TENNESSEE ARCHAEOLOGY

Volume 9 Summer 2018 Number 2

EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore Tennessee Division of Archaeology TENNESSEE ARCHAEOLOGY Kevin E. Smith Middle Tennessee State University VOLUME 9 Summer 2018 NUMBER 2

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 81 Editors Corner Paul Avery KEVIN E. SMITH AND MICHAEL C. MOORE Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. 87 Introduction to the Special Issue Jared Barrett J. SCOTT JONES TRC Inc. 89 Interpretation of the Structure and Variation of Middle Sierra Bow Cumberland Mississippian Stone-Box Cemeteries University of Tennessee J. SCOTT JONES Stephen Carmody Troy University 103 Return to the Great Mound Group: 2016 Investigations at Mound Bottom State Archaeological Area. Sarah Levithol Eckhardt AARON DETER-WOLF, SUNNY FLEMING, AND SARAH Tennessee Division of Archaeology LEVITHOL ECKHARDT

Paul N. Eubanks 117 A Preliminary Assessment of Mississippian Middle Tennessee State University Settlement in the Little Harpeth River Watershed: The

Hannah Guidry Inglehame Farm Site (40WM342) Revisited Tennessee Department of Transportation MICHAEL C. MOORE

Phillip Hodge 135 The Copper Creek Site (40SU317): A Multicomponent Tennessee Department of Transportation Mortuary Site in Goodlettsville, Sumner County, Tennessee Kandi Hollenbach SARAH LEVITHOL ECKHARDT AND HANNAH GUIDRY University of Tennessee 156 Relationships and Trauma: Lived Perspectives at Ryan Parish Averbuch University of Memphis GIOVANNA M. VIDOLI AND HEATHER WORNE Tanya M. Peres Florida State University 170 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions Paige Silcox KEVIN E. SMITH AND MICHAEL C. MOORE Tennessee Division of Archaeology RESEARCH REPORTS Tennessee Archaeology is published semi-annually in electronic print format 201 Five New Prehistoric Cave Art Sites in Tennessee under the auspices of the Tennessee 2005 Council for Professional Archaeology. JAN F. SIMEK, ALAN CRESSLER, JOSEPH C. DOUGLAS, STUART CARROLL, KEN OESER, Correspondence about manuscripts for ANNETTE OESER, AND AMY WALLACE the journal should be addressed to Michael C. Moore, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Cole Building #3, 1216

Foster Avenue, Nashville TN 37243.

The Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology disclaims responsibility for statements, whether fact or of opinion, made by contributors.

On the Cover: John Walthall and Charles H. McNutt with their Lifetime Achievement Awards, Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 2012 (Photo: Kevin E. Smith). EDITORS CORNER

Kevin E. Smith and Michael C. Moore

We are delighted to devote the second archaeologists to a multicomponent issue of Volume 9 of Tennessee Paleoindian and Early Archaic site on the Archaeology to a special issue on the banks of the Cumberland River that was Mississippian culture of the Middle well known to him -- a site that would be Cumberland Region – guest-edited by J. recorded as the “Johnson Site” Scott Jones. We thank Scott for his efforts (40DV400) in his honor (Broster et al. to bring several of the papers from his 1991; Broster and Barker 1992; Barker symposium together for this issue. In and Broster 1996). The Johnson site has addition, we include the second research since received significant national and report from the Cave Archaeology even international recognition as one of Research Team at the University of the most important Pleistocene and Early Tennessee on the cave and open-air rock Holocene sites in the eastern United art of Tennessee. Simek et al. (this issue) States – and one of a handful of potential includes an annotated version of their candidates for the elusive “Pre-Clovis” report presented at the 2006 Annual occupations of the region. By his request, Meeting on Current Research in Mr. Johnson was interred in Hill City Tennessee Archaeology. As always, we Cemetery in South Dakota – the heart of appreciate the contributions of the authors his beloved Black Hills. and extend our thanks to the reviewers Louis Carl Kuttruff (1944-23 Jul who help make this peer-reviewed e- 2017) of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, age 73, journal possible. passed away in 2017 after an We also take the opportunity to unsuccessful battle with cancer. A native recognize the passing of several valued of Louisiana, Carl received his BA degree contributors to Tennessee archaeology in Geography and Anthropology from since publication of our last issue. We Louisiana State University in 1965 and extend our condolences to their family, then continued on to received his MA friends, and colleagues. They will be (1970) and PhD in Anthropology (1974) missed. from Southern Illinois University, David Paul “Doc” Johnson (29 Mar Carbondale. 1958-2 Jan 2017) was employed as an Carl was profoundly influenced both archaeological field technician with the personally and professionally by Tennessee Division of Archaeology and attendance of the 1959 Boy Scout World DuVall & Associates, Inc. during the late Jamboree in the Philippine Islands – 1980s and early 1990s, although his followed by a round-the-world tour interest in “arrowheads” (particularly those including Corregidor, Angkor Wat, the Taj of the Paleoindian and Early Archaic eras) Mahal, Egyptian Pyramids, Greek and spanned a much longer part of his life. He Roman ruins, and the lava fields of was among the first partners of the Iceland. His archaeological fieldwork Tennessee Paleoindian Projectile Points spanned over 51 years in Alabama, and Site Survey Project after its creation Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, in 1988 by the Division of Archaeology. Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New “Doc” brought the attention of York, North Carolina, Ohio, South

81 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 2. Carl Kuttruff (Courtesy, Guy Weaver) (O’Brien and Kuttruff 2015). Not long thereafter in 1975-1976, Carl would begin FIGURE 1. The first three regional his explorations of historic (military sites) archaeologists with the Division of archaeology with one of the largest field Archaeology. Left to right: Carl Kuttruff, projects of his career – excavations at John Broster, and Brian Butler (Courtesy, Fort Loudoun in Monroe County, a British Mack Prichard). colonial fort occupied from 1756-1760. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Many untold years of research and writing Oaxaca (Mexico), the Philippines, Wake later, that project would be published in Island, Kwajalein Atoll, and the Marshall his magnum opus (Kuttruff 2010). Carl’s Islands. tenure (1973-1989) was during a critical Carl’s archaeological career in period both of clarifying the official role of Tennessee began in 1973 when he was the Division of Archaeology and of hired as one of the first three regional beginning a nearly 50-year tradition of archaeologists with the Division of salvaging information from important Archaeology (along with John Broster and unprotected archaeological sites Brian Butler; Figure 1). Working in threatened by private development. The partnership with Michael J. O’Brien and number of “emergency” salvage projects Vanderbilt University in 1974 and 1975, he undertook is far too lengthy to recount Carl would tackle investigating the newly here, but as an example, his efforts to acquired Mound Bottom State save some information from the Brick Archaeological Area – one of the largest Church Pike Mounds (40DV39) -- one of Mississippian mound complexes in the the most significant early Mississippian interior southeastern United States mound complexes in the region – stands

82 Editors Corner

out in our minds. Again, many years later, and art, he was a prolific author of more he would partner with the late Gary Barker than 75 publications on Cherokee and to publish the results of their Native American topics, museum studies, investigations at that important site and was the founding editor of the Journal (Barker and Kuttruff 2010). of Cherokee Studies in 1976. Among Carl’s many contributions as Dr. King’s distinguished career organizer of conferences and symposia spanned appointments throughout the over his career, one of his most significant United States, including Director of the in Tennessee was working with Robert C. Museum of the Cherokee Indian in Mainfort, Jr. and Mary Beth Trubitt to Cherokee, North Carolina; Assistant bring the first Southeastern Director of the George Gustav Heye Archaeological Conference to Nashville in Center (National Museum of the American 1986. This memorable conference Indian) in New York City, Executive included a reception at the Tennessee Director positions at the Thomas State Museum showcasing the recently Gilcrease Institute of American History opened permanent exhibition “First and Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Middle Tennesseans” featuring a significant part Oregon Historical Society in Warm of the Gates P. Thruston Collection and Springs, Oregon, the Cherokee National tours to Mound Bottom. When Carl’s History Society in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, spouse Jenna accepted a position at and the Southwest Museum in Los Louisiana State University in 1989, he left Angela. Most recently, he served as the Tennessee to return to more southern University of Tulsa’s Vice President for pastures and his birthplace in Baton Museum Affairs and Executive Director of Rouge. the Helmerich Center for American According to one of his former Research. Dr. King also taught at the students and long-time friends, during an University of Tennessee in Chattanooga evening discussion long ago, Carl and Knoxville, Cleveland State College, indicated that his tombstone might read Northeastern State University, and served “Here is my burial pit, coffin, and vault. If as the first endowed Chair in Cherokee the profiles aren’t straight, it’s not my Studies at Western Carolina University. fault.” In reality, according to his family, Dr. King is survived by his wife, Lee Carl’s cremated ashes were to be Callander, and their children Travis and scattered at many places of importance Angela King, sisters Judy Kinkead and during his life. Carl is survived by his wife Kathy Rooney, brother Perry King, and Jenna; father Louis Carl, Sr.; sisters Gail, their spouses and children. Alma, and Katty; and brothers, Kirby and Charles Harrison McNutt III (11 Dec Claude. 1928-9 Dec 2017) of Memphis, Duane Harold King (18 May 1947-17 Tennessee, age 88, passed away after Sep 2017) of Arcadia, California, age 70, more than 50 years of devoted service to passed away after a brief battle with lung the archaeology of Tennessee and the cancer. Born in East Tennessee, Dr. King southeastern United States. Born in received his B.A. from the University of Denver, Colorado, Charles traveled the Tennessee and his M.A. and Ph.D. from country with his military family in his early the University of Georgia. An life. He ended up in Sewanee, Tennessee internationally recognized and passionate where he finished high school at Sewanee scholar of Cherokee language, history, Military Academy. Although accepted to

83 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

West Point, he declined the appointment because of a high school football injury and then enrolled in the University of the South, graduating as valedictorian in mathematics in 1950. He then enrolled in the Department of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, where he received his MA in 1954 after working on many projects in the Southwest. He then entered the doctoral program in anthropology at the University of Michigan, where he would study under Albert Spaulding and James B. Griffin – who introduced him to Poverty Point, FIGURE 3. The first Tennessee Cahokia and the Southeastern Archaeological Advisory Council in 1972. Archaeological Conference. L to R: Travis Binion (Tennessee His first teaching position was at the Archaeological Society); Robert Ferguson (Southeastern Indian Antiquities Survey – University of Tennessee in 1961, followed now the Middle Cumberland by a stint at Northern Arizona University. Archaeological Society); Dr. Charles In 1964, McNutt returned to Tennessee as McNutt (Memphis State University); Dr. an Associate Professor at Memphis State Ron Spores (Vanderbilt University); Dr. University – where he worked with Alfred K. Guthe (McClung Museum, UT Charles Nash to begin the creation of Knoxville). Courtesy, Mack Prichard. what would eventually become both pushed strongly for creation of the Annual undergraduate and graduate programs in Meeting on Current Research in anthropology. McNutt returned to Tennessee Archaeology. Shortly after the Tennessee at a critical point in the history first meeting in 1988, McNuttt would lead of Tennessee archaeology – and the discussions to create a statewide participated in some important professional organization – the transformations from something that was Tennessee Council for Professional previously largely hobbyist to something Archaeology. more akin to what we think of as modern Originally envisioned by McNutt as the scientific archaeology. He participated in Tennessee Council of Professional the hiring of the first modern “State Archaeologists, he listened to the voices Archaeologist” with his appointment to the of avocational archaeologists and Tennessee Archaeological Advisory encouraged the shift to a more inclusive Council (TAAC; Figure 3). organization of all individuals who Throughout his career, Charles would supported the ethics of professional balance his national level scholarship on a archaeology and the “of” became “for.” variety of topics with his commitment to While a staunch defender of professional local, state, and regional archaeology. He archaeology, he balanced those ethics was a central leader of the Mid-South with his belief that responsible avocational Archaeological Conference and brought archaeologists had important information the proceedings of many of those to contribute. meetings into print in edited volumes. As McNutt’s work strongly emphasized a long-time member of the TAAC, he the necessity of well-developed culture

84 Editors Corner

tenure as a professor – many of whom continue to carry on his tradition of excellence. We would be remiss to close without mentioning his lifelong love of the banjo and “string bands.”

Acknowledgements. Our thanks to “Doc” Johnson’s sister, Linda Cartwright, for assistance. We have also relied in part on Dye (2018), Gibson and Shuman (2018), and Tulsa World (2018) for some factual information.

References

Barker, Gary and John B. Broster 1996 The Johnson Site (DV400): A Dated Paleoindian and Early Archaic FIGURE 4. Charles McNutt and Kevin Occupation in Tennessee's Central Smith at his “Lifetime Achievement Award Basin. Journal of Alabama dinner,” 2012 Southeastern Archaeology 42(2):97-153. Archaeological Conference. Courtesy, Robert V. Sharp. Barker, Gary and Carl Kuttruff histories – often through the use of 2010 A Summary of Exploratory and statistics -- in order to pursue the Salvage Archaeological Investigations at the Brick Church Pike Mound comparative questions of culture process. (40DV39), Davidson County, A comprehensive list of his publications Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology would fill many pages and span a 5(1):5-30. significant portion of the United States including the Southwest, the Great Plains, Broster, John B. and Gary L. Barker and the Southeast. His prolific publishing 1992 Second Report of Investigations at the record continued and perhaps even Johnson Site, 40DV400: The 1991 expanded after his retirement as Field Season. Tennessee Professor Emeritus from the University of Anthropologist XVII(2):120-130. Memphis in 1998. Most recently, he completed his work on an edited Mid- Broster, John B., David P. Johnson, and Mark R. Norton South Archaeological Conference 1991 The Johnson Site: A Dated Clovis- proceedings volume with Ryan Parish Cumberland Occupation in titled Cahokia in Context: Hegemony and Tennessee. Current Research in the Diaspora (forthcoming). Pleistocene 8:8-10. His accomplishments have been recognized with many awards, including a Dye, David H. Career Achievement Award from the 2018 Report to the Tennessee Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeological Advisory Council. Archaeology in 2005, and the Montgomery Bell State Park. Southeastern Archaeological Conference in 2012 (Figure 4). Probably his greatest Gibson, Jon L. and Malcolm K. Shuman 2018 In Memoriam: Louis Carl Kuttruff, Jr. legacy, however, are the hundreds of (1944-2017). The SAA Archaeological students mentored and trained during his Record 18(2):41.

85 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Kuttruff, Carl 2009 Fort Loudoun in Tennessee: 1756- 1760 : History, Archaeology, Replication, Exhibits and Interpretation. Waldenhouse Publishers, Walden, Tennessee. Electronic edition: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/envi ronment/archaeology/documents/rese archseries/arch_rs17_fort_loudoun_20 10.pdf

O’Brien, Michael J. and Carl Kuttruff 2015 The 1974-75 Excavations at Mound Bottom, a Palisaded Mississippian Center in Cheatham County, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 31(1):70-86.

Tulsa World (Staff Reports) 2017 Duane Harold King. Tulsa World. October 22, 2017.

Kevin E. Smith Department of Sociology and Anthropology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro TN 37132 [email protected]

Michael C. Moore Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

86

MIDDLE CUMBERLAND MISSISSIPPIAN ARCHAEOLOGY Introduction to a Special Issue

J. Scott Jones

This special issue is the product of the region since the 19th century. It is quite symposium Mississippian Archaeology of clear that it is high time for another the Middle Cumberland Region in attempt to bring this uniquely interesting Tennessee held at the 2016 Southeastern and important late prehistoric period to Archaeological Conference in Athens, light. The publications mentioned above Georgia (Figure 1). The symposium was have provided a tremendous amount of organized in response to a perceived on- information ready for a new synthesis of going lack of attention to the Middle the archaeological record of the region. Cumberland Region in the Mississippian Thanks to these authors and contributors literature. This was first brought to my of these works, we can ask new attention many years ago as an questions, provide new perspectives, and undergraduate when one of our raise a renewed awareness of the Middle discussants, Dr. Kevin E. Smith, showed Cumberland region Mississippian me a figure in his 1992 dissertation archaeology. In this volume we have a appropriately titled The Middle combination of new studies based on Cumberland Region: Mississippian existing information as well as papers Archaeology in North Central Tennessee presenting new data for the region. in which he circled the Middle In the symposium, nine papers and Cumberland region in regard to this very two discussants including Kevin E. Smith fact. Unfortunately, a review of and James Brown (who was unable to Mississippian literature twenty-five years attend), were scheduled. Ultimately we later reveals a similar picture despite the were able to compile five of the numerous reports of investigations presentations and a substantially revised published by the Tennessee Division of version of Smith’s discussion for six Archaeology that detail Mississippian papers for this volume. The first paper is archaeological projects as well as articles J. Scott Jones’ “Interpretation of the published in Tennessee Anthropologist, Structure and Variation of Middle Tennessee Archaeology, Southeastern Cumberland Mississippian Stone-box Archaeology, and Midcontinental Journal Cemeteries”. In this paper, Jones of Archaeology. compares and contrasts burial This volume represents the first orientations for a number of the ubiquitous attempt at a synthesis of the Middle stone-box cemeteries of the region. Burial Cumberland Mississippian culture since patterns do not appear to be haphazard Smith’s aforementioned dissertation. Prior and are interpreted as representing to this, Robert Ferguson’s 1972 edited cultural processes. Deter-Wolf et al. volume The Middle Cumberland Culture present new information derived from was the only Middle Cumberland LiDAR data at the Mound Bottom and Mississippian overview despite research Pack sites in their paper “Return to the in the Mississippian archaeology of the “Great Mound Group”: New Investigations

87 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

relationships between the population history at the well-known Averbuch site. Vidoli and Worne identify who these people were and the relationships with health and traumas of the site’s population. Finally, Kevin E. Smith and Michael C. Moore provide an overview and historical perspective from the discussant’s point of view. This volume is not meant to be a final word on Middle Cumberland Mississippian archaeology. To the contrary, it is hoped that this volume may stimulate more research into the Middle Cumberland Mississippian record. Middle Cumberland sites are becoming more and more endangered every day with the emergence of Nashville as the “it” city. Unprecedented growth not only in Davidson County, but the entire northern Middle Tennessee region has resulted in numerous Middle Cumberland sites being FIGURE 1. Symposium board at the 2016 destroyed with minimal or salvage Southeastern Archaeological investigations. While much of this unique Conference. archaeological record has disappeared, a of the Mound Bottom/Pack Landscape”. In renewed and revitalized interest in the this paper, the potential for new research Middle Cumberland region may preserve focused upon identification of possible what remains. palisade location as well as unidentified or re-discovered mounds is addressed. Acknowledgements. I want to offer a big thank you Michael Moore’s paper “A Preliminary to everyone for participating in the symposium and Assessment of Mississippian Settlement making it a success despite the scheduled time. My thanks go out to our discussants, Dr. Kevin in the Little Harpeth River Watershed: The Smith and Dr. James Brown (although he was Inglehame Farm Site (40WM342) unable to attend). Finally, thanks to Dr. Kevin Revisited” presents an overview of the Smith and Mr. Mike Moore for allowing this archaeological investigations at this symposium to be published as a special issue of relatively recently discovered Middle Tennessee Archaeology. Cumberland village. Sarah Levithol J. Scott Jones Eckhardt and Hannah Guidry present the Midsouth Cultural Resource Consultants results of a continuing theme from the 1215 Stonewall Blvd. Middle Cumberland region. Salvage Murfreesboro, TN 37130 archaeology of stone-box burials and [email protected] associated occupations at the Copper Creek site in Sumner County is one of the latest such projects in the Middle Cumberland region. Giovanna M. Vidoli and Heather Worne address the

88 INTERPRETATION OF THE STRUCTURE AND VARIATION OF MIDDLE CUMBERLAND MISSISSIPPIAN STONE-BOX CEMETERIES

J. Scott Jones

The stone-box burial and cemetery is a ubiquitous characteristic of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian occupation. While stone-box burials are well-documented across much of the southeastern U.S., the classic form of stone-box burial known as the Cumberland type are distinctive to the Middle Cumberland Region. Furthermore, the Middle Cumberland Region is unrivaled in the number and size of stone-box cemeteries. Numerous reports describing stone- box cemeteries and concomitant excavations and studies evaluating the form and construction, distribution of stone-box burial types, as well as the health and demography of the makers and occupants of the stone-box cemeteries are available. However, no evaluations aimed at the interpretation of the structure and variation represented within and between stone-box cemeteries have been conducted. This study is an initial attempt to recognize and interpret variability within this aspect of Middle Cumberland Mississippian culture.

The stone-box burial and cemetery is few syntheses of the stone-box burial a ubiquitous characteristic of the Middle practice are available and that Cumberland Mississippian occupation reconstruction of the cultural significance (Figure 1). While stone-box burials are of the stone-box grave phenomenon is well-documented across much of the difficult if not impossible. This study is an southeastern U.S., the form of stone-box attempt to recognize and interpret burial known as the Cumberland type is variability within Middle Cumberland distinctive to the Middle Cumberland Mississippian stone-box cemeteries. Region. Furthermore, the Middle Cumberland Region is unrivaled in the Hypothesizing Mortuary Behavior number and size of stone-box cemeteries. Previous Middle Cumberland mortuary It is hypothesized that the structure studies have approached the diversity and and organization of Middle Cumberland distribution of stone-box burial varieties stone-box cemeteries is not random, but (Brown 1981; Dowd 2008; Smith 1992), reflects patterns of the nature of bioarchaeological data (Breitburg and Mississippian sociopolitical and economic Moore 1998; Breitburg et al. 1998; organization within the region. While a Eisenberg 1991), distributions of grave significant amount of variability is evident, goods (Smith 1992), variation in disposal patterns not necessarily immediately patterns between site types (Smith 1992), evident are present within the sample. and analysis of specific sites or Goldstein (1980:11) states that “the cemeteries (Benthall 1987; Broster 1988; spatial analysis of mortuary sites can be a Dowd 1972; Jones 2017; Moore 2005; powerful and productive tool in both Moore and Breitburg 1998; Moore and interpretation and excavation of complex Smith 2001). However, no evaluations prehistoric social systems.” This is due to aimed at the interpretation of the structure the widely accepted idea that “mortuary and variation represented within and sites, too, reflect a spatial differentiation of between stone-box cemeteries have been activities and a differentiation of the social conducted. As noted by Brown (1981), units performing the activities” (Goldstein

89 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

organized a cemetery is through the orientation of burials within each cemetery. Burial orientation is determined by the degrees east of north of the cranium direction. In order to organize this data, the 3600 is divided into 50 groups and number of burials within each group determined and plotted on radial-style graphs. Diversity analysis is conducted with each cemetery to determine how structured and degree of organization within each cemetery as well as variability between cemeteries. The higher the FIGURE 1. Middle Cumberland Region, number of burials within particular degree North-central Tennessee. increments and the less the number of 1980:7). Thus, examination of the spatial degree increments represented, the less dimensions of mortuary practices can the diversity. The greater the number of yield information on two levels (Goldstein degree increments represented along with 1980:7): (1) the degree of formality, the number of burials, the greater the spatial separation, and ordering of the diversity. Furthermore, cemeteries or disposal area (i.e. cemetery), considered burial populations must contain at least 20 as a unit, may reflect organization individual burials within a discrete principles of that society; and (2) the cemetery to be considered large enough spatial relations of individuals to one to provide a reliable sample size for the another within the disposal area can diversity analysis. reflect status differentiation, family A second level of analysis includes the groupings, lineal descent groups, or type and distribution of burial goods in special classes. association with structure to further Furthermore, investigation of a explore cemetery variability. Grave good complex system is best approached by distribution is compared between analysis of a small site within the system, cemeteries determined to exhibit determine the organization principles significant structural differences in order within, and apply these to a larger area to recognize additional variation related to (Goldstein 1980:10). In this manner, a culturally determined dimensions of more comprehensive picture of the entire mortuary behavior. Demography and social system in question can emerge. It health within the entire sample is not is important to define the specific evaluated due to a lack of standardization variables employed in the spatial analysis and data. of a single site so these can be extended to the regional social system. The Middle Cumberland Data Set

Methods Fourteen archaeological sites with associated stone-box cemeteries or In this study, analysis consists of stone-box cemeteries without an comparison of the structure of stone-box associated site have been investigated cemeteries. Structure here refers to how since the inception of the state cemetery

90 Stone-Box Cemeteries

FIGURE 2. Middle Cumberland Mississippian sites discussed in the text. statutes (Moore 1989, 1998) as well as be determined (Figures 3 and 4). Burial previous investigations (Figure 2). The orientations could be determined for entire range of sites represented is nearly the entire population of considered important as nearly the entire Gordontown (40DV6). However, it is not expected site type variability and considered in the structural evaluation as occupation is present. These sites include the large primary cemetery at Gordontown a single large mound site (Rutherford- (40DV6) was left in greenspace while the Kizer [40SU15]); three palisaded villages remaining burials were distributed (Gordontown [40DV6], Brentwood Library throughout the site in smaller, possible [40WM210], and Moss-Wright [40SU20]); family groups that do not contain 20 six non- or indeterminate palisade village individuals with the exception of one or hamlets (Traveler’s Rest [40DV11], concentration (Feature 22). The Kelley’s Battery [40DV392], Ganier Brentwood library site (40WM210) also [40DV15], Arnold [40WM5], Parrish exhibited an extensive number of burials [40DV152], Hooper [40DV234]; and four that were widely distributed. Ganier cemetery-only investigations (West (40DV15) is not considered in the [40DV12], 40DV301, 40WM32, and structural analysis due to an extensive 40WM87). The Kelley’s Battery site is amount of disturbance within the unique in the sample in that two discrete published cemetery map and numerous stone-box cemeteries are present. burials in which orientation could not be Notably absent is the Averbuch site determined. Rutherford-Kizer (40SU15) (40DV60). Pertinent data from Averbuch was also extensively disturbed with a lack were not available at the time of this of appropriate data. The burial analysis. populations at Travelers Rest (40DV11) Ultimately, 431 individual burials of a and 40WM87 are too small to be included possible 987 are present within this in the structural analysis. sample in which burial orientations could

91 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 3. Burial orientations of entire population sample.

Results of the Structural Analysis question using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test statistics. Eight stone-box cemeteries provided ANOVA of the diversity scores the necessary data to evaluate structure indicated significant differences between and organization. Structure and the sites in terms of richness (F = organization was evaluated through 21.7995; df = 8, 184; p < .0001), but not diversity analysis. Both richness and evenness (F = .9908; df = 8, 184; p = evenness values are computed by .4447). T-tests can be used to determine JKDiver following Kaufman (1998). where the differences are occurring in Richness is calculated as R = k/√N where terms of richness. Site 40DV392B had the k = the number of groups in jackknifing highest richness score. The next closest and N = sample size. Evenness is was 40DV301. A t-test between these two calculated as the coefficient of variation sites was significant (t = 7.5854; df = 48; p (standard deviation divided by the mean) < .0001, two-tailed test). This indicates for the sample. The JKDiver program also that 40DV392B is richer (more diverse) allows one to compare the sites in than any of the other sites. Sites

92 Stone-Box Cemeteries

40DV301, 40DV152, 40SU20, 40DV12, and 40WM32 are all relatively similar in terms of richness. Sites 40DV234 and 40DV392A are relatively similar, but less rich (less diverse) than the main group of sites. A t-test was computed between 40DV234 and 40SU20 (the next highest score). The test indicated significant differences between these two sites (t = 2.04; df = 39; p = .0482, two-tailed test). The diversity analysis indicated significant differences between the sites in terms of richness. Three groupings of sites can be suggested: (1) 40DV392B (Figure 5); (2) 40DV301, 40DV152, 40SU20, 40DV12, and 40WM32 (Figure 6); and (3) 40DV234 and 40DV392A FIGURE 4. Sites organized into three (Figure 7). Site 40DV392B has the groups based upon statistical analysis. greatest number of different grave orientations and highest diversity. Sites 40DV234 and 40DV392A have the least number of grave orientations and lowest diversity.

FIGURE 5. Burial Group 1 (40Dv392B).

93 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 6. Burial Group 2 (continued on next page).

94 Stone-Box Cemeteries

FIGURE 6. Burial Group 2 (concluded).

95 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 7. Burial Group 3.

96 Stone-Box Cemeteries

Factors Affecting Cemetery site (40DV392) and the two excavated Organization cemeteries (Figure 8). A total of 141 burials yielded the remains of 173 Factors affecting the organization can individuals at the Kelley’s Battery site. The be “physical” as well as clear majority of burials are the typical sociopolitical/economic, with “physical” stone-box interments (n=128). Cemetery meaning that burials are the result of A is a stone-box cemetery of moderate physical conditions dictating the structural size located at the western periphery of nature of cemeteries. This may be the the site. Fifty-seven burials yielded the product of numerous interments being remains of 64 individuals. All but two made quickly so that burials are laid burials are of the stone-box variety. symmetrically in rapid succession. Factors Cemetery B is also a moderately-sized responsible for such a scenario could be stone-box cemetery in the northwest drought/famine, pathological/infectious portion of the site. Sixty-seven burials, epidemics, or warfare. Interments may or producing the remains of 88 individuals, may not have been marked with some were excavated from this locale. Six sort of grave marker. As such, the burials excavated in this particular opposite is true as well. Cemeteries that cemetery were not interred in a stone-box have a greater time depth with individuals facility. Demographic and physiological interred over a longer period may not analysis did not show any particular exhibit the same degree of organization differences between the cemetery areas. and structure. Wooden or otherwise non- Seventeen burials (21 individuals) from permanent grave markers would likely not the village/habitation area were not survive. Orientations and locations of considered for this analysis. individuals could have been forgotten over Cemetery A exhibited the least amount the course of generations. of diversity within the entire sample Sociopolitical factors may also affect dataset while Cemetery B exhibited the structural variability. Differences in status greatest amount of diversity within the not only could produce quantitative entire sample dataset. It is postulated that differences in grave goods but how the variation between these two individuals are interred. Variation could be cemeteries within the same site is the the product of agency-oriented behavior. product of both physical as well as Social identity or persona of individuals sociopolitical/economic factors. are intimately linked with group affiliation. The overall general symmetry of These individual and group identities can Cemetery A suggests these burials could be derived from the archaeological record have been interred within a short amount when the mechanisms for conveying this of time. Few burials overlapped or were sort of social information are determined. imposed upon each other. Interpersonal Variation between individuals and groups violence or trauma does not seem to have in mortuary contexts may provide access been a major factor in this population’s to this sort of social information. health. Pathologies do not appear to be more significant in this group when Exploring Structural Variation compared to other Middle Cumberland populations. Drought/famine could be a The greatest distinction within the data factor in a large number of individuals set explored here is the Kelley’s Battery being interred quickly. Furthermore these

97 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 8. Kelley’s Battery (40Dv392) site map

FIGURE 9. Distribution of ceramic vessel by type and provenience burials could have been marked in some two cemeteries. A total of 33 burials form or fashion. produced grave goods, with ceramic Sociopolitical factors also appear to artifacts the most numerous (Figure 9). have been an important factor in the Area 1 exhibits a tendency for plain structure variability at Kelley’s Battery. vessels including strap handle jars (n=3), Aside from the structural variation, grave a double lug jar (n=1; Figure 10A), carafe good distribution most clearly necked bottle (n=1; Figure 10B), and an demonstrates the variability between the indeterminate vessel (n=1). Single

98 Stone-Box Cemeteries

FIGURE 10. Selected ceramic vessels from 40DV392. examples of duck (Figure 10C) and (n=1), and human hooded bottle (n=1; indeterminate effigy vessels also occur in Figure 10G). The majority of notched rim Area 1 as well as an ear plug and ceramic bowls (n=4; Figure 10H) as well as a trowel. single Matthews Incised var. Matthews Plain vessels in the form of strap vessel (n=1; Figure 10I) are also present. handle jars (n=2; Figures 10D and 10E) Furthermore, ear plugs (n=6; Figure 11) and an indeterminate vessel are present are largely limited to Area 2 while a single in Area 2. The most striking feature of ceramic trowel occurs in this area. ceramic vessels in Area 2 is the restriction Preferences for specific effigy types (fish, of effigy bottles to this cemetery, conch, and human) are restricted to Area comprising fish (n=4; Figure 10F), conch 2. The majority of ear plugs as well as

99 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 11. Ear plugs (top row: burial 44, burial 101, burial 117, burial 44; bottom row: burial 137, burial 137, burial 141B)

FIGURE 13. Selected shell and bone artifacts (40DV392) The only non-ceramic item from the village burial was a marine shell gorget (Figure 13D). FIGURE 12. Distribution of bone, stone, and shell artifacts The most apparent feature of the non- ceramic artifact distribution is the marine notched rim bowls also occur in this area. shell artifacts. These artifacts are Although plain vessels are present in Area manufactured from non-local material and 2, these are restricted to strap handle jars are distributed across the three disposal and indeterminate vessels. A variety of areas. The two marine shell gorgets are vessel forms occur in Area 1, but a characteristic of the Nashville or tendency for plain vessel types is evident. “scalloped triskele” style. Different effigy forms (duck, indeterminate) are present in Area 1 as Conclusion well as a single ear plug and ceramic trowel. Meaningful variation in stone-box Shell, stone, and bone artifacts are structure appears to be present within the also present (Figure 12). Non-ceramic sample of stone-box cemeteries artifacts recovered from Area 1 include evaluated here. Distinct differences in bone awls (n=2), marine shell beads (n=6; structure and grave good distribution Figure 13A) from a single burial, and a between the two cemeteries at the large hafted bifacial knife (n=1). Area 2 Kelley’s Battery site is evident. When produced a fish hook and five “pins” that considered along with the structural composed a composite gig, all from a variation, these two cemeteries most single burial (Figure 13B). Other items clearly reflect variation within mortuary from Area 2 include an astragulus cube, programs of the Middle Cumberland marine shell gorget (Figure 13C), bifacial Mississippian peoples. The two hafted knife, mano, and a projectile point. cemeteries within a single village site

100 Stone-Box Cemeteries most clearly reflect contrasting mortuary Conservation, Division of Archaeology, patterns. Whether this represents Nashville. sociopolitical, economic, natural, or physical factors remains to be Broster, John B. determined. However, the modes of 1988 Burial Patterns for the Mississippian Period in Middle Tennessee. interment as well as grave good Tennessee Anthropologist 8:1-15. association suggests that the different burial areas reflect different rules for Brown, Ian W. mortuary behavior for particular social or 1981 A Study of Stone Box Graves in kin groups in the study region. Significant Eastern North America. Tennessee work remains to further explore the Anthropologist 6:1-26. variation within cemeteries and sites that do not as clearly demonstrate the type of Dowd, John T. variability exhibited at the Kelley’s Battery 1972 The West Site: A Stone-Box Cemetery site. in Middle Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeological Society Miscellaneous Acknowledgements. Thanks to Andrew Bradbury Paper 10. for help with conducting the statistical analysis. 2008 The Cumberland Stone-Box Burials of Middle Tennessee. Tennessee References Archaeology 3:163-180.

Benthall, Joseph L. Eisenberg, Leslie E. 1987 The Moss-Wright Archaeological 1991 Mississippian Cultural Terminations in Project: Excavation of Site 40SU20, Middle Tennessee: What the Goodlettsville, Tennessee. Report of Bioarchaeological Evidence Can Tell Investigations No. 5. Tennessee Us. In What Mean These Bones, ed. Department of Conservation, Division by Mary Lucas Powell, Patricia S. of Archaeology, Nashville. Bridges, and Ann Marie Wagner Mires, pp. 70-88. University of Breitburg, Emanuel and Michael C. Moore Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2005 Mortuary Analysis. In The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on Goldstein, Lynne G. the Little Harpeth River, Williamson 1980 Mississippian Mortuary Practices: a County, Tennessee. Research Series Case Study of Two Cemeteries in the No. 15, ed. by M.C. Moore, pp. 123- Lower Illinois Valley. Northwestern 142. Tennessee Department of Univ. Arch. Prog., Evanston. Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Nashville. Jones, J. Scott 2017 The Kelley’s Battery Site (40DV392): Breitburg, Emanuel., Sue M.T. Myster, Leslie Archaeological Investigations at a Eisenberg, C. Parris Stripling, and Middle Cumberland Village. Michael C. Moore Tennessee Archaeology 9(1):6-57. 1998 Mortuary Analysis. In Gordontown: Salvage Archaeology at a Moore, Michael C. Mississippian Town in Davidson 1989 A Review of the Tennessee State County, Tennessee. Research Series Cemetery Law and its Effect upon No. 11, ed. by M.C. Moore and E. Archaeological Data Recovery and Breitburg, pp. 39-60. Tennessee Site Preservation. Tennessee Department of Environment and Anthropologist 14(1):64-76. 1998 An Updated Review of the Tennessee

101 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

State Cemetery Law and Other Statutes Regarding Prehistoric Burial Removal. Tennessee Anthropologist 23(1&2):58-68. 2005 The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on the Little Harpeth River, Williamson County, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 15. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Moore, Michael C., and Emanuel Breitburg 1998 Gordontown: Salvage Archaeology at a Mississippian Town in Davidson County, Tennessee. Research Series No. 11. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith 2001 Archaeological Excavations at the Rutherford-Kizer Site: A Mississippian Mound Center in Sumner County, Tennessee. Research Series No. 13. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Smith, Kevin E. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee. Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Nashville.

J. Scott Jones Midsouth Cultural Resource Consultants 1215 Stonewall Blvd. Murfreesboro, TN 37130 [email protected]

102 RETURN TO THE GREAT MOUND GROUP: 2016 INVESTIGATIONS AT MOUND BOTTOM STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA

Aaron Deter-Wolf, Sunny Fleming, and Sarah Levithol Eckhardt

The Mound Bottom site is located along the Harpeth River west of Nashville, and with the adjacent Pack site comprises the largest Mississippian mound complex in the Nashville Basin during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries AD. The initial formation of these sites ca. AD 1000 may be tied to the arrival of Mississippian colonizers who carried with them influences seminal to the formation of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian culture. Despite its apparent importance in the late prehistoric sequence, few modern archaeological excavations have been conducted at Mound Bottom, and many aspects of the site remain poorly understood. The summer of 2016 witnessed the early stages of a new research effort at Mound Bottom which culminated in the first excavations in 40 years. Herein we discuss the results of our initial field season at Mound Bottom, including the use of LiDAR data to create the first modern map of the entire site, and subsequent ground truthing of previously unmapped above ground features.

The Mound Bottom site (40CH8) is a Plowing also obscured profiles of the Mississippian mound center situated smaller mounds around the main plaza, above the left descending bank of an which today measure between east-west oriented meander bend in the approximately 0.5 and 4 m in height Harpeth River in Cheatham County, (O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012). Nevertheless, Tennessee. Accounts since the excavation data from the 1970s (O’Brien nineteenth century have variously and Kuttruff 2012) and a recent described the main site area as consisting magnetometer survey (Lawrence et al. of between 11 and 14 earthen mounds 2016) suggest many of the smaller arranged around a roughly rectangular mounds were flat-topped and supported plaza encompassing nearly seven acres structures on their summits. (Cox 1926; Haywood 1823; Moore and The Mississippian landscape in this Smith 2009; Moore et al. 2016; Myer portion of the Nashville Basin is not 1924; O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012). The restricted to the Mound Bottom meander plaza is anchored to the west by the bend, but instead extends across ridge largest mound at the site, Mound A, which crests and river terraces both up- and measures approximately 75 m along each downstream. Thirty-seven additional side and today stands approximately 11 m Mississippian sites have been recorded high (O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012).1 within a 5-km radius of Mound A. These Remnants of a central staircase are still sites are generally oriented along the visible along the eastern face of this Harpeth River, Turnbull Creek, or South mound. Harpeth River, and include family farms Most of the meander bend, including and hamlets, small mounds (often located the site area, was used for both along bluff tops and ridge crests), stone agriculture and animal pasture for at least box cemeteries, and at least two rock art a century prior to its purchase by the sites (Smith 2008). While the specific State of Tennessee in 1973 (Figure 1). temporal relationships of these sites to During that period an access ramp was occupations at Mound Bottom remain cut into the north face of Mound A. generally unknown, one major adjacent

103 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 1. View of Mound A under cultivation in April 1926, facing north (State Librarian and Archivist Papers from 1919-1933, Record Group 122, P.E. Cox Papers, Series 1 Box 38, photo 19/38, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville). site is believed to be contemporaneous: landowners. the Pack site (40CH1), located According to current understandings of approximately 1.6 km upstream also regional Mississippian chronology, Mound along the left descending bank of the Bottom and Pack were both founded Harpeth River. during the early 11th century AD at the Mound Bottom and the Pack site were onset of Moore and Smith’s Regional together identified by William Edward Period I, likely by outsiders arriving in the Myer (1924:109) as the “Great Mound region from the American Bottom (Moore Group.” Historic accounts describe both and Smith 2009). Radiocarbon dates from sites protected by palisades with Mound Bottom show early mound and projecting bastions, and being connected house construction beginning around AD to one another by a road or trail (e.g., 1000 (O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012), while Haywood 1823; Jones 1869). Together ceramic chronologies suggest these two sites comprise the largest occupations spanning the period of Mississippian mound grouping in approximately A.D. 1050-1200 at Pack, Tennessee, and one of the largest in the and AD 1100-1300 at Mound Bottom American Southeast. Today Mound (Moore and Smith 2009; Smith and Moore Bottom is managed by Harpeth River 2010). Major occupations at both sites State Park as the Mound Bottom State ended by around AD 1350 at the Archaeological Area, while the Pack site beginning of Regional Period IV, after is divided among multiple private which point neither was intensively

104 The Great Mound Group

FIGURE 2. Digital Elevation Model of the Mound Bottom site area identifying specific locations noted in the text. occupied through the end of the O’Brien and Kuttruff (2012) for the journal Mississippian era. Southeastern Archaeology. An archaeo- Despite the likely role of the Mound geophysical survey by David Dye and Bottom and Pack sites as paramount colleagues from 2007-2008 (e.g., regional centers and seminal contributors Lawrence et al. 2016; Walker et al. 2008) to the development of the Middle and TDOA mapping of possible celestial Cumberland Mississippian, few modern alignments in 2011 both focused on the archaeological investigations have been Mound Bottom site core, but did not performed at either site.2 The most recent include any subsurface investigations and excavations and mapping at Pack were have not been published to date. done as part of the Works Progress Administration’s Chickamauga Basin New Investigations at Mound Bottom project, and concluded around 1937 (Moore et al. 2016), while the last In 2016 the authors began a series of excavations at Mound Bottom prior to the investigations which would culminate in current effort took place in 1974 and the first excavations at Mound Bottom in 1975. That work was conducted by the 40 years. This work was prompted by Tennessee Division of Archaeology examination of 4 m/pixel LiDAR imagery (TDOA) and a Vanderbilt University field for both the Mound Bottom and Pack site school, and was lately summarized by areas provided to the TDOA by the

105 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 3. Plan view map of Mound Bottom and adjacent sites addressed in this paper. Mound identifications around the main plaza follow O’Brien and Kuttruff (2012). Nashville District Army Corps of of both poorly-documented and previously Engineers. That data was visualized in unrecorded above ground features ArcGIS 10.3, and point data consisting of throughout the Mound Bottom site area last returns were used to derive a “bare and surrounding landscape. These earth” hillshade of both sites. Azimuth was included a possible unrecorded mound then manipulated to highlight the resulting group in the western site periphery dataset from multiple angles. The (Figure 2A), further documentation of resulting Digital Elevation Model (DEM) mounds on bluffs and ridge lines east, presents the first modern map of the north, and west of the site core (Figure entire Mound Bottom complex to include 2B, C, and D), and a gridwork of low both the main plaza and outlying mounds raised embankments throughout the main (Figure 2). The LiDAR DEM was site area. LiDAR data also revealed the subsequently overlaid with georeferenced absence of two previously recorded topographic and magnetometer data from mounds on the eastern periphery of the the 1970s and 1990s in order to facilitate main plaza. Ground truthing inspections comparisons with previously recorded and excavations were performed in the surface and subsurface features. This summer and fall of 2016 by the authors, analysis also allowed for the creation of a with the assistance of TDOA Parks modern schematic map of Mound bottom Archaeologist Bill Lawrence, Harpeth and the vicinity (Figure 3). River State Park manager Gary The LiDAR returns revealed a series Patterson, and a number of enthusiastic

106 The Great Mound Group

volunteers. wood charcoal consistent with historic burning, but did not encounter any A New Western Mound Group? archaeological materials. Simultaneous ground-truthing of other above ground The LiDAR DEM appears to show a features which appear west of the site cluster of four previously unrecorded core in the DEM, including a number of mounds arranged in a roughly rectangular low earth embankments along the entry fashion on a ridge crest just outside of the road to the site, revealed that those too meander bend, approximately 800 m were historic in origin. west-northwest of Mound A (see Figure 2A). The placement of these possible Bluff and Ridgetop Mounds mounds relative to the main plaza and their arrangement on the landform The presence of small mounds on the strongly recalls small plaza groups ridge crest west of the main plaza at documented at the nearby Pack site, Mound Bottom, and atop bluffs to the east where clusters of small mounds are and north across the Harpeth River, have arranged across level ridge crests both been known for more than a century (see southwest and northwest of the main Figures 2 and 3). However, it was not until mound (Myer 1924:100). creation of the 2016 DEM that all these An in-person inspection of the newly- various subsidiary mound locations have identified features west of Mound Bottom been accurately mapped relative to the revealed them to be historic push piles main plaza. composed of scrap metal and tree A mound on the eastern bluff stumps. Ground surface inspections of (40CH134) was first mapped in 1878 by rodent burrows and tree falls in the area Edwin Curtiss, who conducted surrounding the push piles identified the excavations at Mound Bottom on behalf of presence of heavy carbon flecking and the Peabody Museum at Harvard (Figure

FIGURE 4. Detail of the eastern bluff comparing mounds from the Curtiss map (A) and the DEM (B).

107 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

4A; Moore and Smith 2009). Curtiss’s face the bluff top group. Using the LiDAR map records only a single mound on the DEM and ARCMap toolkit we were able to eastern bluff, which he excavated in better calculate the orientation of Mound search of burials. In 1926, Tennessee’s A along all four axes at the summit and first State Archaeologist Parmenio E. Cox base of the skirt. Although these portions described excavating a mound of the mound have undoubtedly been “Immediately east of the Temple Mound at impacted by plowing and erosion, our a distance of 2,700 feet, and across the measurements show that Mound A is river from the city site [on] the largest hill oriented between approximately 13.67 in that section” (Cox 1926:26). This and 14 degrees east of North and is description would seem to place the indeed, albeit imperfectly, aligned to face mound on the top of the eastern bluff; the eastern bluff top mounds (see Figures however, neither Curtiss nor Cox 2 and 3). mentions the presence of more than a Another small Mississippian mound single mound in that location, nor does was once situated across the Harpeth to Cox’s account suggest the mound he the north of Mound Bottom, along the investigated had been previously same landform that holds the Mace Bluff disturbed. Petroglyph (40CH90)(see Figures 2C and The 2016 DEM shows two low, flat- 3). Cox visited a mound in this area on topped mounds arranged along a roughly March 21, 1926, and describes the north-south axis in this area (Figure 4B; “Signal mound” as providing a “splendid see Figure 2B). Visual inspections by the view” of both Mound Bottom and the Pack authors and Bill Lawrence confirm that the site (P.E. Cox, Cheatham County two mounds on the eastern bluff remain Expedition --- Field Notes; Field notes extant. Their arrangement suggests that booklet No. 1, pp. 12-14. State Librarian the group originally consisted of three and Archivist Papers from 1919-1933, platform mounds, a larger central mound Record Group 122, P.E. Cox Papers, flanked to the north and south by two Series 1, Tennessee State Library and others. It may be that Curtiss and/or Cox Archives, Nashville). The mound had entirely excavated the northernmost of the been “partially explored” prior to Cox’s three. visit. Figures 2 and 3 present the first time The mound on the northern bluff was since 1878 that the main plaza of Mound first recorded in the TDOA site file in 1985 Bottom and the eastern bluff mounds as 40CH111, by which time only low have appeared together on a single map, remnants survived. A faint circular and are the most accurate plotting of their signature on the DEM reveals the relationship to date. Mound A has been possible location of the remnant bluff top previously noted as being oriented 11 mound, nearly due north from the degrees east of North (O’Brien and easternmost edge of Mound J at a Kuttruff 2012), apparently out of alignment distance of approximately 392 m (see with the rest of the mounds on the main Figure 3). State Archaeologist Michael plaza. Lawrence and colleagues (2016; Moore and colleagues (2016:127, Figure Walker et al. 2008) have proposed that 6.1) recently described 1936 WPA the placement of the eastern bluff top excavations at the site of Woodard Mound mounds relative to Mound A indicates the as taking place on the north bluff. large mound was deliberately oriented to However, recent reconsideration of the

108 The Great Mound Group

FIGURE 5. 1923 map of Mound Bottom by Crawford C. Anderson showing earthworks and mounds at the neck of the meander bend (after Myer 1924:111, Fig. 109). data suggests that the Woodard Mound western portion of the ridge remain (see site is instead located downstream past Figure 2D). A visual inspection by the the Narrows of the Harpeth, at the authors confirmed the presence of these location of site 40CH4 (Michael C. Moore, mounds, as well as of a low earthen personal communication, January 11, embankment running along the 2017). southernmost edge of the bluff. The Earthworks along the narrow ridge placement of the western ridgetop crest running into the Mound Bottom mounds orients them on a nearly straight meander bend from the west were first east-west axis with the 40CH134 mound mapped in 1923 (Myer 1924: Figure 109) group on the eastern bluff (see Figures 2 (Figure 5). That map shows two mounds and 3). at the neck of the Harpeth meander, and two others along the toe slope to the east. Mounds M and N In 1940 Charles H. Nash excavated at least one low burial mound on the Prior to the 2016 DEM, the most easternmost extent of the ridge (Autry precise map of Mound Bottom was 1983; Moore et al. 2016), and uncovered created during the 1974-1975 TDOA evidence of previous excavation in the excavations. That map employed 25-cm area, likely by Cox. The DEM shows that contour intervals, focused on the main while the easternmost mounds are no plaza, and identified for the first time the longer extant, the two located on the presence of two mounds on the far

109 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 6. (A) Excerpt of 1970s topographic map of Mound Bottom showing the recorded locations of Mounds M and N and the dashed line indicating the “interior palisade” (Tennessee Division of Archaeology map files). (B) Excerpt of the 2016 DEM for the same area. eastern extent of the site core, designated or if these mounds were identified beyond M and N (Figure 6A; see Figure 2E). their topographic signatures. These mounds are described as being Mounds M and N do not appear in the approximately 8 m in diameter and 50 cm 2016 LiDAR DEM (Figure 6B). Visual high (O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012), and inspections of this portion of the site have raised the total number of mounds around additionally confirmed that no above the main plaza to 14. ground footprints persist for either of In his dissertation on Mound Bottom, these features. The site has not been Michael O’Brien (1977:38) postulates that cultivated since the 1970s, and thus it Mounds M and N “...are probably two of seems improbable that these mounds the many low residential mounds which would have disappeared over the past 40 were scattered outside the central plaza years. Rather, the previous identifications but yet inside the protective wall.” No of Mounds M and N based on their excavations were made into mounds M or apparent topographic signatures may N during the 1970s work at Mound represent mapping errors instead of Bottom, nor was the area systematically actual above ground features. surface collected, and it is not clear how

110 The Great Mound Group

Possible Palisades adjacent low dip extending in a generally east-west orientation along in the river For nearly two centuries, conventional terraces south of the main plaza. On at wisdom has held that both Mound Bottom least one occasion, an eminent scholar and Pack were partially surrounded by from the region had suggested that this defensive palisade walls. The earliest feature was likely the remnants of the account of this feature at Mound Bottom southern palisade line. However, the appears to be from Judge Haywood LiDAR DEM allows us to conclusively (1823:129), who writes: identify that feature as the left descending bank of a relic channel of the Harpeth All around the bend except at the place River, which continues both north and of entrance, is a wall on the margin of south of the site (see Figure 2). the river. The mounds are upon the During the 1970s TDOA excavations, area enclosed by the wall. … There are investigators noted the presence of besides the entrance two gateways; intersecting low embankments enclosing from thence to the river is the distance the eastern end of the plaza. Both Kuttruff of 40 yards. The wall is upon the (1979) and O’Brien (1977:36) identify as second bank. …. On parts of this wall, the “Inner Palisade”: at the distance of about 40 yards apart, are projected banks, like redoubts ... on Surrounding the east end of the plaza which persons might have stood and its mounds is a 50 to 75 cm high [Haywood 1823:129-130] dirt embankment. A century of plowing has resulted in the almost complete Several decades later, Joseph Jones destruction of this feature. It was first (1869:57; 1876:36) states that “extensive noticed in Hectare 8, before the grass fortifications” surround both Mound was cut and burned in October, 1975, Bottom and Pack. but was not traceable to the south until The accounts of both Jones and after the grass cover was gone. The Heywood suggest these authors relied on low rise at first appeared to be the second hand information to form their result of plowing, but excavation descriptions, and to date no first-hand showed this impression to be descriptions of the palisade at Mound erroneous. A chance observation of a Bottom have been identified in antiquarian photograph taken during the 1940's literature. A century after Haywood’s from the high cliff across the river at account and following a physical sunset showed the same ridge, but inspection of the site, Myer (1924:114) much less eroded. Fragments of the writes that the alleged palisade feature north and south walls were traceable was absent, a fact he attributes to for short distances but then became too plowing: “The accounts of the early white eroded to follow. [Kuttruff 1979:17--18] visitors to the region indicate that a line of walls with towers every 40 paces at one Although the height of this linear time extended around the edge of this feature exceeds the 25-cm contour river bottom. If so, all trace has intervals of the 1970s topographic map, it disappeared under long cultivation.” does not appear on that document except During past visits to the site, the senior as indicated by a dashed line (see Figure author had noted a slight rise and 6A). During the 1970s testing effort, a

111 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 7. Enhanced DEM of site core, showing the grid of embankments and location of 2016 test units (shown as black squares, not to scale). 2x2-m test unit (Hectare 8, Area B) was bright linear reflection in the placed on the northern of these earthen magnetometer data. embankments, to the north of Mound H. The LiDAR data for Mound bottom No artifacts were recovered from within revealed a grid of raised embankments this test, which consisted of a single spread across the site area (Figure 7). stratigraphic layer measuring just over These features enclose the main plaza to one meter in depth and ending in “yellow the east, north, and south, and further basal clay” (O’Brien 1977:128--130). No separate that space into discrete, similarly buried A-horizon or midden deposit was sized units. The easternmost of these present, although a wall trench and embankments, along with intersecting storage pit were reportedly discovered cut berms to the east, correspond to the into the clay beneath the bank of earth. In dashed lines of the “inner palisade” the final interpretation, O’Brien suggested (O’Brien 1977; O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012) that site deposits in this area had been (see Figure 6). Based on this deliberately cleared down to contact with identification, it initially appeared plausible subsoil, after which artifact-sterile soil had that the raised embankments might been deposited in a single event as part present a network of palisades. of palisade construction. The northern embankment was also identified by Walker et al. (2008), who noted it as a

112 The Great Mound Group

Ground Truthing direction as the embankment itself. This feature was immediately underlain by In June of 2016, with the assistance of parallel bands of light soil approximately Bill Lawrence and several volunteers, the 32 cm apart. It was initially anticipated authors undertook two weeks of that this feature might represent the excavations to examine the grid of raised edges of a wall or palisade trench. linear features identified in the Mound However, the feature disappeared in less Bottom DEM. With the site mowed short than 2 cm without resolving. A these features were visible to the naked radiocarbon sample from the linear eye. Excavations were placed charcoal deposit was submitted to Beta perpendicular to embankments at the foot Analytic, Inc. for dating, and returned a of Mound A and along the northeastern conventional radiocarbon age of 100 + 30 edge of the site core, and as well as at the BP (wood charcoal, 13C= -11.0, Beta intersection of embankments to the east 442865). The northern test unit was (see Figure 7). ultimately terminated at𝝳𝝳 89 cm deep, after None of the test units encountered transitioning to yellowish brown silty clay. midden or intact deposits. Units near Mound A were essentially sterile in terms Conclusions of both artifacts and features, with the exception of a north/south linear Through a combination of remote discoloration encountered at sensing data and ground-truthing we can approximately 37 cm below ground now take a better account of the total surface, immediately above subsoil. That mounds at Mound Bottom, which have feature was less than 4 cm thick and been variously reported as numbering exhibited no coherent profile. The unit between 11 and 14. The main plaza placed on the eastern embankment was includes 12 definite mounds (see Figures similarly unremarkable, yielding 2 and 3), while previously recorded undifferentiated, nearly-sterile soils mounds M and N do not appear to be extending approximately 70 cm below extant features. With the two surviving surface before transitioning to subsoil. mounds identified along the western Both these units yielded a small collection ridgetop, the total mounds within the of lithics and eroded fragments of Mound Bottom meander bend today Mississippi Plain ceramics, as well as U- numbers 14. Two additional mounds shaped metal fence staples. survive across the Harpeth River on the A final test unit was placed eastern bluff top (40CH134), and perpendicular to the crest of the northern remnants of a single mound stand on the embankment, approximately 7 m east of bluff to the north (40CH111). the 1970s unit. While that test is reported Shortly before completion of fieldwork, as being artifact-free, the nearby 2016 investigators located an oblique aerial unit produced exponentially more lithic photo of the site taken in 1938 (Figure 8). material that any of the other locations That image shows a patchwork of fence tested during ground-truthing. At rows which directly correspond to the approximately 61 cm below ground gridwork of earthen berms. Based on both surface, excavators encountered a faint the radiocarbon data and historic imagery linear charcoal stain extending east/west we may conclude that the grid of low across the unit, oriented in the same embankments seen in the LiDAR data,

113 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 8. 1938 aerial photo of Mound Bottom showing fence rows (photographer unknown, Tennessee Division of Archaeology site information files). including the eastern and northern Mississippianization of the interior features previously identified as the “inner Southeast. Hopefully the work presented palisade,” are not original to the site and here marks the initial steps in reversing instead are the result of historic that trajectory. In coming years we plan to agricultural practices. Despite assertions further assess Mound Bottom with a by historic sources that Mound Bottom is complete suite of geophysical and remote surrounded by a palisade, actual physical sensing techniques, and thereby lay the evidence of that feature has yet to be groundwork for new investigations of this identified. important Middle Cumberland The vast majority of excavation data Mississippian site. from both Mound Bottom and the Pack site exist as unpublished or archival Notes: 1 materials, and consequently are not This article employs mound designations established during the 1974-1975 Tennessee widely available for researchers. In Division of Archaeology excavations, with addition, neither site has undergone Mound A being the largest platform mound at modern evaluation at a scale that even the site, and subsequent designations moving begins to approach work done on other counterclockwise around the plaza. 2 major regional Mississippian centers. See both Moore and Smith (2009) and Moore et al. (2016) for thorough excavation histories of Consequently Mound Bottom and Pack the Mound Bottom and Pack sites. have not substantially contributed to modern research questions on the Acknowledgements. We extend our gratitude to formation or trajectory of the Middle the staff of the Harpeth River State Park, and Cumberland Mississippian or the broader particularly Gary Patterson, for their efforts

114 The Great Mound Group managing and protecting Mound Bottom and Tennessee. Tennessee Division of facilitating our work this past summer. Ali Jordan, Archaeology Unpublished Manuscript Joey Keasler, Mackey and David Luffman, Sarah No. 97-3, on file Tennessee Division of Northcutt, Paige Silcox, and Jesse Tune all Archaeology, Nashville. volunteered on the excavations. Valerie McCormack at the Nashville District of the US Army Corps of Engineers assisted in procurement Lawrence, William L., Chester P. Walker, and of the LiDAR data, while Bill Lawrence, David Dye, David H. Dye and Chet Walker all shared information on their 2016 Geophysical Investigations at the magnetometer survey. Finally, we thank Scott Mound Bottom Site, Cheatham Jones for inviting us to contribute to both the 2016 County, Tennessee. Paper presented Southeastern Archaeological Conference at the 78th Annual meeting of the symposium and this dedicated issue. Southeastern Archaeological . Conference, Athens. References Moore, Michael C., David H. Dye, and Kevin Autry, William O., Jr. E. Smith 1983 Sociopolitical Dimensions of the 2016 WPA Excavations at the Mound Mississippian System in the Bottom and Pack Sites in Middle Cumberland River Valley of Middle Tennessee, 1936-1940. In New Deal Tennessee and Western Kentucky: An Archaeology in Tennessee: Analysis of Mortuary Patterns and Intellectual, Methodological, and Skeletal Remains from Mound Bottom, Theoretical Contributions, edited By Tennessee. Report prepared for the David H. Dye, pp. 116-137. University Frank H. Mcclung Museum, The Of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee and on file, Tennessee Moore, Michael C. and Kevin E. Smith Division of Archaeology, Nashville. 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Peabody Museum in Middle Cox, Parmenio E. Tennessee, 1877-1884. Tennessee 1926 Pre-Historic Man in Tennessee. Department of Environment and Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Conservation, Division of Archaeology Science 1(3):22-30. Research Series No. 16. Revised 2012, electronic edition at: Haywood, John http://www.tennessee.gov/assets/entiti 1823 The Natural and Aboriginal History of es/environment/attachments/arch_rs1 Tennessee up to the First Settlements 6_peabody_museum_2009.pdf Therein by the White People in the Year 1768. George Wilson, Nashville. Myer, William Edward 1924 Archaeological Field-Work in Jones, Joseph Tennessee. In Explorations and Field- 1869 The Aboriginal Mound Builders of Work of the Smithsonian Institution in Tennessee. The American Naturalist 1923. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 3(2):57-73. Collections 76(10):109-118. 1876 Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains in Tennessee. Smithsonian O’Brien, Michael J. Contributions to Knowledge No. 259. 1977 Intrasite Variability in A Middle Smithsonian Institution, Washington, Mississippian Community. Ph.D. D. C. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Kuttruff, Carl H. 1979 Mound Bottom and Pack Sites,

115 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

O’Brien, Michael J. and Carl Kuttruff 2012 The 1974–75 Excavations At Mound Bottom, A Palisaded Mississippian Center In Cheatham County, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 31(1):70–86.

Smith, Kevin E. 2008 Shrouded in Myth and Mystery: Two Centuries of Interest in the Mound Bottom-Pack Locality. Paper presented to the 65th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference.

Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore 2010 Early Mississippian in Prehistoric Nashville: Migration, Diffusion, and Innovation. Paper presented at the Early Mississippian Archaeology Summit: A Collaborative Research Workshop, Murfreesboro.

Walker, Chester P., David H. Dye, and William L. Lawrence 2008 Geophysical Investigations at Mound Bottom (40CH8), Cheatham County, Tennessee. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Current Research in Tennessee Archaeology meeting, Nashville.

Aaron Deter-Wolf Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

Sunny Fleming Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

Sarah Levithol Eckhardt Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

116 A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF MISSISSIPPIAN SETTLEMENT IN THE LITTLE HARPETH RIVER WATERSHED: THE INGLEHAME FARM SITE (40WM342) REVISITED

Michael C. Moore

Initial grading activity in 2003 for a proposed cul-de-sac within the Inglehame Farm subdivision in northern Williamson County uncovered several Mississippian period stone-box graves. Subsequent archaeological investigations in 2004 recorded structures, refuse-filled pits, and additional stone-box graves associated with an intact Mississippian period village. A reanalysis of the ceramic assemblage denoted two distinct Mississippian components. The first was an early occupation (estimated AD 1000-1100) defined by shell-tempered cordmarked ceramics. The vast majority of ceramics, however, supported a primary site occupation between the mid-13th and mid-15th centuries. An AMS date of 430 +/- 30 BP (AD 1440 to 1455 at one-sigma) raises the possibility that Inglehame Farm represents one of the last Mississippian sites to exist in the Harpeth River drainage, and likely the entire Middle Cumberland Region (Moore et al. 2006), prior to widespread depopulation of the study area.

Site 40WM342 was discovered in the trenches (labeled A-R) outward from, and fall of 2003 when initial grading of a parallel to, the proposed cul-de-sac proposed cul-de-sac (roughly 6.5 acre- (Figure 2). Ten test units were also tract) within the Inglehame Farm excavated within select trenches. This subdivision in Brentwood, Tennessee work discovered an additional 28 stone- uncovered possible human burials (Figure box graves along with intact midden 1). This discovery in the Little Harpeth deposits, structures, and other features River headwaters was not particularly (see Deter-Wolf 2007). These test results surprising given previous sites found in indicated the proposed cul-de-sac and the Harpeth River watershed dating back associated lots were located on top of a to the mid-1800s (Clark 1878; J. Jones substantial Mississippian village. 1876; Moore and Smith 2009/revised However, the occupation boundaries were 2012; Thruston 1897). Fortunately all not determined as the 2004 investigation earthmoving activity in the tract was was confined to the proposed construction stopped at that time. The Tennessee tract. The consultant noted most of the Division of Archaeology (TDOA) was defined stone-boxes were small and likely contacted to evaluate whether human contained infants and small children. This graves had been found, and confirmed observation supported the suspected that three Mississippian period stone-box village determination as Middle graves had indeed been exposed. The Cumberland Mississippian groups TDOA recommended the developer hire routinely buried infants and very young an archaeological consultant to assess children inside their structures (Moore the extent of human graves prior to 2005). resuming construction activity. Moderate to well-preserved non- A local consulting firm conducted the mortuary resources were concentrated in recommended assessment in September Trenches D, E, and K; with good 2004 (Dicks 2004) by digging 21 backhoe preservation also noted in Trenches C, L,

117 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

K. A small stone-box grave was present with a structure floor in Trench E (Figure 4), and a puddled-clay hearth was defined with a probable floor in Trench D (Figure 5). Linear post patterns were visible in these and other trenches, but definitive statements on structure construction style remain problematic with the available data. No further archaeological work was performed within the proposed cul-de-sac as this subdivision addition was never built. Later investigations adjacent to the FIGURE 1. Topographic setting of cul-de-sac area were conducted by TRC, Inglehame Farm site (40WM342), Inc. prior to a proposed stormwater Williamson County. retention area and pipeline. These works revealed additional stone-box burials, non-mortuary features, and artifacts similar to those defined in 2004 (Deter- Wolf 2007; TDOA 2008). However, as with the cul-de-sac, these particular projects were never finalized or constructed, likely due to the severe economic downturn about that time.

Inglehame Farm, 2004 Investigation Results

This research effort aspires to bring the 2004 test excavation results to the attention of the archaeological community. This study also takes a glimpse at how 40WM342 meshes with other Mississippian period site occupations in the Little Harpeth River drainage. The Inglehame Farm site was established in the headwaters of the Little Harpeth River in northeast Williamson County on a low, relatively level, north- facing ridge projection at roughly 790 ft. above mean sea level (see Figure 1). This FIGURE 2. Location of 2004 consultant occupation overlooks an unnamed, backhoe trenches and test units (Dicks spring-fed stream flowing in a northwest 2004:15). direction that joins the Little Harpeth River P1, and Q (Figure 3). Several structure about one km to the northwest. The floors were visible in Trenches D, E, and surrounding terrain comprises dissected

118 Inglehame Farm Site

FIGURE 3. Trenches E, P, and Q section plan-views (revised from Dicks 2004). Ceramics

The nearly 2300 ceramic artifacts comprised late prehistoric vessels, vessel sections, and sherds (Table 1). A disk made from a fabric-impressed pan sherd was the only non-vessel artifact present in the sample. As expected, the shell-tempered “supertypes” of Mississippi Plain and Bell Plain dominated with 95% of the ceramic assemblage. Admittedly not expected was the 42% of Bell Plain represented in the FIGURE 4. Stone-box grave on structure sample. Bell Plain percentages at other floor in Trench E. Middle Cumberland Mississippian sites range from 1% to about 19% (S. Jones uplands reaching nearly 1200 ft. above 2017; Moore 2005; Moore and Smith mean sea level. 2001, 2009/2012; Moore et al. 2006; The 2004 exploration retrieved a Smith 1993; Walling et al. 2000). variety of prehistoric ceramic, lithic, Other identified types in the faunal, and floral artifacts from the trench assemblage were Kimmswick Plain, and test unit excavations. A complete Kimmswick Fabric-Impressed, Matthews reanalysis of the artifact assemblage was Incised var. Matthews and Manly, and undertaken for this research effort. Beckwith Incised (Figure 6). Combined,

119 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 5. Puddled-clay hearth with probable structure floor in Trench D (Dicks 2004:46).

FIGURE 7. Photograph and sketch of negative painted (interior) plate body sherd from Trench E.

FIGURE 6. Clockwise from upper left: Matthews Incised, variety Matthews; Beckwith Incised; Kimmswick Fabric Impressed; and Matthews Incised, variety Manly. these types represent about two percent of the total ceramic assemblage. Negative painted specimens were also present, including one (interior painted) plate body sherd from Trench E comparable to interior painted plate fragments found at the nearby Gordontown site, 40DV6 (Moore and Breitburg 1998; Moore et al. FIGURE 8. Inglehame Farm (40WM342) and 2006; Myer 1928) (Figures 7 and 8). Gordontown (40DV6) site locations.

120 Inglehame Farm Site

TABLE 1. Ceramics from the 2004 Investigations at Inglehame Farm, 40WM342.

Miss Plain=Mississippi Plain; Kimm Pln=Kimmswick Plain; Kim FI=Kimmswick Fabric Impressed; Kim Und=Kimmswick Unidentified; MtInc Matt=Matthews Incised, variety Matthews; MtInc Mnly=Matthews Incised, variety Manly; Bkw Inc=Beckwith Incised; Unid Inc=Unidentified Incised; Efgy=Effigy; dk=duck; hm=human; fs=fish; fr=frog; dg=dog; Unid Efgy=Unidentified Effigy; Neg Pnt=Negative Painted; McSd ChSt=micaceous sand temper check stamped; McSd CpSt=micaceous sand temper complicated stamped; Shll Crd=shell temper cordmarked; Sd/Gr Pln=sand/grit temper plain. Effigy vessels in the assemblage (see fragment from Trench E derives from a Table 1) comprised fish, human, duck, distinct style recently defined as the frog, and dog (Paisa, Underwater “bloody mouth” human effigy hooded Panther, e.g. Reilly 2011; Walker 2004). bottle (Figure 10). This particular bottle Several Inglehame Farm specimens style only occurs in the Middle recovered from Trench E are somewhat Cumberland Region (see Figure 10), with rare or unique for the study area. An just six or seven examples recorded to example is the tail fragment from a date including one from the adjacent negative painted dog bottle with a Brentwood Library site (Kevin Smith, cylindrical neck shown in Figure 9. Only a personal communication, 2016).1 few vessels are known for the study area, Trench E also yielded a duck effigy including a specimen from the Bowling bowl rim-rider with unusually large eyes Farm site presented (see Figure 9). and a flattened beak (Figure 11). No Also, an unusual top-knot/hair similar specimens have been recovered

121 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 9. Tail fragment from negative painted dog effigy bottle that was recovered in Trench E; and negative painted dog effigy bottle from the Bowling Farm site, Davidson County, Tennessee (image courtesy of Kevin Smith).

FIGURE 10. Top fragment of “Bloody Mouth” human effigy hooded bottle from Trench E; example of “bloody mouth” human effigy hooded bottle (image courtesy of Kevin Smith). from the Middle Cumberland Region to other study area Mississippian sites that date. date prior to AD 1200 (Norton and Broster Additional specimens in the Inglehame 2004; Spears et al. 2008). Farm assemblage include five shell- Also found was one micaceous sand tempered cordmarked sherds. This temper (possibly complicated) stamp particular ware has been recovered from sherd, and one micaceous sand temper

122 Inglehame Farm Site

were suggested to originate from north Georgia (Moore and Smith 2001:160- 161). However, the check-stamped specimen represents a truly unique artifact yet to be found at other study area Mississippian sites. Consultations with colleagues to date have yet to be fruitful regarding a possible type or place of origin.

Ceramic Vessel Forms

Vessel forms represented in the ceramic assemblage included jars, bowls, bottles, plates, and pans (Table 2). By far the most common vessel forms, as defined by rim sherd frequencies, were: (1) jars with direct rims and flattened lips, FIGURE 11. Duck effigy rim-rider along with strap and bifurcate lug handles; recovered from Trench E. and (2) standard bowls with notched rim- appliques. Handles observed in the assemblage were limited to straps and bifurcate lugs. No loop or flattened loop specimens were present.

Other Artifacts

Reanalysis of the lithic assemblage defined a revised total of just over 700 cultural items, all derived from local sources (Table 3). Over 90% of the assemblage comprised flakes and blocky debris representative of tool manufacture and/or maintenance activities. The small number and range of formal tools was a bit surprising with a few Madison projectile points, abrasive siltstone disks, and a FIGURE 12. Check-stamped body sherd limestone metate. Of interest was the with micaceous sand temper recovered complete absence of such formal tools as from general surface in Trench D vicinity. celts and chisels. check-stamp sherd (Figure 12). Reanalysis of the nearly 5000 faunal Micaceous sand temper sherds represent specimens recovered in 2004 is still non-local wares for the Middle underway. To date this work has Cumberland Region. Similar complicated documented vertebrates and stamp sherds recovered from the invertebrates that include white-tailed Rutherford-Kizer site in Sumner County deer, black bear, raccoon, rabbit, squirrel,

123 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

TABLE 2. 40WM342 Mississippian Vessel Forms and Attributes Represented by Rim Sherds. ______Coarse Shell Fine Shell Vessel Form Vessel Attribute Temper Temper Total ______Plain Jar 15 3 18 Direct rim, flattened lip 51 2 53 Direct rim, rolled/folded lip 1 - 1 Everted rim 1 - 1

Incised Jar - 4 4

Bowl Standard - 13 13 Outslanting wall 4 5 9 Notched rim 5 43 48

Bottle - 2 2 Cylindrical neck - 1 1 Hooded - 1 1 Negative painted - 1 1

Plate - 2 2

Pan Plain 4 - 4 Fabric impressed 4 - 4 Unidentified 6 - 6

Effigy - 10 10

Unknown 33 35 68 ______Totals 124 122 246 ______

TABLE 3. Lithics from the 2004 Investigations at Inglehame Farm, 40WM342.

domesticated dog, turkey, eastern box The floral assemblage has yet to be turtle, soft-shelled turtle, snake, gar, formally analyzed. However, 12-row freshwater river mussel, and marine maize cob fragments were identified from lightning whelk (Tanya Peres, personal fill inside a fish effigy bowl (Andrea communication, 2016). Bishop, personal communication, 2016).

124 Inglehame Farm Site

FIGURE 13. Fish effigy bowl containing 12-row maize cob fragments recovered from Trench K. These specimens are believed to derive through a more widespread presence from the same cob. during the 14th to mid-15th centuries (Moore and Smith 2009/2012:213-215). Radiocarbon Date The complete absence of loop and flattened loop handles also supported a One maize cob fragment from the fish later date. effigy bowl (Figure 13) found in Trench K was submitted to Beta Analytic for AMS Mississippian Settlement in the Little assay. This vessel was likely resting on a Harpeth River Drainage structure floor. Test results from the sample (Beta-444641) yielded a The discovery and exploration of conventional radiocarbon age of 430 + 30 Mississippian archaeological sites within BP with a calibrated result of AD 1440 to the Middle Cumberland Region (Moore et 1455 at one-sigma and AD 1430-1485 at al. 2006) are documented through the mid two-sigma (INTCAL 13). to late 19th century works of Clark (1878), This mid-15th century date meshed J. Jones (1876), Putnam (1878), and fairly well with the anticipated result based Thruston (1897). Continuing works from upon the abundance of notched-rim bowl the mid-20th through early 21st centuries sherds (see Table 2) that represent a have augmented these early explorations post-AD 1300 time marker (Moore and with data to explore research topics Smith 2009/2012:211-213). Also, the deeper than ever before, whether oriented Matthews and Beckwith Incised toward late prehistoric settlement and specimens are suggested to date from subsistence patterns or more esoteric their emergence in the mid-13th century subjects including iconography,

125 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

cosmology, and warfare (e.g. Clinton and specific drainage areas. Are there trends Peres 2011; Dacus et al. 2010; Hodge et to be observed in these more limited al. 2010; Klippel and Bass 1984; Moore et areas, and if so, do they mirror the overall al. 2014; Sharp et al. 2010, 2011; Smith regional developments? There were no and Miller 2009; Steponaitis et al. 2011; expectations about what may or may not Vidoli 2012; Worne 2011). be discerned through such investigations, The Middle Cumberland Mississippian but the Inglehame Farm site offered an Survey Project (MCMSP), initiated by ideal opportunity to begin an assessment Kevin Smith in the early 1990s, has of the Little Harpeth River drainage. generated a wealth of information to The Middle Cumberland Region has provide a clearer vision of Mississippian been defined as those drainages between occupation and use of the Middle the Cumberland and Red River Cumberland Region (e.g. Moore 2005; confluence to the west, and the Moore and Smith 2001, 2009/2012; Cumberland and Caney Fork River Moore et al. 2006, 2016; Smith 1992, confluence to the east (Moore et al. 1993; Smith and Moore 1994; Smith et al. 2006). The Harpeth River comprises an 2009; Spears et al. 2008). Works by extensive primary tributary that meanders other researchers have added important in a generally northwest to north direction data to assist in the overall interpretation through Rutherford, Williamson, (Barker and Kline 2013; S. Jones 2017; Davidson, Cheatham, and Dickson Norton and Broster 2004; Myer 1928; counties along the south side of the O’Brien 1977; O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012; Cumberland River. The Little Harpeth Walling et al. 2000). River is just one of several secondary Given the plethora of available tributaries that empty into the Harpeth information and interpretation, along with River, and drains the eastern edge of the our better understanding of the general watershed by flowing in a somewhat Middle Cumberland Mississippian trends, northwest direction through northeast we can indulge ourselves to drill down Williamson and southwest Davidson and look at what’s happening within more counties (Figure 14).

FIGURE 14. Little Harpeth River watershed within the Middle Cumberland Region.

126 Inglehame Farm Site

The previously mentioned works of ded …I think it must be a depraved Clark (1878), J. Jones (1876), Thruston person who would want to disturb her (1897) and others reported large while living (Notes by Edwin Curtiss Mississippian sites along the Harpeth from Mrs. Hayes Farm, Peabody River, but made no mention of sites on Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology the Little Harpeth River. This absence is Accession Number 79-4). interesting against the backdrop of Mississippian occupations known today However, Fewkes wasn’t brought to that include the Fewkes mound center the attention of the archaeological (40WM1), Brentwood Library (40WM210), community until William Myer conducted Arnold (40WM5), and Kellytown his now well-known excavation in 1920 on (40WM10) sites. To be fair, the Arnold behalf of the Smithsonian Institution (Myer and Brentwood Library sites were 1928). examined during Harvard’s Peabody The site received modern attention in Museum-sponsored explorations in 1998 when the western edge was Middle Tennessee (Moore and Smith excavated by a private consultant prior to 2009/2012). The Fewkes Mounds were TDOT road construction (Dicks 1997). also briefly mentioned in the 19th century This investigation uncovered a palisade Peabody Museum notes, stating the line as well as structures and pit features, landowner would not allow digging on her but unfortunately the excavation report property (Moore and Smith has never been completed. The available 2009/2012:149). data tentatively supports the Fewkes site A review of the TDOA site files has having been used/occupied over multiple nine recorded Mississippian sites along centuries during the Mississippian period. the Little Harpeth River (Figure 15). Four The Brentwood Library, or Jarman small stone-box cemeteries exist in Farm, site (40WM210) was excavated by addition to Inglehame Farm and the four Frederic Ward Putnam in 1882 on behalf previously mentioned sites. Even the of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, but most cursory glance at the site distribution that work was not formally published reveals the five substantial occupations (Moore and Smith 2009/2012:177-189). are somewhat evenly distributed along the Putnam’s information, combined with the Little Harpeth River. 1997 TDOA excavations prior to As previously noted, the Fewkes construction of a new public library Mound center (40WM1) was known to (Moore 2005), defined the presence of a 19th century explorers. Our evidence substantial palisaded settlement and comes through an 1879 notation by Edwin cemetery dating from the 14th to early Curtiss: 15th centuries. The Arnold site (40WM5, also known Three miles above this Mrs. as the Emily Hayes Farm site) was Hayes…is a vary large sacrificial excavated on behalf of the Peabody mound and a large area coverd with Museum-sponsored effort by Edwin graves…the owner is a widow lady and Curtiss in 1879 (Moore and Smith will not grant any one permision to 2009/2012:149-155). Curtiss focused on a explore on her farm says it is wrong to burial mound as well as select areas molest the dead and says she don’t within the palisade. Later salvage work in want her bones disturbed after she is the mid-1960s prior to subdivision

127 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 15. Recorded Mississippian period archaeological sites within the Little Harpeth River watershed. construction exposed numerous So what, if anything, can be said about structures and stone-box graves the observed distribution of substantial (Ferguson 1972). The 1870s and 1960s sites? An initial cultural chronology work defined a substantial palisaded introduced the Dowd and Thruston settlement and cemetery somewhat phases to characterize the progression similar to the previously mentioned and pinnacle of Middle Cumberland Brentwood Library site. The burial mound Mississippian occupations within the study suggests an initial settlement prior to AD area (Smith 1992; Smith and Moore 1300, whereas recovered artifacts 1994). The Dowd and Thruston phases including notched-rim bowls and incised were later redefined as the Dowd and wares support a post-AD 1300 Thruston regional periods (Moore et al. occupation. 2006) following discussions at that time Kellytown (40WM10), initially recorded about the framework of chronological as a stone-box cemetery in the 1970s, sequences (e.g. King 2003). was later determined by TDOT A more recent update further investigations to be a late prehistoric separated the Dowd and Thruston settlement with several palisade lines, regional periods into five (as yet numerous structures and pit features, and unnamed) regional periods (Moore and stone-box graves (Barker and Kline Smith 2009/2012:209). Figure 16 2013). Radiocarbon dates, supported by presents a comparison of the original and the presence of palisade lines along with most current chronologies. Regional notched-rim and incised wares, denote a Period I signals the initial founding of late occupation between the early 14th several Mississippian mound centers and early 15th centuries. along the western periphery of the region

128 Inglehame Farm Site

influence over the entire drainage for the next century. Regional Period III reflects a time of substantial population growth across the entire Middle Cumberland Region. The initial settlement at Arnold (Emily Hayes Farm) likely took place during the latter half of Regional Period III. The growth noted in Regional Period III ends around AD 1325 as a broad regional pattern of political destabilization takes place. The following century (Regional Period IV) witnesses the decline of centralized authority as reflected by numerous fortified villages. While mound construction has ceased at this time, some previously established mound centers across the Middle Cumberland Region continue to operate as fortified villages. Fewkes appears to FIGURE 16. Revised Middle Cumberland be an excellent example of this change. Mississippian regional chronology The available evidence does tell us that (adapted from Smith and Moore 1994; all major sites in the Little Harpeth River Moore and Smith 2009). drainage (i.e. Kellytown, Arnold, along with several smaller sites in other Brentwood Library, Fewkes and areas. This includes the Mound Bottom Inglehame Farm) were occupied during site located in the northern portion of the the mid-14th to mid-15th centuries (see Harpeth River watershed. However, it’s Figure 15). possible the initial founding of Mound By the end of Regional Period V, Bottom may not be the only emergent Mississippian populations have dropped occupation in the Harpeth River below the level of archaeological visibility. watershed. The shell-tempered This gradual abandonment is suggested cordmarked sherds recovered from to be part of a broader dispersal pattern Inglehame Farm are linked to other early seen in parts of the Ohio, Tennessee, and sites in the Middle Cumberland Region Mississippi River drainages previously that include Sogom and Spencer (Norton defined as the Vacant Quarter (Cobb and and Broster 2004; Spears et al. 2008). Butler 2003; Williams 1990). The Regional Period II sees a west to east relatively late date for Inglehame Farm expansion of chiefdoms within the region, (AD 1440-1455) presents the intriguing including the probable establishment of possibility this population was one of the the Old Town (40WM2) and Gray Farm last to inhabit the Middle Cumberland (40WM11) mound centers in the more Region. southern portion of the Harpeth River One question to ask is do these evenly watershed. In addition, Fewkes appears distributed sites represent autonomous to have been established by AD 1200 settlements, or rather reflect the same (perhaps a bit earlier), and likely exerted group moving locations throughout the

129 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

regional period, or perhaps a combination information to add to our understanding of of both? While the question may be this emergent Mississippian period. obvious, getting to the answer is not so Mound construction at 40WM1 represents easy, as intrasite settlement patterns and definitive evidence for settlement in the material culture are very similar between drainage by at least AD 1200, although these sites. Giovanna Vidoli’s recent perhaps not at the level seen along the research partially addresses this question primary Harpeth River watershed or the as she examined several Little Harpeth broader Middle Cumberland Region. River site populations (Brentwood Library However, the Little Harpeth River and Arnold) along with other Middle experienced a significant expansion of Cumberland Region sites while looking at post-AD 1300 settlements throughout the the broader picture of population entire drainage as a significant region- movements and gene flow (Vidoli 2012). wide shift took place. Several of these She determined “the biological and sites appear to reflect autonomous geographic proximity between Brentwood populations interacting with each other, Library and Arnold suggest they were one but the broader intersite relationships socially and politically coeval population remain to be answered. And finally, the that lived on different parts of the river”. 40WM342 date of AD 1440-1455 may A significant complicating factor for indicate Inglehame Farm represents one further research into this question (and of the last settlements in the Middle other relationship queries) has been the Cumberland Region to exist prior to relatively recent changes to Tennessee abandonment. state burial statutes (Moore 1989, 1998). These changes, initiated in the mid to late Note: 1 Kevin Smith and Robert Sharp are currently 1980s, require reburial of removed Native working on a project that will enlighten American skeletal remains and associated researchers about this particular form. burial objects within one year of removal. Acknowledgements. DuVall & Associates, Inc. State law does allow analysis during this donated all 2004 project records, images, and one-year period, but such analysis is not artifacts to the TDOA in July 2005. My sincere required. Reburied remains and objects gratitude is extended to Kevin Smith, Tanya Peres, from Little Harpeth River sites include and Andrea Bishop for answering my questions Brentwood Library and Fewkes Mounds. and pleas for assistance with the artifact reanalysis. Thanks also to Sarah Eckhardt for In addition, a federally-recognized tribe drafting the Middle Cumberland Region and Little has expressed interest in repatriating the Harpeth River drainage images used in this work. Arnold (Emily Hayes Farm) site remains . and objects under NAGPRA. References

Concluding Remark Barker, Gary and Gerald Kline 2013 Archaeological Investigations at This preliminary assessment of Kellytown (40WM10): A Fortified Late Mississippian Village in Middle Mississippian sites in the Little Harpeth Tennessee’s Harpeth River Drainage, River drainage suggests an initial (and Davidson and Williamson Counties, likely ephemeral) occupation at 40WM342 Tennessee. Publications in early in the Middle Cumberland Archaeology No. 13. Tennessee chronological sequence between AD Department of Transportation, 1000-1100. This is important new Environmental Division, Nashville.

130 Inglehame Farm Site

Clark, W.M. 2004 Archaeological Investigations at the 1878 Antiquities of Tennessee. Inglehame Farm Site (40WM342), Smithsonian Institution Annual Report Williamson County, Tennessee. for 1877:269-276. Report prepared for Ragan Smith Associates, Nashville, Tennessee. Clinton, Jennifer M. and Tanya M. Peres Copy on file, Tennessee Division of 2011 Pests in the Garden: Testing the Archaeology, Nashville. Garden-Hunting Model at the Rutherford-Kizer Site, Sumner County, Ferguson, Robert B. Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 1972 Arnold Village Site Excavations of 5(2):131-141. 1965-1966. In The Middle Cumberland Culture, edited by Robert Cobb, Charles R. and Brian Butler B. Ferguson, pp. 2-49. Vanderbilt 2003 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late University Publications in Mississippian Abandonment of the Anthropology No. 3, Nashville. Lower Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 67:625-641. Hodge, Shannon C., Michael K. Hampton, and Kevin E. Smith Dacus, Brandy, Kevin E. Smith, and Emily L. 2010 Ritual Use of Human Skulls at Beahm Castalian Springs, Tennessee. Paper 2010 Mississippian Earthlodge, Council presented at the 67th Annual Meeting House, or Temple? Investigations of a of the Southeastern Archaeological Large Circular Structure on the Conference, Lexington. Castalian Springs Plaza. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting Jones, Joseph of the Southeastern Archaeological 1876 Explorations of the Aboriginal Conference, Lexington. Remains of Tennessee. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 22(259):1- Deter-Wolf, Aaron 171. Washington DC. 2007 Archaeological Investigations of a Proposed 2.9-Acre Stormwater Jones, J. Scott Detention Area at the Inglehame 2017 The Kelley’s Battery Site (40DV392): Farms Residential Development, Archaeological Investigations at a Williamson County, Tennessee. Middle Cumberland Mississippian Report prepared for JSP Properties Village. Tennessee Archaeology Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. Copy on 9(1):16-57. file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville. King, Adam 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Dicks, A. Merrill Chiefdom Capital. University of 1997 Research Design and Scope of Work: Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Proposed Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery at the Fewkes site Klippel, Walter E., and William M. Bass (40Wm1), State Route 441 (Moores 1984 Averbuch: A Mississippian Lane), Williamson County, Tennessee. Manifestation in the Nashville Basin, Prepared for the Tennessee Volume I, Observations. Submitted to Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Interior, National Planning Division, Nashville, Park Service, Contract CX 5000-9- Tennessee. Copy on file, Tennessee 5943. Copy on file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville. Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

131 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Moore, Michael C. um_2009.pdf 1989 A Review of the Tennessee State Cemetery Law and its Effect upon Moore, Michael C., Emanuel Breitburg, Kevin Archaeological Data Recovery and E. Smith, and Mary Beth Trubitt Site Preservation. Tennessee 2006 One Hundred Years of Archaeology at Anthropologist 14(1):64-76. Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian 1998 An Updated Review of the Tennessee Town in Middle Tennessee. State Cemetery Law and Other Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):89- Statutes Regarding Prehistoric Burial 109. Removal. Tennessee Anthropologist 23(1&2):55-64. Moore, Michael C., Kevin E. Smith, Aaron 2005 The Brentwood Library Site: A Deter-Wolf, and Emily L. Beahm Mississippian Town on the Little 2014 Distribution and Context of Worked Harpeth River, Williamson County, Crystalline Artifacts from the Middle Tennessee. Research Series 15. Cumberland Region of Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Southeastern Archaeology 33(1):25- Environment and Conservation, 41. Division of Archaeology, Nashville. Moore, Michael C., Kevin E. Smith, and David Moore, Michael C. and Emanuel Breitburg H. Dye 1998 Gordontown: Salvage Archaeology at 2016 WPA Excavations at the Mound a Mississippian Town in Davidson Bottom and Pack Sites in Middle County, Tennessee. Research Series Tennessee, 1936-1940. In New Deal 11. Tennessee Department of Archaeology in Tennessee, edited by Environment and Conservation, David H. Dye, pp. 117-137. University Division of Archaeology, Nashville. of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Moore, Michael C. and Kevin E. Smith Myer, William E. 2001 Archaeological Excavations at the 1928 Two Prehistoric Villages in Middle Rutherford-Kizer Site: A Mississippian Tennessee. 41st Annual Report of the Mound Center in Sumner County, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1919- Tennessee. Research Series No. 13, 1924, pp. 485-614. Reprinted in 1972 Tennessee Department of by Southeastern Indian Antiquities Environment and Conservation, Survey, Inc., Nashville. Division of Archaeology, Nashville. 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Norton, Mark R. and John B. Broster Peabody Museum in Middle 2004 The Sogom Site (40DV68): A Tennessee, 1877-1884. Research Mississippian Farmstead on Cockrill Series No. 16, Tennessee Department Bend, Davidson County, Tennessee. of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Archaeology 1(1):2-17. Division of Archaeology, Nashville. 2012 Archaeological Expeditions of the O’Brien, Michael J. Peabody Museum in Middle 1977 Intrasite Variability in a Middle Tennessee, 1877-1884. Research Mississippian Community. Ph.D. Series No. 16, Tennessee Department dissertation, Department of of Environment and Conservation, Anthropology, University of Texas, Division of Archaeology, Nashville. Austin. Revised electronic edition. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/envi O’Brien, Michael J. and Carl Kuttruff ronment/archaeology/documents/rese 2012 The 1974-75 Excavations at Mound archseries/arch_rs16_peabody_muse Bottom, A Palisaded Mississippian

132 Inglehame Farm Site

Center in Cheatham County, Tennessee. Southeastern Smith, Kevin E. and James V. Miller Archaeology 31:70-86. 2009 Speaking with the Ancestors: Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Putnam, Frederic W. Tennessee-Cumberland Region. The 1878 Archaeological Explorations in University of Alabama Press, Tennessee. Peabody Museum of Tuscaloosa. Archaeology and Ethnology, Eleventh Annual Report 2(2):305-360. Smith, Kevin E. and Michael C. Moore 1994 Excavation of a Mississippian Reilly, Kent F., III Farmstead at the Brandywine Pointe 2011 The Great Serpent in the Lower Site (40DV247), Cumberland River Mississippi Valley. In, Visualizing the Valley, Tennessee. Midcontinental Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, Journal of Archaeology 19(2):198-222. and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Smith, Kevin E., Michael C. Moore, and Reilly III, and James F. Garber, pp. Stephen T. Rogers 188-136. University of Texas Press, 2009 The Enigma of the Noel Cemetery: Austin. Thruston’s “Ancient Metropolis of the Stone Grave Culture”. Paper Sharp, Robert V., Kevin E. Smith, and David presented at the 66th Annual Meeting H. Dye of the Southeastern Archaeological 2010 The Classic Braden Style and Its Conference, Mobile. Legacy in the Nashville Basin. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting Spears, W. Steven, Michael C. Moore, and of the Society for American Kevin E. Smith Archaeology, St. Louis. 2008 Evidence for Early Mississippian Settlement of the Nashville Basin: Sharp, Robert V., Vernon James Knight, Jr., Archaeological Evidence at the and George E. Lankford Spencer Site (40DV191). Tennessee 2011 Woman in the Patterned Shawl: Archaeology 3(1):2-24. Female Effigy Vessels and Figurines from the Middle Cumberland River Steponaitis, Vincas P., Vernon James Knight, Basin. In Visualizing the Sacred: Jr., George E. Lankford, Robert V. Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Sharp, and David H. Dye Art of the Mississippian World, edited 2011 Iconography of the Thruston Tablet. by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic III, and James F. Garber, pp. 177-198. Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of University of Texas Press, Austin. the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, Smith, Kevin E. and James F. Garber, pp. 137-176. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: University of Texas Press, Austin. Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee. Ph.D. dissertation, TDOA Department of Anthropology, 2008 Inglehame Farm (40WM342) Site Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Information File. Tennessee Division 1993 Archaeology at Old Town (40Wm2): A of Archaeology, Nashville. Mississippian Mound-Village Center in Williamson County, Tennessee. Thruston, Gates P. Tennessee Anthropologist 18(1):27- 1897 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the 44. Adjacent States. Second edition.

133 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Robert Clarke Co., Cincinnati. Binghamton. [Reprint editions 1965, 1972 by Tenase Company, Knoxville]. Michael C. Moore Tennessee Division of Archaeology Vidoli, Giovanna M. 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 2012 Shifting Borders: Population Nashville, TN 37243 Movement and the Geopolitical [email protected] Landscape of the Middle Cumberland Region during the Mississippian Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton.

Walker, Chester P. 2004 Prehistoric Art of the Central Mississippi Valley. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 219-229. The Art Institute of Chicago.

Walling, Richard, Lawrence Alexander, and Evan Peacock 2000 The Jefferson Street Bridge Project: Archaeological Investigations at the East Nashville Mounds Site (40Dv4) and the French Lick/Sulphur Dell Site (40Dv5) in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee. Publications in Archaeology No. 7. Tennessee Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Planning and Permits, Nashville.

Williams, Stephen 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Events in the Lower Valley. In Towns and Temples along the Mississippi, edited by David H. Dye and Cheryl Anne Cox, pp. 170-180. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Worne, Heather A. 2011 Conflicting Spaces: Bioarchaeological and Geophysical Perspectives on Warfare in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University, State University of New York,

134 THE COPPER CREEK SITE (40SU317): A MULTICOMPONENT MORTUARY SITE IN GOODLETTSVILLE, SUMNER COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Sarah Levithol Eckhardt and Hannah Guidry

In the summer of 2015, three Mississippian stone-box burials were found during grading of a Sumner County ridgetop in preparation for the Copper Creek subdivision. Subsequent investigations also discovered two Archaic period burials, making the Copper Creek site (40SU317) one of the few Archaic and Mississippian mortuary sites in the state. While the site lacked evidence of a permanent prehistoric occupation, Copper Creek does offer the opportunity to study a site used intermittently from the Archaic through Mississippian periods.

The Copper Creek site (40SU317) was construction disturbance to locate any discovered during the summer of 2015 additional graves. As the hired when heavy equipment operators archaeological contractor (TRC Solutions, encountered three stone-box burials while Inc.) carried out their work in search of grading a ridgetop in preparation for a other graves, the developer allowed subdivision near Goodlettsville in TDOA staff to excavate a sample of non- southwest Sumner County. While the mortuary features that had been exposed discovery was a surprise to the developer, during the investigation. As expected, two it was not completely unprecedented due additional graves were discovered during to the existence of other sites with stone- the testing, but these burials were interred box graves located within a few miles. in pits rather than stone boxes. The Following legal protocol in the discovery different burial modes suggested mortuary of human remains, the developer halted use of this site at two separate periods of work in the area and contacted the time separated by thousands of years. A Sumner County Sheriff, Medical radiocarbon date procured from fill in one Examiner, and Tennessee Division of of the pit burials returned a Late Archaic Archaeology (TDOA). These officials period date, while the stone box mode of confirmed the graves were prehistoric and burial was representative of the did not represent a forensic case. Since Mississippian period. the graves were situated in the middle of Per the court order, all burials were a planned road, and the landform was too relocated to a predetermined spot on the narrow to reroute the road around the subdivision property. Upon conclusion of graves, the developers made the decision the excavations, the developer graciously to have the burials legally relocated. As donated the Copper Creek artifact such, these burials fell under state assemblage to the State (TDOA) for cemetery law (TCA 46-4-101) requiring a further study and long term curation. In court order to allow removal and addition, the TDOA floated soil samples relocation of the graves. The developer from several non-mortuary features to hired an archaeological contract firm to gain additional insights. perform the work. While the site appears to have been The investigation evaluated the used intermittently as a temporary camp landform within the limits of the throughout prehistory, it also represents

135 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 1. Figure 1. Topographic map showing the location of the Copper Creek (40SU317) site. one of the few multicomponent sites in southwestern end of a heavily dissected Tennessee with confirmed Archaic and ridge complex at the transition between Mississippian period burials. As a unique the Central Basin physiographic province example of this type of site, Copper Creek to the south and Highland Rim offers archaeologists the opportunity to physiographic province to the north further assess a site used as a burial (Figure 1). The ridgetops are relatively flat ground over such a broad range of time. at this end of the complex which is flanked Use of the Copper Creek site for Archaic by narrow creek valleys. Just below the and Mississippian period burials may hint site area, these small creeks feed into a at a larger pattern of site use found almost series of larger creeks that empty into the exclusively in the Middle Cumberland Cumberland River. Notably, all sites River Valley. recorded within a five-mile radius of the Copper Creek site are located in the Setting Central Basin. The Highland Rim range is devoid of sites, likely due to the absence Site 40SU317 is located in Sumner of professional archaeological surveys County in the Goodlettsville area, about within the area, or possibly this particular two miles north of the Cumberland River portion of the Highland Rim was not and 14 miles northeast of Nashville. This disposed to human occupation due to its previously unrecorded multi-component high relief. Additionally, the site is situated upland site is in a setting that has within the Middle Cumberland Region attracted humans throughout prehistory, where years of archaeological research and continues to do so in present day. have documented a large number of sites The site was established at the dating to periods throughout prehistory

136 Copper Creek Site

FIGURE 3. Ridge formation on which the FIGURE 2. Removal of the plowzone from site was found. the western extent of the Copper Creek site. (Broster et al. 2013; Deter-Wolf and Peres elevation were easily accessible from the 2012; Jolley 1978, 1980; Moore and site area, suggesting the site may have Smith 2009; Smith 1992). extended beyond the assigned boundaries. Investigations All possible features more than 30-cm in diameter were bisected and at least 50 The area east and immediately percent of the fill removed to determine surrounding the stone-box graves had whether the pit contained a burial. Of the been graded when site investigations 103 potential features investigated, 56 began. Within this already disturbed area were deemed cultural and related to the were two large pit features observed in prehistoric ridge occupation (Figure 4; the footprint of a house that previously Table 1). Most cultural features were stood on the site. These particular shallow with homogenous fill, less than a features defined the eastern site extent. meter in diameter, and had little to no However, the ridge area west of the artifact content (Figure 5). Five pit stone-box graves had not yet been features contained heavily burned graded. This western site portion was a sandstone cobbles but no evidence that sizable area at a slightly higher elevation the stones were heated in those pits that held the potential for additional (Figure 6). graves and features. Plow zone removal Twenty-five features contained in this area was monitored and the area artifacts ranging from just a few pieces of carefully stripped up to the limits of charcoal to a mixture of lithics, ceramics, construction disturbance (Figure 2). The faunal bone and shell. The highest artifact northern and southern site boundaries density came from Features 1 (n=183), 13 were defined by the extent of the ridgetop (n=120) and 34 (n=42). These artifact (Figure 3). The west and east site totals comprise items found during field boundaries were defined by the limits of excavation as well as lab flotation. construction, presence of features in Of the few features that did contain already disturbed areas, and landform artifacts, only six exhibited temporally limitations. Nearby ridgetops at a similar diagnostic items (see Figure 4 for their

137 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 4. Plan map of 40SU317 showing the location of pit features and burials. locations). Five pits (Features 13, 20, 34, (2009). 48, and 79) yielded chert-tempered or A total of 52 features were bisected quartz/chert tempered ceramics with eight completely excavated. The suggesting a Woodland period affiliation. TDOA processed flotation samples from The two larger pits (Features 1 and 34) 13 non-mortuary features, retrieving a low isolated on the far eastern site area density of lithic debitage and small contained shell-tempered ceramics. ceramic fragments. The flotation process These two features had survived the yielded few artifacts, but allowed house construction/demolition and collection of additional charcoal samples. subsequent grading process, and Thirty-four seeds recovered from Feature comprise the only Mississippian general 75 were determined to be most likely refuse pits at this site. A wood charcoal modern in origin and not related to the sample from Feature 1 yielded an prehistoric site occupation (Kandace uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 570 + 30 Hollenbach, personal communication years BP (Beta-442863). This date places 2017). the feature sometime between the Regional Period III (ca. A.D. 1200-1325) and Regional Period IV (ca. A.D. 1325- 1425) as defined by Moore and Smith

138 Copper Creek Site

FIGURE 5. Plan and profile of Feature 48.

FIGURE 6. Plan and profile of Feature 78 containing heavily burned sandstone cobbles.

139 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

TABLE 1. List of Features Investigated at 40SU317 (measurements in cm).

Dimensions Half Max Feature # (n x e) Shape Boundaries Artifacts Noted Excavated Depth Type 1 172 x 160 Circular Unknown Lithics, Ceramic, FCR, Shell, Bone North Pit 2 100 x 90 Circular Diffuse Charcoal East 3 Pit 7 120 x 87 Oval Clear None East 55 Pit 8 93 x 74 Oval Diffuse None West 40 Pit 9 83 x 76 Circular Clear FCR at base South 60 Pit 13 100 x 90 Circular Clear Ceramics, Lithics, Charcoal West 21 Pit 14 70 x 67 Circular Diffuse None West 8 Pit 16 64 x 46 Circular Clear Charcoal East 24 Pit 20 190 x 150 Oval Diffuse Ceramic, Charcoal South 35 Pit 23 Not noted Semi-circular Diffuse Charcoal, Lithics, Hammerstone South 37 Pit 24 114 x 70 oval Diffuse Burned Earth East 21 Pit 26 160 x 152 Irregular Diffuse Nutting Stone East 20 Pit 27 105 x 70 Oval Diffuse None South 27 Pit 28 111 x 72 Oval Diffuse None East 32 Pit 29 94 x 67 Oval Diffuse/ Clear within Human Remains Entire 23 Burial 30 90 x 85 Oval Diffuse Human Remains Entire 10 Burial none 31 200 x 45 Rectangular clear Human Remains Entire given Burial 32 177 x 43 Rectangular clear Human Remains Entire 8 Burial 33 193 x 43 Rectangular clear Human Remains Entire 8 Burial Ceramics, Burned Sandstone, Burned Earth, 34 290 x 270 Circular Clear Lithics, FCR, Charcoal, Bone South 35 Pit 35 80 x 75 Circular Diffuse Charcoal Flecking, Lithics South 9 Pit 36 55 x 53 Circular Diffuse None East 31 Pit 37 90 x 80 Circular Charcoal Flecking, Lithics South 7 Pit 39 60 x 49 Oval Diffuse None East 43 Pit 40 100 x 80 Irregular Diffuse None South 20 Pit Rock 42 82 x 78 Circular Clear FCR South 25 Pit 43 70 x 100 Oval None South 11 Pit 45 68 x 70 Circular Charcoal, Lithics South 29 Pit Charcoal Flecking, FCR, Lithics, Bone Tool, Rock 46 113 x 110 Circular Clear Silt Stone South 6 Pit 47 100 x 100 Circular Clear Lithics South 15 Pit 48 80 x 68 Circular Clear Lithics, Ceramic, Charcoal East 33 Pit 49 50 x 56 Circular Diffuse None North 37 Pit 52 60 x 119 Irregular Diffuse None Northeast 20 Pit 54 50 x 62 Oval Diffuse Charcoal South 7 Pit 57 70 x 64 Circular diffuse None West 26 Pit 59 65 x 62 Circular Diffuse Burned earth West 37 Pit Rock 61 60 x 80 Circular Diffuse FCR, Lithics, Shale Frags Whole Feature 23 Pit South, then Rock 63 80 x 70 Circular Diffuse Lithics, FCR, Burned Earth North 40 Pit 65 39 x 44 Circular Diffuse Charcoal South 14 Pit 70 52 x 38 Irregular Diffuse Lithics South 9 Pit 71 32 x 40 Circular Diffuse FCR, Burned Earth Whole Feature Pit 75 95 x 80 Oval Clear Lithics, Charcoal, Seeds East 17 Pit Rock 78 90 x 86 Circular Clear Burned Earth, Lithics, Charcoal East 22 Pit 79 47 x 62 Oval Diffuse Lithics, Ceramic South 18 Pit 80 69 x 63 Circular Clear Lithics, Charcoal East 25 Pit 81 52 x 37 Irregular Clear None West 14 Pit 82 160 x 79 Oval Linear Diffuse Lithics, Charcoal East 39 Pit 84 72 x 43 Oval Diffuse None West 10 Pit 85 120 x 190 Oval Clear Lithics, FCR West 40 Pit 86 52 x 44 Oval Diffuse None West 18 Pit 88 90 x 115 Oval Diffuse Charcoal North 30 Pit 89 48 x 39 Oval Diffuse None West 10 Pit 91 50 x 37 Oval Diffuse None East 25 Pit 96 30 x 30 Circular Diffuse None South 25 Pit 97 55 x 76 Circular Diffuse Lithic Flake South 10 Pit 103 190 x 80 Linear Clear Burned Earth South 35 Pit 104 35 x 35 Circular Diffuse None East 22 Pit 105 89 x 83 Circular Diffuse None West 20 Pit 106 105 x 122 Circular Clear Burned Earth, Charcoal Flecking North 26 Pit 109 58 x 120 Circular Diffuse None South 20 Pit

140 Copper Creek Site

TABLE 2. Lithics Recovered from 40SU317.

Primary Secondary Tertiary Biface Core Shatter/ Flake Hammer Nutting Provenience Flake Flake Flake Biface Frag Core Tool FCR Debris Tool Scraper PP/K Celt Stone Stone General Collection 2 5 12 7 16 7 2 4 22 11 3 12 1 Feature 1 1 7 11 14 4 1 Feature 11 1 Feature 13 36 Feature 23 10 1 Feature 26 1 Feature 34 3 2 2 3 3 Feature 35 1 Feature 37 8 Feature 45 1 3 4 4 1 Feature 46 2 Feature 47 1 3 8 1 Feature 48 12 2 Feature 61 1 1 5 1 Feature 70 2 2 Feature 72 1 Feature 75 3 Feature 78 4 Feature 79 3 Feature 80 3 Feature 82 6 Feature 85 1 3 5 TOTALS 7 22 113 9 22 9 2 12 64 17 3 12 1 1 2

Artifact Analysis

Lithic Artifacts

A small number of lithic items (n=296) was recovered during the site excavations. Roughly a third (n=104) were collected from the plow zone during the site stripping process. The assemblage was divided into 15 categories based on morphological and functional traits (Table 2). The majority of the assemblage (n=206; 70%) was classified as debitage composed of primary/secondary/tertiary flakes, flake fragments, shatter, and blocky debris. Other items recovered from the general collection included seven cores, two core tools, 11 flake tools, three FIGURE 7. Temporally sensitive projectile side scrapers, one limestone celt/hoe, points recovered from 40SU317 during site seven bifaces in various stages of stripping. manufacture, 16 biface fragments, and 12 just below the plow zone interface). This projectile points. The projectile points shallow feature had a fourth biface in were representative of Early Archaic (e.g. place on the (stripped) surface, one Kirk Corner Notched and one Lost suggesting these bifaces composed a Lake) through Early Woodland (e,g, eight small cache at the base of a feature Adena and one Copena) periods (Figure truncated by past agricultural activity 7). (Figure 8; Tables 1-2). Three well-crafted bifaces found Additional lithic materials included six during the stripping process almost additional flake tools, two nutting stones certainly came from Feature 70 (exposed (one from Feature 1), two cores and two

141 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 8. Biface cache recovered during the stripping process. biface fragments from Feature 34, one TABLE 3. Ceramic Artifacts Recovered hammerstone, and twelve pieces of fire- from 40SU317. cracked rock. Shell Quartz/Chert Chert Shell Tempered Ceramic Artifacts Provenience Tempered Tempered Tempered Rim Feature 1 67 6 Feature 13 84 Feature 20 1 A moderate assemblage of ceramic Feature 34 3 23

Feature 48 1 artifacts (n=189) were recovered from six Feature 79 4 features (Table 3). Two features (1 and TOTALS 7 86 90 6 34) contained Mississippian period ceramics, whereas five features (13, 20, 34, 48, and 79) held Woodland period pottery. Feature 1 (n=73) contained 69 Mississippi Plain and four Bell Plain sherds. The Mississippi Plain sample comprised small body sherds less than 4 cm in length (77%, n=54), 10 body sherds greater than 4 cm in length, along with six rim sherds (Figure 9). One rim sherd may represent a pan form, but the others were FIGURE 9. Rim sherds recovered from the investigations. too small to determine the form. Of the four Bell Plain specimens, one was a thicker than other Woodland period jar/bottle neck fragment with the other sherds recovered from the site. All 23 three representing body sherds less than shell tempered sherds were defined as 4 cm in length. Mississippi Plain, with 18 sherds less than Feature 34 held both Woodland period 4 cm in length. quartz/chert tempered ceramics (n=3 The ceramics from Features 13, 20, 48 body) and Mississippian period shell and 79 were body sherds tempered with tempered sherds (n=23 body). The chert, or chert and quartz, suggesting quartz/chert tempered pieces were body these pit features date to the Woodland sherds less than 4 cm long but noticeably period. The majority of sherds were small

142 Copper Creek Site

the site. Feature 1 also yielded three small pieces of unidentified shell. The remaining faunal sample consisted of small, unidentifiable fragments recovered the other Mississippian pit (Feature 34) and Feature 46. As previously mentioned, the 34 seeds retrieved from Feature 75 were most likely modern in origin (Kandace Hollenbach, personal communication 2017).

FIGURE 10. Turkey bone awl, Feature 1. Burials TABLE 4. Other Artifacts Recovered from 40SU317. Surprisingly, no stone-box graves Faunal beyond the original three (Burials 3, 4, 5) Provenience Bone Shell Charcoal Seeds were encountered during the stripping Feature 1 68 3 Feature 2 <0.1 g investigation. However, two oval pit Feature 11 <0.1 g Feature 13 2.5 g burials with flexed individuals (Burials 1 Feature 16 <0.1 g Feature 20 <0.1 g and 2) were discovered (see Figure 4). Feature 34 3 1 g Feature 46 7 The two pit burials were in close proximity Feature 48 0.5 g Feature 54 <0.1 g to one another about 40 meters west of Feature 75 <0.1 g 34 Feature 78 <0.1 g the stone-box grave cluster. No grave Feature 80 <0.1 g Feature 82 0.3 g offerings were present with any of the TOTALS 78 3 N/A 34 burials. Burial 1 was a tightly-flexed female fragments less than 4 cm in length. All lying on her left side, facing northwest four chert and quartz tempered with the head to the southwest in a 94 x specimens from Feature 79 had been 67 cm pit (Figure 11). Though most of the heavily burned. skull was not present, a full set of teeth were intact including portions of the Other Artifacts maxilla and mandible. This adult female was at least 21 years old with fully formed Animal bone (n=78), shell (n=3), and third molars that exhibited slight wear. seeds (n=34) were also discovered in four The remaining teeth exhibited moderate of the features (Table 4). Feature 1, one to excessive wear with no visible cavities. of the two Mississippian pits at the site, The patella displayed no signs of arthritic returned the most faunal remains with 68 changes or osteophyte formation specimens although the majority was supporting the assertion she was a young classified as unidentifiable mammal. adult. Identifiable fragments in this Mississippian Burial 2 was very poorly preserved, feature represent deer (n=32), bird (n=6), and contained only a few fragments of and a single modified bone awl/needle adolescent to adult-sized long bone at the identified as possible turkey (Figure 10). base of a 90 x 85 cm pit. Some of the deer remains exhibited The mode of interment for Burials 1 extensive burning that suggests these and 2 suggested these individuals dated animals were cooked and consumed at

143 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 11. Plan drawings of Burials 1 and 3. to the Late Archaic, or possibly Woodland, remains suggest this grave held a single period. A wood charcoal sample collected adolescent to adult individual. from fill near the base of Burial 1 returned Burial 5 was located one meter an uncalibrated date of 3000 + 30 years southeast of Burial 4 and was also highly BP (Beta-442864), supporting the initial disturbed. Like Burial 4, the remnants of burial assessment as Late Archaic. this coffin were fragmented, though a Regarding the stone-box graves, two rectangular shape was distinguishable. individuals (Burials 4 and 5) were far more This stone-box was different from the disturbed than the third (Burial 3). These other two as the walls were constructed burials were impacted to some extent by using a combination of limestone and the construction work that led to their shale, along with a shale floor. The poorly discovery, but appeared to have been preserved contents consisted of two long previously disturbed by agricultural bone fragments. The position of the long activity. All three stone-boxes had similar bones suggests they are tibias from an dimensions, ranging from 1.7 to 2 meters extended adult burial. The long axis of this in length and 43 to 45 cm in width. box was also oriented NW/SE with a Burial 4 retained only small limestone difference of only 13° from the Burial 4 fragments that made up the coffin walls, orientation. but enough was left to distinguish the Burial 3 occurred about ten meters original rectangular shape. The grave west of Burials 4 and 5. The stone-box floor lacked slabs or any other material, coffin, made of limestone, was in better and the coffin long axis was oriented to condition and the skeletal remains were NW/SE. The poorly preserved remains of better preserved (Figure 11). The this individual consisted of two long bone fragmented remnant of a probable fragments, unidentifiable flat bone capstone was present over the box fragments, and a single molar. The visible center. The walls were composed of large

144 Copper Creek Site slabs set deeper than the box floor that Mississippian periods. Faunal remains was lined with several smaller slabs found in several features indicate large roughly pieced together. Two extended and small animals were processed and adult individuals were interred in this consumed by the site residents. No grave, one atop the other. The lower evidence of permanent structures was individual was likely male, and we can found, further supporting the notion of the only say the upper individual may be site area as a temporary processing male. The teeth of both individuals and/or caching location. displayed moderate wear with no visible A few temporally sensitive artifacts, cavities or abscesses. Fully formed third along with two samples submitted for molars indicate both individuals were over radiocarbon dating, indicate the site was the age of 21. The third molars were used intermittently from the Archaic impacted on both individuals in a similar through Mississippian periods. Based on manner suggesting a possible genetic the feature distribution (see Figure 4), kinship. This grave was oriented Archaic and Woodland activities appear to differently with the head end at 16° north have been more oriented toward the of east. western site area, with Mississippian All individuals were reinterred in a new period use being localized to the eastern location on the subdivision property. The end. No definitive Mississippian non- original burial groupings and orientations mortuary features were found within the were preserved as closely as possible in western part of the site. the new cemetery. A representative of the The only features confidently dated to Tennessee Archaeological Advisory the Archaic period are the two pit burials Council was present during the reburial. (Burials 1 and 2) as no other features yielded definitive Archaic period artifacts. Discussion However, Early Archaic period projectile points were found during general site Site Occupation and Use collections. The five pits containing fire- cracked rock may date to the Archaic The shallow feature depths, and period, as similar features in the region disturbed burials, suggest decades of dated to the Late Archaic period are plowing and erosion along the ridge believed to have been used for the special (along with the house construction) have processing of plant and animal resources substantially deflated the site deposits. (Wampler and McKee 2012). Perhaps the Despite these disturbances, some initial Copper Creek site served as a special site conclusions can be made. upland resource procurement and The presence of lithic artifacts processing site during the Archaic period. representing all stages of production Woodland period use of the site area indicates stone tools were being produced was affirmed by the discovery of and/or repaired at the site. High quality Woodland period projectile points (Adena chert resources occur in the area, so and Copena) during general site perhaps the site was used as a base collections, and the presence of camp to procure this resource from the Woodland period ceramics in four surrounding vicinity. Recovered ceramics features. Feature 13 contained the support site occupations lasting more than highest number of Woodland period a few days during the Woodland and ceramics (n=84), with Woodland pottery

145 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

and lithic debris present in Features 48 burial placements here are interesting but and 79. Feature 34 contained a few ultimately problematic as we do not know Woodland period sherds along with a the true extent of prehistoric deposits at modest sample of Mississippian period this site. specimens. At this time, we can discern that the These features imply the site was a area was initially used by Early Archaic Woodland period temporary camp with (possibly Late Archaic) and Early resource procurement, tool manufacture Woodland populations as seasonal, short and maintenance, and food term encampments with burials. Later preparation/consumption as primary site during the Mississippian period, the site activities. area was reused by prehistoric groups as As previously mentioned, the two non- short-term occupations and a burial mortuary Mississippian features (Feature ground. A farmstead may have been 1 and 34) were found at the eastern located at this location (since removed by extent of the site. These features modern disturbances) or on adjacent contained Mississippian period ceramics, ridges. It is also interesting to ponder if lithic tools and debris, and animal bone. burials from multiple time periods indicate Feature 1 contained the most faunal this site location may have held remains (n=68) as well as the only shell significance beyond just resource fragments (n=3) and bone tool recovered procurement. at the site. The animal remains and other artifacts (charcoal, nutting stone, and shell Regional Context tempered pottery) in these features denote the Mississippian residents were Only one professional archaeological living at the site area for multiple days at a survey has been carried out within a mile time. Not surprisingly, the recovered lithic of the Copper Creek site (Autry 1982). A debris and flake tools suggest items were number of archaeological investigations, being made and/or repaired during this mostly Phase I surveys and Phase II period. The Feature 1 bone awl supports testing for various infrastructure and hide working as a site activity. development projects, have occurred Site 40SU317 lacks any evidence of within a five-mile (~8 km) radius permanent structures, perhaps supporting (Anderson 2005; Anderson and Keene the idea of temporary site occupations by 1995; Barrett 2012, 2016; Cochrane 2005; native residents. However, structure Guidry 2014; Hockersmith 2009; Hodge features (postholes, hearth, etc.) may 2000; Johnson 2000; Johnson and have been removed by the previously Anderson 1996; McKee 2013; McNutt and stated modern activities (including Quillian 1981; Price 2014; Pritchard 2015; agriculture and erosion). A limestone hoe Rawls and Oesch 2016; Taylor 1989; recovered during a general collection Willard and Cochrane 2004). Phase III suggests farming/gardening was projects have been undertaken at a few conducted on or nearby the site area. sites in the area with the express purpose The Mississippian period stone-box of identifying and removing prehistoric graves occurred away from the burials (Autry 1982; Benthall 1987; Moore Mississippian pit features, and amongst and Smith 2001; Stripling 1987; Taylor et the Woodland period and other non- al. 1990; Weaver et al. 2011). designated pit features. The stone-box The TDOA site file database has 88

146 Copper Creek Site

FIGURE 12. Map showing the distribution of prehistoric sites within a five mile radius. recorded prehistoric sites spread across procurement locale by the same Archaic Davidson and Sumner counties within five populations. This settlement pattern has miles of the Copper Creek site (Figure been proposed by others for the region 12). Several sites are multicomponent, but (Deter-Wolf and Moore 2015; Peres and when considering individual components Deter-Wolf 2016). there are 42 Archaic sites, 27 Woodland Two Woodland period sites in the area sites, 18 Mississippian sites, and 26 also stand out. Denny Mound (40SU295), undetermined prehistoric occupations. a Late Woodland period burial mound two The Parrish site (40DV152), which lies miles southwest of Copper Creek, was about 4 miles southwest of the Copper excavated by William E. Myer in 1923 Creek site, contained both Archaic and (Myer 1923a). Not much is known about Mississippian period burials (Taylor et al. the site as it was destroyed by 1990). This is the only site within a five- construction, but Myer’s description and mile radius of Copper Creek to contain the lack of other Woodland period burial Archaic burials. The Parrish site is also mounds nearby suggests this was an located downstream from where the important Woodland period site in the creeks surrounding the Copper Creek site area. The Mansker Creek site (40DV53), empty into the Cumberland River. The just south of Denny Mound, was also said Parrish site may have served as a more to have been a significant site yielding permanent Archaic encampment situated impressive artifacts and burials dated to along the resource-rich Cumberland the Late Woodland period (Autry 1982). River, with Copper Creek having been Unfortunately, a final report about the site used as a specialized, seasonal resource was never completed, but the proximity to

147 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 13. Distribution of known sites in Tennessee with both Archaic and Mississippian period burials. Denny Mound tentatively suggests this and Smith 2001). The Copper Creek site site is most likely related to Denny Mound. may represent an upland farmstead or The proximity of these Woodland sites to seasonal camp related to these nearby Copper Creek implies the lowland Mississippian mound centers. Mansker Creek and Denny Mound sites served as more permanent settlements Multi-Component Mortuary Sites and with Copper Creek used as a seasonal the Middle Cumberland resource camp. Eighteen Mississippian period sites Copper Creek is unusual in occur within five miles of Copper Creek, Tennessee because it contains both including two mound complexes, Archaic and Mississippian period Rutherford-Kizer (40SU15) and Moss- interments, which is exceedingly rare in Wright (40SU20/40SU61). There are also the state (n=11 or 0.04% of recorded sites eight stone-box cemeteries in the area in TN). In fact, prehistoric burials in the (40DV152, 40DV197, 40DV334, 40SU19, upland settings of the Western and 40SU68, 40SU80, 40SU93, and Eastern Highland Rims are sparse, 40SU210). Excavations at these sites occurring at only 117 sites according to have shown the area to have been heavily the TDOA database. Figure 13 shows that occupied during the Mississippian period the most frequent occurrences of with several sites showing evidence of multicomponent cemeteries with Archaic large sedentary populations (Anderson and Mississippian burials are in the and Keene 1995; Benthall 1987; Moore physiographic regions surrounding the

148 Copper Creek Site

Copper Creek site. Indeed, the majority of 40 meters away from the Archaic burials these sites cluster within the Middle and no Mississippian period features were Cumberland River Valley, though some found on the western extent of the site. bias in the data may exist due to Such an arrangement suggests some incomplete site recording, out of date form of intentionality in the placement of records, and piecemeal survey coverage. Mississippian graves and avoidance of Archaeological research in the Middle specific areas at Copper Creek. Cumberland Region (Moore et al. 2006) The beginning of the Mississippian as well as the Middle Cumberland River period in the Middle Cumberland Region Valley (Deter-Wolf and Peres 2012), was marked by an influx of non-local stretches as far back as the nineteenth people from the north and west who century and has demonstrated that began to build mound sites, mainly along humans occupied the region as early as the western periphery of the Middle 12,100 cal BP (Deter-Wolf et al. 2011; Cumberland Region, as early as A.D. Haywood 1823; Jones 1876; Moore and 1000 (Moore and Smith 2001, 2009; Smith 2009; Myer 1923b, 1928; Smith Moore et al. 2006; Norton and Broster 1992; Thruston 1897). This research has 2004; Smith 1992; Smith and Moore revealed several unique traits and 1994; Spears et. al. 2008). Evidence from practices that distinguished the Middle the Mansker Creek and Denny Mound Cumberland Mississippian populations sites suggests the area around Copper from other Mississippian groups with Creek retained Late Woodland period burial practices being one such example populations, which may have still been in (Brown 1981; Dowd 2008; Ferguson existence when non-local groups entered 1972; Moore and Smith 2009; Smith the region (Autry 1982). This could 1992). explain why no Mississippian period The Mississippian occupants may graves were found in these Woodland have unknowingly buried their dead in period burial sites as they were still areas where Archaic period interments occupied when these non-local people already existed, as they were occupying arrived. The construction of mound sites many of the same site locations for similar and the interment of Mississippian people resources. There is also the possibility, at other local sites of importance (such as however, that Mississippian groups were Parrish and Moss-Wright) may then intentionally burying their dead in these represent an attempt by incoming non- older burial grounds, perhaps in an local Mississippian populations to attempt to establish their culture and establish themselves in the area. This traditions (and maybe dominance) on the behavior may be unique to the Middle landscape. A similar hypothesis has been Cumberland Region, as this type of multi- proposed for the Upper Hampton Farm component burial site is found almost site (40RH41) in East Tennessee where a entirely in this region. Perhaps then this Late Woodland burial mound was represents another unique practice of purposefully altered by a Late Middle Cumberland Mississippian Mississippian period population (Dalton- populations. This is a tenuous hypothesis, Carriger 2011). and the authors readily acknowledge This could be the comparable case for additional evidence is necessary. Further Copper Creek, as the Mississippian study of other sites with multi-component stone-box graves were clustered together burials in the region is needed to explore

149 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

this idea, and will be a focal point of through analysis of photographs of the skeletal research in the future. remains. Sarah Levithol Eckhardt, Aaron Deter- Wolf, Mike Moore, and Paige Silcox with the Tennessee Division of Archaeology (TDOA) Conclusion participated in the excavations. The TDOA facilitated flotation of site samples and The Copper Creek site represents an procurement of radiocarbon dates for the site. A interesting case study that seeks to special thanks to Kandace Hollenbach of the Department of Anthropology at the University of understand how the Highland Rim upland Tennessee Knoxville for quickly examining the areas were used and settled throughout botanical remains recovered from the flotation prehistory. While these areas only appear samples and providing her analysis for this to represent ephemeral short term publication. We would also like to thank the resource procurement camps, the Copper Phillips Builders, a Meritage Homes Company, for allowing TDOA staff on-site to assist with the Creek site has proven to be quite unusual excavations and for donating the recovered through use as a burial ground for Archaic artifacts to the TDOA. and Mississippian populations. This form . of multicomponent burial site does appear References to cluster in the Middle Cumberland Region/Middle Cumberland River Valley (Moore et al. 2006; Deter-Wolf and Peres Anderson, David G. 2012) and can perhaps be understood as 2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Rockland Road Extension another characteristic that distinguishes and Improvements, From the State this region. Further study is needed to Route 6 Intersection with Center Point better understand what type of Road to Imperial Boulevard, significance, if any, such sites hold and Hendersonville, Sumner County, how they may fit into the larger framework Tennessee. Prepared for Ragan-Smith of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian Associates, Nashville. On file at the period. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7028, Nashville, Tennessee. Notes: A large portion of the site information comes from the Tennessee Division of Anderson, David G., and Deborah A. Keene Archaeology state site files and GIS database. The 1995 Report of Test Excavations at Site Division site files are a dynamic database which is 40SU61 in Moss-Wright Park, Sumner updated on a daily basis. Consequently, the data County, Tennessee. Submitted by regarding site quantities and temporal affiliations DuVall & Associates, Inc. to the City of which we include here represent the character of Goodlettsville. On file at the the overall site file record as of April 2017. We encourage future researchers to consult the site Tennessee Division of Archaeology, files directly regarding site locations, temporal TDOA #6286, Nashville, Tennessee. affiliations, and level of investigation, rather than relying on earlier published data. Autry, William O., Jr. 1982 An Archaeological, Architectural, and Acknowledgements. The authors wish to thank all Historic Cultural Resources those who participated in the Copper Creek site Reconnaissance of the Northeast excavations. Hannah Guidry with TRC Metropolitan Nashville Transportation Environmental Corporation, directed the site Corridor, Davidson and Sumner investigation and burial relocation, and was Counties, Tennessee. Tanasi assisted in the field by Larry McKee, Amanda Garvin, Sean McKeighan, Nathan Allison, and Archaeological Research Associates, Grace Claudy. TRC bioarchaeologist Sean Norris Report No. 3, submitted to Tennessee provided additional information about the burials Department of Transportation,

150 Copper Creek Site

Nashville. On file at the Tennessee Proposed Indian Lake Development in Division of Archaeology, TDOA #8603, Hendersonville, Sumner County, Nashville, TN. Tennessee. Submitted by DuVall & Associates, Inc., to Lose & Associates, Barrett, Jared Nashville. On file at the Tennessee 2012 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7606, Goodlettsville Greenway Trail, Nashville, TN. Davidson and Sumner Counties, Tennessee. Submitted by TRC Dalton-Carriger, Jessica Nicole Nashville to Lose and Associates, 2011 The Social Memory of Upper Hampton Nashville. On file at the Tennessee Farm: An Organizational and Ceramic Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7852, Study of 40RH41. MA thesis, Nashville, TN. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 2016 Phase I Archaeology Survey of the Clarendale at Indian Lake Center Deter-Wolf, Aaron, and Michael C. Moore Development, Hendersonville, Sumner 2015 The Riverbend Prison Site (40DV83): County. Submitted by TRC Nashville A Late Archaic and Early Woodland to Ryan Companies, Minneapolis, MN Camp Along the Cumberland River in and USACE-Nashville. On file at the Davidson County, TN. Tennessee Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Department of Environment and TDOA #8705, Nashville, TN. Conservation, Division of Archaeology Report of Investigations No. 19. On file Benthall, Joseph L. at the Tennessee Division of 1987 The Moss-Wright Park Archaeological Archaeology, Nashville, TN. Electronic Project: Excavation of Site 40SU20, edition at: Goodlettsville, Tennessee. Tennessee https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/envi Department of Environment and ronment/attachments/arch_roi19_river Conservation, Division of Archaeology bend-prison-site_2015.pdf. Report of Investigations No. 5. On file at the Tennessee Division of Deter-Wolf, Aaron, and Tanya M. Peres Archaeology, TDOA #8600, Nashville, 2012 Recent Research in the Middle TN. Cumberland River Valley: Introduction to the Special Volume. Tennessee Broster, John B., Mark R. Norton, D. Shane Archaeology 6(1–2): 5–17. Miller, Jesse W. Tune, and Jon D. Baker Deter-Wolf, Aaron, Jesse W. Tune, and John 2013 Tennessee's Paleoindian Record. In, B. Broster In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, 2011 Excavations and Dating of Late edited by Joseph A. M. Gingerich, pp. Pleistocene and Paleoindian Deposits 299-314. The University of Utah at the Coats-Hines Site, Williamson Press, Salt Lake City. County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(2): 142–156. Brown, Ian W. 1981 A Study of Stone Box Graves in Dowd, John T. Eastern North America. Tennessee 2008 The Cumberland Stone-Box Burials of Anthropologist 6(1): 1–26. Middle Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 3(2):163–180. Cochrane, Megan 2005 Due Diligence Cultural Resources Ferguson, Robert B., ed. Survey of Approximately 280 Acres off 1972 The Middle Cumberland Culture. of Indian Lake Boulevard for the Vanderbilt University Publications in

151 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Anthropology No. 3, Nashville. Hendersonville, and Tennessee Department of Transportation. On file Guidry, Hannah at the Tennessee Division of 2014 Letter Report: Archaeological Survey Archaeology, TDOA #5729, Nashville, of Proposed Manskers Creek Cellular TN. Tower Site and Access Easements in Goodlettsville, Sumner County, Johnson, Jodi L., and David G. Anderson Tennessee. Submitted by TRC 1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Nashville to AquAeTer, Inc., Proposed Location of the Mansker Brentwood. On file at the Tennessee Creek Wastewater Conveyance Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7853, Facilities, City of Goodlettsville, Nashville, TN. Davidson and Sumner Counties, Tennessee. Submitted by DuVall & Haywood, John Associates, Inc. to Barge, Waggoner, 1823 The Natural and Aboriginal History of Sumner and Cannon, Inc., and the Tennessee up to the First Settlements Environmental Protection Agency. On Therein by the White People in the file at the Tennessee Division of Year 1768. George Wilson, Nashville. Archaeology, TDOA #4606, Nashville, TN. Hockersmith, Kelly 2009 Letter Report - Phase I Archaeological Jolley, Robert L. Survey of the Proposed Mansker 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Along Electrical Substation near the Cumberland River in the Outer Goodlettsville, Sumner County, Nashville Basin and the Western Tennessee. Submitted by TRC Highland Rim. Tennessee Nashville to Patterson & Dewar Anthropologist 3(2):129-144. Engineers, Inc, Nashville. On file at 1980 An Archaeological Survey of the the Tennessee Division of Lower Duck and Middle Cumberland Archaeology, TDOA #7163, Nashville, Rivers in Middle Tennessee. TN. Manuscript on file, Tennessee Department of Environment and Hodge, Phillip Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 2000 Phase I Short Report: State Route 174 Nashville. (Long Hollow Pike) Intersection Improvement at State Route 258 (New Jones, Joseph Shackle Island Road), Sumner 1876 Explorations of the Aboriginal County, Tennessee. Tennessee Remains of Tennessee. Smithsonian Department of Transportation. On file Institution, Smithsonian Contributions at the Tennessee Division of to Knowledge No. 259. Smithsonian Archaeology, TDOA #5653, Nashville, Institution, Washington D.C. TN. McKee, Larry Johnson, Jodi L. 2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey of CA. the Proposed Glenbrook South 2.6 Kilometers (1.62 Miles) for the Development, Hendersonville, Sumner Proposed Indian Lake Boulevard County, Tennessee. Submitted by Extension to Callender Lane in TRC Nashville to Ragan- Smith Hendersonville, Sumner County, Associates. On file at the Tennessee Tennessee. Submitted by DuVall & Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7776, Associates, Inc. to Barge, Waggoner, Nashville, TN. Sumner, and Cannon Inc., the City of

152 Copper Creek Site

McNutt, Charles H., and Patricia M. Quillian 1923b Catalogue of Archaeological Remains 1981 Testing for Cultural, Archaeological in Tennessee. Smithsonian Institution and Architectural Features, National Anthropological Archives Hendersonville By-Pass at Drakes Manuscript 1711. Manuscript on file at Creek-Callendar Road Interchange, National Anthropological Archives, Sumner County, Tennessee. Smithsonian Museum Support Center, Submitted by Anthropological Suitland, Maryland and the Tennessee Research Center, Memphis State Division of Archaeology, Nashville, University to the Tennessee TN. Department of Transportation. On file 1928 Two Prehistoric Villages in Middle at the Tennessee Division of Tennessee. Forty-First Annual Report Archaeology, TDOA #8367, Nashville, of the Bureau of American Ethnology, TN. 1919-1924. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. On file at the Moore, Michael C., Emanuel Breitburg, Kevin Tennessee Division of Archaeology, E. Smith, and Mary Beth Trubitt Nashville, TN. 2006 One Hundred Years of Archaeology at Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian Norton, Mark R., and John B. Broster Town in Middle Tennessee. 2004 The Sogom Site (40DV68): A Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):89- Mississippian Farmstead on Cockrill 109. Bend, Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 1(1):2–17. Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith 2001 Archaeological Excavations at the Peres, Tanya M., and Aaron Deter-Wolf Rutherford-Kizer Site: A Mississippian 2016 The Shell-Bearing Archaic in the Mound Center in Sumner County, Middle Cumberland River Valley. Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Southeastern Archaeology 35(3):237- Environment and Conservation, 250. Division of Archaeology Research Series No. 13. Revised 2016, Price, George D. electronic edition at: 2014 Phase I and Phase II Cultural https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/envi Resources Survey, Durham Farms, ronment/attachments/arch_rs13_ruthe Hendersonville, Sumner County, rford_kizer_2016.pdf. Tennessee. Submitted by Greenhouse 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Consultants, Inc, Atlanta, GA to WFC Peabody Museum in Middle Durham Holdings, Boston, MA. On file Tennessee, 1877-1884. Tennessee at the Tennessee Division of Department of Environment and Archaeology, TDOA #8159, Nashville, Conservation, Division of Archaeology TN. Research Series No. 16. Revised 2012, electronic edition at: Pritchard, Jim https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/envi 2015 Phase I Cultural Resources ronment/attachments/arch_rs16_peab Investigations in Support of the ody_museum_2009.pdf. Proposed JEA Senior Living Residential Development, Sumner Myer, William Edward County, Tennessee. Submitted by 1923a The Denny Mound. Unpublished Brockington and Associates to JEA Bureau of American Ethnology Corporation, Vancouver, WA and Bulletin. National Anthropological USACE-Nashville. On file at the Archives MS 2568, Smithsonian Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Institution. TDOA #8195., Nashville, TN.

153 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Rawls, John, and Karla Oesch Taylor, Richard D., Jr., Abigayle Robbins, and 2016 Archaeological Assessment for the Glyn D. DuVall Drakes Creek Road Widening Project, 1990 Burial Removal and Archaeological Sumner County, Tennessee. Salvage Operations at the Parrish Submitted by Panamerican Site, 40DV152, Davidson County, Consultants, Memphis to ARCADIS Tennessee. Submitted by DuVall & US, Inc., Montgomery, AL. On file at Associates to Southland Properties, the Tennessee Division of Nashville. On file at the Tennessee Archaeology, TDOA #8447, Nashville, Division of Archaeology, TDOA #8509, TN. Nashville, TN.

Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore Thruston, Gates P. 1994 Excavation of a Mississippian 1897 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the Farmstead at the Brandywine Pointe Adjacent States, A Series of Historical Site (40DV247): Cumberland River and Ethnological Studies. Second Valley, Tennessee. Midcontinental Edition. The Robert Clarke Company, Journal of Archaeology 19(2): 198– Cincinnati. 222. Wampler, Marc E., and Larry McKee Smith, Kevin E. 2012 The Harpeth Shoals Marina Site 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: (40CH195): A Terminal Archaic Fire- Mississippian Archaeology in North Cracked Rock Complex on the Central Tennessee. PhD dissertation, Cumberland River, Cheatham County, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 6(1-2):73-94. Spears, Steven W., Michael C. Moore, and Kevin E. Smith Weaver, Guy G., Jeremy W. Blazier, Anna R. 2008 Evidence for Early Mississippian Lunn, and Warren J. Oster Settlement of the Nashville Basin: 2011 Archaeological Monitoring and Archaeological Explorations at the Cemetery Relocation at the Callender Spencer Site (40DV191). Tennessee Court Site (40SU251), Hendersonville, Archaeology 3(1): 3–24. Sumner County, Tennessee. Submitted by Weaver and Associates, Stripling, Paris LLC to Carlson Consulting Engineers 1987 Excavation notes for 40SU93. and Halo Properties, LLC. On file at Tennessee Division of Archaeology the Tennessee Division of Site Information Files, Nashville. Archaeology, TDOA #7528, Nashville, TN. Taylor, Richard D., Jr. 1989 A Cultural Resources Survey of Willard, Michelle, and Megan Cochrane Proposed Landfill Site Locations on 2004 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of White’s, Bell’s, Hadley and Neely’s the Proposed Hendersonville Bends in Davison County, Tennessee. Greenway Project I, Hendersonville, Submitted by University of Alabama, Sumner County, Tennessee. State Museum of Natural History Submitted by DuVall & Associates, Division of Archaeology, Moundville to Inc. to Garver Engineering, Brentwood EDGe, Inc. Environmental Division, and the Federal Highway Nashville. On file at the Tennessee Administration. On file at the Division of Archaeology, TDOA #7572, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville, TN. TDOA #6433., Nashville, TN.

154 Copper Creek Site

Sarah Levithol Eckhardt Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

Hannah Guidry Tennessee Department of Transportation Environmental Division James K. Polk Building, 9th Floor 505 Deaderick St. Nashville, TN 37243 [email protected]

155 RELATIONSHIPS AND TRAUMA: LIVED PERSPECTIVES AT AVERBUCH

Giovanna M. Vidoli and Heather Worne

The Averbuch site (40DV60) in the Middle Cumberland Region (MCR) has been extensively studied but remains a mystery. Salvage excavations in the 1970’s revealed a village site with three cemeteries and a palisade wall. The three cemeteries were in use during different periods of Averbuch’s site history allowing examination of changes in trauma frequencies and biological relationships through the site’s short occupation period. Cranial measurements were collected from skeletal remains from Cemeteries 1 and 3, and combined with trauma data. The biological distances, or how similar groups of individuals are to one another, were compared between the two cemeteries and three other sites in the MCR. The results indicate that as relationships with other MCR sites changed, trauma at the site decreased through time. In addition, the individuals buried at Cemeteries 1 and 3 were less biologically similar to each other than to other sites in the region providing a possible explanation for the construction of the palisade through Cemetery 3.

Averbuch (40DV60) is one of the most isotope data and botanical remains from extensively excavated and studied the site indicate an extreme dependence Mississippian sites in the Middle on maize as well as a narrow range of Cumberland Region (MCR), an area in flora exploitation (Buikstra et al. 1988; north central Tennessee that encom- Crites 1984). Finally, a palisade wall was passes modern-day Nashville. Despite constructed during the mid to late 14th multiple dissertations, theses, and papers century (Cobb et al. 2015), indicating (e.g., Berryman 1981; Cobb et al. 2015; possible threat of attack. In this current Fojas 2016; Guagliardo 1980; Hamilton research, we attempt to combine trauma 1999; Jablonski 1981; Jones 2006; Kelso and population movement data from 2013; Klippel and Bass 1984; Muendel Averbuch in order to provide insight into 1997; Wehrman 2016) about Averbuch, this well studied, yet mysterious, site in the site remains an enigma in the MCR: it the Middle Cumberland Region. is a village site located on a small tributary The Middle Cumberland Region was stream with a high population density arguably one of the most densely inhabited over a relatively short populated regions during the occupation period. In addition to its Mississippian period (A.D. 1000-1450) seemingly remote location, soil catchment with over 400 known sites (Cobb and analysis indicates agricultural potential Gillam 2008; Moore and Smith 2009:208). was low in the region of Averbuch The region is within the Nashville Basin, (Charles Cobb, personal communication and is between the confluence of the 2010). Cumberland River with the Red River to Moreover, previous bioarchaeological the west and the Caney Fork River to the analyses indicate that residents at the east (Moore et al. 2006). The region has Averbuch site experienced considerable limited entry points with the Eastern biological and social stress (Berryman Highland Rim to the east and the Western 1984; Eisenberg 1986, 1991a, 1991b; Highland Rim to the west. However, there Worne et al. 2012). Analyses of stable is archaeological evidence of inter-

156 Averbuch

FIGURE 1. Middle Cumberland Region with Averbuch indicated with an arrow and other MCR sites mentioned in current research enumerated (1= Arnold; 2= Brentwood Library; 3= Cain’s Chapel) (after Smith and Moore 1999:95, Fig. 9.1).

TABLE 1. Dates for Averbuch Features (Figure 1) near Drake Branch, a tertiary from Cobb et al. (2015). river branch of the Cumberland River. The Locale Dates (cal. A.D.)1 Burials recovered2 village site was excavated between 1975 Cemetery 1 Post A.D. 1410 564 and 1978 as part of salvage operations Cemetery 2 1275-1395 98 ahead of construction of a subdivision Palisade Post A.D. 1350 Cemetery 3 Pre A.D. 1405 190 (Klippel and Bass 1984). Sixty-nine Averbuch 1265-1475 Total: 852 percent of the site was excavated 1From Cobb et al (2015), Primary Model 68.2% Probability resulting in a total of three cemeteries, 2Does not include burials under structures 886 burials, 22 domestic structures, and a regional contact and exchange networks palisade wall. The vast majority of burials including documentation of marine shell, were located in one of the three discrete Dover chert, copper, and Cahokia cemeteries; however, infants were cordmarked ceramics (Smith and Moore primarily interred under structure floors 1999). The area is also within the (Berryman 1981). Berryman (1981) boundaries of the Vacant Quarter (Cobb suggested the site’s population size was and Butler 2002; Williams 1990) and there between 821 to 1369 inhabitants. Though is no evidence of any new settlements more recently, Cobb and colleagues after A.D. 1475 (Moore and Smith 2009). (2015) suggested there were likely Averbuch is located north of Nashville between 100-200 individuals living at

157 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 2. Averbuch with location of cemeteries and palisade (in red) going through Cemetery 3 (Cobb et al. 2015, Figure 2; used by permission). Averbuch at any one time. Bayesian individuals buried in Cemetery 3 predate modeling of radiocarbon data indicates both Cemetery 1 and 2, and the palisade that the site was occupied for was likely constructed before Cemetery 1. approximately 200 years, from cal. A.D. 1265-1475 (Cobb et al. 2015). Previous Research The dates reported here from Cobb and colleagues (2015) (Table 1) are the Recent research (Vidoli 2012) calibrated dates with 68.2% probability. examined the biological distances among Per Cobb et al. (2015), probability 13 sites in the MCR. Information on distributions for some structures overlap biological relationships can be gleaned and it is difficult to determine the actual using cranial measurements and non- sequence for most of the dated structures. metric traits, which have a heritable However, Averbuch’s occupation began component. Groups with shared traits or around A.D. 1240-1385, which may be cranial morphology have smaller around the same time individuals were biological distances and reflect a common interred in Cemetery 3. The palisade wall population history with gene flow among intrudes upon Cemetery 3, suggesting the the groups. On the other hand, large Cemetery had already been in use prior to biological distances reflect less shared the erection of the wall and that, perhaps, traits and less gene flow, or population the wall construction had been a hurried movement, among the groups. The most event (Figure 2). The palisade predates common biological distance measure for Cemetery 1 but there may be some metrics is the Mahalanobis generalized overlap with Cemetery 2. Therefore, distance (D2). The Mahalanobis D2 is the

158 Averbuch

summed squared Euclidean distance and positive residual indicates higher than represents the minimum possible expected levels of gene flow from external biological distance between groups by regions while a negative residual indicates maximizing the between-group variance less than expected externally derived to the pooled within-group variance gene flow. Complete derivation of these (Pietrusewsky 2000, 2008). models and equations can be found in Gene flow not only makes populations Williams-Blangero and Blangero (1989), more similar but it also introduces new Relethford and Blangero (1990), genes in a population adding to the Relethford et al. (1997), and Stojanowski genetic variation of that group (Hartl and (2004). Clark 2007; Mielke et al. 2006). Vidoli’s (2012) prior research indicates Deviations from the expected genetic that individuals residing at Averbuch had variation, which is based on the small biological distances, and hence a assumption that all groups are strong biological relationship, with Arnold exchanging genes equally and also (40WM5), Brentwood Library (40WM210), receiving the same amount of external and Cains Chapel (40DV3) that comprise genes, can reveal information about the MCR populations to the south (see Figure level of external gene flow or genetic 1). Arnold, approximately 23 km south of isolation (Harpending and Ward 1982). As Averbuch, was a nucleated village site a result, the amount of extralocal gene located on the north bank of the Little flow present in a particular group Harpeth River with a radiocarbon date of compared to the other groups can be A.D. 1142-1302 (Ferguson 1972; Moore calculated allowing comparisons of which and Smith 2009). Brentwood Library was groups received more than expected gene a nucleated village site approximately 3.6 flow, or migrations, from outside the km to the south of the Arnold site. It is one region. of the later sites in the MCR with Williams-Blangero and Blangero radiocarbon dates of cal A.D. 1298-1465 (1989) provided an analytical framework (Moore 2005: 119). Cains Chapel is that allows genetic inferences of a approximately 9.1 km south of Averbuch population based solely on phenotypic and its uncalibrated radiocarbon dates are data. This allows the application of A.D. 1175 to 1265 (Benthall 1976, 1983; phenotypic traits into a model-bound, Moore and Smith 2009:86). Exact site direct population genetic framework for boundaries are unknown but a platform studies of population structure rather than mound, three additional mounds, a just comparing similarities and differences palisade line, and house structures have between populations, including cranial been recorded in an area of measurements. Extending further, the approximately 320 acres (Benthall 1983). Relethford and Blangero (1990) model for Despite the geographic distance, the phenotypic traits estimates expected biological distance results indicate that versus observed phenotypic variance residents at Averbuch had a shared (genetic heterozygosity when using population history with the communities at phenotypic traits) as indicators of more or Arnold, Brentwood Library, and Cains less than expected gene flow from Chapel (Vidoli 2012) and are hence also external sources. The magnitude of the the focus in this current research. difference, called the residual, indicates A comparison of regional population the amount of average gene flow. A differentiation, or FST values, between

159 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

early (primary occupation prior to A.D. revealed an apparent increase in violent 1200) and later (post A.D. 1200 primary cranial injuries among adults after A.D. occupation) sites in the MCR shows that 1325 (Worne 2017). This increase was later sites, including Averbuch, had a only statistically significant when both lower FST indicating more population injuries indicative of intergroup violence movement and intra-regional migration in (i.e., scalping) and those more commonly the MCR, a larger regional population associated with intragroup violence (i.e., size, or a combination of both. The healed cranial blunt force trauma) were regional FST results suggest that as the included, suggesting that the threat of population in the region expanded during violence originated from both outside and the Late Mississippian period, social within the communities. boundaries dissolved and population Overall, the frequency of intergroup movement became relatively unrestricted violence during the Mississippian period in in the MCR. While Smith (1992) and the MCR is not as high as has been Worne (2011) suggest that villages may reported for sites in other regions (i.e., have maintained territorial boundaries Koger Island in northwestern Alabama through conflict, the biological distance [Bridges 1996], Norris Farms #36 [Milner data indicate that social and biological et al. 1991] and Orendorf [Steadman boundaries in part were fluid and people 2008] in west-central Illinois). However, moved around the landscape relatively these studies report exceptionally high freely by the time Averbuch was frequencies and likely do not represent established (Vidoli 2012). the variability that existed. Similar to data Despite evidence of intra-regional from the Chickamauga Reservoir in movement of people among the sites Eastern Tennessee (Smith 2003), violent within the MCR, archaeological and injuries consistent with intragroup, or bioarchaeological support for intergroup interpersonal, violence occur more conflict has been documented for frequently in the MCR sample than the Mississippian sites throughout the MCR. above mentioned sites in Alabama and Victims of violence show evidence of Illinois. cranial blunt force trauma, projectile These biodistance and trauma results injuries, decapitation, scalping, and other together support the notion that towards instances of sharp force trauma the end of the Mississippian period in the (Berryman 1981; Broster 1988; Moore et MCR, a common social identity may have al. 2006; Worne 2011). Depictions of been shared among the sites and violent encounters, decapitated heads, throughout the region. While self-identity weaponry, and scalplocks have been may not be easy to discern in the documented from sites in the region archaeological record, a shared group or (Holmes 1891; Smith 1992; Thruston social identity may manifest in regional 1897). While at Averbuch, no such material culture, shared landscape, and iconography has been noted, the common burial practices, which we see in construction of a fortification wall indicates the MCR (Broster 1988; Moore and Smith that residents were concerned with village 2009; Smith 1992). In addition, there is defense (Berryman 1981; Klippel and evidence of gene flow among the sites in Bass 1984). the MCR or, described another way, Recent bioarchaeological analyses for evidence of mate exchange among the Mississippian sites throughout the MCR different sites. While this shared identity

160 Averbuch

gene flow and we focus only on those in TABLE 2. Cranial Measurements this study. The authors originally collected included in this Research (following 30 cranial and mandibular measurements Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994) following Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra Maximum cranial length Biauricular breadth and Ubelaker 1994). Measurements that Upper Facial height were recorded on less than 50% of all Minimum facial breadth Upper Facial breadth Averbuch individuals were removed from Nasal height further analysis. The effect of young (16- Orbital breadth Orbital height 20 years), middle (20-35 years), and old Parietal Chord (35 and over) age categories on Mastoid length measurements was tested using the Mandibular body breadth Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test for was not present as the area was being independent samples. These analyses established, continual population growth, were repeated with the Arnold, Cains trade, a circumscribed geographic Chapel, and Brentwood Library sites. landscape enclosed by the Highland Rim, After ensuring the remaining and a common resource base (the Inner measurements were normally distributed, Basin) may have resulted in a more missing values were estimated for male, communal identity and fluid population female, and unknown sex groups movement with instances of intergroup individually. Missing values were conflict. This may suggest that the estimated with Maximization Likelihood Southeast was composed of groups of (ML), specifically the EM algorithm of people with regional ethnic identities SPSS (v.20). Subsequently, males and scattered in small pockets throughout the females were pooled and their Mississippian landscape. measurements converted to standardized This current research places the focus z-scores to account for size differences back on Averbuch. In this research we related to sex (Relethford et al. 1997). seek to answer: Who settled at Averbuch? Once the final 11 cranial measurements Did the groups buried in each cemetery (Table 2) were standardized, RMET 5.0, a share a common population history? Did program written by John Relethford, was the site’s population history affect the used to calculate the minimum genetic nature or scale of conflict within distances and genetic variation of cranial Averbuch? This information will provide a measurements for individuals from each closer look at this site which has long held cemetery at Averbuch, Cains Chapel, the imagination of the MCR. We will then Brentwood Library, and Arnold sites. place the site back within the larger While prior research found that individuals context of the MCR. at Averbuch were more closely related to Arnold, Cains Chapel, and Brentwood Methods Library (Vidoli 2012), those results were based on considering Averbuch as one Cranial measurements and non-metric homogenous site. Hence, in this research, traits were recorded from all adult intact or we are examining if individuals in different fragmentary skulls at the Averbuch site, cemeteries shared a different population however only cranial measurements can history with these earlier sites. Using be utilized for calculation of extra-local these results in conjunction with the

161 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

trauma patterns reported elsewhere TABLE 3. Number of Individuals Includ- (Worne 2017) at Averbuch we can begin ed in Biological Distance Analysis. to gain a more nuanced understanding of the site history. Site Individuals Cemetery 1 53 Cemetery 3 17 Results Arnold 18 Cains Chapel 40 Brentwood Library 39 Eight measurements were recorded on less than 50% of all individuals from TABLE 4. Minimum Genetic Distances Averbuch and were removed from further (D2) for the Cranial Measurements. analysis. Unfortunately, there were only four individuals from Cemetery 2 with over Population Cemetery Cemetery Arnold Cains Brentwood 1 3 Chapel Library 50% of the cranial measurements present Cemetery 0 1 so the comparative metric analysis was Cemetery 0.023507 0 3 limited to Cemeteries 1 and 3 (Table 3). Arnold 0.013127 0.005608 0 Cains 0.001632 0.000000 0.003691 0 Three measurements were found to have Chapel Brentwood 0.000000 0.0057841 0.009621 0.012628 0 significant correlation with age, leaving 19 Lib traits for analysis. Once the analyses were repeated with Arnold, Brentwood TABLE 5. Relethford-Blangero Results Library, and Cains Chapel burials, an for Metric Traits. additional eight traits had to be removed Population r(ii)* Observed Expected Residual from analysis leaving 11 traits for variation variation biodistance and phenotypic variance Cemetery 0.002564 1.008 1.077 -0.068 1 analysis. Cemetery 0.000000 1.186 1.079 0.106 2 Examining the biodistance data (Table Arnold 0.000000 1.503 1.079 0.424

4), the populations with the smallest Cains 0.000000 0.808 1.079 -0.272 2 Chapel biological distances (D ) have the most Brentwood 0.000000 0.889 1.079 -0.190 biological similarity. The results indicate Library * rii is the genetic distance of subpopulations to the centroid (Harpending and Jenkins that the individuals in Cemetery 3, the 1973). earliest cemetery at Averbuch, are more biologically similar to individuals from discussed elsewhere (Vidoli 2012). Arnold, Brentwood Library, and Cains Worne (2017) compared skeletal Chapel than to individuals in Cemetery 1 samples from the earlier cemetery (D2=0.023507). Cemetery 1 individuals (Cemetery 3) and the later cemetery are more biologically close to individuals (Cemetery 1) and found that cranial from Brentwood Library (D2=0.0000) and trauma actually appears to decrease least similar to residents from Cemetery 3. overall among adults; however, these These results indicate that Averbuch was, results were not statistically significant in fact, not a homogenous site but (Worne 2017). This apparent decrease experienced population shifts during its occurs following the erection of the short occupation period. In addition, there palisade wall. A closer look at the results was more than expected external gene reveals that this shift is only statistically flow in Cemetery 3 than Cemetery 1, as significant for overall trauma and scalping indicated by the positive residual (Table among the male samples. Frequencies of 5). The residual results for Arnold, healed cranial blunt force trauma (more Brentwood Library, and Cains Chapel are often associated with intragroup violence)

162 Averbuch remained similar overtime among males. the other hand, village fissioning occurs Interestingly, although not statistically as a result of intragroup violence in the significant, female cranial trauma absence of a social conflict mitigating associated with both intergroup and institution (Bandy 2004). Therefore, the intragroup violence appears to have “metacommunity,” (Turchin 2011) or what increased between Cemetery 3 and Anderson (1996) calls “complex Cemetery 1 (Worne 2017). chiefdoms,” sooner or later fission into smaller communities if there is absence of Discussion an outside threat or there is social or political instability within the community. Although violence appears to have The closer biological relationship increased in the MCR during the between Cemetery 3, the earlier cemetery Mississippian period after A.D. 1325, this at Averbuch, with other sites in the MCR trend does not seem to have continued imply that Averbuch was settled, in part, into the 14th century at the Averbuch site. as a result of population movement and While males experienced a significant fusion from other MCR villages to decrease in the frequencies of intergroup Averbuch. In addition to higher trauma, injuries associated with intragroup frequencies of intergroup trauma, violence remain similar. Although not Cemetery 3 also has evidence of more statistically significant, females than expected extralocal gene flow when experienced an increase in all types of compared with Cemetery 1 implying that violent injuries. It appears that around the the people who first settled into Averbuch time that the palisade wall is constructed may have partially come from outside the at the site, we see shifts in not only the MCR. In addition, Cemetery 3 has fewer intensity, but also the nature of violence. Noel style ceramic bowls than Cemeteries The decrease in trauma over time 1 and 2 (Cobb et al. 2015:50). Noel bowls among males at Averbuch may be related serve as a horizon marker for the later to a number of factors both within Mississippian period in the MCR (Moore Averbuch and the MCR as a whole. and Smith 2009:211-213); however, the Moore and Smith (2009) suggest that different distribution among the during the later Mississippian period there cemeteries may indicate not only a was a shift away from a centralized different time period but also possibly a authority in the MCR toward more village different population history. As a result, centered social organization. This the current biodistance and trauma data geopolitical shift may have compelled support coalescence of individuals from villages in the MCR to fission into smaller outside the region and within the MCR groups. Beck (2003) examined fission and during a period of more intense violence. fusion as settlement pattern processes. In addition, individuals from Cemetery 1 Conflict may propel new villages and new show a closer relationship to other sites social relationships to be established as within the MCR than to individuals within multiple villages aggregate physically, Cemetery 3. Yet, the biological distances socially, and biologically (fusion). The between Cemetery 1 and these sites are presence of an outside threat would result slightly larger during this later period, in social cohesion and villages grouping except for Brentwood Library. Importantly, together, perhaps behind palisade walls, there is also less evidence of extra-local as a means of community defense. On gene flow into Cemetery 1. A possible

163 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

explanation for decreased trauma recalled the cemetery location but the frequencies in Averbuch over time could persistent threat of violence necessitated be increased intra-regional population a quick wall construction. The biodistance movement and decreased inter-regional and trauma data from Averbuch provide a population movement. possible explanation. The individuals from In addition to a shifting geopolitical Cemeteries 1 and 3 are less biologically landscape, the population movement and similar to each other than they are to decreased trauma may be related to an other sites in the MCR. As mentioned overall reduction of population density in above, some individuals from Cemetery 3 the MCR as well as much of the Midsouth. may also have had a different population If the population had already begun to history from either Cemetery 1 or other decline throughout the MCR and the sites in the region. Therefore it is quite greater Southeast, the threat from possible that the individuals who built the external groups may have waned as well. palisade either did not have a social The biodistance data also demonstrate memory of the cemetery or did not have a reduced extra-local gene flow regionally close biological, personal, or social throughout the MCR after A.D. 1250 connection with the individuals buried in (Vidoli 2012) and at a site level between Cemetery 3. Hence the lack of social or Cemeteries 3 and 1 at Averbuch. Hence, biological affinity to individuals in the regional depopulation and decrease of Cemetery 3 precipitated the construction people from the outside would have led to of the palisade through the cemetery. less threat of violence in the region. Another possible reason for the Conclusion decrease in intergroup violence may be that defensive measures, such as the This current research highlights the erection of a palisade wall, protected relationship among changing population residents from external attacks. The demographics and population history and palisade at Averbuch was constructed in trauma at Averbuch. It allows further the mid-1400s and partially runs through understanding of a site that has been, Cemetery 3. The timing of construction of until recently, viewed as homogenous and the fortification at Averbuch corresponds with few differences among the with decreasing frequencies of trauma at cemeteries. However, we have revealed the site. Averbuch is one of the few sites not only shifts in the nature and intensity in the Southeast where we can compare of violence, but also in the biological trauma frequencies before and after relationships of people buried at Averbuch palisade construction and this clearly with the MCR as a whole. While indicates a decrease in trauma following intergroup violence appears to have the erection of the wall. Given the decreased over time at the Averbuch site, seemingly hurried placement of the injuries consistent with intragroup violence palisade and the skeletal evidence for remained similar. The increased violent trauma, intergroup conflict was a proportion of these types of injuries may very real threat to the Averbuch reflect the escalating biological and social community. stress experienced in the community. What remains uncertain is whether the Future demographic and paleo- people who built the palisade had no pathological analyses of the Averbuch social memory of Cemetery 3, or if they and other MCR skeletal samples will

164 Averbuch hopefully shed light on the biosocial Newsletter 21(3): 31-33. consequences of the changing population 1983 Archaeological Investigation at the dynamics. Noel Cemetery Site. Manuscript on file, Division of Archaeology, Acknowledgements. A special thank you to the Tennessee Department of following people and institutions for their help and Environment and Conservation, granting permission to analyze skeletal collections Nashville. from the MCR of Tennessee: The Tennessee Division of Archaeology, the University of Berryman, Hugh E. Tennessee Archaeological Research Laboratory, 1984 The Averbuch Skeletal Series: A the McClung Museum of Natural History and Study of Biological and Social Stress Culture, Vanderbilt University, and The Peabody at a Late Mississippian Period Site Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard from Middle Tennessee. In Averbuch: University. We are grateful to Charles R. Cobb, Michael C. Moore, Kevin E. Smith, and Dawnie W. A Mississippian Manifestationin the Steadman for sharing their archaeological Nashville Basin, edited by Walter E. knowledge and expertise. This project was Klippel and William M. Bass, pp. 5.1- supported in part by an NSF grant awarded to D. 5.133. Department of Anthropology, W. Steadman and C. C. Cobb (BCS-0613173). University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to the National Park References Service, Atlanta, GA.

Anderson, David G. Bridges, Patricia 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: 1996 Warfare and Mortality at Koger’s Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Island Alabama. International Journal Southeast. University of Alabama of Osteoarchaeology 6:66-75. Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. Broster, John B. Bandy, M. S. 1988 Burial Patterns for the Mississippian 2004 Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social Period in Middle Tennessee. Evolution in Early Village Societies. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(1):1-15. American Anthropologist 106(2):322- 333. Buikstra, Jane E., William Autry, Emanuel Breitburg, Leslie Eisenberg, and Beck, R. Nikolaas van der Merwe 2003 Consolidation and Hierarchy: 1988 Diet and Health in the Nashville Basin: Chiefdom Variability in the Human Adaptation and Maize Mississippian Southeast. American Agriculture in Middle Tennessee. In Antiquity 68(4):641-661. Diet and Subsistence: Current Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Berryman, Hugh Edward Brenda V. Kennedy and Genevieve M. 1981 The Averbuch Skeletal Series: A LeMoine, pp. 243-259. Proceedings of Study of Biological and Social Stress the 19th Annual Chacmool at a Late Mississippian Period Site Conference. Archaeological from Middle Tennessee. PhD Association of the University of Dissertation, Department of Calgary, Calgary. Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Buikstra, J. E., and D. Uberlaker (Eds.). 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Benthall, J. L. Human Skeletal Remains: 1976 The Noel Cemetery Excavations, Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Tennessee Archaeological Society Museum of Natural History (Arkansas

165 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Archeological Report Research Societies: Biocultural Interpretations of Series). Fayetteville, Arkansas: Human Skeletal Remains in Arkansas Archeological Survey. Archaeological Contexts, edited by H. Bush and M. Zvelebil, pp. 115-127. Cobb, Charles R., and Brian M. Butler BAR International Series 567, Tempus 2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Reparatum, Oxford. Mississippian Abandonment of the Lower Ohio Valley. American Antiquity Ferguson, R. B. 67:625–41. 1972 Arnold Village Site Excavations of 1965-1966. In R. B. Ferguson (Ed.), Cobb, Charles R., and J. Christopher Gillam The Middle Cumberland Culture (pp. 2008 Mound Bottom and the Early 2-49). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Mississippian Landscape in the Middle Publications in Anthropology No.3. Cumberland Region. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Fojas, Christina L. Southeastern Archaeological 2016 Physiological Stress in the Middle Conference, Charlotte, NC. Cumberland Region of Tennessee: Cobb, Charles R., Anthony M. Krus, and Mortality and Survivorship differences Dawnie W. Steadman during the Mississippian Period. 2015 Bayesian Modeling of the Occupation American Journal of Physical Span of the Averbuch Site in the Anthropology 159:146 Middle Cumberland Drainage, Tennessee. Southeastern Guagliardo, Mark Frances Archaeology 32(1):46-56. 1980 Fluctuating Dental Asymmetry and Stress at the Averbuch Site (40DV60), Crites, Gary D Nashville, Tennessee. Master’s 1984 Late Mississippian Paleoethnobotany Thesis, Department of Anthropology, in the Nashville Basin: The Evidence University of Tennessee, Knoxville. from Averbuch. In Averbuch: A Mississippian Manifestation in the Hartl, D. L., and Clark, A. G. Nashville Basin, edited by Walter E. 2007 Principals of Population Genetics (4th Klippel and William M. Bass, pp. ed.). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer 12.11-12.23. Department of Associates, Inc. Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to Harpending, H. C., and Ward, R. H. the National Park Service, Atlanta, 1982 Chemical Systematics and Human GA. Populations. In M. Nitecki (Ed.), Biochemical Aspects of Evolutionary Eisenberg, Leslie E. Biology (pp. 213-256). Chicago: 1986 Adaptation in a “Marginal” University of Chicago Press. Mississippian Population from Middle Tennessee: Biocultural Insights from Hamilton, Michelle D. Paleopathology. PhD dissertation, 1999 Oral Pathology at Averbuch (40DV60): Department of Anthropology, New Implications for Health Status. York University, NY. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Eisenberg, Leslie E. Tennessee, Knoxville. 1991 Interpreting Measures of Community Health during the Late Prehistoric Holmes, William H. Period in Middle Tennessee: A 1891 Thruston Tablet. American Biocultural Approach. In Health in Past Anthropologist A4:161-166.

166 Averbuch

Jablonski, Kathleen Ann 1981 Enamel Calcification Patterns in the Moore, Michael C., Emanuel E. Breitburg, Averbuch Population. Master’s Thesis, Kevin E. Smith, and Mary Beth Trubitt Department of Anthropology, 2006 One Hundred Years of Archaeology at University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian Town in Middle Tennessee. Jones, Brannon I. Southeastern Archaeology 25:89-109. 2006 The Miles Method and Averbuch: Implications for Paleodemography. Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith Master’s Thesis, Department of 2009 Archaeological expeditions of the Anthropology, University of Peabody Museum in Middle Tennessee, Knoxville. Tennessee, 1877-1884. Research Series No. 16. Tennessee Division of Kelso, Rebecca Archaeology, Nashville. 2013 A Comparison of Mississippian Period Subadults from the Middle Muendel, Melissa G. Cumberland and Eastern Regions of 1997 Dental Microware Analysis of Tennessee to Assess Health and Past Averbuch: A Dietary Reconstruction of Population Interactions. PhD a Mississippian Culture. PhD Dissertation, Department of Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Tennessee, Knoxville.

Klippel, Walter E., and William M. Bass Pietrusewsky, M. 1984 Averbuch: A Late Mississippian 2000 Metric Analysis of Skeletal Remains: Manifestation in the Nashville Basin. Methods and Applications. In M. A. Two volumes. Department of Katzenberg and S. Saunders (Eds.), Anthropology, University of Biological Anthropology of the Human Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to Skeleton (pp. 375-415). New York: the National Park Service, Atlanta, Wiley-Liss. GA. 2008 Metric Analysis of Skeletal Remains: Methods and Applications. In M. A. Mielke, J. H., Lyle W. Konigsberg and John H. Katzenberg and S. Saunders (Eds.), Relethford. Biological Anthropology of the Human 2006 Human Biological Variation. New York: Skeleton (2nd ed., pp. 487-532). New Oxford University Press. Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Milner, George R., Eve Anderson, and Relethford, J. H., and Blangero, J. Virginia G. Smith 1990 Detection of Differential Gene Flow 1991 Warfare in Late Prehistoric West- from Patterns of Quantitative Central Illinois. American Antiquity Variation. Human Biology 62(1):5-25. 56:581-603. Relethford, J. H., Crawford, M. H., and Moore, Michael C. Blangero, J. 2005 The Brentwood Library Site: A 1997 Genetic Drift and Gene Flow in Post- Mississippian Town on the Little Famine Ireland. Human Biology Harpeth River, Williamson County, 69(4):443-465. Tennessee. Research Series No. 15: Smith, Kevin E. Tennessee Department of 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Environment and Conservation Mississippian Archaeology in North Division of Archaeology. Central Tennessee. PhD dissertation,

167 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Department of Anthropology, Region during the Mississippian Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. period. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore University, Binghamton NY 1999 Through Many Mississippian Hands: Late Prehistoric Exchange in the Werhman, Greg Middle Cumberland Valley. In Raw 2016 A Morphometric Examination of Materials and Exchange in the Mid- Cranial Vault Modification in the South, edited by E. Peacock and S. O. Middle Cumberland Region of Central Brookes, pp. 95-115. Archaeological Tennessee. MA thesis, Department of Report No. 29, Mississippi Department Anthropology, University of Tennessee of Archives and History, Jackson. Knoxville.

Smith, Maria O. Williams, Stephen 2003 Beyond Palisades: The Nature and 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Frequency of Late Prehistoric Events in the Lower Valley. In Towns Deliberate Trauma in the and Temples along the Mississippi, Chickamauga Reservoir of East edited by David H. Dye and Cheryl Tennessee. American Journal of Anne Cox, pp. 170-180. University of Physical Anthropology 121:303–318. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Steadman, Dawnie Wolfe Williams-Blangero, S., and Blangero, J. 2008 Warfare Related Trauma at Orendorf, 1989 Anthropometric Variation and the a Middle Mississippian Site in West- Genetic Structure of the Jirils of Nepal. Central Illinois. American Journal of Human Biology 61(1):1-12. Physical Anthropology 136:51-64. Worne, Heather Stojanowski, C. M. 2011 Conflicting Spaces: Bioarchaeological 2004 Population History of Native Groups in and Geophysical Perspectives on Pre- and Post-Contact Spanish Warfare in the Middle Cumberland Florida: Aggregation, Gene Flow, and Region of Tennessee. PhD Genetic Drift on the Southeastern US dissertation, Department of Atlantic Coast. American Journal of Anthropology, Binghamton University, Physical Anthropology 123(4):316- Binghamton, NY. 332. Worne, Heather Thruston, Gates P. 2017 Temporal Trends in Violence during 1897 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the the Mississippian Period in the Middle Adjacent States. 2nd ed. The Robert Cumberland Region of Tennessee. Clarke Company, Cincinnati. Southeastern Archaeology 36(3):171- 182. Turchin, Peter 2011 Warfare and the Evolution of Social Worne, Heather, Charles R. Cobb, Giovanna Complexity: A Multilevel Selection M. Vidoli, and Dawnie Wolfe Approach. Structure and Dynamics Steadman 4(5):1-38. 2012 The Space of War: Connecting Geophysical Landscapes with Skeletal Vidoli, Giovanna M. Evidence of Warfare-Related Trauma. 2012 Shifting Borders: Population In The Bioarchaeology of Violence, Movement and the Geopolitical edited by Debra L. Martin, Ryan P. Landscape of the Middle Cumberland Harrod, and Ventura R. Pérez, pp.

168 Averbuch

141-159. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Giovanna M. Vidoli Department of Anthropology, Strong Hall, Room 502 1621 Cumberland Avenue University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 [email protected]

Heather Worne Department of Anthropology, 211 Lafferty Hall University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506-0024 [email protected]

169 MIDDLE CUMBERLAND MISSISSIPPIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS1

Kevin E. Smith and Michael C. Moore

For over three decades, the authors have partnered together and worked independently to conduct research on the late prehistoric Mississippian peoples of the Cumberland River valley both upriver and downriver of modern Nashville, Tennessee. That partnership, loosely formalized as the Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey Project, has included archaeological testing and salvage archaeology, documenting and re-visiting curated collections, archival research, and supporting the efforts of other researchers. Here, we present a summary of our understanding of the over two centuries of digging, collecting, and research on the Mississippian peoples of the Middle Cumberland Region.

One seemingly simple cultural practice they were quickly labeled as the “Stone of the late prehistoric peoples of the Grave People” of Tennessee. Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee served to bring them to prominence in the Defining “Middle Cumberland recent past -- beginning by around A.D. Mississippian” in Time and Space 1200, they elected to bury most of their dead in form-fitting stone-lined boxes Before presenting a narrative history of (Dowd 2008). Even relatively the study of Mississippian culture in unsophisticated Euro-American and Middle Tennessee, some context on the African-American observers were hard- chronology and geographic extent is pressed not to notice these stone-lined warranted. Bob Ferguson (1972:3, 5) was coffins while digging foundations and the first to publish the term “Middle ditches or simply while plowing their newly Cumberland Culture” in reference to the turned fields. As early as 1805, Dr. Rush late prehistoric peoples of the area in and Nutt would describe in great detail the around Nashville: discovery of such a cemetery at the home of Judge John Overton, a portion of which Middle Cumberland Culture subsumes reads (Jennings 1947): such local expressions as “Stone Grave Peoples” and “Gordon People” and is considered to be the final prehistoric In diging the sellar under one part of [John culture development in the area… While Overton’s] house (20 feet square) was local interest in the stone graves has not taken up at least 35 or more human sculls waned, the light of present-day theory and & a vast number of bones. In running a technique has been slow to shine along post & rail fence where ever a hole was the Cumberland. As a result, this made there was to be got bones. This significant manifestation of the Temple appears as if the whole face of the Mound II period in Middle Tennessee has enclosed earth was used as burying not been adequately reported. It is hoped places…. that the present series of studies will help

bring into focus the emerging picture of the Despite the ensuing speculations Middle Cumberland Culture. about who they might have been, where they came from, and where they went, That reference term would serve for

170 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

FIGURE 1. Preliminary revised boundaries for the Middle Cumberland Region (July 2018) shown in yellow. The “?” in yellow reflects uncertainties about several Mississippian mound sites on the upper reaches of the Caney Fork River. another two decades as a convenient, refine the geographic and temporal extent albeit poorly defined, title for the late of the groups of Mississippian peoples prehistoric cultures along the Cumberland along the Cumberland River. Initially, the River. Kevin E. Smith’s (1992:19) geographic extent of the “Middle dissertation The Middle Cumberland Cumberland Region” (MCR) was Region: Mississippian Archaeology in reduced to the Cumberland River North Central Tennessee included an drainages between the confluence of the effort to better define the chronology and Caney Fork on the east and the Red River geography of this same group of on the west (Smith and Moore 1996; interacting peoples using the term “Middle Moore et al. 2006). The Dowd and Cumberland Region” and focusing more Thruston “phases” originally proposed by on ceramic traits than stone-box graves: Smith (1992) were changed to “regional periods” reflecting recognition that these This study deals generally with that portion terms were more appropriately perceived of the Cumberland River from the Caney as broad regional patterns rather than the Fork River on the east to Lake Barkley on more tightly defined sense of “phases” the west, and specifically with the (Moore et al. 2006:106): Cumberland River and its tributaries within the Central Basin of north-central Extensive research in the Middle Tennessee… a Mississippian-tradition Cumberland region over the past two culture which flourished from circa A.D. decades [1986-2006] has led to a better 900 to 1450. understanding of the changing population dynamics during the Mississippian Over the course of many years of period…. During the Dowd regional period research, the authors have continued to (A.D. 1050-1250), several chiefdoms

171 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

developed within the Middle Cumberland under the aegis of cemetery laws) or region, populations were dispersed into antiquarian “digs,” the majority of the small farmsteads and hamlets oriented assemblages lack stratigraphic depth and towards central towns with platform inadequate control over the relative ages mounds… In the Thruston regional period of features and middens. As a result, the (A.D. 1250-1450), populations authors declined to assert control over congregated into larger villages and towns, and the construction and renovation of more than broad regional patterns of platform mounds declined. The larger, chronology for diagnostic artifacts. nucleated Thruston settlements often built In sum, over two centuries of research substantial palisades (with bastions) has produced a relatively clear picture of around their perimeters. Populations the geographic extent of sites that can be appear stressed by environmental and assigned to Ferguson’s “Middle social factors, and raiding activity seems to Cumberland Culture” – sites on the increase. After A.D. 1450, the inhabitants Cumberland River and its tributaries from essentially abandon the middle below the mouth of the Caney Fork River Cumberland River Valley. on the east to just upriver of the confluence of the Red River on the west Although the late-nineteenth-century (Figure 1). Unfortunately, the nature of methods used by the Peabody Museum most of the Mississippian sites on the explorers along the Cumberland River Caney Fork River remains largely from 1877 to 1884 limits their usefulness uninvestigated past or present, although to some extent, the sheer quantity of there are tantalizing hints that at least part highly diagnostic artifacts, broad of the upper Caney Fork River falls within geographic distribution, and preservation the extent of Ferguson’s “Middle quality of the assemblage provided critical Cumberland Culture.” Chronologically, the elements for continuing to refine the early end of the chronological spectrum regional chronology (Moore and Smith remains poorly understood, although 2009). In the concluding chapter of the Beahm’s dissertation (2013) provides Peabody Museum volume, the authors some additional information. Ongoing presented a provisional revised research by Aaron Deter-Wolf and others chronology and a series of propositions (this volume) at Mound Bottom will about selected diagnostic ceramic types undoubtedly shed additional light on early (Moore and Smith 2009:202-210): Mississippian occupations. The terminal range of occupation in the MCR has also Regional Period I – AD 1000 (?)-1100 (Early and Emergent Mississippian) been clarified in recent years, indicating Regional Period II – AD 1100-1200 (West-to- that the terminus of archaeologically East Expansion and Mississippianization) visible settlements is more accurately AD Regional Period III – AD 1200-1325 (Proliferation 1475 rather than the AD 1450 used for of Chiefdoms) many decades (cf. Cobb et al. 2015; Krus Regional Period IV – AD 1325-1425 (Region- Wide Decentralization) and Cobb 2018). Having summarized Regional Period V – AD 1425-1475 (Regional “where we are” in terms of understanding Abandonment) the geography and chronology of the MCR, an examination of “how we arrived Unfortunately, the majority of modern here” is warranted. assemblages remain predominantly two- dimensional in nature. Whether modern “salvage” excavations (usually conducted

172 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

Early Explorers and the “Museum build up the museum’s natural history Expeditions” collections, Earl embarked on some of the earliest well documented explorations of Several factors brought early Mississippian sites in the Southeast. Over “scientists” to explore the mysteries of the the course of two years (1820-1821), Earl Stone Grave People. First, they were explored at least three major mound sites relatively easy to find – the common use of the Stone Grave People in Middle of iron rods as probes is well documented Tennessee, including the little known by the mid-19th century. While a skilled Ward Mounds, Charleville’s Mound at hand may readily detect the soft soil of French Lick (40DV5), and the Castalian unlined pits with such probes, the stone Springs Mounds (40SU14). For the latter caps of the MCR required no such skill to he provides the earliest concise detect. Secondly, the stone enclosures description of the stone graves – “On the provided sturdy protection for both outside of this intrenchment are a great skeletal remains and mortuary number of graves. In several different accompaniments, enhancing potential places flat stones are set up edgewise preservation. Third, the increasing enclosing skeletons, buried from 12 to 18 competition of national museums to have inches from the surface” (R.E.W. Earl to the largest, most comprehensive, and John Haywood, Letter written from most representative collections Cragfont, 13 Oct 1821; Andrew Jackson increasingly led to expeditions from Papers, MF 809, Box 4, Folder 19, faraway places to Nashville and its Tennessee State Library and Archives). environs. As a founding member of the Tennessee While undoubtedly many early Antiquarian Society, Earl would also discoveries went undocumented become the first of several antiquarians to throughout the early nineteenth century, leave a very important legacy for modern antiquarians found the Stone Grave archaeologists – a detailed map of a People easy pickings to establish Middle Cumberland Mississippian mound collections for display in “cabinets of site showing significant details that were curiosities” and the earliest museums of obscured by plowing and erosion before the region. Among these early collectors the early-20th-century arrival of people was Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl (1788- closer to what we might term true early 1838). Despite a much broader corpus of archaeologists (Figure 2).2 works, Earl is best known today as the The Tennessee Historical Society, portrait painter and confidante of successor to the short-lived Tennessee President Andrew Jackson. Although his Antiquarian Society, was founded in 1849 contributions to the formation of the public for the specific purpose of collecting and image of Jackson are significant, they preserving “relics” important to the history represent only one aspect of his multi- of the state and eventually to develop a faceted efforts to develop cultured museum for their exhibition. Members pursuits in Nashville (Stephens 2010; frequently donated “Indian relics” to the 2018). Among those efforts was society’s collection, including many items establishment of the “Tennessee from the multitudes of stone-box graves Museum” in 1818, certainly ranking unearthed as the population expanded. among the earliest art and natural history However, the first major systematic museums in the interior south. In order to exploration of the remains of the Stone

173 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 2. Plan view map of the Castalian Springs Mounds by Ralph E.W. Earl, October 1821 (MF809, Box 4, Folder 19, Tennessee State Library and Archives). Grave People would be carried out by a chemistry and clinical medicine in the brief migrant to the city, Dr. Joseph Jones Medical Department of the University of (Figure 3). Although little known today, Louisiana (later Tulane University School Jones was one of the nation’s earliest of Medicine) and the position of visiting significant clinical scientists – vigorously physician to the New Orleans Charity pursuing the true causes of malaria and Hospital. Although only in Nashville for typhoid fever throughout his career. Born less than two years, we are fortunate that in 1833, Jones spent much of his he turned his analytical interests to the childhood in Liberty County, Georgia, “Stone Grave People.” Primarily where his parents owned three interested in what the skeletal remains plantations. There he and his brother could reveal about the history of Charles Colcock Jones Jr. would also infectious disease in the New World, he begin their interests in prehistory – both explored many major mound centers eventually amassing sizable personal throughout Middle Tennessee. collections. In 1866, after serving as a While he published two brief articles surgeon in the Confederate Army, Jones summarizing his discoveries (Jones 1869, accepted a professorship in the Institute 1873), his larger report Explorations of the of Medicine at the University of Nashville Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee was and eventually was hired as the first City commissioned in 1875 by the Smithsonian Health Officer in 1867. In 1868, he was Institution. In anticipation of the United enticed to accept the position of chair of States Centennial, Joseph Henry

174 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

He is now widely credited as one of the founding figures of American paleopathology:

his careful approach to diagnosing past diseases by reference to current medical knowledge provided a powerful model for the subsequent theoretical and methodological development of American paleopathology, as well as an informed examination of one of its enduring themes [the antiquity of syphilis]” (Powell 2003; see also Powell and Buikstra 2012).

His equally meticulous attention to recording his investigations of many mounds and cemeteries in Middle Tennessee has long been recognized by regional archaeologists. While certainly lacking the rigor of modern archaeology in the sense of excavation plans and stratigraphy, his attention to context and description allows the reconstruction of grave lots and the physical interrelationship of burials in many instances (Stoltman 1973:123-124; Williams 1986). His investigations spanned numerous of the most important mound sites along the Cumberland and its FIGURE 3. Joseph Jones, ca. 1880 (U.S. tributaries, including the East Nashville National Library of Medicine B015903). Mounds (40DV4; Walling et al. 2000), DeGraffenreid (40WM4; Smith 1994), contacted several Middle Tennessee West Harpeth (40WM406), and Old Town explorers, including Jones, to contribute (40WM2; Smith 1993). Of particular objects and information (particularly to significance are the detailed site maps refute the embarrassing tale circulating produced for the latter three sites – two of internationally about a primordial race of which were subsequently entirely Tennessee Pigmies; see Smith 2013a). destroyed by early 20th century Jones (18756:158) noted that: phosphate mining. His extensive personal the mode of burial in stone coffins or cists, collection of artifacts from the 1868-69 practiced so extensively by the aborigines investigations was eventually purchased of Tennessee, is remarkable, as differing from his heirs by the Heye Museum of the from the methods employed by all the American Indian in New York City and other Indian tribes of North America, of now comprises part of the collections of whom authentic records have been the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the preserved. American Indian. Without his early Jones’ broader contributions have research, publication, and artifacts, recently begun to be critically examined. virtually nothing would ever be known

175 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

about the critically important of photos of his collection that Jones DeGraffenreid site. apparently sent in 1874 or ’75 to Frederic Another local explorer contacted by Ward Putnam” probably stimulated the Joseph Henry in 1875 was Dr. William attention of Frederic Ward Putnam. That Martin Clark (1826-1895) of Franklin, interest would generate the first long-term, Tennessee. He was charged with two large-scale, and well documented series tasks – 1) provide evidence to dispel the of investigations at Middle Cumberland “Pygmy Race” stories; and 2) secure sites. Middle Tennessee objects for the U.S. The selection of Nashville as the Centennial exposition. Although Joseph location of the 1877 meeting of the Jones provided the most compelling American Association for the arguments for the National Museum, the Advancement of Science (AAAS) editor of the American Naturalist provided several national scholars with an published the following statement: opportunity to conduct some explorations – and make local contacts for future Mr. W.M. Clark, employed during the last expeditions. Founded in 1848, the AAAS year by the Smithsonian Institution, to aspired to be a national organization, but investigate the [pygmy myth] has written held only one meeting in the South before for 1875 a long account of his labors, in the Civil War – Charleston in 1850. John which he distinctly proves that the little Berrien Lindsley of the University of slab-graves are either those of children or are ossuaries… [and that] no pygmy race Nashville and a charter member of the left their remains in this part of the AAAS worked diligently to make Nashville country.3 (Anonymous 1876). the location of the second meeting in the South. The association accepted his Although Clark would send over 200 invitation for 1861, but was forced to objects from Williamson County, postpone the meeting at the beginning of Tennessee sites to the National Museum, the Civil War. After meetings resumed in site provenience is not documented for 1866, Lindsley returned to his pursuit of a the vast majority. In his manuscript, Clark Nashville meeting. Tennessee was finally does describe in detail several Middle selected again for 1877 – “Nashville in Woodland objects obtained from the 1877 was home of six of the ten Fellows Glass Mounds (40WM3) but the only residing in the South, which doubtless Mississippian objects described in enough increased its appeal as a meeting site. detail are two marine shell scalloped Moreover the upper South produced a triskelion gorgets from Old Town – number of nationally prominent scientists although he mistakenly identified them as in this period” (Summerville 1986). mammoth ivory disks (Figure 4). As a Among the excursions was a trip to the result, Clark’s legacy lies more in his Zollicoffer site (40DV32) by Putnam, John Woodland mound discoveries than the Wesley Powell, Frank W. Clarke, Horatio “Stone Grave People.” N. Rust, R.S. Robertson, and probably Ed Joseph Jones’ two publications also Curtiss. This was not Powell’s first visit to served another broader purpose – the stone-box graves of Nashville – during drawing attention to the Nashville area the Civil War, he was transferred to sites on the part of national museums. Nashville in 1864 to protect the city with According to Stephen Williams (1986), the 16 batteries of artillery. Years later, he American Naturalist article and “a number recounted digging a prehistoric Indian

176 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

FIGURE 4. Marine shell triskele gorgets recovered by Dr. W.M. Clark at Old Town (National Museum of Natural History A19975-0 and A19976-0; Photographs by Kevin E. Smith). mound with stone-lined graves during that in the prehistoric remains of this important time – probably Charleville’s Mound at the region so interesting to the student of French Lick site, previously investigated American Archaeology. Remaining in the by R.E.W. Earl. Following the conclusion state as I did for nearly a month after the of the AAAS meeting, several of these adjournment of the meeting, and receiving such cordial support in my work, I was men, including Putnam, Powell, and enabled to make many observations and Curtiss would remain for several extensive collections (Putnam 1878a). additional weeks investigating mounds and graves. Powell, along with T.O. Curtiss was retained by Putnam to Summers Jr. of the Vanderbilt University continue explorations for the Peabody Medical School, would investigate a Museum until his death in 1880, and series of mortuary mounds at the would explore nineteen additional Bowling/Bosley site (40DV426; Smith Mississippian sites (Moore and Smith 2014). At the same site, Putnam and his 2009). Curtiss would also employ the new employee Ed Curtiss, conducted their brothers George and Joe Woods, the own examinations of additional mortuary earliest known African-American mounds. Over the next month, Putnam archaeological field technicians in and Curtiss would examine at least six Tennessee (Moore et al. 2010; Figure 5). additional Mississippian sites in Davidson After Curtiss’ death, Woods would and Wilson counties (Moore and Smith continue working for Putnam for several 2009:13-68; Putnam 1878b). Putnam years – culminating with Putnam’s return expressed his gratitude in the to Nashville in 1882 to excavate at the proceedings of the AAAS: Jarman Farm site (40WM210; Moore 2005; Moore and Smith 2009). I cannot close this incomplete sketch of the After nearly a decade of explorations very successful meeting at Nashville sponsored by the Peabody Museum, without a word of personal thanks for the many courtesies extended to me in interest in the Stone Grave People would furtherance of my own particular research revert to the attention of local

177 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 5. George Woods historical marker erected near his grave at Greenwood Cemetery, Nashville. FIGURE 6. Gates P. Thruston, ca. 1875 (Tennessee State Library and Archives). antiquarians, including most notably Gates P. Thruston. Although a fellow of Many decades later, the collection was the AAAS, Thruston did not attend the placed in trust at the Tennessee State Nashville meeting as he was traveling Museum, where it served as the abroad in Europe with his family. In 1890, centerpiece of the museum’s permanent Gates Phillip Thruston published the first exhibit on the “First Tennesseans” since edition of his thoroughly illustrated the early 1980s. Antiquities of Tennessee, followed in 1897 Thruston (1835-1912; Figure 6) by a modestly expanded second edition. It developed his interests in Native seems safe to say that no other American antiquities during his boyhood publication of any kind on Mississippian in Dayton, Ohio. After the Civil War, he artifacts from the Cumberland River valley remained in Nashville to practice law and – before or since – has been cited as eventually served as president of the extensively or reprinted as often. As a State Insurance Company. During that result, the influence of this volume on time, he also became an active and perceptions of Middle Cumberland enthusiastic collector of antiquities – most Mississippian culture has been of them from sites of what he would term widespread and long-lasting. The the “Stone Grave Culture.” Thruston did eventual donation of Thruston’s personal not apparently do much digging on his collection to Vanderbilt University in 1908 own account, but rather paid a series of preserved this collection largely intact. workers to explore the graves on his

178 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

with Warren K. Moorehead in 1890, Myer embarked on his first major personal excavation at the Castalian Springs Mounds in summer 1891. Daunted by the scale of the larger mounds at the site, he initially focused on a small eight-foot-high dome-shaped mound at the southeast corner of the plaza. That relatively unimpressive mound yielded what are now some of the most iconic of Tennessee artifacts – including an astounding array of marine shell gorgets exemplary of almost every major theme present from A.D. 1250 to 1350. While Myer is best described as a collector and antiquarian during his early career, by 1915 his interests shifted to professionalizing his role as a significant early 20th-century archaeologist. Initially FIGURE 7. William Edward Myer, ca. 1920 funded in part by the R.S. Peabody (Tennessee Historical Magazine VIII(4):224) Museum and his old acquaintance Warren behalf (including George Woods) and K. Moorehead, his explorations along the purchased collections from others as well. Cumberland River were increasingly Although the cluster of cemeteries known focused on answering questions about the today as the “Noel Cemeteries” (40DV3; functions, uses, and meanings of artifacts Smith et al. 2009) was recognized as a – and more importantly the people who “productive” area by the late 1860s and made them. Dissatisfied with early 1870s, construction of a light rail line Moorehead’s limited interest in from downtown Nashville to interpretation, Myer increasingly affiliated Woodstock/Glendale Park (Nashville’s himself with the Bureau of American first amusement park) in 1886 struck a Ethnology and Jesse Walter Fewkes – large and previously unknown stone-box who would eventually appoint him as a cemetery. Five young men – members of Special Archaeologist. Over the course of the small collecting club known as the his avocational and professional career, Nashville Philatelic Society – Myer documented and/or excavated at enthusiastically explored the cemetery: almost all of the best-known Middle Frank Cheatham, W.W. Dosier, Otto Cumberland Mississippian sites – Giers, George T. Halley, and E.C. Wells. including most notably his 1920 work at Part or all of at least three of their Gordontown and Fewkes (Myer 1928). collections have been located.4 Myer’s death in 1923 left most of his Inspired at least to some extent by major works unpublished, but thousands Thruston, William Edward Myer (1862- of pages of notes, photographs, maps, 1923; Figure 7) began his collecting and other documents remain preserved at career at the age of 8 with a gift of two the National Anthropological Archives. His “relics” from his mother Helen. After personal artifact collection was dispersed working on Woodland mounds in Ohio by his heirs after his death, but a

179 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

significant core of the collection is curated governor of Tennessee, the state by the National Museum of the American librarian of Tennessee, the Indian. The artifacts procured during his presidents of Vanderbilt Univ, tenure as BAE Special Archaeologist are Peabody College, Ward-Belmont, curated by the National Museum of Univ of Tennessee, univ. of Chattanooga, the new university at Natural History. Myer’s interests were not Memphis (I think it is the college limited to Tennessee – he visited Cahokia formerly located at Jackson and several times between 1920 and 1923, removed to Memphis and given a where he excavated with Moorehead in large endowment) and president of the Ramey Tract. In addition, he traveled the Tennessee historical society. to Spiro, Oklahoma, in 1920, intrigued by Duties of state archaeologist: to look after the first photographs of the site published the preservation of the vast and fast by Joseph B. Thoburn in his Standard disappearing archaeological remains History of Oklahoma (1916:8). in Tennessee; to carefully explore Myer’s increasing concern with the them; to gather all the relics of rapid pace of destruction of these sites primitive man in Tennessee as far as may be possible into a great along the Cumberland River led him to museum at the capital of the state pursue two major initiatives: 1) creation of where they may be freely seen and a Tennessee Department of Archaeology; studied; to encourage our citizens to and 2) designation of several major guard and to take fresh pride in mounds as National Monuments. By these great remains; to endeavor to 1920, when the Committee on State reveal the history of the unknown Archaeological Surveys was created as and long vanished peoples who part of the National Research Council loved lived in Tennessee; to restore, initiative to professionalize archaeology in if practicable, some of these ancient the United States, Myer became the sites to their original appearance Tennessee correspondent. Sometime when those peoples lived thereon. The state archaeologist to hold his office between 1921 and 1922, Myer distributed for eight years and to receive same an “Outline of Bill for establishment of salary as state geologist now Department of Archaeology, State of receives. Tennessee” (W.E. Myer to John H. State archaeologist to have one assistant DeWitt, P.E. Cox Papers, Box 2, Folder and one stenographer, to be 10, Tennessee State Library and appointed by him. This assistant to Archives). receive 200.00 per month, the stenographer 125.00 per month. Outline of Bill for establishment of The department of archaeology to have a Department of Archaeology. State of fund of the same amount as that set Tennessee. apart for the state geological department (I think it is about To be free from political control… 25000.00). This fund to be used in To be entirely separate from any other field explorations, traveling department expenses, when on duty connected The state archaeologist to be a trained with the department, purchase of archaeologist. He need not relics, cabinets, booths, and other necessarily be a citizen of supplies, publishing, and such other Tennessee at time of his selection. expenses as the needs of the The state archaeologist to be selected by a department may require. nonpartisan board consisting of the

180 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

Those efforts were unsuccessful, and sites visited, he was sufficiently impressed although P.E. Cox would continue his to fund Myer’s work over the following efforts, it would be another five decades three years at five of the mound sites they before the “Tennessee Division of visited. Archaeology” was created. During the last few years of Myer’s At the same time, Myer was pursuing career (and life), another significant player efforts to persuade Jesse Walter Fewkes in Middle Cumberland archaeology to present several mound sites to the emerged – Parmenio Edward Cox. Not federal legislature for acquisition as really an antiquarian or an archaeologist, national parks or designation as national Cox’s interests stemmed in large part monuments (Smith 2008a): from his goals of creating a state museum and archives. His emphatic emphasis on Mr. Myer…recommends that the Federal material culture at the expense of government make the necessary archaeology led to a few clashes with Ed appropriations for preserving these ancient Myer just prior to his death (Smith 2013b). ruins in Tennessee by converting their After Myer’s death, Cox attempted to step locations into small national parks. Some into his vacated position working with the of these ruins are of world-wide interest, National Research Council and the particularly the old stone fort near Manchester. Mr. Fewkes favors this idea Bureau of American Ethnology. Although and comes here to see them for himself in unsuccessful in continuing attempts to order that he be able from first hand create a Department of Archaeology information to add the endorsement of his within state government, Cox was able to bureau on the proposed plan” (Ancient secure a largely titular appointment by Ruins of Tennessee, Scientists Fewkes Governor Austin Peay as Tennessee’s Comes here to Investigate Some of the first official State Archaeologist and a Them, Will Visit Stone Fort, Federal more substantive role as Keeper of the Government Will be Asked to Convert State Museum and Archives. Using those Locations into National Parks for their titles, he launched a short-lived Protections, Nashville Banner, 2 May 1920, Tennessee Archaeological Society (Smith pg. 1). 2008b; Figure 8): The establishment of a Federal park in Tennessee to include the remains of P.E. Cox… was recently appointed state ancient Indian villages, mounds, etc., is archaeologist by Gov. Peay, and he is proposed, and may result from an appeal actively preparing for the organization of a to be made to Congress following the visit state archaeological society… (Franklin to Nashville of Dr. Jesse Walter Fewkes, Man Named Archaeologist for State, chief of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Writes of Prehistoric Man, Archaeological during the coming week. The site of the Society Will Be Organized in Nashville proposed park to be recommended will Nov. 17; to study Work of the Ancients, probably be the Gordon farm, near Nashville Tennessean 31 Aug 1924, pg. 3) Brentwood. (Mound Expert’s Visit may bring U.S. Park here, Nashville Cox’s legacy is mixed – he left little in the Tennessean, 2 May 1920, pg. 1). ways of notes or objects that can be fruitfully reexamined today from his Although Fewkes’ visit to Middle personal “digs.” However, his efforts to Tennessee did not result in the creation of establish a more central place for federal parks or monuments at any of the archaeology throughout Tennessee

181 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

should not be overlooked. Overshadowed to that point as an ancillary objective of the Tennessee Historical Society, the creation of a separate Tennessee Archaeological Society and the appointment of numerous “assistant State Archaeologists” in various counties, while short-lived, must be deemed influential in setting the stage for the more organized and successful efforts of the 1930s and 1940s. The late 1920s and early 1930s also witnessed the beginning of a new era of extensive relic collecting in Nashville. With the growth of Nashville as a major city, rampant construction exposed increasing numbers of stone-box cemeteries – both large and small – with limited legal protection. For the most part, in the absence of professional archaeologists in the mid-state area, these discoveries became the venue of hobbyist collectors from many walks of life. Although there are many more collectors than can be mentioned here, a few examples will suffice to illustrate the escalating pace of destruction. Although frequently referred to as “archaeologists” by reporters, we note that most of these individuals did not FIGURE 8. P.E. Cox (left) and Charles K. refer to themselves as professional Peabody (assistant state archaeologist for archaeologists – but rather as Chattanooga) at Mound Bottom, 4 April experienced hobbyists or “avocational 1926 (RG 122, Tennessee State Library and archaeologists.” Archives). Since some of the following examples passage of the Native American Graves focus largely on finding and “digging” of Protection and Repatriation Act stone-box graves, a brief notation about (NAGPRA) created even more substantial the current legality of these kinds of protections for stone-box graves on activities is warranted as an introduction. federal lands. The Tennessee legislature Legal protection was extended in 1984 to would clarify the ownership of burial all human burials on government and objects from stone-box graves in 1999 private lands in the State of Tennessee – with an amendment requiring that “any regardless of age or cultural affiliation. cultural material, including but not limited From that point forward, “digging” of to, whole or broken ceramic, metal, or stone-box graves by anyone without a glass vessels, chipped stone tools, chancery court order became a Class E groundstone tools, worked bone and shell felony (Moore 1989, 1998). In 1990, objects, clothing, medals, buttons, rings,

182 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

FIGURE 9. “A Dr. Young Field Party” (Young 1949a). jewelry, firearms, edged weapons, and balls” in his childhood Nashville the casket and parts thereof, that were neighborhood. He graduated from demonstrably buried with an individual” be Vanderbilt University in 1913, received a reinterred with the associated skeletal pharmaceutical degree in 1914, and then remains (Tennessee Codes Annotated graduated from the medical school in 11-6-102). Leaving aside the more 1915. His collection eventually became sensitive and debatable issues of morality one of the largest in the southeastern and the ethics of disturbing human United States – a large number acquired burials, many of the activities described through his personally sponsored digs in below would be felonies were they Middle Tennessee, but hundreds of conducted today. These state and federal thousands of others acquired through the laws also mandated the incorporation of purchase of other major collections modern Native American voices into the beginning in the 1950s. legal process to varying degrees. Young’s primary occupation was as a Although the resulting discussions have medical doctor, performing medical not always been amicable, they have, in examinations for Life & Casualty the opinion of the authors, always been Insurance in Nashville, until an automobile thought-provoking. Now to turn back to accident about 1955 forced him to retire consideration of the earlier decades of the from his practice. He then built a new twentieth century. home and archaeological museum at the Dr. Thomas Hugh Young (1891-1962) corner of Battery Lane and Franklin Road. was an avocational archaeologist and About 2000 of the “finest” pieces in his major collector of prehistoric artifacts in collection were purchased prior to his Middle Tennessee during the early-mid death by Thomas Gilcrease for the twentieth century. Born in 1891, his Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma, interests in collecting artifacts apparently where they remain curated. Dr. Young began around 1910 with Civil War “minie died 27 May 1962 in Nashville, and the

183 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

remainder of his collection was sold shell gorgets,” many shell beads, Dover privately to a variety of collectors – and is swords, maces, and “hooks” (talon now widely dispersed in private and knives), and pottery. Unfortunately, the museum collections throughout the United loss of his notes, photographs, and the States. absence of detailed labels on surviving Dr. Young’s excavations focused artifacts make it difficult to reconstruct the primarily on the graves at local assemblage from the site. Mississippian sites, with occasional forays As depicted in 1945, “History comes into rockshelters and overhangs. out of the earth by the spadeful for Dr. T. Unfortunately, he left few published works Hugh Young, Nashville physician whose on his digs and, although there are clues hobby of digging up Indian relics has that he kept fairly meticulous records, the opened a thousand-year vista into whereabouts of those records (if they Nashville’s past. ‘It’s still the thrill of a survive) are currently unknown: “to make lifetime to find a fine Indian relic – and I an accurate record of a Mound it is well to have found thousands of them,’ Dr. Young stake off, North and South, and bisect this says” (“By the Spadeful, History comes with a line, East and West. Then out of the earth in Dr. T. Hugh Young’s measuring five feet in each direction from hobby,” Nashville Tennessean 9 Sep these lines with stakes, we have five foot 1945). Another significant stone-box squares and if we choose to keep a cemetery containing an estimated record, have each grave located fourteen graves investigated by Dr. Young according to scale” (Young 1949a:8-9). in 1947 was discovered during Further, he writes: “I have opened many construction of the second nine holes of Mounds, bench burials, cliff burials, and the McCabe Park golf course. Young and have records in my files of varied Dr. George R. Mayfield, retired Vanderbilt experiences, and it would be difficult to University professor, dug the first grave of say which afforded the most thrills” “an Indian girl, estimated to be about 17 (Young 1949). Dr. Young employed a years old, covered by a stone slab similar crew of three young African American to those used for the sides of the “lads” for many years, one of whom – graves….” (“Archeologists Plan to Dig in Charley Hardeman – excavated stone McCabe Indian Graves,” Nashville graves with him for 20 years (Smith et al. Tennessean 21 Sep 1947, pg. 10). Dr. 2011, 2014). Young had planned to bring in close friend The “field party” illustrated (Figure 9) is Raymond Vietzen from Ohio, along with probably at one of his largest scale local collectors Henry H. Hassler and Guy excavations about 1934 – a previously Stack. This particular episode led to a undisturbed stone-box burial mound in conflict between Nashville city Robertson County, Tennessee: “by the government and Dr. Young (“Indian Relics use of long steel probing rods we outlined Seized, Finders Halt Search”, Nashville the area, about 35 to 50 feet in diameter Tennessean, 24 Sep 1947, pg. 6). and from three to four feet deep. We Ultimately, “the board [of city parks sounded the stone graves. None had commissioners]… decided that excavation been disturbed. It was virgin territory” of recently-discovered Indian graves in (Young 1949a:8). From that mound, he the new McCabe park golf course will be mentions excavating over 100 stone under the direction of Will G. Hassler, graves, and discovering about 25 “perfect curator of the Nashville Children’s

184 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

Museum, and relics found in the graves will become part of the museum’s collections” (Nashville Tennessean, 26 Sep 1947, pg. 4). Although they allowed Dr. Young and his associates to complete the excavations, they retained ownership of the skeletons and objects on behalf of the citizens of Nashville (Figure 10). Because of the dispersal of his collection and loss of his notes, the lasting contributions of Dr. Young to our understanding of the Middle Cumberland Region remain mixed – some of the objects recovered during his decades of grave-digging provide information about sites that were subsequently largely or FIGURE 10. Nashville Scalloped Triskele entirely destroyed. In hindsight it is easy gorget formerly in the Nashville Children’s to say that the graves and associated Museum. archaeological sites should have been scattered remnants of a shell bead preserved – but they weren’t. That fact necklace. That find sparked what would remains as a darker side of the legacy of become a serious hobby for the Nashville’s success as a modern city built remainder of his life. Two sites he spent a atop – and often at the expense of -- great deal of time “working” were the large literally hundreds of the settlements of a Sycamore Creek village and the more ancient indigenous culture. Upon his Doddsville site below Cheatham Dam death, Dr. Young was buried in Mount (Brehm 1990:3-4). H.E. Parmer wrote that Olivet Cemetery (Section 25, Lot 100). His “Stack has great respect for the dead of tombstone reads: T HUGH YOUNG 1891- our prehistoric people and rarely removed 1962 ARCHEOLOGY. any of their bones… when working out a Guy Stack, mentioned previously as shallow stone box grave he was known to an associate of Dr. Young, was one of the have dug the grave much deeper and to other prominent Middle Tennessee have placed the stones and human bones collectors of the mid-20th century. Born in well below the plow line” (Brehm 1990:4). Montgomery County on 29 September After creation of the second Tennessee 1899, the family moved to Cheatham Archaeological Society in 1944, Stack County in 1913. After attending an auto would frequently publish the results of his college in Nashville, he opened an auto discoveries in the journal Tennessee repair business in Cheatham County Archaeologist and its newsletter. where he and wife Chloe Reed lived until While on vacation, Stack also explored 1927. They then opened a garage at 38th sites far from Nashville, including Spiro and Charlotte in Nashville, which they ran Mounds in Oklahoma in the 1930s when it until his death on 24 December 1963. was being actively looted. According to Stack was an avid hunter and fisherman Brehm (1990:34), Stack was walking and one day (sometime in the 1920s), as around the site with John Hobbs (of the he walked across newly plowed fields in infamous Pocola Mining Company) when Cheatham County, he noticed the he noticed several engraved shell gorgets

185 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 11. The three unique “cradleboard” figurines from Davidson County, Tennessee. Left: Gates P. Thruston Collection of Vanderbilt University; Center: formerly Thomas Hugh Young collection (purchased from Richmond P. Blackmer); Right: fragment found by Guy Stack (current whereabouts unknown). caked with dirt in a small pile. When he originally found by Nashville collectors inquired as to their price, Hobbs indicated during the late nineteenth and early they were all cracked or broken and he twentieth centuries. was giving them away as free souvenirs. Stack took two. About two months after The Second Tennessee Archaeological Stack’s death, Mrs. Stack asked Society Lawrence Russell, Buddy Brehm, and H.E. Parmer to inventory and photograph Although the first massive archaeology the collection. While over 220 projects in Tennessee began with the photographs were completed in five federal relief programs of the Great sessions, Mrs. Stack sold several of the Depression, these were largely conducted “finer pieces” before they finished – in the Tennessee River Valley and the leaving a spectacular but incomplete only substantial (but relatively small) record of the collection, which is now project completed in the MCR was at the widely dispersed in private collections Mound Bottom and Pack sites in throughout the United States (Brehm Cheatham County (Dye 2016; Moore et 1990; Parmer and Brehm 1964). Figure al. 2016; Worne et al. 2016; Worne et al., 11 illustrates the only three currently this volume). One legacy of the New Deal known “cradleboard” figurines from Projects, however, was the formal Davidson County, Tennessee -- all creation of a second Tennessee

186 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

1984) published almost 5,000 pages, including many photos, reports, and articles about Mississippian artifacts and sites along the Cumberland River (Figure 12). As noted by Smith (2016:191), “of significance is the formal documentation of objects recovered by nonprofessionals, many of which are still extant in private collections or have subsequently ended up in museums.” Young, Stack, and other local avocational archaeologists were active in the statewide organization – and hosted six annual meetings in Middle Tennessee (two each at Nashville, Murfreesboro, and Tullahoma). For better or worse, the Nashville Chapter was never particularly large and, unlike other chapters throughout the state, did not seem to sponsor organized large scale “digs” at MCR sites. The continuity between the first and second Tennessee Archaeological societies is most notable FIGURE 12. Cover of the Tennessee in East Tennessee. Charles K. Peacock of Archaeologist Volume 1, Number 1, 1944. Chattanooga (Figure 9), a member of the Archaeological Society [TAS] in 1944 by first society, went on to co-found the East T.M.N. Lewis at the University of Tennessee Archaeological Society in Tennessee (Smith 2016). 1929, which later helped to organize the As noted by Smith (2016:192), “the second TAS. primary function served by the [TAS] was As noted by John Dowd for his 1960s facilitating communication between the experiences in the MCR (Dowd and Smith small local groups of avid collectors and 2008:5-6), the: professional archaeologists… For four stone box burial sites in Middle Tennessee decades, the TAS sought to bring were left to the amateurs, pothunters, and together individuals with very different bulldozers. At this point there were no state interests in the state’s archaeological archaeology laws, no state archaeologist, heritage…. Active members were and no National Historic Preservation frequently prominent in their local Act… The times were ripe for development communities, including many doctors, of a group such as the SIAS [Southeastern lawyers, and other professionals.” Indian Antiquities Survey]. Probably the most significant contribution of the TAS for Mississippian culture of the The Southeastern Indian Antiquities MCR was the provision of a publication Survey and Middle Cumberland outlet for local avocational archaeologists Archaeological Society – the journal Tennessee Archaeologist (1944-1981) and Tennessee Although not officially chartered until Archaeological Society Newsletter (1956- 1967, the people who would become

187 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 15. Part of the Mississippian figurine cache from structure floor at the FIGURE 13. H.C. “Buddy” Brehm at the Brick Church Pike Mounds (John T. Dowd). “Indian Museum” created by the SIAS at Travellers Rest, 1964. together about 1963 to salvage information from the many archaeological sites that were being destroyed by urban expansion in and around Nashville. RCA record producer Bob Ferguson masterminded the SIAS – eventually establishing the goals of purchasing Mound Bottom and building a Native American cultural center at the site. Ferguson’s second wife was a member of the Mississippi Band of the Choctaw Indians, and the SIAS was closely affiliated with that federally recognized tribe for a decade – even serving as publisher of the Chahta anumpa (Choctaw Times) newspaper from 1968-1971. As fundraising for the purchase of Mound Bottom proceeded, SIAS members would work to salvage information from sites threatened by development. Among the Mississippian sites where significant salvage work was done either independently by the SIAS/MCAS or by SIAS/MCAS volunteers working with professional archaeologists, were Travellers Rest (40DV11; Dowd 1975; Miller 1987; Figure 13), Sandbar FIGURE 14. Figurine from the West Site on Village (40DV36; Dowd and Broster 1972; display at the McClung Museum (Kevin E. Smith and Moore 2012), the West site Smith). (40DV12; Dowd 1972; Figure 14), the members of the Southeastern Indian Brick Church Pike Mounds (40DV39; Antiquities Survey (SIAS) started working Barker and Kuttruff 2010; Dowd 1974;

188 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

FIGURE 17. Ad Hoc Committee drafting the Tennessee archaeology legislation, February 1969. Bob Ferguson (SIAS) seated at left (Mack Prichard). prehistory… SIAS members performed many excavations (mostly salvage projects) during the 1960’s and 70’s. They were also instrumental in supporting the passage of antiquities laws… the SIAS aided in the creation of an official state FIGURE 16. Cover for the The Middle Division of Archaeology and appointment Cumberland Culture, Vanderbilt University of the first official State Archaeologist since Publications in Anthropology No. 2. the 1930s. Since the creation of the Nashville. Division of Archaeology in the early 1970s, Figure 15); Gordontown (40DV6); the SIAS [and its successor the Middle Cumberland Archaeological Society] … Cardwell Mound (40WR15), Brandywine has furnished volunteer workers on many Pointe (40DV247); Rutherford-Kizer state archaeology projects, both in the field (40SU15); and the Brentwood Library and in the lab (Dowd and Smith 2008:1). (40WM210). The list also includes salvage excavations at Ganier and Arnold The passage of the National Historic – the two sites that produced the Preservation Act of 1966, with its inclusion eponymous label “Middle Cumberland of archaeology as a potential criterion for Culture” (Ferguson 1972; Figure 16). listing in the National Register of Historic Another major project facilitated by MCAS Places, prompted the creation or volunteers was the inventory and transfer expansion of many state archaeology of the Thruston Collection from Vanderbilt programs. In Tennessee, the end result in University to the Tennessee State 1970 was the passage of the Tennessee Museum. As summarized by Dowd (Dowd Archaeology Statutes, in part creating the and Smith 2008:1): Tennessee Division of Archaeology and finally fulfilling the efforts started by Myer The membership has always included folks and Cox in the 1920s (Figure 17). from all walks of life: professional and Officially backed by both the SIAS and the amateur archaeologists, blue and white TAS, the first Tennessee Archaeological collar workers, housewives, students, and anyone else interested in history and Advisory Council appointed by the

189 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 18. The first Tennessee Archaeological Advisory Council 1972. Left to right: Travis Binion (TAS), Bob Ferguson (SIAS), Charles McNutt (Memphis State University), Ron Spores (Vanderbilt University), and Alfred K. Guthe (McClung Museum) (Mack Prichard) FIGURE 19. John T. Dowd (right) receiving Governor included representatives of both the Crabtree Award at the 2012 Society for (Bob Ferguson and Travis Binion; Figure American Archaeology conference (Kevin 18). That first council also served as the E. Smith). search committee for the first state Choctaw reservation led to a lull in SIAS archaeologist of the modern era – activity in the early 1970s. Long time eventually resulting in the appointment in members H.C. “Buddy” Brehm and John 1972 of Mack Prichard, then president of T. Dowd would step into that void and the SIAS and a former officer of the TAS along with others rejuvenate the as well. organization. Although the MCAS and When Prichard took office, three major many of its members have earned state archaeological parks were already in recognition through preservation awards place at Chucalissa, Pinson Mounds, and by the Tennessee Historical Commission Old Stone Fort. Prichard embarked on an and Tennessee Council for Professional ambitious campaign to expand that Archaeology, undoubtedly the most number across the state. Although not substantive recognition was that every site on his original list was saved, eventually received by John T. Dowd two Middle Cumberland Mississippian when the Society for American sites were acquired, including the critical Archaeology presented him with the Mound Bottom site and Sellars Mound national Crabtree Award (Smith and (the source of four of the most famous Moore 2013a, 2013b; Figure 19). Tennessee-Cumberland stone statuary) and the closely related Link Farm Mounds Tennessee Division of Archaeology in Humphreys County. The creation of the state agency, the Although the authors played a purchase of Mound Bottom, and the significant personal role as employees of departure of Bob Ferguson for the the Tennessee Division of Archaeology,

190 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

few would contradict the assertion that the about major archaeological sites in the agency has played a critical role in mid-state region was something to this preservation efforts for Mississippian sites effect: ‘You should ask John Dowd. He in the greater Nashville metropolitan area, probably knows more about that site than albeit not always particularly successful. anybody else.” That relationship also led The first three regional archaeologists to a strong and lasting partnership with hired by Prichard included John B. Broster the Middle Cumberland Archaeological (a founder of the SIAS), Carl Kuttruff, and Society – whose members provided Brian Butler. Kuttruff, working with volunteer hours numbering literally in the Michael O’Brien and Vanderbilt University, tens of thousands. would undertake the first modern Eventually that partnership would be excavations at Mound Bottom (O’Brien semi-formalized as the “Middle and Kuttruff 2012) and Butler would tackle Cumberland Mississippian Survey gathering interpretive information for Project” (MCMSP). Initially started as an Sellars Mound (Butler 1981). outgrowth of Smith’s dissertation research Sometimes fortuitous coincidence can (Smith 1992), the Middle Cumberland have lasting ramifications. The simple fact Mississippian Survey Project (MCMSP) that Kevin E. Smith started working with was first a collaborative project of the Carl Kuttruff and the TDOA in 1985 on Tennessee Division of Archaeology and Mound Bottom ceramics and other the Middle Cumberland Archaeological collections as part of dissertation research Society (and eventually the new and that Michael C. Moore – with strong archaeology program at Middle interests in lithics -- was hired as an Tennessee State University in 1995). Led employee of the TDOA in 1986 had by the authors, numerous large-scale lasting impacts on the future of Middle salvage projects were conducted Cumberland Mississippian for over three beginning in the early 1990s and decades – whether overwhelmingly continuing through today focused on positive or negative, we leave to the salvaging information from the multitude opinion of the readers. The building boom of Middle Cumberland Mississippian of the late 1980s and early 1990s in villages and centers threatened by the Nashville quickly overtook several major renewed suburban expansion of greater Middle Cumberland mound centers – sites Nashville. Initially largely supported by unprotected by state or federal laws and volunteer labor provided by the Middle whose destruction was hampered only Cumberland Archaeological Society, minimally by the Tennessee Cemetery students and faculty in the newly statutes. With the approval of state established anthropology program at archaeologist Nick Fielder, the authors Middle Tennessee State University would embarked on a seemingly never-ending eventually also play a significant role and series of salvage projects – working with on-going role. Smith and Dowd (2008:89) developers to arrange for salvage of as described the partnership of the Middle much information as possible within tight Cumberland Archaeological Society with time constraints. As noted by Smith and the TDOA and eventually Middle Moore (2013b:20), “when we began our Tennessee State University: professional careers in Tennessee archaeology in the mid-1980s, the most Just as when [the MCAS] started, our common answer to any of our questions members come from all walks of life – professional archaeologists, avocational

191 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

archaeologists, students, lawyers, doctors, practicioners. All of these individuals bring Native Americans, and both blue and white with them their enthusiasm and desire to collar workers…. For the long term, the communicate with the Native American importance of the MCAS lies in its past through an interdisciplinary reputation for integrity. We have managed approach…Essentially this methodology to save a tremendous amount of begins with the division of the participants information about the past of Tennessee into a series of subgroups [organized] that would otherwise have been lost. around a particular structural or iconographic problem. The members… A primary goal of these partnership amass a corpus of photographs and projects was salvage and dissemination of drawings and objects that are central to the primary data about the multitude of largely problem that they are addressing… When unknown Middle Cumberland applied to the art and symbolism of the Mississippian peoples, this methodology Mississippian sites that were being has provided significant breakthroughs in destroyed at a rapid pace. Time to sit regard to our understanding of both style down and think about the Big Picture was and meaning. (Reilly et al. 2011:xiii). not a luxury available during that construction boom. However, background Beginning in 2005, members of a research on the Rutherford-Kizer Mounds working group at that conference focused led the authors to “re-discover” the almost their attention on the iconography of the forgotten Peabody Museum expeditions in Cumberland Valley. Initial examinations Middle Tennessee from 1887-1884 and a focused on the Thruston Tablet, one of publication that serves as one of the the most complex iconographic stone highlights of both careers (Moore and carvings known from the Mississippian Smith 2009). That project brought into world (Steponaitis et al. 2011) and the focus the vast number of virtually negative-painted female effigy bottles that unstudied Middle Cumberland comprise the local representation of one Mississippian collections in museums of the most widespread and ancient of across the nation, to which Smith and indigenous North American religious other colleagues would turn their figures (Sharp et al. 2011). For over a attention. decade, that subgroup of the workshop has focused intensively on Middle Mississippian Iconographic Workshop Cumberland Mississippian iconography and its intimate interrelationships with A relatively novel approach to the contemporaneous groups throughout the study of Mississippian artifacts was Southeast and Midwest. One end result of adopted by Kent Reilly and other scholars that research has been the proposition working under the auspices of the that the majority of the iconography of the Mississippian Iconographic Workshop, MCR focuses on two major themes – the first held at the University of Texas and local version of the Hero Twins and the then at Texas State University, San Earth Mother, both widespread North Marcos: American themes but expressed in unique ways through the art and symbolism of The participants in the Mississippian the MCR. Iconographic Workshop are a diverse Another significant outgrowth of that group of archaeologists, anthropologists, workshop was development of the folklorists, art historians, and upon several occasions Native American religious exhibition ANCESTORS: Ancient Native

192 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

American Stone Sculpture of Tennessee at the Tennessee State Museum (30 Oct 2015-15 May 2016) by Rex Weeks, Kevin E. Smith, and Robert V. Sharp (Figure 20). That exhibition brought together the largest corpus of Tennessee stone statuary ever – and has already revealed some stunning insights into the pigments and raw material sources used in their production (including the fact that some are produced from speleothems – calcite cave formations). Ultimately, this relatively new and independent line of research can be used in conjunction with more traditional archaeological data to provide new hypotheses and discussions about the chronology (based on stylistic seriation) and the interrelationships of sites. Two specific examples include: the radiocarbon dating of fragments of a specific style of negative-painted female effigy bottle at the Castalian Springs FIGURE 20. Advertisement for the Mounds to ca. AD 1300, anchoring the ANCESTORS exhibition. beginnings of that tradition along the The Present and the Future Cumberland; and the linkage of a mound center with a nearby small village by the To close, the authors have been identification of two effigy bottles created engaged with the MCR Mississippian for by the same artisan. three decades now in many different These types of studies cannot be ways. Older and less vigorous, we are completed confidently without at best pleased to see that perhaps our work has personal examination of a large number of encouraged the engagement of both related objects, or at the very least established scholars from outside the detailed high resolution photographs. As region and a new generation of scholars potential repatriation of many collections working within the region. That new has proceeded over the last nearly three engagement and interests are heartening. decades and escalated recently, the Where are we now? The 21st century detailed photographic documentation of did bring about the preservation of several these collections started by David H. Dye critically important Middle Cumberland and then pursued collaboratively by Dye, Mississippian sites – hopefully in part Robert V. Sharp, and Kevin E. Smith of sponsored by the increasing recognition Tennessee collections across the country of the amazing creations of Nashville’s has been critical to providing the “lost civilization.” The State of Tennessee continuing research corpus for many of acquired the Castalian Springs Mounds in these studies. 2005 – allowing the establishment of the first multi-year modern scientific

193 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

excavation of a Middle Cumberland partnership with Middle Tennessee State Mississippian site. The Castalian Springs University, the Frists established the on- Archaeological Project, conducted as going Old Town Heritage Project archaeological field schools by Middle (http://capone.mtsu.edu/oldtown/). With Tennessee State University from 2005- on-going near-surface geophysical 2011 and 2017-present, has begun not studies and re-examinations of curated only to shed new light on the specific collections, this project is intended to history of the site itself but to provide serve as a model for private owners. One controlled information on chronology and outgrowth of the project is an on-going site layout not previously available. series of workshops for the nascent Perhaps more significantly, however, Middle Cumberland Mississippian Sites is the unprecedented recognition of the Coalition – an organizational framework importance of these sites by municipalities intended to improve interpretation and and private land owners. In 2005, the City visibility of publicly accessible Middle of Brentwood acquired the Fewkes Cumberland Mississippian parks and Mounds (40WM1) and in 2007 opened the preserves. first city historical park honoring Middle As many of the articles in this special Cumberland Mississippian peoples (Smith issue of Tennessee Archaeology suggest, 2005 – a project that also engaged MTSU a new generation of researchers have students and MCAS volunteers). In 2014, “taken up the torch” of exploring the story the city of Forest Hills partnered with of the Middle Cumberland Region and its Metro Nashville to purchase the large late prehistoric peoples. In addition, Middle Cumberland settlement long several well established scholars have known as Kellytown and recently renamed also turned their attentions to “Aaittafama’” to establish an historical incorporating the region into broader park preserving and promoting knowledge discussions of the Mississippian world. of this aspect of Nashville’s history. The continuing efforts to promote Over that same period, some private preservation through scholarship – and landowners have also turned their public outreach – are critically important. attention to ensuring the long-term Despite the heartening news of expanding preservation of mound centers on their efforts by municipalities and private private property. The Beasley family in owners to preserve a few of these sites, Smith County placed what is now known greater public awareness and as the “Beasley Mounds” in a appreciation of their significance remains conservation easement protecting the site the strongest tool in raising support for in perpetuity from development – and continuing efforts in these areas. provided access and support for modern With the Nashville construction research (Beahm and Smith 2012; Smith rebound after the most recent recession, and Beahm 2008). redevelopment of the city core, the Most recently, the Frist family expansion of suburbs throughout seven purchased Old Town (40WM2) along the counties, and the new phenomenon of banks of the Big Harpeth River in “exurbs” continually threatens the Williamson County with the goal of both surviving remnants of some major towns, preserving the site in perpetuity and while also exposing, threatening, and promoting the Middle Cumberland destroying previously unknown sites. Mississippian culture. Working in Alongside the heartening news presented

194 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology previously, within the past year, some of Acknowledgements. We extend our gratitude to all the last remnants of the Logan site of the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who have helped to further the goals of the Middle (40DV8) were largely destroyed ancillary Cumberland Mississippian Survey Project over the to a stone-box cemetery removal and years. We draw special attention once again to the relocation project. That complex of large immense contributions of John T. Dowd, without towns along Richland Creek was whom our understanding of the MCR would be undoubtedly one of the largest and most significantly poorer. We also acknowledge the many years of assistance in archives and important settlement clusters remaining in collections from Stephen T. Rogers and Emily L. the MCR between A.D. 1300 and 1475 – Beahm. and remains virtually unknown to modern . archaeology. References This special issue, with contributions by many new scholars working on the Anonymous MCR, suggests that despite all the 1876 Anthropological News. The American preservation issues great new things are Naturalist 10(6):377-378. still happening. We continue to do justice Barker, Gary and Carl Kuttruff as best we can to the story and the history 2010 A Summary of Exploratory and of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian Salvage Archaeological Investigations peoples – despite the sidebar of how the at the Brick Church Pike Mound Site success of modern Nashville continues to (40DV39), Davidson County, chip away at the remaining database. The Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology story of late prehistoric North America will 5(1):5-30. be sadly incomplete in the absence of the Middle Cumberland Mississippian Beahm, Emily L. peoples. 2013 Mississippian Polities in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. Notes: PhD dissertation, Department of 1 This paper represents a substantially revised Anthropology, University of Georgia, version of the “Discussant Comments” Athens. presented by Kevin E. Smith during the 2016 Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Beahm, Emily L. and Kevin E. Smith 2 The ultimate disposition of the objects from this 2012 Mississippian Ceramics and first Tennessee Museum, and specifically those Settlement Complexity: Insights from from Earl’s investigations remains unclear. the Beasley Mounds (40SM43), Smith 3 Although the author is not indicated, the writer is County, Tennessee. Tennessee probably Frederic Ward Putnam, who was then Archaeology 6(1):149-163. editor. 4 Part of Benjamin Frankin Cheatham Jr. collection is held by the Tennessee State Brehm, H.C. “Buddy” Museum, probably acquired initially by Gates P. 1990 Guy Stack: Indian Relic Collector. Thruston. George T. Halley donated his Mini-Histories Press, Nashville. collection to Vanderbilt University, where it is currently curated, and the Otto Giers collection Butler, Brian M. was purchased initially by Paul Hunter of 1981 Sellars: A Small Mound Center in the Nashville, who subsequently sold it to the Hinterlands. Tennessee Museum of the American Indian in New York. Anthropologist 6:37-60. The Giers collection is currently curated by the National Museum of the American Indian. The current whereabouts of the W.W. Dosier and E.C. Wells collections are unknown. Cobb, Charles R., Anthony M. Krus, and Dawnie W. Steadman

195 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

2015 Bayesian Modeling of the Occupation excerpts from an 1805 journal in The Span of the Averbuch Site in the Journal of Mississippi History, Vol. IX, Middle Cumberland Drainage, No. 1, edited by Jesse D. Jennings. Tennessee. Southeastern Jackson: Mississippi Historical Archaeology 34(1):46-56. Society.

Dowd, John T. Jones, Joseph 1972 The West Site: A Stone Box Cemetery 1869 The Aboriginal Mound Builders of in Middle Tennessee. Miscellaneous Tennessee. The American Naturalist Paper No. 10. Tennessee 3(2):57-73. Archaeological Society, Knoxville. 1873 The Aboriginal Mound Builders of 1974 History of the Brick Church Pike Tennessee. The Mississippi Valley Mound (40DV39). Tennessee Industrial Press 1(6):310-316. Archaeologist 30(2):85-106. Reprinted 1876 Explorations of the Aboriginal in 1985 by Mini-Histories Press, Remains of Tennessee. Smithsonian Nashville. Contributions to Knowledge 259. 1975 Travelers Rest. Winter 1976-76. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington American Archaeologist No. 2:4-6. City. 2008 The Cumberland Stone-Box Burials of Middle Tennessee. Tennessee Krus, Anthony M., and Charles R. Cobb Archaeology 3(2):163-180. 2018 The Mississippian Fin de Siècle in the Middle Cumberland Region of Dowd, John T., and John B. Broster Tennessee. American Antiquity 1972 Cockrills Bend Site 17c. Southeastern 83:302-319. Indian Antiquities Survey Journal 1:8- 19. Reprinted in Tennessee Miller, James V. Archaeology 6(1-2):95-104. 1987 The Travelers’ Rest Site: A Fortified Prehistoric Middle Cumberland Indian Dowd, John T., and Kevin E. Smith Village. Mini-Histories Press, 2008 A Story of the Southeastern Indian Nashville. Antiquities Survey (1963-1975) and the Middle Cumberland Archaeological Moore, Michael C. Society (1976-). Middle Cumberland 1989 A Review of the Tennessee State Archaeological Society, Nashville. Cemetery Law and its Effect upon Archaeological Data Recovery and Dye, David H. Site Preservation. Tennessee 2016 An Overiview of Federal Work Relief Anthropologist XIV(1):64-76. Projects in Tennessee and the 1998 An Updated Review of the Tennessee Tennessee Valley, 1933-1942. In New Cemetery law and Other Statutes Deal Archaeology in Tennessee: regarding Prehistoric Burial Removal. Intellectual, Methodological, and Tennessee Anthropologist XXIII(1- Theoretical Contributions, edited by 2):55-64. David H. Dye, pp. 1-28. University Of 2004 Early Investigations at Gordontown Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. (40DV6): Results of an 1877 Exploration Sponsored by the Ferguson, Robert B. (editor) Peabody Museum at Harvard 1972 The Middle Cumberland Culture. University. Tennessee Archaeology Vanderbilt University Publications in 1(1):58-68. Anthropology 3. Nashville. 2005 The Brentwood Library Site: A Jennings, Jesse D. Mississippian Town on the Little 1947 “Nutt’s Trip to the Chicasaw Country,” Harpeth River, Williamson County,

196 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

Tennessee. Tennessee Division of Moore, Michael C., Kevin E. Smith, and Archaeology, Department of Stephen T. Rogers Environment and Conservation, 2010 Middle Tennessee Archaeology and Research Series No. 15. Nashville. the Enigma of George Woods. Tennessee Historical Quarterly Moore, Michael C., Emanuel Breitburg, Kevin 69(4):320-329. E. Smith, and Mary Beth Trubitt 2006 One Hundred Years of Archaeology at Myer, William Edward Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian 1928 Two Prehistoric Villages in Middle Town in Middle Tennessee. Tennessee. 41st Annual Report of the Southeastern Archaeology 25(1): 89- Bureau of American Ethnology, 1919- 109. 1924, pp. 485-614. Reprinted in 1972 by Southeastern Indian Antiquities Moore, Michael C., David H. Dye, and Kevin Survey, Inc., Nashville. E. Smith 2016 WPA Excavations at the Mound Norton, Mark R., and John B. Broster Bottom and Pack Sites in Middle 2004 The Sogom Site (40DV68): A Tennessee, 1936-1940. In New Deal Mississippian Farmstead on Cockrill Archaeology in Tennessee: Bend, Davidson County, Tennessee. Intellectual, Methodological, and Tennessee Archaeology 1(1):2-17. Theoretical Contributions, edited by David H. Dye, pp. 116-137. University O’Brien, Michael J., and Carl Kuttruff Of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2012 The 1974–75 Excavations At Mound Bottom, A Palisaded Mississippian Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith Center In Cheatham County, 1993 A Report on the 1992 Archaeological Tennessee. Southeastern Investigations at the Brandywine Archaeology 31(1):70–86. Pointe Site (40DV247), Davidson County, Tennessee. Report of Parmer, H.E., and H.C. Brehm Investigations No. 9, Tennessee 1964 Guy Stack Collection Photographic Department of Environment and Catalog. Compiled from three partial Conservation, Division of Archaeology, copies by Kevin E. Smith, June 2012. Nashville. 2001 Archaeological Excavations at the Powell, Mary Lucas Rutherford-Kizer Site: A Mississippian 2003 Paleopathology: The Study of Human Mound Center in Sumner County, Suffering. The Ambassadors Tennessee. Research Series No. 13, Magazine 6(2). Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Powell, Mary Lucas, and Jane E. Buikstra Division of Archaeology, Nashville. 2012 Joseph Jones, MD, a Pioneer in 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Paleopathological Differential Peabody Museum in Middle Diagnosis. In The Global History of Tennessee, 1877-1884. Tennessee Paleopathology: Pioneers and Department of Environment and Prospects, edited by Jane E. Buikstra, Conservation, Division of Archaeology and Charlotte A. Roberts. Oxford Research Series No. 16. Revised University Press, Oxford. 2012, electronic edition at: http://www.tennessee.gov/assets/entiti Putnam, Frederic W. es/environment/attachments/arch_rs1 1878a History of the Meeting. In Proceedings 6_peabody_museum_2009.pdf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Twenty-

197 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Sixth Meeting held at Nashville, Tenn., Smith, Kevin E. August, 1877, pp. 367-372. Published 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: by the Permanent Secretary, Salem Mississippian Archaeology in North MA. Central Tennessee. PhD dissertation, 1878b Archaeological Explorations in Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Tennessee. Peabody Museum of 1993 Archaeology at Old Town (40WM2): A Archaeology and Ethnology, Eleventh Mississippian Mound-Village Center in Annual Report 2(2):305-360. Williamson County, Tennessee. 1881 Report of the Curator. In Fourteenth Tennessee Anthropologist 18(1):27- Annual Report of the Trustees of the 44. Peabody Museum of American 1994 Potash from Pyramids: Reconstructing Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 7-28. DeGraffenreid (40WM4) – A Cambridge. Mississippian Mound Complex in 1883a Stone Graves of the Cumberland Williamson County, Tennessee. Valley. Science I(10):292. Tennessee Anthropologist 19(2): 91- 1883b The Stone Graves of Brentwood, 113. Tennessee. Kansas City Review of 2005 Primm Park Grand Opening. Science 6(9-10):526-529. Newslettter of the Middle Cumberland Archaeological Society 30(2):2. Reilly, F. Kent III, James F. Garber, and 2008a The May 1920 Trip of Jesse Walter George E. Lankford Fewkes to Middle Tennessee. 2011 Introduction. In Visualizing the Sacred: Newsletter of the Middle Cumberland Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Archaeological Society 33(4):3-8. Art of the Mississippian World, edited 2008b Creation of the Tennessee by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly Archaeological Society, 1924. III, and James F. Garber, pp. xi-xviii. Newsletter of the Middle Cumberland University of Texas Press, Austin. Archaeological Society 33(6):2-5. 2011 Dr. Thomas Hugh Young, Nashville Riley, Harris D., Jr. Collector. Newsletter of the Middle 1987 Joseph Jones, MD: An Early Clinical Cumberland Archaeological Society Investigator. Southern Medical Journal 36(2):5-6. 80(5):623-629. 2013a Tennessee’s Ancient Pygmy Graveyards: The “Wonder of the Sharp, Robert V. Western Country.” Tennessee 2018 Our Lady of the Cumberland: Styles, Archaeology 7(1):42-75. Distribution, and Community. Mss. 2013b [Annotator] Interviews with Hiram accepted for publication in Tennessee Ridge. Ms. On file, Middle Cumberland Archaeology 10(1), forthcoming. Mississippian Survey Project. 2014 A Tennessee Chapter in the Story of Sharp, Robert V., Vernon James Knight, Jr., John Wesley Powell. Tennessee and George E. Lankford Conservationist LXXX(2):8-11. 2011. Woman in the Patterned Shawl: Female 2016 The Tennessee Archaeological Effigy Vessels and Figurines from the Society from 1944 to 1985: Legacy Middle Cumberland River Basin. In and Consequences of the New Deal in Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Tennessee. In New Deal Archaeology Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of in Tennessee: Intellectual, the Mississippian World, edited by Methodological, and Theoretical George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, Contributions, edited By David H. Dye, and James F. Garber, pp. 177-198. pp. 189-205. University Of Alabama University of Texas Press, Austin. Press, Tuscaloosa.

198 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology

Smith, Kevin E. and Emily L. Beahm Midsouth Archaeological Conference, 2008 Archaeological Investigations at the edited by Richard Walling, Camille Beasley Mounds (40SM43): Wharey, and Camille Stanley, pp. 49- Preliminary Results of the March 2008 68. Special Publications No. 1. Field Project. 34 pp., 21 figs. Report Panamerican Consultants Inc., on file, Tennessee Division of Memphis. Archaeology, Nashville. 2012 Changing Interpretations of Sandbar 2010 National Register Documentation: Village (40DV36): Mississippian Beasley Mounds (40SM43), Smith Hamlet, Village, or Mound Center? County, Tennessee. Listed in the Tennessee Archaeology 6(1-2):105- National Register of Historic Places 138. 7/16/2010. Site #1000465. 2013a Professional and Avocational 2012a Provenience and Provenance for Partnership: Alive and Well in Middle Catalog 5425.1952. Report prepared Tennessee. The SAA Archaeological for the Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Record 13(2):18-23, Society for Oklahoma. American Archaeology. 2012b Provenience and Provenance for 2013b The 2012 Crabtree Winner: John T. Catalog 6125.1575 A&B, 6125.1576, Dowd. The SAA Archaeological 6125.1580: Part of the Woodlee or Record 13(2):20-21. Society for McMinnville Cache, Warren County, American Archaeology. Tennessee. Report prepared for the Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Smith, Kevin E., Michael C. Moore, and 2012c Provenience and Provenance for Stephen T. Rogers Catalog 61.1565B. 61.1562, and 2009 The Enigma of the Noel Cemetery: 61.1571: The “Carr Farm Mound,” Thruston’s “Ancient Metropolis of the Robertson County, Tennessee. Report Stone Grave Culture.” Paper prepared for the Gilcrease Museum, presented at the 66th Annual Meeting Tulsa, Oklahoma. of the Southeastern Archaeological 2012d Provenience and Provenance for Conference, Mobile. Catalog 61.1551 and 61.1552: Dover 2011 George Woods: Tennessee's First Chert “Face Profiles,” Humphreys African-American Archaeologist and County, Tennessee. Report prepared the Involvement of African Americans for the Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, in Tennessee Archaeology, 1819- Oklahoma. 1950. Paper presented at the 30th 2013a Provenience and Provenance for Annual Conference on African- Catalog 9025.233: Pipers Ford, Smith American History and Culture. County, Tennessee. Report prepared Nashville, February 9. for the Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, 2014 African Americans and the Oklahoma. Archaeology of Middle Tennessee, 2013b Provenience and Provenance for 1820-1950. Paper presented at the Dover Mace (Catalog 61255.1564). 26th Annual Meeting on Current Report prepared for the Gilcrease Research in Tennessee Archaeology. Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nashville, January.

Smith, Kevin E. and Michael C. Moore Stephens, Rachel Elizabeth 1996 Mississippian Settlement and 2010 America's Portraitist: Ralph E.W. Earl Community Patterns on the and the Imaging of the Jacksonian Cumberland River, Tennessee: Era. PhD dissertation, Art History, Recent Investigations of Small University of Iowa. Mississippian Settlements. In 2018 Selling Andrew Jackson: Ralph E.W. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Earl and the Politics of Portraiture.

199 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

University of South Carolina Press. 2016 Bioarchaeological Analysis of the WPA Mound Bottom Skeletal Sample. Steponaitis, Vincas P., Vernon James Knight, In New Deal Archaeology in Jr., George E. Lankford, Robert V. Tennessee: Intellectual, Sharp, and David H. Dye Methodological, and Theoretical 2011 Iconography of the Thruston Tablet. In Contributions, edited by David H. Dye, Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic pp. 171-185. University Of Alabama Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of Press, Tuscaloosa. the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, Young, T. Hugh and James F. Garber, pp. 137-176. 1949a A Study of Stone Graves of Middle University of Texas Press, Austin. Tennessee. Journal of Illinois Archaeological Society 6:7-12. Stoltman, James 1949b A Rock Shelter. Ohio Indian Relic 1973 The Southeastern United States. In Collectors Society Bulletin #21. The Development of North American Archaeology: Essays in the History of Kevin E. Smith Regional Traditions, edited by James Department of Sociology and Anthropology Fitting, pp. 116-150. Anchor Press, Middle Tennessee State University Garden City. Murfreesboro TN 37132 [email protected] Summerville, James Michael C. Moore 1986 Science in the New South: The Tennessee Division of Archaeology Meeting of the AAAS at Nashville, 1216 Foster Ave., Cole Bldg. #3 1877. Tennessee Historical Quarterly Nashville, TN 37243 XLV:316.328. [email protected]

Walling, Richard, Lawrence Alexander, and Evan Peacock (editors) 2000 The Jefferson Street Bridge Project: Archaeological Investigations at the East Nashville Mounds (40DV4) and the French Lick/Sulphur Dell Site (40DV5) in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Planning and Permits Publications in Archaeology No. 7. Nashville.

Williams, Stephen 1986 Pioneers in the Archaeology of Middle Tennessee. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville.

Worne, Heather, Giovanna M. Vidoli, and Dawnie Wolfe Steadman

200 FIVE NEW PREHISTORIC CAVE ART SITES IN TENNESSEE 2005

Jan F. Simek, Alan Cressler, Joseph C. Douglas, Stuart Carroll, Ken Oeser, Annette Oeser, and Amy Wallace

In 2005, five new prehistoric cave art sites were discovered in Tennessee, designated 43rd through 47th Unnamed Caves in our regional nomenclature. These additions brought the total number of art caves known in the Southeast to 52 in 2005. Three of the caves are owned by the State, their discovery and analysis sanctioned by State archaeological permits. A fourth is under Federal stewardship. The sites contain a variety of art, including both petroglyphs and pictographs. Most appear to date late in Tennessee’s prehistoric sequence (i.e., Mississippian).

In the Winter 2017 issue of Tennessee reports in the journal might be useful to Archaeology (Volume 9, Number 1), archaeologists as basic information about members of the Cave Archaeology these important and sometimes compelling Research Team (CART) at the University sites. We also discussed the possibility of of Tennessee, Knoxville, published a publishing our older reports so that a fuller report on their survey activities in 2015 catalog of Tennessee rock art sites is (Simek et al. 2017). As we noted there, this available to those interested in our work research group has made annual reports to over the years. This paper is one from archaeologists and interested lay persons those past presentations, the CRITA report at the Current Research in Tennessee we gave in 2006 concerning newly Archaeology (CRITA) conference discovered Tennessee rock art found in organized in Nashville every year by Kevin 2005. In the text that follows, comments E. Smith of Middle Tennessee State from the perspective of 2017 are marked University and Michael C. Moore of the with italics when they are included. Tennessee Division of Archaeology. In As of 2017, the CART at the University those presentations, we have typically of Tennessee has for two decades been discussed new discoveries of prehistoric actively surveying Tennessee’s more than (and occasionally, historic) rock art in 10,000 caves for evidence of prehistoric Tennessee, both open-air art and dark use, including ritual use for cave art zone cave art. For the most part, these production. We now know of 81 art caves reports have been descriptive, sometimes east of the Mississippi River, all in the partly integrative, but they have always Appalachian plateau and mountain been designed to alert the archaeological regions. Of this total, 57 are recorded in community to the rich and varied (and still Tennessee. mostly undiscovered) corpus of ancient art In 2005, five new cave art sites were that the State of Tennessee contains. recorded for the first time in Tennessee Because of the setting and the informal alone (we also recorded several new sites nature of the presentations, however, most in adjacent states in that same year); some of these reports have never been were clearly prehistoric, others less published. certainly so. In keeping with our use of a Kevin E. Smith and Michael C. Moore, numerical nomenclature to protect the sites Editorial Coordinators of Tennessee and their locations, we referred to these Archaeology, agreed last year that new sites as 43rd through 47th Unnamed publishing these presentations as research Caves. The traditional names for some of

201 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

these caves were revealed after 2005 because they were protected from vandalism. In this paper, we will report briefly on each of these new cave art sites in the order they were recorded.

43rd Unnamed Cave

43rd Unnamed Cave is among the storied caves in eastern North America. In 1810, the remains of Megalonyx jeffersoni — giant Pleistocene ground sloth — were discovered, beginning a long period of interest in the cave for paleontological reasons (Barr 1961). On several occasions, materials from the cavern have made their way into the collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. In the 1970’s, more Pleistocene faunal remains were discovered, including Panthera onca — jaguar — and these were described by Guilday and McGinnis (1972). 43rd Unnamed Cave has a human use history, FIGURE 1. Civil War period saltpeter rd too. The cave was mined prehistorically for processing vat in 43 Unnamed Cave. cave salts during the Woodland period resources within the cave make large- (Crothers 1987). It was known to long scale interpretive public visitation hunters at the turn of the 18th century, and problematic. was mined for saltpeter during the War of Until 2005, no prehistoric cave art had 1812 (Smith 1985). During the Civil War, a ever been discovered in 43rd Unnamed massive industrial niter mining operation Cave despite the intensity of its prehistoric was installed at the site by the Confederate use. This past year (2005), however, three Niter Bureau (Smith 1987), involving some separate possible glyph areas were of the most impressive subterranean identified by Alan Cressler, all in remote engineering known from the era (Figure 1). passages of the cave. We stress that these The cave was also mined for guano for are only possible prehistoric artifacts, as fertilizer in the following decades. In recent no 14C age determinations have been years, the site came under stewardship of attempted that might be related to these the State of Tennessee, and today, it is features. A panel of line petroglyphs is protected within the confines of a state found at the back of the passage showing park. As part of its stewardship, the heaviest prehistoric activity in the cave, an Division of Archaeology contracted with the area where little historic intrusion is University of Tennessee to survey its evident. While this panel is composed only prehistoric resources, and some of the of a series of incised lines, these do not more impressive artifacts were removed have the typical linear pattern we see with for their protection (Figure 2). Still, the the saltpeter miners’ “tally marks” use to density and complexity of historical count their extractions. We have seen

202 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 2. Pair of woven fiber moccasins from 43rd Unnamed Cave. Probably Woodland period. similar line patterns in several prehistoric typical of historic miners’ graffiti. More cave sites in the region. importantly, this image may hold enough A second set of glyphs are pictographs carbon to allow direct 14C dating of the found in an entirely different part of the image. Thus, while the chronology of the cave. These are flowing, geometric 43rd Unnamed Cave images is uncertain, it patterns done with red pigment, some with is difficult to reconcile them with the usual clear if enigmatic form (Figure 3), and all nature of historic graffiti production, and at are associated with cane torch stoke marks least one of the images holds promise for (Figure 4). Again, we cannot yet be certain direct assessment of age. that these are prehistoric tracings, but their color suggests the use of mineral pigments, something we have not seen done by historic saltpeter miners. A third panel of pictographs is rendered in charcoal (Figure 5), comprising lines and shapes associated with river cane torch stoke marks produced by canes of considerable size. On the right end of this panel, a claw-like glyph was rendered with a charcoal crayon applied very densely to the wall. Again, this kind of effort is not

203 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 4. River cane torch stoke marks on wall of 43rd Unnamed Cave.

FIGURE 3. Red pictograph from deep passage in 43rd Unnamed Cave.

FIGURE 5. Panel of black pictographs, including what appears to be a curved raptor talon on the right, from a deep passage in 43rd Unnamed Cave.

204 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 6. Radiocarbon age determinations from cane torch fragments found in 44th Unnamed Cave. 44th Unnamed Cave

The prehistoric art in 44th Unnamed Cave was discovered in January 2005 by Joe Douglas (Volunteer State Community College), Amy Wallace (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, TDEC), and caver Larry Mathews. On a historical research visit to the cave, charcoal drawings were recognized in a dark zone passage, and Douglas sent a photograph to the senior author. In February of 2005, Simek joined Douglas, Wallace, John Froeschauer FIGURE 7. Petroglyph composed of three concentric circles from 44th Unnamed Cave. (TDEC), and Alan Cressler to visit the site. On that visit, the group observed the glyphs, all but a few concentrated on four glyphs that had been discovered in panels in a single large cave gallery. January, and we found a significant Twenty-eight of the thirty images are of number of additional pictographs and single circles, concentric circles, arcs or petroglyphs in the same area of the cave. partial circles, abstract designs that On this and subsequent trips, other incorporate circles in some way, or classic pictographs were found in other parts of Mississippian cross-in-circles. The other the cave. The cave floor sediments were two images are a pair of abstract lines and also examined for evidence of prehistoric a remarkable human depiction that we will occupation, along with numerous river discuss shortly. cane torch fragments scattered throughout Nineteen individual glyphs are sets of the cave passages. Two initial 14C dates concentric circles. Some images have only from cane charcoal (Figure 6) show that two circles, some have three nested the cave was visited at least during the together (Figure 7), and one complex Late Woodland and Mississippian periods. image has four overlapping circles of Based on our initial observations, we diminishing size (Figure 8). As is evident applied for and were granted a state permit from the photographs, concentric circles for archaeological work in the cave. After are produced using two techniques. Some four 2005 survey visits to 44th Unnamed images are pictographs drawn in black Cave, we had recorded, mapped, and pigment, (Figure 9). Others are documented a total of thirty individual petroglyphs engraved into the limestone of

205 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 8. Petroglyph composed of four FIGURE 9. Black pictograph composed of three concentric circles from 44th Unnamed Cave. concentric circles from 44th Unnamed Cave.

FIGURE 10. Schematic drawing of 44th Unnamed Cave’s Panel 3, a composition of 17 concentric circle motifs, both pictographs and petroglyphs, enclosed within a black painted arch (after Simek et al. 2012). the cave wall. In at least one case, both lines include two up to six circle glyphs production techniques are used in a single each, and they are spaced about one glyph, demonstrating that both methods quarter meter apart. A black arc encloses were used at the same time. In the main the circles from above, forming what we glyph gallery of the cave, seventeen of the call Panel 3 (Figure 10). circle glyphs are disposed in a single array Circle motifs are common during the with four vertical lines of images. These Mississippian period, but they are not

206 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 11. Amy Wallace examining two rayed circle pictographs in 44th Unnamed Cave. Arrow at top of photograph indicates location of “1847” date scratched over the pictograph panel. chronologically diagnostic in and of are clearly visible in this light. Figure 13 themselves, because they can be found in shows the right-hand image. This glyph art from a variety of prehistoric periods has a “tail” on the outer denticulated circle early and late. There are, however, some and a swastika cross in the center. circles in 44th Unnamed Cave that do have The denticulate cross motif is found chronological referents (Figure 11). Two of frequently in Mississippian archaeological these are the pictographs originally contexts (e.g., Figure 14). It is discovered by Douglas and his group in characteristic of a Mississippian-period January 2005. Both are located on our gorget style referred to as the “Cox Style” Panel 2. They comprise concentric circle by Brain and Philips, where it is combined images with denticulate exterior rings and with woodpeckers into a complex design crosses of different forms inside the inner (Brain and Phillips 1996). The Cox Mound, rings. Also note the “1847” date, indicated itself, is in Jackson County Alabama just by an arrow on Figure 11, scratched over south of the Tennessee state line, but the the black glyphs. Figure 12 shows the left- gorget style has two main concentrations. hand glyph under red light for clarity. The One is along the main Tennessee River in denticulations of the outer circle and a north Alabama and south Tennessee and straight-line cross inside the central circle the other is in northern Tennessee along

207 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 12. The leftmost black rayed circle FIGURE 13. The rightmost black rayed circle th from 44 Unnamed Cave shown in Figure 11. from 44th Unnamed Cave shown in Figure 11. A straight-line cross fills the center circle of A swastika fills the center circle of the motif. the motif. There are nine ray points around the There are eight ray points around the circumference. circumference. Note that one ray is much longer than the other seven. Unnamed Cave. The last image we present is quite distinctive (Figure 15). It is an anthropomorph in a horizontal or reclining posture, clearly male, with well-defined arms and legs. Three fingers appear on the lower arm. The lower appendages (legs) thicken towards the feet, and those feet have claws, suggesting an animal element to the creature’s makeup. The stippled head of this image is quite unusual. There is an axe or calumet above the head and a curving line extending out from the upper part of the head. The trunk below the arms is well defined and filled with pigment. The anthropomorph’s waist and upper legs are covered with an hour-glass shaped garment, a kilt perhaps, which has several FIGURE 14. Cox style shell gorget reportedly lines suggesting folds or decoration, but from Mississippi (Holmes 1883). does not conceal the individual’s phallus. the Cumberland River (Brain and Phillips This image makes a great deal of sense in 1996:11). 44th Unnamed Cave lies almost Mississippian iconography. Warriors, a at the center of this second concentration. common and important element in Wherever it is found, the presence of these Mississippian art, are often shown with denticulate cross images is strong elaborate head decoration, including evidence for a Mississippian origin and weapons, like the bi-lobed arrow on one of accords well with the later of our two the famous Rogan plates from Etowah in radiocarbon age determinations from 44th Georgia (King 2004:150-157). Curling hair

208 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 15. Photograph (top) and sketch (bottom) of reclining black anthropomorph figure from 44th Unnamed Cave (after Simek et al. 2012). locks are also common aspects of the 2010, bats inside the cave were diagnosed warrior’s regalia. The 44th Unnamed Cave with white-nosed syndrome, and the cave anthropomorph is quite comprehensible as was closed to visitation to protect the a depiction of a Mississippian warrior, and animals from further infection. In 2015, the this fits quite well chronologically with the cave was reopened to visitors, and Park denticulate circles discussed earlier. rangers today offer public tours that include A note from 2017: 44th Unnamed Cave viewing of the ancient pictographs. Since is in Dunbar Cave State Natural Area, our 2006 CRITA presentation, we have managed by the Tennessee State Parks in twice published articles about the art in 44th Clarksville, Tennessee. After discovery of Unnamed Cave (Simek, Douglas and the prehistoric art in the cave, a new bat Wallace 2007; Simek et al. 2012); the friendly gate was built to protect the site, second of these citations also discusses and the cave became the first prehistoric the archaeology of the site and details of art cave in the Eastern Woodlands to be occupation chronology. shown and interpreted for the public. In

209 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 16. Petroglyph panel from 45th Unnamed Cave, showing the coating of damp mud that obscures parts of the imagery. 45th Unnamed Cave seen. At least three turkeys are present (e.g., Figure 17) drawn in a fashion 45th Unnamed Cave is a small identical to some we have seen in other seemingly insignificant cave identified as a southeastern cave art sites (Simek and prehistoric art site in July 2005 during the Cressler 2015). Note especially the three University of Tennessee’s pro bono toes that signify a turkey. There are two archaeological inventory survey of Fall quadrupeds (e.g., Figure 18) with strange Creek Fall State Park. Almost certainly, the head appendages unlike any known cave has seen frequent, long-term animal. There is one serpent effigy, difficult recreational use, as it is in an area of great to see in a photograph, so we show it here interest to cavers. The cavern has a narrow only as a sketched rendering. These six entry passage into an open dark zone glyphs are associated in a single panel chamber containing a few petroglyphs, and (Figure 19) on one side of the main a more extensive maze area deeper into chamber; they are near a speleothem the karst system. The area containing the feature that relates to a small active water petroglyphs is damp, and the walls bear a flow. A seventh petroglyph (Figure 20) is coating of moist clay, making the finely isolated on the chamber wall on the other incised lines composing the glyphs difficult side of the flowstone embankment from the to decipher (Figure 16). panel. This is an effigy in the form of a Still, representational images can be human figure.

210 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 17. Turkey petroglyph from 45th Unnamed Cave. Note the three-toed feet. 0

FIGURE 18. Quadruped petroglyph from 45th Unnamed Cave. Note the multiple shapes used to depict the animal’s head.

211 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 19. Sketch of petroglyph Panel 1 from 45th Unnamed Cave. Three turkeys, a serpent, and two quadrupeds can be identified.

FIGURE 20. Sketch of petroglyph Panel 2 from 45th Unnamed Cave showing the single anthropomorph figure composing the panel.

212 Cave Art Sites 2005

As is the case for 43rd Unnamed Cave, This modification, along with the saltpeter there is no certain evidence for the mining, probably explains the lack of cane prehistoric age of the 45th Unnamed Cave torch materials evident on the floor of the petroglyphs. Still, because of the way that dark zone passageways. some of the images are drawn, especially A single charcoal pictograph was the turkeys, we are confident that at least discovered in 46th Unnamed Cave during a some of the engravings are prehistoric in visit by Annie Blankenship, Joe Douglas, age. The depictions of quadrupeds are and Kristen Bobo to inspect the cave walls distinctive; perhaps counter-intuitively, on behalf of the UT Cave Archaeology terrestrial mammals are rarely drawn in Research Team. The image is of a turkey rock art in the southeastern region, with an oval body and extended neck whether in or outside of caves. This (Figure 21). As can be seen from the contrasts with regions further north, where photograph, the charcoal is covered by a mammals like deer, bear, bison, and thin, clear layer of flowstone, protecting the moose are commonly depicted both as image and indicating its antiquity. While pictographs and petroglyphs. But we do again we have no direct chronological see quadrupeds in caves from time to time, information about the glyph, the way the especially canids or dogs (Simek and bird is rendered, with a fan-shaped tail Cressler 2008). There are a few other showing sagittal segments, is identical to examples in our region, in 10th Unnamed numerous prehistoric examples from other Cave in Tennessee not far from Fall Creek caves. On a nearby breakdown boulder, a Falls and in 19th Unnamed Cave in small cup mortar resembles those from Alabama. other art caves, including 12th Unnamed Cave, which shares the turkey motif 46th Unnamed Cave (Simek and Cressler 2015).

46th Unnamed Cave is in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and cave art was discovered there during a July 2005 survey of park cultural resources carried out by a University of Tennessee summer field school in archaeology directed by Boyce Driskell. The cave itself has been known for many years. It was mined for cave minerals during the 19th century, and the walls of the cave mouth are covered with graffiti and signatures. A small saltpeter works was present in the cave, witnessed by remnant leeching vats, although the chronology of those activities is currently unknown. At one time, the cave was open to the public (the National Park Service has closed it now), and the floor was leveled to allow easy access to the interior pools, FIGURE 21. Photograph (top) and sketch (bottom) gours (rimstone dams), and flowstone th formations, all of which are quite beautiful. of a black turkey pictograph from 46 Unnamed Cave.

213 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 22. Panel of deeply incised (pecked?) petroglyphs from 47th Unnamed Cave. 47th Unnamed Cave extremely hard travertine surface at the base of the cave wall (Figure 22). The left th We became aware of 47 Unnamed side of the group begins with a remarkable Cave, the last cave we will discuss here, anthropomorph (Figure 23). This image when Annette and Ken Oeser contacted has a head composed of concentric circles Simek in late 2005 about a series of and an upper body drawn with multiple petroglyphs they had seen in a shallow, parallel lines. The figure’s arm is extended twilight cave west of Nashville. Ken and to terminate in a fine, four-fingered hand. Annette were familiar with cave art in As can be seen on the accompanying Tennessee, having also discovered 38th photograph, there are two areas of colored Unnamed Cave, which contains an pigment associated with this human image. important group of prehistoric engravings Neither of these, however, renders a shape in association with a mortuary site. What that would suggest an earlier, unrelated was particularly interesting in 47th pictograph production episode. The head Unnamed Cave was Annette’s observation of the anthropomorph was obviously cut that several petroglyphs were incised into through an area of red pigment. The areas of pigment staining, suggesting that amazing hand (reminiscent of “ET”) was there might be two episodes of art cut through black pigment. The red production, with pictographs preceding pigment must be mineral, but the black petroglyphs. coloration was worrisome, as it appeared The UTK CART visited 47th Unnamed at first glance to resemble bat guano. If it is Cave in December 2005. We found a fine guano, it cannot be very old, and nor can panel of petroglyphs deeply engraved, be the hand incised over it. The other

hammered, and/or pecked into an glyphs on the panel (Figure 24) are

214 Cave Art Sites 2005

FIGURE 23. Anthropomorph petroglyph from 47th Unnamed Cave. Note that red paint was applied to the wall in the area of the head and black pigment was applied at the hand before the petroglyph was incised through the coloring. complex geometric shapes and lines, We note that the owner of the site has some rather eroded, that were also made told Annette and Ken Oeser that burials by sculpting deep, rounded grooves like for were rumored to have been found in the the leftmost anthropomorphic image. cave, and indeed, there is a large pothole To test whether the pigments excavation at the base of the wall underlying the petroglyphs were mineral or containing the petroglyphs. However, we organic (e.g., guano) we tried to take small saw no evidence of human bone in the scrape samples from both the black and cave, and the only artifacts found by red areas under the anthropomorphic searching the floor surfaces were fire- petroglyphs. We were unable to do so. cracked river cobbles. Stylistically and During the attempted sampling, we broke contextually, these petroglyphs could be two surgical steel scalpel blades trying to quite old, but we have no solid remove a single grain of both the red and chronological information to support this the black pigments. It was clear that the assertion. pigments are embedded in an old and cemented flowstone and that a great deal Concluding Remarks of time and energy was required to produce the glyph panel. Given the texture These five new caves discovered in and context, therefore, the black color is 2005 are important additions to the likely not guano. We don’t know how old assemblage of southeastern cave art sites the images are, but it seems very probable for several reasons. First, it is clear that we that they are prehistoric. are only beginning to find the sites that are

215 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

FIGURE 24. Complex filled geometric petroglyphs incised into the wall of 47th Unnamed Cave. The leftmost image is of a partitioned semi-circle filled with horizontal line segments. The rightmost image is a set of three concentric figure “8” forms.

out there and that discovery of cave art is public visitation on a large scale could be

a function of looking for it. This means that encouraged, with possibilities for we must inspect all caves routinely as part significant educational interpretation of of cultural resource management projects native Tennessee cultures in the presence or we risk destroying this spectacular and of actual prehistoric cave art. This would unique aspect of Tennessee’s certainly give needed visibility to the archaeological record. It also means that Tennessee State Park system and would one day, we might have a rich and varied have significant economic development catalog of maybe hundreds of cave art implications for the community where the sites, a problem I suspect we could deal site is located. In sum, 2005 is an exciting with were it to develop. (We note that in time to be searching for prehistoric cave art 2017, we have more than 80 cave art sites sites in Tennessee, and our job has only cataloged for the Southeast US). Second, just begun. two of the sites, 44th and 47th Unnamed Caves, are the westernmost examples of Acknowledgements. We are especially grateful to these prehistoric art caves in Tennessee. the owners of these Tennessee rock art sites, who have welcomed us and our work and have sought Thus, the geographic range of these sites so diligently to protect the heritage resources on is expanding. Third, four of the sites are their properties. We acknowledge the support of under public ownership, ensuring a greater Tennessee State Parks, The University of level of protection than usual for these Tennessee, the UT College of Arts and Sciences, sites. At least one of the public caves, 44th and the UT Office of Research. Mike Moore and the Tennessee Division of Archaeology have facilitated Unnamed Cave, is in a context where

216 Cave Art Sites 2005 our work on state properties. We gratefully Archaeology of Dunbar Cave, acknowledge funding support to the senior author (40MT43), Montgomery County, from The National Science Foundation, The Tennessee. Journal of Cave and Karst Wenner-Gren Foundation and The Noyes Family Studies 74(1):19-32. Foundation.

Simek, J. F., and A. Cressler References 2008 Why Caves should not be "Cleaned".

NSS News 66(11):8-11. Barr, T. 2015 Tracings in the Idleness of Art: Picture 1961 Caves of Tennessee. Tennessee Cave in the Context of Southeast Division of Geology, Nashville, TN. Prehistoric Cave Art. In Picture Cave:

Unraveling the Mysteries of the Brain, J. P., and P. Phillips Mississippian Cosmos, edited by C. 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Diaz-Granados, J. R. Duncan and F. Prehistoric and Protohistoric K. Reilly, pp. 9-27. University of Texas Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Press, Austin, TX. Cambridge, MA.

Simek, J. F., A. Cressler, S. C. Sherwood, K. Crothers, G. M. Bobo, S. M. Bow, J. Douglas, B. 1987 An Archaeological Survey of Big Bone Lawrence, and J. Reynolds Cave, Tennessee and Diachronic 2017 New Tennessee Cave and Rock Art Patterns of Cave Utilization in the Research 2015. Tennessee Eastern Woodlands. University of Archaeology 9(1):58-76. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Simek, J. F., J. C. Douglas, and A. Wallace Guilday, J. E., and H. McGinnis 2007 Ancient Cave Art at Dunbar Cave 1972 Jaguar (Panthera Onca) Remains State Natural Area. Tennessee from Big Bone Cave, Tennessee and Conservationist 23(5):24-26. East Central North America. Bulletin of

the National Speleological Society Smith, M. O. 34(1):1-14. 1985 Notes on the Early History of Big Bone

Cave. Speleonews 29(2):44-48. Holmes, W. H. 1987 Civil War Saltpeter Mining Near 1883 Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans. McMinnville. Speleonews 31(3):39-51. 2nd Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 175-305. Jan F. Simek Department of Anthropology King, A. University of Tennessee 2004 Power and the Sacred: Mound C and Knoxville, TN 37996-0720 the Etowah Chiefdom. In Hero, Hawk [email protected] and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, Stuart Carroll edited by R. F. Townsend, pp. 150- Tennessee Department of Environment and 165. The Art Institute of Chicago and Conservation Yale University Press, New Haven, Fall Creek Falls State Park, Tennessee CT. Alan Cressler Atlanta, Georgia Simek, J. F., S. A. Blankenship, A. Cressler, J. C. Douglas, A. Wallace, D. Ken Oeser Weinand, and H. Welborn Hendersonville, Tennessee 2012 The Prehistoric Cave Art and

217 Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018

Annette Oeser Hendersonville, Tennessee

Joseph C. Douglas Volunteer State Community College Gallatin, Tennessee

Amy Wallace Clarksville, Tennessee

218