Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Contributors
Wes Patterson
Jeffrey B. Glover
Frankie Snow
Final Technical Report
Point of Contact:
Archaeological Evaluation of a Potential
De Soto Encampment in Georgia
Dennis B. Blanton
Final Technical Report
Point of Contact:
Archaeological Evaluation of a Potential
De Soto Encampment in Georgia
Prepared by:Dennis B. Blanton
Fernbank Museum of Natural History
767 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30307
Contributors:Wes Patterson
Jeffrey B. Glover
Frankie Snow
May 2013
Final Technical Report Point of Contact: Archaeological Evaluation of a Potential De Soto Encampment in Georgia
Prepared by:
Dennis B. Blanton
Fernbank Museum of Natural History
767 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30307
Copyright © 2013 Fernbank Museum of Natural History.
Printed in the United States of America.
Printed by Colorwise Commercial Printing, 1125 Northmeadow Parkway, Suite 130, Roswell, GA 30076.
May 2013: First Edition
To the Memory ofPatricia Glass Thorpe and Wilson A. Thorpe
AbstractThis report builds on intriguing results generated by a multi-year archaeological inves-
tigation of the Glass Site in Telfair County, Georgia. The main objective of continued
work in 2012 was evaluation of the possibility that evidence of a multi-night encamp-
ment of Hernando de Soto’s small army is present at the site. The second was doc-
umentation of the full extent and configuration of the indigenous community that
would have hosted the temporary Spanish occupation. A small portion of the site had
already produced exceptional evidence of a direct, Indian-Spanish encounter, one we
argued previously to have involved De Soto’s full entrada contingent. Expansive investi-
gation aimed at the entire occupation area has now yielded unmatched information of
such an encounter. At this single location is an opportunity to address issues ranging
from the precise path of De Soto’s trek to the nature of the party’s day-to-day existence.
Because the unprecedented nature of our findings has provoked intense scrutiny, we
are also cognizant of an obligation to remain relentless in our evaluation of the results.
This project is a critical aspect of our quest to get the story right.
i
ii
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1Introduction
Chapter 2Summary of Results
Chapter 3Description of European Artifacts
Chapter 4Interpretation and Recommendations
References Cited
Appendix AInventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix BInventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Table of Contentsi
v
vii
ix
1
7
21
33
53
59
81
iii
iv
List of Figures
v
Project area location.
Glass Site (9TF145) setting showing location of large block excavation.
Glass Site (9TF145) topography showing locations of hand-excavated units.
Glass Site (9TF145) plan showing full shovel test pattern and extent
of intensive metal detector survey.
Representative shovel test profiles.
Distribution of Lamar Complicated Stamped sherds.
Distribution of Lamar Plain sherds.
Distribution of Lamar Incised sherds.
Distribution of daub.
Distribution of Coastal Plain chert.
Distribution of Ocmulgee Cordmarked sherds.
Distribution of local chert.
Distribution of sixteenth-century European metal artifacts located by metal
detector survey.
Distribution of lead shot.
Distribution of 19th/20th-century cut nails.
Early twentieth-century “Log Landing” corresponding to location of Glass Site
(U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1909).
South profile, Unit 72.
Photograph, south profile, Unit 73.
Feature 44 plan, ceramic concentration, Unit 73.
Photograph, Feature 44, ceramic concentration, Unit 73.
Reconstructed Lamar carinated bowls from Feature 44.
South profile, Unit 74.
South profile, Unit 75 and backhoe trench extension.
West profile, Unit 75.
Photograph, south profile, Unit 75.
Photograph, west profile, Unit 75.
Iron axe blade, side and end views.
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
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
13
13
14
14
15
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
Figure Page
Rectangular celts; a, b, and f recovered during 2012 season.
Examples of rectangular celts recovered during 2012 season.
Small chisel.
Possible weapon tip.
Tanged knife blade.
Double-edged, blade-like object.
Loop of iron wire.
Size distribution of nails and spikes.
Examples of wrought iron spikes.
Clarksdale-type sheet brass bell, side and top views.
Cast brass, possible ewer handle.
Example of a brass ewer (Metropolitan Museum of Art 2012).
Rolled metal bead.
Brass ring, top and interior views.
Brass finial.
Gilded brass ring.
Representative lead shot.
Early lead shot size distribution.
Lead disk.
Interpretive perspective of Glass Site community plan.
Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Full 16th-century artifact data set.
Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Selected metal artifact data set.
Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Early glass bead types.
Cluster analysis dendrogram: Full 16th-century artifact data set.
Cluster analysis dendrogram: Selected metal artifact data set.
Cluster analysis dendrogram: Early glass bead types.
vi
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
List of Figures
22
22
23
24
25
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
40
45
45
45
46
46
47
Figure Page
List of Tables
Summary of sixteenth-century European metal artifacts from Glass Site.
Summary of artifacts in Units 72-75 by excavation level.
Metric attributes of rectangular iron celts.
Metric attributes of iron weapon tips.
Metric attributes of Clarksdale bells.
Criteria for recognition of an entrada encampment.
Model of European artifact acquisition.
Comparison of late prehistoric site attributes and population estimates.
Number of artifact categories/types within major artifact groups in
Southeastern assemblages.
vii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
15
23
24
28
36
37
41
43
Table Page
viii
During this sixth year of the project a host of old and new friends contributed to its
success. Indeed, the depth of gratitude I feel at this point is almost overwhelming.
The shower of generosity bestowed upon the project, whether in the form of technical
assistance, labor, financial support, or simple encouragement, has been a vital factor in
what we have achieved. Any words of appreciation I offer here will be inadequate.
I must first thank Fernbank Museum of Natural History and its supporters for
choosing to sponsor another season of research. Their interest and investment have
been the crucial starting and ending points. An equal share of thanks is due the prop-
erty owner, Mr. Wilson Thorpe of Glass Land & Timber, LLC, and the corporation’s
President, Mr. Kenny Powell. They, once again, enthusiastically opened the door to
the site and quietly saw to it that we had what we needed to operate on the property.
Wilson’s death in November, so quickly following the recent passing of his wife, Pat,
leaves an enormous void but it is one we hope to confront with future work inspired
by their enthusiasm. The effort was also anchored by a third year of collaboration with
Georgia State University, specifically with Dr. Jeffrey Glover and his archaeological field
school. In fact, for the first time, the field work was wholly scheduled according to the
dates of the class, which is to say the GSU students were the backbone of the effort. As
always, my friend and colleague, Frankie Snow, contributed in several essential respects
but more than anything he continues to keep me honest when it comes to getting the
local archaeological persepective right.
I was ably assisted by Wes Patterson and Halle Stoutzenberger. In the senior role,
Wes was responsible for much of the direct supervision of the field work as well as
compilation and preparation of GIS files. Halle first handled the ever-challenging job
of project “scribe”, working to insure artifacts and field records were accounted for,
and then applied herself to the task of managing laboratory processing. And, of course,
both of them were simultaneously responding to all manner of other needs that arise
in the field.
Mr. Spencer Barker oversaw the systematic metal detector survey. He has rightfully
earned the respect of many archaeologists by demonstrating his remarkable tech-
nical skill, his appreciation of and respect for archaeological research, and his abil-
ity to manage groups. His role was central to the project this season and he executed
the plan to tremendous effect. Spencer’s team of volunteer metal detector operators
also performed superbly and included Willard Andrews, Joel Jones, Tom McCrae,
David Noble, Frankie Snow, and Doug Tarver. A survey of the intensity I sought is
tedious and difficult and I constantly marveled at their dedication and doggedness
to get the job done well.
Special technical assistance was provided by several colleagues. Wes Patterson gener-
ated the distribuitional plots for various artifact categories as well as other GIS-based
graphics, and Jeffrey Glover produced most of the GIS-based topographic models of the
Acknowledgements
ix
x
site area. Wes and Jeffrey also wrote sections regarding mapping and GIS methodology. Mike Brown at Fernbank and
GSU student Missy Stedmen helped with prepartation of line drawings for units and features. Mike also generated the
interpretive view of the site shown in the last chapter. Candace Clark, another GSU student, applied her photographic
skill to documentation of artifacts. Caryl Skelton was responsible for the design, layout, and production of the final
report. Kate Singley once again accepted the challenge of cleaning and conserving metal artifacts. Extermely generous
and helpful input on early Spanish metal artifacts was recieved from Marvin Smith, Ian Brown, and John Connaway.
Literally none of the work I mention would have been possible without the extraordinary contribution of equip-
ment and labor from the Orianne Society. For days, Mr. Wayne Taylor, Brannon Knight, and Jeff Brewer relentlessly
attacked the dense undergrowth on the site from inside the noisy, hot cab of a tracked mulching machine. Moreover,
they usually found themselves on the job after a long day elsewhere. Likewise, Louie Harper provided a tractor-mower
and a small backhoe operated by Jimmy and Terrence Slacks.
All of this activity was supported by the efforts of many other volunteers, all of whom were remarkably delighted
to pitch in wherever there was need, with shovel testing, screening, clearing brush, mapping, washing artifacts, and so
on. These generous souls included Terry Hynes, David Kasriel, Jack and Margaret Kilgore, Pat LoRusso, Tom McRae,
Becky Mobley, Pennie Moses, Rick Sellers, Gail Tarver, Russell Wright, and Whitt Perrin-Wright.
Acknowledgements
Figure 1. Project area location.
Introduction1This report describes the results of a plan designed to answer questions raised by previous findings at the Glass Site (Blanton et al. 2011). The issues concern the broader parameters of a rare, early sixteenth-century Spanish encampment at a Native American Indian village in south-central Georgia (Figure 1). Our 2010 findings very strongly indicated that the Glass Site (9TF145) represents a multi-day bivouac of Hernando de Soto’s entrada. We surmised further that it was the residential community of the one-eyed “lord” of Ichisi occupied by De Soto’s contingent of some 600 men and their horses, dogs, and pigs from March 30-April 2, 1540 (Hudson 1994:178, 1997:160). Based on the quantity and variety of early European glass beads and metal objects on the site, in addition to their wide extent in good archaeological context, we are aware of no other archaeological site in the Southeast that offers the same clear-cut opportunity for revealing the details of a Spanish-Indian encoun-ter at a short-term entrada encampment. We are confident that valuable information will be gleaned from further work, findings that will be directly pertinent to scholarship devoted to European expansion into the New World and its implications for both the colonizing and the indigenous populations.
1
Background
Results of Glass Site investigations from 2006-2010 are detailed
in separate reports (Blanton 2007, 2009; Blanton and Snow
2009, 2010; Blanton et al. 2011) but it is valuable to summarize
them here.
The original design for the project, framed in 2005,
was oriented to discovery and documentation of an early seven-
teenth-century Spanish mission known as Santa Isabel de Uti-
nahica (Blanton 2007; Worth 1993a, 1994, 1995). Toward this
end, four different late Lamar sites were evaluated along the
lower Ocmulgee River in Telfair and Coffee counties between
2006 and 2008. They were chosen for testing because they
fell within the area identified as the mission’s approximate
location, native artifacts indicated they were occupied at the
appropriate time, and, in some cases, they had already produced
Spanish artifacts (Snow 1977, 1990).
The Glass Site, originally recorded and named by Frankie
Snow in 2002 as the Lampkin Branch East Site (9TF145),
was not given high priority for testing in the beginning
mainly because it had not yielded direct traces of Spanish
contact. Yet because it was conveniently located on a property
where we were evaluating one of the higher priority mission
candidates (i.e., Coffee Bluff, 9TF115), and
because it had impressive quantities of late Lamar
artifacts on the surface, we chose to place a few
tests there. Unlike the other site nearby, the Glass
Site began to produce evidence of Spanish contact
right away (Blanton 2007). By the end of the first
season we had recovered one glass bead and one
iron tool. However, neither artifact was represen-
tative of typical mission-related material; instead,
they were far more indicative of sixteenth-century
contact. It was this realization that turned our full
attention to the site starting in 2009.
Through 2010 the work was focused in a
small area of the site where, eventually, we fully
documented a large native-built structure now
believed to be the community’s council house-
temple (Blanton et al. 2011) (Figure 2). Numerous
lines of evidence led to that conclusion: the
building is large, it was surrounded by a circular
ditch, and categories of native artifacts within and
near it are indicative of high-status, non-domestic
activity. This fact alone gave indication that the
Glass Site was something other than an ordinary
late Lamar community.
Further, excavations within the large block
placed over the temple also produced a large and
diverse assemblage of early sixteenth-century European arti-
facts. Thus, even before the 2012 season began, the site seemed
to be distinguished by the largest collection of such material in
the interior Southeast. These artifacts consisted of numerous
glass beads of distinctive types, many iron tools, decorative
brass objects, and a silver pendant.
Obligated to explain this evidence, we undertook a
thorough assessment of the potential source of the European
artifacts and the events surrounding their arrival at the Glass
Site. By comparative artifact analysis and by scrutiny of doc-
uments pertinent to early Spanish expeditions, we could not
escape the conclusion that the most plausible source of the
artifacts was the entrada of Hernando de Soto. Additionally, we
surmised that the site itself was a candidate for the residence
of the chief of Ichisi, a village visited by De Soto at the end of
March, 1540 (Blanton and Snow 2009; Blanton et al. 2011).
A host of questions were provoked by these findings, not
least of which concerned the configuration of the village and
the extent to which other Spanish artifacts might be present. At
the conclusion of the 2010 season we had not determined the
full extent of the site, in terms of both the native and the early
European activities. The 2012 project was designed to rectify
that situation.
Research Design and Methods
Naturally, some of the research aims guiding the 2010 project
carried over to the 2012 season, particularly those that con-
cerned the basic question of De Soto’s actual path. However,
new questions formed from the previous season’s findings
were given emphasis. Our discovery of early Spanish arti-
facts scattered across a relatively wide area, rather than in only
a single, discrete locus or feature, was a startling revelation.
That realization pointed to the existence of a much more exten-
sive and sustained Spanish presence than we had imagined,
and it also demanded a continuation of work in order to verify
Figure 2. Glass Site (9TF145) setting showing location of large block excavation.
Introduction
2
such an interpretation. That is what we sought to accom-
plish with continued field research. In brief, we were primarily
concerned with:
1. Confirming the existence of an encampment of De Soto’s
full contingent;
2. Revealing separate details of the internal organization
of both the Native community and the Spanish
encampment in and around it;
3. Defining the spatial relationship between the Indian
and Spanish material and, hence, the parallel and
interconnected activities that unfolded over the course
of a few days; and
4. Rigorous archaeological modeling, by geospatial analysis,
of an important but virtually unknown category of
entrada-related sites.
Underlying these research questions was, first, consid-
erable confidence in our appraisal of the current evidence as
a signature of a direct and prolonged Indian-
Spanish encounter. Based on widely held criteria
(c.f., Hally and Smith 2010; Hudson et al. 1984,
1991; Jenkins 2009; Smith 1987; Waselkov 2009),
we did not believe it was the product of either
indirect relations as by trade, or direct but fleet-
ing interaction such as single day’s meeting. Also,
while we favored explanation by linkage to De
Soto’s entrada for a host of reasons (Blanton et al.
2011), we also acknowledged that other sources
may ultimately account for the early Spanish arti-
facts (Hoffman 1990, 1994) and we will remain
open-minded in our final assessment.
Because the new questions pertain primar-
ily to broader spatial patterns much more so than
those that guided the 2010 effort we adjusted
our methods accordingly. First, the field strategy
focused on documentation of artifact distribu-
tion beyond the immediate vicinity of the council
house-temple structure. Since 2006 we had only
thoroughly investigated a 0.57-ha (1.4 acres) area
adjacent to the large, special-purpose building
that was within a Native community appearing to
cover at least 2.5 ha (6.2 acres) (Blanton and Snow
2009, 2010) (Figure 3). Second, while artifacts
of indigenous and European origin are equally important to
the problems at hand, it was necessary to introduce particular
strategies to insure efficient recovery of the European, encamp-
ment-related evidence. In other words, even on the most prom-
ising of entrada-related sites recovery of associated material is a
tremendous challenge and can be accomplished only through
intensive effort and special methods.
Our very earliest investigations of the site, particularly in
2006 and 2007, had as one goal the definition of site limits
(Blanton 2007, 2009). With small “shovel tests” systematically
spaced along a series of transects, we were able to gain a crude
sense of the site’s extent along with a working notion of where
the Native American material was present and where it was not.
Those results indicated that the site stretched at least 100 meters
north and south of the council house, parallel with the former
river channel, and then at least 80 meters back from the edge
of the former channel. However, neither did the early testing
fully define the site’s limits nor did it clearly reveal how arti-
facts, including structural evidence, were configured elsewhere
Figure 3. Glass Site (9TF145) topography showing locations of hand-excavated units.
Introduction
3
within the occupation area. In essence, we were unable to speak
with certainty about the internal arrangement of the Native
community, much less the details of the Spanish encampment
that is embedded within and perhaps also around it.
In effect, our intention was to apply the same approach at
the Glass Site that was so successful in defining the internal
configuration of the Deer Run Site in 2010 (Blanton et al.
2011). However, we sought to improve on the strategy by
completing a more thorough metal detector survey. Working
from the stated objectives, the field strategy progressed
as follows.
1. Site Preparation: In advance of the archaeological inves-
tigation, undergrowth between lines of planted pine
trees was chopped and mowed. The total area cleared in
this manner is approximately 4.0 ha (10 acres). Clearing
was not total but occurred in closely-spaced, east-west-
oriented lanes between rows of planted pine trees. Each
lane averaged about 2.5 meters wide. To a limited extent
underbrush between planted pines was also thinned. It
was not feasible to efficiently remove the dense growth
that covered the linear “windrows”, or push-piles,
that also parallel the lines of planted trees; they
occurred at intervals of 40 – 60 m and average
about 5 meters in width.
An ASV PT 100 Forestry model machine with
a mulcher attachment was the primary means of
clearing the underbrush. This piece of tracked
equipment was donated, with operators, by the
Orianne Society and the work was supervised by
Mr. Wayne Taylor. The machine operates by liter-
ally mulching vegetation in its path by means of
a rapidly-rotatating, toothed drum. Following the
mulching operation each lane was further cleared
by hand of overhanging limbs and vines, as well as
of larger pieces of debris on the ground. Finally,
most of the cleared lanes were also finished by
mowing with a rotary, bush hog-type implement.
2. Systematic Shovel Test Sampling: Cultural de-
posits across the village/encampment area were
sampled by excavation of 30 cm-diameter tests reg-
ularly spaced on a 10 m grid (Figure 4). A total of
267 such tests were completed. Standardization
of unit size and artifact recovery allowed meaningful deter-
mination of artifact density across the site. The fill of all
tests was screened through ¼-inch hardware cloth and the
basic soil profile in each test was recorded on a standard
form. Detailed descriptions were made of soil profiles for
53 representative shovel tests.
3. Systematic Metal Detector Survey: The same area sub-
jected to systematic subsurface sampling was system-
atically covered with a metal detector (see Figure 4). We
learned from our 2010 experience that there is no more
efficient or effective means for documenting the presence-
absence of an early Spanish encampment. In effect, we
believe that disciplined use of metal detectors stands to
revolutionize the archaeology of early Spanish explora-
tion in the same way it has battlefield archaeology (Bleed
and Scott 2009, 2011). Indeed, archaeologist colleagues
working in the southwestern United States have begun
to rely on metal detector survey to identify Coronado-
related sites, and with great success (Brasher 2009; Flint
and Flint 1997, 2003). Our use of the instruments followed
Figure 4. Glass Site (9TF145) plan showing full shovel test pattern and extent of intensive metal detector survey.
Introduction
4
IntroductionIntroduction
strict protocols of documentation and recovery. A total of
238 targets were flagged and the location of each was accu-
rately plotted on a site plan. Objects were carefully recov-
ered by the detector operator if they were within 20 cm of
the surface. Deeper targets were removed in archaeologi-
cal fashion, including requisite records of stratigraphic
context, etc.
Mr. Spencer Barker coordinated and supervised the
metal detector survey. He used three different metal detec-
tors. The main detector used was the Cibola model man-
ufactured by Tesoro Electronics Inc. in Prescott, AZ. He
operated this unit in the “Super Tune” mode and no dis-
crimination was used. Therefore, he was able to detect
any metal objects and or fragments, ferrous and non-
ferrous, within our search area. The AT GOLD metal
detector, manufactured by Garrett Metal Detectors in
Garland, TX, was used in the all metal mode and in mode 1
with zero discrimination. This unit was also very effective
and could distinguish between ferrous and non-ferrous
materials. The third unit was the PRO-POINTER model,
manufactured by Garrett Metal Detectors in Garland, TX.
This unit was used to locate small metal targets. Some
targets are very small (example; one staple used for attach-
ing paper together) and the PRO-POINTER was helpful
in locating dark earth-colored targets. Also, this unit was
used on deeper targets still inside the hole that were located
below the plow zone. The operating range of this unit is
approx. 38mm or 1 ½”.
Several additional metal detector models were used
by volunteers assisting with the survey. They include
White’s DMX, Fisher’s 1265X, Tesoro’s Silver Saber II,
and Tesoro’s Cibola.
4. Site Mapping: Simultaneous with other field operations
total station survey was undertaken in order to expand and
refine the overall site map. The mapping program, super-
vised by Dr. Jeffrey Glover, focused on the collection of
topographic information and on plotting the locations
of metal detector targets. Those data were ultimately inte-
grated with the excavation materials to enhance the geo-
spatial database for the project, in turn supporting various
forms of analysis.
Glover used a Leica TS-02 Total Station with Nomad
Data Collector running Spectra Precision Survey Pro
software. This was an upgrade from the 2009 and 2010
field seasons when Glover used an older model Leica
total station. In the previous field seasons, total station
mapping was focused on the small clearing surround-
ing the block excavations, although some of the wider
terrain was mapped, with most effort put toward record-
ing the topography of the ox bow wetland immediately
to the west of the site (see Figure 3). The main goal of
the 2012 mapping program was the expansion of the top-
ographic map outside of the previously cleared area. The
extent of the mapping program was meant to reflect the
extent of the shovel test program and this goal was reached
and even surpassed with approximately eight acres mapped
(see Figure 4).
In past years Glover had established and used an
arbitrary datum and reference point for the total station
mapping. Those two points could not be located this year,
so instead Glover used a plastic stake (N200/E138) and the
site datum (N200/E100), both of which had been mapped
in previous years, points 1743 and 97, respectively. From
these points Glover began the mapping process and estab-
lished a series of subdatums (called substations) across the
site. These substations were marked by a nail and pink
flagging tape, and Glover established a total of 14 of these
in 2012. From these substations Glover and his students
focused on mapping the natural topography of the area, the
location of the metal detector hits, and any other cultural
or natural features of interest (i.e., the location of excava-
tion units, the boundary of the eastern wetland, etc.). To
map the natural topography, points were selected oppor-
tunistically along areas that had not been disturbed by the
planting activities. Since many of the metal detector hits
were in areas that were disturbed by the planting activities,
the metal detector hits are not being used to document
topographic data. In total, 631 points were “shot” this
field season (1979 – 2610), which brings the total number
of mapped data points to 2592.
5. Judgmental Sampling: Four larger, formal excavation
units (approx. 2 x 2 m) were opened in selected areas of
the village/encampment area in order to sample activity
areas and document features encountered in the course
of systematic subsurface sampling and metal detecting
(see Figure 3). Potential areas of interest were Native-built
5
structures and entrada-related shelters or activity areas.
The purpose of the units was to better establish the nature
of activity in such areas and, in turn, a basis for discern-
ing the general character and some nuances of this unique
site type. Consistent with previous seasons of work, the
units were excavated under careful stratigraphic controls
and each level or feature was documented in a detailed,
standardized fashion.
Subsequent laboratory processing of artifacts and other
data sets followed the procedures we have successfully imple-
mented in previous years with specific measures taken to
insure comparability of results. Those activities were pursued
as follows.
1. Basic Artifact Processing and Inventory: Washing,
sorting, and preliminary inventory of artifacts began
almost immediately by allocating portions of the field time
to laboratory processing. This plan offered the advantage
of rapid feedback that can facilitate real-time refinement
of the field strategy in addition to expediting the overall
process of processing and analysis. Again, lab protocols
established in previous seasons were followed, includ-
ing inventory controls, analytical categories, and database
structure. Also, in anticipation of recovery of numerous
early metal objects, we were equipped for basic field conser-
vation and transport of those items.
2. Final Laboratory Processing and Curation: The final
analysis and inventory of recovered material was com-
pleted at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History. In
addition to checking and refining the preliminary analysis,
and updating the geospatial and inventory data bases, arti-
facts were transferred to labeled, museum-quality contain-
ers suitable for long-term curation. Early Spanish metal
and other objects in need of special cleaning and stabili-
zation were turned over to the consulting conservator
during this period. All artifacts will eventually be incorpo-
rated into Fernbank Museum of Natural History’s perma-
nent project collection in accordance with contemporary
museum standards.
3. Geospatial Analysis: Simultaneous with laboratory pro-
cessing of artifacts, GIS files were updated with the latest
results. One outcome is an expanded and refined surface
model of the site detailing topography, hydrology, vegeta-
tive cover, locations of archaeological operations, etc. The
geospatial analysis was also the principal means for analysis
of relationships between Native and Spanish artifacts.
4. Prepare Detailed Reports of Findings: This document
details the new results and integrates them with those from
previous seasons of work on the site. This additional season
of investigation may also generate sufficient information
to allow a synthesis of the overall project in book form.
The summation would be a valuable complement to book-
length presentations of findings from De Soto’s winter
encampment near Tallahassee Florida (Ewen and Hann
1998), and with the numerous books treating the larger
story of the entrada’s path (Clayton et al. 1993; Galloway
2005; Hudson 1997; Swanton 1985; Young and Hoffman
1993) and the search for related sites (Knight 2009).
Introduction
6
Figure 5. Representative shovel test profiles.
2Summary of Results
Shovel Test Evaluation
A program of systematic shovel testing was implemented as a
means, primarily, of determining the full extent of the Lamar
phase occupation with which the early European material is
associated. Shovel testing was also viewed as a potential but
less-than-promising source of additional information about
the distribution and density of European artifacts.
Shovel tests were excavated across an area covering 4.0
hectares (9.9 acres) (see Figure 4). The tests were arrayed at
a regular 10-meter interval over most of that area (2.5 ha; 6.2
acres). Transects of shovel tests, along which individual tests
were also placed every 10 meters, were spaced more widely at
the margins of the core area, especially to the east and south.
In some of these locations dense undergrowth inhibited fully
systematic sampling and in another area the transects were
extended onto an adjoining property. The shovel tests exca-
vated this season expanded on a similar array completed in
2006 and 2007 but it covered only 0.6 hectares in the vicinity
of the council house-temple structure. Altogether, 345 shovel
tests have been excavated at the Glass Site.
The ultimate extent of shovel testing this season was
determined in large measure by results or by topography. It is
customary in shovel test survey to document site limits by exca-
vation of successive, negative tests. Although very few of our
tests were truly negative (n=16; 6 %), it was possible to chart
the occurrence of diagnostic Lamar phase artifacts in shovel
tests by conducting concurrent lab analysis. As a result we were
able to identify the point at which such material was no longer
present or where it became extremely sparse. The western extent
of shovel testing was defined by an abrupt bluff dropping into
an abandoned river channel. An inventory of artifacts from
shovel tests is provided in Appendix A.
Shovel test profiles document a consistent depositional
sequence across the area. The occasional exceptions are
Here, results of the multifaceted evaluation of the Glass Site’s extent and configuration are described. Findings from the three strategies we employed are discussed separately since each was chosen to address particular questions.
7
explained by either modern disturbance or by the presence
of prehistoric features. Typically the deposits consist of
sandy loam over sand that together range from 60 - 90 cm in
depth. The base of the sandy deposits is marked by a relatively
abrupt transition to sandy clay. Figure 5 provides represen-
tative profiles of undisturbed deposits. It bears noting that a
Figure 6. Distribution of Lamar Complicated Stamped sherds.
generalized cultural stratigraphic sequence was encountered
in most tests. Ordinarily Lamar phase artifacts were con-
centrated in the upper 40 cm of the deposit and, with depth,
cultural material tended to increase in age.
Shovel test results were evaluated primarily by creation of a
series of distributional plots using ArcGIS software. The basic
process entailed exploratory examination of numerous graph-
ical plots generated from artifact count, weight, and volume-
tric data. This process began in the field in order to enhance the
active interpretation of the site and to inform the placement
of test units. In this early stage, distributions were generated
from artifact counts that were generated in real time during
the shovel testing program. Once these counts were compiled
in an Excel spreadsheet, they were brought into ArcMap and
the Geostatistical Wizard, part of the Geostatistical Analyst
Toolbar, was used to create the distributional plots. This wizard
steps through the process of interpolating a sample – in our
case artifact counts and weights – allowing the user to make
the necessary adjustments. Ordinary Kriging was the method
that was employed and in the cases where the Trend Analysis
tool indicated a trend, trend removal was applied to the data-
set. An exponential model type was chosen and optimized
while all other settings were left at their defaults.
Distribution interpolations are generally based on artifact
counts divided by shovel test volume, meaning they are a repre-
sentation of relative frequencies. In later stages of the analysis,
distributions also incorporated artifact weights and shovel
test volume. Ultimately, four types of distributional plots were
created: artifact count; artifact weight; artifact count normal-
ized by shovel test volume; and artifact weight normalized
by volume. While each of these approaches produced minor
changes in the resulting distributions, the overall pattern
observed remained the same. It should be noted that the inter-
polations do not produce values outside of the range of values
used for the interpolation. In other words, there could be areas
with concentrations of artifacts greater than those that we
sampled but the interpolation cannot extrapolate those. The
distributions were also clipped to the areas where the interpo-
lations were accurate – areas outside of those that we shovel
tested can’t really be estimated. In each graphic artifact density
is lower in dark areas and higher in light areas. Shovel tests are
represented as white circles and excavated units by black squares
with white borders. Although the distribution of Lamar-related
material was our focus, it was also possible to recognize spatial
Summary of Results
patterns among both earlier and later components. The follow-
ing discussion will review those findings beginning with those
reflective of the late Lamar occupation.
Late Lamar Artifact Distribution
Distributional plots based on diagnostic Lamar phase arti-
facts very clearly and consistently reveal that the Glass Site
community had a ring-shaped plan. The pattern is especially
obvious in a plot that portrays the distribution of Lamar Com-
plicated Stamped sherds (Figure 6). It is equally evident in
plots based on plain-surfaced sherds and sherds with uniden-
tifiable surface treatments (Figure 7). The same pattern is also
observed, though less clearly, when Lamar Incised sherds are
plotted (Figure 8).
The maximum diameter of the circular distribution is
approximately 120 meters; it encompasses an area of about 1.13
hectares (2.8 acres). The inside diameter of the “doughnut”, or
the outside diameter of the relatively open space at the center,
is approximately 70 meters.
The outer ring where Lamar artifact frequency is greatest
averages about 25 m in width and within it a number of
loci are observed having higher-than-average densities. One
of them corresponds to the location of the council house-
8
Figure 8. Distribution of Lamar Incised sherds. Figure 7. Distribution of Lamar Plain sherds.
Figure 9. Distribution of daub.
Summary of Results
9
Summary of Results
temple structure in the southwestern section of the ring. The
other “hotspots”, numbering at least six, very possibly repre-
sent the locations of additional structures (see Figures 6-8,
Figure 9). The central area, defined by much lower occurrences
of Lamar artifacts, is an apparent plaza where routine activities
and construction did not frequently occur. The presentation of
unit excavation results will speak further about activity areas
and features associated with the outer ring.
Indications of structures and other activities within the
habitation area were observed in several shovel test profiles.
Unusually deep deposits containing Lamar sherds and quan-
tities of carbonized wood were noted in Shovel Tests 130
(N270 E210) and 132 (N270 E230). Complex deposits and an
apparent posthole were recorded in Shovel Test 139 (N260
E140). A hearth-like lens of heat-altered soil occurred in Shovel
Test 141 (N250 E160). Also, a lens of mendable Lamar sherds
was encountered in Shovel Test 298 (N170 E170).
In sum, shovel test results establish that the Lamar occupa-
tion at the Glass Site occurred within a small, discrete, formal-
ized community fronting a former channel of the Ocmulgee
River. These results correct earlier expectations that the site was
a more extensive, linearly-arranged village flanking the margin
of the old channel (Blanton 2007, 2009).
Archaic Stage Artifact Distribution
A distribution plot of chert debitage, typical of Eocene and
Oligocene Coastal Plain sources, identifies a linear, east-west-
oriented concentration of the material north of the Lamar
community (Figure 10). Because much of this chert debris was
recovered relatively deeply in shovel tests, because the majority
of it is weathered, and because several Archaic Stage projectile
points and fragments were recovered in association, we are con-
fident in assigning it to occupations that generally pre-date
1500 BC. Most of the diagnostic Archaic artifacts from the
same area are typically linked with Late Archaic activity, includ-
ing medium-sized, square-stemmed hafted bifaces and fiber-
tempered ceramics.
The distribution of Archaic artifacts indicates that the
activity was oriented as much to a secondary wetland area about
200 meters east of the former river channel as to the river itself.
In fact, the plot in Figure 10 portrays two areas of stronger
concentration, one adjacent to the river channel and one close
to the other wetland. Almost certainly the accumulation of
material represents the effect of repeated, short term occupa-
tions. However, a few tests yielding much higher quantities of
debitage and tool fragments, such as Shovel Tests 83, 84, and
89, suggest that some of the associated activities were somewhat
sustained and intensive.
Ocmulgee Phase Artifact Distribution
Ocmulgee Cordmarked ceramics, representing occupations
between AD 1000-1200 (Snow 1977; Stephenson and Snow
2004), are fairly common on the site. To some extent this
material overlaps the Lamar distribution but shovel tests
reveal how it has its own, unique spatial pattern. A plot of
cordmarked sherds establishes that they are concentrated
in an area corresponding to the southwestern quadrant of
the later-dating Lamar community (Figure 11). Interesting-
ly, a local variety of low-quality chert shares a similar distribu-
tion (Figure 12).
Metal Detector Evaluation
Intensive, systematic metal detector survey was
conducted across a 3.0-hectare area (7.4 acres)
(see Figure 4). The explicit aim of this activity was
determination of the extent of the early sixteenth-
century European “footprint” on and around the
Native community that was defined mainly by shovel
test results. This approach assumed the distribution
of metal objects would correspond to the locations
of other kinds of related evidence and the results pre-
sented below seem to validate the concept. Future
work will further test these relationships.
Generally the metal detector survey conformed
to the same area evaluated by shovel tests but the
coverage diverged in some places for two reasons.
Owing to consistent, negative metal detector results
toward the northeast, metal detector coverage did
not fully extend to the total area shovel tested in that
sector. Metal detector coverage extended far beyond
the shovel tested area to the north and to the south,
however. Northward we chose to intensively evaluate
a 0.38-hectare area on the margin of an elevated, Figure 10. Distribution of Coastal Plain chert.
Summary of Results
10
Figure 11. Distribution of Ocmulgee Cordmarked sherds.
Figure 12. Distribution of local chert.
Summary of Results
with nineteenth-century activity. Here again, the dis-
tributions of different metal artifact types and catego-
ries were evaluated using GIS-generated distributions.
Distribution of Early European Artifacts
This season 11 metal detector targets are confidently
attributed to early sixteenth-century activity and
eight additional targets are viewed as probable early
sixteenth-century artifacts. Combined with objects
recovered by limited metal detector survey in 2010, the
total number of obvious or probable sixteenth-century
metal objects located on the site with metal detec-
tors is 32 (Table 1). All of these artifacts were used to
generate distributional plots. Note, however, that nine
other metal artifacts recovered in the block excavation
at the council house-temple location are not included
in the distributions. Also, note that the distributions
for wrought nails and spikes, and lead shot, are pre-
sented later in separate plots since they are so difficult
to date precisely.
11
Summary of Results
sandy terrace. Southward the coverage extended along
the margin of the slough that defines the lower terrace
on which the site is located. This extension spanned
approximately 0.45 hectares. Westward metal detec-
tors were deployed to evaluate the steep embankment
that marks both the edge of the site and a former river
channel (approx. 0.14 ha). The decision to evaluate
areas well beyond the Lamar phase concentration was
based on an expectation that a large entrada encamp-
ment would potentially have sprawled across an area
greater than that of the native community.
A total of 238 metal detector targets were flagged
and plotted (Appendix B), expanding the sample
of 74 targets plotted in 2010 (Blanton et al. 2011).
The majority of the detected objects represent post-
sixteenth-century artifacts. On the whole the site is
not complicated by a great deal of metal “noise” from
later occupations, particularly from modern debris.
The most robust metal assemblage is instead associated
Category Age Form Material Object ID
Military? 16th c. Weapon tip?, crimped Ferrous 6 2.8 1.5 1.5 0.1 31.6Lot 1071, MD 129
Other 16th c. Finial? Cu alloy 1.3 1 0.2 Lot 1188, MD 246
Other 16th c. Handle, Ewer? Cu alloy 11.1 2.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 61.2Lot 1189, MD 247
Other 16th c. Molten waste Ferrous
Other 16th c. Shaped rod Ferrous 7.13 0.99 32Lot 540
Personal 16th c. Bead, rolled Cu alloy 0.68 0.37 0.09 0.3Lot 1065, MD 123
Personal 16th c. Cu alloy 2.9 0.05 4.9Lot 1086, MD 144
Personal 16th c. . Silver Lot 392
Personal 16th c. Ring, frag Cu alloy 0.9 2.2 0.11 0.09 2.5Lot 1070, MD 128
Personal 16th c. Ring, frag Cu alloy 0.38 0.24 1Lot 1078, MD 136
Personal 16th c. Ring, frag Cu alloy 0.71 0.6 0.05<0.1 Lot 571
Personal 16th c. Sheet metal, perforated Cu alloy 0.76 0.73 0.12 0.1Lot 529
Personal 16th c. Cu alloy 3.8 2.2 Lot 365
Tool 16th c. Awl/Punch Ferrous 12.5 1.2 0.4 Lot 222
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 9.9 2.4 2.3 0.55 0.34 64.8Lot 1018, MD 76
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 11.8 2.9 2.6 0.37 0.2 56.8Lot 1049, MD 107
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 13 2.5 2.4 0.53 0.34 90.8Lot 1181, MD 239
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 11.4 2.7 0.2? Lot 45
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 11.1 2.6 0.5 70Lot 507
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 11.6 2.6 0.5 82.8Lot 631, MD 1
Tool 16th c. Celt, Rectangular Ferrous 5.8 2.4 0.5 28.9Lot 647, MD 17
Tool 16th c. Celt, Trapezoidal Ferrous 11.7 8.1 3.8 1.6 0.4 511.6Lot 1249, MD 307
Tool 16th c. Chain link Ferrous 5.64 4.2 1.04 69.8Lot 634, MD 4
Tool 16th c. Chain link Ferrous 6.17 3.19 1.02 46.6Lot 648, MD 18
Tool 16th c. Chain link (w/ hook) Ferrous 4.77 2.24 0.62 73.8Lot 643, MD 13
Tool 16th c. Chisel, Small Ferrous 5.8 1.7 1.3 0.93 0.43 39.4Lot 1017, MD 75
Tool 16th c. Chisel, Square Bar Ferrous 22.9 2.2 1.4 456.5Lot 715
Tool 16th c. Hook (w/ chain link) Ferrous 5.06 3.92 1.01 73.8Lot 643, MD 13
Tool 16th c. Knife blade, tanged Ferrous 14.2 2.4 0.36 0.4 0.2 27.2Lot 1186, MD 244
Tool 16th c. Wedge, Flat, sword? Ferrous 8.1 3.18 0.61 54.8Lot 635, MD 5
Tool 16th c. Ferrous 7.3 2.5 1.1 Lot 301
Military? Poss. 16th c. Wire ring Ferrous 1.8 0.25 0.8Lot 1045, MD 103
Other Poss. 16th c. Awl-like tang(?) Ferrous 6.7 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 13.1Lot 1197, MD 255
Other Poss. 16th c. Bell fragment? Non-ferrous Lot 633, MD 3
Max Lgth
Max Width
Min Width
Max Dia
Max Thick
Min Thick
Wgt (g)
Bell, upp hemisph
Sheet metal, plaquette
Wedge, Hvy
Table 1. Summary of sixteenth-century European metal artifacts from Glass Site.
Summary of Results
12
Other Poss. 16th c. Flat iron band Ferrous 4.38 1.65 0.29 5.9Lot 649, MD 19
Other Poss. 16th c. Flat tapered object Ferrous 3.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.5Lot 1125, MD 183
Other Poss. 16th c. Flat, chisel frag? Ferrous 6.5 1.5 1.2 0.7 0.6 21.9Lot 1092, MD 150
Other Poss. 16th c. Sheet metal scrap Ferrous Lot 661, MD 31
Other Poss. 16th c. Ferrous 2.49 0.47 0.62 2.1Lot 664, MD 34a
Personal Poss. 16th c. Ring, gold plated Cu alloy 2.2 0.26 2.6Lot 1041, MD 99
Other Prob. 16th c. Blade?, dbl edged Ferrous 14.6 1.6 0.95 0.37 0.23 28.8Lot 1184, MD 242
Other Prob. 16th c. Disk Lead 1.5 0.6 Lot 1046, MD 104
Unid. Ringed shaft
The distribution of confirmed sixteenth-century
European metal artifacts corresponds very closely to the dis-
tribution of Lamar phase artifacts (Figure 13). These objects
have been found only within or immediately adjacent to
the ring that defines the late Lamar community. As is the
tendency of Lamar ceramics, the European metal does not
encroach upon the central plaza area. The early metal most
clearly falling just outside the confines of the village was
found on the bank of the former river channel. In brief, there
is effectively a one-to-one correlation between the location of
confidently-identified, sixteenth-century European artifacts
and the ring-like habitation zone of the Lamar community.
The distribution of possible sixteenth-century metal
artifacts follows a different pattern. For the most part
these objects are clustered in a smaller area at the western
side of the village ring which, not coincidentally, is
also where nineteenth-century nails are concentrated (see
below). Thus, while it remains likely that a subset of these
objects is, in fact, of sixteenth-century vintage, it is also
very likely that many if not most are associated with much
later activity.
Distribution of Lead Shot
A variety of round ball ammunition has been recovered by
metal detector survey and, as noted, it is a general category
of material culture that is often difficult to date with confi-
dence. Based on a series of attributes described more fully
in the following chapter, we have sought to separate at least
earlier- from later-dating shot.
Figure 14 presents a plot of 18 pieces of hand-made lead
shot that we judge to pre-date the modern era. Their distri-
bution generally conforms to that of confirmed early metal
artifacts; they tend to fall only within the village ring. But,
again, we must note that several of the pieces of shot overlap
with the much later-dating nail concentration. Thus, we are
left to say that the pattern is suggestive but not fully con-
clusive regarding the relationship between these objects
and others.
Distribution of Nineteenth-Century Artifacts
Metal artifacts that certainly or probably date to the nine-
teenth century far outnumber those that can be linked with Figure 14. Distribution of lead shot.
Summary of Results
Figure 13. Distribution of sixteenth-century European metal artifacts located by metal detector survey.
13
Summary of Results
Figure 15. Distribution of 19th/20th-century cut nails.
Summary of Results
Figure 16. Early twentieth-century “Log Landing” corresponding to location of Glass Site (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1909).
14
sixteenth century activity (see Table 1, Appendix B). Plots
of their distributions reveal a relatively clear area of concen-
tration that overlaps only partially with the extent of Lamar
and early European artifacts.
Cut nails are the most common category of artifact on
the site that can be assigned specifically to the nineteenth
century or perhaps the early twentieth century. It is also
very likely that most of the wrought nails, and the unidenti-
fied fragments of nails, date from the same period. Indeed,
distribution plots of both cut and wrought nails flagged
during the metal detector survey reveals a fairly well defined
area of concentration near the old river channel (Figure 15).
Such a coherent pattern is indicative of a discrete activity
area that, based on the predominance of cut nails along
and other kinds of late-dating artifacts, must date from the
end of the nineteenth century. Among the other artifacts in
this area that date from that era are a few fragments of cast
iron kettles, and a mattock and axe of late styles. Glass and
ceramics of the same period are remarkably sparse anywhere
on the site, including in shovel tests and units that overlap
with the plotted concentration of nails.
A 1909 Corps of Engineers map of the Ocmulgee
River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1909) identifies
a “Log Landing” along a tributary of the river exactly where
the Glass Site has been located (Figure 16).
Landings of this kind were common along Geor-
gia’s Coastal Plain rivers in the nineteenth- and
early twentieth-centuries when timber and naval
stores industries were a mainstay of the local
economy (Walker and Trowell 2004). The special-
ized activities associated with these enterprises,
plus the ephemeral nature of occupations at such
places, could be predicted to produce the kind of
basic archaeological record we have documented
at the Glass Site. Further, the circular pattern of
nail distribution in this area is probably reveal-
ing of the specific nature of that activity. Pres-
ently we do not understand the pattern fully but
it prompts questions about what kinds of activity
would disperse nails this way. For example, might
they mark the limits of a fenced enclosure, a site
devoted to production of barrel staves, or the
location of basic shelters for workers, or some
combination of activities?
Unit Excavation
Four formal test units were excavated, their place-
ment determined by results of shovel testing and
the metal detector survey. Each provides a rep-
resentative sample from a location in the Lamar
community that may be compared with results
from the council house-temple area. A basic
unit-by-unit summary of artifacts is provided in
Table 2.
Unit 72 (N260 E141) was a 1 x 2-meter unit
placed in what appeared to be an area of above-
average late prehistoric and early European artifact
density. Nearby shovel tests yielded relatively large
numbers of Lamar sherds and pipe fragments
and Shovel Test 139, immediately adjacent to
the unit, appeared to bisect a post mold feature
in its profile. Also, metal detector targets within
a 20-meter radius included a flat chisel, an iron
spike, and a brass bead. Finally, the same area was
observed in 2005 to have a relatively large number
of artifacts on the surface.
Three natural stratigraphic levels were exca-
vated separately in this unit which extended to an
average depth of 44 cm below surface (Figure 17).
The uppermost stratum (Stratum I-II) consisted
Ceramic, Ceramic, Ceramic, Ceramic, Lithic, Lithic, Lithic,
Unit Stratum/Feature Lamar Other <1.5 cm Pipe Daub Flaked Tool FCR
72 I-II 172 67 107 6 29 20 3III 15 1 6 4 8 34 1IIIB 86 3 16 28 2 18 19 1
73 I 86 26 53 1 12 1II 28 1 6 6 3IIIA 122 13 20 20 6 7 1IIIB 64 13 14 27 7 9IV 137 17 28 7 2 5 12 1 1V 21 11 12 4 10 5
74 I 41 2 5 14 28 1II 5 1 4 2III 203 11 85 44 1 11 82 1 1IV 34 1 6 3 8
75 I-II 215 55 115 2 6 10IIIA 183 59 71 1 7 13 2IV 879 6 180 328 5 53 53 3 1
251 1 51 86 20 31 2
Unident. Debitage
IV, Fea 43
Table 2. Summary of artifacts in Units 72-75 by excavation level.
Figure 17. South profile, Unit 72.
Summary of Results
15
Summary of Results
of thin humus and A-horizon remnant at the top but for the
most part was comprised of highly variegated, patchy matrix
indicative of intensive cultural activity. Because this horizon
was reminiscent of the matrix overlying much of the council
house-temple floor it was regarded as deposit potentially asso-
ciated with another burned structure. Strata I-II, combined,
varied in thickness from 10-20 cm. Stratum IIB beneath it rep-
resents a transition to underlying E-horizon matrix. It was
distinguished, however, by lingering patches and mottles of
the overlying stratum. The deepest of the three strata
(Stratum III) was considerably more homogeneous in appear-
ance and represented the upper part of typical E-horizon sed-
iments. No cultural features were observed in this unit aside
from a portion of a modern pine tree-planting furrow.
Artifacts in Unit 72 were most abundant in the uppermost
excavation level (Strata I-II) (see Table 2). Curiously the middle,
transitional stratum (IIB) contained the smallest quantity of
cultural material, a pattern that is not well understood at this
point but bears further investigation. Overall, artifacts con-
sisted primarily of Lamar phase ceramic sherds. Late Wood-
land, cord marked sherds occur in the two deepest strata but
only in very small numbers. Returning to the contrast pre-
sented by Stratum IIB, certain Lamar-related artifacts present
in the over- and under-lying strata are absent within it. For
example, Strata I-II and III both contain daub and a small
number of smoking pipe fragments; neither of those artifact
categories are present in IIB even though it is essentially equiv-
alent in volume. The deposits in the area of Unit 72 appear,
therefore, to be rather complex and indicative of specific activ-
ities and events.
Unit 73 (N168 E168) was a 2 x 2-meter unit excavated
where Shovel Test 298 encountered a discrete concentration of
large Lamar ceramic sherds, perhaps representing a reconstruc-
table vessel on a structure floor. In
the shovel test profile the sherds were
tightly grouped 30-35 cm below the
surface within what appeared to be a
midden-like horizon.
This unit extended to an
average depth of 45 cm below surface
and was excavated as six levels
representing four natural strati-
graphic horizons (Figure 18). Exca-
vation level Stratum I consisted
of disturbed matrix and remnant humus and A-
horizon. The source of disturbance, per usual on the site,
is the planting bed and furrow intrusion. Stratum II was
a relatively light-colored sandy loam deposit reminis-
cent of E-horizon soils at a greater depth. Stratum III, exca-
vated in two levels (IIIA and IIIB), represents a probable
midden remnant and was characterized by a gener-
ally darker matrix with common, small charcoal flecks.
Feature 44, the concentration of large, mendable sherds, was
contained within this stratum. It is very possible that
this stratum is associated with a structure but whether it
represents a floor-level deposit remains to be established.
Strata IV and V underlying the midden are lighter colored
and typical of the natural E-horizon deposit that exists be-
neath much of the Lamar-related strata. However, Stratum
IV appeared to mark a gradual transition between the overly-
ing midden deposit and the typical E-horizon below it.
Artifacts in Unit 73 consisted mainly of Lamar phase
sherds and, overall, density was greatest in excavated Strata
I-IV (see Table 2). Among these excavation levels artifacts were
less common in Strata II and IV that, physically, represent
soil typical of the E-horizon. (The quantity of material in dis-
turbed Stratum I is potentially a function of the mixing due to
bedding.) Interestingly, Stratum II in this unit appears to be
somewhat analogous to Stratum III in Unit 72 which likewise
had a lower frequency of artifacts. It is also reminiscent of the
“sand cap” discovered to overlie the burned council house-
temple deposits in the 2006-2010 block excavation. Artifact
counts increased again in Strata IIIA, IIIB, and IV, each
of which represented midden-related deposits. As noted, a
section of these deposits may represent remnants of a struc-
ture floor as indicated, in part, by the sherd concentration in
Feature 44. Beneath the Strata IIIA and IIIB midden deposit,
Figure 18. Photograph, south profile, Unit 73.
Summary of Results
16
and its underlying transitional level (Stratum IV), the overall
frequency of artifacts declined sharply, including diagnostic
Lamar ceramics, while the incidence of cord marked sherds
increased to 25 percent.
Feature 44 documented in this unit consisted of a discrete
and dense concentration of Lamar ceramic sherds (Figures 19
and 20). Most were found to be lying flat within a lens only 5-7
cm in thickness, embedded within the noted midden horizon.
As described in a later section, this concentration was discov-
ered to represent large reconstructable sections of two cari-
nated bowls (Figure 21).
Unit 74 (N220 E124) was another 1 x 2-meter unit. It was
opened adjacent to Shovel Test 180 which had deeper than
average deposits and a relatively large quantity of artifacts.
This location had also been noted as an apparent midden area
by Frankie Snow during his initial inspection of the site in
2002. Moreover, the 2010 metal detector survey located two
Figure 20. Photograph, Feature 44, ceramic concentration, Unit 73.
Figure 21. Reconstructed Lamar carinated bowls from Feature 44.
Summary of Results
17
ShovelTest
Carbonized wood/charcoal
Layer 1 of pottery sherds
Layer 2 of pottery sherds
Shovel Test
Features
KEY
N168.2E169.6
EDG
E O
FPE
DES
TAL
EDGE OFPEDESTAL
EDG
E O
FPE
DES
TAL
N168.2E169.0
N168.7E169.0
N168.7E 169.6
G N
SCALE
0 10cm5
Figure 19. Feature 44 plan, ceramic concentration, Unit 73.
Summary of Results
trarily than they were with respect to natural boundaries. This
strategy was necessary simply because the nature of the deposits
within the confined space of the unit could not be fully understood
before significant portions were removed and studied
in profile (Figures 23-26). In fact, we elected eventually to
flat, iron chisels eight meters to the south. Finally, the area
corresponds to a slight but obvious rise in the local topo-
graphy that prompted questions as to whether a low mound
had been constructed there.
This unit was excavated to a total average depth of
63 cm. The excavation removed four levels represent-
ing discrete, natural strata (Figure 22). A large anomaly
(Feature 42), determined ultimately to represent a tree
disturbance, intruded into all strata in the eastern half
of the unit. Its presence complicates interpretation of
the results. Stratum I represented disturbed deposits
and remnant A-horizon. Stratum II, consisting of a
lens of light-colored sand in the northeastern section
of the unit, was eventually determined to be the upper
part of the Feature 42 disturbance. Stratum III was a
distinctive horizon marked by relatively darker and
very patchy deposits that very possibly represents a
midden deposit or some vestige of one. Artifact density
was notably higher in this stratum. Stratum III was also
unusually thick, averaging 36 cm, but the intrusion of
the tree anomaly potentially affected its appearance.
The lowest excavated stratum (Stratum IV) was com-
prised of lighter-colored, more homogeneous matrix
representing the upper portion of the E-horizon.
Summary of Results
Figure 22. South profile, Unit 74.
18
0 50cm
I
IIIII III
VVI
VIIVII
VIIIIX
XXIII XIII
XIV
XI
UNIT 75BACKHOE TRENCH
Planting Bed: Highly mixed, lenses of 10YR 3/1, 3/2, and 4/2 sandy loam; thin overlying humus layer
Midden-like Deposit: Primarily 10YR 3/1-3/2 sandy loam; abundant charcoal �ecks and light-colored mottles
Primarily 10YR 5/3-5/4 sandy loam with brown lamellae and orange and brown mottles
10YR 5/2-5/3 sandy loam
Primarily 10YR 3/3 sandy loam; common charcoal �ecks and light-colored mottles
10YR 3/3-3/4 relatively compacted sandy loam; occasional charcoal �ecks
Same as Stratum IV; relatively compacted
Primarily 10YR 6/4-6/6 sand
Same as Stratum IV
Same as Stratum V; relatively compacted
10YR 5/6-5/8 clayey sand; transition to subsoilSubsoil at Floor: Highly mottled, 7.5YR 8/1-8/2 and 5YR 5/8 sandy clay
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
X
Figure 23. South profile, Unit 75 and backhoe trench extension.
Unit 75 (N179 E213)
was a 2 x 2-meter unit
placed where the metal
detector survey marked
a rather large and rela-
tively deeply-buried iron
target. Preliminary exam-
ination of the target
indicated that it was
embedded within a mid-
den-like horizon. Through-
out the unit we subse-
quently discovered unusu-
ally complex deposits that
disclose the presence of a
very large feature.
Unit 75 was exca-
vated according to four
levels that, in retrospect,
were removed more arbi-
Summary of Results
19
Figure 24. West profile, Unit 75.
Summary of Results
restrict excavation to the southern quarter of the
unit (2 x 0.5 m) due to uncertainty about the nature
of the deposits. Thus, in a very literal sense, Unit
75 was opened as a “test” unit. Further evaluation
of the deposits in this area was made by excavation
of a narrow backhoe trench off of the unit’s south-
eastern corner, effectively extending the deep exca-
vation in its south half, and the associated profile,
another seven meters eastward.
The eventual result of Unit 75 excavation, in
tandem with backhoe trenching, was identifica-
tion of a very large cultural feature. While its full
extent remains unknown we estimate, at the point
we exposed it, that it is at least 5.0 meters wide and
1.3 meters deep. The ensuing discussion focuses
mainly on the depositional sequence observed in
profiles since observations recorded in the course of
unit-level excavation are less useful for the reasons
cited above.
The fill of the large feature consists of no less
than seven clearly separated strata (see Figures 23 -
26). In the south profile of Unit 75 they are orient-
ed relatively horizontally from east to west but in
the west profile they plunge downward from both
the north and the south. The profiles of the east-
ward backhoe extension reveal how the strata even-
tually pitch upward again. Considered together,
the orientations and ultimate depth of the strata
within the feature reveal that they are filling a large
Figure 25. Photograph, south profile, Unit 75.
Summary of Results
Figure 26. Photograph, west profile, Unit 75.
20
basin or trench. At this point, however, its overall orientation
is unclear because we cannot yet be certain of the direction the
unit and backhoe trench strike the feature. In turn it is also dif-
ficult to extrapolate the feature’s form and size.
The inter-relationships of the strata appear to portray a
somewhat complex sequence of events marked by alternating
periods of relative stasis and rapid filling. Referring again to
Figures 23 and 24, we can observe three points in the sequence
dominated by organically-enriched deposits. In order, from top
to bottom, these are Strata II, V-VI, and X. Each is distinguished
by darker color values and higher densities of charcoal flecking.
Presumably these strata are indicative of stability and perhaps
periods of occupational intensity. Separating them are lighter-
colored strata that potentially represent episodes of more rapid
filling, perhaps related to natural events if not also intervals of
lower intensity occupation. At very least, there appears to have
been a period of occupation-related deposition immediately
following the feature’s creation (Stratum X) and another closer
to the time the site was abandoned (Stratum II), at which point
the feature was largely filled.
Identifiable ceramic artifacts from the feature-related
deposits are overwhelmingly Lamar types (99.5 %). This observa-
tion applies to all strata including those that are deepest within
the feature (see Table 2). In effect, there was little discernible
difference in the general nature or quantity of material from
top to bottom. Undoubtedly a more controlled, stratum-by-
stratum removal of the feature’s fill would document contrasts
in density since certain of the separate strata were observed to
contain higher quantities of artifacts. But, to reinforce the main
point, strata containing a preponderance of Lamar ceramics
occurred both high and low within the feature’s fill.
Summary of Unit Excavation Results
Intact cultural deposits were encountered in each of the four
units excavated this season. Midden-like deposits were most ap-
parent in Units 73 and 74 and in the latter case they may be asso-
ciated with a structure’s floor. The complex deposits described
in Unit 72 are also potentially associated with a structure and,
specifically, with a burned building. By estimation of ceramic
artifact density per cubic meter, Units 73 and 74 are quite simi-
lar but among the four units they also had the lowest density of
ceramic artifacts (see Table 2). Ceramic density in Unit 72 was
almost twice as high as that in Units 73 and 74, but the density
in Unit 75 was more than twice that in Unit 72. While the sam-
ples of artifacts from Units 72 and 75 are also the most diverse
in terms of numbers of categories represented, there were no ap-
preciable differences among the four units in terms of propor-
tions of Lamar ceramic types. Unit 75 intersected a very large
feature filled by complex, stratified deposits. Its character-
istics and location suggest that it represents an encircling
defensive ditch.
A separate chapter is devoted to description of early European artifacts for obvious reason: they constitute a body of unique evidence linked with earliest European exploration of the New World. Below, each of the metal objects recovered by the 2012 investigation is described in detail with, where possible, comparison to similar artifacts found on other sites. A full inventory of sixteenth-century objects is provided in Table 1. Details for early European artifacts recov-ered during prior seasons are presented in Blanton et al. (2011).
3Description of European Artifacts
Figure 27. Iron axe blade, side and end views.
21
Ferrous Artifacts
Axe Blade
An iron axe blade was recovered in Unit 75 following its
location by metal detector survey (Figure 27). Although this
artifact is of a kind that is sometimes referred to as a “pentag-
onal celt” (Smith 1987:35-36), it is, like many other archaeo-
logical specimens, an axe blade from which the hafting eye has
been removed.
The blade of this artifact retains its essential, original
form aside from loss of the upper corner of the cutting
edge. Generally it appears to conform to the style known as
a Biscayne axe, or to a style similar to it, having a rounded
(convex) working edge with a dropped lower corner. In effect,
the top side of the blade is perpendicular to the orientation
of the missing eye and the lower side curves downward
quite sharply.
The surface of the butt end of the blade is somewhat irreg-
ular, giving evidence of removal of the original hafting eye,
but the break has been smoothed (see Figure 27). This kind of
modification to axes was common throughout eastern North
America from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centu-
ries (Sempowski and Saunders 2001; Marvin Smith, Personal
communication 2012). One aim of eye removal seems to
have been acquisition of metal from which to fashion other
implements. Another might have been alteration to facili-
tate hafting by the traditional socketing method used with
stone celts.
Figure 28. Rectangular celts; a, b, and f recovered during 2012 season.
Archaeological examples of sixteenth-century axes are
rare in the Southeast. The only complete examples are docu-
mented in Florida at the Dunn’s Creek (Smith n.d.) and Phillip
(Benson 1967) mounds and the blade portions of these axes are
very similar to the Glass Site artifact. Six examples from which
the eye has been removed are known from four sites, Hight-
ower, Pine Island, and 1CE308 in Alabama, and Brown Farm
in northwestern Georgia (Smith n.d.). Sixteenth-century doc-
umentary sources cite axes and hatchets as a common pos-
session among explorers and sometimes explicitly as trade
items. For example, they are noted in chronicles of De Soto’s
entrada (Waselkov 2009) and in documents describ-
ing Juan Pardo’s expeditions (DePratter and Smith
1987; Hudson 1990:135). The latter accounts refer to
no less than five different types of axes, including the
often-cited Biscayne form, but exactly which variety is
represented by the Glass Site artifact is uncertain.
The context of the Glass Site axe is interesting.
What is seemingly an object that would have been
highly coveted and reserved for high-status or other-
wise “special” usage in the Indian world, was found
in the rather mundane context of defensive ditch fill.
Thoughts on the meaning of this seeming paradox
will be proferred later but now it will suffice to say
that, once more, the contexts of the European metal
at this site are typically contrary to expectations.
Thin, Rectangular Celts (n=3)
Three examples of thin, rectangular celt blades were found by
metal detector survey this season (Figure 28), bringing the site
total for this artifact category to seven (Figure 29). These addi-
tional specimens conform closely to those already documented
at the Glass Site as well as to others known elsewhere in the
region. They are widely recognized as one of the more common,
diagnostic types of sixteenth-century iron tools and it appears
now that the Glass Site has yielded the single largest assem-
blage of them.
Figure 29. Examples of rectangular celts recovered during 2012 season.
22
Description of European Artifacts
The description of this artifact type in the 2011 report
(Blanton et al. 2011) applies again here. In brief, these objects
are exceedingly simple in form, consisting of what appear to
be segments of thin iron bands that were minimally shaped by
hammering three of the sides and then beveling one narrow
end to create a cutting edge. They would appear, in effect, to
represent objects well-suited for the Indian “trade” because
they could be economically produced and easily transported
in large numbers. In addition, they would have been a highly
portable source of stock iron.
Detailed measurements of the Glass Site celts are provided
in Table 3. One senses there was some effort to standardize pro-
duction of the tools but clearly there is a range of variation. The
difference between the obviously longer and shorter examples
at the Glass Site might reflect purposeful production of blades
for different uses. Certainly some period accounts specify a sur-
prising number of “escoplo” (chisel) and “cuna” (wedge) types
(DePratter and Smith 1987; Hudson 1990:136-137). It bears
noting that the thicker celt form, also known from sixteenth-
century sites in the region, is not present in the Glass Site assem-
blage. With thicknesses ranging from 1.0-1.9 cm, more than
two to four times the average thickness of the thinner variety,
these celts also occur in a wider range of forms, namely rectan-
gular, triangular, and pentagonal (Smith n.d., 1987).
Archaeologically, artifacts similar to the Glass
Site specimens are reported from the following
sites: Santa Elena (SC), Nelson (NC), Citico, and
Bussell Island in Tennessee, Hightower and 1CE308
in Alabama, and Rolling Hills (MS) (Smith n.d.).
Aside from Santa Elena where several examples
have been found (Hudson 1990:136-137; South,
Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E.
Johnson 1988), the maximum number recorded
from any single site is two.
The contexts of the additional celts found at the Glass Site
this season are consistent with those of other European arti-
facts: they occurred in general village context and not in discrete
features (although some of these locations might yet prove to
be structure locations.) One exception was found on the slope
of the abandoned river channel where the tanged knife blade
and the brass handle and finial were also recovered.
Small Chisel
One small, relatively narrow, and thick chisel, similar in form
to modern cold chisels, was found in the disturbed context of
a push-pile (Figure 30). The proximal end is heavily flattened
from use; the distal end is missing. The narrowest section of the
blade forms a neck just below the proximal end.
Similar, small chisels do not commonly appear on other
sixteenth-century archaeological sites in the region. Much
more typical are the longer, round- and square-sectioned forms.
Potentially this specimen from the Glass Site was originally
much longer but there is also no reason to believe that smaller
chisels were not part of expeditionary kits. Again, as one case
in point, the Pardo lists note numerous forms of chisels and
wedges of both large and small sizes (Hudson 1990:136-137).
Figure 30. Small chisel.
Summary of Results
Lot No. MD No. Width: Dist Width: Mid
647 17 5.94 2.50 2.07 2.22 0.44 0.18 0.42 28.90
1081 76 9.91 1.97 2.26 2.34 0.64 0.18 0.46 64.80
507 11.13 2.38 2.41 2.53 0.51 0.17 0.42 69.90
631 1 11.60 2.00 2.53 2.58 0.52 0.16 0.52 82.60
45 11.65 2.19 2.83 2.36 0.42 0.15 0.30 48.60
1049 107 11.76 2.93 2.73 2.65 0.67 0.16 0.27 56.80
1181 239 13.04 2.34 2.37 2.47 0.58 0.21 0.43 90.80
Lgth: Max Width: Prox Thck: Prox Thck: Dist Thck: Mid Wgt (g)
Table 3. Metric attibutes of rectangualr iron celts.
23
Description of European Artifacts
Table 4 compares measurements of both iron crossbow
quarrels and pike or lance tips from other sites. Based on these
comparisons the Glass Site object possibly represents the tip
of a large quarrel or small pike or lance head. Iron weapon tips
of this general form are reported from Santa Elena (South,
Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E. Johnson
1988:103, 109), Martin (FL) (Ewen and Hann 1998), Hampton
Place (TN), and Pine Log Creek (AL) (Little 2008). From docu-
mentary sources we also know that crossbows and lances were
among the more common weapons among interior expedition
members (Waselkov 2009).
Knife Blade
One knife blade with a narrow, “rattail” tang was recovered
from the slope of the abandoned river channel (Figure 32).
The back of the blade roughly continues along the line of
the tang while the cutting edge drops much lower; the distal
end of the blade appears to be broken away. The surface of
the object is featureless. Absent are raised areas typical of
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century flatware. Indeed, it is not
certain that this knife was used as an item of tableware and,
instead, it could have had some other, specific purpose.
Beverly Straube (personal communication 2012), Senior
Archaeological Curator with the Jamestown Rediscovery
Archaeological Project, prefers to describe the knife as having
a “whittle” tang and regards the form as typical of sixteenth-
century knives. A virtually identical knife blade is documented
from the Phillip Mound in Florida where early axes and bead
types, among other objects, were also found (Bensen 1967).
Knives were also among the items listed by both De Soto
and Pardo (Hudson 1990:137; Waselkov 2009).
Possible Weapon Tip
One iron object is possibly the damaged or modified tip of a
weapon. If it is, its size, weight, and form indicate that it was
most likely used to point a crossbow bolt but it might also
have been at the distal end of a polearm such as a pike or
lance (Figure 31). Regardless, the piece was clearly made to
be crimped onto a shaft. The metal is formed into a hollowed
channel which, in cross-section at the distal end, is seen to be
fully rolled into a thin tube. Also, two tab-like protrusions
near the midpoint appear to be designed to accommodate
crimping. An intriguing feature is a pointed, pyramidal pro-
jection that seems to have been bent downward from the distal
end. Its form is very much like that described for the tips of
crossbow quarrel bolts (Ewen and Hann 1998; South, Stanley,
Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E. Johnson 1988).
Site State Category
Santa Elena SC Bolt Quarrel 4.8 1.4 0.2
Santa Elena SC Bolt Quarrel 5.8 1.5 0.2
St. Augustine FL Bolt Quarrel 8.1 1.3
Santa Elena SC Pike tip 17.8 4.7
Glass GA Undetermined 6.0 2.8 0.2
Length (cm)
Max. Dia. (cm)
Ferrule Thick (cm)
Table 4. Metric attributes of iron weapon tips.
24
Description of European Artifacts
Figure 31. Possible weapon tip.
Unidentified, Blade-like Object.
A narrow, double-edged piece with a lenticular cross-section
was also found on the slope of the old river channel (Figure
33). Its purpose is unknown but features of it would seem
to rule out the possibility that it is the blade of a weapon or
cutting tool. Specifically, the slightly narrower end appears
to have a finished, squared termination and the other end is
slightly downturned as if it suffered a bend-break. The piece is
also slightly bowed from one end to the other.
Loop of Iron Wire
A single iron ring made of small gauge wire may be a chain
mail link or simple connecting link of some other purpose
(Figure 34). The two ends of the loop are opened and in plan
the piece is somewhat squarish in form. The slightly opened
loop has an outside diameter of 1.8 cm and the wire is 0.25
cm in diameter. The outside diameter exceeds that of typical
chain mail links which tend to range closer to 1.0 cm (Ewen
and Hann 1998; South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and
Richard E. Johnson 1988). In short, the age and original use of
the ring is exceedingly difficult to determine.
Figure 34. Loop of iron wire.
Figure 33. Double-edged, blade-like object.
Figure 32. Tanged knife blade.
Summary of Results
25
Description of European Artifacts
Nails and Spikes
A total of 106 whole or fragmentary nails and spikes were recov-
ered by the metal detector survey. At least 71 (67 %) of the total
sample appear to be cut nails dating from the nineteenth or
early twentieth centuries. This subsample tends to come from
a fairly well defined area of the site that clearly was the focus
of some non-domestic but otherwise undetermined activity of
that general period.
A smaller subset (n=12) consists of what appear to be
wrought nails but specifically dating them is very difficult.
More than likely a significant number of the wrought examples
are part of the nineteenth-century component on the site since
many of them fall within the area where cut nails are clustered.
The sizes of cut vs. wrought nails, as we have been able to sort
them, also overlap considerably (Figure 35). A small number
are of a form or size that indicate they may date from the six-
teenth century, but presently we can only identify them as
objects possibly associated with that period. Two of the
wrought specimens would fall in the category of spikes based
on their relatively large size (77.6-100.2 mm) (Figure 36; see
Figure 35).
The balance of the probably wrought fasteners are best
described as nails. They average 49.6 in length but range from
35.5-64.1 mm in length (see Figure 35). Categories of nails
from other sixteenth-century sites in the United States have
very similar ranges (South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and
Richard E. Johnson 1988; Vierra 1989). Referencing the detailed
study of Santa Elena nails, and assuming for the sake of discus-
sion the wrought nails at the Glass Site date from the sixteenth
century, their size indicates they are members of the category
known as barrote.
A few of the wrought fasteners are somewhat unique in
form. One nail has a flattened, spade-shaped head that is very
similar to types identified as horseshoe nails on other early sites
(Ewen and Hann 1998:82-83; Vierra 1989:138, 140). Another
wrought cut wrought cut cut cut cut cut cut cut wrought0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Leng
th (m
m)
Figure 35. Size distribution of nails and spikes.
26
Description of European Artifacts
Figure 37. Clarksdale-type sheet brass bell, side and top views.
Figure 36. Examples of wrought iron spikes.
has a T-shaped head that is also often described on sixteenth-
century nails (Ewen and Hann 1998:82-83; South, Stanley,
Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E. Johnson 1988). And, one
of the wrought fasteners from the 2010 metal detector survey
is a small tack.
Other Ferrous Artifacts
Several ferrous objects were recovered that presently defy deter-
mination of function, origin, and age. Generally they are small
and/or fragmentary items without distinctive forms. Rather
than provide detailed descriptions here their basic attributes
are provided in Table 1. Efforts to identify them more specifi-
cally are ongoing.
Cuprous Artifacts
Sheet Brass Bell
The upper hemisphere of a sheet brass bell was recovered at
the outside perimeter of the village in shallow, generalized
context (Figure 37). The attachment loop is present but only
traces of the out-turned lower flange survive. The dimen-
sions of the bell’s upper hemisphere and attachment loop
very closely conform to those described for Clarksdale bells
Summary of Results
27
Description of European Artifacts
(Table 5). The same consistency is seen in its somewhat flat-
tened form and the use of silver solder to secure both the loop
and the two hemispheres.
However, this example diverges from the classic Clarksdale
type in the manner by which the attachment loop is secured
to the interior surface. Rather than bending the ends of the
loop outward, the maker seems to have simply crimped them
closely together before soldering. The result is a small, interior
tab that protrudes a few millimeters below the top of the bell
(see Figure 37). Whether this method of attachment is merely
within the range of variation for the type, or whether it signals
something more specific about the artifact’s age and origin, is
uncertain. The top of the attachment loop narrows noticeably
to form something of a notch on both sides; presumably this is
the result of use-wear.
It bears noting that traces of solder very strongly indicate
that the bell was originally made to have a wide flange at the
equatorial line, a feature characteristic of Clarksdale bells. As
Figure 37 shows, a thin line of solder is present at two points
on the outer surface 1.5 mm above the bottom edge of the
hemisphere, where traces of solder are also present. In other
words, excess solder would not likely occur in both locations
if the bell did not have such a design.
Bells, like glass beads, are a category of early European arti-
facts in the Southeast that have been the focus of much study
(Brown 1977, 1979, 1980; Brain 1975; Mitchem and McEwan
1998; Connaway, Personal communication 2012). One outcome
has been the inclination to link Clarksdale-type bells with De
Soto’s entrada since their distribution across the region approx-
imates general projections of the expedition’s path (Brain
1975). However, this type of bell occasionally appears in later
sixteenth-century contexts (South, Stanley, Russell K. Skow-
ronek, and Richard E. Johnson 1988:142-143).
Cast Brass Handle
A unique artifact recovered on the bank of the former
river channel is a piece of cast brass with a recurved form
(Figure 38). Both ends are damaged but, while one is round
and narrow, the other terminates in a flattened, square-
shaped tab. These attributes give reason to believe that the
object is the broken handle of a ewer, or water pitcher.
Ewers were in common usage in Europe in the sixteenth
century primarily for holding and pouring liquid. They were
especially prominent items in Catholic churches where they
Figure 38. Cast brass, possible ewer handle.
Site Type
St. Marks (FL) Clarksdale 31 30 8 4
St. Marks (FL) Clarksdale 28 25 7 4
Glass Site (GA) Clarksdale 28 24 8 5
St. Marks (FL) Clarksdale 27 26 6 4
Oliver Clarksdale 26 25 10 5
Bee Branch (FL) Clarksdale 25 22 5 6
Clarksdale 23 19 5 6
St. Marks (FL) Clarksdale 22 19 5 5
St. Marks (FL) Clarksdale 20 19 4 5
21 20 8 3
18 18 7 3
17 13 5 3
Watson 16 11 4 2
Longest 15 11 5 2
Fatherland (LA) 13 10 5 1
Max Dia
Bell Hgt
Loop Dia
Loop Width
Goodnow Mnd (FL)
Thomas Mnd (FL) Flushloop
Rattlesnake Mnd (FL) Flushloop
Rattlesnake Mnd (FL) Flushloop
Flushloop
Flushloop
Flushloop
Table 5. Metric attributes of Clarksdale bells (From Brown 1977, 1979; Mitchem and McEwan 1998; and Connaway n.d.).
28
Description of European Artifacts
assemblages such as the Tatham, Weeki Wachee, and Ruth
Smith mounds in Florida (Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996,
Mitchem and Hutchinson 1987). Rolled brass and “sheet brass”
beads are cited in assemblages from several other sites, too
(Little 2008; Smith 1987:36-37), but many if not most appear
to be considerably longer and of thinner metal.
Brass Ring Fragment
Approximately one half of a flat, relatively wide finger ring was
found in the village area (Figure 41). Similar brass rings are
known from many sites in the Southeast with dates extending
Figure 41. Brass ring, top and interior views.
Figure 40. Rolled metal bead.
held water. Most pertinent is the fact that many early examples
were made of brass and they featured similarly shaped handles
(Figure 39). Handles were generally separate pieces joined to
the main vessel. The lower point of attachment was often rather
superficial and delicate and the widened tab on this example
would have suited this purpose. The upper diameters of the
handles were often narrower as is the case on this piece.
Why this artifact is at the Glass Site, if it is, indeed, part of
a ewer, is interesting to contemplate. No comparable examples
are known from other early sixteenth-century sites in the
interior Southeast. One expla-
nation may be that this handle
is from a ewer that formed a
part of the liturgical parapher-
nalia carried by Catholic priests.
Chronicles mention the presence
of no less than seven religious
officials in De Soto’s party
(Hudson 1997:50). Ewers, among
other items, were likely viewed
as indispensable elements of a
host of rites involving holy water,
including baptisms. With them
water was transferred to a font
or basin, or into other contain-
ers such as an aspergillums (i.e., water sprinklers) (Wikipe-
dia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperges). They were also
used for lavabo, the ritual hand-washing that preceded many
Catholic rites (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabo;
The Catholic Encyclopedia http://oce.catholic.com/index.
php?title=Lavabo). Indeed, the chronicles of De Soto’s expedi-
tion describe how “chalices, altars, and ornaments” were carried
along for purposes of “divine worship” (Waselkov 2009).
Artifacts from early Southeastern sites that may also
have formed part of Catholic priestly accoutrements include
a brass candlestick holder and small brass bucket at the
Pine Log Creek Site in Alabama (Little 2008; Smith 1987;
Waselkov 2009).
Brass Bead
A small bead of rolled sheet brass (7 mm long) was found in
the village area (Figure 40). It resembles similar small beads
recovered at other sites with early sixteenth-century European
Summary of Results
Figure 39. Example of a brass ewer (Metropolitan Museum of Art 2012).
29
Description of European Artifacts
from the early sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century
(Deagan 2002). It is impossible to know whether the other half
of the ring was embellished in any way but simple, plain rings
of brass, as this one appears to be, are common. A fragment of
a similar ring was also excavated in the council house-temple
area (Blanton et al. 2011).
Brass Finial
A small, cast brass object, triangular in cross-section and hollow
in the center, appears to be a decorative finial or perhaps the cap
for a small container (Figure 42). It was recovered on the bank
of the abandoned river channel. This is another object that
is not firmly dated but is very possibly part of the sixteenth-
century assemblage.
Gilded Brass Ring
Another ring was also recovered in the village area but its age
is uncertain. It is made of what appears to be gilded brass
(Figure 43). The metal is round in cross-section and of small
Figure 44. Representative lead shot.
diameter; possibly the inner, cuprous portion is a hollow tube
formed into a ring. The surface is unembellished but a narrow
groove runs the full circumference of the inner face, perhaps as
an aspect of creating and shaping a hollow tube. Presumably
this object was a finger ring but it is also possible it had some
other decorative purpose.
Lead Artifacts
Lead Shot
Twenty-eight pieces of whole or fragmentary lead or lead-
alloy shot were recovered this season by the systematic metal
detector survey. Documentation of their metric and quali-
tative attributes allowed estimations about which of the
pieces are relatively modern and which date from the nine-
teenth century or earlier. Also, compositional analysis of
the metal using a portable XRF device has refined the initial
attribute-based estimations of age (Blanton 2009; Blanton
et al. 2011).
Including those recovered in 2010, 18 examples retain
evidence of molding and forming typical of traditional pro-
duction using a hand-operated mold (Figure 44). The sizes of
these pieces of shot cover a wide range but some tendencies are
apparent. The majority (n=9) of the potential early shot have
average diameters between .31-.42. Two others have average
diameters of .48-.49, two more are measured at .54, three fall
between .63-.64, and one is .69. All in all the sizes of the subset
of potential early pieces of shot are larger than those that we
Figure 42. Brass finial. Figure 43. Gilded brass ring.
30
Description of European Artifacts
have confidently identified as modern buckshot, whose diame-
ters center around .25.
The sizes of the potential early shot from the Glass Site are
not inconsistent with those noted at other sixteenth-century
sites (Deagan 2002). Relatively large samples from Santa Elena,
Fountain of Youth Park, St. Augustine, and La Isabella tend to
gravitate to common size ranges that overlap those at the Glass
Site. Those main tendencies in the other samples are .24-.31,
.39-.59, .47-.55, and .51-1.77 (Figure 45). Also relevant is the
range of diameters for lead shot potentially associated with
the contemporary Coronado expedition in the Southwest, gen-
erally between .31-.48 (Cramb 2011). We also know that lead
shot was carried on sixteenth century expeditions (Hudson
1990; Waselkov 2009). Ultimately, however, we are aware that
lead shot of these calibers were also in relatively common usage
during later periods. In particular, the one .69 caliber ball from
the Glass Site is exactly the standard size used with eighteenth-
century flintlock muskets (Deagan 2002:280-283).
Lead Disk
One disk of lead, 1.5 cm in diameter, was recovered in the
village area (Figure 46). The two opposing surfaces are flat
and smooth while the surface of the convex sides is somewhat
irregular. The piece seems to have been purposely shaped,
probably by cutting, but for what purpose is unknown.
Specifically, it is possibly the midsection of a large-diameter
shot from which the two polar ends have been cut away. The
age of the artifact is also undetermined. Potentially the object
was used as a gaming piece or might simply be a scrap of
stock lead.
Figure 45. Early lead shot size distribution.
Summary of Results
Figure 46. Lead disk.
31
Description of European Artifacts
32
one group of sites is summarized because it conveys a sense of
the more typical source of early sixteenth-century European
artifacts, looted graves.
Tatham Mound, Florida
The Tatham Mound in Florida represents a context in which
European objects were interred within a Native mortuary
feature (Mitchem 1989; Mitchem and Hutchinson 1987). The
entirety of the undisturbed mound was subjected to controlled
excavation and thorough recovery. The work determined that
the mound was constructed in two major phases, specifically
as a burial feature, with one stage pre-dating European contact
and the other post-dating contact. This summary focuses on
evidence from the latter stage.
The remains of approximately 350 individuals were present
in the post-contact mantle. Four-hundred fifty-nine sixteenth-
century European objects were found, mainly in association
with 19 of those burials. The objects consisted of 152 glass
beads, 298 metal beads, three metal ornaments, two iron tools,
and two spikes or nails. Native burials with associated European
artifacts represented a spectrum of the population including
adult males and females, and at least one child and one infant.
Interestingly, adult females comprise the great majority of
Little about the archaeology of sixteenth-century European exploration comes easily. However, it is the interpretation of evidence rather than its discovery that tends to pose the greatest challenge and this closing chapter is devoted to making sense of the Glass Site results, and to demonstrating why they matter at all.
The chapter has three main parts. The first sets the stage for an updated interpretation of Glass Site findings. Following a review of relevant archaeological case studies an inter-pretive model is outlined specific to sites with evidence from the Period of Exploration. The second part summarizes the Glass Site evidence and then evaluates it against other sites and the interpretive model. The final section describes the major implications of the Glass Site case for “protohistoric” research in the Southeast and beyond. This section will also include recommendations for further Glass Site investigation.
4Interpretation and Recommendations
33
Illustrative Case Studies
Archaeological sites with evidence of sixteenth-century
“contact” between exploring Spanish and indigenous Natives
are present across the Southeast. The sites are few, they are not
distributed evenly, and those that have been discovered have
been subject to highly variable investigative strategies. Even
so, the material clues they yield give us the most immediate,
unbiased link to the events of the era. It is true that primary
texts are available that describe the experiences of several
exploratory ventures, but there is wide agreement that tangible
archaeological evidence will ultimately anchor interpretations
(Hudson et al. 1984).
Four archaeological case studies are offered for two
purposes. One is to supply readers with a comparative basis
for evaluating what we have documented at the Glass Site.
The other is to illustrate the highly variable nature of the
regional record, a fact that will emerge as an important theme
in this chapter.
The studies are ordered to correspond with the progres-
sion of Hernando de Soto across the region during his first year
of march, that of 1539 -1540. As such they provide a frame of
reference for the related record at the Glass Site. Most of the
cases are also chosen because they provide sets of evidence well-
documented according to contemporary standards, making
them most comparable to the Glass Site findings. However,
individuals interred with European artifacts, among those for
which age and gender could be determined.
Mitchem and Hutchinson (Mitchem 1989; Mitchem and
Hutchinson 1987) suggest that the European artifacts in the
Tatham Mound were obtained by local Natives from both the
Narvaez (1528) and the De Soto (1539) expeditions. In fact,
the Natives potentially encountered groups affiliated with the
latter expedition on three different occasions. The researchers
interpret the rapid interment of the first 74 individuals placed
in the final mound stage as an aftermath of a “death event”
caused by introduction of European diseases. Also, cut marks
on a few of the bones are tangible evidence of violent interac-
tion, most likely with De Soto’s group. The processes by which
the European goods were obtained by the indigenous pop-
ulation are not altogether clear but they could have included
formal gift exchange, theft, and scavenging, including from
shipwrecks unrelated to the entradas. The Tatham Mound example introduces a particular set
of contact circumstances. Early European material is abundant
in a mortuary feature but represents deposition of objects
that accumulated among locals for possibly a decade or more,
and potentially by contact with two exploring parties. In this
regard it is similar to the King Site which is also situated along
a corridor of multiple Spanish incursions.
Martin Site, Florida
The Martin Site at Tallahassee, Florida is widely accepted as
the location of De Soto’s first winter encampment (Ewen and
Hann 1998). The site was discovered in advance of a develop-
ment project and much of the fieldwork was conducted on a
compressed schedule. The initial phase focused on a 0.61 ha
(1.5 acre) area where hand-excavated blocks and units covering
about 1300 square meters were opened. Notable features poten-
tially linked to the winter encampment were a structure with
a hearth, a large borrow pit, and a pit feature. Artifacts confi-
dently attributed to the De Soto presence are at least 17 beads of
four types, five copper coins, one crossbow quarrel tip, approxi-
mately 2020 links of iron and brass chain mail, numerous
caret-headed nails, and a pig maxilla. Less diagnostic but
also probably associated with the encampment are numerous
spikes, nails, and tacks, brass buckles and fasteners, and early
varieties of ceramic sherds. The presence of a large quantity
of chain mail, numerous copper coins, many metal fasteners,
and European-made ceramic sherds are unique features of
the Martin assemblage, but so too is the absence of iron tools.
Certain categories of artifacts occurred in tight concentrations
indicative of dedicated activity or disposal areas. For example,
much of the chain mail was recovered in association with the
structure while caret-headed nails formed a separate cluster
unassociated with obvious features. All told, the evidence from
the intensively studied area is strongly indicative of sustained
Spanish activity in the midst of a Native community.
Block excavations at the Martin Site were augmented with
wide-area survey aimed at defining site limits and additional
De Soto-related activity areas. Using a power auger, small tests
were opened on a regular 10-meter grid over approximately
one square kilometer. Coverage was thorough but incomplete
due to obstacles presented by dense development. The results
indicated the presence of a late prehistoric occupation stretch-
ing across at least 45.0 ha. This scatter probably represents the
dispersed Native community of Anhaica that De Soto’s party
occupied for the winter. Within that area additional sixteenth-
century artifacts were scattered across roughly 12.5 ha.
To summarize, the Martin Site stands as the only accepted
site of a De Soto winter encampment. It is extensive, it occurs
within a principal Indian town, discrete activity areas are iden-
tified that include features, and a unique and diverse assem-
blage of well-dated European artifacts was recovered. Thus, this
site is the sole documented representative of a specific entrada-
related site type, of which two others are known to have been
established elsewhere in the region.
King Site, Georgia
The third comparison is with the King Site in northwestern
Georgia (Hally 2008). It is arguably the best and most com-
pletely documented protohistoric site formerly associated with
the famous Coosa province (Smith 2000). A horseshoe-shaped
habitation area surrounding a large public plaza is delimited
by a defensive ditch encompassing 2.05 ha (5.1 acres). Approxi-
mately 60 percent (1.25 ha) of the total site area was exposed in
order to map and excavate features. The remainder of the site
was only minimally investigated since flooding had erased or
damaged much of its evidence. The field strategy generally
involved stripping of plow zone followed by mapping and excava-
tion. Within the fully-documented area, the locations of at least
25 domestic structures, two public buildings, a central trophy
Interpretation and Recommendations
34
pole, 249 burials, and the surrounding ditch were located and
studied. Hally (2008) estimates an occupation span no longer
than 50 years.
Evidence of contact with one or more sixteenth-century
Spanish parties is clear but also limited at the King Site. Nine
iron objects were included among the accompaniments of six
burials. The items are three “celt/chisels”, one “wedge/celt”,
two possible knife blades, one rod, one complete sword, and
one unidentified object (Hally 2008:222-223; Smith 1975). No
glass beads or other artifacts were recovered at this site and no
European objects were found outside of burial context. To the
extent it could be determined, most if not all of the individu-
als buried with iron tools were adult males. Their graves were
widely placed on the site. One was associated with a public
building and possible chiefly residence, three were in or near
domestic structures, and one was in the general village area;
the associations of the looted burial with the sword remain
undetermined.
Hally (2008:460-462) and Hudson (1997:225) argue that
the direct encounter experienced by the King Site was probably
with an advance party of the Luna expedition (1560). Hally
(2008:542) also argues that some of the iron tools in posses-
sion of King Site men were acquired by them during a De
Soto encounter at a different, larger community before the
King Site was formally established. He judges the directness of
the encounters by the relatively large number of iron objects
at the site and the fact that most of them represent standard
gift items. Also, he infers most of the individuals buried with
such items were socially or politically prominent males. He rec-
ognizes, however, that two may have acquired a sword and a
knife as battle-related booty. Drawing on period accounts, he
suggests that the gifts of iron were purposely made to individu-
als in the communities that the Spanish strategically perceived
as being influential and helpful.
The King Site case exemplifies another outcome of direct
interactions. Prominent males residing at a subordinate town
potentially acquired gifts of Spanish iron via encounters with
two separate exploring parties. The first, occurring before the
King Site was settled, was linked with the De Soto expedition
and the second, occurring during the site’s occupation, was
with a desperate group of Luna’s would-be colonizers. Other
individuals appear to have obtained iron objects in conjunc-
tion with unspecified battlefield incidents. With this case we
gain some sense of the archaeological correlates of the many
documented occasions of brief, formal gift exchanges. Also, we
are reminded of the complexity that surrounds encounter sce-
narios. Based on this example the archaeological expression of
such incidents are modest-sized assemblages of low diversity
derived mainly from burial contexts.
The Record from Looted Sites, Georgia
The most common discoveries in the Southeast of sixteenth-
century objects originating with exploring Spanish groups have
been made by looters and, by far, most of the recovery has been
made from graves. I summarize this record in Georgia because
it is instructive of the quality of the larger record and the limi-
tations of it for interpretation.
At least nine sites in northwestern Georgia linked to the
paramount chiefdom of Coosa have yielded artifacts that
potentially originated with the De Soto entrada. However, only
five of those sites have been intensively investigated by archaeol-
ogists. At the others the Spanish material is known solely from
the work of looters, and even at three of the professionally-
studied sites a significant portion of the European material is
from looted graves. All told, of the estimated 1000 graves that
have been looted, about 16 are known to have yielded Spanish
artifacts (Little 2008, Smith 1987). These objects probably
number about 50 items and include glass beads, iron tools,
military gear, spikes, and personal items.
Much has been made of these discoveries in spite of their
compromised proveniences; they give the only tangible record
that is available in that area. Indeed, reconstructions of the De
Soto, Luna, and Pardo routes hinge on them (Hudson 2005a;
Hudson et al. 1984; Hudson et al. 1991), as do the many treat-
ments of the Native province of Coosa (Hally 2008; Smith
2000). Regrettably we will never learn much more about these
items and it is possible the damage has erased a great deal of
other evidence. If nothing else, we can surmise from these data
that the amount of early Spanish material that entered the
Native system of northwestern Georgia was limited, particu-
larly in light of the fact that three separate expeditions passed
through or near the area. We can also see that a great deal of
that material was ultimately consumed as funerary accompani-
ments. With rare exception, it is not feasible to parse the socio-
political dimensions of the contact events on looted sites, nor
are we in a position to know much about the nature of the
communities.
Interpretation and Recommendations
35
Interpretation and Recommendations
An Interpretive Model
Archaeologists, historians, and ethnohistorians
have long contemplated the meaning – and value
– of finds of early European objects in the Spanish
“borderlands” region (Swanton 1979, Waselkov
et al. 2009:239-242). Virtually all of them have
believed in the intrinsic value of the evidence of
Native-Spanish “interaction” but they also expe-
rienced the complex challenge of bridging the
gap between artifacts and the activity that led to
their presence. Still, from their labors over the
last century, there has emerged a set of widely
held working assumptions about the behavior
that produced the archaeological record. These
assumptions effectively form a basis for devel-
oping a working, interpretive model of evidence
derived from the Period of Exploration, gener-
ally dating before about 1565. Modeling the
behaviors underlying the material record, on the
record’s own terms, without overly privileging
the documentary record, will strengthen an area
of scholarly inquiry that has languished theoreti-
cally-speaking (Lightfoot 1995, Silliman 2005).
In the previous report of Glass Site findings
an explicit model was constructed based directly
on criteria set down by our predecessors (Blanton
et al. 2011). That model is presented again here
albeit in more succinct form and with minor
refinements. Its particular elements concern the
processes and behaviors that have created the
archaeological record, especially considering
the factors of dating, context, acquisition, and
agency (Tables 6 and 7). Below, each of these
elements is discussed separately but considerable overlap exists
between them, a fact reflecting the depth and complexity of
the problem. Later, following a summation of the Glass Site
findings, the evidence will be evaluated against the model.
Assemblage Attributes
Artifacts diagnostic of specific periods help narrow the field
of inquiry. The pioneering work of Charles Fairbanks (1968),
Jeffrey Brain (1975), Ian Brown (1977, 1979, 1980), Marvin
Smith (1987; Smith and Good 1982), and Kathleen Deagan
(1987, 2002), and continued by researchers like Jeffrey
Mitchem (1991; Mitchem and McEwan 1988), Keith Little
(2008), and Greg Waselkov (2009), allows us to better distin-
guish assemblages probably dating from the time of initial
Spanish exploration from those more likely connected to sub-
sequent periods. None denies that the definition of diagnostic
artifact “kits” or “complexes” is an imprecise business but there
is also increasing confidence in framing temporal relationships
due to recurrent artifact associations.
Table 6. Criteria for recognition of an entrada encampment.
Modeled Criteria for Multi-night Entrada Encampments
Anticipated Location
• Proximate to Indian trail
• Prominent Indian community
• Consistent with geographical cues drawn from De Soto chronicles
Anticipated European Material Culture Pattern
• Solid early 16th-century TPQ
• Relatively diverse assemblage
• Gift items: high status
• Gift items: lower status
• Discarded utilitarian items
• Lost utilitarian & military items
• Domesticated animal remains
Anticipated Pattern of Intra-site Distribution
• Distribution over a large area
• Multiple loci, within and beyond Native pattern
• Moderate density of European material
• Diverse non-burial contexts
• Special contexts, including in burials and specialized structures
Anticipated Architectural Signature
• Burned structures (conflict scenarios)
• Postholes for crosses, etc
36
Interpretation and Recommendations
Presently, feasible temporal resolution is multi-decadal
and for our purposes the distinction between assemblages
representative of the 1500-1565 interval and the follow-
ing 1565-1600 interval is most pertinent (Little 2008; Smith
1987). Traditionally it was the relative frequency of partic-
ular types and varieties of glass beads and bells that resolved
the dating question, but increasingly, particular types of
nails, military hardware, and tools are also viewed as sensi-
tive markers. Not surprisingly the distinctions are blurred
at sites or in areas that experienced multiple episodes of
“contact” over many decades. The main handicaps, however,
beyond time spans of manufacture and usage,
are highly variable recovery methods and the
vagaries of working with looted collections.
Other gains may be made by evaluating the
composition of an assemblage but in ways that
seek to overcome inconsistencies created by diver-
gent strategies of recovery and long occupational
histories. Assemblage diversity is one means of
gauging the nature of early encounters but use
of the usual quantitative indices is not feasible.
Instead, we must resort to less rigorous options
such as comparison on the basis of “richness”
(Leonard and Jones 1989). For example, the mere
number of artifact categories that comprise an
assemblage may inform on the nature of an
encounter. Theoretically, richness may be a factor
of encounter intensity or duration, encoun-
ter directness, and encounter kind. Hypotheti-
cally, a small assemblage comprised of only one
or two kinds of artifacts would more likely result
from a relatively brief and/or an indirect encoun-
ter, whereas a large and diverse assemblage might
more likely be construed as the outcome of a
relatively prolonged and/or direct interaction.
Also, the proportion of probable gift items
versus lost, discarded, and scavenged items serves
as a basis for similar judgments. With the excep-
tion of skirmishes, brief encounters would be
least likely to generate extraneous debris and,
instead, involve more or less exclusive exchange of
gift items. Encampment situations of a few days
or longer duration would, in contrast, be more
likely to entail both gift exchanges and general loss and discard
of other material.
Application of these kinds of assemblage composition
criteria, but in a more generalized fashion, has best been pre-
viously demonstrated for the Martin Site (Ewen 1996; Ewen
and Hann 1998:52-53, 105-108). Treatment of that assemblage
involved explicit definition of the criteria that would satisfy the
claim for a De Soto-related site. One was merely the existence
of early sixteenth century artifacts, another was the existence of
items specifically noted in De Soto documents, and the other
was sufficient diversity to indicate an array of encampment-
related activity.
Interpretation and Recommendations
Table 7. Model of European artifact acquisition.
Mechanisms for Native Acquisition of European Objects (after Hally & Smith 2010)
Direct gift-giving by explorers
• Formalized exchange, usually directly with Indian elite
• Iron tools most prominent
• Often deposited in elite graves
Direct gift-giving by other expedition members
• Less formal, lower status individuals on both sides
• Less exclusive trade goods (beads, knives, etc)
• Can appear in non-elite graves
Native pilfering/scavenging
• Objects not common on trade lists (lost Spanish objects, etc)
• Items of little/no utilitarian value (broken and discarded objects, etc)
• Occur in lower-status burials
War trophies
• Scavenged military items not ordinarily traded to Indians
• Swords, crossbow gear, etc
Native-to-native exchange
• Especially common by 17th century
37
Interpretation and Recommendations
Multivariate, quantitative evaluation of assemblage com-
position is also possible using methods like correspondence
analysis (CA) and cluster analysis. However, we must again
adjust to assemblage inconsistencies and approach the problem
on a simple presence-absence criterion (Manly 1994).
Context
This component of the model also has several dimensions.
The first concerns context relative to sites of Native activity.
The modus operandi of the De Soto entrada involved exploita-
tion of provisions and local knowledge at Indian communities.
Certain scenarios predict European material in Native commu-
nities and sometimes within particular contexts within those
communities. For example, Ewen and Hann (1998:53) specified
how winter encampments of the De Soto entrada would always
occur in association with large Indian towns. The same would
also apply to most multi-night encampments during periods of
march. Single-night encampments would not necessarily carry
the same expectation.
Another dimension of context concerns proximity to cor-
ridors of travel. Entrada-related sites, for example, would also
be predicted to occur proximate to established Indian trails. It
is understood that De Soto, Pardo, and others utilized existing
paths not only for the sake of efficiency but also because they
were often led by Indian guides who chose them.
Returning to the question of site-specific contexts, a
common contrast is drawn between burial and non-burial sit-
uations (Hally and Smith 2010). The relevance of the distinc-
tion pertains to both the effect of agency, discussed later, and
to encampment type. The fundamental question is this: What
are the different behaviors that account for occurrences of
sixteenth-century “trade goods” in burial or other kinds
of exclusive contexts versus occurrences in non-exclusive
contexts, such as in general community and midden deposits?
(To be clear, we are referring to such contexts within Native
communities and not European ones.) Occurrences of the
first sort are most common in the region. Indeed, it is nearly
axiomatic that burials are where such objects will be found.
Finds in non-exclusive contexts are rarer.
We interject here that burials are not the only kind
of “exclusive” context. At the Glass Site itself we can see that
many European objects were concentrated in and around a
non-domestic, public building. It is very likely this structure
functioned as a temple and items of value to the leadership
and the community were stored within it.
Sixteenth-century European artifacts could, in fact, occur
in either exclusive or non-exclusive contexts on the same site,
or in both. The latter is the situation we observe at the Glass
Site. In the sole reported case where numerous European objects
of diverse kinds were found in only non-exclusive non-burial
contexts, namely the Martin Site, it was interpreted to repre-
sent a prolonged encampment. In the many cases where such
objects were found solely in burials, interpretation of encounter
type has been equivocal; they might or might not be places of
direct encounter. In short, it is implied if not explicit in these
situations that the highly portable objects might well have
originated with an Indian-European encounter elsewhere, only
to have subsequently been drawn into control of the Native
elite at their place of residence. Unquestionably this is a fair
quandary and, for the present, one with no automatic solution.
Interpretation of such sites will be dependent upon consider-
ation of many threads of evidence.
Acquisition and the Problem of Portability
The processes by which objects of European origin were trans-
ferred to a Native context are especially central to these studies.
We purposely refrain from using a general “exchange” rubric
since the behaviors behind Native acquisition were not always
in the realm of gift-giving (see Hally and Smith 2010). The
complicating factor behind all of these assumptions is the por-tability problem. Indeed, post-encounter movement of newly
acquired European goods tends to be a de facto corollary
of “contact.” In turn, the locations where early European
material is discovered are seldom accepted as the actual point
of encounter. It becomes, then, the onus of the archaeologist
to sort out the dynamics of circulation, or the path that these
items followed.
For immediate purposes these questions are most relevant
to the immediacy of an encounter since one of the knottiest
problems is discerning direct from indirect interaction. Then,
should the evidence indicate direct encounter, the problem
becomes one of determining the nature of the encounter.
Table 7 summarizes the criteria that have been applied to
judge whether a set of European artifacts is derived from direct
or indirect interaction, taking into account that either of the
two encounter types could have assumed myriad forms.
Interpretation and Recommendations
38
David Hally and Marvin Smith (2010) have most recently
put forth refinements of a model for circulation of early
European artifacts within the Native world. Their princi-
pal message is that multiple mechanisms existed by which
European goods could be acquired and consumed by indige-
nous people. We have summarized those mechanisms in Table
7: direct gift-giving by upper echelon members of explor-
ing parties, direct gift-giving by lower ranking members of
exploring parties, Native scavenging or pilfering under varied
circumstances, and battlefield salvage. These kinds of activity
account well for the diverse range of archaeologically-observed
objects, but mainly for material that was ultimately interred
in Native burials. In other words, regardless of the specific
mechanism of acquisition, their model – consistent with the
usual view, describes a process that begins with purposeful
acquisition of European goods by Native people, next involves
incorporation of the objects into the Native system as privi-
leged goods, and ends with their near-uniform consumption
as funerary objects. In their words, “We are of the opinion that
most, if not all, Spanish artifacts recovered from burials in the
interior Southeast were interred with their original owners…
Because of their association with the powerful Spanish intrud-
ers, even items stolen from the Spanish or recovered from the
battlefield may have conferred some prestige on their owners,
thus motivating those individuals to keep them and display
them one last time at their funerals” (Hally and Smith
2010:62-63). Thus, the model is not well-suited to explain
the occurrence of European objects in non burial contexts,
particularly when they are not of the classic gift-good type.
Even under the encounter situation at an encampment
Native-Spanish interactions would have been varied, not to
mention the fact that the complex routine of an encamped
exploring party would generate all manner of debris beyond
that purposely exchanged with Indians. For example, entrada
members would have simply discarded and lost some objects
in the course of making and breaking camp, and as gear was
assessed and maintained. In addition, gifts would very likely
have flowed between members of both groups and across
more than one level of status.
Agency
This aspect of the model is the one that most infuses the
others. In a sense it is included as a prominent caveat. Simply
put, the unique motives and perspectives of individual and
group-level actors affect the nature and outcomes of an inter-
cultural encounter. It is the potentially unique qualities of
those motives and perspectives that can complicate the picture
and account for at least some if not much of the observed
variability (Lightfoot 1995).
The circumstances of inter-cultural encounters, and par-
ticularly those that represent first or very early ones between
specific groups, such as we see in the sixteenth-century South-
east, can arguably be the most opaque. They constitute unpre-
cedented interactions on both sides of the equation, for which
ready cultural modes or “norms” may not have existed. In cases
like these, where ordinary cultural codes fail, one should not
necessarily expect to discern “patterned” behavior in the usual
sense. Or, old patterns may have been adjusted to meet a new
condition. Regardless, individuals and groups may have been
grasping at disparate, essentially experimental solutions that,
ultimately, further complicate the intricacies of agent-based
actions, not to mention the archaeological record.
Some of the time we can anticipate adaptations of long-
standing behaviors to the “contact” situation. A common
assumption, for example, is that virtually any European object
acquired by Natives in the sixteenth-century Southeast would
have been requisitioned and closely controlled by the Native
leadership. The objects would have relatively quickly been
taken out of general circulation, hoarded and displayed for
status-linked purposes, and then, in the same sense, ultimately
deposited as grave furniture (Hally and Smith 2010; Hudson et
al. 1984:65; Smith 1987). At work, then, was a kind of status-
linked gravitational pull. Certainly this would be a direct
outcome of gift exchange since the vast majority of goods
entering the system that way were given directly to high-
ranking individuals. However, even those items acquired
by scavenging, say in the wake of conflict or at abandoned
encampments, would also presumably enter the elite exchange
system quickly and be consumed as high-status burial goods.
This argument also implies that, more often than not, prized
European objects would not circulate beyond the limits of the
socio-political unit in which they were deposited. In the late
prehistoric Southeast this would be the extent of chiefly “prov-
inces” estimated at a maximum of 40 km (Hally 1994:167).
De Soto was perhaps less predictable. It would appear that
he often engaged native people according to the contingen-
cies of an encounter as opposed to a fixed strategy. At any given
Interpretation and Recommendations
39
time his operational calculus accounted for factors as varied as
the level of threat, the condition and mood of his army, the
prospect for reward, his store of provisions, and the weather.
One might infer that, under pressure to succeed, he operated
in a more changeable fashion aimed at getting the results he
wanted. It is for this reason we would do well to anticipate
variation in the archaeological patterns created by his entrada
unlike, for example, the kind of pattern we might predict in
association with the march and encampment of a Civil War
regiment. However, we must also appreciate that De Soto and
his followers were not immune to the influence of culture and
experience and that they, too, would have followed a pattern
to some degree.
A Summary of the Glass Site Evidence
This section serves as a summary of the archaeological
evidence we have documented at the Glass Site. Rather than
an interpretation of specific events that created the record,
reached by evaluation against the model presented earlier, it
is a review of basic observations and inferences. One part is
devoted to a discussion of the European artifact assemblage
and the closing part undertakes a comparative evaluation
of the evidence on a regional scale. The fact pattern laid
down here will be the basis for later interpretation relative
to the model.
A compact, planned community was established at
the Glass Site during the latter part of the Lamar phase (ca.
AD 1450-1550). It consisted of a ring of structures sur-
rounding an open plaza (Figure 47). The maximum area
of the community is estimated at 1.13 hectares (2.8 acres)
with about 34 percent of it dedicated to a central plaza.
The large, temple structure on which our early work
focused was among the buildings surrounding the plaza
(Blanton et al. 2011). It was located in the southwest section
of the ring of structures and the inferred entrance to it was
oriented toward the plaza’s center. Thus far the temple is the
only structure we have investigated thoroughly. It measured
11 meters across and in the center of the floor was a very
large hearth. Four large holes for support posts surrounded
the hearth and many smaller ones defined walls. A variety of
Figure 47. Interpretive perspective of Glass Site community plan.
40
Interpretation and Recommendations
status- and ritual-linked objects, including sixteenth century
European artifacts, were found in and around the building.
The prominence of the structure was further enhanced by
a unique, encircling ditch within which a discrete feasting
midden had accumulated.
We assume at least five or six additional buildings were
present within the village ring based simply on the number of
artifact hotspots around the plaza. However, more meaningful
estimates of structure numbers and population may be gained
by following the example of Hally (2008:537). He estimated
the total number of domestic structures by dividing total site
areas by 470 sq m. Community population estimates were
made by using the formulas of Narroll (1962) and Cook (1972)
(Table 8). According to those calculations the total number of
domestic structures at the Glass Site would be approximately
24 and the resident population would range from 113 - 257. By
regional standards, then, the size of the Glass Site is small.
Distribution plots consistently reveal a low-density
portion of the ring just north of the council house-temple
structure (see Figures 6-9). It was in this area that we found
the only deeply buried European artifact, a large chisel, in
what is potentially a feature deposit. Those observations, plus
proximity to the large public structure, raise the question of
whether this area was reserved in part for use as a cemetery.
At other protohistoric sites in the region elite burial areas
are present adjacent to, if not within, such buildings (Hally
1994:164-165, 2008:302-308).
The plaza is evinced primarily by an area of distinctively
lower artifact density. On average, shovel tests located within
the plaza area contained 2.1 ceramic sherds compared to
those within the ring which contained 7.7 sherds. Incident-
ally, tests outside the ring yielded an average of 1.51 sherds.
We attribute the relative cleanness of the plaza to the fact
that, by design, it would have been devoid of structures and
off limits to routine activities. A hint of the plaza’s presence
was actually documented with unit excavation in 2006 and
2007 (Blanton 2007, 2009). We observed at that time clear
differences in artifact density and in soil stratigraphy between
what we now know to be structurally-, or ring-related, deposits
versus those of the plaza.
Comparison of plazas is also instructive as they are a near-
universal feature at Lamar communities of any size. Regionally
they range from 0.60 ha (Little Egypt) to 0.18 ha (Irene) but
average around 0.36 ha in size (Hally 1994:157-158). This places
the estimated Glass Site plaza near the average (see Table 8).
Mississippian sites with a well-defined, circular plan are
often found to have been delimited by a perimeter consist-
ing of a ditch and palisade, or sometimes only of a palisade.
We believe this is also the case at the Glass Site. In addition to
the remarkably clear ring-like form revealed by shovel testing,
Interpretation and Recommendations
Site State Date Range Palisade Ditch Source
Glass GA 1450-1550 1.13 0.38 Poss Poss 24 113
King GA 1520-1560 2.05 0.56 Yes Yes 4.0-5.0 x 1.5-2.5 44 205
GA 1350-1550 1.80 Yes 3.7 x 0.9 38 180
GA 1350-1450 0.72 Yes Yes 3.1 x 0.9 15 72
GA 1350-1450 0.56 Yes Yes 2.7 x 0.9 12 56
Lawton GA 1150-1350 1.40 Yes 30 140 Anderson 1994
Irene GA 1400-1550 2.50 0.18 Yes No 53 250
GA 1350-1500 2.50 0.26 No 53 250
Little Egypt GA 1450-1550 5.00 0.60 No 106 500
Berry NC 1400-1600 1.80 38 180 Website papers
Warren Wilson NC Mississippian 1.30 Yes No 28 130
Total Area (ha)
Plaza Area (ha)
Ditch Width & Depth (m)
Est. No. Structures (after Hally 2008)
Est. Popul. (after Hally 2008[Narroll])
Hally 2008
Shoulderbone unk Hally 1994, 2008; Williams
Ruckers Bottom Hally 2008; Anderson 1994
Ruckers Bottom Hally 2008; Anderson 1994
unk
Hally 2008
Dyar unk Hally 2008
unk Hally 2008
unk unk
Table 8. Comparison of late prehistoric site attributes and population estimates.
41
Interpretation and Recommendations
evidence for an encircling ditch was recorded in Unit 75 and
its backhoe trench extension, precisely at the outer limit of the
circular artifact pattern. The estimated size of the Glass Site
ditch is 5.0 m in width by 1.3 m in depth. At other Lamar sites
ditches range from 3-5 m across at the top to 1-2.5 m in depth
(see Table 8; Hally 2008:180).
The complex, stratified deposits within the large feature
compare well with the fill described in other encircling ditches.
One similar case is known from the King Site in northwest-
ern Georgia that also yielded evidence of sixteenth-century
European contact (Hally 2008:174-181). There the ditch fill
is described as a series of erosional, occupation-related, and
flood-deposited strata.
Altogether the Glass Site’s characteristics suggest that it
was a place of consequence. At very least the site appears to
have been a strongly fortified, principal town at which prom-
inent public structures were sited and, by extension, it was
very probably the principal community within the local socio-
political “province”, at least for a time. Small Lamar farmsteads
are common in the surrounding countryside and presumably
it was in those places that the majority of the local population
resided (Blanton 2009; Blanton and Snow 2010; Snow 1990).
We also recognize the intriguing possibility that the
site served only the exclusive needs of the provincial elite
and their families, plus a small cohort of ranking function-
aries like priests. It is not unreasonable to ask whether it rep-
resents a “chiefly compound” of the sort hypothesized by
Mark Williams (1995). Indeed, along with archaeological
evidence, Williams bolstered his argument with commen-
tary in the De Soto chronicles about small, elite compounds
in today’s Georgia and South Carolina, such as Talomeco near
Cofitachequi. Borrowing one excerpt describing Talomeco
(SC), it was portrayed as, “…the seat and court of a powerful
prince” (Ibid:130). Ultimately, only additional work on the
site will answer this question.
Evaluation of the Early Sixteenth-Century
European Assemblage
The assemblage of early sixteenth-century artifacts from the
Glass Site is unusually large, a fact best attributed to two factors.
One is what we will refer to as encounter intensity. This is to
say, simply, that the interaction between this indigenous com-
munity and an exploring Spanish party, on and/or near the site,
appears to have been relatively intense. The other is the factor
of archaeological methodology, or strategy. Our archaeological
approach to the site, from the start, was designed to increase
the odds of recovering “trade” material, including small glass
beads, and it has been effective. These facts both enhance and
complicate comparisons with similar sites of the same period,
as we will be discussing below.
Specifically, we identify 40 artifacts that are near certain
to be associated with a pre-1550 Spanish presence site (see
Table 1). Five additional metal artifacts are identified as
probable members of the same group and another 11 are poss- ibly associated with the assemblage. Still, these estimations
exclude lead shot and fasteners like nails and spikes that
might also be related.
Very few sites in the region have yielded comparable quanti-
ties of early European material. The 40 artifacts from the Glass
Site that we view as unequivocal early sixteenth-century items
are, alone, well above the regional average (Table 9). Combined
with the additional number that are probably or possibly of the
same vintage, the Glass Site sample becomes exceedingly large,
particularly when comparisons are made only on the basis of
the metal artifact sub-assemblage.
But, as noted, simple, inter-assemblage comparisons are
not entirely valid owing to differences in the extent, intensity,
and quality of other investigations. To compensate we shall
first make comparison with sites that have been the subject of
intensive, well-controlled excavation. The Martin Site provides
a profile of an encampment-related pattern. It is especially per-
tinent since it also has no artifacts from burial-related contexts.
At Martin, within approximately 0.61 ha of excavated area,
the site produced at least 40 objects of near certain early
sixteenth-century vintage (plus over 2000 individual links
of chain mail) which translates into a density for such artifacts
of one per 152 square meters (or one per 3 square meters if
links of chain mail are counted individually). By comparison,
the Glass Site has yielded 45 European artifacts of likely early
sixteenth-century vintage from both a block excavation area
and from intensive metal detector survey. Looking only at the
block excavation area the density of early Spanish material is
one artifact per 10.5 square meters (i.e., 22 artifacts within an
excavated area of 232 square meters).
Now we may turn to the more common situation
of recovery solely in burial contexts and the extensively
excavated sites of Tatham Mound and King provide solid
Interpretation and Recommendations
42
Interpretation and Recommendations
Site State Locale Complex Tools Bells
Clarksdale MS I 0 0 0 1 0 1 1MS I 0 0 0 1 0 1 1TN TN I 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cox TN TN I 0 1 0 0 0 0 1TN TN I 0 0 0 1 0 1 1AL Ala I 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Parkin AR I 1 0 0 2 0 1 2Clay Hill AR I 0 0 1 1 0 1 2Thompson GA R&V I 0 1 0 1 0 0 2Oliver MS I 1 0 0 1 0 1 2Dunn's Creek Md. FL Fla I 0 2 0 1 0 1 3Campbell MO I 1 1 0 1 0 1 3
FL Fla I 3 0 0 1 1 0 4Little Egypt GA R&V I 1 0 2 1 0 1 4
GA R&V I 0 3 1 0 0 0 4King GA R&V I 0 2 1 1 0 0 4Brown Farm GA R&V I 0 1 0 2 0 0 4Nelson NC NC I 0 2 1 2 1 0 440HA301 TN TN I 0 2 1 1 1 0 4
TN TN I 1 1 0 1 1 0 4Taylor Md. GA Coast I 1 2 0 2 0 0 5
GA R&V I 0 1 2 3 0 0 5Johnstone Farm GA R&V I 0 1 1 2 1 0 5Ruth Smith Md. FL Fla I 2 1 1 4 3 0 7St. Marks Cemetery FL Fla I 5 0 0 2 1 1 7
GA R&V I 3 2 2 0 0 0 7Martin FL Fla I 3 0 3 2 0 0 9
FL Fla I 5 2 1 5 4 0 12Glass GA GA CP I 4 6 3 8 3 1 221EE89 AL Ala II 1 0 0 2 1 0 2Safety Harbor FL Fla II 0 0 0 2 2 0 2
TN TN II 1 1 0 1 1 0 3AL Ala II 2 0 0 3 2 1 5
Hightower Village AL Ala II 2 3 0 2 1 0 7Live Oak FL Fla II 6 0 0 1 1 0 7Terrapin Cr. AL Ala II 6 0 0 2 2 0 8Hudson Bridge AL Ala II 5 1 0 3 2 0 9Kirkland Md. FL Fla II 6 0 0 3 3 0 9Seven Springs AL Ala II 6 2 0 4 3 1 13
FL Fla II 7 3 0 4 2 0 13
Glass Beads
Military Gear
Other Metal
Ornamental Metal
Site Total
Miss VallSatartia Miss VallChilhowee
ToquaOgletree Isl.
Miss VallMiss Vall
Miss Vall
Miss VallWeeki Wachee Md.
Leake
Audobon Acres
Etowah
Poarch Farm
Tatham Md.
CiticoTukabatchee
Gotha Md.
AL Ala II 2 4 3 4 0 0 14Bradford Ferry AL Ala II 5 1 0 8 5 2 14
TN TN I-II 3 0 0 2 0 1 4Charlotte Thompson AL Ala I-II 4 0 0 1 0 1 5Hampton Place TN TN I-II 2 2 1 1 1 0 6Berry NC NC I-II 1 2 2 1 1 0 7
TN TN I-II 1 1 1 5 3 1 7Seven Oaks Md. FL Fla I-II 7 0 0 1 1 0 8
NC NC I-II 7 2 0 2 0 2 11Polecat Ford AL Ala I-II 3 1 1 8 6 0 14Phillip Md. FL Fla I-II 9 4 0 4 3 0 16
Pinelog Cr.
Settico
Brakebill
Peachtree Md.
Table 9. Number of artifact categories/types within major artifact groups in Southeastern assemblages.
43
comparisons. Tatham generated a total of 457 early sixteenth-
century European artifacts and they were most obviously asso-
ciated with 19 discrete interments. In total the final stage of
the mound contained the remains of at least 350 individu-
als. At the King Site six of 249 burials produced a total of nine
European artifacts. These comparisons embody a pattern that
we believe is emerging across the region: early assemblages
are very large and relatively diverse in Florida but become
smaller and less diverse elsewhere, and in different ways in
different locales.
We may also make a crude comparison based on the
simple artifact totals documented from all sites in the South-
east yielding European material of potential early sixteenth-
century vintage, regardless of recovery method, extent of in-
vestigation, etc. (Table 9). On this basis the Glass Site ranks
highly and extremely so when the comparison is narrowed to
sites that lie in the interior of the region or, for the most part,
outside of today’s Florida. Relative to Florida sites, the Glass
Site’s total sample of 45 probable pre-1550 artifacts falls
below that of sites like Tatham and Weeki Wachee where the
full count exceeds 100 artifacts, the majority of which are
glass and metal beads. But outside of Florida the Glass Site
total is more than double that of the next largest assem-
blage, that from the looted Poarch Farm Site (n=approx. 20).
The Glass assemblage size becomes all the more exceptional
when we note that the average assemblage from interior sites
consists of less than 10 artifacts.
The “diversity” of the Glass Site assemblage also exceeds
the regional average but, again, simple comparisons are com-
plicated by sampling factors. We must, therefore, resort to
basing the comparison on the measure of richness, or the
number of unique artifact categories that comprise an assem-
blage. Looking at only the sites judged to represent pre-1550
encounters, we discover that the Glass Site assemblage has
nearly double the artifact categories (n=22) present in the
next largest assemblage, that from the Tatham Mound (n=12).
From another perspective, it has about four times the average
of all regional assemblages (x=4.6). The same distinction
persists if we compare assemblages on the more conservative
basis of what seem to be typical categories of metal tools and
military gear. In these terms the Glass Site assemblage consists
of almost three times the number of categories (n=11) repre-
sented among sites with the next largest category count (n=4),
which are the Martin, Poarch, Johnstone, Brown, King, and
Leake sites. The ranking of the Glass Site falls slightly when the
basis of comparison is number of glass bead categories. At
Glass we have four categories of glass beads represented which
places it second to the Florida sites of Tatham and St. Marks
(n=5), but above all others including Weeki Wachee, Martin,
Ruth Smith, and Poarch (n=2-3).
As noted we may also employ correspondence analysis
(CA) to evaluate the potential relationship between assem-
blage attributes and other variables (Manly 1994) but these
data only allow evaluation by the presence-absence criterion.
In other words, each documented occurrence of a specific
artifact category, regardless of the number of individual speci-
mens representing that category in a given assemblage, is rep-
resented in the spreadsheet by the value 1; the absence of a
particular category on a site is indicated by the value 0. Once
again we will work only with those assemblages judged to
date solely from the first half of the sixteenth century.
CA analysis was actually applied to the same three versions
of the “Complex I” (sensu Little 2008) data set, one consist-
ing of all artifact categories, another of only metal tools and
military gear, and the third of only glass beads. By and large,
the results sort the sites into consistent clusters that tend to
correspond to subareas of the Southeast. For example, working
with the full data set, one cluster is defined largely by the
prominence of metal tools and specific military objects (i.e.,
swords/sword parts and lead shot) and the sites associated
with it (n=10 sites) tend to be located in the mountainous area
of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama (Figure
48). The Glass Site stands apart somewhat but it is most
closely oriented to this group. A second sizable cluster is
defined strongly by the presence of glass and metal beads
and certain military items (i.e., chain mail, crossbow quarrels,
iron shot, and plate armor); sites associated with it (n=8 sites)
tend to be located in Florida. Several outlying groupings are
observed in the results that distinguish the small, bell-
oriented sites of the Mississippi Valley (n=6 sites) and another
small group that may be defined by later-dating objects (n=2).
CA analysis performed on the more conservative data set
of select metal artifacts types revealed similar but not identi-
cal associations among sites, artifact categories, and subareas
(Figure 49). The first of the two most prominent clusters is
influenced strongly by presence of military objects (i.e., chain
mail, crossbow quarrels, armor, and iron shot). Three of the
sites within it are located in Florida and the remaining three
44
Interpretation and Recommendations
Figure 49. Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Selected metal artifact data set.
are in northwestern Georgia (i.e., the area of the Coosa
province). The second prominent cluster is defined mainly by
the presence of iron tools and fasteners like spikes and pins.
Ten of the twelve sites in this group are located in the moun-
tainous subarea and the other two are Glass and the Taylor
Mound, a somewhat anomalous site on the Georgia coast.
Lastly, CA analysis of the glass bead subset of artifact
categories sorted sites differently but in comprehensible
ways (Figure 50). The Martin and Poarch sites were paired
mainly on the basis of blown glass beads. The largest group
(n=7 sites) is defined by the strong dominance of Nueva
Cadiz and small, faceted chevron beads. The Glass, Tatham,
Weeki Wachee, and St. Marks sites were portrayed as individ-
ually distinctive to a degree but they also have some relation-
ship based on the diversity of bead categories present and,
in some cases, the shared occurrence of the unique olive-
shaped, blue and white striped beads. As much as any specific
artifact category that of glass beads exposes the assemblage
variability present in the region.
Finally, we have compared assemblages via cluster
analysis, a multivariate approach that identifies groups
within a data set (Manly 1994:128). The cluster results tend
Interpretation and Recommendations
Figure 50. Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Early glass bead types.
45
Figure 48. Correspondence analysis (CA) plot: Full 16th-century artifact data set.
Interpretation and Recommendations
to support the separation described in the CA results. By this
method we again see isolation of groups of sites that tend to
occur in specific geographical subareas. The cluster analysis
was performed on presence-absence data sets specifying Ward’s
linkage method and a Euclidean distance measure.
Working first with the full data set of artifact categories
four fairly robust clusters are defined (Figure 51). The first
consists of seven sites of which six are located in or near the
Mississippi River valley. Clarksdale
bells are a key linking artifact category
in these small assemblages. The second
cluster consists of 15 sites and all but
two of them are located in the deep
interior, and primarily in the mountain-
ous subarea. Iron tools are a prominent
defining criterion. The third cluster
represents six sites and only one of
them (Poarch) is not located in Florida.
Certain items of military gear and glass
bead types influence their association.
The fourth “cluster” distinguishes only
the Glass Site. It is treated as an outlier
due to its unique level of assemblage
diversity.
Cluster analysis based on the
select metal data set also isolates four
clusters. Here, however, the clusters are
not strongly oriented geographically-
speaking (Figure 52). Cluster 1 is made
of 10 sites, three in Florida, two in the
Mississippi Valley, and the remainder
in the mountainous subarea. The metal
categories that influence this cluster are
mainly metal tool categories and chain
mail. The second cluster has six sites,
four in the uplands, one in Florida, and
one on the Georgia coast. They are joined
mainly on the basis of military items
and spikes and celts. A third cluster is of
four sites in the mountainous subarea.
The common elements in their assem-
blages are sword fragments and celts.
Finally, the Glass Site is, once again,
isolated owing to its unique diversity.
Cluster analysis of the glass bead data also identifies four
clusters (Figure 53). The first isolates three sites that have only
yielded Nueva Cadiz beads. The second cluster, also of three
sites, is based mainly on the presence of faceted chevron beads.
The largest cluster is the third, consisting of six sites with a
wide range of early bead types. The final group of two sites,
Martin and Poarch, is defined by the shared occurrence of
blown glass beads.
Figure 51. Cluster analysis dendrogram: Full 16th-century artifact data set.
46
Figure 52. Cluster analysis dendrogram: Selected metal artifact data set.
Interpretation and Recommendations
The Effect of Recovery Strategy
More than once we have commented on how divergent
approaches thwart meaningful comparisons of site-wide
European artifact distribution. Few other sites have been
systematically sampled across their full extent like the Glass
Site has, specifically with the goal of documenting European
objects and especially in a way that includes plowzone or other
deposits above the level of intact features. For example, it
has been more common for bona fide archaeological projects
to investigate only prominent features such as mounds,
only portions of large communities, or only large subsurface
features exposed after removal of plowzone. Then there are
the complications associated with making sense of invento-
ries of looted material or assemblages amassed by the early
excavations of many decades ago. While we recognize that
our approach renders the results from other sites less compa-
rable we also believe it embodies an approach that improves
prospects for deciphering the archaeological record at sites of
initial contact.
The strategy’s effectiveness may be distilled to a word:
intensity. From the start we designed plans explicitly aimed at
thorough recovery of elusive evidence. The effort has been great
but we believe the payoff makes it justifiable. Here are the gen-
erally unique aspects of the strategy that we employed in our
documentation of Indian-European contact at the Glass Site:
1. Commitment to a multi-year, interdisciplinary program
of research.
2. Adoption of a site-wide perspective.
3. Uniform sampling of all depositional units, including
“plow zone.”
4. Processing of all excavated matrix, except in shovel tests,
by water-screening through 1/8-inch hardware cloth.
5. Intensive, systematic shovel testing of the entire
habitation area.
6. Intensive, systematic metal detector survey of
the habitation area and large portions of the
surrounding area.
7. Employment of geophysical prospecting in selected areas.
Interpretation of an Encounter
Now we offer an interpretation of specific events and behav-
iors responsible for the Glass Site evidence. The interpreta-
tion is made by reference to the model presented first in our
2011 report but the main elements are drawn from the work of
scholars who have struggled with similar problems.
There is a ready argument to be made that the Glass Site
represents the location of a direct encounter with the explor-
ing party of Hernando de Soto. We have developed this inter-
pretation before and another season’s evidence seems only to
strengthen it. Alternative explanations have been considered,
to be sure, but we base this working position around a best-fit
scenario. For present purposes we ask, why couldn’t the site
be the location of direct encounter with the De Soto entrada?
Let us apply the criteria of our colleagues to
that question.
General Criterion 1
Do the site’s location and setting meet reasonable expectations for a place that could have been visited by an early exploring party?
General Location
The Glass Site is located along a documented
trail, near intersections of major trail sys-
tems, and close to an important river crossing.
Extrapolating from nineteenth-century carto-
graphic records we have established that the
site lies along an important north-south con-
necting trail that links a major path running
Interpretation and Recommendations
47
Figure 53. Cluster analysis dendrogram: Early glass bead types.
Interpretation and Recommendations
parallel with the Ocmulgee River on its south side to
another that parallels its north side. The connector
utilizes a river ford formerly known as Blackshear’s
Landing (Cadle 1991; Frankie Snow personal communi-
cation, 2012).
Appropriate Native Context
The Glass Site is a late Lamar community occupied
between about AD 1450-1550 as determined from both
radiocarbon results and material culture attributes
(Blanton et al. 2011). In addition to the fact its occupa-
tion extended early into the sixteenth century, the site
represents exactly the kind of prominent, thriving settle-
ment targeted by explorers like De Soto.
Site Setting
In another report (Blanton et al. 2011) we argued that
the Glass Site represents the home village of the chief
of the Ichisi province, a place visited and described by
De Soto’s chroniclers (Worth 1993a:76, 1993b:228-229,
1993c:280-272). A working route reconstruction demon-
strates that geographical and other clues point to an
Ichisi affiliation. That argument was also based in part on
the extent to which the contemporary site setting corre-
sponds to the description in primary documents. Specifi-
cally, those accounts describe how the principal town of
the provincial chief lay on the opposite bank (i.e., north
or east) of a “Great River” (Worth 1993c:271-272).
General Criterion 2
Has the site produced a persuasive assemblage of European material culture?
Date Range
The Glass Site has produced numerous artifacts that are
commonly described as reliable markers of pre-1550, or
Complex I (or A), assemblages (Little 2008:34-51; Smith
1987:44-52). They include two varieties of Nueva Cadiz
beads; small, seven-layer, faceted chevron beads; and
several types of metal artifacts. The site has produced
no artifacts that date exclusively to the latter half of the
sixteenth-century or to the seventeenth-century, obvious
nineteenth-century or later-dating items notwithstand-
ing. In the aggregate the assemblage meets most of the
formal or stylistic criteria set down for an early sixteenth-
century European encounter.
Assemblage Composition
The Glass Site assemblage is uniquely large and diverse.
Those facts meet expectations of the residue associated
with a large exploring party consisting of hundreds of
individuals representing military men, artisans, priests
and others, plus their hundreds of animals and neces-
sary baggage. Aside from gift items like beads, a bell, and
finger rings, a variety of tools are represented, as are
apparent military and religious items. Also, a tooth from
the upper stratum in Test Unit 72 provides potential but
unconfirmed evidence for a domesticated pig.
The collection additionally consists of numerous
categories of European artifacts that could represent
both gift items and things that were probably lost or dis-
carded. Potential gift items include objects well-suited
for high-status exchange (i.e., beads, a bell, large iron
tools, and silver) and for lower-level gifting (i.e., smaller
iron tools, brass scraps, etc). Objects more likely to have
been lost or discarded, but potentially scavenged subse-
quently, are pieces of lead shot, chain links, and scraps
of metal.
The relatively light representation of military gear
in the assemblage bears explanation and we attribute it
to the friendly nature of the encounter at Ichisi. Period
accounts describe not only an uncharacteristically warm
reception from Ichisi’s residents but also the gratitude
felt for it among the Spanish. They had endured a long
winter of skirmishes at Anhaica and a series of tense if
not violent encounters since departing a month earlier.
Quoting Elvas, “[De Soto] thanked him heartily for his
offer and for his good will, as if he had welcomed him
and offered him a great treasure” (Worth 1993a:76-77).
And from Rangel, “as [the Lord of Ichisi] was the first
who came in peace, they did not wish to be tiresome”
(Worth 1993c:272). And, as the ultimate show of appreci-
ation, we are told that a Christian cross was erected at the
site (Worth 1993a:77, 1993c:272). Based on these circum-
stances it stands to reason that gift-giving at Ichisi might
have been relatively lavish and that the lack of violence
meant meager deposition of military materiel.
Interpretation and Recommendations
48
General Criterion 3
Do patterns of intra-site artifact distribution meet expectations for a prolonged encounter?
Overall Spatial Extent
The distribution of early European material on the
Glass Site is extensive but, interestingly, it falls short
of our estimate for the footprint of an encampment of
De Soto’s full contingent (Blanton et al. 2011). Rather
than a debris field covering 2.4 hectares (6 acres) or more
(our estimate), the material is confined to the limits
of the Lamar community encompassing about 1.1 hect-
ares. There is more than one possible explanation for
this pattern.
One explanation is that an extensive encampment
made on and adjacent to the Indian community was
thoroughly scavenged of debris which was returned to
the main residential area where we recovered it. It is com-
monly assumed that explorers were careful to protect
their limited supply of equipment and material which
would imply that post-encampment leftovers would have
been sparse. We are also made to believe that the indig-
enous people were eager enough to obtain European
goods to resort to theft and intensive scavenging (Hally
and Smith 2010; Waselkov 2009:102). The effect of these
actions would not be conducive to creation of a robust
archaeological signature at brief encampments.
Alternatively, it is possible that the large and diverse
collection of early European material was acquired else-
where and transported to the Glass Site. Precisely where
that place might be is uncertain, as is the reason it occurs
in non-burial context. Indeed, we find it more difficult to
explain the findings by this line of reasoning.
Specific Contexts
The Glass Site is unusual because none of the early Euro-
pean material has been recovered in a grave. Through-
out the region burial-related features are the typical
context of recovery, whether in individual graves or in
corporate burial features like mounds. The lone analog
in the region for the Glass Site’s contexts is the Martin
Site which is regarded as the best example of a De Soto-
related encampment.
We recognize, however, that “special” contexts with
direct linkages to upper status individuals or exclusive
activities are not limited to graves. We have suggested one
such context is the council house-temple structure. Spe-
cial buildings were often described as housing the most
valued property of the elite, the community, and the prov-
ince (Waselkov and Braund 1995:173; Worth 1993:279-
280). If one also accepts the argument the site was a
chiefly compound, it allows us to ask whether the entire
community was not an exclusive context, a place where
highly-valued objects may have been housed in multiple
places. If this was the case then one would expect the pat-
tern we have documented.
Another scenario might also explain, at least in part,
the peculiar contexts at the Glass Site: Indian-on-Indian
attack. Could the site have been struck by a rival group
subsequent to the European encounter and in the pro-
cess might valued objects have been scattered and vio-
lated? There is ample evidence of burned buildings. The
non-burial context of the European goods also suggests
that little time had elapsed since the encounter occurred,
meaning insufficient time for deaths of elite individuals
with whom the items might have been buried. Also, sev-
eral metal objects appear to have been damaged and one
is in the midden-filled ditch.
General Criterion 4
Does the site have evidence of Spanish-built shelters or other architectural features?
No evidence of early European architecture has been doc-
umented at the Glass Site. Because we believe the Spanish
presence on or near the site occurred within the span of a
few days, it has not been our expectation to find evidence
of substantial European-built shelters. Ephemeral shel-
ters were probably erected but archaeological indications
of them are expected to be minimal. Other kinds of fea-
tures might be present, such as the posthole for a Chris-
tian cross or European burials.
Summary Interpretation of the Encounter Evidence
In view of available evidence we propose that the Glass Site
exemplifies a particular encounter scenario, that of a peaceful,
Interpretation and Recommendations
49
short-term encampment at a Native community. Encounters of
this nature represent one of several different kinds and with
this example we seek to draw attention to the variability that
exists in the archaeological record of early Spanish exploration
and to define the hallmarks of one of the particular site types.
Myriad strands of evidence lead us to conclude that the
Glass Site was the home community of the “one-eyed Lord
of Ichisi” that hosted a relatively friendly visit by the De Soto
entrada between March 30-April 2, 1540 (Hudson 1994:175-180,
1998:157-162; Hudson et al. 1984; Worth 1993a:76, 1993b:229,
1993c:270-272). We propose that the full Spanish contingent
took up residence in and around the chiefly compound. Fol-
lowing decampment, the area was thoroughly inspected by the
Indians and items of European origin left behind were hoarded
within the community. Eventually, but relatively soon after the
encounter, the village was attacked by a rival Indian group. In
the process, sacred and valued items were defiled, leaving many
broken and scattered.
Implications of the Glass Site Findings
In this section we explore the broader implications of the Glass
Site findings. We contemplate the relevance of this case of an
early encounter within and beyond the Southeast, both from
the standpoint of practical archaeological matters and from a
theoretical perspective.
Evidentiary and Theoretical Issues
The process of interpreting sites of early contact in the South-
east is plagued by two issues. One is the unevenness that
pervades the archaeological record and the other is what we
have referred to as the portability problem.
We must ask how we overcome the handicap imposed by
the assumed inclination of Native peoples to circulate small
“trade” items of glass and metal beyond their point of acqui-
sition? This potentiality of the material evidence is the pro-
verbial 800-pound gorilla in the interpretive room of “first
encounters”, the ever present qualifier that we feel compelled to
include (Hally and Smith 2010; Hudson et al. 1984). The
problem is not trivial and is it not one we are likely, as archae-
ologists, to fully dispose of. Nonetheless, we offer that when
we acknowledge the issue and take it into account as interpre-
tive models are developed, we improve our chances of deflect-
ing easy critique and contributing something to the wider
discourse.
The Glass Site case is cause enough for recalibration of
some prevailing models. In short, the record from this site
presents an opportunity to advance not only our approaches to
the record of European expansion but also our interpretations
of its material evidence. Indeed, we should anticipate incremen-
tal advances and the important role of archaeology has always
been recognized: “We have reconstructed the route of the de
Soto expedition from beginning to end, though we are more
confident of some parts of it than of others. Some segments
can be verified or improved through archaeological research,
and we expect adjustments to be made for some years to come”
(Hudson, DePratter, and Smith 1991:84).
Obviously, the story of European expansion cannot be
addressed absent consideration of the indigenous world and I
hasten to emphasize that our work is not exclusively devoted
to the European record. The Glass Site, fundamentally, is a
Native American Indian community that became engaged,
probably unwittingly, with an exploring Spanish party during
the first half of the sixteenth century. It is the conflation of the
European and the Native materials on the site that, arguably,
is its greatest asset. Such are the contexts from which we will
gain the clearest insight into the processes and implications
of initial encounters. Those dynamics were not narrowly con-
strained and the sooner we embrace the variability that char-
acterizes interactions the sooner we will begin to make new
contributions.
There is also the goal articulated so well and so often by
Charles Hudson, a pioneer of modern De Soto studies, that
getting this story right is also about bridging the “protohis-
toric” and the late prehistoric records. In his words, “If a suffi-
ciently accurate [De Soto] route could be worked out, it would
become possible to put together a picture of the social geo-
graphy of the sixteenth-century Southeast – a map of who lived
where. From this point of reckoning, it would then become
possible to recede back into the past to examine how the
sixteenth-century native societies had evolved from earlier
Mississippian antecedents and to proceed forward in time
to show how this 1539-43 Southeastern world gave way, fell
apart, and reorganized itself into the peoples of the eighteenth-
century South” (Hudson 1997:466).
Interpretation and Recommendations
50
Interpretation and Recommendations
Variability in the Record of Exploration-Related Sites
The ability to speak of variability is in part a function of the
relatively comprehensive, intra-site perspective we have gained.
Having explored the Glass Site by means of both systematic,
wide-area sampling and by intensive, problem-oriented excava-
tion, it is possible to evaluate the early European evidence in a
whole-community context. Suffice it to say now, the patterns
we document are not those we originally anticipated based on
expectations derived from work of others at sites of the same
general sort. This realization is, again, the basis for a central
message of this chapter: a one-size-fits-all point of view is con-
straining. We acknowledge some caution is required since the
same kind of broad-based view has not been attained on most
of the sites we use for comparison. But, even so, the uniqueness
of the Glass Site cannot be denied and it calls for explanation.
As indicated we attribute aspects of the observed pattern,
most specifically the large size and the diversity of the assem-
blage, to the peaceful nature of the encounter. Another factor
contributing to the nature of the assemblage would be the
multi-day duration of the encampment by the full entrada
contingent. Also, we believe that if the site is a chiefly
compound, the wide distribution of European objects within
it, in addition to their non-burial context, make sense. We can
suggest, too, that the site’s occupation did not continue long
after the encounter, perhaps explaining why so many of the
European artifacts had not been consumed as grave goods.
With this in mind, sites created under other circumstances
can be expected to follow a different pattern. Quantity and
diversity of artifacts may both be influenced by duration of
occupation, the civility of the encounter, the size of the groups
involved, and individual motivations, among other factors.
Certainly these circumstances varied from place to place for a
host of reasons but the elapsed time of march is also assumed
to have been a weighty factor. We gather from primary accounts
that the De Soto party, for example, was operating under
increasing duress. It seems reasonable, then, to anticipate dif-
ferences in the nature of the European artifact evidence from
early to late in the entrada. Perhaps this, too, is a factor that dis-
tinguishes the Glass Site assemblage from others in the region.
Refinement of the De Soto Route
Any discovery of early sixteenth-century artifacts in the interior
Southeast will raise the question of De Soto and, specifically,
whether the evidence may allow refinement of his path through
the region. On one level it is understood that projections of the
route, including those that are most current and based on the
most rigorous research, are built on less-than-complete infor-
mation. For this reason it is advisable to afford new discoveries
careful consideration. Archaeological support has been pain-
fully lacking across the sections of Georgia and the Carolinas
that De Soto’s entrada traversed in the spring of 1540 and this
happens to be where the Glass Site is located. For these reasons
we initiated – and continue to pursue – a careful evaluation of
the site’s evidence relative to other sources of information per-
tinent to the De Soto path between the Martin Site and the
Carolinas (Blanton et al. 2011:92-105).
Without restating every detail of the argument we have
spelled out elsewhere, we simply reiterate that we believe there
are more reasons than not to shift the De Soto path to the
Glass Site. Doing so goes a long way toward filling the vacuum
of information that has plagued this section of the route. It
explains a total lack of compelling “contact” evidence in places
in central Georgia that have been thoroughly investigated,
such as the Macon area (Walker 1994, Waselkov 1994) and
the middle section of the Oconee valley (Smith and Kow-
alewski 1981). By extension it should serve to reorient searches
for similar sites closer to the path we have proposed, tracking
eastward of the Flint River basin.
New Clarity Regarding the Late Prehistoric
Cultural Landscape
Obviously any persuasive argument for refinement of the
De Soto route likewise brings the prospect of new clarity
with respect to the Native cultural landscape. As we have
also argued before, we believe this is an implication of the
Glass Site case. We propose that the site was an element of
the province of Ichisi and, perhaps, the principal village of
the provincial headman. Acceptance of that interpretation
requires significant adjustment to the prevailing sociopo-
litical map of Georgia. Specifically it means an eastward and
southerly shift of several projected province locations, those
of Ichisi, Altama, and Ocute, at least. In effect, it demonstrates
Interpretation and Recommendations
51
52
that a concerted effort to find and investigate similar sites
in the Alapaha, lower Ocmulgee, and lower Oconee basins
is justified.
Recommendations
The Glass Site presents many additional opportunities for pro-
ductive research. The 2012 findings considerably clarify our
perspective and allow us to define a host of specific avenues for
study.
Evaluation of the Native Community
1. Refine understanding of the internal configuration of the
community.
a. Employ a combination of geophysical prospecting
and subsurface sampling methods to identify the
locations of all structures and other major features.
b. Conduct limiting sampling of apparent structure
locations in order to assess dates of occupation
and function.
c. Evaluate the possibility that a cemetery area lies just
north of the council house-temple structure.
d. Explore the center of the plaza for features such
as large postholes.
2. Refine understanding of specific features.
a. Determine whether a defensive ditch, potentially with
a companion palisade, delimits the habitation area.
b. Excavate select segments of the ditch to document
a stratigraphic record of its history.
c. Locate and evaluate burial features.
3. Refine understanding of period of occupation.
a. Submit numerous samples for radiocarbon evaluation
b. Examine stratigraphic deposits such as within
the encircling ditch feature.
Evaluation of the European Encounter
1. Determine distribution of non-metal artifacts.
a. (See 1b above.) Implement a program of intensive
subsurface sampling.
2. Improve understanding of specific contexts.
a. See 2a and 2b above.
b. Recover controlled samples from the slope defining
the abandoned river channel.
c. See 1c above. Also, revisit the deposits documented
in Unit 70.
Interpretation and Recommendations
Benson, Carl A.
1967 The Philip Mound: A Historic Site. The Florida Anthropologist 20(3-4):118-127.
Blanton, Dennis B.
2007 In Search of Mission Santa Isabel de Utinahica:
Season I Progress Report. Fernbank Museum
of Natural History, Atlanta, Georgia.
2009 In Search of Mission Santa Isabel de Utinahica:
Season II Progress Report. Fernbank Museum
of Natural History, Atlanta, Georgia.
Blanton, Dennis B. and Frankie Snow
2009 Early Sixteenth-Century Spanish Activity on the
Lower Ocmulgee River: New Findings and New
Questions. Paper presented at the 2009 Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Mobile, Alabama.
2010 New Evidence of Early Spanish Activity on
the Lower Ocmulgee River. In Archaeological Encounters with Georgia’s Spanish Period, 1526-1700, Edited by D. B. Blanton and R. A. DeVillar,
pp. 9-18. Special Publication No. 2, The Society
for Georgia Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.
Blanton, Dennis B., Rachel Hensler, Jeffrey B. Glover, Wes
Patterson, Frankie Snow, and Chester P. Walker
2011 Points of Contact: The Archaeological Landscape of Hernando de Soto in Georgia. Prepared for the
National Geographic Society (Grant No. 8765-10).
Fernbank Museum of Natural History, Atlanta.
Bleed, Peter and Douglas D. Scott
2009 Fields of Conflict: Battlefield Archaeology from Imperial Rome to Korea. Potomac Books, Washington, DC.
2011 The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History
and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 19(1):103-134.
Brain, Jeffrey
1975 Artifacts of the Adelantado. Conference on
Historic Site Archaeology 8:129-38.
Braley, Chad O.
1995 Historic Indian Period Archaeology of the Georgia
Coastal Plain. Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 10. University of Georgia Laboratory of
Archaeology Series Report No. 34, Athens, GA.
Brasher, Nugent
2009 The Red House Camp and the Captain General: 2009
Report of the Coronado Expedition Campsite at
Chichilticale. Electronic document, accessed April 21,
2011. http://www.chichilticale.com/review09.htm.
Brown, Ian W.
1977 Historic Trade Bells. Conference on
Historic Sites Archaeology 10:69-82.
1979 Bells. In Tunica Treasure, edited by J. P. Brain, pp. 197-
205. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology 71. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1980 Trade Bells. In Burr’s Hill: A 17th-Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, edited by S.
G. Gibson, pp. 92-95. Studies in Anthropology and
Material Culture, Volume 2. Haffenreffer Museum
of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, Florida. Report of Investigations No. 8, The
Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Cadle, Farris W.
1991 Georgia Land Surveying History and Law.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
The Catholic Encyclopedia
2012 Electronic document accessed September 2012. Lavabo.
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lavabo.
Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight, Jr.,
and Edward C. Moore (Editors)
1993 The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume I.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
References Cited
53
Cook, Sherburne F.
1972 Prehistoric Demography. Addison-Wesley
Module in Anthropology 16. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Cramb, Alan W.
A Short History of Metals. Electronic document,
accessed March, 2011. http://neon.mems.
cmu.edu/cramb/Processing/history.html.
Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume I: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
2002 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume 2: Portable Personal Possessions. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Deagan, Kathleen and Elizabeth Reitz
1995 Puerto Real: The Archaeology of a Sixteenth-Century Spanish Town in Hispaniola.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
DePratter, Chester B. and Marvin T. Smith
1987 Sixteenth Century European Trade in the Southeastern
United States: Evidence from the Juan Pardo
Expeditions (1566-1568). Notebook 19 (1-4):52-61.
Eubanks, Scott
1991 Artifacts and the Spanish Explorers. The Soto States Anthropologist 91(1):81-85.
Ewen, Charles R.
1996 Continuity and Change: De Soto and the
Apalachee. Historical Archaeology 30(2):41-53.
Ewen, Charles R. and John H. Hann
1998 Hernando De Soto Among the Apalachee: The Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Fairbanks, Charles
1968 Early Spanish and Colonial Beads. Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers 2(1):3-21.
Flint, Richard and Shirley Cushing Flint (Editors)
1997 The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540-1542 Route Across the Southwest. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
2003 The Coronado Expedition from the Distance of 460 Years. University of New Mexico Press, Albequerque.
Galloway, Patricia (Editor)
2005 The Hernando de Soto Expedition: History, Historiography, and “Discovery” in the Southeast. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Georgia Archives
Georgia’s Virtual Vault. District Plats of Survey.
Electronic document, accessed March, 2011.
http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/cdm4/dmf.php.
Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith
1948 The Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida.
Contributions to the Archaeology of Florida,
Number One. Florida Park Service, Tallahassee.
Hally, David J.
1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936 – 1986, edited by D. J. Hally, pp.
144-174. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2008 King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwestern Georgia. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hally, David J. and Marvin T. Smith
2010 Sixteenth-Century Mechanisms of Exchange. In
Archaeological Encounters with Georgia’s Spanish Period, 1526-1700, Edited by D. B. Blanton and R. A.
DeVillar, pp. 53-66. Special Publication No. 2, The
Society for Georgia Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.
Hann, John H. and Bonnie G. McEwan
1998 The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Hemperly, Marion R.
1989 Historic Indian Trails of Georgia. The Garden
Club of Georgia, Inc. Athens.
Hoffman, Paul E.
1990 A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient, The
References Cited
54
American Southeast During the Sixteenth Century.
Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
1994 Lucas Vazquez de Ayllon’s Discovery and Colony. In
The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, edited by C. Hudson and C.
C. Tessar, pp.36-49. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hudson, Charles M.
1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
1994a The Hernando de Soto Expedition, 1539-
1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704,
edited by C. Hudson and C. C. Tessar, pp.74-
103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1994b The Social Context of the Chiefdom of Ichisi. In
Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936 – 1986, edited by D. J. Hally,
pp. 175-180. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms. The
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2005a The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2005b The Historical Significance of the Soto Route. In The Hernando de Soto Expedition: History, Historiography, and “Discovery” in the Southeast, edited by P. Galloway,
pp. 313-326. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando de Soto Expedition: From Apalachee
to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):65-77.
Hudson, Charles, Chester B. DePratter, and Marvin T. Smith
1991 Hernando de Soto’s Expedition through the
Southern United States. In First Encounters: Spanish Explorations in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492-1570, edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Milbrath,
pp. 77-98. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Hudson, Charles and Carmen Chaves Tesser (editors)
1994 The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hume, Ivor Noel
1991 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America.
Vintage Books, New York.
Hutchinson, Dale L. and Jeffrey M. Mitchem
1996 The Weeki Wachee Mound, An Early Contact Period
Mortuary Locality in Hernando County, West-Central
Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 15(1):47-65.
Jenkins, Ned J.
2009 The Village of Mabila: Archaeological Expectations.
In The Search for Mabila: The Decisive Battle between Hernando de Soto and Chief Tuscalusa,
Edited by V. J. Knight, Jr., pp. 72-82. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Knight, Vernon James, Jr.
2009 Seeking Methods that Work. In The Search for Mabila: The Decisive Battle between Hernando de Soto and Chief Tuscalusa, Edited by V. J. Knight, Jr., pp. 139-
149. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Lawson, Samuel J. III
1987 La Tama de la Tierra Adentro. Early Georgia 15:1-18.
1991 Tama. The Soto States Anthropologist 91(1):28-38.
Leonard, Robert D. and George T. Jones
1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Light, John D.
2000 A Field Guide to the Identification of Metal. In
Studies in Material Culture Research, Edited by
Karlis Karklins, pp. 3-19. The Society for Historical
Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the
Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical
Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217.
Little, Keith J.
2008 European Artifact Chronology and Impacts
of Spanish Contact in the Sixteenth-Century
Coosa Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
References Cited
55
Manly, Bryan F.J.
1994 Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Milanich, Jerald T. and Susan Milbrath
1991 Another World. In First Encounters: Spanish Explorations in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492-1570, edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Milbrath,
pp. 1-26. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/
Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsula
Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida.
1991 Artifacts of Exploration: Archaeological Evidence from
Florida. In First Encounters: Spanish Explorations
in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492-
1570, edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Milbrath, pp.
99-109. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Dale Hutchinson
1987 Interim report on archaeological research at the
Tatham Mound, Citrus County, Florida: Season
III. Florida State Museum, Gainesville, FL.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Bonnie McEwan
1998 New Data on Early Bells from Florida.
Southeastern Archaeology 7:39-49.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert
C. Goodyear, and Robert R. Allen
1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Gulf Coast: The
Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, Edited by Kenneth W. Johnson, Jonathan
M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, pp. 179-220.
Florida Journal of Anthropology Special Publication
No. 4. Gainesville Letter Shop, Gainesville, FL.
Moore, Clarence Bloomfield
1896 Certain River Mounds of Duval County, Florida.
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 10(4):449-501.
1897 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Georgia
Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 11(1):1-144.
Moorehead, Warren K.
1932 Etowah Papers. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Narroll, Raoul
1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population.
American Antiquity 27:587-589.
Ottaway, Patrick and Nicola Rogers
2002 Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Finds from Medieval York. The Archaeology of York 17, The Small Finds.
Pearson, Charles
1977 Evidence of Early Spanish Contact on the Georgia
Coast. Historical Archaeology 11:74-83.
Robertson, James Alexander
1993 The Account by a Gentleman from Elvas. (Translator)
The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume I.
Edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James
Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp. 19-220.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sears, William H., Elsie O’R. Sears, and Karl T. Steinen
1994 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Sempowski, Martha L. and Lorraine P. Sanders
2001 Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow: The Advent of Dutch Trade among the Seneca (3 Parts).
Charles F. Wray Series in Seneca Archaeology,
Volume III. Research Records No. 24. Rochester
Museum and Science Center, New York.
Shelby, Charmion
1993 La Florida. (Translator)
The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume II.
Edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James
Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp. 25-560.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Silliman, Stephen W.
2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges
in the Archaeology of Native North America.
American Antiquity 70(1):55-74.
References Cited
56
Smith, Marvin T.
n.d. Unpublished artifact data files. On file with author.
1975 European Materials from the King Site. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18:63-66.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2000 Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Smith, Marvin T. and Steve A. Kowalewski
1981 Tentative Identification of a Prehistoric “Province”
in Piedmont Georgia. Early Georgia 8(1-2):1-13.
Smith, Marvin T. and Mary Elizabeth Good
1982 Early Sixteenth Century Glass Beads in the Spanish Colonial Trade. Cottonlandia Museum
Publications, Greenwood, Mississippi.
Snow, Frankie
1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Ocmulgee Big
Bend Region. Occasional Papers from South Georgia,
No. 3. South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia.
1990 Pine Barrens Lamar. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited
by M. Williams and G. Shapiro, pp. 82-93.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E. Johnson
1988 Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Anthropological Studies 7. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stahl, Alan M.
1995 Coins from the Excavations at La Isabela, D.R., The
First European Colony in the New World. American Journal of Numismatics Second Series 5-6:189-207.
Stephenson, Keith, and Frankie Snow
2004 Swift Creek to Square Ground Lamar: Situating
the Ocmulgee Big Bend Region in Calibrated
Time. Early Georgia 32(2):127-160.
Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Classics of Smithsonian Anthropology,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau
of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891. Washington, DC.
Thomas, David Hurst (Editor)
1990 Columbian Consequences, Volume 2: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1909 Ocmulgee River survey map. Copy in possession of
Frankie Snow, South Georgia College, Douglas, GA.
Vierra, Bradley J. (Editor)
1989 A Sixteenth-Century Spanish Campsite in the Tiguex Province. Laboratory of Anthropology
Note No. 475, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Walker, Jane and Chris Trowell
2004 The Dodge Land Troubles, 1868-1923. Wolfe
Publishing, Fernandina Beach, FL.
Walker, John W.
1994 A Brief History of Ocmulgee Archaeology. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936 – 1986, edited by D. J. Hally, pp.
15-35. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Waselkov, Gregory A.
1994 The Macon Trading House and Early European-
Indian Contact in the Colonial Southeast. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936 – 1986, edited by D. J. Hally, pp.
190-196. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2009 What Do Spanish Expeditionary Artifacts of
Circa 1540 Look Like and How Often Are They
Preserved? In The Search for Mabila: The Decisive Battle Between Hernando de Soto and Chief Tascalusa,
Edited by Vernon James Knight, Jr., pp. 94-106.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
References Cited
57
Waselkov, Gregory A. and Kathryn E.
Holland Braund (Editors)
1995 William Bartram on the Southeastern Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Waselkov, Gregory A., Linda Derry, and Ned J. Jenkins
2009 The Archaeology of Mabila’s Cultural Landscape.
In The Search for Mabila: The Decisive Battle Between Hernando de Soto and Chief Tascalusa,
Edited by Vernon James Knight, Jr., pp. 227-244.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wells, Tom
1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived
Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2):78-99.
Willey, Gordon R.
1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7(3):79-90.
1998 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Williams, Mark
1995 Chiefly Compounds. In Mississippian Communities and Households, Edited by J. Daniel
Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 124-134.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2010 Notes and Queries on Spaniards and Indians in
the Oconee Valley. In Archaeological Encounters with Georgia’s Spanish Period, 1526-1700, Edited
by D. B. Blanton and R. A. DeVillar, pp. 35-52.
Special Publication No. 2, The Society for
Georgia Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.
Williams, Mark, and Gary Shapiro (Editors)
1990 Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wikipedia
2012 Electronic document accessed September 2012.
Asperges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperges.
2012 Electronic document accessed September 2012.
Lavabo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabo.
Windham, R. Jeannine
2010 Faunal Exploitation and Feasting at the Glass Site.
In Archaeological Encounters with Georgia’s Spanish Period, 1526-1700, Edited by D. B. Blanton and R. A.
DeVillar, pp. 19-34. Special Publication No. 2, The
Society for Georgia Archaeology, Athens, Georgia.
Worth, John E.
1988 Mississippian Occupation of the Middle Flint
River. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
1993a Prelude to Abandonment: The Interior Provinces of
Early 17th-Century Georgia. Early Georgia 21(1):24-58.
1993b Relation of the Island of Florida. (Translator)
The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume I.
Edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James
Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp. 221-246.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1993c Account of the Northern Conquest and
Discovery of Hernando de Soto. (Translator)
The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume I.
Edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James
Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp. 247-306.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1994 Late Spanish Military Expeditions in the Interior
Southeast, 1595-1628. In The Forgotten Centuries: Europeans and Indians in the American South, 1513-1704, edited by C. Hudson and C. C. Tesser, pp.
104-122. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1995 The Early Seventeenth Century Locations of
Tama and Utinahica. In: Historic Indian Period
Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 10, author
Chad O. Braley, pp. A-1 – A-8. University of
Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report
Number 34, University of Georgia, Athens.
1998 The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida (2 Volumes). University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Young, Gloria A. and Michael P. Hoffman (Editors)
1993 The Expedition of Hernando de Soto west of the Mississippi, 1541-1543: Proceedings of the de Soto symposia, 1988 and 1990. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.
References Cited
58
A Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix
59
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
079 300 120 3 8.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
079 300 120 1 4.4 Ceramic Sherd Plain
079 300 120 1 10.5 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
079 300 120 1 2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
079 300 120 4 1.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
079 300 120 8 2.3 Coastal Plain Chert
080 300 140 2 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
081 300 160 1 14.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
081 300 160 1 1.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
081 300 160 1 2.6 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
081 300 160 14 4.9 Coastal Plain Chert
082 300 180 1 18.5
083 300 200 12 70.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
083 300 200 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
083 300 200 5 42.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
194 180 180 1 0.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
196 260 100 2 19.2 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
196 260 100 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
196 260 100 2 57.3 Fire-Cracked Rock
196 260 100 8 7.2 Coastal Plain Chert
196 260 100 1 0.3 Quartz
196 260 100 1 1.4 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
195 340 210 5 1 Coastal Plain Chert
199 360 210 12 3.7 Coastal Plain Chert
199 360 210 1 7.2 Informal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
236 180 210 8 27.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
236 180 210 3 7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
236 180 210 3 7.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
236 180 210 4 6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
236 180 210 14 15.9 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
236 180 210 3 1.5 Daub
236 180 210 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
237 210 200 2 3.1 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
237 210 200 2 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
198 260 90 1 1.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
198 260 90 1 5.5 Daub
198 260 90 1 1 Coastal Plain Chert
198 260 90 1 1.9 Coastal Plain Chert
198 260 90 2 1.2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
198 260 90 1 4.2 Ceramic Sherd
201 360 230 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
238 210 210 3 13.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
238 210 210 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
238 210 210 1 1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Groundstone
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
60
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
238 210 210 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
238 210 210 1 1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
238 210 210 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
238 210 210 1 1.5 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
202 270 90 1 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
202 270 90 5 2 Coastal Plain Chert
200 270 100 1 3.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
200 270 100 1 2.3 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
200 270 100 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
200 270 100 3 2.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
200 270 100 6 4.9 Coastal Plain Chert
200 270 100 1 2.8 Informal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
200 270 100 1 0.5 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
241 320 100 2 10.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
241 320 100 1 2.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
241 320 100 5 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
203 360 250 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
242 320 90 3 7.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
242 320 90 1 2.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
242 320 90 2 15.6 Ceramic Sherd Plain
242 320 90 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
242 320 90 3 2.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
242 320 90 6 3.9 Coastal Plain Chert
243 320 80 2 4.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
244 320 70 2 7.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
244 320 70 6 2.8 Coastal Plain Chert
247 15 8.7 Coastal Plain Chert
247 1 0.8 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
247 3 22.3 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
245 320 60 8 2.3 Coastal Plain Chert
248 2 2.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
248 1 2.2 Daub
248 14 11.8 Coastal Plain Chert
248 1 1.3 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
248 1 1.8 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
246 320 50 1 11.1 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
249 2 13.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
249 11 6.6 Coastal Plain Chert
249 1 1.6 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
204 280 100 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
204 280 100 2 6.6 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
204 280 100 1 5.1 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
204 280 100 2 1.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
204 280 100 1 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife 61
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
204 280 100 2 1.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
204 280 100 1 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
205 370 180 1 3.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
205 370 180 1 1.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
206 280 90 8 4.2 Coastal Plain Chert
207 370 200 1 3.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
207 370 200 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
207 370 200 1 2.4 Coastal Plain Chert
208 280 80 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
208 280 80 1 9.3 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
209 370 220 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
209 370 220 4 5.7 Coastal Plain Chert
250 1 9.1 Fire-Cracked Rock
082 300 180 4 2.2 Coastal Plain Chert
250 13 10.7 Coastal Plain Chert
251 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
251 5 8.7 Coastal Plain Chert
252 5 0.9 Coastal Plain Chert
253 8 5.7 Coastal Plain Chert
254 3 3.8 Coastal Plain Chert
255 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
255 1 6.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
255 18 20.9 Coastal Plain Chert
255 1 3.5 Coastal Plain Chert
256 10 3.4 Coastal Plain Chert
257 8 3.5 Coastal Plain Chert
258 11 5.2 Coastal Plain Chert
258 1 1.1 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
223 310 100 2 33.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
223 310 100 6 1.6 Coastal Plain Chert
224 340 230 9 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
224 340 230 1 5.9 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
226 340 250 1 8.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
226 340 250 11 13.7 Coastal Plain Chert
226 340 250 1 2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
210 290 100 2 12.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
210 290 100 8 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
225 310 90 4 9.6 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
225 310 90 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
225 310 90 4 17.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
225 310 90 4 2.2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
225 310 90 12 2.5 Coastal Plain Chert
212 290 90 1 11.4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
212 290 90 1 11.6 Ceramic Sherd Check St. Stamped
Wgt. (g)
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
62
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
63
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
212 290 90 1 11.4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
212 290 90 1 11.6 Ceramic Sherd Check St. Stamped
212 290 90 5 7.8 Coastal Plain Chert
212 290 90 1 5.2 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
214 380 180 1 1.4 Coastal Plain Chert
213 290 80 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
213 290 80 5 2.4 Coastal Plain Chert
215 300 100 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
215 300 100 4 1.5 Coastal Plain Chert
216 380 200 1 4.6 Ceramic Sherd Simple St. Stamped
216 380 200 1 1.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
216 380 200 1 1.6 Daub
216 380 200 13 7.6 Coastal Plain Chert
217 300 90 1 8.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
217 300 90 2 2.5 Coastal Plain Chert
218 380 220 13 3.8 Coastal Plain Chert
218 380 220 1 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
219 300 80 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
219 300 80 1 0.8 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
219 300 80 4 6 Coastal Plain Chert
220 380 240 1 0.7 Coastal Plain Chert
221 300 70 2 5.3 Ceramic Sherd Plain
221 300 70 3 4.9 Coastal Plain Chert
221 300 70 1 1.6 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
227 310 80 3 1 Coastal Plain Chert
228 350 220 1 12.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
228 350 220 6 2.8 Coastal Plain Chert
229 310 70 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
230 350 240 2 2.3 Daub
230 350 240 3 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
231 310 60 2 1 Coastal Plain Chert
231 310 60 1 0.3 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
232 350 260 1 1.6 Daub
233 160 200 1 5.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
233 160 200 2 20.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
233 160 200 4 43.6 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
234 170 200 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
234 170 200 1 1.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
234 170 200 1 1.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
234 170 200 1 77.3 Fire-Cracked Rock
083 300 200 2 4 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
083 300 200 3 2.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
083 300 200 3 47.6 Fire-Cracked Rock
083 300 200 26 13.1 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
64
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
083 300 200 3 47.6Fire-Cracked Rock
083 300 200 26 13.1 Coastal Plain Chert
084 300 220 1 5Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
084 300 220 18 5.9 Coastal Plain Chert
085 320 130 1 2.3Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
085 320 130 3 2.1Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
085 320 130 3 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
086 320 150 3 12.6Ceramic Sherd Plain
086 320 150 6 1.4 Coastal Plain Chert
087 320 170 1 6.2Ceramic Sherd Plain
087 320 170 4 4.6 Coastal Plain Chert
088 320 190 5 2.8 Coastal Plain Chert
089 320 210 1 1.3Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
089 320 210 15 9.4 Coastal Plain Chert
094 340 200 1 7Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
094 340 200 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
095 310 120 1 5.3Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
095 310 120 1 8.3Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
095 310 120 2 1.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
095 310 120 2 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
090 340 120 2 8.5Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
090 340 120 4 1.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
090 340 120 4 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
090 340 120 2 0.6 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
096 310 140 1 2Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
096 310 140 1 0.5Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
096 310 140 1 1.4Ceramic Sherd Eroded
096 310 140 2 0.9Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
096 310 140 11 3.6 Coastal Plain Chert
091 340 140 2 11.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
091 340 140 1 1.3Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
091 340 140 6 1.5 Coastal Plain Chert
092 340 160 4 1 Coastal Plain Chert
099 310 200 1 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
097 310 160 11 5.1 Coastal Plain Chert
100 330 120 1 2.4Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
100 330 120 1 7.1Daub
100 330 120 6 2.2 Coastal Plain Chert
101 330 140 1 6.9Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped
101 330 140 8 2.8 Coastal Plain Chert
098 310 180 1 1.6Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
098 310 180 1 1.6Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
098 310 180 1 1.5Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
098 310 180 1 0.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
65
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
098 310 180 1 1.5 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
098 310 180 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
098 310 180 1 0.7 Pipe
098 310 180 6 12.4 Daub
098 310 180 11 5.1 Coastal Plain Chert
102 330 160 1 9.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
102 330 160 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
102 330 160 1 0.8 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
102 330 160 2 6.9 Daub
102 330 160 6 3.4 Coastal Plain Chert
102 330 160 1 0.4 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
102 330 160 2 0.4 Bone
104 330 200 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
104 330 200 3 1.6 Coastal Plain Chert
105 310 220 1 8.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
105 310 220 25 6.9 Coastal Plain Chert
114 250 190 1 2.6 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
114 250 190 1 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
113 250 180 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
113 250 180 1 0.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
113 250 180 4 2 Coastal Plain Chert
106 240 160 5 0.9 Coastal Plain Chert
112 250 170 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
112 250 170 8 3.3 Coastal Plain Chert
111 240 210 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
111 240 210 1 1.5 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
111 240 210 2 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
107 240 170 1 3.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
107 240 170 2 3 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
107 240 170 2 12.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
107 240 170 1 15.4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
107 240 170 1 2.8 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
107 240 170 4 3.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
107 240 170 3 2.6 Coastal Plain Chert
108 240 180 1 1.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
108 240 180 2 5.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
108 240 180 1 2 Coastal Plain Chert
115 250 200 5 29.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
115 250 200 2 3.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
115 250 200 2 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
115 250 200 2 4.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
115 250 200 4 2.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
115 250 200 9 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
115 250 200 2 1.2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
66
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
115 250 200 9 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
115 250 200 2 1.2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
109 240 190 8 3.7 Coastal Plain Chert
120 260 190 1 2.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
120 260 190 1 7.1 Ceramic Sherd Cob Marked
120 260 190 3 7.2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
120 260 190 3 2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
120 260 190 7 0.9 Coastal Plain Chert
116 260 150 7 26.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
116 260 150 2 7.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
116 260 150 2 7.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
116 260 150 2 3.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
116 260 150 9 7.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
116 260 150 2 3.9 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
116 260 150 1 3.1 Pipe
116 260 150 1 2 Daub
116 260 150 1 0.8 Fire-Cracked Rock
116 260 150 1 197.8
116 260 150 4 3.7 Coastal Plain Chert
116 260 150 1 15.8 Discoidal
121 260 200 1 2.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
121 260 200 1 7.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
121 260 200 1 5.1 Ceramic Sherd Check St. Stamped
121 260 200 4 10.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
121 260 200 3 1.5 Coastal Plain Chert
121 260 200 1 0.2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
121 260 200 1 6.3 Early Archaic
117 260 160 1 1.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
117 260 160 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
117 260 160 2 4.8 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
117 260 160 3 2.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
117 260 160 4 10.8 Coastal Plain Chert
118 160 170 1 5.2 Ceramic Sherd Plain
118 160 170 4 2.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
118 160 170 5 3.8 Coastal Plain Chert
119 260 180 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
119 260 180 1 2.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
119 260 180 2 4.2 Coastal Plain Chert
122 260 210 8 39.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
122 260 210 1 8 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
122 260 210 5 25 Ceramic Sherd Plain
122 260 210 3 6.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
122 260 210 11 9.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
122 260 210 1 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Groundstone
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
67
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
122 260 210 11 9.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
122 260 210 1 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
122 260 210 1 0.1 Bone
132 270 230 2 20.6 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
132 270 230 6 2.8 Coastal Plain Chert
127 270 180 4 20.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
127 270 180 1 2.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
127 270 180 6 4.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
127 270 180 3 1 Daub
127 270 180 7 18.6 Coastal Plain Chert
130 270 210 7 24.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
130 270 210 3 8.8 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
130 270 210 5 9.2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
130 270 210 10 9.8 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
130 270 210 10 7.9 Coastal Plain Chert
130 270 210 1 2.3
133 280 140 5 33 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
133 280 140 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
133 280 140 1 0.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
133 280 140 1 0.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
133 280 140 7 4.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
133 280 140 3 7.1 Coastal Plain Chert
134 280 150 8 34.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
134 280 150 2 6.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
134 280 150 1 1.2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
134 280 150 2 7.1 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
134 280 150 6 3.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
135 280 160 2 4.1 Daub
134 280 150 11 14.6 Coastal Plain Chert
135 280 160 5 24.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
135 280 160 1 5.4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
135 280 160 12 8.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
135 280 160 8 3.4 Coastal Plain Chert
131 270 220 3 7.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
131 270 220 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
131 270 220 1 5.4 Fire-Cracked Rock
131 270 220 5 2.3 Coastal Plain Chert
128 270 190 3 11.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
128 270 190 1 1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
128 270 190 4 2.6 Coastal Plain Chert
129 270 200 6 13.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
129 270 200 2 3.4 Ceramic Sherd Plain
129 270 200 5 4.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
129 270 200 1 0.3 Daub
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
68
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
129 270 200 5 4.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
129 270 200 1 0.3 Daub
129 270 200 6 4.2 Coastal Plain Chert
126 270 170 4 18.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
126 270 170 2 7.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
126 270 170 4 2.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
126 270 170 13 5 Daub
126 270 170 6 3.6 Coastal Plain Chert
124 270 150 6 26.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
124 270 150 3 9.6 Ceramic Sherd Plain
124 270 150 2 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
124 270 150 1 11.8 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
124 270 150 9 7.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
124 270 150 1 8.6 Fire-Cracked Rock
123 270 140 14 61.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
123 270 140 3 13.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
123 270 140 3 5.1 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
123 270 140 9 9.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
123 270 140 1 0.6 Pipe
123 270 140 1 1 Daub
123 270 140 9 9.2 Coastal Plain Chert
125 270 160 1 5.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
125 270 160 1 1.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
125 270 160 2 4.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
125 270 160 2 2.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
125 270 160 1 9.3 Daub
125 270 160 1 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
141 250 160 1 13.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
141 250 160 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
141 250 160 2 4.7 Coastal Plain Chert
136 280 170 7 21.7 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
136 280 170 1 3.3 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
136 280 170 4 12.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
136 280 170 7 5.2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
136 280 170 110 130.3 Daub
136 280 170 5 2.6 Coastal Plain Chert
137 280 180 11 59 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
137 280 180 1 1 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
137 280 180 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
137 280 180 2 5.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
137 280 180 12 9.2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
137 280 180 2 5.6 Daub
137 280 180 12 4.4 Coastal Plain Chert
142 270 130 12 49.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
69
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
137 280 180 12 4.4 Coastal Plain Chert
142 270 130 12 49.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
142 270 130 5 27.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
142 270 130 1 11 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
142 270 130 2 19.4 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
142 270 130 5 9 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
142 270 130 9 6.9 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
142 270 130 26 20.1 Daub
142 270 130 11 3.3 Coastal Plain Chert
138 240 150 1 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
138 240 150 10 4.2 Coastal Plain Chert
138 240 150 1 0.3 Bone
143 300 130 1 15.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
143 300 130 1 0.7 Daub
143 300 130 4 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
139 260 140 6 17.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
139 260 140 1 2.9 Ceramic Sherd Cob Marked
139 260 140 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
139 260 140 6 2.9 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
139 260 140 1 2.1 Pipe
139 260 140 1 402
139 260 140 7 3.3 Coastal Plain Chert
139 260 140 1 1 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
144 300 150 2 5.6 Ceramic Sherd Plain
144 300 150 14 4.5 Coastal Plain Chert
140 280 130 2 8.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
140 280 130 1 1.3 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
140 280 130 4 3.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
140 280 130 1 6.6 Pipe
140 280 130 10 4.4 Coastal Plain Chert
145 300 170 1 5.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
145 300 170 2 7.8 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
145 300 170 1 3.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
145 300 170 1 0.5 Daub
145 300 170 2 1.3 Coastal Plain Chert
146 300 190 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
146 300 190 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
146 300 190 9 4.1 Coastal Plain Chert
150 310 150 1 13.4 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
150 310 150 6 1 Coastal Plain Chert
147 300 210 2 9.4 Ceramic Sherd Plain
147 300 210 8 5.4 Coastal Plain Chert
151 310 170 2 5.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
151 310 170 2 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Groundstone
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
70
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
151 310 170 2 5.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
151 310 170 2 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
151 310 170 1 0.3 Daub
151 310 170 4 1.8 Coastal Plain Chert
148 300 230 1 2.2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
148 300 230 19 14.6 Coastal Plain Chert
149 310 130 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
149 310 130 2 4.8 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
149 310 130 6 14.5 Coastal Plain Chert
152 310 190 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
152 310 190 1 6 Ceramic Sherd Plain
152 310 190 3 52.1 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
152 310 190 1 0.3 Fire-Cracked Rock
152 310 190 10 4 Coastal Plain Chert
153 310 210 2 19.1 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
153 310 210 1 14 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
153 310 210 1 18.5 Fire-Cracked Rock
153 310 210 11 10.2 Coastal Plain Chert
153 310 210 1 11.1 Early Archaic
153 310 210 1 7.5
155 320 120 2 19.6 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
155 320 120 1 4.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
155 320 120 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
155 320 120 1 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
156 320 140 1 5.1 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
156 320 140 4.3 Daub
156 320 140 4 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
157 320 160 1 5.3 Fire-Cracked Rock
157 320 160 8 10.4 Coastal Plain Chert
157 320 160 1 0.9 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
158 320 180 2 0.7 Coastal Plain Chert
159 320 200 8 4.1 Coastal Plain Chert
154 250 210 5 29.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
154 250 210 1 1.3 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
154 250 210 3 16.5 Ceramic Sherd Plain
154 250 210 1 3.2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
154 250 210 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
154 250 210 5 4.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
154 250 210 1 2.3 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
160 330 130 5 3.9 Coastal Plain Chert
160 330 130 1 2.6 Quartz
161 330 150 1 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
161 330 150 12 23.1 Coastal Plain Chert
162 330 170 5 24.3 Ceramic Sherd Plain
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
71
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
161 330 150 12 23.1 Coastal Plain Chert
162 330 170 5 24.3 Ceramic Sherd Plain
162 330 170 2 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
163 330 190 1 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
167 340 190 3 13.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
167 340 190 1 6.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
167 340 190 3 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
164 340 130 6 2.6 Coastal Plain Chert
165 340 150 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
165 340 150 1 1.1 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
165 340 150 2 1.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
168 280 120 1 4.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
168 280 120 1 4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
168 280 120 1 7.5 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
168 280 120 1 2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
168 280 120 1 0.4 Daub
168 280 120 5 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
168 280 120 2 1 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
166 340 170 2 8.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
166 340 170 1 1.9 Coastal Plain Chert
166 340 170 1 0.4 Sandstone
169 270 120 1 1.9 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
169 270 120 1 2.7 Fire-Cracked Rock
169 270 120 6 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
170 200 180 1 5.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
170 200 180 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
170 200 180 4 3.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
170 200 180 1 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
174 210 180 4 20 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
174 210 180 1 4.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
174 210 180 1 2.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
174 210 180 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
174 210 180 1 0.3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
174 210 180 3 8.4 Coastal Plain Chert
171 200 190 2 4.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
171 200 190 1 5.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
171 200 190 6 4.9 Coastal Plain Chert
172 200 200 1 3.8 Ceramic Sherd Plain
172 200 200 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
172 200 200 2 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
175 210 190 2 1.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
176 220 180 1 3.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
176 220 180 1 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
173 200 210 7 64.1 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
72
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
176 220 180 1 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
173 200 210 7 64.1 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
173 200 210 5 3 Coastal Plain Chert
177 220 190 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
177 220 190 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
177 220 190 1 1.4 Coastal Plain Chert
178 220 200 3 16.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
178 220 200 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
178 220 200 1 3.1 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
178 220 200 1 1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
178 220 200 3 2.9 Coastal Plain Chert
181 160 180 1 1.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
181 160 180 1 2.1 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
178 220 200 1 7.4 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
182 160 190 1 1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
182 160 190 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
182 160 190 1 0.6 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
183 160 210 1 0.4 Coastal Plain Chert
184 170 180 2 6.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
184 170 180 1 18.5 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
184 170 180 4 3.2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
184 170 180 6 4.1 Daub
184 170 180 2 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
185 170 190 2 9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
179 220 210 11 35.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
179 220 210 3 10.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
179 220 210 3 9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
179 220 210 1 3 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
179 220 210 3 2.9 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
179 220 210 5 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
179 220 210 1 3.8
180 220 220 5 16.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
180 220 220 1 6.4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
180 220 220 4 8.7 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
180 220 220 3 2.9 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
180 220 220 3 3.1 Coastal Plain Chert
186 170 210 1 2.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
186 170 210 1 2.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised
186 170 210 1 2 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
186 170 210 2 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
187 180 220 2 10.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
187 180 220 1 4.7 Ceramic Sherd Plain
187 180 220 1 8.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
187 180 220 2 2.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
73
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
187 180 220 1 8.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
187 180 220 2 2.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
187 180 220 5 8.2 Daub
190 190 200 10 40 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
190 190 200 3 6.8 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
190 190 200 1 13.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
190 190 200 1 16.8 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
190 190 200 4 4.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
190 190 200 1 0.7 Daub
190 190 200 1 11.1 Coastal Plain Chert
188 190 220 1 4.2 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
188 190 220 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
191 190 190 2 10.3 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
191 190 190 1 0.7 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
191 190 190 3 8.8 Daub
191 190 190 1 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
189 190 210 11 38.4 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
189 190 210 2 3.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised
189 190 210 2 7.9 Ceramic Sherd Plain
189 190 210 3 7.7 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
189 190 210 13 13.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
189 190 210 1 6.5 Daub
189 190 210 1 0.7 Coastal Plain Chert
192 190 180 1 1.1 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
193 180 190 1 15.7 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
193 180 190 4 3.4 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
194 180 180 1 3.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
194 180 180 2 55.6 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
194 180 180 3 18.4 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
194 180 180 1 1.7 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
234 170 200 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
235 180 200 10 36.9 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
235 180 200 5 23 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
235 180 200 2 2.7 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
235 180 200 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Eroded
235 180 200 2 2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
235 180 200 1 0.7 Daub
259 1 3.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
259 1 1.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
259 7 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
260 1 4.8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
260 1 29.4 Fire-Cracked Rock
260 23 6.3 Coastal Plain Chert
260 1 4.7 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
74
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
260 23 6.3 Coastal Plain Chert
260 1 4.7 Early Archaic Coastal Plain Chert
261 1 2.4 Daub
261 9 2.9 Coastal Plain Chert
261 1 2 Coastal Plain Chert
262 1 1.6 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
262 1 15.9 Fire-Cracked Rock
262 6 2 Coastal Plain Chert
263 5 1.3 Coastal Plain Chert
264 1 1.4 Coastal Plain Chert
265 2 1.7 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
265 5 4.7 Coastal Plain Chert
266 11 6.2 Coastal Plain Chert
267 1 22.5 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
267 1 4.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
267 1 1.5 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
267 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
268 1 4.2 Ceramic Sherd Incised
268 2 9.4 Ceramic Sherd Plain
268 1 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
268 1 22.9 Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
269 330 100 1 2.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
269 330 100 2 15.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
269 330 100 1 0.6 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
269 330 100 4 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
269 330 100 1 0.5 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
270 330 90 1 3.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
270 330 90 1 1.8 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
270 330 90 4 2.3 Coastal Plain Chert
271 330 80 11 3.2 Coastal Plain Chert
273 330 60 1 1.4 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
272 210 220 8 39.6 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
272 210 220 1 3.5 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
272 210 220 1 3.1 Ceramic Sherd Plain
272 210 220 2 5.7 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
272 210 220 13 9.2 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
272 210 220 3 3 Coastal Plain Chert
274 330 110 12 5.4 Coastal Plain Chert
275 2 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
277 1 1.9 Coastal Plain Chert
278 1 2.3 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
278 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
279 330 70 1 10.8 Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
279 330 70 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Proj. Point/Knife
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
75
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
279 330 70 1 10.8Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
279 330 70 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
280 1 2.7Ceramic Sherd Plain
281 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
282 1 7.5Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
282 1 3.2Ceramic Sherd Plain
282 1 1.3Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
282 1 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
286 220 110 1 3.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
286 220 110 1 12.7Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
286 220 110 6 11.4 Coastal Plain Chert
287 220 120 12 46.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
287 220 120 5 16.4Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
287 220 120 5 20.8Ceramic Sherd Plain
287 220 120 2 8.7Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
287 220 120 1 12.4Ceramic Sherd Swift Creek
287 220 120 1 63.2Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
287 220 120 14 10.6Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
287 220 120 13 9.3 Coastal Plain Chert
288 220 130 4 14.6Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
288 220 130 1 2.2Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
288 220 130 3 5.5Ceramic Sherd Plain
288 220 130 1 7.1Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
288 220 130 3 5.6Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
288 220 130 9 6.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
288 220 130 1 6.5Pipe
288 220 130 12 4.8 Coastal Plain Chert
289 220 140 7 35.5Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
289 220 140 1 1.8Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
289 220 140 4 34Ceramic Sherd Plain
289 220 140 5 24.7Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
289 220 140 1 2.2Ceramic Sherd Fiber Temp. Tempered
289 220 140 2 3Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
289 220 140 4 5.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
289 220 140 7 87.6Fire-Cracked Rock
289 220 140 12 34.8 Coastal Plain Chert
290 220 150 1 6.7Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
290 220 150 1 7.5Ceramic Sherd Plain
290 220 150 1 1.9Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
290 220 150 3 3Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
290 220 150 4 2.7 Coastal Plain Chert
290 220 150 1 34.7Informal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
292 220 170 2 6.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
292 220 170 4 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
76
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
292 220 170 2 6.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
292 220 170 4 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
291 220 160 2 11.9Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
291 220 160 1 2.5Ceramic Sherd Plain
291 220 160 1 1.4Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
291 220 160 1 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
293 210 230 3 24.4Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
293 210 230 1 4.5Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
293 210 230 2 5.5Ceramic Sherd Plain
293 210 230 1 10.8Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
293 210 230 4 6.2Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
293 210 230 5 4.1Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
293 210 230 2 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
296 150 170 2 8.7Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
296 150 170 4 37Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
296 150 170 1 3.6Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
296 150 170 1 1.1Ceramic Sherd Eroded
296 150 170 4 4.4Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
296 150 170 2 2.7 Coastal Plain Chert
296 150 170 2 2.2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
295 210 170 1 14.4Ceramic Sherd Plain
295 210 170 1 2.1Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
295 210 170 1 35.5Fire-Cracked Rock
295 210 170 2 0.5 Coastal Plain Chert
294 210 160 1 4.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
294 210 160 2 0.5 Coastal Plain Chert
294 210 160 1 0.1Bone
297 160 170 2 6Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
297 160 170 1 7.3Ceramic Sherd Plain
297 160 170 3 16.5Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
297 160 170 1 1.3Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
299 180 170 2 6.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
299 180 170 1 2.7Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
299 180 170 2 5.1Ceramic Sherd Plain
299 180 170 1 2.4Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
299 180 170 3 15.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
299 180 170 1 2.1Ceramic Sherd Eroded
299 180 170 6 7.2Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
300 190 170 12 62.9Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
300 190 170 2 8.3Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
300 190 170 5 15Ceramic Sherd Plain
300 190 170 10 9.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
300 190 170 3 1.3 Coastal Plain Chert
301 200 170 5 2.7 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
77
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
300 190 170 3 1.3 Coastal Plain Chert
301 200 170 5 2.7 Coastal Plain Chert
302 190 230 2 2Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
302 190 230 4 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
303 190 240 7 4 Coastal Plain Chert
304 210 260 1 2 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
305 170 220 4 43Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
305 170 220 2 11.2Ceramic Sherd Plain
305 170 220 1 9.1Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
305 170 220 2 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
306 170 230 3 10.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
306 170 230 1 1Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
306 170 230 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
311 210 240 4 16.2Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
311 210 240 2 6Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
311 210 240 1 8.4Ceramic Sherd Plain
311 210 240 1 4.9Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
311 210 240 1 1.2Ceramic Sherd Eroded
311 210 240 4 1.7 Coastal Plain Chert
307 170 240 1 7.7Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
307 170 240 1 12.8Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
307 170 240 1 1.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
307 170 240 1 0.1 Coastal Plain Chert
308 170 250 1 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
309 170 260 1 4.9Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
309 170 260 1 0.6 Coastal Plain Chert
313 210 250 1 2Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
313 210 250 1 1.6Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
313 210 250 4 1.7 Coastal Plain Chert
310 170 270 2 5.5Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
310 170 270 2 6.8Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
310 170 270 2 8.5Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
310 170 270 1 0.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
312 210 270 3 39.9Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
312 210 270 1 1.1Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
312 210 270 7 7.9 Coastal Plain Chert
315 190 260 1 4.3Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
315 190 260 1 9Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
315 190 260 1 1.6Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
315 190 260 1 0.3 Coastal Plain Chert
316 190 250 2 29.9Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
316 190 250 4 3 Coastal Plain Chert
317 210 300 3 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
318 190 280 1 1.2Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
78
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
317 210 300 3 2.1 Coastal Plain Chert
318 190 280 1 1.2Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
318 190 280 1 Other
319 210 290 1 2.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
319 210 290 1 5.3 Coastal Plain Chert
320 210 310 2 0.9 Coastal Plain Chert
321 170 310 1 1.7 Coastal Plain Chert
323 170 300 1 9.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
323 170 300 1 24.1Ceramic Sherd Plain
323 170 300 1 16.1Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
323 170 300 4 8.6 Coastal Plain Chert
323 170 300 1 Other
324 190 270 1 0.9 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
325 210 280 1 7.8Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
325 210 280 1 7.3Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
326 227 140 1 5.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
326 227 140 1 2.2Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
326 227 140 1 6.4Ceramic Sherd Plain
326 227 140 1 3.5Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
326 227 140 2 11.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
326 227 140 2 1.9Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
326 227 140 6 2.5 Coastal Plain Chert
326 227 140 1 0.4 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
326 227 140 2 1.6Other
327 227 150 1 4.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
327 227 150 1 4.4Ceramic Sherd Plain
327 227 150 2 3.6Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
327 227 150 5 5.4Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
327 227 150 1 1.5 Coastal Plain Chert
327 227 150 1 1.1 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
328 280 220 1 3Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
328 280 220 1 2.8Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
328 280 220 1 0.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
328 280 220 17 6.6 Coastal Plain Chert
329 290 220 1 0.5Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
329 290 220 16 6 Coastal Plain Chert
330 225 130 4 30.2Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
330 225 130 1 2.5Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
330 225 130 1 12.2Ceramic Sherd Plain
330 225 130 1 1.5Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
330 225 130 6 4.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
330 225 130 1 12.6Daub
330 225 130 9 7.5 Coastal Plain Chert
330 225 130 1 0.5 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage Angular/Blky. Blocky Fragments/Chunks
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
79
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
330 225 130 9 7.5 Coastal Plain Chert
330 225 130 1 0.5 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
330 225 130 1 0.4Bone
331 289 210 3 23.1Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
331 289 210 1 3Ceramic Sherd Plain
331 289 210 2 1.6Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
331 289 210 2 3.4Fire-Cracked Rock
331 289 210 1 40.5
331 289 210 2 4.6 Coastal Plain Chert
331 289 210 1 4.3Informal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
332 279 210 2 7.3Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
332 279 210 1 2.5Ceramic Sherd Plain
332 279 210 7 3.4Daub
332 279 210 4 0.7 Coastal Plain Chert
333 150 180 1 1.7Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
333 150 180 3 1.9Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
333 150 180 1 2 Coastal Plain Chert
334 150 190 1 44.6Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
334 150 190 1 0.5Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
334 150 190 2 0.9 Coastal Plain Chert
334 150 190 1 1 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
335 140 190 2 10.3Ceramic Sherd Plain
335 140 190 2 13Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
335 140 190 2 1.7Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
335 140 190 4 4.7 Coastal Plain Chert
335 140 190 1 2.4 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
338 130 200 1 0.7 Flat Tub (Local) Chert
337 150 200 4 1.2 Coastal Plain Chert
339 130 180 2 2.3 Coastal Plain Chert
298 170 170 8 Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
298 170 170 4 Ceramic Sherd Incised Lamar
298 170 170 3 Ceramic Sherd Plain
298 170 170 4 Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
298 170 170 9 Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
298 170 170 3 Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
336 140 200 1 31.4Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
336 140 200 1 0.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
336 140 200 1 166.1
336 140 200 2 5.5 Coastal Plain Chert
340 130 170 2 4.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
340 130 170 2 31.1Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
340 130 170 1 0.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
340 130 170 4 2.9Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
340 130 170 2 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Groundstone
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Groundstone
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
80
Sh.. Test North EastCount Class SubClass 1 SubClass 2 Raw Mater.
340 130 170 4 2.9Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
340 130 170 2 0.8 Coastal Plain Chert
341 130 190 1 1.9 Coastal Plain Chert
342 120 200 1 2.2Ceramic Sherd Plain
342 120 200 1 2.4Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
342 120 200 1 19.3Daub
342 120 200 1 0.2 Coastal Plain Chert
344 120 170 1 0.8Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
343 120 190 1 10Ceramic Sherd Plain
343 120 190 2 11.2Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
343 120 190 2 8Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
343 120 190 1 2Ceramic Sherd Eroded
343 120 190 1 1.1 Coastal Plain Chert
345 120 180 2 2.8Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
345 120 180 1 2.1Ceramic Sherd Unidentifiable
345 120 180 2 2.1Ceramic Sherd < 1.5 cm Sherd
345 120 180 2 1.5 Coastal Plain Chert
161 330 150 1 2.7Daub
161 330 150 1 8.6Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
190 190 200 1 1.5Ceramic Sherd Eroded
193 180 190 3 1.4Daub
198 260 90 2 25.1Ceramic Sherd Cord Marked
252 1 2.6Ceramic Sherd Comp. St. Stamped Lamar
264 1 3.2Other Formal Tool Coastal Plain Chert
NOTE: Shovel tests without grid coordinates were located by GPS.
Wgt. (g)
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Debitage
Appendix A: Inventory of 2012 Shovel Test Artifacts
BInventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Appendix
81
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD1 Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent.
MD10 Lead shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent. Cast; Early?
MD100 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD101 Assorted metal Iron Modern Bedsprings, etc.
MD102 Buckle; belt stay Iron
MD103 Ring; chain mail(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD104 Disc Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD105 Shot Lead(?) Poss. 16th Cent.
MD105a Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD106 Mattock, frag. Iron 19th Cent.
MD107 Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent.
MD108 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD108 Machine part White metal Modern
MD11 Lead shot Lead Modern Buckshot
MD110 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD111 Bolt Iron Modern
MD112 Nut, square Iron Modern
MD113 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD114 Kettle leg; cast iron Iron 19th Cent.
MD115 Iron
MD116 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD117 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.? Annealed
MD118 Shot, buckshot(?) Lead Modern?
MD119 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD12 Lead shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent. Cast; Large, early?
MD120 Iron
MD121 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD122 Iron Modern Tractor/bulldozer part?
MD123 Bead Brass 16th Cent.
MD124 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD125 Spike Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD126 Nut, square Iron Modern
MD127 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD128 Ring, flat (frag.) Brass 16th Cent.
MD129 Pike; Gouge(?) Iron 16th Cent.
MD13 Hook w/ chain link Iron 16th Cent.
MD130 Condom tin Aluminum Modern "Merry Widow" brand
MD131 Flat strap Iron 19th Cent.
MD132 Shot, buckshot(?) Lead Modern?
MD133 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD134 Iron
MD135 Celt, frag.(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD136 Ring (frag.) Brass Poss. 16th Cent.
MD137 Hook, wire Iron Clothing fastener?
Undet.
Unid., flat frag. Undet.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Unid., frag., hvy., painted
Unid., flat frag. Undet.
Undet.82
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD136 Ring (frag.) Brass Poss. 16th Cent.
MD137 Hook, wire Iron Clothing fastener?
MD138 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD139 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD14 Lead Lead Poss. 16th Cent. Chunk
MD140 Key, skeleton Iron 19th Cent.
MD141 Key, skeleton Iron 19th Cent.
MD142 Lead Modern?
MD143 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD144 Bell, Clarksdale Brass 16th Cent.
MD145 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD146 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD147 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD148 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD149 Nail Iron 19th Cent.? Large nail
MD15 Battery part Non-ferrous Modern
MD150 Chisel, small(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD151 Nails(2) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD152 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD153 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD154 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD155 Wire Iron
MD156 Plow point(?) Iron Modern?
MD157 Chain link(?), frag. Iron
MD158 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD159 Wire Copper Modern
MD16 Unidentified Iron
MD160 Machine part White metal Modern
MD161 Wire Iron
MD162 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD163 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD164 Wire Iron
MD165 Nail, wrought? Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD166 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD167 Iron
MD168 Nail Iron 19th Cent.? Poss. Early?
MD169 Nail Iron 19th Cent.? Poss. Early?
MD17 Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent.
MD170 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD171 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD172 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD173 Shrapnel Lead Modern?
MD174 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD175 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
Undet.
Unid.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Unid., flat frag. Undet.
83
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD174 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD175 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD176 Nail, frag.(?) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD177 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD178 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD179 Iron Auger key?
MD18 Chain link Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD180 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD181 Chain link, twisted Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD182 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD183 Iron Poss. Early?
MD184 Buckle Iron
MD185 Iron
MD185a Buckle Iron
MD186 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD187 Nail, frags. (2) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD188 Nail, frag., wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD189 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD19 Flat iron band Iron
MD190 Iron
MD191 Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD192 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD193 Handle, flat, curved Iron 19th Cent. ladle handle?
MD194 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD195 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD196 Shrapnel(?) Lead Modern
MD196a Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD197 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD198 Wire; hook(?) Iron
MD199a Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD2 Lead shot Lead Modern Modern?
MD20 Lead shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent. Cast; Early?
MD200 Tin can Iron Modern
MD201 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD202 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD203 Strapping, flat band Iron Modern
MD204 Nail, wrought?, large Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD205 Wire Iron
MD206 Scraper blade, large Iron 19th Cent.
MD207 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD208 Tin can Iron Modern
MD209 Shot, buckshot(?) Lead
MD21 Lead shot Lead Modern Small, modern?
MD210 Wire Iron
Unid., flat Undet.
Unid., flat, frag. Undet.
Undet.
Unid., hook/handle(?), hvy. Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Unid., flange/fitting Undet.
Nail, L-head(?), hvy.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.84
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD21 Lead shot Lead Modern Small, modern?
MD210 Wire Iron
MD211 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD212 Pocketknife Composite Modern
MD213 Iron
MD214 Shrapnel Copper Modern Copper bullet jacket?
MD215 Shot, 22 cal. Lead Modern
MD216 Shot Lead
MD217 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD218 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD219 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD22 Nail (cut) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD220 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD221 Wire Iron
MD222 Iron
MD223 Washer, flat Brass(?) Modern
MD224 Iron
MD225 Fitting(?) Iron
MD226 Round, flange(?) Iron Modern?
MD227 Iron washer?
MD228 Iron
MD229 Pewter Poss. 16th Cent.
MD23 Nail (T-head) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD230 Iron Modern?
MD231 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD232b Iron
MD233 Iron Modern Property marker?
MD235 Horseshoe Iron 19th Cent.
MD236 Wire, fencing(?) Iron
MD237 Tin can(?) Iron Modern
MD239 Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent.
MD24 Nail, split Iron 19th Cent.?
MD240 Celt, trapezoidal(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD241 Axe Iron 19th Cent.
MD242 Blade, dbl-edged Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD243 Iron
MD244 Knife, tanged blade Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD245 Hook/eye Iron
MD246 Finial(?) Brass Poss. 16th Cent.
MD247 Unidentified; handle(?) Brass Poss. 16th Cent. Serpentine, cast brass
MD248 Buckle (frags.) Iron
MD249 Drawer pull Iron 19th Cent.
MD25 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD250 Band, wide, perforated Copper
Undet.
Unid., leg/bracket(?), hvy. Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Undet.
Unid., disc Undet.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Unid.
Unid., fitting(?)
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Lge. "pin"
Undet.
Unid; heavy, flat Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet. 85
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD25 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD250 Band, wide, perforated Copper
MD251 Axe, broad(?) Iron 19th Cent.
MD252 Nail, tack Iron 19th Cent.? Poss. Early?
MD253 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD254 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD255 Iron
MD256 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD257 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD258 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD259 Nail, frag., wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD26 Nail (cut) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD260 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD261 Kettle frag.(?); cast iron Iron
MD262 Iron Poss. 16th Cent. Chisel frag?
MD263 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD264 Nail, frag., wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD265 Iron
MD266 Kettle frag.(?); cast iron Iron
MD267 Nail, frag., split(?) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD268 Iron
MD269 Iron
MD27 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD270 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.? Large nail
MD271 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD272 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD273 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD274 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD275 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD276 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD277 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD278 Iron
MD279 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD28 Nail (cut) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD280 Iron
MD281 Iron
MD282 Iron Modern?
MD283 Iron
MD284 Iron
MD285 Iron
MD286 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD287 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD288 Shot? Lead
MD289 Shot Lead Small caliber
Undet.
Unid., spike frag.(?) Undet.
Undet.
Unid., hvy., bar
Unid., cast iron(?), hvy. Undet.
Undet.
Unid., flat bar, hvy. Undet.
Unid., flat, tool blade(?) Undet.
Unid., curved, hvy. Undet.
Unid., flat frag., hvy. Undet.
Unid., flat frag., hvy. Undet.
Unid., flat, hvy.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Unid., "blob" Undet.
Unid., cast iron(?), hvy. Undet.
Undet.
Undet.86
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD288 Shot? Lead
MD289 Shot Lead Small caliber
MD29 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD290 Shot Lead
MD291 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD293 Wire; clasp(?) Iron
MD294 Angled, flat; bracket(?) Iron
MD295 Shot Lead
MD296 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD297 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD298 Nail, L-head(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD299 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD3 Bell fragment? Non-ferrous 19th Cent.?
MD30 Nail, wrought Iron 19th Cent.?
MD300 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD301 Nail, wire? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD302 Celt, rectangular, frag.(?) Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD303 Buckle Iron
MD304 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD305 Kettle frag.; cast iron Iron 19th Cent.
MD307 Celt, trapezoidal Iron 16th Cent.
MD308 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD309 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD31 Sheet metal scrap Iron Modern?
MD310 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD311 Iron
MD312 Round, flange(?) Iron Modern?
MD32 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD33 Wire Iron Modern
MD34a Iron
MD34b Lead shot Lead Modern Small, modern?
MD35 Tin Foil Non-ferrous Modern
MD36 Nail? (frag) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD37 Wire Iron Modern
MD38 Electric bulb part Non-ferrous Modern
MD39 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD4 Chain link Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD40 Lead shot Lead Modern Small, modern?
MD41 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD42 Nail, wrought? Iron 19th Cent.?
MD43 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD44 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD45 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD46 Non-ferrous Modern
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Unid., flat frag., hvy. Undet.
Unid. Ringed shaft Undet.
Cuprous strap, perfor. 87
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD45 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD46 Non-ferrous Modern
MD47 Button, silver plated Non-ferrous 19th Cent.
MD48 Wood screw Iron Modern?
MD5 Sword frag/wedge? Iron 16th Cent.
MD50 Bullet, .22 cal Lead Modern
MD51 Rod, bent Iron Modern
MD52 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD53 Wire, twisted Iron Modern
MD54 Bolt Iron Modern
MD55 Rod, threaded Iron Modern
MD56 Wire Iron Modern
MD57 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD58 Wire Iron Modern
MD59 Rod, bent Iron Modern
MD6 Lead shot Lead Modern Buckshot
MD60 Rod, bent Iron Modern
MD61 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD62 Hex nut Iron Modern
MD63 U-bolt Iron Modern
MD64 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD64 Lead Modern
MD65 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD66 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD67 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD68 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD69 Nail (wrought?) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD7 Nail, tack Iron Poss. 16th Cent.
MD70 Shotgun shell brass Brass Modern
MD71 Shotgun shell Brass Modern
MD72 Rivet Brass Modern
MD73 Lighter part Non-ferrous Modern
MD74 Wire, twisted Iron Modern
MD75 Chisel, small Iron Poss. 16th Cent. Windrow context
MD76 Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent. Windrow context
MD77 Shot, buckshot(?) Lead Modern?
MD78 Nail, split Iron 19th Cent.?
MD79 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD8 Lead shot Lead Modern Buckshot
MD80 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD81 Round, flange(?), frag. Iron Modern?
MD82 Iron 19th Cent.
MD83 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD831 Nail, frag.(?) Iron 19th Cent.?
Cuprous strap, perfor.
Splitshot sinker
Unid.; umbrella rib(?)
88
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
Object No. Description Metal Component Comments
MD83 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD831 Nail, frag.(?) Iron 19th Cent.?
MD84 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD85 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD86 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD87 Shot Lead Poss. 16th Cent.
MD88 Nail, small Iron 19th Cent.?
MD89 Round, cap Iron Modern?
MD9 Shaped flat object Iron Modern Crossbow part?
MD91 Nail Iron 19th Cent.? Poss. Early?
MD92 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD93 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD94 Shrapnel Lead Modern?
MD95 Shot, buckshot(?) Lead Modern?
MD96 Lead
MD96 Nail, frag. Iron 19th Cent.?
MD97 Shot Lead
MD98 Nail Iron 19th Cent.?
MD99 Ring, gold-plated Brass
Wire Iron Modern?
Unit 59, Str I Celt, rectangular Iron 16th Cent.
Unit 70, Str III-IV Chisel Iron 16th Cent.
Unid. Undet.
Undet.
Undet.
Mda
89
Appendix B: Inventory of 2012 Metal Detector Artifacts
