Pakoindian Occupations of the Southern Appalachians A View fiom the Cumberland Plateau of Kentucky and Tennessee Leon Lane and David G. Anderson In this chapter we examine evidence for Paleoindian occupation and adaptation in the southern Appalachians, here defined as the mountainous regions above roughly one thousand feet in elevation extending from northern Georgia and Alabama to West Vir- ginia and including portions of eastern Kentucky and Tennessee and western North Carolina and Virginia (map 6.1). A particular fbcus is the northern Cumberland Plateau and adjacent Eastern Highland Rim of Kentucky and Tennessee, w-here one of us has conducted appreciable research in recent years (Lane 1995, 1996, 1997; Lane et al. 1995). This research is used in conjunction with other data from across the region to propose a model of Paleoindian chronology, migration, and adaptation in the southern ~pdalachians. The Paleoindian occupation of North America has held a fascination for archaeol- ogists since the verification of the initial Folsom discovery in 1927. Appreciable research directed to locating and examining sites and artifacts of this period has occurred in recent years. Fluted-point surveys have been initiated in almost every southern state within the last twenty years, building upon the pioneering example set by Ben McCary (1991) in Virginia in the late 1940s. To date almost nine thousand fluted points have been documented east of the Mississippi River, with the vast major- ity coming fkorn the southeastern United States (Anderson and Faught 1998, 167). Hundreds of sites with Paleoindian components have been identified across the Southeast, in excavations ranging in scale from limited testing operations to large-scale data recovery projects (e.g., as summarized in Anderson and Sassaman 1996). These efforts have expanded the material culture record, resulting in a better understanding of Paleoindian chronology, adaptation, and regional variation. Eastern Highland Rim Map 6.1. 1 The Southern Appalachians, including the sites and localities mentioned in the text. We now know that the Paleoindian occupation of the Southeast covers an appre- ciable span of time, over which sigdicant cultural change occurred. It is becoming increasiigly clear that the cultures present during the Paleoindian era did not possess a uniform suite of strategies extending across the Americas, nor were they essentially identical even within the Southeast itself. Early Paleoindian Clovis-using peoples in the central Tennessee River Valley, for example, had to have had a different pattern of land use fi-om their contemporaries in the radically different desiccated karstic terrain of northwestern Florida. Both of these adaptations in turn differed appreciably From the Late Paleoindian adaptations by Dalton and San Patrice-using peoples of the central and lower Mississippi Valley. Accordingly, Paleoindian studies must consider the dif- ferent environmental and historical settings in which these early hunter-gatherer occu- pations were carried out (Dent 1985; Dincauze and Curran 1983; Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Meltzer 1984; Meltzer and Smith 1986; Tankersley and Isaac 1990). Secure understanding of individual adaptations, furthermore, can only be achieved through detailed research at the subregional and local levels, and through the devel- opment of sophisticated models capable of interpreting the information being gener- ated and guiding the collection of new data. Focused local level research is crucial if we are to understand why there is surpris- ingly little known about Paleoindian occupations in some parts of eastern North America. This is particularly true in the more mountainous regions of the southern Appalachians, where sites and even artifacts dating to the Paleoindian period are com- paratively infi-equent when compared with other parts of the region. Thus, when data fkom fluted-point surveys are compiled, the resulting maps document major concen- trations of sites and artifacts in the major river valleys along the eastern and western flanks of the southern Appalachians, but comparatively few dcts, and certainly no major concentrations, within the central and more mountainous areas (map 6.2). Why this is the case is uncertain. Less intensive survey coverage, at least when com- pared with other parts of the region, is one possible explanation. There is an under- standable research bias amstexamining steeply sloping terrain and this, coupled with the minimal development'o~currin~in such terrain (and, as a consequence, minimal associated CRM work), might reduce the likelihood of discovering Paleoindian sites. Another possible explanation that has been raised is a lower incidence of cultivation, and hence reduced surface visibility and collecting activity, by both avocationals and professionals alike (c.f., Lepper 1983, 1985; Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Seeman and P&r 1984). Additionally, we must consider that this type of terrain, with the excep- tion of upper drainage systems (Cremeens and Lothrop this volume), is typically an erosional rather than a depositional environment, something that likely profoundly afkcted the likelihood of site preservation. Finally, the kinds of resources targeted by early populations, such as specific plant and animal species or lithic raw materials, may not have been as prevalent in mountainous areas. I Lane and Anderson Map 6.2. 1 lncidcnce of fluted points in thc Eastern Woodlands (data hrnhdcrson and Faugh 1998). AU of these factors are unquestionably operating to some extent in explaining the low incidence of Paleoindian remains in the southern Appalachian highlands. Even accepting this, it is highly unlikely, however, that major concentrations of Paleoindian sites and artifacts in any way comparable to those found in the regions to either side would have been missed, if they were indeed present in the first place. An additional explanation, offered here, is that the Appalachians were physiographically at the "ends* of early migration routes in part due to their geographic position. Not only did the Appalachians present colonizers with challenging topography and a different set of resources, but they were located in the interior of the region well away from primary migration routes (i.e., at the headwaters of major river systems) and were therefore some of the last areas in the Eastern Woodlands to be physically reached by colonizing populations moving up the large drainage systems of the mid-South and the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Only later, as population density rose promoting further colonization, and resource extraction and mobility strategies changed, did these areas witness appreciable visitation and ultimately settlement. The archaeological record suggests that in some areas of the southern Appalachians this did not occur until the Early Archaic period. The Cumberland Plateau stretches from the mid-Ohio River Valley in Kentucky southward into north-central Alabama and northeastern Mississippi (Fenneman 1938). It is a maturely dissected plateau of varying altitude and relief. This varying character is an expression of local differences in rock outcrops. It is a region of den- dritic drainages consisting of a maze of irregularly winding narrow-crested ridges and deep narrow valleys formed by the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers and their trib- utaries. Valley walls are characteriied by rocky hillslopes and precipitous sandstone CUTS, often contaihing rockshelters. Flat land is at a minimum within the region. However, in areas of shale outcrops considerable localized bottomlands have devel- oped while small upla&flats occur in areas of massive sandstone outcrops. Chert out- crops are localized and of varying quality and abundance. The Eastern Highland Rim lies adjacent to the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau &om central Kentucky to Alabama and Mississippi (Fenneman 1938). While technically part of the Interior Low Plateaus it is more similar physiographically to the Cumberland Plateau than the karst plains to the west and north, sharing a similar depositional and erosional histories. Pennsylvanian sandstones have been largely eroded away, exposing underlying Mississippian age, primarily carbonate, strata. Therefore, this dissected topography is combined with karst landscape features such as sinkholes and numerous cavernous settings. Chert outcrops of varying quality and abundance are widespread in these Mississippian formations (Tankersky 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b, 1998). I Lane and Anderson The currently accepted initial occupation of the Southeast occurred between 15,000 and 11,000 radiocarbon years B.P.,with extensive settlement occurring only well after 11,000 B.P., fbllowing Clovis. These events occurred during the dramatic period of rapid transition from the Late Glacial to Early Holocene environment. During this time temperatures were becoming warmer in summer, colder in winter, and precipitation was increasing. Paleoenvironmental analyses suggests that major changes in floral and hu- nal communities were occurring. The Late Glacial patchy environment was shifting to one of latitudinally and elevationally segregated zones (Davis 1983; Delcourt and Del- court 1985, 1987; Guilday 1984; Watts 1983). Between 12,000 and 10,000 B.P. the spruce-pine boreal forest-park lands of the Glacial period were being replaced by a homogeneous, mesic oak-hickory fbrest of northern hardwoods. In ecological terms the vegetation was changing from an immature, coarse-grained environment to a fine- grained mature environment.