Human-Environmental Dynamics of the Georgia Coast
by
John A. Turck1 and Victor D. Thompson2
Abstract
This paper synthesizes and evaluates settlement and subsistence patterns in relation to
landscape change for the entire prehistoric period on the Georgia coast. The dynamic coastal
processes of the region have altered the topography and distribution of resources, including those
important to humans. These processes were neither uniform in space nor time, with variations
leading to the creation of micro-habitats. We assess these habitats individually and as part of a
complex whole, to better
elucidate the nature of human-environmental interactions.
Understanding these complex relationships aids in our understanding of the social trajectories of
the coastal groups, and people's environmental impact and legacies on the ecosystem. In addition
to our synthesis, we include new research such as locational data and a comprehensive
radiocarbon date database. We also use our research as a departure point to discuss the future of
humans along changing coastlines. We argue that past peoples dealt with similar coastallyrelated issues as today, such as sea level fluctuations or changes to once productive resources.
We need to convey our knowledge on these human-environmental interactions to the public,
including policy-makers, not just to exhibit the usefulness of archaeology, but also to transform
society for the better.
DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Orlando, Florida April 6-10, 2016
1
National Park Service- Valley Forge NHP/ Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1400 N Outer Line Drive,
King of Prussia, PA 19406. E-mail: [email protected]. Corresponding author.
2
Department of Anthropology, Center for Archaeological Sciences, University of Georgia. 250A
Baldwin Hall, Jackson St. Athens, GA 30602-1619. Email: [email protected].
Introduction
This paper synthesizes and evaluates settlement and subsistence patterns in relation to
landscape change for the entire prehistoric period on the Georgia coast (Figure 1). The dynamic
coastal processes of the region have altered the topography and distribution of resources,
including those important to humans. These processes were neither uniform in space nor time,
with variations leading to the creation of micro-habitats. We assess these habitats individually
and as part of a complex whole, to better elucidate the nature of human-environmental
interactions. Understanding these complex relationships aids in our understanding of the social
trajectories of the coastal groups, and people's environmental impact and legacies on the
ecosystem. In addition to our synthesis, we include new research such as locational data and a
comprehensive radiocarbon date database. We also use our research as a departure point to
discuss the future of humans along changing coastlines. We argue that past peoples dealt with
similar coastally-related issues as today, such as sea level fluctuations or changes to once
productive resources. We need to convey our knowledge on these human-environmental
interactions to the public, including policy-makers, not just to exhibit the usefulness of
archaeology, but also to transform society for the better.
Based on our previous research (Turck and Thompson in review; Thompson and Turck
2009) which revealed Archaic and Woodland settlement patterns were tied to drainages, we will
detail, when appropriate, if data occur within or outside deltaic settings. In deltaic areas, rivers
supply suspended sediment resulting in high rates of organic and inorganic accumulation, which
can lead to marsh progradation during sea level fluctuations (Reed 2002:238). With the marshestuarine system less susceptible to perturbations, this can create different opportunities for past
settlement (see Turck 2011; 2012). On the Georgia coast, such areas include the Savannah and
Ogeechee rivers to the north, the Altamaha River in the central portion of the state, and the
Satilla and St. Marys rivers to the south. Non-deltaic areas, where no rivers flow into the coastal
zone, lack sediment influx. This leaves the marsh-estuarine system more susceptible to
perturbations, as it is more difficult for the marsh to maintain itself in the face of fluctuating sea
levels (see Turck 2011; 2012). Non-deltaic areas are found between the aforementioned rivers,
including the St. Catherines and Sapelo Island area, as well as the Jekyll Island area (southern
Glynn/ northern Camden counties).
The cultural chronology comes from DePratter (1991:11) and DePratter and Howard
(1981:1288), which are in uncalibrated years B.P., Thomas (2008a:423; 2009:53) for the St.
Catherines Island chronology, and Turck and Thompson's (in review) revised Late Archaic
chronology.
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods (13,000 - 8,000 B.P.)
Environment
The present-day barrier island complexes are composed of Pleistocene islands of beach
and dune deposits, fronted by analogous Holocene-aged deposits (Hayes et al. 1980:285) (Figure
2). The Pleistocene islands are part of the Silver Bluff shoreline, which formed sometime
between 110,000 and 40,000 B.P. (Howard and Frey 1985:78), when sea level was higher than
present. Evidence for this includes a freshwater peat in a vibracore from St. Catherines Island
dating to over 40,000 B.P., indicating it was deposited during a time of lowered sea level.
Similarly, recent 14C and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates have put the formation
of both Skidaway and Sapelo barrier islands at over 40,000 cal. B.P. (Turck and Alexander
2013). In addition, Garrison et al. (2008:138) have dated shell beds off the coast of Georgia at
1
Gray Reef and J-Reef to between 44,000 and 31,000 B.P. These were originally deposited in a
subtidal environment, and subaerially exposed between 31,000 and 8,000 B.P. (Garrison et al.
2008:138).
Subsequent to the formation of the Silver Bluff shoreline, eustatic sea level continued to
drop until the last glacial maximum occurred around 18,000 B.P., when the advance of the
Wisconsin Laurentide ice sheet (LIS) reached its greatest extent, and sea level fell to around 125
meters below present (mbp) mean sea level (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004; Milliman and Emory
1968; Siddall et al. 2003). This left the former Silver Bluff shoreline (which is the present-day
coastal area) as an interior coastal plain, many kilometers from the ocean. Sometime after 18,000
B.P. sea levels started rising again, most likely with multiple oscillations (see Siddall et al.
2003).
By the beginning of the Paleoindian period (~12,000 B.P.) sea level was anywhere from
90 mbp (Fairbanks 1989) to 15 mbp (Lidz and Shin 1991). A more recent sea level study from
North Carolina reveals that throughout the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, sea level was
between 30 and 20 mbp (Horton et al. 2009:1731-1732). This left the former Silver Bluff
shoreline between 80 and 45 km from the ocean, rendering it a mainland upland. In deltaic areas,
rivers had some similar characteristics as today. For example, the Altamaha River had
transitioned to meandering by 15,000 B.P. (Leigh 2006), with its floodplain at the same level as
today (Leigh 2008:99). However, its channel was larger, with larger meanders, indicating a
higher frequency of larger floods, due to a wetter climate (Goman and Leigh 2004). The location
where this paleo-Altamaha River met the ocean, creating estuarine waters, would have been 100
to 60 km eastward throughout the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods.
Archaeology
According to the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) database, there are only three
Paleoindian and eight Early Archaic sites within the present-day coastal zone of Georgia. These
sites (or components of sites) are not associated with shellfish, or any other estuarine/ marine
remains. These sites only reveal information about terrestrial adaptations, due to the 12- to 20hour, non-stop walk to the coast. Populations from these periods most likely occupied those
coastal zones, utilizing estuarine and marine resources, and following the coastline as sea levels
fluctuated. Most traces of these early coastal adaptations have been buried under sediment,
submerged under water, or destroyed by sea level fluctuations.
Middle Archaic Period (8,000 - 5,000 B.P.)
Environment
Although this period has been associated with the onset of the mid-Holocene Climatic
Optimum, or Hypsithermal, it most likely was a time of generally warmer summer temperatures,
with colder winter temperatures (Kerwin et al. 1999). Evidence for wetter conditions at this time
is seen as the presence of large paleomeander scars on the middle Ogeechee River, which
indicate that river discharge was high (Leigh and Feeney 1995). However, this does not
necessarily equate to higher levels of effective precipitation (see Leigh 2008 for discussion).
Sea level at the beginning of this period (8,000 B.P.) was anywhere from 32 mbp
(Milliman and Emery 1968), to around 22 mbp (Fairbanks 1989; Fairbridge 1974; Gornitz and
Seeber 1990; Nelson and Bray 1970; Siddall et al 2003), to as high as 10 mbp (Balsillie and
Donoghue 2004; Colquhoun and Brooks 1986; Curray 1960; Törnqvist et al. 2004). Along the
North Carolina coast, Horton et al. (2009:1731-1732) report past sea level indicators at 15.5 and
2
17.9 mbp at this time. Garrison et al. (2008:138) suggest that Gray’s Reef, which outcrops
around the 20 m bathymetric line east of Sapelo Island, was overstepped by sea level rise around
8,000 B.P. According to Turck's (2012) model, which uses a conservative value of 15 mbp for
the height of sea level at 8,000 B.P., the present-day coastal zone was still entirely mainland
upland, over 20 km away from the coastline. It seems that rivers were within range of the ocean
at this time to begin undergoing floodplain aggradation due to sea level rise.
Sea levels rose to around 3.0 mbp by the end of the Middle Archaic period, around 5,000
B.P. (Gayes et al. 1992) (Figure 3). This indicates a fairly rapid rise, averaging around 36 cm per
90 years (if sea level was 15 mbp at 8,000 B.P.), or as high as 78 cm per 90 years (if sea level
started out as low as 32 mbp at the beginning of the period). It is also by this time that
palynological evidence indicates that similar to modern forest conditions were established (Leigh
2008:101), with possible warmer than present temperatures (Jones et al. 2005). River channels
and meanders were similar in size and shape to modern channels, with similar rainfall (Leigh
2008:101). With a decrease in the magnitude of floods and sediment supply (as compared to
earlier in the period), there may have been initial river channel incision (Leigh and Webb 2006).
Within 80-60 km of the shoreline, rising sea levels and “backfilling” of river valleys led to the
burying of former surfaces by Holocene sediments (Leigh 2008:103).
Archaeology
In general, there is an increased reliance on locally-available lithic materials during the
Middle Archaic period of Georgia (Shah and Whitley 2009:52). Stone tools also seem to have
been "expediently" made, suggesting that mobility in the Southeast in general was constrained
(Amick and Carr 1996:44). This may have only occurred with groups in the interior, as
Sassaman (1995:182-183) suggests that the carrying capacity on the Coastal Plain decreased due
to an expansion of southern pine communities, which in turn led to a more mobile and/ or lower
population.
It is true that the Coastal Plain of Georgia had a significantly lower population during the
Middle Archaic period when compared to other areas of Georgia (Turck et al. 2011; see also
Elliott and Sassaman 1995:125; Kowalewski 1995; Williams 1994:40, 44-45; Williams 2000:5;
Williams et al. 2010). Although the low visibility of Middle Archaic material remains may be the
reason for this (i.e., no pottery, the dearth of lithic material on the Georgia coast, no shell
middens), it is more likely that the lack of sites actually represents a low population. Specifically
in the coastal zone, only four Middle Archaic sites have been found, none with evidence of
coastal adaptations. The setting must be carefully considered as a major factor in Middle Archaic
settlement patterns, as mentioned above, this was a time of great environmental change.
Creating a dynamic model of landscape change and human settlement, Turck (2012)
analyzed changes to the marsh-estuarine system due to sea level changes. Results indicate that at
the beginning of the Middle Archaic period, the present-day coastal zone was an interior Coastal
Plain, more than a 4-hour (>20 km), non-stop walk to the ocean. However, towards the end of
the Middle Archaic period, when sea levels started reaching the 3.0 mbp mark (see Gayes et al.
1992), there was a fairly large intertidal area where marsh could potentially form, as well as the
meeting of salt and fresh waters for estuary formation (Turck 2012). The present-day barrier
islands (originally the Silver Bluff formation) would have still been part of one contiguous
landmass, but fronted on their east sides by marsh (similar to the present-day mainland) or by
ocean (see Turck 2012).
3
The establishment of marshes and/ or estuaries, along with the lack of coastal
populations, indicates non-environmental reasons for Middle Archaic settlement patterning. The
fact that Middle Archaic settlement did not change over a span of 3,000 years, even though the
setting changed drastically (going from interior to coastal, with the establishment of productive
resources), needs to be addressed further.
Late Archaic Period (4,500 - 3,100 B.P./ 5,000 - 2,950 B.P.)
Environment
As of now, the most appropriate sea level curve for the Georgia coast is Gayes et al.
(1992). Averaging only one data point every 800 years, it is not as fine-grained as other sea level
curves (see Marquardt 2010:258, 267 for discussion). However, it is based on the analysis of
foraminifera from a series of closely-spaced cores in South Carolina (Gayes et al. 1992:159). Its
proximity to the study area makes it most relevant (See Thomas 2011 for a discussion). As others
have noted (Kraft 1988:111; Rull et al. 1999:496), eustatic, or global, sea-level curves should
only be used as general guides, and not factual data. The Colquhoun and Brooks (1986) sea level
curve from South Carolina was also considered. It was constructed using basal and intercalated
peat deposits, as well as archaeological data, indicating seven small-scale fluctuations in sea
level during the last 5,000 years (Colquhoun and Brooks 1986:276). Colquhoun and Brooks
(1986:279) assert that these fluctuations can only be correlated between different estuaries using
archaeological data. However, the validity of this curve has been questioned, with sea-level
indicators suspect for some intervals (Gayes et al. 1992:159). It is important to keep in mind that
disagreements between sea level data may be due to local differences in neotectonic activity,
including downwarping (Colquhoun and Brooks 1986:278; Hayes 1994:246). This underscores
the need for specific, relative sea level curves.
According to Gayes et al. (1992), sea level continued rising after 5,000 B.P., reaching just
under 2 mbp by 4,500 cal. B.P., to a high stand of 1.2 mbp at 4,200 cal. B.P. There was a large
increase in salt marsh formation during this early portion of the Late Archaic period, almost the
same as the modern-day landscape (Turck 2011). The coastal rivers were likely in the same
positions as today, with rising sea levels increasing salinity and causing tidal fresh marsh and
freshwater swamps (if present) to move up the drainages. This salt marsh sedimentation and
flooding from rising sea levels created (or more accurately, re-created) various coastal islands.
Lower elevations were filled in, choking off areas of higher elevations from the mainland (Turck
2011; 2012). Former Pleistocene islands, including those of the Silver Bluff shoreline, once
again became islands for the first time since their initial formation (Turck 2011; 2012). This also
includes present-day back-barrier islands (west of the present barrier islands), which represent
two other Pleistocene shorelines, the Princess Anne and Pamlico.
It was also around this time that Holocene-aged coastal deposits (beach ridges, barrier
islands, etc.) started to form around the former shoreline of Pleistocene age (Hayes et al.
1980:286). Much of the sediment for these deposits may have come from other former barrier
islands, east of the present-day coastline. This antecedent topography would have been smoothed
by wave-dominated processes (see Oertel et al. 2008:182) as sea levels rose to the 4,200 B.P.
highstand, and re-worked as Holocene deposits.
After 4,200 cal. B.P., the rising sea level reversed course, and dropped to 2.5 mbp by
3,800 cal. B.P., and 3.15 mbp by 3,600 cal. B.P. (Gayes et al. 1992). By the end of the Late
Archaic period (3,100 B.P.), sea level either reversed course again, rising to 2.7 mbp, or it
continued dropping to about 4.0 mbp (Gayes et al. 1992). This difference stems from data from a
4
different part of the South Carolina coast (the Santee River delta) that Gayes et al. (1992:159)
report, but did not use in the construction of their sea level curve. The data represent either local
submergence due to sediment loading (Gayes et al. 1992:155), or may represent a continued
regression (Gayes et al. 1992:159). We choose to take these data into account (see Thompson
and Turck 2009:266-267 for more discussion), as well as the DePratter and Howard (1981:1292)
sea level curve, which was based on deeply buried archaeological sites, dredged up pottery
sherds, and submerged tree stumps from South Carolina and Georgia. With a range of 2.7 to 4.0
mpb, we use an average value of 3.5 mbp at 3,100 B.P. However, under either scenario (2,7, 3.5,
or 4.0 mbp), the majority of Georgia's coastal zone had reverted back to an upland mainland
setting by the end of the Late Archaic period (see Turck 2011:163-164, 198).
While the marsh seems to have maintained itself in the face of falling sea levels in deltaic
areas (see Turck and Thompson, in review), Turck's (2011) model shows that there was a
disruption in marsh productivity in non-deltaic areas. Vegetation zones shifted east with the
falling sea level and concomitant changes in soil properties. As salinity levels lowered, the
organic soil of the former marsh would have been ideal for the establishment of upland
vegetation. Although much of the area was upland, it would have been dissected by old tidal
creeks. Some of the larger and deeper creeks remained subtidal, while others became intertidal,
only getting inundated at high tide (Turck 2011). One exception to this is off of the northeast
coast of the non-deltaic Sapelo Island, where evidence from sediment cores indicates that marsh
deposition began sometime after 3,560 but before 2,900 B.P. (Turck and Alexander 2013). This
suggests that a protective barrier had formed to the east of this location. However, it was not
Blackbeard Island, the western edge of which has been dated to much later (Turck and Alexander
2013). The timing of this is important, as intertidal marshes provide juvenile fish and
macrocrustaceans protection from predators (Hampel et al. 2003:286). In addition, marsh detritus
goes into tidal streams, entering the food chain, and eventually leads to fish moving in to feed on
marsh invertebrates (Hampel et al. 2003:287). Thus, marsh functions as nurseries for juvenile
fish and macrocrustaceans, providing them with better growth conditions (Hampel et al.
2003:286), and also providing people with subsistence resources.
The relationship between sea level and paleoclimate is not straightforward. Scott et al.
(1995:621) suggest that the 4,200 B.P. sea level highstand was a delayed response to the 4degree Celsius global warming event that occurred prior to 6,000 B.P. (see Houghton et al.
1990). However, a recent study (Jones et al. 2005) analyzing oxygen isotope evidence from
Florida suggests that the summer-autumn water temperatures were on average 3.5 degrees
Celsius higher until 3,600 B.P. (uncalibrated). Similarly, while the subsequent lowering of sea
level corresponds to data from western North America (which shows that temperatures fell and
glaciers advanced between 4,200 and 3,800 cal. B.P.), European ice remains static or retreats
(Mayewski 2004:250). The variability of past climate data, specific to latitudes (Mayewski
2004:249-250), hemispheres (Kerwin et al. 1999), seasons (Kerwin et al. 1999), and even to
types of environment (e.g., marine vs. terrestrial/ air) (Steig 1999; Zhao et al. 2000), suggests
that paleoclimate data must also be semi-local, and not be extrapolated to/ from other areas
(Mayewski 2004:252).
Archaeology: General
Intensive settlement on the Georgia coast occurs during the Late Archaic period, with 270
Late Archaic period sites in the coastal zone (Figure 4) (Turck and Thompson in review; also see
Thompson and Turck 2009, 2010; Turck, Williams, and Chamblee 2011). That there was no
5
coastally adapted Middle Archaic population in Georgia suggests that this population migrated in
from other areas (e.g., the Georgia piedmont, the interior Coastal Plain, along the Savannah
River, or even Florida) (Turck 2012; see also Crook 2009:81-83; Crusoe and DePratter 1976:13).
The three main coastal Late Archaic site types include shell rings, shell middens, and
non-shell sites (Michie 1979; Waring 1968). These sites have been identified by the presence of
diagnostic fiber-tempered pottery, some of the earliest in North America (Sassaman 2004;
Thompson et al. 2008), as well as the presence of shell. The high visibility of shell-bearing sites
make them easier to locate during surveys, potentially biasing the archaeological record
(DesJean, Walker, and Saunders 1985:166).
Shell rings are circular-to-arcuate in shape, and comprised predominantly of shell with a
mostly shell-free plaza in the center. Empirical evidence indicates that many shell rings were
occupied year-round (Colaninno 2012; Reitz 2008; Russo 1998; Thomas 2010:190-191;
Thompson and Andrus 2011; Trinkley 1980), with substantial deposits of habitation refuse. A
relatively recent hypothesis posits that shell ring deposits are the result of both habitation and
mounding, feasting, or ceremonial activities (Russo 2004; 2008; 2014; Thompson 2007;
Thompson and Andrus 2011). Sites with fiber-tempered pottery, but little-to-no shell midden,
were originally thought to be smaller and more dispersed, and usually not located near marshes,
possibly indicating their use as collecting camps or extraction sites (DePratter 1976; DePratter
and Howard 1980; Elliot and Sassaman 1995:144-147).
Based on analysis of site locational information (GASF database) and a recently
constructed radiocarbon date database (Turck and Thompson 2014), and contextualized by
micro-environmental setting, Turck and Thompson (in review) found that Late Archaic
populations within deltaic and non-deltaic areas experienced environmental change
differentially. However, these were transitions, not societal collapses. In deltaic areas,
shellfishing starts earlier (5,000 cal. B.P.) and ends later (around 3,500 cal. B.P.). It is in the
inter-barrier portion of the deltaic areas where continuity in settlement and shellfish utilization is
seen. Along the non-deltaic portions of the coast, the early Late Archaic shellfishing period
extends from 4,500 to around 3,800 cal. B.P. Although there was both population movements
and subsistence changes during the terminal Late Archaic period, some of these non-shellfishing
occupations were fairly substantial. So, although the lowering sea level during the terminal Late
Archaic reverted much of the coastal zone to an upland mainland setting, communities were
resilient in both deltaic and non-deltaic areas. We (Turck and Thompson, in review) speculated
that the inter-village relationships reinforcing communal activities that were developed during
the early part of the Late Archaic period, continued into the terminal Late Archaic. These
relationships ameliorated any adverse affects that may have occurred due to environmental
change. The main conclusion then, is that there was a general continuity between the early Late
Archaic and the terminal Late Archaic period on the Georgia coast as a whole in the face of
environmental change (Turck and Thompson, in review).
Archaeology: Deltaic Areas
Northern Georgia Coast. Around the coastal zone of the Savannah and Ogeechee Rivers,
there are large shell midden, shell ring, and shell crescent Late Archaic sites in all microenvironmental habitats. On the mainland, there are large shell middens such as Bilbo, a twometer thick shell midden whose dates indicate the main occupation was from 4,500 to 3,800 cal.
B.P., with a possible initial occupation as early as 5,000 cal. B.P. (Crook 2009). On the
Pleistocene barrier island of Skidaway, there are seven shell middens, with 16 shell middens in
6
the inter-barrier marsh just east of the island, four of which are shell rings or crescents. Dates
from the bases of three of these marsh middens indicate that initial shell deposition occurred
during the early Late Archaic period. Turck and Thompson (in review) dated a non-shell sample
(UGAMS-16980) from another of these marsh middens (9CH306). The original context of the
sample was from dark midden soil, in association with eroded fiber-tempered ceramics. The twosigma date range for this sample is 4,407-4,155 cal. B.P., mirroring the earlier marine sample
dates, and falling squarely within the early portion of the Late Archaic period.
Although the majority of the dated material indicate that shell deposition occurred
between 5,000 and 3,800 cal. B.P., there is evidence to suggest continued occupation in this
deltaic area after 3,800 B.P. Closer to the ocean, in the inter-barrier area behind the less than
1,000 year old Little Tybee Island, there are multiple shell middens completely or partially
buried under the marsh, resting on a subsurface beach ridge. Thompson and Turck (in review)
dated charred nutshell (UGAMS-16981) from the basal sand and shell layer of one of these sites
(Marsh Midden D, at site 9CH482) associated with Late Archaic ceramics (Thom’s Creek stab
and drag, and plain fiber tempered). The date range (3,978 to 3,838 cal. B.P.) falls at the very
end of the early Late Archaic period, indicating that shell deposition began fairly late along this
portion of the deltaic coastline. A date from the base of one of the shell middens buried under the
marsh (at site 9CH377), indicates that shell deposition began during the terminal Late Archaic
period, around 3,846-3,474 cal. B.P. (sample ID 16- Lot 2).
Middle Georgia Coast. The Altamaha River meets the ocean in the central portion of the
state, within Glynn County. While there are Late Archaic sites on the mainland, the only
definitive shell-bearing sites are found on the Pleistocene barrier island St. Simons, and in the
inter-barrier area to the east. The Cannon’s Point Marsh Ring, just to the east of St. Simons
Island, contains one of the oldest dates for a shell ring on the Georgia coast at 5,276-4,731 cal.
B.P. (UM-520). This is slightly different than the calibrated date reported by Marrinan
(2010:81), which seems to be based on uncorrected dates. The sample is from the lower midden
levels, but not basal (Marrinan 2010:81), suggesting a possible older time frame for shell
deposition at this site. The upper levels date to 4,711-4,126 cal. B.P. (UM-521). A short distance
away, on the eastern edge of Skidaway Island, is the West Ring. The lower levels of this shell
ring date to a similar time as the upper levels of the Marsh Ring (4,808-4,288 cal. B.P., UM522), suggesting that these two shell rings were occupied simultaneously, at least for a part of the
time. With the upper levels dating between 4,502-3,873 cal. B.P. (UM-523), it is clear that
occupation had ceased at both rings by 3,800 cal. B.P.
Just south of here there is a Late Archaic shell ring (Oatland Ring-Bony Hammock) on a
marsh island, as well as a shell midden with a Late Archaic component (9GN58) on a buried
landform within the inter-barrier marsh. The site buried in the marsh also contains Early
Woodland ceramics, mirroring the inter-barrier area of the northern Georgia coast. Although this
suggests the possibility for the presence of terminal Late Archaic sites with shellfish utilization
and deposition (similar to the northern Georgia coast), there is no evidence for this at present.
Southern Georgia Coast. The Satilla and St. Marys rivers contribute to the southernmost
deltaic area of the Georgia coast. There is only one possible Late Archaic-aged component in this
area with shell. According to the preliminary site form, it is a shell ring, and dates to the Late
Archaic period, although no artifact types or radiocarbon dates are mentioned in relation to the
dating of this site. It is located just east of the mainland, in the back-barrier area. There are two
non-shell Late Archaic components on the mainland that have radiocarbon dates: Kings Bay
(9CM171) and Devils Walking Stick (9CM177). In addition to large plus/ minuses, some of
7
these dates have contextual problems, with dates from different periods found in the same feature
and level. There are two dates from these periods that also have good context. One sample (Beta4430) was found in Feature 5 of the Big Cedar Area of the Kings Bay site (DesJean 1985:201).
While no ceramics were associated with this feature, some fiber tempered sherds were found
30cm away, and higher up the profile. The date (3,843-3409 cal. B.P.) is fairly important, as it
indicates a terminal Late Archaic occupation. While this date does seem to be in association with
past human activity dating to the terminal Late Archaic period, and the Late Archaic component
of this site is not associated with shell deposition, we can only speculate that this date is
associated with non-shellfishing activities. The other sample (Beta-3499) was obtained from
Feature 3, an intrusive pit with fiber tempered sherds at the Fiber Tempered Area of the Devils
Walkingstick site (DesJean, Walker, and Saunders 1985:154 and 156). The date (4,229-3,634
cal. B.P.) straddles the early Late Archaic and the terminal Late Archaic. Being in a deltaic area,
but with a noted lack of shellfishing, the occupation at the site is difficult to decipher. Today the
site is on the present-day mainland, but at the time of occupation, lowering sea levels would have
positioned the coastline further to the east. This would have left marsh resources, specifically
shellfish, at a distance.
Archaeology: Non-deltaic Areas
On St. Catherines Island, a non-deltaic barrier island in the middle Georgia coast, there
are two Late Archaic shell rings. The terrestrial and marine dates from these two sites fall within
the early Late Archaic period, prior to 3,800 cal. B.P. Sanger and Thomas (2010:67) conclude
that shell construction completely ceased at both shell rings by 3,750 B.P. Three Late Archaic
sites (i.e., containing fiber tempered pottery) without marine shell were also located on St.
Catherines Island (Thomas 2010:189). Although no radiocarbon dates from these sites have been
obtained, the presence of these sites indicates a wider-range of Late Archaic activities outside of
shell-fishing. There are also multiple sites on St. Catherines Island that have been dated to the
terminal Late Archaic period, that are not associated with shell rings or large shell middens. One
example includes 9Li-197, with two St. Simons plain sherds and a date placing it in the terminal
Late Archaic period (Thomas 2008b:567). Site 9Li-137 indicates the presence of a transitioning
population on the island, dating to both before and after 3,800 cal. B.P., and containing both St.
Simons and Refuge plain sherds (Thomas 2008b:547).
The other the non-deltaic area of the middle Georgia coast is around the vicinity of
Sapelo Island, in McIntosh County. This barrier island contains three shell rings all in close
proximity (i.e., within one complex, or site). All three rings date to the early Late Archaic period,
with occupation ending around 3,800 cal. B.P. Thompson (2007; Thompson and Andrus 2011)
believes that all three rings were most likely occupied at the same time, for a fairly short amount
of time (between 50 and 100 years), and abandoned at the same time. Multiple sets of seasonality
data taken together indicate that these shell rings were occupied all-year round, with growth band
analysis indicating all four seasons of occupation for Sapelo Ring II and III (Thompson and
Andrus 2011:335 and 337), and isotope analysis indicating Ring III has all four seasons. Post
3,800 B.P. occupation is also evident in this non-deltaic area. Thompson (2007:103) found a
“less-dense” Late Archaic occupations (based on sherd count) outside of the Shell Rings on
Sapelo Island. This was not associated with ring-making, or even shell deposition, and one of the
dates falls just before the Early Woodland period. Also on Sapelo Island, the Kenan Field site
contains a fairly substantial terminal Late Archaic occupation, with a sooted sherd dated to
between 3571 and 3409 cal. BP (sample UGAMS-15933) (Ritchison and Thompson, in prep.).
8
On Patterson Island, a sooted Late Archaic sherd was also dated to the terminal Late
Archaic period (Turck 2011). The Late Archaic occupation on Patterson was fairly substantial,
especially when compared to other marsh islands (Thompson and Turck 2010; Turck 2011).
More importantly, the majority of this occupation was not associated with shellfish exploitation.
Turck (2011) argues that the majority of the Late Archaic occupation on Patterson Island was
towards the latter half of the period, by a non-shell using population, when a drop in sea level
adversely affected the marsh of this non-deltaic area.
There are other areas of McIntosh County where intensive survey data has found
evidence for Late Archaic occupations without any associated shell deposition. This includes
Little Sapelo Island (Thompson and Turck 2010), and the area around Sapelo Island Shell Ring
II (Jefferies and Moore 2009). Unfortunately, with the absence of radiocarbon dates, the exact
timing of the Late Archaic components at these sites is not known. We suspect that on further
investigation, these non-shell Late Archaic sites fall within the terminal Late Archaic period.
The A. Busch Krick shell crescent, located on the back-barrier Creighton Island, does not
meet our expectations for a non-deltaic area. Dated from 3,900-3,450 cal. B.P., it is the only shell
ring in Georgia that dates to the terminal Late Archaic period. However, this is probably
incorrect, as the it was obtained from a conch or whelk, whch have been shown to have dating
problems (Hadden and Cherkinsky 2014).
Based on the data from St. Catherines Island and McIntosh County, Turck and Thompson
(in review) concluded that there is continued occupation within non-deltaic areas after 3,800 cal.
B.P. There is a transition between coastal adaptations to lifeways where shellfish-use was fairly
limited or non-existent.
Early Woodland Period (3,100 - 2,400 B.P./ 2,950 - 2,300 B.P.)
Environment
As discussed for the Late Archaic period, we incorporate DePratter and Howard's (1981)
data, as well as the Santee River delta data (Gayes et al. 1992) into sea level changes, and
consider sea level to have continued dropping until 2,700 cal. B.P. We use the value of 4.0 mbp
(DePratter and Howard 1981) for the 2,700 cal. B.P. mark, although it may have been as low as
4.7 mbp (Gayes et al. 1992). After 2,700 cal. B.P., sea level rose rapidly (one meter every 100
years), reaching 1.0 mbp by 2,400 B.P. (DePratter and Howard 1981; Gayes et al. 1992). As
mentioned previously, the northeast section of Sapelo Island, in a non-deltaic area, had
developed a marsh by 2,900 B.P. (Turck and Alexander 2013). Also, in the northern Georgia
coast deltaic area, a marine shell (radiocarbon ID NOSAMS-71166) was found in an auger hole
on an inter-barrier marsh island behind the Holocene-aged barrier island Wassaw (Turck and
Alexander 2013). It was dated entirely to the Early Woodland period (2,698-2,496 cal. B.P.),
indicating that shellfish, and presumably marsh-estuarine system, were available in the area at
this time (Turck and Alexander 2013). That it was found over three meters below the present
surface also indicates that the previous land surfaces may be deeply buried.
Archaeology: General
The Archaic-Woodland transition was a time of change throughout the United States,
including the American Southeast (Thomas and Sanger 2010). While there seems to be
statistically significant differences between Late Archaic and Early Woodland settlement on the
greater coastal plain (Turck, Williams, and Chamblee 2011) as well as specifically in the coastal
zone (Thompson and Turck 2009), these are only grossly general observations. As detailed
9
above, and in Turck and Thompson (in review), although intensive shellfishing ceases at
different times between deltaic and non-deltaic populations, there was a general continuity from
the early Late Archaic into the terminal Late Archaic period. This continuity may extend into the
Early Woodland period, at least in some environmental habitats (e.g., deltaic inter-barrier areas).
Archaeology: Deltaic Areas
Northern Georgia Coast. The highest concentration of Early Woodland sites in the
coastal zone of Georgia occur in the northern section of the coast. In the inter-barrier area, almost
all of the Late Archaic shell middens also have Early Woodland components. This co-occurrence
of components suggests, at the very least, a continuity in occupation, even if the Early Woodland
component is not associated with shell deposition. DePratter and Howard (1977, 1981; DePratter
1977a) found Early Woodland ceramics in spoil piles that had been dredged from 3.0-1.5 m
below sea level, indicating sea levels had lowered, and shorelines prograded eastward during the
initial Early Woodland period. Although shoreline progradation has continued until the present,
sea level reversed course and began rising, eventually burying landforms, and associated
archaeological sites, under marsh sediment (DePratter and Howard 1981). Thus the lack of
coastally-adapted Early Woodland sites may be due to the lack of deep testing, and not to past
settlement practices. As the Late Archaic peoples living in deltaic areas followed the migrating
coast, continuing to utilize marsh-estuarine resources where available, so too did some Early
Woodland peoples (DePratter and Howard 1977, 1981; DePratter 1977a; Turck and Thompson,
in review). More Early Woodland sites should be found buried deeply under marsh sediments,
associated with former surfaces, in deltaic inter-barrier areas.
Evidence further supporting such a claim comes from the South Carolina side of the
Savannah River. There are a number of large shell midden and shell ring sites with radiocarbon
dates from the terminal Late Archaic and the Early Woodland periods. This includes the Fig
Island, Ford’s Skull Creek, and Sea Pines shell rings, as well as Fish Haul, Daws Island, and
Lighthouse Point shell midden sites. At the Delta site, Crook (2009:51) found that the
undisturbed shell midden was greater than three meters thick. Over 99% of the sherds in the
undisturbed midden were Early Woodland ceramics, but there were also four fiber tempered
sherds. This corresponds well with the radiocarbon dates, which show an occupation as early as
3,400 cal. B.P., but with most dates falling within the Early Woodland period (between 3,200
and 2,800 cal. B.P.). The majority of the shellfish in this midden are from estuarine oyster (7974%), with the other 21-26% being freshwater mussel (eastern elliptio). Additional faunal and
floral remains indicate that people exploited estuarine habitats, along with upland forest, and
freshwater riverine habitats (Crook 2009). This information represents environmental change.
Falling sea levels would have caused the marsh-estuarine system, and its resources, to move
eastward, while sediment influx would have helped this system maintain itself in the face of such
a change. The people living at the Delta site would have been in a position to continue exploiting
estuarine resources as they moved east, but with a closer proximity to freshwater resources.
Middle Georgia Coast. Close to the Late Archaic shell ring sites on St. Simons Island,
Marrinan (2010:77) also found layers of cultural material between 60 and 87 cm beneath the
present-day marsh surface (what she terms the “Marsh Culture”). A radiocarbon date (UM-518)
between 67 and 87 cm below the present marsh surface (Marrinan 1975:49) reveals a fairly
definitive Early Woodland occupation (3,141-2,750 cal. B.P.). The associated ceramics (i.e.,
fiber tempered, fiber and sand tempered, and sand tempered pottery, see Marrinan 2010:97),
indicate that there was some kind of cultural continuity between the people here and previous
10
Late Archaic peoples. The faunal and floral remains indicate that these Early Woodland
inhabitants utilized a large range of environments, including uplands, freshwater, freshwater-tobrackish, brackish, and brackish-to-marine species. This did not include shellfishing however, as
no shell was found at this site. This locale did revert back to an upland mainland setting, with the
coastline between 11 and 16km to the east (Turck 2011:176-180). Many brackish-to-marine
fauna were exploited at this site (i.e., gafftopsail catfish, black drum, red drum, Atlantic croaker,
Archosargus spp., and Paralichthys spp., see Marrinan 1975), indicating that at least the estuary
remained productive in this area during the Early Woodland period. The people at this site may
have been following a forager type of settlement-subsistence strategy, utilizing multiple fish
species of the nearby estuary, but not traveling further to collect shellfish to bring back to the site
(Turck 2011).
Archaeology: Non-deltaic Areas
On St. Catherines Island, Thomas (2010:184) notes a gap in the radiocarbon record, with
only eight of the over 150 marine shell radiocarbon dates falling between 3,300-2,150 B.P. (i.e.,
the terminal Late Archaic and the Early Woodland periods). Since most of the radiocarbon dates
are obtained from shell, Thomas (2010:184) makes the point that at the very least, the lack of
dates indicates a hiatus in shell midden deposition. This may indicate that, at least on St.
Catherines Island, the general time frame for the hiatus in shell midden deposition occurred
throughout the Early Woodland period. However, there seems to be a discrepancy with this, as
most marine shells that were found in association with Early-Middle Woodland ceramics have
radiocarbon dates that are younger than the ceramics (Thomas 2010:185). Possible factors
involved in this observation include problems with the ceramic chronology, incorporation of
older ceramics by later people, or the disturbance/ mixing of older and younger deposits. Another
factor is that ceramics (and sites) are categorized into a larger Early-Middle Woodland (RefugeDeptford) category (Thomas 2008a:412). This is due to some ceramic types (i.e., Refuge plain
and simple stamped) being present throughout the Early and Middle Woodland periods
(DePratter 1991:9, 11). Although the pottery types at these sites are sometimes mixed (including
with earlier Late Archaic types), radiocarbon dates can be used to separate distinct occupations
dating to both the Early and the Middle Woodland periods. Two sites (9Li26 and 46) with Early
and Middle Woodland ceramics have radiocarbon dates between 3,190 and 2,370 B.P. (the Early
Woodland period) (Thomas 2008a:408-409). Two other sites (9Li15 and 228) with Early and
Middle Woodland ceramics have dates between 2,290 and 1,510 B.P. (the Middle Woodland
period) (Thomas 2008a:408-409). Two sites (9Li47 and 173) have radiocarbon dates from both
periods, indicating possible continuities or connections between the Early and Middle Woodland
periods. Also, Early Woodland radiocarbon dates from the sand burial mounds were usually
found underneath the sand mounds, on the former ground surface (i.e., on the top of the former A
horizon, called the primary humus layer, or Unit II, by Thomas and Larsen 1979), before the
mounds were constructed. Thomas and Larsen (1979) believe that these samples date the
activities of initial mound construction (burning and clearing before the mound is built). Pit
features where some of these dates were found are seen within and/ or through this primary
humus. Some of the pits were dug after the burning, into the primary humus, sometimes as deep
as the sterile Unit I (Thomas and Larsen 1979:51). However, Features 2 and 3 at Cunningham
Mound C were made before the ground was burned (Thomas and Larsen 1979:58), indicating
they may not be associated with mound construction. More radiocarbon dating like this is needed
to sort out the details of Early and Middle Woodland occupations.
11
Through a comparative, distributional analysis of eight archaeological surveys across
four different habitats of the non-deltaic McIntosh and Liberty counties, Turck (2011) found that
there was a decrease in the intensity of occupation everywhere, except for Mary Hammock. The
percent count and weight of Early Woodland sherds is higher here than the three other nearby
back-barrier islands (Thompson and Turck 2010:293). Also, there was no previous Late Archaic
occupation on the island, making any occupation an increase. Although the overall pattern
indicates a drop in population during the Early Woodland period, it does not indicate
abandonment. And although some researchers have noted a change to a more “terrestrial”
subsistence pattern at this time, this must be understood in the context of falling sea level. The
drop in sea level connected all upland areas to each other, reverting the majority of this coastal
zone back to an interior mainland, in essence rendering it a terrestrial setting, with the eastern
coast of Sapelo Island around 2.0-1.5 km east of its current position in the earlier portion of the
period (Turck 2011:171). A related factor is that the present-day marsh islands represent remnant
patches of uplands that are easily-accessible to researchers today. They may not have been the
ultimate places for Early Woodland occupations, they are simply the only parts of the landscape
that are still easily available to study. Below-marsh evidence attests to this.
In McIntosh County, buried within the marsh just southwest of Creighton Island,
DePratter (1984, unpublished notes) found Early Woodland ceramics in the same level as a 5-10
cm thick shell layer. If this site is dated definitively to the Early Woodland period, the presence
of shell so close to the present-day mainland would be an anomaly for the coast of Georgia. This,
and sites like it, need further testing.
Middle Woodland Period (2,400 - 1,500 B.P./ 2,300 - 1,600 B.P.)
Environment
Starting at 1.0 mbp at 2,400 cal. B.P., sea level kept rising to around 0.72 mbp by 1,500
cal. B.P. (Gayes et al. 1992). This slow rise would have allowed for marsh accretion to maintain
itself (see Reed 2002:240). Turck and Alexander (2013) estimate that the southern end of Sapelo
Island was an active margin, possibly related to Doboy Sound, between 2,375 and 2,056 B.P.
Around 2,000 B.P., the small island off of the southern end formed, and the area filled with
marsh sediment (Turck and Alexander 2013).
Archaeology- General
As most of the eastern United states, populations in Georgia were part of the “Hopewell
Interaction Sphere,” trading exotic status items, with large mound sites like Kolomoki, Swift
Creek, the Leake site, and Tunacunhee. On the Coastal Plain in general, there is a significant
increase in site density (Turck, Williams, and Chamblee 2011), with four of the five
physiographic districts with significantly high Middle Woodland proportions on the Coastal
Plain (Turck, Williams, and Chamblee 2011). In the coastal zone of Georgia, sites are once again
found in abundance, with both a higher raw number and a higher site density than even the Late
Archaic period (Thompson and Turck 2009). On the coast, it was common for the edges of backbarrier areas to be occupied for habitation (DePratter and Howard 1980:12-14), so people could
utilize the resources of the marshes, islands, and tidal creeks (Milanich 1980:173). Brackishwater shellfish were once again important, and much of the diet was made up of bony fish and
turtle (DePratter and Howard 1980:14; Milanich 1980:174). The sizes of some coastal sites were
fairly large, and some were occupied throughout the year (Quitmyer et al. 1985; Quitmyer et al.
1997). These findings suggest that that there was a preference for Middle Woodland settlement
12
on the Coastal Plain in general, and the coastal zone specifically. Coastal subsistence was similar
to Late Archaic populations, with people relying on oysters, clams, and fish (see Quitmyer and
Reitz 2006).
There is ample evidence of mound-building in the coastal zone (e.g., Thomas and Larsen
1979). Although Thomas (2008c:1011) suggests a brief period of “mortuary activity” between
2,700 and 2,550 B.P., he also notes that those activities may not be directly related to mortuary
ritual. The people interred in Middle Woodland burial mounds are most likely from an
egalitarian society, and they achieved higher status during their lifetimes (Thomas 2010:193).
There is also a high frequency of female interments (Thomas and Larsen 1979). The construction
of mortuary sites can indicate sedentism and/ or competition for resources (Charles and Buikstra
1983). Thompson and Turck (2009) suggest that it was the renewed emphasis on coastal
resources that led to the construction of burial mounds, so people could claim those resources
and territories.
As Turck (2011) showed, population increase most likely occurred during the Middle
Woodland period. McIntosh County had a total of 117 Middle Woodland period sites. Although
the mainland had the highest number of sites, the marsh islands actually have the highest density
of sites (number of sites per area). This supports the idea that Middle Woodland marsh island
occupations were related to sea level and the re-establishment of the marsh-estuarine system
(Turck 2011). The sherd density data also support this idea. Mainland sherd density is fairly low
during the Middle Woodland. But places like Patterson Island and Mary Hammock have
extremely high Middle Woodland densities (Turck 2011). In contrast to this is the pattern at the
Julianton Plantation on the southern end of Harris Neck. Very low Middle Woodland sherd
densities here (Elliott 2008) goes against expectations. This suggests that the settlement pattern is
not related to environmental changes or subsistence.
Year-round settlement and the increase in population suggest an intensification of
occupation during the Middle Woodland period. There seems to be an even greater emphasis on
marsh island settlement than during the Late Archaic period. This includes all marsh islands, not
just the ones in the back-barrier area. Turck (2011) suggests that marsh islands were just as
intensively occupied/ utilized as main barrier islands, if not more so. There is also variability in
settlement within the county, with less intensive occupation on the mainland (including the
peninsula of Harris Neck).
Late Woodland Period (1,500 - 1,000 B.P./ 1,600 - 1,150 B.P.)
Environment
Starting at 0.72 mbp at 1,500 cal. B.P., sea level continued rising to around 0.6 mbp by
1,000 cal. B.P. (Gayes et al. 1992). Off the northeast coast of Sapelo Island, Blackbeard Island
formed around this time, as indicated by Late Woodland period archaeological sites (DePratter
1977b), a radiocarbon date (2,000-1,616 B.P.), and an Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL)
date (1,340-1,140 B.P) (Turck and Alexander 2013). The rest of the ridges making up
Blackbeard Island (to the east) have not been dated or fully surveyed archaeologically. However,
they most likely formed later in time, and in succession (see DePratter 1977b). As previosuly
mentioned, marsh had formed in this area much earlier (by 2,900 B.P.). It was by the end of the
Late Woodland period (1,000 B.P.) that Mary Hammock would have started to become a
separate entity from Little Sapelo Island, Fishing Hammock, and Pumpkin Hammock (Turck
2011). It is also by 1,000 B.P. that Harris Neck separated from the mainland, also becoming a
marsh island.
13
Archaeology- General
By the Late Woodland period, the Hopewell Interaction Sphere comes to an end. In the
southeast, there were more restricted social boundaries at this time, as seen in the trade of
utilitarian objects over shorter distances, the utilization of local stone material, and the
appearance of the bow and arrow (Cobb and Nassaney 1995), and people may have been fighting
over territories (McElrath et al. 2000). In Georgia, there is an abandonment of the large mound
centers except for Kolomoki, and six areas with distinct ceramic types arose (Williams 2005).
Within the Late Woodland period, five of the six physiographic districts with
significantly high component proportions are on the Coastal Plain (Turck, Williams, and
Chamblee 2011). Similar to the Middle Woodland period, this suggests that that there was a
preference for settlement on the Coastal Plain, at least in Georgia.
Also similar to the Middle Woodland period, population increases occurred during the
Late Woodland in the coastal zone. Once again, the mainland had a higher number of Late
Woodland sites, but the marsh islands had a higher density of sites (number of sites per area).
The sherd density data also support this idea. Similar to the Middle Woodland period, mainland
sherd density is fairly low, but on marsh islands like Patterson Island and Mary Hammock, Late
Woodland sherd densities were very high.
As soon as coastal landforms developed, they were rapidly utilized by humans (DePratter
1977b; DePratter and Howard 1977; Turck and Alexander 2013). Both Blackbeard Island
(DePratter 1977b; Marrinan 1980) and the small marsh island off the southern end of Sapelo
Island (Turck and Alexander 2013) have evidence of Late Woodland occupations.
The trend of year-round settlement and the increase in population (suggesting an
intensification of occupation during the Middle Woodland period), continued through the Late
Woodland period.
Mississippian Period (1,000 - 370 B.P./ 1,150 - 370 B.P.)
Environment
Sea level continued to rise at negligible pace (see Gayes et al. 1992). Frey and Basan
(1981) dated relict marsh under Cabretta Beach (off the east shore of Sapelo Island) to between
1,000 and 500 B.P. This suggests that a protective barrier like Nanny Goat/ Cabretta Beach was
present at this time, but further seaward (Frey and Basan 1981:113).
Archaeology: General
In Georgia, the most diagnostic feature of the Mississippian period is the renewed
construction of mound centers (e.g., Etowah), now with Chiefs and other elite living at the
centers. In the interior southeast, the Early and Middle Mississippian period settlement system
was of small, dispersed farmsteads, located in river floodplains, with a large, fortified, and
centrally located settlement (Smith 1978:490). Archaeologically, this is seen as a nucleated
pattern, with a decrease in the number of sites, and an increase in site size. In the coastal zone of
Georgia, (~80 km from the shoreline), Pluckhahn and McKivergan (2002) found sites to be less
clustered, with less separation between clusters, when compared to interior sites. This suggests
14
that occupation of the coastal zone was less centralized, and boundaries were less defended then
in the interior (Pluckhahn and McKivergan 2002).
During the Late Mississippian period, there is population relocation (Bense 2009:239) as
well as abandonment (e.g., along the Savannah River Valley) (Bense 2009:248). The large
chiefdoms of the Middle Mississippian broke apart into smaller political units. This more
dispersed settlement is seen as an increase in sites, which are smaller than the previous period.
Another feature of the Mississippian period that needs to be considered is the existence of paired
towns (Williams and Shapiro 1990), and the related idea of chiefdoms cycling in and out of
existence at regular intervals (Hally 2006). Looking at a spatial scale above the site level, some
sites get abandoned while new ones get established, and then those get abandoned, and either
new sites are established or previous sites get re-occupied (Hally 2006; Williams and Shapiro
1990). This typical aspect of Mississippian society can lead to a settlement pattern that is
difficult to reconstruct.
Archaeology: Coast Specific
Changes in both settlement and subsistence occurred during the Early Mississippian (St.
Catherines) period (1,000-850 B.P.). Larger habitation sites and few small sites were occupied at
this time, indicating that populations were more clustered (DePratter and Howard 1980:16).
Also, most sites were located on the well-drained upland portions of barrier islands (DePratter
and Howard 1980:16). This may have to do with a change to agriculture, as Hutchinson et al.
note a steady increase in the reliance on maize from A.D. 1000 (1998:409).
During the Middle Mississippian (Savannah) period (850-700 B.P.) the number of sites
decreased, but sites were larger, with a greater numbers of people living in the communities
(DePratter and Howard 1980:17). Large sites were located on both the mainland and the barrier
islands, and were associated with one or more burial mounds (DePratter and Howard 1980:17).
Political organization was more centralized, with a chief in control of the religious and political
realms (DePratter and Howard 1980:17-18). The settlement system can be described as
nucleated, consisting of a primary center, secondary sites, and multiple smaller sites (Pearson
1980). Maize became an important part of the diet at this time, as indicated by the increase in
dental carries (Larsen 1980).
By the Late Mississippian (Irene) period (700-480 B.P.) the settlement system was
dispersed (Pearson 1980). There were more sites at this time, but they were smaller (Pearson
1980). Communities broke up into smaller villages and farmsteads, and although large sites were
still occupied, they were not political/ religious centers (DePratter and Howard 1980:19). Each
town was an autonomous unit controlled by a chief, but political authority shifted to a council
house (DePratter and Howard 1980:19). Evidence of maize and other domesticated plants
indicate that agriculture was a significant source of food at this time (Keene 2004). However, it
seems that estuarine and marine resources were still heavily used (Hutchinson et al. 1998; Keene
2004). There is also evidence of year-round occupation of the coast at this time (Keene 2004).
By the 1500’s, the arrival of European explorers and eventual occupation of the coast by the
Spanish disrupted Native American life on the coast of Georgia.
Activist Archaeology
Coastal archaeological studies are the perfect avenue for applying archaeological research
to present-day problems, with years of academic research involving climate change, sea level
fluctuations, over-exploitation of resources, ENSO events and hurricanes, etc., intersects with
15
present-day problems. The application of archaeology to current issues, where archaeology is
made relevant to present-day societies, is becoming an important trend in the discipline
(McGuire 2008; Rockman and Flatman 2012; Sabloff 2008; Stottman 2010). This is different
than the typical application of archaeology, such as in CRM and public archaeology, which is not
necessarily designed to serve the needs of the public (Dawdy 2009:137). Activist archaeology
reorients archaeology towards addressing current social problems, making it more useful and
socially relevant (Dawdy 2009:140). While the question of “usefulness” might not be typical in
academic archaeology, it is gaining significance in the current political climate with the lack of
funding sources, and attacks on archaeology and anthropology.
There are many groups concerned with climate change, even incorporating paleoclimate
data (e.g., EPA, ICCP, NOAA, USGCRP). Others look at traditional, community-based
knowledge for sources of adapting to climate change (e.g., IIED, UNU-TKI). While
archaeological data should be an important part of these discussions, it is often absent. This is
unfortunate, because archaeology offers a unique long-term perspective, involving
environmental change as well as human involvement and interactions with those changes over
large time scales. Information on past human-environmental interactions is critical to
understanding present and future directions related to climate change.
Applying Archaeology to the Present
The most important issue in coastal studies is general sea level history. It has changed a
lot since the end of the last ice age, when sea level was as low as 125 meters below present.
Since then it has been generally rising, but within that trend there have been fluctuations.
Evidence for this must be shown to the public.
There is overwhelming evidence that the rates of sea level change have not been constant
over the past 13,000 years. For example, with the two most widely used sea level curves for the
Georgia coast, note the drop in sea level at the end of the Late Archaic period/ Early Woodland
period. More importantly, note the change in the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has not been
constantly rising.
Recent situations in present-day coastal policy-making reveals why this point needs to be
broadcast. During the summer of 2012, the North Carolina state Senate approved legislation (HB
819) that stated that predictions of future sea level rise could only be based on a linear rate of
increase. In addition, this rate could only be calculated based on historic rates over the last 100
years. Their finding was that over the next 100 years, sea level would only increase by 12 inches.
The last section of the legislation stated that local governments (county, city, etc.) were not
allowed to develop their own predictions of sea level rise. The intention was to exclude models
(created by the scientific community) that stated that future rates of sea level rise would
accelerate due to things like melting polar ice caps. This most troubling aspect of this situation
was that the legislation was worded like this largely due to lobbying by NC-20: a group of
people dedicated to promoting “economic development” in 20 coastal counties of North
Carolina.
The bill passed through the Senate, but luckily was shot down in the House. It was then
reworded, removing the section about only using historic rates to predict future sea level rise. A
section was also added calling for more sea level studies within the next four years. While these
were positive steps, a section was also added saying that state agencies are not permitted to use
the scientific calculations of accelerated sea level rise in their decision-making during these next
four years.
16
A slightly better, but still disheartening, situation was occurring in Virginia at this same
time. The state was commissioning a bill to address sea level rise, but decided to take out all
references to “global warming.” They also replaced the phrase “sea level rise” with “recurrent
flooding.” As one of the republicans (state delegate Chris Stolle) who sponsored the bill said, sea
level rise is a “left-wing term.”
Obviously (to an archaeologist at least), having a perspective on time that goes back
greater than 100 years would have been extremely useful in these situations. First of all, we can
let policy-makers know that sea level does rise, as do temperatures, sometimes on a global scale.
This does not necessarily have to do with human-induced climate change. As a matter of fact,
prior to the Industrial Revolution, most global environmental changes are not related to human
activity. In addition, the rate of sea level rise has also changed. At times it was fast, but other
times it was slow. There were also still stands, or even reversals. These things did happen in the
past. Acknowledging this is also an acknowledgement that they could happen again in the future.
Evidence for these changes in sea level are observable today. Through a suite of
techniques including probing, vibracoring, and sediment analysis, Turck (2011) found former
land surfaces buried underneath marsh mud. This includes remnant forests (i.e., tree stumps) on
these former surfaces, up to 1.5 meters below the marsh surface, and are only exposed at low
tide. This is a good indicator of lower sea level in the past, and something tangible to show
people who "don't believe" in global warming and sea level rise.
17
TABLES
(N/A)
18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Georgia coast study area, with environmental habitats. From Turck and Thompson, in
review.
19
Figure 2. Former shoreline complexes of Pleistocene age along the present-day coastal
zone. From Turck and Alexander 2013.
20
Figure 3. Sea level curves relevant to the Georgia coast.
21
Late Archaic
Figure 4. Distribution of Late Archaic site types within the Georgia coastal zone. From
Turck and Thompson, in review.
22
REFERENCES
DePratter, Chester B.
1976 The Refuge Phase on the Coastal Plain of Georgia. Early Georgia 4(1 and 2):113.
1977a Environmental Changes on the Georgia Coast During the Prehistoric Period.
Early Georgia 5(1 and 2):1-14.
1977b Report on an Archaeological Survey of Portions of Wassaw Island National
Wildliferefuge, Chatham, Georgia and Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge,
Mcintosh County, Georgia. Report on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of
Georgia, Athens
1991 W.P.A. Archaeological Excavations in Chatham County, Georgia: 1937-1942.
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report, Athens.
DePratter, Chester B. and James D. Howard
1977 History of Shoreline Changes Determined by Archaeological Dating: Georgia
Coast, U.S.A. Transactions: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 27:252-258.
1980 Indian Occupation and Geologic History of the Georgia Coast: A 5,000 Year
Summary. In Excursions in Southeastern Geology: The Archaeology-Geology of the
Georgia Coast, edited by J. D. Howard, C. B. DePratter and R. W. Frey, pp. 1-65. vol.
20. Georgia Geological Society Guidebook, Atlanta.
1981 Evidence for a Sea Level Lowstand between 4500 and 2400 Years B.P. On the
Southeast Coast of the United States. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51(4):1287-1295.
Ritchison, Brandon T. and Victor D. Thompson
in prep.
Shovel Test Survey of the Kenan Field Site. Report to be filed at the
Georgia Archaeological Site File, University of Georgia, Athens.
Thomas, David Hurst
2008a Melding the Ceramic and Radiocarbon Chronologies. In Native American
Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: II. The Data, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp.
404-434. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 88,
New York.
2008b The Transect Survey on St. Catherines Island. In Native American Landscapes of
St. Catherines Island, Georgia: II. The Data, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 525-601.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 88, New York.
2008c Synthesis: The Aboriginal Landscape of St. Catherines Island. In Native American
Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: III. Synthesis and Implications, edited by
23
D. H. Thomas, pp. 990-1045. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History No. 88, New York.
2009 Late Aboriginal Ceramics from St. Catherines Island (Cal A.D. 1400-1700). In
From Santa Elena to St. Augustine: Indigenous Ceramic Variability (A.D. 1400-1700),
edited by K. Deagan and D. H. Thomas, pp. 49-81. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 90, New York.
2010 "What Hapened to the Southeastern Archaic?" A Perspective from St. Catherines
Island. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic?,
edited by D. H. Thomas and M. C. Sanger, pp. 173-199. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 93, New York.
2011 Why This Archaeologist Cares About Geoarchaeology: Some Pasts and Futures
of St. Catherines Island. In Geoarchaeology of St. Catherines Island, Georgia, edited by
G. A. Bishop, H. B. Rollins and D. H. Thomas, pp. 25-77. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 94, New York.
Thomas, David Hurst and Clark Spencer Larsen
1979 The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island: 2. The Refuge-Deptford Morturary
Complex. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 56,
New York.
Thomas, David Hurst and Matthew C. Sanger
2010 Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic?
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 93, New York
Thompson, Victor D.
2007 Articulating Activity Areas and Formation Processes at the Sapelo Island Shell
Ring Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 26(1):91-107.
Thompson, Victor D. and C. Fred T. Andrus
2011 Evaluating Mobility, Monumentality, and Feasting at the Sapelo Island Shell Ring
Complex. American Antiquity 76(2):315-343.
Thompson, Victor D. and John A. Turck
2009 Adaptive Cycles of Coastal Hunter-Gatherers. American Antiquity 74(2):255-278.
2010 Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies (2500 B.C. – A.D.
1700) of the Georgia Coast, USA. Journal of Field Archaeology (TBA).
Turck, John A.
2011 Geoarchaeological Analysis of Two Back-Barrier Islands and Their Relationship
to the Changing Landscape of Coastal Georgia, U.S.A., Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. University of Georgia.
24
2012 Where Were All of the Coastally Adapted People During the Middle Archaic
Period in Georgia, USA? Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7(3):404-424.
Turck, John A. and Clark R. Alexander
2013 Coastal Landscapes and Their Relationship to Human Settlement on the Georgia
Coast. In Life among the Tides: Recent Archaeology of the Georgia Bight, edited by V.
D. Thompson and D. H. Thomas, pp. 169-189. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History, No. 98, New York.
Turck, John A. and Victor D. Thompson
2014 A Comprehensive Radiocarbon Date Database from Archaeological Contexts on
the Coastal Plain of Georgia. University of Georgia, Georgia Coastal Ecosystems Lter
Project, Long Term Ecological Research Network. Doi:
10.6073/Pasta/D0a83dc508e50e5038e6b6a3ccca36d6.
in review
Revisiting the Resilience of Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherers Along the
Georgia Coast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology TBA.
Turck, John A., Mark Williams and John F. Chamblee
2011 Examining Variation in the Human Settlement of Prehistoric Georgia. Early
Georgia in press.
25