PREHISTORY OF THE UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER
DRAINAGE IN THE KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA AND
TENNESSEE BORDER REGION
Jonathan P. Kerr
1996-2010 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ARCHAIC PERIOD ...................................................................................................................................... 1 The Early Archaic Period ........................................................................................................................ 2 Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Tennessee ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Middle Archaic Period ..................................................................................................................... 5 Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Tennessee ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 The Late Archaic Period ......................................................................................................................... 9 Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Tennessee ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 THE WOODLAND PERIOD................................................................................................................................ 15 Southwestern Virginia .......................................................................................................................... 16 Appalachian Summit ............................................................................................................................ 20 Swannanoa Phase (600/700‐200 B.C.) ............................................................................................................. 20 Pigeon Phase (200 B.C. ‐ A.D. 200) ................................................................................................................... 20 Connestee Phase (A.D. 200‐600) ...................................................................................................................... 20 Eastern Tennessee ............................................................................................................................... 21 South‐Central Tennessee ..................................................................................................................... 26 Wade Phase (1100‐600 B.C.) ............................................................................................................................ 26 Watts Bar (600‐450 B.C.) and Long Branch (450‐100 B.C.) Phases ................................................................... 27 McFarland Phase (100 B. C. ‐ A.D. 150) ............................................................................................................ 27 Owl Hollow Phase (A.D. 250‐700) ..................................................................................................................... 29 Mason Phase (A.D. 700‐1000) .......................................................................................................................... 30 Middle Cumberland ............................................................................................................................. 30 Cumberland Plateau ............................................................................................................................ 31 THE LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD ........................................................................................................................ 32 Southwestern Virginia .......................................................................................................................... 32 Appalachian Summit ............................................................................................................................ 35 Upper Tennessee .................................................................................................................................. 36 Lower Tennessee‐Cumberland ............................................................................................................. 39 Middle Cumberland ............................................................................................................................. 39 Green River .......................................................................................................................................... 40 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................................................................ 40 The Upper Cumberland's culture history is very poorly documented as are adjacent areas of
southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. The following overview will focus on
those cultural components found at the Main site (Creasman 1995). Specific characteristics
of Kentucky's culture history are not included and the reader is directed to the state plan for
details (Pollack, 1990). The final chapter includes a discussion of the culture history of the
Upper Cumberland region.
The Archaic Period
The Archaic period includes a long span of time during which important cultural changes
took place. It is generally agreed that Archaic cultures evolved from late Paleo-Indian
expressions of the Southeast and Midwest, since there is growing evidence for the existence
of transitional cultural manifestations in these areas (Funk 1978:19). These manifestations
probably occurred in response to environmental changes which took place at the close of the
Pleistocene.
The Archaic is customarily divided into three sub-periods:
Early (8,000-6,000 B.C.)
Middle (6,000-4,000 B.C.)
Late (4,000-1,000B.C.)
The chronological placement and defining attributes of each sub-period vary between the
different regions surrounding the Upper Cumberland. Some of the different viewpoints are
discussed below.
During the Early Archaic, the last glaciers retreated, and the arctic-like boreal forest began
developing into the eastern deciduous forest. By the Middle Archaic, the environment was
warmer and drier than it is today. In response to the changing environment, with its
associated changes in plant and animal life, Late Archaic peoples developed a more
diversified subsistence strategy based on local choices from a variety of subsistence option,
that included hunting, plant food gathering, fishing, and, in some areas, the beginnings of
plant domestication in a planned seasonal round exploitation strategy. Caldwell (1958:6-18)
has called this Archaic subsistence approach "primary forest efficiency" and Cleland (1976)
developed a focal-diffuse model to explain this type of subsistence. This strategy appears to
have continued well into the Woodland period. Current research (e.g. Phillips and Brown,
1983, Neusius 1986) has challenged this model based on relatively little internal change and
variability.
Undoubtedly, hunter-gatherer settlement strategies during the Archaic period are variable and
theories derived from ethnoarchaeological studies by Binford (1983) have been used by other
researchers to characterize settlement during this period. In particular, the contrast of
"logistic mobility" versus "residential mobility" has been focused on by Early and Middle
Archaic researchers in North America. The logistic strategy is distinguished by a social group
establishing a base camp in a resource rich zone for undertaking most maintenance activities.
1
Extractive/special use sites are formed away from the base camp in order to undertake task
specific activities. The base camp, which can move seasonally, becomes the focal point of
the settlement system. In contrast, there is not a focal point in the residential mobility mode.
Social groups frequently move their settlements in response to a foraging strategy. The
artifact content and site structure will be relatively homogenous between foraging camps
since the same range of tasks performed at each site is similar. Many researchers have
demonstrated that the logistical mobility strategy was in effect in the southeast during the
Early and Middle Archaic period (Chapman 1985; Custer 1984; Custer et al. 1986; Gardner
1974; Morse and Morse 1983).
Important alternative models have been developed. Research by Schiffer (1975), Claggett
and Cable (1982) and Anderson and Hanson (1988) demonstrated that Early to Middle
Archaic settlement strategies was dependent upon the character of the regional ecosystem. In
areas that exhibit spatial or seasonal incongruity, such as in patchy, immature ecosystems, or
in areas exhibiting pronounced seasonal-temperature differences, logistic or collector
strategies tend to be used. In contrast, in ecosystems that are more uniform a foraging
strategy is practiced (Anderson and Hanson 1988:264-266).
The Early Archaic Period
Except for the adoption of new projectile point styles Early Archaic tool kits are nearly
identical to those associated with the Paleo-Indian period. The fact that these projectile point
styles are found over a very large area suggests that little regional subsistence diversity
occurred during the Early Archaic. Rather, subsistence strategies are believed to have been
similar to those employed by Paleo-Indian peoples, although a greater variety of game was
hunted. Certain classes of chipped stone tool artifacts such as scrapers, unifaces, drills, and
gouges, indicate a continuation of their importance from the Paleo-Indian period. The
scarcity of tools associated with the preparation of plant foods and fishing in the early part of
the Archaic indicates that hunting was probably still the major subsistence activity (Dragoo
1976:11). Archeological investigations at a number of deeply stratified sites in the Southeast
have served to outline cultural developments that occurred during the Archaic: the St. Albans
Site in West Virginia (Broyles 1971), the Longworth-Gick Site near Louisville, Kentucky
(Collins 1979), three sites in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964), Russell Cave in
Alabama (Griffin 1974), Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter in Alabama and Modoc Rockshelter
in Illinois (Fowler 1959). According to data obtained from these sites, Early Archaic peoples
inhabited rockshelters, which were apparently used as short-term, temporary camps, as well
as large riverine base camps.
Virginia
Like most of the Southeast and Midwest, the cultural continuity between the Paleo-Indian
and Early Archaic periods is evident in Virginia as well (Custer 1990). At the beginning of
the Early Archaic the major discontinuity was a shift from the fluted projectile point form to
the corner- and side-notched varieties (Big Sandy I, Palmer, Kessell, Charleston, Amos and
Kirk).
2
Settlement types of this period in Virginia include quarry sites, quarry reduction sites, base
camps, base camp maintenance stations and outlying hunting sites (Gardner 1974, 1989). The
use of high quality cryptocrystalline materials for tool production is an attribute identified for
the Early Archaic period in Virginia and this shows similarities with tool production during
the Paleo-Indian period. During these periods projectile points and large bifaces were
manufactured at the quarries themselves or at nearby quarry reduction sites. The bifaces
produced at the quarries functioned not only as tools in and of themselves, but also as part of
a curated tool technology. The bifaces functioned as cores from which flakes could be
removed in order to make a wide variety of flake tools and potentially new projectile points
(Custer 1990:35). It has been demonstrated that the production of flake tools and other tools
from the curated bifaces occurred at sites away from the quarries.
With this technology in mind, a settlement model has been proposed for this period given the
distribution of Early Archaic sites in Virginia (Custer, Cavallo and Stewart 1983). It is a
cyclical model in which one or more quarry outcrop sources are the focus of the system.
Groups manufactured bifaces and other tools at the quarry sites, quarry reduction sites and
base camps associated with the quarries and then moved to various other base camps to
exploit good hunting locales. Once the bifaces and tool kits were depleted, the same quarries
were revisited starting the next cycle.
A deeply stratified cave site, Daugherty's Cave, which is located on Big Cedar Creek, a
tributary of the Clinch River in southwestern Virginia, contained an Early Archaic horizon
(Benthall 1990). Materials recovered from this component at the site included a Kirk Corner
Notched projectile point and a unifacial side scraper. No features were identified in this
horizon, but the range of artifact types indicated that chert knapping and food preparation
took place during this period. In addition, scraping of animal hides and hunting were other
activities engaged in at the site. This site probably functioned as an outlying hunting locale.
Subsistence remains at Daugherty's Cave consist primarily of faunal elements and a small
assemblage of botanical species (flotation samples were not collected from the features). The
range of animal species identified at the site are present in the area today suggesting little
environmental change in the region. None of the faunal remains recovered from the site
could be attributed unequivocally to subsistence since none were burned and they all could
have been introduced into the cave deposits naturally. The faunal remains included
woodchuck, chipmunk, wood rat, white-tailed deer and a possible bird. A large number of
charred hickory nutshell was found in this zone. A sample of charcoal from the habitation
floor produced a radiocarbon date of 7840 ( 400 B.C. (F.S.U. Sample No. 330).
Two viewpoints have been advanced that try to explain the break between the Early and
Middle Archaic periods in Virginia. Some researchers (Egloff and McAvoy 1990; Jennings
1989; Chapman 1985) suggest that the earlier bifurcate projectile points (St. Albans and
Kanawha) are roughly contemporaneous with Kirk Stemmed/Serrated points and they should
be included in with the Early Archaic period. Egloff argues that the Middle Archaic
potentially begins when the late bifurcate LeCroy projectile points are encountered which are
many times in association with large amounts of nutshell. In contrast to Egloff's viewpoint,
Gardner (1988) suggests that the Early Archaic period in Virginia ends at ca. 6800 B.C.,
some 800 years earlier. Taking Gardner's approach, all of the bifurcate point styles, in
3
addition to the Kirk Stemmed/Serrated forms, would be included in the Middle Archaic
period rather than the Early Archaic.
Tennessee
The Early Archaic period in the Upper Tennessee River area is represented by one horizon.
The work conducted by the University of Tennessee, and funded by the Tennessee Valley
Authority, in the Little Tennessee River valley presents the most data related to this period.
The identification of cultural units and their chronological framework follow that of Broyles
(1966, 1971), Coe (1964), Keel (1976), Lewis and Kneberg (1946) and Whiteford (1952).
The Paleo-Indian projectile point forms are replaced by the Dalton types followed by Kirk,
Decatur, St. Albans, LeCroy and Kanawha. Kimball (1985) identified lower (earlier) and
upper (later) Kirk temporal units. Davis (1990:56) equated all but the Dalton and Decatur
with phases of the same names.
The time period associated with the Dalton point (8500-8000 B.C.) is very ephemeral and
recognized only by the occurrence of a small number of these artifacts. Early variants of the
Kirk Corner Notched point define the Lower Kirk phase (8000-7300 B.C.) and features
associated with this time period include prepared clay hearths, some of which exhibit textile
and basketry impressions (Chapman and Adovasio 1977). The Upper Kirk phase (7400-6800
B.C.) is represented by late variants of Kirk Corner Notched projectile points as well as
formalized end and side scrapers, bifacial knives, piŠces esquill‚es and pitted cobbles.
Extensive amounts of hematite, for use as pigment, is also an important attribute in the Early
Archaic Kirk Phase at the Rose Island site (Chapman 1977). Features at sites include hearths,
basins, fired areas, globular pits and surface concentrations of rock. The three most recent
phases (St. Albans - 6900-6500 B.C., LeCroy - 6500-5800 B.C., Kanawha - 6100-5800 B.C.)
exhibit unique bifurcated base points, fewer formalized lithic tools and an increase in bipolar
reduction from the previous periods.
The Upper Tennessee River drainage was more intensively occupied during the Lower and
Upper Kirk phases compared to the earlier Dalton phase (Davis 1990:208-210). Lower/Upper
Kirk phase base camps, some of which exhibit intensive repeated use, are found on first
terraces of the river and along the front edges of the older terraces situated near the river.
Logistical hunting camps are found along the edge of the valley during these periods. In
addition, an increase in the use of upland areas is evident during the Upper Kirk phase.
Following the Kirk phases there is diminished intensity in occupation. During the three most
recent Early Archaic phases activities are focused towards the main part of the Little
Tennessee River valley. Less intensively occupied base camps and logistical hunting camps
are both present.
McNutt and Lumb (1987) and McNutt and Weaver (1983) have developed a cultural
chronology for the Middle Cumberland River Valley based on the excavation of a number of
sites within this area. Within the Middle Cumberland River drainage, and presumably the
Upper Cumberland River drainage, Quad, Beaver Lake and Greenbrier points are found on
sites in association with the Dalton type. These sites span the period of ca. 8000-7500 B.C.
Big Sandy I and Pine Tree projectile points are found on slightly younger sites (ca. 7500-
4
6000 B.C.) in this area. The latter part of the Early Archaic is represented by Kirk/Cypress
Creek and Kanawha points with an estimated date range of 6500-6000 B.C. The period prior
to 7500 B.C. is only represented by a scant number of projectile points usually found in
surface contexts. Sites of the latter portions of the Early Archaic are more numerous and
productive. Additional artifacts on these sites include ovate biface scrapers and drills with
wide triangular bases or square expanded bases. Features recognized on sites associated with
the latest Early Archaic period include flat bottomed storage/roasting pits.
Early Archaic occupation in the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee is well represented (Pace
and Kline 1976; Wilson and Finch 1980). The distribution of Early Archaic sites in this
region indicate that the area was used for seasonal exploitation by small hunting groups. Pace
and Kline (1976) suggest that Early Archaic people occupied the area from late summer to
the early winter based on the aspect of sites (rockshelters) used during this period.
The Middle Archaic Period
The environment during the Middle Archaic sub-period was dryer and warmer than modern
conditions. Increasing regionalization of artifact inventories and the addition of new artifact
classes and projectile point styles imply the development of extensive exploitation strategies.
The Middle Archaic is marked by the widespread introduction of groundstone artifacts
manufactured through pecking, grinding, and polishing: adzes, axes, bannerstones, and
pendants. This does not imply that some of these tools were not included in the Early Archaic
tool assemblages; rather, the addition of a number of these groundstone tools such as manos,
mortars and pestles, and nutting stones interpreted as plant food processing artifacts, indicate
an increasing utilization of plant food resources during the Middle Archaic period.
Greater regionalization is also noted in new projectile point styles during this sub-period.
Stemmed and side notched points such as MacCorkle, Stanly, Big Sandy II, Morrow
Mountain and Guilford appear. Chapman (1975) has suggested that Archaic projectile points
were probably used in conjunction with the atlatl, a device which increases the distance and
accuracy of a thrown spear. The recovery of bone and groundstone objects (bannerstones) in
Middle Archaic contexts interpreted as atlatl weights tends to support Chapman's suggestion
(cf., Neuman 1967:36-53). A variety of bone tools including antler projectile points, fish
hooks and gouges suggest an improved efficiency in exploiting local resources. Middle
Archaic sites tend to contain larger accumulations of materials than those of earlier periods,
suggesting an increased group size and/or longer periods of occupation (Cohen 1977:191).
Important sites in the Southeast with Middle Archaic components include sites in the Little
Tennessee such as Icehouse Bottom (Chapman 1977), Eva in west Tennessee (Lewis and
Lewis 1961), North Carolina Piedmont sites (Coe 1964), Russell Cave in Alabama (Griffin
1974) and Modoc Rockshelter (Fowler 1959).
Certain trends in lithic material technology are evident during this period. More readily
accessible and locally available lithic raw material, such as quartzite and quartz were
increasingly used and relied upon (Custer 1984; Gardner 1988). In addition, a bipolar process
of reduction became more widely applied where finer quality materials in small nodules,
cobbles or pebbles were found. Tools and other artifacts indicating this type of technology
5
include pitted anvil stones and cores, broken cobbles and flake debris exhibiting bipolar
patterns of fracture (Chapman 1975, 1985).
Virginia
Taking Gardner's (1988) view, the Middle Archaic period in southwestern Virginia spans the
time from 6800-2500 B.C. The projectile point types that first appear during this period are
the bifurcate forms followed by numerous stemmed types (Stanly, Morrow Mountain I and
II, Guilford and Halifax). Compared to the Early Archaic, there is a de-emphasis in the use of
cryptocrystalline materials for tool production during this period in this area and a
concomitant increase in the use of lower quality non-cryptocrystalline materials. Compared
to the earlier periods few lithic scrapers and engravers are found in Middle Archaic site
assemblages. Also, since there is a greater use of local lithic sources, this minimized the need
to curate tools (Gardner 1989) such as was done with large biface production and curation
technologies during the Early Archaic period.
The serial settlement model proposed for this period in Virginia is in contrast to the cyclical
model described for the Early Archiac (Custer, Cavallo and Stewart 1983). Instead of the
people using a few, large, widely spaced quarry outcrops for lithic procurement and tool
production, the serial settlement model proposes that numerous small outcrops are utilized
and sites are not linked to specific quarries or outcrops. Lithic tools kits would be replenished
on an as-needed basis only and this one activity would be performed in conjunction with
other resource procurement activities. Upland settings are more regularly exploited during
this period. Deciduous forests were expanding into upland areas slopes and summits at this
time, which provided the necessary faunal and mast resources for habitation in these areas.
Use of the upland areas was sporadic and relatively short-term, and the main base camps
were still focused towards the major drainage floodplains. As noted earlier, Custer (1990:36)
proposed that the Early Archaic biface technology is tightly linked to settlement patterns and
high levels of mobility. Middle Archaic groups were probably just as mobile as the earlier
groups, but the change in the forest composition to deciduous tree species decreased the
distance between productive habitats and reduced the need for such large territories to be
exploited. This in turn reduced the need for a highly curated biface technology which focused
on the cryptocrystalline quarries. Smaller, localized quarries of lesser quality materials would
be the only necessary lithic resources utilized during this period.
The Daugherty Cave site (Benthal 1990:94) contained two Middle Archaic occupation zones.
Because the projectile points in these zones were distinct from other Middle Archaic types,
Benthall defined a new type, Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek points are similar to Middle Archaic
points found on sites in West Virginia, the Clinch, Holston and James River drainages and at
Icehouse Bottom. These points have been classified as the Iddins Undifferentiated Stemmed
types in the Little Tennessee River valley (Chapman 1981). No dates could be obtained from
the earliest Middle Archaic occupation, but a feature in the upper Middle Archaic zone
produced a radiocarbon date of 3740 ( 260 B.C. (F.S.U. Sample No. 329). Artifacts
recovered from the Cedar Creek zones include small, medium stemmed or notched projectile
points, bifacial and flake knives, preforms, scrapers and a variety of bone implements
(Benthall 1990:94). Large faunal collections from the Cedar Creek zones at the site indicated
6
an emphasis on hunting while the presence of substantial amounts of charred hickory nutshell
and hackberry seeds along with a large number and variety of mussel and aquatic snail shells
suggest that gathering of plant food and collecting of shellfish are also site activities.
Benthall did not indicate whether the bones were burnt or exhibited cut marks; therefore, the
species represented were possibly not introduced by the prehistoric inhabitants. The species
represented by three or more individuals include chipmunk, box turtle, white-tailed deer,
passenger pigeon and the pie-billed grebe. The features associated with the Middle Archaic
zones consisted of hearths and the artifact types suggest food preparation (charred wood,
nutshell, animal bones), hide dressing (chert knives, bone awls), chert knapping (lithic
debitage) and hunting (projectile points).
Tennessee
In the upper Tennessee and Cumberland region there appears to be one Middle Archaic
horizon. It is essentially the North Carolina sequence first defined by Coe (1964). The
projectile point sequence (Stanly, Morrow Mountain I and II, Guilford and Halifax) is well
documented. This sequence was found in the Little Tennessee River Valley and Kimball
(1985) and Davis (1990:56) summarized the Middle Archaic temporal units and associated
projectile points. The projectile point sequence consisted of Kirk/Stanly Stemmed followed
by Morrow Mountain, Guilford, Halifax and Sykes. Davis (1990:56) equated the first two
projectile point types with three named phases. The Kirk Stemmed phase (6000-5800 B.C.)
and the Stanly phase (5800-5500 B.C.) have Kirk Stemmed and Stanly Stemmed as the major
point type; however, the attribute that distinguishes the Kirk Stemmed from Stanly phase is a
reduction in bipolar lithic reduction technology. Most other attributes of these two phases,
including feature types, are similar to those of the Early Archaic period. The Morrow
Mountain phase (5500-5000 B.C.), with Morrow Mountain I and II points, has material
culture including ad hoc chipped stone tools and a lithic reduction technology based on hardhammer bifacial reduction (Davis 1990:58). Features on sites of this period include hearths,
basins, small pits, fired areas and surface concentration of rocks. Additional attributes of the
Middle Archaic in the Tellico Reservoir include artifacts consisting of ground stone atlatl
weights, chipped cobble netsinkers and the increased and more varied use of locally available
lithic resources. The latter part of the Middle Archaic period (5000-4500 B.C.) in the Little
Tennessee River drainage is only represented by a scatter of Guilford, possibly Halifax and
Sykes points.
Davis (1990:219) recognized two trends in Middle Archaic settlement patterns within the
Little Tennessee River drainage. First, there is a steady decline in the percentage of base
camps assigned to the Kirk Stemmed, Stanly and Morrow Mountain phases and those with
Sykes projectile points. Davis (1990:219) sees this as a 'progressive decline in intensity of
regional utilization' and that the area is possibly only used for resource procurement by
people based elsewhere. Additional evidence that there is a reduction in the use of the area is
that no substantial late Middle Archaic components have been found in the area. The second
trend is that a considerable number of Middle Archaic sites are found in the Tellico River
drainage. The types of site identified, including both logistical camps and activity loci,
suggest that resource exploitation in this area is well developed. Davis (1990:219) makes a
final comment that Guilford points are probably not predominant in the ridge and valley
7
region and possibly represent contact with people to the east or forays of these people into
the region.
The Middle Archaic period in the Normandy Reservoir area, the Upper Duck River Valley,
exhibits a similar projectile point sequence. Stanly projectile points and those of the White
Springs/Sykes cluster replace the Kirk and bifurcate clusters of points (Faulkner and
McCollough 1982:281). Occupations of this period are fairly widespread and numerous in
this area. The latter part is represented by Morrow Mountain cluster points that are found in
association with Eva points (Faulkner and McCollough 1973 1982; Keel 1978). The
combination of Morrow Mountain and Eva points is also found at the Bellefonte site within
the Guntersville Reservoir, northern Alabama (Futato 1977). Pure Eva occupations are only
common in the lower Tennessee River Valley. White Springs and Sykes points were still in
use during this period (Faulkner and McCollough 1977:40) and continue to be produced until
ca. 2000 B.C. (Keel 1978:151).
McNutt and Lumb's (1987) and McNutt and Weaver's (1983) cultural chronology for the
Middle Cumberland River Valley includes the early part of the Middle Archaic period (62005200 B.C.) represented by continued manufacture of the Early Archaic Kirk/Cypress Creek
and bifurcate points followed by Morrow Mountain cluster and Damron/White Springs
cluster points (5200-4500 B.C.). Towards the end of the Middle Archaic period (ca. 4000
B.C.) Benton, Buzzard Roost Creek and Kays forms are encountered; although, they continue
to be found in Late Archaic contexts up until ca. 2500 B.C. No Middle Archaic structures,
features or other artifact forms were found at the Duncan Tract site (McNutt and Weaver
1983).
The Anderson site (Dowd 1989:3), located on the Harpeth River in Williamson County,
Tennessee, in the Middle Cumberland River drainage, is a very important Middle Archaic
site. The site is dominated by projectile points of the Morrow Mountain type (80%). Other
artifacts include conical, bell and roller pestles, atlatl weights and a stone tubular pipe.
Radiocarbon dates suggest the site was occupied from 3770-5230 B.C. The thick midden on
the site contained large quantities of gastropod shells that helped preserve animal bone, bone
artifacts and human burials. In addition to the snails being an important food source, deer
accounts for most of the identified faunal remains (71%). Small mammals and a wide variety
of birds, reptiles and amphibians are also in the bone assemblage. Bone tools including awls,
fishhooks, needles, flaking tools, hide scrapers and atlatl hooks are included in the artifact
assemblage recovered from the site. Human burials are generally in a flexed position and
placed in small, oval or round, shallow pits. Grave goods consist of shell beads and other
artifacts manufactured from marine shell, copper artifacts and utilitarian artifacts such as
projectile points, atlatl weights and bone tools. Dog burials are also found on this site.
The Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee is sparsely populated during the Middle Archaic (Pace
and Kline 1976; Wilson and Finch 1980) or at least few sites of this time period have been
identified. They suggest that, because of dry conditions due to the warm and dry Altithermal
period, this area was not highly used. In this region, most Middle Archaic sites are found in
areas that are sheltered, with a dependable water source. They go on to say that the area was
8
probably infrequently used by small groups. This is surprising given the fact that this is
interpreted to be a time of increased population in the surrounding regions.
The Late Archaic Period
The Late Archaic was a time of continued cultural expansion and complexity that grew out of
the previous periods. Dragoo (1976:12-15) has discussed several Late Archaic traditions for
the Eastern Woodlands. Their distinctiveness stems from varied responses to each regional
environment reflected in their material culture. Straight-stemmed, basal-notched or
contracted-base projectile points types characterize this subperiod. Judging from the greater
number of sites that have been noted for the Late Archaic, an increase in population can be
postulated. Evidence of longer and more intensive site occupation suggests in some cases
extended habitation within an area.
Archeologists have inferred from ethnographic analogy drawn from surviving huntergatherer groups in remote areas of the world that Late Archaic groups were probably
organized in nomadic or semi-sedentary bands with scheduled seasonal movements in
response to the available faunal and floral resources. Late Archaic settlement generally
reflects a series of camps located to take advantage of seasonal environmental resources.
Artifact inventories for the Late Archaic reflect these diversified responses to a wide variety
of environmental conditions.
The population increase and an inferred increase in mortuary ceremonialism have led some
investigators to postulate that a more complex social organization was developing in some
areas of the eastern United States. Along the Green River in west-central Kentucky, large
shell mound sites such as Chiggerville (Webb and Haag 1939), Indian Knoll (Webb 1946)
and Carlston Annis (Webb 1950) contain hundreds of human burials illustrative of complex
mortuary practices and a rich ceremonial life. The development of inter-regional trading
networks is indicated by the recovery of copper, marine shell and other non-local artifacts
from Late Archaic burials (Winters 1968). These foreign materials testify to the growing
complexity of the ritualism connected with the burial of the dead but also to the interaction of
many groups which would have facilitated the exchange of not only goods but also ideas
(Dragoo 1976:17).
The appearance of cultigens in Late Archaic contexts has been interpreted as evidence of
early plant domestication and use of these plants as subsistence resources. Evidence of early
cultigens has been documented at such sites as Koster in central Illinois (Brown 1977:168),
at the Carlston Annis and Bowles sites along the Green River in west-central Kentucky
(Marquardt and Watson 1976:17) and at Cloudsplitter Rockshelter in eastern Kentucky
(Cowan et al. 1981).
Struever and Vickery (1973) have defined two plant complexes domesticated at the close of
the Archaic, which continued in use into the Woodland period. One group consisted of nonnative plants such as bottle gourd, squash and corn. The other was a group of native plants
such as chenopodium, marsh elder and sunflower. Struever and Vickery (1973) suggested
that the native cultigens were cultivated first, and that the non-native, tropical cultigens were
9
introduced later. Recent research in Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee; however, suggests
that squash was under cultivation in the mid-south by the late 3rd millennium B.C. (Adovasio
and Johnson 1981:74), and that by the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C., evidence
from Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee demonstrates that squash, bottle gourd and sunflower
were well established (Adovasio and Johnson 1981:74). This more recent evidence
contradicts Struever and Vickery's scenario (Chomko and Crawford 1978). Watson (n.d.) has
also outlined two different groups of cultigens, the East Mexican Agricultural Complex and
the Eastern United States Agricultural Complex. The latter includes sunflower (Helianthus
annus), sumpweed (Iva annua), chenopod (Chenopodium sp.), maygrass (Phalaris sp.), and
knotweed (Polygonum sp.). The East Mexican Agricultural complex includes squash
(Curcurbita pepo), bottle gourd (Legenaria siceraria) and maize (Zea mays). Watson, like
Struever and Vickery (1973), suggests that corn, squash and bottle gourd were domesticated
in Mexico and imported into the eastern United States by way of the Gulf of Mexico and then
up the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The native cultigens consist of local species
whose seeds recovered from archeological contexts are much larger than those which grow in
a natural state; hence, cultivation is inferred.
Plant domestication was an important factor in Late Archaic cultural development. Recent
research at Cloudsplitter Rockshelter has documented early plant domestication. Desiccated
squash rind was found in a Late Archaic deposit at Cloudsplitter associated with a
radiocarbon date of 3728 +/-80 B.P. (1778 ( 80 B.C.)(UCLA 2313-K)(Cowan et al. 1981:71).
Seeds of the Eastern Agricultural complex (sunflower, sumpweed, maygrass and erect
knotweed) are sparse in the Late Archaic levels in the site, but after 3000 B.P. (1050 B.C.),
all members of the Eastern Agricultural complex underwent a sudden and dramatic increase
in the rate at which they were being deposited in the site, perhaps indicative of a wholesale
introduction of the complex into the region at this time. The Late Archaic and Early
Woodland inhabitants of Cloudsplitter seem to have followed a similar trajectory in
cultivated plant usage experienced in several other river drainages in the East (Cowan et al.
1981:71).
The data from Cloudsplitter Rockshelter suggest that squash may not have diffused into the
East or Southwest from Mexico as previously postulated by Struever and Vickery (1973), but
that it may have evolved in situ from North American stock (Cowan et al. 1981:71). This
interpretation seems to be substantiated by more recent investigations conducted throughout
southeastern and mid-western United States. Yarnell and Black (1985) found that garden
plots filled with squash-gourd, bottle-gourd, sunflower, maygrass, sumpweed and
chenopodium were in use by ca. 2500-1000 B.C. in the Mid-South and Midwest. Sunflower,
chenopodium, sumpweed and perhaps squash-gourd achieved cultigen status by ca. 1000
B.C. (Smith 1987, Yarnell and Black 1985). Smith (1987) proposed that indigenous
development of horticulture in the Midwest could have been achieved by inadvertent impacts
to the environment caused by human settlement. He notes that chenopodium, sumpweed and
curcurbits naturally occur in floodplain settings and areas that were intensely and repeatedly
occupied, which creates disturbed areas, exhibit increased sunlight and soil fertility. Human
plant use and processing continually added seeds to these disturbed areas enhancing the
plants' range and productivity.
10
During the Archaic, cultures became more varied, as each group tailored its own brand of
subsistence strategy for maximum exploitation of locally available resources. Hunting,
fishing, and plant food processing activities carried out in a seasonal round pattern of
exploitation appears to characterize Late Archaic subsistence strategies. This strategy
continued into the Woodland period. In some cases a focal-oriented adaptive strategy is
associated with the Late Archaic to Early Woodland period. The following attributes indicate
this trend (Stevens 1991:208-209); 1) base camps are located in riverine or estuarine settings,
2) increased reliance on riverine and estuarine resources (shellfish and fish) as well as the
increased use of plant species, 3) increase in the amount of woodworking and land clearing
tools, 4) increase in the number of tools associated with plant processing, 5) storage
technology (storage pits, stone and ceramic vessels) appears, 6) increase in the number, size
and type of features present at base camps as well as the presence of house patterns, 7)
evidence of increased sedentism through time (more features, thicker middens), 8) increased
population and 9) change in production where larger, more cooperative labor groups were
required to clear fields, construct fish weirs and dams, execute fish drives, gather shellfish, or
cultivate seed crops. Catlin et al. (1982) developed a model suggesting that increased
settlement-subsistence focus on riverine and estuarine settings was the result of pronounced
warm and dry periods during the early Sub-boreal episode, ca. 2350 B.P. These
environmental conditions led to the shift in the distribution of resources within these settings,
enhancing their diversity and density. Groups had to alter subsistence-settlement strategies by
involving exchange and more intensive exploitation of certain resources to reduce the
increased risks due to reduction of group mobility.
Despite there being new projectile point forms identified in Late Archaic assemblages the
majority of the lithic tools in the earlier parts of this period do not differ significantly from
the previous Middle Archaic period. A slight shift in the variety of artifact types in the tool
assemblages on Late Archaic sites is apparent. Crude core and flake scrapers replace
formalized end and side scrapers typical of earlier periods. Also, expedient tools such as
spokeshaves and other cutting tools made on flakes dominate the assemblages. Mortars, the
ground stone grooved axe and split cobbles used as chopping and scraping tools are three
more additions to the tool kit. Sandstone and steatite bowls have also been identified on sites
of this time period, and all evidence suggests that there was widespread trade in steatite
bowls and other objects. Bowls produced from sandstone are rare in the region; although,
they are more common in geographic areas with bedrock geology dominated by sandstone.
Virginia
The Late Archaic period in Virginia, associated with the Savannah River phase, dates to ca.
3000-1200 B.C. (McLearen 1991; Gardner 1987); although, in southwestern Virginia Egloff
(1987) suggests it possibly continues until ca. 600 B.C. Similarly, Keel (1976) suggests that
the Savannah River phase dates to between 3000 B.C. and 600-700 B.C. in the Appalachian
Summit region. The Savannah River broadspear form is the most recognizable artifact of the
Late Archaic period in Virginia and North Carolina. These tools are produced using a
percussion flaking technology from start to finish and are made predominantly with noncryptocrystalline materials. Stone tool production during the Late Archaic period is similar to
that of the Early Archaic. Large, easily transportable bifaces were produced at local quarries.
11
The bifaces were not only used as chopping and digging tools, but they also functioned as the
raw material for flake tools. In the latter stages of the Late Archaic period small, crude,
shallow notched and stemmed point forms similar to the Lamoka and Iddins types replace the
broadspear styles. Features on Late Archaic sites in southwestern Virginia are generally of
three types; burned rock cluster hearths and larger platforms, small pits interpreted as hearths
or cooking facilities and shell middens.
In contrast to few tools of cryptocrystalline materials being included in Late Archaic
assemblages within southwestern Virginia, Benthall (1990) reports that most of the lithic
debitage within the Late Archaic zones at Daugherty's Cave was derived from chert.
According to Benthall (1990) the site was occupied by people of the Late Archaic Savannah
River complex at circa 2000 B.C. In more recent excavations, Gardner (1991) obtained five
radiocarbon dates from the Late Archaic component at Daugherty's Cave, spanning the 17th
to 28th centuries B.C. They include 1630 ( 70 B.C., 1650 ( 70 B.C., 1850 ( 70 B.C., 2350 (
80 B.C. and 2740 ( 70 B.C. (Paul Gardner, personal communication). Only one feature type,
the hearth, was identified at Daugherty's Cave for the Late Archaic occupations. Hearths are
focal points in the shelter around which activities such as daily food preparation, chert
knapping, food processing, preparation of animal hides and repair of weapons were
undertaken. Subsistence remains were sparse in these assemblages. They included faunal
elements from white-tailed deer, raccoon, porcupine, musk turtle, elk, black bear, beaver,
woodchuck and chipmunk. A wide variety, but small number, of molluscan remains and a
small amount of charred hickory nutshell are included in the assemblage from these horizons.
Gardner (1991) found hickory, walnut, butternut, acorn, squash and gourd remains. Faunal
species are dominated by white-tailed deer followed by raccoon. During this period the site
was probably used as a seasonal hunting camp.
Tennessee
In the Upper Tennessee Valley, Harrington (1922) defined the 'Round Grave' culture that
exhibits elements of which would now be considered Late Archaic to Early Woodland
(Chapman 1985a:16). Traits of this culture include tapered-poll celts, two hole stone gorgets,
round graves and limestone tempered pottery with fabric marked and stamped surfaces. It is
discussed more fully in the Woodland section below. More recently, Kimball (1985) and
Davis (1990) summarized two Late Archaic temporal units for the Tellico Reservoir area
(Little Tennessee River drainage). The first is the Savannah River phase (3000-1800 B.C.)
(Davis 1990:56) represented by projectile points of the same name. Feature types of this
phase consist of rock filled hearths. Following this, Davis (1990:56) specified an Iddins
phase (1800-1000 B.C.) with Iddins Undifferentiated Stemmed projectile points. Material
culture associated with this phase includes notched-pebble net sinkers, grooved axes and
soapstone bowls. Similarly, Chapman (1981:141) grouped the Late Archaic projectile points
into two clusters. The earliest consists of a Savannah River/Appalachian Stemmed cluster
and the latest is a Ledbetter/Iddins Undifferentiated Stemmed/Otarre Stemmed cluster. The
occurrence of these two clusters overlap in time. Chapman (1981) and Lafferty (1981)
suggest that the Late Archaic period persisted until approximately 500-600 B.C. in the upper
Tennessee Valley between Chattanooga and Knoxville based on a series of late Late Archaic
radiocarbon dates.
12
Savannah River phase settlement was sporadic and widely dispersed on the landscape in the
Little Tennessee River drainage. This indicates that activities during this period were focused
on resource extraction rather than group maintenance (Davis 1990). The Iddins phase
settlement pattern is in strong contrast to this pattern. It exhibits a riverine focus where
aquatic resources were highly exploited in addition to upland utilization for hunting.
Although some shell has been found on Late Archaic sites in the Upper Tennessee River
drainage, no thick shell middens have been identified. It can be concluded that mussels do
not seem to be an important part of the Late Archaic diet in this area (Chapman 1981:155).
Given the periodic flooding of sites near the river, Davis (1990:226) suggested that the base
camp sites were probably not occupied year round which led to a seasonal round settlementsubsistence system. Economic and cultural adaptations became more localized and territorial
size reduced from this period on through time (Davis 1990:262).
As noted above, Keel (1978) identified a period overlapping the Middle and Late Archaic
periods (4000-2000 B.C.) in the Normandy Reservoir represented by points in the White
Springs/Sykes cluster. Following this Faulkner and McCollough (1977) identified a Late
Archaic manifestation in this region that is quite different from the Upper
Tennessee/Cumberland Valley. It consists of the Ledbetter phase represented by projectile
points of the Ledbetter cluster (Ledbetter, Pickwick, Little Bear Creek and Cotaco Creek)
and by Adena points. Nowlin II (Keel 1978) and Wiser-Stephens I (Davis 1978) both
contained substantial Ledbetter phase components. Lewis and Kneberg (1959) first defined
this phase and estimated it had a time span of 1200 B.C. to A.D. 500. Faulkner and
McCollough (1977:419) and Keel (1978) later refined the temporal span of this period to ca.
2500/2000-1100/1000 B.C. Ledbetter phase sites in the Lower and Middle Tennessee Valley
are riverine oriented and are typically shell midden sites. The subsistence strategy of this
culture was oriented towards fresh water mussels. In contrast, subsistence on the Ledbetter
phase sites in the Upper Duck River Valley is oriented towards exploitation of forest
resources because large quantities of fresh water mussels were not available. As noted above,
mussels do not seem to be an important part of Late Archaic subsistence in the Upper
Tennessee River drainage. Based on the number of large pits on some sites of this period,
food storage seems to be an important activity. The caching of foodstuffs suggests that sites
were occupied for a lengthy period of time or that revisits to the sites were planned (Keel
1978:152). No structures have been identified for this period in this area.
The early part of the Late Archaic period in the Middle Cumberland River Valley (McNutt
and Lumb 1987; McNutt and Weaver 1983) is also represented by Benton projectile point
cluster, first produced during the Middle Archaic period (ca. 4000 B.C.). Small numbers of
projectile points reworked into scrapers, backed knives, drills with expanded (narrow)
triangular bases and grooved abraders are included in the material culture of this component
at the Duncan Tract site. No architectural remains or features are associated with the Benton
component at this site. A rather extensive Benton component was identified at the Mulberry
Creek Shell Midden in Colbert County, Alabama (Webb and Dejarnette 1942). Material
culture associated with this component includes Benton projectile points, a wide variety of
bifaces, possibly chipped stone celts, pitted stones and bone points, awls and atlatl hooks.
Human burials are sometimes found in association with dog burials. Grave goods include
bone needles, awls, disc gorgets, reel gorgets, projectile points and bone flakers, chisels and
13
drifts. The Benton cluster is followed by Cotaco Creek, Motley, Pontchartrain and Wade
transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland projectile point forms during the period from
2500-700 B.C. The terminal portion of the Late Archaic component at Duncan Tract did not
exhibit ceramics or evidence of steatite vessels. In addition, no structural remains were
identified and few pits were found associated with this period.
The Late Archaic period in the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee saw an increase in the
number and complexity of sites (Pace and Kline 1976; Wilson and Finch 1980). Sites were
occupied for longer periods of time, perhaps seasonally, and resource exploitation was more
intensive. A larger population is also inferred from these attributes. The area in general was
probably occupied year round and sedentism increased.
Finally, a Terminal Late Archaic/Early Woodland Wade phase (1100-600 B.C.) has been
defined for the Normandy Reservoir and Upper Duck River region and is presented below in
the discussion of the Woodland period. As noted above, this phase has been identified in the
Middle Cumberland River drainage. Projectile points of this period in the Upper Duck River
region include the following types; Wade, McIntire, Motley, Elora and Cotaco Creek.
Structures of the Wade phase have been identified both in Normandy Reservoir in the Upper
Duck River Valley and in the Middle Cumberland River drainage. Those in the former region
consist of open ended arcs of postmolds that encircle a living floor with midden and burned
daub (Faulkner and McCollough 1974). These researchers suggest that the structures were
simple curved wind breaks, or cabana-like structures, with tensioned wall-roofs or wall-roof
frameworks tied to a support pole. McCollough and Faulkner (1973:58-64) identified a
similar structure at the Terminal Late Archaic Higgs site in the Upper Tennessee drainage. It
consisted of an arc of posts around a living floor. A surface hearth, earth oven and refuse pit
were found within the living floor. Bentz (1986) found three complete or partial structures at
the Chapman site in the Middle Cumberland Valley. They consisted of oval to rectangular
arrangements of single postmolds. The structures were probably constructed of bent poles
that were tied together since no interior support posts were identified. Warm weather
structures were open and used for sleeping. Food processing and other activities took place
outside the structure. A cold weather structure exhibited a closed pattern of posts. Three deep
pits for storage and a hearth for warmth were found inside this dwelling. The spatial
arrangement, forms and types of features and structures evident at the Chapman site,
including paired winter/summer houses with associated features, is a forerunner of those seen
at Middle Woodland sites in the Upper Duck River (Bentz 1986:141).
The Late Archaic period persists longer in some areas than others and on some sites Early
Woodland ceramic artifacts are found on sites with Late Archaic projectile point styles. For
example, the non-ceramic bearing Chapman (Bentz 1986) and Robinson (Morse 1967) sites
produced radiocarbon dates in the fifth to seventh centuries suggesting that the Late Archaic
persisted until this time in the Middle Cumberland River. In contrast, a date of 625 B.C. was
associated with a pit containing Wade points and Alexander Pinched pottery at the Oldroy
site (Amick and Stoops 1986:54).
14
The Woodland Period
Traditionally, archeologists distinguish the Woodland period from the preceding Archaic by
the appearance of cord-marked or fabric-marked pottery, the construction of burial mounds
and other earthworks and the rudimentary practice of agriculture (Willey 1966:267).
Archeologists have long been interested in the invention and origin of ceramic technology in
North America. Steatite and sandstone bowls, which were first produced during the Late
Archaic period, continued to be used during the early part of the Early Woodland period.
Ceramic invention probably occurred while stone vessels were still in use and at some point
in time ceramics completely replaced stone. The earliest ceramics were manufactured along
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Georgia and South Carolina in the lower Savannah and
Chattahoochee River drainages ca. 2500-2000 B.C. (Jenkins et al. 1986:546). Along the
Virginia coast pottery was produced ca. 1100-900 B.C. (Egloff 1991:243-244) and in upper
east New York they were fabricated around 1000-900 B.C. (Ritchie 1969). In the Midwest it
is believed that ceramics were first manufactured ca. 600 B.C. (Brown 1985); although, Reid
(1984) provides evidence of fiber tempered wares in the Lower Missouri River Valley at
around 1600-1000 B.C. In addition, it is possible that pottery was produced in the upper Ohio
River Valley as early as 1500 B.C. (Shane 1970). This is supported by a series of radiocarbon
dates for Half Moon Cordmarked pottery occurring in this region that range from 1400-400
B.C. Nevertheless, the early dates are suspect and it is suggested that ceramics were first
produced by ca. 600-500 B.C. in this area as well. Ceramics have been identified on sites in
the Appalachian Summit and Ridge and Valley areas of western North Carolina,
southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennessee potentially dating to 1000-700 B.C. (Keel 1976,
Lafferty 1981). Again, the older dates are suspect, and it is suggested that ceramics in this
area were first manufactured ca. 800-700 B.C. The technological attributes, vessel shapes and
exterior surface treatments of the midwestern ceramics show strong eastern connections.
Decorative treatments and some different vessel shapes are thought to originate from the
Gulf Coastal Plain (Keel 1976, Brown 1986). With a few exceptions, it would appear that
ceramics spread in two trajectories; from the south to north and from east to west. The
adoption of ceramics in the different regions was highly variable and probably a function of
diffusion regulated by various settlement and subsistence systems.
What was the impact of ceramics on the people of the Eastern Woodlands? Did the
incorporation of pottery bring about developmental change in the cultural systems of the
societies (Egloff 1991:248)? Some researchers (Sears 1948; Willey and Phillips 1958) see
little affect on the people who adopted ceramics. They treat pottery as simply a replacement
for stone, wooden or woven containers and the "fundamental system changes resulting in
greater residential stability, elaboration of the socio-political subsystem, and long distance
exchange networks had already developed before the introduction of pottery" (in Egloff
1991:248). In seeking an explanation for the shift from stone to ceramic technology, Hodges
(1991:232-233) suggests that it was related to a change in subsistence strategy or more likely
an intensification of an existing strategy. She notes that the intensification strategy probably
involved mast crops, as opposed to starchy seeds of which there is limited evidence in the
paleoethnobotanical record. Both of these viewpoints are overly simplified. The introduction
of pottery to a system already producing stone, wood and fiber containers clearly altered
15
Early Woodland cultural systems, and this involved the addition of new procurement,
manufacture and use technologies. Cultural subsystems concerned with symbolic values,
trade, environmental exploitation, food preparation and male and female roles would be
affected to a lesser extent (Gardner 1982:80-84, 1986:66-68; Gardner and McNutt 1971:4852).
The Woodland period can be viewed as a developmental period with continuity, as well as
dramatic differences, from the Archaic. It is apparent, however, that all regions of the eastern
United States did not march hand-in-hand through time toward increasing social and cultural
complexity; instead, neighboring regions changed at quite different rates. For example, the
high social and cultural elaboration expressed in the earthworks and mortuary structures
along the Scioto in Southern Ohio in the Middle Woodland period are paralleled elsewhere
only in scattered locations, if at all.
Peaks of cultural complexity were not necessarily followed by a continuing elaboration of
society and culture. The Woodland period is the first point in prehistoric time that the
archeologist encounters the truth of Caldwell's observation (1958) that cultural development
in the Eastern Woodlands was not leading inexorably toward civilization. Rather, departing
from an Archaic base, cultural evolution in the Eastern United States proceeded by fits and
starts with local advances and backsliding.
The following discussion focuses on the culture history of the Woodland period in distinct
regions surrounding the Cumberland Plateau, and it examines various interpretations of the
data relating to subsistence, technology, mortuary practices and domestic settlements.
Southwestern Virginia
In Virginia three sub-periods of the Woodland period have been identified: Early Woodland
(1200-600 B.C.), Middle Woodland (500 B.C. to A.D. 1000) and Late Woodland (A.D.
1000-1500) (Gardner 1982:54). These time spans are somewhat unconventional and for
southwestern Virginia are not particularly applicable (McLearen 1992:40). The Early
Woodland period, as denoted above, in reality is associated with aceramic occupations. The
early part of the Middle Woodland period (ca. 500/600 B.C. to A.D. 100/200) is synonymous
with the ceramic Early Woodland period in the surrounding areas. Finally, the late part of the
Middle Woodland period (A.D. 100/200-1000) includes an early period of Hopewell
interaction and a late period considered Late Woodland in the surrounding regions. The Late
Woodland period as defined by Gardner (1982) above will be discussed in the Late
Prehistoric period section given the chronological and cultural similarities between the two.
The limited amount of Early Woodland habitation in southwestern Virginia appears to be
intrusive with ceramic and projectile point types derived from the south and west. In central
and eastern Virginia, the use of the large Savannah River broadspear projectile point/knife
form decreases during the first few centuries of this period and are replaced by small
lanceolate, notched and stemmed forms produced from quartz and chert. The stemmed points
are also found in southwestern Virginia at this time and are likely the Swannanoa Stemmed
type. Chipped and ground stone axes and adzes manufactured from quartzite and greenstone,
16
which were first produced during the Late Archaic, continue to be used. Dulling and
rounding of the distal ends suggested that they were used as digging tools (Mouer 1990:250).
More elaborate polished implements and ornaments (gorgets and pendants) are introduced at
this time. Finally, according to Egloff (1987:6), pottery of Appalachian Summit and
Tennessee Valley origin are introduced into southwestern Virginia about 600 B.C. and at the
very end of the Early Woodland period. For example, William Porter excavated a rockshelter
(44WS88) near the Guest River where he recovered Swannanoa Fabric Marked pottery
below Long Branch Fabric Marked ceramics (Egloff 1992:1). Despite the fact that
rockshelters are a common habitation locality, the trend toward a greater number of sites in
riverine settings through time (Middle Archaic to Early Woodland) continues in
southwestern Virginia. Within the same time period site locations become more oriented
towards major streams (Klein and Klatka 1991:153). Egloff (1987) reports that there is an
increasing diversity of settings used for settlement from the Early Woodland to the Late
Woodland periods. Although there is a greater emphasis on lowland settlement, the ridges,
hilltops, plateaus and gently sloping upland valleys are still commonly used. Use of upland
settings, however, is conducted on a more transient basis during the Early Woodland period
(Gardner 1982, 1987a).
Feature types and shelter forms identified in Virginia for the Early Woodland period vary
from the Late Archaic and earlier periods. Small rock clusters and large rock platform
features continue into this period. Pit forms that appear to be typical of storage and cooking
are added to the feature ensemble (McLearen 1991:127-128). Early Woodland structures (ca.
900 B.C.) discovered at the 522 Bridges site (McLearen 1991) in the Shenandoah Valley are
roughly circular- to oval-shaped with most being oval. The structures average 20 feet in
length. Some of the larger structures (up to 28 feet in length) have internal support posts,
central hearths and storage pits along the north walls.
One of the best stratified sites in southwestern Virginia is the Daugherty's Cave site, Russell
County (Benthall 1990). It is located on Big Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Clinch River, and
it provides some data on Woodland period habitation in southwestern Virginia. The earliest
Woodland occupations occurred from approximately 500 B.C. to A.D. 1. During this period,
the cave was used by people penetrating the Clinch River valley and the Big Creek watershed
area from upper Eastern Tennessee. The pottery found at Daugherty's Cave for this period is
similar to ceramic types defined in the Tennessee River Valley. Benthall (1990) designated
this limestone tempered pottery as Long Branch Fabric Marked. The projectile points found
at Daugherty's Cave are also comparable to types defined in the Tennessee Valley. The
assemblage includes Ensor, Camp Creek, Ellis, Nolichucky, Greenville and Ebenezer. This
occupation zone exhibited an intensified use of the site during this period evident by the
increased number of shallow pit features found in this zone. Most of the features are thermal
in appearance and are all shallow. Some of the features appear to be smudge pits that were
used to smoke-cure hides or fire pottery. Activity areas could be distinguished at the site.
Food preparation is suggested by the presence of charred food remains in a hearth. Flint
knapping activities were indicated by large quantities of lithic debitage next to the hearth,
and a nearby smudge pit surrounded by postmolds implies that pottery making or hide
tanning was undertaken in this area. The site was probably a temporary food procurement
station during this time.
17
Subsistence remains at Daugherty's Cave were not particularly abundant, but a wide variety
were represented. Deer constituted the majority of the identified species in the assemblage
followed by box turtles and toads. Small numbers of elk, beaver, otter, raccoon, black bear,
woodchuck, squirrels, porcupines, opossums elements were also included in the faunal
assemblage. Turkey was also used as a food source during this period as were some other
common birds; however, some of these may have been taken for their plumage. A variety of
turtles and snakes, aquatic snails and freshwater mussels were also found in these levels at
the site; although, they are a minor component. Finally, the only vegetal specimens indicating
subsistence included a few fragments of charred walnut and hickory nutshell.
Gardner (1991) completed supplemental excavations at Daugherty's Cave using more
stringent screening and flotation techniques. As a result, he recovered more faunal and floral
remains. Projectile points recovered from the earliest Woodland component include Pigeon
side-notched, Swannanoa Stemmed and Gypsy Stemmed types, types named in the Southern
Appalachians. The ceramics from this component were predominantly Long Branch Fabric
Marked. Limestone tempered ceramics impressed with an open mesh knotted net were found
below the fabric marked sherds. Gardner reported two radiocarbon dates for this zone, 140 (
80 B.C. and 570 ( 80 B.C.. The older date was associated with the net impressed ceramics.
Gardner identified hickory, walnut, butternut, acorn and hazelnut remains as well as squash,
chenopod and maygrass cultigens. In Gardner's excavations white-tailed deer and raccoon
constitute the majority of the faunal remains.
The Middle Woodland period in southwestern Virginia is characterized by groups of
indigenous people being influenced by cultures primarily from the west and south. McLearen
(1992:53) states that "there is no good evidence of direct intrusion, but rather a spread of
ideas and objects through short term contact and probably some focused exchange."
Nevertheless, Hopewell contacts in southwestern Virginia were minimal and occured within
a short term span (A.D. 200-400). Changes after that time period by the indigenous people
were more important (McLearen 1992:54). The typical Middle Woodland site consisted of a
small group of people who used an area semi-permanently. No Middle Woodland mounds or
specialized mortuary sites, like those found in the Ohio Valley, have been recognized in
southwestern Virginia. Other attributes of the Middle Woodland period in this area were not
particularly different from the preceding periods. They include increased sedentism, steady
population growth and a broad-based economy utilizing a wide spectrum of natural foods
with scant evidence for cultigens in the diet (Blanton 1992:68-69).
Two models have been used to explain the settlement subsistence systems in the region
during the Middle Woodland period. One is Binford's (1980) logistical model described
earlier and the other is the fission-fusion model. This system suggests that at certain times of
the year "macro-social unit" base camps were formed when groups from adjoining territories
coalesce at a given location, usually in an area with rich, predictable resources (Blanton
1992:71).
Middle Woodland ceramics identified in the area include limestone tempered Long Branch
Fabric Marked and Candy Creek Cordmarked; types defined in the Tennessee River
drainage. Smaller amounts of limestone tempered types, such as Wright Check Stamped,
18
Bluff Creek Simple Stamped and Mulberry Creek Plain, also defined in the Tennessee River
drainage, as well as sand tempered Connestee ceramics defined in the Appalachian Summit
have been identified in the area. All of these ceramics are common in southwestern Virginia
between A.D. 100-600. The Candy Creek Cordmarked type has been found in archeological
contexts up to A.D. 900.
Several Middle Woodland sites in southwestern Virginia have been excavated. McIlhany
(1983) recovered Candy Creek Cordmarked and Connestee ceramics, Connestee and Pigeon
projectile points, polished stone gorgets, prismatic blades, polyhedral cores and sheet mica
from site 44RU44 in Russell County, Virginia. Radiocarbon dates, A.D. 180 and A.D. 410,
place this site in the late Connestee phase defined by Keel (1976) for the Appalachian
Summit (see below). Another fairly substantial Middle Woodland site, the 656 Elk Garden
site also in Russell County, was excavated by McLearen (1990). It consisted of storage and
cooking facilities associated with an oval, post built structure similar to Middle Woodland
structures found in eastern Tennessee. This was probably a late Middle Woodland site (ca.
A.D. 800) because no Connestee ceramics were found at this site.
Occupations during the Middle Woodland period at Daugherty's Cave were a continuation of
those from the earliest Woodland occupations (Benthall 1990). Activities engaged in at the
site include hunting, butchering, hide working, food processing and preparation, primary flint
knapping and woodworking. The pottery consists of types defined for the Middle and Upper
Tennessee Valley which again points to a downstream influence of the people occupying the
site. Limestone tempered Mulberry Creek Plain, Wright Check Stamped and Bluff Creek
Simple Stamped were present. One radiocarbon date, A.D. 322 ( 70 (F.S.U. Sample No.
328), was obtained for a feature that contained Wright Check Stamped sherds. Triangular
points begin to replace the earlier stemmed forms at the end of this period. A variety of other
tools including expanded base drills, thumbnail scrapers and a variety of chipped stone and
flake tools, as well as bone implements, are included in the Middle Woodland assemblage at
this site.
Gardner's (1991) excavations at Daugherty's Cave displayed that Mulberry Creek Plain
ceramics were most common in the upper levels of the Middle Woodland component while
Candy Creek Cordmarked was most common in the lower levels. Wright Check Stamped
ceramics, along with Bluff Creek simple-stamped, were minority types. Connestee Check
stamped ceramics, cut mica and crested and prismatic blades and blade cores were also in the
assemblage. The projectile points include triangles, Swan Lake Expanding Stemmed and
Jack's Reef Corner Notched types (Gardner 1991). Food plant remains identified include
hickory, walnut, butternut, acorn and hazelnut nutshell and blackberry and grape seeds.
Cultigens in the assemblage included squash rind, sumpweed, chenopod and maygrass. The
faunal assemblage was overwhelmingly dominated by white-tailed deer with small amounts
of elk, raccoon, black bear and groundhog. Gardner's excavations produced four radiocarbon
dates from the Middle Woodland component. These dates are not in stratigraphic order, but
they include A.D. 370 ( 70, A.D. 380 ( 70, A.D. 580 ( 60 and A.D. 580 ( 80.
19
Appalachian Summit
The Appalachian Summit region includes southwestern Virginia, the mountainous sections of
North and South Carolina and far eastern Tennessee. Keel (1976) outlined three phases of the
Woodland period in this area: the Swannanoa, Pigeon and the Connestee phases. They are
described below. Sites of the period from A.D. 600-1000 have not been identified in the
region and Keel (1976) suggests that there was a transitional phase between the Connestee
and Pisgah phases (see discussion below) that has not yet been archeologically identified.
Swannanoa Phase (600/700-200 B.C.)
In the Appalachian Summit area ceramics are first manufactured during the Swannanoa
phase. Holden (1966:60-64) was the first to describe Swannanoa pottery which she called the
Early Series with Cordmarked and Fabric Marked types. This pottery is quite different than
the succeeding types but certain attributes expressed during this time are repeated in the late
ceramic types. They exhibit strong ties to a northern ceramic tradition as opposed to a
southern tradition. The ceramics are usually cordmarked or fabric marked and vessel forms
include conoidal jars and bowls. Rare finger-nail trailed incising is an attribute of these
ceramics. Other material culture includes small, stemmed projectile points (Swannanoa
Stemmed), bar gorgets, soapstone vessels, bone awls, pitted stones, ochres and net weights.
Settlements are widely dispersed upon the landscape pointing to a broad adaptation to local
resources.
Pigeon Phase (200 B.C. - A.D. 200)
The Pigeon phase is best identified by its ceramics. They exhibit similarities with paddle
stamped ceramics recognized to the south, especially in central Georgia. In contrast to the
earlier and later Woodland phases, the Pigeon phase ceramic assemblage is dominated by
check stamped surface treatments. The origin of carved paddle stamped surfaces is probably
in middle Georgia and northern Florida. Vessel forms include conical jars, open
hemispherical bowls and shouldered jars with slightly flaring rims, flat based with four
conical or wedge-shaped feet. Little else is known about this phase; although, Keel
(1976:229) feels that attributes of the preceding Swannanoa phase continue into the Pigeon
phase. These attributes include the continued use of flake scrapers, bone awls, antler drifts,
stone and ceramic pipes and celts. Projectile points associated with this period include Pigeon
Side Notched and Garden Creek Triangular forms. Sites are widely spread on the landscape
and subsistence focused on hunting and gathering during this phase.
Connestee Phase (A.D. 200-600)
The Connestee phase is a period of increased contact with outside groups and of social
complexity. It was a time of increased sedentism, increased trade and exchange with the
Hopewell heartland and possibly the beginnings of horticulture. Nevertheless, horticultural
was probably not an important attribute of this culture.
20
Few Connestee related sites are found well outside the Appalachian region, and they usually
take the form of an isolated Connestee vessel found at a site. A few sites with Connestee
pottery have been found in southwestern Virginia and they were described above. The
Icehouse Bottom site (Chapman and Keel 1979) in the Little Tennessee River Valley is a
rare, substantial Connestee phase site. The Patrick site, about one mile down stream from the
Icehouse Bottom site, also produced a Connestee phase component (Schroedl 1978).
The cultural similarities with middle Georgia displayed during the preceding Pigeon phase
did not persist into this phase. Keel (1976:219-226) suggests that southwestern North
Carolina, northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee formed their own interaction sphere during
the Connestee phase. One group of artifacts, ceramics, display strong ties with northern
Georgia and eastern Tennessee. They are different from the preceding Pigeon phase
ceramics; although, they do show some affinity with the earlier ceramics. Connestee
ceramics are finished with brushed, simple stamped or plain surfaces. They are conoidal in
shape and have constricting necks and flaring rims. Small, flat-based conoidal jars, some
with four small podal supports, are another vessel shape attributed to this series of pottery.
Triangular projectile points; Haywood, Connestee and Garden Creek, as well as the Pigeon
Side Notched form, are in use as are a variety of flake scrapers and gravers. Exotic, Hopewell
Interaction Sphere items are also part of the material culture of this phase. They include
prismatic blades, polyhedral cores, triangular knives or caches blades, Copena triangular
points and copper ornaments and pins. A wide variety of ground stone objects have been
associated with this time period and include celts, gorgets, plummets, pendants and grooved
stones. Structures of this phase are rare; although, a large rectangular structure with
individually placed posts has been identified at the Garden Creek Mound 2 site (31HW2) at
the base of the mound. Similarly constructed structures have been identified in subsequent
mound stages. Settlements of this phase are similar to the preceding Woodland phases. They
are found in all environmental settings with small sites in the floodplain and numerous sites
in the uplands.
Eastern Tennessee
Woodland period occupations in the Upper Tennessee Valley and eastern Tennessee deviate
from those in southwestern Virginia and western North Carolina. Culture history building in
this area began at the beginning of the 20th century and future research has wrestled with
redefining or in some cases eliminating portions of the early propositions. For example,
archaeological investigations in this area began in 1915 when C.B. Moore excavated a
number of small, conical burials mounds along the Tennessee River. Harrington (1922) also
conducted excavations at a number of sites in the region. The earliest culture he recognized
was what he called the 'Round Grave' culture (Late Archaic and Early Woodland) which was
followed by a 'Second Culture' (Late Woodland). The latter consisted of burial mounds that
exhibit intrusive Mississippian burials. Webb (1938) also recognized Late Woodland
settlement along the Powell and Clinch Rivers of the Norris Basin. Investigations in this area
led to the excavation of three conical burial mounds and two stone burial mounds.
A second round of investigation took place in the 1950's when a number of large scale
excavations were undertaken under the auspices of the Tennessee Valley Authority using
21
WPA labor. Amateur investigations, such as those at the Camp Creek site, on the confluence
of Camp Creek and the Nolichucky River in Greene County, Tennessee also contributed
important data. Using this information, Lewis and Kneberg (1941, 1946 and 1957) and
Kneberg (1952) constructed a detailed culture history for Eastern Tennessee. They defined an
'Upper Valley Culture' that includes a Watts Bar (Early Woodland) and a Candy Creek focus
(Middle Woodland). It is roughly equivalent to Harrington's 'Round Grave' culture. The
attributes of the 'Upper Valley Culture' include: semi-permanent villages along major rivers;
a well-adapted hunting, fishing, shell collecting and gathering economy; a large settled
population, projectile points including Greenville, Nolichucky, Camp Creek, Hamilton,
Candy Creek, Bradley Spike, Upper Valley Side Notched and other undifferentiated
stemmed styles; crushed limestone or quartzite tempered ceramics; flexed burials in village
areas (often accompanied by burial goods, shell and copper trade items); and intergroup
conflict evident by traumatized burials with points imbedded in bone. They also defined a
'Middle Valley Culture', which includes the Hamilton focus (Late Woodland), equivalent to
Harrington's 'second culture.' C.B. Moore's excavations, as well as Webb's, probably sampled
Late Woodland Hamilton foci burial mounds. Attributes of this culture include dispersed
settlement systems, increased utilization of fresh water mussels for subsistence, limestone
tempered pottery, burials in conical burial mounds of multi-phase construction and limited
use of grave goods (Rowe 1952:201).
The Candy Creek focus was later subdivided into four complexes. The Greenville complex
was introduced by Larsen (1959) and it is associated with sites where only Greenville
projectile points are found. Kneberg (1961) later adds that the ceramic assemblage of this
complex is dominated by Long Branch Fabric Marked. At the same time, Kneberg (1961)
identifies three additional complexes to follow the Greenville complex; Candy Creek,
Hamilton and Roane-Rhea. The latter two complexes subdivide the Hamilton focus. The
attributes of the Candy Creek complex are the same as the Candy Creek focus, primarily with
pottery assemblages of the Candy Creek Cordmarked type. The defining attributes of the
Hamilton complex are identical to the old Hamilton focus with a predominance of Hamilton
Cordmarked, Plain and Brushed pottery. The Roane-Rhea complex is also characterized by
predominantly limestone tempered plain surfaced pottery; although, vessel forms are more
similar to early Mississippian forms in the area compared to the Late Woodland forms.
Moving down the Tennessee River to between Knoxville and Chattanooga, more recent
research has led to the identification of several phase sequences for the Tennessee Valley
region that are in some ways applicable to northeastern Tennessee. Davis (1990) outlined
them in a recent publication and much of what is described below has been taken from that
document. In the Little Tennessee River drainage, Kimball (1985) and Davis (1990) identify
three Woodland temporal units or phases. They are associated with the Early and Middle
Woodland periods. No data is available for the Late Woodland period in this area.
The Early Woodland period (1000-200 B.C) is labeled the Bacon Bend temporal unit
(Kimball 1985) and the Watts Bar phase (Davis 1990). This phase is defined only by the
presence of thick, quartzite tempered, primarily cordmarked and fabric marked pottery
(Watts Bar Series). Davis (1990:63) does not report any projectile point type associated with
this period; although, stemmed and stemless projectile points occur. The Watts Bar phase
22
settlement pattern is similar to the Late Archaic Iddins phase settlement system. Base camps
focus on riverine settings and the exploitation of aquatic resources. The uplands are also used
as logistic hunting camps. The residential camps in riverine settings exhibit thick middens
with high densities of ceramics, fire-cracked rock and lithics reflecting intensive use of these
sites. The floodplain sites, however, are probably not occupied year round due to flooding
which leads to a seasonal round settlement-subsistence system. A portion of Harrington's
(1922) 'Round Grave' culture and the first part of the 'Upper Valley Culture' or the Watts Bar
focus is roughly equivalent to the Watts Bar phase.
The Rankin site, another site excavated by amateurs, is an important addition to the database
(Smith and Hodges 1968). It is situated on the French Broad River at the mouth of the
Nolichucky River in Cocke County, Tennessee. The Rankin site is a Watts Bar phase site.
Ninety-six percent of the pottery is of the Watts Bar type and, of this, 95% is fabric marked
while the remainder is cordmarked. Projectile point styles are dominated by the Ebenezer
type followed by Camp Creek, Nolichucky and a small percentage of Rankin points.
Two alternative Early Woodland cultural sequences have been defined for the Upper
Tennessee Valley. Faulkner and McCollough(1973) identified three phases based on the
relative frequency of two pottery types on two sites they excavated along Interstate 75 in
Loudon County, Tennessee in addition to assemblages on other sites in the region. Sites with
a predominance of quartzite and sand tempered, cordmarked and fabric marked Watts Bar
pottery are included in the Watts Bar phase as defined above. The ceramic assemblages in the
lower stratum of 40CK11 (Smith n.d.) and the Watts Bar zone at the Bacon Bend site (Salo
1969) exhibit these characteristics. Sites with roughly equal proportions of Watts Bar pottery
and the limestone tempered, fabric marked Long Branch pottery are included with the
Greenville phase, which would appear to be synonymous with the Greenville complex
(Larsen 1959). The ceramics from the upper zone at 40CK11 display these proportions.
Finally, sites with predominantly Long Branch pottery are defined as belonging to the Long
Branch phase. The Camp Creek site (Lewis and Kneberg 1957) has a ceramic assemblage
composed predominantly of this type of pottery. Smith (1987:175) identifies sites
representing all three alternative phases during recent surveys within the Chickamauga
Reservoir. Based on the distribution of these sites he speculates that there is either 1) a
population movement from the Hiwassee River Valley to the main Tennessee River Valley
during the middle to late Early Woodland period. This occurs because most of the quartzite
tempered sherds are found in the former area while the limestone tempered pottery is found
in the latter area, which would suggest that the Hiwassee River Valley was effectively
abandoned, or 2) the quartzite tempered sherds may be associated with Swannanoa and
Dunlap wares from the more mountainous regions to the east, and the Tennessee Valley is
primarily associated with limestone tempered wares. Smith (1987) believes that the second
explanation accounts for the variable distribution of the ceramics.
Lafferty (1981) identified the other alternative Early Woodland cultural sequence for this
period based on his excavations at sites within Phipps Bend on the Holston River in Hawkins
County, Tennessee. This sequence is similar to McCollough and Faulkner's, the main
difference being that Swannanoa ceramics are predominate over Watts Bar ceramics in the
Phipps Bend area. Swannanoa ceramics are different from Watts Bar ceramics in that Watts
23
Bar ceramics average twice the wall thickness, have a greater percentage of temper in their
paste and are usually fabric marked. Swannanoa ceramics are usually cordmarked. In
addition, Swannanoa ceramics from Phipps Bend have cordmarkings running parallel to the
rim in contrast to those from the Appalachian Summit, which have cordmarkings oriented
perpendicular to the rim. Swannanoa pottery also predates Watts Bar pottery by 100 to 200
years. Like McCollough and Faulkner, Lafferty (1981) defines three ceramic phases based on
the relative proportions of two different ceramic types: Swannanoa Cordmarked var. Phipps
Bend and Long Branch Fabric Marked var. Upper Valley. A Swannanoa phase component is
characterized as having a ceramic assemblage consisting entirely of Swannanoa pottery.
Projectile points of this phase include those of the Upper Valley and Ebenezer clusters. Site
40HW45 at Phipps Bend produced several radiocarbon dates in association with Swannanoa
phase ceramics. These dates ranged from 990 B.C. to ca. 600 B.C. (Lafferty 1981). Site
40HW44 also yielded a radiocarbon date of 780 B.C. in association with Swannanoa phase
ceramics. The second phase, Phipps, sees the introduction of limestone tempered pottery,
specifically Long Branch Fabric Marked pottery, at ca. 600 B.C. Through time the amount of
this type of pottery increases in the assemblage. McFarland cluster projectile points are
introduced at the same time and increase in relative abundance in the succeeding phase.
Lafferty (1981:499) suggests that this is a cultural change and not a movement of people. The
Phipps phase probably only lasted a very short time (700-600 B.C.), and Lafferty sees it as a
rapid transitional phase. He also notes that the limestone tempered ceramic tradition may be a
central Tennessee phenomenon because a relatively early radiocarbon date of 675 ( 140 B.C.
has been associated with Long Branch Fabric Marked ceramics at site 40CF35 in the Upper
Duck River drainage (McCollough and Duvall 1976). A Long Branch phase component
exhibits a ceramic assemblage composed entirely of Long Branch Fabric Marked pottery.
The radiocarbon dates associated with Long Branch phase ceramics ranged from 560 B.C. to
430 B.C. Early Woodland period sites were placed in areas to maximize access to diverse
resources. The largest and most stable sites were located next to the most complex aquatic
zones. Sites on high terraces were also in ecologically diverse places where water was
available.
According to Kimball (1985) and Davis (1990), the Middle Woodland period is represented
by two phases: Patrick (200 B.C. to A.D. 350) and Icehouse Bottom (A.D. 300-650). Two
early components of the Patrick phase found at the Patrick and Calloway Island sites are
represented by limestone tempered pottery with over 90% of the sherds exhibiting fabric
marked exterior surfaces (Long Branch Fabric Marked). The lithic assemblage is represented
by large triangular projectile points, blanks, preforms, piŠces esquill‚es, ground stone celts
and gorgets. Projectile point types include Camp Creek, Greenville and Nolichucky forms.
Feature types include deep and shallow pits, basins, hearths and flexed burials in circular to
oval pits. According to Davis (1990:59), this component of the Patrick phase has been
previously labeled the late Early Woodland Long Branch phase (Faulkner and McCollough
1973). A later Patrick phase component at the Patrick site exhibits similar attributes except
that only 40% of the ceramics are finished with fabric marking while 22% are check stamped
and 10% are plain surfaced. According to Davis (1990:59), this component has been
previously assigned to the Candy Creek complex (Kneberg 1961).
24
The Icehouse Bottom phase, also known as the Candy Creek-Connestee phase (Chapman
1973, Cridlebaugh 1981), is represented by Candy Creek and Connestee Series ceramics in
addition to Mulberry Creek Plain, Wright Check Stamped, Bluff Creek Simple Stamped,
Pickwick Complicated Stamped, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and Hopewellian
Chillicothe Rocker Stamped ceramics. Additional artifacts that indicate greater regional
interaction during this period include the presence of small prismatic blades of Ohio Flint
Ridge chert. Projectile points found on sites of the Icehouse Bottom phase include Connestee
Triangulars and Bradley Spikes. Feature types of this phase include cylindrical and globular
pits, rock-filled pits and basins. No definite structures have been identified on Icehouse
Bottom phase sites; although, numerous postmolds have been discovered. Burial did not take
place on habitation sites during this phase; rather, they were placed in small rock
cairns/mounds along the ridges above the sites and near the valley edge (Chapman 1973:39).
The settlement system for the Patrick and Icehouse Bottom phases is similar and consists of
base camps concentrated on the lower terraces of the Little Tennessee River as opposed to
the Tellico River drainage. Logistical sites, probably associated with hunting, and special
activity loci are also present. The base camp sites exhibit a greater degree of residential
activity and sedentism than the preceding periods, which secondarily infers an increased
population size (Davis 1990:238). Davis (1990) also postulates that there is a hierarchical
ranking of sites based on their diversity in size. The Icehouse Bottom phase, Candy CreekConnestee phase and the Connestee phase (Keel 1976:222) as defined in the Appalachian
Summit appear to be synchronous with Kneberg's (1961) Candy Creek focus. Ceramics,
chipped and ground stone artifacts and settlement patterns are comparable.
An alternative Middle Woodland sequence was proposed by Faulkner and McCollough
(1973) who defined two separate Middle Woodland phases. These two phase designations
subdivide the Icehouse Bottom phase distinguishing between two different pottery types. The
first phase is the Candy Creek phase which is delineated by the presence of limestone
tempered Candy Creek Cordmarked pottery. Minor pottery types in this phase include
Wright Check Stamped, Pickwick Complicated Stamped and Bluff Creek Simple Stamped.
This phase is roughly equivalent to the Candy Creek focus (Kneberg 1961). The second is the
Connestee phase which is characterized by the presence of sand tempered Connestee Series
ceramics. Smith (1987:175) also identified sites of these two phases during his surveys
within the Chickamauga Reservoir. The distribution of sites associated with these two phases
mirrored that of the Early Woodland sites where the majority of sites of the early Middle
Woodland Candy Creek phase are found along the Tennessee River and those of the late
Middle Woodland Connestee phase are found within the Hiwassee River Valley. Like his
argument for the Early Woodland period, Smith (1987:177) suggests that the distribution of
sites is related to the differential distribution of ceramics associated with the mountainous
regions to the east compared to those associated with the Tennessee Valley proper.
As noted above, the Late Woodland period in eastern Tennessee has been designated the
Hamilton focus and Roane-Rhea complex (A.D. 650-900) (Lewis and Kneberg 1946;
Kneberg 1961). Ceramics are limestone tempered and generally cordmarked (Hamilton
Cordmarked) with minor amounts of plain, stamped and brushed surfaces. Keel (1976)
believes sites of this period in the Tennessee Valley drainage, including burial mound sites,
are representative of the transitional phase between Connestee and Pisgah phases in western
25
North Carolina; although none have yet been found. Other than the ceramic attributes, little is
known about Hamilton occupations in the region. The Hamilton mound complexes
frequently contain intrusive Mississippian burials. Schroedl (1973:10) speculates that some
of the burials that are included in Late Woodland Hamilton mounds may represent Hiwassee
Island focus interments (see below). He goes on to say that "the proximity of Hamilton
mounds to Hiwassee Island occupations may indicate simultaneous use" (Schroedl 1973:10).
As noted above, the final Late Woodland complex, the Roane-Rhea complex, was identified
by Kneberg (1961) and is represented by a preponderance of plain sherds over cordmarked or
stamped pottery. This complex is similar to the early Mississippian Martin Farm phase
described below. Vessels forms of this complex are reminiscent of the early Mississippian
vessels.
South-Central Tennessee
Six phases have been identified for Woodland occupations within the Normandy and Tims
Ford Reservoirs in south-central Tennessee. They include the Wade, Watts Bar, Long
Branch, McFarland, Owl Hollow and Mason phases. The following was taken verbatim from
Mark Seeman's (1992) detailed summary of the Woodland period for this area.
Wade Phase (1100-600 B.C.)
Associated with the Wade phase, the first Woodland manifestation in southcentral
Tennessee, are modest changes from patterns documented in the preceding late Archaic
Ledbetter phase (ca. 2500-1100 B.C.). For example, steatite containers were imported into
central Tennessee for the first time from quarries located over 100 mi (161 km) away in the
eastern mountains. Quartzite for adzes was also obtained from the east. Other evidence for
extra-regional contact can be found in the broad-bladed, barbed, and stemmed Wade
projectile point cluster, which is a good horizon marker across most of the midcontinent (see
Emerson & McElrath 1983, Justice 1987). Some of the southcentral Tennessee examples are
made of exotic cherts. Ground stone celts replace axes, boatstones replace prismatic atlatl
weights in local assemblages, and cultigens-squash, gourds, sunflowers, chenopods, and
maygrass are used more extensively than in the preceding Ledbetter phase (Crites 1986,
1987).
Several excavated Wade phase sites exhibit sufficient structural complexity to have
functioned as small, perhaps nuclear-family, multiseason base camps, while others suggest
short-term and/or warm-season camps. The Ewell III site is notable for providing the first
evidence for the construction of permanent residential structures in the area. The Ewell III
house was circular, about 15 ft (4.6m) across, and probably of bent-pole construction. Its
interior processing pits and central hearth indicate cold-season use. About ten storage and
processing pits were outside and immediately adjacent to this structure. Bentz (1986) and
Faulkner and McCollough (1973) document similarly isolated households elsewhere in the
region at this time.
The recently discovered Oldroy cemetery in the middle Duck Valley suggests that social
integration extended beyond the household level in the context of mortuary ceremony during
26
the Wade phase. Here, 73 burials, some in common pits, were recovered with associated
Wade points, bifaces, steatite bowls, hematite pigment, crinoid stem beads, a sandal sole
gorget, and a variety of bone tools and work kits (Amick et al. 1986). A pit feature containing
nonlocal Alexander Pinched sherds and Wade projectile points yielded an uncorrected
radiocarbon date of 625+/-85 B.C.; apparently, later Wade populations were in contact with
groups farther south and west that were making pottery, but evidence for local manufacture
at this time is lacking. In sum, the Wade phase shows a simplification of the mobiledispersed settlement model postulated for the preceding Ledbetter phase (Faulkner &
McCollough 1982:516-518). There is evidence for increasing regionalization of settlement,
stronger extra-regional trade connections, a (partial) separation of cemetery from habitation,
increased cultivation, and the establishment of multiseasonal homesteads.
Watts Bar (600-450 B.C.) and Long Branch (450-100 B.C.) Phases
The Wade phase is followed by a Watts Bar phase and a subsequent Long Branch phase;
both are nearly invisible in southcentral Tennessee. (Keel (1978) distinguishes this period as
the Early Woodland 'Rounded Base Cluster', but he does not give any phase designations.)
Watts Bar evidence is limited to scattered diagnostics and a few pit features on
multicomponent sites. The Nowlin II (40CF35) site, with six deep features, is the most
intensive occupation in the entire area. A few flexed burials without grave goods are known.
Notable are the introduction of stemmed, narrow bladed projectile points of the Round-Base
cluster and the replacement of steatite vessels with ceramic containers. These thick, quartztempered, fabric impressed subconoidal jars belong to the Watts Bar ceramic series defined
and present in greater frequency-farther east.
The Long Branch phase is marked by the appearance of thinner, limestone tempered Long
Branch Fabric Marked pottery jars and the initial presence of some McFarland triangular
projectile points; although, the Round-Base cluster continues as an important projectile point
style. Once again, use of the Normandy Reservoir area is limited to scattered pits or pit
clusters appropriate for small groups. No habitation structures are known. One of the larger
Long Branch occupations consisted of three clusters of 4-8 features (shallow basins, storage
pits, earth ovens, and flexed burials) at the Jernigan II site. Four of the six burials at the site
occurred as a distinct concentration or "family plot." Pit features at Jernigan II were left open
and filled naturally. Floral and faunal evidence suggest year-round, though not necessarily
continuous, utilization (Faulkner & McCollough 1982:292-300). Long Branch hunting and
collecting activities were augmented with limited cultivation, but on a scale no different from
that documented for previous Woodland populations in the area. Maize kernels occur in a
few features but are probably contaminants from later occupations.
McFarland Phase (100 B. C. - A.D. 150)
The McFarland phase represents an episode of accelerated change in the Highland Rim area.
Habitation sites, mostly on terraces, are larger and much more numerous, suggesting
increased population and/or significant changes in resource exploitation strategies at this
time. Ceramics take new vessel forms and show a broader range of stylistic treatment, with
Wright Check Stamped, Bluff Creek Simple Stamped, Pickwick Complicated Stamped, Long
27
Branch Fabric Marked, and Mulberry Creek Plain the main types. Some McFarland jars
evidence tetrapodal supports, others have conoidal bases, and some have flat bases (Kline et
al. 1982). Ceramic variability across the region argues for the conscious regulation of
relatively localized, drainage-related social boundaries at this time (Faulkner & McCollough
1982:14-15). Other, essentially low-level indicators of changing social relationships include
the manufacture of gorgets and elbow-shaped smoking pipes, a change from flexed burials to
redeposited cremations, and increased evidence for long-distance exchange (e.g., greenstone
celts, mica, exotic ceramics). Triangular McFarland projectile points are now the
predominant style.
Agriculture was important in McFarland subsistence. Maize and squash, as well as cultigens
of the "eastern agricultural complex" such as maygrass, chenopodium, knotweed, sunflower,
and sumpweed, increase in percentage and ubiquity over earlier phases, and there is good
evidence for multiple-season storage (Kline et al. 1982:64, Yarnell & Black 1985:101; see
also Smith 1987). Forest clearance activities associated with agriculture were substantially
affecting the local environment (Crites 1987).
The internal organization of McFarland sites and the general settlement pattern are
considerably more complex than can be documented for preceding populations in the
Highland Rim area. Although early McFarland settlement was probably characterized by
some seasonal mobility between short-term camps and multi-season bases--a sort of tethered
mobility--a pattern of small villages occupied year-round had emerged by the end of the
phase. Villages were concentrated in areas accessible to broad expanses of terrace and
floodplain, and contained both flimsy summer houses and more substantial, circular winter
houses with interior hearths, processing basins, and deep storage pits. The houses ranged in
size about 20-30 ft (6-9m) in diameter, were made in both pitched-roof and tensioned-dome
styles, and probably housed extended families. Five winter house patterns were found at the
McFarland type site (40CF48) despite the fact that only a relatively small percentage of it
was excavated. The available data suggest that the largest McFarland villages may have
accommodated 50 or so people. Both large and small McFarland sites show a concern with
formally partitioning space into residential, processing, outdoor storage, and cooking areas.
Some of the larger sites also have distinct burial areas for redeposited cremations. McFarland
sites do not show overlapping postmold patterns, structural repair, superimposed features,
dump areas, or a concern with reusing storage pits for refuse; these patterns suggest
"sedentism" but not "permanence" as distinguished by Snow (1980:71).
Two sites, Yearwood and the Old Stone Fort, suggest some degree of social regulation above
the village level. The Yearwood site has produced an organized arrangement of 11 lightly
built, rectangular structures, primary (extended) and secondary (cremated) burials, the only
Woodland crematory basin in central Tennessee, and the broadest range of exotica in the
region. The latter include Hopewell-style copper earspools, Ohio Flint Ridge flint bladelets,
mica, galena, serpentine gorgets, quartz crystals and nonlocal ceramics. A range of warm
season, ritualized activities probably took place at Yearwood, including burial preparation,
exchange and feasting (Walthall 1985, Faulkner & McCollough 1982:14). The Old Stone
Fort site is located on a high promontory, 80-100 ft (24-30m) above the forks of the Duck
River and overlooking a waterfall. It is a "fortified hilltop" approximately 30 acres (12 ha) in
28
size and is enclosed by walls that are 4.5 ft (1.4m) high and 30 ft (9. 1 m) thick at the base.
Although there is not much evidence one way or the other, Faulkner (1968a) argues that this
site was a ritual center, not a true fortification.
Owl Hollow Phase (A.D. 250-700)
The Owl Hollow phase follows McFarland after a noticeable gap, suggesting a temporary
abandonment of the area (Kline et al. 1982:71). Owl Hollow artifact styles do seem to show a
linkage to the north, especially to the LaMotte complex of the lower Wabash Valley
(Faulkner 1978). The ceramics also represent a somewhat improved technology, in the sense
that they are more uniform. Most vessels are large subconoidal jars with slight shoulder
development and straight to slightly flaring rims. Rims are decorated with a "pie-crust"
treatment on otherwise predominantly plain vessels. Stamped surface treatments are
infrequent, and simple stamping is much more common than check stamping--the reverse of
the McFarland situation. Tetrapodal supports are present in early assemblages of the phase,
but not at later sites. Lanceolate, weakly side-notched lanceolate (Bakers Creek), and
lanceolate stemmed (Bradley Spike) projectile point styles predominate in Owl Hollow
contexts. The bone tool industry is somewhat broader than can be documented for previous
Woodland phases, and two-hole gorgets and sandstone elbow pipes are present. Burials,
some with grave goods, are flexed. Infants are casually disposed of in old features or midden
areas. Greenstone celts continue to be traded into the area, and a few exotic sherds from the
north and east have been recovered.
The same complement of cultigens are present in Owl Hollow as in the preceding McFarland
phase, but the dietary role of these foods clearly increases. The relative representation of
domesticated taxa is much stronger in the Owl Hollow phase, as is the ubiquity of associated
weedy annuals (Crites 1985:72, 133, 1987:736). Sunflower and marshelder show continued
increase in seed size, and maize is much more frequent--and its presence less problematic
(Crites 1985:78-80, Gremillion & Yarnell 1986:16, 18). Changes are also apparent in the use
of hunted and gathered resources; for example, acorns and walnuts, presumed second-line
resources, were utilized much more frequently by Owl Hollow populations (Crites 1985:7072). Faunal exploitation patterns appear to vary, with some groups focused narrowly on
mammals and others showing more generalized strategies (Robinson 1986).
Owl Hollow settlement patterns are clearly different from those of the McFarland phase; the
sites now are more varied in location, are less frequent, and have accumulations of ashy
midden. Owl Hollow sites are also much larger; for example, the Owl Hollow type site
(40FR7) covers over 8 acres (3.2 ha), an increase of about 40 percent over the largest
McFarland sites. Sites evidence at least two types of habitation postures: (1) nucleated upland
sites with "donut" ring-middens, and (2) dispersed, terrace-edge settlements. Investigations at
the Owl Hollow type site, an example of the first type, make clear that the central plaza was
kept free of debris, and the evidence for extensive rebuilding in some sections of the site and
not in others suggests additional spatial regulation (Cobb & Faulkner 1978). Examples of the
terrace edge plan are the Eoff I site (40CF32) and the Banks terrace site(s) (Banks III and
Banks V). At Eoff I, there were as many as ten circular "summer" houses plus two larger,
ovate "winter" houses with interior supports and twin earth ovens--but it is unlikely that all of
29
these structures were in use at the same time. The Banks terrace excavations revealed three
apparently contemporaneous winter houses with double interior earth-ovens, two smaller
dwellings, sheet midden areas, a few flexed burials, and about 30 other features. The three
winter houses were 39 x 34 ft (11.9 x 10.4m), 45 x 35 ft (3.7 x 10.7m), and 30 x 26 ft (9.1 x
7.9m), and each was large enough to accommodate several nuclear families. Many Owl
Hollow sites, in contrast to McFarland sites, lack deep subsurface storage features, indicating
the development of alternate food storage strategies. In sum, most Owl Hollow phase people
lived in sedentary villages with a high degree of permanence. The larger sites may have
housed 75 people.
Mason Phase (A.D. 700-1000)
The Mason phase is the final Woodland phase in southcentral Tennessee. As with Owl
Hollow, Mason shows little continuity with the preceding phase. The thick, crumbly, cherttempered pottery of the Elk River series is quite different from Owl Hollow pottery. Mason
projectile points are also smaller, more carefully made, and reflect a concern with obtaining
higher quality raw materials (Faulkner & McCollough 1982: 113). These triangular
(Hamilton), pentagonal (Jacks Reef Pentagonal), and notched (Jacks Reef Corner Notched)
points probably indicate the introduction of the bow and arrow. Elongated drills made on
projectile points are also present. Mason burials are flexed and often placed in old storage
pits (Faulkner & McCollough 1982:534-535). Several burials have marine shell beads and
columella in association, indicating limited long-distance exchange. The unusually large
storage pits are interesting because they represent another contrast with Owl Hollow. Some
bell-shaped Mason storage pits were 9.4 ft (2.9m) in diameter and 5.6 ft (1.7m) deep. They
tend to be isolated and scattered, but a few concentrations do occur at the Parks site
(Faulkner & McCollough 1982:531). These patterns suggest multiple-family or communal
storage. Mason subsistence is quite generalized, and cultigens do not seem any more
prominent than in preceding Woodland phases (Faulkner 1968a:245, Yarnell & Black 1985).
Evidence for housing is meager, suggesting that these people lived in light-duty, perhaps
hide-covered structures (Faulkner 1968a:128, Faulkner & McCollough 1982:72). Sites are
typically small-scale and nonintensive. The few upland rockshelters in the area saw some use
at this time. In sum, the evidence suggests a pattern of seasonal resource exploitation, high
mobility, and low regional population density during the Mason phase (Faulkner &
McCollough 1982:304). The Mason phase is replaced by Banks phase Mississippian ca. A.D.
1000, thus ending a long succession of Woodland complexes in southcentral Tennessee.
Middle Cumberland
The Woodland period in the Middle Cumberland drainage has been compared to that in
south-central Tennessee. It has been divided into three sub-periods by McNutt and Lumb
(1987) using information obtained from the excavation of a number of sites in the Middle
Cumberland River Valley near Nashville. The Early Woodland period (1000-200 B.C.) is
initially represented by a carry over of Late Archaic projectile point forms - Motley,
Pontchartrain, Wade - and no ceramics. Wheeler or Alexander ceramics have not been
identified in the region. They compare this period to the Wade phase of south-central
Tennessee. At 700 B.C. Adena projectile points are included in the lithic assemblages, as
30
well as quartzite tempered pottery with cordmarked and fabric marked surfaces. Oval
structures (11 m by 7 m) with exterior earth ovens, cooking pits and storage pits have been
identified at Duncan Tract associated with this time period (McNutt and Weaver 1983). They
equate this period with the Watts Bar phase of south-central Tennessee and consider it to be
an intrusive population in the area from the south (Watts Bar) or east (Swannanoa). Two
Middle Woodland components have been recognized at Duncan Tract. The earlier (200 B.C.
to A.D. 75/100) is characterized by McFarland projectile points, large circular houses (9 m to
12 m in diameter) and plain and check stamped limestone tempered pottery. Burial clusters
are also associated with this component. McNutt and Weaver (1983) suggest it is comparable
to and contemporaneous with the McFarland phase; however, the house size and burial
pattern is not equivalent to those of the McFarland phase. Side scrapers, spokeshaves and
ground stone artifacts are included in the material culture. The second component (A.D.
75/100-400) is represented by a similar point type and predominantly simple stamped with
some plain, limestone tempered pottery. The occupations at Duncan Tract of this period are
not substantial; no structural remains and few pits are encountered. McNutt and Weaver
(1983) believe this component on this site represents a transitional period between the
McFarland and Owl Hollow phases or a distinctive Owl Hollow phase counterpart in the
Middle Cumberland Valley. The end of the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 400-600)
contains lanceolate expanding stemmed points. The Late Woodland (A.D. 600-1000) is
virtually unknown; although, a Madison and Swan Lake point were recovered from the
Celsor site (McNutt and Lumb 1987).
Cumberland Plateau
Survey and excavation in the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Tennessee undertaken by Pace
and Kline (1976), Ahler (1967) and Wilson and Finch (1980) have exhibited that settlement
increased during the Woodland period. Not only are there more sites, but they are occupied
for longer periods of time, possibly for multiple seasons or year round. During the Early
Woodland period settlement is similar to the preceding Late Archaic period. Increased
population pressure in the surrounding regions may account for the heightened use of the
upland areas of the Cumberland Plateau during the Middle Woodland period. In addition,
evidence for pottery production using local sandstone tempering materials may indicate
longer term use of the area by a resident population during this same period. Production of
food in the Sequatchie Valley and along the Highland Rim may have been supplemented
with exploitation of upland resources leading to an increase in the number of sites in the
uplands (Pace and Kline 1976:101-102).
Excavations at Faust Shelter (Ahler 1967) in Morgan County, Tennessee identified intensive
use of the rockshelter by Early Woodland populations and sporadic use by Middle Woodland
populations. Ahler (1967:49-50) suggests that Early Woodland people lived on the major
terraces of the Emory River during the summer and then fragmented into smaller groups
during the winter exploiting upland resources and living in rockshelters. During the Middle
Woodland period, year round occupation of the terraces is possible using intensified
horticulture to create food surpluses. The uplands are only used for hunting excursions during
the winter. Although there is evidence for resident populations, lithic materials and tempering
materials used in ceramic production at Faust Shelter are predominantly of non-local origin
31
and from the Tennessee Valley. This implies that there is significant contact between the
Cumberland Plateau and the Tennessee Valley in terms of trade, or there are movements of
people between the two areas during the Middle Woodland period (Ferguson and Pace
1981:23).
Wilson and Finch (1980) found that sites with Early and Middle Woodland components were
increasing in number and intensity in the Big South Fork area. In contrast to the Emory River
area, the settlements are confined almost exclusively to rockshelters; however, the
rockshelters in this area are found in a wide variety of settings, and Wilson and Finch
(1980:181-203) suggest this may indicate year-round occupation of the area.
The Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric period in the region is generally characterized by a Mississippian level
of culture. Mississippian cultures are found primarily in the Mississippi Valley and parts of
the Illinois and Ohio Valleys; although, Mississippian influences are seen in a much larger
geographic area. Prehistoric groups inhabiting these regions made shell-tempered pottery,
constructed platform mounds, had settlements arranged in a hierarchical manner, were maize
horticulturists, and had a political system that has generally been described as a chiefdom.
Mississippian material culture is also characterized by artifacts associated with the Southern
Ceremonial Complex (Jennings 1989:262-262). The origin of Mississippian groups has been
viewed previously as migrations from a central heartland, such as Cahokia in the American
Bottom of west-central Illinois (Smith 1984). More recently, Mississippian origins are
increasingly seen as in situ developments (Smith 1984). Cultures with a similar level of
development include Pisgah in the Appalachian Summit, Fort Ancient in the Middle Ohio
River area and the Plaquemine culture of the lower Mississippi River area. Although a Late
Woodland level of society continued in the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the northeast and the
piedmont and coastal areas of the Middle Atlantic until European contact (Geier 1992:279280) some contact is found at the boundaries between the Mississippian culture area and
these regions. The Mississippian period is dated to A.D. 800 in the Middle Mississippi River
Area. Between A.D. 900-1350 independent Mississippian societies developed in the regions
outlined above. These societies lasted until ca. A.D. 1600.
Southwestern Virginia
As noted above, the Late Woodland period in southwestern Virginia dates to the same time
period as the Late Prehistoric period. The Late Woodland level of society continues until
historic contact. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that Mississippian societies coexisted in
this region with the local Late Woodland population. The Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric
culture is characterized by the acceptance of a horticulturally based subsistence system
represented by corn, beans and squash. Large, permanent villages in the bottomlands are
established; although, small, open-air and rockshelter extractive sites have been recognized
throughout the region (Egloff 1992a:187). Settlements are also found in gently sloping
upland areas, areas that also provide fertile soils for agriculture, and in gaps and saddles in
order to create strategic links in communication and trade networks (Bott 1981:38-45). The
Mississippian settlement pattern of platform mound construction, with settlements arranged
32
in a hierarchical manner, and a political system that has generally been described as a
chiefdom have not been positively identified in southwestern Virginia. Three mound sites in
Lee county (Carter Robinson, Ely and 44LE14) may represent the main villages in a
structured settlement system. All of the evidence combined (house size and placement,
village size and complexity and burial patterns and grave goods) suggests that a ranked
society or chiefdom was operating in southwestern Virginia. It is probably based on an
Eastern Woodlands model rather than a Mississippian model; although, the Mississippian
culture greatly influenced the tribal societies in this area (Egloff 1992:213-214).
Egloff (1992a) summarized the material culture of the Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric
period (A.D. 1000-1500) in southwestern Virginia. Three ceramic traditions are recognized;
Eastern Woodland pottery (cordmarked, net impressed and corncob impressed with sand,
soapstone, shell or limestone temper), the Southern Appalachian Pisgah pottery (rectilinear
and curvilinear impressed pottery with sand temper), and the Mississippian shell tempered
pottery of the Upper Tennessee Valley (plain and cordmarked surfaces). Five different types
of Eastern Woodland pottery have been defined including Radford, Wythe Variant of Dan
River, Limestone/Gastropod Shell, Gastropod Shell and Mussel Shell wares. Pisgah and
Dallas ceramics probably did not arrive in the region until ca. A.D. 1200. Bone beamers,
awls, flakers, fish hooks, hoes, projectile points, needles, scrapers, cups and bone handles are
commonly found. Adornments such as beads, hairpins and pendants are also manufactured
from bone. Shell beads and pendants, as well as circular gorgets with rattlesnake motifs, shell
mask gorgets, copper artifacts and historic trade items have also been found on Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric sites in this area.
Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric village sites are surrounded by a circular to oval palisade
with gates and occasionally gate houses. The interior of the palisade contains houses, a plaza,
storage pits and burials organized in a loosely formed community. Houses are circular to oval
but sometimes squarish and show evidence of rebuilding walls. Central hearths, infant burials
and storage pits are found inside the structures. Burials are usually placed along the palisade
walls and a wide variety of mortuary facilities and interment patterns are employed. Burial
patterns at Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric sites in southwestern Virginia are highly varied
(Boyd and Boyd 1992). Single, primary interments in flexed burial positions, both loosely
and tightly flexed, are the most common pattern followed by extended burials and secondary
bundle burials. A third of the burials identified have nonutilitarian grave offerings, indicating
a certain degree of status differentiation. Many of these grave goods are in a Mississippian
style, indicating this cultures influence in the area. Four other burial patterns have been
identified in the area including burials in substructure mounds, in caves, in stone cairns and
in ossuaries. The ossuary-like burials are quite rare and the stone cairns may pre-date the
Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric period.
Egloff (1987:49) identifies four levels of cultural interaction between the indigenous tribal
people and the ranked cultures of eastern Tennessee. They are reiterated in Egloff's
(1992a:214) overview of the Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric period from where the
following was taken. The four levels are:
33
1. The Dallas and Pisgah ceramics and series of substructure mounds in Lee County indicate a
cultural intrusion into the area of a tightly connected Mississippian chiefdom from Tennessee with
little or no mixing with local, tribally-connected people.
2. The mixture of Dallas, Pisgah, and Mussel Shell wares with Radford, Wythe, and Gastropod
Shell wares on sites located further north in Scott and southern Russell counties and further east in
Washington and Smyth counties suggests direct contact between and social mixing of Mississippian
and/or Cherokee populations with local people.
3. The high percentage of Radford and Wythe wares with some Mussel Shell ceramics at sites
near the headwaters of the Clinch and Holston Rivers reflects an indigenous culture which had limited
interaction with Mississippian and/or Cherokee people and then only very late in time.
4. Sites containing only the local Radford, Wythe and Gastropod Shell wares, including earlier
Late Woodland sites, or later sites located in the more remote areas and further north along the Clinch
River and east along the Holston River drainages, suggest a tightly connected indigenous society with
little or no direct contact with Mississippian and/or Cherokee culture.
The deeply stratified Daugherty's Cave site was occupied during the Late Woodland/Late
Prehistoric period. The artifacts display similarities with those to the north and east.
Ceramics consist of the limestone tempered Radford Series, the sand tempered Wythe Series
and the shell tempered New River Series. The Radford series has been radiocarbon dated at
the Brown-Johnson site to A.D. 1215 ( 75 B.P. (uGa-179), A.D. 1490 ( 75 B.P. (uGa-176A)
and A.D. 1520 ( 90 (uGa-176B) (MacCord 1972). At the Crab Orchard site in Tazewell,
Virginia, Radford Series pottery is radiocarbon dated to A.D. 820 ( 70. The same pottery is
found in association with European trade goods on the Trigg site near Radford, Virginia.
Although Benthall (1990:26) identifies a small amount of Radford Series pottery in the Early
Woodland levels at Daugherty's Cave it is possible that this pottery was in fact Candy Creek
Cordmarked because in a small assemblage the two are virtually indistinguishable. Similar
pottery has also been recovered from two sites on Wagner Island, which is within the
Watauga Reservoir in extreme northeastern Tennessee. The pottery is radiocarbon dated to
A.D. 660 ( 155 and A.D. 630 ( 150 (Riggs 1985). These results, in conjunction with those at
Daugherty's Cave and the Crab Orchard site, provide evidence that the Radford-like and
Candy Creek-like pottery in the region are produced during the early Late Woodland in the
region. The sand tempered Wythe Series also found at Daugherty's Cave has been
radiocarbon dated at site 44PU9 to A.D. 1330 ( 120 (Holland 1970). Finally, the New River
Series pottery found in the uppermost levels of Daugherty's Cave has been radiocarbon dated
to A.D. 1250 ( 120 (Ingles Ferry site, Montgomery County) and A.D. 1640 ( 120 and A.D.
1710 ( 130 (Bowman site, Shenandoah County) (Hranicky 1974). The Late Woodland/Late
Prehistoric projectile point types include Pee Dee pentagonals, Levanna and Hamilton
triangles and Jacks Reef Corner Notched forms.
The Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric zone in Daugherty's Cave displayed a substantial
increase in the quantity of mussel shell and aquatic snail shell compared to the previous
occupations. This same occupation also produced corn cobs. Gardner's (1989) supplemental
excavations at Daugherty's Cave recovered New River Series pottery, some sand tempered
Dan River Series pottery and limestone tempered pottery. The projectile point assemblage
included small triangular and pentagonal forms. Maize and beans, hickory, walnut, butternut,
acorn and hazel nut are identified in the botanical assemblage. Faunal remains are also
34
dominated by white-tailed deer elements followed by small amounts of black bear, aquatic
snails, muskrat and wild turkey.
Benthall (1990) suggests that Daugherty's Cave was utilized as a temporary food
procurement station during this period. Large, fortified villages have been identified in the
major river valleys in the region for this time period, and sites like Daugherty's Cave could
have been used for procuring hunted and gathered items to supplement a largely agricultural
diet (Benthall 1990:96).
Appalachian Summit
A 400 year gap is evident between the end of the Connestee phase (ca. A.D. 600) and the
beginning of the Pisgah phase (ca. A.D. 1000), which is the first defined Late Prehistoric
phase of the Appalachian Summit. Dickens (1970, 1976) defined the Pisgah phase (A.D.
1000/1100-1450) for a Mississippian-like culture in the Appalachian Summit area. The
Pisgah phase is subdivided into two periods the early Pisgah (A.D. 1000-1250) and the late
Pisgah (A.D. 1250-1450) subphases, but, in fact, nothing is known about the early Pisgah
subphase. Important late Pisgah subphase sites include the Coweeta Creek site (31MA34),
Garden Creek Mound 1 (31HW1) and the Warren Wilson site (31BN29). The Pisgah culture
consists of an indigenous population that incorporated many Mississippian characteristics
into their own cultural system (Geier 1992:284-285). Purrington (1983) notes that Pisgah is a
Mississippian culture pattern adapted to the upland Appalachian setting. Nevertheless, the
Pisgah culture system is not as complex as those to the west (Purrington 1983:145-147).
Hunting, gathering and horticulture are all represented in the subsistence strategy and the
settlement system is based on a hierarchy including widely spaced, large sites, some with
platform mounds, surrounded by lower order villages, hamlets, farmsteads and special
activity sites. The structures on the mounds are rectangular, wall trench constructed, civicceremonial buildings. Domestic residences are also rectangular, semi-subterranean and
exhibit wall trench entrances and raised clay fire basins. Villages are circular to oval with a
central plaza and they are surrounded by a palisade. The palisades are equipped with
bastions, for defensive purposes in the larger villages. Dickens (1976:211) does not believe
that these villages or those of the succeeding Qualla phase are "the foci of chiefdoms or
states" like their counterparts to the west and south such as Hiwassee Island in the Tennessee
Valley (the Dallas culture) or Etowah in the Southern Piedmont (the Etowah-Wilbanks
culture).
Numerous Pisgah phase material culture characteristics have been identified by Keel (1976)
and Dickens (1976) and are outlined here. Ceramics are similar to eastern Tennessee and the
northern piedmont of Georgia types (Keel 1976:218) and to the Lee Series in southwestern
Virginia (Holland 1970; Keel 1976). The complicated carved paddles used to finish the
ceramics are identified as South Appalachian pottery (Keel 1976:19). Pisgah ceramics are
sand tempered and are finished with a rectilinear complicated stamped design and linear
punctations around the rim. The rims are collared and the vessels are shouldered. Other
attributes include loop handles, lugs, castellations and slightly pointed or rounded bases.
Ceramic pipes, discoidals, animal effigy heads, beads and miniature vessels have also been
identified on Pisgah phase sites. Projectile points are triangular and flake scrapers and other
35
tools are common. Ground stone objects include celts, pipes and discoidals. Artifacts
manufactured from shell include gorgets, masks, ear or hair pins, beads and ceremonial
dippers. Turtle shell rattles, cut-out mica, red ochre, yellow ochre and graphite have also
been found on Pisgah phase sites. Simple pit and shaft-and-chamber burials in the floors of
structures are most common. Grave goods are rare, but present, and may suggest a certain
degree of social stratification.
The Qualla phase (A.D. 1450 to removal) has also been divided into two subperiods; early
and late Qualla subphases. The early Qualla phase (A.D. 1450-1650) is prehistoric and the
late Qualla phase (A.D. 1650-removal) is historic and represents the Cherokee people.
Important early Qualla phase sites include Garden Creek Mound 1 (31HW1) and the
Coweeta Creek site (31MA34). Ceramics of the early period combine Pisgah attributes with
northern Georgia Lamar style ceramics. Sand/grit continues to be the preferred temper
material. The ceramics are characterized by complicated stamping and bold incising and
projectile points consist of small triangular forms. Simple pit and shaft-and-chamber burial
patterns are the rule and few grave offerings are included during this period. When present
the grave goods consist of shell beads, gorgets, hair or ear pins, masks and dippers, as well as
fancy clay pipes, polished stone discs and celts and caches of chipped stone projectile points.
Structures of this period are square or occasionally circular, of wattle-and-daub construction,
bark covered or thatch roofed and with a central clay fire basin. Civic-ceremonial structures
are similar, but larger, and sometimes placed on a low platform mound. Villages are small,
with two mounds at either end and a central plaza. These people engaged in maize-beansquash horticulture, supplemented with hunting, fishing and gathering. Tuckasegee
(31JK12), Garden Creek Mound 2 (31HW2) and the Coweeta Creek site (31MA34) are
important late Qualla phase sites. European trade goods are found on many sites of this time
period. Ceramics change very little from the preceding subphase; although, European goods
replace much of the other Native American material culture. Domestic structures consist of
log cabins, nevertheless, the civic-ceremonial structures remain the same as the earlier
structures. Trade with the English and French is well established by the beginning of the 18th
century. The settlement pattern changed in the 18th century from a nuclear village to a linear
plan and finally during the 19th century to widely scattered individual hamlets and
farmsteads. Hunting and gathering continues to be an important subsistence strategy.
Upper Tennessee
Early archeological investigations of Mississippian period sites in the Upper Tennessee River
region led Lewis and Kneberg (1946) to speculate that there is an intrusion of Middle
Mississippian people into the area; which they associated with the Hiwassee Island focus
(early Middle Mississippian). These people are later replaced by Dallas focus people (Late
Mississippian). Webb (1938) recognized Mississippian settlements in the Norris basin along
the Clinch and Powell Rivers of these two foci. He describes two types of structures on these
sites that correspond with Hiwassee Island and Dallas foci structures. The former are "small
log" structures and the latter are "large log" structures. A third group of people who lived
along the Hiwassee River are represented by the Mouse Creek focus. More recent research,
however, sees the Mississippian period as represented by two time periods; Early and Late
Mississippian, three temporal periods (Kimball 1985); Martin Farm, Hiwassee Island I & II
36
and Dallas and Mouse Creek, and four phases (Davis 1990:56); Martin Farm, Hiwassee
Island, Dallas and Overhill. Much of what is discussed below was gleaned from Kimball's
(1985) and Davis' (1990) recent publications. Cultural development during this time period in
this region is now believed to be an in situ adoption of Mississippian culture by indigenous
Late Woodland groups. It is a time of increased population consolidated in nucleated
settlements that are hierarchically organized.
The Martin Farm phase (A.D. 900-1000) the earliest expression of the Mississippian
phenomenon, has been described as 'emergent' Mississippian (Salo 1969). The cultural
remains of this phase include shell tempered plain (Mississippian) and limestone tempered
plain and cordmarked (Hamilton) pottery that exhibit globular forms. Loop handles are an
attribute of the limestone tempered wares. Projectile points include small triangular forms
(Hamilton Incurvate). Martin Farm phase settlements consist of village sites or local centers
with substructure platform mounds. Villages are probably occupied year round. Hamlets,
homesteads and activity loci are also a part of the settlement system. Structures exhibit both
wall trench and single post construction. Special mortuary structures or charnel houses are
also a characteristic of this period (Lewis and Kneberg 1946:10; Moore 1915:338-351;
Faulkner and Graham 1966:135; Faulkner 1975:25; Schroedl and Polhemus 1977:32).
Burials probably occur away from habitation sites in conical burial mounds; although, a
cemetery has been found at the Tomotley site which may be attributable to this phase
(Glassman 1983). Kneberg's (1961) Roane-Rhea complex, a late Hamilton focus complex,
which is represented by a preponderance of limestone tempered plain sherds over
cordmarked or stamped pottery, is roughly equivalent to this phase. The only difference is the
addition of shell tempered plain pottery during the Martin Farm phase.
The same time period (A.D. 900-1000) has been defined the Banks phase by Faulkner and
McCollough (1974) for Early Mississippian occupation in the Duck River Valley,
specifically at the Wiser-Stephens I site. This phase has been associated with several other
sites found in the area (Eoff I, Banks V and Parks); although, occupations on these sites
extend to the 12th century A.D. Mississippian settlement of the Upper Duck River area
probably discontinued by the 14th century A.D. (Faulkner and McCollough 1982:561). For
the most part, the Normandy Reservoir area is only sparsely inhabited during this period
because it lacks large, arable tracts of alluvial bottomland. Moreover, there is only limited
use of the area during this period, such that small farmsteads and hamlets have been
identified, but no large villages are present. Shell tempered ceramics have been found in
small numbers on sites in the Upper Duck River as have a limited number of large siloshaped storage pits and small, rectangular wall trench house structures. This same pattern has
been identified in the Holston River drainage (Lafferty 1981) of the Ridge and Valley region,
in the Upper Caney Fork drainage (Chapman 1982:146-148) of the Highland Rim and in the
Big South Fork drainage (Pace and Kline 1976; Wilson and Finch 1980) of the Cumberland
Plateau.
The Hiwassee Island phase (A.D. 1000-1300) is similar to the preceding Martin Farm phase.
Nevertheless, more numerous and larger habitation sites have been recognized for this
period. Rapid population increase is indicated by this pattern. The villages are moderately
compact, contain one or more substructure mounds and domestic structures are organized in
37
a community plan. In contrast to the Martin Farm phase, village settlements of the Hiwassee
Island phase shift from the first terrace to the higher order terraces. Davis (1990:247)
suggests that this happened for two reasons 1) seasonal flooding would have adversely
affected the villages on the first terrace and 2) removing the villages from the first terrace
would have cleared this terrace for maize agriculture. Like the preceding phase, hamlets,
homesteads and activity loci are other site types in the settlement system. Small triangular
projectile points were still being manufactured, while pottery becomes exclusively shell
tempered. Some of the pottery types include Mississippian Plain, McKee Island Cordmarked
and the Hiwassee Island Series. Bowls and salt pans are added to the ceramic vessel
assemblage. In addition, red paint is first used on vessels during this phase (Prospect Red
Filmed, Hiwassee Island Red Filmed).
Some of the initial excavations at Late Mississippian sites in the region were undertaken by
Harrington (1922) who equated what is now considered Dallas and Mouse Creek components
with the Cherokee (Whiteford 1952:211). The Late Mississippian Dallas phase (A.D. 13001600) is represented by a chiefdom level of society. Large, nucleated villages with one or
more mounds and a plaza are identified in the Little Tennessee River Valley and numerous
smaller sites are found in the hinterlands. The villages are surrounded by palisades with
bastions, structures are square to rectangular and are of single post construction. Flexed
burials in pits, usually accompanied by grave offerings, are another attribute of this phase.
Houses include a centrally placed clay hearth, and burials are frequently placed near the
walls. One half of the eight acre Hiwassee Island site is stockaded or defended by steep
natural embankments. Within this area is an open plaza with platform mounds at each end.
Most of the village is situated outside the palisaded area; although, house clusters away from
the plaza but inside the palisaded area are present. Again, hamlets, homesteads and activity
loci are three additional site types recognized for this phase. Homesteads are typically found
on first terrace locations. The material culture of this phase includes shell tempered pottery,
with plain and cordmarked surfaces, strap and lug handles and incised or modeled
decorations. Some of the pottery types are the Dallas Series, McKee Island Cordmarked,
Mississippian Plain and Pisgah and Etowah Complicated Stamped. The Dallas Excurvate
triangular projectile point is the main addition to the lithic assemblage. Keel (1976:218),
Dickens (1970:281) and Ferguson and Pace (1981) have pointed out the similarities between
the Dallas phase and the late Pisgah subphase of the Appalachian Summit area.
The most recent time period, the historic Overhill Cherokee, has a date range beginning at
A.D. 1600 and continuing until A.D. 1838 or removal (Davis 1990:56). The Overhill phase is
equated with the Overhill temporal period. It is represented by large villages without
palisades, large townhouses at major villages, a community structure that is loosely
organized and structures with vertical post construction. The paired winter-summer house
pattern is characteristic of this period. Winter houses are small, circular and contain a central
fire hearth and sleeping benches. Summer houses are large, rectangular and fairly open.
Hamlets, homesteads and activity loci are also included in the settlement system. Each
village independently rose and declined. Toward the latter part of the period refugees from
other Cherokee and southeastern Indian groups were incorporated into this settlement system
(Baden 1983:17). Although a separate phase has been identified for this period, sites of the
preceding Dallas phase are continuously occupied until the historic period. Dickens (1976)
38
suggests that the relationship between the Overhill phase culture and the Dallas phase culture
involves a complex process of cultural hybridization. The later Dallas phase villages were
significantly different from the earlier villages and they are much more like Overhill phase
sites. They were larger, they do not have palisades or platform mounds, public and domestic
structures were different and individual households are more widely dispersed in the villages.
With increased Euroamerican pressure the area was slowly abandoned and settlement
becomes more dispersed. Material culture during the Overhill phase includes shell tempered
plain and carved paddle stamped pottery with filleted appliqu‚ strips along the rims (Overhill
Series). Vessel forms consist of globular jars, bowls and pans. DeArmond Incised pottery
(northern Georgia Lamar-like pottery) and Qualla Series pottery (plain and complicated
stamped) have also been recognized on sites of this period as have European trade goods.
Projectile point types during this period consisted of Madison triangulars, other unnamed
triangulars and Southern Appalachian pentagonals and corner notched triangulars.
Lower Tennessee-Cumberland
In the lower Tennessee-Cumberland rivers region, the early Mississippian phase is Jonathan
Creek (ca. A.D. 1000-1100). This phase is based mainly on excavations and material from
the Jonathan Creek site, a large and fortified town with three large mounds and a central
plaza (Webb 1952). Smaller hamlets are also known to date to this phase, such as Dedmon
(Allen 1976). The ceramics have either grog and shell or shell tempering, and are mainly
plain utilitarian wares; although, red-slipping is a common surface treatment and incised
types are present. The incised ceramics have been classified as Kersay and Yankeetown
Incised and Dillinger Decorated. Little is known about other artifact types associated with
this phase, or about settlement types and patterns or subsistence practices.
Tinsley Hill is the later Mississippian phase in this region; although, its exact dating is
unknown. Excavations at Tinsley Hill (Clay 1961, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c; Schwartz 1961),
have been used to define this phase; although, components are also known at Rodgers,
Goheen, Roach, and Birmingham (Clay 1979). Most of the ceramics are once again plain
utilitarian wares, but decorated types such as Matthews Incised, O'Byam Incised, and
Nashville Negative Painted are also present. Lewis (1990) interprets the Tinsley Hill phase as
equivalent to the Medley phase (A.D. 1300-1500) from the Mississippi River region on the
basis of similarities between the ceramic assemblages. The lithic assemblage includes rather
typical tools such as triangular projectile points and stone hoes. Tinsley Hill has a single
mound, a cemetery area, a large habitation area and is palisaded. Other site types inhabited
during this phase are hamlets and farmsteads. Little other data is available on Tinsley Hill
phase settlement or subsistence patterns.
Middle Cumberland
Rather extensive Mississippian occupations in the Middle Cumberland drainage have been
identified. McNutt and Lumb (1987) found an early Mississippian component at the Dixon
Creek site in Smith County, Tennessee that included clay tempered pottery. They estimated
that this component of the site dated to A.D. 1000-1200. Shell tempered Mississippian wares
dominated the assemblage on this site were associated with a later Mississippian component
39
dating to ca. A.D. 1200-1600. A Mississippian farmstead (Taylor #3) was identified by Autry
(1985) where he describes a square wall trench house with four interior roof support posts
and Mississippian ceramics. O'Brien (1977) documented a large Mississippian village, the
Mound Bottom site, located on the Harpeth River near Nashville, Tennessee. It is a large
ceremonial center established as early as the ninth century A.D. Burial customs in this area
consist of extended bodies placed in stone lined pits.
Recently, Smith (1992) has defined two distinct phases of the Mississippian period based on
the excavations of a number of sites in the Nashville area. The early Mississippian phase is
the Dowd phase (ca. A.D. 1050-1250) followed by the Thruston phase (ca. A.D. 1250-1450).
Green River
Along the upper portion of the Green River, two villages with mounds have been excavated,
Corbin (15AD4) and Jewell (15BN21). Corbin is a fortified village of 2 ha with three
mounds. One is substructural, a second caps a rock platform, beneath which is a circular
structure, and the third is mainly a midden accumulation (Fryman 1968). Most of the artifacts
are lithics, with relatively few ceramics found. Wolf Creek Check-Stamped dominates the
ceramic assemblage, with only McKee Island Cordmarked and Mississippi Plain present as
well. Fryman (1968) dates the site to A.D. 1000-1200. Jewell also has three mounds and a
village area (Hanson 1970). A substructural mound built in three stages was excavated. Its
construction appears to date between the 12th and 15th centuries A.D. Associated ceramics
include Mississippi Plain, Bell Plain, Wolf Creek Check-Stamped, Kimmswick Fabric
Impressed, McKee Island Cordmarked, Nashville Negative Painted and Matthews Incised.
No cultural chronology has been established for this region due to the paucity of
investigations.
References Cited
Adovasio, J.M. and W.C. Johnson
1981 Appearances of Cultigens in the Upper Ohio Valley: A View from Meadowcroft, Rockshelter.
Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(1-2):63-80.
Ahler, S. A.
1967 The Faust Shelter (40MO8). Manuscript on file, McClung Museum, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Allen, Roger C.
1976 Archaeological Investigations at Two Sites in the U.S. Interstate Highway 24 Right of Way in
Marshall County, Kentucky. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Amick, Daniel S., and Richard W. Stoops
1986 Midsouth Radiocarbon Dates. In Cultural Adaptations in the Shelby Bend Archaeological
District, edited by Daniel S. Amick, Mary Ellen Fogarty, and Joseph M. Herbert, pp. 531-552.
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to National Park
Service, Tallahassee, Florida, Contract No. NPS CX-5000-4-0624.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
40
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Autry, William O.
1985 Spatial Configurations and Patterns at the Taylor #3 Site (40TR32): A Mississippian Period
Farmstead, Trousdale County, Tennessee. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
Baden, William W.
1983 Tomotley: An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village. University of Tennessee, Department of
Anthropology, Report of Investigations 36, Knoxville.
Benthall, Joseph L.
1990 Daugherty's Cave: A Stratified Site in Russell County, Virginia. Archeological Society of
Virginia, Special Publication No. 18.
Bentz, Charles, Jr.
1986 Middle and Late Woodland Settlements in Selected Areas of the Midsouth: A View from the
Middle Duck River Drainage in Maury County, Tennessee. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tail: Hunter-Gather Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site
Formations.
American
Antiquity
45:4-20.
1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.
Blanton, Dennis B.
1992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 65-96.
Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 29, Richmond.
Bott, Keith E.
1981 44Ru7: Archaeological Test Excavations at a Late Woodland Village in the Lower Uplands of
Southwest Virginia. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Research Report Series 2,
Richmond.
Boyd, Donna C., and C. Clifford Boyd, Jr.
1992 Late Woodland Mortuary Variability in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 249-275.
Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 29, Richmond.
Brown, W. R.
1977 A Re-Evaluation of Late Archaic Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in the Western
Tennessee Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 2(2):101-120.
Brown, James A.
1985 Long-Term Trends to Sedentism and the Emergence of Complexity in the American Midwest.
In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price
and James A. Brown, pp.201-231. Academic Press, New York.
1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland Archeology,
edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 598-608. Center for American Archaeology,
Kampsville Seminars in Archeology 2, Kampsville.
Broyles, Betty J.
1966 Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site (46Ka27), Kanawha County, West Virginia. The
West Virginia Archaeologist 19:1-43.
41
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of
Archaeological Investigations No. 3, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,
Morgantown.
Caldwell, J.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological
Association Memoir 88.
Catlin, Mark, Jay F. Custer, and R. Michael Stewart
1982 Late Archaic Culture Change in Virginia: A Reconsideration of Exchange, Population
Growth, and Migrations. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 37:123140.
Chapman. Jefferson
1973 The Icehouse Bottom Site, 40MR23. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology,
Report of Investigations 23, Knoxville.
1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcated Point Tradition. University of Tennessee, Department
of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 14, Knoxville.
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations,
No. 18. Department of Anthropology, Dept. of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
1981 The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology,
Report of Investigations 31, Knoxville. Tennessee Valley Authority, Publications in
Anthropology 25, Norris.
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In Structure
and Process in Southeastern Archeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward,
pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, University.
1985a Tellico Archaeology. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Chapman, Jefferson, and James Adovasio
1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiquity
42:620-625.
Chomko, S. and G. Crawford
1978 Plant Husbandry in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Evidence for its Development.
American Antiquity 43:405-408.
Claggett, Stephen, and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites. Report prepared for the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, by Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan.
Clay, R. Berle
1961 Excavations at the Tinsley Hill Village, 1960. Manuscript on file, Office of State
Archaeology, University of Kentucky.
1963a Ceramic Complexes of the Tennessee-Cumberland Region in Western Kentucky.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
1963b Tinsley Hill Village, 1962. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service,
Richmond, Va.
1963c The Tinsley Hill Mound. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service,
Richmond Va.
42
1979 A Mississippian ceramic sequence from Western Kentucky. Tennessee Anthropologist
4:2:111-128.
Cleland, C.E.
1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural
Adaptations on the Eastern United States. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 1:59-76.
Cobb, J.E., and C.H. Faulkner
1978 The Owl Hollow Project: Middle Woodland Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the
Eastern Highland Rim of Tennessee. Final technical report submitted to the National Science
Foundation (Grant BNS 76-11266).
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5), Philadelphia.
Cohen, Mark Nathan
1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Collins, M.B.
1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
University of Kentucky, Department of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No.
1.
Cowan, C. W., H. E. Jackson, K. Moore, A. Nickelhoff, and T. L. Smart
1981 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:60-76.
Cridlebaugh, Patricia A.
1981 The Icehouse Bottom Site (40MR23): 1977 Excavations. University of Tennessee, Department
of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 34, Knoxville.
Crites, Gary D.
1986 Plant Remains. In The Chapman Site: A Terminal Archaic Settlement in the Middle
Cumberland River Drainage of Tennessee, edited by C, Bentz, Jr. Knoxville: Tennessee
Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper 11.
1987 Middle and Late Holocene Ethnobotany of the Hayes Site (40ML139): Evidence from Unit
990N918E. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:3-32.
Custer, Jay F.
1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archeology. University of Delaware Press, Newark.
1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In Early and
Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore H. Reinhart and Mary
Ellen N. Hodges. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 22, Richmond.
Custer, Jay F., J. A. Cavallo and R. Michael Stewart
1983 Paleo-Indian Adaptations on the Coastal Plain of Delaware and New Jersey. North American
Archaeologist 4:263-275.
Custer, Jay F., Dennis C. Curry, and Joseph M. McNamara
1986 Prehistoric Settlement-Subsistence Systems in Grayson County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin
of the Archeological Society of Virginia 41:113-141
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr.
43
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 50, Knoxville. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Publications in Anthropology 54, Norris.
Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1970 The Pisgah Culture and Its Place in the Prehistory of the Southern Appalachians. Doctoral
Dissertaion, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Dowd, John T.
1989 The Anderson Site: Middle Archaic Adaptations in Tennessee's Central Basin. Tennessee
Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper 13.
Dragoo, D. W.
1976 Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review 1975. America Antiquity
41(1):3-27.
Egloff, Keith T.
1987 Ceramic Study of Woodland Occupation along the Clinch and Powell Rivers in Southwest
Virginia. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Research Report Series 3, Richmond.
1991 Development and Impacts of Ceramics in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 243-251. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 23, Richmond.
1992 An Overview of Middle and Late Woodland in Southwest Virginia. Paper presented at the
Upland Archaeology Conference, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
1992a The Late Woodland Period in Southwestern Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 187-223. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 29, Richmond.
Egloff, Keith T. and Joseph M. McAvoy
1990 Chronology of Virginia's Early and Middle Archaic Periods. In Early and Middle Archaic
Research in Virginia: a Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges. Special
Publication No. 22. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Emerson, T.E. and D. L. McElrath
1983 A Settlement-Subsistence Model for the Terminal Late Archaic Adaptation in the American
Bottom, Illinois. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. L.
Phillips and J. A. Brown. Academic Press, New York.
Faulkner, Charles H.
1968 The Old Stone Fort. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Faulkner, Charles H., and Major C. R. McCollough
1973 Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project: Environmental Setting,
Typology, and Survey. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of
Investigations 12, Knoxville.
1974 Second Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project: Excavations and Testing, Normandy
Reservoir Salvage Project: 1972 Season. University of Tennessee, Department of
Anthropology, Report of Investigations 12, Knoxville.
44
1977 Fourth Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project: 1973 Excavations of the Hicks I,
Eoff I and Eoff III Sites. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of
Investigations 19, Knoxville.
1982 Seventh Report of the Normandy Archaeological Project. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 32, Knoxville. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Publications in Anthropology 29, Norris.
Faulkner, C. H. and J. B. Graham
1966 The Westmoreland-Barber Site (40Mi11), Nickjack Reservoir, Season II. Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee
Ferguson, Terry A., and Robert A. Pace
1981 Towards Effective Management of Cultural Resources on the Cumberland Plateau of
Tennessee: The Distribution of Cultural Resources. Final Report of the Cumberland
Archeological Research Project, submitted to The Tennessee Historical Commission,
Nashville.
Fiegal, K. H.
1992 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Two Bridge Over the Cumberland River US 25E,
Bell-Knox Counties, Kentucky. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Environmental
Analysis, Frankfort.
Fowler, M. L.
1959 Summary Report of Modoc Rockshelter. Illinois State Museum Report of Investigations 8.
Fryman, Frank Jr.
1968 The Corbin Site: A Possible Early Component of the Green River Phase of the Mississippian
Tradition in Kentucky. Manuscript on file, Office of State Archaeology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington.
Funk, R. E.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast (Vol. 15),
edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 16-27. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Futato, Eugene M.
1977 The Bellefonte Site (1JA300). The University of Alabama, Office of Archaeological Research,
Research Series 2, Tuscaloosa.
Gardner, William M. (editor)
1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons. Catholic
University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Publication 1, Washington.
1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing
Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by Roger W. Moeller, pp.5386. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.
1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah Valley.
Thunderbird Publications, Manassas, Virginia.
1987 Some Observations on the Late Archaic. In Upland Archeology in the East: A Third
Symposium, edited by Michael B. Barber, pp. 301-307. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region,
Cultural Resources Report 87-1, Atlanta.
1988 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200
to 6800 B.C.). Paper presented at the Council of Virginia Archaeologists' Paleoindian
symposium, Williamsburg.
45
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R, Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 19,
Richmond.
Gardner, William M., and Charles W. McNutt, Jr.
1971 Early Pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference,
The Catholic University of America, Washington.
Gardner, Paul S.
1991 The Daugherty's Cave Site (44RU14), Southwest Virginia. Paper presented at the 48th annual
meeting Southeast Archaeologica Conference, Jackson, Mississippi.
Geier, Clarence R.
1992 Development and Diversification: Cultural Directions During the Late
Woodland/Mississippian Period in Eastern North America. In Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 277-301. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 29, Richmond.
Glassman, David M.
1983 Burial Analysis. In Tomotley: An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village, by William W.
Baden, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 36,
Knoxville.
Gremillion, K. J., and R. A. Yarnell
1986 Plant Remains from the Westmoreland-Barber and Pittman-Aider Sites, Marion County,
Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 11:1-20.
Griffin, John W.
1974 Investigations in Russell Cave. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Russell Cave National Monument, Publications in Archeology 13, Alabama.
Hanson, Lee H., Jr.
1970 The Jewell Site, BN21, Barren County, Kentucky. Tennessee Archaeological Society,
Miscellaneous Paper No. 8.
Harrington, Mark R.
1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monographs,
Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Holden, Patricia Padgett
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Translvania County, Carolina. M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Holland, C. G.
1970 An Archaelogical Survey of Southwest Virginia. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
No. 12, Washington, D.C.
Horvath, G.A.
1978a An archeological survey of the proposed US 25E Project from Pineville to Baughman,
Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis.
1978b An archeological survey of the proposed US 25E Project for Pineville, Kentucky. Kentucky
Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis.
Hranicky, William J.
1974 A Framework for Virginia Prehistory. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia 28:201-213.
46
Jennings, Jesse E.
1989 Prehistory of North America (Third Edition). Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View,
California.
Jenkins, Ned, J., David H. Dye, and John A. Walthall
1986 Early Ceramic Development in the Gulf Coastal Plain. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited
by Kenneth B. Farnsworth and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 546-563. Center for American
Archeology, Kampsville Seminars in Archeology 2, Kampsville, Illinois.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Point of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
1978 1974 Excavations at the Nowlin II Site(40CF35). In Sixth Report of the Normandy
Archaeological Project, edited by Major C.R. McCollough and Charles H. Faulkner, pp. 1-290.
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 21, Wright
State University, Laboratory of Anthropology Notes in Anthropology 4, Tennessee Valley
Authority, Publications in Anthropology 19.
Kimball, Larry R.
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance: An Overall Assessment of the Archaeological
Resources of Tellico Reservoir. Report of Investigations No. 40, Department of Anthropology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. In Late Archaic and
Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary
Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 139-183. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 23,
Richmond.
Kline, G.W., G.D. Crites and C.H. Gaulkner
1982 The McFarland Project: Early Middle Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in the Upper
Duck River Valley in Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropological Society Miscellaneous Paper 8.
Kneberg, Madeline D.
1952 The Tennessee Area. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp.
190-198. University of Chicago Press, ,Chicago.
1961 Four Southeastern Limestone-Tempered Pottery Complexes. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Newsletter 7:3-14.
Lafferty, Robert H., III
1981 The Phipps Bend Archaeological Project. Research Series No. 4. Office of Archaeological
Research, The University of Alabama, TVA Publications in Anthropology No. 26.
Larsen, Lewis
1959 Middle Woodland Manifestations in North Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Newsletter 6:54-58.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline D. Kneberg
1941 The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin. Tennessee Anthropological Papers 1, Knoxville.
1946 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
47
1957 The Camp Creek Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 13(1):1-48.
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25:161-183.
Lewis, T.M.N. and M.K. Lewis
1961 Eva: an Archaic site. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Lewis, R. Barry
1990 Mississippi Period. The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future
Directions. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1. Edited by David
Pollack.
MacCord, Howard A.
1972 Thompson's Shelter: Giles County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society
of Virginia 27(1).
Marquardt, W. H. and P. J. Watson
1976 Excavation and Recovery of Biological Remains from Two Archaic Shell Middens in
Western Kentucky. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
McCollough, Major C.R., and Glyn Duvall
1976 Results of 1973 Testing. In Third Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, edited
by Major C.R. McCollough and Charles H. Faulkner, pp.27-140. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 16, Knoxville.
McIlhany, Calvert W.
1983 Phase III Archaeological Investigations at Site 44RU44 at the Proposed Fox Meadow
Apartments Project (HUD-VA-29-9) in Lebanon, Russell County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1990 Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the "656-Elk Garden Site" (44RU61), Russell
County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University, Archaeological Research Center,
Richmond.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen
N. Hodges, pp. 89-138. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 23, Richmond.
1992 Virginia's Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges,
pp. 39-63. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 29, Richmond.
McNutt, Charles H., and Lisa C. Lumb
1987 Three Archeological Sites Near hartsville: Smith and Trousdale Counties, Tennessee.
Memphis State University, Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Research Center,
Occasional Papers 14, Memphis, Tennessee Valley Authority, Publications in Anthropology
48, Norris.
McNutt, Charles H., and Guy G. Weaver
1983 The Duncan Tract Site (40TR27), Trousdale County, Tennessee. Memphis State University,
Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Research Center, Occasional Papers 14,
Memphis. Tennessee Valley Authority, Publications in Anthropology 33, Norris.
Morse, Dan F.
1967 The Robinson Site and Shell Mound Archaic Culture in the Middle South. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
48
Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse
1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.
Mouer, L. Daniel
1990 The Archaic to Woodland Transition in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Sections of the James
River Valley, Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Neuman, R. W.
1967 Atlatl Weights from Certain Sites on the Northern and Central Great Plains. American
Antiquity 32(1) :36-53.
O'Brien, Michael
1977 Intrasite Variability in a Middle Mississippian Community. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin.
Pace, Robert A., and G.W. Kline
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Huber Field, in Bledsoe, Sequatchie and Van Buren Counties,
Tennessee. Report submitted to AMAX Coal Company, Chattanooga.
Pollack, D. (ed)
1990 The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions. Kentucky State
Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1. Kentucky Heritage Council,
Frankfort.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey C. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Reid, Kenneth C.
1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Fiber-Tempered Pottery in
the Mid-Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49:55-76.
Riggs, Brett H.
1985 Dated Contexts from Watauga Reservoir: Cultural Chronology Building for Northeast
Tennessee. In Exploring Tennessee Prehistory: A Dedication to Alfred K. Guthe, edited by
Thomas R. Whyte, C. Clifford Boyd Jr., and Brett H. Riggs, pp. 169-184. University of
Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 42, Knoxville.
Ritchie, William A.
1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press.
Robinson, N.D.
1986 An Analysis and Interpretation of the Faunal Remains from Eight Late Middle Woodland Owl
Hollow Phase Sites in Coffee, Franklin, and Bedford Counties, Tennessee. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Tennessee.
Rowe, Chandler
1952 Woodland Cultures of Eastern Tennessee. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by
James B. Griffin, pp. 199-206. University of Chicago Press, ,Chicago.
Salo, L.V. (editor)
1969 Archaeological Investigations in the Tellico Reservoir, Tennessee, 1967-1968: An Interim
Report. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Schiffer, Michael B.
49
1975 Some Further Comments on the Dalton Settlement Hypothesis. In The Cache River
Archaeological Project: An Experiment in Contract Archaeology, edited by Michael B.
Schiffer and John H. House, pp. 103-112. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Series 8,
Fayetteville.
Schroedl, Gerald F.
1978 The Patrick Site (40MR40): Tellico Reservoir, Tennessee. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 25, Knoxville, Tennessee Valley
Authority, Publications in Anthropology 22, Norris.
Schroedl, Gerald F., and Richard R. Polhemus
1977 A Summary and Preliminary Interpretation of Archaeological Investigations at the Toqua Site
(40MR6). Report submitted to the National Park Service.
Schwartz, D.W.
1961 The Tinsley Hill Site. University of Kentucky Studies in Anthropology, No. 1. Lexington.
Sears, William H.
1948 What is the Archaic? American Antiquity 14:122-124.
Seeman, Mark F.
1992 Woodland Traditions in the Midcontinent: A Comparison of Three Regional Sequences.
Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6, pages 3-46.
Shane, O. C., III
1970 Field Notes on the 1966 Excavation at Rais Cave, Jackson County, Ohio. Unpublished field
notes on file, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Smith, Bruce D.
1984 Chenopodium as a Prehistoric Domesticate in Eastern North America: Evidence from Russell
Cave, Alabama. Science 226:165-167.
1987 Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In
Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan,
pp. 3-47. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional
Paper 7, Carbondale.
Smith, David C., and Frank M. Hodges, Jr.
1968 The Rankin Site, Cocke County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeologist 24(2):36-91.
Smith, Kevin E.
1992 The Middle Cumberland Culture: Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Snow, D.R.
1980 The Archeology of New England. New York: Academic Press.
Stevens, J. Sanderson
1991 A Story of Plant, Fiber, and People: The Paleoecology and Subsistence of the Late Archaic
and Early Woodland in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart, and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 185-220. Special
Publication No. 23. Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Struever, S. and K.D. Vickery
1973 The Beginnings of Cultivation in the Midwest Riverine Area of the United States. American
Anthropologist 75:1197-1220.
Walthall, J. A.
50
1985 Early Hopewellian Ceremonial Encampments in the South Appalachian Highlands. R.
Dickens and H. Ward (editors) Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. University,
AL: University of Alabama Press.
Webb, William S.
1938 An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 115, Washington.
1946 Indian Knoll, Site Oh2, Ohio County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in
Anthropology, Vol. IV, Number 3, Part 1.
1950 The Carlson Annis Mount, Site 5, Butler County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky
Reports in Anthropology, Vol. VII, Number 4.
1952 The Jonathan Creek village, Site 4, Marshall County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky
Reports on Anthropology 8(1). Lexington.
Webb, William S., and David L. DeJarnette
1942 An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of
Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 129.
Washington, D.C.
Webb, W.S. and W.G. Haag
1939 The Chiggerville site, Site 1, Ohio County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in
Anthropology, Vol. IV, Number 1.
Whiteford, Andrew H.
1952 A Frame of Reference for the Archaeology of Eastern Tennessee. In Archaeology of Eastern
United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 207-225. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Willey, Gordon
1966 An Introduction to American Archeology, Volume 1. North and Middle America. Prentice
Hall.
Willey, Gordon and Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, R.C., and D.W. Finch
1980 The Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area: Phase I Archaeological
Reconnaissance Survey in McCreary County, Kentucky, Pickett, Fentress, Scott, and Morgan
Counties, Tennessee. Draft submitted to U.S. Corps of Engineers, Nashville District.
Winters, Howard D.
1968 Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late Archaic in the Midwest. In New Perspectives in
Archaeology, edited by S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford, pp. 175-221 Aldine, Chicago.
Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black
1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from
Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4:93-106.
51