ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Number 98: 496 pp. June 14, 2013

Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2013

ISSN 0065-9452

http://dx.doi.org/10.5531/sp.anth.0098

[PART 3 OF EPUB]

LIFE AMONG THE TIDES: RECENT ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE GEORGIA BIGHT

VICTOR D. THOMPSON

AND

DAVID HURST THOMAS

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY

Clark R. Alexander, Keith H. Ashley, Elliot H. Blair,

Ann S. Cordell, Kathleen A. Deagan, Chester B. DePratter, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Ervan G. Garrison, Royce H. Hayes, Richard W. Jefferies, Deborah A. Keene, Ginessa J. Mahar, Rochelle A. Marrinan, Christopher R. Moore, Matthew F. Napolitano, Alexandra L. Parsons, Vicki L. Rolland, Matthew C. Sanger, Ryan O. Sipe, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson, Robert L. Thunen, John A. Turck, Neill J. Wallis, and Thomas G. Whitley

Proceedings of the Sixth Caldwell Conference

St. Catherines Island, Georgia

May 20–22, 2011

PART III: Architecture and village layout before contact

CHAPTER 11: A Survey of Irene Phase Architecture on the Georgia Coast

Deborah A. Keene and Ervan G. Garrison[1]

INTRODUCTION

The remains of Irene phase (a.d. 1300–1450) prehistoric architecture from the Georgia coastal plain are rarely found in the archaeological record, and therefore, poorly understood. Excavations at the Grove’s Creek site (9Ch71) have uncovered five structures. Only nine other Irene phase structures have been described, and these are primarily found in unpublished reports. The purpose of this chapter is to consolidate this information and describe each of the nine structures. A comparison is then made between architectural characteristics found in the archaeological record and those described in ethnohistorical accounts, in order to characterize Irene phase structures on the Georgia coast. The architectural characteristics of shape, size, and construction are found to vary considerably among all archaeological examples as well as between archaeological and ethnohistorical accounts. There appears to be no universal model for these Irene phase structures—rather, variation is the norm. This variation is likely due to the various structures having different functions.

Studies of indigenous architecture in the southeastern U.S. are hampered by the preservation difficulties that abound in the area. From termites to torrential storms, structures are assaulted on a daily basis both while they are in use and long after the structure is uninhabited. The coastal region has more than its share of destructive forces, which, combined with the sandy soil, result in a very poor archaeological record. Very few Irene phase (a.d. 1300–1450) structures have been recovered on the Georgia coast, and only nine structures have been described in the literature. These structures come from the Irene site (Caldwell and McCann, 1941), Seven-Mile Bend (Cook, 1971), 9Ch112 (Goad, 1975), Harris Neck (Braley, O’Steen, and Quitmyer, 1986), and the Redbird Creek site (Pearson, 1984; Sipe, this volume, chap. 12) (fig. 11.1). At most of these sites, the preservation was either poor or the sites were part of a salvage project, which limited the amount of research that could be done. Excavations at Grove’s Creek site uncovered five structures, almost doubling the number of Irene phase structures known from the Georgia coast, and the excellent preservation of structures at Grove’s Creek site provides new data that can be used to shed some light on the information we already possess.

Several researchers in the Southeast have already used the concept of architectural grammar, or finding patterns in local and regional architecture, to learn more about the societies that design, construct, and inhabit these structures and areas. Some have worked on a regional scale (Hally, 2006), others on a village scale (Lewis and Stout, 1998), and some on a structural scale (Gougeon, 2007). A necessary precondition for defining an architectural grammar is having data about the architecture in question. Given the dearth of structures along the Georgia coast, defining an architectural grammar for the area is not currently possible on the village scale, and is only now becoming possible on the structure scale. The purpose of this chapter is to draw together the disparate information that is available to begin the process of defining an architectural grammar for the Irene phase on the Georgia coast. To that end, this chapter examines characteristics of each of the structures that have been found, including the date and the methods by which the dates were obtained, shape, size, construction, and associated features. These attributes are compared to ethnohistorical accounts of early-contact architecture in an effort to help further our understanding of Irene phase architecture on the Georgia coast.

Although the record of Late Mississippian coastal architecture is scant, there are numerous examples of Mississippian architecture elsewhere in Georgia. These structures are either round, square, or rectangular, range in size from 5 m per side to more than 10 m per side, were constructed of wattle overlain by either daub or mats, were generally semisubterranean, usually contained a centrally located hearth and often included other features such as storage pits and burials (Kelly et al., 1965; Hally, 1970, 1979, 2002, 2008; Anderson and Schuldenrein, 1985; Kowalewski and Williams, 1989; Poplin, 1990; Smith, 1994; Hatch, 1995; Hally and Kelly, 1998). Many of these architectural characteristics can also be seen across the greater southeastern U.S. (cf. Walling, 1993; Lewis, Kneberg Lewis, and Sullivan, 1995; Hally, 2002; O’Brian, 2002). This information, in addition to the ethnohistorical information and archaeological data that follow, was drawn upon while interpreting the architectural descriptions from the Georgia coast.

ETHNOHISTORICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE ALONG THE GEORGIA COAST

Few ethnohistorical accounts provide details concerning prehistoric architecture of the Georgia coast. Some accounts describe the Guale and the Cusabo, whose ancestors were the likely inhabitants of Irene phase sites in South Carolina and Georgia, and the Timucua, who lived south of the Guale in present-day Florida. The earliest descriptions come from Jean Ribault, who came to the New World in 1562 (Ribault, 1927 [1563]). In the vicinity of St. Marys River, he encountered a village in which houses were made of wood and covered with reeds. He describes many of them as similar to pavilions, suggesting that not all had walls. One larger structure in the center of the village was described as “verry great, long and broode” (Ribault, 1927 [1563]: 84). This could have been a townhouse. In that building only, he describes benches along the walls.

In 1564, Réné Goulaine de Laudonnière led an expedition from present-day Florida to South Carolina. He was accompanied by the artist Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues, who made drawings throughout the journey (Le Moyne, 1875). Le Moyne’s engraving 2 depicts an area near St. Johns River, Florida. The houses are all round and appear to have thatched roofs. Engraving 3 represents a village seen north of St. Johns River, perhaps in southern Georgia. One round and two rectangular structures are shown. Engravings 5, 6, 22, 31, and 40 are scenes from Port Royal, South Carolina, and each depicts round, thatched roof structures. Engraving 7 depicts the French asking Ouade (Guale) for supplies. It is difficult to determine the shape of one of the structures, but it appears to be rectangular, while the other is round. A sentinel cottage or alligator blind is also depicted. The sentinel cottages and alligator blinds both appear throughout the engravings as small, thatched roof structures, constructed with solid walls (of unknown material) having holes cut out in regular intervals (engravings 26 and 30). Engraving 30 depicts a fortified town. It consists of a mix of square and circular structures. One large, rectangular structure in the center of the village is referred to as the chief’s house but is probably a townhouse. Engraving 33 and several of the unnumbered engravings depict very long, thin rectangular structures. It is unclear what these structures represent or where they were seen.

Le Moyne (1875) describes some aspects of architecture as well, such as roofs made of dried palm branches. He writes that the chief’s house was partly underground because of the heat (Le Moyne, 1875: 12). He does not suggest that common houses were built partly underground, but the engraving does not depict the chief’s house as any different from the other houses. He notes that houses were burned down both by enemies and when a chief or priest died (Le Moyne, 1875).

Fray Andrés de San Miguel was a Spanish monk who visited the town of Asao, near present-day St. Simons Island, in 1595. He noted that the houses were small, made of unfinished wood, and covered in palmetto. The chief’s house was made of several small rooms, suggesting that the structure had interior walls acting as partitions; however, it was no larger than any other house. San Miguel and his companions were housed in a large, circular structure made of “entire pine trees” (San Miguel, 2001: 65). All of the trees came together in a point at the apex of the roof. Beds lined the walls, and San Miguel estimated that 300 men could sleep there (San Miguel, 2001: 65).

In the 17th century, Bishop Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderón wrote of several Native American groups, including the Guale. He described their houses as round and made of straw, and indicates that at least one structure contained a bed made of reeds. He mentions a characteristic that is not described elsewhere: a granary on the side of the structure. It is not clear whether it is attached to the main structure or not, only that it is “supported by 12 beams” (Wenhold, 1936: 13).

Swanton writes that “Most of the houses of the common people were undoubtedly circular” (Swanton, 1977 [1946]: 407). He speculates that the houses north of the St. Johns River were thatched with reeds, while those south of the river were thatched with palmetto; the reed-thatched roofs were daubed, while the palmetto ones were not. He writes that the roofs were wattle-and-daub “like the walls.” This suggests that all the walls were wattle-and-daub construction, although he cites no explicit ethnohistorical source for that description (Swanton, 1977 [1946]: 408).

The general consensus among the ethnohistorical descriptions is that the houses were round, fairly small, and thatched with palmetto or reeds; however, Le Moyne’s (1975) drawings depict structures that were rectangular and square. The majority of structures were described as either wattle-and-daub construction or covered with palmetto. There is only one reference to a structure being semisubterranean and one for partitions within structures. The only features mentioned were beds or benches along the outer walls of larger buildings.

GROVE’S CREEK SITE

Site Background

The site is located on Skidaway Island, Georgia, and is a village associated with a large shell midden (fig. 11.2). There are at least five structures at the site. Four of the structures are oriented approximately north-south with one located to the east on a bluff overlooking the marsh. The midden is to the west of the structures. The bulk of the ceramics at the site are from the Irene phase, although ceramics from earlier time periods were also uncovered. There was a rice plantation near Grove’s Creek site and some irrigation system remains can still be seen, however none appear to be at the site. The site has been used for dumping garbage and is littered with both personal and construction debris, however this disturbance is superficial and only affected the geophysical survey.

Multiple excavations have been conducted at Grove’s Creek site (fig. 11.2). The first documented excavations were conducted from 1985 to 1991 by Larry Babits, in association with Armstrong College (now Armstrong Atlantic State University) and the Elderhostel program (now called Road Scholar). Garrison headed the Elderhostel program from 1993 through the present and conducted a two-month excavation during the summer of 2007 to uncover and document structure 4. Additional work continues with both Elderhostel and volunteers. Keene directed an excavation in the summer of 2001 with volunteers and students from the University of Georgia and opened three units in 2007 with the University of Georgia field school. In addition, there appear to have been numerous unknown excavators working at the site. Evidence of past excavations has been found throughout the site area. Some are so large that it is probable that they are borrow pits for modern construction activities. Others appear to be archaeological excavations, but no documentation from these exists.

Given the fragmented history of this site, the authors felt that it was important to bring as much of the architectural data together in one place as possible. It should be noted, however, that each team of excavators used its own excavation, analysis, and documentation procedures. Babits excavated structures 1–3. Garrison excavated structure 4 and incorporated information from the Babits excavations that was relevant. Keene excavated structure 5. Each author wrote the descriptions of his or her own excavation, and Keene compiled the information from Babits’s investigations to describe structures 1–3. For clarity during discussion, each excavation will be referred to by the name of the person who conducted it.

The information gathered from the Keene excavations, coupled with information from the remaining notes and maps of the Babits excavations, was used to help determine the characteristics of structures 1–3 and inform the excavation of structure 5. However, the existing data for structure 5 are the most complete, and so the data from structure 5 are given first as a reference for the discussion concerning structures 1–3. The description of structure 4 will follow.

Structure 5

Structure 5 consisted of two perpendicular rows of in situ charred posts, many charred timbers, a yellow clay floor, a wattle-and-daub interior wall, and a large quantity of daub. The high level of preservation suggests that it was burned during or shortly after occupation. Only a portion of structure 5 has been excavated, and at this time, it is not possible to determine how much.

Excavation Methods: Structure 5 was located with a gradiometer survey, and the first units were placed in the area of highest concentration of magnetic activity. The excavation units were tied into the existing site grid. Each unit was 1 m2 and was excavated in 10 cm levels. Soil was screened through ¼ in. and 1⁄16 in. mesh. Soil samples were taken in each unit and level, although only the structure floor samples were later subject to flotation. All large pieces of daub were collected and saved for further study. Small fragments of daub were weighed and discarded. All timbers and upright posts were wrapped in plastic wrap and then duct tape, removed intact, and given individual identification numbers. All artifacts on the structure floor were piece-plotted if seen; all other artifacts were bagged by unit number.

Date: Both absolute and relative dates were determined for the structure. Absolute dates were obtained through accelerator mass spectrometry. The uncalibrated and calibrated dates are seen in table 11.1. All the post dates are from upright, exterior wall posts found in situ. The wall date is from a post found in an interior daub wall. The dates of the posts and wall have a large range. However, this is to be expected as all of the upright posts were split, so the date would vary depending on the age of the tree and the part of the tree from which each section derived. In addition, some older pieces of wood may have been reused. As the most recent date is cal a.d. 1415–1527, this is likely the date of the structure.

Ceramic chronology provided the relative dates for structure 5. Ceramic types were identified using the methods of Caldwell and Waring (1968), DePratter (1991), and Williams and Thompson (1999). The majority of sherds were Irene Filfot Stamped, with a small percentage of Irene Incised, placing the site in the Late Irene phase (a.d. 1350–1450) (Braley, 1990; Saunders, 2000a: 42). Thus, the radiocarbon and ceramic chronology dates overlap.

Shape: The house appears to be square or rectangular with rounded corners (fig. 11.3). A dark stain was associated with the entire northernmost row of posts. While the northern edge of the stain was distinct, the southern border of the stain could not be isolated due to debris. A similar wall stain was found on the west side of the structure in conjunction with a north-south trending line of postholes and posts (fig. 11.3). The only area in which the wall stain was not visible was the northwest corner of the structure. The exterior wall posts of the structure were approximately 25 cm apart except in the northwest corner, where the posts were 60 cm apart. The larger gap in posts and the lack of a wall stain suggests that there may have been a doorway in this corner.

Size: Portions of only two walls have been uncovered; thus it is difficult to give exact dimensions of the structure. As hearths are often found in the center of structures (Kelly et al., 1965; Hally, 1970, 1979, 2002, 2008; Anderson and Schuldenrein, 1985 Kowalewski and Williams, 1989; Poplin, 1990; Smith, 1994; Hally and Kelly, 1998), the distance from the hearth to the nearest wall could be used to determine size. However, no hearth has been uncovered in structure 5 to date. Assuming that a hearth is in one of the unopened units immediately to the southeast of the excavation (fig. 11.3), the structure would be about 6 × 8 m wide. If there is no hearth in the structure, and the remaining walls are in the next unexcavated unit, the structure would be at least 5 × 6 m wide.

Construction: Figure 11.4 is a composite map of all excavation levels, showing the full extent of the daub debris. The interior portion of the structure contained large quantities of daub, but the area around the exterior walls contains very little, indicating that the exterior walls were not daubed (Poplin, 1990: 146; Hally, 2002). Pieces of burned cane were found in the dark stains surrounding the exterior wall, suggesting that the outside walls were constructed of cane matting that fell around the posts as it burned or rotted, staining the surrounding soil. The stain is not representative of wall trench construction, as it begins well above the floor level, does not extend below the floor level, and the postmolds associated with the charred posts extend up to 33 cm below both the floor and dark stain. Therefore, the method of construction was single-set post. Some exterior wall posts were split in half or in quarters. Some could be identified as pine (Henri Grission-Mayee, personal commun., 2001); the wood type of the others is not known.

One intact, upright interior wall was excavated. It was constructed of daub with cane wattle (fig. 11.5). The daub was most likely tempered with Spanish moss, as it was porous and contained a large quantity of organic material. The wall was removed, and an attempt was made to transport it to the laboratory intact. It broke into three sections during the move; however, it could still be carefully excavated from one side to the other. Evidence from this excavation indicated that the wall was originally hollow, with cane tied to both sides and then plastered. The interior of the wall was filled entirely with sandy soil, and there was a large quantity of charred cane remains at the base. These were likely the remains of the wattle, which had rotted and fallen, or been pushed by the influx of soil, to the base. Although the actual cane had been displaced, the impressions in the daub remained intact, as did three of the interior posts. Figure 11.6 is a reconstruction of the interior wall. There were posts on each end and one in the middle. One of the end posts also acted as an exterior wall support. The other end post had daub molded around it to create a smooth, rounded edge. The posts were approximately 50 cm apart. The horizontal cane impressions always appeared as pairs and were approximately 5 cm apart. One knot impression was found, suggesting that the cane pairs were tied with cordage to the vertical posts rather than woven between them, explaining how the wall could be hollow. A hollow wall would provide the advantage of using much less clay.

All of the daub fragments from Keene’s 2001 excavation were inspected for impressions. Cane impressions were most often found as pairs, although rarely as triplets and once with four together. These groupings of cane were 5–7 cm apart. It could not be determined whether the cane bunches were originally oriented horizontally or vertically; however, the intact wall contained only horizontal cane, so this is believed to be the pattern throughout the structure.

The most likely explanation for why the interior walls were wattle-and-daub while the exterior walls were not is that they were plastered to make the structure more fire retardant. This technique has been noted elsewhere in Georgia (Poplin, 1990: 146; Hally, 2002). This explanation is further supported by the daub distribution. The excavation unit with the upright wall section contained 31 kg of daub. However, the 1 m × 50 cm unit seen in figure 11.4 contained 56 kg, and all four units in the southeastern section of the excavation block contained between 24 and 36 kg of daub. This amount of daub could result from the debris from more interior walls; however, these walls would need to be very close together to produce this distribution. A daubed roof interior, above the fire pit or hearth, could produce the distribution pattern seen in the excavation and would help explain why there are larger amounts of daub toward the middle of the structure than at the edges (Poplin, 1990: 146; Hally, 2002).

No isolated central support posts have been found in any of the Grove’s Creek site structures. However, the interior wall in structure 5 suggests an explanation. This wall was constructed of three upright posts, each as large in diameter as the exterior wall posts. The post nearest the center of the structure most likely acted as a central support post.

The structure floor was a very thin, yellow clay layer. In most areas, the daub was lying directly above it and many of the sherds were found lying horizontal either on or in it. This layer abutted the interior wall and scalloped around the postholes of the exterior wall. It terminated at the exterior wall; however, it was discovered again in the north profile of the excavation block. Further excavation in 2007 showed that it only extended a short distance beyond the structure wall. This discovery led to the hypothesis that the structure was bigger in the past and had been rebuilt smaller or shifted laterally, as seen so often elsewhere in the Southeast (Kelly et al., 1965; Hally, 1970, 1979, 2002, 2008; Polhemus, 1987; Walling, 1993; Smith, 1994; Lewis, Kneberg Lewis, and Sullivan, 1995). No indication of a previous structure built on the same spot has been found; however, this hypothesis cannot truly be tested without further excavation.

Semisubterranean construction is widespread throughout the Late Mississippian Southeast (Kelly et al., 1965; Hally, 1970, 1979, 2002, 2008; Anderson and Schuldenrein, 1985; Kowalewski and Williams, 1989; Poplin, 1990; Walling, 1993; Smith, 1994; Hatch, 1995; Lewis, Kneberg Lewis, and Sullivan, 1995; Hally and Kelly, 1998; Schroedl, 1998). It is unlikely that structure 5 was semisubterranean. Admittedly, the difference in elevation between the prehistoric ground surface and the structure floor was difficult to determine. The south and east sides of the excavation block did not extend outside the structure (fig. 11.3). The yellow clay floor layer, as mentioned above, was found outside the structure on the north and northwest sides. If this does indicate that the structure was rebuilt and shifted laterally, then the original prehistoric ground surface in this area has already been altered. Therefore, the difference in structure floor and prehistoric ground surface elevation on these sides of the structure cannot be resolved until further excavations are completed. Due to a palm tree disturbing the soil, the elevation difference between the structure floor and the prehistoric ground surface on the west side of the excavation could only be measured in one unit, and was between 3 and 6 cm, with the prehistoric ground surface being slightly higher.

An argument can be made against the structure being semisubterranean. Along the north wall of the structure, where the excavation unit went outside the prehistoric structure boundaries, a large, black, charcoal-filled stain was found extending the length of the structure. That large stain is likely the remains of the roof thatch, which slid off the roof as it burned and landed on the ground. The exterior roof debris is therefore on the same level as the interior floor of the structure. The personal experience of the excavators also argues against a semisubterranean floor. The general consensus was that there were many more mosquitoes and gnats down in the excavation units than at the ground surface due to the lack of a sea breeze in the hole. Also, the excavation unit was fairly damp for most of the summer. Both of these conditions led us to believe that semisubterranean architecture was not the norm in the area, at least in the summer.

Associated Features: No features were uncovered in the vicinity of structure 5. Neither a prepared hearth nor a fire pit was found. There was no evidence of storage pits either inside or outside the structure. There was a cluster of small, burned posts on the east side of the north wall that may be the remains of benches along that wall.

Structures 1, 2, and 3

Excavation Methods: Structures 1, 2, and 3 were excavated by Larry Babits with the Elderhostel program. Notes taken by Elderhostel participants along with brief summaries written by Babits were stored at the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service (MAREX). Babits stored his own notes and the photographs at Armstrong College. When he left for a new position, he left the notes and photos for the next researcher; however, his notes disappeared shortly thereafter. Both authors have tried at various times to track them down, but they appear to be lost forever, and there are reasons to believe that they were thrown out. There are notes and maps made by the Elderhostel participants; however, these are not always complete, and many of the maps are sketches rather than graphs. Therefore, the excavation results are not always clear. Excavation units were 2 × 2 m squares. It appears that most units were excavated in 10 cm levels, soil was screened with ¼ in. mesh, and daub was weighed and discarded.

Because the maps were lost, other methods were used to determine the presence of structures throughout the site. The center of structure 5 has a great quantity of daub associated with it, and by extension, other large concentrations are also likely to be the remains of structures. To help determine the location of the Elderhostel structures, the daub weights for all units were tallied and mapped. In some cases, the notes did not include numerical data but did include verbal descriptions of areas with heavy concentrations of daub. Figure 11.7 displays the frequency distribution of daub in the Elderhostel excavations for which there are numerical data and indicates the units that were described as having a heavy concentration of daub. The smallest amount of daub recovered was 1000 g per 2 m2 unit and the largest was 50,791 g per 2 m2 unit. Several of the units have no data, and it is acknowledged that with the loss of some notes, several of the units may have their daub weights underrepresented. However, this method appeared to be reliable as the four daub clusters seen on figure 11.7 coincide with remaining fieldnote descriptions of walls, postholes, hearths, and house floors. The frequency distribution map, coupled with the surviving excavation notes and ceramics, provided all the information concerning the following structures.

Date: Based on ceramic chronology, all three structures date to the Irene phase. Ceramic types were identified using Caldwell and Waring (1968), DePratter (1991), and Williams and Thompson (1999). Irene phase ceramics accounted for nearly 96% of all sherds found during the Babits excavations. Frequency distribution maps were made for the Irene, Savannah, and Deptford sherds (Keene, 2002: figs. 3-8, 3-9, 3-10) and indicate that all ceramic types were evenly distributed. As none of the non-Irene phase ceramic types were clustered near them, the structures were probably all inhabited during the Irene phase.

Structure 1: Structure 1 was the first found during the Babits excavations and is currently the structure closest to the drainage (fig. 11.7). It is not possible to determine its shape or size with existing information. The notes indicate that postholes and postmolds were found, suggesting single-set post construction rather than wall trenches. Very large pieces of daub with impressions were found in some units, but there is no indication of whether these are from walls or a plastered ceiling. Although a floor was mentioned, it is not possible to determine if it is semisubterranean. There were several small trash pits, and the notes indicate that they may be filled postholes. A clay hearth was found, but the size and shape were not given.

Structure 2: Structure 2 was north of structure 1 (fig. 11.7). A daub wall, interpreted by Elderhostelers to be an exterior wall, was excavated. Several postmolds and postholes were found as well. This suggests single-set post construction with daubed walls. It is not possible to determine the orientation of the daub wall or whether it was straight or curved. A line of postholes is described as an “arc,” but as there is no map, the shape of the structure is unclear. The size of the structure cannot be calculated, because no other walls were found. It is not possible to determine if the structure was semisubterranean. The floor was identified as a clay layer, and there may have been two superimposed floors. As floors were described in eight contiguous north-south 2 m2 excavation units, there are either multiple floors, or a natural clay layer. The only features associated with structure 2 were several trash pits in or near the structure, along with a feature described as a midden.

Structure 3: Structure 3 is directly north of structure 2 (fig. 11.7). It is not possible to determine the shape or size of structure 3. At least one posthole was mentioned, which suggested single-set post construction. One fallen wall appeared to be constructed of single-set posts and plastered in daub. The house floor was described as gray and sandy and in some areas had a reddish layer directly above it; however, this sounds like the layer under the floor in structure 5. No associated features were mentioned.

Structure 4

Structure 4 consisted of daub rubble and burned timbers. The structure was not excavated in its entirety. Babits’s teams originally located structure 4 in two different field sessions—one in the spring of 1991 and again in the fall of the same year. The spring team was composed of Armstrong College students, whereas the fall team was made up of Elderhostel volunteers. The spring team opened units 126, 127, 146, and 151 (fig. 11.8). These units, we now know, were in the eastern half of the structure. None of these units were excavated below a half meter according to the Babits excavation notes. The fall team uncovered more of the structure in units 127, 128, 131, 132, and 133 (fig. 11.8). Expansion of the Elderhostel units was continued at intervals up to the summer of 2007 when a two month excavation was undertaken.

Excavation Methods: Much of structure 4 was uncovered by the Elderhostel program over several years (1993–2008) of excavation. The units were excavated to the daub rubble and then covered with a wooden structure to protect them. In preparation for the summer 2007 excavations, several activities were conducted during the previous December Elderhostel program. These activities consisted of cleaning off the structure, restabilizing the wooden frame for the site’s covering, reestablishing the site grid markers over the area of the structure, and creating a 25 cm elevation map for the excavation area of structure 4. A total of 1200 data points form the basis of the map shown in figure 11.9. The elevation map was produced using the Surfer (Golden Software) mapping program. Areas on the map that appear lighter in color are deeper, while darker areas are higher in elevation. This map guided the excavation of structure 4 in the summer field session.

The plan view shown in figure 11.10 is composed of the 10 individual unit plans drawn by the excavation team. This map complements both the 25 cm topographic map (fig. 11.9) and the photographic view shown in figure 11.11. For instance, the areas of higher elevation shown in figure 11.9 are now seen to be the result of a pavement of burnt clay daub (fig. 11.11) across the central units. This daub layer was subsequently removed across the entire surface. Below the daub was an ashy, black layer, the so-called destruction level that lay in stratigraphic contact with the floor level of structure 4. It should be pointed out that the excavations did not completely expose the whole structure’s remains. In a review of the Babits fieldnotes from 1991, it was readily apparent that structure 4 continues in units 126, 141, 146, and 151 (fig. 11.8).

In 2007, the progression for excavation began with unit 127 and ended with unit 152, or south to north. There was no particular reason for such a progression other than it maintained a numerical “rationality” because sequentially numbered units are adjacent in the Grove’s Creek site grid.

The techniques used to excavate this portion of structure 4 differed somewhat from those used during the earlier Garrison or Babits excavations. One difference involved the use of what are termed “natural” levels rather than arbitrary levels, typically 10 cm in vertical thickness. Since the structure’s remains were presumed to be extensive amounts of collapsed wood and clay daub, the decision was made to excavate this material, at whatever thickness, as the “debris layer/level.” The stratigraphy of the structure took a simple form of: (1) debris, (2) floor, and (3) subfloor levels. The debris level was subsequently subdivided, based on content and coloration, into a “destruction level” composed of black ash, charcoal, and artifactual debris. The stratigraphy for structure 4 is illustrated in figure 11.12. This is the east cross-sectional profile of units 137, 142, and 147, a total length of 6 m. Shown clearly is the upper, overlying “fill” layer that followed the destruction of structure 4. It is shown as a light gray, sandy sediment. The “debris” layers are shown in orange-brown and the charcoal-rich stratum (black) lies in contact with the floor (dappled gray-white). The subfloor is shown in gray.

Removal of the debris level typically required the use of rock/masonry hammers, and in unit 131, steel pry bars with a six-pound hammer. These implements were necessary to break up the bricklike daub, which at times was much like a pavement, particularly in the south half of unit 131. Once the daub was broken up it could be removed by trowels and small scoops. After removal of the debris, the destruction and floor levels could be worked with trowels. Architectural features such as exterior and interior wall sections were left in situ until all surrounding materials were removed. These were the last elements to be removed from any unit. All structural elements—timbers, posts, and walls—were pedestaled as the floor and subfloor levels were excavated. At the conclusion of the excavation, these latter elements were photographed and drawn in place before their removal. All major structural elements were numbered with plastic tags, shrink-wrapped, and curated. The daub from the debris level was weighed and sorted into three categories—(1) wall face, (2) daub with impressions, and (3) rubble. Only the rubble was discarded while the other two categories were bagged and then placed in storage boxes for further study.

Finally, all materials excavated from a unit, with obvious exceptions, such as unique artifacts or features, were removed in buckets to 1⁄8 in. screens for hand screening. A 1⁄16 in. screen was used in a few cases, and on rare occasions water-screening was done using this finer mesh screen.

Date: Absolute dates were obtained using both accelerator mass spectrometry and conventional radiocarbon techniques (table 11.1). Two of the dates come from posts 2 and 7, which were from the west wall of the structure, while a timber (post 24) found within the structure provided a third direct date of the building materials. Posts 7 and 24 have comparable dates while post 2 is slightly later. Three other radiocarbon ages relate to structure 4 as well. These dates were taken on (1) shell from an ash pit west of structure 4; (2) a corn cob found with the wall rubble of the structure; and (3) a palmetto palm stump next to the west wall. The age ranges for the shell and corn overlap with the age ranges for all three structural elements, while the date for the tree is clearly older than any of the other radiocarbon ages. The date of post 2 is the most likely date of the structure as it is the youngest at cal a.d. 1455–1663.

Ceramic types were determined for sherds found in and around structure 4. Rim forms, vessel shape, and design were used to determine chronological placement (Williams, 1968; Pearson, 1984). About 32% of the rims were decorated with reed punctations, the second most popular rim (28%) was the undecorated rim, and the third most frequently used rim (16%) was appliquéd. The majority of the sherds (67%) were Irene Filfot Complicated Stamped, with a small percentage of Irene Incised (2%), placing the structure near the beginning of the Late Irene ceramic phase (a.d. 1350–1450) (Braley, 1990; Saunders, 2000a: 42). The radiocarbon and ceramic chronology dates correlate roughly at a.d. 1450.

Size and Shape: Structure 4 is a burned wattle-and-daub building of moderate dimension (ca. 30 m2). It had 6.8 m long parallel walls on its east and west. It is therefore a rectangular structure. Corroborative support for this is seen in the angles of the two corners exposed in the 2007 excavations. A line drawn from the southwest corner (unit 133) through the interior wall section (unit 132) terminates in the east wall of unit 126 where the daub concentration is more “inside” than “outside” of this line (figs. 11.8, 11.10). Additionally, the “turn” of the west wall, from that of a straight line of fallen timbers, at the northwest corner suggests a right angle or at least that of a rounded corner of a rectangular structure.

Construction: Structure 4 was a postframe building with clay walls and a palm-thatched roof. One portion of an interior wall was discovered perpendicular to the line of the south wall. A section of this south wall was recovered to an estimated height of 1.25 m (fig. 11.13). Where the west wall was preserved, at its southwest and northeast ends, the posts are roughly 20–25 cm apart, composed of either young saplings used as vertical posts or bundles of 3–4 cane stalks tied together and used as vertical posts. Pearson (1984: 7) describes this use of both actual trees and cane bundles. Structure 4 seems to mimic this type of wall design. The only portal found to date was on the southwest corner of the building.

Clay daub formed the bulk of the architectural remains removed during the 2007 excavation. Structure 4’s remains, as excavated, represent just less than 50% of the burned structure. Nonetheless, more than a metric ton (>3200 lb) of daub was removed in 2007. Prior to 2006 only 77.6 kg had been removed from the 10 excavation units (table 11.2). The daub is the result of first, intentional air-drying during wall/roof construction and second, hardening by the fire that consumed structure 4. The daub exists in two color classes, gray and red-orange. The reason for these two general colors is thought to be the location of the daub during the fire, such that some daub experienced low-oxygen conditions (reducing) and some daub experienced higher oxygen availability (oxidizing). It is well known that clay fired under these very different conditions will turn either gray-to-black or orange-to-red in color. Specific Munsell chart colors for both color classes are 10YR2/1 (dark gray-black) and 7.5YR6/6 for the red-orange color class.

As can be seen in table 11.2, the largest concentration of daub was in what could be termed the “west-central” portion of the structure. These units include 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, and 142 (fig. 11.8). Unit 148 could also be included in this list, while units 147 and 152 clearly did not have appreciable amounts of daub and are considered to be “outside” the structure. Unit 143 has 44.5 kg of daub but this could be simply debris that fell outside the west wall.

The daub was classified into three categories: (1) rubble, (2) wall face, and (3) impressed. All of category 1 was discarded after weighing. The other two categories were sorted, weighed, and curated. To be categorized as wall face daub, the fragment only had to have one smooth side while the impressed category had evidence of wattle/cane, roofing, or matting impressions. There was some overlap in the classification of some daub fragments and the sorter made a decision based on what the particular daub fragment seemed most likely to be. This is clearly a subjective decision, but the end result appears to give a basic picture of how the daub was distributed within the walls or roof of structure 4. Since 2008, the three categories of daub were examined in the laboratory in roughly even amounts—unit 127
(N = 51); unit 131 (N = 66); unit 137 (N = 105); and unit 142 (N = 108)—for a sum total of 330 pieces closely examined for color, weight, dimensions, and impressions.

Special attention was paid to impressions on both interior and exterior surfaces of the daub along with the type of interior wattling. In figure 11.14 we see the clearest evidence of the use of cordage in knots to bind the river cane (Arcendinaria gigantea) wattle. The paired cane wattling was used throughout the structure. Another facet of the wall daub was the use of fiber—probably Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides)—to amend the raw clay. This addition to the clay helps explain the prevalence of fiber impressions on the surface of much of the exterior and interior wall daub. If the fibers decayed, or in the case of structure 4 (and 5), simply carbonized or turned to ash by fire, they persist as negative impressions in the daub. Figure 11.15 shows what we interpret to be Sabal palmetto frond impressions or that of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) used as thatch and covered by clay to help waterproof the roofs of Irene phase structures.

In the 2007 excavation of structure 4, a relatively well-preserved section of a wall corner was recovered and moved to the University of Georgia for detailed study. The wall section was examined in the past year as part of a larger analysis involving several hundred pieces of structure 4’s daub. A partially complete circular design had been incised on the surface of the wall (fig. 11.16A). This design, while less than complete, immediately brought to mind similar types of incised designs seen on Irene and post-Irene pottery. Cook and Pearson (2011) have recently discussed this symbolism on Irene phase and later pottery. Likewise, Cook, in an unpublished manuscript (1971), presented evidence for similar wall decoration at the Seven Mile Bend site not more than 10 km from Grove’s Creek site and dating from a Late Irene phase context (ca. a.d. 1350–1550).

The incised design seen on the wall section from structure 4 is a simple multiple (five) circle design. The height of the preserved portion is 7.5 cm, with a preserved width of roughly the same dimensions (~8 cm). As seen in figure 11.16B, the clay on which the design appears differs from that of the bulk of the wall in color and texture. The clay is more red-orange and is more like an appliqué or wash applied to the wall.

Cook and Pearson (2001), as do Knight and Steponaitis (1998), point out in their comparison of Late Prehistoric ceramic surface designs that concentric patterns are common. Porth (2011), following Knight (2010) and Knight and Steponaitis (1998), illustrates this concentric circular pattern on Moundville Engraved, varieties Hemphill and Tuscaloosa. The significance of the patterns varies, if one reads them as symbols as many researchers of Mississippian iconography do (Brown, 1985, 1989; Knight and Steponaitis, 1998; Knight et al., 2001; and Knight, 2010). Knight et al. (2001) state that concentric circles in the art of Moundville are similarly locatives, in this case for “night sky.”

The structure 4 design is simple and somewhat poorly executed if one compares it to those seen on pottery like that of the Moundville types. Its key significance derives from the fact that this design was clearly and intentionally done. Beyond this, we can only speculate as to its meaning in the context of Irene phase architecture.

Forty-four wood elements—basically categorized as either timbers or posts—were cataloged and mapped. Of these, 37 were recovered for further study: taxonomic, dating, etc. The wood elements were mapped in situ before recovery. While most elements remained after removal of the overlying daub, some elements were recovered during daub removal. Our “After” map (fig. 11.17) shows the location of most of the remaining wood elements. Thirteen wood samples were submitted to the U.S. Department of Agricultural Wood Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin and found to be pine (Pinus sp.). Tree-ring counts for five timbers show clear overall ages for the respective trees used in the construction of structure 4. Table 11.3 summarizes the dimensions and tree ring counts for the wooden elements analyzed thus far.

As can be seen in figure 11.17, the south portion of the excavation (units 131, 132, 133, and 138) contains elements—mostly posts—that are associated with collapsed walls. The section called “west wall,” which begins in unit 133 and continues into unit 138, contains five posts, four of which are in a direct line, and the fifth can be reasonably placed on a possible wall line that turns to the east. To the north of this wall section, in unit 138, are several timber elements seen in a crisscross pattern where they fell. Extensive amounts of wall face daub were associated with these timbers: 163 kg in units 127, 132, and 133 (see table 11.2). Another wall section collapsed in the south portion of the structure—units 127, 132, and 133. The first, and only, interior wall section, found in unit 132 by an Elderhostel team in 1991, may have adjoined this collapsed exterior wall, which has a post encased in a rounded wall end. There were no posts found in the interior wall section, only ash.

Daub continued into unit 126, which was excavated by Babits in 1991. Notes from this excavation mention the discovery of significant amounts of burned daub but only a small amount (33 kg) was recovered before the unit was closed by that excavation team. Seen in the profile of the south wall of unit 131, the unit immediately adjacent to unit 126, is a massive daub layer more than 40 cm thick.

This daub layer topped a charcoal-rich layer we term the “destruction layer” (10YR2/1) below which lies the floor of structure 4. Excavation of unit 131 to this floor zone revealed large, fallen timbers across the east floor and into the east balk (fig. 11.18). The size of these timbers suggests their function as vertical supports of the structure. Large amounts of wall daub were removed in their immediate vicinity. Between these timbers and those of the west and south wall section are a few wooden elements. The daub overlying the floor in 132, and just adjacent in unit 137, contained evidence of palmetto fronds impressed into the daub.

Between unit 137 and the northeast corner of unit 147, across unit 142, there are large timbers or posts; but little in the way of vertical, in situ, elements are seen until the northeast corner area of unit 147. In this area the northernmost portion of the west wall was uncovered. It mimics the construction of that found in units 133/138 (fig. 11.17). Here the corner vertical post (35) was in line with several fallen smaller diameter posts roughly in parallel. While fewer in number, relative to units south and north of them, units 142, 143, and 147 have the largest continuous timber sections, which also have the largest diameters (fig. 11.17).

Associated Features and Artifacts: Few artifacts were found under the wall and roof debris of structure 4. The floor, or floors, of the structure were remarkably free of artifacts or food debris such as shell, corn, etc. This implies that the fire that destroyed structure 4 was not accidental but, more than likely, intentionally set.

Upon excavation of the “south wall” collapse, a portion of the flat exterior surface was recovered. It was here that two sections of a ceramic pipe bowl in the form of an effigy of a sea turtle were recovered. This is also in the immediate vicinity of the 1993 find of a corn cob in unit 127. Since unit 128 is adjacent to units 127 and 133, which had been excavated and closed by 1995, a search of the materials recovered in unit 128 was made and a possible pipe stem was found in that unit’s level 4, which appears to match the finish and color of the two pipe bowl fragments. Electron microprobe tests were done to determine if the three fragments are mineralogically comparable. Two of the elements were determined to be part of the same artifact.

Grove’s Creek Site Summary

A 5 cm topographic contour map of the central area of Grove’s Creek site was created during the 2007 University of Georgia field school headed by Mark Williams (fig. 11.19). Two large house mounds, both at 4.4 m in elevation, are apparent. Structure 4 is the larger mound and structure 5 is the slightly smaller mound to the east. The contour map does not indicate other probable house mounds at the site, and an extensive geophysical survey in 2000 only found one structure (structure 5) that hadn’t already been excavated. The geophysical survey was more likely to find daubed structures than nondaubed ones; so while it is likely that the five found daubed structures are the only ones still existing at the site, it is possible that there are nondaubed structures to be found. In at least one location on the earliest Elderhostel maps there appears to be a cluster of postholes with no associated daub, suggesting that there is at least one nondaubed structure. Given the site’s history of destruction, it is likely that there were other structures, both daubed and nondaubed, during the Irene phase. This uncertainty as to the number of structures makes it difficult to come to any firm conclusions as to the overall nature of the site. It appears to be a small town or hamlet. The inhabitants were certainly engaging in corn, bean, and sunflower horticulture and living at the site year-round (Keene, 2004). Evidence for this permanent occupation is seen in the architecture of the site. The use of daub indicates a time investment and a desire for four seasons of comfort. Structure 5 appears to have exterior walls made of cane matting with wattle and daub in the interior, making it useful in both the summer and winter.

Structures 1–4 are found in a north-south line, and structure 5 is east of structure 4, creating a small open area to the south and east of the structures that is hemmed in by the creek and slough. Future excavations could investigate the possibility of this being a small plaza-type feature. There appears to have been at least one shell mound at the site (seen at the edge of one of the large borrow pits), which was located directly northeast of structure 4. However, it is unknown whether this was a burial mound. There is no evidence that any of the structures were communal or ceremonial, nor is there any evidence that one of the structures was occupied by an elite person or family. The site appears to be a farming hamlet, possibly of an extended family. The configuration of architecture as we currently understand it suggests that it was planned or at least grew in a structured way since the structures appear to be arranged by cardinal direction.

There does appear to be several similarities between the structures themselves. The structures were rectangular, single-set post, and wattle-and-daub construction with palm thatch roofs. It appears unlikely that they were semisubterranean. One difference between the structures is their wall construction. Structure 4 appears to have had daub walls throughout the structure, while structure 5 appears to have had a daubed roof and interior walls with cane matting on the exterior walls. No nonarchitectural features were found in or around either structure.

INTERSITE COMPARISON

In comparing the architecture of Grove’s Creek site to other Irene phase sites along the Georgia coast, it becomes clear that very few regional patterns can be discerned. Seven-Mile Bend (Cook, 1971), 9Ch112 (Goad, 1975), and Harris Neck (Braley, O’Steen, and Quitmyer, 1986) each contain only one Irene phase structure; the Irene site (Caldwell and McCann, 1941) contains one Irene phase structure and one transitional Savannah/Irene phase, and the Redbird Creek site (Pearson, 1984; Sipe, this vol., chap. 12) has four partially preserved structures. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the layout of Grove’s Creek site with other Irene phase coastal villages. However, there is information to compare individual structures and try to construct an architectural grammar for Irene phase structures. The structures found on each site are described below. The original reports did not always explicitly describe all structure characteristics. In these cases, interpretations were made using maps, photographs, or by piecing together information in the reports.

Irene Site

The Irene site is located in Savannah, Georgia (fig. 11.1) and was excavated as part of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). It is a multicomponent ceremonial center with one large mound, several ceremonial structures, and five domestic structures. Although the mortuary building is Irene phase, it will not be discussed here as it is clearly a special-use structure. Of the five structures found at the site, one was Irene phase and one was transitional Savannah/Irene. Dates were determined through ceramic chronology. The Irene phase structure (feature 55) was rectangular with squared corners, made of wattle-and-daub, single-set post construction, and not semisubterranean. Exact dimensions were not given, other than to say it was “considerably larger than the Savannah period structure” (Caldwell and McCann, 1941: 35) below it, which was approximately 4.5 × 5.2 m (15 × 17 ft) and was semisubterranean. The only interior feature it contained was a prepared clay hearth (Caldwell and McCann, 1941: 35).

The transitional phase structure (feature 61) was rectangular, and in the photograph it appears as though the corners are rounded. It measured 3 × 3 m (10 x 10 ft). It was made of wattle-and-daub, but the daub was plastered only on the interior of the exterior walls. The construction was single-set post, although the photograph suggests wall trench entryways. It was not semisubterranean. The only interior feature mentioned was a “shallow fire basin.” The report does not state if the hearth was clay lined (Caldwell and McCann, 1941: 36).

Seven-Mile Bend

The Seven-Mile Bend site is on the Ogeechee River near Richmond Hill (fig. 11.1) (Cook, 1971). The site had at least one burial mound and one Irene phase structure. The structure date was determined by ceramic chronology. The dimensions of the structure are not known because it was not completely exposed by the excavation. The report describes an east-west trending wall intersecting with a north-south trending wall, suggesting that the structure was rectangular or square. Both walls were constructed of daub tempered with Spanish moss or palmetto fiber, and in some cases, the daub was incised. One wall contained remains of marsh grass wattle. On the map, there appear to be lines of postmolds under the daub debris. The postmolds did not all align with the daub walls, but were very straight, and suggestive of a rectangular or square structure. The postholes suggest single-set post construction. It is not known whether the structure was semisubterranean. A pit of burned corncobs was found under one of the walls. Based on the description, it is difficult to determine whether this is a smudge pit, trash pit, or storage pit. A feature containing burned human bone and a shell pit were found, but it is not clear whether they were inside or outside the structure. A round shell midden was found south of the structure.

9Ch112

Site 9Ch112 is on Skidaway Island (fig. 11.1) and comprised of a single structure with several discrete middens (Goad, 1975). The date was determined with two ceramic bowls found near the hearth. The structure consisted of several postholes. It was rectangular and measured 10 m by at least 7 m. The description suggested single-set post construction. No mention was made of daub or what material the walls may have been constructed of. The floor was gray sand and described as “depressed slightly (4 cm)” (Goad, 1975: 42), suggesting that it was not truly semisubterranean. There were two interior features, a hearth and fire pit turned trash pit. The hearth was an oval-shaped basin made of clay (Goad, 1975).

Harris Neck

The Harris Neck site is located in McIntosh County, Georgia (fig. 11.1). It is a large, multicomponent site represented by an extensive number of features and postmolds (Braley, O’Steen, and Quitmyer, 1986). Seven postmolds were dated to the Irene phase with a rim sherd found in an associated daub pit. The postmolds were filled with daub, suggesting to the excavators that the structure was constructed of wattle and daub, which fell into the postholes as the structure rotted (Braley et al., 1986: 47). Due to the number of other temporal components at the site, using it as an example of an Irene phase structure should be done with caution.

Redbird Creek

The Redbird Creek site is found near the Ogeechee River (fig. 11.1) The first excavations located a very well-preserved Irene phase structure, two burial mounds, and a number of discrete shell middens (Pearson, 1984). A roof beam was radiocarbon dated to a.d. 1145 ± 60. Pearson considered this too early based on a ceramic chronology that indicated Irene phase, but did not discuss why the radiocarbon date itself may have been incorrect. The structure is most likely rectangular, although this is not certain. It is estimated to be 5.2 m across, based on the position of the hearth and two intersecting wall fragments. The walls were constructed of pine posts set approximately 45 cm apart, with bunches of cane in between as added vertical supports. Single pieces of cane were tied horizontally to the upright crossbeams. Daub tempered with Spanish moss was applied to both sides of the wall. The floor was not prepared but recognized by the amount of ceramics. As excavations did not continue under the floor, it could not be determined whether the structure was single-set post or wall trench construction. No mention was made of whether the structure was semisubterranean. A prepared clay hearth with a raised rim is in the center of the structure. No other features are mentioned, although there may some under the unexcavated floor.

Recent excavations have added to the number of structures from the Redbird Creek site (Sipe, this volume, chap. 12). These excavations are still under way, but some preliminary data on three additional structures have emerged. Each of the three structures is only partial, however they all appear to have been wattle-and-daub construction. These structures are different from all the other structures described in that they show evidence of wall trench construction. A possible explanation for that difference is that at least one (structure 2) may be a series of walls intended to divide the site into sections (Sipe, this volume, chap. 12). Structures 3 and 4 are superimposed with structure 3 being under and structure 4 being on a mound. Further excavations may help determine if these structures are constructed in a significantly different manner from other Irene phase structures.

DISCUSSION

Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence can be compared in order to define some characteristics of Irene phase architecture. Ethnohistorical evidence must always be used with caution for a number of reasons. The bias of those who chronicle ethnohistory can make descriptions less than accurate because they do not understand new cultures and their new surroundings. Their motives in writing must be taken into account as well. For example, if they are trying to impress a superior, they may embellish or lie. Archaeological evidence has its own bias as well, as can be seen in this study. Most of the archaeological structures have not been excavated fully, and so it is difficult to determine whether characteristics are present that either have not or cannot be found. The issue of preservation must be considered. Because daub is more durable than plant material, wattle-and-daub structures are much more likely to be found than structures made entirely of palmetto thatch or cane matting. The following discussion is a comparison of all the size, shape, construction, and associated feature information from both archaeological and ethnohistorical sources.

Shape

All of the archaeological structures appear to be square or rectangular. The difference in structure shape focuses on the corners, as some are rounded and others are squared. This trait may or may not be of geographic or temporal significance. Swanton (1977 [1946]: 407) notes that there may be a difference in construction techniques between groups above and below the St. Johns River. It is possible that minor attributes, such as corners, may vary over a smaller geographic area. More structures will have to be compared before this can be determined.

The ethnographic accounts generally indicate circular structures. The discrepancy between these descriptions and archaeological discoveries of square or rectangular structures could be due to a number of factors. The rounded corner found on structure 5 at Grove’s Creek site was very broad (fig. 11.3). It may be that Europeans perceived any building without 90° corners as rounded, and therefore described structures, such as structure 5, as round rather than square. Alternatively, the shape of the houses may have changed between the Irene phase and the contact period. As ~100–200 years passed between the Irene phase and the first chronicler, it is likely that building styles evolved. Lastly, Le Moyne’s (1875) drawings depict both rectangular or square and circular structures. If the two types were used at the same time, the rectangular and square structures may be vestiges of earlier construction techniques, have different functions, or be constructed of different materials. For example, it may be possible that round structures were always thatched while rectangular structures were daubed, leading to a bias in the archaeological record. These questions may not be answerable without excavations of villages rather than isolated hamlets.

Size

The archaeological structures that could be measured have a wide size range. With only nine structures, and most measurements being minimum estimates, only two structures could be compared. These two structures are at the Irene site, and are the only two excavated in their entirety. The smallest is 9 m2, and the largest is approximately 23.4 m2 (255 ft2) (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). This great size range suggests that the structures had different functions. The ethnohistorical drawings depict alligator blinds and sentinel cottages as smaller than the other structures of the village (Le Moyne, 1875). The chief’s house or townhouse was often depicted or described as larger than other structures (Le Moyne, 1875; Ribault, 1927 [1563]: 84; Swanton, 1977 [1946]). Most written ethnohistorical accounts only describe the common houses as “small.” These descriptions cannot add any insight into structure size, as it cannot be determined what “small” meant to a 16th-century European.

Construction

The most noticeable difference in construction is wattle-and-daub versus wattle-and-thatch. Archaeological and ethnohistorical accounts indicate that both construction techniques were employed. However, the archaeological record shows much greater use of daub than is described in the ethnohistorical record. San Miguel (Swanton, 1977 [1946]) states that the houses were covered with palmetto, suggesting wattle-and-thatch construction. However, only the interior walls and roof of Grove’s Creek site structure 5 are covered with daub; the exterior wall is cane matting. The Irene site has one structure that was daubed on the interior of the exterior walls only (Caldwell and McCann, 1941: 36). If the Europeans did not enter the structure, they may have described it as thatched although it was daubed on the interior. Swanton (1977 [1946]: 408) does indicate that structures north of the St. Johns River were thatched with reeds and constructed of wattle and daub. However, he does not indicate the source of this description. It appears that there were likely several construction types, including wattle and daub, wattle and thatch, and stages between the two.

Other variations in construction technique are more difficult to determine. Grove’s Creek site structure 5 is the only archaeological structure with interior partition walls, and only one ethnohistorical account mentions interior partition walls (Swanton, 1977 [1946]: 405). There is no concrete archaeological evidence to suggest semisubterranean construction. Only one of the archaeological structures was conclusively described as not semisubterranean (Irene feature 55). The other site descriptions do not contain enough data to assess. One of the ethnohistorical accounts describes a semisubterranean structure, which was a chief’s house in the Timucuan region (Le Moyne, 1875: 12). With scant archaeological and ethnohistorical data, it is not possible to determine if this building technique was widely used along the Georgia coast.

There may be several explanations for the different construction techniques found in both the archaeological and ethnohistorical accounts. As with the size of the structures, variability in construction may relate to function. Swanton (1977 [1946]: 408) suggests that different temperature zones or geographic areas may account for the contrasting construction techniques. Status of the individual who built the structure might also be a factor.

Several functional differences have already been mentioned. Alligator blinds and sentinel cottages were fairly small in size, and at least alligator blinds appear to have been constructed differently from other types of structures (Le Moyne, 1875). In the southeastern inlands, the use of summer and winter houses during the Mississippian Period is well documented (McConaughy, Jackson, and King, 1985; Sullivan, 1987, 1995; Pauketat, 1989; Hatch, 1995; Smith, 1995; Hally and Kelly, 1998; Hally, 2008). The two structure types are often found next to each other, used by the same household at different times of the year. Winter houses are usually identified by their substantial wattle-and-daub construction and prepared hearths. Summer houses are lighter in construction and may or may not contain a hearth or fire pit. In some cases, interior storage pits were identified with winter structures (Smith, 1995).

Redbird Creek structure 1 and the Seven-Mile Bend structure are both wattle-and-daub construction. It is possible that corn was stored under the floor at Seven-Mile Bend (Cook, 1971: 6) and a hearth was in the center of one of the Redbird Creek structures (Pearson, 1984: 8). The presence of daub—and, in one case each, of possible stored food and a hearth—fits the definitions of winter structures as given earlier. The structure at 9Ch112 had a fire pit on one side (Goad, 1975: 44). Neither daub nor the presence of large amounts of clay in the surrounding soil was mentioned in the 9Ch112 report, so this structure may fit the definition of a summer type structure.

This particular functional difference may be difficult to confirm. There are no ethnohistorical records of summer and winter houses north of the Timucuan area. Furthermore, the Timucuan summer structures are described as little more than arbors, which suggests that they would be difficult to find in the archaeological record (Swanton, 1977 [1946]: 408). Summer and winter structures are often found together in the interior (Smith, 1995: 231), and most of the archaeological structures discussed in this study were the only ones found at their sites. As a consequence, it will be difficult to determine whether the architectural differences observed in the archaeological structures are due to differing summer and winter construction techniques until more multistructure villages are excavated.

Swanton (1977 [1946]: 408) suggests that the change in construction materials he noticed above and below the St. Johns River was due to latitude. The structures to the south were more open. He also suggests that the change from palmetto mats in the south to reeds in the north was due to the abundance of those materials in each region. However, it is unlikely that the changes in construction seen in the archaeological examples for this study were related to available building materials, as all of the structures were found in a 55 km radius of one another (fig. 11.1).

Several of the ethnohistorical accounts describe the chief’s house or a townhouse as different from common houses. The only account of a semisubterranean structure (Le Moyne, 1875: 12) or of partition walls (Swanton, 1977 [1946]: 405) are for a chief’s house. The chief’s house is also often described as larger than the other structures (Le Moyne, 1875; Ribault, 1927 [1563]: 84; Swanton, 1977 [1946]). It is possible that some of the differences seen in the archaeological record, such as the incised daub on the Seven-Mile Bend structure and Grove’s Creek site structure 4 (Cook, 1971: 6), indicate either special use or elite structures.

The trend found in both archaeological and ethnohistorical accounts is one of variability. A variety of construction materials were used to make structures that were round, square, or rectangular and of numerous sizes. There are several possible explanations for these differences. However, the most likely explanation is one of function, such as different construction materials for summer and winter structures or size differences between single-family and community structures. It is not likely that these differences are due to dissimilar temperature zones or geographic areas.

Associated Features

The types of features associated with the structures varied as well. Hearths were found in three of the archaeological structures. Seven-Mile Bend and 9Ch112 both contained pit features. The feature at 9Ch112 appeared to be a cooking pit turned into a trash pit (Goad, 1975: 44). Seven-Mile Bend had a pit containing burned corncobs (Cook, 1971: 6), which could be a trash, storage, or smudge pit. The other feature at Seven-Mile Bend was a shell feature that wasn’t excavated (Cook, 1971: 7). Given that many of the structures were only partially excavated, and some not below the floor, it is difficult to determine which features were actually present and which were simply never found. Therefore, no archaeological trends could be established for this category. The ethnohistorical data cannot add much more. Beds or benches were described along the walls of large structures that were likely townhouses, but there is only one such description for common houses (Wenhold, 1936).

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the Irene phase structures found on the Georgia coast with ethnohistorical accounts reveals several interesting similarities and differences. One of the characteristics that all the archaeological structures share is that they are either rectangular or square in shape. Ethnohistorical accounts, however, most often describe circular structures. This discrepancy may be due to either Eurocentric views on the part of the chroniclers or changes over time. Construction methods vary considerably among different archaeological structures and ethnohistorical descriptions. Wattle-and-daub and wattle-and-thatch construction are both found archaeologically and ethnohistorically. There is not enough data to determine any kind of pattern to the distribution at this time. It is also not possible to determine how widespread semisubterranean construction or partition walls are, or what types of associated features are common in Irene phase structures. There appears to be no single typical Irene phase structure. Rather, there is considerable variation in all aspects from size and shape to construction techniques. The various size, shape, and construction differences likely relate to the different functions of the various structures, but there is not yet enough data to determine the kinds of structures of which we have examples.

This chapter illustrates how far we are from determining an architectural grammar for the Irene phase of the Georgia coast. At this time, the most important obstacle is the lack of data. It appears that the only architectural characteristics we can assume at this point are (1) rectangular or square structures and (2) architectural variability along the coast that may point to different uses of the structures. It is not possible to determine if these differences are due to summer and winter structures, community versus individual use, elite versus nonelite use, geographic and/or cultural variation, or something else. However, with the current renewed interest in coastal archaeology, it is likely that more data are forthcoming and that some of these questions will soon be answered.

Figure 11.1. Map of the Georgia coast indicating approximate location of archaeological sites mentioned in the text.

Figure 11.2. Map of Grove’s Creek site (9Ch71), depicting all excavations.

Figure 11.3. Plan map of structure 5, Grove’s Creek site (9Ch71).

Figure 11.4. Composite plan map of structure 5, Grove’s Creek site (9Ch71) depicting the daub recovered from all levels.

Figure 11.5. The interior wall of structure 5.

Figure 11.6. Reconstruction of the interior wall of structure 5 (courtesy of Darla Huffman).

Figure 11.7. Frequency distribution map of daub from the Elderhostel excavations.

Figure 11.8. Archaeological base map of the Grove’s Creek site (9Ch71) showing results of the University of Georgia/Elderhostel excavations of 1993–2005. Units not shown, begun in 2005–2006, are 130A, 131A, 135A, and 136A. These latter units are adjacent to units 141A and 145A.

Figure 11.9. A 25 cm topographic contour map of 10 units of structure 4. The darkest areas are unexcavated/filled areas. The lightest areas (-100 to -125 cm) are the deepest units (127, 131) and the central portion of Structure 4 is indicated by the gray area with contour intervals of -75 cm.

Figure 11.10. Plan view of 10 units of structure 4 prior to excavation. Each unit is 2 m2.

Figure 11.11. Structure 4 overview photograph. View is of the 10 units before excavation activities in June–July, 2007. The direction of the view is south to north from unit 127, foreground, to unit 152 (the most northward with a timber across the unit), and the excavation area is composed of scattered daub concentrations and burnt posts/timbers. For reference, the north arrow and menu board are in unit 133.

Figure 11.12. East cross-sectional profiles of wall units 147, 142, and 137 of structure 4. Scale units are in cm.

Figure 11.13. Wall corner, south wall section, unit 132.

Figure 11.14. Knot impressions in the daub of structure 4 (unit 133).

Figure 11.15. A palm frond impression in the daub of structure 4.

Figure 11.16. A, Portion of incised wall daub from structure 4; B, same, side view (photographs courtesy of Steve Nicklas).

Figure 11.17. Plan view of structure 4 after excavation.

Figure 11.18. Wall section and timbers, northeast corner unit 147.

Figure 11.19. Topographic 5 cm contour map of the central area of Grove’s Creek Site (9Ch71).

TABLE 11.1. Radiocarbon Dates for Grove’s Creek Site Structures

Calibrated dates calculated with OxCal v.4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey, 2010);

atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009).

Sample ID

Lab no.

Material

Uncalibrated date b.p.

Corrected date

13C‰

cal a.d. 2σ

Structure 5

Wall 1

UGA-10116

wood charcoal

430 +/- 50

420

-25.42

1415–1527 (P = 70.5) 1555–1633 (P = 24.9)

Post 8

UGA-10117

wood charcoal

560 +/- 70

540

-26.04

1285–1462 (P = 95.4)

Post 15

UGA-10118

wood charcoal

640 +/- 50

600

-27.62

1288–1417 (P = 95.4)

Post 19

UGA-10119

wood charcoal

830 +/- 50

830

-25.03

1148–1279 (P = 82.5) 1046–1093 (P = 9.6)
1148–1279 (P = 82.5)

Post 27

UGA-10120

wood charcoal

620 +/- 60

610

-25.62

1281–1422 (P = 95.4)

Structure 4

Post 2

Beta-155443

wood charcoal

310+/-50

-25

1455–1663 (P = 95.4)

Post 7

UGA-02226

wood charcoal

540+/-40

-26.7

1386–1442 (P = 58.4) 1307–1362 (P = 37)

Post 24

UGA-02225

wood charcoal

510+/-40

-24.7

1390–1450 (P = 80.8) 1318–1353 (P = 14.6)

ash pit

Beta-157089

shell

380+/-80

0

1410–1664 (P = 95.4)

corn cob

Beta-82812

corn cob

430+/-60

-10.8

1406–1635 (P = 95.4)

Palm 13

UGA-02263

wood charcoal

970+/-40

-25.5

994–1160 (P = 95.4)

TABLE 11.2. Daub Totals for Structure 4

Unit

1993–2006 (kg)

2007 (kg)

127

0.0

69.4

131

1.16

150.9

132

0.2

242.2

133

2.5

91.6

137

39.6

344.7

138

11.3

162.96

142

11.1

307.6

143

4.5

44.5

147

0.8

48.7

148

3.17

0.02

152

3.3

—

Totals

77.6

1462.6

TABLE 11.3. Tree-ring Counts for Five Timbers Recovered from Structure 4

Post

Unit

Length/diameter (cm)

Ring count

1

132

13

11

138

6/8

15

13

137

28/5.1(a)

9–10

23

137/143

78/11

13

26

142/147

90/25

39

(a) Diameter is estimated from fragments.

CHAPTER 12: LIFE AND DEATH ON THE OGEECHEE: A VIEW FROM THE REDBIRD CREEK VILLAGE

Ryan O. Sipe[2]

INTRODUCTION

Coastal archaeologists have long struggled with the enigma of Late Mississippian/protohistoric settlement patterns. The matter becomes more complicated when attempting to reconcile the ethnographic descriptions of a people called Guale with the archaeological manifestation known as Irene. Ethnohistoric accounts provide conflicting descriptions of Guale lifeways, which have led archaeologists to propose models based on both seasonal population movement and sedentary villages (Larson, 1969; Crook, 1978b; Jones, 1978; Thomas, 2008). Most recently, experimental and site-based archaeology on St. Catherines Island has provided extensive evidence that the resources necessary to support a population year-round were readily available within distances that did not require a shift in residence (Thomas, 2008). Based on this, it seems that sedentary villages within the barrier island system were not only possible but were likely the norm by the time of the Spanish arrival in the Georgia Bight.

But what did these villages look like? Jones (1978) proposed that a Guale village would resemble a “dispersed town,” consisting of a centralized village core surrounded by smaller hamlets situated around horticultural fields and oyster beds. Archaeologically, this phenomenon presents itself as a series of varied Irene sites in relative proximity to one another including a large village surrounded by smaller habitations and a series of briefly occupied “special use” sites established to exploit necessary resources. While work on St. Catherines Island has provided ample archaeological evidence for the dispersed town model and other islandwide surveys hint at similar results (DePratter, 1978; Pearson, 1979b), Irene research on the mainland has tended to focus on individual sites, specifically those large habitations (Seven-Mile Bend, Pine Harbor, Harris Neck, etc.) representing the village cores. These projects provided data on architecture, subsistence tactics, mortuary practices, and village layout, which continue to guide archaeological research at Irene sites today. But are these reconstructed village landscapes always slightly incomplete without the inclusion of the remainder of the dispersed town?

In 2005, Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) was contracted to perform an intensive cultural resource survey of the 2300 acre Genesis Point development tract, which is located just west of Ossabaw Island in eastern Bryan County, Georgia. During this survey, ESI archaeologists imposed regular interval shovel testing across all upland portions of the property. As a result of this investigation, 80 new archaeological sites were recorded and three previously recorded sites were revisited. Thirty-one of the 83 sites were determined to contain Irene components (fig. 12.1). Six of these were recommended as eligible for National Register of Historic Places inclusion and five have been exposed to large-scale excavation with one being preserved in place.

Of all the sites documented and revisited, the most notable by far was the Redbird Creek site (9Bn9), which is located in the southeastern portion of the Genesis Point property. The site is best categorized as a population center that served the much larger dispersed town arrangement. It is clear that Redbird functioned as a mortuary complex, residential center, and likely a political hub for the Irene landscape spread across the environs of Genesis Point. Within the model, Redbird is supported by five other habitations of small to moderate size, with at least 25 other sites reflecting the short-term and special-use areas that make the sedentary lifestyle possible. The following chapter presents data from the investigations at Genesis Point in order to showcase Redbird Creek as an important village site, yielding new data on architecture and layout, and to present it within the “macro” view of the “dispersed town” by introducing several of Redbird’s supporting sites and their role within the big picture.

SETTING

As noted earlier, 9Bn9 is located on a broad landform known as Genesis Point. This peninsula is formed by a prominent bend in the Ogeechee River just before it forms an oxbow known as the Seven-Mile Bend. Genesis Point was named for its original owner Paul Jenys, the Speaker of the House of Assembly for the Colony of South Carolina. Jenys was granted land that included Genesis Point in 1733 and the landform became known as “Jenys’ Point,” which soon became corrupted into its modern place name “Genesis Point” (Sullivan, 2000b). Historically, the landform is perhaps more famous as the location of Fort McAllister, a set of earthwork fortifications that repelled several Union advances during the Civil War. More recently, “Genesis Point” is used to describe the entire landform created by the Ogeechee including the smaller tributary known as Redbird Creek and its associated uplands and marshes. This southern portion of Genesis Point is also known as Cottenham, after a Sea Island cotton plantation of the same name. This encompasses what has become the Genesis Point development tract: a 2300 acre proposed housing development that has undergone several attempts at development and archaeological investigation since the late 1960s.

Genesis Point comprises varying ecological communities but is best summarized as a series of marine terraces vegetated with mixed hardwood forest located in proximity to wetland systems or adjacent to salt marsh. These terraces are part of the barrier island sequence of the coastal plain province, which was formed by the advance and retreat of former sea levels that have left shoreline deposit complexes in the form of steplike terraces of decreasing elevation parallel to the present coastline (Hodler and Schretter, 1986). Along with the terraces, these ancient sea level fluctuations have also formed relict dunal ridges along much of Georgia’s coastline. Where once these dune formations protected the coastline from the Pleistocene ocean, they now separate interior wetlands from the coastal salt marshes associated with the current barrier island system. These Pleistocene ridges provide unique opportunities for human habitation, allowing for a diverse set of ecological zones to be concentrated within a relatively small area. By settling these landforms, prehistoric populations were able to take advantage of varied and diverse resources at an efficient rate of energy expenditure through a reduced travel/collection time. This phenomenon is much the same as the settlement pattern models documented at length on St. Catherines Island and proposed for many of the other barrier islands along the Georgia coast (Pearson, 1979b; Thomas, 2008).

The Redbird Creek village is located on a Pleistocene ridge within the southern portion of the Genesis Point property (fig. 12.2). This relatively large landform begins at the east-central portion of the development tract just south of Hammerhead Point and extends southwest along the coastline past the southern property boundary for a total distance of around 3 mi. It slopes to the east where it meets the salt marsh of Redbird Creek and to the west into an interior wetland system. Redbird is located at the northern extent of this formation, which is formed by the wetland system sloping into the salt marsh, a physiographic signature of a creek system that may have once flowed into the Pleistocene-era sea. The core village portion of the site is located at the northern tip of the relict ridge, which contains the best soil drainage and highest topographic relief; however, cultural material associated with the site was identified through shovel testing over a length of 1 mi across the landform. Smaller sites also dot the ridge to the south of Redbird and are only considered separate from 9Bn9 because of the strictly institutional definition of an archaeological site. These smaller, less significant sites also contain Irene deposits and likely represent additional signatures of activities associated with the larger Redbird Irene complex.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Site 9Bn9 was originally recorded by Fred C. Cook in 1968 when a local resident made him aware of a burial mound (mound A) that had been impacted by an isolated trail road leading to the tip of a small peninsula overlooking an unnamed tributary of Redbird Creek. Cook visited the location and identified two filfot-stamped burial vessels eroding from the disturbed portion of the mound. One of them, the unique vessel seen in figure 12.3, appeared very similar to the morphology of Spanish olive jar; however, it was made from traditional aboriginal pottery and decorated with the filfot-stamped motif (Fred Cook, personal commun., 2010).

Cook contacted the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia in the early 1970s when he was made aware of pulpwood logging at the site. This silvicultural activity had revealed a large concentration of burned daub, which he believed to be the remnants of an aboriginal structure. Charles Pearson and Chester DePratter quickly responded and began test excavations at the site with the help of a volunteer crew from the Savannah Science Museum and the Benedictine Military Academy. During these efforts, Pearson and DePratter made the first map of the site layout, which included 25 individual shell deposits, Cook’s original burial mound (now dubbed mound A), and a low earthen mound suspected to contain additional burials (mound B) (fig. 12.4). The boundaries of the site were based on the distribution of visible surface features (i.e., shell heaps and mounds) and the limits of a pocket of Lakeland fine sand, an excessively drained soil type that Pearson reports is frequently associated with the location of Irene sites (Pearson, 1979b, 1984).

Fieldwork during this investigation included a large block excavation at the location of the daub scatter, test units atop five of the more prominent shell deposits, and an excavation block within mound A (Pearson, 1984). The block excavation around the daub scatter revealed large amounts of structural debris including portions of daub walls with visible hand prints, burned remains of the reeds that were used as wattle, and large sections of burned support posts and beams, which held the structure upright. Intact portions of the base of the wall were also encountered beneath the debris, which contained in situ wall posts, as well as a clay-lined hearth presumed to be in the center of the structure. The results of this investigation were published in an article featured in a special edition of Early Georgia focused on the Irene Period (Pearson, 1984).

Mound A was also formally mapped and tested during Pearson and DePratter’s investigation. The low earthen mound had been heavily impacted by the trail road and a large hole was dug into its center along with several smaller holes on its slopes (Pearson, 1984). Elevation measurements were taken at regular intervals atop the mound producing the topographic map seen in figure 12.5 (Charles Pearson, personal commun.). As a result, mound A was determined to be around 6 m across and approximately 0.7 m high (Pearson, 1984). The excavation unit that was established within the western portion of the mound did not reveal any intact burials; however, burned and nonburned human bone was encountered in contexts that were disturbed by previous digging. The excavation block showed the extent to which the mound had been disturbed causing very little data to be available on mound construction. It was clear that the mound was primarily constructed of sand with scattered shell and several concentrated shell lenses (Pearson, 1984).

During the phase I survey of the Genesis Point property, ESI revisited the site and defined the site boundaries at 1710 × 1140 m based on the distribution of positive shovel tests. In total, 555 shovel tests were dug across the site, including 330 that were positive and 225 that were negative. The original record of the site identified its boundaries as corresponding with an area of excessively drained Lakeland fine sand; however, the 2005 survey by ESI illustrated that the site extended southward and also crossed a broad area of moderately well drained Chipley fine sand.

THE “TOWN” OF REDBIRD CREEK

On a map, 9Bn9 spans a little more than 1 mi in length. This simply refers to the boundaries established through the use of shovel testing in accordance with the Georgia Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Surveys (Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists, 2001). It is important to note, however, that while these boundaries are useful for mapping the distribution of material culture and village layout, they are far from the limits of the settlement they represent.

Village Core

Archaeologically defined, the Redbird Creek site extends across more than one-third of a Pleistocene ridge. The dense artifact deposits and cultural features, however, are restricted to the northern tip of this landform within a pocket of excessively drained Lakeland fine sand. Pearson (1984) originally used this soil type to define the boundaries of the site without the benefits of shovel testing. It is here that the remains of the Redbird Creek village can be recognized by approximately 25 shell middens that are oriented in semicircular arrangements around two low, earthen burial mounds (mounds A and B) on a NE–SW axis. Figure 12.6A provides a view of the Redbird Creek village on the 2009 Chatham County Georgia LiDAR survey (NOAA, 2009). Within this view, the shell middens and earthen mounds are clearly visible along with Pearson’s excavation unit located within the east-central portion of the village. Figure 12.6B presents the same LiDAR view; however, each of the surface features is identified to provide a point of reference. The majority of these middens formed in discrete heaps of shell, which represent individual refuse piles presumably associated with residential debris and are often thought to represent the disposal patterns of nearby structures. Pearson’s (1984) own research helped bolster this hypothesis by documenting the remains of a daub structure (structure 1) adjacent to one of the refuse heaps in the southwestern portion of the village. Furthermore, ESI’s current investigation revealed at least three additional structures associated with the shell middens oriented around mound B. By this rationale, it seems that each of the burial mounds had a cluster of structures oriented around them, forming two distinct zones within the village, which were dubbed loci A (southwest) and B (northeast) during the present investigation. These were also separated by a broad, flat area that shovel testing indicates is almost devoid of artifacts and may represent a central plaza separating the discrete zones of habitation. More investigation is needed to assess this model.

Structure 1

Structure 1 represents the daub structure that was documented during Pearson and DePratter’s excavations in 1973 (Pearson, 1984). The basal sections of the daub structure were identified directly beneath the humic zone where large portions of burned daub were encountered. These daub fragments bore the impressions of Spanish moss, which was used as a tempering agent, along with the impressions of the wooden and river cane framework (wattle), which supported the clay walls. Even the palm prints of the original builders could be seen clearly in several pieces. Based on the impressions in the daub, Pearson was able to interpret that the wattle was constructed using posts made from sapling pines, which were spaced approximately 45 cm apart and bundles of three to eight pieces of river cane were used to fill the gaps between the support posts. Single river canes were also oriented horizontally across this framework to lash the individual elements together and provide support for the heavy clay exterior (Pearson, 1984). Daub was applied to both sides of the framework and was determined to be approximately 5 cm thick on each side. Cook (1971) reported a very similar daub wall construction at the Seven-Mile Bend Site (9Bn7), located only 4 mi northwest of the Redbird Creek site.

As is seen in Pearson’s (1984) plan view (fig. 12.7), the base of a daub wall with burned portions of 10 posts was encountered within his block excavation, along with a clay-lined fire pit and several sections of burned support beams. He reports that there was no prepared floor within structure 1, just a thin sandy layer, which was interpreted as the floor because of a concentration of ceramics. If the fire pit is presumed to be the center of the structure, then Pearson predicts that it may have been around 5.2 m across (Pearson, 1984). Pearson submitted carbon samples from the pine posts within the basal fragment of the wall (UGA 5350) with a resulting date of a.d. 1145 ± 60. This date is around 200 years too early for an Irene site and he cautions that it should be viewed with skepticism as it may be the result of the old wood effect or a flawed radiocarbon reading.

The structure was revisited during the ESI Phase III investigation and the location of Pearson’s block unit was still visible with daub fragments scattered about the surface. Much of this scattered daub can likely be attributed to the remains of the exposed structural elements depicted in figure 12.7. Two exploratory 1 × 2 m units were excavated on the eastern and western sides of the original block in order to identify unexposed portions of the walls. These units encountered daub fragments and post features; however, no intact daub wall sections were found.

During the most recent fieldwork at the site, a small backhoe was used to mechanically remove the overburden within a large trench oriented around Pearson’s excavation unit to expose additional sections of structure 1. This provided around 400 m2 of exposure within an irregularly shaped area caused by the necessity to preserve the large hardwoods that dot the site. Figure 12.8 provides a plan view of the more than 400 features that were documented in this trench. Many of these features are structural, including postholes and wall trenches, and many alignments are apparent in the vicinity of structure 1. Although very little remains of the intact daub wall elements seen in the 1973 photographs, Pearson’s hearth feature was identified and provided an easy point of reference. Using Pearson’s plan map as a guide, it is also possible to make out the line of 10 postmolds left by the sapling posts preserved within the daub wall just west of the hearth. There is also a unique L-shaped feature, which appears to have a high clay concentration located between the original wall and the hearth. Based on this and the other post features that correspond to structure 1 and form other alignments, it seems that several structures likely stood at this location over time. Due to the presence of large trees and the limits of the backhoe equipment, the mechanical stripping trench fell short of exposing structure 1 in its entirety. Further investigation at 9Bn9 will need to extend the excavation trench to the east and south in order to expose structure 1 and others.

Structure 2

Additional structural signatures were identified within block 3, a 4 × 6 m excavation that intersected with Pearson’s midden 5 (P-5) and shell midden 1 (SM-1), located due west of mound B (fig. 12.6). Two well-defined linear features (features 28 and 29) were encountered directly beneath the middens (fig. 12.9A). Feature 28 was the longest of these and is oriented approximately northeast to southwest across the entire block excavation. Feature 29 is oriented almost east-west and thus intersects feature 28 at an approximately 30° angle. At first glance it would seem that these may represent different structural signatures that have impacted each other; however, the trenches appear to begin at the same depth and also share a post at their intersection. Clay inclusions, noted within the trench fill, as well as within the surrounding matrix, suggest that the post construction was once covered in daub.

Representative portions of both features were bisected to reveal closely spaced postmolds within. These bisections revealed fairly large posts of similar morphology. As seen in figure 12.9B, they are approximately 20 cm in diameter and extend between 30 and 60 cm beneath the trench itself. The posts are spaced around 40 cm apart. Two of the posts identified within feature 29 had clay lenses at their initiation, likely representing concentrated deposits of the unburned daub that has slumped into the posthole itself. Interestingly, Pearson (1984) reports a similar spacing and morphology for the wooden support posts, which remained within the intact portion of the daub wall identified within structure 1. It is unclear; however, if structure 1’s posts extended as deep below ground. Future work at the site should shed light on this matter.

Additional excavation within block 3 revealed a series of structural features that included posts and smaller trenches that seemed to be oriented parallel and perpendicular to feature 28 (fig. 12.10). This layout may represent a series of secondary constructions oriented along an exterior wall (feature 28) within the interior of the structure, such as benches or dividers. Feature 29 appears inconsistent with this layout and could possibly represent an addition or repair to the structure.

An alternative, and more intriguing, explanation for these linear alignments can be found at the Irene site (9Ch1) itself, which is located approximately 20 mi north of Redbird Creek on the western bank of the Savannah River. Outside the primary platform mound at Irene, a series of “screens” or divisive walls (some of which were apparently daubed) were identified. These were frequently interconnected and intentionally divided the site into specific zones (Caldwell and McCann, 1941: 18). Many of these were also tied in to the rotunda, a large community structure associated with the Irene occupation of the site, as well as the large mound itself. Caldwell and McCann (1941) describe one of these divisive features as being constructed of shallow “troughs” within which 5–8 in. (13–20 cm) posts were spaced about 12 in. (30 cm) apart. This description is quite similar to the portions of features 28 and 29 that have been documented thus far. Extensive additional excavation is needed in the vicinity of block 3 in order to address this hypothesis.

Mound C and Structures 3 and 4

Mound C may represent the most unique surface feature identified to date at the Redbird Creek site. This large earthen mound is located southwest of mound B (fig. 12.6). It measures just over 1 m higher than the surrounding landscape and spans an impressive 20 m in diameter (fig. 12.11). This, coupled with its location atop the highest point of the natural elevation of the landform, grants mound C an imposing presence at the site.

A 2 × 6 m excavation trench (block 9) was established at the crest of mound C in order to determine the nature of the surface feature. The stratigraphic sequence of this trench revealed that natural topsoil extends approximately 40 cm deep at which point a layer of densely packed, clayey sand becomes apparent. This soon gives way to dense, mottled marsh clay deposits that contained iron concretions and charred cane inclusions. It was believed that this layer may represent the diffused signature of unfired daub walls. Suspicions were confirmed once the clay layer was removed and a darkly stained floor layer with post features was encountered beneath it at approximately 55 cm. Figure 12.12 shows the first images of structure 3 at Redbird Creek and the sharply defined post signatures created by clay settling into the postmolds. The plan view drawing shows the alignment of posts encountered at around 55 cm below datum (cmbd). While more excavation is needed in order to get a true structural layout, it clearly shows that architectural elements were constructed at the apex of mound C.

Pearson’s excavations of structure 1 provided an important view of the signature left behind when an Irene phase structure decomposes. Pearson’s (1984) discussion of removing the large fragments of daub to reveal charred roof beams and finally an intact portion of the wall give an impression of the process involved in the collapse of that structure (similarly, Keene, 2002; Keene and Garrison document additional examples of this process in this vol., chap. 11). Much of the preservation and detail that Pearson documented was made possible by the fact that structure 1 was destroyed by fire. As it burned, the daub walls, made from marsh clay and fibrous inclusions, hardened to the consistency of fiber-tempered pottery. Structure 3, it seems, did not burn. Instead, its walls collapsed, capping the structure floor in a layer of dried but unfired daub, river cane, and wooden debris. As time progressed and the wooden wattle framework decomposed, the marsh clay daub seems to have partially diffused into the surrounding matrix, filling postmolds and capping the structure floor in an almost purely clay lens. The profile photo included in figure 12.13 provides a clear view of this phenomenon. It shows the postmold representing the exterior wall and the gray marsh clay slumped over the hard packed dark lens representing the structure floor.

Continued excavation within block 9 revealed additional clay concentrations and diffused daub signatures to a depth of 76 cmbd, at which point new postmold features were encountered. These are the remains of structure 4, an earlier daub structure that was constructed at or near the initiation of mound C and is overlain by structure 3. Structure 4 features include a series of posts within the eastern portion of the trench and a large daub pit (fig. 12.14). This daub pit displayed a clear, ovoid signature in plan, and its profile was bowl shaped, revealing that it was composed of dense, unfired clay with iron concretions. Daub pits such as this were used to mix the fibrous inclusions into clay to create the daub and are often found on the interior and exterior sides of daub walls (Thomas, 1987).

Structural features continued to appear within block 9, originating as deep as 102 cmbd. These features include posts within possible wall trenches located in the eastern portion of the unit and large, dark, bowl-shaped stains within the western part of the trench. These may be associated with structure 4 or may even represent an additional structure or other activities associated with the first stages of mound C.

While more excavation is clearly needed at mound C, it does seem that the large earthen rise was formed by the construction of at least two Irene Period wattle-and-daub structures built one on top of the other. This phenomenon of successional construction suggests that mound C may represent the early stages of a platform mound and thus structures 3 and 4 may represent buildings of political or ceremonial importance to the village. This, along with the possible divisive walls/screens, suggests that Redbird may share features with the Irene mound site that are typically absent from other mid-to-late Irene Period village sites on the coast. Equally important will be the acquisition of radiocarbon dates from secure contexts associated with both structures to try to assess a measurable temporal framework for the accumulation of mound C.

Mound B

One of the primary objectives of the ESI investigation at 9Bn9 was to determine if mound B was a burial mound. Identified during the 1973 investigation, this feature was a subtle earthen rise approximately 50 cm above the ground surface. The mound is surrounded by a semicircular alignment of shell middens, which may represent the general location of structures. Pearson suspected that this rise represented a burial mound similar to mound A on the eastern portion of the site; however, human remains were not confirmed to be present during his fieldwork. During the present investigation, this mound was revisited and an excavation block was established at its apex to determine its function.

The excavation block measured 2 × 3 m and revealed a dense buried oyster shell lens at approximately 30 cm below surface. Several “voids” were identified within the oyster midden that represented intentional deposits invasive within the layer. One of these voids contained a portion of a large filfot bowl (fig. 12.15). This void was bisected in order to reveal the vessel and its position within the deposit. As was suspected, bisection of the void revealed that the filfot bowl (vessel 1) was deposited on top of a larger urn style vessel (vessel 2) as a cover. Urn style vessels with lids are frequently documented within Irene burial contexts by archaeologists as early as C.B. Moore (1897). In fact, one of the most famous examples of such an urn is depicted on the original monograph cover of The Georgia and South Carolina Expeditions of C.B. Moore (Moore, 1897). When found in burial contexts, these urns frequently contain cremated or bundled remains of infants. This phenomenon has also been extensively reported within archaeological investigations at Irene sites all along the Georgia coast (Moore, 1897; Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Cook, 1978, 1979; Thomas and Larsen, 1986; Thomas, 2008). As seen in figure 12.15, vessel 2 was placed upright within a hole dug into the shell layer.

Vessel 1 has a bowl-shaped morphology and measures 19 cm tall with an orifice diameter of 31 cm (fig. 12.16). Interestingly, the rim of this vessel appears ground down and irregular. This may indicate that it was reclaimed from a larger broken vessel. Given its morphology, it may have been the base of an urn-style pot similar to vessel 2. The larger vessel is a typical Irene urn-style pot; it is filfot stamped across its entire exterior surface and featured a segmented rim strip (fig. 12.16). It measured 40 cm tall with a flaring orifice diameter of 34 cm. An intentional “kill hole” was noted within the base of the vessel. No human remains were encountered within this urn burial; however, Moore (1897) and others have also reported “empty” urn burials, which were interpreted as being infant remains that did not survive the test of time. Urn burials at the Irene site were also frequently determined to be empty or containing trace amounts of human bone determined to be from an infant (Caldwell and McCann, 1941).

Interestingly, it appears that three postholes extend across the plan view revealed by the excavation unit within mound B. One of these is recognized by its circular clay signature, while the other two appear as a pocket of dense shell, darkly stained, with soil and a void in the shell layer. Large chunks of burned daub and iron concretions, which have been seen in the marsh clay deposits throughout the site were documented in high concentrations within the shell lens and immediately adjacent to the northernmost post feature. This may indicate that there was some type of structure associated with mound B, perhaps a mortuary structure similar to the one that was documented at the Irene site itself (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). The Irene mortuary is described as a low, broad rise and excavation within it revealed a wattle-and-daub structure with four burials in the floor. The structure was believed to have been intentionally demolished and filled with several burials discovered in the fill itself. After the filling episode, two concentric enclosures were established around the former location of the daub structure. Caldwell and McCann (1941) also noted the presence of burial urns among the flexed burials, many of which had infant remains in various levels of preservation. While very little work has been done within mound B, it is intriguing to think that perhaps this area was utilized like the mortuary at the Irene site. Mound B, however, was confirmed as a burial mound and has been placed in a preservation easement with an appropriate buffer to protect it from future impact.

The Dispersed Town

It is widely accepted that Irene ceramics represent the prehistoric and protohistoric manifestations of the Guale, the aboriginal inhabitants of northern coastal Georgia. It has not been as easy, however, to reconcile the settlement patterns implied by the Irene components scattered along the coast with the ethnohistoric accounts of the Guale lifeways found in the contact era and mission period documents. The discussion began with Larson (1969), and later Crook (1978b), proposing a semisedentary lifestyle for the Guale/Irene inhabitants of the Georgia coast. These theories were based largely on ethnohistoric accounts gleaned from the documentary records of Friar Rogel, a resident friar at Orista during the early Jesuit attempts at missionizing the Georgia Bight. In 1570, Rogel complained that the Guale frequently relocated within the forest and never stayed in one place for long (Larson, 1969; Jones, 1978). He blamed the poor quality of the coastal soil, which forced them to find suitable patches for maize cultivation wherever possible.

Jones (1978) inferred a different vision of the protohistoric Guale from the ethnohistoric record. He believed that many of the Jesuit accounts of Guale lifeways were unreliable because they were written as an excuse for the failure of their mission efforts in La Florida. He also pointed out that much of the scattered and fractionalized nature of the Guale at Orista may have been a direct response to the newly established settlement of Santa Elena, as well as the presence of the friars themselves. Jones proposed that through the highly stratified Guale chiefdom, the principal chief is the primary means of redistribution and seasonal movement is unnecessary. He proposed the concept of the “dispersed town” in which communities strategically organized themselves at the forest-marsh transition. Each of these towns featured a large permanent village associated with the chiefly lineage and community buildings, surrounded by smaller hamlets organized around horticultural fields and oyster beds (Jones, 1978). He also points out that, within this arrangement, it is unnecessary to shift residence to exploit varying resources, as the oak forests, oyster beds, hunting land, and agricultural fields can all be found within reasonable distances within the maritime hammocks of the coastal zone.

Thomas (1987, 1993a, 2008) refers to the conflicting views on coastal settlement patterns as “the Guale problem.” Much of the research conducted on St. Catherines Island has been specifically oriented toward addressing this query and providing an archaeological solution to conflicting ethnohistoric interpretations (Thomas, 2008). In the 2008 synthesis of this research, Thomas and contributors present three volumes of site-based and experimental archaeology to test the effectiveness of these models within the setting of the barrier island ecosystem. As a result, it seems that all of the resources needed for a year-round occupation on St. Catherines Island were located within the range of “day-trip” expeditions conducted by small community groups. A strategically located “dispersed town” system efficiently organizes access to vital resources through varied settlement and small deployments of community labor needed to sustain permanent residence. Thomas (2008) points out that, while it is always necessary for groups to be temporarily absent from a community to gather resources, it is not necessary to shift residence.

The viability of the dispersed town model has been clearly demonstrated within the barrier island environment, but can this model be extended to the mainland? The environmental variables provided by the dunal ridges of the immediate coastal zone certainly seem identical to the maritime forests of the islands; however, broad scale archaeological investigations of the mainland Irene populations are less common. Instead, much of this research has been focused on specific sites representing large villages such as the Irene site (Caldwell and McCann, 1941), Seven-Mile Bend (Cook, 1971), Pine Harbor (Cook, 1979; Larson, 1984), and Harris Neck (Braley, O’Steen, and Quitmyer, 1986). Data collected at the Redbird Creek site along with the larger Genesis Point investigation provide the opportunity to apply this hypothesis to a mainland Irene polity. The “town” of Redbird is part of a system of Irene occupations that are represented at 30 other sites that span the Genesis Point development tract (fig. 12.17). These 31 sites represent the full spectrum of special-use sites, extraction areas, base camps, and permanent habitations associated with an Irene population that occupied the mouth of the Ogeechee River. Five sites (including Redbird) were determined to represent habitation areas based on the occurrence of raised shell middens and structural features such as posts and/or wall trenches. Four of these sites have been exposed to large-scale excavation—9Bn104, 9Bn872, 9Bn887, and 9Bn9—and are briefly described later.

Site 9Bn104, or the Genesis midden, was recorded in 1993 when an earlier attempt at developing the Genesis Point property led to an ESI survey within the northern portion of the tract (Ashley, Smith, and Ferrell, 1995). The site was also revisited during ESI’s 2006 survey (Hendryx, O’Brien, and Sawyer, 2006), subjected to phase II evaluation in 2007 (Burkhart et al., 2007), and full-scale excavation in 2009. This habitation featured a sprawling oyster midden within the southern portion of the site and several linear procurement middens along the edge of the marsh. The southern midden was dominated by Irene pottery and overlaid a large Irene oyster pit. Samples of oyster shell from both the midden and the pit feature were submitted for radiocarbon dating, the results of which are presented later in this chapter. Very few structural features were encountered at this site and it is believed that it represents a small, relatively sparsely occupied special-use habitation centered around the collection and processing of oysters.

Sorting and measuring of impressed odostome shells (Boonea impressa) was employed during this investigation to address seasonality at 9Bn104. Impressed odostomes are small parasites that feed on oysters. These organisms are inadvertently collected along with shellfish and are eventually incorporated into cultural deposits. Boonea spawn in the spring or early summer (May and June) and have a life cycle of approximately one year. Over their lifetime, the parasites undergo measureable and predictable accretionary growth, making them an ideal subject for seasonality studies (see Reitz, Quitmyer, and Thomas, 2012 for a refined discussion of this method). Length measurement of impressed odostomes at their time of death has been used to suggest the time of year when the oysters within a given cultural deposit were harvested (Russo, 1991; Russo, Cordell, and Ruhl, 1993). This allows researchers to infer the season(s) in which a site was occupied. The Boonea samples were measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter, placed into 1 mm increment size categories, and were compared by modal frequency. The samples were divided by depth within the midden or within feature 1. In order to interpret the season(s) represented, the data were compared to a master seasonal graph developed by Russo (1991), based on live odostomes collected over a 14-month period. As a result, it was determined that Boonea were present in stages of their life cycle that represent late spring, summer, fall, and winter. This of course suggests that oysters were harvested at this site throughout most of the year (Sipe, Dye, and Handley, 2012a, report in progress).

Site 9Bn872 is characterized by a small cluster of three raised oyster shell middens within the southern portion of the site, adjacent to a small seasonal drainage that leads to the salt marsh associated with Redbird Creek. While structural signatures were relatively sparse, at least one rectangular structural alignment was recognized in the vicinity of the possible household middens, as well as a faint, possible wall trench. The middens at 9Bn872 are located hundreds of meters from the marsh and even further from the main channel of Redbird Creek. As such, they are clearly not the result of onsite shellfish procurement. It is believed that the middens are the refuse of a small cluster of residences that may have been oriented around a small family horticultural plot. A column sample was taken from the most prominent of the oyster middens at the site and a shell sample from the heart of the midden was submitted for radiocarbon testing, discussed later. A similar study of Boonea impressa was performed using the shell collected from the column sample at 9Bn872. Interestingly, this sample produced almost three times the Boonea observed at 9Bn104, but revealed comparable results (Sipe, Dye, and Handley, 2012b, report in progress).

Site 9Bn887, or the Hammerhead Point site, is located on a jutting peninsula overlooking Redbird Creek and is aptly named for its appearance similar to the head of a hammer (fig. 12.18). This represents the most intensive Irene component outside of Redbird and is characterized by a series of oyster middens arranged in a semicircular pattern to the south of a tidally influenced lagoon located at the eastern tip of the “hammer’s head” (fig. 12.18). The lagoon provides an interesting element to this site. This small, circular low spot is clearly fed by tidal fluctuation and is connected to the main channel of Redbird Creek by a small stream, currently navigable by canoe at high tide. The most interesting part, however, is that the extreme eastern portion of the lagoon, which separates it from the salt marsh, has been built up by an enormous oyster procurement midden. The midden is dubbed a procurement midden based on the low density of artifacts and faunal remains in comparison with those in the interior portion of the site. This midden effectively constricts the mouth of the small creek leading into the lagoon to only a few meters wide. One possible explanation for the apparently intentional constriction or blockage may be that the lagoon was a freshwater source during the prehistoric period. The artesian water pressure was higher at this time and the midden, which was accumulating anyway, could have been intentionally deposited in such a way as to protect the water source from the salt marsh. After the site was abandoned, the lagoon may have reconnected itself with the tidal creek over centuries of erosion. Alternatively, the small tidal creek may have been intentionally constricted but not blocked in order to turn the lagoon into a natural fish weir.

What is clear, however, is that the convenience of the lagoon and proximity to Redbird Creek provided access to the maritime oak forest for mast, the marsh for shellfish collection, and the excessively drained soil suitable for maize horticulture. Eight discrete raised oyster middens were identified at the site within a distinctive half circle pattern also recognized at 9Bn9. Excavations in and around these oyster shell middens revealed dense deposits of Irene-style pottery and the signatures, albeit faint, of at least two rectangular wall trench structures. These were only recognized by the presence of staining; no daub was identified at the site. Several other structures are suspected to have been located at Hammerhead based on the preponderance of post alignments, which do not easily form coherent structural patterns. A sample of soot from a large fragment of an Irene Filfot–Stamped vessel with a segmented rim was submitted for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating that revealed that the site was indeed contemporaneous with 9Bn9, as discussed later. Based on the ongoing research at the site, it seems that Hammerhead Point functioned as a relatively large outlying residential center which was apparently focused on the collection and processing of oysters.

RADIOCARBON DATA

Although these sites can be culturally connected based on the preponderance of Irene pottery, the use of radiocarbon data can help confirm whether they were indeed contemporaneous. A total of six new radiocarbon dates were acquired from Irene contexts during the ESI investigations at the Genesis Point property. These include three samples obtained using radiometric dating from samples of oyster shell acquired from raised middens or shell pits at two of the smaller habitation sites (9Bn104 and 9Bn872). The remaining three samples are AMS dates obtained through carbon from charred corn or sooted vessels encountered at Redbird Creek and Hammerhead Point. These dates are presented in tabular form (table 12.1) and discussed in greater detail later.

Beta-258627 was collected from a large oyster midden located in the southern portion of site 9Bn104. This sprawling midden was located more than 300 m south of the marsh edge and appeared to be the primary focus of activity at the site. The midden also yielded more than 500 pieces of Irene pottery, making it a promising candidate for radiocarbon dating. The returned 2σ calibrated date range for this sample was cal a.d. 1450–1650. The midden overlaid a large oyster pit feature (feature 1), which was also dominated by Irene ceramics (N = 57). Beta 258626 represents a sample of oyster that was collected from feature 1 for radiometric dating, which yielded a 2σ calibrated date range of cal a.d. 1420–1620.

Beta-263675 was an oyster sample collected from midden 1, one of a small cluster of middens at 9Bn872. A column sample was collected in 10 cm levels from this midden and a sample of oyster from the heart of the midden was submitted for radiometric testing. The returned assay for this sample provided a 2σ calibrated date range of cal a.d. 1450–1640.

Beta-270236 represents the first AMS date retrieved from the Genesis Point sites. It was collected from a sample of charred corn cob recovered by Keith Ashley and his student volunteers from the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) from the block 2 midden at the Redbird Creek site. This sample yielded a split 2σ range of cal a.d. 1440–1540 (cal 510–420 b.p.) and cal a.d. 1540–1630 (cal 400–320 b.p.) (Keith Ashley, personal commun., 2010).

Beta-297415 and Beta-297416 were taken from sooted Irene ceramics from Hammerhead Point and Redbird Creek, respectively. The sample from Hammerhead Point (297415) was collected from a heavily sooted portion of a large filfot-stamped rim sherd from an Irene urn-style vessel that was recovered within one of the shell middens south of the lagoon. This yielded a 2σ range of cal a.d. 1400–1440 (cal 550–510 b.p.). Beta-297416 was taken from a sample of soot recovered from the exterior of vessel 2 at Redbird Creek. This returned a 2σ range of cal a.d. 1420–1460 (cal 530–490 b.p.).

Table 12.1 shows the returned results of the six samples. The three dates returned from oyster samples have been calibrated using the latest reservoir correction determined for St. Catherines Island (approx. 10 mi south of Genesis Point) as presented here (Thomas, Sanger, and Hayes, this volume, chap. 1). As a result, the returned dates of these occupations span from as early as a.d. 1400 for the earliest AMS dates to as late as 1650 on the latter end of the radiometric results. It is also interesting to note that the three dates acquired from terrestrial sources and those from marine sources form two statistically different groups. The mean age of the terrestrial samples is cal a.d. 1420–1450, while the mean age of the marine shell samples is cal a.d. 1450–1620. Figure 12.19 provides a visual distribution of this phenomenon. Much of this statistical difference may be the result of the different techniques used to date the samples. The terrestrial samples were dated using the more refined (and expensive) AMS technique, which can often give results within a margin of error around 40 or 50 years, while radiometric assays are typically less refined. While moderately useful, the dates collected at Genesis Point so far simply illustrate the necessity for more 14C data from these sites, specifically using the tighter AMS technique.

DISCUSSION

This chapter is best seen as an introduction to the lifeways and culture of a mainland Irene population that will lead to an extensive body of research similar to that which has been conducted for its barrier island counterparts (Pearson, 1979b; DePratter, 1978; Thomas, 2008). As such, it is perhaps inappropriate to offer a conclusion here. Instead, this section gives a brief summary of what has been gleaned so far and makes suggestions for future research.

First and foremost, the research at Genesis Point should provide a vital new step toward a coastal understanding of Late Mississippian lifeways. Thomas’s (2008) Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia provides a holistic approach to studying a population of people over time; however, some have wondered whether the data gathered from this study has broader implications due to its island focus. The research presented in this chapter sets the foundation for the application of a similar analysis on mainland settings. For example, much of the research on residential mobility and settlement selection can be applied directly to the sites at Genesis Point, as the environmental zones of the island are almost identical to those provided by the mainland within the coastal zone.

The archaeological signature of the Irene population at Genesis Point is also similar to signatures documented on barrier islands. Much like Pearson’s (1979b, 1980) work on Ossabaw Island, the Genesis Point project has revealed a series of Irene components of varying complexity spread across the property. Pearson created a four-tier ranking system to describe the role each of these sites played during the Irene phase on that island. For the purpose of discussion, Pearson’s ranking system can be loosely applied to the Genesis group. Redbird, which was classified as a class III site during the initial investigation (Pearson, 1984), has been determined to be much larger and contain multiple burial mounds with a possible platform mound. It seems now that Redbird more accurately represents a class I site within his hierarchical system and played the role of a village core within the dispersed town framework. The class II level of Pearson’s hierarchy, however, does not seem to be represented within the Genesis Point sample. On Ossabaw, these sites are of moderate size, represent permanent habitation, and often contain a burial mound. The Hammerhead Point site is the next largest Irene habitation after Redbird at Genesis Point; however, there is no burial mound present and the scale of the occupation drops to a point where it more appropriately represents a class III. Sites 9Bn104 and 9Bn872 also represent class III level sites and serve as the scattered hamlets described in the dispersed town model. The remaining 25 Irene components at Genesis Point represent class IV sites, which are temporary occupations that consist of a single shell midden (if any) and are utilized as resource extraction areas (Pearson, 1979b, 1980).

One possible reason that the Ossabaw settlement hierarchy only loosely fits at Genesis Point is that, on Ossabaw, Pearson was dealing with an Irene population that seemed to have grown out of a significant Middle Mississippian Savannah occupation. While Savannah artifacts were identified in small quantities at Genesis Point, they were typically included within Irene assemblages. No large Savannah components were present. It is possible that the Irene polity represented at Genesis Point is part of the general proliferation of Irene sites resulting from the splintering of the more concentrated Savannah population centers.

The recent excavations at the Redbird Creek site have also provided a renewed glimpse at the layout of an Irene village core. Interestingly, Redbird has yielded several features that are underrepresented at other major Irene centers outside of the Irene mound site. Mound C is probably the most prominent of the surface features identified at Redbird Creek. This large earthen mound forms the highest point on the Redbird landform and was accumulated through the construction of at least two wattle-and-daub buildings, one on top of the other. This unique feature may represent the early stages of a platform mound and these buildings could be the remains of community or religious structures significant to the site’s function as the political center of the dispersed town. Structure 2 is also unique, as it may represent the intersection of two walls or screens that may have divided the site into specific areas or districts. The postmold and wall trench signatures identified within this feature fit well with the description of divisive walls identified at the Irene mound site, down to almost identical post size, spacing, and depth (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). These walls connected to an Irene phase community building known as the rotunda at the Irene mound site, and even with the limited excavation conducted thus far, the angle of these linear features at Redbird are oriented toward the possible community focal point at mound C. Burial mounds A and B also insinuate divisions within the community living at Redbird Creek. The exploratory units within mound B revealed a dense shell lens into which interments were added, a layout similar to many Irene phase burial mounds (Moore, 1897; Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Cook 1978, 1979; Thomas and Larsen, 1986; Thomas, 2008). Interestingly, several postholes were noted within the plan view at mound B along with dense concentrations of daub found throughout the initial levels of the excavation. Based on this, mound B may represent a burial structure similar to that which was dubbed the “mortuary” at the Irene mound site. Pearson (1984) did not report anything similar to this in his investigation within mound A. While this mound was reportedly heavily looted, Pearson did encounter a pocket of calcined human bone representative of a cremation burial. No post features or daub were reported for mound A. Both mounds A and B were surrounded by a series of discrete shell middens. The middens around mound B (locus A) were determined to be domestic refuse and representative of a series of structures surrounding the burial mound. To date, no significant investigation has taken place within or around the middens surrounding mound A. If these middens also represent structure locations, then mounds A and B may represent two distinct zones within the Redbird Creek site, each with a separate, and perhaps distinct, mortuary custom.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The investigations at the Redbird Creek site are ongoing and more than 2000 m2 have been exposed through manual and mechanical techniques. As a result, approximately 1100 features have been identified; however, many of these must be mapped and documented before a true picture of the site can emerge. The areas of the site considered most significant, including burial mounds, the possible platform mound, and the long wall trenches documented within block 3, will be located within parks and preservation easements, never to be threatened by the proposed development. As such, the Cultural Resource Management investigation of those areas was effectively suspended, because it was aimed at mitigating impacts to the site. Despite the suspension, further work within the significant areas is critical to a true understanding of the nature of the village center. The following research objectives and methodology are essential to interpreting Redbird Creek:

(1) Determine the function of mound C—While the existing excavation block within mound C was helpful in determining the existence of sequential structures, it has proven much too small to document a feature as large as an Irene structure. A large block excavation across the top of the surface feature would provide a plan view of the structural signatures. Excavating this block in broad, controlled levels will allow the structures to be accurately mapped and samples to be taken from the respective surface floors for flotation analysis. Additional AMS dates from carbon samples taken from each structure are also recommended.

(2) Determine the nature of the structure 2 wall trenches—These trenches span the length of the current block excavation and a 2 × 2 m exploratory unit dug 5 m south and west of the block revealed that the trench extended unbroken across its length. The posts are deeply buried and closely spaced, indicating that the trenches formed a significant structure. It is clear that additional excavation is needed to expose this feature, and, given its proximity, its relationship with mound C.

(3) Collection and processing of column samples—This process has already begun for three 30 × 30 cm column samples collected from three of the shell middens oriented around mound B. Pearson excavated test units on five other middens and used 1⁄8 in. screen during fieldwork. The limits of these excavation units are difficult to discern within these middens and it would be difficult to collect a controlled column sample from them. Pearson’s results were analyzed and published in Early Georgia (Pearson, 1984). Bates (1976) published additional paleoethnobotanical data from this fieldwork. As such, the middens Pearson investigated should be considered sufficiently documented. At least five more column samples should be collected in order to provide a broad-scale picture of the subsistence practices of the site’s residents and to collect temporal data that may indicate how long the site was occupied.

(4) More excavation in locus B—Due to the preservation easement created around mound A and the relatively sparse assemblage encountered within the shovel tests in the area, locus B has been largely neglected by the current investigations at the site. While this area is not immediately threatened by development, it is a vital part of interpreting the site. The area includes a burial mound and several shell middens, which are notably smaller than those encountered within locus A. It will be important for future investigations to determine if different activities, social groups, or even different time periods are represented in locus B.

Figure 12.1. Map of Ogeechee coastline showing Genesis Point (landform extending from Seven Mile Bend to the Intracoastal), just below the river containing 31 Irene phase archaeological sites.

Figure 12.2. Boundaries of 9Bn9 shown on 2009 Chatham County Georgia Aerial LiDAR Survey.

Figure 12.3. Filfot jar recovered by Fred Cook at 9Bn9 in 1968 (photo by Fred Cook, used with permission).

Figure 12.4. Location of surface features at the Redbird Creek site showing middens investigated by Pearson (1–5) (adapted from Pearson, 1984).

Figure 12.5. Topographic map of burial mound A at the Redbird Creek site (9Bn9) by Charles Pearson and Sharon Goad, 1973 (figure provided by Charles Pearson, used with permission).

Figure 12.6. Village layout at the Redbird Creek site shown on the 2009 Chatham County, Georgia, aerial LiDAR survey (A) and with features (excavations, middens, and mounds) highlighted (B).

Figure 12.7. Plan view of structure 1 as seen in Pearson, 1984.

Figure 12.8. Plan view of mechanical stripping trench around Pearson’s excavation block.

Figure 12.9. Photographs of structural features associated with structure 2 at 9Bn9 showing (A) linear features and (B) post profiles.

Figure 12.10. Plan view drawing of features associated with structure 2 at 9Bn9.

Figure 12.11. Photograph of mound C at 9Bn9.

Figure 12.12. Structural features associated with structure 3 at Redbird Creek. A, Plan view of post features; B, representative photo of structural post in profile; C, plan view drawing of structural features associated with structure 3 at 40–60 cm below datum (cmbd); scale units = cm.

Figure 12.13. Representative profile photo of diffused clay signatures of structures 3 and 4 at the Redbird Creek site (9Bn9).

Figure 12.14. Structural features associated with structure 4 at 9Bn9. A, Photo of daub pit feature in plan; B, photo of daub pit feature in profile; C, plan view drawing of structural features associated with structure 4 at 76–102 cmbd; scale units = cm.

Figure 12.15. Initial excavations at mound B. A, Photograph of vessel 1 in situ; B, photograph of vessels 1 and 2 in profile during excavation; C, photograph of mound B excavation block in plan at 30 cmbd; scale units = cm.

Figure 12.16. Photographs of vessels 1 (top) and 2 (bottom).

Figure 12.17. Irene habitation sites of the Genesis Point development tract.

Figure 12.18. Site layout at 9Bn887: the Hammerhead Point site.

Figure 12.19. Probability distributions of radiocarbon data collected from six Genesis Point samples (figure by David Hurst Thomas).

TABLE 12.1. Radiocarbon Data from Irene Contexts at Genesis Point

Lab no.

Site

Provenience

Type

2σ calibrated date range

Beta-258627

9Bn104

Midden 1

radiometric (shell)

cal a.d. 1450–1650

Beta-258626

9Bn104

Feature 1 (directly beneath Midden 1)

radiometric (shell)

cal a.d.1420–1620

Beta-263675

9Bn872

oyster midden

radiometric (shell)

cal a.d. 1450–1640

Beta-270236

9Bn9

oyster midden

AMS (charred corn)

cal a.d. 1440–1540 (cal 510–420 b.p.) and cal. a.d. 1540 to 1630
(cal 400–320 b.p.)

Beta-297416

9Bn9

Vessel 2

AMS (sooted vessel)

cal a.d. 1420–1460
(cal 530 to 490 b.p.)

Beta-297415

9Bn887

oyster midden

AMS (sooted sherd)

cal a.d.1400–1440
(cal 550–510 b.p.)

[1] Funding for the archaeological excavation done by Keene was provided by NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant 0114626, a Wenner-Gren Individual Research Grant, and the Levy Award for Marine Geology. Thanks to the volunteer archaeological field crew: Erin Andrews, Aletha Dunlavy, Matthew Freeman, Darla Huffman, Elizabeth May, Rhea Meyers, Nicholas Moss, and Rebekah Shelnutt as well as Bonnie Futrell, Joe and Kathy Ginnett, Edward and Dorothy Keene, Rudi Munitz, and the UGA archaeological field school. The Wheeler-Watts Award provided funding for the geophysical survey. Thanks to the geophysical field crew: Chris Vanags, Rhea Meyers, and Darrell Maddock. Thanks to Larry Babits for providing all the notes and artifacts from the Elderhostel excavations. David Hally read an early draft of the Structure 5 and ethnohistorical section and improved them greatly.

Funding for Garrison’s excavation was provided by the members of Elderhostel and grant award #NA06NOS4190253 from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM or NOAA. The three individuals most closely linked to the success of our project were Cassandra (Sandee) Winter, Jennifer Burns, and Deb Chasteen. Winter and Burns served as field assistants and Chasteen oversaw the production of the project deliverables, personally authoring and compiling the education deliverables. Two Elderhostel veterans—Rhea Myers and Aletha Dunlavey—worked almost the full duration of the fieldwork portion of the project. Ned Winter provided invaluable carpentry and construction support. Office staff of the University of Georgia’s Department of Anthropology, directed by LaBau Bryan, oversaw the personnel actions, accounting, and communications for the project. These include Jill Morris and Lisa Norris as well as Margie Floyd. Finally, thanks to all of the Coastal Georgia Archaeological Society (CGAS) members who volunteered days of effort without which the project could not have been completed on time.

Both authors would like to thank the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service (MAREX) and Skidaway Institute of Oceanography (SkIO) for laboratory space, housing, and many other practical things. We would especially like to thank Robert Williams, Associate Director of MAREX, Alan Power, Director of the MAREX Shellfish Laboratory, Jim Sanders, Director of SkIO, Stephanie Edgecomb, and Edie Schmidt. Our manuscript was greatly improved by the reviews of Thomas Pluckhahn, Torben Rick, and Christopher Rodning. The authors take responsibility for any errors.

[2] 1. First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation to David Hurst Thomas and Victor D. Thompson for organizing this collaboration and to the AMNH, as well as the Edward John Noble Foundation, for providing the support and funding that make endeavors like Caldwell conferences possible. The investigations at the Redbird Creek site presented tremendous opportunities that would not have been possible without the help and guidance of the following individuals and organizations. The owners of Waterways Township, LLC, have provided funding and support throughout the project and have been great supporters of cultural and natural resources on their property. Specifically, Ronald Lamm, Jr., has been a great client to work for and Wyndham Stewart, who maintains the property, has always provided timely access to whatever or wherever we needed. None of this research would have been possible without the experienced ESI crew that worked on the project. This, of course, begins with the effective guidance of Brent Handley, who served as principal investigator, and the field crew consisting of Melissa Dye, Rebecca Gorman, Blue Nelson, and Brian Marks. Much of the data collected during the current ESI investigation was made possible through the efforts of previous ESI work on the property. This work was accomplished through the guidance of principal investigators Greg Hendyrx and Angus Sawyer, as well as a large and varied list of field crew—too numerous to mention here. One of our greatest assets during fieldwork at Redbird has been the generous and talented group of volunteers who have assisted us over the years. Fred Cook started it all. He found Redbird in 1968 and still supports her today, volunteering many hours of his own time to assist our investigation. He has also provided a wealth of background information and served as a mentor for me in interpreting and conceptualizing much of the Redbird data. Charles Pearson also continues to support Redbird and has provided photos and maps from the investigations conducted in the 1970s, which led to the site’s notoriety. Local resident Frank Chance has been absolutely vital to the efforts at Redbird, spending many weekends helping me and even taking time off work to provide assistance. Keith Ashley provided guidance throughout this process and he, and a group of students from Savannah College of Art and Design, dug some of the recent excavations at Redbird and provided one of the vital AMS dates. Hannah Morris, a St. Catherines Island field crew veteran, spent a week with me moving a stadia rod one meter at a time. Several of my fellow graduate students at Georgia Southern University also deserve mention, including Matt Luke and Blake Ayala. Matt provided me with coastal LiDAR data and the ability to use it as a figure, and Blake provided review and comments on several drafts of this chapter. I thank all of you for the help and opportunities you have provided.