THE POST-ARCHAIC OCCUPATION OF CENTRAL SOUTH CAROLINA Stuart, George Edwin ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; 1975; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global pg. n/a INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the origin.al submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may app·ear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may hav~ moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if es..sential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. } :t 75-29,083 i STUART, Geo.rge Edwin, 1935- THE POST-ARCHAIC OCCUPATION OF CENTRAL -~' SOUTH CAROLINA. f :j The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ph.D., 1975 ~.j' Antnropo l_ogy -~ ,f ·l J f Xerox University Microfilms Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 if I s - • • r - • • •. -.;··-, - • • i ·, ·, - • -. -- ... -. - .. - . ' - -. - -. ·- --- - 1 © 1975 GEORGE EDWIN STUART ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE POST-ARCHAIC OCOOPATION OF CENTRAL SOUTH CAROLINA by George E. Stuart A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology. Chapel Hill · 1975 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GEORGE.EDWIN STU.ART. The Post-Archaic Occupation of Central South Carolina (Under the direction of Joffre Lanning Coe.) Archeological research in the area covered by the present state of South Carolina has lag~ed far behind that of neighboring· areas of the North American Southeast, despite a p:r:ecocious beginning in the nineteenth century. The present study is concerned with an archeological locality in that state, one that embraces some 20 miles of the Middle ·wateree Val- ley near .the town of Camden. The basis of the study consists of sur- face collections from nine sites, the analysis of which is largely· typological and comparative, utilizing well-documented stratigraphic assemblages from the Savannah Locality on the Georgia-South Carolina border and the Uwharrie Locality of the North Carolina Piedmont. The chronological framew:ork developed for this analysis employs five major divisions: Early Prehistoric (10,000-2000 B. C. ), Middle Prehistoric (2000 B. c.-A. D. iooo), Late Prehistor~c (A. D. 1000-1400), Proto­ historic (1400-1650), and Historic (1650-1715). The treatment is broadly anthropological in nature since its ultimate concern is cul:- ture, and it draw~ not only upon archeological data, but those of his­ tory and ethnohistory as well. Scant evidence relate,d to the Early Prehistoric period--noted.as a preamble to the main scope of the present study--is suggestive of the initial habitation of the Middle Wateree Valley Locality by part of the sparse. ·but widespread population of big game hunters that character- ized tlie eastern North America of late Pleistocene times. The distri- bution of remains pertaining to the interv3.l between 8000 and 2000 B. c. indicates an increasing population living mainly in upland sites who ex- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ploited a variety.of localized natural food resources. Indirect evidence shows that pottery making may have begun in the locality around 1000 B. C., but its importance in terms of human culture here is not yet known. Sub.sistence patterns -of the span of the Middle Prehistoric period are clouded as well. Deposits at the Horatio site point to intensive exploitation of fresh ~ater mussels during one horizon·, while. widespread occurrences of Deptford pottery may cor~elate' with a gradual shift to upland and valley farming. The ceramic sample from the Guernsey site suggests that. valley technolog- ical and subsistence traditions were rooted in Deptford culture--and perhaps earlier Woodland traditions of the north·-and reached their culmination here, but occupation of the Guernsey site appears to .have · ende_d abruptly around A. D.• 1400. At that time, newcomers--probably Muskogean in affiliation, and from the south--apparently moved into the Middle Wateree Valley Loca1~· ity, displacing the resident population and settling on virgin lands on the alluvial plain. Such locations as the five sites that are known· ·served as.settings for large-scale agricultural activity that formed the core of t~e basic Protohistoric cultural pattern. ·Platform mounds were . eventually constructed at these sites, many.of which also reflect a strong concern for defense. Around A. D. 1650, some or all of this population of valley .farmers departed, to be replaced by the Siouan-affiliated .Wateree of the His- toric period. This group, possessing a culture. identical in subsis- tence pursuits and similar in technological and artistic output, con- fined their occupation of the valley to some of the si~es abandoned . ,, •; ,":. by the earlier invaders of the locality. Some mounds and defensive Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. works may be attributable to them. The departure of the Wateree from the area in 1715 marked the end of aborigin~l occupation of the Mid­ dle Wateree Valley Locality. The. culture history of this South Caroiina locality appears to 0 reflect quite well the m~jor culture trends of the prehistory of '·r· eastern North America, one notable exception being·the lack of e~i­ dence that its peoples ever parti<?ipated in the widespread trade of exotic goods that accompanied the Hopewell manifestation centered in the Ohio Valley. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The debts of time, patience, and advice that come w:i.th the com­ pletion of the present study are numerous and extend over many years. My first and deepest thanks go to my wife Gene and our children for their patience through the years in which I have had to combine gradu­ ate studies, family life, and professional pursuits. A large measure bf appreciation goes also to Dr. Melvin M. Payne, President of the National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., for. his unflagging encouragement .in this endeavor. I am profoundly indebted to Norman M. Fohl of Camden, South Carolina, who early helped inspire me to pursue.a career in archeo­ logy, and whose extensive knowledge of local history contributed so much to what follows below. For full cooperation in allowing me to view private collections of archeological material pertinent to this study, I also thank Mrs. Jen C. Little and Mrs. J. Hubert Reese, both of Camden, and now deceased. To Robert LeFaye, Jr., Director of the South Carolina Indian Museum, Santee, South Carolina, my thanks go for permission to photograph and draw artifacts in that museum's collection. To Robert L. Stephenson, Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina, and to his staff, I express appreciation for their cooperation in making the ·files of the Institute available to me. For unpublished data related to the ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. McDowell site, I am indebted to A, R. Kelly and the late Joseph R. Caldwell of the University of Georgia at Athens. To Joffre Lanning Coe, Professor of Anthropology at the Univer­ sity of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, I am grateful for the time spent in helping me understand the North Carolina archeological mater­ ial. To him as well I acknowledge an ·immeasurable debt for the basic fundamentals of archeology--so often neglected in graduate