Scratching the Surface: A Spatial Analysis of Precontact Artifacts and Features from the Topper Site (38AL23)

Cayla Colclasure, Martin P. Walker, Brooke Brennan, Anielle Duncan, Darcie McAfferty, and David G. Anderson

Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Introduction

Current excavations at the Topper Site (38AL23), reflect a

shift in focus from the Paleoindian period to the rich Woodland

and Mississippian occupations present at the site. This new focus

will provide much needed data regarding the Late Prehistoric

period in the region, a time when intensive maize agriculture and

complex societies emerged. Much of the focus of previous work

in the region has been on mound and ceremonial centers and the

accompanying spread and reach of the culture groups defined at

these centers. One of the goals for this project is to move the

focus away from the large centers and instead examine

occupations that represent an alternative social, economic, and

political structure, dispersed yet interconnected small semi-

sedentary and sedentary villages.

Current fieldwork has resulted in the excavation of two

blocks totaling an area of 40m2, and a survey of 17 1x1m units

on a dispersed 10m grid. These excavations have revealed a

wealth of late Precontact cultural material and over 350 features

(Figure 2). A linear arrangement of postmolds was observed after

recent excavations, with a concentration of smaller features on

the northwest side of the formation in addition to the numerous

other scattered features (Figure 3). Surrounding this area are

many larger features, some of which produced charcoal and

maize (Roark and Walker 2016).

Methods:

Archroma Inc. generously provided a 50cm interval contour topographic map of their property which is where the Topper Site is

located. This map served as our base layer for project mapping and GIS analyses. Our first step was to georeference the hand drawn

feature maps from the field. Next two polygon layers were created to enable the tracing of each individual units and feature

respectively. Plowscars, areas of disturbance, and areas of dispersed soil staining were similarly recreated in appropriately

designated polygon layers. These site maps were then compared to similar

datasets from other locations, including the Woodland occupation at the nearby

G.S. Lewis West site (Stephenson and Civitello 2001:8).

A lithic size grade analysis was conducted where the lithic material from each

excavated 1x1m unit was sifted through a series of five nested screens of mesh

sizes, 1in, 3/4in, 1/2in, 1/4in, and 1/8in. The materials captured within each

screen were sorted into debitage and non-debitage and the counts and weights of

each category were recorded. For the portions larger than 1/2 in, the amounts of

cortex and debitage were also noted. As noted above the 1x1m units were

individually drawn into a unique polygon layer. The lithic data was attached to

the unit layer in QGIS, and a heat map was generated with a 1/2 standard

deviation class level (Figure 4). The heat maps of the size graded lithic analysis

was compared to the feature maps to examine potential activity areas.

Discussion

It has been shown that the size of lithic debitage roughly corresponds to

production sequences of lithic manufacturing, and the evidence of these

sequences can provide information about site function (Stahle & Dunn, 1982:

84). Debitage can also be a better indicator of human behavior than stone tools, as the former are likely to be deposited close to the

area of production (Ahler 1989:86). We present here a size grade lithic analysis of Woodland Block East (Figure 4). While all size

grades are present across the block, definite patterns are visible. Debitage larger than 1in are more concentrated in the northwest

portion of the block where those measuring between 1in and 1/2in were more heavily present in the southeast portion. Materials

smaller than 1/2in were more evenly distributed, with one loci for 1/8in materials found toward the northwest. It appears that more

fine scale reduction took place directly to the north of the potential wall, possibly within the interior of a structure. The southeastern

portion of the block, where there is a significant presence of all size categories above 1/8in is also the location of several features

which yielded burnt corn (Roark and Walker 2016).

Comparing the nearby Woodland occupation at the G.S. Lewis-West site (Figure 5), to the Topper Hillside, there is a similar

density of features. There were also similarities between

the two sites in artifact assemblages: both yielded large

quantities of pottery with a variety of decorative styles,

including check stamped and cord marked varieties

(Stephenson & Citivello, 2001:8) and several house

structures were also suspected at G.S. Lewis-West based

upon postmold formations. Both sites exhibit similar

groupings of many small features, surrounded by areas

with fewer, larger features. The major difference between

the two sites is the lack of a midden at the Topper Site,

raising questions of seasonality, movement, and/or

differing groups. Overall, the combined patterns of

feature distributions, lithic reduction, and presence of

maize at the Topper Site begin to suggest the presence of

general all purpose activity areas and potential structures

with interior-exterior activity locations, and thus in turn

begin to paint a picture of village activities in the Late

Prehistoric period.

Figure 5: Map of features at the G.S. Lewis-West

Site (Stephenson and Civitello 2001:8), shown for

comparison with the feature maps from Topper.

Figure 3: Map of completed fieldwork from 2015 and 2016 (top center); Woodland

Block West with mapped features (top left); Woodland Block East with mapped

features and highlighting linear row of postholes (bottom right).

Figure 4: Size grade heat maps of Woodland Block East showing the distribution locations of 1 inch (a), 3/4 inch (b), 1/2 inch (c), 1/4 inch (d), 1/8 inch (e),

and less than 1/8 inch (f) size grades.

a. b.

c. d.

e. f.

Figure 7: Image of bisected feature 290, a potential floor or wall fall from a structure.

Figure 6: Closing Photo of Woodland Block West

Figure 8: Bisection of feature number 420. Adjacent

nested features contained burnt corn.

Figure 2: Closing Photo of Woodland Block East

Refrerences

Ahler, Stanley A.

1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Instead of the Trees, In Alternative Approaches to

Lithic Analysis ed. Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell. Archaeological Papers 1. Arlington, Virginia:

American Anthropological Association.

Anderson, David G., David J. Hally, and James L. Rudolph

1986 The Mississippian Occupation of the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 5(1):32-51.

Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., editors

2002 The Woodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman

2012 Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington

D.C.

Pauketat, Timothy R.

2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

QGIS Development Team

2015 QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. URL http://qgis.osgeo.org

Roark, Sierra and Martin P. Walker

2016 Paleoethnobotanical Remains from the Topper Site (38AL23). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 28 October 2016.

Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn

1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial

Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14(1): 84-97.

Stephenson, Keith and Jamie Civitello

2001 Recent Analysis from the Woodland Period G.S. Lewis-West Site Along the Middle Savannah River. Legacy

6(2): 8-9.

Figure 9: Digitized features of Woodland Block East with lines showing potential structures.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Archroma Inc. for their hospitality and continued support of the

ongoing research at the Topper Site. We are also thankful for the support provided by the

Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey. Lastly, we owe a debt of gratitude to all of the students and

volunteers for their hard work.