DOCSLIB.ORG

Fisherfolk, Farmers and Frenchmen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Archaeological Report No. 30 Fisherfolk, Farmers and Frenchmen, I Archaeological Explorations on the Mississippi Gulf Coast John H. Blitz and C. Baxter Mann With Contributions By: Joseph A. Giliberti Joseph D. Jewell C. Margaret Scarry Mississippi Department of Archives and History Jackson, Mississippi 2000 Mississippi Department of Archives and History Archaeological Report No. 30 Patricia Galloway Series Editor Elbert R. Hilliard Director Typeset by Julie Bullock and Jason Catlin Cover Illustration: A ceramic effigy smoking pipe of the "Kneeling Human" style, ca. AD 1200-1350, from the Singing River site. ISBN: 0-938896-84-}f'Q Copyright © 2000 Mississippi Department of Archives and History Table of Contents Acknowledgements vi -' Chapters 1 Archaeology on the Coast 1 2 Where the Forest Meets the Sea 5 3 Middens in the Marshes 12 4 Painted Pots and Platform Mounds 29 5 Fisherfolk and Farmers 48 6 Native and Newcomer 63 7 The Cultural Sequence 75 8 Sites and Settlement (with joseph A. Giliberti) 88 9 Archaeology of the Eastern Mississippi Sound Region 97 Appendices A Ceramic Classifications and Illustrations 107 B Provienience ofArtifacts from Key Sites 136 C Fishing on the Mississippi Coast - Vertebrate Faunal Remains 156 joseph D. jroJell D Foraging and Gardening on the Mississippi Coast - Plant Food Remains 168 C. Margaret Scarry E Roster ofArchaeological Sites 176 F Archaeological Phases of the Eastern Mississippi Sound Region 179 Biloxi Bay - Pascagoula Bay - Point Aux Chenes Bay 1200 BC-AD 1775 References 181 Contributors 198 Figures 1.1 The Mississippi Sound Region. 2 1.2 The Eastern Subregion Study Area. 3 2.1 Landforms in the Study Area. 6 2.2 Relationship Between Landforms, Biotic Communities, and Geomorphological Units in the Study Area. 8 3.1 Plan of Apple Street Site (22:Ja-530). 12 3.2 East Profile, Unit 4, Apple Street. 13 II Archaeological Report No. 30, 2000 Figures, continued 3.3 Plan of Big Greenwood Island Site (22:Ja-516). 14 3.4 Plan of East Bayou LaMotte Site (22:Ja-555). 17 3.5 South Profile, Unit 1, East Bayou LaMotte. 17 3.6 Distribution of Claiborne and Apple Street Phase Sites. 21 3.7 Distribution of Greenwood Island Phase Sites. 26 4.1 Plan of Godsey Site (22-Hr-591). 29 4.2 Plan of Area A, Godsey Site. 30 4.3 North and East Profiles, Unit 2, Godsey. 30 4.4 Plan of Harvey Site (22-Hr-534). 33 4.5 North Profile, Unit 3, Harvey. 33 4.6 Plan of Graveline Mound (22:Ja-503). 35 4.7 North Profile, Unit 1, Graveline Mound. 36 4.8 Distribution of Godsey and Graveline Phase Sites. 41 4.9 Distribution of Tates Hammock Phase Sites. 47 5.1 Plan of Singing River Site (22:Ja-520). 48 5.2 Plan of Area A, Singing River Site. 49 5.3 Plan of Area B, Singing River Site. 50 5.4 South Profile, Pinola Unit 1, Area A, Singing River. 50 5.5 West Profile, Lewis Unit 1, Area B, Singing River. 51 5.6 Distribution of Pinola, Singing River, and Bear Point Phase Sites. 55 6.1 Detail from Plan du Fort de Maurepas a la coste meridionale de la Floride. 63 6.2 The Vieux Biloxi and Stone Marker Locales in Ocean Springs. 65 6.3 The Stone Marker found in Ocean Springs in 1909. 66 6.4 Detail from Carte particuliere des environs du Fort de Maurepas et de la baye de Biloxy. 66 6.5 Distribution of Poitevent's Artifact Finds and His Interpretation of Structure Locations, Vieux Biloxi (22:Ja-534). 67 6.6 Old Spanish Fort/Krebs House. 68 6.7 Detail from Carte de la Riviere des Pascagoula by Dumont de Montigny, 1720s. 72 6.8 Distribution of La Pointe Phase Sites. 73 7.1 Native American Cultural Chronology: Eastern Mississippi Sound Region. 81 7.2 Poverty Point Objects and Ground Stone Artifacts. 83 7.3 Ground Stone Artifacts and Copper Artifacts. 85 7.4 Bone/AntlerArtifacts. 86 7.5 Projectile Point/Knives. 86 8.1 Distribution of Sites with Mounds. 89 Contents zzz Figures, continued 8.2 Relationship of Sites and Landform. 92 8.3 Relationship of Sites and Microenvironmental Setting. 92 8.4 Relationship of Sites and Elevation. 92 8.5 Soils in the Study Area. 94 A.I Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Ceramics. 119 A.2 Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Ceramics. 120 A3 Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Podal Supports. 121 A.4 Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Podal Supports and Bases. 122 A5 Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Ceramics. 123 A6 Apple Street Phase and Greenwood Island Phase Ceramics. 124 A.7 Greenwood Island Phase, Godsey Phase, and Graveline Phase Ceramics. 125 A8 Vessels Found in Road Cut at Graveline Mound. 126 A9 Graveline Phase, Tates Hammock Phase, and Pinola Phase Ceramics. 127 AIO Shell-tempered Vessels. 128 All Shell-tempered Handles. 129 AI2 Pinola Phase and Singing River Phase Ceramics. 130 A.13 Singing River Phase Shallow Bowls/Plates. 131 A.14 Singing River Phase Bowls. 132 AI5 Singing River Phase Bowls and Beakers. 133 AI6 Bear Point Phase Bowls. 134 AI7 La Pointe Phase Ceramics. 135 C.I Combined Species Totals: Godsey, Pinola, and Singing River Phase Samples. 163 C.2 Fish Size Ranges: Godsey, Pinola, and Singing River Phase Samples. 167 Tables 3.1 Characteristics of Claiborne and Apple Street Phase Sites. 20 3.2 Apple Street Phase Ceramic Complex. 25 3.3 Characteristics of Greenwood Island Phase Sites. 26 3.4 Greenwood Island Phase Ceramic Complex. 27 4.1 Godsey Phase Ceramic Complex. 39 4.2 Characteristics of Godsey Phase and Graveline Phase Sites. 40 4.3 Graveline Phase Ceramic Complex. 42 4.4 Characteristics of Tates Hammock Phase Sites. 46 4.5 Tates Hammock Phase Ceramic Complex. 46 5.1 Characteristics of Pinola Phase, Singing River Phase, and Bear Point Phase Sites. 56 iv Archaeological Report No. 30, 2000 Tables, continued 5.2 Pinola Phase Ceramic Complex. 57 5.3 Singing River Phase Ceramic Complex. 59 5.4 Bear Point Phase Ceramic Complex. 61 6.1 La Pointe Phase Ceramic Complex. 71 6.2 Characteristics of La Pointe Phase Sites. 73 7.1 Characteristics of Paleoindian and Archaic Sites. 76 7.2 Seriation ofTemper-Ware Groups. 78 7.3 Seriation of Decorated Type-Varieties. 79 7.4 . Distribution of Thirty Traits by Phase. 80 7.5 Radiocarbon Dates for the Eastern Mississippi Sound Region. 82 7.6 Distribution of Poverty Point Objects (Jackson County). 84 7.7 Distribution of Ground Stone Implements. 84 7.8 Distribution of Stone and Copper Ornaments. 85 7.9 Distribution ofBone/Antler Artifacts. 86 7.10 Distribution ofPost-Archaic Projectile Point/Knife Types. 87 8.1 Time-Adjusted Component Frequencies. 91 8.2 Relationship of Sites, Soil Types, and Soil Associations. 93 B.l Cultural Materials, Unit 1, Apple Street (22:Ja-530). 136 B.2 Cultural Materials, Unit 2, Apple Street (22:Ja-530). 137 B.3 Cultural Materials, Unit 3, Apple Street (22:Ja-530). 138 B.4 Cultural Materials, Unit 4, Apple Street (22:Ja-530). 139 B.5 Prehistoric Pottery, Aggregate Totals from Disturbed Contexts, Big Greenwood Island (22:Ja-516). 140 B.6 Cultural Materials, Unit 1, East Bayou LaMotte (22:Ja-555). 141 B.7 Cultural Materials, Surface and Disturbed Contexts (Shepard Collection), East Bayou LaMotte (22:Ja-555). 142 B.8 Cultural Materials, Unit 2, Godsey (22-Hr-591 ). 143 B.9 Cultural Materials, Surface and Disturbed Contexts (Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 4: Strata A-C, Trench I) Harvey (22-Hr-534). 144 B.I0 Cultural Materials, Unit 3, Harvey (22-Hr-534). 145 B.ll Cultural Materials, Unit 4, Stratum D (35-60 cm below surface), Harvey (22-Hr-534). 146 B.12 Cultural Materials, Unit 6, Harvey (22-Hr-534). 146 B.13 Cultural Materials, Unit 1, Graveline Mound (22:Ja-503). 147 B.14 Cultural Materials, Pinola Unit 1, Singing River (22:Ja-520). 148 B.15 Cultural Materials, Lewis Unit 1, Singing River (22:Ja-520). 150 Contents v B.16 Decorated Pottery, Area A and Area B Surface Context (Mansfield and Lewis Collections), Singing River (22:Ja-520). 152 B.17 Decorated Pottery, Singing River "Michelle Mound" (22:Ja-578), Tullis-Toledano Manor Collection. 152 B.18 Cultural Materials, Surface and Disturbed Contexts (Watkins Collection), Deer Island (22-Hr-500). 152 B.19 Native American Ceramics, Old Spanish Fort/Krebs House (22:Ja-526), All Provenience Units, 1992 Excavations. 153 B.20 Native American Ceramics, Old Spanish Fort/Krebs House (22:Ja-526), All Provenience Units, 1994 Excavations. 153 B.21 Cultural Materials, Surface and Disturbed Contexts (Tullis-Toledano Manor Collection), Homestead (22:Ja-521, 22:Ja-645). 154 B.22 Cultural Materials, Surface and Disturbed Contexts (Smith Collection), Homestead (22:Ja-645). 155 C.I Provenience of Faunal Samples. 156 C.2 Godsey Phase Faunal Remains, Godsey (22-Hr-591). 158 C.3 Pinola Phase Faunal Remains, Singing River (22:Ja-520). 159 C.4 Singing River Phase Faunal Remains, Singing River (22:Ja-520). 160 C.5 Burnt Bone. 160 C.6 Godsey Phase Faunal Remains from Features, Godsey (22-Hr-591). 161 C.7 Fish Spawning and Size Data. 165 C.8 Fish Size. 166 D.1 Flotation Samples Examined for Botanical Remains. 169 D.2 Nuts, Seeds, and Other Plant Parts Identified from the Godsey and Singing River Sites. 170 D.3 Nutshells, Seeds, and Other Plant Parts in the Godsey Site, Godsey Phase Samples. 171 D.4 Nutshells, Seeds, and Other Plant Parts in the Singing River Site, Pinola Phase Samples.
Recommended publications
  • Cherokee Ethnogenesis in Southwestern North Carolina

    Cherokee Ethnogenesis in Southwestern North Carolina

    The following chapter is from: The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia Charles R. Ewen – Co-Editor Thomas R. Whyte – Co-Editor R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. – Co-Editor North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30 2011 Available online at: http://www.rla.unc.edu/NCAC/Publications/NCAC30/index.html CHEROKEE ETHNOGENESIS IN SOUTHWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA Christopher B. Rodning Dozens of Cherokee towns dotted the river valleys of the Appalachian Summit province in southwestern North Carolina during the eighteenth century (Figure 16-1; Dickens 1967, 1978, 1979; Perdue 1998; Persico 1979; Shumate et al. 2005; Smith 1979). What developments led to the formation of these Cherokee towns? Of course, native people had been living in the Appalachian Summit for thousands of years, through the Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi periods (Dickens 1976; Keel 1976; Purrington 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). What are the archaeological correlates of Cherokee culture, when are they visible archaeologically, and what can archaeology contribute to knowledge of the origins and development of Cherokee culture in southwestern North Carolina? Archaeologists, myself included, have often focused on the characteristics of pottery and other artifacts as clues about the development of Cherokee culture, which is a valid approach, but not the only approach (Dickens 1978, 1979, 1986; Hally 1986; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2008; Schroedl 1986a; Wilson and Rodning 2002). In this paper (see also Rodning 2009a, 2010a, 2011b), I focus on the development of Cherokee towns and townhouses. Given the significance of towns and town affiliations to Cherokee identity and landscape during the 1700s (Boulware 2011; Chambers 2010; Smith 1979), I suggest that tracing the development of towns and townhouses helps us understand Cherokee ethnogenesis, more generally.
  • A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
  • Late Mississippian Ceramic Production on St

    Late Mississippian Ceramic Production on St

    LATE MISSISSIPPIAN CERAMIC PRODUCTION ON ST. CATHERINES ISLAND, GEORGIA Anna M. Semon A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Vincas P. Steponaitis C. Margaret Scarry R. P. Stephen Davis Anna Agbe-Davis John Scarry © 2019 Anna M. Semon ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Anna M. Semon: Late Mississippian Ceramic Production on St. Catherines Island, Georgia (Under the direction of Vincas P. Steponaitis) This dissertation examines Late Mississippian pottery manufacturing on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. Data collected from five ceramic assemblages, three village and two mortuary sites, were used to characterize each ceramic assemblage and examine small-scale ceramic variations associated with learning and making pottery, which reflect pottery communities of practice. In addition, I examined pottery decorations to investigate social interactions at community and household levels. This dissertation is organized in six chapters. Chapter 1 provides the background, theoretical framework, and objectives of this research. Chapter 2 describes coastal Georgia’s culture history, with focus on the Mississippian period. Chapters 3 and 4 present the methods and results of this study. I use both ceramic typology and attribute analyses to explore ceramic variation. Chapter 3 provides details about the ceramic typology for each site. In addition, I examine the Mississippian surface treatments for each assemblage and identified ceramic changes between middle Irene (A.D. 1350–1450), late Irene (A.D. 1450–1580), and early Mission (A.D. 1580–1600) period.
  • I. a Consideration of Tine and Labor Expenditurein the Constrijction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Pover

    I. a Consideration of Tine and Labor Expenditurein the Constrijction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Pover

    I. A CONSIDERATION OF TINE AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRIJCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT MOUND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore 40 II. A CONSIDERATION OF TIME AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT 14)UND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore INTRODUCT ION In considering the subject of prehistoric earthmoving and the construction of monuments associated with it, there are many variables for which some sort of control must be achieved before any feasible demographic features related to the labor involved in such construction can be derived. Many of the variables that must be considered can be given support only through certain fundamental assumptions based upon observations of related extant phenomena. Many of these observations are contained in the ethnographic record of aboriginal cultures of the world whose activities and subsistence patterns are more closely related to the prehistoric cultures of a particular area. In other instances, support can be gathered from observations of current manual labor related to earth moving since the prehistoric constructions were accomplished manually by a human labor force. The material herein will present alternative ways of arriving at the represented phenomena. What is inherently important in considering these data is the element of cultural organization involved in such activities. One need only look at sites such as the Valley of the Kings and the great pyramids of Egypt, Teotihuacan, La Venta and Chichen Itza in Mexico, the Cahokia mound group in Illinois, and other such sites to realize that considerable time, effort and organization were required.
  • Social Studies

    Social Studies

    SOCIAL STUDIES POVERTY POINT EARTHWORKS: GRADES 5-8 LOUISIANAS ANCIENT INHABITANTS (LESSON 2) GEORGE DURRETT TIME ALLOTMENT: STANDARDS: One 45-minute class periods United States History Standards for grades 5-12 This lesson can be used in conjunction withLesson http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/standards/ 1: Poverty Point Earthworks: Evolutionary worldera1.html Milestones of the Americas, or separately. If used http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/standards/ in conjunction with the first lesson, the Poverty Point worldera2.html film need not be shown again. The time allotment Standard 1A: Analyze how the natural environments would be one 45-minute class period. of the Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, and Indus valleys shaped the early development of civilization. OVERVIEW: Standard 1B: Analyze how the natural environments of the Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, and Indus valleys When we think of ancient cultures in the New World, shaped the early development of civilization. the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas come to mind. Yet here Standard 2B: Compare the climate and geography of in Louisiana lies evidence of a culture that extends back the Huang He (Yellow River) valley with the as far as 1350 BC. The prehistoric people of Poverty natural environments of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Point created an earthen structure so immense that it and the Indus valley. was unrecognizable from the ground. In the 1950’s, an aerial photograph was discovered that pictured huge Louisiana Social Studies Content Standards earthen ridges and mounds that were not a product of http://www.doe.state.la.us/DOE/asps/home.asp natural geological formation. Geography: Physical and Cultural Systems Through the activities in this lesson, students will Students develop a spatial understanding of Earth’s examine the structures and artifacts of Poverty Point in surface and the processes that shape it, the order to understand the cultural aspects of North connections between people and places, and the American prehistoric people, their development in relationship between man and his environment.
  • Further Investigations Into the King George

    Further Investigations Into the King George

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22) Harry Gene Brignac Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brignac Jr, Harry Gene, "Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22)" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 2720. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2720 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE KING GEORGE ISLAND MOUNDS SITE (16LV22) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology By Harry Gene Brignac Jr. B.A. Louisiana State University, 2003 May, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to God for surrounding me with the people in my life who have guided and supported me in this and all of my endeavors. I have to express my greatest appreciation to Dr. Rebecca Saunders for her professional guidance during this entire process, and for her inspiration and constant motivation for me to become the best archaeologist I can be.
  • Historical Changes in the Mississippi-Alabama Barrier Islands and the Roles of Extreme Storms, Sea Level, and Human Activities

    Historical Changes in the Mississippi-Alabama Barrier Islands and the Roles of Extreme Storms, Sea Level, and Human Activities

    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN THE MISSISSIPPI-ALABAMA BARRIER ISLANDS AND THE ROLES OF EXTREME STORMS, SEA LEVEL, AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES Robert A. Morton 88∞46'0"W 88∞44'0"W 88∞42'0"W 88∞40'0"W 88∞38'0"W 88∞36'0"W 88∞34'0"W 88∞32'0"W 88∞30'0"W 88∞28'0"W 88∞26'0"W 88∞24'0"W 88∞22'0"W 88∞20'0"W 88∞18'0"W 30∞18'0"N 30∞18'0"N 30∞20'0"N Horn Island 30∞20'0"N Petit Bois Island 30∞16'0"N 30∞16'0"N 30∞18'0"N 30∞18'0"N 2005 2005 1996 Dauphin Island 1996 2005 1986 1986 30∞16'0"N Kilometers 30∞14'0"N 0 1 2 3 4 5 1966 30∞16'0"N 1950 30∞14'0"N 1950 Kilometers 1917 0 1 2 3 4 5 1917 1848 1849 30∞14'0"N 30∞14'0"N 30∞12'0"N 30∞12'0"N 30∞12'0"N 30∞12'0"N 30∞10'0"N 30∞10'0"N 88∞46'0"W 88∞44'0"W 88∞42'0"W 88∞40'0"W 88∞38'0"W 88∞36'0"W 88∞34'0"W 88∞32'0"W 88∞30'0"W 88∞28'0"W 88∞26'0"W 88∞24'0"W 88∞22'0"W 88∞20'0"W 88∞18'0"W 89∞10'0"W 89∞8'0"W 89∞6'0"W 89∞4'0"W 88∞58'0"W 88∞56'0"W 88∞54'0"W 88∞52'0"W 30∞16'0"N Cat Island Ship Island 30∞16'0"N 2005 30∞14'0"N 1996 30∞14'0"N 1986 Kilometers 1966 0 1 2 3 30∞14'0"N 1950 30∞14'0"N 1917 1848 Fort 2005 Massachusetts 1995 1986 Kilometers 1966 0 1 2 3 30∞12'0"N 1950 30∞12'0"N 1917 30∞12'0"N 30∞12'0"N 1848 89∞10'0"W 89∞8'0"W 89∞6'0"W 89∞4'0"W 88∞58'0"W 88∞56'0"W 88∞54'0"W 88∞52'0"W Open-File Report 2007-1161 U.S.
  • Eastern Mississippi Sound

    Eastern Mississippi Sound

    ~-T-85-001 C2 V 0<'~" SEDIMENTATION,DISPERSALAND PARTITIONING LQAN CO~ OF TRACEMETAI.S IN COASTALMISSISSIPPI- ALAEAMA.ESTUARINE SEDIMENTS F INAL TECHNICAL REPORT gmt'.NIPS<>"': QayneC. Isphording, Ph.D. assQSA! g@QSlLNt Principal Invest igator George M. Lamb Associate Investigator Robert Helton, Sheri George, Robert Brown, Lysi Payne,Gary Slouat, GregoryIsphording Undergraduate Assistants University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36688 NATIONALSEA GRANT D":P'j~!~OI"Y PELL Lliii .-',-Y !! ',3'..'..':;. URI, NARRA'.'iH:'-lihi Y '-='-;:i~"US January 1980 March 1984 NARRAGANSETT,R l 02882 January 1985 MISSISSIPPI-ALABAMA SEA GRANT CONSORTIUM Grant No.: NASlhh-~0050 Project No.: R/ER-4 MAStP-83-035 This «ork is a result of research sponsored in part by NOhhOffice of SeaGrant, Department of Commerceunder Grant No.: MSlhh-D-00050, the Mississippi-k.labamaSea Grant Consort ium and the University of SouthAlabama. The U,S. Governmentis authorisedto produceand distribute reprinta for governmentalpurposes notwithstandingany copyright notation that Cay appear hereon+ SEDIMENTATION,DISPERSAL ANDPARTITIONING OFTRACE METALS IN COASTALMISSISSIPPI- ALABAMAESTUARINE SEDIMENTS LOAN Cppy ONLy FINAL REPORT @ATION-ALSEA 'RP;8T D PDal108Y PLI ~i I '-' -'ll" Bl ~L", iG .URI, NAI i ni- .>:TT Bile' ii;liPUS HARIiAGnhSETT,R I 0288? PRINCIPALINVESTIGATOR - Wayne C. Isphording ASSOCIATEINVESTIGATOR George M. Lamb UNDERGRADUATEASSISTANTS- Robert Helton, Sheri George, Robert Brown, Lyal Payne, GaryBlount, GregoryIsphording Project NumberR/ER-4 SubmiFinal ttedReport to: Mississippi-Alabama SEAGRANT Consortium Gulf Coast ResearchLaboratory OceanSprings, h1S39564 PURPOSEOF INVESTIGATION Thepurpose of this investigation wasto documentthechemistry, mineralogy andlithology of thebottom sediments of Lake Borgne andMississippi Sound. A secondobjective was to determinethemanner bywhich var ious metals were site partitionedin these sediments.
  • Pierce Mounds Complex an Ancient Capital in Northwest Florida

    Pierce Mounds Complex an Ancient Capital in Northwest Florida

    Pierce Mounds Complex An Ancient Capital in Northwest Florida Nancy Marie White Department of Anthropology University of South Florida, Tampa [email protected] Final Report to George J. Mahr, Apalachicola, Florida December 2013 ii ABSTRACT The Pierce site (8Fr14), near the mouth of the Apalachicola River in Franklin County, northwest Florida, was a major prehistoric mound center during the late Early and Middle Woodland (about A.D. 200-700) and Mississippian (about A.D. 1000-1500) periods. People lived there probably continuously during at least the last 2000 years (until right before the European invasion of Florida in the sixteenth century) and took advantage of the strategic location commanding the river and bay, as well as the abundant terrestrial and aquatic resources. Besides constructing several mounds for burial of the dead and probably support of important structures, native peoples left long midden (refuse) ridges of shells, animal bones, artifacts and blackened sandy soils, which built up a large and very significant archaeological site. Early Europeans and Americans who settled in the town of Apalachicola recognized the archaeological importance of Pierce and collected artifacts. But since the site and its spectacular findings were published by C.B. Moore in 1902, much information has been lost or misunderstood. Recent investigations by the University of South Florida were commissioned by the property owner to research and evaluate the significance of the site. There is evidence for an Early Woodland (Deptford) occupation and mound building, possibly as early as A.D. 200. Seven of the mounds form an oval, with the Middle Woodland burial mounds on the west side.
  • Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Atchafalaya National

    Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Atchafalaya National

    Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Heritage National Atchafalaya COMMISSION REVIEW- October 1, 2010 Vol. II SEPTEMBER 2011 Environmental Assessment Environmental Management Plan Note: This is a low resolution file of the painting, “Hope” to show artwork and placement. Artwork will be credited to Melissa Bonin, on inside front cover. AtchafalayaAtchafalaya NationalNational HeritageHeritage AreaArea MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SEPT DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011 As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. Front cover photo credit: Louisiana Office of Tourism NPS ABF/P77/107232 SEPTEMBER 2011 Printed on recycled paper Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Management Plan/ Environmental Assessment Volume Two 1 2 CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO CHAPTER
  • New Discoveries Nearcahokia

    New Discoveries Nearcahokia

    THE ROLE OF ROCK ART • SEEING THE BEST OF THE SOUTHWEST • UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY SPRING 2011 americanamericana quarterly publication of The Archaeological Conservancyarchaeologyarchaeology Vol. 15 No. 1 NEW DISCOVERIES NEAR CAHOKIA $3.95 SPRING 2011 americana quarterly publication of The Archaeological Conservancyarchaeology Vol. 15 No. 1 COVER FEATURE 12 THE BEGINNINGS OF URBANISM? BY SUSAN CABA Was Cahokia a prehistoric metropolis? 24 The discovery of a large adjacent community has convinced some archaeologists that it was. 19 THE STORIES UNDER THE SEA BY AMY GREEN A maritime archaeology program is uncovering details of the history of St. Augustine, America’s oldest port city. 24 THE BEST OF THE SOUTHWEST BY NANCY ZIMMERMAN Come along on one of the Conservancy’s most popular tours. 32 REVEALING THE ROLE OF ROCK ART BY LINDA MARSA MER Researchers in California are trying to determine L PAL L E the purpose of these ancient images. A H C MI 7 38 THE STORY OF FORT ST. JOSEPH BY MICHAEL BAWAYA The investigation of a 17th-century French fort in southwest Michigan is uncovering the story of French colonialism in this region. 44 new acquisition A PIECE OF CHEROKEE HISTORY The Conservancy signs an option for a significant Cherokee town site. 46 new acquisition PRESERVING AN EARLY ARCHAIC CEMETERY The Sloan site offers a picture of life and death more than 10,000 years ago. 47 new acquisition THE CONSERVANCY PARTNERS TO OBTAIN NINTH WISCONSIN PRESERVE The Case Archaeological District contains several prehistoric sites. 48 new acquisition A GLIMPSE OF THE MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD The Plum Creek site could reveal more information about this time.
  • Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland Tradition

    Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland Tradition

    Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland Tradition Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Submitted by Constance Arzigian Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse July 2008 MINNESOTA STATEWIDE MULTIPLE PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION FORM FOR THE WOODLAND TRADITION FINAL Mn/DOT Agreement No. 89964 MVAC Report No. 735 Authorized and Sponsored by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Submitted by Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 1725 State Street La Crosse WI 54601 Principal Investigator and Report Author Constance Arzigian July 2008 NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Aug. 2002) (Expires 1-31-2009) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. __X_ New Submission ____ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Woodland Tradition in Minnesota B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Brainerd Complex: Early Woodland in Central and Northern Minnesota, 1000 B.C.–A.D. 400 The Southeast Minnesota Early Woodland Complex, 500–200 B.C. The Havana-Related Complex: Middle Woodland in Central and Eastern Minnesota, 200 B.C.–A.D.