Citation
Neighboring Communities of Practice:  A Case Study of Classic Stallings Pottery

Material Information

Title:
Neighboring Communities of Practice: A Case Study of Classic Stallings Pottery
Creator:
BRAJE, TODD J. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeological paradigms ( jstor )
Archaeology ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Material culture ( jstor )
Paleoanthropology ( jstor )
Paste ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Savannas ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Todd J. Braje. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/1/2006
Resource Identifier:
53207118 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTI CE: A CASE STUDY OF CLASSIC STALLINGS POTTERY By TODD J. BRAJE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Todd J. Braje

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my thesis committee members, chair Dr. Kenneth Sassaman and Dr. Michael Heckenberger, for their guidance in the research, analysis, and writing of this thesis, and also for their encouragement during my time at the University of Florida. I thank all of my running partners (especially Darin, Deirdre, and Ainsley Shearer) who always presented a welcome relief from my studies. Many thanks go to Kara Bridgman for the long hours she spent proofing the endless drafts of this thesis. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support during my time at Florida. Without them none of this would be possible. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Agency and Practice Theory.........................................................................................3 Style..............................................................................................................................7 Critiques of Interaction Theory....................................................................................9 2 PROBLEM ORIENTATION.....................................................................................11 3 THE LATE ARCHAIC IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER VALLEY...........................13 Mill Branch (4400 to 3800 rcybp)..............................................................................13 Early (4500 to 3750 rcybp) and Classic Stallings (3750 to 3500 rcybp)....................14 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS...............................................................................19 Stallings Island (9CB1)...............................................................................................19 Ed Marshall (38ED5)..................................................................................................20 Mims Point (38ED9)...................................................................................................21 Ceramic Analysis Methodology.................................................................................22 Household Delineation...............................................................................................22 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................26 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION BY HOUSEHOLD.................................................28 Household 1 – The Southeast Block...........................................................................29 Household 2 – The Southwest Block..........................................................................30 Household 3 – The Northwest Block..........................................................................32 iv

PAGE 5

6 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS BY ATTRIBUTE...................................................34 7 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................47 Technofunctional Implications of Vessel Composition.............................................47 Limits of a Technofunctional Analysis.......................................................................49 Stylistic Implications of Vessel Composition.............................................................50 Hypothesis Concerning Social Divisions...................................................................51 APPENDIX MIMS POINT HOUSEHOLD DATA.......................................................................54 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................73 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Stallings Culture and exterior surface adornment......................................................16 4-1. Excavation area, number of pit features, and number of radiocarbon assays from sites investigated by the Stallings Archaeological Project since 1991.....................23 6-1. Lip measurement data from Mims Point households in mm......................................35 6-2. Rim measurement data from Mims Point households in mm....................................35 6-3. Broad decoration data from Mims Point households.................................................40 6-4. Lip types from Mims Point households......................................................................42 6-5. Stylus types from Mims Point households.................................................................43 6-6. Number of vessels analyzed for zoned punctations, left orientation, and incised lips from Mims Point households.............................................................................44 6-7. Decoration spacing data from Mims Point households..............................................46 7-1. Technofunctional and stylistic variation of pottery in Mims Point households.........52 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Map of the three study sites along the middle Savannah River.................................15 4-1. Map of archaeological investigations at Ed Marshall in 1995 and 1997....................21 4-2. Map of archaeological investigations at Mims Point from 1992 to 1995..................23 6-1. Average lip and rim thicknesses of pottery in Mims Point households.....................35 6-2. Percentages of paste characterization of pottery in Mims Point households.............37 6-3. Percentages of heavy and light fiber tempered vessels in Mims Point households................................................................................................................38 6-4. Percentages of vessels with translucent and opaque inclusions in Mims Point households................................................................................................................39 6-5. Percentages of highly oxidized vessels in Mims Point households............................40 6-7. Percentages of zoned punctations, left orientation, and incised lips of pottery in Mims Point households............................................................................................45 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY OF CLASSIC STALLINGS POTTERY By Todd J. Braje August 2003 Chair: Kenneth E. Sassaman Major Department: Anthropology An assemblage of Classic Stallings (3750 to 3500 Radiocarbon Years before Present rcybp) pottery from Mims Point, a site along the middle Savannah River Valley, is analyzed. Archaeological investigations have resulted in the delineation of three separate households at the Mims Point site with reliable material culture association. Based on technofunctional and stylistic variation of pottery across these households, unique characteristics of each household are documented. Ceramic analysis results indicated that distinct social groups can be recognized through pottery form and function. The technofunctional and stylistic variation across households indicated that each social group produced slightly different pottery, evidenced by variation in vessel composition and decoration. This patterning may be useful in recognizing discrete social groups at other Classic Stallings sites such as Stallings Island and Ed Marshall. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Pottery has had a long history in archaeology as a source of cultural information. Pot sherds, excavated by the archaeologist, contain much information about the techniques that potters use to achieve certain performance properties, about exchange relations between groups, and about production properties. Potters make specific decisions concerning trade-offs in mechanical performance to meet the functional requirements of each vessel (Rice 1987). Potters negotiate among three performance aspects: the suitability of a vessel to manipulate its contents (storing, transporting, heating, or cooling); to withstand use-life stress; and to accept inward and outward flow (Rice 1987). During the Late Archaic period (5000 to 3000 Radiocarbon Years before Present rcybp) in the American Southeast, pottery was produced and used in three general areas: the South Atlantic Slope, peninsular Florida, and the Midsouth (Sassaman 1993a:14). The pottery from these areas is technologically distinct in temper type, vessel form, and surface treatment. Furthermore, the traditions in each area began at different times and were differentially adopted. Early culture-historical studies in southeastern pottery concentrated on chronological issues (Bullen 1954; DePratter 1979; Jenkins 1982; Jenkins et al. 1986; Waring 1968a). Then, in the 1960s, with the prominence of the processual or New archaeologists, a break from the culture-historical approach occurred with a shift to functional explanations of pottery (Sassaman 1993a:14-15). This research centered on 1

PAGE 10

2 the analysis of function, production, socioeconomic relations, and residence patterns (Rice 1987:282). Potters were understood as making decisions concerning trade-offs in mechanical performance to meet the functional requirements of each vessel (Rice 1987). With this new, more “scientific” archaeology, archaeologists had the advantage of analyzing pots as tools in an attempt to understand the technofunctional aspects of a vessel. Pottery has also been analyzed in terms of decorative styles and stylistic variation. Pots can be made in a limitless number of shapes and sizes; and their surfaces can be altered in equally limitless ways to achieve variations in texture, color, and overall appearance (Rice 1987). Consequently, the “characteristic patterns of pottery embellishment define decorative styles, and the analysis of these styles is the foundation for anthropological and archaeological inferences about social and economic interactions, artistic communication, and the dating of prehistoric sites” (Rice 1987:244). Style is a difficult concept to define archaeologically, although it is consistently found in a number of disciplines. Perhaps most frequently used in the arts and literature, in these disciplines it has two meanings 1) “a manner or mode of expression (as distinct from the content or ideas expressed)” and 2) “the distinction, originality, and character of that expression” (Rice 1987:244). In anthropology and archaeology, this distinction between content and technique has not been made. Rather, the emphasis is on the content. Definitions of style in anthropology stress communication and information transfer (Rice 1987:244). I argue that pottery styles are visual representations, with spatial and temporal specificity, that transmit information about the identity of the society. Potters make

PAGE 11

3 specific decisions about the physical appearance of their pots, within the boundaries imposed by techno-functional constraints. These decisions are visible in the archaeological record. That is, people imbue pottery with social meaning and identity through agency and practice. Given a range of possible choices of vessel morphology and composition, potters make compromises in their manufacture techniques. These decisions manifest themselves in the physical appearance of the pots and can be traced by the archaeologist as the basis for inferring meaning from patterned behavior. Agency and Practice Theory Much contemporary theory in archaeology is drawn from the social science theories labeled “agency,” “practice,” or some similar term. These theories developed from a couple of leading founders and demonstrate important features that distinguish them from other groups of theories. “Agency” and “practice” theories were developed to overcome limitations in earlier theories; and therefore exhibit distinct advantages to archaeology. The origins of issues of personhood, volition, and consciousness can be traced back to Greek philosophy. These themes were also central in the eighteenth-century writing of John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau; and in the nineteenth century in the writings of John Stuart Mill, who was concerned with individual free will and intentionality. In fact, the social sciences are built on how structure and agency power social reproduction (Dobres and Robb 2000). Contemporary practice theory is mostly attributed to two leading founders – Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu. Giddens is known as the “god-father” of agency theory (McCall 1999:16). Heavily influenced by the works of Marx, Durkhein, and Weber, Giddens’ theory of structuration is arrived at in an attempt to reconcile phenomenology, interactionism, and ethnomethodology (Sewell

PAGE 12

4 1992). In fact, Giddens never claimed to have invented agency theory; rather, he discovered it in the works of Karl Marx, who wrote that men make their own history (McCall 1999). Archaeologists use Giddens’ structuration theory to connect agency and material culture (Dobres and Robb 2000). In France, Bourdieu contributed to practice theory with his 1972 publication, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Ortner 1984). Bourdieu’s practice theory is centered on the notion of habitus (the reproduction of schemas and resources that encompass temporally durable structures) (Sewell 1992). He is interested in daily routines and social interactions, which are predicated on and embody themselves in the spatial, temporal, and social ordering which underlie the system as a whole (Ortner 1984). His notion of habitus shows how rules and resources enforce human subjects with specific kinds of knowledge and dispositions (Sewell 1992). This group of theories has a number of important features that distinguishes it from earlier groups of theories. Practice and agency approaches were developed in direct opposition to the Parsonian/Durkheimian view of the world that is governed by rules and norms. Practice theory begins with the notion that the system (taken to mean a number of different things) has a powerful, even determining, effect on events and human action. Thus the goal is to determine how the system is produced and reproduced; and how it changed in the past and could be changed in the future. Culture or structure is viewed as a shaping force, in terms of a constraint or hegemony. Moreover, practice theories seek to explain the relationship between human action and the system. For practice archaeologists, history and society are not simply adaptations; but are governed by

PAGE 13

5 organizational schemas, including institutional, symbolic, and material forms (Ortner 1984). Giddens’ notion of intentionality plays only a minor role in the social system; rather, he is interested in the “unintended consequences of social action” (McCall 1999:17). Human actions then are seen to result in socially constituted events that reproduce the structures of the society. Even intentional acts ultimately reproduce the social system. The cultural resources we use in everyday interactions (including language, spaces, and material artifacts) act as models for the social, reproducing the structure, independent of agent intentionality. Archaeologists can then view social spaces, material culture, and patterns of daily living as the means for social reproduction – moving away from the speculative study of the thoughts in people’s heads (McCall 1999). All in all, contemporary practice theory exhibits a number of distinct features. Society is a group of individuals who exist out of the relationships they make during daily material production (praxis). People create their histories through praxis. Finally, society is constructed due to past conditions that reproduce themselves (Dobres and Robb 2000). In the early 1980s, archaeologists, influenced by intellectual movements outside anthropology, began to be frustrated with the “faceless blobs” in mainstream accounts of the past (Dobres and Robb 2000:6; Tringham 1991). Processual and culture-historical archaeology treated societies as bounded entities (Barrett 1994). Archaeologists could point to no successful integrations of the Weberian and Parsonian theory of the past with the holistic models employed by the processualists (Johnson 1989). Therefore, the stress

PAGE 14

6 on human agency can be traced back to a reaction against the systemic, holistic approaches of New Archaeology in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Barrett 2001; Johnson 1989; Brumfield 1992). New archaeologists equated questions of agency to the devalued empirical search for the identification of individuals in the material record (Dobres and Robb 2000). These theories paid little regard to the active participations of the agents of the social system; people were seen as conditioned by their social and environmental systems (Barrett 2001). Inhabitants were seen as nothing more than “dopes” who followed the requirements of the system (Barrett 2001). New archaeologists were concerned with systems in which the agent was given no explanatory value (Dobres and Robb 2000). The goal of the New and processual archaeologists was to explain variability as “trend + noise” (Hodder 2000:26). Processualism, therefore, was seen as a holistic, interpretive theory that denied agency and the individual (Johnson 1989). Rather, processual archaeologists felt that the degree of a society’s internal heterogeneity marked the level of the system’s organizational complexity (Barrett 1994). Before the introduction of practice theories, some archaeologists felt that current theories did not give adequate attention to the small-scale processes and events within the long-term. As such, there was little room for the individual construction of events and processes (Hodder 2000). This focus on agency and practice offered a more humanized and dynamic picture of the relationship between individuals, communities, and institutions (Brumfield 1992; Dobres and Robb 2000). Through the implication of agency and practice theories history is no longer seen as something that happens to people, but rather, as something people make within the constraints of the system in which they are operating (Ortner 1984). Practice approaches, then, offer an avenue to

PAGE 15

7 unite historical and anthropological studies. Furthermore, practice approaches offer the advantage of not needing to break the system into artificial pieces, since the attempt is to explain the system as an integrated whole by referring it to practice, rather than explaining the system by referring one part of the system to another part (Ortner 1984). Hodder (2000) foregrounds these approaches because he feels archaeologists are better able to study specific moments and daily practices rather than large-scale processes. Therefore, by employing theories of practice, pottery becomes more than just a utilitarian tool, insignificant beyond function or culture-historical association. Rather, archaeologists can view variations in vessel form and decoration type (which I argue is style) as an indicator of social identity. This is a shared identity as styles are culturally constructed or “standardized” in a sense. As Rice (1987:244-45) states “their components are selected from within a relatively narrow body of interrelated technical, thematic, and aesthetic alternatives and combined by a set of rules. All of these are, by group consensus, peculiar to a given cultural system.” This is not to say that all potters in a society exhibit rigid conformity. Style is an open system which constantly receives and transmits new information. Variation does exist because there is a range of possible alternatives and a flexibility in their application. Style For the purposes of this paper, style refers to decorative style, in not only the surface embellishment of an object but also variation in rim and lip shape. Other styles such as technological styles which encompass techniques of manufacture and execution (Lechtman 1977) have been analyzed, and will also be employed in this study. Archaeologists have looked towards pottery styles in reconstructing histories, settlement patterns, and the cultural relations of people who occupied archaeological sites

PAGE 16

8 (Rice 1987). Certainly, other material culture such as architecture, lithics, or textiles are important in these efforts, but pottery has played a prominent role. This is no doubt a result of the range of variability within manufacturing techniques that might be applied by a potter. The greater the range of choices available, the greater the number of variables that an archaeologist can measure to unravel the “complexities of stylistic behavior” (Rice 1987:245). In the 1960s archaeologists developed an approach to stylistic analysis where archaeologists “attempt to isolate the individual elements of pottery design and explain their spatial occurrence in terms of social behavior of the makes and users of the pottery” (Rice 1987:252). This theory is based on the concept that the similarities of design elements between groups will reflect the direction and intensity of social interaction between the groups. This theory is commonly referred to as the interaction hypothesis or the social interaction theory, but is also named for its earliest proponents – the Deetz-Longacre hypothesis (Deetz 1965, 1967; Longacre 1964, 1970, 1981, 1985). This theory has been used in a variety of ways. Archaeologists may study the interactions of members of different social subgroups (e.g. clans, families, residences) within a single community or site or between different communities or sites. Furthermore, this theory can be used to study how interaction patterns change over time. Lemonnier (1992) also addresses similar issues. He writes that technical choices in technology production are “arbitrary” (Lemonnier 1992:79-80), in that they are not restricted by physical constraints alone. In what Lemonnier (1992) calls “social representation,” arbitrariness refers to the delineation of meaning on an object where the

PAGE 17

9 object itself is not the source of meaning. The meaning of specific social representations, then, can only be understood in terms of social interactions. Hence, technological choices are made as a way to delineate one group from another (Sassaman 2000a). Critiques of Interaction Theory Critiques of the interaction theory are directed at two areas. One criticism addresses whether or not styles represent social interaction or whether they represent something else such as ecological factors or belief systems. The second criticism questions the correlation between the degree of stylistic similarity and the intensity of social interaction. With regards to the first criticism, styles, in pottery decoration or some other aspect of material culture, can reflect social interaction but they do not have to do so. The ethnographic literature can shed some light on this issue. The Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pueblos, for example, live in three contiguous villages but have distinct languages, religions, and social patterns. Yet, they produced identical pottery (Stanislawski 1978:225-226). On the other hand, in the Barigo District of western Kenya considerable stylistic variation exists in some categories of material culture despite constant tribal communication and cross-tribal boundary movement (Hodder 1977). Clearly, different social interactions can create dissimilar kinds of stylistic variation or resemblance. Unfortunately, there is little definitive understanding about the variability of these responses, and, perhaps most importantly, how to predict them. Where the prediction of such stylistic patterns can be thought of in terms of neo-evolutionist theory, as say defining the environmental conditions necessary to produce intense social interaction and, thus, similarities in pottery styles, this does not necessarily have to be the case. The

PAGE 18

10 elements of practice theory that have been described above can offer theories to understand how and why stylistic variation can be explained across different populations. The second criticism is much more broad in scope and directs itself at the theoretical underpinning of the social interaction hypothesis – that there is a positive correlation between the degree of stylistic similarity and the intensity of social interaction. The objections concern the legitimacy of the assumptions that underlie the research and, thus, the interpretations drawn from them. Nevertheless, the social interaction hypothesis offers archaeologists a starting point to investigate relationships between and within sites. When this technique is used exclusively to draw conclusions this criticism is clearly warranted. However, when this technique is used as a springboard to further analysis or in conjunction with other approaches the critique becomes less relevant. Furthermore, this critique becomes less relevant when more than one material culture assemblage is applied and analyzed for stylistic co-variation. Though this study incorporates only elements of stylistic variation in pottery assemblages, more data sets are being generated (see Sassaman 2002). When complete, these could easily be tested against the conclusions of this study.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 PROBLEM ORIENTATION This section will further discuss the research questions of this thesis. My research questions arose out of archaeological perspectives drawn from previous work on the Late Archaic Middle Savannah, primarily represented by the work of Sassaman (1990; 1993a; 1993b; 1996; 1998; 2000b; 2001; 2002). The goal of my research was to document the patterning of ceramic technofunctional and stylistic variation between households at the Mims Point site. Excavations at this site yielded adequate posthole, pit, and house floor features to allow Sassaman (1996) to delineate three households. Unfortunately, similar data were not found at the Ed Marshall (38ED5) and Stallings Island (9CB1) sites. Though three general households could be recognized at Ed Marshall based on concentrations of material culture, these households did not yield the associated features found at Mims Point. Thus, their delineation as definitive households is questionable. Furthermore, even these dubious household lots did not produce adequate ceramic vessel assemblages to undergo qualitative and quantitative analyses. The Stallings Island site has produced some evidence of households but specific spatial designations could not be made due to looting and natural erosion processes. Further discussion of site features and household delineation at all three sites are addressed later. To make the household delineations at Mims Point, I assumed that the pottery found in the primary test units and features and adjacent test units and features were discard from a single household occupation. Certainly, there has been much ethnographic evidence (see Stanislawski 1987; Deal 1985; Deal and Hagstrum 1994; 11

PAGE 20

12 Senior 1994) to suggest that pottery is often reused or areas of discard can become trash heaps for the entire village over many generations. Nevertheless, I feel confident that such is not the case at these Classic Stallings households, as sherds were not found discarded in deep pits with high frequencies of material culture. Following Sassaman’s (2000a) conclusions that the Stallings culture populations were matrilocal and women were the primary innovators of pottery, the goal of this research is to define social groups at Mims Point based on pottery characteristics. By investigating Mims Point household pottery, I can effectively isolate social groups in terms of pottery traditions. Drawing from social interaction and agency theory, I believe that other potters with whom they have regular social interaction influence female potters. Therefore, the pottery tradition within a household will tend to reproduce itself and allow for the isolation of a cultural, social tradition. This data can then be applied to other Classic Stallings sites. At such local sites as Ed Marshall (38ED5) and Stallings Island (9CB1), where household delineations have not been possible, the results of this Mims Point analysis can be applied. By applying the results from this study, we can come to recognize distinctive social groups. This will allow archaeologists to better understand the patterns of group integration and differentiation both within a site and across sites. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the need to treat this analysis as only one of many possible data sets. Reconstruction of such complex patterns calls for the integration of many types of analysis, be it material culture, faunal, or paleobontanical. Fortunately, such data is currently being collected and analyzed and may be compared against the results of this study (see Sassaman 2002).

PAGE 21

CHAPTER 3 THE LATE ARCHAIC IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER VALLEY The Savannah River Valley region of the South Atlantic Slope has been of interest to archaeologists for over a century. It has been the subject of almost continuous investigation since the late nineteenth century (Sassaman 1993a:6). Intensive survey projects in the valley and on the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina (e.g. Crusoe and DePratter 1976; Hanson et al.; Marrinan 1979, 1978; Waring 1968a, 1968b) have yielded hundreds of Late Archaic sites (5000 to 3000 Radiocarbon Years before Present rcybp) through the preceramic and ceramic periods. Excavations have produced large artifact assemblages and more than 120 radiocarbon dates (Sassaman, personal communication). Furthermore, these excavations have produced a three-phase sequence based on pottery characteristics. The Stallings Island (9CB1), Ed Marshall (38ED5), and Mims Point (38ED9) sites (Figure 3-1) were selected for this study because they contain ceramic materials dating to the phase III time period. All three phases will be discussed further below. These three time periods are all contained within the Late Archaic phase. This period is generally marked by significant changes in social complexity, such as increases in sedentism. The time period for the Late Archaic spans roughly 2000 years, beginning at 5000 rcybp and terminating at 3000 rcybp. Mill Branch (4400 to 3800 rcybp) The Mill Branch phase (Elliot et al. 1994) is a preceramic phase during which people began to exploit the riverine resources along the Middle Savannah. The Mill 13

PAGE 22

14 Branch people were highly mobile hunter-gatherers who shifted seasonally between riverine and adjacent upland environments from ca. 4400 to 4100 rcybp (Sassaman 1993a; 1998; 2000a; 2002). Furthermore, Mill Branch peoples maintained regular contact with coastal groups, who ultimately became Early Stallings settlers, as seen through trade items such as soapstone. Moving into the Middle Savannah after 4100 rcybp, Early Stallings peoples interacted with Mill Branch groups as evidenced by overlapping radiocarbon dates from different sites. This interaction ultimately gave rise to the Classic Stallings peoples (Sassaman 2002). After approximately 300 years of permanent settlement in the interriverine zones, the groups of Mill Branch cultural affiation abandoned the greater Savannah area shortly after 3800 rcybp. Early (4500 to 3750 rcybp) and Classic Stallings (3750 to 3500 rcybp) The adoption and spread of the first pottery was slow and irregular. At first it was not widely accepted and its use and manufacture took a while to spread through what would become known as the Stallings cultural complex. Evidence of this comes from the patchy distribution of pottery between sites and the lack of any clearly delineated spatial or temporal boundaries (Sassaman 1993a). The earliest pottery found in the middle Savannah are types of shallow, open bowls heavily tempered with fiber (Sassaman 1993a:16) dubbed Stallings pottery. The earliest appearance of Stallings pottery dates to 4500 rcybp (Stoltman 1966), making it the oldest ceramic vessel technology in North America. These early vessels were relatively simple, “were tempered with fiber, hand-molded, and fired at low temperature” (Sassaman 1998:105). At 3750 rcybp, a shift from predominantly plain vessels (Early Stallings) to decorated vessels (Classic Stallings) occurs, causing archaeologists to subdivide the two

PAGE 23

15 Figure 3-1. Map of the three study sites along the middle Savannah River

PAGE 24

16 assemblages (Sassaman 1993a:19; DePratter 1979:18; Stoltman 1974; Waring 1968b; Waring and Larson 1968). Stoltman (1966) was the first to further divide Stallings pottery into a preceramic subphase, dated at pre-4200 B.C. These three phases are routinely referred to as Phase I (a preceramic phase), Phase II (a ceramic phase characterized by plain fiber-tempered pottery), and Phase III (a ceramic phase characterized by plain fiber-tempered pottery) (Table 3-1). The surface decorations that distinguish the Early and Classic Stallings assemblages are distinct. Early Stallings pottery is characterized by a lack of any exterior Table 3-1. Stallings Culture and exterior surface adornment Phase Radiocarbon years before present Pottery characteristics I Pre 4500 Preceramic II (Early) 4500 Undecorated III (Classic) 3750 Decorated and Undecorated surface treatment. Classic Stallings surface treatments include plain, punctated, incised, stamped, and other minor exterior surface treatments. Punctated vessels can be further distinguished as linear punctated, separate punctated, or drag and jab. Abundant drag and jab sherds (a distinctive trait of Classic Stallings assemblages) have been found throughout the Savannah River Valley and have been able to yield much information concerning decoration tools and pottery movement across the region (Sassaman 1993a). The Stallings Island site in the middle Savannah River and the Chesterfield shell ring on the southern coast of South Carolina roughly mark the core distribution of Stallings sites along the Savannah River, an area of approximately 250 km (Sassaman 1998:107). Though some Stallings components have been found, to the east and north nontempered or sand-tempered pottery known as Thom’s Creek is prevalent. To the

PAGE 25

17 south, St. Simons series fiber-tempered pottery is found along the Georgia coast (Caldwell and Waring 1939; DePratter 1979; Sassaman 1998:107). Though Stallings assemblages rarely provide whole vessels, we do have some technofunctional aspects of early pottery for Stallings (Espenshade and Brockington 1989; Sassaman 1993a, 1998; Skibo et al. 1988; Trinkley 1980). Early Stallings pottery were flat-bottomed basins, heavily fiber temped, with straight rim profiles, and vessel wall thicknesses of 9.02 1.77 mm (measured 3 cm below the lip). As for Classic Stallings pots, they were bowls or jars, tempered with fiber and sand, had straight or incurvate rims, and varied in wall thickness from 9.42 0.87 mm to 9.48 0.94 mm (coastal to riverine) (in Sassaman 1998:120 see Table 1). Along with use alteration analysis, this technofunctional data can tell us much about how the vessels were being used. Sassaman (1993a) tells us that the introduction of pottery in the Savannah River Valley is not evidence for a change in cooking technology. Traditional cooking methods persisted for a millennium after the widespread adoption of pottery into the region. Indirect heat cooking with soapstone vessels and disks persisted despite the functional availability advantages of pottery. This is, according to Sassaman (1993a), evidence of the importance of social relationships and alliances created by the long distance soapstone trade networks. Indirect heat cooking or “stone boiling,” as it is often called, is a process by which a liquid is cooked by adding heated rock to the substance. It is not necessary for a group to possess ceramic technology in order to employ this method. Rather, tightly woven baskets, animal skins, lined holes in the ground, etc. have been recorded in ethnographic

PAGE 26

18 studies. Archaeologically, soapstone cooking stones were used beginning around 5500 rcybp in the middle Savannah River valley for such purposes. Soapstone is an ideal tool as it absorbs and dissipates heat slowly, making it resistant to thermal shock (Sassaman 1998:120). By 4500 rcybp, soapstone was an important commodity in the Savannah River valley and the Early Stallings pottery was well-suited to provide effective indirect-heat cooking. The flat bottoms radiated heat upwards, thick walls and bases retained internal heat, and porous pastes (obtained through fiber temper) insulated heat. All of these attributes were found to be experimentally significant in providing the optimal climate for indirect-heat cooking by Schiffer and Skibo (1987). Though Early Stallings pottery had large orifices that allowed heat to escape, this was most likely a necessary component in order to allow the cook to manipulate the cooking stones in and out of the pots. Finally, Sassaman (1998:120 see chart) found that only 6.7% of the Early Stallings sherds were sooted (within riverine assemblages), providing further evidence of indirect-heat cooking. As for Classic Stallings assemblages, Sassaman (1998:120) found in the same study that riverine assemblages demonstrated similar trends while coastal Stallings assemblages produced 42% sooting. This suggests, along with other technofunctional evidence, that riverine sites, even when they had access to direct-heat cooking from coastal communities, continued to employ soapstone or indirect-heat cooking. It stands to reason that pottery, then, might demonstrate similar sorts of social importance. If so, indicators of social difference and similarity should be evident in Classic Stallings pottery. By looking at stylistic variation, then, we might determine the extent of distinct social goups.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS Pot sherds, were collected over numerous field research sessions. Various excavations carried out by Kenneth Sassaman, has supplied the actual materials from which data were collected. Pottery was drawn from the Mims Point site. Nevertheless, Stallings Island (9CB1), Ed Marshall (38ED5), and Mims Point (38ED9) will all be described as the results of this analysis of Mims Point household pottery can be applied to similar studies at Stallings Island and Ed Marshall. These sites are located in close proximity to each other along the same stretch of the Savannah River. Stallings Island (9CB1) Stallings Island is the type site for Stallings Culture. It is located on a seven-hectare island in the Savannah River, just downstream of the Stevens Creek Dam and about eight miles upstream from Augusta, Georgia (Sassaman 2002). Stallings Island is a natural hard clay mound that was cut from the flow of the Savannah River. The first excavations began in the 1850s by C.C. Jones (1861), followed by various episodes of testing, most notably the massive 1929 excavation carried out by C.B. Cosgrove and sponsored by the Peabody Museaum of Harvard University (Claflin 1931). Recently, pot-hunting and illicit digging have damaged much of the site deposits. Fortunately, in 1999 the Archaeological Conservancy acquired Stallings Island and has tried to protect it from further damage (Sassaman 2002). In 1999, National Geographic funds were used to collect stratigraphic and chronometric data at Stallings Island (Sassaman 2000b). Over 50 square meters of test 19

PAGE 28

20 units unearthed 56 intact pit features and stratified shell midden with a three-meter deep sequence (Sassaman 2002). The materials from Stallings Island are composed of two cultural components: an early preceramic Mill Branch (4400 to 4100 rcybp) component and a Classic Stallings (3750 to 3500 rcybp) component. The absence of an Early Stallings component in the assemblage is evident by collections from the site, which lack plain fiber-tempered pottery with flanged lips, the hallmark of Early Stallings pottery (Sassaman 2002, 1993a). Ed Marshall (38ED5) The Ed Marshall site (Figure 4-1), in Edgefield County, South Carolina, is located on the east bank of the Savannah River. The site is situated between a levee and backwater slough of the Savannah River. Ed Marshall is a multicomponent habitation site located only 0.5 km east of Stallings Island. In late 1994 as a response to shell-midden looting, a team of archaeologists from the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program (SRARP) excavated two small test units “in an effort to access the subsurface content and integrity” (Sassaman 1996:1). Named the Ed Marshall site, the tests exposed a stratified sequence of Stallings-age (ca. 4000 to 3500 rcybp) shell strata over a sequence of similar thickness organic midden containing artifacts of the Late Archaic Mill Branch phase (ca. 4200 to 3800 rcybp) (Sassaman 1996:1). Excavations revealed features including post holes, shell-filled pits, and a hearth (Sassaman 1996:1). Beginning in August 1995 more extensive excavations were funded for further investigations. A team headed by Sassaman (1996:1) excavated two stratigraphic trenches, a five by five meter block, and several isolated tests, totaling 41 square meters (Sassaman 1996:1). Animal bone, pottery, fire-cracked rock, soapstone slabs, and

PAGE 29

21 Figure 4-1. Map of archaeological investigations at Ed Marshall in 1995 and 1997 stemmed points were found in a series of shell-filled pit features on the north edge of the shell stratum. These digs revealed the stratigraphic profiles and that the shell stratum is a mixture of intersecting pits stemming from a common surface. All told, 36 features were found in the identification and sampling of numerous pits. Mims Point (38ED9) The Mims Point site (Figure 4-2) is located on a ridge nose at the conflux of Stevens Creek and the Savannah River. It is at this site where the most extensive excavations of the Stallings Archaeological Project occurred. The site consists of a 0.2-ha habitation complex dating to only a few decades of Classic Stallings occupation (ca.

PAGE 30

22 3630 to 3600 rcybp). Historic-era plowing has damaged house floors, but a cluster of deep pits and hearths are evidence of a circular village-plaza configuration (Sassaman 2002). These household feature clusters were revealed by hand excavation of 364 square meters in three field seasons. During excavation, components dating from much earlier and much later were found. These Middle Archaic and Late Woodland components did not interfere with the largely isolated Classic Stallings habitation; all were outside the Classic Stallings concentration and none dated to either the Mill Branch or Early Stallings phases (Sassaman 2002). This site represents a village plaza complex dating to the height of Classic Stallings culture (Table 4-1 shows the three sites included in this research.) (Sassaman and Blessing 2001). Ceramic Analysis Methodology My ceramic analysis is drawn from a sub-sample of all pot sherds found at Mims Point. The analysis only included those vessels with direct household association. The first step was to group these sherds into vessel lots based on lip form, rim form, paste, and exterior surface decoration. This process of minimum vessel counts certainly under-represents the number of vessels in an assemblage, but it works to standardize comparisons for sherd assemblages that have different degrees of fragmentation. This resulted in the classification of 118 Mims Point vessels from a lot of 141 sherds. No known whole vessels exist from Classic Stallings assemblages (Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001) and most of the vessels, from this study, are represented by only one sherd with no vessels complete enough to yield information on vessel form Household Delineation Households were determined by the clustering of sherds and the associated features found during excavation. The Mims Point site yielded evidence for households in a

PAGE 31

23 Figure 4-2. Map of archaeological investigations at Mims Point from 1992 to 1995 Table 4-1. Excavation area, number of pit features, and number of radiocarbon assays from sites investigated by the Stallings Archaeological Project since 1991 Site Area (square meters) excavated Number of features Number of C14 assays Components present Stallings Island (9CB1) 51 56 20 Mill Branch, Classic Stallings Ed Marshall (38ED5) 98 67 7 Mill Branch, Early, and Classic Stallings Mims Point (38ED9) 364 87 17 Classic Stallings Total 513 210 44

PAGE 32

24 circular-plaza village layout. Clusters of pit features exposed by 354 square meters of excavation produced good evidence of such household patterning (Sassaman and Blessing 2001; Sassaman 2002). As Sassaman and Blessing (2001:3) report “The best preserved pit clusters include one or two deep storage pits, four to five shallow basins, and at least one hearth. Nearly all such features yielded punctuated fiber-tempered pottery.” Sassman and Blessing (2001) see similar evidence in the circular deposit of midden, which does not extend outside of the proposed circular household patterning. Furthermore, the lack of features or Classic Stallings pottery in the space between major pit clusters is evidence of a central plaza. Therefore, three households were identified based on this evidence. Twenty-four vessels were associated with Household 1, 48 with Household 2, and 46 with Household 3 for a total of 118 vessels. Though this may seem to be relatively small sample sizes for vessel lots, one must remember that the Mims Point assemblage consists of mostly small sherds from low-fired vessels. Moreover, compared with other early North American pottery assemblages, the Classic Stallings collections are surprisingly large and well-dated (Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001). It is important to note the locations of these three households across the site. Household 1 is located in the Southeast corner of the site, Household 2 is located in the Southwest corner, and Household 3 is located in the Northeast corner. Households 1 and 2 lie directly opposite one another and, as stated earlier, yield relatively undisturbed ceramic assemblages. Household 3’s assemblage, on the other hand, is more problematic. Features 39, 5, and 3 are a late Woodland wall trench dug through the middle of the household. This trench raises questions about the integrity of the associated ceramic assemblage. Woodland material culture, including ceramic vessels,

PAGE 33

25 were found in this household pointing to possible human disturbance and, thus, unclear Classic Stallings household vessel association. The Ed Marshall site also possesses evidence for a circular village-plaza layout during the Classic Stallings occupation, though this evidence is indirect (Sassaman and Blessing 2001). Very few of the features unearthed at Ed Marshall produced Classic Stallings pottery, but numerous sherds were found in the “peripheral areas of shell midden which, like at Mims Point, forms a deposit roughly 30 meters in diameter” (Sassaman and Blessing 2001:4). This midden pattern follows that of Mims Point and can be used to cluster artifacts in household assemblages. Three such households were designated based on artifact clusters and the inferred circular village-plaza layout. Unfortunately, when this is done the individual households do not have enough associated pot sherds to define ample vessel assemblages. While 26 vessels were found associated with Household 3, in the Southwest corner of the site, only eight vessels were found associated with Household 1, in the Northwest corner of the site, and only 9 vessels were found associated with Household 2, in the Northeast corner of the site. These numbers are inadequate to provide any sort of meaningful statistical analysis, and thus, Ed Marshall is was unable to provide household data that could be compared with the Mims Point data. Based on the patterning at Mims Point and Ed Marshall, it stands to reason that Stallings Island, during its Classic Stallings occupation, was arranged in much the same circular village-plaza layout. Nevertheless, there are several factors that inhibit a confident reconstruction of households and their associated artifact assemblages. The first limiting factor is the site’s complexity. Stallings Island has a significant preceramic

PAGE 34

26 and late-period occupation with associated feature assemblages and midden accumulations (Sassaman and Blessing 2001). Furthermore, the site has been damaged by extensive looting and a large water runoff transecting it. Even though the site has excellent preservation in the features and shell middens (Sassaman 2002), the site is unsuited for yielding any specific information on household variation. Sassaman and Blessing (2001) have formulated a convincing argument for a circular-plaza village arrangement by superimposing the Mims Point layout onto the Stallings Island site using the data from the 1929 Peabody-sponsored dig. Nevertheless, the extensive post-depositional disturbance at Stallings Island makes it unlikely that pot sherds were found in direct association with the household that produced them. One possible solution was to divide the site into a north and south household or an east and west household. Nevertheless, due to the looting and post-depositional disturbance present at the site, I feel that it is most appropriate to concentrate on the Mims Point households, the results of which might be tested against the Stallings Island data. Data Analysis As stated earlier, Mims Point is the only site in this study with reliable household delineations, associated material culture, and a significant amount of vessels to allow for an effective ceramic analysis. The three designated households offer a data set by which to compare levels of technofunctional and stylistic variation. Thirteen different technofunctional or stylistic variables were analyzed in order to identify specific traits by household or potter tradition. Nevertheless, these traits were not chosen at random. First, the assemblages were grouped into household lots and general patterning was qualitatively assessed. This allowed me to generate a list of possibly significant variables between the household assemblages and to evaluate them quantitatively. The results of

PAGE 35

27 the initial qualitative analysis are addressed in Chapter 5 as discrete households and the quantitative analysis is discussed in Chapter 6 across the three households by individual technofunctional and stylistic attributes. The data from this quantitative analysis can be found in Appendix A.

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION BY HOUSEHOLD In this chapter, I will discuss each household’s individual patterning qualitatively. Each household vessel assemblage will be dealt with as a discrete social unit. The households will not be compared, in this chapter, for similarities and differences with regards to technofunctional and stylistic attributes. Such comparisons are addressed in Chapter 6, with overall conclusions addressed in Chapter 7. It is important to address households qualitatively because of the nature of Classic Stallings vessels. Decidedly unique stylistic patterning marks Classic Stallings vessels, throughout the entire middle Savannah River Valley. Nearly every vessel is unique in the way it is decorated, be it in terms of the stylus used, the angle of punctation (as punctated is the most common), and/or the pattern created on the vessel (Sassaman, personal communication). Thus, patterns of difference and similarity cannot be simply boiled down to statistical tests of relatedness. Instead, patterning must be understood through an intimate understanding of each vessel, which only comes through long hours of qualitative analysis. By doing so, patterning is evident in not only stylistic variables but also in vessel composition. What is more, a characterization of paste, temper, non-plastic inclusion type, and vessel form can be regarded as stylistic attributes. Certainly, these attributes are more commonly regarded as technofunctional variables (and are referred to as such throughout the course of this thesis) and their characterization is directly related to the functional properties of the vessel. Nevertheless, in a situation such as this where household assemblages have been readily defined these variables might also be regarded 28

PAGE 37

29 as stylistic ones. That is, attributes such as vessel paste, form, and composition might also reflect a pottery tradition based on a stylistic preference of these attributes. For example, though a fine-grained verses a coarse-grained vessel has clear technofunctional implications (discussed further in Chapter 7); it also has a differential ascetic value. As such, technofunctional variations across households might be a result of both technofunctional and stylistic preferences. Household 1 – The Southeast Block Though Household 1 vessels came from a relatively undisturbed context, the assemblage is problematic in that it only has 24 vessels. This might be the source of some sampling error but the assemblage is certainly large enough to draw some preliminary, if not, definitive conclusions on household characteristics. The Household 1 vessels are immediately striking due to the fine-grained paste. All of the vessels exhibit a paste that is smooth to the touch and consistent across the vessels. The exterior color of the vessels do not vary widely and tend to be dark red with the notable exceptions of vessels 3 and 69 which are nearly black. Even though none of the vessels are large enough to infer vessel form and size, the walls and lips tend to be thin and uniform across the vessels. Only one of the vessels, vessel number 21, is incurvate while the remainder tend to be straight walled. It seems that the potters from Household 1 were careful to produce vessels that were consistent along these technofunctional attributes. The stylistic attributes of the vessels follow the same patterning. Nearly all of the vessels are adorned by a drag and jab decoration type. The depth of the punctation, the horizontal spacing of the drag and jab rows, and the angle of punctation seem to be relatively consistent across vessel lots. This is evidence that the potters of Household 1

PAGE 38

30 were adept at their craft and/or spent a considerable amount of time producing each vessel. Vessel 156 is the only pot to stand out in terms of these technofunctional and stylistic variables from the other vessels. This vessel, though of fine paste and uniform thickness, is much lighter in color, thicker, and stylistically variable than the other vessels. Unlike the other 23 vessels, vessel 156 is highly eroded and its decoration pattern is erratic and variable across the exterior surface. It is the only vessel with incising and the only vessel with two decoration types, incised and drag and jab. Perhaps this vessel was used for a different purpose than the other vessels and was quite different in form and function. This might explain its idiosyncratic nature. With some deviation, Household 1 vessels seem to be fine-grained, thin, stylistically uniform vessels. Much care seems to be made in their appearance in terms of both technofunctional characteristics and decoration styles. Household 2 – The Southwest Block Household 2 vessels came from a relatively undisturbed context, directly across the site from Household 1. The assemblage consists of 48 vessels, a rather large sample size for a Classic Stallings household lot and the largest of this study. Additionally, a number of the vessels are relatively large, though not large enough to infer vessel form, which would make cross-vessel comparisons easier. The paste of Household 2’s vessels is highly variable. There is a mix of both very coarse-grained and fine-grained vessels. The fine-grained vessels are smooth to the touch and, usually, thin walled. The coarse-grained vessels, on the other hand, exhibit rough exteriors with both translucent and opaque non-plastic inclusions readily visible on the exterior of the vessels. These coarse-grained vessels are both thin and thick walled.

PAGE 39

31 One of the dominant features of this household is the coloration of the exterior surfaces of the vessels. Many of the pots are light in color while others range widely in hues of orange. This variation might be attributed to one of two causes. First, the coloration of the vessels might be a result of a highly oxidizing firing process. Second, the vessels might have been used over fire. Since none of the vessels have evidence of soot and a very small proportion of Classic Stallings vessels studied by Sassaman (1993a) exhibited sooting, this seems unlikely without further evidence. This evidence comes with one unique vessel found at Household 2 in Feature 66, vessel number 202. This vessel was found in a hearth, decoration side down, being used, presumably, as some sort of cooking slab. The vessel was used as such in a recycled context. The vessel wall was broken and subsequently placed in the hearth as a cooking tool. Based on a dark, circular shadow on the interior of the vessel, it seems likely that the broken pot was used to heat a liquid, perhaps a medicine or soup. Furthermore, the exteriors of vessels 202 and 144 have evidence of heat spalding that may have been a result of the firing process or contact with an exterior heat source. What is more, vessel 202 seems to have been repaired in the areas where it suffered from this heat spalding. Stylistic patterning across the vessels supports the notion that at least a portion of these vessels were used over fire. The exterior decorations of the vessels are, many times, extremely eroded and difficult to discern. If these vessels were used over fire in a recycled context, it is not surprising that the exteriors of the vessels became highly worn. Certainly, this could be result of post-depositional distress, but this is unlikely due to its relatively undisturbed context.

PAGE 40

32 Household 3 – The Northwest Block As discussed earlier, the Household 3 pottery assemblage came from a well-defined household unit based on post-holes, house floors, and associated features. Nevertheless, the assemblage is questionable due to the presence of post-depositional disturbance. Specifically, Sassaman (1993b:92) found a “secure context for Late Woodland pottery at Mims Point [in a] refuse-filled trough referred to as Feature 3 in the north block.” Additionally, this presumably Late Woodland disturbance, though limited to the north excavation block and Household 3 for the purposes of this study, may not be derisory. Sassaman (1993b) writes “It seems likely that the north block barely intercepted what may someday prove to be a substantial Late Woodland component.” Therefore, conclusions based on the Household 3 assemblage must be made with this in mind. The paste of Household 3 vessels tends to be fine-grained. There are a number of vessels, vessel numbers 31, 46, 73, 80, 104, 134, 171, 179, 185, that exhibit coarse, non-plastic inclusions that were readily visible to the naked eye. Likewise, the vessels in this assemblage run the gambit from very thin walled vessels to very thick. Nevertheless, such an observation on vessel form is hampered by the highly fragmentary nature of the sample. This could be nothing more than a function of the location of the sherd on the vessel. Sherds that came from the body, near the lip of the vessel, would tend to be thinner than sherds that broke away from the base of the vessel. Therefore, the most striking characteristic of Household 3’s paste is the frequency of fiber abundant vessels in the assemblage. The coloration of the vessels is also highly variable. The majority of the vessels are dark brown in color with well-preserved exterior surfaces. Nevertheless, several vessels are various shades of orange while a few are very light brown. Vessels with these

PAGE 41

33 types of coloration have highly eroded exteriors making decoration analysis difficult and even impossible in some cases. This is, again, evidence of a highly oxidizing firing process or their use over fire. For the most part, the vessels in the Household 3 assemblage are punctated. Nevertheless, some interesting variation is evident. Many of the punctated vessels are separate linear punctated. In addition, several vessels have incised decoration types and one vessel is even plain.

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS BY ATTRIBUTE The first set of data collected was the measurement of lip and rim thicknesses. The replication of lip thickness statistics is problematic as many of the rims are rounded or semi-rounded. This leaves the problem of where to position the calipers on the sherd. In such cases, I measured one millimeter below the lip terminus. This allowed enough room to position the calipers on the lip while remaining as close to the terminus as possible. When the lip of the rim was flat, I simply positioned the calipers on each edge. Finally, some vessels are not represented in the data. Their inclusion was impossible due to the absence of rim sherds in the vessel lot or damaged rims due to taphonomic processes. Vessel wall thickness was calculated and reported using a rim thickness measure, three centimeters below the lip. This was done in an attempt to standardize the location of the measure and to eliminate discrepancies in the data as a result of non-uniformity in vessel thickness. For example, a measure of wall thickness on the base of the vessel might be significantly different from a measure on the body. Since I did not have access to complete vessels, by constricting measurement to rim thickness I could eliminate some of these inconsistencies. Nevertheless, in doing so, only a portion of the vessels were able to offer data, as some of the vessels had no rim sherds and a portion of the vessels do not have rim sherds large enough to obtain data. Table 6-1 is a summary of the lip thickness analysis from the three Mims Point households. Table 6-2 is a summary of the rim thickness analysis from the three Mims Point households. The standard deviations of lip thicknesses at Household 1 is 1.73 mm, 34

PAGE 43

35 at Household 2 is 2.43 mm, and at Household 3 is 3.3 mm. The standard deviations of rim thicknesses at Household 1 is 1.52 mm, at Household 2 2.79 mm, and at Household 3 is 0.71 mm. Figure 6-1 is a bar graph depicting the average lip and rim thicknesses in millimeters by household. Table 6-1. Lip measurement data from Mims Point households in mm Count Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Household 1 10 4.9 1.73 2 7 Household 2 13 6.62 2.43 3 11 Household 3 9 5.89 3.3 3 14 Table 6-2. Rim measurement data from Mims Point households in mm Count Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Household 1 5 8.6 1.52 7 11 Household 2 7 10.1 2.79 7 14 Household 3 2 8.5 0.71 8 9 4.95.898.610.18.56.62024681012Household 1Household 2Household 3Measurement in mm Lip Thickness Rim Thickness Figure 6-1. Average lip and rim thicknesses of pottery in Mims Point households Results showed that Household 2 had a larger average lip and rim thickness than either Household 1 or Household 3. Based on the findings of Linton (1944) and Braun’s (1983) work thicker pottery might be an indication of larger vessels. Standardizing for

PAGE 44

36 the location of the sherd on the vessel, thicker vessel walls tend to be associated with bigger pottery as the more weight the vessel is required to hold, the thicker the vessel walls need to be to support the weight. Such arguments become obfuscated as firing techniques become more sophisticated in terms of achieving higher temperatures into the Woodland period. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the Late Archaic period due to the relatively low firing temperatures. Household 2, then, seems to have a bimodal distribution of vessels with a portion of the vessels about the size of Household 1 and a portion of the vessels much larger. Clearly, potters from Household 2 were producing some portion of pots that were thicker than were their neighboring potters. Further implications of this finding as it relates to other technofunctional attributes will be discussed later. Next, I continued my investigations of the technofunction attributes of the vessels and avenues of possible patterning of these across the households. To this end, I looked at four attributes. These included: type of paste, amount of fiber tempering, type of non-plastic inclusions, and exterior heat attrition. For all of these variables I used a bi-variate system to classify each vessel according to these characteristics. For paste characterization, vessels were classified as coarse or fine. More specifically, fine paste was classified as such if sand grain sizes were one-fourth millimeter or less. Coarse grain sizes were classified as such if sand grain sizes were greater than one-fourth millimeter. For Household 1, out of 24 vessels, 24 exhibited fine paste. Out of 48 Household 2 vessels, 22 displayed fine paste and 26 displayed coarse paste. With 46 vessels Household 3 had 37 fine paste vessels and nine coarse paste vessels. Figure 6-2 is a bar graph depicting the percentages of fine and coarse paste

PAGE 45

37 vessels by household. Housholds 1 and 2 were strikingly different in reference to the grain sizes of their vessels, where Household 1 were all fine-grained, Household 2 had a large portion of vessels that were coarse-grained. Household 3 seemed to be more similar to Household 2 in that many of Household 3’s vessels were coarse-grained. 019.610045.880.454.2020406080100120Household 1Household 2Household 3Percent of Occurrences Coarse Fine Figure 6-2. Percentages of paste characterization of pottery in Mims Point households For amount of fiber tempering, vessels were classified as heavy or light. For Household 1, out of 24 vessels, 19 exhibited heavy fiber and 5 exhibited light fiber. Out of 48 Household 2 vessels, 42 displayed heavy fiber and 6 displayed light fiber. With 46 vessels, Household 3 had 39 heavy fiber tempered vessels and 7 light fiber tempered vessels. Figure 6-3 is a bar graph depicting the percentages of heavy and light fiber tempered vessels by household. The vast majority of each household’s vessels had abundant fiber tempering. Nevertheless, Households 2 and 3 tended to exhibit a higher proportion of abundant fiber tempered vessels than Household 1. Non-plastic inclusions were analyzed next. According to the largest non-plastic inclusions present, vessels were determined to be translucent or opaque. Translucent

PAGE 46

38 inclusions are represented primarily as quartz, while opaque inclusions include such minerals as iron oxides and meta-volcanic material. For Household 1, out of 24 vessels, 24 exhibited translucent inclusions. Out of 48 Household 2 vessels, 22 displayed translucent inclusions and 26 displayed opaque inclusions. With 46 vessels Household 3 had 32 vessels with translucent inclusions and 14 vessels with opaque inclusions. Figure 6-4 is a bar graph depicting the percentages of vessels with translucent and opaque inclusions by household. Again, Households 2 and 3 showed similar percentages of non-plastic inclusion types, and follows the patterning observed in paste and fiber characterization. 79.287.520.812.584.715.20102030405060708090100Household 1Household 2Household 3Percent of Occurrences Heavy Light Figure 6-3. Percentages of heavy and light fiber tempered vessels in Mims Point households For exterior heat attrition, vessels were coded as to whether or not they had evidence of being exposed to heat after their manufacture. This was determined by the coloration on the exterior of the vessels. It was evident after grouping the vessels by households that each household exhibited a slightly different percentage of vessels with

PAGE 47

39 highly heat attritioned exteriors (see Chapter 5). Quantitative analysis supported this observation. For Household 1, 2 out of 24 vessels were highly attritioned. Out of 48 Household 2 vessels, 32 were highly attritioned. With 46 vessels, Household 3 had 8 highly attritioned vessels. Figure 6-5 is a bar graph depicting the percentages of highly heat attritioned vessels across households. 10045.87003054.2020406080100120Household 1Household 2Household 3Percent of Occurrences Translucent Opaque Figure 6-4. Percentages of vessels with translucent and opaque inclusions in Mims Point households Having dealt with the patterned technofunctional data, I now turn my attention to stylistic variation. As stated earlier, the Mims Point site is radiocarbon dated to a tight thirty-year time span during the Classic Stallings period. It is likely that during this time span more than one potter produced pottery at each household, and pottery traditions were passed down amongst female kin. Based on the tenets of interaction theory and agency/practice, similarities in vessel stylistic characteristics should be evident. Furthermore, slight variations should be evident that distinguish households in terms of social groups.

PAGE 48

40 8.366.717.401020304050607080Household 1Household 2Household 3Percent of Occurrences Figure 6-5. Percentages of highly oxidized vessels in Mims Point households Broad decoration type was the first stylistic variable addressed. Each vessel was coded as drag and jab, incised, or separate punctate. A few of the vessels had more than one decoration type represented on them. In such cases (with only three occurrences), the vessel was excluded from the study. Results demonstrated that Households 2 and 3 were very similar across broad decoration categories while Household 1 was slightly unique in that it exhibited no incised vessels. Nevertheless, this could be a function of the smaller vessel lot from Household 1. Table 6-3 is a summary of the amount of occurrences for each decoration category by household. Figure 6-6 is a bar graph that represents these data as percentages. Table 6-3. Broad decoration data from Mims Point households Drag and Jab Incised Separate Punctate Total Household 1 19 0 3 22 Household 2 34 2 8 44 Household 3 34 3 8 45 Total 87 5 19 111

PAGE 49

41 Across the three Mims Point households, eight different lip types were found to occur (following Sassaman’s 1993a coding scheme). These included: beveled (BV), tapered (PR), rounded (RD), exterior rounded (RE), interior rounded (RI), thickened flat (TF), thickened round (TR), and flat (XF) (see Appendix A). Due to the small amount of 077.318.217.813.686.44.56.775.60102030405060708090100Drag and JabIncisedSeparate PunctatePercent of Occurrences Household 1 Household 2 Household 3 Figure 6-6. Percentages of decoration types of pottery in Mims Point households vessels that were represented by at least one rim sherd (32), I coded for each type’s presence or absence by household: 10 Household 1 vessels, 13 Household 2 vessels, and 9 Household 3 vessels. Rather than calculating percentages of occurrences, this analysis allowed me to identify any unique lip types by household. Table 6-4 is a summary of the presence or absence of lip types by household. Those traits marked with an “x” indicate their presence in the corresponding household assemblage. Results indicated that lip types from Household 1 could all be found at Household 2, while both Households 2 and 3 had lip types unique to their respective assemblages. Thickened round (TR) lip types could only be found at Household 2, while interior rounded (RI) lip types could only be found at Household 3. This patterning can act as, in conjunction with other data sets, a unique indicator of social groups.

PAGE 50

42 Table 6-4. Lip types from Mims Point households Household 1 Household 2 Household 3 BV X X X PR X X X RD X X X RE X X RI X TF X X TR X XF X X X The next attribute measured was the stylus type of punctuated vessels. Those vessels that displayed a drag and jab or separate punctuated decoration type were coded for the shape of the stylus used to mark the vessel. This was analyzed on 89 Mims Point vessels – 20 Household 1 vessels, 34 Household 2 vessels, and 35 Household 3 vessels. Following Sassaman’s (1993a) coding scheme, eleven different stylus types were observed. These included: fingernail (FN), circular-bifurcated (RB), half-circle (RD), circular-flat (RF), subtriangular pointed (RG), bifurcate-fluted (RL), circular-rounded (RR), square/rectangle (RS), chevron (RV), semi-circular wedge (RW), and “s” shaped design (SS). Table 6-5 is a summary of the presence or absence of stylus types by household. Similar patterning is found for stylus types as was for lip types. All of the stylus types found at Household 1 can be found at both Households 2 and 3. Therefore, Household 1 has no unique lip or stylus types. Household 2, on the other hand, is the only assemblage with circular-flat (RF) and bifurcate-fluted (RL) stylus types. Circular-bifurcated (RB), semi-circular wedge (RW), and “s” shaped design (SS) are only found at Household 3. In addition to this, Household 2 was unique in that it only had one vessel (3% of the total household lot) with a chevron (RV) stylus, while Household 1 had five

PAGE 51

43 vessels (25% of the total household lot) and Houshold 3 had six vessels (17% of the total household lot). Table 6-5. Stylus types from Mims Point households Household 1 Household 2 Household 3 FN X X X RB X RD X X X RF X RG X X X RL X RR X X X RS X X X RV X X X RW X SS X As stated earlier, the variables I chose to measure were determined by first sorting the vessels into household lots and then measuring quantitative attributes that seemed to vary by household assemblage. Three stylistic variables seemed to be significant: zoned punctuations, left punctation orientation, and incised vessel lips. A vessel was coded as zoned punctate when only a portion of the vessel was horizontally punctated with drag and jab punctate or separate punctate. Orientation has to do with the hand the potter probably held the stylus in when applying a drag and jab punctate decoration to a vessel. Since a drag and jab punctate is made by holding the stylus at an angle to the pot, jabbing the stylus into the clay, and dragging the instrument along the clay before jabbing again, it is possible to determine whether the potter is right or left handed. That is, if the orientation was made using the potter’s left hand, then the potter was determined to be left handed, and vice versa. Therefore, each vessel with drag and jab punctuations was coded as right or left handed (following Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001). Finally, each rim vessel was coded as to whether or not it had an incised lip. Table 6-6 is a summary of the

PAGE 52

44 number of vessels analyzed for each of these three stylistic categories. Figure 6-7 shows the percent of occurrences of vessels with zoned punctuations, left oriented drag and jab punctates, and incised lips. Table 6-6. Number of vessels analyzed for zoned punctations, left orientation, and incised lips from Mims Point households Zoned Punctations Left Orientation Incised Lip Total Household 1 23 8 10 41 Household 2 47 11 14 72 Household 3 45 7 10 62 Total 115 26 34 175 The measure of left orientation did not seem to present significant patterning or variation by household. While these percentages (with an overall percentage of 11.6% left-oriented vessels and 88.4% right-oriented) do not follow Sassaman and Rudolphi’s (2001:418) findings of 20.3%, 18.8%, and 21.9% for middle Savannah sites, it does follow their collective sample from the middle Savannah River, Brier Creek, and Ogeechee River of 12.4%. Specifically at the Mims Point site, Sassaman and Rudolphi (2001:419) found 81.2% of the punctated vessel to be right-oriented and 18.8% of the vessels to be left-oriented. Most likely, this is a function of the small sample size that I had to work with rather than a significant variation from Sassaman and Rudolphi’s (2001) results. Although taken from an equally small sample, the presence of zoned punctuations and incised lips varied widely across households. Household 1 had no vessels with zoned punctations while Household 3 had no vessels with incised lips. If this pattern holds true in larger sample sizes, it might be a unique indicator of distinct social groups. Overall, Household 1’s assemblage of pottery seems to be much more labor intensive and/or prepared by more skilled potters. The paste of the vessels is finer than

PAGE 53

45 012.51010.614.314.309.113.30246810121416Zoned PunctationsLeft OrientationIncised LipPercent Present Household 1 Household 2 Household 3 Figure 6-7. Percentages of zoned punctations, left orientation, and incised lips of pottery in Mims Point households. that of Households 2 and 3. While all of the vessels of Household 1 are fine grained, many of the Household 2 vessels (54.2%) have very coarse inclusions readily visible to the naked eye. Though Household 3 vessels (19.3%) have less coarse inclusions, abundant coarse inclusions are still present in many of the vessels. Whether this is a result of human sorting of the clay or the drawing from differential clay sources is not important. Either way, this demonstrates that the potters from Household 1 were concerned with using a fine-grained paste for technofunctional purposes and/or for appearance purposes. Following a similar pattern, a very small percentage of Household 1 (8.3%) vessels have evidence of heavy heat attrition. While this percentage increases slightly for Household 3 (17.4%) vessels, it is very high for Household 2 (66.7%) vessels. The same general pattern follows for opaque versus translucent non-plastic inclusions. No opaque inclusions are found at Household 1 while Household 3 had 30% and Household 2 had 54.2%.

PAGE 54

46 In addition to this, I noticed the punctate decorations of Household 1 were more evenly distributed in terms of horizontal spacing and depth of punctation than either Household 2 or 3. To measure this quantitatively, I measured the average spacing between rows of horizontal punctations. For those sherds that had at least four horizontal separate punctate or drag and jab punctate rows, I took three measurements from the top of one decoration row to the top of the next decoration row. These were then averaged for a mean horizontal decoration spacing. The standard deviation was, then, divided by the mean and multiplied by one hundred to calculate the percent of punctation spacing variance. A summary of this data can be found in Table 6-7. Results of this analysis supported my observations. Household 1 had a variance of 22.2% while Household 2 had a variance of 23.1% and Household 3 had a variance of 24.5%. Table 6-7. Decoration spacing data from Mims Point households Count Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum % of Variance Household 1 6 7.89 1.75 5.33 10 22.2 Household 2 9 8.96 2.07 7 11.7 23.1 Household 3 9 8.56 2.1 5.67 12 24.5 What is more, vessels from Household 2 have thicker lips and rims than do vessels from Households 1 and 3 (Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 4). I argue that this corresponds with the rest of the technofunctional data that potters from Household 2 were less concerned with creating pots with uniform pastes, non-plastic inclusions, and decoration spacing. This could be the result of differential pottery function by household. If the pottery at each household was being used for slightly different functions, then we would expect to see different vessel compositions.

PAGE 55

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS The major goal of this thesis is to look at Classic Stallings pottery from three households at Mims Point and to document the technofunctional and stylistic variation between them. In doing so, I set about to determine whether or not I could effectively isolate social groups in terms of pottery traditions. If so, this evidence could be applied to similar Classic Stallings sites along the middle Savannah River Valley. At sites such as Ed Marshall and Stallings Island clear household delineations have not been possible. Therefore, the results of this Mims Point analysis might be applied to these sites in order to recognize distinctive social groups. Technofunctional and stylistic variation was investigated as both can reveal unique patterning. Technofunctional Implications of Vessel Composition Potters make specific decisions concerning trade-offs in mechanical performance to meet the functional requirements of each vessel (see Rice 1987). Therefore, archaeologists study pots as tools in an attempt to understand the technofunctional aspects of a vessel. Potters negotiate between three performance aspects: the suitability of a vessel to control its contents (be it storing, transporting, heating, or cooling), the ability to endure use-life stress, and the fitness to receive inward and outward flow (Rice 1987). Using a technofunctional approach, pottery can be grouped into three broad categories based on form and function: 1) cooking, 2) storage, and 3) transportation (such as serving). Since we know that Classic Stallings people were not using pottery as direct 47

PAGE 56

48 heat cooking vessels (Sassaman 1993a), the pottery was being employed as either serving or storage vessels. Consequently, their composition would be influenced by the technofunctional requirements for such vessels. Storage vessels display a unique set of technofunctional attributes: large holding capacity, restricted orifice (to prevent spillage but big enough to enable removal), effective outward flow (if used for pouring), and a lip to enable covering (see Blitz 1993). Potters, then, will negotiate between these attributes to produce a storage vessel. Archaeologists are aware of such constraints partly due to the ethnographic record and partly as a result of experimental archaeology. For example, Hally (1986) employs ethnographic records, a technofunctional analysis, and use alteration analysis to understand the functions of Barnett-phase vessels from 16 th century Georgia. He finds that these technofunctional attributes were effective indicators of vessels functioning as storage containers. Rice (1987:208-209) refers to all vessels used for serving and carrying purposes as “transfer” vessels. While this is useful from a technofunctional standpoint, it does group together vessels that are not intended to be moved. Halley (1986:278:280) provides an example with the Barrett-phase carinated vessels that were not suitable for movement due to their size. Blitz (1993); Halley (1986), and Rice (1987) offer the technofunctional characteristics of serving vessels, with regard to a dipping function, as vessels with a wide orifice, shallow profile, in-turned rim, and much variation in size and, with regard to a pouring function, as vessels with a narrow orifice, neck, out-turned rim, greater height to width, and limits on size due to movement.

PAGE 57

49 Temper was one of technofunctional aspect of vessel composition to vary across households. Temper is a term in pottery studies that has been employed quite casually, with no definitive definition (see Rice 1987:406-413). Among the many definitions, I feel that Skibo et al. (1989:123) offer the most useful definition, “nonclay inclusion in paste – either added intentially by the potter or present naturally.” Bronitsky and Hamer (1986:89), Rice (1987:140), and Rye (1976:109) all offer slightly different definitions of temper. Regardless, all agree that temper is a substance that affects the properties of clay. Temper, be it plant, mineral, animal, or human-made material, can improve the workability of the clay, reduce cracking and shrinkage during drying, affect porosity, and influence impact and thermal-shock resistence (Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Rye 1976; Skibo et al. 1989). The characterization of temper can tell archaeologists much concerning the desired traits of pottery types, and thus their possible uses. For further discussions on technofunctional attributes related to vessel composition see Blitz 1993; Linton 1944; Mills 1986; Reid 1989; Rice 1987; Schiffer and Skibo 1987. Limits of a Technofunctional Analysis When pottery is analyzed from a technofunctional perspective archaeologists must remember that they are investigating what a pot is suited for and not always how it was used. Linton (1944:370) tells us that it is often impossible to conclude that a pot was used for some function(s) but is possible to say what function(s) it was suited to perform. Ethnographic examples of this come with Mills (1999). She found in her study of Pueblo communities of the American Southwest that trends in increasing vessel size for cooking and serving is, at least in part, related to the reorganization of labor into larger households and the increased practice of ritual feasting. Another example comes with Gosselain’s (1994) study of clay selection and processing in Cameroon. He found that texture and

PAGE 58

50 workability were not the only factors affecting clay selection and processing. Rather, economic and cultural factors play an integral role in potter decision making. Examples such as these call our attention to the need to view pottery as part of the social and political groups that produce them. Pottery characteristics, then, are not only a product of the technofunctional requirements but also of cultural practice. Nevertheless, a technofunctional analysis can provide insight to an archaeological culture. Studies of vessel composition and form provide evidence to archaeologists of household behaviors and are the starting point for inferring significance from patterned activities. Stylistic Implications of Vessel Composition It is unlikely that the decorations of Classic Stallings vessels at Mims Point households had any technofunctional significance (Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001). Experimental archaeology tells us that a punctated surface offers no clear advantage in thermal performance over undecorated surfaces in terms of heat transfer (Schiffer 1990). Nevertheless, thermal shock resistance is improved through the reduction of crack proliferation (Schiffer et al. 1994). As discussed earlier, the lack of evidence that Classic Stallings vessels found along the Savannah River were used for direct-heat cooking dismisses technofunctional explanations for pottery decoration (see Sassaman 1993a; Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001). All in all, surface decorations seem to be “an expression of cultural affiliation, nonthermal functions notwithstanding” (Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001:413). Therefore, the stylistic variations present across the Mims Point households, most likely, are a reflection of distinct social groups and potter traditions which archaeologists can use to identify these goups.

PAGE 59

51 Hypothesis Concerning Social Divisions My results suggest that significant variation did exist under both technofunctional and stylistic categories. Overall, Household 1’s variation in stylistic and technofunctional categories were encompassed within the variation found at Households 2 and 3. That is, there were no characteristics found to be unique to Household 1’s assemblage. Generally, where Household 1’s vessels exhibited a fine paste, translucent inclusions, and thin lips and rims, Household 2’s vessels exhibited a high frequency of coarse paste, opaque inclusions, and thick lips and rims. Household 3’s vessels seemed to be a combination of the dominant characteristics of Housholds 1 and 2, with the notable exception of some stylistic traits. Further evidence of this patterning is a found in more uniform horizontal punctation spacing at Household 1 than at Households 2 and 3. It has been proposed, then, that this is a reflection of differential potter ability or pottery use (thus, reflecting different technofunctional requirements) across households. My analysis found that there were many traits that only existed in one household. These could be used as indicators of distinct social groups. Under the category of lip form, thickened round (TR) lip types could only be found at Household 2, while interior rounded (RI) lip types could only be found at Household 3. Under the category of stylus type, Household 2 is the only assemblage with circular-flat (RF) and bifurcate-fluted (RL) stylus types, while circular-bifurcated (RB), semi-circular wedge (RW), and “s” shaped design (SS) are only found at Household 3. Table 7-1 is a summary of the remaining stylistic and technofunctional categories that demonstrated the lack of unique traits by household. The patterning described seems to follow the Mims Point site layout. Household 1, located in the southeast block, and Household 2, located in the southwest block, exhibit

PAGE 60

52 drastically unique technofunctional and stylistic patterning. Bisecting the site across the north-south axis, I hypothesis that both the east and the west portions of the site represent distinct social groups, be it moieties, clans, or some other division. The unique pottery characteristics in such a situation could be a result of differential use or differential stylistic traditions. Table 7-1. Technofunctional and stylistic variation of pottery in Mims Point households Household 1 Household 2 Household 3 Coarse Paste X X Opaque Inclusions X X Incised X X Incised Lip X X Zone Punctate X X Household 3, located on the northwest block, does not clearly follow this patterning, as it has characteristics of pottery from both Households 1 and 2. Nevertheless, Household 3 pottery has a stronger resemblance to Household 2 than to Household 1. Furthermore, Household 3, as described earlier, has significant post-depositional disturbance from a Late Woodland occupation. Such disturbance might have resulted in the contamination of the pottery assemblage from vessels outside its household assemblage. Certainly this hypothesis is preliminary and based on a small data set. In order to assess its accuracy, similar data sets need to be collected and analyzed at Mims Point. Undoubtedly, there are many data sets to be analyzed. Lithic data, faunal assemblages, and other material culture are important points of comparison. These data sets need to be analyzed in the same manner and compared with my results to determine if this patterning is evident in other material culture categories. Fortunately, this data is being collected and will soon be ready for such analysis (see Sassaman 2002). Of course, we

PAGE 61

53 must keep in mind that if these social divisions are a reflection of female kin groups, this patterning will not necessarily be reflected in male dominated technology. Rather, we might only see this patterning in female-dominated technology, as pottery has been assumed to be. In conclusion, while stylistic analysis and interaction theory of archaeological cultures is far from foolproof, it does give us an indication of prehistoric human behaviors and this patterning is an important source of cultural information. The pottery analysis I have performed and the conclusions drawn, though important, are only one small piece of the puzzle in understanding Classic Stallings lifeways and the Late Archaic period on the middle Savannah River.

PAGE 62

APPENDIX MIMS POINT HOUSEHOLD DATA Table A-1. Ceramic analysis spreadsheet from Mims Point pottery Site Vessel Provenience Level Number of sherds Sherd type Lip (cm) 38ED9_H1 3 F51 14 1 rim 0.3 38ED9_H1 5 F51 14 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H1 8 F51 14 1 rim 0.7 38ED9_H1 16 68A 15 1 rim 0.4 38ED9_H1 21 F51; F52; F51 14; 9; 15 3 rim 0.3 38ED9_H1 22 F51 14 1 rim 0.2 38ED9_H1 26 F53 13 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H1 30 F51 14 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H1 37 F51 14 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H1 44 F53 13 1 body 38ED9_H1 54 F51 14 1 body 38ED9_H1 62 F52 9 1 body 38ED9_H1 65 F53 13 1 body 38ED9_H1 69 F51 14 1 body 38ED9_H1 72 F55 7 1 body 38ED9_H1 77 F52 9 1 body 38ED9_H1 79 F53 13 1 body 38ED9_H1 82 F52 9 1 body 38ED9_H1 93 F52 9 1 body 38ED9_H1 106 F55 7 1 body 38ED9_H1 122 F51 14 1 body 38ED9_H1 123 F52 9 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H1 146 F51; F54 14; Plot 7 3 body 38ED9_H1 156 66A 8 2 body 38ED9_H2 2 F64 1 2 rim 0.7 38ED9_H2 9 73A 8 1 rim 0.7 38ED9_H2 10 78A 18 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H2 13 73A 8 1 rim 0.5 38ED9_H2 15 F64; 69A 1; 8 2 rim 1.1 38ED9_H2 17 73A; 78A 8; 18 2 rim 0.8 38ED9_H2 18 78A 18 1 rim 0.7 38ED9_H2 19 F61 1 1 rim 1 38ED9_H2 23 78A 18 1 rim 0.9 54

PAGE 63

55 Table A-1. Continued 38ED9_H2 35 78A 18 1 rim 0.4 38ED9_H2 36 93A 2 1 rim 0.5 38ED9_H2 50 78A 21 1 body 38ED9_H2 52 F61 1 1 body 38ED9_H2 56 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 58 72A 5 1 body 38ED9_H2 70 F61 1 1 body 38ED9_H2 71 F65 10 1 body 38ED9_H2 74 F61 1 1 body 38ED9_H2 75 94A 5 1 body 38ED9_H2 76 69A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 78 F62 11 1 body 38ED9_H2 87 F67 11 2 rim 0.3 38ED9_H2 88 73A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 94 F62 11 1 body 38ED9_H2 98 73A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 102 F65 10 1 body 38ED9_H2 103 F65 10 1 body 38ED9_H2 108 F64 1 1 body 38ED9_H2 109 78A 20 1 body 38ED9_H2 110 76A 6 1 body 38ED9_H2 111 73A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 112 F62 11 1 body 38ED9_H2 113 76A 7 1 body 38ED9_H2 114 F66 11 1 body 38ED9_H2 117 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 119 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 120 73A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 125 F61 1 1 body 38ED9_H2 130 F62 11 1 body 38ED9_H2 131 72A 5 1 body 38ED9_H2 133 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 135 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 138 95A 8 1 body 38ED9_H2 142 78A 18 1 body 38ED9_H2 144 F66 11 6 body 38ED9_H2 152 78A 18 2 body 38ED9_H2 153 92A; 78A 12; 10 2 body 38ED9_H2 202 F66 11 4 rim 0.4 38ED9_H3 7 29A 3 2 rim 1.4 38ED9_H3 11 F39 NE 1 body 38ED9_H3 14 F39 NW 15 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H3 20 44A 3 1 rim 0.4

PAGE 64

56 Table A-1. Continued 38ED9_H3 24 F39 SE B 10 1 rim 0.6 38ED9_H3 28 30A 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 31 43A 2 1 body 38ED9_H3 33 F39 SE D 15 1 rim 0.7 38ED9_H3 46 F39 SE B 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 48 F39 NW 15 2 body 38ED9_H3 55 F39 SEO 12 1 rim 0.3 38ED9_H3 73 F39 NE 7 2 rim 0.4 38ED9_H3 80 F39 Zone C 1 body 38ED9_H3 83 F39 NW 15 1 body 38ED9_H3 89 F39 SW B 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 97 F39 SW B 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 104 F39 SE B 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 126 F39 SE B 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 129 46A 3 1 body 38ED9_H3 134 30A 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 136 F39 SW B 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 140 F39 SW B 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 143 F39 NW 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 158 F1 10 1 rim 0.4 38ED9_H3 159 22A 11 1 rim 0.5 38ED9_H3 164 F1 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 165 F1 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 166 F1 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 167 21A 7 1 body 38ED9_H3 168 F3 24 1 body 38ED9_H3 169 F1 10 2 body 38ED9_H3 171 F3 24 1 body 38ED9_H3 172 F3 25 1 body 38ED9_H3 173 F1 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 175 F3 25 1 body 38ED9_H3 176 F1 9 1 body 38ED9_H3 177 F1 9 1 body 38ED9_H3 178 F1 9 1 body 38ED9_H3 179 22A 11 1 body 38ED9_H3 180 F3 25 1 body 38ED9_H3 181 14A 12 1 body 38ED9_H3 183 F3 1 body 38ED9_H3 184 F3 25 1 body 38ED9_H3 185 F1 9 1 body 38ED9_H3 186 F39 SE B 10 1 body 38ED9_H3 189 F3 25 1 body

PAGE 65

57 Table A-2. Rim thickness, orifice diameter, decoration type, and lip type data Rim (cm) Vessel Orifice Diameter (cm) Decoration Lip Type 0.8 3 30 drag and jab PR 5 drag and jab RD 1.1 8 drag and jab RE 16 drag and jab PR 0.7 21 drag and jab/separate punctate PR 0.9 22 drag and jab BV 0.8 26 drag and jab XF 30 drag and jab RD 37 separate punctate RD 44 drag and jab 54 drag and jab 62 drag and jab 65 drag and jab 69 drag and jab 72 separate punctate 77 drag and jab 79 drag and jab 82 drag and jab 93 drag and jab 106 separate punctate 122 drag and jab 123 drag and jab RD 146 drag and jab 156 drag and jab/incised 0.9 2 24 drag and jab XF 9 drag and jab XF 0.7 10 drag and jab RD 0.9 13 drag and jab PR 1.4 15 36 separate punctate/incised RD 17 drag and jab/separate punctate TR 1 18 drag and jab RD 19 drag and jab RD 0.8 23 separate punctate TF 35 drag and jab RE 36 separate punctate RE 50 separate punctate 52 drag and jab 56 drag and jab 58 drag and jab 70 drag and jab

PAGE 66

58 Table A-2. Continued 71 drag and jab 74 drag and jab 75 drag and jab 76 drag and jab 78 separate punctate 87 drag and jab BV 88 separate punctate 94 drag and jab 98 drag and jab 102 drag and jab 103 separate punctate 108 drag and jab 109 incised 110 incised 111 drag and jab 112 drag and jab 113 drag and jab 114 drag and jab 117 drag and jab 119 separate punctate 120 drag and jab 125 drag and jab 130 drag and jab 131 133 drag and jab 135 drag and jab 138 142 drag and jab 144 drag and jab 152 separate punctate 153 drag and jab 1.4 202 30 drag and jab PR 7 TF 11 separate punctate 0.9 14 separate punctate RI 20 drag and jab PR 24 drag and jab XF 28 drag and jab 31 drag and jab 33 drag and jab RD 46 drag and jab 48 drag and jab

PAGE 67

59 Table A-2. Continued 55 drag and jab BV 73 separate punctate RD 80 drag and jab 83 drag and jab 89 drag and jab 97 drag and jab 104 drag and jab 126 drag and jab 129 drag and jab 134 incised 136 drag and jab 140 drag and jab 143 separate punctate 158 drag and jab PR 0.8 159 drag and jab RD 164 drag and jab 165 drag and jab 166 drag and jab 167 incised 168 drag and jab 169 drag and jab 171 drag and jab 172 drag and jab 173 drag and jab 175 drag and jab 176 drag and jab 177 separate punctate 178 separate punctate 179 drag and jab 180 separate punctate 181 incised 183 drag and jab 184 drag and jab 185 drag and jab 186 drag and jab 189 separate punctate

PAGE 68

60 Table A-3. Rim type, stylus type, punctation spacing, zone punctation, and orientation data Rim Type Stylus Vessel Punctation Spacing Zone Puctations? Orientation IN RV 3 0.7 No Left RS 5 1.2 No Right IX RG 8 0.8 No Right RG 16 0.9 No Right IX RR 21 1.1 No Right ST RG 22 0.9 No Right ST 26 0.9 No RG 30 No Right RG 37 No RS 44 1.2 No RV 54 0.7 No RG 62 0.5 No RG 65 1 No RG 69 0.9 No FN 72 1 No RD 77 0.9 No 79 1 No RG 82 0.9 No RV 93 1.3 No 106 RV 122 1 No Right and Left RV 123 No Right RG 146 1 No 156 No IX 2 0.7 No Right RG 9 0.9 Yes Right 10 0.9 Yes Right IN RG 13 0.8 Yes Right IN RL 15 1 No RG 17 0.9 No Right IN RG 18 0.9 No Right RS 19 0.8 No Right ST FN 23 0.9 No Left RD 35 No Right RG 36 Yes RF 50 No 52 No 56 1.2 No FN 58 0.9 No 70 1.2 No FN 71 0.9 No Right

PAGE 69

61 Table A-3. Continued FN 74 0.9 No RR 75 1 No RR 76 1.1 No RG 78 0.9 No RG 87 0.7 No RG 88 0.9 No RG 94 0.9 No RG 98 0.8 No RG 102 No RL 103 1.1 No RG 108 1.1 No 109 No 110 No RG 111 1 No RR 112 0.9 Yes RV 113 0.9 No FN 114 1.2 No 117 0.9 No RG 119 0.9 No RR 120 0.8 No 125 0.9 No 130 1.3 No 131 No 133 1.3 No RG 135 1.1 No 138 No RG 142 0.8 No RG 144 0.8 No RD 152 1.1 No 153 ST RG 202 0.9 No Right 7 RW 11 1.1 No IN RV 14 1.2 No Right RG 20 No Right RG 24 0.6 No Right RG 28 0.7 No RD 31 0.9 Yes Right RG 33 1.1 No Right 46 0.6 No RS 48 1.1 No 55 0.8 No Right

PAGE 70

62 Table A-3. Continued SS 73 1 No RG 80 0.8 No RG 83 0.9 No 89 0.6 Yes 97 0.9 No RG 104 1.1 No RG 126 Yes RV 129 No 134 No RS 136 0.8 No RV 140 0.8 No RG 143 1 No 158 No IX RG 159 0.6 No Left RV 164 0.9 No RV 165 1 No 166 0.9 Yes 167 No FN 168 0.9 No RS 169 No RG 171 0.9 No RG 172 0.9 No 173 1.5 No RG 175 0.7 No RS 176 0.9 No RR 177 0.8 No RB 178 0.9 Yes RG 179 0.9 No FN 180 0.9 No 181 0.6 No RV 183 1.1 No RG 184 0.6 Yes RG 185 No FN 186 1.1 No FN 189 0.9 No

PAGE 71

63 Table A-4. Nonplastic inclusion, attrition, and incised lip data Vessel nonplastic inclusions Highly attritioned? Incised lip? 3 translucent no no 5 translucent no no 8 translucent no yes 16 translucent yes no 21 translucent no no 22 translucent no no 26 translucent no no 30 translucent no no 37 translucent no no 44 translucent no 54 translucent no 62 translucent no 65 translucent no 69 translucent no 72 translucent no 77 translucent no 79 translucent no 82 translucent no 93 translucent no 106 translucent no 122 translucent no 123 translucent no no 146 translucent no 156 translucent yes 2 opaque no yes 9 opaque yes no 10 translucent yes no 13 opaque yes no 15 opaque yes yes 17 translucent yes no 18 translucent no no 19 translucent yes no 23 translucent no no 35 translucent no no 36 opaque yes no 50 opaque no 52 translucent no 56 opaque yes no 58 translucent yes 70 opaque yes 71 opaque no

PAGE 72

64 Table A-4. Continued 74 opaque no 75 opaque no 76 translucent yes 78 translucent yes 87 translucent yes no 88 translucent yes 94 translucent yes 98 translucent yes 102 opaque no 103 translucent no 108 translucent no 109 opaque yes 110 opaque yes 111 opaque yes 112 opaque yes 113 opaque yes 114 translucent no 117 opaque yes 119 translucent no 120 translucent no 125 opaque yes 130 opaque yes 131 translucent yes 133 opaque yes 135 translucent yes 138 opaque yes 142 translucent yes 144 opaque no 152 opaque yes 153 opaque yes 202 opaque yes no 7 translucent no no 11 translucent no 14 translucent yes no 20 opaque no no 24 translucent no no 28 translucent no 31 opaque no 33 translucent no no 46 opaque yes 48 translucent no 55 opaque yes no

PAGE 73

65 Table A-4. Continued 73 opaque yes No 80 opaque yes 83 translucent no 89 translucent no 97 translucent no 104 translucent yes 126 opaque no 129 translucent no 134 opaque yes 136 translucent no 140 translucent no 143 translucent no 158 opaque no no 159 opaque no no 164 translucent no 165 translucent no no 166 translucent no 167 translucent no 168 opaque no 169 translucent no 171 opaque yes 172 translucent no 173 translucent no 175 translucent no 176 translucent no 177 translucent no 178 translucent no 179 translucent no 180 translucent no 181 translucent no 183 opaque no 184 opaque no 185 translucent no 186 translucent no 189 translucent no

PAGE 74

LIST OF REFERENCES Barrett, J.C. 1994 Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Blackwell, Oxford. 2001 Agency, The Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 141-164. Polity Press, Cambridge. Blitz, J.H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80-95. Braun, D.P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J.A. Moore and A.S. Keene, pp. 108-134. Academic Press, New York. Bronitsky, G. and R. Hamer 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Material on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity. 51:89-101. Brumfiel, E.M. 1992 Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem—Gender, Class and Fraction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94:551-567. Bullen, R.P. 1954 Culture Changes during the Fiber-Tempered Period in Florida. Southern Indian Studies 6:45-48. Caldwell, J.R. and A.J. Waring, Jr. 1939 Some Chatham County pottery types and their sequence. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 1, pp. 5-6. Claflin, W.H., Jr. 1931 The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14(1). Harvard University, Cambridge. 66

PAGE 75

67 Crusoe, D.L., and C.B. DePratter 1976 A New Look at the Georgia Coastal Shellmound Archaic. Florida Anthropologist 29:1-23. Deal, M. 1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243-291. Deal, M. and M.B. Hagstrum 1994 Ceramic Reuse Behavior among the Maya and Wanka: Implications for Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J.M. Skibo, W.H. Walker, and A.E. Neilsen, pp. 111-125. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Deetz, J.F. 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology No. 4. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. DePratter, C.B. 1979 Shellmound Archaic on the Georgia Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 11(2):1-69. Dobres, M.A. and J.E. Robb 2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 3-17. Routledge, London. Espenshade, C.T. and P.E. Brockington 1989 An Archaeological Study of the Minim Island Site: Early Woodland Dynamics in Coastal South Carolina. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Brockington and Associates, Atlanta. Griffin, J.B. 1945 An Analysis and Interpretation of Ceramic Remains from two Sites near Beaufort, South Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133, pp. 159-168. Hally, D.J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity. 51:267-295. Hanson, G.T., R. Most, and D.G. Anderson 1978 The Preliminary Archaeological Inventory of the Savannah River Plant, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 132. Columbia: South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.

PAGE 76

68 Hodder, I. 1977 The Distribution of Material Culture Items in the Baringo District, Western Kenya. Man 12:239-269. 2000 Agency and Individuals in Long-Term Processes. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 21-33. Routledge, London. Jenkins, N.J. 1982 Archaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis. In Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Vol 5. Report of Investigations 23. University, Ala.: Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Jenkins, N.J., D.H. Dye, and J.A. Walthall 1986 Early Ceramic Development in the Gulf Coastal Plain. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K.B. Farnsworth and T.E. Emerson, pp. 546-63. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2. Center for American Archaeological Press, Kampsville, Ill. Johnson, M.H. 1989 Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:189-211. Jones, C.C., Jr. 1861 Monumental Remains of Georgia. James M. Cooper and Company, Savannah, GA. Lechtman, H. 1977 Style in Technology – Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited H. Lechtman and R. Merrill, pp. 3-20. West, New York. Lemonnier, P. 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers no. 88, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Linton, R. 1944 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9:369-380. Longacre, W.A. 1964 Sociological Implication of the Ceramic Analysis. In Chapters in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona, II, edited by P. Martin et al., 155-170. Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 55. Fields Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1970 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers No. 17. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

PAGE 77

69 1981 Kalinga Pottery, an Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Patterns of the Past, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1985 Pottery Use-life Among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B.A. Nelson, 334-346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Marrinan, R. 1979 The Cultural Resources of the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina and Georgia. Contract A5591(78). Final report submitted to the Atlanta Interagency Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service. McCall, J.C. 1999 Structure, Agency and the Locus of the Social: Why Poststructural Theory is Good for Archaeology. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by John E. Robb, pp. 16-20. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 26. Southern Illinois Uiversity, Carbondale. Mills, B.J. 1986 “North American Cooking Pots Reconsidered: Some Behavioral Correlates of Variation in Cooking Pot Morphology.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Ortner, S.B. 1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26:126-166. Excerpt on “practice”, pp. 144-160. Reid, K.C. 1989 A Materials Science Perspective on Hunter-Gatherer Pottery. In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches, edited by G. Bronitsky, pp. 167-180. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Rice, P.M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sassaman, K.E. 1993a Early Pottery in the Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London. 1993b Mims Point 1992: Archaeological investigations at a Prehistoric Habitation Site in the Sumter National Forest, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, The University of South Carolina.

PAGE 78

70 1996 Interim Report on 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Ed Marshall Site (38ED5) Edgefield County, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Program South Carolina Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. 1998 Distribution, Timing, and Technology of Early Pottery in the Southeastern United States. Revista de Arquelogia Americana. 1998(14):101-133. 2000a Agents of Change in Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York. 2000b Stallings Island Revisited: Modern Investigation of Stratigraphy and Chronology. Report submitted to the Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 2002 NSF Proposal for Archaeological Research on Stallings Culture. Sassaman, K.E. and M. Blessing 2001 New Perspectives on Stallings Community Patterning. Paper presented at the 2001 Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Department of Anthropology. University of Florida, Gainesville. Sassaman, K.E. and W. Rudolphi 2001 Communities of Practice in the Early Ceramic Traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Research 57:407-425. Sassaman, K.E. and G.S. Lewis 1990 The Heard Robertson Collection. South Carolina Antiquities 22:49-62. Schiffer, M.B. 1990 The Influence of Surface Treatment on Heating Effectiveness of Ceramic Vessels. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:373-381. Schiffer, M.B. and J.M. Skibo 1987 Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology 28, pp. 595-622. Schiffer, M.B., J.M. Skibo, T.C. Boelke, M.A. Neupert, and M. Aronson 1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot. American Antiquity 59:197-217. Senior, L.M. 1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot. American Antiquity 59:197-217.

PAGE 79

71 Sewell, W.H., Jr. 1992 A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98:1-29. Skibo, J.M., D.J. Hally, and M.B. Schiffer 1988 The manufacture and use of fiber-tempered pottery from the Southeastern United States. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, New Orleans. Skibo, J.M., M.B. Schiffer, and K.C. Reid 1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122-146. Stanislawski, M. 1978 If Pots Were Mortal. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by R.A. Gould, pp. 201-228. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Stoltman, J.B. 1966 New Radiocarbon Dates for Southeastern Fiber-Tempered Pottery. American Antiquity 31:872-74. Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality. Monographs of the Peabody Museum 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1974 Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality. Monographs of the Peabody Museum 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Tringha m, R.E. 1991 Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 31-54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Trinkley, M.B. 1980 A Typology of Thom’s Creek Pottery for the South Carolina Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 12, pp. 1-35. Waring, A.J., Jr. 1968a Fiber-Tempered Pottery and Its Cultural Affiliations on the Georgia-Carolina Coast (orig. 1952). In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 253-55. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol 58. 1968b The Bilbo Site, Chatham County, Georgia (orig. 1940). In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 152-97. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol 58.

PAGE 80

72 Waring, A.J., Jr. and L.H. Larson, Jr. 1968 The Shell Ring on Sapelo Island (orig. 1955-60). In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 263-78. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol 58.

PAGE 81

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Todd Braje was born on May 23, 1976, to Craig and Sharon Braje of Michigan City, Indiana. He attended Marquette High School before leaving for Beloit College. With diploma in hand and all his possessions comfortably packed in the back of a car, Todd left Beloit College for Portland, Oregon. At Beloit, he received a B.A. in anthropology and certification in elementary education; but decided to wait to pursue his interests in North American prehistory. Instead, he began a teaching career. For 2 years, Todd taught in the Beaverton School District, first as a seventh-grade math teacher and next as a sixth-grade humanities teacher. During this time, he encountered a number of challenges. These challenges included teaching in an economically disadvantaged area and constructing a curriculum for the opening of a new middle school. The experiences fostered a strong interest in teaching, but Todd did not want to continue to teach at the middle-school level. Armed with this knowledge, he hopped a plane to the South Pacific with the help of the Peace Corps. On arrival, Todd found himself at the door of a fale’koloa (a traditional Tongan house) and was introduced to the family that would be housing him on the island of Vava’u in the Kingdom of Tonga for the next month. After a rapid introduction to Tongan language and culture, Todd spent the remainder of his Peace Corps tenure teaching English and elementary math methodology at the Tongan Institute of Education (TIOE) on the main island of Tonga’tapu. During this time, he provided workshops and seminars to local elementary school teachers; and tutored young Tongan students. 73

PAGE 82

74 This Peace Corps experience and time away from the states helped Todd to decide to return to school and pursue a career as an archaeologist. He soon enrolled at the University of Florida. For the past 2 years Todd’s research interests have been focused on hunter-gatherer studies. Although his interests have branched off in a few different directions, they are unified by the theme of early emergent cultures. At the University of Florida, Todd has been grateful to gain a solid theoretical background while working on a number of different cultures, sites, and geographic areas.