Pakoindian Occupations of the Southern Appalachians

87 Pages·2013·4.96 MB·English

Pakoindian Occupations of
the Southern Appalachians
A View fiom the Cumberland Plateau
of Kentucky and Tennessee
Leon Lane and David G. Anderson
In this chapter we examine evidence for Paleoindian occupation and adaptation in the
southern Appalachians, here defined as the mountainous regions above roughly one
thousand feet in elevation extending from northern Georgia and Alabama to West Vir-
ginia and including portions of eastern Kentucky and Tennessee and western North
Carolina and Virginia (map 6.1). A particular fbcus is the northern Cumberland
Plateau and adjacent Eastern Highland Rim of Kentucky and Tennessee, w-here one
of us has conducted appreciable research in recent years (Lane 1995, 1996, 1997;
Lane et al. 1995). This research is used in conjunction with other data from across
the region to propose a model of Paleoindian chronology, migration, and adaptation
in the southern ~pdalachians.
The Paleoindian occupation of North America has held a fascination for archaeol-
ogists since the verification of the initial Folsom discovery in 1927. Appreciable
research directed to locating and examining sites and artifacts of this period has
occurred in recent years. Fluted-point surveys have been initiated in almost every
southern state within the last twenty years, building upon the pioneering example set
by Ben McCary (1991) in Virginia in the late 1940s. To date almost nine thousand
fluted points have been documented east of the Mississippi River, with the vast major-
ity coming fkorn the southeastern United States (Anderson and Faught 1998, 167).
Hundreds of sites with Paleoindian components have been identified across the
Southeast, in excavations ranging in scale from limited testing operations to large-scale
data recovery projects (e.g., as summarized in Anderson and Sassaman 1996). These
efforts have expanded the material culture record, resulting in a better understanding
of Paleoindian chronology, adaptation, and regional variation.
Eastern Highland Rim
Map 6.1. 1 The Southern Appalachians, including the sites and localities mentioned in the text.
We now know that the Paleoindian occupation of the Southeast covers an appre-
ciable span of time, over which sigdicant cultural change occurred. It is becoming
increasiigly clear that the cultures present during the Paleoindian era did not possess
a uniform suite of strategies extending across the Americas, nor were they essentially
identical even within the Southeast itself. Early Paleoindian Clovis-using peoples in the
central Tennessee River Valley, for example, had to have had a different pattern of land
use fi-om their contemporaries in the radically different desiccated karstic terrain of
northwestern Florida. Both of these adaptations in turn differed appreciably From the
Late Paleoindian adaptations by Dalton and San Patrice-using peoples of the central
and lower Mississippi Valley. Accordingly, Paleoindian studies must consider the dif-
ferent environmental and historical settings in which these early hunter-gatherer occu-
pations were carried out (Dent 1985; Dincauze and Curran 1983; Lepper and
Meltzer 1991; Meltzer 1984; Meltzer and Smith 1986; Tankersley and Isaac 1990).
Secure understanding of individual adaptations, furthermore, can only be achieved
through detailed research at the subregional and local levels, and through the devel-
opment of sophisticated models capable of interpreting the information being gener-
ated and guiding the collection of new data.
Focused local level research is crucial if we are to understand why there is surpris-
ingly little known about Paleoindian occupations in some parts of eastern North
America. This is particularly true in the more mountainous regions of the southern
Appalachians, where sites and even artifacts dating to the Paleoindian period are com-
paratively infi-equent when compared with other parts of the region. Thus, when data
fkom fluted-point surveys are compiled, the resulting maps document major concen-
trations of sites and artifacts in the major river valleys along the eastern and western
flanks of the southern Appalachians, but comparatively few d c t s , and certainly no
major concentrations, within the central and more mountainous areas (map 6.2).
Why this is the case is uncertain. Less intensive survey coverage, at least when com-
pared with other parts of the region, is one possible explanation. There is an under-
standable research bias amste xamining steeply sloping terrain and this, coupled with
the minimal development'o~currini~n such terrain (and, as a consequence, minimal
associated CRM work), might reduce the likelihood of discovering Paleoindian sites.
Another possible explanation that has been raised is a lower incidence of cultivation,
and hence reduced surface visibility and collecting activity, by both avocationals and
professionals alike (c.f., Lepper 1983, 1985; Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Seeman and
P&r 1984). Additionally, we must consider that this type of terrain, with the excep-
tion of upper drainage systems (Cremeens and Lothrop this volume), is typically an
erosional rather than a depositional environment, something that likely profoundly
afkcted the likelihood of site preservation. Finally, the kinds of resources targeted by
early populations, such as specific plant and animal species or lithic raw materials, may
not have been as prevalent in mountainous areas.
I
Lane and Anderson
Map 6.2. 1 lncidcnce of fluted points in thc Eastern Woodlands (data hrnh dcrson and Faugh 1998).
AU of these factors are unquestionably operating to some extent in explaining the
low incidence of Paleoindian remains in the southern Appalachian highlands. Even
accepting this, it is highly unlikely, however, that major concentrations of Paleoindian
sites and artifacts in any way comparable to those found in the regions to either side
would have been missed, if they were indeed present in the first place. An additional
explanation, offered here, is that the Appalachians were physiographically at the
"ends* of early migration routes in part due to their geographic position. Not only
did the Appalachians present colonizers with challenging topography and a different
set of resources, but they were located in the interior of the region well away from
primary migration routes (i.e., at the headwaters of major river systems) and were
therefore some of the last areas in the Eastern Woodlands to be physically reached by
colonizing populations moving up the large drainage systems of the mid-South and
the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Only later, as population density rose promoting further
colonization, and resource extraction and mobility strategies changed, did these areas
witness appreciable visitation and ultimately settlement. The archaeological record
suggests that in some areas of the southern Appalachians this did not occur until the
Early Archaic period.
The Cumberland Plateau stretches from the mid-Ohio River Valley in Kentucky
southward into north-central Alabama and northeastern Mississippi (Fenneman
1938). It is a maturely dissected plateau of varying altitude and relief. This varying
character is an expression of local differences in rock outcrops. It is a region of den-
dritic drainages consisting of a maze of irregularly winding narrow-crested ridges and
deep narrow valleys formed by the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers and their trib-
utaries. Valley walls are characteriied by rocky hillslopes and precipitous sandstone
CUTS, often contaihing rockshelters. Flat land is at a minimum within the region.
However, in areas of shale outcrops considerable localized bottomlands have devel-
oped while small upla&flats occur in areas of massive sandstone outcrops. Chert out-
crops are localized and of varying quality and abundance.
The Eastern Highland Rim lies adjacent to the western edge of the Cumberland
Plateau &om central Kentucky to Alabama and Mississippi (Fenneman 1938). While
technically part of the Interior Low Plateaus it is more similar physiographically to the
Cumberland Plateau than the karst plains to the west and north, sharing a similar
depositional and erosional histories. Pennsylvanian sandstones have been largely
eroded away, exposing underlying Mississippian age, primarily carbonate, strata.
Therefore, this dissected topography is combined with karst landscape features such
as sinkholes and numerous cavernous settings. Chert outcrops of varying quality and
abundance are widespread in these Mississippian formations (Tankersky 1989a,
1989b, 1990a, 1990b, 1998).
I Lane and Anderson
The currently accepted initial occupation of the Southeast occurred between 15,000
and 11,000 radiocarbon years B.P.,w ith extensive settlement occurring only well after
11,000 B.P., fbllowing Clovis. These events occurred during the dramatic period of
rapid transition from the Late Glacial to Early Holocene environment. During this time
temperatures were becoming warmer in summer, colder in winter, and precipitation was
increasing. Paleoenvironmental analyses suggests that major changes in floral and hu-
nal communities were occurring. The Late Glacial patchy environment was shifting to
one of latitudinally and elevationally segregated zones (Davis 1983; Delcourt and Del-
court 1985, 1987; Guilday 1984; Watts 1983). Between 12,000 and 10,000 B.P. the
spruce-pine boreal forest-park lands of the Glacial period were being replaced by a
homogeneous, mesic oak-hickory fbrest of northern hardwoods. In ecological terms
the vegetation was changing from an immature, coarse-grained environment to a fine-
grained mature environment. This transition was Likely completed shortly after 10,000
B.P. and almost certainly by 9,000 B.P. (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985, 1987). However,
this transition should not be pictured as a uniform replacement of flora but as an
uneven change, with Pleistocene landscapes likely lasting longest in higher latitudes and
elevations, resulting in an extremely diverse environment.
The transitional Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene environment of the Cumberland
Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim supported a mixed faunal community. Modern
species, many allopatric today, would have co-existed alongside now-extinct Late
Woodfordian forms (Guilday 1984). The earliest Paleoindian occupants would have
been faced with a diverse biotic environment with faunal species segregated into dif-
ferent microenvironmental settings. As the floral community became increasing fine-
grained a less diverse modern Holocene faunal assemblage, more evenly dispersed
across the landscape, emerged.
Research in the Northern Cumberland Plateau and
Eastern Hbhland Rim
Until recently, and for many of the reasons discussed previously, the northern Cum-
berland Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim of Kentucky and Tennessee received only
minimal attention by Paleoindian researchers. Rolingson's attempt to document Pale-
oindian archaeological sites and artifacts using museum collections and collector
interviews-summarized in her classic 1964 publication Paleoindian C h r ek Km-
tuckywas one of the first modem attempts to locate Paleoindian data f+om this
region. Her work, which explored paleoenvironmental correlations, patterns of land-
use, and chronology, suggested that the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Kentucky was
largely avoided by Paleoindian populations.
A more recent synthesis by Tankersley (1990) yielded essentially similar results,
although the existence of some deeply buried sites in floodplains was noted, as were
a number of smaller sites on ridge crests overlooking mountain passes, and possibly in
Palcoindian Occupations oftbe Soutbcrn AppnJathianr I
cave vestibules in the Eastern Highland Rim. Excavations at Enoch Fork Shelter (Bush
1988; Ison 1989) documented a projectile point similar to the Wheeler type beneath
Early Archaic strata. A single carbon sample yielded a radiocarbon date of 9010Q40
B.C. from strata beneath this artiflact. Taken together, the swey and collections
research by Rolingson and Tankersley, the excavations at sites like Enoch Fork Shel-
ter, as well as more recent information obtained fiom local collectors by one of us
(Lane 1995, 1997), indicate that this part of the Appalachians in eastern Kentucky
was at least visited fiom time to time by Early Paleoindian groups.
To the south in Tennessee, similar efforts to document Paleoindian assemblages
have been underway sporadically since the early 1960s, when a fluted-point swey was
initiated by personnel at the University of Tennessee (Guthe 1983). Since the late
1980s the staff of the Tennessee Division of Archaeology have been undertaking an
intensive exploration of the Paleoindian occupation of the state, work that has
included the documentation of almost three thousand projectile points and the test-
ing of, and larger-scale excavations at, a number of sites (Broster and Norton 1996).
The data that have been recovered have been used to develop predictive models of
Paleoindian incidence and location in various parts of Tennessee. This work has shown
that Paleoindian sites and points are rare in the Cumberland Plateau and Eastern
Highland Rim, the same pattern documented in Kentucky. This appears to be partic-
ularly true during the Early and Middle Paleoindian subperiods. In the northern por-
tion of this area only two Cumberland projectile points have been reported. Recent
surveys in the Big South Fork River and Recreation Area by the University of Ken-
tucky in which only a single unfluted Late Paleoindian projectile point was recovered
(Tom Sussenbach, personal communication 1997) have supported these findings.
Evidence for Early Paleoindian Clovis occupants, for example, is almost completely
lacking in the Cumberland Plateau and is rare in the adjacent Eastern Highland Rim.
Paleoindian occupation of the region increases gradually over time, however, until the
Early Archaic period, \when an explosion in the number of sites and artifacts occurs.
Known Paleoindian sites and artifacts are recorded primarily on ridgetops and river
terraces, and occasionally $ I rockshelters and cave vestibules in the region. They have
been very rarely reported professionally in bottomlands in the region, though this may
be a result of both depth of deposits and collector activity. Additionally, occupations
associated with sinkholes are commonly recorded in the Eastern Highland Rim. It is
important to note that the majority of documented Paleoindian sites and artifacts in
the northern Cumberland Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim have been recorded as
a result of CRM projects and collector interviews. With the few notable exceptions
cited above, there have been no research projects directed to exploring Paleoindian
occupations in this area, and large-scale professional excavation of known sites is non-
existent. Therefore, these distributions may more accurately reflect patterns of mod-
ern development and local researchers, and collectors, ability to detect Paleoindian
I Lane and Anderson
sites on deflated upland landscapes and in plowed fields on major river terraces rather
than actual prehistoric settlement preferences. Until large-scale systematic interdisci-
plinary survey work is conducted and evaluated with an eye toward delimiting and
controlling for possible sources of bias, our knowledge of Paleoindian settlement will
remain sketchy at best. As new data are generated, our existing hypotheses will
undoubtedly require refinement and modification.
Settlement and Chronology
Recently a tripartite division of Early, Middle, and Late subperiods for the Paleoin-
dim period in the Southeast, based largely on stratigraphic evidence from a number
of locales and the cross-dating of diagnostic bfices with morphologically similar
forms from other regions, has been proposed (Anderson 1990b; Anderson et al.;
Anderson and Sassaman 1996). The Early Paleoindian subperiod is tentatively placed
from circa 11,500 to 10,900 B.P. and is characterized by classic Clovis fluted points.
The Middle Paleoindian is dated from circa 10,900 to 10,500 B.P. and is characterized
by a range of fluted and unfluted lanceolate forms. The Late Paleoindian subperiod,
recognized by the presence of Dalton points and, toward the end of the subperiod,
side-notched forms, is dated from circa 10,500 to 10,000 B.P.
This basic chronology is in need of appreciable testing and refinement. As there are
few secure radiocarbon dates for assemblages yielding diagnostic projectile points
prior to the Late Paleoindian era from the Southeast, the dating of the earlier subpe-
riods is open to some question. In particular, the Early Paleoindian subperiod may
need to be extended back a thousand or more years, both in light of dates >12,000
B.P. recorded at sites like Little Salt Springs and Page-Ladson in Horida, and evidence
supporting an even earlier colonization of the hemisphere at Monte Verde in Chile,
dated to approximately 12,500 B.P. (Dillehay 1997). Thus, the Early Paleoindian in
the Southeast will probably eventually need to be redefined, perhaps by subdividing it
into Clovis and pre-Clovis eras.
The Middle and Late Paleomdian subpqriods are only slightly better dated,
although there is stratigraphic evidence at a number of sites, such as Hester, Silver
Springs, Dust Cave, and Big Eddy, among others, for maintaining such a separation.
Because the temporal occurrence of many later Paleoindian (i.e., post-Clovis) point
forms remains in doubt, some researchers have suggested the use of two temporal sub-
divisions, Early and Late Paleoindian, ranging from circa 11,500 to 10,750 B.P., and
from 10,750 to 10,000 B.P. (Morse, Anderson, and Goodyear 1996:324-27):'As the
dating of sites and assemblages improves, so too will our understanding of variabiity
during these subperiods.
Given the limited number of Paleoindian sites and artifacts in the Cumberland
Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim, and a total lack of secure temporal associations
(i.e., absolute dates) 6 rt hese, the chronology for the region is based primarily upon
comparisons with data &om other areas. Lanceolate fluted points resembling western
Clovis forms are diagnostic of the Early Paleoindian period. In the northern Cum-
berland Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim Clovis and Clovis-like, similar to Gainey,
points have been reported by professional archaeologists and collectors, with Clovis-
like points being slightly more common (fig. 6.1).
The Middle Paleoindian period in the Southeast is marked by smaller fluted points
and unfluted lanceolate points, and fluted and unfluted forms with broad blades and
Fig. 6.1. ( Paleoindian period diagnostics from the northern Cumberland Plateau and Eastern
Highland Rim of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Early Arebak I1
9,000-8,000 B.P.
Early Ahak1
ca 10.000-9,000 B.P.
Late Pakoiadian
10.500-10,000 B.P.
ca 10,800- 10.500 B.P.
Early Pakoiadian
ca 12,00610,800 B.P.
I h ean d Anderson
constricted haft elements. These types include Cumberland, Quad, and Beaver Lake,
with the later two extending into the Late Paleoindian period in the mid-South; a
small fluted form known as the Clovis Variant from the South Carolina Piedmont and
adjoining areas, where it was first recognized; Suwannee and Sipson forms in Florida
and adjoining areas of the southeastern Coastal Plain, and a number of Plains lance-
olate forms which appear on the western margin of the Southeast. Clovis Variant and
Cumberland types are the only Middle Paleoindian subperiod types to be unequivo-
cally documented in the study region.
Late Paleoindian points include fluted and unfluted, resharpened lanceolate forms
like Dalton, Hardaway, and San Patrice (vars. Hope and St. Johns). Many of the types
diagnostic of the period appear to be subregional variants of a supraregional Dalton
technological tradition extending across much of the East and well into the Great
Plains. Unfluted Dalton points may continue into the initial Early Archaic period after
10,000 B.P.; the Early Archaic period itself is currently dated &om 10,000 to 8,000
B.P. in the Southeast. Recent work at sites like Page-Ladson and Dust Cave indicates
that Early Archaic corner- and side-notched forms such as San Patrice vars. Keithville,
Dixon, and Leaf River, and the Bolen/Taylor/Big Sandy types begin temporally ear-
lier, in the Late Paleoindian era, possibly around 10,200 B.P. Other, later Early Archaic
hrms include corner-notched types such as Kirk, and b i a t et ypes such as LeCroy,
St. Albans, and MacCorkle.
Middle-to-Late Paleoindian Dalton, Hardaway, Quad, and Beaver Lake points, and
Late Paleoindianfiarly Archaic Big Sandy points, have been documented in the
northern Cumberland Plateau and Eastern Highland Rim, and are appreciably more
common than earlier Clovis forms, especially in the Cumberland Plateau. A particu-
larly dramatic increase in the number of diagnostics occurs after about 9500 B.P., with
the appearance of large numbers of Kirk Corner-Notched forms. Kirk points are doc-
umented in far greater numbers in the study area than earlier forms, a pattern that has
also been observed in several other parts of the Southeast at this time (Anderson
1990b:199), and that has been interpreted as representing a period of appreciable
landscape filling (or saturation).
No definitive evidence fbr earlier, pre-Clovis occupations have been found in the
southern Appalachians, although possible candidates are present in and in nearby parts
of the general region, such as Cactus Hill and Saltville in Virginia, Meadowcroft Rock-
shelter in Pennsylvania, Enoch Fork Shelter in Kentudry, the Mendale chert quarries
in South Carolina, and at a number of submerged sites in Florida. At present, how-
ever, there is no evidence hra substantial pre-Clovis occupation of the Eastern Wood-
lands. The possibility that pre-Clovis sites may be documented in the future should
not be eliminated, though, given the limited amount of archaeological research
directed to locating early occupation that has been conducted in the southern
Appalachians to date. Indeed, a recent overview suggests that, if the first colonists of
Palcoindian Occupations ofthe Southern Appalachlam I