Households Making History: Household Change in the Late Woodland Period at Kolomoki (9ER1)

edited by Thomas J. Pluckhahn

Households Making History: Household Change in the Late Woodland Period at Kolomoki (9ER1)

Prepared for: Georgia Department of Natural Resources 34 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30303

edited by

__________________ Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Ph.D. Principal Investigator

Department of Anthropology The University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave, SOC 107 Tampa, FL 33620

August 29, 2011

Abstract
This report describes recent archaeological investigations of the Kolomoki site (9ER1) in Early County, Georgia. Kolomoki, one of the largest and most famous sites of the Woodland period, is comprised of at least nine mounds. It is preserved as part of Kolomoki Mounds State Park and Historic Site, managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The project was sponsored by grants from the National Geographic Society and the Humanities Institute at the University of South Florida (USF). Institutional support was provided by the USF Department of Anthropology and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. This was not a Section 106 project, since no federal monies were expended on the research and no federal permits were required. The fieldwork for this project was conducted over the course of three field seasons from 2006-2008 under the direction of Principal Investigator Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn. The field crew included volunteers and students from the University of South Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Florida State University. The goal of the study was to identify changes in households over the course of the Late Woodland period (ca. cal A.D. 400 to 1050). Previous excavations at the site had identified a household from the early/middle Late Woodland (A.D. 400 to 600) period in area referred to as Block A (Pluckhahn 2003). The present research was directed toward the excavation of a household from the late or terminal Late Woodland (ca. cal A.D. 600 to 1050), to complement the previous excavations. These excavations, in an area referred to as Block D, provided the data necessary to examine changes in household size, form, and economy over the course of the Late Woodland period. Block D was located just south of the main park road, on a gentle, south- and southeast-facing slope above an active spring shovel tests and a test unit (Test Unit 18) excavated in this area in the course of previous research revealed higher concentrations of pottery, along with a buried A horizon and a high density of features (Pluckhahn 2003:110-125). Pottery recovered from this area included relatively high proportions of conspicuous Late Woodland types such as Indian Pass Incised, Weeden Island Incised, and Napier Complicated Stamped. Including the previously excavated 2-x-2-m Test Unit 18, we completed a total of 52 m2 of excavation in Block D. Of this total, 38 m2 were contiguous 1-x-1 m units that together form a block about 8 m long (north-south) and 6 m wide (east-west). Excavation of Block D (including Test Unit 18) resulted in the identification of 87 features for a density of approximately 1.7 features/m2. Smaller features representing post molds or small pits were the most common feature type, with 48 examples identified. The 38 larger pit features included 18 basin-shaped pits and 10 bell-shaped pits. These larger features had a combined volume of 5176 liters, demonstrating a considerable increase in storage associated with the late/terminal Late Woodland period. Feature patterning possibly indicative of a domestic structure was noted during the course of excavating Block D. The pattern is defined mainly by the distribution of post mold or small pit features in an oval pattern measuring about 7.3 m long and 5.2 m wide. The pattern is interpreted as the remains of a house of single set post construction. Carbon dates from Block D, reported in greater detail in Chapter 7, place the occupation of the house in the late or terminal Late Woodland period, primarily from around cal A.D. 650 to 850 but perhaps continuing as late as 990. The presumed structures is consistent with architectural patterns noted on other site sin the area dating to the same time period (Mickwee 2009; Milanich 1974). It is larger and of different construction than the structure identified in Block A at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003).

Prehistoric ceramics are the most common artifact type represented in the assemblage from Block D. Including the previously excavated Test Unit 18, the pottery collection includes 21,637 sherds All of the pottery in the assemblage is associated with the Woodland period occupation of the Block D area, with the exception of 17 sherds that appear to correspond more closely with Mississippian types. Excluding these and sherds too small to identify with confidence, the total identifiable Woodland pottery assemblage from Block D consists of 9272 sherds. Plain waresprimarily sand tempered plainpredominate, making up a little more than three-quarters of the assemblage. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped is the most common named decorative type, but here makes up only about 10 percent of the collection, compared with as much as 25 percent in earlier phases at Kolomoki. Less common complicated stamped types include Napier and St. Andrews. Other pottery types of the Weeden Island series combine to form almost one-tenth of the Woodland pottery assemblage. These include, in descending order of frequency: Weeden Island Red, Carrabelle Punctate, Weeden Island Incised, Mound Field Net Marked, Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate, Keith Incised, Indian Pass Incised, Carrabelle Incised, Wakulla Check Stamped, and Tucker Ridge Pinched. Excavation of Block D resulted in the recovery of 6693 flaked stone artifacts. Debitagebroadly defined to include flakes and shatter/chunksforms the majority of the flaked stone assemblage. The assemblage includes 84 bifaces or biface fragments, 38 of which retain enough of the proximal hafting area element and display significant diagnostic attributes to be assigned to classified to morphological clusters and named types. Perhaps most surprising was the recovery of five Woodland/Mississippian triangulars, a type not encountered in previous excavations at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003). Faunal and botanical remains from Block D were limited by poor preservation. Zooarchaeological analyses revealed an emphasis on terrestrial species, particularly deer. Macrobotanical analyses suggested a continued reliance on mast resources, with limited evidence for cultivation of domesticated crops. No maize macrobotanical remains were recovered from Block D, but we did find evidence for maize in the microbotanical remains. Microbotanical remains also revealed evidence for the use of roots of an unidentified species of the arrowroot family. Comparison of the archaeological households in Blocks A and D reveals changes in temporal changes in households from the early/middle Late Woodland to the late/terminal Late Woodland. Most conspicuous are changes in the size and construction of houses, from the very small pit house in Block A to the larger house of single-set post construction in Block D. Storage increased dramatically, as did the size of ceramic vessels. There appear to have been no major shifts in subsistence, but flaked stone technology changed with the adoption of the bow and arrow, from communal to more individualized hunting. In concert, the evidence suggests that late Late Woodland households exercised greater autonomy over domestic production and consumption.

ii

Acknowledgments
The successful completion of this project owes much to the help of a number of individuals and organizations. First and foremost, I thank David Crass and Robert Entorf at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for granting permission to work on Kolomoki Mounds State Historic Park; it has been a privilege and a pleasure. As always, our work at Kolomoki was greatly facilitated by the staff of Kolomoki State Historic Park. I am particularly indebted to Park Manager Matt Bruner, as well as Billy Adams, Jason Harrison, Judy Moore, and Sid Sewell. The folks at Kolomoki have always made me and my students feel welcome at Kolomoki, and have done much to facilitate this and previous research. Grateful appreciation is also extended to the sponsors of the testing. This work was supported, in large part, by an Explorer Grant from the National Geographic Society. Additional support was provided by a grant from the Humanities Institute at the University of South Florida. Institutional support was provided by the Department of Anthropology of the University of South Florida and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Finally, I am indebted to the students and volunteers who have participated in the field and lab for their hard work and for making our time at Kolomoki a fun and rewarding experience. Their names are enumerated later in this report.

iii

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1: Introduction (Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chapter 2: Methods (Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund, Matthew C. Compton, Linda ScottCummings, and Chad Yost) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Laboratory Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Curation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 3: Excavation Units (Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Excavation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Chapter 4: Features (Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Smaller Features: Postmolds and Small Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Larger Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Chapter 5: Artifacts (Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Prehistoric Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Prehistoric Flaked Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Historic Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Chapter 6: Faunal and Botanical Remains (Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund, Matthew C. Compton, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Faunal Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Macrobotanical Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Microbotanical Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 147 170 178

Table of Contents (Continued)

Chapter 7: Households Making History: Comparing Late Woodland Households in Blocks A and D(Thomas J. Pluckhahn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Periods of Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subsistence and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flaked Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 182 188 190 197 200 203 208

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

vi

Figures
Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. Figure 1-4. Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8. Figure 3-9. Figure 3-10. Figure 3-11. Figure 3-12. Figure 3-13. Figure 3-14. Figure 3-15. Figure 3-16. Figure 3-17. Figure 3-18. Figure 3-19. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Figure 4-8. Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10. Figure 4-11. Figure 4-12. Figure 4-13. Figure 4-14. Location of Kolomoki and other sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Map of Kolomoki showing the locations of Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Oblique aerial view of Kolomoki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Topography of the Block D area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The 2006 field crew at Kolomoki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The 2007 field crew at Kolomoki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The 2008 field crew at Kolomoki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Bisection and profile mapping of a feature in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Flotation machine used for samples collected in the 2007 and 2008 field seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Hafted biface measurement dimensions (adapted from Andrefsky 1998:179) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 View to the southwest of the excavation of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Map of Block D showing unit numbers and year of excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Searss (1956:Figure I) depiction of a buried midden deposit at Kolomoki . . . . . . 25 Northern (top) and southern (bottom) profiles of the core group of contiguous excavation units in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Plan view of Unit D9 at base of Stratum II, showing probable plow scars . . . . . . 27 The West Profile of Units D3 and D4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The East Profile of Test Unit 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The West Profile of Unit D1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The South Profile of Unit D5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The density of pottery in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The density of Swift Creek in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The density of Weeden Island Red in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The density of Carrabelle Punctate in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The density of Lamar in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The density of flaked stone in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The density of quartzite/sandstone in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The density of FCR in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 The density of groundstone the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 The density of historic artifacts in the core units of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Excavation of features in Block D, view to the northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Features in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Closer view of features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Histogram of feature area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Excavation of a postmold/small pit (Feature 151), view to the west . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Profiles of postmolds and small pit features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Outline of possible structure in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Depth of postmolds and small pit features in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The density of flaked stone in postmolds and small pit features in Block D . . . . . 64 Larger bell- and basin-shaped pit features in Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 The density of flaked stone in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 The density of other modified stone (ground and pecked stone and FCR) in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 The density of prehistoric ceramics in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 The density of bone in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . 74

vii

Figures (Continued)
Figure 4-15. Figure 4-16. Figure 4-17. Figure 4-18. Figure 4-19. Figure 4-20. Figure 4-21. Figure 4-22. Figure 4-23. Figure 4-24. Figure 4-25. Figure 4-26. Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2. Figure 5-3. Figure 5-4. Figure 5-5. Figure 5-6. Figure 5-7. Figure 5-8. Figure 5-9. Figure 5-10. Figure 5-11. Figure 5-12. Figure 5-13. Figure 5-14. Figure 5-15. Figure 5-16. Figure 5-17. Figure 5-18. Figure 5-19. Figure 5-20. Figure 5-21. Figure 5-22. Figure 5-23. Figure 5-24. Figure 5-25. Figure 5-26. Figure 5-27. Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2. Figure 6-3. Figure 6-4. Figure 6-5. The East Profile of Feature 192, a typical small basin-shaped pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Profiles of large, basin-shaped pit features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Excavation of Feature 191A, view to the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Three views of Feature 171, a large basin-shaped pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Three views of Feature 141A, B, and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Four views of Features 147A and 147B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Feature 165, view to the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Profiles of large, bell-shaped pit features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The North Profile of Feature 185 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The North Profile of Feature 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The East Profile of Feature 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The South Profile of Feature 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Profiles of vessels identified in MNV Analysis of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Paddle Design D-1 (A) and sherds used in its reconstruction (B-E) . . . . . . . . . . 102 Paddle Design D-6 (A) with sherds used in its reconstruction (B-D) and potentially matching paddle-stamped sherds (E-G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Paddle Design D-3 (top) and sherd from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Paddle Design D-4 (A) and sherds used in its reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Paddle Design D-2 and sherds from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction . . . . 106 Paddle Design D-5 and sherds from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction . . . . 107 The distribution of Swift Creek pottery and paddle matches in pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 The distribution of Napier pottery in pit features in the core area of Block D . . 110 Selected Napier sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Selected St. Andrews Complicated Stamped sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Selected Weeden Island Red and Zoned Red sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The distribution of Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/Punctate pottery in pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Selected Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/Punctate sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Selected Carrabelle Punctate sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Selected Carrabelle Incised sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Selected Keith Incised sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Selected Indian Pass Incised sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Selected other Weeden Island series sherds from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Ridge and Valley chert cobble/core (A) and Tallahatta Sandstone cores (B-C) from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Selected chert cores from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Selected quartz cores and core-like artifacts from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 The distribution of quartzite/sandstone in larger pit features in the core area of Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Comparison of the relative frequencies of debitage and tools by raw materials . . 128 Selected flake tools from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Selected hafted bifaces from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Selected historic artifacts from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Number (count) of hickory, acorn (x 50) and seeds per liter of soil analyzed . . . 168 Pollen diagram for microbotanical remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Phytolith diagram for microbotanical remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Selected phytoliths from Block D samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Comparison of archaeological (Block D) and reference Marantaceae phytoliths . 176 viii

Figures (Continued)
Figure 7-1. Figure 7-2. Figure 7-3. Figure 7-4. Figure 7-5. Figure 7-6. Figure 7-7. Figure 7-8. Figure 7-9. Figure 7-10. Plot of radiocarbon dates from Blocks A and D showing two sigma calibrated ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Comparison of early/middle Late Woodland structure from Block A (left) and late/terminal Late Woodland structure from Block D (right) . . . . . . . . 183 Comparison of early/middle Late Woodland structures from the Catoma Creek site (left) (after Shelby 2011:Figure 2) and Block A at Kolomoki (right) . . . . . . . 185 Comparison of late/terminal Late Woodland structures from the Sycamore site (left) (after Milanich 1974:Figure 7) and Block D at Kolomoki (right) . . . . . 186 Comparison of floor area of structures in Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Comparison of the density of pit features in Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Comparison of the volume of pit features in Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Comparison of the relative frequencies of raw materials in the flaked stone assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Comparison of the relative frequencies of early and late stage debitage and tools in the flaked stone assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Comparison of the relative frequencies of morphological clusters represented in the hafted biface assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . 202

ix

Tables
Table 2.1. Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 4-1. Table 4-2. Table 4-3. Table 4-4. Table 4-5. Table 4-6. Table 4-7. Table 4-8. Table 5-1. Table 5-2. Table 5-3. Table 5-4. Table 5-5. Table 5-6. Table 5-7. Table 6-1. Table 6-2. Table 6-3. Table 6-4. Table 6-5. Table 6-6. Table 6-7. Table 6-8. Table 6-9. Table 6-10. Table 6-11. Table 6-12. Table 6-13. Table 6-14. Table 7-1. Table 7-2. Table 7-3. Table 7-4. Table 7-5. Table 7-6. Table 7-7. Table 7-8. Vessel Form Categories Used in this MNV Analysis and Their Equivalents in the Analyses of Hally (2009) and Wallis (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Flaked Stone from Unit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts from Unit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Historic Artifacts from Unit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Summary Data for Post Molds and Small Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Prehistoric Ceramics from Post Molds and Small Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Flaked Stone from Post Molds and Small Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Miscellaneous Artifacts from Post Molds and Small Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary Data for Larger Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Prehistoric Ceramics from Larger Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Flaked Stone from Larger Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Miscellaneous Artifacts from Larger Pit Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Prehistoric Ceramics from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Woodland Period Ceramics from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Results of MNV Analysis of Ceramics from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Flaked Stone from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Type and Metric Data for Hafted Bifaces from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Historic Artifacts from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Species List for Faunal Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Proveniences in Block D with Faunal Remains and the Taxa Represented . . . . . 142 Summary of Taxa Identified in the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Block D . 144 Epiphyseal Fusion Noted on White-Tailed Deer Remains from Block D . . . . . . 146 Element Distribution for White-Tailed Deer in the Block D Faunal Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Modifications of Bone Noted in the Block D Faunal Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Summary Data for Flotation Samples and Fractions from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Seeds (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Nutshell/Nutmeat (Counts and Weights) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (g) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Habitats and Seasonality Associated with Macroplant Remains from Block D . . 169 Pollen and Starch Types Observed in Microbotanical Remains from Block D . . 171 Background Information for Plant Taxa Identified in Microbotanical Remains from Block D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Radiocarbon Dates from Blocks A and D at Kolomoki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Comparison of the Faunal Assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Comparison of Macrobotanical Assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . 193 Comparison of Wood Charcoal Assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . 196 Relative Frequencies of Surface Treatments in Identifiable Woodland Pottery Assemblages from Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Relative Frequencies of Vessel Forms Identified in MNV Analysis of Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Comparison of Mean Orifice Diameter for Vessel Forms in Blocks A and D . . 199 Comparison of the Relative Frequencies of Hafted Biface Types in Blocks A and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

xi

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Thomas J. Pluckhahn This report describes archaeological research aimed at understanding social change during the Late Woodland period (A.D. 400 to 1050), a critical juncture in the development of complex societies in the southeastern United States. The focus of the study is the archaeological site of Kolomoki, in the lower Chattahoochee River valley of southwestern Georgia (Figure 1). Kolomoki, one of the largest and most famous sites of the Woodland period, is comprised of at least nine mounds (Pluckhahn 2003). The site is preserved as part of Kolomoki Mounds State Park and Historic Site, managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. This study builds on previous research at Kolomoki. In 2000, the National Geographic Society awarded funding to Stephen Kowalewski for his proposal Kolomoki: Learning About a Woodland Ceremonial Center. This research formed the core of a dissertation by Pluckhahn (2002), subsequently published by the University of Alabama Press as Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750 (Pluckhahn 2003). Carbon dates were taken to develop a revised chronology for the site. Systematic sampling, augmented by test excavations and geophysical prospection, successfully defined changes in the village plan over the course of the more than four hundred years of occupation. Briefly, during the Kolomoki I and II phases (from around cal A.D. 350 to 550) of the late Middle and early/middle Late Woodland periods the occupation took the form of a large, formally-defined circular village centered on an immense plaza. In the Kolomoki III and IV phases (ca. cal A.D. 550 to 750) of the late Late Woodland period this formal village plan broke down, and households were widely dispersed. The shift in settlement plan was coincident with a breakdown in mound construction and ceremony. Although the previous study greatly improved our understanding of Kolomoki, a number of important questions remain unanswered. Perhaps most intriguing is the way in which the broader social changes evident in settlement patterns played out at the household level. The final stages of the previous study included the excavation of a small early/middle Late Woodland pit house in an area of the site designated Block A (see Figure 2). Limited test excavations in portions of the site that were occupied later in the Late Woodland suggest important changes in households took place in the course of Kolomokis history, including a switch to larger, above-ground structures, and a privatization of storage facilities. However, due to time and budget constraints, excavations in later Late Woodland occupation areas were limited and the results are inconclusive. The present study remedied this through an excavation of a household from the later phases of occupation at Kolomoki. This excavation, in an area referred to as Block D, provided the data necessary to examine changes in household size, structure, and economy over the course of the Late Woodland period. The project was sponsored by grants from the National Geographic Society and the Humanities Institute at the University of South Florida (USF). Institutional support was provided by the USF Department of Anthropology and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. This was not a Section 106 project, since no federal monies were expended on the research and no federal permits were required. The fieldwork for this project was conducted over the course of three field seasons between 2006 and 2008. The field crew included volunteers and students from the University of South Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Florida State University. This chapter provides context for the project, including a review the research design and environmental setting. The methods that were employed on the project are described in Chapter 2. The results of the excavation are presented in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 5 presents an overview of the artifact assemblage, while Chapter 6 does the same for the faunal and botanical assemblages. Finally, Chapter 7 draws comparisons between the Late Woodland household excavated for this study and the previously excavated, earlier household.

Figure 1-1. Location of Kolomoki and other sites mentioned in the text.

Research Design
Lost Households of the Late Woodland To what extent do households affect historical change? In her subversive account of one of the worlds great historical transformationsthe origins of the modern worldthe historian Mary S. Hartman (2004) has argued that a form of household relations particular to northwestern Europe prior to the modern era provided a prior and distinctive development that permitted the rise of capitalism and the origins of the nation-state after 1500. Hartman points to one characteristic of medieval northwestern European households in particular: the decision by many peasant women to postpone marriage in favor of a period of domestic servitude. This led to greater parity in household decisionmaking among men and women, permitted greater mobility, fostered more innovation, and allowed for greater accumulation of capital. 2

Kolomoki

Block A

3
Block D
0

N
contour interval = 1 m (elevations from topographic survey and historical maps)

500 Meters

Figure 1-2. Map of Kolomoki showing the locations of Blocks A and D.

Hartmans explanation stands in contrast to the disembodied historical forces historians have long favored in their explanation of this and other major structural transformations (Hartman 2004:210, 242), a tendency not limited to historians. Despite more than three decades of scholarly interest in archaeological households, and more than two decades of archaeological studies invoking the importance of agency in explaining the past, archaeologists have too seldom been willing or able to grant agency to households and their constituents in historical transformations. The problem is exemplified by archaeological interpretations of one of the great junctures in the prehistory of southeastern North America: the Late Woodland period. On one side of this juncture stood the complex, but relatively egalitarian societies of the Middle Woodland period (300 B.C. to A.D. 400) and on the other the hierarchically-organized societies of the Mississippian (A.D. 1050 to 1500). It is generally acknowledged that three major transformations in the Late Woodland contributed to this transition. As described McElrath and colleagues (2000:23), these consist of: 1) a major population resettlement following the breakup of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere and the general decline of the Middle Woodland lifestyle; 2) the widespread adoption of the bow and arrow; and 3) the adoption of a maize-based agricultural economy... All of these changes clearly entail fundamental shifts in the organization of the domestic economy, butwith certain exceptions discussed in more detail belowthey have rarely been attributed to the agency of households. The otherwise exhaustive survey of Late Woodland societies in the Midwest by Emerson and colleagues (2000), for example, contains only 15 references to the term household in its 26 separately authored chapters and more than 700 pages of text. The seminal edited volume on the Late Woodland Southeast by Nassaney and Cobb (1991), as well as the more recent overview of the Woodland Southeast by Anderson and Mainfort (2002), contain still fewer references to households. There are practical reasons for the lack of attention granted to Late Woodland households. First, the Late Woodland period was omitted from many of the original cultural historical chronologies for the region, and earned only slight consideration in many of the second-generation syntheses. Griffin (1952:361-362), for example, made only passing reference to this as ...a period of rest and quiescence. In some areas of the Southeast, archaeological understanding of the Late Woodland period has continued to suffer from the resulting lack of clear diagnostic markers and artifacts sequences (e.g., Rudolph 1999). More important, relatively few Late Woodland houses have been excavated (Steere 2011:79), perhaps because in many areas residential mobility was high and houses were lightly constructed, making the identification of archaeological households less secure. Cobb and Nassaney (2002:538-539), based on a perceived lack of substantial houses or planned communities during the Middle and Late Woodland periods, argue that the institutionalization of domestic spacepresumably including household-based production and consumptiondid not occur until the subsequent Mississippian period. There are also methodological and conceptual issues that transcend the archaeology of the Late Woodland period. Households emerged as a topic of study among archaeologists within the context of the settlement pattern studies of the 1970s (e.g., Flannery 1976); early treatments fit squarely in the processual paradigm, with households viewed as basic building blocks of larger social formations, as points of articulation between societies and economic and ecological processes, and as windows on evolutionary change (Gerritsen 2004:142; Sabloff and Ashmore 2001:22; for reviews of household archaeology, see Nash 2009; Pluckhahn 2010b; Robin 2003). As Pauketat (2000; 2007:45-46) has argued, this approach reduced households to static and uniform organizational units. One might expect such conceptual problems to have been alleviated with the turn to agency in archaeology within the last two decades, and there have certainly been keen advances in the understanding of households as divergent, internally-divided, and externally-connected social formations (e.g., Hendon 1996; Marcoux 2008; Rodning 2004; Rogers 1995; Souvatzi 2008; Wilson 2008). Yet the 4

problem persists because, as Johnson (2006:123) notes, many of archaeologys most basic classificatory conceptscultures, phases, and typesundermine the visibility of agency in the archaeological record in their emphasis on similarity rather than variability. The problem is exacerbated by the conventions of archaeological site reporting, which obscure agency through the use of generic categories of material remains (Johnson 2006:124-125; see also Spector 1993). Hartman (2006:31) suggests that the failure to grant greater agency to households may stem from a conceptual bind much broader than the terms of archaeological classification and discourse. She attributes the problem to the contemporary social milieu in which our research takes place: Accustomed to seeing their own households as embattled and weakened, many would dismiss the suggestion that there was ever a time when typical household settings exercised immense influence, not only in structuring womens and mens daily lives but also in generating lasting change beyond households and in setting crucial conditions on the nature of that change. In the contemporary world, after all, we are used to the idea that the arrow of change always moves from institutions back to households, that households are always reactors to outside developments and never places from which far-reaching transformation might emanate. I would extend Hartmans argument further: the denial of household agency arises not only from our view of contemporary social institutions but also from the manner in which we conceive of the temporality of history. Specifically, our tendency to emphasize long-term institutions and structures as the determinants of historical change reduces the relevance of shorter term cycles and events (Sewell 2005), including shorter-term social formations such as households. This tendency, most conspicuous in works that assume a universality of causality (be they marxist, evolutionary, or adaptionist), is unfortunate because as Gerritsen (2004:143) notes, the household potentially offers a theoretically informed counterweight to the sort of large-scale systems and processes that are frequently invoked by archaeologists to explain social and cultural changegrand narratives that by definition refer to temporal and spatial scales largely meaningless to the people involved in those changes (see also Robin 2003:308; Wilson 2008:8). Recognizing the agency of households may require adopting a more eventful temporality that recognizes the power of events in the process of historical change (Sewell 2005), a perspective I review below. Late Woodland Households and Mississippianization Although archaeological study of the Late Woodland period remains relatively poorly developed for much of the Southeast, several recent studies have granted greater attention to the role of Late Woodland households, specifically as they relate to the process of Mississippianization. Such research is particularly active in the vicinity of Cahokia in the American Bottom region where the FAI-270 excavations (Kelly 1990b; Kelly et al. 1987) were extensive enough to result in the identification of numerous houses and whole community patterns. Small semi-subterranean keyhole structures became common in the American Bottom by the Patrick phase (A.D. 600 to 700) (Kelly 1990b). These keyhole structures have been found arranged in clusters (Kelly 1990b; Kelly et al. 1987), which Peregrine (1992) interprets as evidence for the emergence of lineage compoundsseveral extended families from the same lineage functioning as a joint economic unit, and thus possibly functioning as a single, large household. By the Early Mississippian period, larger rectangular houses were arranged linearly in villages (Kelly 1990a, 1990b; Kelly et al. 1989; see also Steere 2011), a pattern taken to represent the emergence of individual nuclear or extended families as the basic economic unit (Pauketat 1998:135-136; Peregrine 1992). Following Flannery (1972; see also Flannery 2002), Peregrine relates these changes to a general trend toward the attenuation of the household as the basic economic unit in the evolution of complex societies, arguing that this promotes competition in production and the emergence of intensification and social stratification (Peregrine 1992:141-142).

Muller (1997:135-141) also considers households in his model of Mississippianization, focusing more on their distribution than form. He sees the settlement dispersal in the Late Woodland as a consequence of a natural tendency for households to seek greater autonomy, abetted by the adoption of the more effective hunting technology of the bow and arrow. Increased dispersal brought greater competition for resources as populations expanded, eventually leading to the subordination of some households. Mullersomewhat like Peregrine, but without directly invoking social evolutionsees this as a gradual process that played out with minor local variation across the Southeast. Households also figure prominently in the historical processual rethinking of Mississippianization as a relatively rapid process emanating from a Big Bang at Cahokia around A.D. 1050 (Blitz 2010; Pauketat 1994, 1997a, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). Pauketat (1997b; 2000:33-35) implicates the emergence of households as an economic unit disarticulated from larger kin groups (but now attached to political patrons) as a transformative juncture. As part of this process, house construction styles changed abruptly; wall-trench houses, perhaps produced by work crews, replaced traditional single-post structures (Pauketat 1994:130-140, 2004a:78-80). These and other elements of Mississippian culture are believed to have spread across the Southeast through the direct movement of people from Cahokia (Blitz 2010; Blitz and Lorenz 2006:124-125; Pauketat 2004a:119). Recent works have examined the ways in which households on the periphery of Cahokia resisted Mississippianization through the retention of traditional practices, including the continued use of semi-subterranean post structures (Emerson and Pauketat 2002:109; Pauketat and Alt 2003:166-167, 2005). Beck and colleagues (2007) have discussed the Late Woodland-Mississippian transition in terms drawn directly from Sewells development of eventful temporality, and thus more consistent with approach taken here. In contrast with Pauketat, they argue that the reorganization of Cahokia around A.D. 1050and by extension the forging of the cultural complex recognized archaeologically as Mississippianwas not the product of a single Big Bang but instead a series of creative solutions to structural disjunctions beginning during the Late Woodland period (Beck et al. 2007:844). Foremost among these disjunctions, according to Beck and colleagues, was a crisis for existing structures of intergroup reciprocity as the interests of households began to precedence over those of the community with increases in population and maize production. These studies make significant advances in identifying changes in Late Woodland households. Yet they undervalue the agency of households in these changes, for reasons both particular and general. In general, because each of the models look backward from the Early Mississippian period at Cahokia and the American Bottom, the transformative events of the Late Woodland periodand thus also the actions of Late Woodland householdsare taken as an inevitability. This inevitably is redoubled in the models put forth by Peregrine and Muller where the agency of households is reduced to either generic evolutionary processes or a mechanical responses to environmental pressures, respectively. Sewell (2005:84) has referred to these sorts of historical explanations as having a teleologic temporality, wherein the cause of a historical transformation is attributed ...neither to the actions and reactions that constitute that happening nor to concrete and specifiable conditions that shape or constrain the actions and reactions but rather to abstract transhistorical processes leading to some future historical state. Pauketat, as well as Beck and colleagues, avoid this reductionism by recasting Mississippianization as a unique historical process in which changes in households played a crucial role. But teleology is apparent in Pauketats work too in the invocation of some traditional practices as resistant to Mississippianization because they are backward-looking or value some aspect of a given periods life and culture that the analyst, with her or his twenty-twenty hindsight, regards as doomed to the dustbin of history (Sewell 2005:84). Beck et al. avoid the issue of resistance to Mississippianization and thus also this teleology. Yet here too the decisions made by Late Woodland households (e.g., to increase maize production) are evoked in a manner that makes them appear inevitable and unquestioned. This may stem in part from their somewhat narrow conception of agency as the potential to transform prevailing structures (Beck et al. 2007:845). As Gillespie (2007:847) points out, this would seem to remove agency except in rare 6

moments of historical event. Beck and colleagues (2007:856) answer this charge to the contrary, but their definition and exposition clearly mitigate the expression of agency by Late Woodland households, especially those further removed from the Mississippian event in time and space. Finding Late Woodland Households This report investigates changes in households during the Late Woodland period and their implications for the structural transformations marking the junctures with earlier (Middle Woodland) and later (Mississippian) periods. Kolomoki, the largest site of the Weeden Island complex of the Gulf Coast and adjacent interior portions of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, is ideally suited to such a study. Weeden Island has often been viewed as a bridge spanning the dark ages between the climaxes of the Middle Woodland and Mississippian periods (e.g., Muller 1997:123; Nassaney and Cobb 1991:314; Willey 1966:289), a perspective stemming from the fact that many of the hallmarks of the former periodmound construction and long-distance exchangecontinued later here than elsewhere in the Southeast. While the pattern was delayed, however, the same transformations noted by McElrath et al. (2000:23) for the Late Woodland period generally also took place at Kolomoki. I utilize several strategies to emphasize households as agents of change in these structural transformations, rather than simply as reactors to external forces. First and most obviously, agency is highlighted by defining the unit of analysis and reporting as the household (Johnson 2006:124-125). I focus specifically on the archaeological household, which Nash (2009:224) has described as a ...coresidential group that used the occupation surface, features, and the artifact assemblage of a dwelling, with dwelling defined to include one or more closely-related structures and both indoor and outdoor spaces. Specifically, in this report, I summarize recent excavations of a domestic area at Kolomoki referred to as Block D, containing the material remains and features of at least one household dating to the late/terminal Late Woodland. Relatedly, greater appreciation of the agency of households in historical change is achieved by comparing the Block D household to another that is relatively closely related in time. I compare the Late Woodland household in Block D to an earlier Late Woodland household that was previously excavated in Block A at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003; Pluckhahn et al. 2006). I refer to the latter as dating to the early/middle Late Woodland and the Block D as dating to the late/terminal Late Woodland. Archaeological constructs such as phase and type cannot be entirely avoided, but the problems with these are at least partially mitigated through comparison of sequentially occupied households, each of which was occupied for a relatively brief interval and which together span a single, ca. 300 year-long period. Finally, I conceive of historical change in terms of the eventful temporality described by Sewell (2005) and introduced to archaeological contexts by Beck, Bolender, and colleagues (Beck et al. 2007; contributors to Bolender 2010). Briefly, Sewell (2005:100) defines an eventful temporality as one that takes into account the transformation of structure by events. Structure is conceived in terms rooted in the work of Giddens (1984) (i.e., rules and resources), but made more concrete through several key conceptual advances. Perhaps most important, Sewell (2005:131) revises Giddenss poorlydefined rules as schemas, defined as generalizable or transposable rules and procedures that are applied in the social life. Sewell (2005:132-137) also redirects Giddenss notion of resources away from the virual to include both actual (material) human and nonhuman resources. As Sewell (2005:260-261) notes, events are complex and difficult to bound. They may overlap and interpenetrate. They are also fractal in character; what appears to be one event may well be said to be comprised of several related events. The structural disjunctions recognizable archaeologically as the collapse of Middle Woodland practices and the Big Bang that ushered in a vastly different Mississippian social order were separated by three or four centuries, and in one sense may be conceived as reflecting separate and discrete events. But events can also be conceptualized as a sequence of 7

ruptures that dislocates and rearticulates structures (Sewell 2005:261). In this sense, the two events were linked by ruptures stretching across the Late Woodland, and were thus interpenetrated. I will argue that these ruptures included important changes in the organization of Late Woodland households. Briefly, households became smaller and more socially and economically autonomous. These changes that were rooted in the decisions made by household members. The actions of households were thus integral to the structural transformations marked by the events at the beginning and end of the Late Woodland.

Environmental Setting
Kolomoki is located in the lower Chattahoochee Valley of southwestern Georgia, immediately south and west of Little Kolomoki Creek. Roughly 2 km to the northwest of the site, Little Kolomoki Creek joins the North Prong of Kolomoki Creek to form Kolomoki Creek proper. Kolomoki Creek flows into the Chattahoochee River approximately 12 km northwest of the site. Kolomoki lies within the Coastal Plain physiographic province. While the Coastal Plain is often characterized as a monotonously low and level plain, in reality the situation is far more complex. Veatch and Stephenson (1911:28) divide the Coastal Plain province within Georgia into six major divisions. Kolomoki is situated near the border between the Fall Line Hills and the Dougherty Plain. However, the setting of the site amidst gently rolling hills is clearly more characteristic of the former area. As Veatch and Stephenson (1911:29) note, the boundaries of the Fall Line Hills are not easily defined. To the north, the topography of the Fall Line Hills merges with that of the Piedmont Province, while to the south there is a gradual transition to the more level Dougherty Plain and Altamaha Upland sections of the Coastal Plain Province. In general, the Fall Line Hills are highly dissected, with relief of 50 to 250 ft (Hodler and Schretter 1986:74). There is little level land, save for marshy floodplains, narrow stream terraces, and occasional expanses of broad uplands (such as that at Kolomoki). The topographic features of the Fall Line Hills are determined largely by erosion (Veatch and Stephenson 1911:29). The upper portion of the region is characterized by the sand hills, which can be described as flat ridges with a covering of gray or brown superficial sand. Soils in this area are largely unproductive, and the tree growth consists primarily of stunted oak and long-leaf pine. The lower portion of the Fall Line Hills, including the Kolomoki area, is principally composed of red hills (Veatch and Stephenson 1911:29). The surface soils here consist of bright red sand, residual material from the underlying Eocene geologic formations. The sand layer of the red hills is easily eroded, and as a result the uplands are often cut by deep gullies. Wharton (1978:172-173) describes these gullies as the Chattahoochee Ravines. He notes that the erosion through gorges on streams such as Kolomoki Creek has exposed thinly laminated clays of the Tuscahoma formation, as well as chert nodules and fossils. To the south of Kolomoki lies the Dougherty Plain, which consists of a flat to very gently rolling topography (Hodler and Schretter 1986:171; Veatch and Stephenson 1911:30). This area has comparatively few surface streams, and therefore lacks the erosion found in the red hills. The Dougherty Plain includes a number of lime-sinks, formed by the solution of the soft, underlying limestone layer. The archaeological site of Kolomoki covers nearly a square kilometer. From the highest elevation at the southern end of the site, the landscape grades gradually downslope to the east and west. Moving north, there is a slight decline to a broad, level plain, where the plaza and most of the mounds are located (Figure 1-3). At the northern end of the site there is a increase in elevation to a northeastsouthwest trending ridge. Block A, excavated in 2002 and used as a point of comparison in this report, is located on this ridge (see Figure 1-2).

Figure 1-3. Oblique aerial view of Kolomoki. View is to the east with Mound A in center background and Mound D in center foreground. 9

The gently plain at the center of the site is broken on its edges by drainage headsoften referred to as steepheads (Northwest Florida Environmental Conservancy 2006). At the head of these steepheads are springs or seepages of water which constantly erode the gullies headward. The cool and moist habitat at the bottom of these steepheads provides shelter for a number of rare plant species such as: the Florida Torreya tree, the Florida Yew, Ashe Magnolia, Pyramid Magnolia, Mountain Laurel, various Rhododendron species, Florida Anise, Beech trees, White oak trees and a variety of other northern hardwood trees. The slopes of the steepheads provide habitat for plant species more often associated with the Piedmont and Appalachian mountains, such as Trillium, Trout lilies, Wild Ginger, and a variety of orchids. Examples of steepheads at Kolomoki can be observed on the topographic map (see Figure 1-2) between Mounds D and E, between Mounds A and C, and east of Mound H. Block D, which is the focus of this study, is located along the northern edge of the latter ravine-like area. Sears (1956:10) referred to this area as the South Area or South Village. I have elsewhere described it as the North Ravines, in reference to the ravine or steephead just to the south (Pluckhahn 2003:73). Block D is located just south of the main park road, on a gentle, south and southeastfacing slope above the steephead (Figure 1-4). A portion of this area is maintained as open and park-like, but our work centered on the area just inside a tree line. Vegetation consists of a mix of hardwoods and pines with a moderately dense understory. Not surprisingly given the size of Kolomoki, soils within the site area are highly variable. The nearly level uplands at the southern margin of the site are characterized by Greeneville sandy loams. Pilkinton (1985:24) describes the typical profile for this soil type as consisting of a 7 inch thick surface layer of dark reddish brown sandy loam over a dark red sandy clay. The gently sloping land at the center of the site generally consists of Red Bay sandy loams. Here the surface layer is typically a dark reddish brown sandy loam 8 inches thick (Pilkinton 1985:37). Subsoil consists of a dark red sandy clay. The lower elevations at Kolomoki, including the drainage area between Mounds E and D and the gentle slope to the northwest of Mound A, are characterized by Americus loamy sands. These soils are only moderately suited to Figure 1-4. Topography of the Block D area. farming, largely because they consist of somewhat excessively drained sands (Pilkinton 1985:17-18). The surface layer typically consists of a dark reddish brown loamy sand 8 inches thick. This is underlain by a few inches of dark reddish brown loamy sand, which grades into a dark red loamy sand and, finally, a dark red sandy loam. Soils in Block D are described in Chapter 3. Kolomoki witnesses long, hot summers as a result of the moist, tropical air of the Gulf of Mexico (Pilkinton 1985:1-2). The winters are cool and short. Precipitation is fairly heavy throughout the year, with more than half of the rainfall occurring in the spring and summer growing seasons from April through September.

10

Chapter 2: Methods
Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund, Matthew C. Compton, Linda Scott-Cummings, and Chad Yost This chapter describes the methods that were employed on the project, including field, laboratory analysis, and curation methods. The descriptions of specialized laboratory methods are drawn from the reports of Bonhage-Freund (2009) (macrobotanical analysis), Compton (2009) (faunal analysis), and Yost and Scott-Cummings (microbotanical analysis), with minor editing by Pluckhahn.

Field Methods
The fieldwork for this project was conducted over the course of three field seasons in the summers of 2006, 2007, and 2008. Work was completed under the direction of report author and P.I. Thomas Pluckhahn. The 2006 field crew (Figure 2-1) included volunteers and graduate students from USF and the University of Oklahoma. The 2007 and 2008 excavations were conducted primarily by field school students from the USF (Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively), with additional assistance of volunteers. USF graduate students Cassandra (Rae) Harper and Elizabeth Heath served as field assistants in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

Figure 2-1. The 2006 field crew at Kolomoki. From left: Buck Brown, Bobby Butler, Elsbeth Fields, Rae Harper, and Sarah Carter. Not shown: Dick Brunelle. 11

Figure 2-2. The 2007 field crew at Kolomoki. From left: Todd Bogner, Liz Heath, Deanna Griffin, Elicia Kimble, Dianely Martin, Travis Couliette, Ashley Humphries, Catie Sheldon, John Meyer, Jennifer Vessels, Don Moysey. Not shown: Jen Boekenoogen, Dick Brunelle.

Figure 2-3. The 2008 field crew at Kolomoki. From left: Jenna Clevinger, Tria Marie Ellison, Erin Rosenthal, Kevin Hageman, and Stephanie Lonergan. 12

Proveniences in Block D were maintained using the sitespecific grid system developed during previous work at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003). Mapping was accomplished with a Leica total station. A slight error in the reconstruction of the grid system from previous field seasons resulted in a minimal deviation from the orientation of Units D1-D4. This was corrected so that all other units were oriented with the site grid, which is aligned with magnetic north. Respecting the fact that Kolomoki is preserved as a state park, the units in Block Das elsewhere in recent work at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 1998, 2000, 2003)were excavated entirely by hand. Although we often laid out and numbered units as 1-x-2-m pits, each 1-x-1-m section was treated as a separate unit. The units were excavated in 10 cm levels within natural soil layers when possible. Soil was screened through 1/4 inch (0.64 cm) mesh. Each unit was documented thoroughly by written narrative and technical descriptions of each stratigraphic level on project- Figure 2-4. Bisection and profile mapping of a feature in Block specific test unit forms. Additional D. documentation included mapping and photography of profiles and plan views. Features were mapped on unit plan view maps and were usually photographed before and after excavation. We generally bisected features, excavated half, and drew a profile before excavating the second half (Figure 2-4). Soil samples were collected from the majority of the features determined to be associated with the prehistoric occupation of the site. The rest of the fill was screened in the field through 1/4 inch (0.64 cm) mesh. Features were also documented with project-specific feature forms.

Laboratory Methods
Flotation The majority of the soil samples from Block D features were floated, which was accomplished with SMAP-style machines most closely resembling the Siraf (Pearsall 1989:29-31, 52-58). Samples from the 2006 field season were processed using an older flotation machine at USF which separates into three fractions: A (1/4"), B (an 850 micron heavy fraction), and C (a 300 micron light fraction). Flotation samples were processed bu USF graduate students Ryan Harke, Will Klinger, Rebecca OSullivan, and Jennifer Poulssen. 13

The samples from 2007 and 2008 were processed using a recently constructed machine which uses 800 micron mesh for the heavy fraction and 250 micron mesh for the light fraction (Figure 2-5). In the case of these samples, the heavy fractions were screened through 1/4 inch mesh. This flotation machine was constructed because the USF apparatus frequently became clogged by the site's sandy clay soils. The second machine features dual shower heads above a shelf lined with the 800 micron mesh, providing more surface area and agitation than the USF device. Flotation samples were carefully processed by introducing only about a liter of soil every five minutes into the respective system. Light and heavy fractions were thoroughly dried before packing in separately labeled heavy-duty zipper bags, and thorough records of provenience, feature types, and sample volume were maintained. Nearly all of the admittedly sparse seeds were captured in the light fraction, with the heavy fraction consisting mainly of relatively small amounts of residual wood charcoal and resin, along with the bulk of the hickory shell. Light fractions were rough sorted into general categories of Figure 2-5. Flotation machine used for samples collected in the faunal, floral, artifact, and other (mainly modern organic debris). 2007 and 2008 field seasons. Faunal and floral remains from light fractions were then analyzed by Compton and Bonhage-Freund, respectively, as described in more detail in below. Bonhage-Freund also examined a selection of heavy samples to ascertain the effectiveness of the flotation. Artifacts recovered from the 1/4 inch were analyzed by Pluckhahn and graduate assistants at USF, also described below. As an additional check on the results of the flotation, some of the soil samples collected during the 2008 field season were submitted for pollen and phytolith analysis. The methods employed in those analyses, which were conducted by Yost and Scott-Cummings, are presented below.

14

Analysis of Artifacts All artifacts recovered during the survey were transported to the laboratory in the Anthropology Department at USF for processing. The artifacts were analyzed by the P.I., with the assistance of USF graduate students Jana Futch, Will Klinger, Shannon McVey, Rebecca OSullivan, and Jennifer Poulssen. Additional assistance was provided by several undergraduates at USF, particularly Todd Bogner, John Meyer, and Elizabeth Messer. Flaked stone artifacts were sorted by raw material and stage of reduction or tool production by the author. Technological analysis followed the lithic reductive model of Collins (1975) in which the processes of chipped stone tool manufacture and use are perceived as a series of five ordered stages: 1) acquisition of raw materials, 2) initial reduction, 3) primary flaking, 4) secondary flaking, and 5) use and/or recycling. Debitage, or detached pieces, were sorted into the following categories roughly reflecting these stages: primary flakes (>90 percent cortex), secondary flakes (1-90 percent cortex), tertiary flakes (no cortex), shatter (angular pieces) and utilized flakes (exhibiting obvious use wear). Objective pieces include cores and deliberately retouched tools. Tools were assigned to more specific categories such as uniface and biface based on general morphology. Cultural and temporal affiliations of diagnostic hafted biface were determined through comparison with published type descriptions ( e.g., Bullen 1975; Cambron and Hulse 1978; Whatley 2002). Subsequently, Pluckhahns type assignments were submitted to John Whatley and Lloyd Schroeder (personal communication 2008) for their opinions. The type assignments discussed herein reflect most, but not all of their suggestions for nomenclature and assignments of individual points. We thank Whatley and Schroeder for their opinions but we emphasize that they are not responsible for the conclusions presented here. Our analysis of hafted bifaces emphasizes hafting areas to minimize effects of use wear and re-sharpening (Andrefsky 1998:178; Bacon 1977; Binford 1963). We also generally focus on ratio of measurements (for example, the ratio of blade width to haft length), to accommodate the constraints on the size of finished bifaces relative to raw material (although the are manufactured primarily from various cherts of the Coastal Plain, there are also specimens made from cherts of the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley, as well as Tallahatta Sandstones of southern Alabama). Hafted bifaces were measured using a dial calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Our measurements focused on 9 basic dimensions (Figure 2-6): Maximum Length (ML), Maximum Width (MW), Blade Length (BLL),

Figure 2-6. Hafted biface measurement dimensions (adapted from Andrefsky 1998:179). 15

Blade Width (BLW), Base Width (BW), Haft Length (HL), Neck Width (NW), Neck Height (NH), and Maximum Thickness (MT). These dimensions generally conform to those defined by relatively well-defined hafting elements, as delineated by shoulders. Thus, triangular points by our definition lack hafting areas (although we recognize these were indeed hafted in most cases). Perhaps most important, we restrict the use of the term neck to an area of constriction below the shoulders of width roughly equal to or less than that of the base. So defined, most proximally contracting stemmed and triangular points lack necks. We would note that our method also differs from Whatley (2002:10), who measures haft width and length relative to an undefined point on the contracting stem. The analysis of prehistoric ceramics was based on attributes of paste, tempering agents, and surface modification or decoration. Pottery types were identified with reference to established chronologies for the region (Sears 1956; Wauchope 1966; Willey 1949). For each provenience, sherds were counted and weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g) by type of general descriptive category. Small (less than 2 cm), plain or eroded sherds were classified as residual. A minimum number of vessel (MNV) analysis was conducted on larger rims sherds (>5 percent of orifice diameter) and diagnostic body sherds from the two excavation blocks to ascertain changes in vessel form and size. Vessel forms were identified with respect to seven basic categories (Table 2-1) representing a compromise between the classifications recently devised by Hally (2009) and Wallis (2011) (the latter derived mainly from Willy [1949]). These forms include: neckless jar; collared jar; rounded bowl; unrestricted bowl/jar (combined here due to difficulty in differentiating on the basis of small rim sherds); cup; and dish/plate. Vessel size was measured with respect to orifice diameter, measured to the nearest centimeter using a template. Although ceramics and flaked stone are the most common prehistoric artifacts, there are a number of other miscellaneous prehistoric artifact categories. The ground and pecked stone tool categories include artifacts that display evidence of battering caused by repeated impacts, or which exhibit battered or ground depressions on at least one surface. Tools of this type were weighed and counted. Heat-altered rock was also weighed and counted. This class of artifact includes both fire cracked rock (FCR), and fire reddened pebbles. A limited quantity of historic artifacts were recovered on this project. Historic artifacts were sorted into functional categories or manufacturing type. Whenever possible, these artifacts were placed into a chronological time frame.

Table 2.1. Vessel Form Categories Used in this MNV Analysis and Their Equivalents in the Analyses of Hally (2009) and Wallis (2011). This Analysis Hally (2009) Wallis (2011) neckless jar collared jar open bowl restricted bowl simple bowl/unrestricted jar cup dish/plate neckless jar folded rim/tall folded rim jar folded rim/rounded bowl N/A unrestricted jar N/A N/A flattened globular bowl collared jar open bowl restricted bowl open/unrestricted pot small bowl/cup shallow bowl

16

Analysis of Faunal Remains Animal remains from the Block D excavations were identified using standard zooarchaeological methods (Reitz and Wing 1999). All identifications were made by Matthew Compton (2009) using his personal comparative skeletal collection and the comparative skeletal collection of the University of Georgia Zooarchaeology Laboratory. Specimens are identified in terms of taxonomic classification, element represented, the portion recovered, and symmetry. Evidence for age at death, sex, seasonality, and modifications are noted where observed. Standard measurements are usually taken but none were available in the Block D assemblage. The relative abundance of different taxa is presented in terms of Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), specimen weight, and biomass. NISP is simply the count of specimens identified. Specimens that cross-mend are counted as single specimens. Indeterminate vertebrate (Vertebrata) specimens are not counted due to their fragmentary nature. MNI is a measure of how many individuals are required to account for the specimens present in a collection. MNI is estimated based on element portion, symmetry, size, and age. MNI is estimated at the lowest possible taxonomic level, usually the species. While MNI is a standard zooarchaeological quantification method, the measure has several well-known biases. For example, MNI emphasizes small species over larger ones. This can be demonstrated in a hypothetical sample consisting of five eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) and one white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Although five eastern box turtles might indicate emphasis on eastern box turtle, one white-tailed deer would supply more meat. Further, some elements are more readily identifiable than others. The taxa represented by these diagnostic elements may achieve higher MNI estimates and therefore be incorrectly perceived as more significant to the diet than animals with less distinctive elements. Conversely, some taxa represented by large numbers of specimens may present few paired elements and hence the number of individuals for these species may be low. Basic to MNI is the assumption that the entire individual was utilized at the site. From ethnographic evidence, it is known that this is not always true (Binford 1978; Perkins and Daly 1968). This is particularly the case for larger individuals, animals used for special purposes, and where food exchange was an important economic activity (Thomas 1971; White 1953). In addition to these primary biases, MNI is also subject to secondary bias introduced by the way samples are aggregated during analysis. The aggregation of archaeological samples into analytical units (Grayson 1973) allows for a conservative estimate of MNI, while the "maximum distinction" method, applied when analysis discerns discrete sample units, results in a much larger MNI. For the Kolomoki Block D assemblage, a single analytical unit is used to estimate MNI values. Biomass estimates are used to predict the dietary contribution of different taxa and are calculated using specimen weight and allometric formulae following Reitz et al. (1987) and Reitz and Wing (1999:72, 224-231). Predictions of biomass are based on the allometric principle that the proportions of body mass, skeletal mass, and skeletal dimensions change with increasing body size (Reitz and Wing 1999:225-233). The relationship between body weight and skeletal weight is described by the allometric equation: Y = aXb (Simpson et al. 1960:397). In this equation, X is skeletal weight, Y is the biomass, b is the constant of allometry (the slope of the line), and a is the Y-intercept for a log-log plot using the method of least squares regression and the best-fit line (Reitz et al. 1987; Reitz and Wing 1999:224-228). To solve for biomass (Y), the archaeological specimen weight is substituted for skeletal weight (X). Many biological phenomena show allometry described by this formula (e.g., Gould 1966, 1971) so that a given quantity of skeletal material or a specific skeletal dimension represents a predictable amount of tissue or body length due to the effects of allometric growth. For more detail on the allometric formulae used in this analysis, consult Compton (2009:Appendix B). Biomass is not estimated for the indeterminate vertebrate group.

17

In order to assess the relative abundance of different groups of animals identified, taxa are summarized into faunal categories based on major vertebrate groups. These faunal categories are compared in terms of MNI and biomass. The categories include Turtles, Birds, White-tailed deer, and Other mammals. The summary table includes biomass estimates only for those taxa for which MNI is estimated. Relative ages of white-tailed deer are estimated based on observations of the degree of epiphyseal fusion for diagnostic elements (Purdue 1983; Reitz and Wing 1999:71-76). During analysis, specimens are recorded as either fused or unfused and placed into one of three categories based on the age in which fusion generally occurs. Elements in the Early-fusing category generally fuse before the animals first birthday (Purdue 1983). Unfused elements in this category are interpreted as evidence for juveniles. Elements of the Middle-fusing category typically fuse between one and two years in age (Purdue 1983). Unfused elements of the Middle-fusing category are interpreted as either subadults or juveniles while fused elements are interpreted as subadults or adults. Late-fusing elements tend to fuse after the animals second birthday (Purdue 1983). Fused elements in this category are interpreted as representing adults; unfused elements are interpreted as subadults or juveniles. Because ages for epiphyseal fusion vary due to sex, health status, climate, available forage, and individual variation among animals, assigning specific ages from epiphyseal fusion data is difficult. However, general age ranges for the three age classes can be assigned in the following manner: juveniles <1 year, subadults 1-2.5 years, adults >2.5 years. The presence or absence of elements in an archaeological assemblage provides data on animal use such as butchering practices, transport decisions, and food distribution (Reitz and Wing 1999:202-205). The white-tailed deer elements identified are summarized into categories by body parts. The Head category includes skull fragments, including mandibles, antlers, and teeth. The sternum, ribs, and vertebrae, excluding the sacrum, are placed into the Vertebra/Rib category. The Forequarter includes the scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna. The Hindquarter includes the innominate, sacrum, femur, tibia, and patella. Carpal and metacarpal specimens are in the Forefoot category. The Hindfoot category includes tarsal and metatarsal specimens. Metapodia and podia not identified to the Forefoot or Hindfoot categories, as well as sesamoids, phalanges, and bones of the minor digits are assigned to the Foot category. The archaeological white-tailed deer element data are presented with a standard white-tailed deer skeleton for comparison. The standard white-tailed deer is based on the number of elements present in a complete white-tailed deer skeleton. Elsewhere, Compton (2009:Appendix C) summarizes the number of elements present in an unmodified white-tailed deer skeleton. Here, elements that are fused in adult white-tailed deer or that articulate in such a manner that they do not readily disarticulate in the absence of soft tissue (e.g. elements of the skull) are counted as single elements. The archaeological white-tailed deer element data are also compared to a standard white-tailed deer using a ratio diagram (Simpson 1941; Reitz and Wing 1999:212). Described by George Simpson (1941; Simpson et al. 1960:357-358), the formula is as follows: d = logeX - logeY or d = loge(X/Y) where d is the logged ratio, Y is percentage of each element category in the standard white-tailed deer, and X is the same percentage of this category in the archaeological collections. It does not matter to what base the measurements are converted, though one should be consistent in order to remain comparable. As Simpson (1941:23) describes this approach: The basic purpose of the diagram is to represent each of a number of analogous observations by a single entry and to plot them in such a way that the horizontal distance between any two of them will represent the ratio of either one of those two to the other. In order to compare the archaeological data with the standard white-tailed deer, the percentages of each element category for the standard white-tailed deer are converted into common logs, subtracted from the logged value of the same element category for the archaeological percentages, and plotted against the standard white-tailed deer represented by the horizontal line in the ratio diagram figures. Values on 18

the positive side of the standards horizontal line are over-represented and those on the negative side of the line are under-represented. A burial would present an essentially horizontal line compared to the standard. Although the archaeological values are specimen counts and the values for the standard white-tailed deer are whole elements, the relationships in the ratio diagrams are similar to those found in unmodified histograms. Modifications can indicate butchering methods as well as site formation processes. Modifications are presented as counts and are classified here as burned and calcined (see Lyman 1994 and Reitz and Wing 1999 for complete descriptions of modification categories). Burned specimens result from the carbonization of bone collagen and are identified by their charred-black coloration (Lyman 1994:384-385). Burned specimens may result from exposure to fire when meat is roasted or when specimens are intentionally or unintentionally burned after discard. Heating bone at extreme temperatures ($600EC) can cause the specimen to become completely incinerated or calcined; calcined specimens are usually indicated by white or blue-gray discoloration (Lyman 1994:385-386). Several sources of potential bias may have influenced the Block D faunal assemblage and should be kept in mind in the following sections. First, the use of a 1/4-in (6.35 mm) screen to recover animal remains biases samples by reducing the number of smaller specimens collected. Numerous studies have documented the effects of the use of 1/4-in screen on the recovery of animal remains (Gordon 1993; Payne 1972; Shaffer and Sanchez 1994; Stahle 1996; Struever 1968). Most notable of these effects are the over-emphasis on the importance of large species and the reduced number of small species represented. A second source of potential bias is differential preservation. Larger, denser bones tend to preserve more readily than smaller, less-dense bones (Lyman 1994:235-236, 397-398). This can cause species with larger more robust bones to be more abundant than those with smaller more fragile bones. Further, the burning of bone and gnawing by rodents and carnivores may have caused the loss of an unknown amount of bone (Kent 1981; Lyman 1994:193-195, 205-216, 391). Differential preservation likely played a role in biasing the Block D assemblage but to what degree cannot completely be determined. A third source of potential bias is the context from which the materials were recovered. The Block D faunal materials are assumed to represent domestic debris. However, the possibility exists that some of these materials were deposited due to a specialized activity not representative of the overall animal-use strategy. Further, the excavated materials may have been deposited only during certain seasons of the year and therefore are not representative of a full annual cycle. The materials might also be biased due to the fact that they may only sample the domestic refuse of a few households that are not representative of the entire population. Differences in the status and food preferences of individual households play a major role in food consumption habits and therefore may influence the interpretation of the faunal collections. Finally, the small size of the faunal assemblage is a probable source of bias. The size of faunal samples is known to influence measures of relative abundance, richness, and diversity indices (Cannon 2001; Grayson 1981, 1984:116-117, 132, 158; Lyman and Ames 2004). It is likely that the Kolomoki Block D assemblage is biased due to the small size of the sample. Analysis of Macrobotanical Remains Macrobotanical analysis was conducted on 51 light and 51 heavy fraction flotation samples, and one fine water-screened sample. The samples were taken from 40 unique features. The flotation sampling program was designed to test all feature types in as robust a manner as possible. The inventory includes 16 large pits, 8 small pits, 15 postmolds, and one pottery cluster. The median pre-flotation sample volume was 6.0 liters. Sample volume in the Block D excavations was largely a reflection of the feature sizes. Half of the features consisted of pits and postmolds that were small in size. Multiple samples were taken from large features resulting in smaller individual samples, but greater total floated material. Flotation samples 19

from large pits, exclusive of special thin highly organic layers, ranged from 4.4 to 12.0 liters, with the majority being at or above the median. In the laboratory, each light fraction flotation sample was first weighed, and then passed through nested geologic sieves (8.0 mm, 4.0 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.125 mm). Each size-graded light fraction was full sorted under low magnification (4-56x). All charred plant remains are considered to be of archaeological significance, but non-charred seeds are deemed modern. All charred seeds and other charred plant remains collected in the 2.0 mm and larger sieves were removed and quantified them by material type, count, and for nutshell, resin, and wood charcoal by count and weight. Fractions less than 2.0 mm were visually scanned but only carbonized seeds were extracted. Uncharred plant remains and mychorrizae (fungal spores or fruiting bodies) were noted but these were not formally counted. Identifications of taxa were made by comparison to modern charred and uncharred reference collections, positively identified archaeological specimens, and standard reference volumes (Britton and Brown 1970; Delorit 1970; Martin and Barkeley 1973; USDA 1974; Montgomery 1977). Taxon determination focused on morphological characteristics of the specimens, including size, texture, specialized structures (e.g. pores), and overall shape. In some cases important diagnostic traits were missing due to degradation, or because the specimen was incomplete. These procedures were followed for the complete heavy fractions of flotation Samples 7, 9, 18, and 39 (see Table 6-6 for provenience information). It was quickly observed that the heavy fractions held no seeds and very sparse to no charcoal, resin, or macroplant remains below the 2 mm level. Therefore, none of the remaining heavy fractions were examined below the 2 mm screen. The samples were further reduced prior to shipping to me by sifting through 0.25 inch screen. Thus, of these only the sizes > 2mm and < 0.25 inches were examined. With few exceptions the only plant remains in the heavy fractions were nut shell, resin, and wood charcoal. Therefore, to save time and expense without compromising results, 20 of the already reduced heavy fractions were scanned with only the seeds and fragments of acorn shell being removed. These included flotation Samples 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 49, 50, and two unnumbered samples from Features 147B and 181. The Feature 147B sample was hand floated in a bucket and the Feature 181 sample was dry sieved and then water screened through a 125 micron sieve. Wood charcoal is the dominant archaeological plant remain in every sample. Minnis and Ford (1977:82) propose that 20 pieces of charcoal from each provenience constitute a sample size that will adequately reflect the total frequencies of charcoal within a sample. However, the charcoal recovered by flotation from features and post molds in the southeastern United States is vastly different from samples recovered at Chimney Rock and other southwestern sites which were analyzed by Minnis and Ford (1977). Southeastern wood charcoal fragments are typically much smaller, most measuring between 2.0 and 4.0 mm, or smaller, and being derived from a much richer and more diverse habitat than the mesa regions. In cases where the wood count was low, we attempted to identify all wood charcoal 2 mm or larger. Otherwise, wood charcoal fragments were evaluated in groups of 10. A minimum of two groups was examined from each feature or postmold having an adequate quality and quantity of wood charcoal. Extrapolating from the Minnis and Ford recommendation, this process continued until we encountered one lot beyond the initial assemblage of 10 wood fragments, which contributed no new taxa to the sample. Examined specimens were selected using a method deemed most appropriate for the individual lot. Random pinch samples were used for samples estimated to contain 100 or more fragments of similar sizes. If a sample contained an estimated 50 or more fragments of varying samples an artist's brush was moved through the sample from top to bottom of the sample's center and again in an X pattern, from corner to corner. Swept fragments were then randomly selected from the displaced specimens. Finally, in the case of samples containing approximately 40 or fewer, but more than 20, wood charcoal fragments, every other fragment was examined. Wood specimens smaller than 2.0 mm in size were not evaluated. Any specimen smaller than 2.0 mm is unlikely to possess all the structural features needed for a reasonable identification. In fact, most fragments above 2.0 mm could only be identified to the genus, and some could only be classified as ring 20

porous, diffuse porous, hardwood, conifer, or monocot. The latter set provides limited, yet useful, information. Wood taxa were identified by comparison with charred, natural, or published photographs of transverse, tangential, and radial thin sections of modern wood, although the transverse view was emphasized due to magnification limitations and size of the specimens (Panshin and de Zeeuw 1980). Analysis of Microbotanical Remains Soil samples from four pit features in Block D were submitted for pollen and phytolith analysis. The analysis was conducted by Yost and Scott-Cummings in the laboratory of PaleoResearch, Inc. (PRI). Pollen. A chemical extraction technique based on flotation is the standard preparation technique used in this laboratory for the removal of the pollen from the large volume of sand, silt, and clay with which they are mixed. This particular process was developed for extraction of pollen from soils where preservation has been less than ideal and pollen density is lower than in peat. It is important to recognize that it is not the repetition of specific and individual steps in the laboratory, but rather mastery of the concepts of extraction and how the desired result is best achieved, given different sediment matrices, that results in successful recovery of pollen for analysis. Hydrochloric acid (10%) is used to remove calcium carbonates present in the soil, after which the samples are screened through 250 micron mesh. The samples are rinsed until neutral by adding water, letting the samples stand for 2 hours, then pouring off the supernatant. A small quantity of sodium hexametaphosphate is added to each sample once it reaches neutrality, then the samples are allowed to settle according to Stokes Law in settling columns. This process is repeated with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). These steps remove clay prior to heavy liquid separation. The samples are then freeze dried. Sodium polytungstate (SPT), with a density 1.8, is used for the flotation process. The samples are mixed with SPT and centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 minutes to separate organic from inorganic remains. The supernatant containing pollen and organic remains is decanted. Sodium polytungstate is again added to the inorganic fraction to repeat the separation process. The supernatant is decanted into the same tube as the supernatant from the first separation. This supernatant is then centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 minutes to allow any silica remaining to be separated from the organics. Following this, the supernatant is decanted into a 50 ml conical tube and diluted with distilled water. These samples are centrifuged at 3000 rpm to concentrate the organic fraction in the bottom of the tube. After rinsing the pollen-rich organic fraction obtained by this separation, all samples receive a short (20-30 minute) treatment in hot hydrofluoric acid to remove any remaining inorganic particles. The samples are then acetolated for 3-5 minutes to remove any extraneous organic matter. A light microscope is used to count pollen at a magnification of 500x. Pollen preservation in these samples varied from good to poor. Comparative reference material collected at the Intermountain Herbarium at Utah State University and the University of Colorado Herbarium was used to identify the pollen to the family, genus, and species level, where possible. Pollen aggregates were recorded during identification of the pollen. Aggregates are clumps of a single type of pollen and may be interpreted to represent pollen dispersal over short distances or the introduction of portions of the plant represented into an archaeological setting. Aggregates were included in the pollen counts as single grains, as is customary. The presence of aggregates is noted by an "A" next to the pollen frequency on the pollen diagram. A plus (+) on the pollen diagram indicates that the pollen type was observed outside the regular count while scanning the remainder of the microscope slide. Pollen diagrams are produced using Tilia 2.0 and TGView 2.0.2. Total pollen concentrations are calculated in Tilia using the quantity of sample processed in cubic centimeters (cc), the quantity of exotics (spores) added to the sample, the quantity of exotics counted, and the total pollen counted and expressed as pollen per cc of sediment. Indeterminate pollen includes pollen grains that are folded, mutilated, and otherwise 21

distorted beyond recognition. These grains are included in the total pollen count since they are part of the pollen record. The microscopic charcoal frequency registers the relationship between pollen and charcoal. The total number of microscopic charcoal fragments was divided by the pollen sum, resulting in a charcoal frequency that reflects the quantity of microscopic charcoal fragments observed, normalized per 100 pollen grains. Pollen analysis also includes examination for and identification of starch granules to general categories, if they are present. Starch granules are a plant's mechanism for storing carbohydrates. Starches are found in numerous seeds, as well as in starchy roots and tubers. The primary categories of starches include the following: with or without visible hila, hilumcentric or eccentric, hila patterns (dot, cracked, elongated), and shape of starch (angular, ellipse, circular, eccentric). Some of these starch categories are typical of specific plants, while others are more common and tend to occur in many different types of plants. Phytoliths. Because of the highly oxidized nature of these sediments, 30% hydrochloric acid (Hcl) was first added to each 15 ml sample to remove excess iron (Fe) with can leach onto phytoliths and alter their specific gravity, thus reducing recovery. After two days in HCl, the samples were rinsed to neutral. Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) was then used to destroy the organic fraction and to help breakdown some of the microscopic charcoal particles present in these samples. Once this reaction was complete, the samples were rinsed to remove the bleach. A small quantity of sodium hexametaphosphate was added to each sample once it reached neutrality, then the samples were allowed to settle according to Stokes Law in 500 ml beakers. This process was repeated with EDTA. These steps remove clay particles and humates prior to heavy liquid separation. Next, the samples were freeze dried under vacuum. The dried silts and sands were then mixed with sodium polytungstate (density 2.3) and centrifuged to separate the phytoliths, which will float, from the other silica, which will not. The samples were then rinsed with distilled water, then alcohol to remove the water. After several alcohol rinses, the samples were mounted in immersion oil for counting with a light microscope at a magnification of 500x. A phytolith diagram was produced using Tilia and TGView 2.0.2.

Curation
Artifacts, field notes, maps, photographs, analysis forms, and other primary documents relating to this project and analysis forms will be curated at the University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology in Athens. The artifacts from each provenience were repackaged in acid free plastic bags with acid free paper tags identifying provenience. Provenience information was also recorded on the exterior of the bags.

22

Chapter 3: Excavation Units

Thomas J. Pluckhahn

Excavation Strategy
As was noted previously, Block D is located just south of the main park road, on a gentle, southand southeast-facing slope above an active spring (sometimes referred to as a steephead) (Figure 3-1). This area has long been noted as a productive portion of the site. A 1937 map of the site by Valliant (see Pluckhahn 2003:Figure 3.1) notes the presence of many sherds eroding from upturned trees. Sears described buried midden layers in this area of the site, and reported the identification of several features (Pluckhahn 2003:73-78; Sears 1951:1-27). Consistent with previous descriptions, shovel tests and a test unit (Test Unit 18) excavated in this area in the course of previous research revealed higher concentrations of pottery, along with a buried A horizon and a high density of features (Pluckhahn 2003:110-125). Pottery recovered from this area included relatively high proportions of conspicuous Late Woodland types such as Indian Pass Incised, Weeden Island Incised, and Napier Complicated Stamped. With the goal of identifying and excavating a Late Woodland house, our strategy in the excavation of Block D (as with previous block excavations at Kolomoki), was to begin by scattering test units in the general area, before eventually concentrating contiguous units in an area where we judged the potential for household features to be highest, owing to the presence of a buried A horizon and a higher density of features and artifacts. Figure 3-2 shows the locations of excavation units in Block D

Figure 3-1. View to the southwest of the excavation of Block D. 23

D1N D3N D1S D3S D4W D2S D4E D2N

0 2 Meters
D25N D21N D23N D24N D22W D22E D25S D21S D23S D24S D20W D20E

contour interval = 25 cm field season: 2000 2006 2007 2008

D19N D15N D16N D10N D19S D11N D11S D14 D17N D17S D18 D9N D9S D15S D16S D10S

24

D8N D12W D12E D13W D13E D8S D6W D6E D7W D7E

D5W

D5E

18

Figure 3-2. Map of Block D showing unit numbers and year of excavation.

in greater. The map also shows the field seasons in which the test squares were excavated, thus illustrating how work on the block progressed. Including the previously excavated 2-x-2-m Test Unit 18, we completed a total of 52 m2 of excavation in Block D. Of this total, 38 m2 were contiguous 1-x-1 m units that together form a block about 8 m long (north-south) and 6 m wide (east-west). Our desire to expose a wide area of domestic features was hampered by the slow pace of hand excavation and screening of the plow zonenecessary tasks, given that the site is preserved as a state park. The growth of large trees on this portion of the site furthered hindered the expansions of our excavations, and led to the rather irregular shape of the contiguous block. This chapter begins with an overview of the stratigraphy of Block D, then turns to a brief description of the density and distribution of artifacts in excavation units and the implications of these for formation processes. More detailed descriptions of the artifacts and features found in the excavation units are reserved for the chapters that follow.

Stratigraphy
As noted in Chapter 1, soils at Kolomoki are variable, owing primarily to the large size of the site and its position within the Fall Line Hills, a transitional zone between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain (Hodler and Schretter 1986:74; Veatch and Stephenson 1911:29). A long history of intensive agriculture has further confounded the situation, with some portions of the site extensively deflated from years of plowing and erosion. In general, soil profiles on the upland portions of the site are shallow, with a thin and eroded (10-to-20-cm thick) plow zone layer of dark reddish brown sandy loam covering a subsoil consisting of a dark red sandy clay (Pilkinton 1985:37). However, there are areas within the upland portions of the site where the soil profile is deeper, thanks to less extensive plowing, the deposition of colluvium, or some combination of these factors. Sears (1956:8) noted the presence of midden deposits preserved in some of the lower elevations at Kolomoki: The undisturbed units of midden are, seemingly, those which occupied slight hollows in the original surface or were protected by structures. From this point of view, the plow zone is not a midden, although it is at many points rich in artifacts. Figure I [reproduced as Figure 3-3] is an idealized cross section which would apply to almost any of the midden units as we found them. For the sake of emphasis, however, I may repeat that these basin shaped depressions are not structures in any sense of the word, but are the fortuitous results of aggrading activities which have taken place since they were filled. Block D was intentionally positioned to investigate one such buried midden deposit. Indeed, the block may intersect the same, or a related buried midden deposit described by Sears as Unit 4. This unit, somewhere on the same general portion of the site (the unit was not mapped precisely), produced several large pit features and Weeden Island pottery Figure 3-3. Sears (1956:Figure I) depiction of a buried midden horizon at Kolomoki. (Sears 1956:9). Figure 3-4 shows the profiles of the northern (top) and southern (bottom) walls of the core group of contiguous units. Here, the modern topsoil layer or A horizon (Stratum I) appeared as a yellowish red sand loam. This layer was thicker than is typical of upland areas at Kolomoki, extending about 30 cm below the ground surface in the northwestern corner of the block in Unit D25N (Figure 3-3, top and left) and slightly less deep in units downslope to the south and east.

25

N
D25N D21N D23N

0 10 cm

50

D24N I

D22W

D22E

Feature 195

II III (unexcavated)

Feature 194 Feature 193 Feature 205

N 26
D9S D7E D7W

0 10 cm

50

D6E I II

D6W

D8S

Feature 157

Feature 159

Feature 163 Feature 188 Feature 154

III (unexcavated)

Feature 158

I = 5YR4/6 yellowish sand loam II = 5YR3/4 dark yellowish brown sandy loam III = 2.5YR5/6 dark red sandy clay

Figure 3-4. Northern (top) and southern (bottom) profiles of the core group of contiguous excavation units in Block D.

Below the topsoil layer, we encountered a slightly darker horizon (Stratum II), consisting of a dark yellowish brown sandy loam. Although the boundaries between this and Stratum I were diffuse, we generally noted an increase in the quantity of both charcoal and bone flecking. In some areas, Stratum II was also mottled with a dark red dark red sandy claythe same soil type as the underlying subsoil (Stratum III). Stratum II was generally about 10 cm thick in the core block of contiguous units. Stratum II appears similar to the buried middens described by Sears. This layer could represent an unplowed remnant of the A horizon that existed before Euro-American settlement in the area in the 1700s. However, in the course of excavating Stratum II, we noted probable plow scars running northwest-southeast at the intersection with the underlying sand clay subsoil (Stratum III) (Figure 3-5). This is the direction one would expect plow scars to run if the field was plowed parallel with the tree line. This, coupled with the subsoil mottling, suggests that while Stratum II probably represents a remnant of an earlier A horizon, it appears to have been Figure 3-5. Plan view of Unit D9 at base of plowed. Stratum II, showing probable plow scars. The following hypothetical scenario may account for the unusual soil profiles in Block D, and perhaps also for similar profiles encountered by Sears. In the nineteenth century, virtually the entire site was cleared for agriculture. Pockets of forest cover remained only around the steepheads and drainages, as indicated by later aerial photographs and maps (see Pluckhahn 2003:Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3). We may never know precisely how deep the topsoil layer may have been before farming beganas noted above, however, Sears (1956:8) guessed that it was one to three feet thick. Within a few years of the onset of farming, soil likely began eroding down slope from the flat plain west of Mound A which, based on aerial photographs and soil profiles, appears to have been most intensively farmed prior to the creation of the state park. This colluvium settled in low spots (such as those described by Sears) and breaks in slope (such as the area of Block D), burying the original Ap horizon (Stratum II) in these areas. Continued farming plowed this colluvium, as well as the soils that built up naturally over time from the decomposition of organic matter. Soil formation would have been greatest in areas such as Block D along the margins of the field where leaf litter accumulated, resulting in deeper modern topsoil layers (Stratum I). In Units D2, D3, and D4located just to the northwest of the core blockthe soil profile appeared very similar to those of the core block, with a darker buried A horizon (Stratum II) sandwiched between the modern A horizon (Stratum I) and the clay subsoils (Stratum III) (Figure 3-6). Test Unit 18, located about 4 m to the south of the main block, also exhibited these same basic soil horizons (Figure 3-7). Soil profiles were slightly different with increasing distance from the core block of contiguous units. In Unit D1, located about 9 m up slope to the west, the modern A horizon was much thinner, extending only about 20 cm below ground surface (Figure 3-8). The older A horizon was also less substantial, and barely discernible from Stratum I in color and texture. This description is also characteristic of Unit D5, positioned about 13 m to the southeast of the core block (Figure 3-9). Here, the modern topsoil layer measured only about 10-15 cm thick. In both Units D1 and D5, we continued excavation into the underlying red clay subsoil. Excavation was quickly terminated, as no additional strata or features were encountered and artifact counts dropped precipitously. 27

0 10 cm

50

D4W

D3S
I

D3N

II III (unexcavated)

III (excavated) III (unexcavated)

I = 5YR4/6 yellowish sand loam II = 5YR3/4 dark yellowish brown sandy loam III = 2.5YR5/6 dark red sandy clay

Figure 3-6. The West Profile of Units D3 and D4. 28

0 5 cm

20

I II

Disturbance
III (excavated)

Features 38 and 39
III (excavated)

III (unexcavated)

I = 2.5YR2.5/2 very dusky red sand loam II = 5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sandy loam III = 10R3/4 dusky red sandy clay

Figure 3-7. The East Profile of Test Unit 18. 29

0 5 cm

20

I II III

I = 5YR4/6 yellowish red sand loam II = 2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown sand loam III = 2.5YR3/6 dark red sandy clay

Figure 3-8. The West Profile of Unit D1. 30

0 5 cm

20

I II III

I = 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam II = 2.5YR4/4 dark reddish brown sand loam III = 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay

Figure 3-9. The South Profile of Unit D5. 31

Artifacts
A detailed description of the artifact assemblage from Block D is presented in Chapter 5. Here, I focus on patterns in the horizontal distribution of artifacts in excavation unit levels, omitting for the moment artifacts recovered from features. Prehistoric Ceramics The 52 m2 of excavation in Block D (including Test Unit 18) yielded 13,932 sherds (weighing 33,628.69 g) for a mean of around 268 sherds per square meter. Table 3-1 summarizes the pottery from excavation unit levels. Not included in the table, in addition to pottery from features, are sherds from mixed proveniences (such as grab collections) and balk removal, as well as a few pieceplotted sherds. Focusing on the core units and those located nearby, Figure 3-10 demonstrates that the density of pottery was greatest in Test Unit 18, where a large number of residual sherds increased the total considerably. Sherd density was also relatively high in units D2, D3, and D4, to the northwest. Both of these areas are located outside the presumed structure described in the chapter that follows. Within the core group of contiguous units itself, pottery density was highest in three 1-x-1-m units (D15N, D16N, D19N) near the center of the Figure 3-10. The density of pottery in the core presumed structure, adjacent to a feature (Feature units of Block D. 171) that may represent a hearth. Most of the individual pottery types in the Block D assemblage are represented by only a limited numbers of sherds in our excavation levels (far fewer in most units), thus restricting the utility of comparing their spatial distributions. However, there are a few exceptions. Three decorative types (Swift Creek, Carrabelle Punctate, and Weeden Island Red) exhibit more total sherds (>50) and bear closer scrutiny. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped is the most common of the named pottery types identified in Block D. It is also widely distributed, with examples present in the assemblages from every excavated square in the block. Swift Creek sherds are most dense in Test Unit 18, just to the south of the core group of units in Block D (Figure 3-11). They are also common in five of the six units to the northwest. Within the core group of contiguous units, Swift Creek sherds are less dense in 1-x-1-m Figure 3-11. The density of Swift Creek in the squares in the northeast section of the block. core units of Block D.

32

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

1 2 D1N 3 4

32 79 41 8

21 46 23 2 92 41 31 21 7 9 8 7 7 5 27 2 4 5 4 5

1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1

132 73 11 1 1 272 116 87 90 23

Total 160 1 2 D1S 3 4 65 47 60 11

Total 183 100 1 2 D2N 3 4 31 102 62 8 20 53 44 4

3 1 1

316 55 162 2 115 13 3 345 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 151 152 62 425 126 3 1 144 157 44

2 1

1 1 1

Total 203 121 1 2 D2S 3 4 35 81 85 29 22 58 54 26 1 1

11 1 3 5 1 10 7 5 6 1 19 2 5 1 1 9 1 1 6

2 1 1

4 1 5

2 1 2 1 1 1 2

4 3 13

Total 230 160 1 2 D3N 3 4 82 84 81 30 36 46 65 13

2 2 1 1

1 1

Total 277 160 1 2 D3S 3 4 67 119 111 76 23 63 48 26

2 1

3 2 5

471 95 197

2 1

2 2 1 3 2

163 19 564 13

3 6 4

Total 373 160 1 D4E 2 3 8 36 78 4 13 37

1 1 1 3 3

129

33

Total 56 51

Unit

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

D4E

121

46

4 12 1 3 1

1 3 1

2 2 1

5 8

1 1

1 4 1 3

181 374 24 8 138

Total 243 100 1 2 17 55 103 31 4 19 30 8 61 7 29 26 62 38 53 91 6 26 29 61 17 11 28 17 22 15 54 7 21 17 45

D4W

3 4

1 1

Total 206 1 D5E 2 3 19 98 97

5 1 2 3 6 2 1 3

282 27

2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1

134 130 291 89 171 260 19

Total 214 1 D5W 2 45 110

2 1 1 2 1 1

3 1 4 5

Total 155 1 D6E 2 3 13 38 63

1 1

Total 114 1 D6W 2 Total 1 D7E 2 3 18 77 95 28 34 41

6 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 5 5 2 12 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

185 38

1 1 1 1

132 48 57

3 4 1 1

1 1 1 1

Total 103 1 D7W 2 3 27 38 51

166 41 66 75 2 182 10

2 3 1

Total 116 1 D8N 2 3 9 47 68

25 18 43

3 1 4

1 1

Total 124

176

34

Total 40 73 93 94 61 78 88

Unit

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped 2 2

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

1 D8S 2 3

11 64 91

9 15 24 48 11 29 22 62 9 18 8

3 3 9 15 1 1

1 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 1

131 239 35 118 89 242 29

Total 166 1 D9N 2 3 23 85 59

1 3 4 2 2 4 8 2 4 6

1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Total 167 1 D9S 2 3 18 68 72

1 1 2 3 1 1

158 1 2 2 1 4 2 278 127 113 4 1 2 3 2 240 109 135 244 87 1 1 3 5 2 1 4 108 99 294 51 1 84 73 1 208 5 60 95 160 1 35 64 4 96

Total 158 107 1 D10N 2 79 62 35 45 8 33 31 64 2 26 33 79 2 22 23 65

Total 141 1 D10S 2 71 98

3 1

4 3 2 1 5 2

1 1 5 1 4 19 6 4 1 11

1 1

Total 169 1 D11N 2 3 6 66 58

1 1 2

Total 184 1 D11S 2 3 23 55 48

1 1

Total 126 1 D12E 2 3 Total 1 D12W 2 3 4 32 59 95 22 36 54

4 1

19 23 42 12 21 35

8 5 13 2 2 1 1

1 5 7

6 3

35

Total 24 84 91

Unit

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

D12W Total 112 1 D13E 2 7 48

68 32 32 64 4 44 84 9 9 19 27 64 65 24 6 95 26 23 12 61 5 32 82 36 37 73 31 28 14 73 37 22 13 1 1

9 1 2 12 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3

4 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 8 1 1 3 2 4 6 3

195 118 88 206 105 136 241 33

Total 118 1 D13W 2 51 77

Total 128 1 2 D14 3 4 24 28 38 44

3 2 2 7 5 2 1 8 1

1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 4

Total 134 1 D15N 2 3 193 46 8

215 268 75 15

Total 247 1 D15S 2 3 48 86 2

1 1 1

2 1 2 1

1 1 1

358 78 113 35

1 2 4 3 7 4 5 9 6 1 1 8 9 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

1 1 1 4 2 6 1 1

Total 154 1 D16N 2 113 82

3 1 5 6 1 4 5

226 175 126 301 137

Total 195 1 D16S 2 95 69

6 6 1

122 259 70 79

Total 164 1 D17N 2 3 Total 1 D17S 2 3 3 49 2 99 37 3 35

4 4 1 1

188 84 25

36

Total 41 65 76 39 52

Unit

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped 2 2

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

D17S Total 1 D18 2 Total 1 D19N 2

75 64 24 88 107 91

72 41 17 58 55 64

1 2 1 2 5 3 8 4 1 5 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

3 2

1 1

161 112 43

2 2 4 6 1 2 3

1 1 3 1 3 1 1

155 171 166 337 94

Total 198 119 1 D19S 2 61 98 28 7 98 22 48 12 82 1 21 6 37 15 34 24 73 34 16 35 85 34 19 53 38 24 62 24

1 1 1

174 268 67 151 24

Total 159 1 D20E 2 3 Total 1 D20W 2 3 4 91 9 14 54 53 1

5 2

3 3 3

242 72 79 17

1 2 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 3 5 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 3 4 4 1 1 4 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 4

Total 117 1 D21N 2 3 Total 1 D21S 2 3 26 51 11 88 37 71 33

168 42 92 38 172 79 90 73 242 144 112 256 135 95 230 62

Total 141 1 D22E 2 103 86 189 1 D22W 2 87 62

Total 149 D23N 1 36

37

Total

Unit

Table 3-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Unit Levels.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Lamar Comp Stamped

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

Other Woodland

WI Red Filmed

plain limestone

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

St Johns Plain

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Lamar Plain

Swift Creek

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Napier

Level

2 D23N 3

106 9

44 7 75 13 39 25 77 13 31 21 65 11 23 33 67 62 33 13

3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 2

157 20 239 52

Total 151 1 D23S 2 3 Total 1 D24N 2 3 35 89 26 15 47 105 63

2 1 2

1 2 3 1

131 58 241 65 2 145 91 301 49

1 3 3 1 1

1 1 1 4 1

3 6

2 3 5 2 3

1 3

Total 215 1 D24S 2 3 37 7 96

4 1 1 3 5 5 4 1 1

3 1

105 134

Total 203 1 D25N 2 3 5 55 24

4 4 1 1

2 2

3 3

288 126 93

1 2 4

Total 129 108 1 D25S 2 3 Total 1 2 18 3 4 11 44 41 96 29 31 26 86

9 1 2 3 6 28 2 11 9 68 1 3 6 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

6 1

258 42

1 2 3 5 6 1 1 1

199 570 1 548 417

343 183 33 185 267 134 39 37

1 12 2 1

Total 979 539

1621

38

Total 39 83 74 86

Unit

Weeden Island Red displays some similarities to Swift Creek in its distribution (Figure 3-12). As with Swift Creek, concentrations are apparent in Test Unit 18 and several of the 1-x-1-m squares to the northwest of the core block. However, in contrast with Swift Creek, Weeden Island Red pottery is more evenly distributed in squares in the central northeastern portion of the core block, within the presumed structure described below. Several of the other types of the Weeden Island seriesparticularly Weeden Island Incised, Carrabelle Incised, and Tucker Ridge Pinchedalso display slightly higher densities in units in this portion of the block. This pattern could have functional significance. As described in more detail in Chapter 5, Weeden Island Red is more strongly associated with bowls, and serving vessels such as these might be expected to concentrate within the Figure 3-12. The density of Weeden Island structure. Red in the core units in Block D. Carrabelle Punctate is the third most common formal type in the ceramic assemblage from excavation unit levels. As indicated in Figure 3-13, sherds of this type exhibit only marginal clustering in excavation units in the core block. Specifically, slight concentrations are apparent in four units scattered between the extreme north, north-central, and extreme southwest. Outside the core block, there are slight concentrations of Carrabelle sherds in two units to the northwest and in Test Unit 18 to the south. The wide, yet infrequent, distribution of Carrabelle Punctate sherds is consistent with the hypothesis that this pottery type occurs in small quantities throughout much of the occupation at Kolomoki, as Pluckhahn has elsewhere suggested 2003:Table 2.2, 95). Figure 3-13. The density of Carrabelle Punctate in the core units in Block D. We recovered only 16 sherds of Lamar pottery from excavation unit levels, including 12 Lamar Plain and four Lamar Complicated Stamped. Lamar Pottery clusters primarily in 1-x-1-m units in the northern portion of the core block and in two of the six 1-x-1m units to the northwest (Figure 3-14). Sears recovered a relatively larger amount of Lamar pottery from his Unit 1, which appears to have been located a short distance downslope to the east of Block D, closer to the creek (Pluckhahn 2003: 74-77; Sears 1951). Thus, a light scatter of Lamar pottery in Block D is not surprising. Overall, the limited quantity of Lamar pottery from Block D and elsewhere at Kolomoki is consistent with Searss (1951:4) observation that this component represents only a small group, occupying a limited area for a short period. Figure 3-14. The density of Lamar in the core units in Block D. 39

Prehistoric Flaked Stone We recovered 3892 pieces of flaked stone weighing a collective 8584.3 g from the 52 m2 of excavation in Block D (including Test Unit 18). This yields a mean density of around 75 (or about 165 g) flaked stone artifacts per square meter. Table 3-2 summarizes the flaked stone from excavation unit levels. As with the pottery summary table (Table 3-1) this does not include artifacts from features, mixed proveniences (such as grab collections), or balk removal. The density of flaked stone was remarkably even throughout the core block, with slightly higher densities in the isolated units to the northwest and south (Figure 3-15). As noted in the chapter that follows, we identified a possible structure in the core block; the relative lack of lithics in this area could indicate that tool maintenance and manufacture were deliberately undertaken outside the structure, or that the Figure 3-15. The density of flaked stone in structure was periodically swept clean. the core units of Block D. The flake stone assemblage from excavation unit levels is comprised principally of Coastal Plain cherts (N=2787, or 71.61 percent). Not surprisingly, the distribution of Coastal Plain chert artifacts largely mirrors that of flaked stone in general. Quartz is next in frequency (N=954, or 24.51 percent), and also follows the same general spatial pattern. More interesting is the distribution of quartzite/sandstone (N=148, or 3.80 percent) (Figure 3-16). In contrast with Coastal Plain chert and quartz, artifacts of this material are better represented within the core block, perhaps indicative of manufacture or maintenance of tools within the presumed structure. Only a small quantity of Ridge and Valley chert artifacts (N=5, or 0.13 percent) were recovered from excavation unit levels in Block D; thus, a comparison of the spatial distribution of this raw material type would be of very limited utility.

Figure 3-16. The density of quartzite/sandstone in the core units of Block D.

40

Table 3-2. Flaked Stone from Unit Levels.

Unit Level shatter/chunk quartz core/coretool quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk RV chert Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

biface 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 2

1 D1N 2 3 4 Total 1 D1S 2 3 4 Total 1 D2N 2 3 4 Total 1 D2S 2 3 4 Total 1 D3N 2 3 4 Total 1 D3S 2 3 4 Total 1 D4E 2 3 4 Total 1 D4W 2 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 3

2 12

5 16 2

4 6 1 1

1 3 3

1 5 4

2 1 7 6

14 3 5 4

23 2 3 6 1

11 6 3 6 1 16 1 3 1 1

1 3

7 2 1 2

1 2 4 2

25 5 7 13 4 1

12 1 2 1

12 1 1 3

8 1

29 5 23 31 1

2 2 7

2 7

14 2

5 3 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4

2 1 1 3

6 6

2 107 13 34 54 23 1 124 21 30 37 8 96 26 61 67 31 1 185 3 7 1 46 51

2 5

4 2 2

6 2 5

4 5 3 12 4 5 1

13 25 12 56 9 8 19 7

1 2

5 1 2 1

13 3 4 5

2 3

1 5 7 5 6 2 1 14 9 3 8 1 2 23 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 12 1 1 2 5 1 2

43 12 37 49 24

1 122 1 1 2 3 13 17 1 26 24 53 1

1 3 1 1 3 3

3 9 5 17 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 4 7

3 107 2

5 4 1

4 5 1 1

2 1 1 1

11 13 1 1

41

Total 17 57 19 6 99 23 24 33 6 86 10 42 54 1 26 28 15

Table 3-2. Flaked Stone from Unit Levels.

Unit Level shatter/chunk quartz core/coretool quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk RV chert Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

biface 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

D4W Total 1 D5E 2 3 Total 1 D5W 2 Total 1 D6E 2 3 Total 1 D6W 2 Total 1 D7E 2 3 Total 1 D7W 2 3 Total 1 D8N 2 3 Total 1 D8S 2 3 Total 1 D9N 2 3 Total 1 D9S 2 3 Total

2 1

11

9 2

31

2 1

1 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 4 3 6 9

1 7 17 1 19 29 1

1 4 2 6 1

3 2 3 5

1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2

2 1 3

5 2 7

1 1 1 1

1 2

4 5 9

7 13 2

2 2

4 4 3 5 1

1 1 2 1 1 4 4 3 1 8 1 1 1 1

2 4 1 2 1 4 5 3 1 1 1 5 4 1 1

1 1 4 2

11 11 4 9 14 1 1

9 1 1

6 2 5 2 9

27 8 1 23 41

1 1

1 1

2 4 1

3 1

1 2

2 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 8 14 2 2 4 2 1 4 4 4 1 2 9 1 1 1 13 24 2

3 3 6

1 11 21 1

1 5 6 1 2

3 3 6

2 3 5 1 5

7 4 11

8 15 24 5 2 14 39 3 1 1

2 3 2

4 1

3 1 1 1 4

3 2 5

6 2 8

2 2 4

14 14 31 1 1

42

Total 71 4 14 17 35 24 31 55 1 22 27 50 4 21 25 19 25 22 66 18 24 36 78 1 24 19 44 3 27 42 72 10 34 28 72 6 37 37 80

Table 3-2. Flaked Stone from Unit Levels.

Unit Level shatter/chunk quartz core/coretool quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk RV chert Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

biface 1 1 2 1 1 3 3

1 D10N 2 Total 1 D10S 2 Total 1 D11N 2 3 4 Total 1 D11S 2 3 Total 1 D12E 2 3 Total 1 D12W 2 3 Total 1 D13E 2 Total 1 D13W 2 Total 1 D14 2 3 4 Total 1 D15N 2 3 Total D15S 1

1 1 2 1

2 3 3 3 4 3 7 3 3 4 1 2 2 1 1

2 2

2 1

5 7 12 9

6 2 8 3 6 9 2 5 2

11 12 23 6 26 32 5 4 15 1 1 1

2 1

5 1 2

1 1

3 12 2

3 3

1 1

1 1 1 4

8 7

1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 5 6 6 3 12

1 11 1 1 1 5 17 2 5 2 7 1 2 3 2 2 6 8 16 9 1 3 4 8

25 2 7 18 27 1

1 2 3

1 3 4 1 1

3 2 5 1 2 3 6 3 5 8 3 4 7

4 3 7 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1

2 1 12

5 4 9

8 13 22

2 1 3 3 1 4 4 2 6 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4

3 7 1 4 3 7 8 3 11 2

1 5 6 1 2 3 6 2 8 1

11 16 27 11 12 23 11 25 36 1 4 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 1

2 4 4 2 6 3 3

6 1 2

1 5 2

1 7 1 1 2 8 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 6

1 6 4 13 12 4 2 6 18 3 14 2 3 2 6 9 5

11 4 2 16 4 3 23 8

3 4

8 5 2

7 1

43

Total 33 32 65 26 44 70 15 26 36 3 80 8 30 45 83 1 24 44 69 2 21 38 61 31 27 58 40 46 86 5 9 35 16 65 56 17 6 79 14

Table 3-2. Flaked Stone from Unit Levels.

Unit Level shatter/chunk quartz core/coretool quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk RV chert Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

biface 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 D15S 3 Total 1 D16N 2 Total 1 D16S 2 Total 1 D17N 2 3 Total 1 D17S 2 3 Total 1 D18 2 Total 1 D19N 2 Total 1 D19S 2 Total 1 D20E 2 3 Total 1 D20W 2 3 Total 1 D21N 2 3 Total D21S 1

2 1 1 2 6 5 11 6 5 11 1

2 2 4 3 1 4 3 4 7 5 2 1 1 3 1 6 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 2

5 5 13 7 6 8

16 4 28 18 8 8 1 7 8 2 9 2 13 12 3 9 17 26 19 1 6 35 8 3 5 8 2 5 1 23 5 7 2 5 8 13 2 8 1 7 5 6 18 4 2 12 13 33 46 4 2 24 5 13 1 19 11 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

3 3 3 6 1

2 2 1

2 9 5 9

1 1 1

3 4 2 1

14 7

2 1 3 1

6 5 18 2 4

3 4

3 4 3 1

3 9 3 3 6 6

4 1 4 1 1 5 1 5 4 1 1 3 4 1 2 9 1 4 5 1 1

7 1 2 3 5 1 6 3 1 4 2 1 1

1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5

1 1

9 15 4

1 100 16 51 67 25 28 12 65 26 26 2 1 54 8 24 20 52 16

2 2 2 1 1

1 14 6 2 2 1 3 2

3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1

2 4 1

4 2

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3

6 3

26 2 13 4 19 3

1 3 4 2

3 6 9 1 6

5 1 9 1

44

Total 28 21 63 38 33 71 29 46 75 17 30 19 88 22 14 25 61 21 14 35 39 61

Table 3-2. Flaked Stone from Unit Levels.

Unit Level shatter/chunk quartz core/coretool quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk RV chert Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

biface 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1

2 D21S 3 Total 1 D22E 2 Total 1 D22W 2 Total 1 D23N 2 3 Total 1 D23S 2 3 Total 1 D24N 2 3 Total 1 D24S 2 3 Total 1 D25N 2 3 Total 1 D25S 2 3 Total 1 18 2 3 4 Total 2 2 6 4 2 1 1 1 1

2 3 1 1 1 1

1 7 8 2 1 1 1 3 1 1

1 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3

1 4 11 6 5 11 5

2 6 9 6 9 15 1 5 15

1 14 27 16 16 32 2 2

3 2

3 3 1

6 1 2 3 4 3

2 3

4 5

1 1 1 1

1 1

7 12 3

16 16 9

3 2 3

5 3 3

2 2

1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1

4 3

17 2 28 2 6 9 17 6 12 1 28 2 5 19 26 11 16 8 1 1 1 1

5 1 2

6 2 4

4 3 2

7 3

1 1 2 2

4 2 6 6 5 1 12

5 1 9 2 3 1 6 1

6 1 4

5 1 4

2 2

1 1 1

4 9 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 1

2 6 1 1 2 8 7 1 1 9 1 2 5 8 2 25 15 2 62

5 4 1 5 2

6 7 3 2 2 7 3 4 1 8 6 6 5

2 2 4 2 2 8 2 5

5 9 3 5 2 1 4 1 1

2 2

1 1

1 4 2

7 1 2 9 12 17 2 12 1

35 7 4 7 18 51 62 74 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

3 4

7 13 7 8 1

6 14 1 6 2 32 3 1 2 1 1

1 2 1 3 4 3 1 3 11

9 3 2 5 2 12

6 140 3 144 130 14 9 428

17

29

5 191

45

Total 20 47 83 44 36 80 28 33 61 18 39 8 65 12 26 18 56 19 34 20 73 6 19 44 69 38 32 19 89 20 22 28 70

Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts Excavation of the 52 1-x-1-m units in Block D produced a variety of other prehistoric artifacts, in addition to pottery and flaked stone (Table 3-3). I describe these in greater detail in Chapter 5, with the focus here on distributional patterns in a few of the more prevalent artifact classes. Most prevalent is FCR, with a total of 142 fragments weighing 5,398.6 g in the excavation unit levels in Block D. As indicated in Figure 3-17, several areas of concentration in the distribution of FCR are apparent within the core block. Two of these correspond closely with the locations of features that may have functioned for cooking, as described in the chapter that follows. It should be noted, however, that FCR is difficult to differentiate from naturally-occurring rock at Kolomoki, and the data here no doubt reflect some subjectivity in collection. Figure 3-17. The density of FCR in the core units of Block D. We recovered a modest quantity of groundstone from excavation unit levels (N=8, weighing 695.7 g), and all of these artifacts are fragmentary. Nevertheless, the distribution of groundstone in excavation unit levels (Figure 3-18) is intriguing relative to the possible structural pattern and inferred feature functions described in the chapter that follows. Artifacts of this type were restricted to units within the presumed structure. In addition, as with FCR, the occurrence of groundstone artifacts corresponds closely with several features that may be associated with cooking and food processing. Most of the groundstone consists of igneous rocks such as greenstone and granite that are uncommon in the Coastal Plain, making the identification of this class of artifacts less subjective than for FCR. Nevertheless, some locally Figure 3-18. The density of groundstone in occurring sandstones are also present in the the core units of Block D. groundstone category. Another prominent category of miscellaneous prehistoric artifacts from our excavation unit levels consists of quartz pebbles (N=28, 497.0 g). As described in more detail in Chapter 5, these are small, water-worn rocks of clear or, less commonly, milky quartz of the same type as much of the quartz debitage. However, these pebbles are generally unworked, although a few are simply broken. They may be raw material that was stored for later flaked stone tool production. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, they may have been used for other purposes, although none are extensively battered, cracked, or fire-reddened. We also recovered one quartz crystal (3.5 g). A variety of other artifacts, presumably associated with the prehistoric occupation of the Block D area, were recovered from excavation unit levels. These include: mica (6.8 g); pecked stone (N=4, 2804.9 g); fired clay (N=4, 47.7 g); possible pigment stone (N=2, 5.0 g); and possible worked sandstone (N=2, 2514 g). 46

Table 3-3. Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts from Unit Levels.

possible pigment stone g N g 3.5 1 1 19 4.2

sandstone ball

quartz pebble

Unit D1N D1N D1S D1S D2N D2N D2S D3N D3N D3N D3S D3S D4E D4W D4W D5E D5E D5W D5W D6E D6E D7E D7E D7W D7W D8S D9S D10N D10N D11N D11N D11S D12E D12E D12W D12W D12W D13E D13E D13W D13W D14 D14

Level g 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1

g 2 46.8 1 7.1

1 24.6 1 1 236 1 18.6 1 1 4.5 1 107.8 1 2 1 122.4 2 114.8 8 95.5 1 32.2 1 18.2 1 3 30.6 1 61.1 2 235 1 1 134.1 3 19.1 11 219.2 1 8.8 9.3 1 17.1 2 238 1 23.2 1 1 4 6.8 1 64.7 34 1 24.3 1 1 1 28 6.7 3.4 1 10.3 1 248.8 3.7

1 17.5 11 67.5 1 41.5 9 257.8 3 308 2 342.6 1 155.7 1 115.8 4 53.5 1 14.8

47

quartz crystal

pecked stone

groundstone

limestone

fired clay

FCR

mica

Table 3-3. Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts from Unit Levels.

possible pigment stone g N g 1 1 1 1 44 1 146 1 9 3 3 3 481 167 51 1 3 1 0.8

sandstone ball

quartz pebble

Unit D14 D15N D15N D15S D15S D15S D16N D16N D16S D16S D17N D17S D17S D18 D18 D19N D19S D20E D20E D20W D21N D21N D22E D22E D22W D23S D23S D24S D24N D25N D25N D25S D25S D25S 18 18 18

Level g 4 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 0.1 2.6

N 1

g 5

g 6 38.6 1 37.4 1 11.2 2 212

N 1

g 8.2

1 1 18.2 3 1 199.7 1 138.5 3 17.8 3 49.5 1 95.8 2 61.7 6 49.4 5 41.9 1 5.5 1 57 3 81.7

21

2.1

3 24.8 1 24.1

1 127.3 1 33.1 2 333.8 1 25.1 2 13.4 1 0.6 7 21.7 1 1 8 1 59.3 1 14.8 2 1 2495 2 112.4 1 16.4 3 17 1 49.3 1.5 1 2495 1 96.5 9.7 1 11.5

48

quartz crystal

pecked stone

groundstone

limestone

fired clay

FCR

mica

Historic Artifacts The Block D excavations produced an assemblage of historic artifacts that is surprisingly large and diverse for Kolomoki, albeit modest for most historic sites (Table 3-4). The majority of these artifacts were found in the first two excavation levels, corresponding to the modern plowzone and colluvium, as described above. There is no apparent clustering in the distribution of historic materials (Figure 3-19). Bottle glass makes up the majority of the historic artifact assemblage, and most of this is olive or dark green (N=6, 7.5 g). Only a few sherds of amber (N=2, 1.5 g) and clear (N=1, 0.8 g) glass were recovered. Nails in the Block D assemblage include Figure 3-19. The density of historic artifacts examples of both the cut (N=2, 4.0 g) and wire in the core units in Block D. (N=1, 0.6 g) varieties. We also recovered a small quantity of metal wire (N=2, 4.6 g) (perhaps from a fence) and a small section of metal pipe (N=1, 47.7 g). More interestingly, we recovered several artifacts relating to firearms. These include one percussion cap (1.0 g) and two pieces (9.4 g) of lead waste or sprue. The latter was likely a byproduct of the manufacture of lead shot, produced either when excess lead was trimmed from the edge of a bullet mold or when lead dripped as it was poured into the mold (Blakney-Bailey 2008:177). Lead waste is commonly found on historic sites (particularly historic-era Indian sites) from the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century (Blakney-Bailey 2008:178; Fairbanks 1962:54). Its occurrence in Block D, coupled with the olive bottle glass, suggests the presence of an early historic settlement on this portion of the site, associated either with Creek Indians or Americans of African or European descent. Table 3-4 Historic Artifacts from Unit Levels.
Unit 18 18 D1N D8S D11N D11S D12W D12W D16N D18 D20E D22W D22E D25N D25S olive bottle glass N g Level 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 0.8 0.6 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2.2 2.3 1.8 1 0.5 1 47.7 2 4.6 1 0.8 1 3.4 amber bottle clear bottle glass glass N g N g 1 1 1 0.6 2 4 N

wire nail g

cut nail N g

metal wire N g

metal pipe N g

percussion cap N g 1 1

lead sprue N g

49

50

Chapter 4: Features
Thomas J. Pluckhahn Excavation of Block D (including Test Unit 18) resulted in the identification of 87 features (Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3), for a density of approximately 1.7 features/m2. Put in other terms, the 87 features had a combined area of 19.6 m2; thus, features comprised a considerable 37.7 percent of the 52 m2 of excavated area in the block. This is a high density of features by almost any standard. Feature density was highest in the core block, the six 1-x-1-m units to the northwest, and Test Unit 18 (see Figure 4-3). Outlying units in Block D produced only one feature (Feature 140, a post mold or small pit in Unit D1Nsee Figure 4-2). Another measure of the prevalence of features is volume. The 87 features in Block D had a combined volume of roughly 5449.7 liters. This is equivalent to about 5.5 m3 or 194.2 ft3. As described in more detail below and in Chapter 7, these figures demonstrate a considerable increase in storage associated with the late/terminal Late Woodland Block D occupations vis-a-viz the earlier Woodland component represented in Block A. This chapter provides a description of the features in Block D. As with the discussion of excavation units in the previous chapter, we defer a more detailed description of the artifact and ecofact assemblages from features to Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.

Figure 4-1. Excavation of features in Block D, view to the northwest. 51


140 0 1 2 meters post or small pit feature larger pit feature

52
see Figure 4-3 for detail on the core block

Figure 4-2. Features in Block D.

143 142 144 141C 141A 141B 145 209 203 197 208 174 178 179 171 185 190 167 175 164 166 149 154 169 163B 188 163A 159 180 177 155 183 186 151 176 189 181 146 153B 153A 157B 157A 150 198 195 196 199 191A 193 200 201 194 204 191B 202 165 207 206 192 205

147B 147B

182 170B 170A 168 160

156

172 173 184 148 161

158

1 meters

37 35 36 34B 33 41

post or small pit feature larger pit feature

34A 40 39 38

Figure 4-3. Closer view of features in the core area of Block D. 53

Our discussion is structured around two basic types of features, as defined on the 30 basis of surface area (Figure 4-4). Larger 25 features, probably representing large storage 20 pits or cooking facilities, measure greater than 2 0.21 m in area. Smaller features, probably 15 representing post molds or smaller storage 10 pits, measure less than 0.14 m2. Of course, 5 this rule of thumb can not be applied directly 0 to features that extend beyond the limits of 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 our excavation, which were classified Area (square meters) according to their presumed full size based on the observed dimensions and shape in our Figure 4-4. Histogram of feature area. excavation area.

2.00

Smaller Features: Post Molds and Small Pits

Smaller features representing post molds or small pits (Figure 4-5) were the more common of the two basic feature types in Block D, with 48 examples identified. Table 4-1 presents summary data for these features. As noted above, this class of features was defined as having surface areas less than 0.14 m2. We noted surface areas in the range of 0.01 to 0.14 m2, with a mean of 0.05 m2. For a typical circular post mold, this mean equates to a feature with a diameter of about 22 cm. Profile drawings of post and small pit features are provided in Figure 4-6. As the profile drawings indicate, most of the smaller features are relatively shallow, with walls that are either straight-sided or basin-shaped. Depths ranged from 4 to 50 cm below the depth of plan view, with a mean of 17.1 cm.

Figure 4-5. Excavation of a post mold/small pit (Feature 151), view to the west.

54

Table 4-1. Summary Data for Post Molds and Small Pit Features.
Feature 34B 36 39 40 140 144 145 148 149 150 151 153B 160 161 163B 164 166 167 168 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 186 187 188 189 190 191B 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 204 206 207 208 209 Max Depth (cm) 15 8 32 22 14 40 30 50 10 12 16 20 13 12 20 25 10 45 9 8 4 25 15 25 20 13 7 25 7 35 15 25 8 15 25 8 5 5 15 12 9 8 17 15 11 26 10 5 Area (m2) 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.01

Volume Soil Description (liters) 5.00 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay 4.10 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam with charcoal 10.30 2.5YR3/2 dusky red sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay 2.10 2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sandy clay 5.70 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 12.40 10YR4/6 dark yellowish brown sand loam 13.90 2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 18.90 5YR2.5/2 dark brown sandy clay 3.50 10YR3/1 dark brown sandy clay 5.80 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.70 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 3.60 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 3.50 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.80 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 3.40 5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 14.40 2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sand loam 1.40 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 13.40 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.40 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 0.20 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 0.90 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 3.50 5YR3/1 very dark grey sand loam 3.10 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 7.10 2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 7.50 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.20 2.5YR2.5/1 reddish black sand loam 2.40 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.40 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.70 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.70 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.90 2.5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.00 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.40 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 4.40 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown silt loam 14.40 7.5YR2.5/3 and 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.70 7.5YR3/4 dark brown sand loam 2.10 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.30 5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 4.60 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.40 2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 6.50 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.10 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 21.20 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5.20 2.5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.90 2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sand loam 15.50 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 1.30 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 0.30 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

55

Feature 34B N

Feature 36 N

Feature 39 N

Feature 40 N
F38

Feature 140 N

Feature 144 N

Feature 145 N
B (SE corner XUD4)

Feature 148 N

Feature 149 N

Feature 150 N

Feature 151 N
0 5 cm 20

Feature 160 N

Feature 161 N

Feature 164 N

56 Feature 166 N Feature 167 N Feature 168 N Feature 172 N Feature 173 N Feature 177 N Feature 178 N Figure 4-6. Profiles of postmolds and small pit features.

Feature 179 N

Feature 180 N

Feature 181 N

Feature 182 N

Feature 183 N

Feature 184 N

Feature 186 N

Feature 187 N

Feature 188 N

Feature 189 N

Feature 190 N

Feature 191b N
0 5 cm 20

Feature 195 Feature 196 Feature 197 Feature 198 N N N N

Feature 199 N

57 Feature 200 N Feature 201 N Feature 202 N Feature 204 N Feature 206 N Feature 207 N Feature 208 N Feature 209 N Figure 4-6. Profiles of postmolds and small pit features (continued).

Possible patterning is apparent in the distribution of small features in the core area of Block D (Figure 4-7). In the initial stages of block excavation, we noted an arc of post features in excavation units forming the southern half of the core block. The block was expanded north to follow this arcing pattern. Although the pattern is less definitive in the northern end of the core block, the overall distribution of small features suggests the presence of an oval structure of single set posts measuring about 7.3 m long and 5.2 m wide. This is consistent with the size of structures identified on several Late Woodland sites elsewhere in the region (Mickwee 2009; Milanich 1974), as described in greater detail in Chapter 7. Several other lines of evidence support the interpretation of a structure in Block D. First, there is a regularity to the spacing of smaller features, particularly in the southern portion of the core block. Beginning with Feature 150 along the eastern edge of the block, probable post features are distributed every 1.0 to 1.7 m in an arc extending first southwest to Features 153B, 151, and 149, then northwest to Features 148/184 (a possible double post) and 160, and then northeast to Features 168 and 182. As noted above, the pattern is less apparent in the northern half of the block, but even here an equivalent 1 to 1.7 m interval spacing is evident on the northwestern edge of the presumed structure between Feature 198 and Features 196 and 200. Additional smaller features between these could represent intermediate support posts in the exterior wall. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, there is some suggestion of rebuilding in the southern part of the core block, as evidenced by the presence of several post holes in the immediate interior of the structural pattern noted above. In addition to the relatively even horizontal spacing of post features, there is also some regularity to the distribution of posts relative to their depth. We noted above the range of depths in small features; using the Natural Breaks algorithm in ArcGIS, the smaller features in Block D can be divided into two classes based on their depth below plan view: one class with depths between 4 and 20 cm and the second with depths between 22 and 50 cm. As indicted in Figure 4-8, these two classes do not appear to be randomly distributed across the core block; deeper posts are more common in the interior of the structure, while all of the posts defining the exterior wall of the presumed structure are shallower. In addition, four of the eight posts in the deeper class (Features 191B, 207, 183, and 164) are distributed at strategic points inside of the presumed structure, where interior support posts might be expected. Deeper holes might be expected for interior support posts, which would have borne more weight of the roof. Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 document the prehistoric ceramics, flaked stone, and miscellaneous artifacts (respectively) from post and small pit features in Block D. Artifact distribution in smaller features also offers some support for the hypothesized structural pattern, in the form of a discrepancy relative to the position of features with respect to the structure. The density of artifacts in smaller features was generally light: sherd density ranged from 0 to 8.8 g of pottery/liter with a mean of 1.3, while the density of flaked stone ranged from 0 to 2.9 flaked stone artifacts (n)/liter with a mean of 0.3. In general, however, smaller features within the possible structure exhibited high artifact densities than those outside the structure. As an example, Figure 4-9 documents the density of flaked stone in post and small pit features. All of the smaller features with higher artifacts density are located within or on the edge of the hypothesized structure. The pattern is almost identical for the density of sherds in small features. The reasons for this pattern are not clear, but it seems reasonable to suggest that it could relate to the accumulation of debris on interior floors, especially around interior posts and along the edges of the structure.

58

200 196 198 206

outline of possible structure 182 164

168 160 184 148 149 150 153B 151

0 1 meters 2

post or small pit feature larger pit feature

Figure 4-7. Outline of possible structure in Block D. Postmolds and small pit features mentioned in the text are numbered. 59

191B

207

outline of possible structure

164 183

0 1 meters 2

depth of smaller features (cm below plan view):

4.0 - 20.0 22.0 - 50.0 larger pit feature

Figure 4-8. Depth of postmolds and small pit features in Block D. Features mentioned in the text are numbered. 60

34B 36 39 40 140 144 145 148 149 150 151 153B 160 161 163B 164 166 167 168 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 186 187 188 189 190 191B 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 204 205 206 207 208 209 Feature residual 3 2 2 2 3 5 7 4 4 2 plain sand 1 7 1 1 2 1 3 2 7 2 1 1 6 1 3 2 Swift Creek 1 1 2 1 1 1 Napier Carrabelle Incised Carrabelle Punctate 1 Indian Pass Incised Mound Field Net Marked 1 Keith Incised 1 West Florida Cord Marked Tucker Ridge Pinched WI Incised WI Red Filmed 1 1 1 1 St Andrews Wakulla Check Stamped Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct Weeden Island Zoned Red UID Incised UID Stamped 1 UID Punctate Weeden Island Zoned Red Other Total 11 8 1 4 3 2 1 1 1

3 1 1

1 1

Table 4-2. Prehistoric Ceramics from Post Molds and Small Pit Features.

61

1 1

0 5 10 4 0 1 6 0 2 13 6 0 2 0 0 7 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 1 4 5 1 4 1 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 6 0 15 0 0

Table 4-3. Flaked Stone from Post Molds and Small Pit Features.
Feature quartz quartzite core/core tool shatter/chunk shatter/chunk core/coretool secondary secondary secondary flake tool flake tool

Coast Plain chert core/core tool shatter/chunk flake tool

Total

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

34B 36 39 40 140 144 145 148 149 150 151 153B 160 161 163B 164 166 167 168 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 186 187 188 189 190 191B 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 204 206 207 208 209 1 1 5 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 11 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

biface

0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 17 5 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 6 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 15 1 0 1 0 0

62

Table 4-4. Miscellaneous Artifacts from Post Molds and Small Pit Features.
possible pigment stone ceramic pipe bowl

sandstone ball

quartz pebble

quartz crystal

pecked stone

groundstone

Feature 34B 36 39 40 140 144 145 148 149 150 151 160 161 163B 164 166 167 168 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 186 187 188 189 190 191B 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 204 206 207 208 209

g 1 1

chert cobble g

limestone

2 321 0.1

86

3 236 1 23 1 5

1 2

16 17

17

1 188

fired clay

FCR

mica

63

outline of possible structure

0 1 meters 2

lithic density in small features (n/liter): 0 - 0.6 0.7 - 2.9 larger pit feature

Figure 4-9. The density of flaked stone in postmolds and small pit features in Block D. 64

Larger Pit Features

Summary data for larger pit features are presented in Table 4-5. Although less numerous than post molds at 0.73/m2, larger pits were nevertheless quite common in Block D. More important, these pits account for a much larger share of the total feature area and volume. The 38 larger pit features had a combined surface area of 17.25 m2, constituting about 33 percent of the total excavated area. These features had a combined volume of 5176 liters. Larger pit features can be divided into two categories based on shape: basin-shaped pits and bellshaped pits. The latter are defined by profiles wherein at least one side breaks to the exterior (or undercuts), in contrast with basin-shaped features where the feature walls slope more or less continuously to the bottom center of the feature. Figure 4-10 shows the distribution of these two types of features in Block D. Before considering these two types of features in more detail, it is convenient to discuss artifact distribution patterning in larger features more generally, particularly in reference to the possible structure described above. Table 4-6 summaries prehistoric ceramics from these features, while Table 4-7 documents flaked stone artifacts. Table 4-8 presents totals for miscellaneous artifacts from larger pit features. The density of flaked stone in larger features ranged from 0 to 4.7 artifacts (n)/liter, with a mean of 0.6. Classification into high, medium, and low densities reveals no unambiguous patterning with respect to the structure, although several features within or immediately adjacent to the structure exhibit higher lithic density (Figure 4-11). The highest lithic density was observed in Feature 170A, a basin shaped pit immediately west of the possible house. Figure 4-12 displays the density of other types of modified stoneincluding ground and pecked stone and fire cracked rock. Notably, the highest density is found in Feature 171, a basin-shaped pit near the center of the presumed structure. This suggests that Feature 171 may have functioned as a hearth or oven, although the higher density here owes much to a single large rock with pitting possibly indicative of service as an anvil or nutting stone. Moderate densities of these other types of modified stone were found in two deep, bell-shaped pits (Features 147B and 175) within the structure, as well as several basin-shaped pits (Features 170A, 170B, 37 and 41) elsewhere in the block. Sherd density in larger pit features in Block D ranged from 0 to 18.8 g/liter, with a mean of 6.1 g/liter. While sherd density was high in several of the larger pit features in the core area of the block, six of the 11 large pits with high sherd density are located within the structure (Figure 4-13). Moreover, the four pits nearest the center of the structure (Feature 155, 171, 175, and 176) all exhibit high sherd density. Three of these are bell-shaped pits, while one (Feature 171) is basin shaped. The higher density of sherds in these pits could reflect the use and breakage of pots relating to cooking and storage of food near the center of the structure, although deliberate disposal of broken pottery in pits formerly used for other purposes (such as storage) is also possible. The preservation of bone was generally poor in Block D, as elsewhere at Kolomoki. Nevertheless, some features produced more bone than others, suggesting the possibility that they functioned for different purposes. In general way, the density of bone in features mirrors that of sherds, with concentration in features near the center of the presumed structure (Figure 4-14). Specifically, the three bell-shaped pits designated as Features 155, 175, and 176 exhibited high densities of bone. Feature 171, the basin shaped pit that it was suggested above to have possibly functioned as a hearth, exhibited moderate density of bone. Most of the other pit features with moderate or high density of bone are located outside the presumed structure. This suggests that the processing and cooking of animal foods took place both within and outside the house. The remainder of ths section is devoted to a discussion of the two basic types of larger pit features in turn. We begin with an overview of the basin-shaped pit features.

65

Table 4-5. Summary Data for Larger Pit Features.

Feature 33 34A 35 37 38 41 141A 141C 142 143 146 147A 153A 154 156 158 159 169 170A 170B 171 191A 192 193 194 203 205 141B 147B 155 157A 157B 163A 165 174 175 176 185 Max Depth Area (cm) (m2) 15 40 37 37 37 38 40 60 8 10 40 100 30 40 100 30 50 30 20 20 50 50 35 35 32 50 100 100 90 100 100 80 100 40 50 100 40 75 0.07 0.40 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.56 1.78 0.64 0.06 0.03 0.30 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.52 0.23 0.44 0.40 0.36 0.29 0.91 0.84 0.72 0.08 0.21 0.41 0.11 0.78 0.74 0.79 0.33 0.06 0.22 0.26 0.38 0.69 0.23 1.36 Volume (liters) 2.60 96.90 45.30 37.50 65.20 109.31 424.90 207.60 31.00 26.90 81.40 270.50 81.70 85.90 113.50 41.80 111.30 62.40 46.50 46.50 277.60 237.60 148.10 16.60 48.10 116.80 14.20 385.80 395.10 244.90 34.40 126.60 73.60 83.20 93.90 229.90 52.00 608.40 Soil Description Large, Basin-Shaped Pit Features 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR3/2 dusky red sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR2.5/2 dark brown sand loam 5YR2.5/2 dark brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 7.5YR2.5/3 and 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR3/6 dark red clay loam 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam Large, Bell-Shaped Pit Features Zone A: 10YR2/2 very dark brown sand loam with charcoal Zone B: 10YR3/2 very dark grey brown with 10YR3/6 dark red sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sand loam 2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sand loam 5YR2.5/2 dark brown sand loam 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam Zone A: 2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam Zone B: 2.5YR2.5/2 very dusky red sand loam Zone C: 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam Zone D: 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

66

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 192 191A 203 174 165 193 205

147B 147B

182 170B 170A 175 185

171

176 155 146

156 158 154

169 159

153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 38 33 41

basin-shaped pit bell-shaped pit

Figure 4-10. Larger bell- and basin-shaped pit features in Block D. 67

Table 4-6. Prehistoric Ceramics from Larger Pit Features.

Weeden Island Zoned Inc/Punct

West Florida Cord Marked

Weeden Island Zoned Red

Weeden Island Zoned Red

Mound Field Net Marked

Wakulla Check Stamped

Tucker Ridge Pinched

Carrabelle Punctate

Indian Pass Incised

Carrabelle Incised

WI Red Filmed

UID Punctate

UID Stamped

Keith Incised

UID Incised

Swift Creek

St Andrews

WI Incised

plain sand

residual

Feature

Napier

Other 1

Large, Basin-Shaped Pit Features 33 34A 35 37 38 41 141A 141C 142 143 146 147A 153A 154 156 158 159 169 170A 170B 171 191A 192 193 194 203 205 141B 147B 155 157A 157B 163A 165 174 175 176 185 25 63 36 91 42 6 34 46 38 30 261 75 48 1 29 63 1 437 342 208 17 36 41 62 18 273 71 455 5 38 58 37 67 53 2 49 59 47 20 206 69 40 2 27 36 4 183 355 216 14 13 36 57 13 169 52 218 28 54 15 4 3 2 2 1 41 4 36 1 2 1 1 16 3 13 3 1 2 1 1 44 2 10 1 1 2 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 7 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 13 33 6 7 3 1 7 13 1 5 1 6 4 2 1 1 2 1 3 5 1 Large, Bell-Shaped Pit Features 23 23 36 4 1 2 4 1 9 14 3 2 1 1 720 1 836 508 35 53 85 135 35 544 137 750 3 14 1 3 2 62 6 1 1 3 3 1 5 10 5 2 3 3 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 3 2 27 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 8 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 4 3 6 5 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 45 27 50 42 40 345 126 5 59 18 52 31 45 304 69 39 12 6 4 20 38 12 2 20 3 4 1 2 1 5 14 6 1 1 13 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 7 150 59 116 82 105 752 221 0 5 64 135 89 183 108 8 106 130 97 57 565 172 97 3 61 123 6

68

Total

Table 4-7. Flaked Stone from Larger Pit Features.

Feature quartz

quartzite

Ridge/ Valley chert core/core tool

Coast Plain chert

Total

core/core tool

shatter/chunk

shatter/chunk

shatter/chunk

core/coretool

secondary

secondary

secondary

flake tool

flake tool

flake tool

primary

primary

primary

tertiary

tertiary

tertiary

biface

biface

biface

Large, Basin-Shaped Pit Features 33 34A 35 37 38 41 141A 141C 142 143 146 147A 153A 154 156 158 159 169 170A 170B 171 186 187 188 189 190 191A 191B 192 193 194 203 205 Large, Bell-Shaped Pit Features 141B 147B 155 157A 157B 163A 165 174 175 176 185 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 14 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 5 6 5 2 7 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 1 11 21 2 15 9 23 9 12 6 8 8 15 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 13 8 23 25 18 28 17 85 99 6 4 33 74 8 34 31 83 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 157 211 160 7 10 63 120 18 74 54 164 25 122 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 6 1 2 5 19 2 2 1 1 3 1 5 4 3 5 7 11 12 29 1 12 105 1 3 4 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 16 2 5 3 17 48 10 22 3 2 5 20 7 63 21 66 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 4 6 11 4 6 8 8 13 3 8 5 14 47 18 53 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 3 10 4 8 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 1 8 3 1 1 2 1 2 6 2 2 6 1 31 14 2 1 1 3 4 14 12 23 14 9 22 167 11 104 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 27 20 38 25 14 268 143 0 1 39 87 29 79 44 4 21 87 218 40 133 3 0 0 0 1 196 1 31 2 14 35 0

22 129

69

biface

Table 4-8. Miscellaneous Artifacts from Larger Pit Features.

possible pigment stone ceramic pipe bowl

sandstone ball

quartz pebble

quartz crystal

pecked stone

groundstone

Feature 33 34B 35 37 38 41 141A 141C 142 143 146 147A 153A 154 156 158 159 169 170A 170B 171 186 187 188 190 191A 191B 192 193 194 203 205

chert cobble g 17 1 14

limestone

Large, Basin-Shaped Pit Features 1 1 3 148 1 1 0.1 1 240 1 359 2 46 4 394 15 447 2 12 4 497 7 102 6 513 2 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.2 3 4750 4 4 65 16 1 1 1 2 4 8 5 65 2 3 37 56 18 1 23 5 18 354 2 124 1 37 11 1 1 2

5 338 3 202

2 360

4 192 3 236 1 1 23 36 1 1 5 4

Large, Bell-Shaped Pit Features 141B 147B 155 157A 157B 163A 165 174 175 176 185 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 511 7 1254 1 2 3 64 1 212 1 113 10 744 2 16 0.1 0.2 2 3 11 46 1 32 0.5 1 20 2 13 10 143 8 2167 1 57 1 5 1 1 1 1 14 66 6 100

fired clay

FCR

mica

70

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 193 205

192 191A

203

174

outline of possible structure

171 185

165

147B

147B

170B 170A

175 155

176

146 156 154 158 169 163A 159 153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 33 41 38

density of flaked stone in larger pit features (n/liter):

0 - 0.7 0.8 - 1.9 4.7

Figure 4-11. The density of flaked stone in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D. 71

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 193 205

192 191A

203

174

outline of possible structure

171 185

165

147B

147B

170B 170A

175 155

176

146 156 154 158 169 163A 159 153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 33 41 38

density of other modified stone in larger pit features (g/liter): 0 - 2.9 4.0 - 9.1 17.1

Figure 4-12. The density of other modified stone (ground and pecked stone and FCR) in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D. 72

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 192 191A 203 174 165 193 205

outline of possible structure

171 185

147B 147B

170B 170A

175 155

176

146 156 158 154

169 159

153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 35 41 35

sherd density in larger pit features (g/liter):

38

33

0 - 2.3 3.8 - 8.4 9.2 - 18.8

Figure 4-13. The density of prehistoric ceramics in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D. 73

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 192 191A 203 174 165 193 205

outline of possible structure

171 185

147B 147B

170B 170A

175 155

176

146 156 158 154

169 159

153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 35 41 35

density of bone in larger pit features (g/liter):

38

33

0 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.7 1.0 - 1.8

Figure 4-14. The density of bone in the larger pit features in the core area of Block D. 74

Large, Basin-Shaped Pits Most of the larger pit features are basin shaped in cross section; we identified 28 of these in Block D. As indicated in Figure 4-10, basin-shaped pits are widely distributed across Block D, but also appear to be non-randomly positioned with respect to the presumed structure: only two of the 28 basinshaped pits lie wholly within the structure. Portions of another seven lie partially within the structure, but three of these would have been positioned outside the structure as well prior to the hypothesized expansion of the house to the south (as described above). Feature 192, which was located just to the northeast of the structure, is typical of the small and medium sized features that make up the majority of the basin-shaped pits in Block D. As indicated in the profile photograph reproduced as Figure 4-15, the dark brown fill of the feature was easily distinguished from the red sandy clay subsoil. The pit had a clearly defined, circular shape in plan, and measured slightly less than 1 m in diameter. Excavation revealed that the walls of the pit sloped gently in to the base of the pit at about 35 cm below plan view depth. Although it is possible that a portion of the pit was truncated by the plow zone, the feature must have been relatively shallow. Artifacts were relatively uncommon in the fill of the pit. However, microbotanical analysis of a soil sample from the feature produced identified starch grains diagnostic of maize, as described in Chapter 6. The absence of any maize pollen or phytoliths suggests that prepared foods Figure 4-15. The East Profile of Feature 192, a typical small containing maize may have been stored basin shaped pit. or discarded in the pit. Profiles of basin-shaped pits are provided in Figure 4-16. Small and medium basin-shaped pits such as Feature 192 likely served mainly as processing facilitiesthat is, as basins for cooking, plant processing, and similar activities. Although dense concentrations of charcoal were generally lacking, scattered flecks and larger chunks of burned wood were common in the fill of these basin-shaped pits, consistent with their use as cooking facilities. Some of the smaller basin-shaped pits may have also functioned for storage, although their capacity would have been limited for storage of bulkier items, and their wide opening would have made them more susceptible to flooding, inadvertent damage from trampling, and scavenging by both people and other animals. Table 4-5 presents summary data for the basin-shaped pits that were identified in Block D. Profiles of basin-shaped pits are provided in Figure 4-16. In terms of surface area at plan view, these pits ranged from 0.03 to 1.8 m2, with a mean of 0.4 m2. Depths below plan view ranged from just 8 cm to 100 cm or more. Volume varied considerably as a function of both surface area and depth, with a range of 2.6 to 424.9 liters. The mean volume was 106.2 liters.

75

Feature 33 N
S wall TU18

Feature 34A N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay

Feature 35 N

Feature 37 N

5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

Feature 38 N
0 5 2.5YR3/2 dusky red sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/6 red sandy clay cm F39 20

Feature 41 N
5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

76

Feature 141A N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown clay loam

Feature 141C NW
5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam

Feature 142 N
NW corner of XUD3

5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam

Figure 4-16. Profiles of large, basin-shaped pit features.

Feature 143 N

Feature 146 N

Feature 147A N

Feature 153a N
5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam

Feature 154 N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam W wall of XUD8

Feature 156 N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam

Feature 158 N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam

S wall of XUD6

77
0 5 20 cm

Feature 159 N
2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

Feature 169 N
5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sand loam with charcoal

2.5YR3/6 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR4/6 red clay loam

Figure 4-16. Profiles of large, basin shaped pit features (continued).

Features 170A and 170B N

2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam F170A F170B

Feature 171 NE
edge of block 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam

Feature 191A N
7.5YR2.5/3 very dark brown clay loam with charcoal

2.5YR3/6 dark red sand loam

large rock

5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam

Feature 192 N

Feature 193 N
2.5YR3/6 dark red sandy clay

Feature 194 N
2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

78

2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown clay loam

Feature 203 N
0 5 cm 20

Feature 205 N

5YR2.5/2 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

Figure 4-16. Profiles of large, basin-shaped pit features (continued).

Several of the larger basin-shaped pits merit more detailed description. Feature 191A, located just inside the inferred structure, appeared in plan view as a circular stain about one meter in diameter (Figure 417). Excavation revealed that the walls of the pit sloped relatively steeply to the base of the feature at a depth of around 50 cm. A relatively large post feature (Feature 191B) adjoined the pit on its northeastern edge. The fill of Feature 191A was relatively rich in small fragments of charcoal. A soil sample from the feature was submitted for pollen and phytolith analysis. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, a scan of the sample revealed the presence of maize pollen, as well as phytoliths tentatively identified as a variety of arrowroot. Feature 191A also produced a diverse assortment of Late Woodland pottery, including examples of the Napier, Carrabelle Incised, Carrabelle Punctate, Mound Field Net Marked, Keith Incised, Tucker Ridge Pinched, Weeden Island Incised, and Weeden Island Red Filmed types, among others. A sample of hickory nutshell from Feature 191A produced a two sigma calibrated date of A.D. 890 to 1020, as described in more detail in Chapter 7.

Figure 4-17. Excavation of Feature 191A, view to the south.

As noted above, Feature 171 is intriguing for several reasons. First, it is located near the center of the presumed house. Next, it contained a high density of modified stone other than flaked stone; that is, fire cracked rock, ground stone, and pecked stone. Near the base of the feature, observable in the profile in Figure 4-18a, was a large rock. Pitting on the surface of the rock suggests it may have served as an anvil or nutting stone. Alternatively, assuming the feature functioned as a fire pit, the rock may have functioned as a pot support or andiron. We observed a cluster of pottery in the northeastern half of Feature 171 (Figure 4-18b). Much of the pottery was from a very friable, thin-walled, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped vessel. The pot was fired poorlyprobably not far from Block Dand discarded in the pit feature. Fragments of at least two other Swift Creek vessels were also present in the feature (see discussion of the MNV analysis in Chapter 5). We also noted fragments of various other pottery types of the Weeden Island series (see Table 4-6). In the northeastern half of the pitopposite the pottery clusterwas a small cluster of deer bone (Figure 4-18c). Botanical analysis of a flotation sample from the feature revealed seeds of bean and goosefoot (see Chapter 6). A sample of hickory nutshell from Feature 171 produced a twosigma calibrated date of A.D. 780 to 990, as described in more detail in Chapter 7. Several of the largest basin-shaped pits in Block D were partially intruded by other pits. Features 141A and 141C were overlapping basin-shaped pits. The former appears to have been intruded by Feature 141B, a bell-shaped pit. These three features together formed a complex series of stains that were difficult to separate in plan view (Figure 4-19a), but which became better defined as the feature fill was removed, exposing the red sandy clay subsoil (Figure 4-19b and c). All three features were rich in artifacts, suggesting they became useful places to dispose of trash after the pits outlived 79

Figure 4-18. Three views of Feature 171, a large basin-shaped pit. A) Southeast Profile; B) cluster of pottery; C) cluster of deer bone.

80

A 81 C Figure 4-19. Three views of Feature 141A, B, and C. A) plan view to south before excavation; B) view to west after excavation (Feature 141C, a basin-shaped pit, is visible in profile); C) view to east after excavation (Feature 141B, a bell-shaped pit, is visible in profile).

A C

82 D B Figure 4-20. Four views of Feature 147A and 147B. A) plan view to west after excavation; B) west profile of Feature 147B before block was expanded west to expose remainder of feature; C) excavation of Feature 147B (the excavator is standing in the bell shaped half); d) east profile of Feature 147A.

their usefulness for storage or, perhaps less likely, as fire or roasting pits. Feature 141A, in particular, produced a number of large ceramic vessel fragments, including examples identified as Weeden Island Red and Zoned Red (see Chapter 5). Features 141A and 141B also produced several diagnostic hafted bifaces (also documented in greater detail in Chapter 5). Feature 147B, on the eastern margin of the possible structure, includes both a large, basinshaped pit andbelow thisthe lower half of a bell-shaped pit (both pits were subsumed under the single feature number) (Figure 4-20a). In this case, it is apparent from the profile (Figure 4-20b) (taken before the unit was expended) that whichever pit intruded the other, the basin-shaped pit filled last, as evidenced by the dark lenses of fill lying on top of the bell-shaped pit below. Feature 147B produced an impressive artifact collection. The pottery assemblage includes over 800 sherds, with a variety of Late Woodland diagnostic types represented. We also recovered three diagnostic hafted bifaces, including two Late Woodland/Mississippian triangulars and a Tampa point. A sample of hickory nutshell from the feature produced a two sigma calibrated date of A.D. 780 to 980, as described in more detail in Chapter 7. The bell-shaped portion of Feature 147B, which extended about a meter below plan view (Figure 4-20c), also adjoined Feature 147A, another basin-shaped pit to the east. This was a relatively shallow basin, (Figure 4-20d), suggesting uses other than storage. Compared with Feature 147B, the density of artifacts was lighter in this basin-shaped pit. Nevertheless, Feature 147A produced several temporally diagnostic artifacts, including a Swan Lake biface and Weeden Island Incised and Wakulla Check Stamped pottery. Bell-Shaped Pits Bell shaped pit features, summarized in Table 4-3 and profiled in Figure 4-22, were less common than basin shaped pits in Block D. What these pits lack in number, however, they make up for in size. The 11 bell shaped pits had a combined volume of 2201.2 liters. This works out to an average of 200.1 liters, nearly double the mean volume of basin shaped pits. Bell shaped pits were also larger in surface area on average, with a mean of 0.53 m2. This compares with a mean of 0.4 m2 for basin shaped pits. As discussed above, bell shaped pits appear to be non-randomly distributed in Block D. Seven of the 11 bell shaped pits are located within the hypothesized structure. Moreover, the bell shaped pits within the structure form a ring roughly midway between the inferred hearth (Feature 171) near the center of the structure and the exterior walls. The remaining bell shaped pits cluster immediately to the southeast of the structure.

Figure 4-21. Feature 165, view to the north.

Mention has already been made of Feature 141B and 147B, two of the large, bell shaped pit features in Block D. Features 165 and 174, both located in the northern interior of the structure, represent the smaller end of the range of sizes of bell shaped pits. The former feature was particularly well defined (Figure 4-21). At plan view, it appeared as a nearly perfect, 60-cm-diameter, circle of darker brown soil. The walls of the pit enlarged with depth before contracting to meet at the bottom of the pit around 40 cm below plan view. The 8

Feature 141b N

Feature 147B N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam mottled with 2.5YR4/8 dark red sandy clay

edge of unit 10YR3/2 very dark greyish brown mottled with 10YR3/6 dark red loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam 5YR3/2 dark reddish brown sand loam with charcoal flecking

Feature 155 N
5YR3/2 dark reddish brown clay loam 2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown clay loam 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown mottled with 2.5YR3/6 dark red loam

Feature 157 N

2.5YR2.5/2 very dark red sand loam F157A

edge of unit

F157B 0 5 cm 20

Feature 163A N

Feature 165 N

Feature 174 N

5YR2.5/2 dark brown sand loam

5YR3/3 dark reddish brown sand loam

2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand loam

Figure 4-22. Profiles of large, bell-shaped pit features. 84

Feature 175 N

Feature 176 N

2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown sand loam 2.5YR2.5/3 clay loam

2.5YR2.5/4 dark reddish brown clay loam

0 5 cm

20

Feature 185 N

2.5YR2.5/3 dark reddish brown clay loam

2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown clay loam

2.5YR2.5/2 very dusky red clay loam 2.5YR3/4 clay loam

2.5YR3/6 dark red clay loam 2.5YR3/3 dark reddish brown clay loam

Figure 4-22. Profiles of large, bell-shaped pit features (continued). 85

small size and clean definition of this pit, as well as Feature 174, suggest that it was filled in the early stages of its potential use life. In some cases, smaller bell-shaped pits like Features 165 and 174 may have been gradually expanded---either deliberately or unintentionally through continuous removal of contents or cleaningto form larger bell-shaped pits. There is some evidence for this in the more irregular shape of the larger bell-shaped pits in Block D. Although artifact density was generally lower in the smaller bell-shaped pits, several of these features produced interesting artifact assemblages. Feature 165, for example, yielded several fragments of Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate pottery and a spike PP/K. Feature 174 contained examples of Indian Pass Incised and Napier Complicated Stamped pottery. Feature 185 is the largest featurebell-shaped or otherwisein Block D, with an excavated volume of over 600 liters. This represents only about two-thirds of the actual volume of the pit, however, since an estimated one-third of the feature extends beyond the limits of the block and was not excavated. The irregular shape of the feature both in plan and profile suggests that it may have been expanded several times. In contrast with many of the other features in Block D, Feature 185 exhibited a stratified fill that included several distinct layers, some with relatively high densities of charcoal. The presence of this layered fill suggests the feature filled gradually, either during the course of occupation of the house in Block D or another, later structure somewhere else in the vicinity of Block D. The excavated fill from Feature 185 produced 750 sherds. The pottery collection includes a variety of Late Woodland types, such as Napier Complicated Stamped, Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden Island Incised, and Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate. We also recovered five chert bifaces or biface fragments from the pit, although unfortunately none of these is temporally diagnostic.

Figure 4-23. The North Profile of Feature 185. 86

Feature 155 was another sizable bell-shaped pit in Block D. Located near the center of the structure, it extended beyond the limits of our excavation. The portion of Feature 155 that we excavated had a volume of approximately 245 liters. A smaller bell shaped pit (Feature 176) adjoined Feature 155 on the east side. As with the previously described Feature 185, the profile of Feature 155 also displays a number of distinct zones (Figure 4-24), indicative of a gradual accumulation of refuse after the feature had outlived its uselife, probably as a storage facility. This refuse included a relatively high density of faunal remains and ceramics, as noted above and as visible in profile (see Figure 4-24). The faunal assemblage from this pit is notable for the presence of bear. Over 500 sherds were recovered from the excavated portion of Feature 155. The assemblage is diverse, including at least of example of virtually every Late Woodland diagnostic type represented in the Block D collection as a whole. Included in the assemblage are several large vessel fragments, including examples identified as Keith Incised and Napier Complicated Stamped, as described in more detail in the discussion of the MNV analysis in the chapter that follows. Feature 176, the adjoining bellshaped pit, produced a fragment of a Weeden Island Zoned Red plate, a ceramic type which is relatively rare at Kolomoki and which would presumably been used for serving foods in rituals or other special occasions.

Figure 4-24. The North Profile of Feature 155. 87

Also meriting more detailed description is Feature 175 (Figure 4-25), another bell-shaped pit within the presumed structure. This pit was somewhat irregular in both plan and profile, suggesting it was enlarged or expanded. The western portion of the pit was relatively shallow and basin shaped. In the eastern portion, the pit was deep and bell shaped. Less dark (although still distinct) and more homogenous fill in this pit suggests that it filled relatively rapidly. Artifacts were plentiful in Feature 175, with high densities of FCR, bone, and ceramics. The pottery collection includes more than 500 sherds, including examples of the Carrabelle Punctate and Mound Field Net Marked types. Notably absent from the assemblage from this feature are any of the incised Weeden Island types or Napier Complicated Stamped. This suggests the possibility that Feature 175 dates a little earlier than several of the other large bell-shaped pits in Block D, and perhaps earlier than the structure. I would also note Feature 163A (Figure 4-26), a bell-shaped pit that extended into the southern wall of the core block and was thus located just outside the Figure 4-25. The East Profile of Feature 175. presumed structure. As described in Chapter 6, a flotation sample from this pit produced macrobotanical evidence for Ilex. One variety of this genus, youpon holly (Ilex vomitoria), was widely used to make black drink in the later historic era Southeast.

Summary
Excavation of Block D (including Test Unit 18) resulted in the identification of 87 features: 48 post molds or small pits and 39 larger pits. Feature patterning possibly indicative of a domestic structure was noted during the course of excavating Block D. The pattern is defined mainly by the distribution of post mold or small pit features in an oval pattern measuring about 7.3 m long and 5.2 m wide. As described in more detail in Chapter 7, this is almost precisely the same length as Late Woodland structures identified at the Sycamore (Milanich 1974) and Woodland Terrace (Mickwee 2009) sites to the south of Kolomoki. The pattern is interpreted as the remains of a house of single set post construction. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation. First, there is a regularity to the spacing of exterior posts, especially along the southern half of the structure. There is also regularity to the spacing of interior support posts. Moreover these interior posts are deeper than those on the exterior, as might be expected Figure 4-26. The South Profile of Feature if they supported the weight of the roof. 163. 88

Pit features appear to be non-randomly positioned with respect to the structure. Specifically, larger pit featuresespecially large, bell shaped pitsare more common in the interior of the structure. Further, pit features in the interior generally display higher densities of artifacts than those outside the structure. At the center of the oval pattern and presumed house, Feature 171 consists of a basin-shaped pit with relatively high density of FCR, ground, and pecked stone. It may have served as a fire pit. This feature is ringed by several large bell shaped pits that likely functioned for storage. Carbon dates from Block D, reported in greater detail in Chapter, place the occupation of the house in the late Late Woodland period, from around cal A.D. 750 to 850. The number and variety of features in Block D stands in marked contrast to the remains of the earlier Late Woodland household previously excavated in Block A. I highlight this contrast in more detail in Chapter 7. First, however, we present an overview of the artifact and ecofact assemblages from Block D in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.

89

90

Chapter 5: Artifacts
Thomas J. Pluckhahn Artifact density was high in the excavation units levels and features in Block D. This chapter presents a summary of the artifact assemblage, with particular attention to temporally diagnostic lithics and ceramics. Faunal and botanical remains, which are less extensive, are described in the chapter that follows.

Prehistoric Ceramics
Prehistoric ceramics are the most common artifact type represented in the assemblage from Block D. Including the previously excavated Test Unit 18, the pottery collection includes 21,637 sherds weighing a collective 69,458.6 g (Table 5-1). Around 64 percent (by count) of the sherds were recovered from excavation unit levels, while about 35 percent were found in feature fill. The remaining 1 percent were retrieved from miscellaneous proveniences such as grab collections and profile cleaning. All of the pottery in the assemblage is associated with the Woodland period occupation of the Block D area, with the exception of 17 sherds (representing less than 0.1 percent of the total collection by count) that appear to correspond more closely with Mississippian types. These 17 sherds include 12 Lamar Plain and 4 Lamar Complicated Stamped, distinguished primarily on the basis of abundant and relatively large quartz grit temper. Sherds of the latter type were additionally distinguished by complicated stamping that differs from the more predominant Swift Creek stamping in execution and motif. All of the Lamar sherds were recovered from excavation unit levels rather than features, thus supporting the interpretation that they were deposited after the more intensive occupation of the area in the Late Woodland. The final possible Missississippian sherd consists of a relatively small sherd from Feature 147B that we have tentatively identified as an example of Fort Walton Incised. This was distinguished from Woodland incised types by the quality and spacing of the incising. Fort Walton developed from late Weeden Island precedents around A.D. 900-1000 and persisted until the 1500s (Milanich 1994:358, 2002). The Fort Walton Incised sherd could thus be associated with either the Late Woodland Weeden Island occupation of Block D or the much later Lamar period (Mississippian) settlement centered further downslope near Little Kolomoki Creek, as documented by Sears (Pluckhahn 2003: 74-77; Sears 1951a). Leaving aside these Mississippian sherds, the Block D Woodland pottery assemblage includes 21,616 sherds. However, the residual categoryconsisting of sherds that are too small or eroded (or both) to securely classifymakes up more than half this total. Leaving aside these residual sherds as well, the total identifiable Woodland pottery assemblage from Block D consists of 9272 sherds. Table 5-2 documents the breakdown of Woodland pottery categories and types in the Block D assemblage. The relative frequencies are generally in keeping with Pluckhahns (2003:Table 2.2) definition of the Kolomoki IV phase. Plain waresprimarily sand tempered plainpredominate, making up a little more than three-quarters of the assemblage. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped is still the most common named decorative type, but here makes up only about 10 percent of the collection, compared with as much as 25 percent in earlier phases at Kolomoki. Less common complicated stamped types include Napier and St. Andrews. Both of these are good indicators of the Late Woodland period, as described in more detail below.

91

Table 5-1. Prehistoric Ceramics from Block D.

Type Unit Levels N residual plain sand tempered plain limestone tempered St. Johns Plain Swift Creek Comp Stamped Napier Comp Stamped Carrabelle Incised Carrabelle Punctate Indian Pass Incised Mound Field Net Marked Keith Incised West Florida Cord Marked Tucker Ridge Pinched Weeden Island Incised Weeden Island Red Filmed St. Andrews Comp Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate Weeden Island Zoned Red unidentified incised unidentified stamped unidentified punctate Lamar Plain Lamar Comp Stamped Fort Walton Incised TOTAL 13, 932 33,628.7 216 921.2 112 10 35 12 4 305.4 39.8 119.7 78.2 17.7 1 7,489 19.1 34,908.7 5 1 21.8 1.6 4 10 32.4 70.8 1 67.5 8,620 4,305 1 1 434 6 7 112 7 11 15 3 4 19 200 g 9,135.5 20,096.2 12.4 2.3 1,802.5 30.0 32.7 559.2 34.8 63.1 61.8 19.1 27.6 115.4 972.09 1 0.7 1 3.5 2 7.5 10 50.9 448 28 13 152 16 24 10 1 4 33 254 3 9 16 1 77 5 12 3,886.4 629.5 201.6 1,109.8 155.8 326.2 97.7 3.3 16.5 290.1 1,861.9 88.0 49.8 241.2 30.1 342.8 71.4 26.4 Miscellaneous N 119 76 g 163.6 604.1 N 3,609 2,773 Features g 3,849.7 21,611.4 N 12,348 7,154 1 1 892 34 20 266 23 36 25 4 8 52 455 3 13 27 1 194 16 47 12 4 1 21,637 Total g 13,148.8 42,311.7 12.4 2.3 5,739.8 659.5 234.3 1,676.5 190.6 392.8 159.5 22.4 44.1 405.5 2,834.7 88.0 82.2 379.5 30.1 670 112.8 146.1 78.2 17.7 19.1 69,458.6 % by count 57.07 33.06 <0.01 <0.01 4.12 0.16 0.09 1.23 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.24 2.10 0.01 0.06 0.12 <0.01 0.90 0.07 0.22 0.06 0.02 <0.01 100.00

The main difference between the Block D collection and the Kolomoki IV phase as described by Pluckhahn (2003:Table 2-2) is the diversity and high relative frequencies of other pottery types of the Weeden Island series in the Block D assemblage. Combined, these form almost one-tenth of the Woodland pottery assemblage. The most common Weeden Island types include, in descending order of frequency: Weeden Island Red, Carrabelle Punctate, Weeden Island Incised, Mound Field Net Marked, Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate, Keith Incised, Indian Pass Incised, Carrabelle Incised, Wakulla Check Stamped, and Tucker Ridge Pinched.

92

Table 5-2. Woodland Period Ceramics from Block D.

Type Unit Levels N plain sand tempered plain limestone tempered St. Johns Plain Swift Creek Comp Stamped Napier Comp Stamped Carrabelle Incised Carrabelle Punctate Indian Pass Incised Mound Field Net Marked Keith Incised West Florida Cord Marked Tucker Ridge Pinched Weeden Island Incised Weeden Island Red Filmed St. Andrews Comp Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate Weeden Island Zoned Red unidentified incised unidentified stamped unidentified punctate TOTAL 112 10 35 5,296 305.4 39.8 119.7 24,397.3 97 757.6 5 1 21.8 1.6 4 10 32.4 70.8 1 67.5 4,305 1 1 434 6 7 112 7 11 15 3 4 19 200 g 20,096.2 12.4 2.3 1,802.5 30.0 32.7 559.2 34.8 63.1 61.8 19.1 27.6 115.4 972.09 1 0.7 1 3.5 2 7.5 10 50.9 448 28 13 152 16 24 10 1 4 33 254 3 9 16 1 77 5 12 3,879 3,886.4 629.5 201.6 1,109.8 155.8 326.2 97.7 3.3 16.5 290.1 1,861.9 88.0 49.8 241.2 30.1 342.8 71.4 26.4 31,039.9 Miscellaneous N 76 g 604.1 N 2,773 Features g 21,611.4 N 7,154 1 1 892 34 20 266 23 36 25 4 8 52 455 3 13 27 1 194 16 47 9,272 Total g 42,311.7 12.4 2.3 5,739.8 659.5 234.3 1,676.5 190.6 392.8 159.5 22.4 44.1 405.5 2,834.7 88.0 82.2 379.5 30.1 670 112.8 146.1 56,194.8 % by count 77.16 0.01 0.01 9.62 0.37 0.22 2.87 0.25 0.39 0.27 0.04 0.09 0.56 4.91 0.03 0.14 0.29 0.01 2.09 0.17 0.51 100.00

Table 5-3 summarizes the MNV analysis of pottery from Block D. We identified 57 vessels from rim sherds. As noted in Chapter 2 and discussed in more detail below, seven basic vessel forms are evident in the Block D assemblage. Figure 5-1 documents vessel profiles. As with sherds more generally, plain sand tempered vessels are the most common category represented in the MNV analysis, with 24 vessels forming 42.11 percent of the MNV assemblage. Also in keeping with the larger sherd assemblage, Swift Creek vessels are next in frequency (N=7, or 12.28 percent). Various other types of the Weeden Island series make up the majority of the remaining vessels. These include, in descending order of frequency: Weeden Island Red (N=8, or 14.06 percent); Carrabelle Punctate (N=4, or 7.02 percent); Carrabelle Incised, Keith Incised, and Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate (each N=3, or 5.26 percent); and Weeden Island Incised, Weeden Island Zoned Red, and Indian Pass Incised (each N=1, or 1.82 percent). Two Napier Complicated Stamped vessels round out the remaining 3.51 percent of the vessel assemblage.

93

Table 5-3. Results of MNV Analysis of Ceramics from Block D.

Vessel 1214 1203 1237 1210 1211 1225 1205 1124 1117 1223 1231 1204 1208 1119 1215 1123 1235 1115 1202 1212 1218 1220 1221 1222 1114 1201 1209 1226 1126 1113 1116 1125 1128 1213 1224 1227 1234 1120 1200 1207 1206 1229 1127 1230 1196 1232 1216 1228 1118 1233 1197 1198 1217 1238 1239 1219 1236 Provenience XU D2S, L3 F147B F147B XU D2S, L4 F141B F203 F153 F37 F34 F155 F155 F155 F203 F34 F141A F37 F169 TU18, L2 F175 F141A F141A F141A XU D3S, L2 F141A TU18, L1 F170A F141B F191A TU18, L4 TU18, L1 TU18, L3 F38 F41 F141A F185 F141A F141A F34 F171 F171 F171 F147B TU18, L4 F141B F165 F155 F141A F141B F34 F175 F175 F174 F141A F176 F141A XUD4 F147B Type form

Orifice Rim Fold Diameter Rim Type Lip (mm) (cm) Carrabelle Incised open bowl 18 folded 7.5 rounded Carrabelle Incised restricted bowl 14 folded 6.3 rounded Carrabelle Incised simple bowl/unrestricted jar 26 direct rounded Carrabelle Punctate neckless jar 22 direct rounded Carrabelle Punctate neckless jar 12 folded 12.1 rounded Carrabelle Punctate neckless jar 22 folded 10.7 rounded Carrabelle Punctate simple bowl/unrestricted jar 24 folded 13.2 rounded Indian Pass Incised restricted bowl 16 double folded 6.5, 12.2 rounded Keith Incised folded rim jar 14 folded 12.6 rounded Keith Incised folded rim jar 16 folded 7.1 rounded Keith Incised neckless jar 28 double folded 12.7, 27.5 rounded Napier restricted bowl 16 direct rounded Napier restricted bowl 20 folded 9.7 thinned interior plain sand tempered cup 12 wedge flat plain sand tempered dish/plate 12 folded 13 rounded plain sand tempered folded rim jar 30 direct rounded plain sand tempered folded rim jar 14 folded 16.2 rounded plain sand tempered open bowl 20 folded 27.1 flat plain sand tempered open bowl 26 wedge flat plain sand tempered open bowl 20 direct flat plain sand tempered open bowl 30 direct flat plain sand tempered open bowl 22 direct flat plain sand tempered open bowl 24 false fold 13 rounded plain sand tempered open bowl 28 direct pointed plain sand tempered restricted bowl 24 folded 18 flat plain sand tempered restricted bowl 14 folded 7.1 rounded plain sand tempered restricted bowl 20 wedge flat plain sand tempered restricted bowl 18 direct rounded plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 32 folded 8.4 rounded plain sand tempered neckless jar 34 folded 24.3 flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 26 direct rounded plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 30 folded 23.9 flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 28 wedge flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 24 direct flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 22 folded 23.7 flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 30 folded 5.4 flat plain sand tempered simple bowl/unrestricted jar 22 folded 6.7 pointed Swift Creek folded rim jar 24 folded 18.2 flat Swift Creek folded rim jar 26 folded 19.3 rounded Swift Creek folded rim jar 30 folded 19 rounded Swift Creek folded rim jar 22 folded 20.1 rounded Swift Creek folded rim jar 40 folded 19.6 pointed Swift Creek restricted bowl 24 folded 15.6 rounded Swift Creek simple bowl/unrestricted jar 30 direct flat Weeden Island Incised dish/plate 24 rounded Weeden Island Red dish/plate folded 16.4 rounded Weeden Island Red open bowl 22 folded 13.5 rounded Weeden Island Red open bowl 26 folded 12.4 rounded Weeden Island Red restricted bowl 30 folded 23.3 flat Weeden Island Red restricted bowl 28 folded 21 flat Weeden Island Red simple bowl/unrestricted jar 26 folded 19.2 flat Weeden Island Red simple bowl/unrestricted jar 26 folded 20.3 flat Weeden Island Red simple bowl/unrestricted jar 38 folded 22.1 flat Weeden Island Zoned Red dish/plate Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate dish/plate Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate neckless jar 18 double folded 5.7, 20.6 rounded Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate neckless jar 16 direct rounded

94

1116 1113 1197 1125 1128

1237

1205 1230

1224 1217 1227 1198 1213

1234

Figure 5-1. Profiles of vessels identified in MNV analysis of Block D. Top and bottom rows: simple bowls/ unrestricted jars. Shown approximately actual size, with interiors to right.
9

1236

1211 1231 1210 1225 1219

1126

1123 1117 1223

1200

1229 1206

1207 1120 1235

Figure 5-1. Profiles of vessels identified in MNV analysis of Block D (continued). Top row: neckless jars. Middle and bottom rows: folded rim jars. Shown approximately actual size, with interiors to right. 9

1201

1209

1226 1233

1203

1208

1114

1127

1118 1124

1204

Figure 5-1. Profiles of vessels identified in MNV analysis of Block D (continued). Top and bottom rows: restricted bowls. Shown approximately actual size, with interiors to right. 9

1214 1202

1216 1212 1220

1228

1115

1218 1221 1222

1196

1215

1232

1119

Figure 5-1. Profiles of vessels identified in MNV analysis of Block D (continued). Top and middle rows: open bowls. Bottom row: plates/dishes and cup. Shown approximately actual size, with interiors to right. 96

The remainder of this section consists of a detailed analysis of the pottery assemblage, beginning with a discussion of vessel forms. This is followed by a focus on particular pottery types and categories. Vessel Forms Simple bowls and unrestricted jars. These two formscombined in this analysis because of the uncertainty in differentiating them on the basis of smaller rim sherdsconstitute the most common category of vessel forms (N=14). Orifice diameters are relatively large, ranging from 22 to 38 cm with a mean of 27.6 cm. This is comparable to the range noted by Hally (2009) for unrestricted jars, andas with his samplemay include several size classes. The rims on these vessels are primarily folded (N=9), but also in some cases direct (N=4) or wedged (N=1). Folded rims average 17.6 mm, an exaggerated width that is typical of the later Woodland period at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-2). Lips are primarily flat (N=10) but occasionally rounded (N=3) or pointed (N=1). In keeping with presumed utilitarian function of these vessels for cooking, serving, and short-term storage (Hally 2009), the simple bowls/unrestricted jars in the Block D assemblage are primarily plain (N=8). However, there are also examples of Weeden Island Red (N=3), Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (N=1), Carrabelle Incised (N=1) and Carrabelle Punctate (N=1). Restricted bowls. This form, presumably associated with serving and short term storage, is next in frequency (N=11). Plain (N=4) is again the most common surface treatment, but is less common in a relative sense given the presence of two Napier Complicated Stamped, two Weeden Island Red Filmed, and single examples of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, Carrabelle Incised, and Indian Pass Incised. Orifice diameters range from 14 to 30 cm with a mean of 20.4 cm. The rims on these vessels are mostly folded (N=7) but there are rare examples of direct (N=2), wedged (N=1), or double folded (N=1). Folded rims on these vessels were generally narrower than those on the simple bowls/unrestricted jars, with a mean of 14.2 mm. Lips are rounded (N=6), flat (N=4), and thinned on the interior (N=1). Open bowls. This bowl form is slightly less common (N=10) than restricted bowls. These are mostly plain (N=7), but there are also two Weeden Island Red and one Carrabelle Incised. Orifice diameters range from 18 to 30 cm with a mean of 23.6 cm, thus showing less variation in size then Hallys rounded bowls. Rims are equally divided between folded (N=4) and direct (N=4) with isolated examples of false fold and wedged. Rim folds here, as on restricted bowls, are more narrow than those on simple bowls/unrestricted jars, with a mean of 14.7 mm. Lips are mainly flat (N=5) or rounded (N=4), or (less commonly) pointed (N=1). Folded rim jars. The folded rim jar form is next in frequency (N=9). In keeping with the name, these are mainly folded, but one example of this form has a direct rim. Rim folds are generally wide, with a mean of 16.5 mm. Lips are almost exclusively rounded (N=7), but occasionally flat (N=1) or pointed (N=1). Orifice diameters are narrow relative to simple bowls/unrestricted jars, varying from 14 to 40 cm (two size classes may be represented) with a mean of 24 cm. Swift Creek Complicated Stamping is the most common surface treatment on these jars (N=5), followed by plain (N=2) and Keith Incised (N=2). Neckless jars. These jars are only slightly less common (N=7) than the folded rim variety. They overlap in sizes, with orifice diameter ranging from 12 to 32 cm and averaging 21.4 mm. Also like the folded rim variety of jar, the rims are mainly folded (N=3). However, double folded (N=2), and direct (N=2) rims are not uncommon. Lips are exclusively rounded. Rim folds are variable: narrow on single folds, but wide on double folds. The mean for this class is 15.9 mm, intermediate between the simple bowls/unrestricted jars and the other bowl forms. Neckless jars, which appear to be used mainly for serving and short term storage, are almost invariably decorated, sometimes elaborately so. We noted two examples of Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate, two of Carrabelle Punctate, and one of Keith Incised. Only one neckless jar is plain. 99

Cup. Only one cup was identified in the MNV analysis. It is from a plain vessel with a wedged rim and an orifice 12 cm in diameter. Dishes/plates. These forms, probably associated exclusively with serving, round out the assemblage, with five examples identified. One of the plates is a plain vessel with a folded, rounded lip. It has a diameter of 12 cm. Another of these vessels was identified from a Weeden Island Incised rim suggestive of a plate approximately 24 cm in diameter. The third was identified from the rim of a shallow Weeden Island Red dish of a four or more sided squared form of indeterminate diameter. This vessel had a rim fold of 16.4 mm. In addition to these three dish/plate forms identified from rims, we have counted here two plates identified from diagnostic body sherds; each has incising on the interior of the plate, a form of decoration rare enough that these can confidently be identified as distinct vessels. One is Weeden Island Zoned Red. The other is Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate. Ceramic Types/Categories Plain. As noted above, plain pottery makes up the majority of Woodland ceramic assemblage. The vast majority of the plain pottery is tempered with sandgenerally abundant, fine sand. Mica is also common in the paste of plain and other pottery types, but was presumably not added as temper (Pluckhahn and Cordell 2010). We recovered only one sherd each of limestone tempered and temperless (St. Johns-like) pottery. The paucity of these other temper types in the Block D assemblage is consistent with the assumption that they are more common earlier in the occupational history at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-2). Much of the plain pottery in the Block D assemblage is smoothed or burnished, although this was not differentiated in our analysis. Plain pottery was found in 37 of the 38 (97.4 percent) pit features in Block D. Consistent with its overall ubiquity, plain pottery is produced in virtually the entire range of vessel forms apparent in the Block D assemblage, including the cup (N=1), dish/plate (N=1), neckless jar (N=1), folded rim jar (N=2), open bowl (N=7), restricted bowl (N=4), and simple bowl/unrestricted jar (N=8) categories. These include vessels suited to serving, storage, and cooking. Plain pottery also runs the full gamut of rim and lip treatments. With regard to rims, we noted folded (N=11), direct (N=8), wedged (N=4), and false folded (N=1). Lips include flat (N=14), rounded (N=8), and pointed (N=2). Swift Creek Complicated Stamped. Swift Creek pottery is the most common decorated pottery type in terms of overall numbers and weight. It also exhibits a high ubiquity in features; we found Swift Creek pottery in 32 (84.2 percent) of pit features. We identified seven Swift Creek vessels in the Block D assemblage. The folded rim jar is the preferred vessel form for this type (N=5), but there are also single examples of the simple bowls/unrestricted jar and the restricted bowl. These forms are associated primarily with cooking and storage. Rims are almost invariably folded (N=6); the single exception is one direct rim. Lips are rounded (N=4), flat (N=2), and pointed (N=1). The Swift Creek pottery from Block D bears impressions generally typical of the Late Woodland period, with relatively narrow lands and grooves. I would conservatively estimate that around 20 distinct Swift Creek paddle designs are represented in the assemblage from Block D. Unfortunately, most of the Swift Creek sherds are much too small for the reconstruction of paddle designs, or even to match with paddle designs that have been previously reconstructed from Kolomoki and other sites (Snow 2007). However, there are several intriguing exceptions that warrant more extended comment.

100

Figure 5-2 illustrates a partial paddle design (herein designated Design D-1) reconstructed from several larger sherds from Feature 171. This is Vessel 1206 in the MNV analysis. Sherds bearing this paddle design were most numerous in Feature 171, but possible matches were identified with sherds from Features 153, 157B, 175, 183, and 185, and a level in XUD2. Some of these could be from the same vessel, but it is also possible that some of these represent fragments of other vessels bearing the same paddle stamp. The design has a central circular element set within a four-pointed star. A useful diagnostic feature is provided by a discrepancy in the number of lands and grooves in two opposing points of the star; one point has two lands (one quite uneven) and two grooves, while the other point has three lands and three grooves. A similar, yet distinct, paddle design (Design D-6) was partially reconstructed from several larger sherds from Feature 185 (Figure 5-3). These consisted only of body sherds, so no MNV number was assigned. Possible matches were identified with other body sherds from Feature 171 and Level 3 in Unit D2N. Although the general motif represented in Design D-6 is similar to that in Design D-1, the two paddle designs differ in the size and shape of the points that surround the central circular element. differs from the previously described design in The partial paddle design (Design D-3) in Figure 5-4 was reconstructed from the sherd illustrated in the same figure. This is Vessel 1200, recovered from Feature 171. The paddle design is clearly impressed several times on this single sherd. Unfortunately, the two distinct circular elements on the sherd do not match well, even when the orientation is changed. It is possible that the paddle itself had two circular elements, but it is difficult to discern how these were connected. The paddle design (Design D-4) in Figure 5-5 was reconstructed from fragments of a single Swift Creek vessel (Vessel 1229) from Feature 147B. This paddle matches one identified from sherds found on the Vaughn and Mill Creek sites in the Big Bend region of the Ocmulgee River of southern Georgia (Frankie Snow, personal communication 2007) (see Design #81 in Snow 2007). This is the only obvious external contact represented in the assemblage from Block D, although a more thorough comparison would undoubtedly reveal other examples. Figure 5-6 documents a large vessel fragment (Vessel 1207) from Feature 171 that bears another unique paddle design (Design D-2)perhaps a variety of figure eight, but only a portion of the paddle design is recognizable on the sherds we recovered due to the relatively heavy over-stamping. However, the distinctive nature of central element of the teardrop motif, possibly representing a flaw in the paddle, should facilitate efforts to match these sherds. Not represented in the design reconstruction is another possible flaw in the paddle that connects two of the concentric lines. Large fragments of another vessel from Feature 171 (Figure 5-7) are stamped with another distinct paddle, herein designated as Design D-5. There is one recognizable elementa snowshoethat is distinct from the previous paddle designs. The stamped design here is obscured by the feint and overstamped paddle impressions. This pot is represented only by body sherds, so no vessel number was assigned in the MNV analysis. Figure 5-8 illustrates the potential connections between features based on paddle matches. Previous research suggests that Swift Creek paddles may have sometimes been used for many decades or even several centuries (Snow and Stephenson 1992). Nevertheless, paddle matches demonstrate the rough contemporaneity of features. Although it is difficult to account for sampling error in an analysis of paddle designs, the connections between features near the center of the presumed structure is striking and provides another line of evidence in support of this interpretation.

101

Figure 5-2. Paddle Design D-1 (A) and sherds used in its reconstruction (B-E). B-D: Feature 171; E: Feature 185. Shown approximately actual size. 102

Figure 5-3. Paddle Design D-6 (A), with sherds used in the reconstruction (B-D), and sherds with potentially matching paddle stamps (E-G). A-D, F: Feature 185; E: XUD2N, L3; G: Feature 171. Shown approximately actual size. 103

Figure 5-4. Paddle Design D-3 (top) and sherd from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction (bottom). Shown approximately actual size. 104

Figure 5-5. Paddle Design D-4 (A) and sherds used in its reconstruction (B-C). B-C: Feature 147B. Shown approximately actual size. 105

Figure 5-6. Paddle Design D-2 and sherds from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction. Shown approximately actual size. 106

Figure 5-7. Paddle Design D-5 and sherds from Feature 171 used in its reconstruction. Shown approximately actual size. 107

outline of possible structure

171

185

175 155 183 153A

157B

0 1 meters 2

paddle matches between Swift Creek sherds in features distribution of Swift Creek pottery in pit features: no sherds 1 or more sherds

Figure 5-8. The distribution of Swift Creek pottery and paddle matches in pit features in the core area of Block D. 108

Napier Complicated Stamped. Apart from Swift Creek, Napier is the only other complicated stamped pottery type represented in appreciable quantities. We recovered 34 sherds of Napier pottery. While this quantity is not large, Napier sherds were nevertheless relatively common in pit features; 14 (36.84 percent) of the 38 pit features produced at least one Napier sherd. Pit features with Napier pottery are strongly associated with the presumed structure in Block D, as indicated in Figure 5-9. All of the pit features yielding Napier pottery are within or in immediate proximity to the structure, and only one of the pits completely within the house failed to produce any Napier sherds. This pattern points to the rough contemporaneity of these pits, and provides an additional line of support for the interpretation of the structural pattern. Napier pottery dates to the interval from around A.D. 800 to 1000 (Cobb and Garrow 1996; Markin 2010), consistent with the presumed occupation of Block D between ca. 750 and 900 A.D. The Napier pottery from Block D is differentiated from Swift Creek by narrower lands and grooves and rectilinear design motifs (Figure 5-10). Lands generally range from around 1.0 to 1.5 mm, and grooves from approximately 1.5 to 2.0 mm. This former is similar to the range of 1-2 mm for lands on Napier at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1997:68). However, Milanich and colleagues report a wider range (3-4 mm) for grooves. At least two distinct Napier design motifs, representing at least two different paddles, are present in the assemblage from Block D. The most numerous and most widely distributed motif consists of interlocking line-filled triangles with borders defined by 5 lands and 4 grooves (see Figure 5-10D-F). Vessel 1208, identified from a sherd in Feature 203 (see Figure 5-10D), bears this motif. Other examples were noted on sherds from Features 141B, 154, 155, 165, 169, 171, and 185. All of these features are within or near the house. The small size of many of the sherds and the use of overstamping and smoothing make it difficult to say if the sherds bearing this design motif were all stamped with the same paddle. The other variety of Napier stamping includes a design field set off by parallel, straight lines defined by 3 lands and 2 grooves (see Figure 5-10A-C). Within these straight lines are triangular- or chevron-shaped elements. This motif appears similar to that found on Napier sherds at the McKeithen site, as described by Milanich and colleagues (1997:68). It is not precisely the same as motifs described for Napier pottery in northern Georgia (Wauchope 1966:Figure 15), but the size of the lines and grooves is consistent. Examples of this motif were noted on sherds found in Features 155, 159, and 191A. Again, given the size of the sherds and the nature of the stamping, it is difficult to say if more than one paddle is represented. Two Napier vessels were identified in the Block D assemblage. One of these was identified from sherds in Feature 203 and the other from sherds in Feature 155. Both vessels are restricted bowls that probably functioned primarily for serving or short term storage. One has an orifice diameter of 20 cm, a folded rim 9.7 mm wide, and a pointed lip. The other is only 16 cm in diameter at the orifice, has a direct rim with a lip that is rounded. These orifice diameters are comparable to the mean of 19.3 cm for Napier vessels at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1997:68). St. Andrews Complicated Stamped. Three sherds excavated from Test Unit 18 in 2002 were identified as possible examples St. Andrews Complicated Stamped. One sherd was recovered from Feature 37 and two were found in the fill of Feature 34A. The two larger sherds from Feature 34A are illustrated in Figure 5-11. These sherds appear tp have been stamped with the same paddle. The motif is a line block comprised of 5 lands and 4 grooves. The lands are generally 1.0-1.5 mm, comparable to those on the Napier pottery from Block D. However, the spacing between the lands is wider; grooves on the two sherds from Feature 34A measure between 2 and 2.5 mm. The motif is generally consistent with Willeys (1949:385) description of the early variety of St. Andrews. All of the St. Andrews sherds from Block D are body fragments, thus no vessels were identified. 109

141B

191A 203 174 165 147B 171 185

outline of possible structure

175 155

176

169 154 159

153A

0 1 meters 2

distribution of Napier pottery in pit features: no sherds 1 or more sherds

Figure 5-9. The distribution of Napier pottery in pit features in the core area of Block D. 110

Figure 5-10. Selected Napier sherds from Block D. A: Feature 155 (Vessel 1204); B: Feature 159; C: Feature 191A; D: Feature 203 (Vessel 1208); E: Feature 169; F: Feature 185. Shown approximately actual size. 111

Figure 5-11. Selected St. Andrews Complicated Stamped sherds from Block D. Both sherds from Feature 34A in TU18. Shown approximately actual size.

Weeden Island Red and Zoned Red. Weeden Island Red pottery was relatively common in Block D, forming about 5 percent of all the Woodland pottery. It was also fairly ubiquitous, with one or more sherds found in 29 (76.32 percent) of the 38 pit features. In contrast, only one sherd of the Zoned Red type was identified. This was recovered from Feature 176, a small bell-shaped pit feature (see description in the preceding chapter). Figure 5-12 illustrates selected examples of the Weeden Island Red and Zoned Red pottery from Block D. Red filming is generally apparent on both the interior and exterior surfaces of most of the sherds of this type. On the single Zoned Red sherd, the filming is set off by incised and punctate lines (Figure 5-12A). Eight Weeden Island Red vessels were identified in the MNV analysis. Serving vesselsparticularly bowl formspredominate. We identified three simple bowls/unrestricted jars, two restricted bowls, two open bowls, and one dish or plate. As described above, the latter is a four or more sided rectangular dish. The single Zoned Red vessel is identified from a body sherd and consists of a plate with incising on the interior surface. Orifice diameters on the on the Weeden Island Red vessels are generally large, with an average of 28 cm. This is consistent with their use as serving vessels. However, the Block D vessels average significantly larger than the mean of 20 cm noted for Weeden Island Red vessels at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1997:63), possibly representing an increase in vessel size from Middle to Late Woodland (as described in more detail in Chapter 7). Rims on Weeden Island Red vessels are invariably folded and the folds are generally large, with a mean of 18.5 mm.

112

Figure 5-12. Selected Weeden Island Red (B-E) and Zoned Red (A) sherds from Block D. A: Feature 176 (Vessel 1238); B: Feature 141B (Vessel 1228); C: Feature 175 (Vessel 1233); D: Feature 155 (Vessel 1232); E: Feature 175 (Vessel 1197). Shown approximately actual size. 113

Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/Punctate. Weeden Island Incised (N=52) and Zoned Incised/Punctate (N=27) are relatively uncommon in the Block D assemblage, combining to form only about one percent of the Woodland pottery collection. Nevertheless, pottery of this type was relatively ubiquitous, with one or more sherds identified in 13 (34.21 percent) of the pit features in Block D (Figure 5-13). As with Napier, the presence of Weeden Island Incised appears to be correlated with the hypothesized house. Most of the pit features within the structure produced at least one sherd of Weeden Island Incised or Zoned Incised/Punctate, and most of the features producing sherds of these types are located within or immediately adjacent to the structure. Selected Weeden Island Incised sherds are illustrated in Figure 5-14. Incised lines on these sherds are typically around 1.0 mm. The separation between incised lines is variable, but typically does not exceed 3.0 mm. The quality of the execution is very high, albeit not always quite as careful as with Indian Pass Incised. The MNV analysis resulted in the identification of one Weeden Island Incised vessel and three Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate vessels. The former is represented by a fragmentary rim sherd from a plate or dish. The rim itself is incised; little of the body is represented, so this too may be incised and punctate. One of the Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate vessels is also a plate or dish. This vessel is represented only by two body sherds, but the shape of these is diagnostic of the form. In this case the incising and punctation are on the interior, suggesting this was a serving dish associated with household ritual. The other two of the Zoned Incised/Punctate vessels consist of neckless jars with small orifice diameters (16 and 18 cm). These measurements are consistent with Weeden Island Incised and Punctate vessels at McKeithen, which exhibited means of 13.7 cm and 16.4 cm, respectively (Milanich et al. 1997:64-65). One of the Zoned Incised/Punctate vessels in the Block D assemblage has a double folded rim, while the other is direct. The lips on both vessels are rounded. Carrabelle Punctate. Carrabelle Punctate is relatively common in the Block D assemblage, with a total of 266 sherds forming roughly 3 percent of the Woodland pottery assemblage. In addition, there are large quantities of unidentified punctate pottery in the assemblage, and much of this is probably of the Carrabelle type. As might be expected given its overall high frequency of occurrence, Carrabelle Punctate was ubiquitous in its distribution in Block D, with at least one sherd found in 23 (60.53 percent) of the 38 pit features. In contrast with Napier and Weeden Island Incised, the distribution of Carrabelle types (both punctate and incised) does not favor pits in or near the presumed structure. The Carrabelle Punctate sherds from Block D display an amazing diversity in terms of the shape, size, and spacing of punctations (Figure 5-15). Some clearly appear to have been made with small sticks of hollow cane, others with wedge shaped instruments, and others possibly with fingernails. Particularly intriguing is the specimen in 5-15I, which was decorated with a distinctive circular tool with several irregular bumps in the center. We identified four Carrabelle Punctate vessels in the MNV analysis. Three of these are neckless jars, while the fourth is a simple bowl/unrestricted jar. Mean orifice diameter on these vessels is 20 cm, comparable to the mean of 16.4 cm for pottery of this type at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1997:65-66). Three of the four vessels have folded rims with relatively narrow rim folds (average of 12.0 mm). The fourth has a direct rim. Lips are exclusively rounded.

114

141A

141B 192 191A

165

outline of possible structure

171 185

147B 147A

155

169 154 159

0 1 meters 2

distribution of Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/ Punctate pottery in pit features: no sherds 1 or more sherds

Figure 5-13. The distribution of Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/Punctate pottery in pit features in the core area of Block D. 115

Figure 5-14. Selected Weeden Island Incised and Zoned Incised/Punctate sherds from Block D. A: XU D4, E Profile (Vessel 1219); B: Feature 155; C: Feature 141B; D: Feature 192; E: XU D2S, L4; F: Feature 147B (Vessel 1236); G: Feature 141A; H: XU D4, L4 (G and H are Vessel 1239). Shown approximately actual size. 116

Figure 5-15. Selected Carrabelle Punctate sherds from Block D. A: Feature 191A; B: Feature 147B; C: Feature 175; D: Feature 203 (Vessel 1225); E: Feature 141B (Vessel 1211); F: XU D2S, L4 (Vessel 1210); G: Feature 153 (Vessel 1205); H: Feature 155; I: Feature 165; J: Feature 170B. Shown approximately actual size. 117

Carrabelle Incised. The Carrabelle Incised type, in contrast with the more plentiful punctate variety, is represented by only 20 sherds constituting just 0.22 percent of all the Woodland pottery from Block D. Somewhat unexpectedly, Carrabelle Incised was nevertheless relatively ubiquitous, with at least one sherd in 7 (18.42 percent) of all pit features. As noted above in reference to Carrabelle Punctate type, there does not appear to be a correlation of the Carrabelle types with the presumed structure. By definition, the incised lines on Carrabelle Incised pottery are less carefully inscribed than on sherds of the Weeden Island and Indian Pass Incised types. The Carrabelle sherds from Block D are typical in this regard (Figure 5-16). The incised lines are generally on the order of 1.0 mm, and thus not dissimilar from the other two types. However, the line spacing is generally greater (on the order of 4-5 mm) and the lines are less perfectly parallel. There are exceptions, however, such as the sherd illustrated in Figure 5-16B, which could instead be classified as Indian Pass Incised (although the incised pattern is typical of the Carrabelle type, which is why it was so classified). Three Carrabelle Incised vessels in the Block D assemblage are comprised of one open bowl, one restricted bowl, and one simple bowl/unrestricted jar. Orifice diameters average 19.3 cm, comparable to the mean of 17.4 cm at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1997:66). However, the three vessels from Block D vary widely, from 14 cm for the restricted bowl to 26 cm for the simple bowl/unrestricted jar. Two of the vessels have folded rims, while the rim on the third is direct. The folded rims are very narrow (7.5 and 6.3 mm). Keith Incised. Twenty-five Keith Incised sherds, account for just 0.27 percent of the Woodland pottery from Block D. Despite the low quantity of pottery of this type, however, it is surprisingly ubiquitous; Keith Incised sherds were recovered from 6 (15.79 percent) of 38 pit features. The distribution shows no preference for features in or near the structure. Figure 5-17 documents some of the variety in a selected sample of Keith Incised sherds from Block D. Three types of incising are apparent. One variety is tightly cross-hatched, with one direction of incising predominating (see Figure 5-17A). Another variety, nicely executed, has much broader crosshatching with small punctations between the lines (see Figure 5-17B-C). Finally, there are sherds with broader cross-hatched incised lines but lacking the punctations and generally less finely executed. The MNV analysis revealed evidence for three Keith Incised vessels: two folded rim jars and one neckless jar. These likely functioned primarily for storage and, in the case of folded rim jars, perhaps also for cooking. The two folded rim jars have narrow orifice diameters (14 and 16 cm) and narrow folds (12.6 and 7.1 mm). The neckless jar has a wide orifice (28 cm) and a double folded rim. The lips on all three vessels are rounded. One of the folded rim jars and the single neckless jar were recovered from the same large bell-shaped pit (Feature 155) within the structure. Indian Pass Incised. This was another minority type of the Weeden Island series, represented by 23 sherds that form 0.25 percent of the Woodland pottery from Block D. Indian Pass Incised sherds were found in five (13.16 percent) of the 38 pits in Block D. These pits are relatively widely scattered across the block. Only one is located within the structure. MNV analysis identified one Indian Pass Incised vessel, consisting of a restricted bowl with narrow orifice diamter (16 cm) and double folded rim. A large fragment of this vessel was recovered from Feature 37 in Test Unit 18, excavated in 2001. As is typical for pottery of this type (Willey 1949:425-427), the incised lines are carefully drawn. Specifically, the lines are thin (less than 1.0 mm), parallel, and consistently spaced. The restricted bowl form is also typical.

118

Figure 5-16. Selected Carrabelle Incised sherds from Block D. A: Feature 170A; B: XU D2S, L3 (Vessel 1214); C: Feature 147B (Vessel 1237); D: Feature 141B; E: Feature 147B (Vessel 1203); F: XU D15N, L1; G: XU D2N, L1; H: Feature 165. Shown approximately actual size. 119

Figure 5-17. Selected Keith Incised sherds from Block D. A: Feature 155 (Vessel 1223); B: Feature 154; C: Feature 169; D: Feature 157B; E: Feature 141C; F: XU D1S, L1; G: Feature 155 (Vessel 1231). Shown approximately actual size. 120

Figure 5-18. Selected Indian Pass Incised sherds from Block D. A-B: Feature 37 (Vessel 1124); C: Feature 174. Shown approximately actual size. Other Pottery of the Weeden Island Series. Several other types of the Weeden Island series are present in trace quantities in the Block D assemblage. These include, in descending order of frequency, Mound Field Net Marked (N=36), Wakulla Check Stamped (N=13), Tucker Ridge Pinched (N=8), and West Florida Cord Marked (N=4). Each of these represents less than 0.5 percent of all Woodland pottery, and combined they form less than 1 percent of the Woodland pottery. None of these types is represented in the MNV analysis; although several large sherds of these types were recovered, none consisted or rim sherds. Figure 5-19 illustrates selected examples of these types. The limited number of sherds of these types is not too surprising. However, as noted above, previous work at Kolomoki had suggested that several of theseparticularly Tucker Ridge Pinchedmight be at least slightly more common in Kolomoki IV phase assemblages (Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2.2). The paucity of these types suggest that they are less common in this phase than was previously assumed. It also suggests that ceramic types changed relatively rapidly during the Late Woodland period, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 and elsewhere by Pluckhahn (2010).

121

Figure 5-19. Selected other Weeden Island series sherds from Block D. A-C: Mound Field Net Marked; D-F: Wakulla Check Stamped; G-I: West Florida Cord Marked; J-L: Tucker Ridge Pinched. A: Feature 141C; B: Feature 141; C, E: Feature 155; D: Feature 147B; F: XU D13W, L2; G: Feature 163; H: XU D25S, L2; I: XUD7E, L2; J: Feature 156; K: XU D5S, L2; L: XU D23N, L3. Shown approximately actual size. 122

Prehistoric Flaked Stone

Excavation of Block D resulted in the recovery of 6693 flaked stone artifacts weighing a combined 11,388 g (Table 5-4). More than half of this total (58.14 percent) was recovered from unit levels. Features produced about 40.63 percent of the total. The remaining 1.23 percent was recovered from miscellaneous other proveniences, such as profile cleaning and grab collections. Raw Materials The collection can be divided into four general categories of raw materials. Finally, a very small fraction of the flaked stone from Block D bears the distinctive dark color and lustrous texture of cherts of the Ridge and Valley Province of northwestern Georgia, northeastern Alabama, and southeastern Tennessee. The five artifacts of this material have a combined weight of 15 g and make up only 0.01 percent of the flaked stone by count. However, we also recovered one unworked cobble of a dark grey chert that could have been obtained from a Ridge and Valley source (Figure 5-20A). Table 5-4. Flaked Stone Totals for Block D.
Raw Material Type Unit Levels N quartz primary flake secondary flake shatter/chunk tertiary flake core/core tool flake tool Total Quartz quartzite/ sandstone primary flake secondary flake shatter/chunk tertiary flake core/core tool biface Total Quartzite Ridge/Valley chert tertiary flake biface Total Ridge/Valley cherts Coastal Plain cherts primary flake secondary flake shatter/chunk tertiary flake core/core tool flake tool biface Total Coastal Plain cherts TOTAL FLAKED STONE 48 208 333 350 13 2 954 12 44 36 51 4 1 148 1 2 3 142 531 450 1592 24 1 45 2787 3891 5 8 2 39 3 1 1 59 83 2 2 127 398 282 1560 15 3 33 2419 2719 10 14 1 4 1 4 224 9 16 17 32 1 1 76 Miscellaneous N 1 5 4 3 1 Features N 11 48 83 75 7 N 60 261 420 428 21 2 1192 22 64 54 87 5 2 234 1 4 5 274 937 719 3191 42 5 79 5265 6696 Total % 5.03 21.90 35.24 35.91 1.76 0.17 17.80 9.40 27.35 23.08 37.18 2.14 0.86 3.50 20.00 80.00 0.08 5.20 17.80 13.66 60.61 0.80 0.10 1.50 78.63 100.00

123

Coastal Plain cherts are most common (N=5,265, weighing 11,388 g), accounting for more than three-quarters of the assemblage by both count (78.63 percent) and weight (78.08 percent). Most of this chert is white, yellow, brown, red, or pink in color. Much of this material closely resembles what has been described as Ocala or Tallahatta Cherts (University of South Alabama [USA] 2004). However, cherts subsumed within this general category no doubt come from a variety of sources, including some on- or near-site and others more distant. Figure 5-21 illustrates selected chert cores from Block D. These are typical; with the exception of a few late stage preforms, the chert cores are generally amorphous and blocky. They were likely used in the production of flakes for flake tools and bifaces. Quartz (N=1192, weighing 1863 g) makes up 17.81 percent of the flaked stone by count. The relative frequency is less by weight (12.77 percent), however, due to the small size of the quartz cores and debitage (as described below). Most of the quartz from Block D is of a colorless, translucent variety that resembles crystal or glass. Indeed, we recovered a few quartz crystals that may have been used as cores. However, some of the quartz is opaque or semi-translucent and milky in color. We recovered a number of small pebbles of the same type, some worked and others not. These were probably procured from elsewhere, given that quartz is uncommon in the Coastal Plain. It seems possible that quartz pebbles could be found in gravel bars on the Chattahoochee or Flint Rivers, which originate in the quartz-rich Piedmont. Figure 5-22 illustrates selected quartz cores and other core-like artifacts from Block D. All of the cores are small and amorphous. They would be well suited to the production of small flake tools, but would have been poorly suited for the production of larger tools. Finally, a small but significant share (3.50 percent) of the flaked stone from Block D matches what has generally been termed Tallahatta Quartzite, but which is more correctly described as a sandstone (USA 2004) (N=234, weighing 1319 g). This material is coarser grained than the quartz in Block D. It often has a grey or brownish tint and a snowflake pattern. Tallahatta Sandstone quarries are commonly found across southwestern Alabama, but may extend east to the Chattahoochee River. Figure 5-20C-D illustrates two cores of this material that were recovered from Block D. As noted in the previous chapter, the density of flaked stone in larger features ranged from 0 to 4.7 artifacts (n)/liter, with a mean of 0.6. As might be expected, Coastal Plain chert and quartz were ubiquitous in larger pit features (34 and 29 of 38 total, respectively). Because of their overall ubiquity, these types reveal no unambiguous patterning with respect to the presumed structure. However, quartzite/sandstonewith a surprisingly high ubiquity of 23 of 38 large pit featuresdoes demonstrate a preference for features in or near the structure (Figure 5-23).

Figure 5-20. Ridge and Valley Chert Cobble/Core (A)and Tallahatta Sandstone Cores (B-C) from Block D. A: Feature 141C; B: Feature 171; C: XU D14, L4. Shown approximately actual size. 124

Figure 5-21. Selected chert cores from Block D. A: XU D19N, L2; B: XU D22E, L1; C: Feature 175; D: Feature 193. Shown approximately actual size. 125

Figure 5-22. Selected quartz cores and core-like artifacts from Block D. A-B: quartz crystals possibly used as cores; C-E: cores; F-N: unworked or minimally flaked quartz pebbles. A: XU D8N, L3; B: XU D10N, L2; C-D, I-K: Feature 147B; E: Block D Clean-up; F: Feature 154; G: XU D13W, L1; H: Feature 185; L: Feature 163; M: XU D3, L3; N: XUD17, L3. Shown approximately actual size. 126

143 142

141C

141A 141B 194 193 205

192 191A

203

174

outline of possible structure

171 185

165

147B

147B

170B 170A

175 155

176

146 156 154 158 169 163A 159 153A 157A

157B

0 1 meters
37 35 34A 33 41 38

number of quartzite/sandstone in larger pit features:

0 1 or more

Figure 5-23. The distribution of quartzite/sandstone in larger pit features in the core area of Block D. 127

Debitage Debitagebroadly defined to include flakes and shatter/chunksforms the majority of the flaked stone assemblage (97.34 percent). This figure is probably significantly inflated, however, given that no attempt was made to account for flakes that may have been utilized as tools unless deliberate retouch was noted (as described in Chapter 2). No doubt much of the debitage from Block D was used as expedient tools. Figure 5-24 contrasts the percentages of early stage debris (primary and secondary flakes and shatter/chunks), late stage debitage (tertiary flakes), and tools (cores/core/tools, flake tools, and bifaces) for each variety of raw material. Quartz and quartzite/sandstone display remarkably similar patterns, with roughly 60 percent early stage debitage, 36-37 percent late stage debitage, and 2-3 percent tools. The high frequency of early stage debitage is consistent with reduction of cores on site. It would also generally be considered evidence of local procurement of raw materials, butin the case of quartz and perhaps also quartzite/sandstonethe cores and unworked manuports that we recovered (see Figures 5-20 and 5-22) are small enough to have little cost of transportation, and thus could have been gathered from more distant sources. Notably, although the percentages of early stage debitage are comparable for quartz and quartzite/sandstone, they differ in how this debitage is comprised. Specifically, a much larger percentage of the quartz debitage consists of shatter/chunks. This reflects the fact the fact that the small quartz cores must have been worked with a bipolar reduction technique, resulting in greater spalling and shatter. Quartz is also more difficult to predictably flake. Presumably, much of the quartz debitage was utilized as flake tools, but this must await more detailed study with a microscope. In contrast with quartz and quartzite/sandstone, the Coastal Plain chert from Block D consists primarily of late stage debitage (60.61 percent). This is somewhat surprising, given that such chert is available locally and would undoubtedly have been reduced on site with some regularity. However, a significant fraction of the Coastal Plain chert was probably procured from more distant quarries, where it was reduced to cores that could be more easily transported. In addition, chert was the preferred material for bifaces, which require more late stage finishing and, eventually in many cases, re-sharpening. Ridge and Valley chert is heavily biased towards tools over debitage, and late stage debris over that from the early stages of core reduction. This is consistent with the fact that this chert was imported from some distance, probably in the form of finished tools.
early debitage 90 80 relative frequency 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 quartz quartzite/sandstone Ridge/Valley chert Coastal Plain cherts late debitage tools

Figure 5-24. Comparison of the relative frequencies of types of debitage and tools by raw material. 128

There is little patterning to the distribution of early and late stage debitage in larger pit features. However, there is a slight tendency for both types of debris to show higher densities in pit features outside the structure than within. This would be consistent with more intensive flintknapping in the area outside the structure, as might be expected. Feature 170A, immediately west of the structure, exhibits the highest density of both early and late stage debitage. Cores, Core Tools, and Flake Tools The flake stone assemblage from Block D includes a number of tools, including both flake tools and bifaces. Also included in this discussion are cores and core tools, in that these are objective, rather than detached pieces (i.e., debitage). We recovered 68 cores or core fragments from Block D. Not surprisingly, most of these are Coastal Plain chert (N=42), but the relative frequency of cores for this raw material type is lower than for quartz (N=21) and quartzite (N=5). This is consistent with previously mentioned hypothesis that much of the chert was initially reduced elsewhere. A small number of cores (N=4) show obvious flaking or wear indicative of use as tools. However, a microscopic analysis would undoubtedly reveal that more of the cores in the collection were so used. The same is true of flakes, as noted several times previously. The number of flake tools (N=10) is clearly a very conservative estimate, reflecting only with clear and presumed deliberate retouch (rather than use-wear) on one or both sides. Thus, blade-like flakes (of which there are a very limited number in the assemblage) are also excluded. The paucity of formal flake tools and blades suggests that much of the emphasis was on more expedient flake tools that could be easily produced from amorphous cores. Figure 5-25 illustrates selected examples of flake tools from Block D.

Figure 5-25. Selected flake tools from Block D. A-E: unifacial flake tools; F: bifacial flake tool. A: XU D12W, L3; B: XU D10S, L2; C: XU D3N, L2; D: Feature 141B; E: Feature 147B; F: XU D20W, L2. Shown approximately actual size. 129

Formal Bifacial Tools The Block D excavations produced 84 bifaces or biface fragments. The majority of these are manufactured from Coastal Plain cherts (N=79). We recovered no quartz bifaces, but found one made from quartzite/sandstone and four from Ridge/Valley chert. Thirty-eight of the bifaces from Block D retain enough of the proximal hafting area element and display significant diagnostic attributes to be assigned to classified to morphological clusters and named types. Table 5-5 presents summary data for these 38 hafted bifaces, which are illustrated in Figure 5-26. Pluckhahn and Norman (2011), following the example of Farrs (2006) analysis of Archaic points in Florida, have suggested that it may be useful to focus more on general morphological categories or clusters than the multitude of types that have been proposed to describe Woodland points in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (Baker 1995; Bullen 1975; Cambron and Hulse 1975; Schroder 2006; Whatley 2002). Specifically, they suggest the hafted bifaces from Kolomoki fall in three general morphological clusters: proximally contracting, proximally straight/expanding, and triangular. These divisions are used to organize the discussion that follows, although I also discuss particular types that are represented. Proximally Contracting Cluster. This cluster is composed of bifaces with clearly discernible hafting areas but which lack true necks in the sense of constrictions in the haft area that are less than or equal to the width of the base. Thus, haft length is greater than zero, while neck height and neck width are not recorded. Included here, in addition to points typically identified as contracting stemmed, are lanceolate, ovate, and spike forms. Slightly less than one-half (N=18, or 47.37 percent) of the 38 points in the Block D assemblage are assigned to this cluster. This contrasts with the overall assemblage of hafted bifaces from Kolomoki, of which the contracting stemmed cluster comprises only about onethird (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). The higher relative frequency in Block D suggests that this general form was more commonly utilized in the later stages of the occupation of Kolomoki. Five named types can be identified in the proximally contracting cluster. Most common is the New Market type represented by six specimens, all manufactured from Coastal Plain chert. The six New Market points exhibit a mean ML of 31.1 mm and mean MW of 15.8 mm, somewhat smaller than the values cited by (Cambron and Hulse 1975:96). Five Woodland Spikes are present in the Block D assemblage. Following Pluckhahn and Norman (2011), the spikes were sorted in to two varieties. Two of the spikes are defined as Variety 1, with long haft areas but relative wide bases. I have opted not to assign these to one of the many varieties of named spikes and lanceolates, but they would probably correspond best with lanceolate types such as Benjamin (Cambron and Hulse 1975:11) and Flint River Spike (Cambron and Hulse 1975:53; DeJarnette et al. 1962). Generally, this variety of spikes is more common at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011); their low relatively frequency in Block D suggests their use may have declined by the late or terminal Late Woodland. However, we recovered one example from Feature 155. Three of the spikes more closely match the second variety of spikes, with short hafting areas and wide bases. These three points account for one-third of total hafted bifaces of this type at Kolomoki; the high relative frequency here thus suggests that these were more common in the late or terminal Late Woodland. Two of the three points were found in feature contexts (Features 165, 194). Four hafted bifacess in the proximally contracting cluster approximate the Ebenezer type described by Cambron and Hulse (1975:42). These account for all but one of the bifaces of this type in the total Kolomoki assemblage, suggesting a strong association with the later Late Woodland period. Three of the Ebenezer points were found in feature contexts, including two from Feature 141A and one from Feature 141C. All of the Ebenezer points are manufactured from Coastal Plain cherts. They average 44.8 mm in ML and 18.4 mm in MW, generally in keeping with the type (Cambron and Hulse 1975:42). 130

Table 5-5. Type and Metric Data for Hafted Bifaces from Block D.
PPK 255 256 257 274 130 131 248 250 252 253 249 259 260 266 280 142 258 281 272 273 275 277 279 4 105 243 267 269 246 54 251 263 148 276 247 261 265 254 TypeName TULevel Ebenezer XUD10N, L2 Ebenezer F141A Ebenezer F141C Ebenezer F141A New Market TU18, L1 New Market TU18, L2 New Market XUD13W, L2 New Market F185 New Market XUD10S, L2 New Market F141A Spike, Variety 1 XUD3S, L2 Spike, Variety 1 F155 Spike, Variety 2 XUD7W, L3 Spike, Variety 2 F165 Spike, Variety 2 F194 Swannanoa TU18, L1 Swannanoa XUD6W, L3 Tampa F147B WMT WMT WMT WMT WMT Bakers Creek Bakers Creek Bakers Creek Bakers Creek Bakers Creek Broward Duval Type 2 Duval Type 2 Duval Type 2 Duval Type 3 Jacks Reef C Swan Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake WISS F147B XUD12E, L3 XUD20E, L1 F147B F194 F33 TU18, L1 XUD1N, L1 XUD16S, L1 F147B XUD2N, L3 F37 F141B F163 TU18, L1 XUD4E, L1 F147A XUD9N, L1 F153 F141B

ML MW BLL BLW BW HL NW NH MT Weight Form (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) proximally contracting cluster 42.3 20.2 34.0 20.2 5.3 8.3 8.8 6.6 plano-convex 47.7 17.0 40.5 17.0 7.0 7.2 8.3 5.5 biconvex 40.6 19.8 31.6 19.8 7.3 9.0 8.7 4.5 biconvex 48.5 16.7 42.4 16.7 6.2 6.7 6.6 4.5 biconvex 33.9 16.0 25.2 16.0 11.3 11.4 6.3 2.0 biconvex 33.2 14.6 23.3 14.6 9.3 10.0 5.0 2.0 plano-convex 23.6 14.0 15.5 14.0 7.9 7.6 6.0 1.6 biconvex 37.0 17.7 29.6 17.7 7.5 9.2 7.0 3.1 biconvex 34.1 17.8 25.0 17.8 7.4 9.1 6.9 3.5 biconvex 25.0 14.6 16.3 14.3 5.5 8.7 7.0 2.0 biconvex 42.0 15.5 28.7 14.9 5.3 13.3 9.2 5.5 biconvex 39.1 13.6 33.4 13.6 5.5 9.1 6.2 3.3 biconvex 48.6 16.3 42.4 16.3 7.4 10.4 9.4 5.0 plano-convex 42.1 15.7 36.0 15.7 7.9 9.8 8.5 5.0 plano-convex 48.0 15.7 39.7 15.7 8.7 8.3 8.2 5.0 biconvex 34.0 20.3 27.2 20.3 9.4 9.4 5.0 3.0 plano-convex 27.7 13.5 19.8 13.3 6.9 9.3 6.6 2.0 biconvex 30.8 14.6 25.9 14.6 5.4 4.6 6.5 2.2 Plano-convex triangular cluster 26.1 16.6 26.1 16.6 16.6 4.0 1.3 biconvex 17.0 24.7 22.6 27.1 39.7 41.1 33.6 41.1 45.1 49.7 40.7 42.7 48.3 52.4 37.6 40.3 40.6 36.4 32.5 13.3 16.7 14.6 17.0 17.3 17.6 19.1 21.0 21.0 22.2 17.3 16.6 20.2 18.0 16.7 16.3 15.6 14.8 15.8 17.0 24.7 22.6 27.1 28.6 25.4 25.6 35.1 36.8 38.7 34.4 32.6 38.9 41.0 31.5 30.3 30.8 27.9 23.7 13.3 16.7 14.6 17.0 17.3 17.6 19.1 21.0 21.0 22.2 17.3 16.6 20.1 18.0 16.0 16.3 15.6 14.6 15.8 13.3 16.1 14.6 14.5 15.2 14.4 12.6 18.4 14.5 9.7 10.0 6.1 10.2 11.4 13.3 12.8 12.4 14.8 10.4 12.8 15.4 8.8 9.8 10.1 13.1 8.1 10.1 10.2 10.7 6.2 9.0 12.5 10.5 8.8 3.0 0.5 biconvex 5.5 2.3 biconvex 4.5 1.1 biconvex 5.0 1.8 biconvex proximally straight and expanding cluster 14.5 7.2 7.9 5.0 biconvex 13.3 7.4 7.2 5.0 biconvex 12.0 8.8 6.6 3.5 biconvex 16.3 7.2 6.0 4.7 plano-convex 12.7 7.4 6.7 4.8 biconvex 11.5 7.0 10.7 7.5 biconvex 9.5 2.8 7.6 5.0 biconvex 16.6 10.1 8.9 5.5 biconvex 9.9 6.0 8.6 6.8 plano-convex 9.9 7.3 9.7 7.0 biconvex 10.6 6.1 3.9 2.8 plano-convex 10.6 6.2 6.4 3.9 biconvex 10.4 5.7 6.2 3.0 biconvex 13.1 5.9 5.7 3.0 biconvex 15.8 8.8 5.7 2.0 biconvex

Material Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Ridge/Valley chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Ridge/Valley chert Coastal Plain chert Ridge/Valley chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Ridge/Valley chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert unidentified chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert Coastal Plain chert

Color yellow/brown yellow/brown grey yellow/brown yellow/brown yellow yellow/red yellow/brown pink yellow black/grey yellow white white yellow white yellow/brown yellow/brown

Diapheneity opaque opaque opaque opaque opaque semi translucent opaque semi-translucent opaque opaque opaque semi translucent semi translucent opaque opaque opaque opaque opaque

Comments slight break at tip

slight break at tip

slight break at stem slight break at stem

slight break at base

yellow/brown semi translucent pink black/grey yellow/brown black/grey yellow/brown yellow/brown yellow/brown yellow/red yellow/brown grey yellow/brown black/grey yellow/brown red brown yellow/red yellow/brown yellow/brown white opaque opaque opaque opaque semi translucent opaque semi translucent semi translucent opaque opaque semi translucent semi translucent semi translucent semi translucent semi translucent semi translucent opaque semi translucent semi translucent slight break at tip, major break at base slight break at tip and base platform on side near base slight break at tip

slight break at stem slight break at tip slight break at tip

slight break at tip very slight break at tip

Figure 5-26. Hafted bifaces from Block D. Numbers correspond to Table 5-5. Shown approximately actual size. Top row: Ebenezer. Second row: New Market. Third row: Spikes. Fourth row: Swannanoa (left two) and Tampa (right). 132

Figure 5-26. Hafted bifaces from Block D (continued). Numbers correspond to Table 5-5. Shown approximately actual size. Top row: Woodland/Mississippian triangular (WMT). Second row: Bakers Creek. Third row: Broward. Bottom row: Duval Type 2. 133

Figure 5-26. Hafted bifaces from Block D (continued). Numbers correspond to Table 5-5. Shown approximately actual size. Top row: Duval Type 3. Second row: Jacks Reef Corner Notched. Third row: Swan Lake. Bottom row: Weeden Island Straight Stemmed (WISS). 134

Two points in this cluster are identified as examples of the Swannanoa type described by Keel (1976:196). Consistent with the type description, these have weak shoulders and excurvate blades. Both of the of this type from Block D are manufactured from cherts of the Coastal Plain. However, in the overall Kolomoki assemblage there are several examples made from cherts of the Ridge and Valley province of Tennessee and northern Georgia and Alabama, where the type name is more frequently employed. Swannanoa is generally assumed to be an Early Woodland type (Whatley 2002:114). While none of the Kolomoki specimens are from securely dated contexts, their presence at the site, and particularly in Block D, suggests that there temporal range extends to the Middle and Late Woodland as well. The Tampa type is the final variety represented in the proximally contracting cluster. One example of this type was recovered from Feature 147B, dated to cal A.D. 780 to 980. This type in uncommon at Kolomoki; the Block D specimen represents one of only six in the total assemblage of more than 200 points (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). The Tampa point from Block D is consistent with the description and range of measurements cited by Bullen (1975:10), except that it is thick and has straight blade edges. It is possible that this point represents an unfinished Woodland/Mississippian triangular, two examples of which were also recovered from this feature. Proximally Straight and Expanding Cluster. This cluster is defined by bifaces that evidence conspicuous hafting areas set off by shoulders, as well as some semblance of a true neck in the sense of a constriction narrower than or roughly equal to the base. Thus HL, NH, and NW are all greater than zero. This cluster includes points typically described as straight-stemmed, expanding-stemmed, and notched. The 15 points in this cluster make up around 40 percent of the Block D assemblage. In the total hafted biface assemblage from Kolomoki, this cluster is better represented (forming around 60 percent) (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011), suggesting that, in general, the use of points of this form also declined by the late or terminal Late Woodland. However, some varieties within this cluster may have been used more in the later Late Woodland, as described in more detail below. The proximally straight and expanding cluster includes seven named types. Most numerous is the Bakers Creek type (DeJarnette et al. 1962) (N=5). This point type is generally more common at Kolomoki, however. All of the Bakers Creek points from Block D are made from Coastal Plain cherts. The points average 40.1 mm in ML and 19.2 mm in MW. These means are lower than the range of measurements cited by Cambron and Hulse (1975:8). However, the Kolomoki sample appears consistent with those from other Woodland sites in Georgia (Whatley 2002:18-19). In fact, the ranges and means conform very closely with those for a sample of Bakers Creek points from the Leake site in northwestern Georgia (Pluckhahn 1998:156-157). Bakers Creek points were found in feature contexts in two cases (Features 33 and 147B). The latter feature was dated to cal A.D. 780 to 980. Three examples of the side notched Swan Lake type (Cambron and Hulse 1975:120) were retrieved from Bock D. Two of these were found in pit features (Features 147a and 153). This type is not common at Kolomoki as a whole; in fact, the three specimens from Block D constitute 60 percent of all of the points of this type in the total assemblage (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). This suggests this type was most prevalent in the late or terminal Late Woodland period. Three points from Block D match the description Duval Subtype 2 (Bullen 1975:13), with a nearly straight and narrow base. Notably, all three were found in features, suggesting a secure association with the late or terminal Late Woodland. All three points were made from chert; two of Coastal Plain varieties and one of Ridge and Valley types. The four remaining point types in this cluster are represented by only one specimen each. One of these is an example of third variety of the Duval type, with a base that expands slightly but remains narrower than the blade (Bullen 1975:13). Another matches Bullens (1975:15) Broward type, with straight to excurvate blade edges and fairly sharp blade corners. One may be an example of the Jacks Reef Corner Notched type (Ritchie 1961). Finally, one point is tentatively assigned to Winston Bakers (1995:428) Weeden Island Straight Stemmed type. All four of these points are manufactured from 135

cherts of the Coastal Plain, although the color and texture of the Jacks Reef point suggests that the chert may be exotic. The Weeden Island Straight Stemmed point was the only one example recovered from feature contexts (Feature 141B). Triangular Cluster. Triangular bifaces, defined as points with triangular forms and lacking necks and clearly defined hafting areas, account for only about 3 percent of all the hafted bifaces from Kolomoki (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). They are far more common in Block D, with five examples forming roughly 13 percent of the assemblage. The five triangulars from Block D are all relatively small in terms of ML and MW and thus can be classified under the generic type Woodland/Mississippian triangular (WMT). All five of these points have widths less than 18 mm, and thus would be classified as Mississippian triangulars under the rule of thumb devised by Sassaman and colleagues (1990:165) for the Savannah River Site. Whatley (2002:64), however, puts the threshold between the Late Woodland and Mississippian varieties at 17-20 mm, and all four of these points fall within this range (one is smaller, but falls in this range when breakage is accounted for). The Block D specimens represent the only small triangulars in a total assemblage of more than 200 hafted bifaces from Kolomoki (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). Although it is possible that other point types in the assemblage were used as arrow points, small triangular forms like these are widely considered the first type that was specifically manufactured for use with an arrow (Blitz 1988; Nassaney and Pyle 1999). Metric analysis of the Kolomoki points lends support to this assumption; the small triangular is the only type at Kolomoki that consistently meets criteria for arrows (e.g., Nassaney and Pyle 1999, Shott 1997; see Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). Given that Block D is the only context at Kolomoki from which small triangular points have been recovered, it would appear that bow and arrow technology was adopted at the time of Block D was occupied, in the late Late Woodland. In further support of this interpretation, three of the points were found in secure contexts in pits: two in Feature 147B and one in Feature 194. As noted above, the former feature was dated to cal A.D. 780 to 980. The implications of the discovery of triangular points in Block D are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts

The Block D excavations produced a number of miscellaneous prehistoric artifacts, as described above with regard to excavation units (Chapter 3) and features (Chapter 4). The most common class of miscellaneous artifacts by weight is FCR. We recovered a total of 13,135.5 g of FCR from Block D. As discussed in Chapter 3, we noted several areas of concentration in the distribution of FCR across excavation units. It later became apparent that these were near the center of the presumed structure and in the general area of features that also exhibited high densities of FCR. As mentioned above, however, FCR is difficult to differentiate from naturally-occurring rock at Kolomoki, and the data here no doubt reflect some subjectivity in collection. Most of the FCR consists of sandstone, although some is quartz and quartzite. Pecked stone (N=15, weighing 9105.8 g) stone is considerably less common than FCR. As noted in Chapter 4, one of the pecked stonesa large anvil or nutting stone from Feature 171accounts for much of the total weight for this class of artifacts. Most of the other pecked stone appears to have been used as hammerstones. Like FCR, the pecked stone includes sandstone, quartz, and quartzites. Groundstone (N=11, weighing 1164.4 g) is also relatively uncommon in the Block D assemblage. This is not surprising given that these are comprised primarily of igneous rocks such as granite that are mostly exotic to the Coastal Plain. Unfortunately, all of the groundstone is fragmentary, but several are large enough to suggest they were parts of axes or adzes. 136

Table 5-6. Summary Data for Miscellaneous Prehistoric Artifacts from Block D.
Artifact Type mica groundstone Measure g N g pecked stone N g limestone N g FCR N g fired clay N g quartz pebble N g sandstone ball N g quartz crystal N g possible pigment stone N g Prehistoric ceramic pipe bowl N g Chert cobble (possibly Ridge/Valley), unworked N g Unit Levels 6.8 8 695.7 4 2804.9 4 47.7 143 5437.3 1 3.0 27 505.9 1 18.6 1 3.5 2 5.0 Features 7.2 3 468.7 11 6300.9 4 58.5 116 7698.2 14 880.0 26 562.9 4 74.9 1 17.0 1 17.0 1 14.0 Total 14.0 11 1164.4 15 9105.8 8 106.2 259 13135.5 15 883.0 53 1068.8 1 18.6 5 78.4 3 22.0 1 17.0 1 14.0

The relatively small quantity of fired clay (N=15, weighing 83 g) in Block D suggests that the hypothesized structure was not daubed. Instead, the fired clay was probably a product of cooking, as indicated by the fact that most of this came from features. Quartz pebbles (N=53, weighing 1068.8 g) are the most common class of the miscellaneous artifacts by count. Although the examples included here were not flaked, these appear identical to the quartz cores that were recovered (as describe din more detail above). Thus, these might have been intended for use as cores. Some are reddened, however, suggesting they might have been used for cooking. Also as noted above, we recovered a small number of quartz crystals (N=5, weighing 78.4 g). These too might have been flaked or used as cutting tools. However, it is also possible that these were used as ornaments or ritual objects. A small sandstone ball (19 g) could have used for similar purposes. Small quantities of limestone (N=8, weighing 106 g) and possible pigment stone (N=3, weighing 22 g) might also have been used for ornamentation. The latter consist of small nodules of what appear to be hematite and limonite. 137

The recovery of 14 g of mica from Block D suggests that this material was still occasionally worked into ornaments, a number of which were recovered by Sears (1956) from burial mound contexts at Kolomoki. However, the quantity of mica from Block D is quite small in comparison to that from Block A and other, earlier contexts at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 1998, 2003), suggesting that this industry was in decline by the late Late Woodland. Finally, we retrieved one small fragment of a prehistoric ceramic pipe bowl. This was retrieved from Feature 38 in Test Unit 18. Ceramic pipes appear to have been uncommon at Kolomoki in general; relatively few were recovered during earlier work at the site either (Pluckhahn 2003; Sears 1956).

Historic Artifacts
The Block D excavations produced an assemblage of historic artifacts that would be considered very modest for most historic sites, but which is surprisingly large and diverse for Kolomoki (Table 5-7). All of the historic material was recovered from excavation unit levels, rather than features. The majority of these artifacts were found in the first two excavation levels, corresponding to the modern plowzone and colluvium, as described in Chapter 3. There is no apparent clustering in the distribution of historic materials. Selected historic artifacts from Block D are illustrated in Figure 5-27. Bottle glass makes up the majority of the historic artifact assemblage, and most of this is olive or dark green (N=6, 7.5 g). We recovered a few sherds of amber (N=2, 1.5 g) and clear (N=1, 0.8 g) glass as well. Nails in the Block D assemblage include examples of both the cut (N=2, 4.0 g) and wire (N=1, 0.6 g) varieties. We also recovered a small quantity of metal wire (N=2, 4.6 g) (perhaps from a fence) and a small section of metal pipe (N=1, 47.7 g). We recovered several artifacts relating to guns. These include one percussion cap (1.0 g) and two pieces (9.4 g) of lead waste or sprue. The latter was likely a byproduct of the manufacture of lead shot, produced either when excess lead was trimmed from the edge of a bullet mold or when lead dripped as it was poured into the mold (Blakney-Bailey 2008:177). Lead waste is commonly found on historic sites (particularly historic-era Indian sites) from the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century (Blakney-Bailey 2008:178; Fairbanks 1962:54). Its occurrence in Block D, coupled with the olive bottle glass, suggests the presence of an early historic settlement on this portion of the site, associated either with Creek Indians or Americans of African or European descent.

Table 5-7. Summary Data for Historic Artifacts from Block D.

olive bottle glass N Unit Levels (Total) 7 g 9.7 amber bottle glass N 2 g 1.5 clear bottle glass N 1 g 0.8 wire nails cut nails metal wire metal pipe percussion cap N 1 g 1.0 N 2 lead sprue g 9.4

N 1

g 0.6

N 2

g 4.0

N 2

g 4.6

N 1

g 47.7

138

Figure 5-27. Selected historic artifacts from Block D. A: olive bottle glass; B-C: lead sprue. A: XU D12W, L3; B: XU D11S, L2; C: XU D22E, L2. Shown approximately actual size.

Summary
The excavation of Block D resulted in the recovery of over 20,000 pieces of pottery and more than 10,000 fragments of flaked stone. We also retrieved lesser quantities of miscellaneous prehistoric and historic artifacts. The pottery assemblage includes a veritable smorgasbord of Late Woodland types, including most of the Weeden Island series types more common to the south along the Gulf Coast, as well as types such as Swift Creek and Napier Complicated Stamped more common to the north and east. We also recovered small quantities of Mississippian period Lamar pottery. An MNV analysis of the Woodland pottery revealed the presence of 57 vessels taking a variety of forms and sizes. Perhaps most impressive is the identification of Weeden Island Zoned Red Filmed and Weeden Island Zoned Incised/Punctate plates or dishes. These have been recovered elsewhere in off-mound areas at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003), but only in small quantities. At the McKeithen site, pottery of this type was primarily associated with a high status burial on top of one of the mounds (Milanich et al. 1997). The possible implications of the increase (vis-a-viz Block A) in the frequency of zoned incised, zoned red filmed pottery, and other varieties of Weeden Island ceramics more generally are discussed in Chapter 7. The flaked stone assemblage is comprised mainly of debitage. Most of this is Coastal Plain chert, but quartz and quartzite/sandstone are also well represented and there are trace amounts of cherts from the Ridge and Valley province. Tools are less common than debitage, but include 38 nearly whole projectile points. These were sorted into three general morphological categories and 12 different types. Probably most significant is the discovery of five small triangular points, a type not previously encountered at Kolomoki. The recovery of these points signals the adoption of newor at least improvedbow and arrow technology at the time of the Block D occupation, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. The distributional patterns of several classes of artifacts lend additional support to the interpretation of a structure in Block D. Swift Creek paddle matches connect several features near the center of the presumed structure. All of the pit features yielding Napier pottery are within or in immediate proximity to the structure, and only one of the pits completely within the house failed to produce any Napier sherds. The presence of Weeden Island Incised also appears to be correlated with the hypothesized house; most of the pit features within the structure produced at least one sherd of 139

Weeden Island Incised or Zoned Incised/Punctate, and most of the features producing sherds of these types are located within or immediately adjacent to the structure. With regard to flaked stone, quartzite/sandstone also demonstrates a preference for features in or near the structure. On the other hand, there is a slight tendency for both early and late stage debitage to show higher densities in pit features outside the structure than within.

140

Chapter 6: Faunal and Botanical Remains

Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund, Matthew C. Compton, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn As noted in Chapter 2, where the methods of analysis are described in detail, faunal and botanical remains were analyzed by specialists, whose reports are summarized here largely verbatim. The section on faunal remains is drawn from Comptons (2009) report, with minor additions by Pluckhahn. The discussion of macobotanical remains is drawn from a report by Bonhage-Freund (2009), again with minor additions by Pluckhahn. Finally, the microbotanical section is based largely on a report by Yost and Cummings (2010), as edited for reproduction here by Pluckhahn.

Faunal Remains
The Block D faunal assemblage is relatively small, including 1,595 specimens weighing 1,501.1 g (Table 6-1). Four taxa including at least 13 individuals are represented. All of the species indentified are terrestrial taxa common to the Coastal Plain environments surrounding Kolomoki. Table 6-2 summarizes the faunal remains by major provenience (some related proveniences, such as halves of features, have been combined in the interest of space). Forty-one of the features produced measurable quantities of bone. We also recovered faunal remains from several excavation units. Turtles are represented by only five specimens. Of these, one specimen is identified as eastern box turtle. The eastern box turtle is most frequently found in open woodlands but also occurs in moist meadows and floodplains (Behler and King 1997:468; Ernst and Barbour 1972:88). The carapace and plastron of box turtles are made up of individual bones that fuse together as the turtle ages. The carapace specimen present in the Kolomoki assemblage is fused, indicating that it was from an older individual. Turtles represent only a small proportion of the total MNI and less than one percent of the total biomass represented in the assemblage (Table 6-3).

Table 6-1. Species List for Faunal Remains from Block D.

Taxon Description NISP N Testudines Terrapene carolina Aves Meleagris gallopavo Mammalia Ursus americanus Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata TOTAL Indeterminate turtle Eastern box turtle Indeterminate bird Wild turkey Indeterminate mammal Black bear White-tailed deer Indeterminate vertebrate 1595 13 4 1 9 3 1435 1 142 1 10 9.1 90.9 1 9.1 1 9.1 MNI % Weight g 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 749.7 0.1 580.8 167.6 1501.1 Biomass kg 0.022 0.029 0.017 0.013 10.172 0.003 8.084

141

Table 6-2. Proveniences in Block D with Faunal Remains and the Taxa Represented.
Provenience XUD2S, L1 XUD2N, L3 XUD2S, L3 XUD2S, L4 Recovery Strategy >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata XUD2 Disturbed Area XUD4E, L4 XUD9S, L3 XUD10S, L2 XUD12E, L2 XUD12E, L3 XUD12W, L3 XUD13E, L1 XUD13E, L2 XUD13W, L2 XUD15S, L1 XUD17S, L3 XUD19N, L2 XUD20W, L3 XUD21S, L3 XUD21N, L3 XUD24N, L3 XUD21, Balk removal >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Aves Vertebrata F141A >1/4 inch Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Meleagris gallopavo Mammalia >1/4 inch F141B Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch Vertebrata Meleagris gallopavo Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia F141C >1/4 inch Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata Vertebrata 3 8 8 22 5 15 5 4 1 9 15 1 1 28 36 17 31 2 5 4 1 Taxon NISP Weight (g) 0.28 0.22 0.04 1.37 0.18 5.74 1.14 0.96 0.25 0.16 0.23 3.83 0.34 0.13 0.46 0.01 0.45 1.21 0.14 0.22 0.02 0.52 0.07 0.1 0.52 0.21 4.25 0.3 0.27 0.56 40.47 0.64 0.2 13.94 45.71 9.58 0.36 58.18 9.45 0.08 57.84 6.04 0.84 31.76 32.7 6.11 0.18

142

Table 6-2. Proveniences in Block D with Faunal Remains and the Taxa Represented.
Provenience F146 Recovery Strategy >1/4 inch Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus F147A >1/4 inch Mammalia Vertebrata Terrapene carolina F147B >1/4 inch Mammalia Vertebrata Meleagris gallopavo Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch F149 F150 >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus >1/4 inch F154 Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Testudines Vertebrata Testudines Vertebrata Mammalia F155 >1/4 inch Odocoileus virginianus Aves Ursus americanus Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch F157A >1/4 inch Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata Mammalia Aves F157B >1/4 inch Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata Mammalia Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch F158 >1/4 inch Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Odocoileus virginianus F159 F160 F163 >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata 1 5 1 4 3 2 3 1 2 4 5 4 6 4 3 Taxon Odocoileus virginianus NISP Weight (g) 7.09 1.41 7.03 0.26 0.74 0.42 0.85 19.65 5.96 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.2 0.62 0.09 0.98 1.49 5.61 1.20 9.15 0.72 0.09 0.07 0.51 32.08 159.78 96.71 0.1 0.13 0.51 0.02 1.3 0.22 0.89 7.26 1.39 4.54 0.18 9.12 3.89 5.63 1.61 5.82 0.55 57.47 5.88 10.86 0.06 1.32 11.07 0.03

F153

F156

143

Table 6-2. Proveniences in Block D with Faunal Remains and the Taxa Represented.
Provenience Recovery Strategy >1/4 inch Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch F167 F169 F170A F170B >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch Taxon Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Mammalia Aves Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Aves Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Odocoileus virginianus Mammalia Vertebrata Mammalia Mammalia Vertebrata NISP Weight (g) 1.31 0.49 10.44 0.27 0.29 0.22 0.55 1.47 0.38 0.64 0.2 0.16 19.07 44.39 15.32 1.91 93.74 23.89 101.83 1.83 0.48 9.2 37.55 47.02 2.01 0.1 1.92 4.92 11.73 17.14 2.42 0.2 15.42 7.15 5.58 0.19 0.13 38.56 25.48 2.75 0.16 28.79 21.59 4.37 0.7 0.71 0.51 0.28 16.6 2.7 1.21 0.62 1.04

F165

F171

>1/4 inch

F174

>1/4 inch >1/4 inch

F175 Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch

11 8

>1/4 inch F176 Heavy fraction, >1/4 inch F180 F185 >1/4 inch >1/4 inch

5 3 7

F188

>1/4 inch >1/4 inch

F191A

F191B

>1/4 inch

F192 F193 F194 F198 F199 F202 F203 F205 F207

>1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch >1/4 inch

2 21 141 3 11 3 45 153 1 5 33 134 1 7 5 3 37 104 4 2 13

144

Table 6-3. Summary of Taxa Identified in the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Block D.
MNI N Turtles Birds White-tailed deer Other mammals TOTAL 1 1 10 1 13 % 7.7 7.7 76.9 7.7 kg 0.029 0.013 8.084 0.003 8.129 Biomass % 0.4 0.2 99.4 <0.1

Of the 12 bird specimens identified, three are identified as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The wild turkey is common to the pine-oak forests of the Coastal Plain and would have been readily available to the inhabitants of Kolomoki (Bull and Farrand 1996:451). Birds however, do not contribute significant proportions of the total MNI or biomass to this assemblage. Mammalian taxa identified include the black bear (Ursus americanus) and the white-tailed deer. Black bear is represented by a single upper fourth premolar. The lack of wear on this tooth indicates the bear was relatively young at the time of death. In the eastern United States the black bear is most frequently found in forested areas and swamps, particularly areas with dense cover (Whitaker 1997:704). Black bear is the only mammal included in the 13 Other Mammals category which contributes one individual to the total MNI and less than one percent of the total biomass. White-tailed deer is by far the most abundant species present in the assemblage, accounting for over 99 percent of the total estimated biomass and 77 percent of the individuals represented. An MNI of 10 is estimated for white-tailed deer based on the presence of 10 distal right humeri. All 10 of these humeri are fused indicating all of the individuals were at least subadults or adults at the time of death (Table 6-4). Two of these individuals can be classified as adults based on the presence of several Late Fusing elements with fused epiphyses. The presence of an unfused distal tibia signifies that at least one individual was a subadult or juvenile at the time of death. With only two unfused white-tailed deer bones recorded, the Block D assemblage seems to point to a relatively old deer population. Elements represented for white-tailed deer are presented in Table 6-5. When compared to the standard white-tailed deer skeleton (see Compton 2009:Appendix C), specimens of the Forequarter and Hindquarter are over-represented, while elements of the Head and Hindfoot are only slightly over-represented. Specimens of the Vertebra/Rib, Forefoot, and Foot categories are under-represented. A total of 886 modifications are present in the Block D assemblage (Table 6-6). Only two types of modifications are recorded: burning and calcination. The majority of burned and calcined specimens are identified as indeterminate mammal (Mammalia) or indeterminate vertebrate (Vertebrata). Twenty-six percent of indeterminate mammal specimens exhibit burning or calcination. This high percentage suggests burning of refuse took place in the vicinity of Block D As discussed previously a number of factors may bias the Block D faunal assemblage and consequently the interpretation of Late Woodland animal use practices at Kolomoki. Of particular concern is the role differential preservation played in altering the original skeletal assemblage. Block D specimens are generally in a poor state of preservation and are highly fragmented. The fragmentary nature of the assemblage is illustrated by the high proportion of specimens that could only be identified as indeterminate mammal or indeterminate vertebrate. The poor condition of the specimens also likely accounts for the lack of modifications identified other than burning and calcination. Modifications such as butchery marks and animal gnawing occur on the outer surface of bone and can be difficult to 145

Table 6-4. Epiphyseal Fusion Noted on White-tailed Deer Remains from Block D.
Unfused Early Fusing Metapodia, proximal (prenatal) Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar vertebra, centrum body Radius, proximal Innominate, acetabulum 2 phalanx, proximal Humerus, distal Atlas, dorsal 1st phalanx, proximal Scapula, distal Middle Fusing Tibia, distal Calcaneus Metapodia, distal Late Fusing Sacrum Ulna, proximal Femur, proximal Radius, distal Femur, distal Tibia, proximal Lumbar veterbra, centrum epiphysis Ulna, distal Cervical vertebra, centrum epiphysis Pubic symphysis Thoracic vertebra, centrum epiphysis Humerus, proximal TOTAL 2 2 37 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 7 2 13
nd

Fused

Note: Elements are presented in general order of age at fusion following Purdue (1983). Elements have overlapping ranges of age at fusion and the order of elements should not be considered the exact sequence of fusion.

Table 6-5. Element Distribution for White-tailed Deer in the Block D Faunal Assemblage.
Block D NISP Head Vertebra/Rib Forequarter Hindquarter Forefoot Hindfoot Foot TOTAL 50 2 37 37 1 10 5 142 % 35.2 1.4 26.1 26.1 0.7 7.0 3.5 NISP 45 74 8 9 16 14 76 242 Standard Deer % 18.6 30.6 3.3 3.7 6.6 5.8 31.4

146

Table 6-6. Modifications of Bone Noted in the Block D Faunal Assemblage.

Burned Indeterminate turtle Indeterminate bird Wild turkey Indeterminate mammal White-tailed deer Indeterminate vertebrate TOTAL 70 3 132 205 375 681 Calcined 1 1 2 302

identify if the bone surface is in poor condition. In addition, differential preservation may account for the dominance of white-tailed deer in the assemblage. The small size of the Block D assemblage is also a source of potential bias. Although the sample consists of 1,595 specimens, only 147 of these specimens are identified beyond taxonomic class and/or order. The small size of the assemblage and the effects of differential preservation make the Block D assemblage an unlikely candidate for accurate interpretations of Late Woodland animal use practices at Kolomoki. However, when these data are compared to the previously studied early/middle Late Woodland Block A assemblage (Pluckhahn et al. 2006) some similarities are observed, as described in the chapter that follows.

Macrobotanical Remains
Analysis of macrobotanical remains focused on 51 light and 51 heavy fraction flotation samples, as well as one fine water-screened sample (Table 6-7). These samples come from 35 distinct features in Block D. Seed preservation is poor in these samples. This is the usual pattern for Coastal Plain sites in Georgia, and Branch-Raymer and Bonhage-Freund (2011) have recently demonstrated that this is at least in part due to soil acidity. Nutshellespecially hickoryand wood charcoal and resin tend to be relatively abundant in these samples, probably due to their more robust constitution. Due to the low density of macroplant remains, in this analysis ubiquity is emphasized over counts and weight for nutshell, and mere presence/absence is noted for seeds. Ubiquity measures the proportion of unique features that contain macroplant remains of any given taxon. The assumption is that higher the ubiquity the greater the initial abundance of the taxon because it is present in more locations. Results Seeds. For convenience, seeds, fruits, and seed coats are all subsumed under the title of "seeds" in this analysis. Only 43 seeds and seed fragments, or 0.146 seeds per liter of floated soil, were recovered (Table 6-8). The 43 seeds in this archaeobotanical assemblage are scattered across the feature types. Without regard to taxa, seed ubiquity is 50 percent for large pits, 42.5 percent for small pits, and 28.6 percent for post molds. A single large pit (Feature 146) yielded 32.6 percent of the total seed assemblage including 9 grass seeds, 1 grape family fruit, and 4 unidentifiable seed fragments. 147

Table 6-7. Summary Data for Flotation Samples and Fractions from Block D.
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 none none Feature 141B 141B 144 141 143 140 141A 185 146 147B 147B 147B 150 151 153 154 154 155 155 155 156 157 157B 158 159 160 162 163 164 165 165 166 167 168 169 169 170A 170B 171 171 175 175 176 176 177 179 180 180 185 185 147B 181 Description South 1/2 Near base (100 cmbd) North 1/2 Southwest 1/2 Sample Volume (l) 12.00 10.00 1.25 10 3.5 1.75 9.50 9.50 7.50 1.25 6.30 5.70 5.30 5.00 8.80 6.90 6.50 6.00 6.00 8.30 8.20 6.30 7.80 4.90 3.20 7.20 6.00 3.70 6.40 7.60 2.30 7.00 1.40 5.50 8.00 5.70 5.92 6.90 6.00 6.70 4.80 5.00 4.40 4.80 4.20 4.20 3.60 5.40 2.90 6.50 1.50 Weight of Light Fraction (g) 34.61 57.15 4.32 34.33 7.89 25.55 72.28 41.7 35.27 24.76 46.33 19.48 9.78 28.77 22.75 21.45 18.43 45.83 11.76 13.18 17.43 14.57 15.93 11.85 10.77 1.67 10.4 20.95 11.94 16.38 23.11 4.1 8.97 0.88 5.15 6.1 11.05 6.92 26.04 9.31 13.06 34.36 6.23 36.2 28.02 2.54 4.42 4.74 8.28 4.14 253.47 Weight of Heavy Fraction (kg) 18.5 24.09 5.05 17.09 13.46 6.17 2.342 33.52 2.735 50.06 1.923 42.28 39.1 63.94 46.7 50.02 42.86 2.343 36.95 41.78 53.65 42.34 32.75 27.59 24.57 11.87 34.51 29.59 18.24 35.74 77.28 10.91 33.16 4.7 43 48.84 44.69 32.39 2146.19 46.81 30.67 39.9 25.63 34.96 24.77 14.91 27 18.22 35.88 26.4 107.08 848.26 Comments

Sample taken before features divided

Near base, South 1/2 North 1/2 West 1/2 West 1/2 Near base North 1/2 North 1/2 North 1/2 Near top, East 1/2 Near base, East 1/2 Northeast 1/2 South 1/2 North 1/2

volume not recorded

Sample taken before features divided

West 1/2 North 1/2 North 1/2 North 1/2 Near top, South 1/2 Near base, North 1/2 North 1/2 East 1/2 East 1/2 Near top, South 1/2 Near base, South 1/2 West 1/2 West 1/2 Northwest 1/2 Southeast 1/2 Near top, South 1/2 South 1/2 Near top, South 1/2 Near base East 1/2 South 1/2 North 1/2 West 1/2 South 1/2

hand floated dry sieved, water screened through 125 micron sieve

148

Sample Feature

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

11

10

17 185W 141B 141B 147B 147B 141A 141C 147B 146 140 143 144 153 151 150 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy Fraction light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light Scanned only Chenopodium sp. seed coat (truncated) (goosefoot) Phaseolus vulgaris or polystaychus (partial cotyledon) (common bean or "wild bean") c.f. Barbarea sp. (yellowrocket) (ct0 Chenopodium sp. (wild type) 9 Poaeae ct 1 Ampelopsis sp. (peppervine) Ilex sp. (holly) domesticates starchy/ herbaceous

16

15

14

13

12

154

154

light

light

heavy

heavy

Table 6-8. Seeds (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

149
1 1 1 4 2 3 1

wild fleshy fruits Nyssa sylvatica and c.f. Nyssa sylvatica seed (blackgum) c,f, Vitaceae fruit (grape family) unidentified seed, c.f. Brassica sp. medicinal Acalypha c.f. virginiana (4-seeded mercury) c.f. Campanula sp. (bellflower) Leguminosae Leguminosae, round cotylydon unidentified seed (no distinguishing characteristics) unidentified seed frag testa fragments Unknown seed (hollow) unknown or unidentifiable

Sample Feature

34 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 157B 166 165 165 164 163 162 160 159 158 157 156 155 155 155 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy Fraction light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light X x x x x x Scanned only Chenopodium sp. seed coat (truncated) (goosefoot) Phaseolus vulgaris or polystaychus (partial cotyledon) (common bean or "wild bean") c.f. Barbarea sp. (yellowrocket) (ct0 Chenopodium sp. (wild type) Poaeae ct Ampelopsis sp. (peppervine) 1 Ilex sp. (holly) domesticates starchy/ herbaceous

33

32

31

168

167

light

light

heavy

heavy

Table 6-8. Seeds (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

150
1 1 1 1 1

wild fleshy fruits Nyssa sylvatica and c.f. Nyssa sylvatica seed (blackgum) c,f, Vitaceae fruit (grape family) unidentified seed, c.f. Brassica sp. medicinal Acalypha c.f. virginiana (4-seeded mercury) c.f. Campanula sp. (bellflower) Leguminosae Leguminosae, round cotylydon unidentified seed (no distinguishing characteristics) unidentified seed frag testa fragments Unknown seed (hollow) unknown or unidentifiable

Sample Feature

50 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 170A 170B 185 183 180 179 177 176 176 175 175 171 171 169 169 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy Fraction light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

heavy light 181 and heavy TOTAL COUNT x x x x x x x x x Scanned only Chenopodium sp. seed coat (truncated) (goosefoot) Phaseolus vulgaris or polystaychus (partial cotyledon) (common bean or "wild bean") c.f. Barbarea sp. (yellowrocket) (ct0 1 Chenopodium sp. (wild type) Poaeae ct Ampelopsis sp. (peppervine) Ilex sp. (holly) domesticates 1 1 starchy/ herbaceous

147B

185

heavy

light

light

Table 6-8. Seeds (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

151
1 1 1 1

wild fleshy fruits

Nyssa sylvatica and c.f. Nyssa sylvatica seed (blackgum) c,f, Vitaceae fruit (grape family) unidentified seed, c.f. Brassica sp.

medicinal

Acalypha c.f. virginiana (4-seeded mercury) c.f. Campanula sp. (bellflower) Leguminosae Leguminosae, round cotylydon unidentified seed (no distinguishing characteristics) unidentified seed frag testa fragments Unknown seed (hollow)

unknown or unidentifiable

Domesticates are conspicuously rare in the Block D macrobotanical assemblage. One each of a truncated goosefoot seed (Chenopodium sp.) and a partial bean cotyledon (Phaseolus c.f. vulgaris) are the only potential garden species recovered. The latter was recovered from Feature 171, the possible hearth located near the center of the structure. Common bean is not known in this geographic area until at least the late prehistoric period. Since this cotyledon is incomplete and small in size, there is a possibility that it is actually Phaseolus polystachyus, a wild bean, possibly either deliberately planted or "encouraged" in some areas of Georgia (Bonhage-Freund 1997). An alternative explanation for the presence of this specimen is that it is an intrusion from a Lamar component located primarily downslope from Block D (Pluckhahn 2003:74-77; Sears 1951), although this seems unlikely given the complete absence of Lamar pottery from features in Block D in general, and Feature 171 in particular. The goosefoot seed was recovered from Feature 147B, one of the large pits northwest of the structure. Goosefoot was a common Woodland period domesticate throughout the Midwest and Southeast. While the specimen recovered from Block D features the truncated margin typical of a domesticated variety, it consists only of half of a seedcoat (testa). The only way to be certain that a goosefoot seed is domesticated is to measure the thickness of the seedcoat, using a scanning electron microscope. Naturally occurring seeds can be divided into four categories: starchy and herbaceous, fleshy fruit, medicinal, and not identifiable. One goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.) and nine unidentified grass seeds (Poaceae) comprise the naturally occurring starchy seeds. Non-domesticated goosefoot seeds are generally smaller than the domesticated varieties, with a low food to seed coat ratio. However, naturally occurring goosefoot is also used as a "potherb" or "wild spinach." As a "green" it would have required very little effort to harvest and prepare, and while low in calories, would provide iron and other important nutrients. This is a pioneering species usually found near human habitation sites, even today, and particularly attracted to nitrogen-rich garbage deposits. In addition, traditional farmers often uproot these plants, tossing them to the sides of garden plots where they flourish and serve as a no-maintenance crop (Bonhage-Freund 1997). While the grass seeds have not yet been identified, all grasses are edible and it is possible that these were harvested for food. There is an even more remote possibility that these grasses were cultivated or "encouraged" as a crop. Yellowrocket (Barbarea sp.) was used as a potherb by historic Cherokee and also raw to purify the blood (Moerman 1998: 121). Possible Brassica sp. also served as pot herb and medicine (Moerman:128). These food and medicine traditions, and others to be described below, may have been in place during the Late Woodland Period. Evidence of fleshy fruits is scant, but all identified genera were exploited for food, medicine, or ceremonial purposes in the historic Southeast. One peppervine (Ampelopsis sp.) and a single possible fruit represent the grape family (Vitaceae, 5 percent ubiquity combined). Peppervine is a favorite food of birds, which in turn distribute its seeds. While this single specimen has been identified only to the genus, the bark of Ampelopsis cordata (heartleaf peppervine) was used by historic Cherokee to treat urinary troubles (Moerman 1998:70). Across North America, various species of grape (Vitis spp.) were harvested by Indians from the wild and some species were cultivated for food and medicine during historic times (Moerman 1998: 98-600). Three blackgum or probable blackgum (c.f. Nyssa sylvatica, 5 percent ubiquity) seeds were recovered. While these, too, are dispersed by birds, they are rich in nutrients and could have been incorporated into the diet. In historic times, Cherokee and Creek used the bark or roots in decoctions and teas to treat a variety of digestive tract ailments, for tuberculosis, and as eye drops (Moerman 1998:360). One holly seed (Ilex sp., 2.5 percent ubiquity) was recovered from Feature 163. Throughout the Southeast the bark of various hollies was used as an emetic and most famously as a major ingredient of the ritual purgative "black drink." Holly bark and root decoctions served less well-known medicinal functions such as the treating of hay fever, eye problems, sore muscles and nightmares (Moerman 1998: 273). All of these taxa were most likely uncultivated plants, yet human disturbance of the landscape initiated the succession cycles that allowed for their growth.

152

In addition to medicinal taxa already cited, two three-seeded mercury seeds (Acalypha c.f. virginiana) and one bellflower seed (Campanula sp.) represent naturally occurring species of some medicinal value. Historic Cherokee used three-seeded mercury root to treat kidney problems, while an infusion of bellflower was taken for diarrhea (Moerman 1998: 37, 135). A single small round legume is probably a non-native clover, and an incidental inclusion, while the remaining Leguminosae were not able to be identified. A total of 13 seeds lacked necessary distinguishing characteristics or were too fragmented or incomplete to identify. One partial hollow seed also could not be identified, despite extensive research. Nutshell. Hickory (Carya spp.) nutshell is present in 100 percent of features (Table 6-9). Acorn (Quercus spp.) shell is found in 20 features (50 percent ubiquity). Differential preservation most likely accounts for much of his discrepancy and acorn is generally grossly under-represented in the archaeological record (Lopinot 1983). While not every heavy fraction was fully sorted at or above the 2.00 mm fraction, it was clear that the bulk of hickory shell appeared in the heavy fractions, although the light fractions yielded most of the wood charcoal. In order to reduce distorting effects of both original bulk of hickory versus acorn nutshell relative to the nutmeat itself, and the differential preservation, it is best to assess the importance of nuts by count, rather than weight. This does not eliminate the distortion but does mitigate it to some extent. These data should be further refined by multiplying the recovered acorn shell by a factor of 50 to achieve a more accurate acorn shell: hickory shell ratio (Yarnell and Black 1983). A ratio of acorn shell count (x 50) to hickory shell count based on all features for which both light and heavy fractions were sorted and not merely scanned, is 2.93. This indicates that while hickory shell is more abundant in the macrobotanical assemblage, acorn was probably the more important resource. Furthermore, Lopinot (1983) suggests that, depending on the species under consideration, acorns yield between 5 and 200 times more "nutmeat" than hickory, relative to the amount of nutshell. Calculation of the ratio of nutshell to remnant fuel wood is used to compare the relative abundance of nutshell in different contexts across a site where it is fairly certain of the origin of wood charcoal (Miller 1988). Applying this tool to those cases in which both the heavy and light fractions of all given feature samples were fully sorted to the 2.00 mm level it is observed that in nine large pits (Features 141A, 141B, 141C, 146, 156, 158, 159, 171, and 185) the ratio of the number of hickory fragments to wood charcoal weight (hickory [N]: wood weight [g]) is 10.75, while the ratio of acorn shell fragments to wood charcoal weight (acorn [N x 50]: wood weight [g]) is 38.39. Three fully sorted samples from small pits (Features 140, 153, and 163) yielded a ratio of 3.2 hickory count to wood charcoal weight (g) and 2.24 ratio of acorn shell count to wood charcoal weight (g). Since the wood of post molds is presumed to be composed in part of construction wood, this ratio cannot be used in that context. As a point of comparison, if these same ratios are calculated based on all fully sorted samples, without considering if both heavy and light fractions were fully sorted, there are somewhat different results. In this case, the ratios of hickory to wood charcoal is 5.90 for large pits and 2.48 for small pits. The acorn to wood charcoal ratio is 28.6 for large pits and 12.22 for small pits. The difference between these ratios is clearly related to the fact that hickory is more often recovered in the heavy fraction, while acorn shell is more common in the light fractions. When the heavy fractions are not all fully analyzed, much of the hickory is precluded from the ratio, and in some cases acorn increases in prominence.

153

Table 6-9. Nutshell/Nutmeat (Counts and Weights) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.
c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(N) c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(g) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g) c.f. Juglans nigra (N) - black walnut

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N)

Juglandaceae (N) walnut family

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g)

Unidentified nutmeat (N)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

141B 141B 144 141C 143 140 141A 185 146 147B 147B 147B 150 151 153 154 154 155

light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy x 8 137 0.21 1.67 11 0.05 1 0.00 x 3 0.11 15 2 0.08 0.02 35 0.81 1 0.10 32 0.50 74 1.48 1 0.00 2 97 6 135 2 240 1 163 0.05 1.77 0.12 2.02 0.07 7.38 0.02 5.02 8 0.04 8 0.06 2 1 0.01 0.01 8 0.06 1 3 202 1 0.01 0.05 4.91 0.03 24 0.18 4 0.05 8 1 2 0.16 0.01 0.05 30 6 7 0.51 0.08 0.06 1 0.01 13 0.31 2 0.02 1 0.01

154

Unidentified nutmeat (g)

Carya sp. (N) - hickory

c.f. Juglans nigra (g)

Juglandaceae (g)

Scanned Only

Carya sp (g)

Fraction

Feature

Sample

Table 6-9. Nutshell/Nutmeat (Counts and Weights) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.
c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(N) c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(g) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g) c.f. Juglans nigra (N) - black walnut

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N)

Juglandaceae (N) walnut family

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g)

Unidentified nutmeat (N) 1

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

155 155 156 157 157B 158 159 160 162 163 164 165 165 166 167 168 169 169

light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy x x x x x x X x x

0.02

4 1 22 0.06 0.25 2 0.06

0.02

2 1 23 27 11 2 44 36 11

0.08 0.01 0.54 0.41 0.12 0.01 0.65 0.48 2 0.15 0.01 1 7 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.01 1 0.00

6 1

0.12 0.01

19

0.37 1 0.01

155

Unidentified nutmeat (g)

Carya sp. (N) - hickory

c.f. Juglans nigra (g)

Juglandaceae (g)

Scanned Only

Carya sp (g)

Fraction

Feature

Sample

Table 6-9. Nutshell/Nutmeat (Counts and Weights) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.
c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(N) c.f. Quercus sp (oak) acorn nut meat(g) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N) c.f. Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g) c.f. Juglans nigra (N) - black walnut

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (N)

Juglandaceae (N) walnut family

Quercus sp ( oak) acorn shell (g)

Unidentified nutmeat (N) 1

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

170A 170B 171 171 175 175 176 176 177 179 180 183 185 185 147B

light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light heavy light x x 66 1.30 31 2 0.14 0.01 x 35 1 0.78 0.03 5 0.07 4 1 41 0.48 0.08 9 0.12 x 3 0.21 4 0.02 x x 2 0.03 3 0.02 x 3 0.05 1 0.10 x 16 548 5 0.16 27.42 0.15 35 1 4 1 2 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 x 2 0.02 1 0.00

heavy light 181 and heavy TOTAL COUNT TOTAL WEIGHT

2150 61.47

2 0.01

6 0.08

4 0.16

162 1.25

29 0.21

0.01

156

Unidentified nutmeat (g)

Carya sp. (N) - hickory

c.f. Juglans nigra (g)

Juglandaceae (g)

Scanned Only

Carya sp (g)

Fraction

Feature

Sample

Wood Charcoal. Wood charcoal generally comprises the bulk of any light fraction flotation sample from open sites, and this was true in all of the Kolomoki samples. Every feature contained wood charcoal as well as the exploded resins generally associated with burned pine. An attempt was made to identify 1904 wood charcoal fragments, including two fragments of bark (one pine, one indistinguishable), two of unidentifiable root and one completely degraded and unidentifiable fragment. The remaining 1900 fragments were at identified to some level and are comprised of 19 percent hardwood (N=357), 75 percent softwood (N=1432), and 6 percent monocot (N=111). These are very similar to the proportions observed in the earlier Late Woodland habitation area in Block A (19 percent hardwood, 67 percent softwood, and 9 percent monocot) (Bonhage-Freund 2003). As in most Southeastern sites, pine (Pinus spp.) dominates the wood charcoal assemblage. An average of 99 percent of all softwood was pine or pine bark with the remainder consisting of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana, N=12) and 2 fragments identifiable only as conifer. Similarly, in the Block A assemblage, pine comprised 98 percent of the softwood (Bonhage-Freund 2003). Several combined oak species comprise 58 percent by count of the 227 hardwood fragments that were identifiable to at least the level of genus. This is in contrast to earlier Block A assemblage, where no individual hardwood count was significantly higher than any other (Bonhage-Freund 2003). Pluckhahn et al. (2006) suggest that some of the diversity of charcoal in Block A could be attributable to the unusual nature of the deposit as refuse associated with feasting. This difference could also be accounted for by natural maturing of the local forest where oak, hickory, and pine are expected to dominate (Wharton 1978). In the Block D assemblage, the proportions of hardwood, softwood, and monocots (cane and other grasses) did not vary much between large and small pit features, and in every feature class softwoods dominate hardwoods. This pattern is not unusual for sites in the region. Among the reasons for a consistently lower proportion of hardwood to softwood in southern assemblages is the fact that hardwood is more likely to burn to ash with little residual, compared to pine (Bonhage-Freund 2005). In the case of post molds in Block D, there is a somewhat greater proportion of hardwood to softwood. At least some post molds were likely associated with structures and thus higher proportion of hardwood which might well represent floor or plaza sweepings containing remnants of thoroughly burned fireplace residue, further damaged by abrasion. In other situations the "post molds" might actually be small fire-associated features. However, none of the post molds or small pits displayed the characteristics of a smudge pit (Binford 1967; Bonhage-Freund 2005). Nineteen distinct hardwood genera were identified in these samples including maple, American chestnut, hickory, flowering dogwood, honey locust, butternut, black walnut, probable blackgum, ironwood, sycamore, cottonwood, wild cherry, white oak, red oak, post oak, black locust, willow, basswood, and elm. In addition, some specimens were assigned to the generic walnut, oak, and elm/ hackberry classifications. All types of features demonstrated comparable species breadth. Large pits, small pits, and post molds yielded 14, 15, and 12 different hardwood species, respectively. Cane and grasses (monocots) are widely distributed across Block D, but in small amounts. These monocots would be locally abundant and served many purposes such as matting, cordage, roof and wall construction, deliberate creation of smoke, among others.

157

10 9 7 6

12 8 5

11

13 185W

Sample

Feature

141C

141A 144

146 143 140

141B

141B

147B

147B

147B

150 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy

Fraction

light light light light

light light light

light light

light light

light

Table 6-10. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

light

Scanned Only
1 4

Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut)
1

Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore)

1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 10 9 1 2 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 3 1 4 2 17 1 1 6 30 171 84 8 2 6 2 15 83 3 5 107 pinch 31 249 3 1 pinch pinch odd #s sweep pinch pinch pinch 2 2 1 4 5 20 14 1 1 32 9 2 3 39 17 8 8 17 13 4 18 18 19 19 38 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 7 1 12 12 2 4 pinch 13 15 41 15 43 28

c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood)

9

c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak)
2

Quercus rubra (red oak) Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./ Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine)
9

Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot
1

c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable

resin 6 pinch sample type

16

15

14

18

17

Table 6-10. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

26 20 21 24 22 23

25

19

Sample Feature Fraction Scanned Only

154

153

151

155

154

157B

160 155 156 158 157 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy light light light light light light light light light light x x x x x x 2 1 light light light heavy

159

155

Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory)

1 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 22 1 1 2 3 6 2 2 3

Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak)
3 1 3

Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./ Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous
10 3 3 1

1 17 2 2 3 20 72

Hardwood (not identifiable)

1 20 2

Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine)

15 29 20 23 11 19 16 19 2 1 73 1 1 44 17 3 4 100 5 1 3 15 2 sweep sweep 20 2 sweep sweep every 10th sweep pinch pinch pinch pinch 19 23 27 15 31 23 14

Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane)

2 1 4 1 2 1

monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot

2

c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable

resin

sample type

27

28

30

29

31

32

34 33

35

36

Table 6-10. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

39

38

37

Sample Feature Fraction Scanned Only

170A 162 163 165 164 165 166 168 167 169 169

170B

171 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy light light light light light light light light light light light x x x x x x 3 7 1 x x light light

Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut)

c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory)

3

c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica (blackgum)

1 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 2

c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak) Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow)

1 2 1 1 3 2 4 1 3 1 2 9 1 5 6 2 3 20 18 24 1 1 12 28 20 30 176 21 10 13 14 8 39 1 16 23 9 30 15 13 6 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 33 21 20 12 18 4 every other 6 3 8 9 1 pinch every other 2 pinch pinch pinch 1 6

c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./ Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine) Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

sample type

43

49 42 41

48

47

46

44

40

50

45

Sample Feature Fraction Scanned Only Acer sp. (maple)

Table 6-10. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (Counts) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D.

Total Count 147B 176 185 183 180 179 176 171 175 175 185 177 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy light light light light light light light light light light light light x x x x x x x heavy heavy 181 light x 20 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 5 4 5 1 2 4 4 1 1 4 10 12 1 1 21 1 6 3 38 4 3 4 41 3 22 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 8 22 12 2 1 5 7 98 3 1 12 2 1437 1 2 1 3 6 56 1 1 18 31 1 1 2 1 11 3 22 12 4 3 11 6 3 3 160 1 1762 pinch pinch pinch pinch pinch pinch pinch 5 3 1 6 13 1 1 15 20 8 19 15 17 18 9 15 16 16 20 23 18 13 1 2 2 4 1 1 2 1

Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak) Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./ Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine) Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

sample type

9 8

Table 6-11. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (g) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D. See Table 6-10 for sample and scan information.

13 12 11 10 141B 141B 141C 141A 185W 147B 147B 147B

Sample Feature Fraction Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica. (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry)

144

146

140

143

150 light light light light light light light light light light light light heavy light 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.7 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.18 0.41 0.01 0.7 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.32 0.22 0.17 0.44 0.47 0.39 0.39 5.33 1.32 0.12 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy

Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak) Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine) Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

24 20 21 14 18 17

Table 6-11. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (g) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D. See Table 6-10 for sample and scan information.

26 25 16 15 23 22 19 157B

Sample Feature Fraction Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica. (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak)

158 155 156 151 155 154

160 159 154 153 light light light light light light light light light light light light heavy 157 155 light 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy

Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak)

0.03 0.02

0.11 0.01

0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01

Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak)

0.68

cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous
0 0.02 0.01 0.00

Hardwood (not identifiable)

0.00 0.2 0.01 0.3 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.31 0.25 0.21 0.5 0.16 0.15 0.61 0.01 0.3 0.02 0.02

Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine)

0.17 0.19 0.42 0.35 0.22 0.13 0.3 0.06

Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

37 32

36

34

33

35

29

38

Table 6-11. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (g) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D. See Table 6-10 for sample and scan information.

39 170A 170B

31

27

30

28

Sample Feature Fraction Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica. (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak) c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak)

169 166

168

171 167 169 165 163 light light light 164 light light light heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy light light heavy light light light light heavy heavy light 0.04 0.11 0 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.06 0 0 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 heavy

165

162

Quercus rubra (red oak)

0.01 0 0.02 0

Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm)
0

0.02

0.01 0.05 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.28 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.27 0.02 0.11 0 0.09 1.27 0.35 0.68 0.04 0.93 0.19 0.15 0.32 0.08 0.47 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.56 0.36 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.12

Ulmus sp./Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous diffuse porous Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine) Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

50 45 42 41 40 43 48 47 46 44

49

Sample Feature Fraction Acer sp. (maple) Castanea dentata (American chestnut) c.f. Carya sp. (hickory) Carya sp. (hickory) c.f. Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Gledetsia triancanthos (honey locust) Juglans cinerea (butternut) Juglans nigra (black walnut) c.f. Juglans sp. (walnut family) c.f. Nyssa sylvatica. (blackgum) c.f. Nyssa sp. (blackgum) c.f. Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) Platanus occidentalis (sycamore)

147B 185 177 176 175 175 171 185 183 180 179 176

181 light light heavy heavy heavy light light light light light light light light light light heavy light and heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.04 0 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.02 0

Table 6-11. Wood Charcoal and Miscellaneous (g) in Macrobotanical Remains from Block D. See Table 6-10 for sample and scan information.

Total (g) 0.29 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.05

c.f. Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) c.f. Populus deltoides (cottonwood) c.f. Prunus sp. (wild cherry) Quercus alba. (white oak)
0 0.01

0 0.09 0.11 0.73 0.09 0 0.1 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.2 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.14 0.21 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.02 0.23 0.17 0.3 0.46 0.07 0.68 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.21 0.78 0.03 0.06 28.5 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.45 0.28 0.21 0 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.34 0.21

c.f. Quercus alba. (white oak) Quercus rubra (red oak)

0

Quercus c.f. rubra (red oak) Quercus stellata (post oak) c.f. Quercus sp. (oak) cf. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) c.f. Salix sp. (willow) c.f. Tilia americana (basswood) Ulmus rubra (elm) Ulmus sp./Celtis sp. (elm/hackberry) ring porous
0.01 0.01

diffuse porous
0.01 0.01 0.38 0.02 0.57 0.03

Hardwood (not identifiable) Hardwood root Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) Pinus sp. (pine)
0.15 0.02

Pinus sp. bark (pine) Conifer Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. Arundinaria sp. (cane) monocot c.f. monocot bark c.f. root Not identifiable
resin

Interpretation Under the best of conditions macroplant analysis does not recover all taxa used at a site, nor even necessarily proportions that reflect the initial abundance of any taxon. Rather, flotation analysis is a starting point. There is no guarantee that all recovered macroplant remains were actually used at the site, and undoubtedly many more taxa were exploited than find their way into the archeological record. Nevertheless, with careful analysis, much can often be learned about the past relations between plants and people. Owing to the limitations of the assemblage from Block D, however, only the tentative interpretations can be offered. Subsistence. In considering the Kolomoki subsistence system it is important to recognize the limitations of the data. Overall, macrobotanical recovery has been so sparse that it is not possible to develop a subsistence model for the Late Woodland period. Furthermore, even under the best preservation conditions, some plant remains are more likely to be preserved than others, due to differential discard patterns, durability, and opportunity for charring. Charring is the means by which all of the Kolomoki macroplant remains were preserved. Plant foods that are cooked before consumption have an increased chance of preservation due to accidental charring, as in cooking accidents. Similarly, those parts of the plant that were considered to be waste have a much higher chance of being preserved than those that were not. Finally, hickory shell was sometimes used as fuel and as such would have a higher incidence of preservation. In trying to tease out a picture of subsistence ubiquity and even a mere presence are often nearly as important as count and weight of any given taxon. With 99 percent of the samples containing nutshell, it is likely that locally abundant nut mast played an important role in Late Woodland Period subsistence. While hickory was the most abundant of all macroplant remains by both count and weight, it has been explained above that oak acorn is almost certainly under-represented in the assemblage and was probably more important than hickory. Archaeological evidence indicates that hickory mast was a dietary staple in the Eastern Woodlands as early as 8300 B.C., but acorn was probably the most important plant food in the Southeast up to and throughout the Late Woodland Period (Gremillion 1998; Yarnell and Black 1983). Both hickory and oak are reasonably abundant locally in the Coastal Plain (Wharton 1978) and these are the only two nut taxa that appear in any abundance in the assemblage. Based on both wood charcoal remains, and the expected proportion of species in the local forest, acorn was probably more abundant in the area of Kolomoki during the Late Woodland Period. However acorn mast is produced in two or three year cycles, depending on the species and is also sensitive to drought and other factors. Thus hickory was likely a valued resource, for which there is much evidence. Use of hickory as a staple makes sense in terms of energetic return. Based on native harvesting and processing methods, hickory is estimated to return 2565 kcal per hour, compared to 1107 kcal per hour for acorn (Gremillion 1998). Hickory was important in both the Middle and Late Woodland occupations at Kolomoki, and throughout the Southeast continued to increase in importance over time through the Mississippian period, even when maize was available (Bonhage-Freund 1999, 2003; Gremillion 1998; Yarnell and Black 1983; ). The number and variety of starchy seeds, fleshy fruits, and possible "greens" or "pot herbs" in the Block D macrobotanical assemblage is very small. Nevertheless, it is likely that seasonal wild plant foods such as these were integral to the diet, adding variety and nutrients. A small amount of seeds related to plants of medicinal use suggests an intimate knowledge of and relationship to, the local plant communities. A probable domesticated chenopod and possible common bean, together with the often "encouraged" wild type chenopodium suggest that gardening might have been practiced, but the number of seeds are so small that these could just as easily be intrusions, and in any case they are statistically insignificant. The presence of unidentified grass seeds also raise the possibility of grain being cultivated or at least encouraged. 166

Although small amounts of maize were identified in the early/middle Late Woodland occupation of Block A at Kolomoki (Bonhage-Freund 2003), no maize was evident in the later Late Woodland assemblage from Block D. As discussed below, the analysis of microplant remains suggests that maize cultivation was indeed associated with the occupation of Block D. The absence of maize macroplant remains may in part be attributed to the generally poor floral preservation in Block D. Additionally, there may have been unrecognized problems in the flotation process. This latter explanation seems unlikely, however, as two different systems were employed, and another two samples were completely hand-processed in small batches, and yet few or no seeds were yielded in those samples. In addition, the control sample yielded a sizable number and variety of seeds and other small plant remains, using the same equipment that was used to process the archaeological flotation samples. Although gardening cannot be confirmed by the macrobotanical remains recovered from Block D, it seems likelygiven the results of the microbotanical evidence described belowthat the subsistence regimen at Kolomoki remained relatively unchanged during the Late Woodland Period, and continued to emphasis limited cultivation of domesticates as a supplement to a diet focused primarily on wild resources. Since the 1980s, research suggests that Woodland groups of the Lower Mississippi Valley were not dependent on intensified agricultural production, and that cultigens comprised only a minor component of the diet, with nut mast serving as the plant-based staple (Caldwell 1958; Fritz and Kidder 1993; Gremillion 2002; Springer 1980; Webb 1981). Gremillion (2002) argues that cultivation played a minor role in Woodland subsistence because it could not compete successfully with a hunter-gatherer economy based on abundant, seasonally predictable forest resources. Although the Block D macrobotanical assemblage is limited, it is consistent with this characterization, and at odds with previous assumptions that Weeden Island societies became more heavily dependent on agriculture during the Late Woodland period (Kohler 1991:105; Milanich et al. 1997:76). The macrobotanical remains suggest that hickory and acorn mast were important staples. More generally, it would appear that wild resources provided the basis of the Late Woodland period subsistence. Wood Use. Pine is the most abundant genus in the forests of the southeastern Coastal Plain, so its ubiquity is anticipated. It was commonly used as a construction material throughout the Southeast even into early historic times (Bonhage-Freund 1997). Pine produces a hot, smoky, resin-filled fire, ideal for smudging or deterring insects, but by contemporary Western standards, not for cooking. It was probably used to start fires, and even as a fuel when absolutely necessary. Some types of pine are less messy than others and could be used as fuel if needed. Hardwoods of all kinds, but particularly genera like oak and maple provide long-burning coals with even heat. These hardwoods frequently burn completely to ash, in contrast to pine that often leaves some residual charcoal (Bonhage-Freund 1994). This also contributes to the abundance of pine charcoal relative to hardwood charcoal. It is presumed that the hardwood charcoal at Kolomoki was primarily fuel wood. Distribution. Understanding the relative abundance and distribution of taxa can aid in the interpretation of activity areas. In this assessment liters of floated soil are used as the leveling device, because fuel wood cannot be separated from structural wood in the case of post molds, and it is desirable to include all feature types in this study. Every analyzed sample is included in assessing this seed assemblage because every light and heavy fraction was scanned for seeds. In evaluating nutshell, only those features where both light and heavy fractions were fully sorted are included for reasons discussed above. When acorn shell is equalized with hickory by multiplying by a factor of 50, it dominates the large pit features (Figure 6-1). Since these are most likely to be trash features, this supports those studies that indicate the dominance of acorn in Woodland period diets. Hickory and acorn are fairly similar in number in small pits, which may have been processing facilities, and also fairly close in number in post molds. Again, some post molds may actually be small processing facilities and thus should show a similar pattern to small pit features. Those post molds associated with a house structure, particularly those near the door, would be expected to collect debris from in and around the house. These are areas 167

25 20 15 10 5 0 large pits hickory small pits acorn (x 50) seeds postmolds

Figure 6-1. Number (count) of hickory, acorn (x 50), and seeds per liter of soil analyzed. where food preparation would be anticipated. The greatest representation of seeds is found in post molds. In historic times acorn meat was removed from the shell in designated areas, usually on prepared outcroppings of rock (Parker 1991). Therefore acorn shell would more likely occur in trash pits near the nutting stone areas, than close to houses, and this pattern seems to be reflected in the distribution of nutshell across the features. With the bulk of the seeds being recovered in the large pit features, it is likely that these were trash facilities. In particular, Feature 146, containing all 9 grass seeds, and a total of 33% of the seed assemblage is an ideal candidate for the storage pit classification. One interesting observation is the fact that two of the three blackgum seeds and the single holly seed came from the same small pit (Feature 163). This feature may have been used to prepare medicine for body or spirit as both have healing properties, and holly is as an emetic. Holly leaves feature prominently in the "Black Drink" of Southeastern ritual (Hudson 1976; Swanton 1969.) Environment and Site Seasonality. Many of the plants represented in this assemblage favor or require specific environments (Table 6-12). Due to this fact, some of the local habitats around the Kolomoki site can be identified. The wood identifications suggest proximity to both wetlands (e.g., sycamore) and drier better-drained soils (e.g., pine). Cane favors damp or wet soils. Monocots may be either grass or cane and usually require open sunny areas. Many grasses can survive droughts by going into a kind of hibernation until water becomes sufficient to stimulate growth, but cane prefers mesic to wet soils. Various grasses can also withstand fire, some even being "fire adapted", and Native people of the Southeast often burned fields to maintain grasslands for grazing game (Hudson 1976; Swanton 1969 [1946]). Blackgum is likewise fire adapted, relying on fire to reduce competition and release nutrients into the soil, and both seeds and wood of this taxon were identified. An abundance of pine, a pioneering genus, is another sign of constant renewal of the local forest by fire. Some types of pine require fire for seed release.

168

Table 6-12. Habitats and Seasonality Associated with Macroplant Remains from Block D. Based on Britton and Brown (1970), Fernald (1950), and Martin and Barkley (2000).
habitat agricultural field/garden

Taxon

Scientific Nomenclature

ripens disturbed areas bottomlands open woods rich woods edge zones open fields riverbanks June-July May-July Sept-Oct x x x x Aug.-Sept. Summer-fall Sept.-Oct. Aug.-Sept. Sept. June July-Oct. summer-fall old fields

peppervine Holly Blackgum Grape grass family 3-seeded mercury bellflower goosefoot yellow rocket mustard pulse family

Ampelopsis sp. Ilex sp. Nyssa sylvatica Vitis sp. (not domesticate V. vinifera) Gramineae Acalypha sp. Campanula sp. Chenopodium sp. Barbarea sp. Brassica sp. Leguminosae x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x

x x

Note: Habitat and seasonality depend on species.

The macroplant remains identified in this assemblage indicate a habitat containing some of the same taxa found in the modern control sample or identified in the wood charcoal. Blackgum, pine, and grasses all suggest a fire-adapted or dependent forest and field association, dominated by pioneering species. Plants of the grape family, and 3-seeded mercury are common to both edge zone and old, or abandoned fields in early stages of succession, and black gum can be found here as well. All of the recovered species can become established in more than one environment, but the intersecting habitats indicate an oak-hickory-pine forest with sub-canopy or understory species like blackgum or holly. Grape family would live on trees at the forest edge and spread through the edge zone into open fields. A variety of herbaceous plants, some only tentatively identified, would inhabit the zones from forest edge through newer disturbed and older regenerating fields. The juxtaposition of a variety of habitats, particularly forest and edge-zone, typically provides a rich mixture of food and medicinal plants. While there is clear evidence that forest mast was harvested in the Late Woodland period, it can only be hypothesized that additional species were also exploited. The sparse seed assemblage does provide another window to the past. Because only one taxon was identified to the species level, the seasons of seed or fruit ripening can only be expressed by a range which encompasses the ripening schedule of all possible species of a given genus. Even so, the majority of taxa ripen in late summer through early fall. This also coincides with the nut mast harvest and processing. Prior to storage all nuts would be smoked or otherwise processed to kill larvae and insects, and while hickory could be eaten immediately, acorns would be stored for at least a year after smoking (Ortiz and Parker 1991). If Block D was a nut processing site used for the autumn harvest, it would help to explain the near total absence of other plant foods. Other foods and their debris would be disposed of closer to their processing point. Even if the entire archaeological seed assemblage would be considered as "seed rain," at least 75 percent of the taxa produce fruits and seeds from August through October. This would indicate that this is the season when the features were being filled, and there is minimal evidence to indicate their use in other seasons.

169

wetlands

dry soils

Microbotanical Remains
As a follow up to the negative recovery of maize in the macrobotanical remains from flotation samples, soil samples from four features were submitted for pollen, starch, and phytolith analysis. The samples were retrieved from Features 191A, 192, 194, and 203. These are all large, basin-shaped pits in the northern portion of the core block, within or adjacent to the structure. Results Pollen. Pollen analysis of these samples yielded differing records for the four pits represented. Quercus pollen was noted in all four pits and was particularly abundant in the sample from Feature 194 (Table 6-13, Figure 6-2). This is consistent with the presence of an oak forest in the vicinity of Block D. In addition, moderate quantities of Low-spine Asteraceae and Poaceae and small quantities of Carya, Pinus, Anacardiaceae, and Cheno-am pollen indicate that weedy plants of the sunflower family that include marshelder, grasses, hickory trees, pine, a member of the sumac family (possibly poison ivy), and cheno-ams were part of the local vegetation (see Table 6-14 for background information on these and other taxa in the microbotanical assemblage). This sample contained a small quantity of Apiaceae starch, suggesting that roots/tubers of plants in the umbel family were stored in this feature or possibly that these roots/tubers were discarded as part of the trash that filled the pit. No evidence of Zea mays was observed in this sample. The sample from Feature 203 also was dominated by Quercus pollen. Moderate quantities of Low-spine Asteraceae and Poaceae pollen reflect local weedy members of the sunflower family and grasses. Recovery of small quantities of Pinus, Tilia, High-spine Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Cephalanthus, Cheno-am, Cyperaceae, and a slightly elevated frequency of Typha angustifolia-type pollen indicate local presence of pine, basswood, other members of the sunflower family, members of the mustard family, buttonbush, cheno-ams, sedges, and cattails. It is possible that the presence of Highspine Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Cheno-am, and Cyperaceae pollen represents weedy plants growing in the vicinity of the feature or perhaps in the trash fill of the pit. Typha pollen might be present through wind transport of pollen from cattails growing nearby in a wetland or drainage. This sample contained a small starch with eccentric hilum, representing a root or tuber that has not been identified. In addition, two starches with linear hila were noted. These represent grass seeds from grasses such as little barley grass or wild rye.

Figure 6-2. Pollen diagram for microbotanical remains from Block D. 170

Table 6-13. Pollen and Starch Types Observed in Microbotanical Remains from Block D.
Scientific Name Arboreal Pollen Carya Magnolia Pinus Quercus Tilia Non-Arboreal Pollen Anacardiaceae Asteraceae Common Name Hickory, Pecan Magnolia Pine Oak Linden, Basswood Sumac family Sunflower family Low-spine High-spine Brassicaceae Cephalanthus Cheno-am Cyperaceae Eriogonum Opuntia Poaceae Smilax Typha angustifolia-type Cultigens Zea mays Indeterminate Starches Apiaceae Small Eccentric hilum Linear hilum Zea-type Starch Algae Fungal Spores Botryococcus Concentricyste Root starch Legume family or little barley grass, wild rye, and wheat grass seeds Typical of starches produced by maize Algal body Fungal spore, indicator of wet, oxidized conditions Mustard or cabbage family Buttonbush Includes the goosefoot family and amaranth Sedge family Wild buckwheat Prickly pear cactus Grass family Catbrier, Greenbrier, Prickly-ivy, Sarsaparilla, Zarzaparrilla, Sarsparilla and Smilax Cattail Maize, Corn Too badly deteriorated to identify Includes ragweed, cocklebur, sumpweed

Recovery of these starches suggest that wild foods were either stored in this pit or discarded as part of the trash that filled the pit. No evidence of Zea mays was observed. The Feature 192 sample exhibits only a moderate quantity of Quercus pollen. This sample was dominated by Low-spine Asteraceae pollen, probably representing weedy plants from the sunflower family, such as marshelder, growing in the trash fill of the pit. Moderate to small quantities of Pinus, Anacardiaceae, High-spine Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, and Poaceae pollen indicate the local presence of 171

Table 6-14. Background Information for Plant Taxa Identified in Microbotanical Remains from Block D.
Native Plants Apiaceae (Parsley Family) Several members of the parsley family were used for food, medicines, and charms by eastern tribes. Many plants were utilized for their greens, cooked as potherbs, and roots, which were most often boiled. These include Heracleum (cow parsnip), Angelica (angelica), Pastinaca (wild parsnip), Cryptotaenia (honewort), Carum (caraway), Daucus (wild carrot), Sium (water-parsnip), Osmorhiza (sweet cicely), and Erigenia (harbinger-of-spring). The seeds of several of these plants also may be used as a seasoning (Peterson 1977:38-42).Seeds of these and other plants such as Taenidia (yellow pimpernel) also were smoked as hunting and fishing charms. Cicuta (water-hemlock) is noted to be poisonous, but medicinal and contraceptive uses are reported. Angelica, Thaspium (meadow parsnip), Sanicula (black snakeroot), Erigenia, Pimpinella (anise), Heracleum, and Sium also provided medicinal resources (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:23, 27, 31, 48, 55; Yarnell 1964:164, 171, 178, 180). Palms may be shrubs, vines, or trees. They are an important part of the economy in tropical and subtropical areas. The most well known palms include date and coconut palms. Palms may be used for their fiber, for building and thatching, making baskets and mats, and for their edible fruits and oil content (Hickey and King 1981). The two palms important in the economy of the southeastern United States are discussed below. Sabal minor (Dwarf Palmetto) Dwarf palmetto is a perennial shrub or tree of the palm family that was a staple food to native groups in the southeastern U.S. The fresh root slices were baked and eaten as bread, and the terminal bud or heart of this palm was specially valued, having a delicate asparagus-like flavor. A decoction of the dried root was taken by southern coastal native groups as a treatment for high blood pressure, kidney trouble, and swimming in head. The small roots, when fresh, were crushed and the juice rubbed into sore eyes as a counterirritant. Sabal minor grows in the southeastern coastal U.S. from Texas east to the Carolinas, then north to Oklahoma and Arkansas, were it grows in floodplains, levees, riverbanks, and swamps. It has also been observed growing in much drier conditions inland in Texas and Mexico (Kiple and Ornelas 2000:1784; Moerman 1998:499). Serenoa repens is the most abundant native palm in the U.S. Saw palmetto grows as a shrub (2-6 feet) or a small tree (20-25 feet) with stems that run parallel to the ground. Leaves are fan-like, with sword-shaped leaf blades radiating out from a central stalk. Two forms are recognized, the more common yellow-green color, and the blue-green or silver form, which is found in a continuous belt on a strip of Floridas coast and occasionally inland. To the pre-columbian Glades Cultures, saw palmetto appears to have been one of the most important wild food sources, as well as to the later Seminole and Miccosukee. Leaf stems were used to make medicine baskets. The plant was also used in the making of brushes, rope, dance fans, rattles, fish drags, fire fans, and dolls. Saw palmetto is found growing in low pine woods, thickets, savannas and coastal plains in the southeastern U.S. from South Carolina to southeastern Louisiana, including the Florida peninsula. It is a hardy, slow-growing, and fire resistant plant that can live, especially in Florida, for hundreds of years (Foster and Duke 1990:228; Milanich 1998:42,124; Moerman 1998:527-528; Peterson 1977:170). River cane or giant cane is a bamboo-like, woody, hollow-stemmed grass native to the eastern U.S., found from Delaware to Florida, Texas to Illinois. The Seminole used the stalks of this plant to make blowguns, knives, arrows, bows, spears, flutes, and blowing tubes. River cane was also used as a building material, in basket-making, and as fuel. The young shoots can be prepared and eaten like bamboo shoots. The large seeds can be used as a cereal or ground into flour. A decoction of the root was used to stimulate the kidneys, renew strength, ease breast pain, and as a cathartic. Arundinaria gigantea is found growing in dense stands on low ground along river and streambanks and in swamps (Foster and Duke 1990:312; Moerman 1998:104; Peterson 1977:228).

Arecaceae (Palm Family)

Serenoa repens (Saw Palmetto)

Arundinaria gigantea (River cane)

Marantaceae (arrowroot family)

This is a group of perennial herbs with starchy tuberous rhizomes. The Marantaceae produce distinctive and diagnostic phytoliths and starch grains. Important economic plants within the family cultivated for food and ornamental use include Maranta, Calathea and Thalia. It should be noted that the Marantaceae are closely allied with the canna family (Cannaceae) and are recognized as a sister taxa. The Marantaceae are pantropical, and most diverse in the American tropics. Some genera extend into subtropical and warm-temperate regions, and can be found naturally in moist forest habitats and swamps. While Maranta and Calathea occur in Mexico, only two species of Thalia are native to North America north of Mexico. Thalia geniculata is extant today in Louisiana and Florida, flowers June through December, fruits August through January, and can be found in swamps, marshes, cypress sloughs, along streams and lakes, often in regions with a pronounced dry season. Thalia dealbata is extant today in portions of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and the Carolinas. Thalia dealbata flowers May through September and fruits June through October. Thalia dealbata is the only Marantaceae endemic to North America and the only one not found in the tropics. It is hypothesized that Thalia dealbata is the result of an early, chance long-distance dispersal event from a South American population (Kennedy 2000; Zomlefer 1994). Marantaceae subsistence utilization is not well understood. Moerman (1998) lists one account of Seminole use of Thalia geniculata as a food. Most of the Marantaceae subsistence record is derived from use of arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea) and Guinea arrowroot, also called sweet-corm root and leren (Calathea allouia) in southern Mexico, Central and South America. Maranta is cultivated for its starchy roots which yield an edible starch that makes both flour and a very smooth jelly or paste. The flour is almost all starch, easily digested, and often employed as a thickener. Because Native Americans believed that the root absorbed poison from arrow wounds, the plant has long been thought to have medicinal properties (Atran, et al. 2003; Breedlove and Laughlin 2000:224; Kiple and Ornelas 2000:1721). Calathea allouia has been cultivated by indigenous farmers in its tropical American habitat for more than a thousand years. The roots are a rich source of many essential amino acids and are valued for their texture, which remains crisp even after cooking, and their flavor, which is said to resemble green maize (Kiple and Ornelas 2000:1782). Young spikes are also reported as being edible (Atran et al.2003:134), and leaves are used to wrap various foods, including meat (Breedlove and Laughlin 2000:224). Members of the Poaceae (grass) family, such as Elymus (rye grass), Oryzopsis (ricegrass), Panicum (panic-grass) and Phalaris caroliniana (maygrass), were used as a food resource by native groups. The seeds often were parched and ground into meal to make various mushes and cakes. The young shoots and leaves might have been cooked as greens. Grass stems also are reported to have been used for baskets, mats, etc. Grass seeds ripen during the summer and fall (Fernald 1950; Medsger 1966:128-129; Reidhead 1981:238). Cultivated Plants

Poaceae (Grass Family)

Zea mays (Maize, Corn)

Maize is a New World cultigen that evolved in the southern highlands of Mexico from annual teosinte. From this area, maize is believed to have reached the southwestern United States around 3,000 years ago and the eastern United States about A.D. 200. Once maize was introduced to eastern North America, the Great Plains acted as a barrier to gene flow; therefore, maize in eastern North America is enzymatically different than maize of the Southwest or Mexico. After maize was introduced to the East, it is believed to only have been a minor crop and grown in small amounts for hundreds of years. By the Mississippian period, however, maize had become a principal food crop. Seeds were planted in hills. After the maize had sprouted, beans were often planted in the corn hills. Watchtowers and platforms were erected so that women and children could guard the crops against birds, especially crows. Snares and deadfalls were used to trap raccoons, woodchucks, and deer. Two crops of maize were often planted. The early-ripening corn was picked while still green and roasted on the cob, and the late-ripening corn was dried and stored for future use. After harvesting, ears of corn were braided and hung inside the house to dry. Shelled maize was stored in bark containers, large baskets, and/or in underground storage pits. The husks and stalks were often saved and used in a variety of ways. Dried maize was boiled, often with meat and dried pumpkin or squash (succotash), or ground into a meal that was used to make bread, mush, or dumplings (Hurt 1987; King 1987; MacNeish 1992). There are five different types of maize determined by the endosperm composition. Pop and flint corn have a high protein content and a hard starch. Dent corn has a deposit of soft, waxy starch at the crown of the kernel. Flour corn contains little protein and mostly waxy starch, while sweet corn stores more sugar than starch (McGee 1984:241).

172

pine, a member of the sumac family (possibly poison ivy), other members of the sunflower family, members of the mustard family, and grasses. This is the only sample that contained angular starches that are considered to be diagnostic of maize. Recovery of this starch without confirming evidence of pollen or phytoliths suggests that prepared food that contained maize was discarded here. Only one of these angular starches was observed in the portion of the sample examined, providing relatively weak evidence for the presence of maize. This sample also yielded evidence for the presence of water in the recovery of a Botryococcus fragment, representing an algae, and a few concentricyste forms, which represent an algae that thrives in moist, oxidative conditions. Finally, the sample from Feature 191A yielded the most diverse pollen record. There is no single, overwhelming pollen type, however, Poaceae pollen frequency dominates this record. Moderate quantities of Low-spine Asteraceae and High-spine Asteraceae pollen were noted, probably representing weedy plants growing in the vicinity of the feature. Recovery of small quantities of Magnolia, Pinus, Quercus, Anacardiaceae, Brassicaceae, Cheno-am, Cyperaceae, Erigonum, Opuntia, and Smilax pollen indicates local growth of magnolia, pine, oak, a member of the sumac family (possibly poison ivy), a member of the mustard family, cheno-ams, sedges, wild buckwheat, prickly pear cactus, and greenbriar (respectively). This sample yielded two large Poaceae pollen. One measured approximately 35 microns, which is the correct size for Agropyron (wheat grass) or Arundinaria (cane). The other pollen measured 90 microns, and clearly represents Zea mays. This pollen was observed while scanning the microscope slide in search of Zea mays, not within the pollen count. Recovery of Zea mays pollen in this sample is the best evidence for the processing of maize in association with the Block D occupation. Phytoliths. Phytolith analysis of these samples yielded a highly concentrated assemblage of phytolith morphotypes (Figure 6-3 ). Overall, phytolith preservation was good; however, evidence of dissolution (the dissolving of silica due to a soil pH level of above neutral) was observed on some of the phytoliths. All of the samples were overwhelmingly dominated by globular echinate phytoliths diagnostic of the palm family (Arecaceae; see Figure 6-4A). For southwest Georgia, three species of palm are noted as occurring: needle palm (Rhapidophyllum hystrix), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Needle palms and dwarf palmetto are found in swampy woods, bottomlands, and along streams. Saw palmetto is an infrequent plant found along sandy banks of streams, sandy oak barrens, and moist, sandy pinelands. Since palms are not a dominant vegetation type in southwestern Georgia, the overwhelming dominance of palms in the phytolith record (40% to 70% relative abundance) indicates that material

Figure 6-3. Phyolith diagram for microbotanical remains from Block D. 173

Figure 6-4. Selected phytoliths from Block D samples (micrographs at approximately 400x magnification). A) Several globular echinate phytoliths (1) diagnostic of the palm family (Arecaceae), and given the location of this site, are most likely derived from Serenoa repens and/or Sabal minor. Also in micrograph A is a trapeziform sinuate (2) diagnostic of the cool-season grass subfamily Pooideae. Many pooid grasses are also shade tolerant and mesophytic. B) Calathea-type phytolith diagnostic of the arrowroot family (Marantaceae) inside view and C) in top view from sample from Feature 203. D) Opaque perforated plate derived from inflorescence material from a member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). E) Silicified cone cell from the achene of a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae) (this morphotype is very similar to those produced by the genus Cyperus). from members of the palm family were likely utilized intensely and then discarded at this site. In addition, the absence of Aracaceae (palm family) pollen from this site supports this interpretation. Aracaceae pollen is expected when palms are common in the local vegetation community. Moerman (1998) lists a wide variety of uses for palms in the southeast, which include medicinal, subsistence, and technological applications. Since palm globular echinate phytoliths are produced in all parts of palm plants (leaves, stems, bark, roots, etc.) the palm phytoliths observed in these samples may be derived from almost any plant part. Phytoliths derived from a wide variety of grasses were also very abundant in these samples. For the grass phytoliths, long saddles, diagnostic of the grass subfamily Bambusoideae, were the most abundant morphotypes for the samples from Features 191A and 192, but were also present in the samples from Features 194 and 203. Since cane grass (Arundinaria) is the only Bambusoideae native to the United States, the long saddles observed in these samples can be ascribed to Arundinaria. There are two species of Arundinaria found in the Southeast, river cane (Arundinaria gigantea) being the species most likely to have been growing in this area during the time of occupation. Arundinaria gigantea forms extensive colonies in low woods, moist ground, and along river banks. It was once widespread in the southeastern United States, but cultivation, burning, and overgrazing have destroyed many stands. Moerman (1998) lists many examples of medicinal and technological utilization of Arundinaria gigantea. 174

Phytoliths diagnostic of cool-season/shade tolerant grasses were numerous in these samples as well, and most likely derived from the grass subfamily Pooideae. In the Southeast, pooid grasses (brome, bluegrass, etc.) can be found growing in shady wooded areas and in open moist areas, especially along streams. Phytoliths diagnostic of warm season Panicoideae grasses were present, but relatively rare in these samples. Panicoid grasses typically require warm, humid and full-sun conditions. Panicoid phytoliths were most abundant in the samples from Features 191A and 192, and rare in the samples from Features 194 and 203. Since maize is a panicoid, extra attention was given to observed panicoid phytoliths; however, none of these were indicative of maize. Two other notable phytolith morphotypes observed were opaque perforated plates (Figure 6-4 D) diagnostic of inflorescence material from a member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae), and silicified cone cells (Figure 6-4E) from the achenes of a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), possibly from the genus Cyperus. These two phytolith types were only observed in the sample from Feature 192, and indicate the possible utilization of sunflower and sedge seeds for subsistence. This sample was dominated by Low-spine Asteraceae pollen, which includes marshelder. It is possible that the phytoliths from Asteraceae inflorescence represent the same plants that contributed the Low-spine Asteraceae pollen. The most interesting phytolith observation was the recovery of phytoliths derived from the arrowroot family (Marantaceae) in the samples from Features 191A, 192, and 203 (Figure 6-4B and C). The Marantaceae phytoliths observed in these samples exhibit a morphology that is consistent with those derived from fruits and roots with a rind (pericarp) or hard outer layer and a soft tissue inner area. The part of the phytolith extending out from the rind of a fruit, or outer, scaley area of a root or rhizome, is typically smooth and more dense with silica (Figure 6-5B, 1). The part of the phytolith extending into the soft interior of a fruit or rhizome is often ciliate or beaded in appearance (Figure 6-5 B, 2). The length of the ciliate portion extending into the soft tissue can often vary depending on the size of the fruit or rhizome. This ciliate portion is lightly silicified and susceptible to dissolution and breakage from the more heavily silicified cap. Previous studies by PRI have identified these same phytolith morphotypes in archaeological samples from New Mexico, Texas, Illinois and Indiana. Consultation with Dr. Dolores Piperno, from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and Dr. Jose Iriarte, from the University of Exeter, has confirmed the origin of these phytoliths within the Marantaceae family, most likely within the Calathea group, as the phytoliths observed here are unlike those produced by Maranta, the type genus of the family. Thalia dealbata and Thalia geniculata are the only two species of Marantaceae native to North America north of Mexico. Thalia is an aquatic emergent plant of the southeastern United States found in ponds, swamps, marshes, and along the margins of streams and lakes, often in areas with pronounced dry seasons. Thalia dealbata is found as far west as eastern Texas and Oklahoma. Phytoliths have been examined in leaves from both species of Thalia; however, no suitable matches for the Marantaceae phytoliths found in these samples have been observed. Phytoliths from the fruit and seed of Thalia have not yet been examined, as these are still under cultivation at PRI; however, published images of phytoliths from Thalia seeds do not bear any resemblance with the phytoliths observed here. Thus, the most likely source for these Marantaceae phytoliths would be the starchy rhizome of a species of Calathea, to which these phytolith bear a resemblance (see Figure 6-5A and B for a comparison to a reference Calathea allouia phytolith). However, it should be cautioned that phytolith production within the Marantaceae (especially for Thalia) is an ongoing study by PRI, and thus, we cannot yet ascribe the Marantaceae phytoliths observed from these feature samples unequivocally to the genus Calathea. See Table 6-14 for more information on the Marantaceae.

175

Figure 6-5. Comparison of archaeological (Block D) and reference Marantaceae phytoliths. A) Marantaceae phytolith recovered in the sample from Feature 203. B) Reference phytolith from the edible roots of Calathea allouia (scale bar equals 10 m). The Marantaceae phytoliths observed in these samples exhibit a morphology that is similar with those derived from the roots of Calathea allouia. The part of the phytolith extending out from the outer, scaley area of the rhizome is smooth and more dense with silica (B, 1). The part of the phytolith extending into the soft interior of the rhizome is often ciliate or beaded in appearance (B, 2). This ciliate portion is lightly silicified and susceptible to dissolution and breakage from the more heavily silicified cap portion, especially when disarticulated from the plant matter and deposited in soil. When found in archaeological samples, the ciliate portion is often missing, or severely dissolved. The archaeological Marantaceae phytolith from the Feature 203 sample (A) is not a perfect match with Calathea allouia; however, different growing conditions, especially environmental stress, can affect phytolith morphology. The Marantaceae phytoliths observed here are likely derived from the Calathea clad of the family; however, more reference work needs to be completed. Interpretation Overall, samples 191A, 192, and 203 exhibited a phytolith assemblage that was very similar. Sample 194 was a bit anomalous in that it had a very high percentage of amorphous and blocky phytoliths derived from woody material, no Marantaceae phytoliths, and the highest amount of microscopic charcoal particles. Samples 191A and 192 were similar in the fact that they both had a relatively high abundance of Bambusoideae (cf. Arundinaria gigantea) saddle phytoliths. And finally, the sample from Feature 203 was unique in that it had the highest relative abundance of palm (Arecaceae) phytoliths, most likely derived from dwarf palmetto and/or saw palmetto, and the highest number of Marantaceae phytoliths. No phytoliths diagnostic or even suggestive of maize or squash were observed in these pit feature samples. Because of preservation differences in micro- and macrobotanical remains, analysis of these samples highlights the need to employ multiple lines of evidence (pollen, phytolith, macrofloral, etc.) to obtain the best possible interpretation of plant resource and subsistence utilization from archaeological features. Pollen and phytolith analysis yielded very different pictures of the local vegetation and possible exploitation of plants at this site. The pollen record provides evidence of a local oak forest that might have changed in density over time of these features represent more than one time period. Alternatively, the samples might reflect seasonal pollen accumulation. Recovery of a large quantity of Low-spine Asteraceae pollen corresponds with recovery of Asteraceae charred perforated 176

plates. Pollen evidence for maize is limited to Feature 191A, which contained Zea mays pollen and Feature 192, which yielded an angular starch typical of those produced by Zea maize. Recovery of this pollen and starch indicate that even during this later occupation, people living at this site were processing maize. No evidence for Zea mays was recovered from Features 194 and 203, which indicates that each feature must be evaluated separately. Failure to recover pollen from palms suggests that they did not grow in abundance at the site and that the palms represented in the phytolith record were harvested and brought to the site. Palm pollen is readily transported and is expected to be obvious in a pollen record from an area supporting a significant number of palms in the local vegetation communities. None of the starches recovered from this sample are typical of those produced by Marantaceae roots. Although phytolith evidence for maize and squash was not observed in these samples, other interesting results were obtained. The phytolith assemblages recovered from these pit features suggest that plant material from palm plants was intensively used for medicinal, subsistence, and/or technological applications. Phytolith analysis also indicates that cane grass (Arundinaria) may have also been utilized for medicinal (roots) or technological applications. The recovery of Marantaceae phytoliths from three of the feature samples suggests that plant material, most likely the roots from a member of the arrowroot family, may have been used for medicinal or subsistence purposes. These roots are rich in starches and are easily processed to recover starch, making them a valuable subsistence resource. It is possible that a member of the Marantaceae (Calathea, Maranta, etc.) may have been cultivated, as some microhabitats in the southeastern United States are similar to those in southern Mexico and Central America, where members of the Marantaceae family thrive. Marantaceae trade (seed, dried root, processed starch) with people living in the Carribean and Yucatan via Florida is also a possibility. The only Marantaceae native to North America north of Mexico is represented by the genus Thalia, which does not produce a suitable phytolith match with the Marantaceae phytoliths observed in this study and from other locations within the United States. Modern phytolith reference work within the Marantaceae is ongoing at PRI, as the recovery of these phytoliths from several archaeological sites in North America has raised some intriguing questions concerning trade, trade routes, and use of exotic foods and now the possibility that this part of Florida might be part of a trade network or a corridor along which trade goods were moved. Macrofloral remains from this site indicate consumption of mast (nuts), a small quantity of maize, domesticated sunflower seeds, wild seeds such as goosefoot and amaranth, fruits such as hackberry, huckleberry, and possibly roots/tubers. Seeds from medicinal plants such as bedstraw, St. Johnswort, checkermallow, pokeweed, violet, and rush also are reported (Pluckhahn, et al. 2006). Pollen and starch analysis expands this list of plants to include the availability of cattail, as well as exploitation of roots/tubers from a member of the umbel family and grass seeds of a particular group of grasses (little barley grass, wild rye, wheat grasses). Maize is also represented. The phytolith record indicates that occupants of this site were exploiting palms, which are not evident as part of the local vegetation community in the pollen record, meaning that they were not abundant locally or were grown to be harvested while they were young, perhaps the immature shoots known as hearts of palm, and were not yet pollinating. Most significantly, a member of the Marantaceae was either cultivated at this site or traded into the area and prepared at this site, since phytoliths specific to roots of a plant in this family were recovered from three of the four pits examined. This is the first report of this family at any site in southwest Georgia that reflects use of this resource, perhaps as part of a complex of foods associated with feasting, as discussed by (Pluckhahn et al. 2006).

177

Summary
The faunal and botanical collections from Block D are limited. Thus, our interpretations of these data must be qualified. Nevertheless, the faunal and botanical remains provide some useful points of comparison with the earlier Late Woodland assemblages from Block A, as alluded to here and described more fully in Chapter 7. The faunal assemblage from Block D is dominated by white-tailed deer. Other taxa including eastern box turtle, wild turkey, and black bear are also present in the assemblage though in much lower frequencies. The small size of the Block D assemblage and its poor state of preservation make it unsuitable for estimating dietary contribution of different taxa; but it does indicate the Late Woodland inhabitants of Kolomoki were relying on white-tailed deer and other terrestrial taxa for their animal resources. The low taxonomic richness, dominance of white-tailed deer, and abundance of Forequarter and Hindquarter elements observed in the Block D assemblage are strikingly similar to characteristics of the previously studied Block A assemblage (Pluckhahn et al. 2006). The similarities between the two may be the result of several contributing factors including the small sample size and poor preservation conditions of Block D, similar taphonomic conditions experienced by both, or similar animal use strategies practiced by the early and late Late Woodland inhabitants of Kolomoki. The study of botanical remains in Block D included both macrobotanical analysis of flotation samples and microbotanical analysis of a smaller number of soil samples. In many ways, the macrobotanical results compare closely to earlier assays of flotation samples from Block A. As in Block A, hickory nutshell dominated acorn in the samples from Block D, but acorn was present in small amounts and was likely of equal prevalence when differential preservation is taken into account (Bonhage-Freund 2003). Thus it is likely that acorn and hickory were both staples throughout the Late Woodland period at Kolomoki. Maize was found in the early/middle Late Woodland macrobotanical assemblage from Block A but was not noted in the assemblage from Block D. Other cultigens are also rare or absent in the Block D macrobotanical assemblage. Maize pollen was noted in the microbotanical analysis, however, suggesting that cultivation of this domesticate continued through the later Late Woodland. Still, maize pollen was not common in the microbotanical samples. Moreover, phytolith evidence for maize was not observed in these samples The microbotanical remains suggest that plant material from palm plants was intensively used by the residents of Block D for medical, subsistence, or technological applications, or some combination of these. Phytolith analysis also points to the use of cane grass. Perhaps most interesting, the recovery of Marantaceae phytoliths from three of the four microbotanical samples suggests that plant material, most likely the roots from a member of the arrowroot family, may have been used for medicinal or subsistence purposes. These roots are rich in starches and are easily processed to recover starch, making them a valuable subsistence resource.

178

Chapter 7: Households Making History: Comparing Late Woodland Households in Blocks A and D
Thomas J. Pluckhahn As Johnson (2006:124-125) notes, citing the example of North American historic archaeologists, one means of highlighting the agency of households is through comparison of assemblages from house lots. Previous chapters have summarized the features and artifacts found in Block D at Kolomoki, presenting evidence that these represent the remains of an archaeological household. In this chapter, the remains from Block D are compared to those from another archaeological household in Block A at Kolomoki, excavated in 2001. As described in greater detail elsewhere (Pluckhahn 2003; Pluckhahn et al. 2006), the Block A designation was applied to a cluster of 29 non-contiguous 1 1 m excavation units in the northeastern portion of the site, about 300 m north of Block D (see Figure 1-2). I compare the two excavation blocks and their respective archaeological households across five main variables: periods of occupation; domestic architecture; storage; ceramics; subsistence and environment; and flaked stone. Unfortunately, as discussed in Chapter 1 (see also Steere 2011:79), the household archaeology of the Late Woodland period societies of the Southeast is poorly developed. Obviously, in that the analysis is based on only one excavated archaeological household from each period, the results of our comparison cannot generalized uncritically to the community at Kolomoki as a whole, let alone to the lower Chattahoochee or the wider region. Nevertheless, I present evidence that the changes identified in the comparison of Blocks A and D may hold for other households at Kolomoki, as well as other communities in the region.

Periods of Occupation
Five radiocarbon assays have been taken on materials from Block A (Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). Most of these dates have been reported elsewhere, but one is reported for the first time here. These five dates have a wide temporal spread. However, the youngest of the five dateswhich was taken on bone from the hearth (Feature 171)was obviously contaminated by small root hairs that could not be removed during pretreatment. This date, as well as one taken on wood charcoal from the same feature that exhibits a relatively wide margin of error, probably do not accurately reflect the period of occupation. The three remaining dates from Block A were taken on a maize kernel and Carya nutshell, materials which should have shorter use-lives and thus may better represent the occupational history of the block. In keeping with this observation, these three dates are more precise and cluster closely together in time, with two sigma calibrated ranges extending from A.D. 420 to 660 and overlapping between A.D. 570 and 610. In the discussion to follow, I adopt cal A.D. 550 to 650 as a slightly more conservative estimate for the occupation of the Block A archaeological household. Four radiocarbon dates have been retrieved from Block D, including one previously reported date from Feature 34 in Test Unit 18 (Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-3). As with those from Block A, the two sigma calibrated ranges on the dates from Block D exhibit a wide temporal span, from A.D. 650 to 1020. Reconciling these ranges is somewhat difficult. On one hand, the two sigma ranges for the three

179

Figure 7-1. Plot of radiocarbon dates from Blocks A and D showing two sigma calibrated ranges. Generated using OxCal 4.0. Calibrations based on Reimer et al. (2004) and Stuiver and Reimer (1993). youngest dates overlap between A.D. 890 and 980. On the other hand, the ranges for the three oldest dates overlap in the interval from A.D. 780 to 880 and two of the datesfrom separate features in or near the presumed househave nearly identical two sigma ranges that overlap between A.D. 780 and 980. These older ranges are more consistent with the ceramic assemblage from Block D, which would seem to place the Block D occupation before around cal A.D. 750 to 800when check stamped pottery begins to dominate assemblages in the area (Mickwee 2009; Milanich 1974). I adopt an estimate of cal A.D. 750 to 850 for the occupation of the archaeological household in Block D, although it may reasonable to assume that this area may have been occupied intermittently to as late as cal A.D. 950. Thus, the archaeological households in Blocks A and D would appear to mark occupations that were sequential, or at least closely-related temporally (i.e., within a century or two of one another). The former dates to the early/middle Late Woodland, probably between cal A.D. 550 to 650. The archaeological household in Block D dates principally between cal A.D. 750 to 850; I refer to this as the late Late Woodland, despite the cumbersome repetition. The occupation here may have continued into the terminal Late Woodland, or what has sometimes been referred to as the Emergent Mississippian period (Kelly 1980; but for critiques of this term, see Cobb and Garrow 1996; Fortier and McElrath 2002). Although the two archaeological households are not far removed in time or space, they appear to straddle an important social and historical divide. At the time Block A was inhabited, the settlement plan at Kolomoki took the form of a large, formally-defined circular village centered on an immense 180

Table 7-1. Radiocarbon Dates from Blocks A and D at Kolomoki.

Number Context Service Material 13C/12C Ratio Block A Beta-165118 Beta-161791 Beta-234443 Beta-206785 Beta-206786 Feature 131, Zone A Feature 131, Zone B Feature 57, Zone B Feature 57, Zone A Feature 57, Zone B AMS radiometric AMS radiometric radiometric bone wood charcoal maize kernel Carya nutshell Carya nutshell -20.7 o/oo -25.0 o/oo -27.4 o/oo -26.1 o/oo -25.3 o/oo Block D Beta-284228 Beta-242563 Beta-284227 Beta-161790 Feature 191A Feature 171 Feature 147B, Zone B TU18, Feature 34 AMS radiometric AMS radiometric Carya nutshell Carya nutshell Carya nutshell wood charcoal -23.8 o/oo -23.3 o/oo -23.4 o/oo -25.0 o/oo 106040 BP 114040 BP 115040 BP 129060 BP A.D. 890 to 1020 A.D. 780 to 990 A.D. 780 to 980 A.D. 650 to 880 this report this report this report Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-3 116040 BP 128070 BP 142040 BP 148040 BP 155040 BP A.D. 780 to 980 A.D. 640 to 900 A.D. 570 to 660 A.D. 540 to 660 A.D. 420 to 610 Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-3 Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2-3 this report Pluckhahn et al. 2006: Table 1 Pluckhahn et al. 2006: Table 1 Conventional Radiocarbon Age 2 Sigma Calibrated Results Reference

plaza. By the time Block D was occupied in the late Late Woodland period, this formal village plan broke down, and households were dispersed into less regular clusters around drainages. The shift in settlement plan was coincident with a breakdown in mound construction and ceremony. Much of the mound construction at Kolomokiincluding the two major burial mounds (Mounds D and E)took place during the Middle Woodland, predating either of the two households (Pluckhahn 2003:185-201). However, some degree of mound construction continued into the early and middle Late Woodland, concurrent with the Block A household. Specifically, radiocarbon dating suggests that several of the smaller mounds at the site, including, two small dome-shaped mounds of uncertain purpose (Mounds B and C) and two low platform mounds (Mounds F and H), date to this interval (Pluckhahn 2003:207-215). Thus, the Block A household dates to a time when public ceremony was still active at Kolomoki, if on the wane. By the time the Block D household was occupied in the late Late Woodland, however, public ceremony seems to have ceased.

Domestic Architecture
Architecture provides the most obvious difference between the archaeological households in Blocks A and D. In the case of the former, there is unequivocal evidence for a very small pit house. Evidence of domestic architecture in Block D is less certain, but points to the presence of a larger, but less substantial, structure of single set post construction. The pit house in Block A is defined by the pit (Feature 57), which measured approximately 2.5 to 3 m square at plan view (Figure 7-2). It had steeply sloping sides and a flat bottom that extended 30 to 50 cm below the base of the plowzone (approximately 30 cm deep in this area). An entrance ramp projected about 2 m to the northeast from the center of the east side of the structure. The floor of the structure was flat and virtually devoid of features, with two exceptions. First, there was a shallow rectangular depression in the interior of the structure at the base of the entrance ramp. Next, there was a fire pit (Feature 131) near the center of the structure. This fire pit, which measured about 75 cm in diameter, extended about 40 cm below the floor of the pit house. The base of the fire pit was lined with a yellowish brown clay unlike the red sandy clay subsoil typical of the area immediate to the house. Given its small size, semi-subterranean construction, and the presence of an interior fire pit, the structure clearly served as a cold weather dwelling. A concentration of post features to the south of the structure could indicate the presence of a more lightly constructed, warm weather dwelling of single set post construction, but no definitive post patterns are apparent. The Block A structure is nearly identical to "keyhole" structures identified on several Late Woodland sites in the Midwest (Binford et al. 1970; Kelly et al. 1987; Kelly et al. 1990). These have been interpreted as small bent pole or mat-covered arbor structures (Binford et al. 1970:23). The wall posts were presumably located along the exterior margin of the pit and, with the exception of a few of the deeper posts, have been plowed away. Although keyhole structures such as that in Block A are best known from Late Woodland sites in the Midwest, semi-subterranean structures of roughly equivalent size, shape, and construction have been identified elsewhere in Georgia and Alabama (e.g., Espenshade et al. 1998; Jenkins and Ensor 1981:139; Price 1999; Shelby 2011), and at least one other possible example has been identified at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003:156, 171-172). These appear to date primarily or exclusively to the Middle Woodland or early Late Woodland periods, roughly coeval with Block A.

182

outline of possible structure

house pit

183

0 1 meters 2

hearth or fire pit post or small pit feature larger pit feature Figure 7-2. Comparison of early Late Woodland structure from Block A (left) and late Late Woodland structure from Block D (right).

Perhaps most relevant to the discussion of the Block A household is the pit house identified at the Catoma Creek site in eastern Alabama, only about 100 km removed from Kolomoki (Figure 7-3). Like the example in Block A, this structure consisted of a small (ca. 2.7 m diameter), sub-rectangular, shallow pit. Like the house in Block A, it had a central hearth; however, it lacked an entrance ramp. A single carbon date with a calibrated range of A.D. 410 to 640 places the pit house at Catoma Creek coeval with the Block A household in the early or middle Late Woodland (Price 1999; Shelby 2011). The evidence suggests that a very different form of domestic architecture became prevalent in the late and terminal Late Woodland, as evidence by Block D at Kolomoki and other sites in the region. As described in Chapter 4, an oval pattern is apparent in the distribution of post features in the core area of Block D (see Figure 4-7). Along the southern edge of the oval pattern, post features are distributed at relatively regular intervals of 1.0 to 1.7 m. The pattern is less definitive in the northern end of the core block, but even here an equivalent interval is evident between post features on the northwestern edge of the presumed structure. The overall distribution of post features suggests the presence of an oval structure of single set posts measuring about 7.3 m long and 5.2 m wide. Additional posts along the southern margins of the pattern suggest at least one possible episode of repair or rebuilding. Several lines of evidence support the interpretation of a structure in Block D. First, as noted in Chapter 4, there is a regularity to the spacing of both exterior posts and interior support posts. Moreover, interior posts are deeper than those on the exterior, as might be expected if they supported the weight of the roof. As also discussed in Chapter 4, pit features appear to be non-randomly positioned with respect to the structure. Specifically, larger pit featuresespecially large, bell-shaped pitsare more common in the interior of the structure. Further, pit features in the interior generally display higher densities of artifacts than those outside the structure. Finally, as described in Chapter 5, the distributional patterns of several classes of artifacts show discrepancies between areas inside and outside the structure. For example, all of the pit features yielding Napier pottery are within or in immediate proximity to the structure, and only one of the pits completely within the house failed to produce any Napier sherds. The presence of Weeden Island Incised also appears to be correlated with the hypothesized house; most of the pit features within the structure produced at least one sherd of Weeden Island Incised or Zoned Incised/Punctate, and most of the features producing sherds of these types are located within or immediately adjacent to the structure. With regard to flaked stone, quartzite/sandstone also demonstrates a preference for features in or near the structure. On the other hand, there is a slight tendency for both early and late stage debitage to show higher densities in pit features outside the structure than within. Like that in Block A, the structure in Block D may have served, at least in part, as a cold weather dwelling. At the center of the oval post pattern and presumed house was Feature 171, a basin-shaped pit with relatively high densities of FCR, ground, and pecked stone, that may have served as a fire pit. Unlike the structure in Block A, however, there is no evidence that this house was set in a pit. It also does not appear to have been daubed. The structure in Block D corresponds closely in size, shape, and method of construction with late/terminal Late Woodland structures excavated at the Sycamore (Milanich 1974) and Woodland Terrace (Mickwee 2009) sites, about 100 km to the south and southwest of Kolomoki, respectively. The structure at Sycamore was perhaps the more definitive of these two. It was oval and measured about 6 x 9.5 m, judging from post features and a shallow depression marking the presumed living floor (Figure 7-4). Milanich (personal communication, 2010) now believes this may have been a cold-weather 184

house pit

house pit

185 hearth or fire pit post or small pit feature larger pit feature Figure 7-3. Comparison of early/middle Late Woodland structures from the Catoma Creek site (left) (after Shelby 2011:Figure 2) and Block A at Kolomoki (right).

outline of possible structure

outline of possible structure

slight depression (possible living surface)

186

1 meters

hearth or fire pit post or small pit feature larger pit feature Figure 7-4. Comparison of late Late Woodland structures from Sycamore site (left) (after Milanich 1974) andBlock D at Kolomoki (right).

structure with a possible summer house represented in an incomplete post hole pattern in a separate excavation to the northeast. Based on seven radiocarbon dates, Milanich (1974:Figure 10) places the occupation of the Sycamore house in the range from around A.D. 800 to 900. My own re-calibration of these dates using OxCal 4.0 and the calibration curves of Reimer et al. (2004) and Stuiver and Reimer (1993) yields two sigma calibrated ranges running from A.D. 600 to 1260. The seven dates overlap in the interval from cal A.D. 900 to 950. The differences in domestic architecture between Blocks A and D point to possible changes in settlement. Gilmans (1987) cross-cultural review demonstrates that households that occupy pit houses are sedentary at least during the season of structure use. This is perhaps not surprising given that pit house construction is relatively labor intensive, and thus would likely not be undertaken if the occupation was intended to be short-lived. The formality of the Block A pit house, with its projecting entrance passage and prepared hearth, would also seem consistent with a relatively permanent occupation. By comparison, the less formal and less labor intensive single set post construction in Block D would seem to suggest less permanent settlementperhaps shifting seasonally or in longer-term cycles. Differences in the floor areas of the two structures (Figure 7-5) suggest possible temporal 30 changes in the size of the co-resident groups. The pithouse in Block A, with a floor area of 8.2 m2 20 (not including entrance ramp), is about one10 quarter the size of the structure in Block D (34.2 0 m2). The floor area of a house does not Block A Block D necessarily correlate directly with the number of occupants (see discussions in Goody 1958; Narrol Figure 7-5. Comparison of the floor area of 1962; Wiessner 1974). However, it may be structures in Blocks A and D. reasonable to hypothesize an increase in the size of the co-resident group in the transition from early to late Late Woodland. I present additional evidence in support of this hypothesis below, in regard to discussions of ceramics and storage.
40

Of course, the co-resident group does not necessarily correspond with the household, however, since all the members of a household need not live under the same roof (Wilk 1983). In the early Late Woodland Patrick phase (A.D. 600 to 700) of the American Bottom, keyhole structures such as that from Block A have been found arranged in clusters (Kelly 1990b), which Peregrine (1992) interprets as lineage compoundsseveral extended families from the same lineage functioning as a joint economic unit, and thus forming a single, large household (for a general ethnographic analogy along these lines, see Wilk 1988:). There is currently no structural evidence to support the existence of such house clusters in Block A or elsewhere at Kolomoki. Nevertheless, it seems likelybased on the small size of the early Late Woodland housethat some domestic activities were organized above the level of this very small coresident group. Pluckhahn and colleagues (2006) have suggested that the faunal and botanical remains represented in the fill of the pit house represents production and consumption by more people than the small pithouse could have accommodated. Perhaps, as Peregrine suggests for the American Bottom, the residents of two or more of these small housesperhaps with each housing separate families of the same lineagefunctioned together as a single household. 187

square meters

It also seems possible that production and consumption were coordinated at a larger level than a lineage divided among two or more small houses, perhaps even by the village as a whole. As noted above, the village during the early Late Woodland consisted of a seemingly very formal U-shaped arrangement of houses around a central plaza (Pluckhahn 2003), a pattern common in the Weeden Island area (Russo et al. 2006). Peregrine (1992) and Flannery (1972, 2002) have interpreted this sort of spatial configuration to indicate economic cooperation at the village level. The paucity of storage features in Block A and other Middle and early Late Woodland domestic contexts, as described in more detail below, would be consistent with this interpretation. While houses were obviously present at Kolomoki in this interval, perhaps as Cobb and Nassaney (2002:538-539) suggest, domestic space was not yet institutionalized. Large structures such as the late/terminal Late Woodland house in Block D are often interpreted as the residences of individual, extended families (Flannery 1972, 2002; Peregrine 1992). As noted above, by this time, the formal village arrangement at Kolomoki appears to have given to a seemingly more haphazard scatter of houses (Pluckhahn 2003). This pattern may indicate less supra-household organization of production and consumption (Peregrine 1992), an interpretation also consistent with the increase in domestic storage (as described below).

Storage
The archaeological households in Blocks A and D obviously differ in periods of occupation and architecture. Equally obvious is the difference in storage capacity. We identified only seven pits (including storage, processing, and fire pits) in the 31 m2 in Block A, for a density of 0.23 pits/m2. In Block D, on the other hand, we identified 38 pits in 52 m2, for a density of 0.73 pits/m2. These figures reflect a more than three-fold increase in the number and density of storage pits (Figure 7-6).
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Block A Block D

Figure 7-6. Comparison of the density of pit features in Blocks A and D.

Pits in Block D were not only more numerous, but also much larger both on average and in total. 100 The seven pits in Block A had a combined volume of 80 205.2 liters. With the exception of the fire pit at the 60 center of the house (Feature 171)which accounts for more than half of the total volume (132.5 liters) 40 for the blockthe pits here were small, with a mean 20 volume of just 29.3 liters. In contrast, the 38 pits in 0 Block D had a combined volume of 5175.5 liters and Block A Block D a mean volume of 136.2 liters. Equalizing for area of Figure 7-7. Comparison of the volume of pit excavation (Figure 7-7), Block A had 6.6 liters storage/m2. The storage capacity in Block D was features in Blocks A and D. more than ten times this, at 99.5 liters/m2. The context of storage features is also notable. There are no storage pits in the interior of the early Late
120 pit volume (liters)/sq m

188

pit features/sq m

Woodland structure in Block A. In contrast, there are several large bell- and basin-shaped pits in the interior of the late Late Woodland house in Block D. There is evidence to suggest that temporal changes in the capacity and context of storage at Kolomoki were not limited to the two archaeological households under consideration here. Test excavations elsewhere in the village have consistently demonstrated a paucity of pit features in Middle and early Late Woodland habitation areas (Pluckhahn 2003:126-179). The few pit features that have been identified in such contexts have been small and located outside any presumed structures. Comparative data from elsewhere in the region are hard to come by and variable. However, the few Middle and early Late Woodland pit houses that have been identified at other sites are similarly deficient in domestic storage, and generally lack any internal storage facilities (Shelby 2011). In contrast, at the late Late Woodland Sycamore site, storage pits were common and present both within and outside the structure (Milanich 1974). Why the dramatic increase in storage across the Late Woodland period at Kolomoki and other settlements in the region? Obviously, an increase in storage could expected with larger domestic groups, and this may partly explain the pattern. However, the increase in storage capacity from early to late Late Woodland as evidenced from Blocks A and D far outpaces the increases in floor area. Indeed, it seems possible that houses became larger, at least in part, to accommodate greater interior storage. As discussed below, the differences do not appear to be related a shift in diet; the subsistence regimen throughout the Late Woodland period centered on wild plant and animal resources, supplemented by the growing of some cultigens. There does not appear to have been an increase in maize consumption, as is the case in some parts of the Southeast and Midwest during the later Late Woodland period (McElrath et al. 2000:18-20). No phytoliths of Zea mays were identified from the pits we sampled for microbotanical remains, suggesting these features not used for maize storage. Given the prevalence of nutshell and oak pollen in Block D features, the storage of mast resources seems a more likely interpretation. The recovery of phyotliths from an unidentified species of the arrowroot family in several samples provides an intriguing hint that some of the pits in Block D were also used for storing tubers. The increase in storage from early/middle to late/terminal Late Woodland could also be related to less residential stability, a trend hypothesized above in regard to architecture. As DeBoer (1988) notes, storage pits may be used at less permanent settlements to cache food and other goods. The limited macrobotanical evidence (described below) suggests that habitation of Block D continued across the major seasons. However, it is still possible that the Block D house was unoccupied or at least minimally occupied at certain times of the year when task groups were dispatched further afield in search of game and plant foods. Finally, it seems likely that the increase in storage from early/middle to late Late Woodland was related to changes in the organization of production and consumption. Specifically, the limited storage capacity and lack of private storage within the early Late Woodland house in Block A is consistent with the supposition raised above that these activities were organized, at least in part, at a supra-household level. Conversely, the presence of many pits in Block D, some internal to the structure, accords well with the idea that households such as this one were exercising greater autonomy over production and consumption (DeBoer 1988; Hendon 2000; Wesson 1999, 2008).

189

Subsistence and Environment

While there are differences in the faunal and botanical assemblages from Blocks A and D, these assemblages are fundamentally similar. This points to no major changes in subsistence or environment over the course of the Late Woodland period at Kolomoki, unlike some other areas of the Southeast and Midwest where the cultivation of maize and other domesticates increased markedly after around cal A.D. 800 (McElrath et al. 2000:18-20). The assemblages from Blocks A and D are limited by relatively poor preservation and recovery, however, so these conclusions must be considered tentative. Faunal Remains The faunal assemblages from Blocks A and D differ greatly in size. Block A includes over 6,000 identified specimens, nearly five times the number identified for the Block D assemblage. In terms of specimen weight, Block A is over three times the size of the Block D assemblage. There is also a difference in the condition of the two assemblages. During analysis, Compton noted that the Block D assemblage seemed to be in a poorer state of preservation than Block A. This subjective observation is supported by a comparison of the average size of white-tailed deer specimens for the two assemblages. Here, specimen weight is used as a proxy for size. For the Block A assemblage the average weight of white-tailed deer specimens is 6.32 g. White-tailed deer specimens in the Block D assemblage are considerably smaller with an average weight of 4.09 g. This indicates greater fragmentation of the Block D assemblage. In spite of the differences in size and preservation of the two assemblages, they are generally similar in taxonomic richness. Like Block A, the Block D assemblage is dominated by white-tailed deer with lesser amounts of primarily terrestrial taxa represented (Table 7-2). Eastern box turtle and wild turkey are present in both assemblages indicating these two species were important to both early and late Late Woodland inhabitants of Kolomoki. Black bear is the only species present in Block D that was not identified in the Block A assemblage. In addition to the similarities in taxa represented, the two assemblages also have similar white-tailed deer element distribution profiles (see Figure 6-1). In both assemblages the most over-represented categories are the meatier Forequarter and Hindquarter categories. The 16 Vertebra/Rib and Foot categories are under represented in both assemblages. The Head, Forefoot, and Hindfoot categories are less similar between the two assemblages but all are less represented than the Forequarter and Hindquarter categories. The prevalence of terrestrial taxa in both of the assemblages is not surprising considering that Kolomoki is not located near any major aquatic habitats. By extension it is logical that the large-bodied terrestrial white-tailed deer would be the dominant source of meat for both the early and late Late Woodland inhabitants of Kolomoki. This fact is illustrated by the dominance of white-tailed deer to the total estimated biomasses of Blocks A (45.8 percent) and D (99 percent). However, the exclusive dominance of white-tailed deer to these two assemblages is not considered to be representative of the overall animal use strategy at Kolomoki. Although venison is commonly cited as the single most important source of meat to prehistoric Native Americans living in the Southeast, it was but one important resource on a long list of animal species utilized. In the case of Block A, Pluckhahn et al. (2006:267-268) interpret the low richness of the assemblage and the dominance of white-tailed deer as the result of a specific activity or event rather than 190

Table 7-2. Comparison of the Faunal Assemblages from Blocks A and D.

Taxon Description NISP Block A Block D N Osteichthyes Testudines Terrapene carolina Aves Meleagris gallopavo Mammalia Sciurus niger Urocyon cinereoargenteus Ursus americanus Procyon lotor Odocoileus virginianus Vertebrata TOTAL Indeterminate bony fish Indeterminate turtle Eastern box turtle Indeterminate bird Wild turkey Indeterminate mammal Fox Squirrel Gray Fox Black bear Raccoon White-tailed deer Indeterminate vertebrate 6,355 1,595 16 13 1 308 142 1 8 1 85 6 5,943 1 1 1 1 10 6.3 62.5 10 90.9 4 1 9 3 1435 1 1 6.3 6.3 1 9.1 1.22 1,926.21 79.60 4,319.62 580.8 167.6 1501.1 51.97 18.33 1 6.3 1 9.1 1 6.3 1 9.1 1 Block A % 6.3 MNI Block D N % 0.01 1.08 0.45 9.5 2.33 2,298.26 0.36 0.60 0.1 0.03 23.78 0.1 45.8 8.08 44.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 749.7 Weight (g) Block A Block D kg <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.04 27.88 0.01 0.02 Block A % 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.1 53.6 0 0 <0.01 0 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 10.17 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 55.5 kg Biomass (kg) Block D %

the overall animal use strategy of the inhabitants of Kolomoki. They suggest one or two small-scale feasts facilitated by successful communal deer hunts could have produced the abundance of white-tailed deer in the assemblage. They further support this hypothesis with white-tailed deer element distribution data that indicate the meatier portions of the carcass were transported to the community more often than the less meaty portions. This pattern might be expected if numerous deer were killed some distance from the community and only the more valuable portions of the carcasses were carried back. While the Block D assemblage is similar to that of Block A in terms of its low taxonomic richness, the dominance of white-tailed deer, and an over representation of the meatier Forequarter and Hindquarter portions of the white-tailed deer carcass, there are differences in the context of the assemblage that argue against an interpretation of feasting in this case. The Block A faunal remains came almost exclusively from the fill of the house pit and associated unit levels (Pluckhahn et al. 2006). The house pit fill appeared to have been deposited relatively rapidly. In contrast, the faunal remains from Block D were spread across a number of features that were likely filled over the course of many years. Thus, the assemblage is more likely to represent general trends in faunal procurement rather than one or two unusual episodes. Those general trends appear to consist of an emphasis on white-tailed deer gathered some distance from the village. This would be consistent with the interpretation of greater seasonality of occupation during the late Late Woodland, as noted above in regard to architecture and storage. Floral Remains The identification of plant remains from Blocks A and D was primarily limited to the analysis of macrobotanical remains from flotation samples. The sampling and analysis regimes for the two excavations were similar. For Block A, we processed 52 flotation samples with a combined volume of approximately 211 liters from 33 features (Pluckhahn 2003; Pluckhahn et al. 2006). For Block D, we processed 52 samples with a combined volume of approximately 295 liters from 35 distinct features, as discussed in Chapter 6. The quantity of macrobotanical remains that was recovered from both excavation blocks is very limited. Such poor recovery is typical of sites in the sandy Coastal Plain soils of the Southeast (BranchRaymer and Bonhage-Freund 2011). Nevertheless, the botanical collection from Block A includes 15 identifiable taxa (excluding wood charcoal). The richness of the collection from Block D is more limited; 10 identifiable taxa (excluding wood charcoal) are represented. Table 7-3 compares the macrobotanical assemblages from Blocks A and D. To facilitate comparison, I focus on the remains found in flotation sample light fractions. The two assemblages are generally comparable. For both excavation blocks, mast resourcesparticularly hickorypredominate in terms of both counts and ubiquity. Acorn is the second most common taxon represented in both count and ubiquity for both assemblages. Both hickory and oak are reasonably abundant in the Coastal Plain of the Southeast (Black et al. 2002; Delcourt and Delcourt 1977; Foster et al. 2004; Godfrey 1988; Scarry 2003: 89; Wharton 1978) The predominance of hickory among other mast resources is common for assemblages from the lower Southeast (Scarry 2003:89). Both assemblages include a limited number and variety of seeds from edible starchy/herbaceous plants, wild fruits, and potential medicinal plants. The assemblage from Block A stands out for the 192

Table 7-3. Comparison of Macrobotanical Assemblages from Blocks A and D.

Block A Block D

Count

Ubiquity samples features 15.15 69.70

Count

Ubiquity samples features 17.14 54.29 11.43

mast

acorn (Quercus sp.) nutshell, cap hickory (Carya sp.) nutshell walnut (Juglandaceae sp) nutshell hazelnut (Corylus sp.) nutshell

9 361

9.62 78.85

22 140 8

13.46 46.15 7.69

2 1 10 2

1.92 1.92 9.62 3.85

3.03 3.03 6.06 3.03 1 9 1.92 1.92 1.92 2.86 2.86 2.86

domesticates

sunflower (Helianthus annuus) maize (Zea mays) cob, kernel

starchy/herbaceous

pigweed (Amaranthus sp.) seed yellowrocket (Barbarea sp.) seed unidentified grass (Poaeae) seed goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.) seed

1 1

1.92 1.92

3.03 3.03

wild fleshy fruits

hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) seed peppervine (Ampelopsis sp.) seed blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica ) seed huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.) seed

1 1 3 1 43 2 1 1 3.85 1.92 21.15 3.85 1.92 1.92 3.03 3.03 15.15 3.03 3.03 3.03 1 2 2 1.92 3.03

1.92 1.92

2.86 2.86

medicinal plants

bedstraw (Galium sp.) seed Saint Johnswort (Hypericaceae) seed checkermallow (Sidalcea neomexicana) seed pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) seed violet (Viola sp.) seed unidentified seed, c.f. Brassica sp. 4-seeded mercury (Acalypha virginiana) seed rush (Juncus sp.) seed

1.92 3.85

2.86 5.71

variety of taxa identified as potential medicinal plants. As previously noted, that this may be the result of the unusual formation of the fill of the pit house in Block A, perhaps in association with one or two episodes of small-scale feasting (Pluckhahn et al. 2006) The most obvious difference between the two assemblages is in the representation of domesticated plant taxa. In Block A, maize (Zea mays) was present in five of the 52 samples, for an ubiquity of 9.62 among samples. Most of the samples that produced maize, however, were from the house pit, however, so the ubiquity of maize in the features is slightly lower (6.06). These maize remains from Block A include one glume, two cob fragments, and seven kernel fragments. As indicated in Table 7-1, one of the kernel fragments was dated and returned a two sigma calibrated date of A.D. 570 to 660. In addition to maize, the Block A assemblage includes evidence for another domesticate, common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). The simple presence of sunflower constitutes insufficient evidence of domestication (Asch and Asch 1985:165). However, the size of the Kolomoki specimen,

193

when adjusted for breakage and shrinkage due to carbonization, is consistent with domesticated varieties as described by Heiser (1985: 60) and Yarnell (1978: 296). Various authors have suggested that cultigens contributed little or nothing to the diet of the Woodland societies of the Deep South (Fritz and Kidder 1993; Gremillion 2002, 2003; Scarry 2003; Springer 1980; Webb 1981). The limited quantity of maize and other cultigens in the Block A assemblage and from other excavations at the site (see Bonhage-Freund 1998, 2001; Pluckhahn 2003) does not contradict this argument, but it does suggest that cultivation may have formed a larger part of the economy than many have allowed. Given the recovery of at least limited quantities of cultigens from Block A, the completeor at least virtually completeabsence of domesticated plants from the light fractions from Block D is surprising. We recovered no macrobotanical remains identifiable as maize or sunflower. One goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.) seed was recovered. Unfortunately, however, while the goosefoot specimen recovered from Block D appears to represent a domesticated variety given its truncated margin, it consists only of half of a seedcoat (testa) and thus the thickness of the seedcoat cannot be measured to confirm this. The absence of domesticates from Block D could be due to differential preservation or recovery. However, while the counts of seeds and other macroplant remains from Block D are lower than for Block A, the differences are not dramatic. Still, to test the possibility that the absence of domesticates from Block D is due to sample or recovery biases, we submitted four soil samples from an equal number of features for pollen, starch, and phytolith analysis, as described in Chapter 6. Oak pollen was ubiquitous in the four samples; also prevalent were phytoliths of an unidentified species of the arrowroot family, suggesting storage of tubers. Two of the samples produced no evidence of maize. One of the samples produced possible evidence for maize in the form angular starch typical of those produced by Zea mays. The fourth sample contained pollen definitively identified as that of Zea mays. Recovery of this pollen and starch indicate that the production of maize continued into the late Late Woodland period at Kolomoki. However, it seems unlikely that maize production increased during the Late Woodland period at Kolomoki, as some have suggested for Weeden Island societies more generally (Kohler 1991:105; Milanich et al. 1997:76). Indeed, given the absence of maize from the Block D macrobotanical assemblage, coupled with the dearth of maize phytoliths and the limited evidence for maize pollen and starches, it seems possible that maize became less, rather than more important, in the later Late Woodland diet. Although a reduction in maize consumption seems counterintuitive, there are several possible explanations. The consumption of maize may have been associated primarily or exclusively with community rituals which, judging from the drastic reduction in mound construction (Pluckhahn 2003), appear to have declined in scale and frequency by the time of the Block D occupation. However, the recovery of maize from the early Late Woodland household in Block A indicates that maize was not associated exclusively with large-scale public ceremony. Moreover, there is evidence that householdbased food rituals continued into the late Late Woodland, as evidenced by the recovery from Block D of several elaborate serving vessels (described in more detail below). Increased seasonality of occupation is another possible explanation. As noted in Chapter 6, the macrobotanical remains from Block D appear to have come primarily or exclusively from taxa whose 194

edible fruits, seeds, and nuts ripen in the late summer or fall. If maize production took place elsewhere during the late Late Woodland, perhaps at settlements in the surrounding area, it would help explain its apparent reduced presence in Block D. However, the presence of maize pollen indicates some degree of both summer occupation and maize production at Kolomoki. This, in turn, would suggest yearround occupation, or at least no major seasonal abandonments. It is possible that the climate came more poorly suited to the cultivation of maize during the late Late Woodland period. Smith (2009:176) has implicated drought as a factor in the changes that took place in the lower Chattahoochee Valley during the Late Woodland. However, the differences in the macrobotanical assemblages are not as pronounced as one might expect if drought was a serious factor. The taxa represented in wood charcoal from the two blocks also undermine the suggestion of pronounced drought as a causative factor (Table 7-4). Pine dominates both charcoal assemblages in Table 7-4. Comparison of Wood Charcoal Assemblages from Blocks A and D.
Count oak (Quercus sp.) red oak (Quercus rubra) white oak (Quercus alba) post oak (Quercus stellata) Hickory (Carya sp.) butternut/walnut (Juglans sp.) maple (Acer sp.) American chestnut (Castanea dentata) common persimmon (Diospyros) virginiana) black gum(Nyssa sp.) ash (Fraxinus sp.) eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) cherry (Prunus sp.) elm/hackberry (Ulmaceae) basswood (Tilia americana) willow (Salix sp.) cottonwood (Populus deltoides) ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) honey locust (Gledetsia triancanthos) black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) unidentifiable hardwood eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) pine (Pinus sp.) cane (Arundinaria sp.) 1 157 16 791 57 1.92 76.92 13.46 98.08 25.00 3.03 72.73 12.12 96.97 30.30 6 9 16 1 8 2 1 1 3 1 6 5 7 Block A Ubiquity samples features 9.62 7.69 7.69 1.92 9.62 3.85 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 5.77 1.92 7.69 15.15 6.06 12.12 3.03 9.09 6.06 3.03 3.03 5 3.03 3.03 1 9.09 3.03 9.09 3 12 3 2 2 10 4 2 2 87 12 873 51 1.92 1.92 5.77 3.85 1.92 1.92 9.62 5.77 1.92 3.85 40.39 7.69 94.23 34.62 2.86 2.86 5.71 5.71 2.86 2.86 11.43 8.57 2.86 5.71 51.43 11.43 100.00 48.57 5.77 8.57 Count 22 63 27 3 9 9 20 1 Block D Ubiquity samples features 1.92 2.86 42.31 17.31 5.77 13.46 3.85 15.39 1.92 54.29 25.71 8.57 20.00 5.71 22.86 2.86

195

terms of overall counts and ubiquity. While there are differences between the two assemblages, particularly in the abundance and ubiquity of various species of oaks, these are relatively minor. If anything, the assemblage from Block D includes a richer array and higher ubiquities of taxa adapted to moist conditions, including sycamore, cherry, hackberry, basswood, willow, cottonwood, maple, and willow. The final alternative is that Late Woodland households at Kolomoki became more, rather than less, dependent on a wide spectrum of plant and animal resources due to the introduction of new technologies that increased their economic productivity and autonomy, as Muller (1997:129) has suggested for the Midwest. He credits the change in subsistence largely to the adoption of the bow and arrow which, in combination with improvements in cooking technology, ...might have given Late Woodland households the ability to break free of social and economic entanglements, and interdependence that bound them to floodplains (Muller 1997:129-130). Judging from the sites upland location, households at Kolomoki were never bound to floodplains or floodplain-grown crops to the extent suggested by Muller. Nevertheless, they may have been socially and economically interdependent, as argued above for the early Late Woodland from the household remains in Block A. The decision to reduce maize production and consumption may have been tied to a weakening of supra-household institutionsespecially as they encouraged sharingand an increase in household autonomy, as Muller suggests for the Midwest. Whether new ceramic and flaked stone technologies were a causal factor in the process, however, or if instead households were simply choosing to assert their autonomy over production and consumption and added these technologies secondarily, is a topic taken up in the sections that follow.

Ceramics
Blocks A and D produced ceramic assemblages of roughly comparable size (Table 7-5). Block A yielded over 18,000 sherds, of which around 8,515 could be confidently identified to type or more general categories of surface decoration (Pluckhahn 2003:148-165). All of these appear to be associated with the Woodland period occupation of Kolomoki. Excavations in Block D produced 21,637 sherds. Discounting a small number of Mississippian sherds and a larger quantity of pottery too small or eroded to confidently identify leaves a sample of 9,272 identifiable Woodland sherds. With the exception of plain wares of various tempers (overwhelmingly sand), the assemblage from Block A is dominated at roughly 40 percent by complicated stamped pottery. This category is comprised principally of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, with far lesser amounts of Blakely Complicated Stamped (an earlier variety). Decorative attributes characteristic of the Gulf Traditionincluding those associated with both Santa Rosa Swift Creek and Weeden Island wareseach contribute less than 1 percent of the total assemblage of identifiable pottery. In contrast, complicated stamped pottery makes up only about 10 percent of the assemblage from Block D. As with Block A, most of this Swift Creek Complicated Stamped. Blakely Complicated Stamped is not present, but Napier Complicated Stamped potterya hallmark of the Late Woodland period in northern Georgia (Wauchope 1966)now appears in small, but not insignificant, numbers. Net marked and ridge pinched types of the Gulf Tradition appear for the first time, albeit in lower 196

Table 7-5. Relative Frequencies of Surface Treatments in Identifiable Woodland Pottery Assemblages from Blocks A and D.
Surface Treatment plain complicated stamped dentate stamped incised punctate net marked ridge pinched red filmed check stamped cord marked other Block A (n=8,515) percent 59.92 39.32 0.03 0.12 0.07 0 0 0.42 0 0 0.12 Block D (n=9,272) percent 77.18 10.19 0 3.68 3.38 0.39 0.08 4.92 0.14 0.04 0

frequencies. More relevant for the discussion here are the increases in incised, punctate, and red filmed wares, from well less than 1 percent each in Block A to over 3 percent each in Block D. A chi-square test indicates very significant differences between the two assemblages with respect to decorative attributes (2=1282.123, p < 0.001) (the ridge pinched, cord marked, check stamped, and dentate categories were collapsed into other, since the low expected values (<5) violate the assumptions of this test). A minimum number of vessel (MNV) analysis was conducted on larger rims sherds (>5 percent of orifice diameter) and diagnostic body sherds from the two excavation blocks to ascertain changes in vessel form and size. As with sherd counts, the MNV samples from the two contexts are comparable in size, with a total MNV sample of 55 for Block A and 57 for Block D. The MNV analysis reveals temporal changes in the frequencies of vessel forms (Table 7-6). These changes are difficult to evaluate in statistical terms due to the low (<5) expected values for several categories. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see the differences between several categories arising from chance, particularly given the continuity in other forms. For example, the relative frequencies of open bowls and simple bowls/unrestricted jars are nearly identical. On the other hand, while collared jars predominate in the Block A assemblage, forming about 30 percent of all vessels, this form accounts for only about 16 percent of the vessels in Block D. The decline in collared jars is accompanied by pronounced increases in the relative frequencies of several other vessel forms, particularly restricted bowls (from 12.73 percent in Block A to 19.3 percent in Block D) and dishes/plates (from 1.82 percent in Block A to 8.77 percent in Block D).

197

Table 7-6. Relative Frequencies of Vessel Forms Identified in MNV Analysis of Blocks A and D.
Vessel Form simple bowl/unrestricted jar restricted bowl open bowl collared jar neckless jar cup dish/plate Block A (n=55) percent 23.64 12.73 18.18 30.91 10.91 1.82 1.82 Block D (n=57) percent 24.56 19.30 17.54 15.79 12.28 1.75 8.77

Comparison of the principal vessel forms from Blocks A and D reveals that the mean orifice diameter for each vessel form increased through time (Table 7-7). There are statistically significant increases in the mean orifice diameters of simple bowls/unrestricted jars (t=3.0606, .01 > p > .005), collared jars (t=2.4473, .05 > p > .02), and open bowls (t=2.3479, .05 > p > .02). Thus, the ceramic assemblages from the archaeological households in Blocks A and D point to significant changes in ceramic decoration and vessel form and size in the transition between the early and late Late Woodland periods. Changes in decoration are the most dramatic and must be considered in the context of broader trends in material culture across the region, particularly the waning of the Swift Creek Complicated Stamped type. Wallis (2011) has recently argued that on the Atlantic Coast, the exchange of Swift Creek vessels was inextricably linked with mortuary ceremonies at mound centers, and more specifically with gift-giving associated with marriage alliances. This remains to be demonstrated for southwestern Georgia, but it is probably not an unreasonable extrapolation, given the seemingly disproportionate representation of Swift Creek pottery at Kolomoki during the Middle and early Late Woodland periods (Pluckhahn 2003:Table 2.2). As noted above, Pluckhahn (2003:207-210) has suggested that community ceremonyas evidenced mainly by mound constructiondeclined at Kolomoki after around A.D. 550 and may have ceased entirely after approximately A.D. 650. This is

Table 7-7. Comparison of Mean Orifice Diameter for Vessel Forms in Blocks A and D.
Form Block A collared jar simple bowl/unrestricted jar open bowl restricted bowl neckless jar 18.0 21.4 20.2 19.4 16.3 mean orifice diameter (cm) Block D 24.0 27.3 23.6 20.4 21.4

198

roughly coincident with the precipitous decline in Swift Creek evident in the transition between the occupations in Blocks A and D. If true, the decline in mortuary ceremonialism and the reduced frequency of Swift Creek may be inextricably linked. Greater mobility during the late Late Woodland may have contributed to the changes in domestic ceramic assemblages by bringing more regular and intensified interaction among households of different ceramic traditions. Potters from late Late Woodland households at Kolomoki may have emulated the more elaborate net marked and incised decorations they observed on vessels being made and used by households they encountered on more distant forays. Increased interactions would have also brought more opportunities to trade for vessels of other ceramic traditions. In contrast with earlier Late Woodland and Middle Woodland times, there do not appear to have been any supra-household institutions discouraging the manufacture, acquisition, or use of foreign or otherwise elaborately decorated vessels in domestic contexts. The heightened interaction among households might have included participation in domestic, food-related rituals, a shift from the more public feasting commonly inferred for the earlier Late Woodland and Middle Woodland periods (Knight 1990, 2001). It is noteworthy in this regard that two of the vessel forms that become more common in domestic assemblages in the late Late Woodland at Kolomokirestricted bowls and plates/disheswere presumably associated primarily or exclusively with serving. Relative to other vessel forms, these more commonly bear elaborate and labor intensive decoration such as zoned punctation and zoned red filming, making them well-suited to such ritual occasions. In regard to the possibility of an elaboration of household ritual, it is worth noting that one holly seed (Ilex sp., 2.5 percent ubiquity) was recovered from a feature in Block D; the leaves of various holly species were used as an emetic and most famously as a major ingredient of the ritual purgative "black drink." Changes in vessel form and size may be linked to the waning in popularity of complicated stamping as a decorative attribute. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped is strongly associated with the collared (or folded rim) jar (Hally 2009; Pluckhahn 2010), so it is hardly surprising that the decline in this vessel form parallels the decrease in complicated stamping. However, it seems likely that other factors were at work as well, given that changes in vessel form and increases in vessel size are not restricted to those bearing complicated stamping. Perhaps most obvious, larger vessels could be associated with the increase in the size of the domestic group, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in floor space cited above between the pit structure in Block A and the single set post structure in Block D. The production of larger vessels may also relate to the inferred shift to greater household autonomy over production and consumption, since households would have been responsible for more of their own food preparation, storage, and serving.

Flaked Stone
Although the differences are not as dramatic as with ceramics, there are important differences in the flaked stone assemblages from Blocks A and D. The assemblage from Block A includes 35,054 flaked stone artifacts; the assemblage from Block D is notably smaller (N=6696), suggesting that a greater share of lithic production and maintenance was conducted elsewhere. This is consistent with higher residential mobility during the late/terminal Late Woodland. 199

Figure 7-8. Comparison of the relative frequencies of raw material types in the flaked stone assemblages from Blocks A and D. The two assemblages do not differ greatly with respect to the relative frequencies of raw materials (Figure 7-8). Coast Plain cherts account for the bulk of both assemblages, although quartz is also common. Quartzites/sandstones and Ridge and Valley cherts are slightly better represented in the assemblage from Block D. The differences are minor but consistent with the greater diversity noted in ceramic types. As suggested above for ceramics, the trend may be indicative of greater mobility and heightened interaction among late Late Woodland households. Raw material variability is generally assumed to be greater on sites of shorter or less permanent occupation (Andrefsky 1998:233-234) The two assemblages also do not differ greatly with respect to the representation of general types of debitage and tools. Figure 7-9 compares the two blocks in regard to the relative frequencies of early-stage debris (cortical flakes and angular shatter), late-stage debris (noncortical flakes), and cores/tools. This sort of aggregate analysis is obviously problematic (Andrefsky Figure 7-9. Comparison of the relative frequencies of early and 1998:140). It is also important to late stage debitage and tools in the flaked stone assemblages bear in mind that our analysis from Blocks A and D. probably greatly understates the number of expedient tools, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 5. Still, some potentially meaningful general trends are worth noting. In particular, late-stage debris associated with the final stages of tool manufacture and tool maintenance is proportionately better represented in Block A than Block D. These sorts of activities are probably more common on sites associated with greater residential stability (Parry and Kelly 1987; Sievert and Wise 2001).

200

Temporal differences in flaked stone technology are most apparent with regard to hafted bifaces. As described in Chapter 5, the flaked stone assemblage from Block D includes 38 hafted bifaces that were sufficiently whole and distinctive to classify to type. The assemblage from Block A consists of 31 bifaces. To facilitate comparison, the bifaces were sorted into general morphological clusters based primarily on diagnostic attributes of the hafting area (Pluckhahn and Norman 2011). As indicated in Figure 7-10 there are pronounced differences in Figure 7-10. Comparison of the relative the relative frequencies of general morphological frequencies of morphological clusters represented clusters. Specifically, in Block A the cluster of in the hafted biface assemblages from Blocks A bifaces with hafting areas that are straight or expanding cluster makes up roughly threeand D quarters of the assemblage. Proximallycontracting bifaces make up the remaining one-quarter of the collection. In Block D, on the other hand, proximally contracting points comprise slightly less than one-half the assemblage, and proximally straight/expanding points decrease in relative frequency to around 40 percent. Most notable, however, is the increase in the relative frequency of triangular points, from 0 percent in Block A to around 13 percent in the late Late Woodland collection from Block D. Table 7-8 compares the relative frequencies of the individual point types represented in the assemblages from Blocks A and D. Owing to the diversity of the assemblages and the low relative frequencies of most types, the differences are not pronounced in most cases. However, there are exceptions. Consistent with the trends identified for the morphological clusters described above, the terminal Late Woodland occupation of Block D witnessed significant declines in the manufacture of several straight/expanding types such as Bakers Creek and Broward. Conversely, the manufacture and use of contracting types such as New Market and Swannanoa appear to have increased. Most striking, however, is the large increase in the number and relative frequency of Woodland and Mississippian Triangulars. Pluckhahn and Norman (2011) conducted a functional analysis of hafted bifaces from Kolomoki (including those from Blocks A and D), applying the criteria suggested by Thomas (1978), Schott (1997), and Nassaney and Pyle (1999) for discriminating dart and arrow points. Their analysis suggested that while a number of individual points in the collection could have functioned as arrows, Woodland/Mississippian triangulars were the only type consisted classified as such. This accords well with the widely held notion that the small triangular form is the earliest arrow point in the Southeast (Blitz 1988; Nassaney and Pyle 1999). The five examples of the Woodland\Mississippian triangular type from Block D are the only identified from Kolomoki to date (from an assemblage of more than 200 hafted bifaces). This strongly suggests that the Block D occupation was coincident with the introduction of new, or at least much improved, arrow technology at Kolomoki. Thus, arrow points were not adopted until around A.D. 750 at Kolomoki andat least judging from their relative frequencyfor the next 50-100 years remained a relatively minor addition to the long-established tradition of spear-thrown darts.

201

Table 7-8. Comparison of the Relative Frequencies of Hafted Biface Types in Blocks A and D.
Type Bakers Creek Broward Duval Type 1 Duval Type 2 Duval Type 3 Ebenezer Florida Copena (lanceolate/triangular variety) Florida Copena (notched variety) Jacks Reef New Market Swan Lake Swannanoa Tampa Weeden Island Straight Stemmed Woodland/Mississippian Triangular provisional type TOTAL Block A 25.81 12.90 3.23 6.45 3.23 3.23 6.45 9.68 0 3.23 3.23 3.23 0 6.45 0 3.23 100.00 Block D 13.16 2.63 0 7.90 2.63 10.53 0 0 2.63 15.80 7.90 5.26 2.63 2.63 13.16 0 100.00

Judging from work elsewhere in the region, households at Kolomoki appear to have been relatively slow in adopting improved bow and arrow technology. In the Midwest, arrow points become common in the archaeological record after cal A.D. 600 (McElrath et al. 2000:18). Milanich and colleagues (1997:188) argue that arrow points were present at McKeithen by A.D. 500several centuries earlier than the Block D occupation. The identification of a triangular arrow point in the bone of a woman buried on top of one of the mounds at McKeithen provides evidence that these arrow points were not used solely for hunting game.

Discussion
The Late Woodland period is bounded by two great structural transformations: on one end the collapse of the Middle Woodland lifestyle on the other the development of a new Mississippian social order and the subsequent Mississippianization of the greater Southeast. Beck et al. (2007), building on the work of Pauketat (Pauketat 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 2004a, 2004b, 2007), have argued that the latter transformation was precipitated by an event: the A.D. 1050 Big Bang at Cahokia. McElrath and colleagues (2000:14-16; see also: Carr and Case 2008:28; Yerkes 1988:1) speak of the transition between 202

the Middle and Late Woodland between A.D. 300/400 and 500 in terms also befitting an event: that is, as a sudden and dramatic collapse (but see Dunnell and Greenlee 1999). However, as Sewell has suggested, and as Beck and colleagues argue for the A.D. 1050 Big Bang, events may be conceived of as sequences of ruptures that reorganize structures (Sewell 2005:261). The argument advanced here is that these bookend events were interpenetrated by a series of ruptures across the Late Woodland, that these ruptures included major changes in domestic organization, and that these changes were largely the product of the agency of households themselves. In the Midwest, the first such rupture consisted of a shift in settlement from floodplain to uplands, accompanied by a marked decline in the construction of burial mounds (McElrath et al. 2000:14-16). Various explanations have been offered for this Middle Woodland collapse. Dunnell and Greenlee (1999) have reviewed the social and political factors invoked by archaeologists to explain the transformation of Middle Woodland societies and have found all of them deficient, either because they have few testable implications (cultural fatigue, outside influence, internal sociopolitical strife) or because their expectations do not match the archaeological record (warfare, agriculture, bow and arrow). Citing the ubiquity and relatively simultaneity of settlement shifts across the Midwest, McElrath et al. (2000:15) posit an environmental changeperhaps a shift in flooding regimesas a possible trigger. Carr and Case (2008:28), however, reject environmental explanations for the collapse of Ohio Hopewell; they suggest instead that a perceived spiritual difficulty precipitated a division in a key ceremonial alliance. As noted above, these changes are also true of Kolomoki and portions of the Weeden Island area, although the timing was delayed. However, burial mound construction declined here too by around A.D. 500 and a dispersed settlement system was in place throughout much of the area by around A.D. 800 (Pluckhahn 2003:185-201; White 1981:60). Given its upland location, Kolomoki would have been little affected by the flooding implicated by McElrath and colleagues. Smith (2009:176) suggests that periodic drought may have been the principal causal factor behind the eventual settlement shifts in this region; there were also changes in sea level that may have affected Weeden Island groups closer to the coast (Marquardt 2010). However, as noted above, there are no good indications of climate change in the botanical assemblages from Blocks A and D. This, coupled with the persistence of mound building for several centuries after the Midwestern Middle Woodland collapse, suggest that local changes were not simply a response to broad-scale environmental crises or social upheavals. Whatever the ultimate causes, the decline in burial mound construction surely reflects a fundamental rift in the schemas that held sway through the Middle Woodland period. It is now commonly agreed that Middle Woodland mortuary ceremonies intertwined themes relating to mourning, world renewal, and rites of passage (Carr 2006b:475-476, 2008; Carr and Case 2008; Hall 1979:259-261; Romain 2000:167-197) and were organized around both extended kin groups such as clans and sodalities that cross-cut kinship and residences (Carr 2006a, 2008; Carr and Case 2008). These sodalities, as well as the more distant social ties they often manifested, probably declined in importance as the ceremonies they sponsored and supervised became smaller, less extravagant, and less frequent. Along with these social relationships, there must have been fundamental changes in the schemas that dictated the constitution of kin and community. The themes that underwrote Middle Woodland mortuary ceremony were not likely cast aside or forgotten, however, even if they were less often expressed in public ceremony. As noted above, small platform mounds were constructed at Kolomoki in the early/middle Late Woodland. Knight (1990, 203

2001) has argued that activities that were undertaken on the summits of these and similar mounds in the regionincluding the repetitive placement of large posts and the displaying of meat on scaffoldingwere directed to communal rites of world renewal. Given the persistence of these practices, it is perhaps not surprising that early and middle Late Woodland households at Kolomoki remained economically interdependent. The paucity of storage facilities in Block A, combined with the evidence for communal hunting and feasting, indicate that much of production and consumption was organized at organizational level above the co-resident group, perhaps by lineages or the community as a whole (Pluckhahn et al. 2006). These households thus likely continued to maintain schemas that encouraged pooling of effort and resources. The value placed on shared labor may have been strong enough to discourageat least for time beingthe adoption of the bow and arrow, even as it was coming into more frequent use in surrounding area. Domestic production and consumption appear to have been radically transformed in the interval between the occupations in Blocks A and D, probably between around cal A.D. 650-750, as evidenced first and most dramatically by the increase in the number and size of storage pits. McElrath and colleagues (2000:18) note that the increase in storage is a widespread pattern in the Midwest during the Late Woodland. The change is sometimes attributed to intensified maize production (Steere 2011:197). However, maize was clearly not the impetus for increased storage at Kolomoki, where pits appear to have been employed mainly for storing and processing mast and roots. Even in the Midwest, where maize would become more important in the Late Woodland, the emphasis on domestic storage appears to predate intensive maize cultivation (McElrath et al. 2000:18). At Kolomoki, the increase in household storage is coincident with the collapse of the tradition of mound building. I argue that the two trends are related and reflect another major rupture in the structure: the social rules and mechanisms for sharing were fundamentally transformed as communal ceremony withered and households exercised greater control of their own food production and consumption. This is not to say that households were completely independent economically. Instead, I suggest that the reciprocal social obligations that were exercised and reinforced in public ceremony gave way to the development of less formal relationships between individual households. These relationships may have been materialized in household-based food rituals, as indicated by the increased frequency of specialized serving vessels in the ceramic assemblage from Block D. Also coincident with these changes is the first appearance of small triangular points, marking the adoption of newor at least improvedbow and arrow hunting technology (Blitz 1988; Nassaney and Pyle 1999). These points are relatively uncommon in Block D, suggesting the transition to this technology was both delayed and gradual at Kolomoki relative to other areas of the Southeast and Midwest. Various authors have discussed the advantages of the bow and arrow for hunting. Relative to the spearthrower, the bow and arrow is generally credited with improved hunting efficiency owing to its greater range, velocity, and accuracy (Blitz 1993; Muller 1997:129; Seeman 1992:42; but see Shott 1993). Bettinger (1999) has argued that the greater accuracy of the bow and the ability it conferred to hunters to stay more still during release facilitated individual hunting and negated the advantages of hunting in groups.

204

Given the apparent superiority of the bow and arrow, why were households at Kolomoki slow to adopt the new technology? Seeman (1992:42) notes that there are production costs associated with bow and arrows relative to spearthrowers; they have more component parts, require a wider range of materials to manufacture, require more skill to produce, and also require more maintenance costs (due primarily to the higher rate of arrow loss). None of these production costs precluded the rapid adoption of the bow and arrow in most areas of eastern North America by around cal A.D. 700, however (Blitz 1988; McElrath et al. 2000:5; Nassaney and Pyle 1999; Shott 1993). Rarely considered in previous discussions of the adoption of the bow and arrow are the potential social costs of this new technology for communally-organized societies. By permitting increased efficiency in individual hunting, the bow and arrow reduced the need for the sort of coordinated drives that were presumably more common when hunting with darts (Bettinger 1999; Hall 1980). Such coordinated productive activities, as well as the shared consumption of the spoils, must have constituted an important social tie among households. For the Great Basin, Bettinger (1999) has argued that the introduction of the bow and arrow around 1500 BP had dramatic and far-reaching effects on the organization of production. Specifically, he proposes that with the switch to individual hunting and its accompanying higher returns, the meat of larger game may still have been shared, but there would have been a reduction in the social pressures to share less valued resources, including plants. Hence, the social relations of production were transformed from a system in which all resources were treated as public goods, to one in which some resources, notably plant resources...were regarded as private property (Bettinger 1999:73). As noted above (see also Pluckhahn et al. 2006), there is evidence for such communal hunting in the faunal remains associated with the early Late Woodland archaeological household in Block A, in the form of fill layers with high MNI for white-tailed deer and a disproportionate representation of the meatier cuts of deer. The pattern is similarly for Block D, but here the faunal remains are dispersed across a number of features and a longer time interval, consistent with repeated individual hunting, with many of these forays extending some distance from the community and thus necessitating return with only select cuts. I suggest that the social costs associated with the adoption of the bow and arrow may have discouraged the adoption of this technology at Kolomoki while supra-household institutions were still strong, in the Middle and early Late Woodland periods. However, as households began to assert greater autonomy over production and consumption during the late Late Woodland, new technologies supporting more individualized hunting would have represented a more attractive option for households. It is worth emphasizing here that I am reversing the order of causality in the relationship between the bow and arrow and household autonomy as discussed by previous authors authors (e.g., Bettinger 1999; Muller 1997:127). Given that arrows form a decided minority of the points in Block D, even while there is evidence for increased household autonomy in other aspects of material culture discussed above (from storage to ceramics), it would appear that households chose to adopt the new technology only after they had achieved greater independence from the supra-household institutions that bound them together in the Middle and early Late Woodland periods. Thus, by around cal A.D. 800-850, households at Kolomoki appear to have made many of the same decisions as Late Woodland households elsewhere in the Midwest and Southeast: they removed themselves from formalized collective ritual, developed greater storage capacity, and adopted new technologies that permitted greater efficiency in hunting (McElrath et al. 2000). Like households 205

everywhere they were still embedded in larger social networks, but compared with households of the Middle Woodland period they exercised greater autonomy over their own production and consumption. However, late and terminal Late Woodland households at Kolomoki differed from those in the American Bottom region in several key respects, and these differences help to explain the divergent trajectories societies in these two regions would take over the next two centuries. First, Late Woodland households at Kolomoki chose not to intensify the effort devoted to horticulture. Maize pollen and starch grains from the Block D household attest to continued maize cultivation at Kolomoki, but only in modest quantities judging from the absence of macobotanical remains. Indeed, maize cultivation may have even declined at Kolomoki during the late and terminal Late Woodland. The pattern is not unusual for the Late Woodland period in the Weeden Island area; maize was also uncommon at Sycamore (Milanich 1974) and not represented at all at Woodland Terrace (Mickwee 2009). A review of the archaeological literature by Ashley and Rolland (2009) suggests that maize was not present in peninsular Florida until Middle Mississippian times. In contrast, in the American Bottom region, the ubiquity of maize increased to around 40 percent by around cal A.D. 800/900 (Fortier and McElrath 2002; McElrath et al. 2000:18). The choice not to step up the effort devoted to farming probably played a crucial role in two other points of divergence in the trajectories taken by late/terminal Late Woodland households at Kolomoki relative to those in the American Bottom. Perhaps most immediate, it meant that households at Kolomoki remained less residentially stable; they probably regularly dispatched task groups and may have shifted residence seasonally or in longer term cycles. Koldehoff and Galloy (2005) suggest that Patrick phase (A.D. 650 to 900) households in the American Bottom were also less sedentary than many archaeologists have assumed. Here, however, sedentism probably increased with the intensification of maize production after cal A.D. 900 (McElrath et al. 2000:18). The residential instability of Late Woodland households at Kolomoki and elsewhere in the region was probably an impediment to population increase. At the same time, it may have provided an incentive to keep extended kin together in a single household, to accommodate the demands of scheduling extended foraging trips. At Kolomoki and other sites in the region, co-resident groups appear to have become larger, as indicated by the greater size of houses, as well as by an increase in the average size of ceramic vessels. They may have begun more commonly incorporating extended families under a single roof (Peregrine 1992; Steere 2011:72-73). Larger, extended family households are favored under circumstances where the demands of scheduling are great, because if parents are away there are other adults in residence who can assist with childcare and other household duties (Pasternak and Ember 1976; see also Wilk and Rathje 1982; Williams and Williams 1965). Constraints on organization may also favor such large households where community-level institutions are weak (Johnson 1982). The larger households at Kolomoki and sites in its immediate region do not appear to have been unusual. Steere (2010) has recently completed a comprehensive review of domestic architecture from archaeological sites across the Southeast. For the Late Woodland period, he notes that sites in the eastern portion of the Southeast are relatively large and widely spaced (Steere 2010:72-73). As argued here for Kolomoki, he credits this pattern to the prevalence of extended family households. As households at Kolomoki and throughout much of the region became larger in the late and terminal Late Woodland, those in the American Bottom and a few other areas may have become more attenuated (Steere 2010:72-73). Fortier and McElrath (2002) have reviewed evidence for domestic 206

architecture and community organization in the American Bottom region during the terminal Late Woodland period; they document far greater diversity than is accounted for in simple models. Nevertheless, it is clear that the predominant pattern during the terminal Late Woodland consisted of very small houses, sometimes occurring in relative isolation and other times clustered around small courtyards (Fortier and McElrath 2002; Kelly et al. 1990; Steere 2010). Although the arrangement of some of these small houses in clusters suggests some degree of sharing in household activities, the presence of internal hearths and storage pits in many of the houses (Kelly et al. 1990) suggests they also functioned independently in some household tasks. This is the type of pattern one would expect with a mixture of independent, nuclear family households and multiple-family household groups, in which the conjugal couple maintained some degree of economic autonomy and thus perhaps could be considered separate households (Wilk 1988:139). Of course, the diversity of houses in the terminal Late Woodland American Bottom suggests that households took a variety of forms, a pattern which ethnographic accounts suggest is not unusual for societies more generally (Wilk 1988). Still, I argue that the nuclear family emerged as what Wilk (1988:137) has referred to as normative household; that is, a form held as an ideal, if frequently subject to creative manipulation and variation based on economics and the domestic developmental cycle. It is also true that households do not necessarily act with a single voice or in concert (Blanton 1995; Hendon 1996; Wilk 1989; Yanagisako 1979). At Kolomoki, for example, if we assume that ceramics and food storage were primarily the domain of women, the rapid change in these facets of material culture relative to hafted bifaces might suggest that the female members of households were making many of the key decisions discussed above. However, we need not deny internal differences in interest or authority to show that households can employ effective strategies when faced with certain opportunities (Hartman 2004:95). Various authors have implicated the emergence of nuclear family households as a key component of the Mississippian transformation in the American Bottom. However, these authors have tended to view this household form as a development that followed the initial push towards a Mississippian lifestyle, whether that push is conceptualized in terms that are evolutionary and materialist (Peregrine 1992) or historic and political (Pauketat 1998:135-136). In contrast, I suggest that the development of smaller, more residentially stable, and more autonomous nuclear family households constituted a prior and distinctive development (Hartman 2004) that permitted the rapid entrenchment of a new Mississippian social and political order in the American Bottom after the A.D. 1050 event. Conversely, the absence or relative uncommonness of this household form in the Kolomoki area helps explain why the a Mississippian lifestyle did not develop in this region until around A.D. 1100-1200, when it was introduced by migrants from elsewhere in the Mississippianized Southeast (Blitz and Lorenz 2006:136-137). Why might the development of this form of household been key to the Mississippian transformation in the American Bottom? Peregrine (1992) argues that the sort of smaller households that were typical of the area promoted competition, thus fostering intensification of maize production and ultimately greater social stratification. This may be true even if the logic is not clearly articulated by Peregrine; Wilk and Rathje (1982:623-624) observe that intensified agricultural production favors smaller households, since more can be produced per worker from a given unit of land (as long as there is no need for larger land modifications such as irrigation systems, which would require larger task groups).

207

Nevertheless, I suggest that the development of this household form had other, more subtleyet potentially equally importantramifications for the process of Mississippianization. First, because they are smaller, nuclear households are more physically mobile (Hartman 2004:105-106; Wilk and Rathje 1982:632). In the case of the development of the modern nation state, the nuclear households of western Europe were better able to position themselves with respect to emerging employment opportunities (Hartman 2004). In the case of the Mississippian event, the households would have been able more easily relocate as the geo-political landscape shifted, first with the reorganization of space in the Big Bang at Cahokia, then with the founding of new communities on Cahokias periphery, and ultimately with the migration of Mississippian households away from the American Bottom. Next, the structure of smaller, nuclear family households may have made them more amenable to new and novel forms of socio-political organization. Hartman (2004:105-106) makes this case in regard to the pattern of nuclear households that took hold in northern and western Europe in the years preceding the development of modern nation states. She notes that this system: ...enables and encourages greater flexibility of response to new situations, inviting a certain creativity. As the sole married adults in residence, couples...do not live daily with the accumulated weight of generations of practice passed down within the husbands family. Neither spouse is obliged to engage in what may become decades of deference to the wishes of the resident elder generation. In contrast, the extended household pattern more common in eastern and southern Europe provided a strategic advantage for scheduling household tasks, but emphasized tradition over innovation, since married couples face long apprenticeships in household management under members of an older generation (Hartman 2004:105). But as Hartman further notes, the nuclear form of household also comes with a substantial price, in that with only one married adult couple in residence, there is no cushion of support in regard to the scheduling of household chores or the provisioning of the household in the event of death or disability of one of the conjugal pair (see also Laslett 1988). In societies where nuclear families predominate, this relative insecurity in the face of weakened familial ties is often mitigated by increased emphasis on collective social and political institutions. Extrapolating these observations to the Mississippian example, the nuclear family households of the American Bottom may have been more amenable to life under new forms of political authority and within larger-scale social formations, even if by doing so they would eventually---and largely unwittinglyforego some of the autonomy they had gained over the course of the Late Woodland (Pauketat 2000).

Conclusion
McElrath and colleagues (2000:23) have noted that by viewing the Late Woodland simply as a logical evolutionary step between Middle Woodland and Mississippian...evolutionists have forced this period into a stereotypic tribal transition to chiefship and...have muddied the water for interpreting all three periods. Their call for a more historical view has been answered with recent scholarship positing that the structural transformations at the transitions between the Middle and early Late Woodland (Carr and Case 2008:28; McElrath et al. 2000:14-16; Yerkes 1988:1) and again between the terminal Late Woodland and Early Mississippian (Beck et al. 2007; Pauketat 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) 208

are best viewed as historical events. I agree with these approaches, but argue that viewing these as discrete historical events reinforces the notion of the intervening Late Woodland period as a relatively static or uneventful interval (e.g., Griffin 1952:361-362). I suggest instead that, following Nassaney and Cobb, ...the undoing of Middle Woodland and all it entailed is simultaneously the emergence of Mississippian... (Nassaney and Cobb 1991:314, emphasis in original). Specifically, the events that bounded the Late Woodland period were interpenetrated by a series of ruptures that reorganized structures associated with the organization of households and the domestic economy. First, the collapse of public ceremony and dispersal of settlement near the end of the Middle Woodland period reflect fundamental changes to the resources and schemas by which communities and extended kin networks were conceived and constituted. The subsequent reorganization of domestic economyas indicated most dramatically by increases in storage and proliferation of new biface formsmanifest shifts in resources and schemas regarding the sharing of labor and resources. While still embedded in wider social and political relationships, late Late Woodland households were less beholden to community and extended kin, and exercised greater autonomy of their own production and consumption. These changes were fundamental to the undoing of the Middle Woodland. But the emergence of Mississippian would depend on an additional rupture in the schemas and resources associated with domestic economy, including the very manner in which family and household were defined. This change was less pervasive geographically, however. Late and terminal Late Woodland households at Kolomoki and across much of the Southeast chose not to invest heavily in the growing of maize. Relatedly, they mostly retained an extended household structure that was well-suited to the scheduling demands of a relatively sedentary, primarily hunting-gathering lifestyle. This was a household structure that favored the continuation of existing cultural practices and traditions by keeping generations together. In contrast, by around cal A.D. 850, households in the American Bottom began to intensify the cultivation of maize. In the process, they appear to have more frequently adopted a smaller form of household that was more efficient for horticultural production. These nuclear households were potentially more mobile. Moreover, lacking both the support and constraints afforded by having an older generation in residence, they may have been more favorably inclined to the new and novel forms of collective social and political organization that arose in the American Bottom around A.D. 1050. I do not argue that these changes in households directly caused either the collapse of Middle Woodland ceremonialism or the A.D. 1050 Big Bang. However, transformations in domestic economy were clearly crucial to both events. Variation in the timing and intensity of changes at Kolomoki and across the region suggest that these transformations were not simply the result of either evolutionary process or disembodied historical forces, but were instead filtered through the agency of households. In this sense, the households of the Late Woodland period were truly making history.

209

210

References Cited
Anderson and Mainfort (editors) 2002 The Woodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Asch, Nancy B. and David L. Asch 1985 Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, Anthropological Papers No. 75, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 149-204. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ashley, Keith, and Vicki Rolland 2009 Where is the Corn in Precolumbian Peninsular Florida? Paper presented at the 74th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta. Atran, Scott, Ximena Lois and Edilberto Ucan Ek' 2003 Plants of the Peten Itza' Maya. Memoirs, Number 38. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bacon, W.S. 1977 Projectile Point Typology: The Basic Base. Archaeology of Eastern North America 5:107-121. Baker, Winston H. 1995 A Hypothetical Classification of Some of the Flaked Stone Projectiles, Tools and Ceremonials from the Southeastern United States. Williams Printing, Quincy, Massachusetts. Beck, Robin A., Jr., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown, and Timothy K. Earle 2007 Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Structural Transformation. Current Anthropology 48(6)833-860. Behler, John L. and F. Wayne King 1997 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Bettinger, Robert L. 1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millennium, edited by C. Beck, pp. 62-74. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Binford, Lewis R. 1963 A Proposed Attribute List for the Description and Classification of Projectile Points. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, edited by Anta M. White, Lewis R. Binford, and Mark L. Papworth, pp. 193-221. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 19., Ann Arbor.

211

1967 1978

Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1-12. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Black, Bryan, H. Thomas Foster, II, and Marc Abrams 2002 Combining Environmentally Dependent and Environmentally Independent Analysis of Witness Tree Data in East-Central Alabama. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 32: 2060-2075. Blakney-Bailey, Jane Anne 2008 An Analysis of Seminole Artifacts from the Paynes Town Site (8AL366), Alachua County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 61(3-4): 167-188. Blanton, Richard E. 1995 The Cultural Foundations of Inequality in Households. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 105-127. Plenum Press, New York. Blitz, John H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9:123-145. 2010 New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18(1):1-39.

Blitz, John H., and Karl G. Lorenz 2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Bolender, Douglas J. (editor) 2010 Eventful Archaeologies: New Approaches to Social Transformation in the Archaeological Record. State University of New York Press, Albany. Bonhage-Freund, Mary Theresa 1997 Paleoethnobotany of the Georgia Piedmont: Four Lamar Period Farmsteads in the Middle Oconee Uplands. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 1998 2000 2003 Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of the Kolomoki Site (9ER1). LEAF Archaeological Research Services, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Report submitted to the LAMAR Institute, Watkinsville, GA. Kolomoki 2000. Intermet Associates, Alma, Michigan. Report submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Final Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Flotation Samples from the Kolomoki 2001 Project (9ER1). Intermet Associates, Alma, Michigan. Report submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. An Experimental Approach to the Analysis of Two Maize Cob-Filled Features from Etowah (9BR1). Early Georgia 33(2):131-141.

2005

212

2010

Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Flotation Samples, NGS II Kolomoki Project (9ER1). Intermet Associates, Alma, Michigan. Submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Branch-Raymer, Leslie, and Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund 2011 Middle Woodland Gardening in the Etowah River Valley, Northwest Georgia: The Hardin Bridge Site (9BR34). Early Georgia, in preparation. Breedlove, Dennis E., and Robert M. Laughlin 2000 The Flowering of Man: A Tzotzil Botany of Zinacantan. Abridged edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Britton, Nathaniel Lord, and Hon. Addison Brown 1970 [1913] Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. Publications, Inc., New York. Second edition. Dover

Bull, John, and John Farrand, Jr. 1996 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Revised edition. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida. Caldwell, Joseph 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association Memoir 88, Salt Lake City. Cambron, J.W., and D.C. Hulse 1978 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I Point Types. Alabama Archaeological Society, Huntsville. Cannon, Michael D. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size, and Statistical Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:185-195. Carr, Christopher 2006a Salient Issues in the Social and Political Organizations of Northern Hopewellian Peoples: Contextualizing, Personalizing, and Generating Hopewell. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 73-118. Springer, New York. 2006b Scioto Hopewell Ritual Gatherings: A Review and Discussion of Previous Interpretations and Data. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 463-479. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York. 2008 Social and Ritual Organization. In The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Bioarchaeological Documentation and Cultural Understanding, edited by D. Troy Case and Christopher Carr, pp. 151288. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York.

213

Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case 2008 Documenting the Lives of Ohio Hopewell People: Philosophical and Empirical Foundations. In The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Bioarchaeological Documentation and Cultural Understanding, edited by D. Troy Case and Christopher Carr, pp. 3-34. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York. Cobb, Charles R., and Patrick H. Garrow 1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence. American Antiquity 61(1):2137. Cobb, Charles R., and Michael S. Nassaney 2002 Domesticating Self and Society in the Woodland Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 525-539. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Collins, Michael B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl Swanson, pp. 1534. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. Compton, J. Matthew 2009 Vertebrate Fauna from the Kolomoki (9ER1) Block D Excavations, Early County, Georgia. Report submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. DeBoer, Warren 1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: the View from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):1-20. DeJarnette, David L., Edward B. Kurjack, and James W. Cambron 1962 Excavations at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8(1-2):1-124. Delcourt, H.R., and P.A. Delcourt 1977 Presettlement Magnolia-Beech Climax of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Quantitative Evidence from the Apalachicola River Bluffs, North Central Florida. Ecology 58: 1085-1093. Delorit, R.J. 1970 Illustrated Taxonomy of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin. Dunnell, Robert C., and Diana M. Greenlee 1999 Late Woodland Period Waste Reduction in the Ohio River Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:376395. Emerson, Thomas E., Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier (editors) 2000 Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

214

Emerson, Thomas E., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2002 Embodying Power and Resistance at Cahokia. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by M. ODonovan, pp. 105-125. Occasional Paper No. 30, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Ernst, C. H. and R. W. Barbour 1972 Turtles of the United States. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Espenshade, Christopher T., Linda Kennedy, William F. Stanyard, and David S. Leigh 1998 The Prehistoric Occupation of the Shoal Creek Reservoir Basin: Data Recovery Investigations at 9HY95, 9HY98, and 9HY104 in Henry County, Georgia. TRC Cultural Resource Group, Atlanta, Georgia. Prepared for Clayton County Water Authority, Morrow, Georgia. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1962 Excavations at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama. The Florida Anthropologist 15(2):41-56. Fernald, M.L. 1950 Gray's Manual of Botany. 8 ed. American Book Company, New York, New York. Flannery, Kent V. 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, edited by P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. Dimbleby, G., pp. 23-53. Duckworth, London. 2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households. American Antiquity 67: 417-433.

Flannery, Kent V. (editor) 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, Orlando. Fortier, Andrew C., and Dale L. McElrath 2002 Deconstructing the Emergent Mississippian Concept: The Case for the Terminal Late Woodland in the American Bottom. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(2):172-215. Foster, H. Thomas, II, Bryan Black, and Marc D. Abrams 2004 A Witness Tree Analysis of the Effects of Native American Indians on the Pre-European Settlement Forests in East-Central Alabama. Human Ecology 32: 27-47. Foster, Steven, and James A. Duke 1990 A Field Guide to Medicinal Plants: Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Fritz, Gayle J., and Tristram R. Kidder 1993 Recent Investigations into Prehistoric Agriculture in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 12(1): 1-14. Fritz, Gayle J., Virginia Drywater Whitekiller, and James W. McIntosh 2001 Ethnobotany of Ku-Nu-Che: Cherokee Hickory Nut Soup. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(2): 1-27. 215

Gerritsen, F. 2004 Archaeological Perspectives on Local Communities. In A Companion to Archaeology, edited by J. Bintliff, pp. 141-154. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley. Gillespie, Susan D. 2007 Comments on Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Structural Transformation by Robin A. Beck, Jr., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown, and Timothy K. Earle. Current Anthropology 48(6)846-847. Gilman, Patricia 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52: 538-564. Godfrey, R.K. 1988 Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern Florida and Adjacent Georgia and Alabama. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Goody, Jack 1958 The Fission of Domestic Groups among the Lodagaba. In The Development Cycle of Domestic Groups, edited by J. Goody, pp. 53-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gordon, Elizabeth A. 1993 Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery: A Hawaiian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4):453-460. Gould, S. J. 1966 Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 41:587-640. 1971 Geometric Similarity in Allometric Growth: A Contribution to the Problem of Scaling in the Evolution of Size. The American Naturalist 105(942):113-137.

Grayson, Donald K. 1973 On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 38(4):432-439. 1981 1984 The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8(1):77-88. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Gremillion, Kristen 1985 The Development and Dispersal of Agricultural Systems in the Woodland Period Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp 483-501. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 216

1998 2002

Changing Roles of Wild and Cultivated Plant Resources Among Early Farmers of Eastern Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology 17(2):140-157. The Development and Dispersal of Agricultural Systems in the Woodland Period Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, Jr. pp. 483-501. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Eastern Woodlands Overview. In People and Plants in Eastern North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 17-49. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

2003

Griffin, James B. 1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp352-364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hall, Robert 1979 In Search of the Ideology of Adena-Hopewell Climax. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by D.S. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 258-265. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. 1980 An Interpretation of the Two-Climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. In Early Native Americans: Prehistoric Demography, Economy, and Technology, edited by David Broman, pp. 401-462. Mouton, The Hague. Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1997

Hally, David J. 2009 Late Woodland to Mississippian Vessel Assemblage Change as a Response to Changing Foodways. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta. Hamel, Paul B. and Mary U. Chiltoskey 1975 Cherokee Plants and Their Uses--A 400 Year History. Herald Publishing Co., Sylva, North Carolina. Hartman, Mary S. 2004 The Household and the Making of History: A Subversive View of the Western Past. Cambridge University Press, New York. Heiser, Charles B., Jr. 1985 Some Botanical Considerations of the Early Domesticated Plants North of Mexico. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, Anthropological Papers No. 75, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 19-56. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Hendon, Julia A. 1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 45-61. 2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations. American Anthropologist 102(1): 42-53. 217

Hickey, Michael and Clive J. King 1981 100 Families of Flowering Plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodler, Thomas W., and Harold A. Schretter 1986 The Atlas of Georgia. The Institute of Community and Area Development, University of Georgia, Athens. Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Hurt, R. Douglas 1987 Indian Agriculture in America, Prehistory to the Present. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Jenkins, Ned J., and Blaine Ensor 1981 The Gainesville Lake Area Excavations. Archaeological Investigations of the Gainesville Lake Area, Volume 1. Report of Investigations 11. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Moundville. Johnson, Gregory A. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Segraves, pp. 389-421. Academic Press, New York. Johnson, Matthew H. 2006 On the Nature of Theoretical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory. Archaeological Dialogues 13(2):117-132. Kay, Daisy E. 1987 Root Crops. Second edition. Tropical Development and Research Institute, London. Keel, Bennie C. 1987 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Kelly, John E. 1990a The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom Region. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by B.D. Smith, pp. 113-152. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1990b Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippian Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by B.D. Smith, pp. 67-112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Kelly, John E., Andrew C. Fortier, Stephen J. Ozuk, and Joyce A. Williams 1987 The Range Site: Archaic Through Late Woodland Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI270 Site Reports, Volume 16. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Kennedy, Helen 2000 Marantaceae. In Flora of North America North of Mexico, Volume 22, edited by Flora of North America Editorial Committees, pp. 315-319. Oxford University Press, New York.

218

Kent, Susan 1981 The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Friend or Worst Enemy- the Spatial Distribution of Faunal Remains. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(3):367-372. King, Chester 1987 Ethnohistoric Reconstruction of Subsistence-Settlement Systems in the Vicinity of Burton Mesa. Manuscript on file with the author. Kiple, Kenneth F. and Kriemhild Conee Ornelas (editors) 2000 The Cambridge World History of Food. Volume 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Knight, Vernon J., Jr. 1990 Excavation of the Truncated Mound at the Walling Site: Middle Woodland Culture and Copena in the Tennessee Valley. Report of Investigations 56. Division of Archaeology, Alabama State Museum of Natural History, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 2001 Feasting and the Emergence of Platform Mound Ceremonialism in Eastern North America. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 311-333. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Kohler, Timothy A. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island, and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability, in Non-Mississippianized Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M.S. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb, pp. 91-110. Plenum Press, New York. Koldehoff, Brad, and Joseph M. Galloy 2005 Late Woodland Frontiers in the American Bottom Region. Southeastern Archaeology 25:275-300 Lopinot, Neal H. 1983 Analysis of Flotation Sample Materials from the Late Archaic Horizon. In The 1982 Excavations at the Cahokia Interpretive Center Tract, St. Clair County, Illinois, by Richard W. Jefferies, pp. 77-108. Research Paper No. 37, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lyman, R. Lee 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lyman, R. Lee, and Kenneth M. Ames 2004 Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: Lessons from the Portland Basin, Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 24(2):329-346. MacNeish, Richard S. 1992 The Origins of Agriculture and Settled Life. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

219

McElrath, Dale L., Thomas E. Emerson, and Andrew C. Fortier 2000 Social Evolution or Social Response? A Fresh Look at the "Good Gray Cultures" After Four Decades of Midwest Research. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 3-36. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. McGee, Harold 1984 On Food and Cooking. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, New York. Marcoux, J.B. 2008 Cherokee Households and Communities in the English Contact Period, A.D. 1670-1740. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Markin, Julie G. 2010 The Importance of Woodstock Complicated Stamped Fifty Years After Caldwell. Early Georgia 38(2):169-186. Martin, Alexander C., and William D. Barkley 1973 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. Marquardt, William H. 2010 Mounds, Middens, and Rapid Climate Change During the Archaic-woodland Transition in the Southeastern United States. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic?, edited by D.H. Thomas and M.C. Sanger, pp. pp. 253-271. Proceedings of the Third Caldwell Conference, St. Catherines Island, Georgia, May 9-11, 2008. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, No. 93, New York. Medsger, Oliver Perry 1966 Edible Wild Plants. MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin. Mickwee, Christopher L. 2009 Wakulla in the Sandhills: Analysis of a Late Weeden Island Occupation in the Northwest Florida Interior Uplands. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Pensacola. Milanich, Jerald T. 1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, a Weeden Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:1-44. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1998 2002 Florida's Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida. Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and R.C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 352-372. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

220

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle 1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, New York. Originally published 1984. Miller, Naomi 1988 Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany, edited by C. Hastorf and V. Popper, pp. 72-85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Minnis, Paul E. and Richard I. Ford 1977 Analysis of Plant Remains from Chimney Rock Mesa. In Archaeological Investigations at Chimney Rock Mesa: 1970-1972, edited by F.W. Eddy, pp. 81-91. Memoir 1. Colorado Archaeological Society, Denver. Moerman, Daniel E. 1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Montgomery, F.H. 1974 Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States. University of Toronto Press. Muller, Jon 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Narrol, R. 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587-89. Nash, D. J. 2009 Household Archaeology in the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 205-261. Nassaney, Michael S. 1992 Communal Societies and the Emergence of Elites in the Prehistoric American Southeast. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T. Pauketat, pp. 111-143. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 3, Washington, D.C. 2000 The Late Woodland Southeast. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 713-30. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. A Historical-Processual Development of Late Woodland Societies. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T.R. Pauketat, pp. 157-173. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2001

Nassaney, Michael S., and Charles R. Cobb (editors) 1991 Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast. Plenum Press, New York.

221

Nassaney, Michael S., and Charles R. Cobb 1991 Patterns and Processes of Late Woodland Development in the Greater Southeastern United States. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M.S. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb, pp. 285-322. Plenum Press, New York. Nassaney, Michael S., and Kendra Pyle 1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64(2):243-263. Northwest Florida Environmental Conservancy 2006 Steepheads. Electronic document, http://www.nwflec.com/northwestfloridaenvironmental conservancypart2/id12.html, accessed 2010. Ortiz, Beverly R. and Julia F. Parker 1991 It Will Live Forever: Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn Preparation. Heyday Books, Berkeley. Panshin, A.J. and Carl de Zeeuw 1980 Textbook of Wood Technology. Fourth edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, ed. J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Pasternak, Burton, Carol R. Ember, Melvin Ember 1976 On the Conditions Favoring Extended Family Households. Journal of Anthropological Research 32(2):109-123. Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1997a Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in The Mississipian World, edited by T.R. Pauketat and T.E. Emerson, pp. 30-51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997b Mississippian Ups and Downs. Book review essay of Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (edited by J. F. Scarry) and Mississippian Communities and Households (edited by J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). American Anthropologist 99: 634-636. 2000 Politicization and Community in the Precolumbian Mississippi Valley. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M.A. Canuto J. Yaeger, pp. 16-43. Routledge, London.

2004a Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2004b the Economy of the Moment: Cultural Practices and Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, edited by G.M. Feinman and L.M. Nicholas, pp. 25-39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

222

2007

Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt 2003 Mounds, memory, and contested Mississippian history. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by R.M. Van Dyke and S.E. Alcock, pp. 151-179. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. 2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture Making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 213-236.

Payne, S. 1972 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 49-63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, San Diego. Peregrine, P. N. 1992 Social Change in the Woodland-mississippian Transition: A Case Study of Household and Community Patterns in the American Bottom. North American Archaeologist 13: 131-147. Perkins, D., Jr., and P. Daly 1968 A Hunter's Village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219(5):96-106. Peterson, Lee A. 1977 Edible Wild Plants. Collier Books, New York, New York. Pilkinton, Jerry A. 1985 Soil Survey of Calhoun and Early Counties, Georgia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 1998 Kolomoki Revisited: The 1998 Field Season. Publication 46. LAMAR Institute, Watkinsville, Georgia. 2000 2003 Fifty Years Since Sears: Deconstructing the Domestic Sphere at Kolomoki. Southeastern Archaeology 19(2):145-155. Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350-750. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2010a "Gulfization" Revisitied: Household Change in the Late Woodland Period at Kolomoki (9ER1). Early Georgia 38(2):207-220. 2010b Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History, Trends, and Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 18:331-385.

223

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., J. Matthew Compton and Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund 2006 Evidence of Small-Scale Feasting from the Woodland Period Site of Kolomoki, Georgia. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(3):263-284. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1). The Florida Anthropologist, in preparation. Price, George D. 1999 A Case for Increasing Sedentism in the Middle Woodland Prehistory of East Central Alabama. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham. Purdue, James R. 1983 Epiphyseal Closure in White-Tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4):1207-1213. Reidhead, Van A. 1981 A Linear Programming Model of Prehistoric Subsistence Optimization: A Southeastern Indiana Example. Prehistory Research Series VI (1). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, Indiana. Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26 - 0 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058. Reitz, Elizabeth J., I. R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, S. J. Scudder, and E. S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304-317. Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Richie, William A. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Bulletin No. 384, New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany. Robin, Cynthia 2003 New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11: 307-356. Rodning, Christopher B. 2004 The Cherokee Town at Coweeta Creek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

224

Rogers, J. D. 1995 Dispersed Communities and Integrated Households: A Perspective from Spiro and the Arkansas Basin. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J.D. Rogers B.D. Smith, pp. 81-98. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Romain, William F. 2000 Mysteries Of The Hopewell. University Of Akron Press, Akron 2009 Shamans of the Lost World: A Cognitive Approach to the Prehistoric Religion of the Ohio Hopewell. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Rudolph, Teresa P. 1991 The Late Woodland "Problem" in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M. S. Nasaaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 259-283. Plenum Press, New York. Russo, Michael, Margo Schwadron, and Emily M. Yates 2006 Archeological Investigation of the Bayview Site (8BY137), A Weeden Island Ring Midden, Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. Submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida. Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Wendy Ashmore 2001 An Aspect of Archaeologys Recent past and its Relevance in the New Millenium. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price, pp. 11-32. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson 1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Bamwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Scarry, Margaret 2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in Eastern North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 50-104. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Schroder, Lloyd E. 2006 The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades (Revised). Cafe Press, San Mateo, California Sears, William H. 1951 Excavations at Kolomoki: Season I 1948. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final Report. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

225

Seeman, Mark F. 1992 The Bow and Arrow, The Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jacks Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 41-51. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Publication No. 7, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Sewell, William H., Jr. 2005 Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Shaffer, Brian S., and Julia L. J. Sanchez 1994 Comparison of 1/8"- and 1/4"-inch Mesh Recovery of Controlled Samples of Small-to-Medium-Sized Mammals. American Antiquity 59(3):525-530. Shelby, Thomas M. 2011 The Cobbs Swamp Phase and the Middle Woodland Period of East-Central Alabama: The View from Catoma Creek. Early Georgia, in preparation. Shott, Michael J. 1997 Stones and Shaft Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62(1):86-101. Sievert, A.K., and K. Wise 2001 A Generalized Technology for a Specialized Economy: Archaic Period Chipped Stone at Kilometer 4 Per. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by W. Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 80105. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Simpson, George Gaylord 1941 Large Pleistocene Felines of North America. American Museum Novitates 1136:1-27. Simpson, George G., A. Roe, and R. C. Lewontin 1960 Quantitative Zoology. Harcourt, Brace, and Co., New York. Smith, Karen Y. 2009 Middle and Late Woodland Period Cultural Transmission, Residential Mobility, and Aggregation in the Deep South. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. Snow, Frankie, and Keith Stephenson 1992 Salvage Excavations at Hartford (9PU1): A 4th Century Swift Creek Site on the Ocmulgee River in Pulaski County, Georgia. Draft manuscript in possession of the authors. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York. Spector, Janet 1993 What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. 226

Springer, James W. 1980 Analysis of Prehistoric Food Remains from the Bruly St. Martin Site, Louisiana, with a Comparative Discussion of Mississippi Valley Faunal Studies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5: 193-224. Stahle, Peter W. 1996 The Recovery and Interpretation of Microvertebrate Bone Assemblages from Archaeological Contexts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(1):31-75. Steere, Benjamin A. 2011 The Archaeology of Houses and Households in the Native Southeast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, the University of Georgia, Athens. Struever, Stuart 1968 Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-scale Archaeological Remains. American Antiquity 33(3):353-362. Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Swanton, John R. 1969 [1946] Indians of the Southeastern United States. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Thomas, David Hurst 1971 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36:366-371. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43(3):461-472.

United States Department of Agriculture 1974 Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 45. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. University of South Alabama 2004 Geoarchaeology at South Alabama. Electronic document, http://www.geoarchaeology.south alabama.edu/index.html, accessed July, 2011. Veatch, O. and L.W. Stephenson 1911 Geology of the Coastal Plain. Bulletin 26, Geological Survey of Georgia, Atlanta. Wagner, Gail E. 1981 Testing Flotation Recovery Rates. American Antiquity 47: 127-132. Wallis, Neill J. 2011 The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 227

Wauchope, Robert 1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 21, Salt lake City. Webb, Malcum C. 1982 The Neutral Calorie? On the Maintenance of Ranked Societies in the "Agriculturally Deficient Environment of Gulf Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 8:1-19. Wesson, Cameron B. 1999 Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World Archaeology 31(1):145164. 2008 Households and Hegemony: Early Creek Prestige Goods, Symbolic Capital, and Social Power. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Wharton, Charles H. 1978 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Geological and Water Resources Division, and Resource Planning Section, Office of Planning and Research, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. Whatley, John S. 2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia 30(1). Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1997 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. White, Nancy Marie 1981 Archaeological Survey at Lake Seminole, Jackson and Gadsden Counties, Florida, Seminole and Decatur Counties, Georgia. Cleveland Museum of Natural History Archaeological Research Report No. 29. White, T. E. 1953 Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentages of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 19(2):396-398. Wiessner, P. 1974 A Functional Estimator of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39:343-50. Wilk, Richard W. 1983 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in House Size among Modern Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 99-116. 1988 Maya Household Organization: Evidence and Analogies. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 135-152. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

228

1989

Decision Making and Resource Flows Within the Household: Beyond the Black Box. In The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, edited by R.W. Wilke, pp. 23-52. Westview Press, Boulder.

Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):617-639. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Volume One: North and Middle America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewod Cliffs, New Jersey.

Willoughby, Lynn 2007 Flowing Through Time: The Chattahoochee Throughout History. Sherpa Guides, Lenz, Georgia. http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/chattahoochee/. Accessed 27 May 2009. Wilson, Gregory D. 2008 The Archaeology of Everyday Life at Early Moundville, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Yanagisako, Sylvia 1979 Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 161205. Yarnell, Richard A. 1964 Aboriginal Relationships Between Culture and Plant Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 23. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1978 Domestication of Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North America. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, Anthropological Papers No. 67, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 298-300. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black 1983 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Prehistoric Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina. Yerkes, R. W. 1988 Introduction. In Interpretations of Culture Change in the Eastern Woodlands During the Late Woodland Period, edited by R. W. Yerkes, pp. 16. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Yost, Chad, and Linda Scott-Cummings 2010 Phytolith and Pollen Analysis of Pit Features from the Kolomoki Mounds Site (9er1), Southwestern Georgia. PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, Colorado. Prepared for Department of Anthropology, University of Southern Florida, Tampa, Florida

229

Zomlefer, Wendy B. 1994 Guide to Flowering Plants Families. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.

230