CHEROKEE HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITIES IN THE ENGLISH CONTACT PERIOD, A.D. 1670-1740 Jon Bernard Marcoux A dissertation submitted to the faculty of 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 2008 Approved by: Chair: Vincas Steponaitis Advisor: Brett Riggs Reader: Brian Billman Reader: C. Margaret Scarry Reader: John Scarry ©2008 Jon Bernard Marcoux ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT JON BERNARD MARCOUX: Cherokee Households and Communities in the English Contact Period, A.D. 1670-1740 (Under the direction of Vincas P. Steponaitis and Brett Riggs) This study focuses on issues of culture contact and the materialization of identity through an archaeological case study of a late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Cherokee community located in eastern Tennessee. The English Contact period (ca. A.D. 1670-1740) was an extremely turbulent time for southeastern Indian groups marked by disease, warfare, and population movements. I examine how this chaotic period played out in the daily lives of Cherokee households. I use primary and secondary sources to develop an historical context for the English Contact period in the southeastern United States. I introduce a reliable way to identify English Contact period Cherokee occupations using pottery and glass trade bead data. I also consult artifact data in order to identify patterns associated with change and stability in the activities of daily life within Cherokee households. I find that daily life in Cherokee households changed dramatically as they coped with the shifting social, political, and economic currents of the English Contact period. Based on variability in household pottery assemblages, I argue that this particular Cherokee community included households that migrated from geographically disparate Cherokee settlements. This type of social coalescence is documented among other Indian groups as a strategy employed to ameliorate population loss resulting from European contact. I also find that the architecture and spatial organization of Cherokee iii communities changed dramatically during the English Contact period. Specifically, the later communities lacked the highly structured spatial organization and long-lived residential areas that typified earlier Mississippian period communities. Ultimately, I argue that these changes too were strategic adaptations to the flexible and transient lifestyle required during the period. iv To Christine v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While it is perhaps beyond cliché for a graduate student to say it, this dissertation truly is not what I planned it to be when I arrived at Chapel Hill. After spending five years researching twelfth- and thirteenth-century Mississippian communities in northern Alabama, I was presented with an incredible opportunity that came with one catch – I had to switch my dissertation topic to late seventeenth-century Cherokee communities. After some debate and sage advice from a mentor who said that the best dissertations were ones that were "finished" and "paid for," I decided to make the change. Indeed, the only word I can think of to describe my journey to this point would be "fortuitous" – and there is a host of folks to thank for it. For starters, I want to thank Brett Riggs. Without Brett's recommendation, lobbying, and "sage advice," I never would have gotten involved with the Townsend project. Brett was instrumental in helping me get familiar with a whole different area of research and learn an entirely new set of material culture. I will forever be indebted to Brett for sharing with me his encyclopedic knowledge of Cherokee written and oral history and archaeology, his wit, and his encouragement. The other members of my committee also contributed greatly to my education as an archaeologist and scholar. Vin Steponaitis impressed upon me the importance of using quantitative methods to approach archaeological research, and his instruction gave me the ability to do it. Brian Billman introduced me to the subfield of household archaeology, and by allowing me to participate in his field schools, he taught me how this vi incredibly powerful analytical perspective should be employed. In their classes and in their research, Margie Scarry and John Scarry demonstrated to me the importance of grounding my study in a solid theoretical framework. I am fortunate to have access to such brilliant and genuine people. The intellectual environment that surrounded me at Chapel Hill can never be duplicated. Whether by cosmic convergence or faculty design, I was part of a cadre of students pursuing similar research interests, and the cross-pollination of insights among these folks led to many of the ideas that appear in the following pages. These colleagues include Greg Wilson, Tony Boudreaux, Amber VanDerwarker, Chris Rodning, Jennifer Ringberg, Lance Green, Julio Rucabado-Yong, Mark Plane, Barker Fariss, Ben Shields, Erik Johannesson, Erin Grantham, and Drew Kenworthy. I thank Greg and Tony in particular for untold numbers of discussions about ways to link our lofty ideas to the terra firma of the archaeological record and for being incredibly steadfast friends. I am also lucky to have another set of equally talented colleagues and friends from my days at the University of Alabama – Tom Lewis, Virgil Beasley, Keith Little, and Scott Hammerstedt. My dissertation work was supported through a position funded by the Archaeological Research Laboratories at the University of Tennessee. I am grateful to Boyce Driscoll for allowing me to participate in the Townsend Archaeological Project and for giving me the freedom to pursue my research interests. Boyce and his wife Susan also generously opened their home to me during research trips to Knoxville. While working at the ARL facilities in Knoxville, Cameron Howell and Rachel Black went out of their way to provide me with any information I needed. Cameron was also my only vii direct link to the fieldwork done at Townsend. Cameron possesses a classic "archaeologist's memory," which I envy greatly. I relied on him to fill in gaps where paper notes and records failed. I am also indebted to Kenneth Cornett for generously sharing his knowledge of the archaeology of the Little River valley. Without the results of Mr. Cornett's survey of the Little River valley, the Cherokee occupation at the Townsend site would be an anomaly lacking any context. My project also benefited from the offer of data and assistance from a number of researchers and research institutions. I am indebted to Patricia Nietfeld and Tom Evans at the National Museum of the American Indian and James Krakker at the Smithsonian Institution for their time and help with glass trade bead collections. I thank Steve Davis for allowing me full access to the glass trade bead collections and database at the University of North Carolina's Research Laboratories of Archaeology (RLA). I am grateful to Jane Eastman for providing glass trade bead data from her dissertation as well as for conducting the analysis that resulted in the glass bead data in the RLA database. Christopher Rodning also generously offered unpublished data from his dissertation. I thank Gerald Schroedl for allowing me to incorporate data from his United States Forest Service-funded excavations at the site of Chattooga. Thanks also to Thomas Pluckhahn, who supplied data from his excavations at the Tarver sites. As with most people who choose this vocation, I am most fortunate to have an incredibly supportive and understanding family. My mother Jean Marcoux has always had an intense love of education, and she has been a constant source of encouragement throughout my career. My debt to her can only be repaid with a pledge to be the same kind of parent to my children. If my journey thus far has been fortuitous, then Christine viii Marie Campbell Marcoux is without a doubt the very personification of serendipity. Who would have thought that a Thanksgiving dinner invitation could result in my finding the very best thing that has ever happened to me? I thank her for taking this ride with me, and I cannot wait to see what's around the next corner. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................xiii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................xv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1 2 POX, EMPIRE, SHACKLES, AND HIDES: THE ENGLISH CONTACT PERIOD IN THE SOUTHEAST, A.D. 1670-1740.............5 The "Shattered" Path to the Yamasee War, A.D. 1670 - 1715.........................................................................7 The Yamasee War and its Aftermath: A.D. 1715 - 1740.............32 Cherokee Strategies for Navigating the Shatter Zone, A.D. 1670-1740...........................................................................46 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CHEROKEE COMMUNITIES...............................................................94 Research into Cherokee "Origins"...............................................95 Research into Cherokee "Acculturation".....................................102 Constructing an Alternative Perspective for English Contact Period Cherokee Communities.......................................107 4 IDENTIFYING CHEROKEE MATERIAL CULTURE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE ENGLISH CONTACT PERIOD ................115