Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E A R LY G E O R G I A
Copyright © 2001 by the Society for Georgia Archaeology. All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
page
Editor’s Introduction
Early Georgia:
A New Look for a New Millennium
Adam King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements
Charlotte A. Smith and Jennifer Freer Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
What is Archaeology?
How Exploring the Past Enriches the Present
Jennifer Freer Harris and Charlotte A. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Dispelling a Not-So-Harmless Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
What is Anthropology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Site Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Ways of Looking at the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Writing: The Difference between History and Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Editor’s Introduction
As I begin my tenure as editor of Early Georgia, I will be subjected to a formal review by selected
take on a journal that has a long and distinguished peers from the broader archaeological community.
history and has a wide readership that reaches far Submitting authors may suggest appropriate
beyond the borders of Georgia. While Early reviewers, but the Editor will not be bound by
Georgia is healthy and well supported by the mem- those suggestions. The Editor will take into
bership of the Society for Georgia Archaeology, account the comments of peer reviewers, but will
there is still the need to encourage greater submis- make the final decision regarding manuscripts. The
sion rates and increase subscriptions. The Society’s creation of the Peer Reviewed Article category is
Board of Directors and I have devised a strategy designed to encourage graduate students and pro-
that we hope will take Early Georgia toward those fessionals, who are concerned with building publi-
goals, and it involves some changes to the appear- cation records, to consider Early Georgia as a publi-
ance of the journal, as well as to its content. cation outlet for their manuscripts.
Regular Early Georgia readers will surely notice It is important to note that all articles submitted
that this issue looks different from previous issues. to Early Georgia do not have to go through the peer
True, it is a Special Issue, so its content is slightly review process. That choice is left to the submit-
different from the normal research articles. Most of ting authors. Manuscripts that do not go through
the basic formatting in this issue, however, will the peer review process will be reviewed in a less
remain the same for all future issues. These changes formal way. Choosing to forego a peer review in no
were instituted to update the appearance of the way diminishes the quality of scholarship repre-
journal, as well as make it more graphic friendly sented by an article or the importance of the infor-
and easier to read. mation it contains. The peer review process is sim-
In terms of content, Early Georgia, as a policy, ply a more formal review process that allows pro-
will now accept manuscripts dealing with the fessionals to advance their careers through publish-
archaeology of adjoining states. Such papers have ing in Early Georgia.
not been excluded in the past, but this policy Let me make it clear in no uncertain terms that
change makes it more explicit that Early Georgia the basic philosophy and content of Early Georgia
will accept material from the broader region when will not change. The journal is still dedicated to
it has a bearing on understanding the history and publishing information that is important to
prehistory of Georgia. Acceptance of such papers Georgia’s archaeological community. More than
will be at the discretion of the Editor. ever, the journal is committed to providing a pub-
Another slight change that will affect content is lication outlet for both professional and avocation-
the creation of a new category of paper to be pub- al members of our community. I cannot encourage
lished in Early Georgia. These will be called the avocational members strongly enough to submit
Peer Reviewed Articles, and, as the name suggests, material for publication. What you learn from the
6 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
study of Georgia’s past is every bit as important as the opinions of the Society for Georgia Archaeolo-
the research done by other members of the Society gy. As Editor, I recognize, as I hope all concerned
for Georgia Archaeology. By keeping it from the with the archaeological record of Georgia will as
pages of Early Georgia, you deny others the chance well, that this issue begins a conversation that is
to learn from you. absolutely essential to the future of Georgia
As the first issue of Early Georgia to be published archaeology. The guest editors and I hope this issue
under my editorship, I am pleased to offer this will serve as an important source of information for
Special Issue Resources at Risk: Defending Georgia’s Society of Georgia Archaeology members as well as
Hidden Heritage, which has been guest-edited by concerned citizens, politicians, and planners as we
Charlotte A. Smith and Jennifer Freer Harris. As all look to the future.
with all scholarly publications, the opinions —Adam King
expressed in this issue do not necessarily represent
• 7
Acknowledgements
We are honored that Early Georgia’s new editor, gestation period. We owe considerable thanks to
Adam King, consented to let us assemble Resources many members of SGA, especially Paul
at Risk: Defending Georgia’s Hidden Heritage, the Brockington, Daniel T. Elliott, James B. Langford,
first issue of the Society for Georgia Archaeology’s Stephen A. Kowalewski, John R. (Chip) Morgan,
newly redesigned journal. Early Georgia has a long Thomas Pluckhahn, Keith Stephenson, Christine
and honorable history, and we hope that this issue Van Voorhies, Dean Wood, and Karen G. Wood.
augments it. We very much appreciate Adam’s sage For assistance and information, we thank Mark
advice and erudite assistance, which we found Williams and Byron J. (Bud) Freeman. We appre-
immeasurably helpful as we brought this issue from ciate the assistance we received from personnel at
idea to reality. the Archaeological Services Unit of HPD. We also
Archaeological conservationists can find poten- thank those who helped us and wish to remain
tial partners for their preservation efforts in many anonymous.
places, and sometimes we don’t have to look very For long discussions and excellent suggestions,
hard to find them. We found Allison Smiley, at we extend special thanks to Bill Jurgelski, Maureen
Sprawlwatch in Washington, DC, a particularly Meyers, Carol H. Montgomery, and Gordon R.
helpful collaborator. We thank her for her speedy Smith.
replies as we searched for the resources we needed. We appreciate, especially, this opportunity to
We would like to thank the contributors to this investigate and explicate on a topic we are impas-
volume, Rita Folse Elliott, Scott Jones, Elizabeth sioned about—saving the precious, mind-expand-
Shirk, and Allen Vegotsky. Their involvement ing information that our Southeastern forebearers
strengthened and enhanced this issue tremendous- have left for all of us in the soil. We look forward
ly. to continuing this discussion, and labor of love, for
We have only been able to bring the diverse top- many years.
ics and data presented in this issue together Finally, we thank our spouses, JC Burns and Guy
because of recent and long-ago dialogues with Harris for their love, encouragement, patience, and
many colleagues and friends. This kind of intro- understanding as we labored to produce this issue.
spective discussion is only possible after a lengthy —Charlotte A. Smith and Jennifer Freer Harris
• 9
by Charlotte A. Smith
It was the first day of field school, the summer of my First, I learned that even though the hoe was an
sophomore year in college. I enrolled because I thought isolated artifact, it still provided important informa-
the class would be interesting, but also because I was tion to archaeologists. We found no other artifacts
fascinated by archaeology and wanted to be outdoors. along with that clunky stone tool; given the excel-
The instructor, a graduate student, lined the dozen lent surface visibility, we felt we would have found
or so of the profession’s latest novices up along one edge something else if it had been there. Then, too, it
of an unplanted, plowed field, having instructed us in was possible that over the years others had collect-
the time-honored technique for scanning the ground ed artifacts from that field, leaving the hoe behind.
surface for artifacts. “When you find something,” he We also couldn’t know, even by comparison to
said, “give a yell!” The rich, dark soil of this field had extensive collections in the university’s museum,
no pebbles or stones, and the surface had a nice skin how old the hoe was. We could only assume that it
from being pelted by raindrops and baked in the sun. had been made and used sometime during late pre-
When I spotted a rock, I just knew it had to be an arti- history, when the people who lived in the area
fact. My instincts had not mislead me! maintained fields and cultivated various crops.
The instructor told the circled class that I had found Ironically, the hoe was found in a research plot used
a hoe made of argillite. The rock’s surface was soft and by a major agricultural university; clearly agricultur-
decomposing from its exposure to the elements, but I al production was still important locally!
had found an object that had been shaped and used I now understand how important such finds are.
hundreds of years before. Even though I’d found a single artifact, it helped
It was the first artifact I’d ever found, and my heart illuminate archaeology’s big picture of who did
pounded! what, where, when, and what it all means. That
Since this was a field school, we learned the next les- hoe filled in a little corner of the picture of late
son of formal archaeological procedures: we filled out a prehistory, and helped me see that knowing about
site form for the state’s master file. It included a map one tool wouldn’t be enough for me. After I found
marked where I found the hoe, a description of the arti- that hoe, I wanted to see how it fit into our under-
fact, and noted where it would be stored, so if any standing of agricultural practices, of settled village
future researcher wanted to examine it, she or he would life, and of the long thread of prehistory.
know where to find it. Later, that hoe became a symbol for me of the
———— transition between what I had thought archaeolo-
gy was before I found it, and what I later came to
The hoe I’d spotted in that southern Michigan
understand the field of archaeology encompasses.
field became an important lesson to me, and
This realization, however, only came after consid-
marked a transition toward a greater understanding
erable study and long-term employment in the pro-
of a very complex field of study.
fession. For a while, I thought of that difference as
10 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
• The transformation of Georgia’s Archaeology to archaeological site conservation and have lobbied
Awareness Week into a month-long celebration strongly and successfully for legislation to preserve
provides a high-visibility place for professionals, and protect material evidence of the past. Although
avocational archaeologists, and the general public legislation has partially controlled site destruction
to come together to learn from each other. resulting from land development and resource
This is not a complete list of recent successes in extraction activities, public support for continued
archaeological preservation in Georgia, but each conservation activities remains essential. A healthy
represents a major victory achieved through the appreciation for archaeological heritage also serves
efforts of committed amateurs and professionals. to deter site vandalism and looting. (1999:400)
Consider, though, that given the current situa- Although Pokotylo and Guppy focus on problems
tion in Georgia—a burgeoning population that is facing archaeological preservation in Canada, the
driving extensive land use changes—are these tri- above observations can apply equally to conserva-
umphs enough as we enter a new millennium? tion of Georgia’s archaeological resources.
What is Archaeology?
How Exploring the Past Enriches the Present
Archaeology is the single most powerful tool to Etowah or Ocmulgee. Still others think “archaeol-
know, understand, and explain the entire human ogy” when they gaze at “treasures” in museum dis-
saga—from our earliest ancestors to modern socie- plays. Actually, none of these truly represents the
ty. Thus, archaeology can and does make substan- archaeologist’s archaeology.
tial contributions to modern life. Archaeology has While archaeologists are excited by, interested
evolved from the glorified treasure hunting of its in, and curious about artifacts and ancient con-
early days to be a sophisticated social science, with structions, archaeologists seek to understand the
far-reaching explanations of human behavior. Con- interplay of life, of society, of daily chores, of spe-
sequently, when professional archaeologists, like cial rituals, of social and political power, and of
ourselves, discuss the profession with the general why a community or region was abandoned or set-
public, as we attempt in this article, there is some tled. In this article, we ask you to stop and reflect
value to covering the entire discipline, with its on the accuracy of the images and ideas you hold
inherent complexities. about what archaeology is. Does an archaeologist
Substantial amounts of archaeological research view the discipline differently?
are conducted with public support and funding,
although, in general, members of the public remain Archaeology is the Study of…
unfamiliar with the process and goals of archaeolo- Many archaeologists begin a discussion like this
gy. Yet, to effectively manage and preserve with a definition: archaeology is the study of the mate-
America’s archaeological resources, public involve- rial remains of our human past. While that defines
ment is critical. To address misconceptions and to the term, it does not fully capture the magnitude of
underscore the complexities of archaeology, this archaeological inquiry. Today’s archaeologists can
article seeks to provide a definition what archaeol- be very sophisticated in both the questions they ask
ogy is that is accessible to non-archaeologists. of material remains and the answers they generate
when they interpret that evidence. In this essay, we
What Do You Think Archaeology Is? dismantle that textbook definition and discuss it
When you hear the word archaeology certain one part at a time. We hope this clarifies the defi-
images probably come to mind. Some people think nition of “archaeology,” and gives insights into the
artifacts are archaeology, and that the homes and underlying concepts of archaeology, including its
offices of archaeologists must be strewn with arrow- methods and theories.
head collections and the like. Others think “this is As an academic discipline, archaeology has an
archaeology” when they stand atop a mound at interesting history. To some scholars, it developed
Harris and Smith co-direct Archæofacts (http://www.archaeofacts.com), a small, Atlanta-based research group
specializing in archaeological research and education. They have worked in Georgia archaeology since the 1980s.
16 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
from geology, while to others archaeology is an out- part of anthropology. Indeed, at the annual meet-
growth of other disciplines, including anthropolo- ing of the Society for American Archaeology in
gy, history, or geography. Still others have argued April 2001, over 100 archaeologists gathered for an
that archaeology stands alone as its own academic afternoon to debate this issue in an open forum.
discipline. Humans and their society, whether it is the pres-
Each archaeologist views the profession with his ent-day relationship between Kurds and the Iraqi
or her own theoretical assumptions, often implicit. government or between the Incas and their envi-
Here is one of ours: archaeology and archaeological ronment 2000 years ago, are within the realm of
theory are part of anthropology. While specific ques- anthropological study. Anthropologists examine
tions about cultural chronology and detailed human behavior in all its contexts: geographic and
reconstructions of the past are within the realm of environmental, societal, political, economic, and
archaeological method, the archaeologist’s overar- cognitive or cultural. Archaeologists track and
ching objective is to define and understand wider explain change in all of these spheres, at multiple
cultural processes. Generating those explanatory levels or scales, and over sometimes lengthy peri-
models of human behavior is part of anthropology. ods of time. Thus, archaeology is a tool for con-
Not all archaeologists agree that archaeology is a ducting anthropological research into past soci-
• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 17
How Do Archaeologists Collect Data? they were made, used, and discarded, to try to
understand how people lived, loved, and died in
Archaeologists examine a huge range of materi- the past. Archaeologists obtain these material
al remains, coupled with interpretations of how remains basically using two methods: excavation
20 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
archaeological
material remains method
specific object
location
decreasing
features
trash pit,
excavation
in profile
locale
house
set of
locales village
spatial scale
regional survey
group of
area communities
village hamlet
village hamlet
hamlet
hamlet village village
hamlet hamlet
political village village village hamlet
region village hamlet
hamlet village village town hamlet
region
village
town CITY village village large–scale comparative analysis
village
village hamlet hamlet
hamlet hamlet
village
village
increasing
continent
macro-
region
global
Figure 1. Space and scale in archaeology. Human activities occur different-sized spaces and at different scales.
Archaeologists use methods carefully tailored to understanding human behavior at various scales. Shown here are
scales that range from the individual artifact to the global. This is but one example of the ways in which archaeo-
logical method and theory intersect with the physical remains of a culture. Please note: the schema above is not
meant to outline a universal trajectory for all cultures, or that all societies develop along the same evolutionary path.
• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 21
e ologic time
G
ric im
Hi
A
After
A moment
in time
Figure 2. Time and scale in archaeology. Although archaeologists understand linear time, they also seek to under-
stand cyclic patterns in human and natural phenomena. At any moment in time, many types of cyclic patterns may
be in play. Most of these are not evident to the people whose lives are enmeshed in those patterns. However, from
a viewpoint distant in time and space, archaeologists seek to identify those kinds of patterns. This figure shows three
units of time, differing in scale and rate of change. These are just three of perhaps infinite scales that might be used
in archaeological or historical analysis. For more on cyclic patterns when analyzing the past, read Braudel’s On
History (1980). The three cyclic patterns in this figure do not correspond exactly to Braudel’s three cycles of change.
Geologic time. This is a long-term cycle reflecting environmental and climatic shifts, and changes in human adap-
tation that span millennia. Although we live enmeshed in geological time, we tend to be unaware of these slow
changes in our daily lives. Only when they hear of studies of greenhouse warming, for example, do most people real-
ize how change on the geologic scale affects their own lives.
Historic time. These patterns reflect changes in social, economic, or political systems—the rise of capitalism or
the Renaissance, for example. Individuals are peripherally cognizant of these changes and their impact on our lives.
We know that “society was different during the 1800s,” for example.
Human time. This scale denotes the daily, annual, or generational changes that we all experience: birth, death,
social interactions, agricultural seasons, and changes in fads or fashions. We fully experience, and are aware of,
human-scale changes during our own lifetimes.
22 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
and survey. Often the two are used in combination, Sometimes survey archaeologists can examine the
which means quite powerful data are generated. ground surface directly for artifacts, for instance, in
Excavations produce information about how a plowed or fallow field, or along a road cut.
objects were used in a household, for instance, or Mostly, an archaeologist must create instead small
the pattern of special activity areas in a communi- “windows” to see what is buried under leaves or
ty (e.g., where trash pits were in a Mississippian vil- grass. To do this, they dig small holes, called shov-
el tests, sift the soil through a fine-mesh
metal screen to collect all artifacts and
examine the shovel test profile for evi-
dence of features. By identifying these
material remains, potentially including
temporally diagnostic objects (ones they
recognize simply by visual inspection were
used at a certain time), and plotting their
locations, archaeologists hope to deter-
mine how many people lived at a site and
when they lived there. This basic informa-
tion is used extensively in settlement pat-
tern studies, and is crucial to understand-
ing broad-scale issues of human cultural
change.
Whether archaeological research
involves doing a survey or conducting
excavation, archaeologists have an ethical
Researchers examine the freshly scraped surface at the base of the plow zone obligation to save all of the artifacts and
for features at the Raccoon Ridge site east of Atlanta. Left to right: Keith documents produced forever. This is
Stephenson, John Worth, Dea Mozingo Kennedy, and Pat LoRusso. known as curation, which is a process
whereby archaeological data are organized
lage). Excavation is a labor-intensive process that sufficiently to insure future scholars have ready
begins with pre-excavation planning, including access to it, and stored in a facility that will insure
developing a research design that draws on previ- their long-term protection (climate-controlled,
ous research to determine what might be found and secure, fire resistant). While curation is not part of
how best to collect that information. After excava- collecting archaeological data, it is an important
tion, there’s also the cleaning and cataloguing of part of preserving those data for future generations.
artifacts, tabulation, sometimes analysis by special- Thus, archaeologists are concerned with detailed
ists (e.g., zooarchaeologists, palynologists, chemi- information about specific locales collected
cal analysis of ceramic composition), as well as the through excavation. But, they are also interested in
big job of producing a report that documents the survey data that shows how people arranged them-
field and laboratory work. Many archaeologists selves across the landscape at any given time (anal-
estimate they must budget at least as many staff- ogous to a census), and how those patterns shifted
hours for laboratory analysis and report writing as through time. Archaeologists are unable to obtain
they do for fieldwork—that’s a lot of time! this information, and it is lost forever, when mod-
Excavation is also expensive because archaeologists ern land use destroys archaeological sites and the
have an ethical obligation to save all of the arti- information they contain before surveys can be
facts recovered and the documentation produced conducted.
(e.g., field notes, maps, analysis forms, databases,
photographs) forever. The Who, What, Where, When and
Survey, or walking across the land systematically Why of Archaeology
looking for evidence of previous human activity, In a recent survey commissioned by the Society
provides a different kind of archaeological data. for American Archaeology (Ramos and Duganne
• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 23
Applying the who, what, when, where, and why questions of archaeology to the Swift
Creek example (for more on Swift Creek, see Bense 1994, and Williams and Elliott 1998).
Archaeologists often use the name of an artifact complex to indicate a cultural group—
the Swift Creek people, for instance. This is a bit of a misnomer, as such a modern name
could never have been used in the past. Also, the people using the style archaeologists
identify as Swift Creek may not have seen themselves as a single, integrated group, as the
term “Swift Creek people” implies. Swift Creek sherd
Archaeological Questions
Methods and Techniques Middle Woodland Swift Creek (0–500 AD) Example
Why, How
Anthropological and archaeological During the Woodland period, which includes Middle Woodland Swift
theories attempt to explain broad pat- Creek peoples, archaeologists find a slow shift from hunting, gathering,
terns of cultural change and continuity. and fishing, to the first attempts at agriculture. During the Woodland
Often these models are derived from period, archaeologists find evidence for an increase in special ceremo-
studies of living peoples from distant nial activities that suggest new political stratagems for leadership.
parts of the globe. These kinds of changes are interpreted using anthropological theories
of sociocultural change (and are beyond the scope of this article).
2000), members of the public were asked what tive, and there is only one opportunity for excava-
came to mind when they heard the word archaeol- tion.
ogy. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents To better understand what archaeologists really
answered “digging” in some form (digging artifacts, do, it may be helpful to outline the discipline’s fun-
digging bones, etc.). If there is any message archae- damental goals. Archaeologists perform a three-
ologists would like to convey to non-archaeolo- tiered investigation of the human past by: 1) estab-
gists, it is that archaeology is more than digging. lishing a timeline or chronology of events; 2)
Excavation, trowels, and artifact recovery are tools reconstructing past lifeways; and, 3) providing
that archaeologists use to systematically compile explanations for patterns of human development
information about past peoples, but they are not (Thomas 1991). These elements build upon each
the final objective. Most archaeologists only exca- other, allowing archaeologists to address a variety
vate if a site is threatened by destruction, and of complex questions about human societies.
before excavation they write a well-developed
Asking When
research design that guides them in obtaining the
maximum information from that excavation. This One key to discussing the past is an understand-
is because by its very nature archaeology is destruc- ing of the sequence of events, in both absolute and
24 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
rise of European capitalism? How do political years of human adaptation, entire social systems,
alliances affect warfare, trade, and power in the and the cultural dynamics of one civilization after
prehistoric Southeast? And how are these large- another. The archaeologist’s power to decipher
scale processes linked to the individual who herd- human behavior stems from the ability to adjust
ed cattle, helped settle tribal disputes, and raised the scale of study to the types of questions asked.
three children in India a thousand years ago?
Coupled with data from excavations, regional Studying the Human Past
survey is best suited to help answer broad questions Archaeologists use time, space and information
about human adaptation because it allows us to gleaned from artifacts, sites, and their contexts to
investigate entire political and social systems over explore the human past. Of course, archaeology is
the span of many hundreds, or even thousands, of not unique in shedding light on past human
years. To better understand these systems, archae- events; history gives us volumes of detailed records
ologists specialize in many different theoretical and spanning centuries. Instead, the essence, the neces-
technical aspects of cultural studies: rise of chief- sity, of archaeology lies in its ability to reveal the
doms and states, regional analysis and settlement entire human record. Accordingly, archaeologists
systems, subsistence studies and ecology, political include both the recent and distant past in their
economy and commerce, along with many others. investigations as, contrary to public perception,
Each of those tackles a dif- archaeological research is
ferent aspect of behavior, not limited to the study of
and yet all of them touch If history never repeats itself, and the unex-
pre-literate societies, or
pected always happens, how incapable must
on the central themes of prehistory.
Man be of learning from experience!.
our shared human trajecto- —attributed to George Bernard Shaw Many, though not all,
ry. North American archaeol-
ogists interpret the past
A Personal Viewpoint from the Authors from an understanding of human behavior derived
We became archaeologists for the same reasons in large part from anthropological studies and the-
as many of our colleagues—to add to the body of ories. Thus, they seek to understand how people
knowledge about human activities. Although we have lived not only at the small scale of the indi-
do not deny the fascinations of the discipline, vidual household, but also at the broad scale of
archaeologists are not archaeologists for the thrill multiple communities and regions. Archaeologists
of discovery, the romance of excavation, or the also look at the past not as a single point in time,
beauty of the artifacts. We investigate how humans but they seek to understand change and variation,
interact with each other and with the world around or even continuity, over time.
them. That world includes the influences of poli- Archaeology can be narrowly defined to be
tics, society, environment, and religion that impact about specific individuals in particular locations at
every person, no matter when he or she lived and a certain time in history, but this is not the profes-
died. That world also includes other peoples and sion’s ultimate objective. Archaeologists are, in the
other cultures. We seek to understand not only our end, examining general patterns of human behav-
differences, but also our commonalties. ior. Archaeologists use painstaking methods and
We have focused much of this article on the sub- techniques to uncover the building blocks of the
jects of spatial and temporal scale in human life particular—for instance, an individual’s daily
and culture. We think that it is important to rein- activities, and the household and community in
force that point to clarify a misunderstanding which these activities took place. But those pieces
about what it is we do. From our conversations alone cannot explain the whole—a culture, a soci-
with non-archaeologists, we know that many peo- ety, how humans behave.
ple envision our work as at a particular site (the We can use film as an analogy. One frame of film
Great Pyramids), or conclude that we focus on a shows a moment in time, out of context and short
particular people (the Hopi), or time (ancient on narrative—a snapshot. Run a series of frames
Greece). One strength of archaeology lies in its together and it shows a sequence of events and
ability to pool and compare data from thousands of presents a more meaningful experience—a movie.
26 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
Archaeologists will never find the entire film Early Georgia 26(2).
intact, but they can splice together enough frames Clark, Grahame
to follow the unfolding story of humankind. 1957 Archaeology and Society: Reconstructing the Prehis-
toric Past. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Over a generation ago, Grahame Clark (1957: Courbin, Paul
261), a British archaeologist, wrote that in order to 1988 What is Archaeology? An Essay on the Nature of
stimulate a consciousness of world history Archaeological Research. Translated by Paul Bahn.
…the unit of history has to be expanded from the University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
parochial to the universal, from the history of Dark, K.R.
nation or civilization to that of the world. 1995 Theoretical Archaeology. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca.
Archaeology is ideally situated to meet those uni- Echo-Hawk, Roger C.
versal criteria, both in time and space. 2000 Ancient History in the New World: Integrating
To understand history and archaeology is to Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record in
explore our past, to ponder our future, and to Deep Time. American Antiquity 65:267–290.
enrich our perception of the present. This aware- Isaac, Glynn
ness informs us about ourselves as human beings, 1971 Whither Archaeology? Antiquity 25:123–129.
Ramos, Maria and David Duganne
and opens doors to understanding other cultures,
2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about
other places, and other times. Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington, DC.
References Cited Thomas, David Hurst
Bense, Judith A. 1991 Archaeology: Down to Earth. Harcourt Brace
1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Jovanovich, Fort Worth.
Paleoindian to World War I. Cambridge University Wickman, Patricia Riles
Press, New York. 1999 The Tree That Bends: Discourse, Power, and the
Braudel, Fernand Survival of the Maskókî People. University of Alabama
1980 [1969] On History. Translated by Sarah Press, Tuscaloosa.
Matthews. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott (editors)
Chamblee, John F., Thomas Neumann, and Barnet Pavao 1998 A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek
1998 Archival Salvage of the Plant Hammond Site. Culture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
• 27
Archaeology plays a real and vital role in today’s the sites with a set of specific criteria laid out by
world, although its valuable lessons and benefits law. If they determine a site is significant, it is
can seem removed from everyday life. This article either excavated to recover the information it con-
examines how understanding and conserving tains, or it is avoided and protected. This is called
archaeological resources enhances the present and cultural resource management, or CRM, archaeol-
the future. This discussion of the importance of ogy. CRM projects produce most of the new
archaeology and archaeological resources pairs well archaeological information recorded in Georgia,
with the previous article, which outlines the com- and have for years, but the lands examined by
plexities of archaeological research. We have, how- CRM projects are only a small part of the state
ever, separated the two topics to better highlight (Williams 2000).
both of them. We hope this article imparts an CRM exists because legislators and their con-
awareness of the importance and fragility of stituents—the public and its representatives—
Georgia’s archaeological resources. thought archaeological preservation important
enough to include in US laws, and in governmen-
Understanding Archaeology’s Importance tal budgets. Thus, the public has already realized
The preceding article describes goals of archae- the relevance of archaeology and archaeological
ology. It concludes that archaeologists seek to under- data to people living in today’s world and preparing
stand human behavior from the micro (e.g., mak- for tomorrow’s world. In this paper, we try to make
ing a stone tool) to the macro (e.g., the spice trade a strong case for the unique and important ways
between Europe and Asia). In this paper, we ask archaeological knowledge contributes to and
why and how the study of the past has relevance for enhances our lives, on a scale ranging from the
today’s society. Also, we identify the contributions individual to the community, and to our nation.
archaeology makes to modern life and to other
academic disciplines. The Intellectual Importance of Archaeology
The most extensive programs that unite archae- If archaeologists are asked why their work is
ology and the modern world are so-called public important, they are most likely to respond that it is
archaeology projects. Public funds support archae- for the same reasons history is valued. By knowing
ological investigations in the early stages of proj- our human past, we appreciate who we are and
ects involving federal funds, licensing, permits, or where we came from. Accordingly, by studying the
lands. For instance, when the US Forest Service past, all of us can use this knowledge to inform our
lets a logging contract, archaeologists visit the decisions about the future. Reassuringly, there are
property first to ascertain what sites are there and signs that the public shares that perspective about
how significant they are. Archaeologists evaluate archaeology, too.
28 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
A recent poll commissioned by the Society for tivity to great detail—seeing evidence left in mere
American Archaeology (Ramos and Duganne 2000) centimeters of stratified deposits in soil—com-
asked members of the general public why they bined with a simultaneous ability to zoom far back
thought archaeology was important. Overwhelm- in space and time to discern broad patterns of
ingly, they responded that understanding the mod- human behavior. Archaeology is, in short, a disci-
ern world was the foremost benefit and that we pline that reveals truths by observing and explor-
learn about the past in order to improve the future. ing evidence in ways others overlook. Unlike writ-
They also suggest that the field contributes signifi- ten history, which is often tied to national bound-
cantly to international affairs and in shaping mod- aries or particular groups and may carry inherent
ern values. That is evidence of substantially more biases, archaeology is truly a universal field, span-
insight into the field than archaeologists had ning the experience of all humans.
believed existed.
Archaeologists also see intrinsic aesthetic, cul- Archaeology in Education
tural, and spiritual reasons for humans’ interest in Archaeology’s potential for fostering more intel-
their past. Curiosity, too, plays a role; it is a char- ligent, involved, global citizens is considerable. In
acteristic that is particularly human and responsi- classrooms, learning about archaeology helps stu-
ble for many of our greatest achievements. dents develop various skills across many disci-
Although they often downplay the mystery or plines, including critical thinking. Archaeology
romance of excavation and discovery of the past for can be readily included in a comprehensive cur-
fear that it may send the wrong message about their riculum for social science, history, mathematics,
goals, archaeologists appreciate that the captivat- environmental studies, and art. Archaeology
ing allure of knowing ourselves and our place in the touches on the entire spectrum of human behavior
world is the root of all learning. and so inspires a never-ending series of questions.
Archaeology transcends the limitations of writ- Students learn to appreciate history from different
ten records, and can reveal detailed stories when frames of reference, developing a sensitivity to
no documents exist. The focus of history in other people and diverse cultures. Archaeological
America has traditionally been on great civiliza- findings provide a framework for questions about
tions, great individuals, and events relevant to statistics, economics, politics, cultural geography,
Western civilization. Archaeology not only speaks ecology, agricultural practices, and food procure-
of that elite few who lived dramatic lives and per- ment, to name just a few. What other discipline
haps were interred in rich burials, but also tells the can pull together those far-reaching lessons and
stories of ordinary people and their daily exploits. also teach practical applications for a global posi-
Archaeological examination calls for both a sensi- tioning system, the Cartesian coordinate system,
Historic districts, often preserved through myri- ty—economically and culturally. In 1996 alone,
ad efforts including neighborhood interpretive pro- historic preservation projects brought Georgia
grams, historic preservation endeavors, individual (Leithe and Tigue 1999:13)
donors, and the clout of National Register of • 7550 jobs in the construction industry and in
Historic Places status, can mean substantial rev- other sectors of the Georgia economy;
enue for local communities. A recent report from • $201 million in earnings, including wages for
the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office workers and profits for local businesses;
(Leithe and Tigue 1999) outlines several means • $559 million in total economic activity.
through which prehistoric and historic resources Tax incentives for income-producing rehabilita-
bring dollars into a community tion projects, such as apartments and office space,
• preservation creates jobs through restoration contribute to the booming heritage economy as
and interpretive projects; well. From 1992 to 1996 over $85 million were
• preservation enhances property values in his- funneled into Georgia’s economy in tax credits
toric districts; given to approved historic preservation projects.
• preservation revitalizes once stagnant commu- There are other avenues for economic benefits as
nities; well. Considering that people are now spending
• heritage sites are becoming increasingly popu- more on heritage tourism than on general tourism
lar with tourist destinations; and entertainment (movies, dinners, cultural
• heritage tourists spend more money and stay events), the market potential for heritage activities
longer at destinations than the average traveler in is staggering. The opportunities for growth and
the US. investment in heritage, individually and commu-
These figures do not include the largest portion nally, have never been better.
of dollars flowing in from the historic preservation Also, when corporations invest in local archaeo-
movement through rehabilitation of homes, logical resources, or act as responsible stewards for
churches, and community centers, or local revital- those holdings under their authority, they gain a
ization projects. Those projects impact residents at valuable public relations benefit. Several years ago,
home, in their neighborhood, and in their coun- when the Cobb County Country Club sought to
Partners for the Past: Archaeological Preservation and Other Conservation Organizations
Environmental advocates have heightened public awareness of the precious nature of our non-renewable
resources, which include archaeological sites, information, and resources. Accordingly, Americans have increas-
ingly put their dollars toward businesses that act conscientiously, with an eye toward future generations. It is
not cynicism to suggest that those interested in preserving archaeological resources must make the most of that
sentiment, and urge communities and organizations to act quickly to save our heritage. One way to accomplish
that goal is to integrate archaeological site preservation into natural resource conservation programs, many of
which already provide outstanding models for accomplishing these goals, and therefore have gained wide pop-
ular support.
The Georgia Natural Heritage Program is one such example. Created by the Department of Natural Re-
sources and The Nature Conservancy in 1986, it is part of the national Natural Heritage Network. To preserve
Georgia’s natural diversity—plants, animals, biological networks—the program identifies endangered areas,
inventories species and habitats through field survey, and provides an easily accessible catalog of data (maps,
computer data banks, manual files) for planners, researchers, educators, and the general public. The Natural
Heritage Program encourages stewardship of resources on private land by offering concise guidelines and incen-
tives (technical assistance, tax incentives, recognition programs and other habitat conservation aid) for indi-
viduals willing to participate.
Endangered archaeological resources are protected if other conservation programs are aware that when they
manage wild or undeveloped lands, those lands probably also shelter archaeological resources. If groups inter-
ested in protecting archaeological resources could effectively partner with other conservation groups, steward-
ship information would be extended to individuals already seeking to protect our natural resources.
For more information about the Georgia Natural Heritage program, contact the Wildlife Resources Division
of the Georgia DNR (http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/wild/natural.html).
• Why is Archaeology Important? • Smith and Harris • 31
advantage of the information that material remains Messenger, Phyllis, and Walter Enloe
embody—we must ensure that those fragile 1991 The Archaeologist as Global Educator. In
resources are protected and preserved with far more Protecting the Past, edited by George Smith and John
Ehrenhard, pp. 157–166. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
diligence than we do now. Moore, Rusty, and Allan B. Brooks
Before that can happen, people need to compre- 1996 Transforming Your Community: Empowering for
hend the full value of archaeological research. Change. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida.
Knowing why archaeology is important will guar- Ramos, Maria, and David Duganne
antee that more of the archaeological record is 2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about
available when we discover new ways to put our Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington, DC.
knowledge of human behavior to use. When Stone, P.G., and R. Mackenzie
archaeologists work with a community to preserve, 1990 The Excluded Past: Archaeology and Education.
research and interpret its past, they create a part- One World Archaeology Series, vol. 17. Routledge,
nership that will ensure a better understanding of London.
not only their past, but of their future. Swedlund, Alan, and Duane Anderson
1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man:
References Cited New Interpretations and Protocols Regarding the
Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64:569–
Connor, Melissa, and Douglas D. Scott (editors) 576.
2001 Archaeologists as Forensic Investigators: Defin- Wickman, Patricia Riles
ing the Role. Historical Archaeology 35(1). 1999 The Tree That Bends: Discourse, Power, and the
Leithe, Joni, and Patricia Tigue Survival of the Maskókî People. University of Alabama
1999 Profiting from the Past: The Economic Impact of Press, Tuscaloosa.
Historic Preservation in Georgia. Historic Preservation Williams, Mark
Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2000 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia:
Atlanta. 2000. Early Georgia 28(1):1–55.
• 35
by Scott Jones
Jones operates his educational enterprise, Media Prehistoria, from his home in Oglethorpe County. His work
ranges from demonstrations and interpretive programs to experimental archaeology and lithic technology.
36 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
dred miles to the north. The coastal lowlands The specific hunting weapons used by Paleoindi-
extended far beyond the present coast, because ans are the topic of speculation; while some pro-
massive amounts of the ocean’s water locked up in jectile points are large enough to be used as tips for
polar ice sheets lowered sea levels. In this land- heavy thrusting or stabbing spears, most of those
scape of boreal forest and grassland, these earliest found in the Southeast are small enough for use on
Americans coexisted briefly with numerous Ice lighter projectiles thrown with a spear thrower. No
Age mammals that are now extinct. In the direct evidence for spear throwers has been found,
Southeast were found wooly mammoth, mastodon, and the scarcity of Paleoindian sites does not favor
and ancient bison, as well as living species includ- the recovery of an actual spear thrower, yet the Old
ing caribou, elk, and deer. World flavor of the artifact assemblage favors the
Paleoindian sites are rare and their distinctive presence of this weapon for the pursuit of large,
projectile points are scarce, often found in the dangerous, and now largely extinct prey.
Southeast only as isolated artifacts. Paleoindians
are believed to have migrated across the land Archaic: ca. 10,000–3000 BP
bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska (a conse-
quence of lower sea levels during glacial times). Early Archaic: ca. 10,000–8000 BP
Their lifestyle was one of hunting and gathering, At the close of the Ice Age about 10,000 years
and the few well preserved kill sites discovered in ago, a people who once lived by hunting a variety
the Western US indicate an emphasis on large of large game were forced to alter their way of life
game. This is likewise reflected in their tools: well- in the face of a changing climate. In the Southeast,
made projectile points, sometimes bearing a char- the extinction of mammoth, mastodon, and the
acteristic channel flake removed lengthwise from ancient bison, as well as the disappearance from
the base (fluted points); long narrow flake blades the region of modern species such as elk and cari-
struck from bou, left the whitetail deer as the principal large
prepared game animal. Along with deer, the new climate
cores; and allowed forests with the same species we see today
unifacial to flourish; they were dominated by oak, hickory,
scrapers chestnut (now almost gone due to disease), and
manufac- pine. Focusing on deer, black bear, small game, and
tured by the mast (nuts) from the mature forests, Early Archaic
removal of peoples adopted a generalized hunting and gather-
many small ing lifestyle with a greater reliance upon plant
flakes from foods than their Paleoindian ancestors.
the edge of a Although population increased rapidly in the
larger flake, new, temperate environment, Early Archaic peo-
thus forming ples still ranged far and wide, often using major
Using friction, Jones creates an ember with river valleys as territorial corridors for foraging and
a beveled
which to start a fire, demonstrating one of the travel between the Coastal Plain and the interior.
most fundamental of primitive skills. planing tool.
This tech- Following the example set by their Paleoindian
nology is quite similar to that of the Old World ancestors, they sought high-quality material for
Upper Paleolithic, and attests to the origins of the their stone tools. Well-made, easily maintained
earliest inhabitants of the New World. Because tools were a necessity for highly mobile bands of
winters were severe, access to good stone was lim- hunter-gatherers; yet their mobility allowed them
ited, and the animals these people hunted were to choose the best material from within their terri-
often large and dangerous, the stone tools of the tory. The bow was unknown to these people; the
Paleoindians were made from the highest quality primary weapon remained the spear-thrower (or
materials available and were used for as long as pos- atlatl), and the side- and corner-notched stone
sible. To get the most possible use from them, they points they used are not really arrowheads at all.
were often resharpened many times before being They are, in fact, tips for darts thrown with the
discarded. atlatl. Using spear throwers to hunt swift game,
• An Introduction to the Prehistory of The Southeast • Jones • 39
hunters equipped lightweight darts with detach- ceramic pottery, about 3500 BP. The appearance of
able foreshafts that allowed the stone points to ceramic and stone vessels signaled the beginning of
serve double duty as both knife and projectile the end of the 8500 year-old hunting and gathering
point, and also permitted easy replacement of an way of life that had endured since the earliest
accidentally broken tip. humans arrived in North America. The invention
of pottery indicates a more sedentary lifestyle that
Middle Archaic: ca. 8000–5500 BP
included an early form of horticulture for cultivat-
By about 8000 years ago, a minor climatic shift ing squash (Cucurbita pepo) and gourds (Lagenaria
(called the Altithermal) imposed its effect upon siceraria). For in-depth information about fiber-
the increasing human population of the Southeast. tempered ceramics, soapstone bowls, and other
Warmer and dryer conditions west of the Late Archaic cooking technology, see Kenneth E.
Appalachians influenced people to concentrate Sassaman’s Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition
into river valleys, while the wetter climate that and Innovation in Cooking Technology (1993).
prevailed to the east resulted in a general migration The transition from hunting and gathering to
into the uplands. Perhaps in response to their sedentism is further evidenced by intensive gather-
growing population as well as climatic change, ing of shellfish for food along many of the rivers in
Middle Archaic peoples increased their reliance the Southeast. This practice left immense piles of
upon plant foods. Their preference for locally discarded shell, which sometimes extend for hun-
available stone from which to make their decep- dreds of meters along creeks and estuarine margins.
tively simple, contracting-stem projectile points Increased sedentism likewise brought about changes
indicates that they foraged in smaller territories in axe technology. The simple chipped stone axes
than their ancestors. Using simple chipped-stone that well-served the needs of earlier peoples were
axes to fell modest-sized trees needed for shelter refined to suit the rigors of house construction and
and tools, they continued to forage in much the limited land clearing. While hafting of Late Archaic
same way as their Early Archaic predecessors. grooved axes was apparently similar to earlier
During the Middle Archaic, stone spear-thrower flaked stone types (a flexible twig or splint wrapped
weights first appear, an innovation that improved around a groove or constriction), greater durability
the weapon’s performance. Although we suspect and maintainability were accomplished by pecking
spear throwers had been used since the end of the and grinding the surface, and polishing the edge.
Paleoindian times (and probably before), perforat-
ed stone weights provide the best hard evidence for Woodland: ca. 3000–1100 BP
the existence of this weapon in the Southeast.
By about 3000 years ago, the horticulture exper-
Late Archaic: ca. 5500–3000 BP iments begun by Late Archaic peoples became a
Although many of the trends of the Early and way of life for people of the Woodland period.
Middle Archaic continued into the Late Archaic, Despite the name, Woodland peoples were perhaps
it differed from them in some significant ways. In less dependent upon the forest environments of the
addition to relatively large stemmed projectile Southeast than their predecessors. Taking the
points, the Late Archaic was characterized by the refinements of stone axe technology a step further,
first fired clay ceramics in North America. Plant the grooved axes of an earlier time gave way to a
fiber added to the raw clay strengthened (tem- polished tapered form called a celt. Instead of fas-
pered) the unfired vessel. The fiber burned during tening a flexible sapling around a groove to form a
the firing process, yielding a sturdy vessel bearing handle, the blade was fitted into a hole in the end
the impressions of plant fibers. Fiber-tempered pot- of a club-like handle. With friction holding the
tery appears around 4500 BP in the Coastal Plain celt blade securely in its haft, the club-like handle
of Georgia and South Carolina. provided additional weight and momentum. This
More commonly found in the southern allowed Woodland farmers to clear yet larger areas
Appalachians and piedmont of northern Georgia of land for villages and fields.
and adjacent states are fragments of soapstone During the early part of the Woodland period,
bowls. Contrary to popular belief, these carved corn (maize) was virtually unknown, with food
stone bowls actually appear after the invention of production based almost entirely on native culti-
40 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
fidently called arrowheads. Attached to rivercane present in sufficient quantity to qualify as a signifi-
arrows launched from powerful bows by skilled cant food source across the Southeast. Yet by the
archers, the tiny arrow points proved fatal to the time new varieties of maize as well as new ideas
largest creatures of the Eastern Woodlands, arrived from Mexico around AD 900, the cultural
whether deer, bear, or human. mechanisms for large-scale food production initiat-
The Woodland Period also signals the beginning ed in the Woodland period were firmly in place.
of the construction of earthen mounds. Sedentism With nearly 2000 years of horticulture experience,
brought with it the necessity for greater social maize claimed a central place in Southeastern
organization, and also permitted the accumulation Native American culture, alongside beans, squash,
of material goods. From this came the concept of sunflowers, jerusalem artichokes, gourds, and
status, and by Middle Woodland times some indi- tobacco.
viduals were interred in conical earthen mounds, The Mississippian period, so called because of
often with elaborate funerary items and trade goods the extensively cultivated bottomlands of the
acquired from great distances. Mississippi River, represents the most complex
political organization and extensive social stratifi-
Mississippian: ca. AD 900–1540 cation achieved in North America prior to the
Corn—or more correctly, maize—is known only arrival of Christopher Columbus and his ships.
sporadically in the preceding Woodland period, While political structure in much of North
and certainly not until late Woodland times is it Carolina and the mid-Atlantic states continued
42 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
the Woodland tradition of tribe- or clan-based vil- cane or twigs, and covered with clay, roofed with
lages, the Mississippi River drainage and much of thatch or bark; a council house, which occasional-
the Southeast was dominated by an array of polities ly took the form of a semi-subterranean earthlodge;
(or political units) known as chiefdoms. Though and a central plaza, which served as a gathering
much of our knowledge about the geographical size place and game court. In the plaza, the men played
chunkey, a game wherein spears or sticks
are thrown at a rolling, wheel-like stone
(a chunkey stone), often accompanied
by copious gambling. The plaza was also
used as a ball court for the ball game, the
southern equivalent of lacrosse. A rough
(and occasionally fatal) enterprise, the
ball game was known as "little brother
of war," and was used to settle disputes
between hostile groups as a way of
avoiding outright warfare.
The chiefdom was a formidable polit-
ical and military force, and Mississippian
towns, enclosed in their palisades of
sharpened, upright timbers, often con-
tained populations numbering in the
thousands. Equipped with powerful
bows, their arrows tipped with tiny tri-
See this mound at Etowah Mounds State Historic Site near Cartersville. Three
angular stone points, garfish scales,
large mounds on this site date to the Mississippian period. antler, or often just sharpened cane
alone, warriors defended their towns and
of chiefdoms is lost, it is believed that some (such villages. But they were entirely unprepared for that
as Coosa, in northwestern Georgia) were quite which was to come.
large. Each chiefdom consisted of several villages,
each of which was answerable to a central (para- Historic: ca. AD 1540–1840
mount) chief or leader believed to have god-like With the entrance of Hernando De Soto into
powers, who resided on the flat-topped earthen the interior of the Southeast in 1539, the region’s
mound, often with one or two other influential history was forever changed (Hudson 1997). De
leaders living atop lesser mounds in the village com- Soto’s initial exploration was followed by more
pound. The head man exacted agricultural tribute expeditions, first by other Spaniards (Hudson
from his subjects, and, during lean times he over- 1990), and then by the English and French (Hudson
saw the redistribution of food and other goods to and Tesser 1994). Iron tools and other trade goods,
his subjects. In return, the people were required to diseases to which the natives were not immune,
provide labor to the chief. They constructed his and the inherent disadvantages faced by Indians
house upon the spot where his predecessors had who survived European diseases and depredations
lived; upon his death, his subjects often buried him all contributed to the devastation of Indian culture.
beneath the dirt floor of his mound-summit resi- Some groups, like the Muskogee-speaking Creeks
dence. Then, in accordance with custom, the house further south, maintained considerable cultural
was often burned. In preparation for the new heir, identity, although still dependent upon European
a new mantle of earth was added to the mound, trade goods. The Cherokees of northern Georgia,
and a new house constructed. Thus were the great however, attempted a different strategy. By the late
mounds of the Mississippian Indians constructed. 1700s their material culture differed little from that
In addition to the chiefly mounds, the village of their Euroamerican neighbors. Even with log
compound often included residential houses with houses, farms, orchards, slaves, porcelain, and a
walls constructed of upright posts interwoven with written language, they suffered much the same fate
• An Introduction to the Prehistory of The Southeast • Jones • 43
as their native kinsmen. Throughout the 1830’s is reflected in the large amount of archaeological
they were removed to the Oklahoma Territory by work conducted in compliance with historic
decree of US President Andrew Jackson, and their preservation laws. For once, Indians and archaeol-
homes and land were seized by white settlers. The ogists are working for similar ends, albeit for differ-
rest is literally "history." ent reasons. Native American groups are increas-
ingly aware that their goal of site protection is
Concluding Remarks attainable by cooperative work with archaeologists.
Despite great efforts to extirpate Native As archaeology seeks to preserve sites, the way
Americans from the Southeast, Indian culture is in which sites are investigated and interpreted has
nonetheless alive and well. Just as the foregoing changed accordingly. Instead of digging high-status
chronological descriptions depict this culture as burials for ornate funerary objects, research now
dynamic and ever-changing, Southeastern Indians emphasizes goals that are achievable through
today still retain distinct elements of their respec- broad, often non-invasive techniques such as sur-
tive cultures. Regardless of what many Americans veys of timber clearcuts to study prehistoric settle-
(and archaeologists) think of casinos and the all- ment patterns. Specific sites are sometimes exca-
encompassing pan-Indian movement that identi- vated with painstaking thoroughness. These are
fies all Native Americans with tipis, feather head- often sites that will be impacted by development or
dresses, and New Age spirituality, the threads of construction, portions of which must be dug com-
modern Indian life will ultimately be woven into pletely. By recovering subtle information from fea-
this cultural tale. Strangely, it is this renewed iden- tures, hearths, and the physical distribution of arti-
tity that places archaeologists and Native Ameri- facts within a site, much can be learned. Fragile
cans in an unlikely alliance. remains of pollen, charcoal, botanical and faunal
The relationship between archaeologists and remains reveal much about everyday life in the
Indians has traditionally been adversarial. In the past. From the few sites so scrutinized, better-
past, the principal concern for
archaeologists was to recover
information in the form of arti-
facts. These artifacts were
obtained by digging, and excava-
tions often focused on burials. In
an effort to retain some cultural
privacy, Native Americans were
(and are) opposed to digging buri-
als as a matter of principle. In
recent decades, changes in the
goals of archaeological research
and a greater sensitivity to other
cultures has resulted in a decrease
in the focus on burials. Difficulties
imposed by legislation also worked
to make archaeologists reluctant
to disturb burials. These factors
alone, however, did not provide
sufficient impetus to mend the rift
between the two groups.
Faced with rampant develop-
ment and site destruction on a
massive scale, in recent years
archaeological interest has begun De Soto was the first European to travel through the Interior Southeast. Archaeological
to focus on site preservation. This and historical data have been used together to reconstruct his route.
44 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
informed inferences about other sites (whether for examination by researchers engaged in legiti-
recorded through survey or reported by amateurs) mate pursuits. As for the latter of the two above
are possible. statements, archaeologists and Native Americans
Looting is also a serious problem that faces generally agree: artifacts do not exist solely for aes-
archaeologists and Native Americans. While an thetic appreciation by modern peoples. Apart from
uneasy truce unites these two groups, looting of controlled storage in a federally approved facility,
archaeological sites for art objects continues the only better environment for artifacts is, of
unabated. Two different, though equally specious, course, in the ground.
arguments are sometimes proffered as a feeble In closing, it should be said that the information
defense for looting. The first asks: why should contained in the chronology section is the result of
beautiful artifacts that are excavated by archaeolo- much tedious work by innumerable researchers
gists be stored away where no one can see them? over many years. Our knowledge about dates, tools,
The second states: technology, population, environments, and paleob-
artifacts that are in otany stems from the careful excavation of subtle
the earth are clues to the past. Looting destroys this information
unavailable and in an attempt to recover material art objects. As
therefore cannot be looting and development threaten increasing num-
properly “appreciat- bers of sites, preservation of intact sites remains a
ed.” priority for everyone, professional and amateur. So,
Both of these too, does the reporting and recording of sites. All
views treat artifacts persons who are interested in archaeology can con-
as art objects, with tribute positively to the present state of knowledge
an implied value about the past.
beyond the histori-
cal information References Cited
they provide. Most Bense, Judith A.
sites excavated by 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States:
archaeologists pro- Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San
duce few artifacts to Diego.
Hudson, Charles
which great value 1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee
could be attached; Press, Knoxville.
the majority of arti- 1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the
facts are stone Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566–1568. Smithsonian
flakes, fragmentary Institution Press, Washington, DC.
tools, or small pot- 1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de
Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms. University of
tery sherds. While
Jones is working to dehair a whitetail deer these provide the Georgia Press, Athens.
hide stretched taut on a wooden frame. In Hudson, Charles, and Carmen Chaves Tesser (editors)
necessary data for 1994 The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in
the 1700s, Indian hunters traded thou-
sound archaeologi- the American South, 1521–1704. University of
sands of deer hides annually to white
cal interpretation, Georgia Press, Athens.
traders living near Georgia’s coast.
they are in no other Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and
way valuable. Stored in a climate-controlled,
Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of
secure environment, these artifacts are available Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
• 45
Georgia’s archaeological resources reveal the al resource preservation issues garnered the atten-
incredible story of more than 12,000 years of tion of the wider archaeological community, and of
human drama. They form a legacy that should be the general public. With the Airlie House confer-
known and appreciated by Georgia’s present and ence in 1974, and subsequent Airlie House Report in
future generations. If we do not strive to protect 1977 (McGimsey and Davis), a comprehensive
those resources, the rapid and accelerating rate of proposal for future directions in conservation
development will destroy them. Once archaeologi- archaeology, the discipline embraced archaeologi-
cal resources are lost, they can never be renewed. cal resource management with renewed vigor.
The loss is permanent. Since then, archaeologists have made great strides
Beginning in the early twentieth century, law- in getting legislative mandates passed, and in pub-
makers enacted legislation to provide some meas- lic outreach and education. Archaeologists, and
ure of protection for archaeological resources on those concerned about archaeological preserva-
federal lands. Also, projects requiring federal tion, must continue to build on that foundation
licensing or permits (e.g., a new power plant or and improve outreach and conservation law.
expansion of the electrical grid) or federal monies Before beginning a discussion of regional
(e.g., matching funds for community development resource protection, I define my use of archaeologi-
projects) must comply with laws protecting archae- cal resources. They are not simply artifacts in the
ological resources. While many archaeological sites ground. Instead, the definition encompasses arti-
are discovered and avoided through enforcement facts, the context in which they are found, the site
of federal laws, those sites are only a small percent- or non-site area (sometimes referred to as land-
age of the sites in this state. scape), as well as the reports and analyses accom-
Georgia’s legislators have passed similar laws, but panying any legitimate investigation. The term
protections are not as extensive. Lands managed by also extends to wide-ranging sociocultural insights
the state’s Department of Natural Resources, for that are the goal of the efforts of archaeologists.
instance, are examined for archaeological sites These interpretations are archaeologists’ most sig-
much as are federal lands. It is encouraging, follow- nificant contributions to the public, to the aca-
ing a recently strengthened Office of the State demic world, and to the general body of knowl-
Archaeologist, to see a trend toward wider aware- edge.
ness and protection of Georgia’s archaeological Today, all Americans benefit from legislation
resources at the state level. and policy that originated with efforts of historic
Cultural resource protection in the United preservationists and lawmakers a generation ago.
States began with the Antiquities Act of 1906. As In this article, I review the legislative foundation
part of the historic preservation and environmen- for preservation programs in Georgia, and briefly
tal movements of the late 1960s and 1970s, cultur- describe key agencies and programs that deal with
46 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
The US Army Corps of Engineers logical specialists within HPD. The ASU promotes
With regional offices in Savannah and Mobile, the identification, documentation, and protection
Alabama, the Army Corps of Engineers is responsi- of archaeological sites in Georgia, especially those
ble for survey, inventory, and protection of archae- on state-owned lands. HPD provides crucial
ological sites on lands impacted by Corps projects expertise and guidance in the protection of all
and along lakes and rivers under their manage- archaeological resources, historic and prehistoric,
ment. Generally, landowners requesting a permit in Georgia. The State Archaeologist and his staff
from the Corps are responsible for insuring compli- also evaluate whether each CRM report and the
ance with all provisions of the NHPA, usually by recommendations it contains satisfy federal regula-
obtaining the services of a CRM firm. tions as to the significance of archaeological
resources.
Military Bases and Properties
Military bases constitute a significant percentage Georgia Archaeological Site File
of lands in Georgia managed by federal agencies. The Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF),
Like other federal properties, military lands are established in 1976, is the central database for site
managed in compliance with federal preservation information in Georgia. Located at the University
laws. Some of Georgia’s military bases have archae- of Georgia, this repository contains detailed data
ologists on staff, but most large-scale projects are about known archaeological resources across the
contracted to CRM firms. state, including site forms, reports, manuscripts,
and some artifact collections. Through the GASF,
Georgia’s Archaeological Programs qualified researchers can find information concern-
The vast holdings of state and federal lands in ing a site’s location, when it was occupied, and
Georgia mean many agencies manage cultural what types of artifacts and features have been
resources. In addition, Georgia is rich in museums found there, and what previous research has been
and other organizations involved with archaeolog- conducted on it. The growing GASF database now
ical resources. Together (see table), they cover a has information on over 35,000 prehistoric and
variety of activities (education, research, and historic sites in Georgia (Williams 2000, personal
administration) and carry out legislative mandates communication 2001).
at many levels (local, state, federal). They involve Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT)
professional archaeologists and historic preserva- Georgia’s extensive highway construction pro-
tionists, as well as knowledgeable and informed gram, funded with state and federal dollars, results
volunteers. By far the greatest number of staff hours in a continuous series of archaeology projects.
allocated to archaeology in Georgia are in compli- Within the DOT’s Division of Preconstruction is
ance or CRM archaeology. The following discus- the Office of Environment and Location. This
sion will give you a brief description of each type of office, based in Atlanta, maintains a permanent
archaeological program in Georgia. staff of seven archaeologists who are responsible for
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the investigation and assessment of archaeological
Historic Preservation Division (HPD) resources in advance of DOT construction. The
Within state government, the Historic DOT has, on average, 2000 programmed projects
Preservation Division is the nerve center for pro- located statewide, including maintenance projects,
tection of and information about archaeological intersection improvements, bridge replacements,
and historic resources. By law, each state must have and major highway reconstruction. About 60% of
an State Historic Preservation Officer to oversee all DOT programmed projects are investigated and
implementation of federal mandates regarding his- assessed by staff archaeologists. These investiga-
toric resources. Georgia’s HPD also includes the tions mirror similar work conducted by CRM firms
Office of the State Archaeologist. The State in scope, standards, and compliance in regards to
Archaeologist, and his staff in the Archaeological the evaluation of prehistoric and historic archaeo-
Services Unit (ASU), carry out the mandates of logical resources. The remaining 40% of DOT
the Georgia Antiquities Act and are the archaeo- projects are completed by CRM firms. These con-
tracted projects, usually large in scale or mitigative
• Archaeological Resource Protection in Georgia • Harris • 51
in nature, are managed by GDOT staff archaeolo- planning, protection, and research though various
gists who provide logistical and information sup- outreach activities. It also supports the identifica-
port, and CRM firm oversight to ensure DOT’s tion and investigation of archaeological sites
compliance with state and federal regulations. throughout Georgia.
One of SGA’s most important recent undertak-
The Council on American Indian Concerns
ing was to spearhead establishment of Georgia
The Council, created in 1992, works to protect Archaeology Awareness Week, which has been
Indian graves and burial objects from both inad- proclaimed by the Governor each year since 1994.
vertent and deliberate desecration. It is authorized In 2001, this was expanded to Georgia
by the Georgia legislature, which also created the Archaeology Month. To promote archaeological
laws on the books that strengthen the protection of awareness, SGA sponsors and organizes various
Native American burial sites. The Council focuses activities around the state and annually produces a
on two goals: protecting Indian burial sites and widely distributed poster and teacher packet with
facilitating the repatriation (return) of Indian prepared lesson plans. To accomplish its goals,
remains and burial objects not subject to federal SGA extends its capabilities by partnering with
law, from museums and other institutions. The federal and state agencies, as well as CRM firms
Council is composed of nine Governor appointees and non-profit organizations. SGA has no perma-
(four are Indians native to Georgia, three are sci- nent staff, and is operated by volunteers. (For
entists with expertise in Native American culture, details on SGA, see Elliott, this issue.)
and two are members of the public at large).
Georgia Council of
Cultural Resource Management Firms
Professional Archaeologists
Several private firms conduct archaeological and
The Georgia Council of Professional Archaeolo-
historic preservation projects across the South-
gists (GCPA) was created in 1988 to further cer-
eastern United States and work extensively in
Georgia. CRM firms employ about two-
thirds of the working archaeologists resid-
ing in the state. Each CRM project must
meet all state and federal criteria for the
evaluation of prehistoric and historic cul-
tural resources, as well as conduct labora-
tory analyses, curation, and reporting con-
sistent with the law and established pro-
fessional practices.
Public agencies and private organiza-
tions may be required to investigate and
assess cultural resources in order to comply
with federal and state laws. The reports
from these compliance projects, conduct-
ed by CRM firms, are reviewed by the
SHPO. Ultimately, approved reports are
filed at the GASF in Athens, and any arti-
facts collected and field notes generated SGA members examine Cooper’s Furnace, located below Allatoona Dam
during the project are curated in an appro- next to the Etowah River, during an annual spring outing.
priate facility. Curation preserves them for
future researchers to interpret to the public.
tain goals of the state’s professional community.
Society for Georgia Archaeology The GCPA’s primary mission is to facilitate com-
munication and exchange of information among
SGA is a member-based organization that works archaeologists working or studying in Georgia. It
to raise public awareness of archaeological resource also serves as an advisory council to other organi-
52 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
By any measure, these are significant improve- evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of our cur-
ments and offer encouragement for future endeav- rent programs and laws and consider new or addi-
ors. Still, complacency is a hazard and those con- tional objectives that will help us better manage
cerned with the future of our archaeological our archaeological resources. We must join forces
resources must create new ways to work together to instill a sense of communal ownership of, and
for future success. responsibility for, our past. It will necessitate new
relationships between each partner in preservation
Working Together to Preserve Our Past and new alliances among the programs and institu-
The archaeological record is an important tions just discussed. It will mean discovering and
resource for all Georgians. Our precious archaeo- implementing fresh approaches to reaching these
logical resources, once lost, can never be replaced. goals.
Together, archaeologists, legislators, activists, and
people from all walks of life have worked to build References Cited
the legal armor to preserve our heritage. They have Carnett, Carol
made great strides in the past decades; current laws 1991 Legal Background of Archeological Resources Protec-
emphasize long-term survey and inventory so that tion. US Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Cultural Resources Archeological Assistance,
effective planning can occur before excavation is Washington, DC.
necessary, and we can all build on that mandate. Cleere, Henry F. (editor)
Still, one huge gap remains: private land and 1989 Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern
preservation. While around the globe approaches World. One World Archaeology Series, vol. 9. Unwin
to managing cultural resources vary greatly (Cleere Hyman, London.
1989), in the US private landowners own the Crook, Morgan R., Jr. (editor)
1992 The State of Archaeology in Georgia: A Report from
archaeological resources on their property. Unless the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists.
they undertake development projects or other Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists,
actions that activate federal, state, or local laws, Carrollton, Georgia.
they can do as they wish with those resources. Green, William, and John F. Doershuk
There are few state laws that address preservation 1998 Cultural Resource Management and American
of significant sites on private land and none exist at archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:121–
167.
the federal level. Moreover, it seems unlikely that
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, David G. Anderson, Lisa D. O’Steen,
the American emphasis on the rights of individu- and Daniel T. Elliott
als, sometimes to the exclusion of the community 1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in
good, will ever be compromised. Nor am I arguing Georgia. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic South-
that archaeologists see such a compromise as the east, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E.
only solution to this problem. It is worth pointing Sassaman, pp. 270–287. University of Alabama Press,
out, however, that the idea of private rights to a Tuscaloosa.
McGimsey, Charles R., III
communal heritage does pose a philosophical 1972 Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.
dilemma for some. Perhaps the solution to this McGimsey, Charles R., III, and Hester A. Davis (editors)
conflict between private and communal rights lies 1977 The Management of Archeological Resources: The
in the preservation of archaeological data, through Airlie House Report. Society for American Archaeolo-
the recovery of information, rather than the preser- gy, Washington, DC.
vation of archaeological sites. Clearly, the preser- National Park Service
2001 Strategies for Protecting Archaeological Sites on
vation community must find a solution to the prob-
Private Lands. Electronic document, http://www2
lem of rapidly diminishing resources on private .cr.nps.gov/pad/strategies/, accessed April 30.
land before there is no archaeological record left to Williams, Mark
preserve. 2000 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia:
It will take all of us—archaeologists, historic 2000. Early Georgia 28(1):1–55.
preservationists, policy makers, and an interested Wallsmith, Deborah L.
and informed public—to communicate outside the 1998 Where Have All the Artifacts Gone? The Cobb
County Archaeology Survey’s Final Chapter. Early
institutional channels and boundaries within
Georgia 26(1):1–11.
which we have become comfortable. We must
• 55
and its ineffectiveness in protecting ing requires SGA to seek out and
Ebenezer and activities
archaeological sites to the atten- use new sources of funding in addi- across the state.
tion of a significant political audi- tion to claiming those funds which SGA representatives
ence. are rightfully ours, as we seek to participate in public hear-
SGA needs to continue to think preserve our rapidly dwindling ing supporting institution
of the Coastal Zone
big (or bigger) in the political archaeological sites and educate Management program and
arena. Why do we expect politi- the rapidly growing numbers of preservation of archaeo-
cians to know about archaeology Georgia residents. logical sites.
SGA members and
and its significance? They suffer chapter members attempt
from the same lack of archaeologi- Public Education to stop bulldozing of the
cal education as most Georgians; SGA has begun to think big in Soapstone Ridge National
Register of Historic Places
areas of public education. It started archaeological site; creat-
the very first Georgia Archaeology ed a historic district by the
Awareness Week, in spite of the county in 1997. A portion
fact that the equivalent projects in of the site is subsequently
purchased and protected
many other states were conducted by the Archaeological
by state governments. By the third Conservancy.
year of this annual event, SGA was SGA works with GCPA
and the Department of
ready to think big. Natural Resources on an
In preparation for the 1996 Anti-Looting Task Force.
Georgia Archaeology Awareness 1997
Week, the project raised $10,000 in SGA forms the
cash and tens of thousands of dol- Committee for Program
lars in labor and in-kind support, Renewal (CPR) in an
effort to further invigorate
while sponsoring a myriad of activ- the society.
ities in addition to the usual poster,
1998
teacher resource materials, and cal- SGA publishes the
endar of events. How did we do 100th issue of The Profile
Young volunteers "sifting sand" during 1996 that, when the first two such annu- newsletter.
SGA and GCPA bring
Archaeology Week excavations at New Ebenezer. al events were relatively small as we a joint lawsuit against the
“tested the waters?” Simple. We Board of Regents, Uni-
only they are now in a position to thought big. We didn’t call up versity System for non-
do something about it. They will potential sponsors and say, “We adherence to the Georgia
not, or cannot come to us; there- Environmental Policy
hope to have some things going on Act.
fore it is our job to educate them. this year for Archaeology Week.” SGA adopts new Miss-
We must, within the realm of our We confidently said, “SGA is going ion Statement and Miss-
nonprofit status, create every ion Strategy.
to have a week-long event with SGA membership totals
opportunity to educate, wholesale, excavations, hands-on activities for 259 individuals and organ-
Georgia politicians. Once they see children, tours, re-enactors, etc.” It izations.
Georgia’s archaeological past them- didn’t matter that, for the first Representatives partici-
selves, they cannot help but seek to pate in public hearings of
twenty phone calls we didn’t have a the state legislature’s Joint
preserve it. On a related level, why single tangible thing to support this Study Committee on
does SGA allow archaeology to be statement—no funding, no work- Historic Preservation, sup-
beaten down in the political game? porting a state underwater
ers, no activities, no events, noth-
archaeology program,
Of course we will not receive our ing! Soon however, we had a spon- Savannah.
fair share of funding if we continue sor or two, then we had dozens of SGA sponsors fifth
to roll over whenever the school school teachers making reserva- annual Georgia Archae-
bully comes around for lunch ology Awareness Week,
tions for fieldtrips, then we got a and begins a stronger part-
money. We will not receive if we do grant…and an army tent…and a nership with the Historic
not ask. Twenty-first century think- keynote speaker…and more spon-
• This Is Not Your Mother’s SGA • Elliott • 61
Today, widespread development, or sprawl, is both at Atlanta (the state’s largest metropolitan
destroying archaeological sites, both prehistoric area), and at a small area that remained rural until
and historic, at an unprecedented rate. Sprawl is recently. Although these two areas are not statisti-
taking a drastic toll on the archaeological record cal samples of the state, they do show that
and the critical information it contains. If archae- Georgia’s demographic expansion has disturbed or
ological preservation efforts are not intensified, destroyed thousands of archaeological sites.
Georgians risk losing precious resources forever. Many human activities have the potential to
Sprawl is one threat among many to Georgia’s alter, disturb, or destroy archaeological sites. This
hidden heritage, including looting and land alter- has been true, in fact, throughout history and pre-
ing activities such as reservoir construction, agri- history—wherever humans have stopped, settled
culture, and logging. Here we focus on sprawl and earned their living, they likely disturbed the
because of its two most disturbing archaeological record of those
aspects: the dramatic rate of cur- It is possible that from a land
who came before. This prelim-
rent urban expansion, and little consumption perspective, Atlanta inary study shows that sprawl
evidence that the expansion will has grown faster than any human has affected thousands of sites
end soon. settlement in history. in Georgia.
Legal protection for most —Christopher Leinberger In this article we examine
archaeological resources on pri- Georgia’s rich archaeological
vate land are minimal. While fed- heritage, and archaeological
eral agencies and federal projects are required to site density in Piedmont Georgia. Then, we look at
mitigate the negative impact that their activities development in urban and rural Georgia, using
have on archaeological resources, most land in the Atlanta’s metropolitan area1 and a 4661 acre area
United States is held privately and falls outside near Suwanee as case studies. Finally, we discuss
that jurisdiction (see “Archaeological Resource the implications of these two case studies for
Protection in Georgia,” this issue). Making a bad archaeological preservation.
situation even worse, the United States
Department of Agriculture (1997) reports the Georgia’s Archaeological Record
average number of acres of private land developed To realize the impact development and sprawl
in Georgia is rising dramatically. can have on archaeological resources, one must
Although some of the information included in first understand the distribution of those resources
this article may seem cumbersome, we do not across the landscape. Humans have roamed what is
intend to aimlessly bombard you with numbers and now Georgia for thousands of years. Over those
statistics. We illustrate the impact of increasing long years, people have left considerable evidence
population and landscape development by looking
66 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
of their occupation and use of the landscape. Each be near them, or they preferred to avoid having
place with that evidence is called an archaeologi- neighbors—just as people do today).
cal site, of which thousands are recorded in the Euroamericans began to enter the Piedmont
Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF). Southeast in large numbers late in the eighteenth
century, and tended to settle along rivers and over-
Land Use Trends in the Georgia Piedmont
land transportation routes. Later settlements dot-
Prehistoric occupation of Georgia’s rolling Pied- ted the landscape as farming predominated. By the
mont, technically the area between the sandy, flat, early 1900s, much of Georgia’s Piedmont was
Coastal Plain and the more rugged Appalachian cleared and planted in cotton. Then, the boll wee-
mountains, began at least 12,000 years ago, with vil struck, devastating cotton production, along
sparse occupation and use of the landscape (see with the economy of much of the rural South.
Jones, this issue). Over the last several thousand Today this pattern is reversed and formerly rural
years before Europeans arrived, villages and indi- areas (except for parts of South Georgia) are now
vidual households were scattered across the Pied- being more intensively occupied. Many new inhab-
mont. Villages tended to cluster near creeks and itants are not farmers, and much of what had been
rivers that were bordered by good agricultural open farmland in the 1920s, and become wood-
lands. Thus, Georgia’s landscape was never evenly lands by the 1970s, is once again being cleared.
occupied. Access to important resources, such as Much of this new wave of rural development is res-
good hunting areas, fertile agricultural lands, and idences and small businesses that tend to cluster
other features of the natural landscape, influenced along roads or in new housing developments.
people’s preferences for places to visit and live, as
did where other people lived (they either wanted to The GASF Database
The GASF is a facility maintained in
Athens to record archaeological data from
around the state. It is supported in part by
funds from the Department of Natural
Resources. If you report a new site, this is
where that information is stored.
As of January 2001, the GASF included
approximately 35,000 identified archaeo-
logical sites (Williams personal communi-
cation 2001). Since sites often contain evi-
dence of more than one period of occupa-
tion, the GASF has data on 48,000 compo-
nents. While “site” refers to a definable area
that has archaeological materials, “compo-
nent” refers to a particular time period a site
was used. Site counts, then, are the total
number of places with archaeological
resources, while component counts suggest
the changing intensity of human settlement
over time. Thus, both counts are important.
Archaeological Site Density
in the Piedmont
The GASF data do not directly measure
site density in Georgia. As Williams
(2000:10) points out, most of the reported
site locations reflect only areas where
As of 1 April 2001, the GASF lists over 35,000 archaeological sites. (Map archaeologists have surveyed (or looked for
courtesy Mark Williams) sites). Those areas, in turn, often parallel
• Sprawl and the Destruction of Georgia’s Archaeological Sites • Harris and Smith • 67
tern. Gilmer county’s population growth is up 75%, ing the environment. Many areas in Georgia, like
Dawson county 70%. Bryan and Camden counties, others across the US (and indeed around the
along the coast, were up 52% and 45% respective- globe) are experiencing substantial population
ly (Chapman 2001). increases. For the most part, zoning and other con-
According to the Atlanta Regional Commission trols do not focus residential development in
(2000), the population increase in metro Atlanta Georgia in already occupied areas. Therefore,
from 1970 to 1990 was up 84%. Population densi- Georgia’s rural landscape is being engulfed by sur-
ty, however, decreased from 2690 to 1883 persons burban development, commercial areas, strip
per square mile (a 30% decrease), evidence of the development along transportation corridors, etc.
trend to consume more land for each individual. In Here are some statistics about growth in Georgia,
April of 1999, the population in the ten-county and in Atlanta.
region reached 3.2 million, a near record increase • America’s rural landscape is disappearing at
in a one-year period. The Atlanta Regional the rate of 3 million acres a year, according to the
Commission (ARC) projects Atlanta will gain USDA’s (1997) National Resources Inventory. Near-
over one million new residents by 2025. In simpler ly 16 million acres were altered nationwide through
terms, Fayette county now has over seven times the development between 1992 and 1997. Georgia is
number of people it did in 1970, and Gwinnett no exception. During that period, it ranked second
county has six times the population over the same among all US states in the average annual rate of
period. The infrastructure necessary for this influx land development (see figure below).
is enormous (e.g., housing, roads, schools, commer- • According to a recent report by a US envi-
cial centers, water and sewer lines, etc.), and so is ronmental advocacy group, Georgia ranks fourth in
the impact on archaeological resources. the nation for states at the greatest risk of losing
rural and natural areas. Noss and Peters (1995)
Land Consumption and Construction Patterns
estimate that in 90 years Georgia may be com-
Uncontrolled growth is catastrophically chang- pletely developed.2
States ranked by average annual rate of land development, 1992–1997. Georgia ranks second, after Texas. The verti-
cal scale is in thousands of acres per year (data and chart from the USDA’s 1997 National Resources Inventory; Alaska data
not reported). The NRI’s definition of developed land includes urban and built-up areas, and rural transportation land.
70 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
1992
Data traced from Duluth, GA
(1992) and Suwanee, GA
(1992) 7.5' US Geological
Survey topographic maps.
1968/1972
Data traced from Duluth, GA
(1968) and Suwanee, GA
(1972) 7.5' US Geological
Survey topographic maps.
1938
Data traced from
aerial photographs
held in the Map
Collection,
University of
Georgia Libraries.
1894
Suwanee
1:125,000
map.
Increased density of buildings and roads just west of Suwanee, north of Atlanta. Dots on the top three maps rep-
resent buildings, including houses, barns, churches, chicken houses, and possibly some rural stores. The thin lines
are roads (as well as the railroad through Suwanee), many of them unpaved; some are driveways or well-used field
roads. The thick line in the center is the Chattahoochee River. The 1894 map does not show buildings, except
schematically in the town of Suwanee. Note that in 1894 travelers crossed the Chattahoochee by ferry, and that the
ferry crossing was south of the later bridge. The area shown in the upper two maps, and the area for which buildings
are shown in the top three maps, is 4661 acres, or 7.28 square miles (1886 hectares).
72 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
include Suwanee proper. Building counts, like pop- the fields evident in the 1938 aerial photos were
ulation, are an indicator of intensification of land still unvegetated in 1992. This is probably because
use, and increasing building counts suggest an of the high agricultural productivity of those lands.
increase in land-disturbing activities that may have Overall, this pattern shows an intensification of
destroyed archaeological sites. Of course, many land use by the end of the century that likely
kinds of land use do not result in building con- impacted, or disturbed, archaeological resources.
struction, such as farming (including plowing), log- Populations increased in this area, as they have
ging, road building, etc., but do have the potential in most rural Piedmont towns. Suwanee census fig-
for disturbing archaeological resources. ures show an increase of 261% from 1990 to 2000:
An 1894 map shows buildings only in Suwanee; year 1980 1990 2000
this is probably a generalization, as some houses population 1026 2412 8725
and other buildings undoubtedly were outside the Although Suwanee’s population is centralized,
established towns. We can assume some, if not nevertheless, the community’s area is increasing.
most, of the land was under cultivation at that This is another characteristic of sprawl.
time. By 1938, aerial photographs show 94 build-
ings and extensive open fields, representing inten- Archaeological Sites Destroyed
sified activity in the study area. By 1968/1972, the by Atlanta’s Growth
area had 169 buildings, and fewer open fields. By
Now that we have discussed archaeological site
1992, the maps show 264 buildings, as well as evi-
density and the dramatic land use changes that
dence of more changes in roads and land use. For
accompany sprawl, we can turn to the impact those
instance, an new highway passes through the area,
changes have on the archaeological record. In fol-
between Suwanee and the Chattahoochee River,
lowing calculations, we assume that archaeological
but bypassing Suwanee. sites on any land encompassed by Atlanta’s sprawl
In general, the Suwanee case study area matches
were totally destroyed. Although we realize this is
the pattern of land use change described above for
probably not, strictly speaking, true, we do believe
the rural Georgia Piedmont. Fields on upland
that development disturbs or destroys a high per-
ridges that were in use early in the twentieth cen-
centage of the archaeological resources it encom-
tury were abandoned, and returned to woodlands
passes.
by mid-century. By the end of that century, those
According to the ARC (2000), 26,584 acres
forested areas began to be opened once again,
were developed around Metro Atlanta each year,
mostly for single-family homes. This pattern did
on average, from 1990 to 1995. Thus, if the aver-
not occur along the Chattahoochee, where all of
age site density in the Piedmont uplands surround-
ing Atlanta is 1 site per 14 acres,
300
that means each year during that
250
246 period, on average, 1899 sites
were destroyed. If that rate con-
Number of Buildings
➔
destroyed, or ap- 25000 22786
proximately 33% of
site count in the 20000
15191
GASF.4
➔
Because of the 15000 11393
9115
variability in site 10000 7595
5697 6510
density we know
occurs in the South- 5000
eastern Piedmont,
we present a graph 0
of estimated sites 1/ 56 ac 1/ 49 ac 1/ 42 ac 1/ 35 ac 1/ 28 ac 1/ 21 ac 1/ 14 ac 1/ 7 ac
disturbed over the less dense Site density more dense
Site density
twelve-year period
discussed above, Estimated number of sites destroyed in the Atlanta area over the period 1990 to 2001, inclu-
sively, assuming 26,584 acres were developed each year, and all sites within developed areas were
based on archaeo-
destroyed, at various site densities. The densities 1/28 acres and 1/14 acres are drawn from actu-
logical site densities al archaeological surveys in the Georgia Piedmont (see text). The other densities are given in
that are both more recognition of the variability in site density known for the Georgia Piedmont.
and less dense than
those derived from
the two situations reported above. Even using some What does that loss of archaeological resources
of the lower density estimates presented here, we mean to the both the general and archaeological
believe thousands of archaeological sites have dis- community? On the most basic level, information
appeared over the twelve-year period from 1990 to from the past is no longer available. Once a site is
2001 (inclusively) as Atlanta has expanded. destroyed we can never discover the important
Of course, these estimates are only for a twelve- basic building blocks of archaeological data it con-
year period. If we were to consider the area already tained can never be known: the time of occupa-
within metro Atlanta at the start of that period (in tion, the size of the site, and its location. Further,
1990), the number of sites estimated to have been interpretation and analysis regarding the relation-
destroyed might double. If we then added the sites ship among sites during any given period is dimin-
destroyed by Georgia’s other cities, towns, and ished, if not destroyed completely. That interrela-
communities, the number of sites destroyed by tionship of human settlements, along with their
modern development might triple. relationship to features in the natural environ-
ment, provide a qualitatively different set of data
Sprawl and Archaeological Resources than the material remains and their context alone,
Archaeologists and environmentalists accept which are also very important. There is also such a
that sprawl is a fact of life today. Sprawl and land- thing as a unique site—one that represents a par-
disturbing activities do, without a doubt, disturb ticular activity or role in past society.
and destroy archaeological sites. The report above Sadly, the special knowledge contained in
argues that the development Georgia has already Georgia’s archaeological resources, which repre-
experienced has destroyed thousands of archaeo- sent thousands of years of human endeavor, can be
logical sites, and the development predicted for the wiped away by land-disturbing activities as easily as
next few decades will destroy thousands more. a spider’s web by the swipe of a cat’s paw.
74 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
Notes
1
Growth in Numbers
In this article, “metro Atlanta” refers to ten coun-
ties—Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fay- • The Atlanta region is home to four of the
ette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale—covering nation’s ten fastest-growing counties—Forsyth,
nearly 3000 square miles. Gwinnett, Henry and Paulding.
2 “In this projection we assumed that the rate of • Average number acres of privately held land in
increase in developed land from 1982 to 1992 would Georgia developed each year over the period indi-
continue into the future, compounding the amount of cated:
developed land every ten years. We expect compound- 1982-1992: 76,630 1992-1997: 210,640
ing because as a region develops it attracts more people Percent developed by 1997: 12.3
who in turn cause more development. We used a simple • An average of 50 acres of trees are cleared
exponential growth formula where the finite rate of in- daily for development in metro Atlanta.
crease is the number of acres developed in 1992 divided • Atlantans drive 33.4 miles per capita daily
by the number of acres developed in 1982. The amount (fourth among major cities).
of land developed at time t is • Thirteen Atlanta metro counties are violating
A1992(lambda)t federal air pollution standards.
where A1992 is the developed area in 1992 and t is the • Seventeen metro counties have no public
number of 10-year intervals from 1992. …We recognize transportation.
that in reality land protection and other countervailing • Temperatures reach 12 degrees higher in most
forces will slow development before all presently under- paved areas of Atlanta—a result of the so-called
developed land in developed. Nonetheless, our estimate “heat-island” effect.
of time until complete development gives a good indi- • 1,000,000 metro Atlantans use septic tanks—
cation of the extent of development threat in a state and the highest of any major US city. There are no new
shows that present development rates are unsustainable sewer hookups allowed in parts of the fast-growing
over the long term. Data is from the US Bureau of north Fulton County.
Census.” (Noss and Peters 1995) (Sources: Auchmutey 2001, Center on Urban and
3 (26,584 x 12) / 14 = 22,786 Metropolitan Policy 2000, USDA 1997)
4 Now that we have proposed estimates of site density
2000 Some Observations on Archaeological Survey in pology Department, University of Georgia, Athens.
Georgia. Ms. on file. Georgia Council of Professional Rutherford, Susan
Archaeologists, Atlanta. 2001 Blueprints: Finding Better Ways for Communities
Freer, Jennifer to Grow. Panorama (Newsletter of the Georgia Conser-
1989 Archaeological Settlement Patterns in Oglethorpe vancy) 31(2; March–April):1, 4–5.
County, Georgia. MA thesis. Anthropology Depart- Smith, Gita
ment, University of Georgia, Athens. 1999 Georgia Third in Loss of Green Space to Sprawl.
McCosh, John Atlanta Journal-Constitution 7 December:C8.
2000 Growth Puts Area near 4 Million People: Turner, R.E.
Atlanta’s Pace Trailed Only LA in the 1990s. Atlanta 1997 Foreword. In Managing Sprawl, edited by Tom
Journal-Constitution 20 October:D1. Bennett and Cynthia Renfro, p. 1. Turner Founda-
Noss, Reed, and Robert Peters tion, Atlanta.
1995 Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on Ameri- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
ca's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Electronic docu- 1997 National Resources Inventory. US Government
ment, http://www.defenders.org/pubs/eco01.html, Printing Office, Washington, DC.
accessed April 30. Williams, Mark
Pluckhan, Thomas 2000 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia:
1994 The Evolution of Settlement and Land Use in Jack- 2000. Early Georgia 28(1):1–55.
son and Madison Counties, Georgia. MA thesis. Anthro-
• 77
In a sense, this article is the heart of this issue of to discuss, and then implement, far-reaching
Early Georgia. It discusses the uncertain future of changes in the policies, processes, and preconcep-
our fragile and besieged archaeological resources. tions that govern the protection and research of
The preceding articles effectively foreshadow the our archaeological record.
theme discussed here. They also provide consider-
able detail on various aspects of this discussion. Basic Assumptions
Nevertheless, we hope this article also stands alone The following are some essential assumptions
and will invigorate discussions about the preserva- about the nature of archaeological resources and
tion and conservation of our endangered her- the processes used to glean meaning from them.
itage—objects and information representing thou- • Our archaeological resources are fragile, valu-
sands of years and hundreds of thousands of lives able, important, and irreplaceable.
that came before us. In a best-case scenario, this • The archaeological record belongs to all peo-
article will spur individuals to convert discussions ple for all time.
into action. Only time will tell if it achieves that • Site destruction due to massive changes in
goal. land use is accelerating.
• Only a very few archaeological sites currently
Are You a Defender? are protected by law.
In writing this article, we envision our readers as • Only by understanding an extremely broad
falling into one of two categories of people: sample of archaeological sites (more than already
Defenders of Archaeological Data and Resources, have been recorded and analyzed) can researchers
aka DADARs—or Defenders for short—and those obtain a detailed understanding of the past.
who might become Defenders. If you are concerned • In the future, techniques that have not yet
about preserving our heritage, you’re a Defender. If been invented will be able to extract information
you’re a Society for Georgia Archaeology (SGA) researchers are presently unable to tease from
member, you are definitely a Defender. If you archaeological resources. (Prior to the develop-
aren’t, join! Become a Defender! ment of radiocarbon dating techniques, for
Whether you are a Defender or not, we ask you instance, archaeologists did not think they would
to consider what can be done to foster preservation have a way to know with a fair degree of precision
of Georgia’s archaeological resources. Should exist- how long ago a house was built or burned.)
ing programs be enhanced? Should entirely new
programs be created? Basic Archaeological Data
None of us can stop Georgia’s rampant develop- Other articles in this issue discuss the important
ment, even if we want to. We can, however, begin information contained in an archaeological site, in
78 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
its related artifacts, and in its relationship to other ing from the objects and features that the archae-
archaeological resources. That important informa- ologists find and record in the field, is the final step
tion includes where the site is, when was it occu- in the archaeological process. This step is the heart
pied and for how long, who lived there, and what of archaeological research. After exiting the field,
archaeologists spend an enormous
amount of time counting, measuring, and
analyzing artifacts, structuring data, pos-
ing questions, testing hypotheses, and
making knowledgeable interpretations
from the data. This does not finish the
job, as the researcher then must commu-
nicate the final results of the project to
colleagues and the public. Indeed, some
archaeologists believe that public educa-
tion is one of the most overlooked obli-
gations professional archaeologists face.
Thus, generating basic archaeological
data is only part of archaeology.
Developing hypotheses about what those
Sometimes archaeologists quickly wash artifacts in the field to see what they have
found before they leave the site. These sherds came from the Etowah Valley. data mean are among the most complex
issues the archaeologist (as a social scien-
their activities were. Those are the fundamental tist) grapples with. Archaeologists seek to under-
data on the mind of an archaeologist when she does stand very complex social processes, and how they
research. These do not comprise the entire scope of varied over time and across space. Then, the
archaeological enquiry, but they do form the foun- responsible archaeologist completes a report on the
dation of field research. Indeed, the basic building field data; that report, then, forms a part of our
blocks of archaeological data are derived from two national patrimony (Drennan 2001).
kinds of investigations:
• During an archaeological survey, researchers Problems Facing
examine the landscape to find evidence of past use Archaeological Preservation Today
of distinct locales (sites). Then, they seek to deter- Unrecorded basic archaeological data only will
mine the size of a site and when it was used. If the continue to be available if effective archaeological
land is vegetated, researchers may use small subsur- preservation programs exist and are implemented.
face (shovel) tests as “windows” into the soil, to see Georgia does have some good programs today,
if artifacts can be found. If the ground surface is not however, there are problems with those programs.
obscured, archaeologists will walk back and forth The principal problems are:
in a systematic manner, looking for visible artifacts. • inadequate protective measures—(laws) that are
They examine blocks of land that may be as small usually curative and based on salvage archaeology,
as a field or extend across thousands of acres. instead of proactive and preventative.
Artifacts do not have to be collected in an archae- • inadequate use of archaeologists in the planning
ological survey. process—projects often do not use archaeologists to
• Excavation of archaeological sites, when done help design and plan land modification projects,
in a detailed, systematic way, recovers amazing etc. Indeed, it is sometimes very difficult to judge
amounts of information about our hidden heritage. when it is appropriate and cost-effect to excavate
Archaeologists do not make the choice to excavate an archaeological resource, and when it is wisest to
lightly, because excavations can never be replicat- avoid it (which often entails another set of costs);
ed or repeated. There is only one chance to dig a • inadequate or non-existent funding—this means
site, and to recover the maximum information it goals set forth for interpretation, outreach, and
has to offer. even research must often be overlooked by govern-
Understanding the basic data, or pulling mean- ment agencies and other institutions because of
• The Future of Georgia’s Archaeological Resources • Smith and Harris • 79
low staffing levels, and inadequate funds for main- Ideas for Change
tenance of existing programs, development of new In general, we propose several avenues of
programs, and even travel; approach. Some ideas aim to increase the number
• limited public awareness and appreciation for of Defenders across the state by boosting awareness
archaeological resource protection and existing of archaeological issues. Other ideas bolster or
protective laws. expand existing programs. We have modeled yet
• limited opportunities for problem-oriented research other strategies on those employed successfully by
that might illuminate long-standing questions organizations seeking to improve natural resource
about the past, and a lack of comprehensive syn- protection. We believe the problems and difficul-
theses of large bodies of data (notwithstanding the ties with expanding archaeological resource preser-
state’s Archaeological Research Design Papers and vation often parallel those they encountered, and
articles like Williams 2000). hope to learn from their experiences. We propose
None of these are problems that can be solved that THINKING BIG will be more successful if a vari-
easily or inexpensively. None will be affected if ety of lines of attack are used simultaneously.
Defenders do not THINK BIG, and lay the ground-
work for change. Clearinghouse
Communication and access to information is
New Directions for Georgia Archaeology essential to any endeavor and, in the preservation
Now, let’s consider the “next steps” those con- field, where being understaffed and overworked is
cerned for the future of Georgia’s archaeological the norm, it is fundamental. What can archaeolog-
resources might take. In doing so, we are not pre- ical preservationists do to make information col-
senting these ideas as a template for change, or a lection and assimilation more effective and effi-
laundry list to be checked off.
Many, if not all, of the issues and
ideas we mention here may already
be under discussion by SGA, by
Georgia’s principal agency for
archaeological and historical
resource preservation, the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources’ Historic
Preservation Division (HPD), and
by others. Indeed, all existing
efforts are important, vital, and
appreciated. We seek only to
increase that momentum. The
present forward movement
includes the increased profile of the
Office of the State Archaeologist, a
revitalized SGA, stronger political
advocacy from the Georgia
Council of Professional Archaeolo-
gists, and more and stronger legisla- The yard of this historic home in Madison is an unreported archaeological site.
tion for archaeological resource
protection. Our aim now is to encourage a wider cient? One solution is to create a central clearing-
dialogue that will lead to integrated activity among house of information that is easily accessible and
existing institutions and individuals. We hope such well organized. That information might include
a dialogue will increase the profile of cultural legislation briefs, site locations and descriptions,
resource protection in Georgia, resulting in the educational resources, and public outreach
preservation and recording of more archaeological resources. It should also function as a referral cen-
data. ter for other resources such as educational materi-
80 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
altering activities, we have preserved meaningful cussions with collectors and brief examinations of
material not only for current research, but also for their artifacts, archaeologists can obtain basic data
future study. about archaeological sites—location, periods of
use, and site size. Unfortunately, if the collector
Artifact Collector Surveys
passes on, such information is often lost. To allevi-
While private collections are sometimes donat- ate this problem, archaeologists recommend that
ed to museums, archaeologists have greater success surface collectors draw maps of where they find
obtaining the important information such collec- items, and place the objects in labeled bags that
tions contain by systematically interviewing col- correspond to the maps.
lectors and examining and photographing their SGA has recently renewed its interest in system-
collections. Such endeavors yield important infor- atically seeking collectors to examine their collec-
mation, sometimes about sites that no longer exist. tions and add information about them to the state-
Often collectors are apprehensive that archaeol- wide database.
ogists will “take their collections,” but this is not
so. Instead, archaeologists are interested in infor- Stewardship Program
mation, not the artifacts. Collectors often focus on An informed, supportive, diverse public is one of
“whole points” and large potsherds; both, due to the most effective ways to assure broad-spectrum
stylistic details, tend to reveal when the site they archaeological resource protection. Some of the
came from was occupied. Most collectors remem- best examples of focused public involvement are
ber where they found individual artifacts, which is state-wide stewardship programs, like that in
very important to archaeologists. Thus, from dis- Arizona. In addition to instilling a sense of shared
to promote preservation of archaeological efits to the areas close to heritage sites. The chal-
resources. Although each group values the lenge is to encourage tourism without sacrificing
resources for different reasons, stronger preserva- the special character of the place tourists seek to
tion laws and policies are a common goal. Both visit, hence the term “sustainable tourism.”
groups advocate stronger protection for our hidden
THINKING BIG!
heritage, and can continue to work closely to pro-
duce effective, long-term plans for archaeological The above discussion is, as we said, is not a for-
resource management. mula for changes that would benefit archaeological
awareness and preservation. Many other tactics
Developing Tax Incentives might be employed. Here is one idea that satisfies
In other states, tax incentives have proven an the “THINK BIG” approach that Elliott describes in
effective tool in improving conservation by her article on SGA: get the state to issue license plates
landowners of both natural and archaeological for archaeological preservation, like the wildlife plates
resources. However, any discussion of tax incen- that are so popular.
tives is politically charged, and they are very com- We challenge you Defenders to THINK BIG. What
plicated to implement. To begin discussions of tax ideas do you have? Please send your ideas to the
incentives for Georgia’s archaeological resources, SGA President, or attend the next SGA meeting
preservationists must become conversant in broad (they’re held twice a year at locations around the
political issues in Georgia today. state) and speak up!
Promotion of Sustainable Tourism
A Final Word
Archaeological and historical sites have the
As guest editors and authors, we hope that this
power to draw tremendous numbers of visitors.
issue of Early Georgia helps to clarify basic concep-
And, when people travel, they spend money—they
tions of what archaeology is and why it is impor-
buy food and meals, they need overnight lodging,
tant, and put that understanding in the context of
and they buy other items. Such purchases provide
our fast-changing, modern world. We thought this
an inflow of cash into a local economy. They also
discussion timely and important because of the
stimulate employment. These are tremendous ben-
tremendous, ever-increasing threat to the archaeo-
logical record by land-disturbing activities and the
Food for Thought: Ecology and Government enormous loss of self-knowledge that all Georgians,
Growing concern with ecological issues has led indeed all Americans, face.
to the development of conservationist watchdogs To help you understand the type of action we
and lobby groups, more informed public opinion, believe is necessary, compare the ideas listed here
and the establishment of government regulatory to two modern examples aimed at documenting
bodies. Yet governments are generally unwilling to human knowledge and experience. In one Works
take stringent action or even adequately to consid-
Progress Administration project, a massive, feder-
er long-term negative environmental impacts. It is
feared that what might be learned would indicate
ally funded initiative that provided thousands of
the need for controls that would interfere with jobs during the Depression of the 1930s, writers
short-term economic goals which might enhance a and researchers interviewed elderly informants in
government’s chances of remaining in office. Few the southern US, including Native Americans and
democratic governments are prepared to think African Americans, to record their memories,
beyond the next election. Despite efforts by eco- experiences, and testimonies. In a similar vein, his-
logical lobbies, ecological issues are rarely high torians are currently traveling the globe, seeking
enough on the public agenda to have a significant out and interviewing Holocaust survivors before
impact on politics. In state-managed economies the they pass away. Historians know that they have
desire to promote development for military and
only ten to twenty years to complete that endeav-
political reasons has resulted in economic decisions
repeatedly being made without adequate study of
or and feel a weighty responsibility to future gener-
environmental impacts or opportunities for objec- ations. In such situations, researchers race against
tions to be voiced at the local level. the clock, and human mortality, to collect and
—Bruce G. Trigger (1998:197–198) record precious information before it disappears
86 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
forever. Archaeologists find themselves in the same eration, creation and change.
position, but with a larger database and without Some activities involve individual choices and
the institutions or funding to carry out that task. action—for instance, a Defender reaching out to
It is here that we ask for your help. If Georgians recruit new Defenders—and some involve creating
develop successful programs that transform con- new organizational structures—a clearinghouse
cerned and responsible citizens into Defenders of and a state-wide survey. Both require the nurturing,
Archaeological Data and Resources, there will be a support, and involvement of Defenders.
substantial force to advocate for strong policy, Archaeology is a voice for all of us, and all of us
funding, legislation, and support for programs to must find our voice for archaeology.
collect, record, interpret, and archive archaeologi-
cal data. References Cited
We are not suggesting that every site be pre- Drennan, Robert D.
served or excavated, or that all development in 2001 Information as Patrimony: Where are the Results
Georgia be stopped. Instead, we ask for a reason- of Archaeological Research? In Archaeological Research
ably rapid and comprehensive response to massive and Heritage Preservation in the Americas, pp. 10–25.
Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
changes to Georgia’s landscape and the devastating Saporta, Maria
toll that takes on the archaeological record. That 1999 Historic Preservation Hailed as a Solution to
response, if it includes collection of wide-ranging What Ails Georgia. Atlanta Journal-Constitution
archaeological data, will create a comprehensive February 8:E1. Atlanta.
archive of information for use and research both Smardz, Karolyn, and Shelly J. Smith (editors)
now and in the future, providing opportunities to 2000 The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the
Past with Kids. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
interpret that data to a diverse public audience
Trigger, Bruce G.
through various formats. 1998 Sociocultural Evolution: Calculation and Contin-
• The first step is awareness and discussion. We gency. Blackwell Press, Oxford.
hope this series sparks both. Williams, Mark
• The next step, implementation, will involve 2000 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia:
varying degrees of institutional alliance and coop- 2000. Early Georgia 28(1):1–55.
• 87
aborigine—of, or pertaining to. an original or native basketry—baskets or other items made from woven
inhabitant of a region. fibers or other flexible materials, the art of making
absolute dating techniques—the methods that deter- baskets.
mine when an event occurred in calendar years band—an egalitarian form of social organization, based
(before the present). on kinship and marriage.
ad—like AD, but indicates uncorrected radiocarbon biface—a stone tool, such as a projectile point, that has
dates. been modified on both sides
AD—from the Latin anno domini, designates the period blade—a long, thin flake.
after year 1 in the Christian or Gregorian calendar. bc—before Christ, for uncorrected radiocarbon dates.
agriculture—the intensive cultivation of soil and pro- BC—before Christ in the Christian or Gregorian calen-
duction of crops, farming. dar, the period before year 1
anthropology—the study of humans and their cultural BP—designation for years before present; 1950 is the
behavior from a holistic perspective, involving the year from which BP dates are calculated.
following four sub-fields: archaeology, cultural cache—a set of artifacts placed aside and intended for
anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology. later use.
archaeological record— the material remains of past Cartesian coordinate system—a three dimensional
human activities, including any features or alteration coordinate system in which the coordinates of a point
of the landscape. are its distances from each of three intersecting per-
archaeological site—a place where past human activity pendicular planes along lines parallel to the other
took place and material remains were left behind. two.
Archaic—a New World cultural period, about 10,000– ceramics—pottery.
3000 BP, marked by a mobile hunting/gathering life chiefdom—a form of human social organization that
and a mostly egalitarian social organization. incorporates multiple communities into one social
archaeological resources—artifacts, sites, their contexts unit that has, as a basic part of its structure, institu-
within the physical and cultural environments and tionalized differences in social status (ranking).
the information that can be garnered from them. chronology—the arrangement of cultures or events in
archaeology—the study of past human culture by ana- time.
lyzing the material remains (sites and artifacts) peo- clan—a social unit tracing descent from a common
ple left behind. ancestor.
artifact—any object made, modified, or used by humans. classification—a system of arranging artifacts into groups
assemblage—a group of artifacts found together and or categories according to certain set of criteria.
were used at the same time for similar tasks. commensal—a relationship in which two or more
atlatl—an early weapon that increased both the force organisms (e.g. humans and mice) live in close asso-
and distance that a spear could be thrown, used pri- ciation and in which one may derive benefit from the
marily for large game. other, but neither harms the other.
attribute—a characteristic of an artifact, such as size, compliance project—an archaeological project, involv-
shape, or color. ing survey and possibly excavation, as required by law.
88 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
context—the location or placement of an artifact, fea- duced and/or modified artifacts and sites.
ture, or site, including its relationship to other arti- feature—evidence at archaeological sites which are not
facts, features, and or surrounding environment. structures. Examples of features include fire pits or
core—(in lithics) nucleus of stone from which flakes hearths, trash pits, post holes from structures, wells,
have been removed. and burials.
cultural anthropology—the study of modern humans field notes—the written materials, including notes,
and their learned behaviors and culture. drawings, sketches, etc. that an archaeologist takes
cultural resource management (CRM)—in general, during a field project. They are often held (curated)
this term applies to the recording and investigation of just like artifacts.
archaeological sites uncovered or impacted by public flake—debris from stone tool making that may or may
construction and engineering projects. not be used as a tool.
culture—the set of learned beliefs and behaviors shared, flintknapper (knapper)—a person who makes stone
and passed on, by the members of a society. tools.
culture history—the descriptive who, where, and when funerary objects—goods, either everyday or exotic, that
of a particular culture. are placed in a burial. They often signify the status of
cuneiform—an early form of writing used in their owner (leader, shaman, mother, husband, etc.).
Mesopotamia from the third to the first millennium geographic information systems (GIS)—a computer
BC, consisting of symbols carved into clay using a system that records, stores and analyzes information
reed tool. about the earth’s geographical features. The database
curate (curation)—to preserve and protect an item is organized in layers, which represent different types
(e.g., artifacts) in perpetuity. of information (like soil and topography). Those lay-
debitage—the stone debris resulting from making stone ers (you can have as many as up to 100 or so) can be
tools. Some of the debris may be used as tools them- compared or totaled selectively to see how different
selves. features or variables relate to one another.
dendrochronology—dating technique based on the geology—the study of the origin, structure and history
number and variation in tree rings. There is one ring of the earth.
for each year of growth and specific climatic changes global positioning system (GPS)—satellite technology
will be evident in thickness of ring. Dendrochronolo- used to pinpoint ground locations when doing field-
gists compare the growth rings from many trees or work, including to make accurate, detailed maps, or
wood found on archaeological sites to make a com- for locating existing archaeological sites.
bined plot of ring thickness that stretches back many gourd—an early plant domesticate in the SE US, in the
centuries. By comparing tree-ring dates with radio- pumpkin, squash, and cucumber family. It was used
carbon dates, scientists realized that radiocarbon more for its vessel/utensil characteristics when dried,
dates need to be calibrated, to reflect calendar dates. than for food.
depositional factors—effects, either natural (like flood- grid—uniformly spaced squares that divides a site into
ing) or human-induced (like plowing), on the mate- units; used to measure and record provenience.
rial remains and features of the archaeological record. ground penetrating radar (GPR)—a remote sensing
They must be taken into consideration before any device that sends a radar pulse deep into the soil,
interpretation or dating of a site can occur. allowing the archaeologist to interpret the anomalies
De Soto—Hernando De Soto was one of the first Euro- or images that are detected.
pean explorers traveling into the interior of the South- historic—the portion of the past defined by the pres-
eastern US (in the early 1500s). ence of written records.
diachronic—over time, through time. historic preservation—Besides being a social move-
diagnostic artifact—an item that indicates use during a ment aimed at preserving America’s heritage, it is
particular period or by a certain group. more formally defined as the process of sustaining the
ecology—the study of the relationships between organ- form and extent of historic properties; also see preser-
isms (here, humans) and their environment. vation.
ethnography—a descriptive study or report, using com- holism—an approach used by anthropologists that
parative information from modern culture, of early or emphasizes the whole rather than parts of human
technologically primitive society. society, including the physical and cultural influences
excavation—the systematic, planned digging of a site in on human behavior.
order to obtain information about the past society horticulture—the cultivation of fruits, vegetables and
that lived there. flowers, gardening
experimental archaeology—investigations designed to ice age—any of a series of cold periods marked by alter-
uncover the natural or man-made processes that pro- nating periods of glaciation and warming.
• Jargon Commonly Used by Archaeologists • Harris and Smith • 89
impact— any effect on the archaeological record, in mound. In some cases, the leader, or chief, would
most cases this term is used to describe the damage construct his house on top of the mound. When he
construction or other development projects makes on died, the house was burned, to be covered with a new
archaeological resources. cap of earth and a new house.
Indian—see Native American. Native American—a member of the aboriginal peoples
in situ—the original placement of an artifact or feature of North and South America, or pertaining to their
encountered during survey or excavation. culture.
kill site—a location where an animal or animals were Neolithic—a prehistoric period generally characterized
killed and sometimes butchered. by the development of agriculture, use of ceramics
level—a layer of soil in an excavation, it can be meas- and the manufacture of technically advanced stone
ured in regular units (e.g., every 10 cm) or may corre- tools.
spond to natural strata. New World—geographical area that includes North,
Central, and South America, and the Caribbean.
obsidian hydration—a dating technique that measures
the amount of water molecules absorbed on the fresh
surface of obsidian artifacts.
Old World—geographical areas including Europe, Asia,
and Africa.
Paleoindian—a cultural period from about 12,000–
10,000 BP characterized by cooperative hunting and
high mobility of small groups (bands) of people. This
is the first widely identifiable culture in the New
World.
paleolithic—the earliest designated cultural period (Old
World) beginning about 750,000 years ago, charac-
This is the Nacoochee Mound, near Helen. Many place terized by the first chipped stone tools.
names used around Georgia are from Native American lan- paleontology—the study of fossil remains of plants and
guages, like the word “Nacoochee.” animals.
paleobotany—the study of fossil or ancient plant remains.
lithics—stone fashioned into artifacts, or used as tools. political economy—system of economics and political
linguistics—the study of language and culture and their structure within a particular culture.
interaction. physical anthropology—the study of human and other
looter—a person who illegally collects artifacts or primate behavior, evolution and adaptation.
destroys archaeological resources; many do this to post hole—a hole that is dug to receive an upright tim-
make a profit. ber for a building, wall, or other structure. As the
material remains—any artifacts, features or other items structure decays, traces of the posts are left in the soil,
used or produced by humans. usually seen as a stain (the post) within a stain (the
midden—an area used for trash disposal. hole), if well preserved (see feature).
Mississippian—a prehistoric period in the Southeastern potassium-argon dating—a technique used to date
US, from about AD 900–1540, characterized by peo- material remains based on the rate at which radioac-
ples who practiced maize agriculture, lived in chief- tive potassium reverts to argon when it decays; useful
doms, had populous villages, and constructed earthen on remains that are too old to be dated by radiocar-
mounds. bon (e.g., more than 50,000 years old).
mitigation—the excavation of a site to obtain archaeo- pot hunter—someone who takes artifacts from sites for
logical information before it is destroyed by a con- non-scientific reasons, such as to add to their collec-
struction project or other development. Mitigation tion or to sell. Pot hunting on federal and most state
removes the significant information a site that is eli- lands is illegal.
gible for listing in the National Register of Historic potsherd or sherd—a broken piece of pottery.
Places has, so that the site may be destroyed or dis- prehistoric—the period of time before written records;
turbed without the significant information it contains the prehistoric period varies from region to region.
being lost. Pre-Paleoindian (also Pre-Clovis)—refers to aboriginal
mound—an earthen structure, constructed by humans occupations of the New World that date to the time
through one or periodic episodes. For example, many before Clovis. Although somewhat controversial in
mounds in the SE US are burial mounds. After each American archaeology, evidence is mounting that
burial a fresh cap of earth was added to the existing humans occupied the Americas before Clovis times.
90 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •
preservation—the act of maintaining the form and site steward—a volunteer who watches a site, reports on
integrity of a structure as it presently exists, and halt- any activity such as vandalism and looting, and assists
ing any further deterioration or decay. It does not archaeologists and land owners in preserving it.
include any significant rebuilding. sociocultural—pertaining to social institutions and cul-
primitive technologist—a specialist in the manual arts ture.
and skills of the past; someone who can replicate and sociopolitical—pertaining to political structures and
often interpret use of by-gone technologies. culture.
projectile point/knife (PP/K)—a term encompassing sociology—the study of human social behavior and
the stone points that were attached to spears or institutions, especially that of the modern world.
arrows, or stone tools used as a knife. Early examples Stone Age—the earliest period of human culture, char-
are often erroneously termed arrowheads. acterized by the use of stone tools.
provenience, provenance—the exact location of an stone tool—an implement used in prehistoric cultures
artifact or feature within a site, based on its place- made from stone (see lithics).
ment in a grid and its depth below the ground surface. stratigraphy—the sequence of layers of soil and/or arti-
psychology—the science of mental processes and emo- facts on a site. If they are undisturbed, the more
tional behavior of humans. recent layers will lie above the older layers. The rela-
public archaeology—see CRM archaeology. tionship between the cultural deposits in the layers
radiocarbon dating—a method of dating organic mate- help the archaeologist understand what happened at
rial, which is based on the decay rate of radioactive a site over time.
carbon-14 atoms that are present in all living things strata—the layers of soil and artifacts in a site.
(humans, trees, etc.). By comparing tree-ring dates subsistence—the means through which humans make a
with radiocarbon dates, scientists realized that the daily living, usually referring to how they procure
radiocarbon dates drift, or need to be calibrated, to food.
reflect actual dates. survey—the systematic examination of the landscape
reconstruction—the process of describing, explaining for evidence of human activity, may be done by
and interpreting all facets of life of a previous cul- examining the ground surface for artifacts or digging
ture—from the ways people made a living, to the small probe holes (shovel tests).
clothes they wore, to the type of social organization of synchronic—during a single period of time.
which they were a part. The information for recon- taphonomy— the study of the processes that effect
struction often comes from detailed excavation, but is organic remains in the formation of fossils and
accumulated over time by all archaeologists. archaeological materials.
regional analysis—the study of entire cultures or politi- temper—a substance added to the clay when manufac-
cal units, especially through the investigation of set- turing pottery, usually to harden or strengthen the
tlement systems over a long period of time. material. Temper may be shell, crushed stone, sand,
relative dating techniques—methods that determine or other substances.
when an event occurred in relation to other events trade goods—items that were traded over sometimes
(before, simultaneous, after). very long distances prehistorically. They tell us about
relic—an object from a previous culture, an artifact relationships between cultures or peoples and often
rock shelter—a shallow cave on a cliff-face, some were ownership of these items carried prestige.
occupied for extensive periods of time prehistorically. tree-ring dates—see dendrochronology.
scraper—a stone tool designed for use in scraping hides, tribe—a generally egalitarian form of social organiza-
bones and other materials that has been flaked tion, with a more complex kinship system than a
(knapped) on one side. band, and having some temporary leadership roles.
sedentism—used to describe a social group’s lifeways in typology—the classification of a group of artifacts into
which members live in one place, and are not mobile types, and the study of their change through time, to
or migratory. help understand the development of human cultures.
seriation—a dating technique based on the popularity Woodland—a cultural period in the Southeastern US
cycle of cultural styles that allows archaeologists to from ca. 3000–1100 BP, characterized by increasing
place objects in a chronology. horticultural expertise, use of ceramics, and increas-
settlement systems—the distribution of humans across ing sedentism and social complexity when compared
the landscape and the cultural and physical variables to the previous Archaic period.
that affect that distribution. zooarchaeology—the study of animal remains from pre-
site—any area showing evidence of human activity as historic and historic sites.
revealed through artifacts and/or features.
Vo l u m e 2 9 , N u m b e r 1
R e s o u r c e s at R i s k : D e f e n d i n g G e o r g i a ’ s H i d d e n H e r i t ag e
What is Archaeology?
How Exploring Our Past Enriches the Present
Jennifer Freer Harris and Charlotte A. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15