GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
Biomantle Formation and Artifact
Translocation in Upland Sandy Soils: An
Example from the Holly Springs National
Forest, North-Central Mississippi, U.S.A.
Evan Peacock1 and David W. Fant2
1
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work and Cobb Institute of
Archaeology, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box AR, Mississippi State,
Mississippi 39762
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Holly Springs National Forest,
1000 Front Street, Oxford, Mississippi 38655
Test excavations at prehistoric site 22MR539 in the North Central Hills uplands of Mississippi
have provided evidence of the effects of bioturbation on artifacts within the soil. Artifact
distribution and size data are compared to soil particle size and organic content to determine
the soil developmental pathway. Progressive soil formation factors have formed a biomantle
over a currently forming artifact stone line, while regressive factors have moved artifacts to
a depth of more than 50 cm below surface over approximately 2000 years. The single-component, short-term nature of 22MR539 and many similar sites recorded in the area provide
an ideal situation to further explore biological and mechanical factors in site formation in an
upland setting. 䉷 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
A basic understanding of soil dynamics, including knowledge of both physical
and biological site-forming factors, should be an integral part of every archaeologist’s repertoire. Unfortunately, biomechanical concepts have been little used in
archaeology and the earth sciences (Johnson and Hole, 1994; Grave and Kealhofer,
1999; Johnson, this issue). Recently, however, a theoretical framework encompassing the role of biota in soil formation (Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1987, 1990;
Johnson et al., 1987; Johnson, 1990, 1992; Schaetzl et al., 1990; Johnson and Balek,
1991) has been coupled with laboratory and field studies to show the effects of
bioturbation on artifacts within the soil (e.g., Stein, 1983; Michie, 1990; Neumann,
1993; Armour-Chelu and Andrews, 1994; Leigh, 1998).
For archaeologists, a primary concern is the burial and/or translocation of artifacts and features. Burial occurs as faunalmantles are formed above surficial artifacts, primarily by the deposition of worm casts and anthills (Johnson et al., 1987:
285; Johnson, 1990; Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1990). Translocation occurs as
artifacts move downward through root holes and animal burrows and through sortGeoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, 91– 114 (2002)
䉷 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
ing and settling via the effects of gravity (Michie, 1990; Johnson, 1992:76). Dramatic
translocation can occur when soil is displaced in tree throws (Johnson et al., 1987:
282; Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1990; Schaetzl et al., 1990). The effects of different bioturbation events and agents on the archaeological record can be modeled,
and the results of field studies can be compared to these models in order to construct detailed site formation histories (e.g., Leigh, 1998, 2001). Inferences of past
human behavior based upon artifacts and their locations within sites can then be
made within sound geomorphological and pedological boundaries.
When enough site formation histories have been assembled, geoarchaeological
inquiries can assume a regional scope. Characterizations can be made concerning
(1) the types of environments in which significant artifact translocation can be
expected, (2) the rates at which artifacts move within the soil and the depths they
can be expected to have reached, (3) whether features, or perhaps only particular
types of features, are likely to be preserved in particular geomorphic settings, and
(4) the types and degrees of artifact degradation produced by bioturbation processes. Such characterizations have implications for the day-to-day business of
doing archaeology. For example, a survey using subsurface testing would have to
be modified in an area where artifact depth was suspected to be greater than in
surrounding areas (cf. Stafford, 1995).
The purpose of this paper is to describe a recently discovered ridge top site in
the North Central Hills of Mississippi within which artifacts occur at considerable
depth. The results from limited testing of a prehistoric site (22MR539) in Marshall
County are compared to a soil-development model to construct a site formation
history. The evolution of a biomantle is discussed, as are the effects of bioturbation
on artifact location within a sandy soil. The local and regional implications stemming from this work are then assessed.
STUDY AREA
The Holly Springs Unit of the Holly Springs National Forest (HSNF) comprises
more than 54,000 ha in extreme north-central Mississippi, in the southeastern
United States. It lies within the eastern half of the portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain
known as the Mississippi Embayment (Grim, 1936:19), and is located in the North
Central Hills physiographic province. This hill belt runs in a wide strip down the
center of Mississippi (Figure 1) and consists of highly dissected uplands characterized by dramatic relief (up to 140 m), a dendritic drainage pattern, and some of
the highest surface altitudes in the state (up to about 215 m amsl). The study area
is in Thornthwaite’s (1948) B2 (Humid) climatic region, with average annual precipitation of 55 in. (139.7 cm) per year. Seasonal variation is moderately pronounced: Winter and spring are wet, and summer and fall are dry. Average annual
temperature is about 62⬚F (16.66⬚C) (Tyer et al., 1972: Table 9). Tree cover today
consists of mixed hardwoods and artificially maintained stands of pine timber. Prior
to Euro-American settlement in the early 1800s, the hills probably supported an
oak-hickory dominated mixed hardwood forest (Johnson, 1997).
92
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Figure 1. Location of Holly Springs National Forest and site 22MR539, Mississippi, U.S.A.
short
standard
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
93
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
The province is geologically very complex. During the Tertiary, alternate periods
of deposition and erosion were controlled by changes in sea level and consequent
river gradients as well as episodes of uplift and weathering. In general terms, those
geologic strata responsible for the area’s current geomorphology are comprised
mostly of sands, silts, and clays deposited during the Upper Paleocene through
Middle Eocene, beginning with the non-marine sands of the Wilcox Group. The
Meridian Sand, which was deposited unconformably over the Hatchetigbee Formation of the Wilcox Group between about 52 and 50.5 million years ago (Dockery,
1996), consists of nonmarine sands characterized by fluvial cross-bedding and sorting (Attaya, 1951; Lusk, 1956) with some “thinner intervals of horizontally bedded
sands” (Vestal, 1954:63). There is some dispute concerning the energy of this fluvial
depositional environment (e.g., Attaya, 1951:22; Vestal, 1954:139), a variable probably dependent on sea level fluctuations in the nearby Gulf Embayment. The Meridian Sand is overlain conformably by the Tallahatta Formation, characterized by
Attaya (1951:27) as “a maze of sands, clays, clay shale, and siltstone.” The Tallahatta
accumulated during a period of sea level transgressions and regressions, with the
lower part of the formation consisting of deposits accumulated in shallow marine
conditions and the upper part representing the depositional environment of a lower
coastal plain. This latter period ended with a time of uplift and erosion, and subsequent strata recognized in other parts of the state (the Winona Formation and
the Zilpha shale) are absent in the northern part of the North Central Hills. Indeed,
the Tallahatta Formation itself is absent in places (Attaya, 1951). Following this
period of peneplain degradation, the Kosciusko Formation developed about 49 million years ago. This formation consists of “great quantities of quartz sand” (Attaya,
1951:34) deposited by small streams and infilling much of the previously dissected
landscape. All of these post-Wilcox formations are subsumed within the Claiborne
Group (Dockery, 1996).
The latter half of the Tertiary Period was a time of cyclical uplift and peneplain
development (Vestal, 1954). Some sands and gravels were deposited in the study
area via fluvial mechanisms during the Pliocene and possibly the early Pleistocene;
the distribution of these deposits in the study area is currently being mapped (David
Thompson, Mississippi State Geological Survey, personal communication, 2001).
There was no further significant deposition in the study area until loess accumulated on the eastern margin of the Mississippi River Valley during the late Pleistocene. The relatively narrow loess belt is thickest along the valley margin and thins
rapidly to the east (Snowden and Priddy, 1968). It consists primarily of silt-sized
particles, with minor components of very fine sand (ca. 5 – 6 %) and coarser particles (⬍.05 %) (Vestal, 1954; Snowden and Priddy, 1968) present in loess deposits
along the valley edge but dropping out rapidly as one moves east. Although the
eastern edge of the Loess or Bluff Hills physiographic province is generally mapped
as occurring some 32 km west of the study area (Logan, 1907; Vestal, 1954; Snowden
and Priddy, 1968; Grissinger et al., 1982), some silt was no doubt deposited on the
North Central Hills uplands. There it became incorporated into the residual loamy
94
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
soils (Alfisols) formed in older Tertiary sands (Logan, 1907; Vestal, 1954:116, 141 –
145; Tyer et al., 1972).
Between about 10,000 and 5000 years ago, valley floors in the North Central Hills
received influxes of a massive silt, interpreted by Grissinger et al. (1982:152) as “a
low-energy fluvial deposit, possibly resulting from trunk valley aggradation. . . . Aeolian materials may have been an additional source for this massive
silt deposit.” There is no bedding or other physical evidence to bear out this suggestion of eolian deposition (Grissinger et al., 1982:152), and it is likely that the
silts were eroded from adjacent ridge systems during this relatively dry period.
With increased precipitation beginning about 3000 years ago, conditions in the
study area stabilized, as indicated by the development of a soil in the massive silt
deposit (Grissinger et al., 1982).
The geological situation is thus one of sand beds of different ages and mixed
character, of various colors, grain sizes, and fabrics. These strata are “interwoven,”
with many “fingers and outliers” (Vestal, 1954:91). This confusing situation has been
exacerbated by recent landscape alteration. Beginning in the first half of the 19th
century, land clearance and farming caused extensive and severe erosion in the
hills, leading to the deposition of up to 3 m of “post-settlement alluvium” on the
valley floors (Grissinger et al., 1982). One problem related to this complex geological history is that it is often extremely difficult to assign particular sand strata to
any particular formation, especially if no bedding is visible. This “sand problem”
has stymied geologists and geomorphologists for decades. Attaya (1951:21) described the situation as follows:
. . . the sand formations . . . have been so confused with one another that their relative
stratigraphic positions are still in question to practically all the geologists interested in the
Mississippi area. The condition is very acute in the north-central part of the state where
erosional unconformity and overlap have obscured beds that might be used as key horizons.
Vestal (1954:17) was no more optimistic, stating: “stratigraphic relationships in
northern Mississippi have passed, and probably will continue to pass, complete
understanding.” Geological fieldwork has recently begun that should help clarify
the situation (David Dockery, Mississippi State Geological Survey, personal communication, 2001). In the meantime, however, it is beyond the authors’ expertise
to assign the sedimentary layers discussed in this paper to their proper stratigraphic
units. This does not affect the arguments developed below concerning biomantle
development and artifact translocation, as the material culture under consideration
is certainly no more than 2500 years old, at most, and is found in residual soils
developed on the Paleocene, Eocene, and Pleistocene mantles of the North Central
Hills (Tyer et al., 1972; Wynn et al., 1977). There is no real evidence to suggest any
sort of deposition on the ridge tops of the North Central Hills following the presumed influx of silt-sized loess particles during the latter half of the Pleistocene.
There certainly is no reason to believe that any deposition has taken place on the
highest elevations within the last three thousand years.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
95
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
Prior to 1992, very little archaeological data were available from the HSNF. Many
small-scale surveys conducted by or for the U.S. Forest Service had produced consistently negative results. For example, between 1978 and 1991, 2173 ha were surveyed without a single site being found (Peacock, 1994:76). Archaeologists conducting the surveys suggested that prehistoric activity in the uplands had been
“seasonal and limited at best” and that whatever sites had existed had been destroyed by Historic period land clearance and erosion (DeLeon, 1978a, 1978b;
Wynn, 1979a, 1979b; Thorne, 1983).
The advent of intensive shovel-test surveys employing screening as a recovery
technique (Peacock, 1996a) resulted in 186 sites being recorded on the HSNF in 1
year alone, from 1992 to 1993 (Peacock, 1994: Table 1), and hundreds more have
been recorded since then. Almost all are on ridge tops, saddles, or other upland
landforms. Many are Historic period farmsteads, cemeteries, and other Euro- and
African-American sites, but many prehistoric sites have been recorded as well. Most
of these prehistoric sites (more than 150) have produced Woodland period diagnostics, including grog-tempered fabric-impressed, red-slipped, punctate, and cordimpressed sherds attributable to the Early Woodland Tchula period (Peacock,
1996b and references therein). Few sites have produced later ceramic types (Peacock, 1996b: Table 2.1).
Chronological estimates for the Tchula period range from 500 to 350 B.C. on the
early end and from 100 B.C. to A.D. 100 on the late end (Peacock, 1997:246). This
uncertainty is mirrored by a general lack of knowledge regarding patterns of settlement, subsistence, community layout, trade, etc. (e.g., Brookes and Taylor, 1986:
26 – 27; Morse, 1986; Rolingson and Jeter, 1986; Weinstein, 1991; Peacock, 1996b,
1997). This deficiency is due in part to a lack of excavation and in part to a concentration on culture-historical questions. While some work on mortuary patterns
has been conducted (Ford, 1980, 1990), most studies have focused on ceramic
modes, their spatial and temporal distributions (e.g., Phillips, 1970; Ford, 1981,
1988, 1989; Brookes and Taylor, 1986; Mainfort and Chapman, 1994;), and the delineation of ceramic-based phases (e.g., Phillips, 1970; Connaway and McGahey,
1971; Smith, 1979; Weinstein, 1991).
Some recent advances have been made in documenting Tchula period site distributions outside of the Mississippi River valley. The high density of sites recorded
on the HSNF (Peacock, 1996b, 1997) mirrors similar densities where the hill belt
extends northward into western Tennessee (Peterson, 1979a, 1979b; Smith, 1979;
Jolley, 1984; Mainfort, 1994), demonstrating an Early Woodland focus on upland
settings in both states (Weaver et al., 1999: Figure 8.9).
Peacock (1996b, 1997) argued that Tchula period sites on the HSNF are mostly
single-component, short-duration, special purpose sites. This was based on their
small size (median area of 580 sq m), the limited range of temporal diagnostics, the
limited artifact inventories (almost exclusively ceramics, with a few sandstone
flakes typically being recovered), and a consistent lack of midden accumulation or
96
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
features (cf. Fant, 1996, n.d.). Conversely, Weaver et al. (1999) suggest a shortterm, sedentary occupation for an extensively excavated upland Tchula site in
western Tennessee. The question of site function, and the degree of functional
variability that might exist between sites on the HSNF and those further north,
must remain open until more excavations are carried out. Whether these small sites
represent sedentary settlements or seasonally exploited locales, it seems apparent
that occupational duration was relatively short.
MODELING BIOTURBATION EFFECTS
Although the North Central Hills physiographic province has repeatedly been
characterized as severely eroded and thin-soiled (e.g., DeLeon, 1978a; Thorne, 1983;
Wynn, 1979a), artifacts at several prehistoric sites on the HSNF have been found
at depths of 60 cm or more (Peacock, 1992, 1993). These deep sites are all located
on sandy soils, interspersed with much shallower sites found on thin, silty clay
loam Alfisols. Shovel testing at standard depths (ca. 30 cm) had failed to locate the
deep sites: It was only after digging deeper tests that the dual phenomenon of
having very few artifacts in the upper part of the soil while finding artifacts at
unusual depths was discovered.
There are three explanations for finding artifacts at such depths in an upland
ridge setting: (1) The soils were anthropic and accretional in origin, as with the
“midden mounds” of the Tombigbee River valley (Pettry and Bense, 1989); (2) the
sites were buried beneath Historic-era colluvium (cf. Ward and Bachman, 1987);
or (3) the artifacts had been deposited on the surface some 2000 years ago and had
subsequently moved downward through the sandy soils through bioturbation and
physical sorting. The first seemed unlikely, given the low artifact density and lack
of midden development already noted. The second also seemed unlikely, given that
(1) the sites are on ridge tops and sources for allochthonous sediment input are
not evident and (2) developmental soil horizons were clearly present, and there
has not been sufficient time for that degree of pedogenesis to take place on sediments redeposited within the last century. The third possibility could not easily be
discounted, and a model for understanding artifact movement within soils was
therefore needed.
Soil genesis proceeds along two pathways: progressive, in which proanisotropic
processes work to promote horizonation (heterogenization) and/or chemical stability, and regressive, in which proisotropic processes work to promote haploidization (homogenization) and/or chemical instability (Hole, 1961; Johnson, 1985;
Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1987, 1990). Both pathways are in operation, either
in major or minor fashion, at all times (i.e., soils are polygenetic; Johnson, 1985).
The combined results of these opposing sets of processes, or vectors as Johnson
and Watson-Stegner (1987) have termed them, constitute the overall soil developmental pathway. For any given soil profile, the determination of which set of vectors has been dominant can be determined from the structural characteristics of
the soil. Bioturbation can contribute to either progressive or regressive soil development (Johnson et al., 1987).
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
97
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
Soils in which progressive vectors have historically been stronger than regressive
vectors will display discrete horizons with particular particle size and organic matter characteristics. Soils of the Sweatman – Smithdale – Providence association
(Wynn et al., 1977:6) are a common local example. Soils in which regressive vectors
have historically been stronger than progressive vectors will display simplified soil
profiles (i.e., a lack of pronounced horizonation). Tree throws and Historic-era
plowing and logging can be assumed to be the two most powerful regressive vectors
that have operated on the uplands of the study area. An example of a local regressive soil type is provided by the side-slope Udorthents that make up part of the
Udorthents-Lexington complex (Wynn et al., 1977:20). In the absence or diminished
strength of regressive vectors, it may take millennia for progressive vectors to
establish or reestablish the structural characteristics diagnostic of proanisotropy
(Schaetzl et al., 1990).
If soil development was monogenetic, a single glance at a profile would be
enough to allow one to characterize a soil and the processes that produced it. The
modeling of artifact or other clast behavior would then be a relatively simple affair.
However, since soils are polygenetic, the physical signs of regressive vectors can
become erased by later progressive development, or vice versa, and only subtle
traces of the previous state of the soil will remain (Johnson, 1985:32).
Based upon the work of Donald Johnson and his colleagues, the following specific criteria can be used to model soil development in the silty-to-sandy soils of
the study area.
Model I — Progressive Vector-Dominant Soil Development
1. Soils will have well-developed horizons.
2. Soil particle-size will follow a predictable sequence (Johnson, 1990:87; Johnson et al., 1987). In nongravelly soils, the upper stratum (discounting surface
litter) should have a relatively high proportion of silt-sized particles due to
the deposition of such material in worm casts (Johnson, 1990; Johnson et al.,
1987) and to the high relative loss of animal-deposited clay via surface runoff
and wind sorting (Johnson, 1990). Particle-size should then change with depth
to reflect the primary textural class of the soil type; it should then decrease
with depth due to clay enrichment via illuviation.
3. If earthworms are responsible for the creation of a faunalmantle, the boundary
between that mantle and the subsequent stratum is likely to be smooth and
abrupt (Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1990:552; Johnson et al., 1987:284).
4. If artifacts or other clasts of sufficient size are present, they may occur as a
“stone line,” a discrete layer of artifacts located at the base of the upper, wormdeposited stratum (Johnson, 1989, 1990:84, 87; Johnson and Watson-Stegner,
1990; Johnson et al., 1987). Given the generally homogeneous texture of soils
in the study area, a simple rather than a two-layered or other complex biomantle (Johnson, 1990) is expected; the biomantle thus produced would be
98
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
considered a faunalmantle (Johnson, 1990). “Sufficient size” simply refers to
objects too large for earthworms, ants, or other soil fauna to move upward
(Johnson, 1990:84 – 85). If concretions are present, they will be subject to the
same processes (Johnson, 1990:87). If clasts are not abundant, a subtle and
inconspicuous stone line may still be present beneath the biomantle (Johnson,
this issue).
5. A characteristic soil fabric — a “biofabric” — will form with a crumb or granular makeup and a high proportion of worm casts and worm voids (Johnson,
1990).
6. Artifacts will still retain a fair semblance of their original, generally horizontal
placement on the surface.
In this first model, we assume that artifacts are deposited in a single layer on the
surface at some point in the past on a sandy soil. Sinking begins immediately, with
some artifacts moving down through root holes and small animal burrows and
some artifacts settling as krotovina beneath them collapse. As root size diminishes
with depth, so too do the sizes of the artifacts that are thus transported; larger
artifacts, especially flat sherds, also are relatively resistant to settling unless they
tilt. A stone line begins to form at the lower boundary of the A horizon, which is a
faunalmantle being formed by the deposition of worm casts. A few small artifacts
are displaced upward by the movement of worms and other animals, but artifact
density in the upper stratum is low. Particle-size distribution follows a silt-sandclay sequence, while organic content is highest in the O and A horizons and decreases with depth from the top of the E horizon. Well-developed horizons correspond to particle size, clast, and organic matter distributions. Presumably, artifacts
from different levels could be refitted (i.e., although vertically displaced they would
retain horizontal integrity), while resistant features such as fire-hardened areas
could still be intact.
Model II — Regressive Vector-Dominant Soil Development
1. Stratigraphy will be broken and irregular and may be extremely complex if
tree throws are the primary disruptive agent (Johnson, 1990:87; Johnson et
al., 1987; Schaetzl et al., 1990). If tree throws are frequent in sandy, nonstony
soils, there may be no visible horizonation above the subsoil but simply a
thick, homogeneous layer created by the repeated mixing of soils; that is, a
floralmantle (Johnson, 1990).
2. Soil particle-size will not generally follow a predictable sequence but will be
randomized by the displacement of quantities of material by tree throws, burrowing, etc. If a floralmantle has been produced by repeated tree throws over
the long term, soil texture may become homogenized throughout the floralmantle (Johnson, 1990), although even these one-layered floralmantles may
show “traces of ruptured albic and spodic bodies” (Johnson, 1990:87). Alternatively, if tree throws have occurred continuously in sandy soils, the removal
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
99
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
3.
4.
5.
6.
of fine particles by wind and water sorting may act to produce a relative
superabundance of sand in the upper part of the solum (Johnson, 1990).
A biofabric will not necessarily be present.
Where clasts (artifacts, sandstone/siltstone, large concretions) are abundant,
a stone-enriched surface layer (armor) may form by the repeated uplifting and
surface deposition of such clasts via tree throws and subsequent wind and
water removal of finer particles (Johnson, 1990).
There will be a correlation between observable faunal and floral turbation
features and the depth of artifacts (Michie, 1990).
Artifacts will be oriented at random angles rather than lying in a generally
horizontal plane (Michie, 1990).
In this second model, the time of deposition and the soil type are the same as in
Model I. Sinking begins immediately as above. Tree throws and other major disturbance events bring up soil and artifacts from below, leading to mixed particle
size, clast, and organic matter distributions and either a lack of distinct soil horizons or severely mixed lenses and pockets of soil materials of different colors and
textures. Significant vertical and horizontal artifact displacement would have occurred, while features of all kinds would likely be destroyed. Artifact refitting would
be rendered considerably more difficult.
METHODS
In July 1993, test excavations were carried out at site 22MR539 (Figure 1), a
Tchula period site in Marshall County located on a south-trending spur of a moderately broad, west-trending side ridge. The site was chosen because it represented
two soil contexts for archaeological materials encountered in the HSNF: Based on
shovel testing, most of the site contained artifacts within a relatively thin, silty clay
loam overlying a reddish, clay-rich B horizon, while at the southern edge of the
ridge, artifacts were found in sand to depths of half a meter or more (Peacock,
1992). Soils for the site area are mapped as Cahaba and Lexington series, welldrained loamy soils on uplands (Tyer et al., 1972); the silty and sandy soils are not
discriminated on the soil map.
Four 1 ⫻ 1 m units were excavated to subsoil; three of these (Units 2 – 4) were
dug into the silty soils, while one (Unit 1) was located in the sandy soil on the
southern edge of the ridge. In each unit, the thin surface litter (O horizon) was
removed and excavation then proceeded in arbitrary 5 cm levels. All soil was
screened through 1⁄4-inch wire mesh. No features were encountered in the excavations. Profiles of each unit were recorded (three are shown in Figure 2), and soil
samples were taken from each level from the north profile of Unit 1. This unit was
specifically targeted for particle-size and organic matter analysis because deep artifacts previously had been recorded in the sand but not in other areas of the site
(Peacock, 1992), an observation that was borne out in the excavations. The soil
samples were submitted to the soil-testing laboratory at Mississippi State University, where organic content and particle-size analyses were conducted. A procedure
100
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Figure 2. Profiles of excavation units at site 22MR539.
short
standard
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
101
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
developed by DeBolt (1974) was used to determine organic matter content. This
colorimetric method uses a spectrophotometer to estimate organic matter content
in a soil by indirect measurement of oxidized carbon. The hydrometer method (Day,
1965) was used to determine the grain-size distribution of the ⬍ 2 mm fraction of
soil samples.
ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Artifacts were recovered from all test units at 22MR539. Overall artifact density
was low, with only 91 objects being recovered. As is usual for Tchula sites on the
HSNF, artifact diversity was also very low; all of the artifacts recovered are ceramic
sherds with the exception of five sandstone flakes. The pottery is grog-tempered
with plain, fabric-impressed, red-slipped, and cord-impressed surfaces being represented, as would be expected from a Tchula component (Peacock, 1996b, 1997).
There is no evidence of earlier or later occupation at this apparently single-component site.
RESULTS
Profile characteristics, particle-size and organic-matter distribution, and artifact
density and size were examined for comparison with the two soil-development
models. The profiles (Figure 2) appear to show the dominance of progressive soil
development vectors because of clear horizonation. There is no evidence that Historic-period colluvium has been deposited on the site, nor is there any visible evidence of midden development.
Units 2 – 4 were excavated in the silty soils. These soils have a thin, brown, silty
clay loam A horizon with granular structure above a light reddish brown, silty clay
loam E horizon. There is an abrupt, smooth, boundary between the A and E horizons. The E horizon has weak, fine, subangular blocky structure. A clear, smooth
boundary separates the E horizon from a reddish yellow, silty clay Bt horizon.
Artifacts were very sparse in the A horizon and tended to cluster near the boundary of the A and E horizons, with a few occurring in the lower part of the E horizon.
The maximum depth of artifacts in the silty soils was 24 cm, approximately coinciding with the upper boundary of the Bt horizon. A few pieces of unmodified,
tabular sandstone up to about 10 cm across were recorded; these presumably natural clasts were either horizontal or tilted slightly upslope, probably as a result of
soil creep.
In Unit 1, excavated in the sandy soil at the south end of the site, a brown, sandy
loam A horizon overlies an E1 horizon. There was no evidence of a biofabric in the
A horizon. A clear, smooth boundary separates the A horizon from the underlying
E1 horizon. The E1 horizon consists of brownish yellow, fine sand lacking soil
structure; the sandy matrix is single grained and loose. A gradual, smooth boundary
separates the E1 horizon from an E2 horizon composed of pale yellow, fine sand
lacking soil structure. Small to moderate roots are abundant in the A and E1 ho-
102
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Figure 3. Particle size distribution for Unit 1.
rizons, but significantly decrease with depth in the E2 horizon. The E2 horizon has
an abrupt, smooth boundary with a yellowish red, sandy clay Bt horizon.
Based on the particle-size analysis, the ⬍ 2 mm fraction is dominated by sand
throughout the profile in Unit I, especially in the E2 horizon. Silt content was highest at the surface and decreased gradually, becoming negligible at about 40 cm
(Figure 3). Clay content was very low in the upper part of the profile but increased
dramatically at a depth of approximately 95 cm. Organic matter content was highest
in the A horizon and decreased rapidly with depth to the E2 horizon, where it
became more constant (Figure 4).
Artifact density was low in the A horizon, increased dramatically in the upper E
horizon, and then decreased steadily with depth (Figure 5), with no artifacts recovered from the E2 or B horizons. The deepest artifact came from the 50 – 55 cm
level. Because artifact density depends to some degree on the amount of fragmentation that has taken place (with the exception of three sandstone flakes, all the
artifacts recovered from Unit 1 are sherds), the total number of artifacts from each
level were weighed (cf. Neumann, 1993). While these data are more erratic, they
very roughly follow the trend in artifact density (Figure 5).
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
103
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
Figure 4. Organic matter distribution for Unit 1.
short
standard
104
VOL. 17, NO. 1
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Figure 5. Distribution of artifacts by number and weight for Unit 1.
short
standard
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
105
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
The sizes of artifacts from Unit 1 were measured to the nearest .05 mm in three
dimensions: length (the longest axis on a flat plane), width (perpendicular to length
on the same plane), and thickness (the widest point on the opposite plane; see
Table I). The length and width measurements were used to construct a scatterplot
that shows the size data by excavation level (Figure 6). Although there is a lot of
deviation in the data, there is an apparent pattern in the distribution, with the
smallest artifacts being found in the upper and lower levels while the largest artifacts tend to occur between 25 and 35 cm.
The particle-size and organic-matter content distributions, as well as the artifact
density and size data from Unit 1, are generally what were predicted in Model I.
Soil horizons in all the units are well defined, with the expected abrupt, smooth
boundary between the A and E horizons. This, of course, may be a result of plowing.
However, no plow scars were detected on top of or within the E horizon in any
unit, suggesting that plowing, if it took place at the site, was confined to the A
horizon. Plow scars might quickly disappear in the loose sandy soils, but are commonly found on top of the E horizon of the more compact silty soils in the study
area (Fant, n.d.). The lack of a biofabric in the A horizon of Unit 1 is probably due
short
standard
Figure 6. Scatterplot of artifact sizes by level for Unit 1.
106
VOL. 17, NO. 1
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Table I. Artifact sizes, Unit 1.
Depth (cm)
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
0– 5
14.45
37.7
11.6
25.35
6
8.55
5– 10
7.5
9.95
10.4
10.55
13.35
7.3
7.45
8.95
7.8
8.25
5.45
4.15
5.55
3.1
5.6
10– 15
6.85
8
8.55
8.55
8.7
9.4
9.4*
9.6
10
13
13.45
15
22
25
25.25
6.05
6.6
5
5
4.4
6
5.5
6.85
8
12.5
10
12.55
15.9
25
25
5.6
6
4.1
2.85
3.5
2.2
0.95
4
5.35
5.55
4.4
3.95
6
10.5
10.5
15– 20
6.3
8.6
8.65
9.3
9.35
10.8
11
11.1
12.1
13.95
14*
15.4
17.95
19.9
52.85
4.25
6.2
8.2
8.15
6.8
7.9
7.75
7.55
5
8.2
9.55
14.4
15.3
14.8
31.05
1.85
3.7
7.4
5
4.8
4.45
5.9
2.9
8.35
3.45
4.4
6.65
4.8
8.9
8.95
20– 25
5.55
7.9
8.3
9.15
10.15
10.95
11.6
11.85
16
17.5*
4
5.3
6.3
8.95
7.9
8.4
7
7
12.8
14.2
1.95
5.65
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.25
3.25
4.75
3.2
1.95
(Continued)
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
107
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
Table I. (Continued).
Depth (cm)
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
25– 30
8.5
8.5
9.15
12.5
12.55
14.5
23.05
35.65
37.9
5.85
7.1
7.45
8.7
8.7
12.4
22.55
30
21.25
4.3
4.8
3.35
3.65
7.15
5.45
8
8.1
10.5
30– 35
18.25
25.9
26.55
33.75
12.05
16
11.25
21.85
3.95
8.25
5.15
6.5
35– 40
12.9
8.2
6
40– 45
4.1
3.5
1.95
45– 50
0
0
0
50– 55
9.75
8.1
4.55
Artifacts marked with an asterisk are sandstone flakes; all others are sherds.
to such features being quickly eradicated by sorting in the loose, sandy soil. The
artifact density and size distribution data suggest that a stone (artifact) line is in
the process of being formed in Unit 1. As noted above, artifacts in the other units
were clustered at the boundary of the A and E horizons, indicating biomantle formation over the site as a whole.
There is also some evidence from Unit 1 of regressive vectors that have been in
operation; most notably, the depth to which artifacts occur (well below the forming
stone line), the lowest occurrence of artifacts being coincident with the point where
root abundance diminishes, and the decreasing size of artifacts below the stone
line. What does not appear not to have taken place is dramatic translocation such
as would have occurred via tree throws. Bioturbation appears to be responsible
for artifact distribution below the stone line, while the on-going formation of a
faunalmantle appears to be responsible for artifact distribution in the upper part
of the solum.
CONCLUSIONS AND REGIONAL IMPLICATIONS
We realize that the small scale of the test excavations at 22MR539 greatly limits
the conclusions that can be drawn (cf. Michie, 1990). Nonetheless, some observations can be made on the implications of the work for local and regional archaeology.
Site 22MR539 is apparently a single-component Tchula period site. Only two
artifact types were recovered: sherds and sandstone flakes. The low-diversity ar-
108
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
tifact assemblage, overall low artifact density, lack of features, and lack of visible
midden development all suggest that site use was relatively brief. All in all, the
scenario put forward by Peacock (1996b, 1997), in which the sites represent shortterm, extractive camps rather than sedentary occupations, seems to be supported
by the work at 22MR539. Unfortunately, the limited scale of the excavations precludes any definitive statements in these regards.
A cursory look at the soil profiles, with their well-developed horizons, would
suggest that only progressive soil formation vectors have been in operation at
22MR539. The artifacts found at depth in Unit 1, and throughout the E horizon in
Units 2 – 4, belie this suggestion. Traces of the regressive vectors that have been at
work are subtle, with the artifacts themselves being the best indicators that such
vectors have been at work at the site. The soils examined in the four excavation
units at 22MR539 do not appear to have been severely mixed by tree throws; hence,
features resistant to the effects of bioturbation, such as fire-hardened hearths or
concentrations of large artifacts, should still be extant beneath the biomantle if
they occur at the site at all. While smaller artifacts may have been vertically displaced, sites like 22MR539 should still retain a fairly high degree of horizontal
integrity; thus, piece plotting and refitting of artifacts should allow for good characterization of internal site structure (cf. Neumann, 1993) once vertical displacement has been accounted for.
The excavation yielded important information on the rate of artifact translocation, something that apparently varies a great deal in different geomorphological
settings and about which we still have a great deal to learn (e.g., Johnson and
Watson-Stegner, 1987; Johnson et al., 1987:285; Johnson, 1989:386; 1990:97). For
example, Michie (1990:30) found that, in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, Early
Woodland materials tend to occur between about 23 and 30 cm deep, a displacement rate that apparently was exceeded at 22MR539. Leigh (1998) reports artifact
burial to depths of 50 cm in multicomponent, Early Archaic through Mississippian
sites in the Sandhills of South Carolina. Carr et al. (1998) report similar depths for
Archaic and Woodland materials on the lower Gulf Coastal Plain of Mississippi.
They also report patterns of vertical distribution related to artifact size similar to
those reported in this paper. The Tchula sites recorded in the HSNF are particularly
well suited for this sort of study, because most appear to be single component and
the artifact assemblages are composed almost entirely of ceramics that have the
potential to be refitted.
In recent years, biases introduced by geomorphic processes into archaeological
survey results have been increasingly recognized (e.g., Mandel, 1995; Stafford, 1995;
Tankersly et al., 1996; Waters and Kuehn, 1996; Wilkinson, 2000; Bettis and Mandel,
2002; Stafford and Creasman, 2002). Upland landforms in the Southeast and elsewhere are often considered to be geomorphologically “stable” except for Historicperiod erosion. In the case of the HSNF, such erosion was assumed by some archaeologists to have virtually eradicated the archaeological record, which is not
the case. Because shovel testing is notoriously difficult (Peacock 1996a), no doubt
many small sites are still being missed, even with the use of screens. Artifact trans-
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
109
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
location in deep sandy soils further complicates matters. Combined, these factors
mean that site density in the study area is doubtless even higher than currently
recorded, and this should be taken into account as improved Woodland settlement
pattern models are constructed.
Shovel testing techniques in the North Central Hills should be modified to account for greater artifact depths in sandy soils, where testing depths of at least 50
cm are necessary. Our work at 22MR539, coupled with the similar patterns of artifact translocation in other areas as reported in this issue, indicates that artifact
translocation occurs wherever sandy soils are found. Detailed mapping of sandy
soils across wide areas should allow for estimates of regional-scale survey bias.
The effects of bioturbation seen at Tchula sites such as 22MR539 could have
been considered simple disturbance that detracted from their archaeological importance. As Grave and Kealhofer (1999:1239) pointed out, bioturbation all too
often is either ignored or is characterized as “severely constraining the interpretation of archaeological stratigraphy.” The problems created by bioturbation for
archaeologists are real enough. Therefore, sites with a high potential for addressing
such problems should be considered significant on such grounds. In the HSNF, the
unusually deep Tchula sites are an important source of geoarchaeological information and, therefore, can be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Peacock, 1992) under Criterion “d.” Geoarchaeological concerns, in
other words, should be considered when significance assessments are made.
Grave and Kealhofer (1999:1239) recently stated that “to date . . . no method
has been developed to evaluate the dynamics of subsurface bioturbation effectively
and relate these to specific archaeological features.” At the scale of the individual
site, relatively simple patterns of artifact distribution based on size, coupled with
easily obtainable data on soil particle-size and organic content, may serve to characterize the soil developmental pathways that have reshaped the archaeological
record. With data from many sites in a given geomorphological setting, it should
be possible to provide more broad-scale characterizations that can be used to guide
survey strategies and to provide a better context for evaluating site integrity within
a regional framework.
We would like to thank Jeff Leach, Don Johnson, Michael Petraglia, and Rolfe Mandel for inviting us to
participate in the SAA symposium on formation processes. We would like to thank Janet Rafferty, Ashley
Metcalf, Parrish Pastorelli, Kevin Bruce, Jodi Jacobson, Chris Reed, and Katy Harpole for volunteering
to help us in the field. We would also like to thank Dr. David Pettry, a soil scientist at Mississippi State
University, for taking a day of his valuable time to make the trip to Holly Springs. We would like to
thank Gary Yeck, then District Ranger on the Holly Springs National Forest, and John Baswell, District
Ranger on the Tombigbee National Forest, for making time available for the site testing and the preparation of this paper. Jan Wells helped with preparation of the manuscript, and Jeffrey Alvey helped
with preparation of the figures, which were finalized at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology. We would
also like to thank Forest Archaeologist Sam Brookes for his continuing support of a quality Heritage
Resources program on the National Forests in Mississippi.
short
standard
110
VOL. 17, NO. 1
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
REFERENCES
Armour-Chelu, M., & Andrews, P. (1994). Some effects of bioturbation by earthworms (Oligochaeta) on
archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 21, 433– 443.
Attaya, J.A. (1951). Lafayette County geology. Mississippi State Geological Survey, Bulletin 71.
Bettis, E.A., III, & Mandel, R.D. (2002). The effects of temporal and spatial patterns of Holocene erosion
and alluviation on the archaeological record of the central and eastern Great Plains. Geoarchaeology:
An International Journal (in press).
Brookes, S.O., & Taylor, C. (1986). Tchula period ceramics in the Upper Sunflower regions. In D.H. Dye
& R.C. Brister (Eds.), The Tchula Period in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley (pp. 3– 27),
Archaeological Report 17. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Carr, P.J., Jenkins, C., Bruce, K.L., & Gray, B.J. (1998). Cultural resources survey of proposed relocation
of Mississippi Highway 63 from U.S. Highway 98 to Leakesville (MDOT Project No. 98-0002-01-01610/101150), George and Greene counties, Mississippi, Report submitted to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Transportation.
Connaway, J.M., & McGahey, S.O. (1971). Archaeological excavation at the Boyd site, Tunica County,
Mississippi, Technical Report Number 1. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Day, P.R. (1965). Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In C.A. Black, D.D. Evans, J.L. White,
L.E. Ensminger, & F.E. Clark (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical
properties, including statistics of measurement and sampling (pp. 545– 567), Agronomy 9. Madison,
WI: American Society of Agronomy.
DeBolt, D.C. (1974). A high sample volume procedure for the colorimetric determination of soil organic
matter. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 5, 131– 137.
DeLeon, M. (1978a). Cultural resources survey in the Holly Springs National Forest (King-Rogers Exchange). Jackson, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
DeLeon, M. (1978b). Cultural resource surveys in the Holly Springs National Forest: FS Road 837G and
FS Road 827X. Jackson, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Dockery, D.T., III (1996). Toward a revision of the generalized stratigraphic column of Mississippi.
Mississippi Geology, 17, 1– 9.
Fant, D. (1996). Early Woodland sites on the Holly Springs National Forest, archaeological survey from
1992 to 1995 and testing of Site 22MR539 and 22BE585. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Mississippi, Oxford.
Fant, D. (n.d.). The testing of site 22BE588, an Early Woodland upland site within the Holly Springs
National Forest, Benton County, Mississippi. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the author.
Ford, J. (1980). Alas, poor Womack! Mississippi Archaeology, 15, 26– 32.
Ford, J. (1981). Time and temper in the North Central Hills of Mississippi. Journal of Alabama Archaeology, 27, 57– 71.
Ford, J. (1988). An examination of the Twin Lakes phase. In R.C. Mainfort, Jr. (Ed.), Middle Woodland
settlement and ceremonialism in the Mid-South and lower Mississippi valley (pp. 61– 67), Archaeological Report No. 22. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Ford, J. (1989). Time and temper meet trend and tradition. Mississippi Archaeology, 24, 1– 16.
Ford, J. (1990). The Tchula connection: Early Woodland culture and burial mounds in north Mississippi.
Southeastern Archaeology, 9, 103– 115.
Grave, P., & Kealhofer, L. (1999). Assessing bioturbation in archaeological sediments using soil morphology and phytolith analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1239– 1248.
Grim, R.E. (1936). The Eocene sediments of Mississippi, Bulletin 30. University, MS: Mississippi State
Geological Survey.
Grissinger, E.H., Murphy, J. B., & Little, W.C. (1982). Late-Quaternary valley fill deposits in north-central
Mississippi. Southeastern Geology, 23, 147– 162.
Hole, F.D. (1961). A classification of pedoturbations and some other processes and factors of soil formation in relation to isotropism and anisotropism. Soil Science, 91, 375– 377.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
111
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
Johnson, D.L. (1985) Soil thickness processes. In P.D. Jungerius (Ed.), Soils and geomorphology (pp.
29– 40), Catena Supplement 6. Braunschweig, Germany: Verlag.
Johnson, D.L. (1989). Subsurface stone lines, stone zones, artifact-manuport layers, and biomantles
produced by bioturbation via pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). American Antiquity, 54, 370– 389.
Johnson, D.L. (1990). Biomantle evolution and the redistribution of earth materials and artifacts. Soil
Science, 149, 84– 102.
Johnson, D.L. (1992) Dynamic denudation evolution of tropical, subtropical and temperate landscapes
with three tiered soils: Toward a general theory of landscape evolution. Quaternary International,
17, 67– 78.
Johnson, D.L., & Balek, C.L. (1991). The genesis of Quaternary landscapes with stone-lines. Physical
Geography, 12, 385– 395.
Johnson, D.L., & Hole, F.D. (1994). Soil formation theory: A summary of its principal impacts on geography, geomorphology, soil-geomorphology, Quaternary geology and paleopedology. In Factors of
soil formation: A fiftieth anniversary retrospective (pp. 111– 126). Soil Science Society of America,
Special Publication 33. Madison, WI: Soil Society of America.
Johnson, D.L., & Watson-Stegner, D. (1987). Evolution model of pedogenesis. Soil Science, 143, 349–
366.
Johnson, D.L., & Watson-Stegner, D. (1990). The soil-evolution model as a framework for evaluating
pedoturbation in archaeological site formation. In N.P. Lasca & J. Donaldahue (Eds.), Archaeological
geology of North America (pp. 541– 560), Centennial Special Volume 4. Boulder, CO: Geological
Society of American.
Johnson, D.L., Watson-Stegner, D., Johnson, D.N., & Schaetzl, R.J. (1987). Proistropic and proanisotropic
processes of pedoturbation. Soil Science, 143, 278– 292.
Johnson, J.K. (1997). Cultural resource studies in nine watersheds, Demonstration Erosion Control
Project. University, MS: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi.
Jolly, R.L. (1984). An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Cypress Creek watershed, Madison
County, Tennessee. Nashville, TN: Cultural Resource Consultants.
Leigh, D.S. (1998). Evaluating artifact burial by eolian versus bioturbation processes, South Carolina
Sandhills, USA. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 13, 309– 330.
Leigh, D.S. (2001). Buried artifacts in sandy soils: Techniques for evaluating pedoturbation versus sedimentation. In P. Goldberg, V.T. Holliday, & C.R. Ferring (Eds.), Earth sciences and archaeology (pp.
291– 293). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Logan, W.N. (1907). The clays of Mississippi, Bulletin 2, Mississippi State Geological Survey. Nashville,
TN: Brandon Printing.
Lusk, T.W. (1956). Benton County geology, Bulletin 80. University, MS: Mississippi State Geological
Survey.
Mainfort, R.C., Jr. (1994). Archaeological investigations in the Obion River drainage: the West Tennessee
tributaries project, Research Series No. 10. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, Division of Archaeology.
Mainfort, R.C., Jr., & Chapman, J.S. (1994). West Tennessee ceramic typology, Part I: Tchula and Middle
Woodland periods. Tennessee Anthropologist, 19, 148– 179.
Mandel, R.D. (1995). Geomorphic controls of the Archaic record in the central Great Plains of the United
States. In E.A. Bettis III (Ed.), Archaeological geology of the Archaic period in North America (pp.
37– 66), Special Paper 297. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.
Michie, J.L. (1990). Bioturbation and gravity as a potential site formation process: The Open Area Site,
38GE261, Georgetown County, South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities, 22, 27– 46.
Morse, D.F. (1986). McCarty (3-Po-467): A Tchula period site near Marked Tree, Arkansas. In D.H. Dye
amp; R.C. Brister (Eds.), The Tchula period in the Mid-South and lower Mississippi valley (pp. 70–
92), Archaeological Report 17. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Neumann, T.W. (1993). Soil dynamics and the sinking of artifacts: procedures for identifying components
in non-stratified sites. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 9, 139– 153.
Peacock, E. (1992). A cultural resources survey of selected timber stands in Compartment 33, Holly
112
VOL. 17, NO. 1
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
RIGHT
BATCH
BIOMANTLE FORMATION IN UPLAND SANDY SOILS, MISSISSIPPI, U.S.A.
Springs National Forest, Marshall County, Mississippi. Jackson, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service.
Peacock, E. (1993). A cultural resources survey of selected timber stands in Compartment 43, Holly
Springs National Forest, Benton and Marshall Counties, Mississippi. Jackson, MS: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Peacock, E. (1994). Twenty-five years of cultural resources management on the National Forests of
Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology, 29, 72– 81.
Peacock, E. (1996a). Archaeological site survey in wooded environments: A field study from the Tombigbee National Forest, north-central Mississippi. North American Archaeologist, 17, 61– 79.
Peacock, E. (1996b). Tchula period sites on the Holly Springs National Forest, north-central Mississippi.
In R. Walling, C. Wharey, & C. Stanley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Mid-South Archaeological Conference (pp. 13– 23), Special Publications 1. Memphis, TN: Panamerican Consultants.
Peacock, E. (1997). Woodland ceramic affiliations and settlement pattern change in the North Central
Hills of Mississippi. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 22, 1– 25.
Peterson, D.A., Jr. (1979a). An archaeological survey and assessment of the Wolf River watershed.
Nashville, TN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Peterson, D.A., Jr. (1979b). An archaeological survey and assessment of the Loosahatchie watershed.
Nashville, TN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Pettry, D.E., & Bense, J.A. (1989). Anthropic epipedons in the Tombigbee Valley of Mississippi. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 53, 505– 511.
Phillips, P. (1970). Archaeological survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949– 1955, Parts One
and Two, Paper 60. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
Rolingson, M.A., & Jeter, M.D. (1986). An assessment of archaeological data for the Tchula period in
southeastern Arkansas. In D.H. Dye & R.C. Brister (Eds.), The Tchula period in the Mid-South and
lower Mississippi valley (pp. 93– 101), Archaeological Report No. 17. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Schaetzl, R.J., Burns, S.F., Small, T.W., & Johnson, D.L. (1990). Tree uprooting: Review of types and
patterns of soil disturbance. Physical Geography, 11, 277– 291.
Smith, G.P. (1979). Archaeological surveys in the Obion-Forked Deer and Reelfoot-Indian Creek drainages: 1966 through early 1975, Occasional Papers No. 9. Memphis, TN: Anthropological Research
Center, Memphis State University.
Snowden, J.O., & Priddy, R.R. (1968). Loess investigations in Mississippi: Geology of Mississippi loess,
Bulletin 111. University, MS: Mississippi Geological Economic and Topographical Survey.
Stafford, C.R. (1995). Geoarchaeological perspectives on paleolandscapes and regional subsurface archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 69– 104.
Stafford, C.R., & Creasman, S. (2002). The hidden record: Late Holocene landscapes and settlement
archaeology in the lower Ohio River valley. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal (in press).
Stein, J.K. (1983). Earthworm activity: A source of potential disturbance of archaeological sediments.
American Antiquity, 48, 277– 289.
Tankersley, K.B., Holland, J.D., & Kilmer, R.L. (1996). Geoarchaeology of the Kilmer site: A Paleoindian
habitation in the Appalachian uplands. North American Archaeologist, 17, 93– 111.
Thorne, R.M. (1983). Cultural resources survey of the right-of-way of a proposed 4” lateral pipeline—
L. L. & E. No. 1, J. R. Faulkner, Chickasaw and Pontotoc Counties, Mississippi. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Thornthwaite, C.W. (1948). An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review, 38, 55– 94.
Tyer, M.C., Bright, W.E., & Barlow, P.J. (1972). Soil survey of Marshall County, Mississippi. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Vestal, F.E. (1954). Marshall County geology, Bulletin 768. University, MS: Mississippi State Geological
Survey.
Ward, H.H., & Bachman, D.C. (1987). Aeolian burial of Woodland sites on the Delaware Coastal Plain.
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 3, 103– 110.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
113
short
standard
GEA(Wiley)
LEFT
BATCH
PEACOCK AND FANT
Waters, M.R., & Kuehn, D.D. (1996). The geoarchaeology of place: the effect of geological processes on
the preservation and interpretation of the archaeological record. American Antiquity, 61, 483– 497.
Weaver, G.G., Childress, M.R., Buchner, C.A., & Starr, M.E. (1999). Archaeological investigation at three
sites near Arlington, State Route 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway), Shelby County, Tennessee: Archaeological testing at 40SY525 and 40SY526 and archaeological testing and data recovery at 40SY527,
Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Office.
Weinstein, R.A. (1991). The Tchula period in the lower Mississippi valley and adjacent coastal zone: A
brief summary. Louisiana Archaeology, 18, 153– 187.
Wilkinson, T.J. (2000). Regional approaches to Mesopotamian archaeology: The contribution of archaeological surveys. Journal of Archaeological Research, 8, 219– 267.
Wynn, J.T. (1979a). Cultural resources reconnaissance of Morrison exchange tract, Union County, Mississippi. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Wynn, J.T. (1979b). Cultural resources reconnaissance of Joe Lowe exchange tract, Lafayette County,
MS. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Wynn, A.H., Tyer, M.C., & Smith, W.I. (1977). Soil survey of Benton County, Mississippi. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Received March 1, 2000
Accepted for publication November 1, 2000
short
standard
114
VOL. 17, NO. 1