Pub Date : 2023-02-08DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2155357
T. Emerson
ABSTRACT The development of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) iconography has been posited to have had its origins in pre–AD 1200 Greater Cahokia. The recovery of fragments of an engraved shell cup, a few engraved pottery sherds, and copper residue from Mound 34 at Cahokia as well as two regional rock-art sites are said to confirm that the early Braden art style had a Cahokian heritage. Furthermore, on this basis, the origin, production, and distribution of engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates have been attributed to Cahokian artisans. Here the archaeological context and chronology of this evidence is reexamined and found to be problematic—it does not support Cahokia origins for engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates. The small amount of early Braden materials attributed to Cahokia are better explained as byproducts of the demonstrable presence of early Caddo immigrants and influences in the American Bottom. The skewed distribution and early chronology of Mississippian engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates confirm they are likely products of Spiro-influenced ritual practitioners. The production and accumulation of such ritual paraphernalia at Spiro can most reasonably be attributed to the site's rise as a sacred place and central locus for regional pilgrimages.
{"title":"The origins of engraved marine shell cups, copper repoussé plates, and ritual centers: disentangling early Cahokia symbolism from post–AD 1200 SECC iconography","authors":"T. Emerson","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2155357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2155357","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The development of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) iconography has been posited to have had its origins in pre–AD 1200 Greater Cahokia. The recovery of fragments of an engraved shell cup, a few engraved pottery sherds, and copper residue from Mound 34 at Cahokia as well as two regional rock-art sites are said to confirm that the early Braden art style had a Cahokian heritage. Furthermore, on this basis, the origin, production, and distribution of engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates have been attributed to Cahokian artisans. Here the archaeological context and chronology of this evidence is reexamined and found to be problematic—it does not support Cahokia origins for engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates. The small amount of early Braden materials attributed to Cahokia are better explained as byproducts of the demonstrable presence of early Caddo immigrants and influences in the American Bottom. The skewed distribution and early chronology of Mississippian engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates confirm they are likely products of Spiro-influenced ritual practitioners. The production and accumulation of such ritual paraphernalia at Spiro can most reasonably be attributed to the site's rise as a sacred place and central locus for regional pilgrimages.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"83 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41688226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163119
James L. Strawn, D. Shane Miller, Derek T. Anderson, S. Carmody
ABSTRACT We draw on the distribution of recorded archaeological sites, temporally diagnostic projectile points, sources of lithic raw materials, and fossil pollen projections to evaluate existing models for Early Holocene landscape use in the upper Tombigbee River valley (UTRV) in northeast Mississippi. We then discuss the applicability of Anderson and Hanson (1988), Daniel (2001), and Hollenbach (2009) in gaining a better understanding of early hunter-gatherer mobility and settlement in the region and discuss future directions for research.
{"title":"Early Holocene landscape use in the upper Tombigbee River valley","authors":"James L. Strawn, D. Shane Miller, Derek T. Anderson, S. Carmody","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163119","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 We draw on the distribution of recorded archaeological sites, temporally diagnostic projectile points, sources of lithic raw materials, and fossil pollen projections to evaluate existing models for Early Holocene landscape use in the upper Tombigbee River valley (UTRV) in northeast Mississippi. We then discuss the applicability of Anderson and Hanson (1988), Daniel (2001), and Hollenbach (2009) in gaining a better understanding of early hunter-gatherer mobility and settlement in the region and discuss future directions for research.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"46 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42812778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163120
Jessi J. Halligan, David K. Thulman, A. Burke, Morgan F. Smith
ABSTRACT Three of the most influential archaeological models in the southeastern US have argued that early foragers organized their lifeways via seasonal movement along major drainage basins; around access to raw material sources, crossing drainage basins; or around group foraging needs, following central place foraging models. We examine the distribution of Early Holocene Bolen sites in Florida in light of these models by combining Florida Master Site File data with avocational collection data and conducting spatial analyses. It is not clear to what extent the models are applicable to this low-relief area with comparatively ubiquitous toolstone, little data on seasonality, and rivers that likely were not flowing. Our analyses suggest that Bolen site distribution is highly patterned, with a few extremely large sites clustered around water sources and numerous single artifact finds in more remote areas. Our interpretation is that Bolen represents a population increase coincident with greater surface water availability that facilitated regular aggregations. The spacing of large sites indicates to us local-group territories, each of which had toolstone resources and reliable water. North Florida may present a more general organizing principle that applies throughout the Southeast: water, seasonal variation, and toolstone availability.
{"title":"The Early Holocene archaeology of Florida: geospatial approaches to understanding Bolen mobility","authors":"Jessi J. Halligan, David K. Thulman, A. Burke, Morgan F. Smith","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163120","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Three of the most influential archaeological models in the southeastern US have argued that early foragers organized their lifeways via seasonal movement along major drainage basins; around access to raw material sources, crossing drainage basins; or around group foraging needs, following central place foraging models. We examine the distribution of Early Holocene Bolen sites in Florida in light of these models by combining Florida Master Site File data with avocational collection data and conducting spatial analyses. It is not clear to what extent the models are applicable to this low-relief area with comparatively ubiquitous toolstone, little data on seasonality, and rivers that likely were not flowing. Our analyses suggest that Bolen site distribution is highly patterned, with a few extremely large sites clustered around water sources and numerous single artifact finds in more remote areas. Our interpretation is that Bolen represents a population increase coincident with greater surface water availability that facilitated regular aggregations. The spacing of large sites indicates to us local-group territories, each of which had toolstone resources and reliable water. North Florida may present a more general organizing principle that applies throughout the Southeast: water, seasonal variation, and toolstone availability.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"31 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46174183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163121
T. Jennings, Ashley M. Smallwood, Jacob Ray, Vanessa Hanvey, Shaylee Scott, Heather L. Smith, Donn W. Miller, Devin Stephens
ABSTRACT In this paper, we use GIS and 2D geometric morphometrics to explore landscape use and social interaction among Kirk Cluster populations in the lower Ohio River valley. Using cultural transmission as a theoretical foundation, we develop models for identifying assemblages produced by macroband aggregations. We show that two distinct populations occupied northern Indiana and southwestern Kentucky. Intensively occupied sites in these areas are situated in near-upland settings in close proximity to a variety of resources including chert, higher order rivers, and sinkholes. In contrast, the Butterfield site in central Kentucky lies in the lowlands with the Green River as the only obvious resource. Analyses reveal that Butterfield was a macroband aggregation site visited by populations from Indiana, but groups from southwestern Kentucky only minimally participated in aggregations at Butterfield. Results further show that the Ohio River was not a barrier to social interaction in the Early Holocene.
{"title":"Early Archaic landscape use, cultural transmission, and aggregation in the lower Ohio River valley","authors":"T. Jennings, Ashley M. Smallwood, Jacob Ray, Vanessa Hanvey, Shaylee Scott, Heather L. Smith, Donn W. Miller, Devin Stephens","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163121","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, we use GIS and 2D geometric morphometrics to explore landscape use and social interaction among Kirk Cluster populations in the lower Ohio River valley. Using cultural transmission as a theoretical foundation, we develop models for identifying assemblages produced by macroband aggregations. We show that two distinct populations occupied northern Indiana and southwestern Kentucky. Intensively occupied sites in these areas are situated in near-upland settings in close proximity to a variety of resources including chert, higher order rivers, and sinkholes. In contrast, the Butterfield site in central Kentucky lies in the lowlands with the Green River as the only obvious resource. Analyses reveal that Butterfield was a macroband aggregation site visited by populations from Indiana, but groups from southwestern Kentucky only minimally participated in aggregations at Butterfield. Results further show that the Ohio River was not a barrier to social interaction in the Early Holocene.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"12 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45776618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163122
Joseph A. M. Gingerich
ABSTRACT This paper tests aspects of previous models that argue for cultural continuity between Paleoindian and Early Archaic groups. Using data from Virginia, I provide evidence that Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement strategies were different. In Virginia, Early Archaic sites are closer together and closer to key resources. Early Archaic groups also occupied new areas, and studies of artifact curation and raw materials suggest a change in territory size. In addition, I use coarse-grained data from other key sites in the region (Shawnee-Minisink, Thunderbird, and Fifty) to suggest specific changes in land use. While many of my findings are compatible with aspects of several earlier Early Archaic settlement models in the Southeast, the common theme may be more patterned landscape use on a seasonal basis. I see the expanded landscape use in Virginia as a clear marker of a change among Early Archaic populations.
{"title":"Using “cultural continuity” to examine aspects of Early Archaic settlement in Virginia and beyond","authors":"Joseph A. M. Gingerich","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163122","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper tests aspects of previous models that argue for cultural continuity between Paleoindian and Early Archaic groups. Using data from Virginia, I provide evidence that Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement strategies were different. In Virginia, Early Archaic sites are closer together and closer to key resources. Early Archaic groups also occupied new areas, and studies of artifact curation and raw materials suggest a change in territory size. In addition, I use coarse-grained data from other key sites in the region (Shawnee-Minisink, Thunderbird, and Fifty) to suggest specific changes in land use. While many of my findings are compatible with aspects of several earlier Early Archaic settlement models in the Southeast, the common theme may be more patterned landscape use on a seasonal basis. I see the expanded landscape use in Virginia as a clear marker of a change among Early Archaic populations.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"56 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44873602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2023.2174673
Kandace D. Hollenbach, I. Daniel, David G. Anderson
As Miller and colleagues (this volume) point out, the Early Archaic period presents an interesting arena in which to study human responses to rapidly changing climatic, environmental, and social conditions. As such, I extend my thanks to Ashley Smallwood and Shane Miller for organizing the 2021 symposium and this special volume of Southeastern Archaeology. It is a treat to see so many articles considering variations of Early Archaic lifeways across the broader Southeast. And I am incredibly honored to have my research considered in the same sentence as Anderson and Hanson (1988) and Daniel (1998, 2001), whose models were seminal to my explorations of early Holocene lifeways. As I read through this collection again, I was struck by the advances we’ve made over the past two-plus decades. Halligan and colleagues (this volume), Strawn and colleagues (this volume), and Gingerich (this volume) all employ a larger set of sites in their respective regions to explore site choice among Early Archaic foragers. This is enabled partly by the additional archaeological investigations that have been performed in the intervening years, but also by the increased accessibility to large datasets fostered by the Digital Index of North American Archaeology (Anderson et al. 2017). All four sets of authors, including Jennings and colleagues (this volume), overlay site locations with distributions of resources, ecotone associations, and physiographic locales to ascertain factors that played into mobility decisions of early foragers. Several of the papers also expand on lithic analyses, delving deeper into assemblages from previously excavated sites to discern site use (Gingerich, this volume) or comparing hafted biface morphologies to sort out communities of practice (Jennings et al., this volume). Both present avenues by which we can reassess the large quantities of lithic artifacts from previously excavated sites and avocational collections. Perhaps above all, these articles also highlight the fact that there is not a one-size-fits-all model that applies to all situations. Daniel (1998, 2001) observed this when he compared the data he saw in North Carolina, where tool stone distributions are much different than in the Piedmont and Coastal Plains of South Carolina, to Anderson and Hanson’s (1988) model. I similarly found that the stone-rich landscape of northwest Alabama produced a different pattern than Randy or David saw. Each set of authors here come to similar conclusions – that there are some areas where these three models may apply better than others, but each region also presents a particular distribution of particular sets of resources that may vary (more or less) in time and space. And it is exciting (and perhaps should not be surprising) – that we do not see the same sets of decisions in each of these areas, but that people tailored their decisions to local situations. These four articles, as well as our three models, also demonstrate that we are still in sore
正如米勒和他的同事(本卷)所指出的那样，早期古代时期为研究人类对快速变化的气候、环境和社会条件的反应提供了一个有趣的舞台。因此，我向阿什利·斯莫尔伍德和谢恩·米勒表示感谢，感谢他们组织了2021年的研讨会和这本特别的《东南考古学》。看到这么多关于早期古代生活方式在更广阔的东南部变化的文章是一种享受。我非常荣幸我的研究与安德森和汉森(1988)以及丹尼尔(1998、2001)的研究被放在同一句话里，他们的模型对我探索全新世早期的生活方式有着重要的影响。当我再次阅读这个合集时，我被我们在过去二十多年里取得的进步所震惊。Halligan和他的同事(本卷)、Strawn和他的同事(本卷)以及Gingerich(本卷)都在他们各自的地区使用了一组更大的地点来探索早期古代觅食者的地点选择。这在一定程度上是由于在此期间进行的额外考古调查，但也得益于北美考古数字索引(Anderson et al. 2017)所促进的大型数据集的可访问性增加。所有四组作者，包括詹宁斯和他的同事(本卷)，用资源分布、过渡带关联和地理位置来覆盖站点位置，以确定影响早期觅食者移动决策的因素。有几篇论文还扩展了岩石分析，更深入地研究了以前挖掘的遗址的组合，以辨别遗址的使用(Gingerich，本卷)，或者比较了半裂的双面形态，以分类实践社区(Jennings等人，本卷)。这两种方法都为我们提供了重新评估以前挖掘的遗址和业余收藏中大量石器文物的途径。也许最重要的是，这些文章还强调了一个事实，即不存在适用于所有情况的通用模型。Daniel(1998,2001)在将他在北卡罗来纳州看到的数据与Anderson和Hanson(1988)的模型进行比较时观察到了这一点，在北卡罗来纳州，工具石的分布与南卡罗来纳州的皮埃蒙特和沿海平原有很大不同。我同样发现，阿拉巴马州西北部盛产石头的地区呈现出一种与兰迪或戴维看到的不同的格局。这里的每组作者都得出了类似的结论——在某些地区，这三种模型可能比其他模型更适用，但每个地区也呈现出特定资源集的特定分布，这些资源集可能在时间和空间上(或多或少)有所不同。令人兴奋的是(也许不应该感到惊讶)，我们并没有在每个领域看到相同的决策，而是人们根据当地情况量身定制了他们的决策。这四篇文章以及我们的三个模型也表明，我们仍然迫切需要精细的环境重建。如果早期远古的采集者是根据当地资源(主要是在营地10-30公里范围内)做出决定，我们需要更好地了解这些地区动植物资源的分布，以及它们随时间和空间的变化和可预测性，以便开发出有用的模型，说明过去的人们是如何使用这些资源的。我们仍然依靠整个东南部少得惊人的花粉核来推断特定地区千年增量的可用资源。但在我们等待花粉和植物岩样本被收集和分析的同时，我们仍然可以创造性地利用手头的环境数据。在一定程度上，当地地质影响土壤性质，我们可以比较我们的研究地点内的地理带和过渡带。这不仅仅是早期采集者可以接触到的独特过渡带的数量，而是这些过渡带的质量。我们可以更详细地研究这种植物
{"title":"Comments on Early Archaic papers","authors":"Kandace D. Hollenbach, I. Daniel, David G. Anderson","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2023.2174673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2023.2174673","url":null,"abstract":"As Miller and colleagues (this volume) point out, the Early Archaic period presents an interesting arena in which to study human responses to rapidly changing climatic, environmental, and social conditions. As such, I extend my thanks to Ashley Smallwood and Shane Miller for organizing the 2021 symposium and this special volume of Southeastern Archaeology. It is a treat to see so many articles considering variations of Early Archaic lifeways across the broader Southeast. And I am incredibly honored to have my research considered in the same sentence as Anderson and Hanson (1988) and Daniel (1998, 2001), whose models were seminal to my explorations of early Holocene lifeways. As I read through this collection again, I was struck by the advances we’ve made over the past two-plus decades. Halligan and colleagues (this volume), Strawn and colleagues (this volume), and Gingerich (this volume) all employ a larger set of sites in their respective regions to explore site choice among Early Archaic foragers. This is enabled partly by the additional archaeological investigations that have been performed in the intervening years, but also by the increased accessibility to large datasets fostered by the Digital Index of North American Archaeology (Anderson et al. 2017). All four sets of authors, including Jennings and colleagues (this volume), overlay site locations with distributions of resources, ecotone associations, and physiographic locales to ascertain factors that played into mobility decisions of early foragers. Several of the papers also expand on lithic analyses, delving deeper into assemblages from previously excavated sites to discern site use (Gingerich, this volume) or comparing hafted biface morphologies to sort out communities of practice (Jennings et al., this volume). Both present avenues by which we can reassess the large quantities of lithic artifacts from previously excavated sites and avocational collections. Perhaps above all, these articles also highlight the fact that there is not a one-size-fits-all model that applies to all situations. Daniel (1998, 2001) observed this when he compared the data he saw in North Carolina, where tool stone distributions are much different than in the Piedmont and Coastal Plains of South Carolina, to Anderson and Hanson’s (1988) model. I similarly found that the stone-rich landscape of northwest Alabama produced a different pattern than Randy or David saw. Each set of authors here come to similar conclusions – that there are some areas where these three models may apply better than others, but each region also presents a particular distribution of particular sets of resources that may vary (more or less) in time and space. And it is exciting (and perhaps should not be surprising) – that we do not see the same sets of decisions in each of these areas, but that people tailored their decisions to local situations. These four articles, as well as our three models, also demonstrate that we are still in sore","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"69 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42707860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163123
D. Shane Miller, Ashley M. Smallwood, P. Carr
ABSTRACT The Early Holocene is a critical period in the American Southeast and represents the time between the end of the Pleistocene and emerging cultural complexity of the Mid-Holocene. Due to the limitations imposed by a relative lack of site preservation, an important avenue of inquiry for understanding this period has been connecting the few reported, well-dated sites with the distribution of surface finds to explore how people organized their mobility across landscapes. The most widely cited examples of studies examining Early Holocene landscape use in the region are Anderson and Hanson (1988), Daniel (2001), and Hollenbach (2009). In this article, we discuss the historical development of these three approaches to modeling landscape use and explore the impacts of these works in Southeastern archaeology. Finally, we introduce four articles that explore the applicability of these three approaches in Virginia (Gingerich, this issue), Florida (Halligan et al., this issue), the lower Ohio River valley (Jennings et al. this issue), and the upper Tombigbee River valley (Strawn et al., this issue).
全新世早期是美国东南部的一个关键时期，代表了更新世末期到全新世中期出现的文化复杂性之间的时间。由于相对缺乏遗址保护所带来的限制，了解这一时期的一个重要调查途径是将少数报道的、年代久远的遗址与地表发现的分布联系起来，以探索人们是如何组织他们在景观中的流动的。Anderson和Hanson（1988）、Daniel（2001）和Hollenbach（2009）是研究该地区全新世早期景观使用的最广泛引用的例子。在这篇文章中，我们讨论了这三种景观使用建模方法的历史发展，并探讨了这些作品对东南考古的影响。最后，我们介绍了四篇文章，探讨了这三种方法在弗吉尼亚州（Gingerich，本期）、佛罗里达州（Halligan et al.，本期。
{"title":"A brief history of modeling Early Holocene landscape use in the American Southeast","authors":"D. Shane Miller, Ashley M. Smallwood, P. Carr","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2163123","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Early Holocene is a critical period in the American Southeast and represents the time between the end of the Pleistocene and emerging cultural complexity of the Mid-Holocene. Due to the limitations imposed by a relative lack of site preservation, an important avenue of inquiry for understanding this period has been connecting the few reported, well-dated sites with the distribution of surface finds to explore how people organized their mobility across landscapes. The most widely cited examples of studies examining Early Holocene landscape use in the region are Anderson and Hanson (1988), Daniel (2001), and Hollenbach (2009). In this article, we discuss the historical development of these three approaches to modeling landscape use and explore the impacts of these works in Southeastern archaeology. Finally, we introduce four articles that explore the applicability of these three approaches in Virginia (Gingerich, this issue), Florida (Halligan et al., this issue), the lower Ohio River valley (Jennings et al. this issue), and the upper Tombigbee River valley (Strawn et al., this issue).","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48035672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.1080/0734578x.2022.2149431
Taylor Greene
data that show that black soldiers at Fort Davis were often deprived of adequate food, housing, and social spaces, which made them appear less than human to the white soldiers they served with as well as the white officers who commanded them (p. 224). Forensic evidence suggests Talliafero was killed under suspicious circumstances (pp. 203– 208). Together, Wilkie’s painstaking analysis of the historical and archaeological records at Fort Davis suggests that it may be very easy to entertain the possibility that the circumstances surrounding Talliafero’s death were doctored to falsely justify his demise. However, each reader will need to determine the degree to which they are convinced for themselves.
{"title":"Beliefs and Rituals in Archaic Eastern North America: An Interpretive Guide","authors":"Taylor Greene","doi":"10.1080/0734578x.2022.2149431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578x.2022.2149431","url":null,"abstract":"data that show that black soldiers at Fort Davis were often deprived of adequate food, housing, and social spaces, which made them appear less than human to the white soldiers they served with as well as the white officers who commanded them (p. 224). Forensic evidence suggests Talliafero was killed under suspicious circumstances (pp. 203– 208). Together, Wilkie’s painstaking analysis of the historical and archaeological records at Fort Davis suggests that it may be very easy to entertain the possibility that the circumstances surrounding Talliafero’s death were doctored to falsely justify his demise. However, each reader will need to determine the degree to which they are convinced for themselves.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"80 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47831291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-10DOI: 10.1080/0734578x.2022.2140250
J. M. Trunzo
{"title":"Unburied Lives: The Historical Archaeology of Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Davis, Texas, 1869–1875","authors":"J. M. Trunzo","doi":"10.1080/0734578x.2022.2140250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578x.2022.2140250","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"42 1","pages":"79 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43667292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2022.2133802
J. Jenkins, Ginessa Mahar
ABSTRACT The purposeful management of oyster fisheries has increasingly been used to explain millennial-scale sustainability evident at shell-bearing archaeological sites throughout the Southeast and beyond. While the focus of oyster management has been on the oysters themselves, the tools related to sustainable practices must also be the subject of investigation. Crown conch hammers are common artifacts recovered from coastal sites in the Southeast although their purpose has remained ambiguous. Building on previous studies of this class of artifacts, this paper relates crown conch hammers to oyster processing, specifically the management practice of culling. Evidence presented herein was recovered from the Lower Suwannee region of the northern Gulf Coast of Florida.
{"title":"Relating tools to tasks: shell hammers and oyster management on Florida's northern Gulf Coast","authors":"J. Jenkins, Ginessa Mahar","doi":"10.1080/0734578X.2022.2133802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2022.2133802","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purposeful management of oyster fisheries has increasingly been used to explain millennial-scale sustainability evident at shell-bearing archaeological sites throughout the Southeast and beyond. While the focus of oyster management has been on the oysters themselves, the tools related to sustainable practices must also be the subject of investigation. Crown conch hammers are common artifacts recovered from coastal sites in the Southeast although their purpose has remained ambiguous. Building on previous studies of this class of artifacts, this paper relates crown conch hammers to oyster processing, specifically the management practice of culling. Evidence presented herein was recovered from the Lower Suwannee region of the northern Gulf Coast of Florida.","PeriodicalId":34945,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Archaeology","volume":"41 1","pages":"235 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43617285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：