An average of 4.4 sherds per test occurs in the inter-midden area. Although shell was not collected, notes indicate that fewer tha n a dozen fragments total were found in any one inter-midden test. The relatively sterile condition of the ground between middens within the site not only points to a single occupation but suggests that the site may not have been completely cleared while in use; individual shelters and adjacent middens may have been separated by underbrush which tended to limit debris scatter. Finally, it is assumed that some kind of shelters would have been constructed at the Killion Site for protection from rain and wind. In the absence of structural evidence of any kind (e.g. postholes, wall trenches or floors) it must be assumed that any structures formerly present were small, lightly built, and probably intended to be temporary. It would not be surprising for small, shallow structural features to be completely obliterated in the course of a few hundred years. The trunks of the prolific saw palmettos (Serenoa repens) which cover the site occupy a large volume of the topsoil and have

PAGE 428

415 extensive root systems. Disturbances attributable to palmettos would efface features within 30 cm of the surface. This species prefers acid soil, however, and seems not to have extensively invaded the middens themselves, which are slightly alkaline. In summary, it is postulated that the Killion Site was generated 1n the course of one or two fairly short occupations by small groups of people who probably built lightweight, temporary shelters and did not return to the area. No evidence for regular reoccupation was found. Cultural affiliation Two sources of artifact data relating to the identity of the archeological culture at the Killion Site were recovered: a lithic assemblage and a pottery assemblage. While the lithic assemblage 1s too small to be quantitatively informative, its qualitative composition, 1n terms of raw materials represented, 1s suggestive. The ceramic assemblage 1s large enough for quantitative comparison with other sites of similar cultural identity. In material and form, the pottery assemblage 1s remarkably homogeneous, suggesting a single cultural group. Analysis of both these artifact groups was performed according to the methodology described above for the Kings Bay Site assemblages. Since no natural rock outcroppings occur within this portion of the Tidewater Biome, all of the lithic materials--chert, silicified coral, and quartz-are assumed to be exotic materials brought to the site by its aboriginal inhabitants. The two quartz pebbles are

PAGE 429

416 difficult to interpret as artifacts because they are quite small. They could have been collected within the coastal plain, from sediments washed downstream by any of the major rivers. The chert and silicified coral objects, being artificially shaped fragments of larger source materials, are less likely to be casually collected materials. Chert outcroppings are known to occur in the lower Coastal Plain along the Savannah River but are not well reported further south. Chert is also available in the north central Florida uplands. The silicified coral is similar to material which can be obtained in the vicinity of White Springs on the Suwannee River in north central Florida. As the Suwannee flows westward out of the Okeefenokee Swamp while the the St. Marys River flows eastward out of the same source, a possible trade or resource-access route is suggested (Barbara A. Purdy, personal connnunication). Analysis of the pottery assemblage from the Killion Site yielded the cross tabulation of surface and paste traits given in Table 40. For purposes of discussion and comparison with conventionally typed ceramic assemblages, these attribute combinations may be lumped into series as shown in Table 41. Pastes containing sponge spicule inclusions, in combination with sand or alone, were assigned to the St. Johns series and accounted for 14 percent of the total. The balance of the assemblage, containing quartz inclusions of various sizes, was divided into stamped, plain and eroded groups. The stamped group was labeled Savannah and is composed of 2 percent check stamped and 98 percent cord marked. Three cord marked subgroups were defined for analysis purposes but it is likely that they are minor variations

PAGE 430

417 on a single theme of fine cord marking and could co-occur on the same vessel. By far the most abundant variant is a cross cord marked ware with fine cord impressions, neatly applied, diagonal to the rim. In view of the two distinct ceramic series which occur in the Killion assemblage, it is of interest to examine their spatial distributions. A spatially segregated distribution would suggest either a multicomponent site or some mode of social or technological distinction between wares. Table 41. Summary of Ceramic Types from the Killion Site, 9Caml79. Subgroup Total Type Frequency Percent Percent St. Johns Series 144 14 .0 S eroded 58 40.28 Plain 68 47 .22 Check Stamped 13 9.03 Cross Cord Marked s 3 .47 Savannah Series 623 60 .7 8 Check Stamped 14 2.25 Cord Marked 114 18.30 Cross Cord Marked 494 79.29 heavy cord marked l 0 .16 Plain 6 0.59 Eroded 252 24 .59 Total 1025 100 .00

PAGE 431

418 Small samples restrict the number of comparisons which can be made. Out of 32 test units and 7 trench sections, 23 contained pottery but only 8 had samples of more than 30 sherds. These eight are the seven midden tests shown in Table 32 plus one non-midden test (unit 133 near midden S) which contained 31 sherds. The proportion of St. Johns series sherds in this subgroup ranges from 1 to 26 percent and averages 15 percent. Savannah series ceramics range from 34 to 71 percent and average 56 percent. Plain sherds (quartz inclusions) range from Oto 3 percent and average less than 1 percent, while eroded sherds (quartz inclusions) range from 17 to 48 percent and average 29 percent. For these eight tests the two named series consistently occur together in significant quantities. There is no evidence of spatial segregation of pottery types. Since the deposits appear to represent single episode events, it is concluded that they were generated by a single cultural group using a ceramic complex that included both types. St. Johns series pottery constitutes 14 percent of the Killion assemblage. St. Johns Check Stamped sherds compose 9 percent of the series and 1 percent of the total assemblage. In the St. Johns region, south of Kings Bay, check stamped chalky pottery appears 1n village and mound assemblages during the St. Johns Ila period, A.D. 800-1300 (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:148). On the north Georgia coast, fine cord marking on a sandy paste first appears between A.D. 1150 and 1200 during the Savannah I phase (DePratter 1979:111). The presence of both these types in a single component site at Kings Bay loosely brackets the occupation period, i.e. probably after A.D. 1100

PAGE 432

419 and probably not before A.O. 800. However, it is likely that neither sequence is directly applicable in this intervening region. Fune tion It was postulated that the Killion Site might represent a special activity site established for the purpose of procuring resources such as freshwater fish or swamp clay. No evidence for either of these functions was recovered. It is possible, however, that with a larger faunal sample, a significant number of freshwater species might be identified. It was also postulated that the site served as a refuge from winter weather experienced at the exposed coast edge settlements or that it served as a winter season dispersed settlement pattern camp. These functions are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the last 1s based on the concept of seasonal fluctuation in social group size as a function of resource availability and patterns of technoeconomic and sociotechnic adaptation, as modeled by Crook (1978). Categories of data needed to conduct a specific test of Crook's model are only partially represented in the present sample from the Killion Site. A larger sample, to determine vertebrate subsistence emphasis, and some indication of group size from structural patterns, would be highly desirable. Summary The Killion Site consists of a cluster of 26 small, discrete shell middens that occupy an area of low density ceramic scatter. These deposits are located on or very near the ground surface and are

PAGE 433

420 unstratified, appearing to be the result of single short-term episodes of refuse disposal. The middens, which are the only features present, contain frequent aboriginal ceramics and rare lithics and bone. The site boundary may be defined as encompassing all area within a nearest-neighbor radius of the peripheral middens. There is no significant non-midden component exterior to the cluster of midden features. It is not possible, at this level of investigation, to discern any intrasite patterning in the middens or artifact distributions. Radiocarbon dating indicates generation of three of the four tested middens during the first part of the 14th century. The fourth midden yielded a date of A.D. 950+80. Thus, at least two distinct periods of occupation are documented. The ceramic assemblage is composed of a limited variety of types which occur together 1n similar proportions throughout the site, suggesting that the inhabitants were of a single cultural group. The lithic assemblage, although small, contains materials which indicate some form of contact with sources at least as distant as north central Florida. Although formal type names can be used to describe the pottery from this site, it does not seem useful to label the assemblage as a whole either St. Johns II or Savannah II. Neither complex is directly reflected, although elements of each are present. Ceramic technological studies and information on the geographical distribution of aboriginally-accessible sponge spicule-bearing clays would go a long way toward clarifying the status of this assemblage. A major variable which remains uncontrolled at this time is the role

PAGE 434

of variability in ceramic raw materials 1n determining assemblage characteristics. 421 The middens themselves are relatively evenly dispersed and show none of the overlapping or disturbance which would be expected with repeated reoccupation. In the absence of evidence for substantial structures, storage pits, hearths or other indicators of permanent settlement, it cannot be argued that this site was more than a short-term temporary camp. Site function remains an elusive question. Since the camp was situated near a source of fresh water and away from the main coast edge settlement area, some form of special function 1s implied. However, in the absence of any material correlates of particular special activities, none can be inferred. No evidence was found to rule out use of the site as a temporary, seasonal small group camp. The location may have been chosen for shelter from onshore winter winds, but the salt marsh remained within the resource space exploited by Killion Site inhabitants as evinced by the oyster shell middens.

PAGE 435

CHAPTER 8 EVALUATION OF RESULTS The following discussion embodies the third stage of the H-A method of inductive inference: evaluation of the hypotheses. Selected data from the research results presented in the previous chapter are compared with the observational predictions formulated and enumerated in Chapter S. Ideally, the best explanation among competing hypotheses will be immediately apparent when positive, negative and null matches between predictions and observations are totaled. In reality, it is often the case that no observations are available for a number of predictions and that further investigation 1s required. It is a central premise of this study that explicit application of the H-A method will lead to more objective and better interpretations of the data than have been available in the past. Since this method requires systematic, even-handed consideration of each prediction for each alternate of each hypothesis, the following discussion is quite lengthy. The reader interested primarily in results and already familiar with the inference process may read just the introductory and summary paragraphs for each hypothesis and use Table 44 to identify specific predictions and outcomes. The first two hypotheses deal with subsistence and settlement pattern aspects of prehistoric coastal adaptation. The third, fourth, 422

PAGE 436

and fifth deal with the size, duration and function of the Killion Site occupation, while these same dimensions of the Mississippian period occupation at the Kings Bay Site are treated in the sixth, seventh, and eighth hypotheses. Hypothesis I 423 This hypothesis states that optimally located areas were selected for aboriginal settlement. Optimal location is defined in terms of parameters which may be observed for survey level data and which can be recorded in the modern environmental setting. An optimal location is one in which access to important resources--including the oak hammock vegetative coumunity, well-drained living areas, fresh water, saltmarsh fauna, estuarine fauna, and water transportation routes--is maximized. Preference for optimal locations will be expressed in the presence of archeological sites at these locations. Repeated selection of these areas by a single culture will be manifest Ln large sites; repeated selection of these areas by different groups through time will be manifest in multiple component sites. Table 9 is the source of observations for comparison with the predictions which follow. Optimal location within the coastal zone, as described in Chapter 2, would consist of the following set of values: soil association Cainhoy; vegetation association oak hammock; elevation an average of 10 ft or more; total of distances to fresh water, salt marsh, and estuary less than 0.5 km. Since the sum of distances involves several assumptions and approximations, this last figure is an arbitrary limit on a measure intended to describe "closeness."

PAGE 437

424 In evaluating these data it is important to note that the sample consists of sites discovered in surveying, not locations surveyed. In this sample the archeological expression of suboptimal location is a small and/or single component site. Undesirable locations are not represented in the sample because they do not contain sites. Prediction l This prediction states that aboriginal sites will often be found 1n optimal locations. Of the 22 sites, 9 are optimal according to all 4 measures and an additional 5 are optimal on 3 out of 4 measures. Together these comprise almost 2/3 of the sample. The prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that aboriginal sites will seldom be found 1n suboptimal locations. Of the 22 sites, only 2 fail to show optimal values on any of the measures; an additional 4 are optimal on only l measure. Together these sites comprise just over 1/4 of the sample. The prediction 1s empirically validated (+). Prediction 3 This prediction states that the largest sites will be found in optimal locations. Of the 7 larger-than-average sites, 5 are found 1n optimal locations. Stated another way, it 1s expected that sites 1n optimal locations will be large. Using the same 14 sites defined as optimally located in Prediction 1 above, the site areas were averaged.

PAGE 438

425 The average area 1s 14 .0 ha, compared to a sample average of 9. 3 ha. The prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that small aboriginal sites will often be found 10 suboptimal locations. Of the 15 smaller-than-average sites, 5 are suboptimally located. These 5 are 5 of the 6 suboptimally located sites in the total sample. Stated another way, it is expected that aboriginal sites found in suboptimal locations will be small. Using the subset of six sites defined as suboptimally located in Prediction 2 above, the site areas were averaged. With one exception, these sites are among the 7 smallest in the total sample. The exception, 9Cam32, is second-ranked in size but it is now felt that the survey estimate of site area is misleading. The site consisted of a thin, scattered deposit of Woodland period sherds which exhibited extensive disturbance due to a modem landfill operation, historic period plowing, and historic and modem period roads. It 1s quite probable that several small, discontinuous areas of aboriginal occupation were lumped when this site was defined as a 37 .5 ha area. With the inclusion of site 9Cam32, the suboptimally located sites average 7.05 ha; excluding 9Cam32, the average area is 0.76 ha. The latter figure is probably more meaningful in the present discussion. The prediction is empirically validated(+).

PAGE 439

426 Prediction S This prediction states that multicomponent sites will often be found in optimal locations. Of the 9 sites with 4 or more components, only one is not optimally located. Stated another way, sites in optimal locations will often be multicomponent. The set of 14 optimally located sites in the sample contains only two single component sites. The remainder have two or more temporal components and the average number of components for the set is 3.6. The two single component sites m this set are the two unusually small sites in this subset of the sample. The prediction is empirically validated ( +). Prediction 6 This prediction states that single component sites will often be found Ln suboptimal locations. There are only four single component sites Ln the sample and these are evenly divided between optimal and suboptimal locations. Given the small number of cases, SO percent might be considered a large enough proportion to justify using the term "often." From another perspective, it is expected that sites 1n suboptimal locations will often be single component sites. The average number of components for the set of six suboptimally located sites is 2.7, as compared to 3.0 for the total sample. While this does not represent a large number of single components, it can be said that suboptimally located sites tend to contain fewer than the average number of components. In view of the small sample and weak evidence,

PAGE 440

427 it is difficult to place much confidence in this trend. However, for purposes of discussion, it will be considered that the prediction 1s empirically validated(+). Summary Hypothesis I is supported by data from the survey sample. For this section of the lower Georgia coast it appears that the aboriginal settlement pattern was conditioned by factors such as access to oak hammock, estuarine, and saltmarsh resources, availability of fresh water, and availability of suitably-drained living areas. These results do not indicate which factors were the most important, or controlling, variables in patterning settlement. In order to study these variables individually, it would be necessary to have a much larger sample and a sample drawn from an area in which amenities such as fresh water or oak hammock resources are spatially segregated. The configuration of the coastal environment 1n the Kings Bay vicinity 1s such that most high ground is near water and the oak hammock borders the marsh/estuary zone. Moreover, this high ground is bordered on one side by pine flatwoods and on the other by the ocean. Thus circumscribed, the coast edge consitutes an optimal settlement zone which has been repeatedly occupied. Hypothesis II This hypothesis states that optimally productive resources were selected for by the aboriginal subsistence strategy. Productivity, or efficient capture of nutrients, is related to both natural and

PAGE 441

428 cultural factors, 1..e. to characteristics of the resources and of the technologies used to exploit these resources. Major determinants are nutritional value, availability, abundance, and yield (Larson 1980a). These properties may be used to dichotomize the potential resources into high productivity and low productivity classes. A preliminary, subjective classification, based on several published discussions of coastal resources (Hudson 1976; Reitz 1978, 1982; Dahlberg 1975; Larson 1980a; Crook 1978; Johnson et al. 1975; Hillestad et al. 1975) 1s presented in Table 42. It is recognized that many aspects of Table 42 are quite subjective. It would be desirable to have empirical data on properties affecting productivity and to carry out simulations of aboriginal food procurment and processing technologies. Some properties are quantifiable with presently available data: Watt and Merril 0975) provide detailed nutrient data for many of the wild foods available in the Southeast which could be used to scale nutritional value. However, the interplay of resource and technology is a major unknown. Hickory nuts may be taken as an example. Several species of hickory were available to coastal populations, including mockernut (~ tomentosa), pignut (C. glabra), and water hickory (. aquatica). of these, the pignut was most important; its nutrient contents are probably well-approximated by values for the pecan(. illinoiensis). A 100 g portion of pecan nut meats provides 687 Kcal, 9.2 g protein, 71.2 g fat, and 14.6 g carbohydrate. If hickory nut meats were eaten whole this would be an accurate evaluation of their nutritional contribution. However, due to the

PAGE 442

429 Table 42. Preliminary Classification of Productivity of Coastal Resources Available to Mississippian Period Populations. Resource Group MAMMALS Large herbivores Large omnivores Large carnivores Small mammals Aquatic mammals BIRDS Resident Migratory Produc tivity H L L L L L L Explanation White-tailed deer: high nutritional value; high availability a result of long-developed hunting tradition; high abundance because deer are primary con sumers, also are seasonally concentrat ed and predictable; high yield due to size of individuals. Black bear: high nutritional value; low availability due to difficulty of hunting, personal risk; low adundance a result of low reproductive rate; high yield due to size. Panther, bobcat, wolf, (fox?): high nutritional value; low abundance due to difficulty, danger in hunting; low abun dance due to large range; high yield due to size. Oppossum, raccoon, rabbits, squirrels, skunk, mink, otter: high nutritional value; low availability due to lack of mass capture techniques; low abundance since generally not aggregated; low yield due to small size. Manatee, monk seal, porpoises, small whales: high nutrit iona 1 value; low availability due to difficulty of detec tion, capture; low abundance and unpre dictable occurrence; high yield due to size. Diverse array of species: high nutrition al value; low availability due to diffi culty of capture; relatively low abun dance; low yield due to size (except turkey, great blue heron). Mainly waterfowl: high nutritional value; low availability, perhaps due to birds choice of refuges, aboriginal lack of suitable mass capture techniques; seasonally highly abundant; low yield due to size.

PAGE 443

Table 42 continued. REPTILES Sea turtles Marsh turtles Terrestr ia 1 turtles Freshwater turtles Other reptiles FISH Small sharks and rays Large sharks Marine catfishes Mullets L H H L L H L H H 430 Several species: high nutritional value; low avai labi li ty due to limited seasonal occurrence; seasonally abundant on nest ing grounds; high yield due to large size. Diamondback terrapin: high nutritional value, high availability as consequence of collection in conjunction with other marsh/ estuary exploitation activities; relative ly high abundance; relatively low yield due to small size. Box turtle, gopher tortoise: high nutri tional value; high availability due to collection in conjunction with gathering and gardening; low yield due to sma 11 size. Snapping, mud, chicken, and others: high nutritional value; low availability due to difficulty of capture in ponds, sloughs; low abundance-not numerous in habitat; low yield due to small size. Snakes, alligator: high nutritional val ue; low availability due to unpredictable occurrence; low abundance; low yield (except larger alligators). Various inshore species: high nutritional value; relatively high availability with appropriate net technology; relatively high abundance in warm seasons; high yield due to low skeletal weight. Mostly offshore species: high nutritional value; low availability due to location and difficulty of capture; low abundance; high yield due to size and low skeletal weight. Two species: high nutritional value; high availability since a variety of capture techniques would be effective; high abun dance-very common; relatively low yield due to small size. Several species: high nutritional value; high availability with use of nets; high abundance-tend to form large schools; low yield due to small size.

PAGE 444

Table 42 continued. Drums H Freshwater fishes H Other fishes L INVERTEBRATES Oysters Busycons, clams Sma 11 snails Crabs Shrimp H L L L H 431 Several species, range of sizes: high nutritional value; high availability-a variety of techniques likely to be suc cessful, especially netting of small species; high abundance-among most common fish in coastal habitat; low yield except large specimens. Especially gar, bowfish, catfishes: high nutritional value; high availability since several techniques would be effec tive; high availability; potentially high yield due to large size of some individuals. Wide variety of species, sizes, habits, habitats: high nutritional value; com posite high availability in that some species likely to be caught at any time with any technique; high abundance due to diversity, but low abundance individually; low yield in that younger, smaller indivi duals are most coumon in estuarine environ ment. Mostly intertidal: low nutritional value due to high water content; high availa bility due to simple collection technique; high abundance in dense, localized beds; low yield due to high shell weight. Knobbed whelk, several bivalves-quahog, razor, ribbed mussel: low nutritional value, high availability due to simple col lection technique; moderately high abun dance locally but not clustered to same degree as oysters; low yield due to high shell weight. Several species: low nutritional value; high availability with use of basket seive; high abundance locally; low yield due to size, shell weight. Several species: low nutritional value; high availability with use of basket traps; relatively abundant in warm season; low yield due to size. Several species: low nutritional value; high availability with use of fine mesh nets; high abundance locally in warm season; potentially high yield.

PAGE 445

Table 42 continued. PLANTS Nuts Fruit, berries Roots, tubers Greens Cult igens H H H L L 432 Primarily hickory and live oak: very high nutritional value; high availability due to simple gathering techniques; high abundance in fall season; high yield processing required but not complex. Wide variety: moderately high nutritional value; high availability-only simple gathering required; high abundance for suuuner season; high yield-little or no processing required. Smilax, arrowhead: high nutritional value; high availability-simple digging tools required; moderately abundant; low yield significant amount of processing required. Various: low nutritional value; high availability-simple gathering; moderately abundant; low total yield. Corn, beans, squash: high nutritional value; high availability due to selective replacement of natural vegetation; low abundance due to limited soi 1 fertility, limited suitable soils in coastal area, low yield due to considerable labor invest ment required.

PAGE 446

433 work involved in extracting hickory nuts from their thick, tough shells, Southeastern Indians are known to have employed a mass processing technique which extracted just the oil (Larson 1980a: 187; Hudson 1976:301). This process would result in loss of approximately 14 percent of the available calories and almost all of the protein and carbohydrate. Also, the processed food would have been different in other properties, such as storability and amount of archeologically recoverable residue. It is clearly beyond the scope of the present study to undertake quantification of all factors related to resource productivity. Until a definitive study is available, the genera 1 considerations tabulated below can be used to categorize, in high and low productivity classes, for purposes of discussion, resources known to have been available in the prehistoric period. Table 42 classifications will be used in evaluating the observational predictions for Hypothesis II. Prediction 1 This prediction states that high productivity resources will be found at roost sites. Of the 29 resource groups, 13 were classified as high productivity resources. The eight faunal samples shown in Table 43 were used for comparison. Since the 9Caml66 sample is very small, 7 out of 8 will be considered essentially "all" of the samples. Among the high productivity resources found in 7 S percent or more of the samples are the following: large herbivores (deer), small sharks, marine catfishes, mullets, drums, freshwater fishes, and oysters. Two additional high productivity resource groups--marsh turtles and

PAGE 447

434 terrestrial turtles--are found in SO percent or ioore of the samples. The balance of the high productivity resource groups--shrimp and four plant groups--have a low probability of recovery from archeological contexts, which may explain their poor representation in the sample. The prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that low productivity resources will be found at few sites. As shown in Table 43, of th~ J9 resource groups, 16 were classified as low productivity resources. Of these 16, 10 are present at only a single site or are entirely absent from the sample. The remaining 6 groups, which are present at higher-than-expected frequencies, are small mammals, freshwater turtles, other reptiles, other fish, Busycons and clams, and small snails. Several factors may account for more-frequent-than-expected observation of these groups. First, all of these groups are composed of several species, which probably increases chances of observing the group regardless of dietary importance. Second, some of these species are more readily identified than roost, which may disproportionately increase their representation 1n the identified assemblage. Finally, several of these groups may be incidentally collected species, cormnensals, or accidental inclusions, rather than subsistence targets. Despite these several frequently observed groups, the overall pattern is infrequent occurrence of low productivity groups. The prediction is empirically validated (+).

PAGE 448

435 Table 43. Occurrence of Subsistence Resource Groups 1.n Eight As semb lag es from Three Sites at Kings Bay. 177 Re sou re e Group Class 166 pre proto 17 lA 17 1B Sav StJ 179 Large herbivores H X X X X X X X Large omnivores L Large carnivores L X Small mammals L X X X X X X X X Aquatic mammals L Resident birds L X Migratory birds L X Sea turtles L Marsh turtles H X X X X X Terre stria 1 turtles H X X X X Freshwater turtles L X X X X X X X X Other reptiles L X X X X X Small sharks and rays H X X X X X X Large sharks L Marine catfish H X X X X X X X Mullets H X X X X X X X X Drums H X X X X X X X X Freshwater fish H X X X X X X Other fish L X X X X X X Oysters H X X X X X X X X Busycons/c lams L X X X X K X X X Small snails L X X X X X X X X Crabs L Shrimp H Nuts H X X Fruits/berries H Roots/tubers H Greens L Cult igens L

PAGE 449

436 Prediction 3 This prediction states that high productivity resources will be found in large quantities. Biomass contributions figures are most appropriate for this comparison. Using figures from Tables 20, 21, 24, and 25 in this study, and Tables 12-9 and 12-10 of the technical report (R. Smith et al. 1981:775-776), the following total percentage contributions for vertebrate, high productivity resources were computed: 9Caml66 sample too small for biomass calculations; 9Caml77 prehistoric 56.2 percent; 9Caml77 protohistoric 46.0 percent; 9Caml71A 44.6 percent; 9Caml71B 38.7 percent; 9Caml71 Savannah features 58.5 percent; 9Caml71 St. Johns features 47.5 percent; 9Caml79 sample too small for biomass calculations. Particularly in view of the fact that a large proportion of the balance of the biomass in each sample is composed of unidentifiable or unassignable materials, high productivity resources may be said to account for a large proportion of each sample. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that low productivity resources will be found in small quantities. Biomass contribution figures are, again, the appropriate means of comparison. The following total percentages for vertebrate, low productivity resources were computed: 9Caml66 sample too small for biomass calculations; 9Caml77 prehistoric 6.9 percent; 9Caml77 protohistoric 7.9 percent; 9Caml7IA 13.2 percent;

PAGE 450

437 9Caml71B 6.7 percent; 9Caml71 Savannah features 14.1 percent; 9Cam171 St. Johns features 9.0 percent; 9Caml79 sample too small for biomass calculations. In each case the tota 1 con tr ibut ion from low productivity resource groups is small. The prediction is empirically validated ( +). Prediction 5 This prediction states that high productivity resources will be found in most temporal components. The presence/absence data listed in Table 43 and discussed under Prediction l confirms this prediction for a series of sites with occupation dates ranging from A.O. 600 to A.D. 1600. No faunal samples of comparable size from the lower Georgia coast are available for the Woodland period. Two Deptford sites, excavated by Milanich on Cumberland Island, do indicate a similar pattern of resource use. Seven of the nine vertebrate, high productivity resources are present in the samples from Table Point and Stafford North (Milanich 1971a:195-196). The absence of mullet and freshwater fish in the Cumberland Island assemblage may be due to small sample size and/or large screen size. Also, bodies of freshwater on the island may have been even more limited in the Wood land period th an they are at present. For the Late Archaic period, a good subsistence sample 1s available from Rochelle Marrinan's excavations at two shell r1.ng sites on St. Simons Island. Examination of species lists for these sites confirms the presence, at both, of eight of the nine vertebrate, high productivity resource groups. Only terrestrial turtles are

PAGE 451

438 unrepresented. In addition, oysters, nuts, and fruits and berries were in evidence at these sites (Marrinan 1975: 69-73). Taking these sites-the eight Kings Bay Mississippian period samples, the Cumberland Island Deptford assemblages, and the St. Simons Island Late Archaic assemblages-as representative of the Coastal Tradition, the prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 6 This prediction states that low productivity resources will be found in few temporal components. The presence/absence data discussed under Prediction 2 confirm this prediction for the Mississippian period occupations. Deptford period assemblages show a similar pattern. For seven of the 11 low productivity, vertebrate groups, neither of the two Cumberland Island sites contains evidence of use. Two low productivity resources are present at one of the two sites and two are present at both (Milanich 1971: 195-196). At the Late Archaic shell ring sites, five of the low productivity vertebrate resource groups are present at neither site, three are present at only one site, and three are present at both sites (Marrinan 1975: 71-73). These assemblages provide empirical validation for the prediction(+). Swmnary Hypothesis II is supported by data from the secondary testing sample and previous excavations on the lower Georgia coast (Table 44). A general subsistence pattern centered on the most productive resource groups available in the coastal environment is indicated.

PAGE 452

Table 44. Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results. Hypo thesis I II Positive or Negative Observational Prediction Statement Coastal Settlement Pattern 1. sites often in optimal locations. P 2. sites seldom in suboptimal locations. P 3. largest sites in optimal locations. P 4. small sites often in suboptimal locat ions. 5. multicomponent sites often in optimal locations. 6. single component sites often in sub optimal locations. Coastal Subsistence Pattern 1. high productivity resources found at ioost sites. 2. low productivity resources found at few sites. 3. high productivity resources found in large quantities. 4. low productivity resources found in sma 11 quantities. 5. high productivity resources found 1n most temporal components. 6. low productivity resources found 1n few tempor a 1 components. p p p p p p p p p III Killion Site Social Unit Size A. Nuclear Family l.a. a single social unit correlate in evi dence (one midden/family). b. a single social unit correlate in evi dence (several middens/family). 2. total occupation area small. 3. no formal differentiation of spatial units. 4. no formal patterned spatial arrangement. B. Lineage l .a. several social unit correlates in evi dence (one midden/family). b. several social unit correlates 1n evi dence (several middens/family) 2. total occupation area moderate. p p p N N p p p 439 Valida tion + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

PAGE 453

Table 44 continued. 3. no formal differentiation of spatial units. N 4. patterned arrangement of spatial units likely. P C. Village l .a. many social unit correlates in evidence (one midden/family). b. many social unit correlates 1.n evidence (several middens/family). 2. total occupation area large. 3. specialized or communal structures present. 4. patterned arrangement of structures likely. 5. cemetery or burial mound present. IV Killion Site Seasonality A. Cold Weather Occupation 1. absence of estuarine animals which p p p p p p retreat from cold water. N 2. growth-checks indicating cold-weather + death present. P 0 3. deer crania show shed antlers. P 0 4. sub-adult deer show cold-weather death. P 0 5. other sub-adult animals show coldweather death. P 0 440 6. winter-resident migratory birds present. P -/0 7. summmer-resident migratory birds not present. N +/0 8. remains of plant foods absent. N +/0 9. horticultural tools absent. N + B. Warm-Weather Occupation 1. presence of estuarine animals which retreat from cold water. P + 2. growth-checks indicating warm-weather death present. P 0 3. deer crania show attached antlers. P 0 4. sub-adult deer show warm-weather death. P 0 5. other sub-adult animals show warm-weather death. P 0 6. winter-resident migratory birds absent. N +/0 7. summer-resident migratory birds present. P -/0 8. remains of plant foods present. P -/0 9. horticultural tools present. P

PAGE 454

Table 44 continued. C. Year-round Occupation 1.-13. positive indicators of occupation for both cold and warm weather present. 14. structures might be present. 15. burials might be present. V Killion Site Function A. Fishing Focus 1. location provides immediate aGcess to estuary. 2. location does not provide optimal access to horticultural soils. 3. fish bones present. 4. fish bone present in major amounts. 5. bone fishing tools might be present. 6. fish impoundment devices might be all P p p p p p p p present. P 7. fish processing equipment might be found. P 8. canoes and canoe tools might be found. P B. Horticulture Focus 1. location does not provide immediate access to estuary. 2. location provides immediate access to horticultural soils. 3. evidence of cultigens present. 4. maize processing tools present. 5. garden-hunted species present. 6. hoes present. C. Hunting Focus 1. location does not provide immediate access to estuary. 2. location does not provide immediate access to horticultural soil. 3. deer bone present. 4. hunted terrestrial animals present tn major amounts. 5. projectile points present. 6. butchering and processing tools present. p p p p p p p p p p p p l=+ l=441 5=-/0 5=0 + + + + + + + + + + +

PAGE 455

Table 44 continued. VI Savannah Component Social Group Size A. Nuclear Family 1. a single social unit correlate 10 evi dence. 2. total occupation area small. 3. no formal differentiation of spatial units observed. 4. no patterned arrangement of structures observed. B. Lineage 1. several social unit correlates 10 evi dence. 2. total occupation area moderate. 3. no formal differentiation of spatial units. 4. a patterned arrangement of structures might be observed. C. Village 1. many social units 10 evidence. 2. total occupation area large. 3. specialized or cormnuna 1 structures present. 4. a patterned arrangement of structures is likely. 5. a cemetery or burial mound will be present. VII Savannah Component Seasonality A. Cold-Weather Occupation 1. absence of estuarine animals which re treat from cold water. 2. growth-checks indicating cold-weather death present. 3. deer crania show shed antlers. 4. sub-adult deer show cold-weather death. 5. other sub-adult animals show coldweather death. 6. winter-resident migratory birds present. 7. summer-resident migratory birds absent. 8. remains of plant foods absent. 9. horticultural tools absent. p p N N p p N p p p p p p N p p p p p N N N -/0 + 0 0 +/ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 442

PAGE 456

Table 44 continued. B. Warm-Weather Occupation 1. presence of estuarine animals which retreat from cold water. 2. growth-checks indicating warm-weather death present. 3. deer crania show attached antlers. 4. sub-adult deer show warm-weather death. 5. other sub-adult animals show warmweather death. 6. winter-resident migratory birds absent. 7. summer-resident migratory birds present. 8. remains of plant foods present. 9. horticultural tools present. C. Year-Round Occupation 1.-13. positive indicators of occupation for p p p p p N p p p + 0 0 + + -/0 + 443 both cold and warm weather present. all P 5=+ VIII 14. structures might be present. 15. burials might be present. Savannah Component Function A. Fishing Focus 1. location provides immediate access to estuary. 2. location does not provide optimal access to horticultural soils. 3. fish bones present. 4. fish bones present in major amounts. 5. bone fishing tools might be present. 6. fish impoundment devices might be present. 7. fish processing equipment might be found. 8. canoes and canoe tools might be found. B. Horticultural Focus 1. location does not provide immediate access to estuary. 2. location provides immediate access to horticultural soils. 3. evidence of cultigens present. 4. maize processing tools present. 5. garden-hunted species present. 6. hoes present. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 3=5=0 + + + + + + + +

PAGE 457

Table 44 continued. C. Hunting Foe us 1. location does not provide immediate access to estuary. 2. location does not provide immediate access to horticultural soil. 3. deer bone present. 4. hunted terrestrial animals present in major amounts. 5. projectile points present. 6. butchering and processing tools present. p p p p p p + + + 444

PAGE 458

445 Spatial, as well as energetic, parameters will be needed to explain the overall pattern of resource selection. It may be argued that, from the interaction of productivity factors with settlement location considerations, a nutrient optimizing (rather than maximizing) strategy emerged. Some potentially highly productive resources appear to have been omitted from the subsistence repertoire, probably because of other costs. Sea turtles, for example, are not 1n evidence at the Kings Bay sites, perhaps because the nearest turtle nesting beaches were on Little Cumberland Island, about 20 km distant. Hypothesis I II This section deals specifically with the pattern of occupation revealed at the Killion Site and offers three competing hypotheses concerning the size of the social unit which resided at the site. The plausible alternatives, drawn from Ray Crook's model of Guale subsistence/settlement/social organization, are A) a nuclear family encampment, B) a lineage encampment, and C) a village. Several previous studies of Mississippian period settlement systems have dealt with the problem of identifying the social and/or functional correlates of different size classes of archeological sites within a settlement system (Muller 1978; Price 1978; Brown, Bell and Wyckoff 1978; Harn 1978; Green and Munson 1978) A wide range of variation in what is considered the minimal spatial unit of occupation is apparent in these studies. For example, Ham describes "camps" of up to seven structures that reach 1.0 ha 1n area (1978:235), while Price uses the term "hamlet" to describe a 0.1 ha site 0978:212),

PAGE 459

446 Muller defines a "farmstead" of 0.2-.3 ha area (1978:284), and Green and Munson project a population of 5-10 people for their 0.25 ha "farmstead" (1978:310). Some of this variability is a result of the archeologists' differing definitions but other factors which come into play are topography, resource distributions, size, and density of the aboriginal community. In order to minimize environmental differences between the site under study and the reference class, Pearson's data on coastal site size distribution will be used for comparison (1979). Pearson provides survey level data on areal extent of 61 Irene and 12 Savannah sites on Ossabaw Island. This information ts summarized in Table 45, and is used as a scale for evaluation of "occupation area" in a coastal setting. The remaining test data are taken from the description and analysis of the Killion Site in Chapter 7. In order to deal with the question of social group size at the Killion Site, two pivotal assumptions must be made. These concern 1) the time frame for the occupation(s) which generated the archeological remains and 2) the number of middens attributable to any one social unit. With regard to time frame, the initial assumption might he that these middens are contemporaneous and accumulated in the course of a single, uninterrupted occupation. However, the four radiocarbon dates obtained during testing cast serious doubt on this assumption. At least two and possibly three separate episodes of occupation (circa A.O. 950, 1280, and 1340) are indicated by this small sample of dates. It must be considered then, that at least some of the middens are not contemporaneous. Two of the dates are quite close together (A.O.

PAGE 460

----------------------447 Table 45. Summary of Pearson's Mississippian Period Settlement Data From Ossabaw Isand (1979). Period Class Type Size Range n Attributes Savannah I local GT 12 ha 1 32.4 ha area; multiple centers burial mounds; optimum location; religious/ soc ia 1 /economic center. II villages 0 .S-12 ha 2 optimum location; multiple burial mounds. III hamlets LT o.s ha 9 none with mounds. Irene I local GT 6.0 ha l 14 ha; multiple burial centers mounds; optimum location; religious/social/economic center. II villages 2.0-6.0 ha 7 permanent settlements; one has a single mound. III hamlets 0 .5-2 .o ha 19 six have single, small mounds and may be permanent settlements; remainder cf. se asona 1. IV camps LT 0.5 ha 34 none have mounds; mostly nonpermanen t, single or limited activity extractive stations.

PAGE 461

448 1340:_100 and 1340:_110), so these data suggest that at least some of the middens may be contemporaneous. It will be assumed that the truth lies somewhere in between, i.e. more than two but fewer than 26 episodes of occupation must have occurred here. A second and related assumption concerns how these middens are associated with the social units that generated them. It is a common (and probably reasonable) practice to assume that small middens such as these were the result of the discard activities of a single nuclearor minimally-extended-family household. It 1s also commonly assumed, probably with much less justification, that each midden is the product of a different family, that is, that there is a one-to-one ratio between minimal social units and middens (e.g. Larson 1980a:224). There is no reason to believe that one household could not have generated several refuse heaps, or, conversely, that several households could not have contributed to a single heap. If the former situation is assumed-a single household generates multiple refuse piles during a single occupation-it can be assumed that the locations of these piles are systematically related to the location of the associated cooking/eating/sleeping area. Heaping up refuse in discrete piles within the occupation area might be a means of disposing of materials which are inconvenient or unpleasant to leave underfoot but too bulky to bury or carry any great distance away. If this is true, one might expect a compromise location-nearby, but out of the way.

PAGE 462

449 One possible grouping of the middens which reflects this hypothesized relationship is shown in Figure 7 1. The arcs suggest five separate, small-scale occupations of the area in which groups of middens were deposited approximately equidistant from a lightly-built shelter or lean-to located near the approximate center of each arc. This type of pattern could result from 1) piling refuse just far enough from the living area to keep it out of the way and 2) starting a new refuse pile several times in the course of a single residency. Naturally, a number of different arc patterns can be drawn. Each set of patterns represents a set of hypotheses about contemporaneity which could best be validated by dating every midden. The radiocarbon dates obtained during secondary testing suggest at least two and probably a minimum of three occupations. They also provide a partial test for one of the hypothesized midden groups. The differing dates for middens Hand J seem to invalidate the predicted common, contemporary origin for these middens. However, since only one date was obtained for each of these middens, it is not known how much intramidden variability might be present. Also, since the standard deviations for H and J overlap, they are statistically the same. For purposes of the following discussion, t-wo contrasting scenarios will be considered: 1) scenario a, in which all middens are contemporaneous; each midden is the product of one household; and is the only midden produced by that household; and 2) scenario b, in which some but not all of the middens are contemporaneous and each household generates several middens.

PAGE 463

Figur~ 71. A Hypothetical Grouping of the Middens at the Killion Site Suggesting Contemporaneity.

PAGE 464

I "' I shell middens possible contemporaneous discord patterns == = 5m 9Caml79 Killion Site Hypothetical Midden Groups t I

PAGE 465

Alternate III-A: Nuclear Family Occupation Predict ion l 45 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then a single social unit correlate (a single structure, hearth, or refuse midden) will be in evidence. Under scenan.o a, a review of Figure 58 demonstrates that this is not true. At least 26 discrete shell middens were recorded at the Killion Site. Sine e no stratigraphic evidence suggestive of repeated occupation was found, it is not reasonable to attribute these deposits to 26 separate episodes of occupation by a single nuclear family. The prediction is not validated (-). Under scenario b, which postulates that several middens were generated by each family and that several sequential occupations took place, it would be possible for a series of nuclear family occupations to account for the observed deposits. The prediction, according to scenario b, is empirically validated (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then the total occupation area will be small. Evidence was presented in Chapter 7 demonstrating that the site's occupation area extended only a small distance beyond the cluster of shell middens and consisted of a very low density scatter of potsherds among and around the middens. The total occupation area was calculated as 0.45 ha. In the context of the coastal Mississippian

PAGE 466

45 3 sites described by Pearson (Table 45), an area of this size indicates a small hamlet or a large seasonal camp. For the 39 Savannah and Irene sites which have areas of less than 0.5 ha (i.e. Pearson's Savannah class III and Irene class IV sites), a mean size of 0.13 ha was calculated. The Killion Site is larger than 95 percent of these sites and probably represents more than a minimal unit or "building block" of social organization. Thus the prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then no formal differentiation of spatial units (i.e. specialized structures, palisades, earthworks) will be seen. No such specialized structures were observed. In view of the fact that the site is relatively undisturbed and was intensively tested, it is felt that evidence for such features would have been observed if it existed. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then no formal patterned spatial arrangement will be discernable. As described in Chapter 7, although the 26 shell middens which compose 9Caml79 are tightly clustered within the potential resource space of the North River drainage basin, they are arranged 1n no apparent order. The prediction is empirically validated(+).

PAGE 467

Alternate III-B: Lineage Occupation Predict ion 1 454 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then several (more than one and probably fewer than six) social unit correlates will be in evidence. If the 26 individual middens defined in the course of testing are taken to represent individual, contemporary soc ia 1 units, then the occupation represented must have been larger than a nuclear family, but it was also larger than a lineage composed of several related nuclear families. The prediction is not validated(-). The second of the two scenarios, discussed at the beginning of this hypothesis, postulates that several middens were generated by each family and that the occupations may have been sequential rather than simultaneous. Arcs drawn in Figure 71 suggest a possible five groups of three to eight middens each. The arcs which overlap would not have been occupied simultaneously. Thus, scenario b, based on several middens per family and several occupations, would be compatible with a lineage occupation. The prediction is empirically validated for scenario b (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, the total occupation area will be moderate. Reviewing the evidence presented for Prediction 2 of Alternate Hypothesis A, the total area of 0.45 ha does seem to be a moderate size in the context of Pearson's coastal data. The prediction is empirically validated ( +).

PAGE 468

455 Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, no formal differentiation of spatial units (i.e. specialized structures, palisades or earthworks) will be seen. No such specialized features were observed. The prediction 1s empirically validated ( +). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then a patterned arrangement of spatial units would likely be observed. Except for the previously discussed hypothetical arc-shaped discard patterns, no formal arrangement was observed. The prediction is not validated (-). Alternate III-C: Village Occupation Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, many (more than five) social units will be in evidence. Following the assumption that each of the 26 middens represents one household, the prediction is empirically validated (+). If, however, scenario bis invoked, and the site is assumed to be the result of several occupations in which each family generated several middens, then any one occupation must have been smaller-than-village-size and the prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 469

456 Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, the total occupation area will be large. According to the data reviewed under Prediction 2 of Alternate Hypothesis III-A, the 0.45 ha area calculated for the Killion Site is well above the lower end of the distribution for a sample of coastal sites. However, this size does fall within the smallest site size class for each of the temporal groups in the sample (Table 45) and cannot be considered "large" for a coastal site. The prediction is not validated (-). Predict ion 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then specialized or comnunal structures will be evident. No such structures were found. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, a patterned arrangement of structures is likely to be observed. Since no such arrangement was seen, the prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then a cemetery or burial mound will be present. No evidence for any such communal disposal of the dead was found. The prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 470

457 Summary A review of the results of testing Hypothesis III indicates that Alternate B, scenario b is best supported by the evidence from secondary testing at the Killion Site (Table 44). Alternate B 1s better than Alternate A because it includes confirmation of positive Prediction 2 which carries more weight than confimation of negative predictions (e.g. 3 or 4). The evidence is compatible with several occupations by lineage-sized groups in which each household generated several middens. Many additional scenarios might be formulated and these remain untested in this study. In view of the limitations of the available data base, further speculation would be unproductive. Future data collection at this site should be designed to control at least two of the three major unknowns: midden contemporaneity, seasonality, and group size. Hypothesis IV This discussion evaluates the biological and cultural indicators for seasonality of occupation at the Killion Site. Because the faunal assemblage recovered from this site is very small, all samples have been combined and treated as a single entity (Table 39). Thus, embedded in this argument 1s the assumption that, if the site is the product of several occupations, these occupations took place during the same season of the year. In the absence of this assumption, evidence for year-round occupation of the site might also be interpreted as evidence for multiple occupations occurring in different seasons.

PAGE 471

458 Only three alternatives are considered below: cold-weather season, warm-weather season, and year-round occupations. A long warm season-incorporating spring, summmer and fall-is used here. In view of the relatively mild coastal climate, marked boundaries within this season are not expected. Validation of a four-season model, such as the one formulated by Crook, will require more and better seasonal indicators than are presently available, from coastal sites in general and from the Killion Site in particular. A second major assumption critical to this argument concerns the co-incidence in time and space of food procurement and consumption. It is assumed that t00st foods were consumed during the same season 1n which they were hunted, gathered, or harvested, and that m:>st processing and/or waste disposal took place at the primary residential area. Naturally, exceptions to these patterns are easy to imagine. However, 1n order to make statements about a site based on its contents, some such assumptions are necessary. A special problem in using this sample arises because of the small size of the collection from the Killion Site. As discussed 1n Chapter 6, a sample of at least 200 MNI or 1400 identified specimens is probably needed to relfect accurately the species composition of the subsistence base. Some of the following statements are negative predictions, 1..e. statements concerning what should not be found if the hypothesis is true. If the comparative data constituted an adequate sample, then validation of a negative prediction would carry some weight ( though not the same weight as a validated positive

PAGE 472

prediction). Since the sample 1s so small, validated negative predictions are accompanied by qualifiers regarding sample size. Alternate IV-A: Cold-Weather Occupation Prediction 1 459 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then animals which leave the estuary in cold weather will be absent. These animals include blue crab, catfishes, red drum, sharks, and tripletail. Since marine catfish are present in the assemblage, the prediction 1s not validated (-). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then estuarine animals which adjust their growth rates to the water temperature will reflect a cold-weather season of death. The two animals most commonly used for this type of determination are the quahog clam (terminal shell growth lines) and fish (terminal scale growth lines). No fish scales were recovered from this site. Quahog clams were found in such small numbers (n=4) that growth line analysis was not undertaken. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then deer crania will show evidence of shed antlers. None of the 12 deer bones recovered from the Killion Site

PAGE 473

460 are cranial fragments. The prediction is not tested in this study ( 0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then the ages of subadult deer will reflect a cold-weather season of death. Deer bone from the Killion Site was uninformative with regard to age at death. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then the ages of young animals other than deer will reflect a cold-weather season of death. No other animals from the Killion Site are informative in this regard and the prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the winter in the vicinity might be present. No winter resident birds were identified, so the prediction is not validated(-). However, 1n view of the small sample size, it would be better to consider this prediction not tested in the present study (0).

PAGE 474

461 Prediction 7 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the summer 1n the vicinity will not be present. No summer-resident birds were found at the Killion Site, so the prediction is empirically validated (+). However, since the sample was very small, the prediction is not rigorously tested in this study (0). Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then remains of plant foods will be absent. No botanical remains of clearly aboriginal origin were recovered from the Killion Site. On the basis of the secondary testing sample, the prediction is empirically validated (+). However, in view of the fact that no hearths, refuse pits, or other contexts likely to contain charred plant materials were defined, it T.t10uld be better to describe this prediction as not rigorously tested in the present study (0). Predict ion 9 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then horticultural tools will be absent. Among the seven Busycon specimens recovered from the Killion Site, none were large enough to be classified as hoes. The prediction is empirically validated ( +).

PAGE 475

Alternate IV-B: Warm-Weather Occupation Prediction 1 462 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then animals which leave the estuary 1n cold weather will be present. Since marine catfish are present in the sample, the prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then estuarine animals which adjust their growth rates to the water tempera tu re wi 11 ref lee t a warm-we a th er sea son of death. For reasons noted under Alternative A, Prediction 2, this observation was not made. The prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then attached antlers will be observed on deer cran1a. None of the 12 deer bone fragments recovered from the Killion Site are cranial fragments. The prediction is not validated (-). However, 1n view of the small sample size, this prediction can not be considered rigorously tested 1n the present study (0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then the ages of subadult deer will reflect a

PAGE 476

warm-weather season of death. No deer bones suitable for such age determinations were found. The prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 5 463 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then the ages of young animals other than deer will reflect a warm-weather season of death. No other animal specimens from the Killion Site are informative as to age at death. The prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then migratory birds which are winter residents will be absent. No winter residents were observed, so the prediction is empirically validated (+). However, in view of the small sample size, it is better to view this prediction as not rigorously tested 1n the present study (0). Prediction 7 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the summer 1n the vicinity will be present. No sunnner-resident birds were found, so the prediction is not validated (-). However, in view of the sample size, the prediction is better described as not rigorously tested in the present study (0). I

PAGE 477

464 Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then remains of plant foods will be present. No botanical remains attributable to the aboriginal occupation were recovered from the Killion Site. The prediction is not validated(-). However, in view of the fact that no hearths, refuse pits, or other contexts likely to yield charred botanical materials were defined, the prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 9 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then horticultural tools will be present. As noted above, the Busycon sample from the Killion Site included no specimens which can be interpreted as hoes or similar implements. The prediction is not empirically validated (-). Alternate IV-C: Year-round Occupation Predictions 1-13 These predictions are grouped together since each has already been explained in the above analysis of Alternates IV-A and IV-B. Each of these predictions is a positive indicator of occupation for either cold or warm weather, which might be present if the site was occupied year-round. The indicators, and the matching observations from Alternate Hypotheses IV-A and IV-Bare as follows: A2 (0); A3 (O); A4 (O); AS (-/0); A6 (-/0); Bl (+); B2 (0); B3 (-/0); B4 (0); BS (0); B7 (-/0); B8 (-/0); B9 (-).

PAGE 478

465 Prediction 14 This prediction states that if the site was occupied year-round, then structures might be present. The assumption is that if a camp is established with the expectation of continual occupation, relatively substantial structures will be erected. No evidence of structures of any kind was found at the Killion Site. The prediction is not validated ( ) Prediction 15 This prediction states that if the site was occupied year-round, then burials might be present. No evidence of human interments was found. The prediction is not validated(-). Summary There 1s very little evidence, at present, to support any of the alternate hypotheses concerning season of occupation at the Killion Site. The only positive indicator validated in testing 1s the warm-weather estuarine animal which was identified: marine catfish. While results of testing this hypothesis are inconclusive, two important issues are now much clearer. First, these hypotheses suggest what evidence is needed to establish season of occupation. Second, presence or absence of certain materials 1n the secondary testing samples indicates what lines of evidence may or may not be forthcoming 1n additional excavation at this site. For example, it would be feasible to intensify collection of Mercenaria spp. shells by collecting them from all midden contexts, instead of just from column

PAGE 479

466 samples. On the other hand, it probably would not be rewarding to rely on migratory or other birds for seasonality data since no members of the class Aves were recovered. Hypothesis V The third hypothesis formulated for the Killion Site focuses on site function. As the first and second questions highlighted group size and season of occupation, the third concentrates on a facet of the adaptive pattern which is, similarly, an integral part of the coastal subsistence/settlement/social pattern. Site function is, for purposes of this discussion, equivalent to what Crook calls subsistence focus. A combination of locational pattern, subsistence information, and artifact data is used to test three alternate hypotheses concerning the nature of the primary economic pursuit of the Killion Site inhabitants. For purposes of the following discussion, it is assumed that the occupation(s) of the Killion Site ...iere of limited, single season duration, and that all occupation(s) occurred in the same season. This assumption is necessary to allow treatment of the collection as a single functional assemblage. Of course, ancillary functions must have been carried out at any site. But if Crook's model-a highly labile social group size in conjuction with settlement mobility adapted for the purpose of focusing on seasonal resource peaks--is accurate, then one would expect, in some cases, to find focal subsistence pursuits dominant at some sites. The Killion Site seems a

PAGE 480

467 good candidate for displaying a primary function since it 1s small and unlikely to have many different occupations represented. Alternate V-A: Fishing Focus Prediction 1 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then the site location will provide immediate access to the estuary. A review of Table 9 shows the Killion Site located a distance of 0.75 km from the salt marsh and estuary. While this 1s certainly an easy walking distance and no barrier to marsh/estuary exploitation, only one site in the survey sample (n=22) is more distant from the marsh/estuary system than the Killion Site. Thus it cannot be said that the site 1s located specifically to provide immediate access to the estuary. The prediction 1s not validated (-). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then the site location might not provide optimal access to good soils for horticulture. The Killion Site is located on Mandarin Fine Sand, which is lower and more poorly drained than the Cainhoy deposits that compose the best of the marginally suitable horticultural soils in the area. The site is not optimally located for garden cultivation and protection of growing crops. The prediction 1s empirically validated (+).

PAGE 481

Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then fish bones will be present in the food remains. This prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then food remains will include major amounts of fish bone. Table 39 shows a total of 8 MN! from estuarine fish in the small 468 sample from four midden tests and four column samples at the Killion Site. This is 38 percent of the MNI, as compared to 38 percent percent from marmnals and 31 percent from reptiles (all of which are turtles). This is less than a majority of the individuals, or the fragments or the weight of bone collected. The available sample does not validate the prediction(-). It should be remembered, however, that the combined sample is derived from 4 midden tests ( 16 square m total, screened through 1/4 1.n. mesh) and 4 column samples (1 square m total, screened through 1/8 in. mesh). Thus only about 6 percent of the sample was fine-screened and small species, especially fish, are almost certainly under-represented. Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then bone tools used in fishing, such as hooks or leister

PAGE 482

points, might be present. No such artifacts were found, so the prediction 1s not validated (-). Prediction 6 469 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then evidence of nets, traps, or weirs might be found. Although ample evidence of cordage of a suitable size for net-making was seen 1n the many sherds of cord marked pottery recovered from this site, no net marked pottery was found and no other evidence of mass capture devices was found. The prediction 1s not validated (-). Predict ion 7 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then fish drying/smoking racks might be present. It 1s expected that these structures would be in evidence as series of small post holes too closely spaced to serve as a residential s tructure. N o such evidence was found; the prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the primar y site function was fishing, then canoes and implements associated with the manufacture and use of canoes might be in evidence. No stone axes or Busycon gouges (for shapin g dugouts), nor large, heav y Busycon shells (for bindin g in clusters as anchors), nor any other evidences of canoe use, were found. The prediction is not validated ( -).

PAGE 483

Alternate V-B: Horticulture Focus Predict ion 1 470 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then the site location might not be convenient for estuarine access. While the distance of 0.75 km from the Killion Site to the nearest marsh/estuary access does not present a major obstacle to exploitation, it 1s less convenient than all but one of the sites located 1n the vicinity. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then the site will be located to provide immediate access to good horticultural soil. As explained in Prediction 2 for Alternate V-A, this is not the case for the Killion Site. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then food remains will include evidence of cultigens. The Killion Site assemblage included no evidence of cultigens, either direct (such as seeds or cob fragments) or indirect (such as cob marked pottery or vegetable effigies). The prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 484

471 Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then maize processing tools such as husking pins, shelling graters, or mealing implements might be present. Five of the seven Busycon specimens recovered from the Killion Site exhibit shapes, sizes and wear patterns which would be consistent with use as husking pins. The prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction S This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then faunal remains might include appreciable amounts of "garden hunted" species such as deer, rabbits, raccoon, and box turtle (Linares 1976). Five of the 21 MNI identified at this site are animals often attracted to cultivated areas or found in the process of cultivation (box turtles). This could be considered an appreciable amount although it would be desirable to have a larger sample and an additional, nonhorticultural comparative sample. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then hoes might be present. No Busycon shells of sufficient size for hafting were found, nor were any stone tools found which might have served as hoes. The prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 485

Alternate V-C: Hunting Focus Prediction 1 47 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then the site location might provide less-than-optimal access to the marsh/estuary system. As discussed in Prediction 1 for Alternate V-B, this prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then the site location might be less-than-optimal for horticulture. As discussed 1n Prediction 2 for Alternate V-A, this prediction 1s empirically validated (+). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then evidence of exploitation of deer will be present. Deer are the most widely hunted mammal species in the Southeast and should be present at any hunting camp. Deer account for 12 fragments and 2 MNI in the Killion Site assemblage. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then faunal remains will include major amounts of hunted terrestrial animals, such as deer, raccoon, rabbit, squirrel, and

PAGE 486

47 3 turkey. These species account for 38 percent of the MNI in the small collection from the Killion Site. Although this is not a majority of the collection, it is a greater proportion than that attributable to mammals in roughly comparable samples representing a general coastal tradition subsistence pattern. Therefore, it seems possible that this assemblage might represent a portion of the subsistence cycle emphasizing hunting. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction S This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then stone and/or bone projectile points might be present. A small fragment of a projectile point was recovered from the Killion Site. In view of the general scarcity of stone in coastal sites, this is sufficient to consider the prediction empirically validated(+). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then butchering and processing tools might be present. A chert knife which might have served either of these purposes was identified in the Killion lithic assemblage. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Summary In the context of the predictions made here and the evidence available from secondary testing, strong support is found for the proposition that the Killion Site was a hunting camp. The test

PAGE 487

474 results, summarized 1n Table 44, show two valid predictions (one of which is a negative prediction) for the fishing function, three valid predictions (one of which is a negative prediction) for the horticulture function, and six valid predictions (two of which are negative) for the hunting function. One might expect somewhat different results from a larger faunal sample or a 100 percent fine-screened sample. A larger number of small species, especially fish, usually resu l ts from a reduction in screen size. However, in view of the fact that only one of the six valid hunting focus predictions would be invalidated by a shift to fish as the primary nutrient contributor, the hunting hypothesis is st i 11 strong Predictions relating to the exploitation of wild plants, especially acorns and hickory nuts, were not explored in this analysis, primarily due to the poor prospects for recovering botanical data. Using Crooks's model, it would be expected that nut gathering occurred in conjunction with the fall hunting season. At this time deer congregated in the oak hammocks to feed on acorns and were in prime condition; preoccupation with breeding activities made them easy prey. If hunting was primarily a male activity and nut gathering primarily a female activity, then these subsistence pursuits would have been complementary. Both of the positive predictions validated for the horticulture hypothesis rely on one of several possible interpretat i ons of the artifactual evidence for their horticultural implications. Prediction 4 is based on the possibility that small Busycon columella tools may

PAGE 488

475 be corn husking pins. Prediction 5 relies on a postulated ethnological phenomenon-the attraction of certain species to cultivated fields, disturbed ground and second growth-to explain the composition of the terrestrial fauna! sample. Clearly, in each case, the interpretation which contributes to support of the horticulture hypothesis is only one of the many possible explanations for the presence of these artifacts at this site. This is one of the reasons that the type of inference used here is the hypothetico-analog, rather than the hypothetico-deductive, method of inference. Hypothesis VI Hypotheses VI, VII and VIII deal with the social group size, seasonality of occupation, and primary function of the Savannah component identified within the San Marcos segment of the Kings Bay Site. The fact that this is a component contained within a sheet midden, rather than a discrete, spatially isolated deposit, requires a somewhat different approach to marshalling the data required for prediction validation than that used at the Killion Site. The Savannah period occupation 1s marked by the presence of fine cord marked pottery. This type of pottery (Figure 20) was recovered from a feature dated A.O. 1340+80 (Beta-2113) but also predomimates in a nearby midden context with earlier dates (A.D. 960~_70, Beta-2117 and A.O. 830:_90, Beta-2118). For purposes of this study, three methods of defining the Savannah component will be used: 1) spatial: the spatial distribution of the fine cord marked sherds will be used to answer locational questions.

PAGE 489

2) faunal: materials recovered from closed context features interpreted as Savannah period deposits on the bas is of prevailing ceramic type will be used to answer seasonality and subsistence focus questions. 476 3) artifactual: artifacts present in sheet midden deposits in which Savannah type pottery prevails will be assigned a Savannah period provenience for evaluation of site function quest ions. It is recognized that there are some ambiguous contexts in the midden deposits but, if enough samples are studied, the overall pattern which emerges should reflect the associations prevailing in the original behavioral context. Repeated occupation often blurs vertical segregation of deposits but it is much less likely to affect horizontal relationships within deposits. Hypothesis VI offers three alternate proposals concerning the social group size represented by the Savannah component at 9Caml71A. The remarkable fact is the very small area assignable to this component within the extensive Kings Bay Site. Reference is made to the Savannah and St. Johns components at the other intensively studied segment-9Caml71B--but the focus of the discussion is the manifestation at 9Caml71A. Alternate VI-A: Nuclear Family Occupation Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then a single social unit correlate, such as a single

PAGE 490

477 structure, will be in evidence. The two test units excavated within the peak density area of the Savannah component at 9Caml71A contained a large, basin-shaped refuse pit (Unit 358) and a single post hole {Unit 357). Together these features suggest the presence of a domestic structure. However, the area excavated is not sufficient to test whether this is an isolated phenonmenon or part of a larger settlement. A block excavation centered on this area was completed during mitigation phase research and should provide conclusive evidence for this prediction. Three other dense concentrations of cord marked pottery were detected at 9Caml71A (see Figure 36). One of these, at Unit 312, exhibited structural evidence in the form of two post holes. It was not possible to explore the extent of this pattern or to determine how many structures were represented. If these four concentrations are taken to be contemporaneous occupations, then the prediction is not validated (-). However, simultaneous occupations without intervening archeological evidence seem highly unlikely. If the concentrations are vie'-1ed as sequential occupations, nuclear family occupations could account for them. Due to limited exposure, the prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then the total occupation area will be small. As shown in Figure 36 which maps the frequency distribution of cord marked pottery, the major concentration defined by 2nd level and

PAGE 491

478 higher contours is about 50 m in diameter, with an area of just under 0.2 ha. None of the three minor peaks are any more extensive. Deposits of this size fall near the lower end of the smallest size class reported by Pearson and would be consistent with a nuclear family habitation. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then no formal differentiation of spatial units ( i.e. specialized structures, palisades, earthworks) will be seen. Secondary testing did not achieve sufficient exposure of features within or beneath the sheet midden to allow verification of this prediction. However, block excavations carried out in mitigation phase reseach may provide appropriate data. The prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a nuclear family, then no patterned arrangement of structures should be observed. As noted above, insufficient exposure was achieved to allow verification in the present study (0). Alternate VI-B: Lineage Occupation Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then several (more than one and probably fe~r than six)

PAGE 492

479 social unit correlates will be in evidence. Although cord marked pottery at 9Caml 7 lA exhibited four separate areas of concentration, as shown in Figure 36, secondary testing did not provide enough information to determine the temporal relationships among these concentrations. Two of the four concentrations contained evidence of structures: a refuse pit 1n Unit 357 and a post hole 1n nearby Unit 358, and two post holes in Unit 312. In neither case 1s it presently possible to determine the number of structures which may have been present. Assuming contemporaneity of the four concentrations (which seems highly unlikely) the prediction wuld be empirically validated (+). Without this assumption, the prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then the total occupation area will be moderate. While the cord marked pottery at 9Caml71A exhibits four separate areas of concentration, the probability that these are contemporaneous is very small. Taken as separate occupations, each of the concentrations has a diameter of less than 50 m and an area of about 0.2 ha. This area falls near the lower end of the smallest site size class defined by Pearson for Ossabaw. It 1s large enough to represent several domestic structures, so the prediction is empirically validated (+).

PAGE 493

480 Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then no formal differentiation of spatial units (i.e. specialized structures, palisades or earthworks) will be seen. As discussed for Alternate VI, Prediction 3, insufficient information 1s available for verification. The prediction 1s not tested 1n this study (0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a lineage, then a patterned arrangement of structures might be observed. As discussed for Alternate VI, Prediction 4, secondary testing did not yield the structural information necessary for verification. The prediction is not tested in the present study (0). Alternate VI-C: Village Occupation Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then many (more than five) social units will be in evidence. Four concentrations of cord marked pottery were observed, two of which contained sets of features suggestive of structures. Even if the four concentrations are assumed to represent contemporaneous structures, the prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 494

481 Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, the total occupation area will be large. The 0.2 ha covered by each of the four concentrations clearly falls below the size class which represents a large component 1n Pearson's description of a coastal settlement system (Table 45). It does not seem reasonable to lump two or more of the concentrations into a single settlement because of the low artifact density areas which intervene. The prediction is not validated (-). Predict ion 3 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then specialized or communal structures will be evident. Secondary testing did not provide evidence regarding structure type. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then a patterned arrangement of structures is likely to be observed. Insufficient information is available to test this prediction (0). Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the occupation represented was a village, then a cemetery or burial mound will be present. No evidence

PAGE 495

48 2 for any form of human burial was found at 9Caml71A. The prediction is not validated (-). Summarv Evaluation of Hypothesis VI for the Savannah component can only be described as inconclusive. One positive prediction was confirmed for each of two of the alternative hypotheses, A and B; none were confirmed for Alternate C (Table 44). The predictions, and the reference class on which they are based, do not allow a clear distinction to be drawn between the expected occupation area for a nuclear family and for a lineage. Without better control of temporal parameters relating to such occupations, it is difficult to see the value of determining family size. Extensive and detailed data vJOuld be required to distinguish between a single occupation by a lineage and several successive occupations by a nuclear family. What can be ruled out from this analysis is the likelihood of a villa8e-size Savannah period occupation at 9Caml71A. In contrast, the Savannah and the St. Johns components at 9Caml71B are much more extensive. Both occupy the eastern 2/3 of this segment of the Kings Bay Site and each covers about 1.3 ha. A comparison of Figures 53 and 55 shows that there is some non-coincidence of distribution peaks within this area and at least two explanations can be offered for the observed distributions and the low positive correlation (0.55) for these tvJO types (Table 31). First, this pattern could result from partially coincident occupations by ceramically distinct cultures--one using predominantly St. Johns

PAGE 496

483 wares and the other predominantly Savannah wares. Second, the pattern might come about as a consequence of repeated occupation by a culture with a bitypical ceram1.c complex. The presence of the latter in the area circa A.D. 900-1300 is demonstrated at the Killion Site. In either case, repeated occupation of the site is involved, as is also indicated by the array of radiocarbon dates for this segment (Table 21 ). Thus the total occupation area of l .3 ha is probably some,;.hat greater than the area attributable to any one occupation; a maximum size of l.0 ha for a village seems likely. At Kings Bay, one still does not see very large settlements, even in optimal locations, when a single occupation is considered rather than the cumulative multicomponent deposit. It is difficult to evaluate other categories of information about 9Caml71B. Several features and two possible living floors were encountered during testing but, due to limited exposure, these can serve only as confirmation of some type of residence at the site. The single human burial encountered in secondary testing predates the Mississippian period occupation. The only other evidence of communal activites 1.s a mound excavated by C. B. Moore in 1897 (Moore 1897: 10). Moore describes the Low Mound at Fairview as being on the bank of Marianna Creek which, at that time, emptied into the northwest end of Kings Bay. It is possible that this mound was associated with an occupation at 9Caml7 lB but it could also have derived from an occupation 1.n an adjacent segment of the Kings Bay Site. Moore's excavation of the mound yielded only two clues to its temporal association. A sheet copper ornament with repousse decoration, which

PAGE 497

484 Larson later defined as a fragment of an eagle warrior plate (1958), accompanied one of the seven burials in the mound. Also recovered from the mound fill were several complicated stamped sherds. This description does not permit a distinction between the late prehistoric period complicated stamped Irene and San Marcos series wares and Swift Creek series sherds. However, either form of stamping would indicate a Georgia coast affiliation rather than St. Johns area connections. Assuming the former temporal affiliation, it does seem that a late Mississippian village with an associated mound is represented at 9Caml 7 1B. Hypothesis VII For purposes of examining the seasonal character of Savannah period occupations within the Kings Bay Site, the faunal data from closed context features will be reviewed. This information is contained in Table 24 and is derived from Features 36/39, 95, 128, 135 and 136, which are all refuse pits. Predictions regarding horticultural tools, residential structures, and burial mounds are checked against information presented in Chapter 7. The same predictions used to assess the Killion Site assemblage will be applied to the Kings Bay Site Savannah component. Warm-weather, cold-weather, and year-round occupations are not the only possibilities, but they probably represent the maximum distinction possible at the secondary testing level of analysis. The same assumptions concerning coincidence in time and in space of food procurement and consumption that were stated previously apply to the following analysis. The cumulative assemblage is assumed to

PAGE 498

485 derive from several occupations of similar seasonal identity. That is, the Savannah people came back to the same place at the same time or times each year (if unless, of course, they were year-round residents), rather than at different seasons in different years. Alternate VII-A: Cold-Weather Occupation Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then animals which leave the estuary in cold weather will be a'::lsent. Since catfishes and triple-tail are present, the prediction is not verified (-). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then estuarine animals which adjust their growth rates to the water temperature will reflect a cold-weather season of death Neither fish scales nor quahog clams were recovered in sufficient numbers to permit these analyses. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Predict ion 3 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then deer cran1a will show evidence of shed antlers. None of the five deer head elements from the Savannah features permitted observation of antler attachment areas. The prediction is not tested in this study (0).

PAGE 499

486 Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then the ages of subadult deer will reflect a cold-weather season of death. No specimens permiting age determinations in the 12 to 15 month range were found. The prediction is not validated{-). Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then the ages of young animals other than deer will reflect a cold-weather season of death. No specimens diagnostic of a winter kill were found. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the winter 1n the vicinity might be present. A merganser (Mergus serrator) was identified in the Savannah feature assemblage. This bird is a winter resident in the Kings Bay vicinity; its presence provides empirical validation for the prediction(+), Prediction 7 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the summer 1n the vicinity will not be present. No sununer-resident birds were identified so the prediction is empirically validated (+),

PAGE 500

487 Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then remains of plant foods will be absent. The only archeological plant specimens recovered from the Kings Bay Site are a few fragments of hickory nut shell (Carya spp.) from a Swift Creek midden context. The prediction is empirically validated(+). However, no Savannah period hearths were identified and the Savannah refuse pits yielded no plant remains (and very little charred bone). It seems likely that the absence of floral materials is a preservation problem and it would be better to regard this prediction as not rigorously tested in this study (0). Prediction 9 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the cold-weather season, then horticultural tools will be absent. Among the 69 Busycon specimens associated with Savannah features and Savannah midden contexts (Units 312, 341, 357 and 358), 7 are definable as possible hoes. The prediction is not validated (-). Alternate VI I-B: Wann-Weather Occupation Prediction 1 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, the animals which leave the estuary during cold weather will be present. Since sea catfishes and triple-tail are present, the prediction is empirically verified (+).

PAGE 501

488 Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then estuarine animals which adjust their growth rates to the water temperature will reflect a warm-weather season of death. For reasons noted under Alternate VII-A, Prediction 2, this observation was not made. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm weather season, then attached antlers will be observed on deer cran1a. None of the 5 deer head elements from the Savannah features permits this observation. The prediction is not tested in this study (0). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then the ages of subadult deer will reflect a warm-weather season of death. An unfused deer phalanx recovered from the Savannah features indicates a deer less than a year old. Assuming a spring season of birth, this is an indicator of warm-weather occupation an provides empirical validation for the prediction(+). However, Reitz notes that deer on the coast are not limited to a spring birth period so this could also be interpreted as a fall or winter kill (R. Smith et al. 1981:516).

PAGE 502

489 Predict ion 5 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then the ages of young animals other than deer will reflect a warm-weather season of death. A juvenile snake vertebra from the Savannah features provides evidence for a warm weather occupation. The prediction is emp i rically validated ( +). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then migratory birds which are winter residents will be absent. A winter resident, the merganser, was identified from the Savannah features. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 7 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then migratory birds which spend the summer in the vicinity will be present. No warm season residents were identified in the Savannah feature samples. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then remains of plant foods will be present. No botanical remains were recovered from the Savannah features, so the prediction is not validated (-). As noted previously, this ma y be a I J

PAGE 503

490 problem of preservation or nonobservation of appropriate contexts and the prediction should be regarded as not rigorously tested (0). Prediction 9 This prediction states that if the site was occupied during the warm-weather season, then horticultural tools will be present. Seven of the 69 Busycon shells recovered from Savannah features and contexts can be interpreted as tools. The prediction is empirically validated ( +). Alternate VII-C: Year-Round Occupation Predictions 1-13 These predictions are grouped together since each has already been explained in the above analysis of Alternates VII-A and VII-B. Each of these predictions is a positive indicator of occupation, for either cold or warm weather, which might be present if the site was occupied year-round. The indicators and matching observations from Alternate Hypotheses VII-A and VII-Bare as follows: A2 (O); A3 (O); A4 (-);AS(-); A6 (+); Bl (+);B2 (O); B3 (O); B4 (+);BS(+); B7 (-); B8 (0); B9 (+). Prediction 14 This prediction states that if the site was occupied year-round, then structures might be present. Two areas within the Savannah component of 9Caml71A yielded evidence of structures: a deep refuse pit

PAGE 504

and post hole in Units 358 and 357 and a pair of post holes in unit 3132. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 15 491 This prediction states that if the site was occupied year-round, then burials might be present. No evidence of human interments was found. The prediction is not validated (-). Summary Evidence for both warm-season and cold-season occupations at Kings Bay is reviewed in the preceding discussion. The warm season occupation is much more strongly represented, with positive indicators from the fish, mammal and reptile classes, and possible horticultural tools. The winter occupation is demonstrated by the presence of a single merganser bone. Together, these observations can ~e taken as evidence for year-round, though not necessarily continuous, occupation. Six of 14 positive predictions for year-round occupation are validated. It is not surprising that the Kings Bay Site was occupied at times throughout the annual cycle, rather than in just a single season. The optimal location means that convenient access to a full spectrum of resources was available. Given a small enough population to avoid depletion of local reserves, such as oyster beds, the site might have been occupied on a full-time basis. The St. Johns feature material presents some of the same indicators as the Savannah, but since the sample is considerably

PAGE 505

492 smaller (43 MNI as compared to 257 MNI), parallel hypothes1s testing is not appropriate. Positive warm season indicators include mullet and marine catfish; no winter signs were observed. Hypothesis VI II The final hypothesis tested at the Kings Bay Site concerns site function and is handled in the same manner as Hypothesis V. In order to test individually the fishing, horticulture, and hunting hypotheses, it is necessary to assume a single occupation season during which a single function predominated. In all likelihood, the optimal location of the Kings Bay Site ..luld have permitted pursuit of more than one subsistence focus and an occupation of more than one season. Alternate VIII-A: Fishing Focus Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then the site location will provide immediate access to the estuary. A review of Table 9 shows that the Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site is optimally located with respect to estuarine resources. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then the site location might not provide optimal access to good soils for horticulture. The Savannah Component is located on

PAGE 506

493 Cainhoy Fine Sand, which is the best of the marginally suitable horticultural soils in the area. Since the site is optimally located for garden cultivation and protection of growing crops, the prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then fish bones will be present in the food remains. This prediction 1s empirically validated (+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then food remains will include major amounts of fish bone. Table 26 shows a total of 221 MNI from estuarine fish 10 the feature sample. This is 86 percent of the MNI, as compared to 4 percent from mammals and 4 percent from reptiles (all of which are turtles). This is a clear majority of the individuals. In terms of biomass, fish account for 56 percent of the total. The prediction is empirically validated ( +). Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then bone tools used in fishing, such as hooks or leister points, might be present. No such artifacts were found, so the prediction is not validated(-).

PAGE 507

494 Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then evidence of nets, traps, or weirs might be found. Although ample evidence of cordage of a suitable size for net-making was seen in the many sherds of cord marked pottery recovered from this site, no net marked pottery was found and no other evidence of mass capture devices was found. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 7 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then fish drying/smoking racks might be present. It 1s expected that these structures would be in evidence as series of small post holes too closely spaced to serve as a residential structure. No such evidence was found; the prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 8 This prediction states that if the primary site function was fishing, then canoes and implements associated with the manufacture and use of canoes might be in evidence. Seven of the 69 Busycon tools recovered from Savannah contexts can be interpreted as potential wood1'1Drking tools. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Alternate VIII-B: Horticulture Focus Predict ion l This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then the site location might not be convenient for

PAGE 508

-495 estuarine access. Since the Savannah component is located adjacent to the bay, the prediction 1s not validated (-). Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then the site will be located to provide immediate access to good horticultural soil. Since the Savannah component 1s located on an extensive deposit of Cainhoy Fine Sand, the prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction 3 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then food remains will include evidence of cult igens. The Killion Site assemblage included no evidence of cultigens, either direct (such as seeds or cob fragments) or indirect (such as cob marked pottery or vegetable effigies). The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then maize processing tools such as husking pins, shelling graters, or mealing implements might be present. Six of the 69 Busycon specimens recovered from the Savannah component exhibit shapes, sizes and wear patterns which \olOuld be consistent with use as husking pins. The prediction 1s empirically validated (+).

PAGE 509

496 Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then faunal remains might include appreciable amounts of "garden hunted" species such as deer, rabbits, raccoon, and box turtle. Four of the 257 MNI identified at this site are animals commonly attracted to cultivated areas or found in the process of cultivation (box turtles). This is a smaller proportion of these species than is exhibited at roost coastal sites and only two of the five are present. No special emphasis on garden hunting is indicated. The prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the primary site function was horticulture, then hoes might be present. Seven of the 69 Busycon shells recovered from Savannah contexts might be classified as possible hoes. The prediction is empirically validated(+), Alternate VIII-C: Hunting Focus Predict ion 1 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then the site location might provide less-than-optimal access to the marsh/estuary system. As discussed in Prediction 1 for Alternate V-B, this prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 510

Prediction 2 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then the site location might be less-than-optimal for horticulture. As discussed in Prediction 2 for Alternate V-A, this prediction is not validated (-). Prediction 3 497 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then evidence of exploitation of deer will be present. Deer are the most widely hunted mammal species in the Southeast and should be present at any hunting camp. Deer account for 20 fragments, 3 MN!, and 20 percent of the biomass in the Savannah feature assemblage. The prediction is empirically validated(+). Prediction 4 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then faunal remains will include major amounts of hunted terrestrial animals, such as deer, raccoon, rabbit, squirrel, and turkey. These species account for 1 percent of the identified fragments, 2 percent of the MNI, and 21 percent of the biomass in the Savannah feature assemblage. These proportions do not indicate a primary emphasis on hunting. The prediction is not validated (-).

PAGE 511

498 Prediction 5 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then stone and/or bone projectile points might be present. One stone projectile point was recovered from Savannah contexts. This chert point, illustrated in Figure 23, is similar to small arrow points common accross the Southeast 1n the Mississippian period. The prediction is empirically validated (+). Prediction 6 This prediction states that if the primary site function was hunting, then butchering and processing tools might be present. Ten chert flakes were recovered from Savannah contexts. Two of these exhibit use wear and might have functioned as meat processing tools. In view of the general scarcity of stone in coastal sites, this is sufficient evidence to consider the prediction empirically validated (+). Summary Evidence regarding the primary function of the Savannah occupation 1s not overwhelming for any of the foci postulated. Half of the predictions for each of the alternate hypotheses were validated, and it happens that all of the validated predictions are positive (Table 44). The fishing focus, however, may be said to be most strongly supported simply because it was possible to confirm the presence of the product of the primary function (fish), while

PAGE 512

499 cultigens are not recovered at all and hunted species are are not recovered in impressive amounts. A non-exclusive fishing focus, with subsidiary horticultural and hunting activities, is compatible with the evidence. In view of the optimal location of the site, this is not unexpected. Review and Summary In Chapter 5 eight hypotheses concerning subsistence and settlement at Kings Bay were formulated, using Yesner's general model of coastal adaptation together with Crook's model of Mississippian period coastal adaptation as an integrative framework. This chapter has systematically evaluated each of the observationa 1 predict ions for each of the hypotheses, using data from survey and secondary testing at Kings Bay and some information from the work of other coastal researchers. Hypothesis I, which predicts optimal location of coastal sites with respect to an array of primary resources, is supported by the survey data. It was noted, however, that the research area does not supply a rigorous or selective test of this proposition, since most of the environmental amenities examined are within what might be regarded as the Kings Bay catchment or local resource area. Hypothesis II states that optimally productive resources were selected for by the aboriginal subsistence strategy. This postulate, though it appears self-evident, is much more difficult to validate systematically than might be expected. Within the bounds of numerous assumptions, the hypothesis was confirmed by data from several sites

PAGE 513

representing several periods within the Coastal Tradition. A more explicit and more comprehensive test of this hypothesis will be possible when several gaps between the emic behavioral past and the etic mental present are bridged. 500 Hypotheses III, IV, and V relate to the nature of the occupation at the Killion Site. It was found that the evidence best supports the interpretation that a lineage-size group camped at this spot on severa 1 occasions. Quite limited evidence suggests that these were warm weather occupations. The final question explored--site function-produced the strongest confirmation of all. The postulated hunting focus was clearly a stronger explanation for the Killion Site assemblage than either the fishing or horticulture foci. It is, however, based on a small faunal sample which is biased in favor of larger (hunted) species. Hypotheses VI, VII, and VIII concern the nature of the Savannah component occupation within the San Marcos segment of the Kings Bay Site. The Savannah component was found to account for only a very small portion of the area covered by this site. The evidence is compatible with either a repeated nuclear family occupation or a repeated lineage occupation. Comparison to the Ossabaw Island settlement system rules out a village-size occupation. Evidence was presented for both warm season and cold season activities at this site; a series of occupations at different times in the annual cycle seems likely. Finally, predictions concerning three possible subsistence foci were evaluated. Although some observations matching each postualted primary function were validated, the fishing focus is

PAGE 514

501 strongest. Even more likely, 1.n view of the optimal location of the Kings Bay Site, is a multipurpose settlement. There remain, for the final chapter, three tasks. First, the evidence with respect to coastal adaptation in general at Kings Bay will be compared to the model proposed by Yesner. Second, the two Mississippian period sites investigated in this study will be compared and contrasted for goodness of fit within the model offered by Crook. Finally, the emerging picture of the coastal Mississippian period adaptation will be assessed in light of Bruce Smith's general model for Mississippian adaptation.

PAGE 515

r CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS In tr oduc t ion The first eight chapters of this study follow a path from the general to the specific, from human coastal adaptations as an evolutionary development, to settlement of the southeastern coast of the U.S., to selected aspects of a pair of late prehistoric period sites at Kings Bay. The outcome consists of the best currently attainable answers to a set of questions formulated on the basis of a settlement/subsistence model. Using a cultural materialist hierarchy and details provided by modern ecological information and ethnohistoric documents, the model suggests linkages and interrelationships among subsystems of the coastal adaptive system. This allows relationships among archeologically visible elements of the adaptive structure to be tested so that light may be shed on the unseen linkages. In this manner the end result of the study is more than the sum of the individual quest ions answered: answers lead to revisions of the underlying model, which then generate new questions about linkages and interrelationships among elements of the model. This chapter first presents the results of hypothesis tests for the Killion Site and the Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site, as well as for the set of sites at Kings Bay taken together. Additional observations not considered in the formal inference process are 502

PAGE 516

503 included. These results are assessed in terms of Crook's model of coastal Mississippian settlement and subsistence. The discussion then turns to a broader perspective, with comparisons between the interior and coastal manifestations of Mississippian period culture and comparisons between Coastal Tradition and Mississippian Period populations on the Southeastern coast. Finally, the implications of this study for a general model of human adaptation to a coastal environment are considered. Results The Killion Site Indications are that the group which occupied the Killion Site was of a size comparable to a lineage, consisting of several nuclear family households made up of closely-related individuals. Crook's model specifies a matrilineage, on the basis of ethnohistoric references and analogy to Creek social organization, but this does not seem necessary for modeling the fundamental adaptive pattern nor does i.t seem testable at the present level of analysis. Archeological data are generally unsuited for answering direct questions about kinship. Two recent attempts to infer coastal kinship patterns on the basis of archeological evidence, including burial practices (Wallace 1975) and osteological data (Zahler 1976), are inconclusive. On the other hand, a place should be reserved in the model for addition of this detail once inferences about the linkages between structure and infrastructure have been formulated. Larson's intriguing data from Pine Harbor suggest the possibility for archeological documentation of

PAGE 517

1 504 systematic sharing of large game among households which occupied a site similar 1n size to the Killion Site (1980a:224). One explanation that should be explored 1s the possibility that the meat-sharing pattern is a behavioral correlate of the kinship pattern. The middens which are the most visible feature of the Killion Site form a tight cluster within the local resource area consisting of fairly well-drained land near the freshwater creek at the head of the North River. Repeated occupation of this location by small groups of people was postulated on the basis of the following observations. First, the lack of overall pattern for the set of 26 middens suggests that they were not the product of a single episode of occupation. Second, the absence of disturbance to the middens and of overlapping middens renders it highly unlikely that the deposits represent 26 separate episodes of occupation. Third, radiocarbon dates for four of the middens indicate at least two and probably three well-separated occupations. A working hypothesis, not tested in this study, suggests that several short-term occupations by groups of one to several nuclear families, each of which generated one to several separate oyster middens, best accounts for the pattern observed. No structural evidence-in the form of refuse pits, posthole patterns, or earthworks which might indicate roore than a temporary camp--was found. The season during which these brief occupations of the Killion Site occurred is not well-delineated in the small sample of vertebrate remains. There is positive evidence for warm-weather occupation in the presence of sea catfishes which usually retreat from the estuaries in very cold weather. It is not possible to say what part of the long

PAGE 518

505 warm season, from March to December, 1s represented. The sma 11 s 1ze of the refuse piles suggests that it was only a brief part and this small size may have contributed to the poor preservation of whatever vertebrate remains were deposited therein. A thin layer of coarse, loosely aggregated shells would have promoted rapid drainage and leaching while creating an environment of elevated pH beneath the midden, below the point at which bone was deposited. In view of poor preservation conditions, it seems likely that precise seasonality data, if obtainable, will come from non-vertebrate indicators, such as Mercenaria shell growth lines. The function of the Killion Site, in terms of primary subsistence pursuit, 1s the best-confirmed of the formal hypotheses tested at this site. Hunting activites are clearly indicated by the presence of deer and several small mammals. Two kinds of stone tools provide corroborating evidence and the location, which is suboptimal for fishing and horticulture, also favors the hunting interpretation. Although not on the highest, best-drained land 1n the vicinity, this site is still fairly well-drained and 1s quite well-located with respect to freshwater access. In terms of the model, this site makes sense when interreted as a small camp, occupied in early spr ~.1 6 hv a few families, during a period of subsistence stress. The time toward the end of winter, when most stored food supplies were exhausted but before the establishment of garden plots, might have been spent in camps like this. Subsistence activities probably centered on 1) hunting of whatever game was available, 2) collection of oysters which at this season were

PAGE 519

506 a critical, stress-relieving dietary supplement, and 3) perhaps stored foods which left little archeological evidence because they had been gathered and processed elsewhere. The Savannah Component of the Kings Bay Site The several concentrations of Savannah cord marked pottery within the sheet midden on the bluff overlooking Kings Bay are readily interpreted as representing nuclear familyor lineage-size occupations. A single radiocarbon date of A.D. 1340~80 (Beta-2113) from one feature containing this type of pottery indicates that at least part of this site was occupied within a few years of the later occupation at the Killion Site. Because of the previous and subsequent occupations at 9Caml71A, the Savannah materials are much less clearly focused within their depositional context than are the middens at the Killion Site. The individual concentrations, which lack appreciable intervening deposits of Savannah pottery, clearly do not represent a village-size settlement. Especially in relation to the hierarchy reported by Pearson for Ossabaw Island, this appears to be a site representing the low end of the settlement system. In terms of size, as well as season and function (discussed below), the Savannah component can best be labeled a homestead. The results of distribution mapping of pottery type frequencies within the 9Caml71A segment of the Kings Bay Site provides evidence why occupations area estimates based on surface collections from coastal sheet middens must be made with caution. Subsurface sampling 1s essential if the extents of any but the latest deposits are to ~e

PAGE 520

507 accurately projected. While subjective evaluation of the site, based on surface collection and limited shovel testing, described a huge, multicomponent midden, the distribution maps revealed a collection of relatively small, partially overlapping components. The lack of correlation among pottery types (Table 31) is remarkable. Thus, rather than resembling a layer cake, the site presents the appearance of a patchwork quilt. In this regard, data for several sites used by Pearson to model the Mississippian period settlement system on Ossabaw Island are questionable. He reports sites as small as 0.00001 ha (1 m square) and as large as 32.4 ha. It is difficult to imagine the behavioral significance of the very small sites, while the large ones seem almost certainly subject to some exaggeration. For seven sites of intermediate size containing both Savannah and Irene occupations, identical areal extents are reported for each component (1979:233-234). It would certainly be convenient if this were true, but it seems improbable. Al though these estimates should be regarded as highly tentative with respect to absolute values, they are useful 1n relative terms. The information summarized in Table 44 can be used to evaluate sites in terms of general size classes appearing during the late prehistoric period. The Savannah component of the Kings Bay Site falls within the lower half of the smallest class of Pearson's Irene hierarchy. This is certainly a smaller-than-village-size site, despite its location in an optimal position for exploiting marsh/estuary and oak hammock resources. Information regarding the season in which the site was occupied 1s more abundant for the Savannah component than for the Killion Site.

PAGE 521

508 The presence of fish which retreat from estuarine waters in cold weather, juvenile animals showing a warm-weather season of death, and the presence of Busycon shells tools interpretable as hoes are .. positive indicators of warm-weather occupation, while a single winter-resident migratory bird is the sole positive sign of cold-weather occupation. If the composition of the catch reflects occurrence, then the presence of large numbers of star drums may also point to a fall season of occupation, since these are the most abundant fishes in the bay during the fall (R. Smith et al. 1981:944). However, the high proportion of small fish may simply reflect use of a small mesh dip net or seine. The possibility thus exists that the site was occupied at several times during the year, or even continuously through the year. The optimal location certainly would have made multiseason occupation feasible. A corollary of multiseasonal occupation 1s the multifunctional nature of the site. Fishing, as demnstrated by the presence of fish bone in large amounts and an interpretation of large Busycon tools as gouges for shaping canoes, was certainly the primary subsistence pursuit. Hunting is also demonstrated and horticulture could easily have been important, though no direct evidence for cultigens was found. A multipurpose, year-round occupation 1s cons is tent with the concept of a small, nuclearor extended-family household implied by the term homestead. One aspect of the Savannah data not addressed in the hypotheses 1s subsistence technology. Small fishes, esp~cially Bairdiella chrysoura and Stellifer lanceolatus, occur in large numbers and must

PAGE 522

-----------509 have been captured using some form of net or trap. Other species probably obtained in this manner include mullet and small sharks. As discussed in Chapter 7, the use of specialized mass capture techniques might imply a considerable degree of sedentism, since large nets would be too bulky for highly nomadic peoples to transport and structures such as brush weirs represent an immovable investment. Both devices could have been scaled to the available labor but either must have taken at least two adults, and probably more, for effective operation. Cooperative effort and communal ownership of the devices, probably within the bounds of kinship ties, may be inferred. However, large numbers of small fish could also have been gathered using dip nets, cast nets, or small seines at the mouths of tidal creeks in the high marsh. Fishing techniques of this scale \.Ould provide a high degree of flexibility and \,IOuld be quite portable. Cooperative effort and communal ownership would not be necessary. Another observation applicable to the Killion Site assemblage as well as the Savannah assemblage concerns the use of stone tools. Very little lithic material was recovered from either site and correspondingly little came from other sites at Kings Bay. This conforms to a pattern which has been noted for the lower Georgia coast in general and reflects the distance from the coast to sources of stone for chipped or ground tools. The fact that some stone is present demonstrates contact, through trade or travel, with the Piedmont (metamorphic stone used for the ground axe found at 9Caml71B), north peninsular Florida (silicified coral), and undetermined locations in the coastal plain (chert). A subjective

PAGE 523

510 impression gained from reviewing all of the lithic contexts at Kings Bay is that stone tools and debitage are somewhat roore abundant in Late Archaic and Early Woodland components than in Mississippian period components. If verified, this might indicate one or more of the following trends: 1) A reduction in range through time, with earlier populations traveling greater distances and exploiting larger resource areas than later populations. 2) A specialization in nonhunted subsistence resources during later periods, with a corresponding decrease in requirements for hunting tools; reliance instead, on collection and capture devices (nets, baskets, weirs, and traps). 3) Substitution of bone, wood and shell for stone. More than likely, all three trends influenced, to varying degrees, the late prehistoric period toolkit. This explanation t,0uld be more satisfying if bone and shell tools were abundant, or even common, on the Lower Georgia coast. This is not the case at Kings Bay nor at Kenan Field (Crook 1978:23). Instead, there seems to be a decrease 1n the incidence of worked bone. As was discussed earlier with respect to Busycon tools, the apparent lack of shell tools may, in part, be a consequence of the archeologist's exclusion of informal tools from this category. On the whole, however, it seems fair to say that the late prehistoric toolkit is highly generalized.

PAGE 524

Coastal Subsistence Animal use 511 It is difficult to summarize subsistence patterns for the Georgia coast because of the small number of comparable, adequate size samples presently available: four for the Mississippian period, only one for the Late Archaic, and none for the intervening Woodland period (Reitz 1982). Data from Kings Bay supply the following observations (R. Smith et al. 1981:944). Fish are the most heavily emphasized vertebrate food source. A variety of species appear in the collection but drums and sea catfishes are almost invariably found, and mullet, flounder, shark, and gar occur regularly. Emphasis is on fish which could have been obtained using mass capture techniques. Among the mammals, only deer are important and they usually account for fe'-ler individuals and less biomass than fish. Small mammals appear to have been only incidental targets of exploitation. Small turtles are quite common at Kings Bay, as they are 1n the Sapelo Island samples (Re i tz 1982). Both salt marsh and terrestrial species seem to represent a resource which could have been collected in the course of other subsistence pursuits. They may represent a subsistence contribution by young and/or old members of the group who were unable to participate in more strenuous subsistence pursuits. In contrast, sea turtles do not appear at all. Birds are conspicuously rare at Kings Bay. In view of the importance of turkey 1n the subsistence repertoire of interior Southeastern aboriginal g roups and in view of the abundant resident

PAGE 525

512 and migratory avifauna associated with the coastal marshes, this 1.s surprising. In terms of the model, however, it 1.s partially explainable. Migratory birds would have been only seasonally available and perhaps were too unreliable in their times of arrival to become a seasonal subsistence focus. Birds in general are small animals which would produce small yields in relation to the effort required to capture them. The few ducks and great blue herons which do appear in coastal sites must have been incidentally captured during the pursuit of other marsh resources. The rare use of turkeys is more difficult to explain. Since turkeys are fairly large, terrestrial birds which inhabit the oak hannnock, feed on oak mast in the fall, and probably were attracted to swidden plots, it seems they would have made an easy target and rewarding kill. Larson notes, without comment, that the wild turkey was not much used by coastal Indians in the Mississippian period, though it is present today and presumably was then (1980a:19-20). This study confirms his observation but can offer no new insights. Three other vertebrate groups not emphasized 1.n coastal subsistence are readily accounted for in terms of the model: sea turtles, sea mammals and bears. As mentioned above, sea turtles are not present at Kings Bay, but they could have been obtained on the nearby barrier island beaches during the nesting season. Although large in body size, turtles would have been a highly seasonal resource, such that it would have been risky to develop a very great a dependence on them. An alternative explanation of the absence of turtle bone in the Kings Bay middens is the possibility that these

PAGE 526

513 animals were butchered and/or eaten on the beach or at barrier island sites. As a consequence of "eating out" on the islands, no archeological evidence 1.oOuld be found in the mainland sites. Sea marmnals, including manatee, seal, porpoise, and whale, are not found at Kings Bay and did not figure prominently 1n the coastal diet. Although they would have yielded large amounts of meat, these animals are highly mobile and/or able to hide in the vast expanses of water in the vicinity of Kings Bay. Of hunters and gatherers in general, Jochim says "highly mobile and unpredictable animals rarely dominate their subsistence economies because of the high procurement costs" (1981:73). Despite the high payoff, such animals represent too great an investment in terms of unsuccessful hunts to figure prominently in the subsistence choice. Neitschmann has documented this pattern for the Miskito of coastal Nicaragua: Manatee (Trichechus manatus), a large aquatic mammal, is one of the most desired meats, but is also one of the most difficult animals to hunt, being a very wary animal with extremely acute hearing. Therefore only limited pressure is placed on these animals because of low return for time invested, even though meat preference and size of yield (sometimes over 500 lb) are attractive. (1972:56-57) It should also ~e noted that manatees have a very low replacement rate: the females bear one or two young and nurse them for 18 months. Thus, a successful manatee hunting technology would rapidly deplete the resource. Similar reasoning can be applied to the margina 1 position of bears in coastal subsistence. They are mobile, are unpredictable, and have a low replacement rate.

PAGE 527

514 Reitz has studied the species composition of fish faunae from southeastern coastal sites and observes that the patterns of use can be partially explained in terms of local differences in aquatic habitats (1979, 1982). The same species are present throughout the region but local conditions, especially salinity and temperature, affect what species are found where within this region. The Kings Bay fauna reflects a more saline environment than those of three Sapelo Island sites (1982:11). This is interesting because Braun has argued convincingly for a similar pattern of local variability in the exploitation of shellfish in eastern New England: there, he observes "local adaptive strategies capable of direct adjustment to variations in the availability of different shellfish species by at least Late Archaic and Early Woodland times on Martha's Vineyard, and by Middle Woodland times further to the north" 0974:594). Molluscs were not a specific target of this study but a few observations are warranted. Evidence from K i ngs Bay column samples points to heavy use of oyster but it is not known whether this represents low level use over a long period of time, intensive use over a short period of time, or something in between. Seasonality data on Mercenaria from oyster midden contexts will be helpful in establishing patterns of oyster deposition, but only if sufficiently large samples from above, below and within the midden stratum are dated. It is on the basis of associated late fall/early winter-killed quahogs that Crook argues for use of oysters in the same season (1978:241-250). Much depends, in this analysis, on the interpretation of seasonal growth patterns. Evidence which 'WOuld significantly alter

PAGE 528

--------------------------------------Crook's interpretation has recently been published (Clark 1979: 161-172). Clark interprets growth checks as a summer event, while Crook assumes a winter growth check. Using the former, the Kenan Field quahogs (and oysters) would be late spring/early summer resources. 515 Crook provides an average value of 4 Kcal per oyster for a sample from Kenan Field and notes that at this rate it would take 300 oysters to provide the caloric equivalent of one kg of venison (1978: 246). In terms of productiv i ty, this low caloric yield is balanced by predictable availability in time and space, abundance and localization, and simplicity of harvesting technology. In terms of season of use, oysters were probably eaten throughout the year, but were most significant at times of subsistence stress. It seems unlikely that they would have been emphasized in fall and early winter when the stored maize harvest, the deer hunting season, and the nut harvest would have been at their peaks. If Clark's interpretation is correct, and the Kenan Field quahogs and oysters are actually late spring/early summer resources, then their use occurred at the time of subsistence stress predicted by the model. Plant use Virtually no evidence for plant use in the Mississippian period was recovered from sites at Kings Bay. Although relatively few su i table contexts--refuse pits and hearths--were found, the paucity of botanical remains is still surprising. Plant remains from other s i tes demonstrate exploitation of a few wild species, especially hickory

PAGE 529

516 oak, persirmnon, pokeweed, chenopodium, grape, elder, and hackberr y (Pearson 1977b:56-60). The only cultigens identified are maize and possibly bean. One reason for the poor record with respect to plant preservation is the depositional environment: in general the alkaline conditions which favor bone preservation are detrimental to plant material. In the near absence of direct evidence for plant use, innovative methods of investigation will be required. Cook has suggested soil depletion studies, midden enrichment studies, excavations in marshes adjacent to sites, pollen analysis, and strontium anal y sis of human bone (1978: 149-150). Some artifacts reflect plant use--nutting stones, mortars and pestals, cob marked pottery, husking needles, and plant food effigies. At a more abstract level, a shift 1n animal exploitation patterns might be associated with a change 1n plant use, as has been suggested in this analysis on the basis of work done by Linares ( 1976). Finally, d irect evidenc e of radical change in diet may be forthcoming from skeletal and dental studies of sites where members of the population are represented b y osteological remains (Larsen 1981:422-423). In the absence of data from Kings Ba y, i t 1s d ifficult to comment further on the role of plants 1n the diet of coastal populat i ons. Seasonal exploitation of wild plants, especiall y hickory nuts and acorns, is reflected in Crook's model but remains to be demonstrated archeologically. It seems likely that the introduction of culti g ens was g radual, that wild plant exploitation continued undiminished, and th a t culti g ens never accounted for a major p ortion of the diet b ut

PAGE 530

517 these points remain to be validated in future research. It will probably never be possible to compare directly the nutrient contributions of plants and animals on the basis of the archeological remains of these organisms. Differences and unknowns in pattern of use, processing, disposal, and preservation are simply too great. To a lesser extent, these same problems afflict comparisons within the animal kingdom. Only with the major and highly questionable assumption that resources, for example, deer bone and oyster shell, are preserved in amounts proportional to their original use ratios, are such comparisons meaningful. Coastal Settlement Pattern It was confirmed in Hypothesis I for the set of sites at Kings Bay that optimal locations as defined by access to maJor resources were most often selected by aboriginal residents of this area. Although elevation, vegetation, soils, and distances to the marsh, estuary, and freshwater source were considered, the best predictor of settlement location was found to be the Cainhoy soil association. This is because, as a consequence of the geologic history of the coast, the sandy Cainhoy soils occur as a rim along the marsh edge, where they support the growth of the Maritime Live Oak forest. Thus, in this locality, the key resources co-occur. Within this zone of optimal access, settlement is densest at points which offer direct access to the estuary, but manifestations of different temporal periods exhibit shifting foci. Large, repeatedly occupied sites are composed of many small, partially overlapping deposits. Settlement

PAGE 531

518 size, at any one point 1n time, appears to have been relatively small, probably never more than 2.0 ha. Cumulative site sizes, on the other hand, can be impressive. This latter phenomenon, together with the simple bulk of the shell which composes most of the midden, is one of the sources of the "myth of the coastal cornucopia" discussed 1n Chapter 5. The Kings Bay Sites have been occupied repeatedly since the Late Archaic period but never by very large numbers of people. Results of this study confirm McMichael's earlier study of site location selection on Sapelo Island (1980). Using a similar set of criteria (soils, elevation, and vegetation), the island was divided into five strata which were randomly sampled and tested for the presence of sites. Sites were found to be significantly clustered on the Pleistocene sand ridges which correspond to the Cainhoy soil rim along the coast at Kings Bay. These findings appear to be duplicated in a series of marsh and barrier island surveys carried out along the coast during the past decade (Pearson 1977b; Ehrenhard 1976; DePratter 1973, 1975; Sheldon 1976; Crook 1975). In general, the mainland coast is a mirror image of the islands' western margins--in terms of landform, soil and vegetation--with the intracoastal waterway serving as the reflecting surface. Thus, it will not be surprising if this pattern of settlement is repeated along the mainland wherever reasonably high land is found. The coastal settlement pattern, then, resembles a prehistoric strip development on the prime real estate bordering the highway formed by the intracoastal waterway. The coincidence of sites from different temporal periods at the most valued locations reflects a long-standing strategy for meeting basic

PAGE 532

-------------------------------------needs in a largely unchanged environment. This is the Coastal Tradition. Evaluation of the Model Model Form 519 It is appropriate, at this point, to evaluate the form of the model of Mississippian period qettlement and subsistence used in the above interpretation. As presented by Crook, this model consists of a series of statements describing the external appearance of the coastal adaptation along the lines of an ethnohistoric reconstruction. This might be termed an "emic behavioral narrative." It basically describes what the archeologist believes would be recorded by a hidden camera trained on the coastal population, and can be likened in form to a skin covering the muscles and bones of the cultural adaptation. Supplementary "emic mental comments," that is, ecological observations which seem to explain the reasons for aboriginal choices, are also provided. Much less thorough coverage is given to the two remaining domains of archeological observation: the etic behavioral and the etic mental categories. Etic behavioral data modeling would consist of enumerating the archeological correlates of the behavioral phenomena described in the emic behavioral narrative, e.g. what would be found at the site of a fall deer-hunting camp. As has been noted, it is difficult to specify archeological correlates, such as how the remains of a small, long-term occupation ,;.iould differ from those of a larger, shorter-term occupation. In part, these problems are technical and involve deriving more precise measures of seasonality,

PAGE 533

520 contemporaneity, productivity, etc. In part they are methodological and require approaches such as the entertainment of multiple \<.Urking hypotheses and formulation of middle range theory for handling general quest ions, such as "When do people seek optimum returns for energy invested and when do they attempt to max1m1ze returns?" Other strategies which have been modeled at this level of analysis include protein optimization and risk minimization. The process of generating etic behavioral data 1s an ongoing research activity which 1s never complete in any one study, no matter how thorough. Etic mental aspects of the model, though touched upon 1n the accompanying discussion, are not a major focus of Crook's presentation. These etic mental elements are the modeled linkages and relationships among visible elements of the past reality which, once confirmed, allow inferences about invisible elements of the past reality. Some of these statements are supplied in the present study, as summarized below. It is assumed that the following principles interacted together, and with yet unstated principles, to produce the coastal corranunity forms which appear in the archeological record: 1) Settlement locations were selected so as to minimize distances to focal resources. 2) While many species were present year-round, most exhibited seasonal abundance peaks during which they were localized or otherwise easily obtainable. 3) Settlement locations shifted through the year as subsistence foci shifted through the spectrum of resources.

PAGE 534

5 21 4) If sequentially peaking resources were available at the same location, then settlements might not have shifted. 5) The form, size, and kinship composition of a social group were primarily responses to the character of the current focal resource, the exploitive technology required, and the carrying capacity of the local area. Explicit statement of principles such as these 1s important, for it is this domain of observation which makes the difference between a descriptive model and a predictive, processual model. It is possible to test the model on both levels. A test of the descriptive model would involve matching the etic behavioral archeological observations with points on the skin of the model-the emic behavioral narrative. Thus a moderate-size site, in an oak harmoock, containing large amounts of deer bone and nut debris would be interpreted as a fall matrilineage hunting camp. A small site in oak hamroock with year-round seasonal indicators would be uninterpretable because it does not match any set of landmarks on the skin of the model. A test, on the other hand, of the etic mental elements of the model, that is of the principles and linkages generating a particular set of etic behavioral archeological observations, would explain the second case above as follows: since principle 3 above, which predicts shifting settlement location does not explain the multiseason occupation, perhaps an alternative linkage is responsible, for example, principle 4. The predictive, but not the descriptive, model allows examinarion of many alternate manifestations of a cultural adaptation. It also

PAGE 535

522 allows projection of new forms which might come about under changed conditions. For example, given the introduction of a new, nonseasonal primary resource such as domestic animals, how would the pattern of shifting settlement be altered? Thus, while it 1s necessary to begin with a descriptive model which accounts for the modal forms of the phenomenon under consideration, the next step is to begin inferring and testing the underlying structure, so that nonnormative cases can be subsumed by the model and so that predictions can be g enerated. The contributions to refinement and evolution of the coastal adaptation made in this study are the following: 1) Explicit statement of some of the underlying principles which are implicitly part of the current paradigm for coastal research. 2) Suggestions for the operationalization of productivity as a criterion for resource selection. 3) Sets of predicted etic behavioral observations for several hypotheses allowing objective assessments of form, size, season, and function of coastal sites. A number of observations which might be incorporated as alternative hypotheses or additional linkages within the model are included in the discussion below. Model Fune tion The functioning of the model of coastal settlement and subsistence as a heuristic device 1s best seen in a compilation of

PAGE 536

523 insights generated in this study. The following discussion briefly sketches a series of points which deserve consideration in the design of future coastal reseach. Resource ranking The concept of productivity which was used in this study-an assessment of the efficiency of nutrient capture based on measures such as nutritional value, availability, abundance, and yield--is only one way of ranking resources. Decision models which stress the satisfaction of detailed nutritional requirements have been criticized by Jochim (1981:78-80). He points out that the actual process of decision making involves subjective attributes which are meaningful to the people involved: few people are aware of or able to measure the nutrients used in the models. Counting calories and measuring vitamin C content are rather unique to western industrial society-even though calories and vitamins are essential for survival. Most people stress other resource attributes, especiall y weight or bulk and taste, in selecting resources. Ecologists must explore how choices based on these attributes ma y satisfy the needs for calories, vitamins, and other unrecognized nutrients. If these needs are satisfied, it may not be in the same manner or at the same costs as optimal solutions based on direct nutrient measurements. (1981:79-80) In view of the complex fluctuations tn resource availabilit y which are central to the model used in this study, the following alternative ranking categories might be useful: 1) perennially available dietary staples, 2) seasonally available dietar y staples, 3) emer g ency resources, and 4) storable resources. Usin g this classification it is possible to explain why o y sters, as an em e r ge ncy

PAGE 537

524 resource, might be eaten despite their low calorie yield or poor condition during the summer season. Similarly, a storable crop such as maize takes on one value 'When viewed simply as a source of extra calories and quite another when viewed as insurance against a poor nut harvest. Social/political structure The model deals primarily with the infrastructure of the coastal adaptation. Certainly the small social units which generated the sites studied here must have participated in a larger social system and this structure can be modeled as an integral part of the overall adaptation. Crook has suggested that the town/mico/tribute system described for the Guale acted as an information gathering and exchange network that facilitated decisions concerning resource procurement (1978:66-67). The system might also be viewed as a mechanism which provided stewardship of stored resources. To settle permanently 1n one place and invest in intensive horticulture was not feasible because arable land was limited in extent and fertility. Permanent settlement would also have limited the range over which wild resources were exploited and probably would have resulted in overharvesting of oysters, roots and tubers, and other sessile resources. The food storage and stewardship service provided by the mico's lineage at the town site enabled individual families to circulate among procurement stations with a greater degree of mobility than if burdened with stored supplies. Note that, from this point of view, the redistributive system would promote cont i nuation of traditional

PAGE 538

subsistence pursuits rather than emphasize intensification of horticulture. 525 In view of the problems encountered at the infrastructural level of analysis--problems in defining contemporaneity, seasonality, group size, and so on-it seems prudent to reserve judgment concerning details of the sociopolitical system of the lower Georgia coast prehistoric populations. It is less important, at this point, to label the political system as incipient chiefdom or chiefdom, than it is to understand the underlying support system. One aspect of the infrastructure which may eventually provide information about political structure is the settlement system hierarchy. Settlement structure As related in Chapter 3, documentary sources on the Guale have been interpreted in two ways with respect to the pattern of winter dispersal of the community. Crook, following Larson, models a dispersed winter settlement pattern. Pearson's rank-size data provide striking confirmation of this pattern for the Irene system, but not for the earlier Savannah system. This, also, can be interpreted t,;.,,o ways. If it is agreed that Irene represents the protohistoric aboriginal culture, then the dispersed pattern documented in the ethnohistoric sources is confirmed. Its sudden appearance at this point tn time might be attributed to the stresses associated with the contact period: slave raids, introduced diseases, heavy "borrowing" of stored food by the Spaniards, punitive expeditions by the Spaniards and other disruptions of the infrastructure and structure. If,

PAGE 539

526 following Pearson, Irene is placed during the 200-year period preceding contact, then this dispersed pattern existed as early as A.D. 1350 (or 1315 using Hoffman's date for first contact). Soil overuse and exhuastion resulting from intensive Savannah period cultivation of the larger expanses of good soil is postulated as the cause of dispersal among smaller plots in the Irene period. The two sites studied at Kings Bay document the occurrence of small, dispersed-type settlements as early as A.O. 1280 and perhaps as early as A.D. 950. It is not possible, due to the limited size of the research area, to confirm that these are part of a larger Savannah period system such as that described by Crook. In an alternate reading of the documentary sources Jones (1978) maintains that there was no regular winter dispersal of the Guale coastal settlements during the protohistoric period. It should be noted that the archeological data reviewed above neither confirm nor disprove this contention. Jones' settlement pattern data, however, are drawn primarily from later phases of the mission period, not from the protohoistoric period. It is certainly to be expected that the major reduction in size of the coastal population that occurred during the mission period effected a radical change in settlement pattern. Two problems with coastal research undertaken thus far are illustrated in the preceding. First, the research area addressed 1n many studies, including the Kings Bay project, is too small to represent the full range of variability within the resource area regularly exploited by a population. The set of sites observed is therefore biased toward whatever resources are best represented in the

PAGE 540

527 research area; at Kings Bay these "WOuld probably be estuarine fauna. Even island-wide studies are biased, if the island population made systematic use of mainland resources. Large scale studies, on the other hand, often allow for observation of only a few variables and may lend themselves to analysis only when cases are reduced to a few relatively heterogeneous groups. This is the problem encountered using 200-year cumulative samples to study settlement patterning on Ossabaw. Both of these problems involve a point addressed by Fitzhugh (1972:8): It is in this sense that Vayda and Rappaport (1968:494) caution that ecological studies in anthropology should deal wth human populations, not cultures, within particular ecosystems and biotic conununities. "Human populations as units are conunensurable with the other units with which they interact to form food webs, biotic communities, and ecosystems." This perspective is lost if "cultures" are made the units, "for cultures, unlike human populations are not fed upon by predators, limited by food supplies, or debilitated by disease." It seems likely that archeological correlates of human populations will not be defined until the spatial dimensions of research are broadened and the temporal dimensions are narrowed. In order to accomplish this on the Georgia coast, ideally, a project would involve at least the tidewater section (or about 75 km) of a major river together with the islands at its outflow. Ideally, also, contemporaneity would be narrowed to encompass no more than two or three generations--a set of sites all inhabited within the memory of grandparents.

PAGE 541

528 Evaluation of Inference Methodology This study employs the H-A method of inference in the belief that it provides the best tool for evaluating parts of the complex coastal adaptation model. The major difficulty encountered in hypothesis testing lies in stating research hypotheses of sufficiently simple form th at the point of interest is the paint being tested. The hypothesis resembles an algebraic equation in which there are several unknowns. The major unknown variable is the topic of the research hypothesis; the minor variable has its values set by the observational predictions; all of the other variables are assigned values in the bridging arguments and assumptions. If there 1s more than one unknown, then the equation cannot be solved. If too many variables must be given assumed values, then the inference process becomes little more than speculation. It is necessary to strike a balance between a some-what complex, difficult-to-solve equation that is interesting and a perfectly simplified, easily solved equation that 1s trivia 1. Ideally, a hypothesis is stated 1n several alternate forms so that each may be tested and the best supported one retained. This was not done in Hypotheses I and II (optimal location, optimal productivity) because the research questions involved were very general; confirmation was expected and what was really of interest was the degree to which data of the form available would produce confirmation. For Hypotheses III through VIII, three alternates were stated. In III and V (social group size), the alternates differ in

PAGE 542

529 form and are mutually exclusive: only one is the best answer. In IV and VII (seasonality) the alternates are complementary in form and one or the other, or both together, may be true. In VI and VIII (function) the alternates differ in form, and while only one is true, what 1.s really of interest is the degree to which each is confirmed. Two products of the inference process 1.n this study are significant. First, a set of answers to a set of related questions 1s available for integration into the model. The interrelatedness of the hypotheses 1s a procduct of the multidimensional, holistic nature of the model, which in turn reflects the real-world system in which each part is linked to every other part. A certain degree of redundancy is a strength, not a liability, of this approach, in that several views of the same object from different angles give a more accurate picture than a single perspective. The second product is the set of predictions which accompany each research question. These define the kinds of data thought necessary to choose among competing hypotheses. They can be used as a starting point for future research in that they specify what kinds of data relevant to the research hypothesis were forthcoming from the sample, what data were unavailable, what data were not collected due to problems of methodology or analysis, and what data were simply overlooked. Interior Compared to Coastal Adaptations In Chapter 5 the interior Mississippian adaptation was characterized (following B. Smith 1978b) as a subsistence/settlement strategy featuring selective utilization of wild plants and animals

PAGE 543

530 and selective replacement of wild with cultivated plants, which was adjusted to the spatial constraints of a circumscribed area containing a finite amount of richly productive land. Key resources were 1) backwater fishes, 2) migratory waterfowl, 3) the terrestrial trinity (deer, raccoon, and turkey), 4) nuts, fruits, and berries, S) seed-bearing pioneer plants, and 6) maize, beans, and squash. The first t'-'O accounted for at least 50 percent of the protein intake (B. Smith 1978b:485). In response to the conflicting strategies of dispersal for efficient exploitation versus aggregation for defense, most interior Mississippian communities developed some version of a fortified town with satellite homesteads. Typically, interior systems exhibit a level of organization above the fortified town which is manifest as a ceremonial center. Smith's ecological approach to characterizing Mississippian culture is very different from traditional trait lists, but provides an adaptive frame,;,ork within which certain hallmarks are more readily understood. Most archeologists would recognize the following features as developing out of, and dependent upon, the Mississippian adaptive niche (Crook 1978:71): 1) the central position of horticulture in the economy, 2) fully sedentary villages, 3) pronounced social segmentation, 4) platform mound construction, and 5) elaborate ceremonialism. Similarities between interior and coastal habitats were described 1n Chapter S and include the following: ecotonal location, waterborne energy subsidy, unearned resources, circumscription of productive soils, and linearity of settlement zone. Despite these parallels, there exists a major difference which affects the form and functioning

PAGE 544

531 of the respective adaptive niches. The meander-belt nutrient subsidy 1s delivered to the levees where it supports natural and cultivated vegetative growth ;-mich is directly consumed by the human population. In contrast, the coastal subsidy of waterborne nutrients is delivered to the salt marsh, a high energy system of low maturity and low diversity is maintained by the nutrients in conjuction with the constant wash of the tides. There, the subsidy supports the growth of a monospecific crop which is not directly usable by humans or higher animals. Only with the death and decay of the Spartina does the primary production of the subsidized system enter the food chain and, via detritus feeders, eventually become available to humans. Horticulture, on the coast, was restricted to relatively small expanses of sandy, excessively-drained, low-fertility soil. The natural vegetation on these soils (primarily live oak) has evolved a highly conservative nutrient-exchange system to cope with these limitations. Destruction of this vegetation was necessary to release the nutrients required for the rapid, opportunistic growth of swidden crops. From this perspective, the roles of meander-belt horticulture and coastal horticulture within their respective systems take on qu i te different characters with vastly different potentialities. Interior horticulture represented manipulation of the subsidized system and resulted in a significant supplement to natural production. Coastal horticulture took place in an unsubsidized environment which was not hospitable to rapid, O?portunistic growth. Impl i cations for the stability of the settlement system are clear: on the interior

PAGE 545

532 relatively intensive, repeated cultivation of the same tract of land was possible, due to annual silting, while on the coast a shifting cycle of cultivation followed by long fallowing was required. Production from horticulture under these coastal conditions probably resulted in substitution for, rather than supplementation of, part of the natural production. In both regions, the Mississippian period adaptation was built upon a solid Late Archaic and Woodland foundation of hunting and g athering. For the most part these long-established patterns continued unaltered up to the historic period. Several distinctive differences are seen between the interior and coastal faunal arrays. Fish, waterfowl, and deer were the primary sources of animal protein for meander-belt populations, with the first two supplying over half of the total. Coastal protein sources were fish, molluscs, and deer, with the first two probably supplying well over half of the total Waterfowl, though available, were not a focus of coastal hunting. This mi g ht be better understood if the techniques used by interior fowlers were known, but such is not the case (Hudson 1976:280). The rhythm, as well as species, of the two fishing patterns must have differed. Meander-belt fishing was primarily a summer activity, centered on the annual flood and subsequent drainoff and entrapment of fish in backwater areas. Coastal fishing was a year-round pursuit marked by seasonal peaks in the abundances of different species, but probably more strongly governed by the twice-daily flooding and draining of the marshes. The latter cycle also controlled the availabilit y of invertebrates, especiall y intertidal o y sters. It 1s

PAGE 546

difficult to state the implications of this difference in rhythm. Perhaps the pursuit of migratory waterfowl on the coast would have constituted a risky interruption of the close adjustment to marsh/estuary daily patterns of availability. This specialization must be a very old part of the Coastal Tradition. 533 If elaboration of interior Mississippian social structure 1s predicated upon the enhanced energy base of meander-belt horticulture, then it is easy to see t-.hy structural and superstructural aspects of this culture differ from coastal manifestations. In addition to finite limits on size of the energy increment available on the coast, the restricted extent, scattered distribution, and rapid exhaustion of coastal horticultural soils would have imposed spatial limits. Shifting cultivation would not have allowed the same degree of sedentism and population concentration as developed among interior intensive cultivators. Archeological evidence for a level of social and settlement organization above the village on the coast is limited to the Irene Site. The Savannah period platform mound and burial mound demonstrate the presence of Mississippian ideas on the coast, but on a much smaller scale than that of interior ceremonial centers. Large, possibly fortified villages representing the next lower level of organization, are known only from the northern part of the Georgia coast, at Kenan Field and Bourbon Field on Sapelo Island, and at Middle Settlement and Bluff Field on Ossabaw Island (Crook 1980b). These sites may in some sense have functioned as central places to surrounding sets of hamlets or homesteads.

PAGE 547

534 Archeological evidence for pronounced social segmentation among populations of the lower Georgia coast has been sought in studies of several burial groups from St. Simons Island. None of the groups reported by Wallace (Chapter 3) provide evidence of differential treatment based on rank (1975). Remains of males with and without grave goods are reported by Cook for Kent Mound (Chapter 3) but it 1s not possible to correlate this information with any other variable which '-Ould reveal its social significance (1978). The presence of multiple burial mounds at the larger coastal sites suggests that at least the rites of passage associated with death were conducted in the context of the larger conununity. To some extent, the size of these large villages may simply reflect the larger aggregate carrying capacity and frequently repeated occupation of optimal locations. Coastal Adaptations The purpose of the final section of this chapter is to place the results of research at Kings Bay within the context of the Coastal Tradition and from this perspective to evaluate the utility of Yesner's general model of coastal adaptation. Continuities between the Coastal Tradition and Mississippian period cultures are strongly reflected 1n two major areas, 1) settlement pattern and 2) subsistence pattern. Repeatedly occupied sites, such as the Kings Bay Site, suggest that similar needs were being fulfilled in similar ways throughout this period. The marsh/estuary orientation of the subsistence strategy is the single most distinctive feature of the

PAGE 548

535 adaptations. Certainly, some minor fluctuations in resource emphasis must have occurred, but, in the absence of a sufficient number of adequate-size samples, these cannot be analyzed. The only non-Mississippian period faunal sample comparable in size to the Kings Bay Savannah features sample was collected by Rochelle Marrinan from a Late Archaic period shell ring on St. Simons Island (1975). Of a sample of 1022 vertebrate MNI from three excavation units, only 5 were deer, accounting for less than 0.5 percent. The major contributors were fish, including drums (32 percent), sea catfishes (18 percent), mullet (16 percent), and herrings (16 percent). Since small and herbivorous fishes constitute appreciable portions of the sample, some form of netting, impoundment, or other mass capture technique must have been developed quite early in the Coastal Tradition. Extensive use of molluscs, primarily oyster, is seen in the matrix of the site. It 1s evident that marsh/estuary resources have played a leading role 1n coastal subsistence for a long time. A third feature of the Coastal Tradition which continues into the Mississippian period 1s the generalized nature of the adaptation. This is seen in the relatively simple toolkit and 1n the absence of evidence for use of seasonally available resources, especially migratory birds and fish. Although it does appear that there is even less use of stone in later times, this was never a very important part of the technology. Of course, most of the distinctive and specialized tools, including nets, weirs, baskets, traps, and canoes are not visible in the archeological record (except indirectly, as in basket-impressed and net-marked pottery).

PAGE 549

536 As formally defined, "the Coastal Tradition continued as the dominant economic pattern on the Atlantic coast until the introduction of horticulture" (Milanich 1971a: 114-115). Research revie...ed earlier and results of this study suggest that the Coastal Tradition did not end at this point but underwent a minor shift in niche orientation as a result of the introduction of Mississippian horticulture and ideas. In terms of the infrastructural base--the coastal population's way of making a living-no major change occurred. The paucity of archeological evidence for cult igens in the coasta 1 diet is difficult to ignore. The character and distribution of coastal soils must have precluded full transfer of Mississippian farming technology to the coastal setting. Swidden horticulture in the oak hammocks bordering the marsh can be viewed as effecting a short-term increase in the energy available to human populations at the expense of long-term stability. Horticulture reduces the maturity of an ecosystem through systematic alteration of succession-a stable, mature, high-diversit y climax forest is replaced with a low-diversity annual crop which channels much energy into the production of material which can be consumed. To the extent that other forest products were important to the coastal population, only limited replacement of forest tracts with garden patches would have, over the long run, been beneficial. In view of the high-protein, low-fat, low-carbohydrate character of most marsh/estuary resources, it is easy to see how a carbohydrate-rich, storable cultigen -would have been attractive to the coastal population, even in modest quantities. In this sense

PAGE 550

537 horticulture as practiced on the coast may be viewed as an artificial enhancement of the gathering complex. Yesner has provided a set of ten interrelated features which, taken together, may be used as a general model of coastal adaptation (1980). These were diagrammed in Figure 4 in a manner which suggests a hierarchy of relationships stemming from a materialist view of culture. The first four features are cast as the environmental base and, specifically, as characteristics of an ecotonal environment. The marine/terrestrial ecotone is, of course, a universal and defining characteristic of coastal environments, but often more than one ecotone will be present in areas inhabited by human populations. These features--high resource biomass, resource diversity, environmental stability (predictable fluctuations), and unearned resources--are all important aspects of the coastal adaptation studied at Kings Bay. The salt marsh/estuary complex produces a high resource biomass which is available to humans in the form of molluscs, crustaceans, and fish. Resource diversity is due not to system maturity but to the complex coastline, resulting in an extensive land/water interface \olhich yields an array of closely-packed, differing habitats. Environmental stability is better understood as fluctuations of predictable period and amplitude. The most familiar of these is the tidal cycle which conveys a great deal of information about what resources will be available at what time, in what place. The fourth feature, the availability of unearned resources, does not seem to have been an important aspect of human adaptation to the Kings Bay environment, despite the fact that such resources are present.

PAGE 551

538 At the technological level of the model, four features relating to the settlement/subsistence technology--that is to modes of production-are diagramed. The first of these, linear settlement pattern, is used to subsume the others because it seems an inescapable result of most coastal configurations. Linearity at Kings Bay is clearly grounded in the geological history of the land/sea interface. Sedentism, or a tendency toward sedentism, is seen as a consequence of settlement at optimal locations together with the use of waterways to extend the exploitive range and thus preclude the necessity of moving the settlement from resource to resource. This is illustrated by the Savannah component of the Kings Bay site, which was found to be optimally located and occupied almost year-round. A third feature--technological complexity and cooperation-is also reflected in the Savannah component and at the Late Archaic shell ring on St. Simons Island. The evidence is small and herbivorous fish, indicative of an impoundment technique which may have required cooperative labor. Whether or not this was a technologically complex matter is subjective. Probably what Yesner intended by "technological complexity" was sea mammal hunting, which is not in evidence at Kings Bay. Finally, territoriality, resource competition, and warfare are said to be more pronounced among coastal than among noncoastal peoples. Although appropriate contexts for study of this feature were not observed at Kings Bay, it is easy to see why this would be so. Immovable fishing equipment such as weirs would foster resistance to encroachment and the need to maintain a low, dispersed population 1n order to avoid depletion of critical resources, such as shellfish

PAGE 552

beds, might invoke mechanisms such as warfare. Direct evidence for th is feature was found at a late Savannah or Irene con text at Kenan Field, where Crook delineated a portion of a bastionned palisade (1978: 203-208). 539 The third level of the diagram is concerned with demographic features-modes of reproduction-thought to be characteristic of coastal populations. The opportunities for lowering dependency ratios in an evironment like that of the Georgia coast are numerous. Many plant resources, including the highly valuable nut crop, are easily gathered and collection of animals such as turtles and molluscs would have been within the capacity of the very young and old or infirm. Yesner comments that shellfish, in particular, "exist as a highly concentrated resource, are easily collectable by all segments of the human population with a minimum of energy input, and often serve as an emergency buffer during times of relative food scare ity" (1980: 729). A relatively high degree of sedentism would allow these dependent members of the community to escape the stresses of travel. Finally, Yesner claims that a high population density typifies coastal populations. This is the most controversial aspect of his model, as a result of differing definitions of density. When seen in terms of the total resource area required for the primary production that ultimately supports a population, densities are not unusually high, and in fact may appear exceptionally low. This was illustrated in Chapter 5 with Osborn's example of a family of seal hunters requiring 694.85 square km of ocean primary production as compared to a family of caribou hunters requiring 4.88 square km of tundra production. The

PAGE 553

540 high densities of southeastern coastal populations are also partly a matter of appearance: the population aggregated in optimal locations along the land/sea interface, and there produced highly visible evidence in the form of shell middens. Yesner's model, conceptualized as the infrastructural level of a cultural materialist view of coastal adaptation, has provided a useful frame\oerk for discussion. Of all the unifying principles which might be invoked to explain the relatedness of these ten features, the concept of coastal adaptation as adjustment to an ecologically immature system seems most valuable. Human populations in these environments tend to exploit species with high reproductive rates which, in turn, are exploiting the high energy levels and lower competition of less efficiently maintained systems. People actually reside in the more mature terrestrial ecosystems adjacent to the coast but, even there, they may effect a lessening of maturity. Margalef explains that "human exploitation, if restricted geographically, leads to a local decrease in maturity, both of the general ecosystem and 1.n the demographical st rue ture of the se lee tively exploited species" (1963:369). This principle 1s illustrated in the culling of deer populations by Southeastern Indian hunters (Hudson 1976:275), in the systematic replacement of forest with swidden plots, and in the harvesting of oysters documented by Crook. Crook, 1n particular, notes the possibility of long-term, reciprocal feedback as a result of se lee t ive harvesting ( 1978: 25 3-254):

PAGE 554

Oyster populations became more vital and contained healthier and faster-growing oysters due to the seasonal gathering of larger oysters from the beds. This in tum assured the cultural system a healthy supply of large oysters during future winter months, barring some natural catastrophe. 541 It seems profitable to view the infrastructural base of the coastal Mississippian period culture as differing in kind, not just degree, from the infrastructural base of the meander-belt Mississippian cultures. Larson has already repudiated the notion of an attenuated Mississippian culture O980a:229): saying, "it 1s necessary to reject any consideration of aboriginal cultures on the Coastal Plain that treats them as only marginal expressions of the cultural development of the interior" (1980a:229). Equally misleading are views of these cultures which attribute to them Mississippian characteristics on the basis of contemporaneity alone. Instead, the mature phase of the Coastal Tradition should be understood in terms of the special ecological conditions under which selected aspects of Mississippian technology were reinterpreted in the coastal environment. The net effect was a minor shift in niche orientation by a culture already well-adjusted to making a living within the low-maturity ecosystem of the coast.

PAGE 555

REFERENCES CITED Abbott, R. Tucker 1974 American Seashells. 2nd Edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Bennett, Charles E. 1968 Settlement of Florida. Gainesville: Universit y of Florida Press. 1975 Three Voyages: Ren~ Laudonniere. Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida. Braun, D. P. 1974 Explantory models for the evolution of coastal adaptation in prehistoric eastern New England. American Antiquity 39: 582-596. Brown, James A, Robert E. Bell and Don G. Wyckoff 1978 Caddoan Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas River Drainage. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, B. Smith ed. pp. 169-200. 200. New York: Academic Press. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Revised Edition. Gainesville: Kendall Books. Burleigh, Thomas D. 1958 Georgia Birds. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1971 Chronology of the Georgia Coast. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:899 1. Caldwell, Joseph R. and Catherine Mccann 1941 Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Caldwell, Joseph R. and Antonio J. Waring, Jr. 1968 Some Chatham County Pottery Types and Their Sequence. In The Waring Papers. S. Williams, ed. pp. 110-133. Cambridge: The Peabody Museum. 542

PAGE 556

543 Chance, Xarsha A. 1974 The WPA Glynn County Project: A Ceramic Analysis. Unpublished Master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Clark, G. R. 1979 Seasonal Growth Variations in the Shells of Recent and Pre historic Specimens of Mercenaria mercenaria from St. Catherines Island, Georgia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 56(1):161-172. Clarke, David L. 1977 Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology. David L. Clarke, ed. pp. 1-32. New York:-Academic Press. Clarke, David L., ed. 1972 Models in Archeology. London: Metheun. 1977 Spatial Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Cook, Fred C. 1978 The Kent Mound: A Study of the Irene Phase on the Lower Georgia Coast. Master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Crook, Morgan Ray, Jr. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of Green Island, Georgia. Unpub lished report on file in the Office of the Georgia State Archae ologist. 1978 Mississippian Period Community Organizations on the Georgia Coast. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. 1980a Archaeological Indications of Community Structures at the Kenan Field Site. In Sapelo Papers: Researches in the History and Pre history of Sapelo Island, Georgia. D. P. Jeungst ed. pp. 89-100. Carrollton: West Georgia College. 1980b Spatial Associations and Distribution of Aggregate Village Sites in a Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Area. In Sapelo Papers: Researches in the History and Prehistory of Sape"fc;" Island, Georgia. D.P. Jeungst, ed. pp. 77-87. Carrollton: West Georgia College. Dahlberg, Michael E. 1975 Guide to Coastal Fishes of Georgia and Nearby States. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

PAGE 557

Deagan, Kathleen A. 1978 Cultures in Transition: Fusion and Assimilation among the Eastern Timucua. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period. J. Milanich and S. Proctor, eds. pp. 89-119. Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida. DePratter, Chester B. 544 1973 Archaeological Survey of Black Island. Unpublished report on file in the Office of the Georgia State Archaeologist. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the P.H. Lewis Property, Skidaway Island, Chatham County, Georgia. Unpublished report on file in the Office of the Georgia State Archaeologist. 1976 The Shellmound Archaic on the Georgia Coast. Master's thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. 1977 Environmental Changes on the Georgia Coast During the Prehistoric Period. Early Georgia 5: l-14. 1979 Chapter 5. Ceramics. Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers of the American 56(1):109-132. Dougenik, James A. and David E. Sheehan 1975 SYMAP User's Reference Manual. Cambridge: Harvard University Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis. Duke, James A. 1981 Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance. New York: Plenum Press. Ehrenhard, John E. 1976 Cumberland Island National Seashore: Assessment of Archaeo logical and Historical Resources. Tallahassee: Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service. Fairbanks, Charles H. and Robin L. Smith 1979 A Proposal for Secondary Testing and Mitigation of Kings Bay Archeological Sites 9Caml71 Partial, 166, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Fitzhugh, William W. 1972 Environmental Archeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1975 Prehistoric maritime adaptations to the circumpolar zone. The Hague: Mouton Press.

PAGE 558

545 Georgia Department of Transportation 1974 General Highway Map, Camden County, Georgia. Atlanta: Department of Transportation. Gilbert, Robert I., Jr. 1977 Applications of a trace element research to problems in arche ology. In Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America. Robert L. Blakely, ed. pp. 85-100. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 11. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Goggin, John M. 1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Yale University Publications 1n Anthropology 62:3-40. 1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 72. Golley, Frank 1962 Mammals of Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Grayson, Donald K. 1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, M.~ Schiffer, ed. pp. 199-237. New York: Academic Press. Green, Thomas J. and Cheryl A. Munson 1978 Mississippian Settlement Pattern 1n Southwestern Indiana. Mississippian Settlement Pattern, B. Smith ed. pp. 293-330. New York: Academic Press. Haggett, Peter and Richard J. Chorley 1967 Models, Paradigms and the New Geography. In M odels graphy, R. J. Chorley and P. Haggett, eds. pp. 19-41. Metheun. Harn, Alan D. 1n Geo London: 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Central Illinois River Valley. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, B. Smith ed. pp. 233-268-.New York: Academic Press. Harris, Marvin 1979 Cultural materialism: the struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House. Helwig, Jane T. and Kathryn A. Council, eds. 1979 SAS User's Guide, 1979 Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. Herron, Mary K. 1978 A formal and functional analysis of St. Johns series ceramics from two sites in St. Augustine, Florida. Senior honors thesis, Florida State Universit y T allahassee.

PAGE 559

Hillestad, Hilburn O., John R. Bozeman, A. Sydney Johnson, C. Wayne Berisford and James I. Richardson 1975 The Ecology of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, 546 Camden County, Georgia. Georgia Marine Science Center, University System of Georgia, Skidaway Island, Georgia. Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archeology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, Paul E. 1980 Personal cormnunication. Associate Professor, Department of History, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 1980 European Contacts with the Georgia-South Carolina Coast