Excursions in southeastern geology : the archaeology-geology of the Georgia coast

I-

I
EXCURSIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN GEOLOGY

THE ARCHAEOLOGY-GEOLOGY

: .

' I

OF THE GEORGIA COAST

I .

by

JAMES D. HOWARD CHESTER B. DEPRATTER
ROBERTW. FREY
: I .

1980 ANNUAL MEETING GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA THORNTON L. NEATHERY, FIELD TRIP CHAIRMAN
1 I

I ,
i

\

I

GUIDEBOOK 20
: i I
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
ENVIRONMENTAL !PROTECTION DIVISION J. Leonard Ledbetter, Director
GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. McLemore, State Geologist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Frontispiece

ii

Preface

. iii

Dedication

Reflections by Malcolm Bell, Jr . . . . . . . . .

v

Reflections by Lewis H. Larson, Jr. . . . . . . . .

vi

Indian occupation and geologic history of the Georgia coast: a 5,000 year

summary -- C.B. DePratter and J.D. Howard . . . . . .

1

Holocene depositional environments of the Georgia coast and continental

shelf-- J.D. Howard and R.W. Frey

. . . . . . . . . . . .

66

The interdisciplinary approach in archaeology: a view from St. Catherines

Island, Georgia -- D.H. Thomas . . . .

135

Principles and problems in establishing a Holocene sea-level curve for South Carolina -- D.J. Colquhoun, M.J. Brooks, W.H. Abbott, F.W. Stapor,
W.S. Newman, and R.R. Pardi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Chronological and functional reexamination of the Irene ceramic complex --
F.C. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Coastal Georgia Deptford culture: growth of a concept-- J.T. Milanich

170

Late prehistoric settlement systems on Ossabaw Island, Georgia -- C.E.
Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 179

Human skeletal and dental health changes on the prehistoric Georgia

coast -- C.S. Larsen

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 192

Man and sea level at the second Refuge site -- L. Lepionka . .

. . 202

Santa Elena, a Spanish foothold in the New World -- S. South .

. . 206

Guale Indians of the southeastern United States coast -- G.D. Jones . . . 215

Skidaway Island: a frontier outpost, 1733-1740 -- J.F. McGowan and

C.B. DePratter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

Field trip guide to the archaeology - geology of the Georgia coast

J.D. Howard and C.B. DePratter . . . . . . . . . . . .

234

i

.""!'

. ;;_,.......-,.~ -:-::..:.

,

11As sea level rose . . . man gradually was forced to move farther west11 (DePratter and Howard, 1980). Illustration, depicting Florida Indians, was drawn by Jacques Le Mayne in 1560's and engraved by Theodore de Bry. (From Lorant, 1946.)
ii

I

I i
I I !

PREFACE
We are not sure if this guidebook and related compendium on geology and archaeology is a "first-of-its-kind. 11 If not, it surely must be a close second or at very least a third. That the emerging interest and excitement of combined geologic and archaeologic studies has been so slow in coming seems rather surprising. The fault no doubt lies with geologists because archaeologists have been using geologic principles and practices, whether they knew it or not, since the time that someone first realized that older "things" underlie younger "things" in ancient cultural successions. Indeed, geologists might well be advised to not delve too deeply into the origins of stratigraphy, as they use the term, for fear of finding out who, really, first grasped the significance of its use.
When asked to prepare this guidebook, we were quite excited about the prospects of putting together a group of state-of-the-art papers on the archaeology-geology of the Georgia coast and adjacent areas. As time went by, it became obvious that the state-of-the-art was very lopsided in the direction of archaeology, as reflected by the contents of this volume. The situation suggests that a tremendous opportunity exists for geologists to take advantage of a vast store of information contained in existing archaeologic data and that geologists and archaeologists can both benefit greatly by getting together and comparing notes.
Geologists can learn a lot about Holocene history by sharing archaeological data and techniques. Archaeologists can provide information on what aboriginal people ate, where they lived, and what local and imported natural raw materials they used through time. Because these people were hunters, gatherers, or horticu1turalists who lived "close to the 1and, 11 their way of life had to be modified whenever changes occurred in the local environment. Thus, intercoastal situations, shifts in foods consumed, fire woods gathered, or in the location of sites may provide clues to changes in sea- and ground-water levels, salinity, and local vegetation. Once this type of information and associated 14c dates are collected from a series of archaeological sites, a reconstruction of the local environment and its changes through time can be made.
Our combined archaeological-geological studies have spanned the entire Georgia coast. On the basis of an archaeological site survey of all Holocene features along the coast, two uf us (J.D.H. and C.B.D.) were able to estimate extent of coastal progradation during several time periods spanning the past 5,000 years (DePratter and Howard, 1977, in press). Follow-up work involved study of sea level indicators, the combination of dates on submerged stumps and archaeological and historical data, and resulted in the recognition of a lowstand and indications of other possible fluctuations. This work on the Georgia coast was possible because of the existence of a well-dated ceramic sequence that could be used to estimate site dates on the basis of material collected from the surface and eroded profiles of archaeological sites. Collections made during our survey have permitted further refinement of the ceramic sequence for the Georgia coast (DePratter, 1976, 1977, 1979). Summaries of our work on those problems are provided in the paper by C.DePratter and J. Howard. The paper by J. Howard and R. Frey summarizes Holocene geology of the Georgia coast.

iii

The remaining papers in this volume were included to both illustrate the range of archaeological information available and to depict life on the coast during the past 5,000 years. D. Thomas paper discusses the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the study of archaeological sites. The paper by D. Colquhoun and coauthors discusses problems involved in utilizing archaeological and other types of data to identify and plot sea level fluctuations. F. Cooks paper shows the difficulties involved in the study of ceramics; such analyses are critical to combined geological-archaeological studies, however, because ceramics provide a simple, efficient way of determining the period of occupation of a site. Papers by J. Milanich and C. Pearson discuss archaeological data pertaining to particular time intervals, providing insights into adaptations of people living on the coast to local conditions during those periods. The paper by C. Larsen illustrates the kind of information that can be obtained from proper study of human skeletal remains. L. Lepionkas paper is a brief report on a recently excavated archaeological site inundated by sea level rise since the time of its occupation. Papers by S. South and G. Jones pertain to the 16th century arrival of Spaniards on the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, and Jones paper .illustrates the radical change in lifestyles caused by that invasion. The paper by J. McGowan and C. DePratter concerns historical developments on Skidaway Island between 1733 and 1740. In the DePratter-Howard paper and elsewhere in this volume, we have used drawings by Jacques Le Moyne (Lorant, 1946) to illustrate Indian lifeways. These drawings were made in the 16th century A.D., but we have taken the liberty of using them to depict life in prehistoric times.
Dates throughout this volume have all been changed to years before present. (BP) by subtracting from the year AD 2000. A map of all archaeological sites mentioned is provided for reference (Fig. 1 of field trip guide).
We wish to express our thanks to Rick Brokaw for drafting many of the figures, to Linda Land for typing multiple drafts of each paper, and to Lynn oMalley and Suzanne Mcintosh for photographic work.
James D. Howard Savannah, Georgia Chester B. DePratter Statesboro, Georgia Robert W. Frey Athens, Georgia
iv

DEDICATiON
From the moment the compilation of this guidebook began, there was no question that it should be dedicated to the late Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Although none of the editors of this guidebook were personally acquainted with Dr. Waring, the work by Howard and DePratter, and that of all others in this volume, is heavily dependent on his pioneering efforts. Many readers no doubt already are acquainted with the magnitude of Waring's contribution by having used, as a valuable reference, The Waring Papers, edited by Stephen Williams and published jointly by the Peabody Museum and the University of Georgia Press in 1968. Others, especially geologists, are perhaps less well acquainted with the significance of contributions that Waring made to the archaeology of the southeast coast of the United States. Thus, we sought out two of his colleagues, one from the social community in which he lived and one from the scientific community in which he worked, and asked them to recall their association with Antonio Waring.
Reflections by Malcolm Bell, Jr. Chairman of the Board
Savannah Bank and Trust Company Savannah, Georgia
In 1915 Antonio J. Waring, Jr., was born in Savannah into a family that had played an important role in the life of Georgia's first city since its founding. Waring was to spend his entire life, except for the period of his education and military service, as a resident of the city of his birth. His father was a prominent physician in Savannah who enjoyed, along with other members of the family, a deserved reputation for community service.
Antonio was schooled and trained at St. Albans, Yale, and Johns Hopkins. He followed his father and other Warings of years gone by in the practice of medicine, and as far as I know, that was about the only time he followed anyone. The rest of his time, he went his own way. He was bright - a likeable intellectual with a rare and sharp sense of humor, two qualities that were to serve him well as he crowded his life with the practice of two professions, pediactrics and archaeology. Somehow he found other time for reading, writing (including poetry), music, delightful conversation, and time for his family and friends.
Early on an archaeologist, at thirteen Tono Waring excavated a site beyond Savannah's city limits shown on colonial maps as the 11 Indian King's Tomb.'' From St. Albans he visited the Washington museums; while at Yale, he studied archaeological collections at the Peabody Museums, and visited New York to know the collections of the Heye Foundation and the American Museum of Natural History. All the while, he pursued the science of medicine. Summers in coastal Georgia were spent working at the archaeological sites of Deptford, Bilbo, and Irene along the Savannah River, and at the Etowah site in Georgia and the Moundville site in Alabama. Before beginning his medical practice at Savannah, he served in the Army Medical Corps during Wor1d War II, with a fortuitous tour of duty in Egypt. After brief training at Johns Hopkins, the young Doctor Waring joined his father in caring for Savannah children. Yet, southeastern prehistory continued to occupy much of his mind and spare time, and in 1962 he closed his practice in order to devote full attention to his archaeological interests. His early death from cancer, in 1964, was a sad and bitter blow.
v

Reflections by Lewis H. Larson, Jr. State Archaeologist of Georgia West Georgia College Carrollton, Georgia
Dr. Antonio J. Waring, Jr., for most of his adult life was the archaeological a.uthority in the coastal area of Georgia. It is, particularly proper, therefore, that this s~mmary of prehistory of that region should recognize the important role he played in its archaeology. He would, I am sure, have been immensely interested in this volume. He would have been anxious to compare conclusions presented here with his own, perhaps to supply missing data from his own incredible knowledge of sites of the area. He would have been eager to argue vigorously those points with which he was in disagreement. But disagreement or not, he would have been pleased with the fact that here was further evidence of new data, new interpretations, new concepts concerning the archaeology of the area where he had an all abiding interest and commitment.
It is tempting to take the space alloted to me here and give it over to anecdotes and reminiscences about Dr. Waring. However, such personal selfindulgence on my part does not seem appropriate. A review of Dr. Waring's accomplishments in the advancement of coastal archaeology will provide the kind of understanding that is appropriate.
Although he was not specifically trained for the profession of archaeology, Dr. Waring was, in a very real sense, a professional archaeologist. His approach to archaeology, his problem formulation, his collection and ordering of data and its analysis, and his ability to synthesize, is ample evidence of his professional qualifications. He interacted professionally with other archaeologists as their peer. Neither they nor he questioned his professional stature.
His enjoyment of the out of doors, has hunting and fishing experience in his youth, came together with his fascination for history and Indians to produce what has been characterized as his 11 Consuming preoccupation 11 with archaeology. The youthful outdoor experience gave him an intimate knowledge of the coastal area and a familiarity with the location, extent, and character of its archaeological sites. He seemed to know them all, to have visited them at one time or another, and to be apprised of the nature of their remains. In the 1930's, he participated in WPA excavations at several archaeological sites in Chatham County that were to become the type sites and reference markers for the chronology of the entire coastal area. These include the Irene, Deptford, and Bilbo sites. He, together with other archaeologists, was directly responsible for formulation of the basic ceramic typology for the coastal area. His interest in ceramics and their value as temporal markers was to continue as long as he lived.
While Dr. Waring focused his archaeological interests on the coast, the sweep of this interest embraced the entire southeast. This is reflected in several papers that dealt with aspects of Piedmont and Coastal Plain archaeology. His capabilities as a synthesizer are demonstrated in a landmark paper he authored with Preston Holder, entitled 11A Prehistorical Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern Uni.ted States, 11 published in American Anthropologist in 1945.
To the end of his life he remained a dynamic force in coastal archaeology, t:onstantly able to provoke, stimulate, and question his colleagues while at the
vi

same time indicating new directions, new areas for research. It was he who first raised the question of shell rings. It was he who first indicated the temporal importance of the Refuge site ceramics. As far as I am aware, it was he who first identified archaeological evidence of the 16th and 17th century Spanish occupation on the Georgia coast. He knew the area. He delighted in making it known to others. He was generous with his knowledge. He communicated his enthusiasm. He provided the basis for our understanding of coastal archaeology today.
I ,
I II : I
vii

INDIAN OCCUPATION AND GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF THE GEORGIA COAST:
A 5,000 YEAR SUMMARY
Chester B. DePratter Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Georgia Southern College Statesboro, Georgia 30460
James D. Howard Skidaway Insitute of Oceanography
Post Office Box 13687 Savannah, Georgia 31406
ABSTRACT
During the past 5,000 yr the Georgia coast has been the site of tremendous variations in both physical processes and human occupation. Fluctuations in sea level and variable rates of shoreline progradation resulted in relatively rapid shifts in coastal environments. At the same time, the human population of the coastal zone was evolving culturally and politically. Today, the abundant geologic and archaeologic record of the late Holocene reveals a strong interrelationship between the two. The record of human activity, as expressed in middens and ceramics, helps explain processes in the physical realm and the geologic record. The geological record, as expressed by spatial distribution of buried and exposed barrier island remnants, indicates factors that affected aboriginal cultures. Until recently, various workers assumed that sea level on this coast remained nearly stable and that coastal morphology underwent little change over the past 5,000 yr. More recently, combined archaeology-geology studies clearly illustrate a much more complicated picture, shown by lateral and vertical shifts in human occupation sites and by changes in food resources. Such changes in time and space permit us to determine relative and absolute rates of shoreline progradation and sea level fluctuations. Indian populations in the coastal area produced copious amounts of ceramics, beginning about 4500 yr ago. Through time, characteristics of the pottery changed rapidly as new methods of tempering and decoration were developed. A 14c chronology tied to this ceramic development gives us a convenient time frame.
Of special importance are: (1) life styles of early inhabitants of the Georgia coast, (2) development of ceramics that we use as a 11 Calendar, 11 (3) geologic events that can be determined by considering the archaeological record, (4) events that have occurred on this coast since the appearance of European influence, and (5) history of archaeological investigations on the Georgia coast.
I i
1

INTRODUCTION A series of geologic, archaeologic, and economic events in the coastal zone of the southeastern United States combine to create a fascinating picture of Holocene history. The story has three main parts and is set in the beautiful coastal area of South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida, an area referred to as the Sea Island Section (Fig. 1). Characters in this story include Indians, archaeologists, geologists, essayists, historians, plantation owners, slaves, real estate developers, health department personnel, WPA workers, highway engineers, naturalists, dragline operators, and physicians, among others. This trilogy includes the Pleistocene, Prehistoric Holocene, and Historic Holocene.

PLEISTOCENE

Shoreline progradation and erosion has characterized the southeastern United States for the past 2 million years (my). Three major shorelines, indicated by topographic expression on the lower Coastal Plain (Fig. 2), were discussed recently by Winker and Howard (1977). One of these, the Effingham Sequence (Fig. 3), having an elevation of 30m, is dated at 1.0 to 1.7 my (Berggren and Van Couvering, 1974). A younger, lower feature, the Chatham Sequence (Fig. 3), represents at least three eustatic cycles. The highest, oldest part of this sequence, referred to locally as the 11 Pamlico Formation, 11 formed when sea level was approximately 8 m above. present mean seal level (msl). Its age, based on correlative beach deposits in Florida, is rv 110,000 BP (Hoyt and Hails, 1974). The youngest part of the Chatham Sequence, locally called 11Silver Bluff Formation, .. was formed when sea level was approximately 1 m higher than present and is believed to have formed between 37,000 and 25,000 BP (Hoyt et al., 1964, 1968). Establishment of Chatham Sequence shorelines and sea levels-rslbased on geomorphology, facies, physical and biogenic sedimentary structures, and 14c dates (Winker and Howard, 1977). Formation of Pleistocene sequences set the stage for future depositional events, and the resulting morphology controlled subsequent coastal development. This influence, in the form of Pleistocene barrier remnants, continues to the present.

Following development of the Chatham Sequence, sea level dropped in excess

of 100m (Curray, 1965; Milliman and Emergy, 1968), then rose again to its

approximate present position and reoccupied the relict coastal zone of the

Chatham sequence. Well-exposed Pleistocene outcrops are scarce on the Georgia

coast, and reliable, undisturbed cores through coastal sequences are lacking.

However, the meager outcrop data we have indicate that depositional processes

and facies were similar to those present on todays coast (Howard, 1971). In

Pleistocene deposits we recognize well-developed shoreface, foreshore, backshore,

dune, tidal point bar, tidal channel fill, and tidal flat facies remarkably

similar to their modern counterparts. We have not yet found positive analogues

to modern salt marsh facies, but estuaries or lagoons of some type separated the

beach ridge sequences. Based on thickness of foreshore deposits and physical

and biogenic structures, tide range and wave regime apparently were similar to

those of today. Positions of estuaries during Pleistocene time are not known,

exactly, but orientation and morphology of shoreline remnants and outcrop data

indicate that the coastal zone at that time was a landscape similar to that of

today (Figs. 2,3). Fossil evidence indicates that Pleistocene invertebrate

faunas were much the same as today. Sadly, perhaps, some of the former vertebrate

! -

l .

2

n
r-------------------.--~-----------------------------------.3~

..r.)

r-"

N0 RTH

CAROLINA

.. T

_j -

-, .. 'I

I

'

SOUTH

'

CAROLINA

\ '\
)
)
! .l

()
0==~==~10=0==;==2~00km
Fig. 1. Coastal area index map.
3

\
\
GA.\.S.C.
< \ --......... \
32

Kars t
( I
'<
I
/
I
,,/\
\ i \ \

+

30

- - shoreline scarp
__......,-==: ~ beach ridges and related lineations
fluvial terraces ...... {undifferentiated)

28

82

eo

Fig. 2. Geomorphic features of Atlantic Coastal Plain south of Cape Fear River. Holocene beach-ridge trends not included. (From Winker and Howard, 1977.)

4

i '
I' I I

so

100 miles

50

100 kilometers

, .

\

'-"'co\
"'\

~-E-QU-EN_c_E_---1

\_T_R_A_IL RID_G_:_

Fig. 3.

ei'I'INGHAM SEQUENCE

\

CHATHAM

Three shoreline sequences differentiated from Atlantic Coastal Plain south of Cape Fear River. Numbers on map of Effingham Sequence indicate elevation (in m) of oldest beach-ridge crests for each strand plain. (From Winker and Howard, 1977.)
5

faunas, such as ground sloths, mastodons, and mammoths, described by Hodgson (1846), Couper (1846), and Voorhies {1971), that occupied this area prior to 9000 yr BP no longer are with us.
PREHISTORIC HOLOCENE From a low stand of about -100 m, sea level began to rise sometime prior to 17,000 BP (Blackwelder etal., 1979). Evidently, sediments lying on the present continental shelf were reworked, the fine fraction removed, and the topography reduced to a plane. Present shelf sediments beyond the 10-m depth line are composed of clean sand, shells, and shell fragments lacking any significant fine fraction (Howard and Frey, this volume) .. The.thin, sequence is in most places only a few meters thick, and in some places is missing. The maximum lowstand and the precise time it occurred on the Georgia coast are not known exactly. However, a recent series of 14c dates for the Georgia Bight (Blackwelder et ~., 1979) indicates that sea level was at approximately -60 m msl and rising at 17,000 yr BP. For the area now comprising the continental shelf, we envision, at any given time as sea level fell, a broad, forested, low coastal plain similar to the present lower Coastal Plain, with associated barrier islands, estuaries or lagoons, and perhaps tidal marshes. Numerous cores and other samples taken on the shelf (Pilkey et al., 1969; Blackwelder et al., 1979; Howard and Frey,. this volume) contain faunal and facies evidence-or-back barrier environments. Specific evidence of human habitation is lacking, however, because of the reworking that occurred as sea level rose (Brunn, 1962; Schwartz, 1967; Edwards and Merrill, 1977). All that remains of this transgression is a thin cover of reworked material and some fortuitous preservations of estuarine and tidal-inlet facies. Sea level continued to rise until approximately 5,000 BP, at which time it was apptoximately 1 m below present (DePratter and Howard, in press). At this point, coastal Indians become important to ourstory.
People and Their Lifestyles Indians first occupied the eastern part of North America at least 15,000 yr ago (Adovasio et al., 1979). At that time, sea level was at least 60 m lower than at present (Blackwelder et al., 1979) and may have been as much as 130m lower (Milliman and Emery, 1968). An extensive part of the present continental shelf was a coastal plain occupied by Indians. Favored habitation sites would have been located adjacent to major river courses or near the coast in areas now submerged (Bryan, 1977). Pleistocene vertebrate faunas were abundant and may have been hunted, although no direct evidence exists for such hunting. The bulk of the Indian diet probably was composed of small mammals, such as deer, rabbit and raccoon, and plant foods. Their tool assemblage was geared toward hunting, and meat and hide processing; no specialized implements are known for proc~ssing plant foods or catching fish (DePratter, 1975).
I v
6

,~

~~

I

As sea level rose after 15,000 BP, and the shoreline transgressed across the continental shelf surface, man gradually was forced to move farther west. The westward pace would have been slow, because the average rate of submergence has been estimated at between 30 em per century (Blackwelder et al., 1979) and 160 em per century (Milliman and Emery, 1968). Remains of abandoned sites would have been destroyed by reworking as the shoreline transgressed across them (Brunn, 1962; Schwartz, 1967); intact archaeological sites are not likely preserved on the continental shelf. Projectile points dating to the 13,000 to 11,000BP interval are found occasionally on present-day beaches in Georgia and South Carolina (Waring, 1968a, 1968f), but those may represent points lost by peoples living in areas far inland from the active shoreline.
During the succeeding 6,000 to 7,000 yr, inhabitants of both the exposed continental shelf and the present-day Coastal Plain continued as hunters and gatherers. Groups living adjacent to rivers and along the shoreline may have utilized fish, shellfish, and crustaceans as food, but that archaeological evidence also is lacking. Sites continued to be mainly small, short-term campsites.
4500-3100 BP
Westward migration by Indians living near the shoreline continued until approximately 4500 yr ago, when sea level stabilized at a point near present mean sea level. The active shoreline was located just east of remnant Chatham Sequence barriers (Fig. 3; DePratter and Howard, in press). Chatham Sequence back-barrier areas were partially reflooded, and a new brackish water marsh or lagoon system developed west of the remanant Pleistocene barriers. Indians settled along the margins of these back-barrier areas and began exploiting the abundant marine food resources (DePratter, 1976b).
Villages of three major types were inhabited between 4500 and 3100 yrs ago on the coast: 1) large ring-shaped or crescentric shell middens up to 100m in diameter and 4 m high (Howard and DePratter, this volume, Fig. 15), 2) linear piles of shell up to 70 m long and 2 m high, which extend along back-barrier fringes, and 3) small hunting and collecting camps located away from the swamps or marshes and lacking shell (Waring and Larson, 1968; Waring, 1968b; DePratter, 1976b). Villages were located adjacent to tidal creeks, which provided easy access to back-t~rrier environments.
Diet consisced of a wide variety of foods, back-barrier or lagoon species being the main component. Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were by far the most abundant species utilized, but clam {Mercenaria mercenaria), whelk (Busycon carica and B. canaliculatum), stout tagelus (Tagelus plebius), Atlantic ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa), and periwinkle (Littorina irrorata) also were collected and eaten. Other subsistence items included both bony and cartilagenous saltwater fish, crab, terrestrial and brackish water turtles, birds, mammals (including dog), nuts, and seeds (Waring and Larson, 1968; Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1976b; Trinkley, 1976).
Tool assemblages used in subsistence and manufacturing were limited. Spears thrown by hand or with the aid of an atlatl (throwing stick) functioned as both hunting implements and weapons (Waring and Larson, 1968; Caldwell, et ~., n.d.). The bow was not in use until much later (Caldwell, 1958; DePratter,
7

1976b). Projectile points made of chert or flint obtained by trade from inland sources were used rarely. Points of sharpened bone, antler, or cane also were used (Waring, 1968c). Weirs, traps, and nets served as the primary means of fish procurement, but hooks, spears, and gorges also may have been employed occasionally (DePratter, 1976b).

Pins and awls manufactured from either whole or split bones were used in the fabrication of nets, baskets, and other items. In the latter part of this period, bone pins (Fig. 4) often were highly polished and engraved with elaborate ,geometric designs (Waring, 1968c). Modified shells ofwhelk (Busycon sp.) were used as adzes (Fig. 5) to shape cypress and pine logs into dugout canoes (Fig. 6; DePratter, 1976). Whelk shells also functioned as picks, hammers, and anvils.

Containers for storage and cooking were mainly baskets or ceramic pots,

although vessels carved from talc occasionally were obtained f~m inland areas

(Waring, 1968c). Pottery was not ornamented prior to 3700 BP; but after that ,

date, a wide variety of punctating and incising techniques were employed (DePratter,

1976b). Early pottery, which was crude, thick-walled, and made by molding or -

modeling, may not have been strong enough to use for cooking. Objects of baked

clay, heated in fires, were used as boiling stones and for roasting meat and

other foods in pits (Ford et al, 1955; Waring and Larson, 1968; DePratter,

1976b).

--

Shelters were insubstantial structures constructed of a widely spaced
framework of posts covered with brush, palmetto, or woven mats. Occupation was directly on top of accumulating refuse heaps (Waring and Larson, 1968; Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1976b; Crusoe and DePratter, 1976). Circular and crescentric shell middens may have had ''ceremonial~ significance, although this interpretation cannot be demonstrated. Central areas contained neither structures nor refuse disposal areas (Waring and Larson, 1968; Hemmings, 1970).

Larger sites probably were occupied by egalitarian bands composed of perhaps 20 to 30 people. These groups may have lived in permanent or semip~rma~ent . villages during most of the year (DePratter, 1976b), or they may have l~ved_ln dispersed settlements, coming together only during parts of the year (M1lan1ch, 1971a; Marrinan, 1975).
Burial practices for this period are not known b~t fragment~ of ~uman bones, some charred, occasionally are encountered dur1ng excavat1ons 1n shel~ middens (Waring, 1968c; Marrinan, 19?5) .. These may repr~sent bones lost dur1ng processing and storage of human rema1ns 1ntended for ~ur1al elsewhere, although cannibalism also has been suggested (Moore, 1897; War1ng, 1968c). Thomas and Larsen (1979) reported a possible cremation dating to this interval.

Between 4500 and 3100 BP, coastal populations were well adapted to their local environment. Villages were located along island margins adjacent to marshes whereas hunting and collecting camps were more dispersed. Collection of food from marshes required a limited range of tools made from local bone, shell,
or plant resources.

8

a

'.b

0 c

d

i

. ~..

5t1'n,

~

i

b

~

d

e

a

g

h

'

Fig. 4. Bone pins. Made by grinding and polishing sections of mammal long

I :

bones, used in basketry and net manufacture and perhaps served ornamental

and other functions. Engraved decoration on pins began at about the

same time as decoration of pottery. (From Waring, 1968c.)

Fig. 5.

Whelk she 11 tool. Probably served as an adze or chisel. (Approximately 0.5x; from Moore, 1897.)

I I I
9

Fig. 6.

North Carolina Indians making dugout canoe. A suitable tree was felled, the limbs removed by burning. Trunk was hollowed by controlled burning followed by scraping with shell adze or other tool; process was repeated until desired form was achieved. Drawing by John White in 15sos. (From Lorant, 1946.)

3100-2400 BP
By 3100 BP, major changes occurred in the local environment, which altered human adaptation to estuarine resources for the next 700 yr (DePratter, 1977). Occupation of earlier shell midden sites continued, but new sites also were established (Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1975a, 1975b). Habitation sites on the Savannah River show a shift from use of brackish water shellfish species to use of freshwater species during the same time interval (Waring, 1968i; Lepionka, this volume). Most sites occupied during this interval (other than Savannah River shell sites) consist of artifact scatters without midden accumulation (Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1976a, 1979; Thomas and Larsen, 1979). Hunting apparently became more important than it had been prior to 3100 BP, because both projectile points and lithic debris become more abundant (Marrinan, 1975). Animals hunted included deer, raccoon, rabbit, possum, and alligator (Fig. 7; Marrinan, 1975); the spear, probably in conjunction with the throwing stick, remained the main

10

Fig. 7.

Florida Indians killing alligators. Although size of alligators is exaggerated, the French witnessed alligators being killed in manner shown. Prior to use of bow, animals ~~auld have been killed with spears and clubs. Original drawing by Jacques Le Mayne, 156os; later engraved by Theodore de Bry. (From Lorant, 1946.)

weapon and hunting aid. Houses continued to be insubstantial structures similar to those of the preceding period. Many tools (whelk-shell adzes and hammers, long bone pins) associated with marsh-lagoon exploitation no l~ger were used.
Containers included baskets and pots. Pottery was coiled and contained liberal amounts of sand that served as grog (Waring, 1968i; DePratter, 1976a). Decoration was done by impressing vessel surfaces with wooden paddles carved with parallel, straight lines or by striking the vessel with bundles of twigs. Pieces of broken pots were used as abraders for work on both wood and hides (Thomas and Larsen, 1979). Some sherds were used as hones for sharpening bone implements; stone hones also were used occasionally.
During this time interval, at least some individuals were buried in pits located on high, well drained soils. Burial associations, which were not common,

11

included stone projectile points, hammerstones, and shark teeth (Thomas and Larsen, 1979). Burial forms included both primary inhumations and secondarily redeposited bundles. Human bone fragments, some charred, are found scattered in refuse deposits (Marrinan, 1975; Lepionka, this volume) and are reminiscent of similar materials deposted between 4500 and 3100 BP.
Society continued to function at a band level, the family units dispersed during most of the year. Periodic ceremonial occasions may have provided impetus for temporary aggregations of members of one or more bands (Thomas and Larsen, 1979).
Thus, between 3100 and 2400 BP, coastal societies spent some part of the year dispersed in hunting and collecting camps occupied by nuclear family units. Shellfish were a less important resource to most of the population (based on known sites), although groups living adjacent to sounds and river mouths may have exploited available shellfish beds. Subsistence strategies were directed toward the utilization of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate species and plants foods, especially, nuts. Burial ceremonialism was beginning to develop, but apparently without the use of mounds. Structures were temporary and insubstantial.
2400-1500 BP
The way of life begun about 3100 BP gradually came to an end around 2400 BP. Brackish water shellfish became increasingly important as a source of food and sites occupied between 2400 and 1500 BP were located adjacent to the marsh once again (Milanich, 1971a; DePratter, 1975a). Communities dating to the first half of this interval were composed of 10 to 15 houses clustered along backbarrier edges, probably at locations that provided easy access to tidal creeks. Refuse was deposited either in continuous linear heaps along the marsh or in clusters of small, individual middens situated between structures. Villages occupied during the later part of this interval may have consisted of 15 to 25 structures (Milanich, 1971a, this volume).
Subsistence was based on a combination of hunting and collecting (Fig. 8), brackish food resources (including fish, shellfish, and crustaceans) providing a substantial part of the diet. Fishing probably was done with nets, baskets and weirs; no fish hooks dating to this interval are known. The atlatl and dart remained in use during the early part of this period, but probably were replaced by the bow and arrow prior to 1500 BP (Milanich, 1971a, this volume).
Pottery types originating at 3100 BP continued to be made until 1500 BP; new pottery types also were developed. Sherds continued to be employed as abrading implements (Thomas and Larsen, 1979).
Residential structures were of at least two types. The first consisted of a framework of vertical wall posts set in shell-filled wall trenches. These structures were 6 to 9 m in diameter and contained interior partitions and hearths (Milanich, 1971a). Wall coverings probably were mats, whereas roofs

12

\.

,-

Fig. 8.

Florida Indian women carrying assorted foodstuffs. Baskets were
used to transport a variety of foods, including small mammals, shellfish, fish, and fruit, back to their village. Original drawing by Jacques LeMoyne, 1560 1 s; later engraved by Theodore de Bry. (From Lorant, 1946. )

were thatched. The second type of structure was an open-sided framework 5 to 8 m in diameter having a thatched roof (Bullen, 1969; Milanich, 1971a). These two house types may represent winter and summer dwellings, respectively.
Burials prior to 1900 BP were in pits located in or near villages, whereas after that date, at least some individuals were buried in mounds (Milanich, 1971a; Thomas and Larsen, 1979). Both pit and mound burials contained only occasional artifacts including projectile points, hammerstones, bone tools, quartz crystals, and mica. Burial forms included both extended and flexed inhumations, secondarily redeposited bundles, and possibly cremations. Mounds often were built over pits containing one or more, presumably high status burials.

13

After 1900 BP, some sites may have included extensive circular enclosures constructed of earth and shell (Milanich, 1971a). The only known example is 65 m in diameter and has a maximum height of 60 em. Function of the enclosure is not known, although it may mark the site of periodic band ceremonials.
1500-1000 BP
Beginning around 1500 BP, the coastal way of life was again modified, perhaps as a result of changes in the environment. Between 1500 and 1000 BP, habitation sites were located both adjacent to tidal marshes and in interior locations that provided access to high, well-drained land and to freshwater ponds. Habitation sites ranged from small clusters of 1 to 2 houses to larger villages containing 75 or more houses (DePratter, 1974, 1975a, 1977a; Widmer, 1976). Occupation sites were characterized by small, individual garbage heaps 2
to 4 m across and up to 1 m high. Small islands in the marsh commonly were used
as habitation loci during this interval. Coastal settlements may have been occupied during only part of the year, inhabitants moving inland during the spring and fall (Milanich et al., 1976; Crook, 1978a); but absence of ceramics of this period on coastal j)Tain sites suggests that coastal sites were occupied during the entire year (DePratter, 1975b).
Subsistence was similar to that of the preceding interval, with the possible exception of increased emphasis on plant foods, especially nuts, and resources of freshwater ponds and sloughs (DePratter, 1975b; Widmer, 1976). Maize agriculture may have begun on the coast during this period, but no preserved maize remains have been recovered to date (DePratter, 1975b; Milanich et ~1., 1976). Refuse heaps contain evidence for continuing intensive utilization of marsh resources.
Procurement technology was basically unchanged from preceding periods. Bone pins and awls, stone projectile points and knives, and shell scrapers and adzes continued to serve as the basic tool assemblage suggesting that the basic adaptation to coastal resources was unchanged. Pottery during this period consisted of simple vessel forms that were either undecorated or stamped with cord wrapped paddles.
Structural remains are poorly known. Linear arrangements of posts and clusters of refuse pits are found occasionally, but no definite house pattern has been identified (Caldwell and McCann, n.d.a.). Houses probably were located between the small midden heaps that characterize sites of this period.
Burial data are available from few archaeological sites dating to this period; burials at only two village sites can be assigned to it with any certainty. At the first site, two fully extended burials in pits were found; one had a large section of a pot covering its head and the other had no associated artifacts (Caldwell and McCann, n.d.a.). At a second site, a possible cemetery containing numerous fully extended individuals was found (Caldwell, n.d.). None of the burials contained artifacts.
14

Mound burials also were common during this period, although the absence of associated pottery makes temporal placement of most mounds difficult (Stoltman, 1974). Mounds containing burials presumed to date to this period contain
extended, flexed, and bundle inhumations and cremations (Moore, 1897) and only occasional associated artifacts. Artifacts found with burials include a few shell beads, bone awls, and hematite fragments. Many mounds (Fig. 9) began with burial of one or more indiividuals in a pit containing a limited array of burial offerings, including broken pots, bone tools, and red pigment. A mound was then
built over the pit at a later date, and additional burials were placed in the mound fill during one or more construction episodes (Caldwell, 1971). Burials of this period also were placed occasionally in pits or into earlier mounds
(Thomas and Larsen, 1979).

Fig. 9.

Burial of a Florida chief. Body was placed on ground (or in pit) and low mound of earth was piled over it. Mound was then surrounded by line of arrows; his ceremonial drinking cup was placed on top of mound. Villagers around mound are mourning, and in the village, his house is being burned. Original drawing by Jacques LeMoyne in 156os; later engraved by Theodore de Bry. (From Lorant, 1946.)

15

1000-850 BP
At about 1,000 BP, new subsistence and settlement adjustments were made by inhabitants of the coast. Habitation sites became larger because of greater clustering of local populations; fewer small sites were occupied. Most sites were located on high, well-drained parts of Pleistocene barriers (DePratter, 1974, 1975a, 1977a). Agriculture may have been one of the major factors involved in this shift in settlement location and size, but archaeo1ogica11y preserved plant remains from this interval have not been found (DePratter, 1975b).
Most information dating to this interval comes from burial mounds, because only limited village excavations have been conduCted (Steed, 1970; Caldwell and McCann, n.d.b.). Mounds were built over high status burials placed in centrally located pits. Central pits occasionally were left empty, but others contained mass deposits of cremated bone (Caldwell and McCann, n.d.b.; Waring, 1968h). Child and infant burials became more common during this period suggesting a shift in socio-political organization (Holder, 1938; Caldwell, 1971) to a level where status of individuals buried in mounds may have been ascribed rather than achieved. Cremations in pottery vessels also made their first appearance during this interval (Caldwell, 1952).
A limited array of artifacts was deposited with burials. Associated items included necklaces of 01ive11a sp. and Oliva sp. shells, large vessels made from whelk shells (Busycon contrarium, with columella and interior whorls removed), shell beads made from whelk columella and whorl fragments, projectile points, and bone awls or pins (Holder, 1938; Caldwell, 1952, 1971; Waring, 1968h; Caldwell, 1971). Whelk shell drinking cups may have been associated with the ritual consumption of a tea (11 Black Drink 11 ) made from the leaves of a holly, Ilex vomitaria (Fig. 10; Hudson, 1979; Milanich, 1979). Burials with associated bone awls, projectile points and shell beads occasionally also were placed in cemeteries near habitation sites (Steed, 1970; Caldwell, 1971).
Little is known of village life during this period. Stone, shell, and bone implements and food resources appear to have been similar to those employed earlier, except the possible increase in use of agricultural produce (mainly corn) mentioned earlier.
The kind of residential structures occupied is not known, although the sedentary way of life characteristic of this interval must have led to development of more substantial houses. These continued to be surrounded by midden heaps of refuse 2 to 6 m across and up to 1 m high.
Pottery gradually became more refined, inc1u.di ng new vesse1 forms and better manufacturing and finishing techniques. Stamping was a common type of decoration, but careful smoothing or burnishing and impressing with net-wrapped paddles also were employed. Net impressions represent our first positive evidence for the manufacture and use of nets. Mesh lengths of net impressions generally is 3 em or less.
16

_-- .. --;;:.. ::~-
:::..-.:;.:=~::.=..,_

Fig. 10.

Gathering of a Florida chief and his 11 principal men. 11 Chief, seated in center, is about to imbibe 11 Black Drink, 11 a caffeinated beverage
made from leaves of holl~ Ilex vomitoria. Women in left foreground
are preparing the drink, which served as purification agent. French soldiers in right foreground. Original drawing by Jacques Le Moyne
in 1560's; later engraved by Theodore de Bry. (From Lorant, 1946.)

850-700 BP
Between 850 and 700 BP, a series of new developments changed the complexion of the coastal way of life. The number of sites occupied decreased, resulting in an increase in the number of people occupying major communities. Major sites, located on the mainland or on large Pleistocene barrier island remnants, contained 100 or more houses and one or more large burial mounds (Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Cook, 1966; DePratter, 1975a; Crook, 1978a, 1978b; Pearson, 1977, 1979, this volume). Political organization had shifted to a more centralized

17

form of leadership; power was concentrated in the hands of a single indvidual
(Fig. 10), who controlled both religious and political realms {Service, 1971). One or more political units may have been present on the coast, but the largest and most complex political and religious center in the coastal area apparently was just upriver from modern-day Savannah (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). During
this interval, that community (the Irene site) contained a platform mound that probably was the site of the chief's house, a burial mound, residences, and a series of palisades (composed of upright posts plastered with clay) enclosing various parts of the site. The platform mound was constructed in stages, eventually reaching a height of almost 3 m (Fig. 11). The flat summit of the

Fig. 11.

Profile of platform mound at Irene site, Chatham County. Excavated by WPA crews between 1937 and 1940. Profile shows several of 8 construction stages identified during excavation; shell used in construction originated in village midden heaps. (WPA photo, University of Georgia.)

18

highest mound stage measured over 20 m2 and contained evidence of at least two buildings. Smaller villages lacked platform mounds, but some contained burial mounds in whi.ch high-status individuals were buried (Moore, 1897; Larson, 1957; Cook and Pearson, 1973).
Houses were square to rectangular structures 4 to 5 m2 constructed in shallow depressions. Walls were composed of closely set posts and interwoven vines or bundles of cane. A mixture of clay and spanish moss (Tillsandria sp.) or other fibrous material was used to plaster the walls, which may have had woven mats covering their exteriors. Doors were simple gaps in the walls, which may have been covered by deer or buffalo hides. Many floors had a thin layer of clean sand or clay, and hearths generally were clay-lined pits in the center of the floor. Sleeping platforms were located around wall interiors.
Burials continued to be made in both mound and village locations during this interval. Mound burials included inhumations, redeposited bundle burials, and cremations; many cremations were placed in pottery vessels (Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Caldwell, 1952; Cook, 1966). Mounds often were constructed around a core composed of midden shell. Burial offerings included a wide variety of materials such as shell drinking cups, stone celts, beads and ear ornaments made from whelk columella or whorl fragments, clay smoking pipes (Fig. 12) including human effigy forms, bone tools, stone projectile points, pottery vessels, red pigment and pearls (Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Caldwell, 1952; Cook, 1966; Cook and Pearson, 1973).
Subsistence continued much as it had been earlier, with the possibility that dependence on agriculture continued to increase. The resulting increase in carbohydrate intake led to a decline in the dental health of coastal populations, and population aggregation led to additional problems with disease and infections (Larsen, this volume).
650-480 BP
By 650 BP, many highly nucleated communities of the preceding interval had broken up into a series of smaller villages and farmsteads (Pearson, 1979a, this volume). Some large towns continued to exist, but no longer were they political and religious centers as during the preceding interval. Individual towns probably were autonomous units contolled by chiefs whose authority was based mainly on personal prowess and ability. Platform mounds no longer were used as places of residence for chiefs; in the large mound at one site, the last platform surface was covered with a 2m thick layer of fill and no new structures were placed on its summit (Caldwell and McCann, 1941).
The focus of political authority was shifted from the chief's house to a council house. The only known council house dating to this period was a circular building 36.5 m in diameter. Its walls probably were covered with woven mats, whereas roofing material probably was bark or palmetto thatch. The council
19

Fig. 12.

Pottery smoking pipes.
(Approximately 0.5x.) Earliest pipes on Georgia coast date to between 1000 and 850 BP. Pipes shown
here, dating between 850 and 400 BP, would have had stems of wood or cane, but
stems are not preserved. (From Moore, 1897.)

-.. __ _

Fig. 13.

Whelk shell gorgets. (Approxi-
mately 0.66x.) Ornamental objects made from shell or other material, worm suspended from
neck. Examples shown here were found with burials. (From Moore, 1897.)

20

house was surrounded by two palisades that separated it from the remainder of the village. Behind the structure was a dump containing fragments of numerous pottery vessels, which may have been used in the preparation of Black Drink (Fig. 10). Beneath the floor were 7 burials and 17 pottery vessels that originally may have contained infant burials; reasons for placement of these burials in the council house floor are not known. Similar council houses probably were present at most major sites along the coast (Caldwell and McCann, 1941).
Mortuary structures may have been another feature typical of larger communities dating to this interval, but to date, only one has been excavated (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). Most burials, including inhumations, cremations, and urn burials, were placed in cemeteries or in burial mounds. Artifacts placed with burials included whelk-columella ear pins, shell gorgets (Fig. 13), shell drinking cups, disc and columella shell beads, celts, pipes, projectile points, pottery vessels, bone tools, and other items; but most individuals were buried without associated non perishable artifacts (Moore, 1897; Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Cook, 1978).
Measurements of bones from burials dating to this and the preceeding period (Hulse, 1941) indicate that males averaged 165.4 em (65 in) in height, whereas females averaged 155.5 em (61.2 in).
Food items consumed, the technological inventory, and the kinds of houses occupied were similar to those of the preceeding interval. Pottery shapes and decoration were modified significantly; new vessel forms and new kinds of decoration were developed and older forms were dropped.

Fig. 14.

Two Indians being punished for sleeping on sentry duty. To extreme right is Indian chief, seated beside Frenchman Rene Laudonni~re. French soldiers stand behind. Original drawin~ by Jacques Le Mayne in 156os; later engraved by Theodore de Bry. ~From Lorant, 1946.)
21

Colonial Era Early in the 16th Century, coastal Georgia Indians were 11 discovered 11 by
European explorers. Contact with Europeans was sporadic at first, but later occupation of the coast by Spanish garrisons (Fig. 14) and missions eventually led to the displacement and destruction of the Indians who once lived and thrived on this coast. Jones (this volume) discussed the changes wrought by European invasion and occupation.
Ceramics as Keys to Historic Interpretation One of the most abundant artifact types recovered during archaeological surveys and excavations on the coast is sherds of pottery. Because we employ these sherds and the associated chronology in our work, we include here a discussion of the chronology and its origin. Background Approximately 4500 to 5000 yr BP, Indians of the Sea Island section began to make clay pots for use in storage and cooking (Fig. 15). This pottery is the
Fig. 15. North Carolina Indians cooking stew. Pottery vessels were used for cooking after 4500 BP on the Georgia coast. Drawing by John White in 1580 1 s. (from Lorant, 1946.)
I .
22

PERIOD 300-----
400 Altamaha

500

600 Irene

I

=- , - 700----111

800 Savannah

I

900 St. Catherines

1000

1100

1200 Wilmington
1300

1400

1500-----

1600

1700

1800

~

1900 Deptford

2000
(/)
~ 2100
w
>- 2200

2300

2400 - - - - - 2500
2600
2700 Refuge
2800 Ill

3400
3500
3600 St. Simons
3700
~
4500
Fig. 16. Ceramic sequence for northern Georgia coast. Estimated ages based on uncorrected l4c determinations. Representative pottery sherds illustrate major types. Bar at top indicates general range of various kinds of temper (grog).
oldest in North America (Stoltman, 1966). Manufacture and use of pottery by Indians in the coastal sector continued until 250 to 300 yr ago, when Europeans took control of the area and forced the Indians to leave. During the 4500 yr when pots were the major type of container, techniques of decoration and manufacture changed constantly. In order to utilize archaeological data to date shoreline progradation and sea-level fluctuations, refining the existing ceramic chronology (Caldwell and Waring, 1939a, 1939b; Caldwell, 1940; Waring, 1968e; Caldwell, 1971) was necessary. Several stages in development of the current chronology were published previously (DePratter, 1976b, 1977b, 1979; OePratter and Howard, 1977). Ceramic chronology on the north Georgia coast is divided into 8 periods and 16 phases (Fig. 16, Table 1; DePratter, 1979). Periods and phases reflect
23

TABLE 1

CERAMIC SEQUENCE FOR THE NORTHERN GEORGIA COAST

PERIOD

PHASE

CERAMIC TYPES

YEARS BP*

----------------------------------------A--lt-a-m--ah-a---L-in-e---B-l-o-ck------------- 300

Altamaha Incised

ALTAMAHA Altamaha

Altamaha Plain

Altamaha Red Filmed

--------------------------------------------Ir-e-n-e---I-n-c-is-e-d----------------- 450

Irene II

Irene Complicated Stamped

Irene Burnished Plain

Irene Plain

IRENE

---------------.--Ir-e-n-e--C--om--p-1-i -c-a-te-d---S-ta-m--p-e-d---------- 600

Irene I

Irene Burnished Plain

Irene Plain

-------~---~------------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Complicated Stamped

700

Savannah Check Stamped

Savannah I II

Savannah Fine Cord Marked

Savannah Burnished Plain

Savannah Plain

SAVANNAH

-----------------S--a-v-an-n-a-h---C-h-e-c-k--S-ta-m--p-e-d------------ 750

Savannah II

Savannah Fine Cord Marked

Savannah Burnished Plain

Savannah Plain

----------------S--av-a-n-n-a-h---F-in-e---C-o-rd--M--a-r-k-ed---------- 800

Savannah I

Savannah Burnished Plain

Savannah Plain

--------------------------------------S-t-. --C-a-t-h-e-r-in-e--s--N-e-t-M--a-r-k-ed---------- 850

St. Catherines

St. Catherines Fine Cord Marked

ST. CATHERINES

St. Cathe~ines Burnished Plain

St. Catherines Plain

24

Table 1. (Continued)

-----------------------------------------W--i-lm--i-n-g-to-n--P--la-i-n---------------- 1000

Wilmington II

Wilmington Brushed

Wilmington Heavy Cord Marked

WILMINGTON

---------------W-i-l-m-i-n-g-to-n--H--e-av-y--C--o-rd--M--a-r-k-ed---------- 1400

Wilmington I

Walthour Check Stamped

Walthour Complicated Stamped

Wilmington Plain

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1500 Deptford Complicated Stamped

Deptford Cord Marked

Deptford II

Deptford Check Stamped

Refuge Simple Stamped

Refuge Plain

DEPTFORD

1700

Deptford Linear Check Stamped

Deptford Cord Marked

Deptford I

Deptford Check Stamped

Refuge Simple Stamped

Refuge Plain

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2400 Deptford Linear Check Stamped

Refuge III

Deptford Check Stamped

Refuge Plain

Refuge Simple Stamped

REFUGE

-------------------------------------------------- 2900 Refuge Dentate Stamped

Refuge II

Refuge Plain

Refuge Simple Stamped

-------------------R-e-fu-g-e--S--im--p-le--S--ta-m-p-e-d------------ 3000

Refuge I

Refuge Punctated

Refuge Plain

Refuge Incised

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3100 St. Simons Incised and Punctated

St. Simons Incised

ST. SIMONS St. Simons

St. Simons Punctated

St. Simons Plain

-------------------------------------------------- 3700

St. Simons I

St. Simons Plain

-------------------------------------------------- 4500

*Estimated dates in uncorrected radiocarbon years

25

different levels at which ceramic identifications are possible~ In a small ceramic collection, presence of diagnostic types might allow assignment to a particular period, whereas a larger, more representative collection would allow assignment to a particular phase.
Ceramic use spans an interval of more than 4000 yr on the Georgia coast. During that time, levels of socio-political integration, subsistence and settlement patterns, and the environment changed dramatically. Each factor probably had some effect on changes in ceramics. With shifts in level of socio-political integration came changes in trade, warfare, and other patterns of interaction between social units. These changes effected flow of information between societies; ideas relating to advancements in ceramic technology might have been transmitted more freely during some periods than others~ when social interaction was more restricted.
Environmental changes also effected ceramics. Prior to 2400 BP, sea level fluctuated between 1 and 4 m below present msl (DePratter and Howard, in press). These fluctuations alternately may have exposed and then covered clay sources and may have necessitated shifts to other clay sources. Subsistence, no doubt, also influenced ceramic manufacture. If, as in most preindustrial societies, women were both the potters and food collectors, then with an increased dependence on plant food, women likely had less time for pottery manufacture. This circumstance may explain the decline in 11 quality 11 of ceramics during the Wilmington period (Table 1), when a shift in settlement locations and increasing tooth decay suggest an increased emphasis on plant foods (DePratter, 1975b; Larsen, this volume).
No chronology and associated type descriptions allow identification and chronological placement of every sherd. Some sherds are too small, overstamped, or combine attributes of two or more types (Cook, this volume). Part of this problem is related to individual experimentation by potters, in both decoration and tempering materials, during the entire sequence. The picture is clouded further by the character of changes involved. In addition to shifts in tempering materials (grog), changes in decoration also occurred through time. Temper and decoration shifts did not necessarily occur simultaneously, nor did they appear 11 0Vernight. 11 Old ideas may have lingered for generations before new techniques suppla~ted them. Thus, during transitional intervals, ceramics combining traits from two distinct ceramic phases were manufactured often. These ceramics are not easily identifiable, but the combination of traits is a clue to their placement. Wilmington I (Table 1) is an example of a named transitional phase of this type.
Thus, ceramic types can be used only for limited purposes. Identification of ceramic types gives us an idea of the date a site was occupied. More detailed studies of temper, rim treatment, decoration, and vessel form eventually may allow discussion of intersite and intrasite variability, but the present chronology is not meant to function at that level of interpretation. If ceramics are used only to provide an estimate of dates of sites or other features, then every sherd need not be forced into one ceramic type or another (Cook, this volume). For the sake of consistency and simplicity, use of terms such as 11 residual sand
26

tempered plain, 11 11 Unidentified clay tempered stamped, 11 or 11 Sand tempered complicated stamped 11 is better than misidentifying sherds. For example, on small sherds, to distinguish between Wilmington Cord Marked and St. Catherines Cord Marked or
between Deptford Check Stamped and Savannah Check Stamped (Table 1) is not always possible.

Ceramic Periods

The ceramic sequence (Table 1, Fig. 16; DePratter, 1979) is based on evolutionary changes in decorative techniques and temper. Dates for phases and periods, based on available radiocarbon determinations (Williams, 1968; Caldwell, 1971; Milanich, 1977; Thomas and Larsen, 1979), are given in uncorrected radiocarbon years in Table 2. St. Simons, the earliest period, is dated between 4200 and
3100 BP, although it may begin somewhat. earlier. This period is characterized by addition of fiber to raw clay that may also contain natural inclusions of
sand or fine grit (DePratter, 1979). St. Simons ceramics are similar to the
Stallings Island type that occurs farther inland along the Savannah River (Sears and Griffin, 1950). Earliest dates for Stallings ceramics are 4500 yr BP (Stoltman,
1966), whereas the earliest coastal dates are only 4200 yr old (Williams, 1968; Marrinan, 1975). St. Simons I ceramics lack decoration and have been found on several sites on the Georgia coast (Waring and Larson, 1968; Crusoe and DePratter,
1976; DePratter, 1976b). Sites of this phase date 4200 to 3700 BP. Appearance of vessel decorations mark the beginning of the St. Simons II phase, around 3700 BP (Table 1). Recent work on St. Simons Island suggests a slightly earlier beginning date in that area (Marrinan, 1975). Punctated decoration began slightly earlier than incised, but the interval between development of the two apparently was brief.

At approximately 3100 BP, fibers became less important as a tempering agent; ceramics became sandier as a result of either selection of sandier source
clays or intentional addition of sand. These features mark the beginning of the Refuge period (Waring, 1968i; DePratter, 1976a, 1979). Refuge and Deptford
period developments of the next 1500 yr are related and thus are discussed together.

As noted elsewhere (DePratter, 1976a), the Refuge period was often discussed

but seldom seen in early works relating to the coastal ceramic sequence. Although

first identified in 1947 by Waring, a good description of the Refuge site and

associated ceramics was not published until 1968 (Waring, 1968i). Waring (1968d)

originally thought that Refuge ceramics were found only north of the Savannah

River, but more recent work indicates that Refuge is common in both the coastal

strand and coastal plain of Georgia and South Carolina (Zurel et al., 1975;

Anderson, 1975; Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1976a).

----

The Refuge and Deptford periods apparently represent continuous development of ceramics through time. Refuge Incised and Punctated developed from related
St. Simons types but were made only for a short time (Table 1). They may have
disappeared because of technological innovation relating to pottery manufacturing.

27

TABLE 2. 14c DETERMINATIONS FROM COASTAL GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Sample # Date (BP)

Site

Material

Reference

St. Simons Period

UM-520 0-1047 UM-522 M-1111 M-39 M-236 UM-521 M-1112 M-1109
M-39 UM-523 UGA-75
UGA-227 UGA-73
UGA-74 UCLA-1997E UGA-226 UGA-1686

4190 90 4125 115 3860 90 3820 125 3800 350 3770 200 3760 90 3730 125 3700 125 3600 350 3600 110 3545 65
3470 85 3430 65 3430 70 3250 60 3215 80 3010 80

Refuge Period

QC-784 M-267 UM-518 UM-519 UGA-1557 UGA-1553 QC-785 UGA-1552

3020 115 2920 200 2780 80 2770 90
2660 60 2650 70 2460 100 2340 65

Cannons Point Bilbo
Cannons Point Bilbo
Sapelo Ring Dulany
Cannons Point Bilbo Bilbo
Sapelo Ring Cannons Point Sapelo Ring A. Busch Krick Sapelo Ring Sapelo Ring McLeod Mound A. Busch Krick Cunningham Mound c
Second Refuge Refuge
Cannons Point Cannons Point McLeod Mound Seaside Mound II Second Refuge Seaside Mound II

Oyster Charcoal Oyster Charcoal Oyster Oyster Oyster
Bone Charcoal Oyster Oyster Oyster Charcoal Oyster Oyster Charcoal
Whelk Charcoal
Shell Shell Wood Wood Charcoal Shell Shell Shell

Marrinan, 1975 Williams, 1968 Marrinan, 1975 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Marrinan, 1975 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Crane and Griffin, 1963 Marrinan, 1975 Noakes and Brandau, 1974 Brandau and Noakes, 1972 Noakes and Brandau, 1974 Noakes and Brandau, 1974 Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Brandau and Noakes, 1972 Thomas and Larsen, 1979
Lepionka, this volume Crane and Griffin, 1958 Stipp, and others, 1976 Stipp, and others, 1976 Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Lepionka, this volume Thomas and Larsen, 1979

28

Table 2. (continued)

Deptford Period

UGA-1253 UGA-1554 UGA-1555 UGA-SC3 UGA-104 UGA-129 UGA-1256
UM-1389 UGA-112

2375 80 2370 65 2370 65 2350 220 2220 100
1895 95 1840 65 1660 70 1430 125

Wilmington Period

UGA-116
I-2851 UGA-1826 UGA-105 UM-668 UGA-SC2
UM-667

1460 90 1370 100 1240 60 1215 115
1130 70 1055 200 990 75

St. Catherines Period

UM-1388 UGA-61 UGA-58 UGA-64 UM-1390
UGA-60

970 70 879 60 878 60
831 60 795 75
775 55

Savannah Period

UGA-SC1 680 175

Irene Period

Cunningham Mound C McLeod Mound McLeod Mound Seaside Mound I Seaside Mound I Table Point McLeod Mound Kenan Field Seaside Mound I
Wamassee Jenkins Island Seaside Mound I
Seaside St. Simons Is.
Seaside St. Simons Is.
Kenan Field Johns Mound King New Ground Johns Mound Kenan Field King New Ground
Seaside

Charcoal Oyster Oyster Oyster Oyster Shell Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal
Oyster Charcoal Shell Oyster
?
Oyster
?
Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Oyster Oyster Oyster
Oyster

Altamaha Period UGA-120 270 65

Wamassee

Oyster

Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Thomas and Larsen, 1979
Caldwell, 1971 Ca1dwe11 , 1971 Brandau and Noakes, 1972 Thomas and Larsen, 1979 Crook, 1978 Caldwell, 1971
Caldwell, 1971 Buckley and Willis, 1969 Thomas and Larsen, 1979
Caldwell, 1971 Milanich, 1977 Caldwell, 1971 Milanich, 1977
Crook, 1978 Ca1dwe 11 , 1971 Caldwell, 1971 Caldwell, 1971
Crook, 1978 Caldwell, 1971
Caldwell, 1971
Caldwell, 1971

29

St. Simons pots were molded or modeled and required no consolidation of coils; incising and punctating were primarily decorative devices. With the beginning of the Refuge period, however, coiling became the accepted method of vessel manufacture; and with coiling came the need to consolidate the coils. Simple stamping likely was developed to serve that function. Simplestamping may have originated with use of a bundle of twigs to strike the pot, but eventually carved paddles were used also. Although Waring felt that he could separate Refuge and Deptford period simple stamping 11 0n the basis of the quality of the stamping 11 (Waring, 1968i), such distinction probably cannot be made consistently (DePratter, 1979). For this reason, the type name, 11 Refuge Simple Stamped11 should be applied to the simple stamped ceramics of both the Refuge and Deptford periods. The type, 11 Refuge Plain 11 is used similarly for undecorated ceramics of both periods (DePratter, 1979).
During a brief interval identified as the Refuge II phase, dentate stamping appeared as a minority ware on the north Georgia coast. A duration of 100 yr may be a little too long for this interval; but because of the paucity of Refuge period dates, the estimate must stand for the present (DePratter, 1979).
Refuge III phase is recognized by addition of Deptford Check Stamped and Deptford Linear Check Stamped and continued presence of Refuge Plain and Refuge .Simple Stamped (Table 1). The linear check stamped type probably represents a direct development from carved simple stamped paddles, because only a few lines connecting adjacent paddle grooves would be necessary for the desired effect (Fig. 16). Deptford Check Stamped, previously described as Deptford Bold Check Stamped, now seems to be a late occurrence in development of check stamping. Evidence from St. Catherines Island and Chatham County WPA collections indicate that the earliest checks were small and rhomboid shaped but became larger and more rectilinear through time (DePratter, 1979}.
Deptford I phase is identified by addition of Deptford Cord Marked to the assemblage found in Refuge III phase, and Deptford II is marked by the addition of Deptford Complicated Stamped (Table 1).
The Wilmington period is characterized by introduction of clay tempering, which began around 1500 BP on the northern Georgia coast. The reason for adoption of clay tempering is not known but may indicate closer connections with groups living along the South Carolina Coast (South, 1973; Anderson, 1975}. Wilmington I phase formerly was designated Deptford III (Caldwell, 1971) but has been renamed to reflect the presence of clay tempering. As noted previously, a subsistence shift may have been responsible, in part, for the shift from Deptford to Wilmington ceramics.
During the Wilmington I phase, some attempt was made to continue the check and complicated stamping techniques of the preceding Deptford period, but Wilmington I impressions are consistently shallow and poorly defined, perhaps due to large lumps of clay used as tempering. These clay fragments prevented the flat, carved paddles from making the deep impressions that were important in coil consolidation. For this reason, carved paddle stamping was replaced with the previously known technique of stamping with a cord-wrapped paddle. Cord
30

~-.
marking, which usually is applied perpendicular to the rim, made impressions sufficiently deep to compact the coils. Wilmington II phase is characterized by Wilmington Heavy Cord Marked and Plain, with Wilmington Brushed occurring as a minority type (Table 1).
The St. Catherines period includes only a single phase, but future work may allow further division (Steed, 1970; Caldwell, 1971). During this period, clay tempering consisted of smaller fragments than in preceding Wilmington types; as a result, vessel walls generally are thinner and surface finishes are smoother and less contorted than in the preceding period. Cords used in stamping are smaller and usually applied in a cross-stamped pattern oblique to the rim. Vessel lips often were finished with the paddle, and bases usually were stamped with the paddle-edge. Burnished plain and net marked (Table 1, Fig. 16) are minority types during this period, although in some burial mound contexts, burnished plain predominates. Toward the end of the St. Catherines period, quantity of clay tempering began to decrease and quantity of fine grit increased.
The Savannah period consists of three phases. The earliest includes three types: cord marked (Table 1, Fig. 16), plain, and burnished plain. Pottery generally is thinner than preceding St. Catherines types, perhaps reflecting loss of clay fragments as tempering. The cord marking was applied either vertically or obliquely, cross-stamped below the rim. Savannah II phase adds only check stamped, nearly identical to Deptford Check Stamped. Savannah III adds complicated stamping, which includes figure 8's, figure 9's, and bulls-eye motifs (Caldwell and Waring, 1939a).
The Irene period is divided into two phases (Table 1, Fig. 16). The earliest includes plain, burnished plain, and complicated stamped; the second phase adds incised (Fig. 17). The complicated stamped everywhere is one of several variations on the filfot cross (Caldwell .and Waring, 1939a). Classification of some Irene types is difficult because of occasional use of more than one kind of decoration on the same pot (Cook, this volume). Tempering is coarse sand or medium grit.
With arrival of Europeans on the coast in the 16th Century, Indian ceramics began to incorporate several features characteristic of European wares. Bellshaped jars and plate forms began to be manufactured for the first time, and loop and strap handles made their first appearance on the coast. Red filming also may have been initiated in an attempt to imitate European ceramics (Caldwell, 1943). Complicated stamping continued as a minority type, but most stamping was in the form of line block, simple stamp, or check stamping. Incising continued to be made, but motifs used are recognizably different from those during the preceding Irene period. Combinations of punctation and incision also occur. Ceramics of these types continued to be made at least through the end of the Spanish Mission period in the 1680s, when the various Guale groups were either relocated to the St. Augustine vicinity or dispersed by the English (Otto and Lewis, 1974; Jones, 1978, this volume).
Problems
The sequence presented here, like that of Caldwell and Waring (1939b), applies primarily to the northern coast, although parts of it are applicable regionally. Indiscriminate application of either the sequence or the associated
31

Fig. 17. Irene period pots. (Approximately 0.25x.) Example at top right is Irene Complicated Stamped; bottom right is Mcintosh Incised; remainder are Irene Incised. (From Moore, 1897,)
32

ceramic type descriptions can lead to problems, however. For example, Wilmington ceramics as identified from interior coastal plain sites (Stoltman, 1974; Anderson, 1975) are not the same as those found on the Georgia coast. All interior examples are sand tempered, whereas almost all coastal Wilmington is clay tempered. Also, many interior examples have folded rims, a form that never occurs on the coast. Coastal Wilmington extends only 1.5 to 3.0 km inland from the marsh fringe; this distribution reflects the Wilmington period adaptation to coastal resources. To identify inland cord marked ware as Wilmington only confuses the picture, especially when no evidence exists for contemporaneity of the two types. Creation of new type names, such as the Ocmulgee series of cord marked types recently described for the southern part of the Georgia Coastal Plain (Snow, 1977), is more desirable.
A major problem we face is insufficient radiocarbon determinations to date some ceramic phases with certainty. The best way to resolve this problem is through collection of additional radiocarbon determinations from sites occupied during a single phase. Dates from sites having multiple occupations are difficult to identify with any single occupation because of mixed assemblages at most shell midden sites.
Shoreline Development
During the period that pottery developments were occurring, the shoreline changed continuously. New barrier islands formed, prograded, eroded, and reformed; the back barrier area gradually filled; and tidal creeks and rivers migrated. Sea level continued to rise, but subsequently fell and rose again at least once, and probably two or three times. Different parts of the coast prograded and eroded at different rates in response to local sediment supply. Had the Indians not developed the varied pottery patterns that they did, or had they not relied heavily on shellfish as a primary food resource, the remainder of our story would be obscure or so subtle as to be overlooked easily. We remain some distance from establishing the complete picture; but the history is well preserved, and merely requires fitting together the pieces of a fascinating archaeologicalgeological puzzle.
4500-3100 BP
Our evidence for the oldest recognizable shoreline developed since sea level rose from the maximum Wisconsin lowstand dates to between 4500 and 3700 BP. At that time, coastal Indians lived in small villages located mainly on the eastern sides of the lowest remnant Pleistocene barriers. In the Savannah area, this includes Skidaway and Wilmington Islands. These sites contain pottery sherds of the St. Simons I phase (Table 1) dated at 4500-3700 BP. Some sites are shell refuse mounds roughly circular in outline. Others were ring-shaped structures (Fig. 15 in Howard and DePratter, this volume). All have been modified in shape by wave action at some time during the past 3000 yr, when sea level was higher than at present. From our initial study of these habitation sites, we have drawn some well-documented conclusions and made some undocumented assumptions
33

that we expect to substantiate with further study and by making comparisons with present-day coastal depositional facies and processes.
As exposed today, floors of St. Simons phase shell rings and shell refuse mounds extend as much as 1 m below the present marsh surface and 3 m above (Waring, 1968b,c; Marrinan, 1975; DePratter, 1975a, 1976b). On Daws Island in Port Royal Sound, South Carolina, a St. Simons period site dated at 3500 BP is covered by 1.5 m of sea water at high tide (Michie, 1973). All shell rings built on the seaward side of Ple,istocene barriers have been eroded to some extent on their seaward sides (Fig. 15 in Howard and DePratter, this volume). A few sites are located to the west of Pleistocene barriers, and tend to be adjacent to major estuary channels (DePratter, 1976b).
We draw two conclusions based on the location, composition, elevation, and pottery association of these sites: when the sites were occupied, sea level was at least 1 to 2 m below present, and by 4500 BP a barrier had developed east of these shell rings. Cores taken at the sites indicate they were built on a surface exposed subaerially. The shell material of which the rings are built consists exclusively of back-barrier species. Precise position of the barrier is yet not known. We have some clues, however, based on (1) strong linear orientations of present-day tidal creeks that we suspect are controlled by buried remnants of Holocene barriers and (2) subtle lineations seen on air photographs of the present-day salt marsh. These orientations result from slight differences in vegetation and drainage.
We suspect that sea level continued to rise slowly during this period, although our evidence is limited by lack of a coring program. On Lazaretto Creek northwest of Little Tybee Island (Figs. 12-14 in Howard and DePratter, this volume), we found a series of parallel ridges (hammocks) buried or partially buried by present-day marsh deposits. These ridges gradually rise in height from west to east. The crest of the lowest ridge is ~ 60 em below the present marsh surface. Crests of the other, progressively higher, ridges are approximately 90, 150 and 200 em above the present marsh surface. We assume that they indicate. a gradually rising sea level associated with eastward progradation of the barrier system between ~ 4200 and 2900 BP.
One of the intermediate ridges contains St. Simons II phase pottery sherds in a shell midden. This evidence indicates that by 3700 BP, the Indians .had moved to an outer barrier and were thus harvesting from the east and west sides of the back-barrier facies. Presumably, they also occupied the eastern side in earlier times as well.
3100-2700 BP
One of the parallel ridges adjacent to Lazaretto Creek contains a Refuge period site. This is the only site on the Georgia coast where we have found Refuge pottery sherds associated only with brackish water faunas in a shell midden. Furthermore, these sherds are early Refuge, dated at~ 3,000 BP.
34

Evidence of Refuge period occupation also is present on Little Tybee Island. In 1972, the Chatham County Mosquito Control Department conducted a dredging project on the island to drain water standing in swales between beach ridges. Mosquito Control personnel estimated that dredging extended approximately 3 m below the present marsh surface, or~ -2m msl. During our reconnaissance for midden sites and pottery sherds in 1977, we found Refuge III phase sherds in the dredge spoil on the southwest and northeast sides of Little Tybee (Fig. 12, in Howard and DePratter, this volume). Although older Refuge I phase pottery types had been found in cumulative middens near Lazaretto Creek, they had not been found previously as far east as Little Tybee. We knew from sherds recovered from surface middens in this area that Little Tybee was not occupied until the Wilmington period, hence we obviously had discovered an older, now buried, land surface having an age older than ~ 2400 BP, at an elevation of ~-2 to 3 m, lying below a younger barrier (Little Tybee) that had developed no earlier than 1400 BP at approximately present sea level. The Lazaretto Creek ridges are aligned N25E, whereas Little Tybee is oriented N60E. At present, our opinion is that the Lazaretto Creek ridge remnants and subsurface data from material dredged below Little Tybee record a rise of sea level from~ -1.5 mat approximately 3700 BP to a highstand of approximately present msl at 3000 BP, followed by a fall to~ -4 m msl at approximately 2500 BP. In an effort to substantiate this low stand, we began to look for other indications of a lowered sea level in the coastal zone.
Buried Stumps.--Over the years, in pursuit of various coastal studies, we and others have noted numerous stumps in apparent growth position, exposed at low tide in eroding creek banks (Fig. 18). Curiosity initiated the dating of some of these, because the trees obviously could not have grown at their present elevation (present sea level). We found that six such dates were available in the literature, and all but one dated between 3100 and 2400 BP (DePratter and Howard, in press). The sixth produced an anomalous date, but the investigator (Wait, 1968) pointed out that it was a sample of mixed wood fragments exhumed by dragline (from between -3.5 and -6 m msl). The other five samples were from in-place stumps lying approximately between present and -1.5 m msl. All stumps dated by 14c are pine, oak, or cedar and hence had to have been growing on a surface lying at least 1 to 1.5 m above msl. In the past year we obtained three additional dates from stumps buried by marsh sediments and exposed by meandering tidal creeks. These date between 2805 and 3020 BP.
Historical Records.--From the mid 18th Century until the end of the Civil War, the Sea Island section was the site of extensive agriculture. This arduous work was hand labor by slaves on coastal plantations. Also utilized were marsh lands in the upper reaches of riverine estuaries. These marshes, although having elevations normally sufficient to prevent salt water intrusions and vegetated primarily by Phragmites, remained within the zone of tidal effect. To facilitate use as farmland, vast areas of the low-lying coastal zone were ditched, drained, diked, and irrigated with fresh water. The system of dikes and deep channels permitted the planters to flood or drain their fields by taking advantage of the tidal range. Since the Civil War, thousands of acres of marshes having these artificial reticulate drainage networks have lain fallow, a silent testament to innumerable man hours of arduous labor.
35

a

Fig. 18.

Submerged stumps in eroding marsh. (a) Outcrop opposite Sutherland Bluff, Mcintosh County, Georgia. Stump from upper surface at base of marsh grass dated 1720 80 BP (UM-1557); stump from lower surface dated 2805 105 BP (Ur~-1876). (b) Outcrop on Redbird Creek, Bryan County, Georgia.

36

At the time marsh reclamation was underway, some astute observers traveled through the Sea Island section. They noted huge stumps of a variety of trees encountered by plantation workers in the process of digging into freshwater marshes at the heads of estuaries. Among these visitors were the well-known naturalist-traveler, William Bartram, and the famous geologist, Sir Charles Lyell. Bartram (1791) mentioned submerged forests lying 0.9 to 1.2 m below the marsh surface. Lyell (1845, 1849) wrote of stumps of cypress, hickory, and cedar still in growth position at depths he estimated to be 1.8 to 4.8 m below the marsh surface (-1.0 to -4.0 m msl). Similarly, J. Hamilton Couper (1846), a plantation owner, and Charles Colcock Jones (1873), an early coastal archaeologist, noted the stumps of trees, still in growth position, 2 to 5 m below the surface of marshes in the Altamaha and Savannah River freshwater swamps.
Thus, we postulate that sea level in the Sea Island section fell to between -3 and -4 m below present msl at approximately 3000 BP, and rose again by 2400 BP. We hasten to point out that this conclusion was reached by integrating archaeological and geological findings that, within their own discipline, was not conclusive.
2400-1700 BP
Following the lowstand, sea level rose and subsequent shoreline and associated barrier islands waxed and waned. Elsewhere on the coast we are beginning to determine various shoreline positions, and in so doing, a fascinating picture develops that indicates the final story will be a complex record of Holocene deposition.
One reason for the complexity is the variability of sand supply at different points of the coast and, no doubt, through time as well. In an earlier publication (DePratter and Howard, 1977) we illustrated four of the five shoreline types seen on the Georgia coast today. Up to this point, our discussion has centered on type I (Fig. 19a), extensive shoreline progradation associated with a major sediment source. The principal example of this pattern is the area lying immediately south of the Savannah River, where the shoreline has prograded nearly 10 km during Holocene time. Effects of this progradation and decreasing influence away from the source area can be seen by tracing the pattern of Holocene deposition (black, Fig. 19a) southwest along Tybee, Wassaw, and Ossabaw Islands. Just south of the midpoint of Ossabaw, Holocene and Pleistocene barriers are in direct contact. Sand introduced by the Ogeechee River likely contributed to the progradation also. The offset of Tybee, Wassaw, and Ossabaw Islands from the shoreline trend in South Carolina indicates the influence of (1) northeast winter winds that promote southwest longshore drift and (2) sediment input from the Savannah River. Another example of a type I shoreline occurs at Little St. Simons and St. Simons Islands,, where 4 km of Holocene progradation has occurred (Fig. 19). Both of these examples record net, not total, accretion, because shoreline evolution has not proceeded as a simple continuing process, as formerly believed. Rather, at least one, and we suspect 2 or 3, transgressiveregressive events occurred during Holocene time.
Shoreline type II is exemplified by the southern end of St. Catherines Island (Fig. 19b), where numerous recurved spits have built southward from a
37

~ HOLOCENE ~ PLEISTOCENE

a
I Z34 I<ILONETERS
b
c
d

Fig. 19.

Relationship of Holocene beach ridges to Pleistocene deposits and 4 major geomorphic patterns of Holocene deposition. (a) Rapid progradation at mouth of major rivers, e.g., Tybee (illustrated), and Little St. Simons Islands. (b) Seaward and southward accretion of recurving spits at south ends of barrier islands, e.g., St. Catherines (illustrated), Ossabaw, and Jekyll Islands. (c) Alternating cuspate progradation and recurving truncations typical of northern ends of barrier islands, e.g., Blackbeard (illustrated) and Cumberland Islands (detail of Blackbeard Island from Oertel, 1975). (d) Parallel progradation of straight beach ri.dges typical of central parts of barrier islands, e.g., Cumberland (illustrated) and Jekyll Islands. (From DePratter and Howard, 1977.)
38

Pleistocene barrier island remnant. At present, the addition of spits has ceased, and the south end of the Island is eroding. A coastal map of 1859 shows that less than 100 yr ago, additional spits extended more than 1 km farther
south.

Shoreline type III is seen on Blackbeard Island (Fig. 19C). These lineations
are bundles of truncated beach ridges that record varied beach-ridge orientations. Oertel (1975) recognized 28 individual bundles that indicate rapid, frequent shifts in shoreline orientation. Several Georgia coastal barriers display this
type of beach-ridge building, but nowhere are they as well developed as on
Blackbeard Island.

A type IV shoreline is one made up of long straight beach ridges, found on Cumberland Island (Fig. 190) and elsewhere. Type V shorelines, not included
in our earlier paper (DePratter and Howard, 1977), are those displaying no recorded accretion; Pleistocene outcrops are being eroded. This process is occurring on Cumberland, Jekyll, and the north end of St. Catherines Island.

Our survey of the Georgia coast permits us to indicate circumstances south of our principal study area. Distribution of archaeological sites allowed us to determine relative rates of shoreline progradation. A coastal map (Fig. 10 in Howard and DePratter, this volume) shows time lines based on more than 350 Sftes from which sherds of various phases have been collected; dashed lines connect dated sites where back-barrier species were being utilized as a food resource. In each case, this distribution implies that a protective barrier
existed to the east of those sites at that time.

These are our first steps in unraveling this complex Holocene record. Our

studies in the Savannah area, where significant accretion occurred, indicate

very clearly that sedimentary sequences elsewhere on the coast, most of which

appear as meager net accretion, actually are hints of a much more complicated

picture. Especially obvious is the paucity of data on this part of the coast

for the time interval between 4500 and 1500 BP. Even though net accretion on

most of the Sea Island is minor, extensive transgression, regression, and shoreline

I !

change has occurred.

HISTORIC HOLOCENE

History of the Georgia coast is tied closely to early European exploration

of this continent and to development of the rest of our Nation. For that reason,

the following history of Georga begins in 1492 and includes areas far from the

state's boundaries. Without such approach, this history would be only a series

of unrelated historical episodes. Jones (this volume) and McGowan and DePratter

(this volume) elaborated on topics only touched upon here. Our history is

-~

drawn from two basic sources: the interval between 1492 and 1607 is adapted from

Quinn (1977); the remainder is abstracted from various papers in Coleman (1977).

39

1492-1543 With the arrival of Columbus in 1492, the New World was opened to a period
of exploration, missionization, and exploitation. In the first quarter of the 16th century, Spaniards concentrated their efforts in the Caribbean and the Central and South American coasts, although preliminary explorations were made along the southeast U.S. coast by Juan Ponce de Leon, Alonzo Alvarez de Pineda, and Francisco Gordillo. In 1521, Ponce de Leon attempted to establish a settlement on the west coast of Florida, but his efforts were repulsed by Indians. Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon also failed in his attempt to colonize the south Atlantic coast (in present Georgia or South Carolina) in 1526; almost 350 people (including Allyon) died in the attempt. Two years later, Panfilo de Narvaez landed on the Florida Gulf Coast with 600 colonists and soldters, but a good colonization site could not be found, ultimately, only four members of his party survived to return to Mexico.
At the same time that the Spanish were concentrating on 11La Florida, .. the French were involved in areas farther north, especially around the Newfoundland fishery. In 1524, however, Giovanni da Verrazzano explored much of the Atlantic coast under the French flag. In 1527, the English also sent an exploratory expedition to the New World, under John Rut; these explorations extended along the entire Atlantic coast of North America.
Many early exploratory cruises were intended to locate a passage to the South Sea, which bordered on India and China. Verrazzano thought he could see the South Sea as he cruised along the Outer Banks of present-day North Carolina, and Cartier (1535-36) sailed 1,000 mi inland along the St. Lawrence River in an attempt to find a passage across the continent to it. All attempts failed because of the absence of such a passage, but the search continued.
The year 1539 marked the beginning of extensive explorations of the continental interior of North America. In March 1539, Franciso Vasques de Coronado departed from Mexico to explore areas to the North, and in May of the same year, Hernando de Soto set out from his landing site on the Gulf Coast of Florida to explore the southeastern part of the continent. DeSoto (or Soto) spent 3 yr exploring the interior (he was searching mainly for gold and silver) before his death near the Mississippi River in 1542. Luis de Moscoso continued the explorations (mainly while trying to find an overland route back to Mexico) until July 1543 when the surviving Spaniards (half of the original party was killed during the 4 yr in the interior) constructed barges and departed by way of the Mississipp.i River.
1559-1577 Following DeSotos explorations, little activity occurred in the southeast
for 15 yr. In 1559-61, however, Tristan de Luna and his successor, Angel de Villafane, attempted to colonize both the interior southeast and the South
40

Carolina coast, but both attempts failed. French colonization efforts were renewed in 1562, because permanent bases were needed for French attacks on treasure-laden Spanish vessels returning to Spain. Jean Ribault led the first expedition, and established Charlesfort on Port Royal Sound in South Carolina. Leaving a poorly supplied garrison of only 30 men at the fort, Ribault returned to France. Within nine months, the soldiers at Charlesfort mutinied and tried to sail back to France on a makeshift vessel. Rescue by an English privateer kept the soldiers from perishing at sea.
In 1564, French efforts were renewed under Rene Goulaine de Laundonniere, who was accompanied by a painter, Jacques le Moyne de Morgues, whose job was to record accurately events and places seen by the French (Lorant, 1946). Laundonniere established Fort Caroline on the St. Johns River, with a garrison of about 200 soliders. From that base, the French explored parts of interior Florida and north along the coast as far as the former Charlesfort on Port Royal Sound. Mutiny and starvation once again struck the French outposts, but Laundonniere maintained control until Ribault returned with supplies in August, 1565.
At about the time of Ribaults return to Flordia, a Spanish force led by Pedro Menendez de Aviles was departing from Spain. This force was meant to eradicate the French presence in Florida and to establish Spanish colonies. Menendez landed and established the town of Saint Augustine in August, 1565, and immediately began plotting destruction of the French. Three weeks later, Menendez mounted an overland attack on Fort Caroline, routed its defenders, and killed more than 130 of the French. In subsequent weeks, another 300 to 400 Frenchmen were killed by the Spanish or coastal Indians.
There followed a period of total Spanish domination of the southeast coast that lasted until late in the 17th Century. Menendez placed outposts along much of the coast of Florida and Georgia, and established the town of Santa Elena on Port Royal Sound at or near the former location of the French Charlesfort. In 1566, Juan Pardo and a force of 125 soldiers were dispatched from Santa Elena in an unsuccessful attempt to pacify Indians in the interior and find an overland route to Mexico. By 1567, Menendez had effectively completed the task of capturing and preparing for the defense of 11 Florida. 11 Thinking that Florida was secure, Phillip II sent Menendez into the Caribbean to combat the privateers preying on Spanish shipping. In his absence, a French expedition under Dominique de Gourques attacked and destroyed the three Spanish forts at the mouth of the St. Johns River north of Saint Augustine. Fortunately for the Spanish, Gourgues then withdrew without pressing his advantage.
One of Menendez goals in his Florida work was evangelization of Indians. As early as 1566, Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries were placed among coastal Indians, including the Guale on the Georgia coast. Conversion efforts were stepped up in 1568 with the arrival of 14 missionaries in Florida, although by then some of the more distant outposts had been abandoned because of food shortages and hostile Indians. Even Saint Augustine and Santa Elena were not secure from starvation, mutiny, and Indians. The fort at Saint Augustine was burned by its
41

garrison in 1568, and Santa Elena was abandoned briefly in 1576 and permanently in 1587.

1577-1727

In 1577, Pedro Menendez Marques, nephew of Menendez de Aviles, was made

governor, and remained in that position until 1589, when he was succeeded by a

/

series of governors who served 6-yr terms. The century following 1577 was

marked by Spanish attempts to maintain their hold on Florida. Setbacks such as

Sir Francis Drake's destruction of Saint Augustine in 1586 and the withdrawal

from Santa Elena in 1587 did not dampen the Spaniards' determination. Problems

and impact of the mission effort were described by Jones (this volume).

English explorations along the North Carolina and Virginia coasts in the 1580's

and the settling of Jamestown in 1607 presaged later difficulties with the

English. In 1663, Charles II of England granted an area called 11Carolina 11 to a

group of his backers; Carolina extended to the 29th parallel and included a

great part of the Spanish lands, including St. Augustine. Later, in 1670, the

Spanish and English agreed by treaty that occupation would determine ownership,

and on that basis, the English established Charles Towne (now Charleston) in the

same year.

As the coastal Indians became increasingly attracted to goods supplied by English traders, the Spanish hold on the Georgia and Carolina coasts began to slip. In 1680, the mission and presidio on St. Catherines Island (at the time the most northerly Spanish outpost) were attacked by English allied Indians, forcing the Spanish to retreat south to Sapelo Island. By 1686, increasing Indian attacks had pushed the missionaries south of the St. Mary's River into the present state of Florida.

Early years of the 18th century were marked by a series of successful English moves, including raids on the missions in western Florida and an attack on St. Augustine, the Spanish capital. In 1715, however, the Indians turned on the English, and both France (in Alabama) and Spain (in Florida) attempted to reconsolidate their territorial holdings. A Carolinian fort, Fort King George, was established at the mouth of the Altamaha River in 1721 but was abandoned after only 6 yr, thus leaving the Georgia coast free of Europeans once again.

1732-1743 Coastal Georgia was not destined to remain quiet for long. During the late
1720's and early 1730's, a move was afoot in England to establish a new colony to the south of Carolina. This colony, to be settled by prisoners from England's crowded jails, would serve as a buffer between the Spanish and Charles Towne while producing needed goods. A royal charter for the Colony of Georgia was granted in July, 1732, and in November James Oglethorpe set sail from England with the first shipload of colonists, none of which were prisoners. Following a stop at Charles Towne, the colonists sailed south, and on February 1, 1733 (old calendar) they reached Yamacraw Bluff on the Savannah River; 120 settlers

42

landed and immediately began work on their town, Savannah. The town was planned carefully by Oglethorpe and included private lots surrounding a series of parks,
extensive public lands to the east of town, garden plots, and a fort.

As additional settlers arrived, they were placed in a series of small, defensive communities located at some distance from Savannah. Fort Argyle was established on the Ogeechee River; Thunderbolt on Augustine Creek guarded Savannahs eastern flank, as did additional settlements on Skidaway and Tybee Islands. Most settlements were unsuccessful because of poor agricultural conditions and lack of communication with Savannah; almost all these settlements were abandoned
by 1739 (McGowan and DePratter, this volume).

Possible conflict with Indians inhabiting the Savannah River and the Georgia
coast was averted by a treaty between Oglethorpe and the Creek Indians in May,
1733. By that treaty, which included trade agreements, all of the coast except Ossabaw, St. Catherines, and Sapelo Islands was ceded to the English; the three unceded islands were kept by the Indians for bathing, hunting, and fishing. By a second treaty in 1734, Oglethorpe extended the lands ceded south to the St. Johns River (Reese, 1963).

Georgia was planned as a different kind of colony from Carolina. Whereas

Carolina was dominated by a few large rice plantations employing slave labor,

Oglethorpe envisioned Georgia as a colony of small land owners growing diverse

crops, including wine grapes, olives, and mulberry trees for silk production, in

addition to ordinary agriculture crops. Land was granted in small parcels, and

both slavery and rum were outlawed in 1736. Controls were placed on the Indian

I ' I

trade in the same year, in an attempt to lure that trade away from Charles Towne.

In 1736, Oglethorpe established a town and fort at Frederica on St. Simons Island, to serve as buffer against Spanish invasion. More than 100 settlers,
including women and children, were placed at Frederica. Additional outposts were established farther south, on Cumberland Island and at the mouth of the St. Johns River. Negotiations with the Spanish resulted in abandonment of the St. Johns fort in 1736, but the southern defenses were bolstered in 1738 when
Oglethorpes forces at Frederica increased to more than 625 soldiers. By 1740, Spanish-English tensions were increasing. Oglethorpe, with a force of 1500 men, planned an attack on St. Augustine, which was defended by only 800 men under
command of Governor Manuel Montiano, but the attack was never made. Spanish
reinforcements were sent, and by mid-1742, the Spanish forces numbered almost 2000 men. With this force, Montiano decided to attack Frederica.

In July, 1742, the Spaniards landed on St. Simons Island and soon occupied Fort St. Simons, which had been abandoned by Oglethorpe. Several minor skirmishes,
including the famous Battle of the Bloody Marsh, occurred over the next several days, but no major battles transpired. With the arrival of British ships at St. Simons, Montiano chose to retreat to St. Augustine. This venture proved to be Spains last attempt to drive out the English.

Oglethorpes control over the colony had been declining for some time and in 1743, the Board of Trustees for the colony appointed William Stephens president.
Shortly, thereafter, Oglethorpe departed for England, never to return.

43

1743-1775 In the early 1740's, Georgia began to stray from Oglethorpe's early visions.
In 1740, maximum land holdings were increased to 2000 acres, allowing the formation of small plantations. In 1750, the prohibition against importation of blacks was dropped, making possible the development of the slavery-plantation system.
A treaty with Spain in 1748 removed the threat of invasion, and in 1752 the Trustees surrendered their charter, due to expire in 1753, to the King. At that time, the population of Georgia consisted of about 3000 people including as many as 800 blacks.
During the next two decades, Georgia grew rapidly. The new royal governor created a legislature and courts for the first time. The vote was given to all men owning 50 acres or more. A militia was formed, taxes were imposed for the first time, and a road system was begun. By the Treaty of Paris of 1763, Spain ceded Florida to England, and Georgia's southern boundary was extended to the St. Mary's River.
Under royal government, Georgia thrived. Both Savannah and Sunbury became important ports. The Savannah waterfront contained more than a dozen merchant warehouses by the mid-1760's, and by 1772, over 150 ships a year loaded or unloaded at Savannah. By 1775, both slavery and rice production contributed significantly to Georgia's economic growth, and shortlY thereafter, indigo also became an important crop. By 1776, Georgia's population had grown to approximately 40,000; about half of that number were blacks.
Despite the growth of the 1760's and 1770's, sentiment among the Georgia settlers was turning away from Crown rule. With imposition of the Sugar Act in 1764 and the Stamp Act in 1765, people of Georgia became actively involved in demonstrations against the Crown. Protests grew with passage of a series of import duties known as the Townshend Act in 1767, and the Tea Act of 1773 proved to be the straw that precipitated revolution throughout the colonies.
1775-1783 News of events at Lexington and Concord reached Savannah on May 10, 1775.
Throughout the summer of 1775, talk of revolution spread and royal authority was increasingly ignored. Armed combat did not occur in Savannah until early 1776. In January and February of that year, British ships were kept from landing at Savannah, but the Governor and other royal officials were able to board then and flee the colony. In April 1776, a temporary provincial constitution was issued, and on July 2, 1776, independence was declared.
Following a series of minor skirmishes and aborted attempts to capture the British garri.son at St. Augustine, Georgia forces were in disarray. On December 29, 1778, British forces marched into Savannah unopposed and captured the city. The Georgia capital was shifted up the Savannah River to Augusta, and a new president, George Walton, was elected. Matters continued to worsen, however. Attempts to recapture Savannah failed, and in May, 1780, Charles Towne was taken
44

by the British; Augusta was captured soon thereafter. During the next year, guerilla-style attacks provided the main form of resistance to English authority.
In 1781, the tide began to turn against the English; in June of that year, Augusta was recaptured. Finally, in July, 1782, the British evacuated Savannah, thus ending British occupation of Georgia. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 ended the war, and Georgia returned to more domestic concerns.
1783-1861
The late 18th Century was marked by increasing population and expansion of the state into areas formerly controlled by Indians. Indian land cessions by Cherokees in 1782 and Creeks in 1783, 1790, 1802, and 1804 provided extensive new noncoastal areas for settlement.
By 1807, sentiment against British maritime and trade actions once again was on the rise in Georgia, and by 1810 the call for war against Britain was being expressed openly. In 1811, President Madison assigned the Governor of Georgia the task of securing British East Florida. Minor skirmishes were fought and won by Georgians during this War of 1812, but the main obstacle, St. Augustine, could not be captured. Work on Georgias coastal defenses was begun shortly after the unsuccessful attack on St. Augustine, but few were completed. British ships cruised the Georgia coast during the remainder of the war, but little damage was done by either side. In Alabama, Andrew Jackson defeated the Creeks, who were supplied with weapons by the British during the War; as a result of that defeat, the Creeks ceded all of southern Georgia in 1814. Five years later, Britain turned all of Florida over to the United States.
Between 1780 and 1800 a shift in agricultural methods occurred that was to have great impact on the future of Georgia and the coast. As long as most of the population was restricted to the coast, rice, indigo, and sea island cotton were the main crops. Inland areas, on the other hand, were better suited for cultivation of upland cotton, which could be raised on farms of all sizes with or without the slave labor necessary for rice and indigo. Inland cotton production was made possible by development of upland cotton strains and by the 1793 invention of the cotton gin in Savannah by Eli Whitney.
By 1820, 60 percent of upland farmers were growing cotton, and slavery played an ever increasing role in that growth, despite bans on slave importation during the last decades of the eighteenth century; 44 percent of the states population was black slaves by 1820.
In the interval between 1820 and the beginning of the Civil War, economic growth in Georgia was rapid. New lands were opened up following the total, forced removal of Indians from the state by 1838. Railroads were constructed to connect major urban centers, and Savannahs role as the states major port continued to grow. Industrialization was begun, and textile mills, tanneries, distilleriei, and lumber mills began to spring up throughout the state. Cotton production was expanded continually, despite price fluctuations that led to some diversification of crops produced. Cotton production rose from 90,000 bales in
45

1821 to more than 701,000 in 1860; much of that production was grown on small farms employing only a few s,laves.
1861-1865 In January, 1861, Georgia ceded from the Union and soon found itself embroiled
in a war from which it would not recover for decades. Seizure of abandoned Union Fort Pulaski at Savannah, the Union arsenal at Augusta, and the mint at Dahlonega were among the first moves following succession. A military draft was established, and manufacturing of military equipment was begun. Mobilization was under way.
In the early part of the war, military action was restricted to areas far to the north and west of Georgia. By late 1861, however, the Union Navy began a blockade of the Confederate coastline; the South Carolina coast fell early in November and by March of the next year, all Georgia coastal islands had been seized. In April, Fort Pulaski fell to Union forces, effectively closing the port of Savannah and placing all of the coast, except for Fort McAllister on the Ogeechee River, under Union control. Although Union forces made occasional raids along the coast, the state was spared major battles until 1863.
By early 1863, Union forces had fought their way south into Tennessee, and in September, they seized Chattanooga. The next spring, General Sherman left Chattanooga and began his long fight to the sea with an army of 100,000 Union troops. After taking Atlanta in September, 1864, Shermans route to Savannah lay open. Passing through the state capital in Milledgeville, Sherman faced little resistance and captured undefended Savannah on December 21. Within six months, the war was over.
1865-1890
After the war, Georgia and the remainder of the south were faced with reconstruction. Because of reluctance on the part of the southern states to implement laws recommended by the U.S. Congress, military authority was imposed in April, 1867, with the installation of military commanders over five southern districts. The next 3 yr were consumed in various political squabbles, and not until 1871 were all state and local offices filled and functioning.
Faced with no surviving industry, a devastated railway system, and an absence of slave labor that the southern economy had come to depend on before the war, economic reconstruction moved slowly. The problem was compounded by a nationwide depression that lasted from 1873 to 1878.
Agriculture revitalization occurred earliest because of the immediate need to occupy the populace. Because freed blacks and many poor whites owned no land but represented a ready source of cheap labor, sharecropping became the major form of agriculture after the war. Cotton continued as the major cash crop, although it was expensive to produce and rapidly depleted farmlands that could have been used to produce much needed food.
46

Industrial revitalization centered on textiles, although significant progress was made in such industries as lumber, flour and grist mills, tanneries, distilleries, brick manufacture, and ferti 1i zers. Urban growth began as more and more industries developed around cities. By 1890, recovery from the ravages of war was well underway, but the bulk of the population still depended on agriculture for its livelihood.
1890-1940
Between 1890 and 1940, Georgias economy changed slowly, although by 1940, 65 percent of the population was still rural. Tight money and low cotton prices gradually reduced the number of small landowners to the point that more than 68 percent of Georgias farmers were tenants (not owners) by 1930. World War I stimulated some diversification of. crops, but had few other economic impacts.
Following the war, a series of economic crises struck. Cotton prices fell by 50 percent, as did most other agricultural produce. The final blow to Georgias cotton industry was the boll weevil, which arrived in 1913; its impact became increasingly devastating over the next 10 yr. By 1925, cotton production was off more than 60 percent from its 1913 level, and over 3.5 million acres no longer were being farmed. Farm population declined by 375,000 during the same interval, and the situation was compounded by the onset of the Great Depression in 1929.
The New Deal agricultural policies implemented by President Roosevelt in the 1930 1 s helped owners of large farms, but small farmers and tenants continued to suffer despite much-needed loans and subsidies. Flight from the farms continued as more and more small farmers sold out and moved to the cities. On the remaining farms, peanuts, tobacco, dairy products, cattle, and a variety of vegetables became increasingly important. As the railroad system returned to its pre-Civil War level, industry made important gains. Main industries included lumber mills, naval stores, fertilizers, marble and granite quarries, paper mills, and canneries.
Georgia gradually entered the mainstream of American economics in the 20th Century, and its growth and development became increasingly dependent on national trends. Subsequent history of Georgia essentially parallels that of the remainder of our Nation.
HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON THE GEORGIA COAST
Interest in American archaeology began during the late 18th Century, when explorers and settlers of the southern and western territories encountered abundant earthen mounds scattered throughout those areas (Carver, 1776; Heart, 1793; Bartram, 1791). Because Indians disavowed having any knowledge concerning the age or origin of the mounds (Bartram, 1791), the concept of a 11 Mound Builder11 race was developed (Silverberg, 1974). Proponents of this theory felt that the mounds must have been built by people more civilized than the Indians; colonization of eastern North America by Celts, Tartars, Carthaginians, Egyptians, the Ten Lost Tribes
47

of Israel, Toltecs, Atlantis survivors, and numerous other groups was, therefore, proposed by various authors.
Most Mound Builder theories were developed in the absence of archaeological excavations. Early literature provides only sketchy reports of excavations, but the work of Thomas Jefferson (1787) was perhaps the best of his day. Jefferson, who excavated part of a mound on his Virginia plantation, observed stratigraphic changes in the mound and concluded that there was no reason to believe it was not built by Indians. Jefferson's work had little impact on the Mound Builder myth, however, which continued to be prominent in the literature for another century (Silverberg, 1974).
Archaeological studies developed slowly throughout the east and midwest during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For Georgia, little archaeological information exists for that period. Cornelius (1819) visited the Etowah site in the north central part of the state, but he conducted no excavations. On the Georgia coast, interest seems to have centered more on Pleistocene fossils than Indian archaeology. Draihage projects, natural erosion, and canal construction led to the discovery of fossil beds containing remains of ground sloth, mastodon, mammoth, hippopotamus, horse, and pig, among other species (Hodgson, 1846). These fossil deposits were of sufficient interest to attract the attention of Sir Charles Lyell (1845,1849) on both of his American trips; Lyell (1849) also noted extensive shell middens on St. Simons Island but conducted no excavations.
In the 1850's, C.C. Jones, Jr., a prominent Savannah citizen, developed an interest in the archaeology of the nearby coast and the remainder of the south (Waring, 1968g; Larsen and Thomas, 1978). Jones was raised on a plantation in Liberty County, and during adolescence and later life he excavated parts of nearly a hundred mounds located on the Georgia coast (Jones, 1859, 1861, 1869, 1873). In 1873, William McKinley published the first description of the large shell ring complex on Sapelo Island.
American archaeology was stimulated by creation of the Mound Division of the Bureau of Ethnology in 1882 (Waring, 1968g). Founded by John Wesley Powell, Chief of the Bureau, the Mound Division (headed by Cyrus Thomas) was charged with resolving the Mound Builder controversy. During the next 10 yr, the Mound Division excavated parts of 2000 mounds, including a minor project in Mcintosh County on the Georgia coast (Waring, 1968g). Most major excavations in Georgia were inland on the Piedmont and in the Ridge and Valley area, although some work was done on the western part of the Coastal Plain.
Armed with evidence obtained from 2000 mounds, Cyrus Thomas (1894) reported on the activities of the Mound Division. He dismissed the possibility of a race of Mound Builders, and at the same time, exposed several archaeological frauds. Thomas report was so overwhelming that the Mound Builder proponents were seldom heard from after 1894.
Clarence B. Moore, a wealthy Philadelphia socialite, conducted major excavations along the Georgia coast in 1896-97. An avid excavator, he spent more than 15 fall and winter seasons excavating mounds throughout the southeast. Working from his stern-wheeler, The Gopher, Moore (1897) excavated more than 50 mounds
'(,

48

'\_.

during his 5-month visit to coastal Georgia. Moore (1898a,b) also traveled up the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers, but the mounds he found there were less spectacular than those he encountered on the coast.
During the 19th century, only a limited amount of coastal archaeology was done, and most of that was concentrated on burial mounds that contained the most elaborate artifacts. Except for Moore's three reports, most work provided little information useful to modern archaeologists.
The early part of the 20th Century provided little additional information. A.J. Waring, Jr., to whom this guidebook is dedicated, began his career in archaeology in the 1920's as a young boy who spent weekends investigating Indian mounds (Waring, 1968h). Reports on at least two of Waring's early mound projects were written, but neither was published for more than 30 years (Waring, 1968e,h).
In the 1930's, the Federal Government proposed large-scale archaeological projects as employment for those out of work due to the Depression. In 1933, the first such project in Georgia began at the Ocmulgee site in Macon. This project, under the direction of A.R. Kelly (1938), employed hundreds of workers and provided extensive field experience for many young archaeologists, including James A. Ford, Gordon R. Willey, Jesse D. Jennings, and Charles Fairbanks.
A second WPA project, on St. Simons Island on the central Georgia coast, developed as a spinoff of the Macon work (Waring, 1968g). One of the major goals of the Glynn County project was to develop a ceramic sequence. Preston Holder (1938) who directed the project, spent several months working on both mounds (Charlie King and Sea Island) and villages (Airport, Cannon's Point). Because of characteristics of the sites excavated (Fig. 2 in Howard and DePratter, this volume), Holder was never able to develop a ceramic sequence; but work at the Evelyn site resulted in identification of the Deptford ceramic series and some information on relative temporal placement (Waring and Holder, 1968).
Following completion of the Glynn County work, Holder was appointed director of a similar project in Chatham County on the northern part of the coast. Because of previous unpublished archaeological surveys by Waring, a great deal already was known about sites in Chatham County, thus allowing selection of a series of large stratified sites for excavation.
By far the largest site in Chatham County was the Irene site, named after an Indian school (Irene, meaning 11 peace 11 ) constructed on the site by John Wesley in 1736 (Floyd, 1936; Caldwell and McCann, 1941). Excavations in the Irene platform mound (Fig. 20), burial mound, village, and ceremonial building extended from 1937 to 1939 under the successive directorship of Holder, Vladimir Fewkes (1938), Claude Schaeffer (1939), and Joseph R. Caldwell (1939, 1940); Waring, Catherine McCann, f. Hulse, and others served as assistants at Irene under the various directors, and Catherine McCann coauthored the final report with Caldwell (Caldwell and McCann, 1941). Hulse (1941) reported on Irene skeletal materials.
Work on the Irene site proved to be more complex than anticipated, and final interpretations were clouded by the work of four different directors.
49

Fig. 20. Profile of platform mound at Irene site, Chatham County. Mound contained seven distinct building levels and thick soil cap. Shell used as construction material originated in village middens. (WPA photo, University of Georgia.)
Fig. 21. WPA excavations at Deptford site, Chatham County. Zigzag trenches excavated in order to isolate stratigraphic blocks that could be excavated ca(efully to define ceramic stratigraphy. (WPA photo, University of Georgia.)
50

Complexity of the site prevented development of a ceramic sequence, so work was begun on several smaller sites having briefer occupation spans in an attempt to construct a sequence (Caldwell, 1940). Waring and Holder (1968) conducted initial testing at the Deptford site in 1937, and more extensive excavations (Figs. 21,22) were conducted there later under the direction of Catherine McCann (Caldwell et al., n.d.). The Deptford site had a midden layer up to 90 em thick, but-cDntinuous occupation had resulted in mixing of most of the deposit. Forty-three burials (Fig. 23) were encountered, and Frederick Hulse (1941), a physical anthropologist, was present to process and analyze the skeletal remains.
During the years 1939 and 1940, additional excavations were conducted on seven burial mounds and seven village sites throughout Chatham County, in an attempt to resolve stratigraphic problems and to test new sites. Results of these excavations have been only partially published (Caldwell, 1943, 1952; Caldwell and McCann, n.d.a., n.d.b., n.d.c.; Caldwell et al., n.d.; Cain and Caldwell, n.d.). Employing data from the Chatham County excavations, Caldwell and Waring (1939a, 1939b) eventually formulated a ceramic sequence and compiled a series of ceramic type descriptions. Their work is the basis for all more recent attempts at ceramic analysis (DePratter, 1976a, 1979).
With completion of the WPA project and onset of World War II, Caldwell and other WPA supervisors went their separate ways. Catherine McCann apparently left the site, Waring went back to his medical practice and avocational archaeology, and Caldwell moved on to other projects. In 1940, Caldwell (1943) worked on the Darien bluff in an unsuccessful attempt to find 18th Century Fort King George; but he did find evidence of the earlier Indian village and Spanish mission sites, which later were partially excavated by Sheila Caldwell (1954) and William Kelso (1968).
During the 1940 1 s, Waring continued his work on coastal sites, testing and excavating as time permitted. Thus, in 1947, he excavated several test pits at the badly eroded Refuge site on the Savannah River (Waring, 1968i), and in 1949, he excavated a trench through the large shell ring on Sapelo Island (Waring and Larson, 1968). Carbon samples collected from the Sapelo ring and processed a few years later produced a date of 3900 BP that provided the first evidence for the antiquity of sites on the coast (Williams, 1968).
During the 195os, Larson became involved in coastal research, conducting several surveys and excavations on the central and lower Georgia coast (Larson, 1955, 1957, 1958a, 1958b, 1978). W. Sanders (1956) conducted a survey of Butler Island in Mcintosh County and Waring continued his interest in perfecting the ceramic chronology (Waring, 1968d); but little other field work was done in the 195Qs. Caldwell (1952) provided a summary of results of the massive WPA excavations in Chatham County, but did not return to the coast to work for nearly two decades.
Beginning in the late 196os and extending through the 197os, the coast received a tremendous amount of attention from archaeologists. This interest undoubtedly stems from several developments within the field of archaeology during the 196os. Studies of settlement patterning, faunal analysis, and paleoenvironmental reconstruction became increasingly important, and coastal
51

Fig. 22. WPA excavations at Deptford site, nearing completion. Midden extended to depth of more than 60 em in some places; more than 500 plots 10 ft2 were excavated. (WPA photo, University of Georgia.)

Fig. 23.

Human burial, Deptford site. Forty-three burials were found within midden. Most were well preserved but had no associated artifacts. (WPA photo, University of Georgia.)
52

sites provided ideal situations for all of these approaches. Techniques for recovering and processing small food bone and organic debris were developed, allowing utilization of previously unused data (Struever, 1968) preserved by the shell in coastal middens. Armed with these new approaches and techniques, the coast was attacked from all directions by archaeologists.
St. Catherines Island was among the first islands chosen for intensive investigation. Caldwell excavated both mound and village sites on the island between 1969 and 1971, but he published only a preliminary report (n.d.) and a modification of the ceramic sequence (1971) before his death in 1973. Other unpublished manuscripts were done by Smith (n.d.a), Steed (n.d.) and Butler (n.d.). In 1974, David Hurst Thomas began work on St. Catherines; to date, a systematic survey and testing program and excavation in nine mounds have been completed (Thomas et al.,, 1978; Thomas and Larsen, 1979) and work on the site of a Spanish mission haslbegun.
In 1970, Jerald Milanich (1971a, 1971b, 1973) excavated two Deptford period village sites (Table Point and Stafford North) on Cumberland Island and recorded the location of 14 other sites. The next year, Cumberland Island became a National Park, and site surveys were conducted by S. Deutschle and R. Wilson (1973) and John Ehrenhard (1976).
Crusoe and DePratter began conducting surveys of coastal islands in 1971, and in the next two years tested several St. Simons period sites that provided thesis data and a summary paper (Crusoe, 1972; DePratter, 1976b; Crusoe and DePratter, 1976). DePratter conducted several additional surveys along the entire coast (1973, 1974, 1975a, 1977). More recent work by DePratter and Howard has concentrated on sea-level fluctuations and shoreline progradation (DePratter and Howard, 1977; DePratter, 1977; DePratter and Howard, in press).
St. Simons Island also has been the subject of intensive investigation, under the direction of Fairbanks and Milanich. Results have been published by Martinez (1975), Zahler (1976), Marrinan (1975, 1976), Wallace (1975), and Milanich (1977). Fred Cook also has excavated St. Simons Island sites (Cook and Pearson, 1973; Cook, 1975, 1977, 1978) in addition to sites on the mainland (Cook, 1966, 1970, 1971).
Ossabaw Island has been the subject of surveys by DePratter (1974) and settlement studies by Pearson (1976, 1977, 1979a, 1979b). Lewis Larson began work on Sapelo Island in the mid-1970's, and students have produced several papers resulting from surveys and excavations (Simpkins and McMichael, 1976a, 1976b; McMichael, 1977; Crook 1978; Saffer, 1980). Crook (1975) also surveyed Green Island in Chatham County. Colonels Island has been the subject of intensive excavations (Sheldon and Sheldon, 1976; Steiner, 1978).
THE FUTURE
Our trilogy is now completed, but our work truly is just beginning. In our studies during the past five years, we have found that the Holocene depositional record of the Georgia coast is complex, involving sea-level fluctuations and
53

extensive shoreline progradation. Previous studies have been based primarily on surface information, whereas future work will involve geologic and archaeologic subsurface investigations. Geologic coring will allow us to expand and refine our interpretation of sea-level changes and shoreline positions, and ar~haeological excavations will allow us to explore mans adaptation to an ever-changing environment. Many archaeologists and geologists cited previously already are at work on these and other related problems, so the future holds great promise for our increased understanding of the geologic and cultural dynamics of the Georgia coast.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research for this paper was funded by the Oceanography section, National Science Foundation, Grant OCE76-02320, and by a research grant from Marathon Oil Company.
' J
n ,"\
54

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., Gunn, J.D., Donahue, J., Stuckenrath, R., Guilday, J., and Lord, K., 1979, Meadowcroft Rockshelter-Retrospect 1977: Part 1: North American Archaeologist, v. 1, p. 3-44.
Anderson, D.G., 1975, Inferences from distributional studies of prehistoric artifacts in the coastal plain of South Carolina: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 18, p. 180-194.
Bartram, W., 1791, Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee County, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of Choctaws: James and Johnson, Philadelphia, 390 pp.
Berggren, W.A., and Van Couvering, J.A., 1974, The late Neogene: Biostratigraphy, geochronology and paleoclimatology of the last 15 million years in marine and continental sequences: Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, v. 16, p. 1-216.
Blackwelder, B., Pilkey, O.H., and Howard, J.D., 1979, Late Wisconsin sea levels on the southeast U.S. Atlantic Shelf based on in-place shoreline indicators: Science, v. 204, p. 618-620.
Brandau, B.L., and Noakes, J.E., 1972, University of Georgia radiocarbon dates II: Radiocarbon, v. 14, p. 486-497..
Brunn, P., 1962, Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., Jour. Waterways and Harbors Div., v. 88, p. 117-130.
Bryan, A.L., 1977, The problem of finding Early Man in the Northeast: in Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments, Newman, W.S. and Salwen, B., eds., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 288, p. 160-162.
Buckley, J.D., and Willis, E.H., 1969, Isotopes radiocarbon measurements VII: Radiocarbon, v. 11, p. 53-105.
Bullen, R.P., 1969, Excavations at Sunday Bluff, Florida: Contributions of Fla. State Mus. Soc. Sci., no. 15, 66 p.
Butler, R.J., n.d., Human remains from Johns mound, King New Ground Field: in Caldwell, J.R., ed., Excavations on St. Catherines Island, Univ. of Ga. Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 204, 9 p.
Cain, H.T., and Caldwell, J.R., n.d., Excavations at the Budreau site, Whitemarsh Island, Chatham County, Georgia: Univ. of Ga. Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 269, 12 p.
Caldwell, J.R., n.d., Excavations on St. Catherines Island: Univ. of Ga. Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 204, unpaginated.
55

Caldwell, J.R.; 1939, Recent discoveries at Irene mound, Savannah: Proceedings, Society for Georgia Archaeology, v. 2, no. 2., p. 31-36.

Caldwell, J.R., 1940, The results of archaeological work in Chatham County: Proceedings of the Society for Georgia Archaeology, v. 3, p. 29-33.

Caldwell, J.R., 1943, Cultural relations of four Indian sites on the Georgia coast: Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Univ. of Chicago, 59 p.

Caldwell, J.R., 1952, The archaeology of eastern Georgia and South Carolina: in Griffin, J.B., ed., Archaeology of eastern United States, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 312-321.

Caldwell, J.R., 1958, Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States: Mem. Amer. Anthrop. Assoc., no. 88, 88 p.

Caldwell, J.R., 1971, Chronology of the Georgia coast: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 13, p. 88-92.

Caldwell, J.R., and McCann, C., 1941, Irene mound site: Univ. of Georgia Press, Athens, 84 p., 25 plates.

Caldwell, J.R., and McCann, C., n.d.a., Archaeological investigations, Wilmington Island, Chatham County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo., Research Manuscript no. 270, 34 p.

Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., n.d.b., Excavations at the Cedar Grove tract, Chatham County, Georgia: Uni.v. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 271, 23 p.

Caldwell, J.R., McCann, C., and Cain, H.T., n.d., The Deptford site, Chatham

County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo., Research Manuscript,

no. 272, 42 p.



Caldwell, J.R., and Waring, A.J., Jr., 1939a, Some Chatham County pottery types and their sequence: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter, v. 1, nos. 5-6, 24 p.

Caldwell, J.R., and Waring, A.J., Jr., 1939b, The use of a ceramic sequence in the classification of aboriginal sites in Chatham County, Georgia: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter, v. 2, p. 6-7.

Caldwell, S., 1954, A Spanish mi.ssion site near Darien: Early Georgia, v. 1, no. 3, p. 13-17.

Carver, J., 1779, Travels in the interior of North America, London, 8 vols.

Coleman, K., ed., 1977, A history of Georgia: Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press,

445 p.

r

Cook, F.C., 1966, The 1966 excavations at the Lewis Creek site: Univ. of Georgia, Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 273, 28 p.

56

Cook, F.C., 1970, The 1970 excavation at the Townsend mound: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 275, 14 p.
Cook, F.C., 1971, The Seven Mile Bend site: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 39, 42 p.
Cook, F.C., 1975, Kelvin: A post-Deptford period site on the Georgia coast: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 274, 16 p.
Cook, F.C., 1978, The Kent Mound: A study of the Irene phase on the lower Georgia coast: Unpub. M.A. thesis, Florida State Univ., Tallahassee, 156 p.
Cook, F.C., and Pearson, C.E., 1973, Three late Savannah burial mounds in Glynn County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 276, 47 p.
Cornelius, E., 1819, On the geology, mineralogy, scenery, and curiosities of parts of Virginia, Tennessee, and of the Alabama and Mississippi territories: American Journal of Science, v. 1, p. 322-324.
Couper, J.H., 1846, On the geology of a part of the sea-coast of the State of Georgia: in Hodgson, W.B., ed., Memoir on the Megatherium and other extinct gigantic quadrupeds of the coast of Georgia, New York, Bartlett and Welford, p. 32-50.
Crane, H.R., and Griffin, J.B., 1958, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates III: Science, v. 128, p. 1117-1123.
Crane, H.R., and Griffin, J.B., 1963, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates VIII: Radiocarbon, v. 5, p. 228-253.
Crook, M.R., Jr., 1975, An archaeological survey of Green Island, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 70, 41 p.
Crook, M.R., Jr., 1978a, Mississippian period community organizations on the Georgia coast: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 290 p.
Crook, M.R., Jr., 1978b, Spatial associations and distribution of aggregate village sites in a southeastern Atlantic coastal area: Florida Anthropologist, v. 31, p. 21-34.
Crusoe, D., 1972, Interation networks and New World fiber-tempered pottery: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Georgia, 141 p.
Crusoe, D., and DePratter, C.B., 1976, A new look at the Georgia coastal shell mound Archaic: Florida Anthropologist, v. 29, no. 1, p. 1-23.
Curray, J.R., 1965, Late Quaternary history, continental shelves of the United States: in Wright, H.E., and Frey, D.G., eds., The Quarternary of the United States, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, p. 723-735.
DePratter, C.B., 1973, An archaeological survey of Black Island, Mcintosh County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 277, 16 p.
57

DePratter, C.B., 1974, An archaeological survey of Ossabaw Island, Chatham County, Georgia: Preliminary Report: Univ .. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript~ no~ 344, 65 p.
DePratter, C.B., 1975a, An archaeological survey of the P.H. Lewis property on Skidaway Island, Chatham County, Georgia: Uriiv. of Georgia Lab.. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 343, 164 p.
DePratter, C.B., 1975b, Settlement data from Skidaway Island, Georgia: Possible implications: Univ. of Georgia, Lab. of Archaeo. Reserach Manuscript, no. 278, 14 p.
DePratter, C.B., 1975c, Th~ Archaic in Georgia: Early Georgia, v. 3, p. 1-16. Derratter, C.B., 1976a, The Refuge phase on the coastal plain of Georgia: Early
Georgia, v. 4, p. 1-13. DePratter, C.B., 1976b, Shellmound Archaic on the Georgia coast: Unpublished
masters thesis, Univ. of Georgia, 160 p. DePratter, C.B., 1977a, An archaeological survey of portions of Wassaw Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Chatham County, Georgia, and Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge, Mcintosh County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab~. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 342, 41 p. DePratter, C.B., 1977b, Environmental changes on the Georgia coast during the prehistoric period: Early Georgia, v. 5, p. 1-14. DePratter, C.B.,~1979, Ceramics: in Thomas, D.H., and Larsen, C.B., eds., The Anthropology of St. Catherines-Island 2: The Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers Amer. Mus. of Nat. Hist., v. 56, p. 109-131. DePratter, C.B., and Howard, J.D., 1977, History of shoreline changes determined by archaeological dating: Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc., Geol. Soc., v. 27; p. 252~258. DePratter, C.B., and Howard, J.D., in press, Archaeological evidence for a post-Pleistocene low-stand of sea-level on the southeastern U.S. coast: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Deutschle, S., and Wilson, R., 1973, Known prehistoric and historic resources of Cumberland Island National Seashore: .Manuscript on file at Southeast Archaeo. Center, Tallahassee, Florida, 63 p. Earl, J., 1975, John Muir's longest walk: Doubleday and Co., New York, 123 p. Edwards, R.L., and Merrill, A.S., 1977, A reconstruction of the continental shelf areas of eastern North American for the times 9500 B.P. and 12,500 B.P.: Archaeology of Eastern North America, v. 5, p. 1-43. Ehrenhard, J.E., 1976, Cumberland Island National Seashore: Assessment of Archaeological and Historical resources: Manuscript on file at Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida, 140 p.
58 I -i

Fewkes, V., 1938, Irene mound excavations, Savannah, Georgia: Proceedings Soc. for Georgia Archaeo., v. 1, no. 2, p. 24-31.
Floyd, D.B., 1936, New Yamacraw and the Indian mound Irene: Savannah, Georgia, privately printed, 43 p.
Ford, J.A., Phillips, P., and Haag, W.G., 1955, The Jaketown site in west-central Mississippi: Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 45, 172 p.
Heart, J., 1793, Letter to Benjamin Barton Smith, January 5, 1791: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, v. 3, p. 214-222.
Hemmings, E.T., 1970, Preliminary report of excavations at Fig Island, South Carolina: Univ. of South Carolina Inst. of Archeology and Anthropology Notebook, v. 2, p. 9-15.
Hodgson, W.B., 1846, Memoir on the Megatherium and other extinct gigantic quadrupeds of the coast of Georgia; New York, Bartlett and Welford, 50 p.
Holder, P., 1938, Excavations on St. Simons Island and vicinity, winter of 1936-1937: Proc. Soc. Georgia Archaeo. v. 1, p. 8-9.
Howard, J.D., 1971, Comparison of the beach-to-offshore sequence in modern and ancient sediments: in Howard, J.D., Valentine, J.W., and Warme, J.E., Recent advances in paleoecology and ichnology, American Geol. Inst., Short Course Lee. Notes, p. 148-183.
Howard, J.D. and Frey, R.W., 1980, Holocene depositional environments of the Georgia coast and continental shelf: in Frey, R.W. ed., Excursions in southeastern geology. III. Coastal Plain. Guidebook, Geol. Soc. Amer. and Amer. Geol. Inst. (in press).
Hoyt, J.H. and Hails, J.R., 1974, Pleistocene stratigraphy of Southeastern Georgia: in Oaks, R.Q., and Dunbar, J.R., eds., Post-Miocene stratigraphy: Central andSouthern Atlantic Coastal Plain, Logan, Utah State Univ. Press, p. 191-205.
Hoyt, J.H., Henry, V.J., Jr., and Weimer, R.J., 1968, Age of late Pleistocene shoreline deposits, coastal Georgia: Means of Correlation of Quaternary Succession, v. 8, p. 381-393.
Hoyt, J.H., Weimer, R.J., Henry, V.J., Jr., 1964, Late Pleistocene and recent sedimentation, central Georgia coast, U.S.A.: in Van Straaten, L.M.J.U., ed., Deltaic and Shallow Marine Deposits, v. 1,iElsevier Publishing Company, p. 170-176.
Hudson, C.M., ed., 1979, Black Drink: A native American tea: Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, 175 p.
Hulse, F., n.d., Burials from the Deptford site: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 279, 14 p.
59

Hulse, F., 1941, The people who lived at Irene: in Caldwell, J.R., and McCann, C., eds., The Irene Mound, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 57-68.
Jefferson, T., 1787, Notes on the State of Virginia: London, John Stockdale, 258 p.
Jones, C.C., Jr., 1859, Indian remains in southern Georgia: Savannah, J.M. Cooper Co., 25 p.
Jones, C.C., Jr., 1861, Monumental remains of Georgia: Savannah, John M. Cooper Co., 119 p.
Jones, C.C., Jr., 1869, Ancient Tumuli in Georgia: Worcester, Mass., Charles Hamilton, 29 p.
Jones, C.C., Jr., 1873, Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the Georgia tribes: New York, D. Applieton and Co., 532 p.
Jones, G., 1978, The ethnohistory of the Guale coast through 1684: in Thomas, D.H., Jones, G., Durham, R.S., and Larsen, C.S., The anthropology of St. Catherines Island 1: Natural and cultural history: Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 55, p. 178-210.
Kelly, A.R., 1938, A preliminary report on archaeological explorations at Macon, Georgia: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, v. 119, p. 1-68.
'Kelso, W.M., 1968, Excavations at the Fort King Georgia historical site: Georgia Historical Commission Archaeological Research Series, v. 1, 45 p.
Larsen, C.S., 1979, The anthropology of the Georgia coast: Early Georgia, v. 7, no. 1, p. 44-62.
Larsen, C.S., and Thomas, D.H., 1978, The prehistory of St. Catherines Island: in Thomas, D.H., Jones, G.D., Durham, R.S., and Larsen, C.S., The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island 1. Natural and Cultural History: Anthropological Papers of Amer. Museum of Nat. Hi st.,. v. 55, p. 172-178.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1955, Unusual figurine from the Georgia coast: Florida Anthropologist, v. 8, p. 75-81.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1957, The Norman mound, Mcintosh County, Georgia: Florida Anthropologist, v. 10, p. 37-52.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1958a, Cultural relationships between the northern St. Johns area and the Georgia coast: Florida Anthropologist, v. 11, p. 11-22.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1958b, Southern Cult manifestations on the Georgia coast:
American Antiquity, v. 23, p. 426-430.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1978, Historic Guale Indians of the Georgia coast and the impact of the Spanish Mission effort: in Milanich, J., and Proctor, S., eds., Tacachale, Gainesville, Univ. oflFlorida Press, p. 120-140.
Lorant, S., 1946, The New World: the first pictures of America: New York, Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 293 p.
60

Lyell, Sir C., 1845, Travels in North America: London, J. Murray Co., 2 vols., 680 p.
Lyell, Sir C., 1849, A second visit to the United States of North America: New York, Harper and Brothers, 2 vols., 560 p.
Marrinan, R.A., 1975, Ceramics, molluscs, and sedentism: the late Archaic period on the Georgia coast: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 263 p.
Marrinan, R.A., 1976, Assessment of subsistence strategy evidenced by shell ring sites: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 19, p. 61-63.
Martinez, C.A., 1975, Cultural sequence of the central Georgia coast, 1000 B.C. to 1650 A.D.: Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univ. of Florida, 143 p.
McKinley, W., 1873, Mounds in Georgia: Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1872, p. 422-428.
McMichael, A.E., 1977, A model for barrier island settlement pattern: Florida Anthropologist, v. 30, p. 179-195.
Michie, J.L., 1973, Archaeological indications for sea-level 3500 years ago: South Carolina Antiquities, no. 5, p. 1-11.
Milanich, J.T., 1971a, The Deptford phase: an archaeological reconstruction: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 239 p.
Milanich, J.T., 1971b, Conclusions from the excavations of two transistionalDeptford sites on Cumberland Island, Georgia: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 13, p. 55-62.
Milanich, J.T., 1973, The Southeastern Deptford cultures: A preliminary definition: Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin, Tallahassee, v. 3, p. 51-63.
Milanich, J.T., 1977, A chronology for the aboriginal cultures of northern St. Simons Island, Georgia: Florida Anthrop., v. 30, no. 3, p. 134-142.
Milanich, J.T., 1979, Origins and prehistoric distributions of Black Drink and the ceremonial shell drinking cup: in Hudson, C.M., ed., Black Drink, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 83-11~
Milanich, J.T., Martinez, C.A., Steinen, K.T., and Wallace, R.L., 1976, Georgia Origins of the Alachua Tradition: Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin, v. 5, p. 47-56.
Milliman, J.D., and Emery, K.O., 1968, Sea levels during the past 35,000 years: Science, v. 162, p. 1121-1123.
Moore, C.B., 1897, Certain aboriginal mounds of the Georgia coast: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia (N.S.), v. XI, 152 p.
61

Moore, C. B., 1898a, Certain aboriginal mounds of the Altamaha River: Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, v. 2, p. 173-184.
Moore, C.B., 1898b, Certain aboriginal mounds of the Savannah River: Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, v. 2, p. 167-172.
Noakes, J.E., and Brandau, B.L., 1974, University of Georgia radiocarbon dates III: Radiocarbon, v. 16, p. 131-141.
Oertel, G.F., 1975, Post Pleistocene island and inlet adjustment along the Georgia coast: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 45, .no. 1, p. 150-159.
Otto, J.S., and Lewis, R.L., 1974, A formal and functional analysis of San Marcos pottery from site SA 16-23, St. Augustine, Florida: Florida Dept. of State, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin, no. 4, p. 95-117.
Pearson, C.E., 1976, Analysis of late prehistoric settlement on Ossabaw Island, Georgia: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 19, p. 8-13.
Pearson, C.E., 1977, Analysis of late prehistoric settlements on Ossabaw Island, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Series, Report no. 12, 152 p.
Pearson, C.E., 19l9a, Analysis of late Mississippian settlement on Ossabaw Island, Georgia: in Smith, B.D., ed., Mississippian settlement patterns, New York, Academic Press, p. 53-80.
Pearson, C.E., 1979b, Patterns of Mississippian period adaptation in coastal Georgia: Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Georgia, 246 p.
Pilkey, O.H., Blackwelder, B.W., Doyle, L.J., Estes, E., and Terlecky, P.M., 1969, Aspects of carbonate sedimentation on the Atlantic.continental shelf off the southern United States, Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 39, p. 744-768.
Quinn, D. B., 1977, North America from earliest discovery to first settlements: Harper and Row Company, New York, 621 p.
Reese, T., 1963, Colonial Georgia: A study in British Imperial policy in the eighteenth century, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, 172 p.
Saffer, M., 1980, Technological analysis of some Sapelo Island pottery: social and/or functional differences: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 22, p. 35-37.
Sanders, W.T., 1956, Report on explorations on Butler Island: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript no. 11, 12 p.
Schaeffer, C., 1939, Recent finds at Irene Mound, Savannah: Proceedings of the Society for Georgia Archaeology, v. 2, no. 1, p. 27-30.
Schwartz, M.L., 1967, The Brunn theory of sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion: Journal of Geology, v. 75, p. 76-92.
62

Sears, W.H., and Griffin, J.B., 1950, Fiber-tempered pottery of the Southeast: in Griffin, J.B., ed., Prehistoric pottery of the eastern United States, Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan, 10 p.
Service, E., 1971, Primitive social organization: New York, Random House, 221 p.
Sheldon, C., and Sheldon, E., 1976, An archaeological survey of Colonels Island, Glynn County, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 105, 23 p.
Silverberg, R., 1974, The mound builders: New York, Ballentine Books, 184 p.
Simpkins, D.L., 1975, A preliminary report on test excavations at the Sapelo Island shell ring, 1975: Early Georgia, v. 3, p. 15-37.
Simpkins, D.L., and McMichael, A.E., 1976, Sapelo Island: A preliminary report. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 19, p. 95-99.
Smith, B.A., n.d.a., A Deptford III midden at Wamassee: in Caldwell, J.R., ed., Excavations on St. Catherines Island, Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 204, unpaginated.
Smith, B.A., n.d.b., Preliminary reports: Seaside mound I: in Caldwell, J.R., ed., Excavations on St. Catherines Island, Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 204, unpaginated.
Snow, F., 1977, An archaeological survey of the Ocmulgee Big Bend region: Occasional papers from S. Georgia College, v. 3, 129 p.
South, S., 1973, Indian pottery taxonomy for the South Carolina coast: Institute of Archeology and Anthropology Notebook, v. 5, p. 54-55.
Steed, W.G., 1970, The St. Catherines period: a newly recognized segment in the cultural sequence of the Georgia coast: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 152, 52 p.
Steinen, K.T., ed., 1978, The cultural evolution and environment of Colonels Island, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 208, 172 p.
Stipp, J.J., Eldridge, K.L., and Cadwell, R., 1976, University of Miami Radiocarbon dates VI: Radiocarbon, v. 18, p. 210-220.
Stoltman, J.B., 1966, New radiocarbon dates for Southeastern fiber-tempered pottery: Amer. Antiquity, v. 31, no. 6, p. 872-874.
Stoltman, J.B., 1974, Groton Plantation: an archaeological study of a South Carolina locality: Peabody Museum Monographs, no. 1, 308 p.
Struever, S., 1968, Flotation techniques for the recovery of small-scale archaeological remains: American Antiquity, v. 33, p. 353-362.
63

Thomas, C., 1894, Report of the mound explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology: 12th Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology 1890-1891, Washington, D.C., 732 p.

Thomas, D.H., and Larsen, C.S., eds., 1979, The anthropology of St. Catherines Island 2: The Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex, Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 56, 180 p.

Thomas, D.H., Jones, G., Durham, R., and Larsen, C.S., 1978, The anthropology of St. Catherines Island 1: The natural and cultural history: Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 55, p. 155-248.

Trinkley, M., 1976, Peleoethnobotanical remains from Archaic-Woodland transitional shell middens along the South Carolina coast: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 19, p~ 64-67.

-
Voorhies, M.R., 1971, The Watkins quarry: a new late Pleistocene mammal locality

in Glynn County, Georgia, (abs): Georgia Academy Science Bulletin, v. 29,

p. 128.

-

Wait, R.L., 1968, Submergence along the Atlantic coast of Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 600-D, p. D38-D41.

Wallace R.L., 1975, An archaeological, enthnohistoric, and biochemical investigation of the Guale aborigines of the Georgia Coastal Strand: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 281 p.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968a, Paleo-Indian remains in Georgia and South Carolina: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 236-240.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968b. The Archaic and some shell rings: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p--.243-246.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968c, The Bilbo site, Chatham County, Georgia, in Williams, S., ed., The. Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p.-r52-197.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968d, The cultural sequence at the mouth of the Savannah River: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p--.216-221.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968e, The excavation of Mound A, Eulonia, Mcintosh County: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 256-260.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968f, Fluted points on the South Carolina Coast: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 241-242.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968g, A history of Georgia archaeology to World War II: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 288-299.

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968h. The Indian King's tomb: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press,jp. 209-215.
J

64

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968i, The Refuge Site, Jasper County, South Carolina, in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, ~ 198-208.
Waring, A.J., Jr., and Holder, P., 1968, The Deptford ceramic complex: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, p. 135151.
Waring, A.J., Jr., and Larson, L.H., Jr., 1968, The shell ring on Sapelo Island: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, ~ 263-280.
Widmer, R.J., 1976, An archaeological survey and assessment of cultural resources of the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company's Victoria Bluff Facility, Beaufort, South Carolina, Univ. of South Carolina, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology Research Manuscript, no. 91, 36 p.
Williams, S., ed., 1968, The Waring Papers: The collected works of Antonio J. Waring: Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, 345 p.
Williams, S., 1968, Appendix: Radiocarbon dates from the Georgia coast: in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers, Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press,-p. 329-331.
Winker, C.D., and Howard, J.D., 1977, Correlation of tectonically deformed shorelines on the southern Atlantic coastal plain: Geology, v. 5, p. 123-127.
Zahler, J.W., Jr., 1976, A morphological analysis of a protohistoric-historic skeletal population from St. Simons Island, Georgia: Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univ. of Florida, 103 p.
Zurel, R., Gresham, T., and Hally, D., 1975, An archaeological survey of channel, dike, and streambank protection structures, Big Mortar-snuffbox swamp watershed, Long and Mcintosh Counties, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia, Lab. of Archaeo. Research Manuscript, no. 116, 142 p.
! ~ I
65

HOLOCENE DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS OF THE GEORGIA COAST AND CONTINENTAL SHELF*

James D. Howard Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, P.O. Box 136.87, Savannah, Georgia 31406
Robert W. Frey Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602

ABSTRACT Marine and marginal marine deposits of Georgia are diverse and significant. The middle and outer continental shelf, a palimpsest substrate inherited from the Pleistocene, is atypical of most ancient shelves or epeiric seas; yet other environments, including those of the nearshore. shelf, provide important analogs for ancient facies. Physical and biogenic sedimentary structures are distinctive and diagnostic of respective environments and processes. Marine depositional environments, in addition to the shelf, include inlet shoals (ebb tidal deltas), spits, beaches, and beach-related tidal flats. Relict salt marsh deposits crop out on erosional beaches. Marginal marine or back-barrier facies include estuarine channels--whether of riverine or tidal stream origin, point bars, tidal flats, tidal stream banks, salt marshes, and washover fans. Present coastal morphology inherited many characteristics from preexisting Pleistocene and Late Tertiary configurations. Holocene accretion has occurred mainly in the vicinity of major river mouths, the nearshore shelf, inlet shoals, and various back-barrier environments.

INTRODUCTION

Depositional environments along the Georgia coast and shelf are diverse and

are proving to be valuable analogs in interpretation of many Cenozoic and Mesozoic

sedimentary rocks, not only on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains but also in

Western Interior Region. Our present purpose is to describe major features of

these recent estuarine, beach, and shelf facies, an outgrowth of reconnaissance

work begun more than a decade ago (Hoyt et ~., 1964, 1966; Henry and Hoyt, 1968;

Howard, 1969; Frey and Howard, 1969).



Our immediate emphasis is upon fundamentally preservable characteristics of the various facies: physical and biogenic sedimentary structures. These features almost invariably are formed in-situ, contemporaneously or pene-contemporaneously with sedimentation; they are related to specific facies because of environmental conditions existing at the time of their formation, a direct response to physical energy and other parameters of the original environment (Reineck and Singh, 1975; Howard, 1975; Frey and Seilacher, 1980). On a larger scale, our emphasis is upon geometry of facies and their lateral relationships. From these, vertical sequences can be reconstructed as they would appear in the rock record (Walker, 1979).
\ ...

*Contribution 417, University of Georgia Marine Institute, Sapelo Island.
' J

66

Regional and Local Settings

hsieg~~led~lTtuhrl.n~eia~l ~'isenah~afcvopinmtaghrbetiannosaoftaiuovatnherreaewaggsieitthoenrrnaalonlwgUee.mSreo.bflaciye2mof.ae4snottmfc(HaaanludlbberbdoaaarddsthpeearirtneGga~eorl,raagnnidga1we9Ba7or9idfg).ho3tf,.4Thtihdmaese. s

the are
coastal

Thls.ra~g ~esults in twice-daily exchanges of tremendous volumes of water between

::~~!~~e; and the nearshore shelf (Fig. 1; Howard and Frey, 1973, 1975b, 1980a).

Fig. 1.

ERTS imagery of part of Sea Island Coastal Section, Hilton Head, Island South Carolina, to Cumberland Island, Georgia (cf. Fig. 3.) HolocenePleistocene beach ridges are black; Holocene beach sands are white; extensive gray "lowlands" west of coastline are intertidal salt marsh. Image shows both high turbidity in coastal and estuarine waters and its restriction to a nearshore zone 10 to 15 km wide. (Light areas along lower margin ~f print are artifacts of processing, not turbidity.) (From Howard and rey, 1980a. )

67

20nm 40 Km
Fig. 2. Bathymetric map of Georgia continental shelf. Width of shelf is 110 to 130 km; its slope is 1 m/2.'4 km; water depth at shelf break averages 50 m.
The tidal excursion is discernible-as much as 40" km inland from the coast. In addition, the Georgia coastal zone lies at the edge of a broad, shallow gently sloping continental shelf (Fig. 2) that helps dampen waves and wave energy; resulting wave heights average only about 0.25 m. Wind velocities generally are low (see Fig. 35). Hence, this coast is classed as a mesotidal, medium- to low-energy zone.
Salinities in estuaries typically range from about 20 to 30 /oo, as compared to about 30 to 34 /oo for fully marine waters. Salinity decreases landward in riverine estuaries and everywhere during periods of heavy rainfall (see Fig. 35). Estuarine and nearshore waters are heavily charged with suspended sediment loads of finely divided organic detritus and clays (Fig. 1). Concentrations commonly range from 10 to 140 mg/1 and are quite variable in space and time. Water visibility ordinarily ranges from zero to a few decimeters. Waters of the middle
68

and outer shelf, however, are remarkably free of detritus (Haines and Dustan, 1975).
Coastal Morphology, Accretion, and Major Depositional Environments
Holocene coastal features of Georgia inherited their basic configuration from the Pleistocene and Late Tertiary (Winker and Howard, 1977; Howard and Frey, 1980b). The assumption of absolute tectonic stabi.lity during Pleistocene time has influenced most previous attempts to map, name, and correlate relict shorelines and surficial deposits on the southern Atlantic Coastal Plain. More recent correlations (Fig. 3) confirm the general quiescence of coastal Georgia, but slight divergence of successive barrier trends indicate greater tectonic instability than previously thought.
Present barrier islands of Goergia differ in proportions and configuration from those of other U.S. coasts (Hayden and Dolan, 1979). Here, islands of the irregular coastline consist mostly of short, curved, compound beach ridges punctuated by relatively stable tidal inlets (Fig. 4). All but two Georgia Sea Islands are remnants of Pleistocene barriers having active Holocene beach ridges on their seaward sides. Pleistocene parts, having somewhat distinctive sediments (Hails and Hoyt, 1969), were formed between ~110,000 and ~25,000 yr BP. Holocene parts represent the last 4,000 to 5,000 yr of deposition, the time elapsed since sea level achieved its approximately present position following the Wisconsinian lowstand. Except for the area immediately south of the Savannah River, where the shoreline has prograded about 10 km, and south of the Altamaha River, where it has prograded about 5.5 km, the coast shows little net Holocene accretion (DePratter and Howard, 1977). The present strand contains both erosional and depositional components (see Fig. 19; Oertel, 1975), although the overall coast is eroding as sea level rises--at an approximate rate of 2 to 3 mm/yr (Hicks and Crosby, 1974).
Similarly, little net sedimentation has occurred on the continental shelf in Holocene times. With minor exceptions, no evidence of recent shelf sediments is found beyond about the 10-m bathymetric line, which lies less than 10 km from the present shoreline. Thin Holocene deposits observed locally on the outer shelf evidently represent pelitic sedimentation from the Gulf Stream.
Most net Holocene sedimentation has occurred in back-barrier facies and estuary inlet shoals. The shoals, parts of ebb tidal deltas, act as sediment traps and thus modify prevailing patterns of longshore drift and inlet-bypassing (Oertel, 1973a; Hubbard et al., 1979). Major back-barrier facies include salt marshes, tidal creek bank5,-estuaries and their tributaries, tidal flats, and point bars. Most sand-size material deposited in these environments is derived from erosion of local Pleistocene, or in some cases Holocene outcrops, or channel-bottom scour of the 11 basement11 surface (Howard and Frey, 1975b; Edwards and Frey, 1977; Brokaw and Howard, 1979). Silts and clays are transported into the area primarily by the Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha Rivers; some are recycled from deposits in both barrier and back-barrier environments (see Fig. 23; Pinet and Morgan, 1979). Most organic components of sediment originate locally (Pinet and Frey, 1977; Frey and Pinet, 1978; Frey and Basan, 1978).
Very little of the fine fraction moves offshore, as indicated by absence of fines beyond the nearshore shelf (Fig. 1). Some fines perhaps are derived through landward transport from the continental shelf (Meade, 1969; Windom et ~, 1971), but
69

'
(
\.....
\ \
GA.\ S.C.
\
\.. "-.
\. \

32

shoreline scarps 'I"U"I"II'"II'I"U"IU'II"I~I"IU""IL/u1..1;1',
beach ridges and r!Jated lineations
... ::::~:::::::; '.'- fluvial terraces
(undifferentiated)

+

30

' "
28
o._._...L.-J._,_s.._o-'----'---'--"--'100 kilom e 1ers

Fig. 3.

82

eo

Geomorphic features of Atlantic Coastal Plain from Cape Fear, North Carolina, to area south of Cape Canaveral, Florida. (From Winker and Howard, 1977.)

70

~ HOLOCENE
Bill Pl f. I$ fOCENE
-~ ~v J
KILOMETERS
c

f i ~. 4.

Relationship of Holocene beach ridges to Pleistocene deposits and four 1najor geomorphic patterns of Holocene deposition. (A) Rapid progradation ctt mouths of major rivers. (B) Seaward and southward accretion of recurved spits at south ends of barrier islands. (C) Alternating cuspate progradation and recurved truncations typical of northern ends of Lctrrier islands. (D) Parallel progradation of straight beach ridges typical of central parts of barrier islands. (From DePratter and Howard,
1977.)

71

this process is now considered less important than previously thought. Winnowing of the middle and outer shelf, and landward movement of fine sediments, possibly occurred with melting of Wisconsinian ice and the consequent early Holocene transgression.

CONTINENTAL SHELF Parts of the middle and outer shelf are relict; faint expressions of probable barrier remnants, sediment dispersal patterns, shell distributions, and other Pleistocene features remain discernible (Pevear and Pilkey, 1966; Pilkey et al., 1966; Carver and Kaplan, 1971.) Nevertheless, the preponderance of substrates are palimpsest, having been reworked not only by Pleistocene transgression and regression but also by early Holocene to present-day physical and biogenic processes (Doyle et al., 1968; Howard et al. ,. 1973). The nearshore shelf is characterized by Holocene accretion and distinctive-physical and biogenic sedimentary structures (Howard and Rei neck, 1972).

Middle and Outer Shelf

The mid-shelf area, in contrast to the nearshore zone (see Fig. 8), is covered by medium to coarse sand, evenly distributed, exhibiting no major north-south linear. trends. Areas of fine sand occur on the inner and outer shelf edges, and in two distinct lobes extending seaward from the Georgia coast. Parts of these lobes suggest that the finer material was supplied by the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers. Gravels, evidently representing old fluvial channels, also are encountered locally off the Savannah River mouth. Local patches of semiconsolidated mud indicate the location of remnant marsh or estuarine deposits.

Quaternary shelf sediments comprise a thin veneer overlying Tertiary bedrock

(Antoine and Henry, 1965). Locally, this bedrock crops out on the seafloor. Of

100 random box-core stations (Fig. 5), 5 consisted of bare bedrock and 10 others

yielded only "skims" of sediment too thin to process as cores. In places the

rock projects above the seafloor to form "reefs" encrusted by sessile epibenthos and

infested with rock borers.



Although diversity and abundance of organisms are low, relative to the nearshore shelf, bi'ogenic sedimentary structures (Fig. 6) significantly exceed physical sedimentary structures. All cores (Fig. 5) show some degree of biogenic reworking, and the majority are more than 60 percent bioturbated. Much of this reworking may be attributed to the heart urchin Moira atropos, which leaves a characteristic trace in sediments despite intense bioturbation (see Fig. 13B; Howard et al., 1974). Thus, with a dearth or absence of deposition, even sparse organisms have opportunity to rework the substrate. Physical sedimentary structures, where present, include crossbedding, ripple lamination, interbedded sand and mud, wavy bedding, and
graded bedding. Most of these seem to be contemporary rather than relict Pleistocene structures. Like sediment textures, these structures exhibit no conspicuous areal trends.

Offshore mollusc shell assemblages reflect a mixing of faunas both environmentally and temporally (Pilkey et al., 1969). However, examination of mollusc shells that appear relatively fresh--,as opposed to older, dark or fragmented ones (Frey, in prep.), reveals a tripart distributional pattern comparable to that observed among living foraminifers (Sen Gupta and Kilbourne, 1974, 1976): reasonably distinctive inner, m1ddle, and outer shelf assemblages.

72

, ........... .
~)'i

,.

.....

a~ '

~2"

. ;;< .

~ ' 0 ~/' '/! . ;, " ~ ~::.r-:':'1-

.. <: 38 ,;d) .

Ci

47

''";'::

.

40

: ....... op 48 ..

. . .. 'c 49

... . .

'

0

10

20n.m:

0

20

10

STRUCTURES

Bioturbation

bioturbated sand heart urchin bioturbation
crossbedded sand ripple lamination ~~'
laminated sand interbedded sand and mud
wavy bedding

0 trace <30% 30-60% 60-90%

90-99%

100%

~P ~O no penetration
current too strong cs Scale
insufficient core for peel or X-ray :c 60 em

Fig. 5. Graphic summary of box-core data from Georgia continental shelf. (From Howard et ~., 1973; in prep.)

73

Fig. 6.

Characteristic benthic macroinvertebrates, burrows, and dwelling tubes from middle-shelf palimpsest sands off Ossabaw Sound. Br = cephalochordate Branchiostoma virginiae; Du = bryozoan Discoporella umbellata; Hy =Hydrozoa sp.; Ma =heart urchin Moira atropos; Ms =polychaete Mesochaetopterus taylori; Oe =polychaete Onuphis eremita; Of= polychaete Owenia fusiformis; Pl = polychaete Polydontes lupina; Pr = polychaete Potamilla sp. cf. reniformis; Ps = polychaete Petaloproctus socialis; Vs = coelenterate Virgulariidae sp. (From Dorjes and Howard, 1975.)

Nearshore Shelf

The inner shelf lies landward of the boundary between coarser palimpsest sediments and finer present-day sediments, approximately at the 10-m bathymetric contour (Fig. 7). This zone is interrupted by major estuary entrances and inletshoal systems (Fig. 1), discussed subsequently.

Sediment Textures

Sand typically comprises 90 to 98 percent of the substrate (Howard and Reineck,

1972). At water depths less than 10m, the silt-clay fraction ranges between 5 and

10 percent. Below 10 m, in palimpsest sands, fines are consistently less than 2

percent. Material coarser than sand is less than 1 percent at depths less than

10 m, and generally is 1 to 2 percent at greater depths. Thus, contrary to

\.

typical textbook-type examples, the finest sands occur nearshore and the coarsest

ones offshore (Fig. 8).

' 1

74

8110'

0

2

3

km

Contour Interval-2m

j"':o~

3125'

6

3120'

D

E
3115'

F


Fig. 7.

8120'

8105'

Bathymetry of inner shelf near Sapelo Island. Inlet-shoal complexes lie off Doboy and Altamaha Sounds. Data for transects reiterated in Figs. 8, 12. (From Pinet and Frey, 1977.)

Physical Sedimentary Structures and Bedding Styles
In spite of appreciable variations within and among box cores of the nearshore shelf (Fig. 9), several distinctive patterns are discernible. Beds consist primarily of sand, mud, and shells, and exhibit several physical structures:
(1) Laminated sand -- thinly bedded sand in obvious layers; stratification horizontal to gently dipping; laminations parallel to subparallel. Present to some extent throughout, but dominant in two zones (Fig. lOA): from the beach to a water depth of about 2m, and in the vicinity of shoals, at depths between 2 and 5 m.
(2) Small-scale ripple laminated sand -- ripple marks and ripple laminations less than 2 em in height. Present virtually everywhere (Fig. 9; Howard and Reineck, 1972, Fig. 5), but characteristic of two zones (Fig. lOB): at water depths less than about
75

0

2

3

km

Contour lnterval-0.25 PHI

"~ '

Fig. 8. Mean grain-size distribution of surficial inner-shelf sediments, at water depths greater than 2 m. Linear bands of sediment tend to coarsen seaward. (From Pinet and Frey, 1977.)

2m, and essentially throughout shoal areas.

(3) Megarippled sand -- ripple laminations greater than 2 em in height, most representing through-type crossbedding. Essentially restricted to two. regions (Fig. llA): between 10- and 18-m depths, in palimpsest sands, except where obscured by bioturbation, and within 3-m depths near shoals. Best developed in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of shoals; both onshere and offshore current dip-directions of trough crossbedding are preserved (Oertel,.1973a, 1973b).

(4) Interbedded sand and mud, in three main varieties: (A) lenticular bedding --

discontinuous ripples:~Qr-renses, of sand and mud; (B) finely interbedded sand and

mud-- interlaminated thin (<5 mm) layers of sand and mud; and (C) coarsel~--

interbedded sand and mud--interbedded thick (>5 mm) layers of sand and mud;

generally represented~ wavy bedding.



(5) Mud layers -- thick (>5 mm) layers of mud s"eemingly unrelated to overlying beds.
. u
(6) Shell layers -- individual beds composed of disarticulated shells; matrix composed of sand and silt.

76

STRUCTURES
Laminated Sand Small Scale Ripples
Megaripples Bioturbated Sand
Sand {lenticular Bedding and Fine Jnterbedding Mud Coarse lnterbedding
Mud Shells

Bioturbation 0
. 30-60% 60-90% 90-99% 100%

9

CEC-7~

t I I
I ' I '
I
J
,. -;.. _........... /

II II

10

11

Iiiii

30
II II

Tff==;Jcw 1TEox ~Om 50em core

SCALE

Fig. 9. Graphic summary of box-core data from nearshore shelf off Sapelo Island. (From Howard and Reineck, 1972.)

77

"!'- ,. "r'o-1

A ~o-10%

...... --

10-100%

,...-..../--,_ .....1 \

_...'

'')

, \
' - - .......

/
I I I
,, ''\..-:,.l/"J
I I I I

8 Eo-10%
10-100%

.-----.----------------.----1
0 1 2 3 4 km

0 1 2 3 4 km

Fig. 10. Areru distribution of characteristic sedimentary structures, nearshore shelf off Sapelo Island. (From Howard and Reineck, 1972.) (A) Laminated sand. (B) Small-scale ripple laminated sand

- - ./"""

---;:,

A ~o-10%
lf:)H/1
10-100%
-"1'--,_ ....1
' ' , ' \
'-- ........
/ /
I

B m:}~;~:;;J o- 50%

90-100%

... -...,,

I

/

I

I



/ / '\ I1I/

I I I
I
,-'

'-I 1.0

,.-

I

I

I

I

0

1

2

3

4 km

~~~
0 l 2 3 4 km

Fig. 11. Areal distribution of characteristic sedimentary structures, nearshore shelf off Sapelo Island. (From Howard and Reineck, 1972.) (A) Megarippled sand. (B) Bioturbate textures, reflecting intensity of bioturbation.

(7) Sand containing shells -- sand beds (generally laminated sand) containing numerous recognizable shells.
Mud layers and interbedded sand and mud. occur most commonly in the seaward lee of shoals, peripheral to the zone of megaripple development (cf. Fig. llA; Howard and Reineck, 1972, Fig. 10; Pinet and Frey, 1977, Fig. 8). Most muds evidently are exported from adjacent estuaries, whether in the form of 11 flocs, 11 organoclays, or fecal pellets; the latter also may be derived locally or from beaches and beach-related tidal flats (Howard and Dorjes, 1972; Oertel, 1973a).
Distribution of significant shell concentrations generally is similar to that of mud, although encompassing a slightly larger area (Howard and Reineck, 1972, Fig. 11; Frey Qrld Pinet, 1978, Fig. 2). Mud layers commonly overlie shell layers, suggesting storm reworking, i.e., lag accumulations of shells covered by resuspended-. redeposited mud. Contributors of skeletal carbonates especially include the small bivalve Mulinia lateralis and other bivalves and gastropods; less important are scaphopods, bryozoans, an inarticulate brachiopod, echinoids, ophiuroids, and asteroids (Dorjes, 1972; Frey and Pinet, 1978, Table 1).
Biogenic Sedimentary Structures and Bioturbation Biogenic sedimentary structures are present to some extent everywhere (Fig. 9;
Hertweck, 1972; Dorjes and Hertweck, 1975). Intensity of bioturbation is related directly to animal abundance (Dorjes, 1972) which, in turn, is related directly to abundance of organic carbon (Fig. 12); but bioturbation also is inversely proportional to rates of depositon and intensity of physical reworking, regardless of population densities.
Bioturbate textures are least preservable in a narrow zone nearest the shoreline and in the vicinity of shoals. In this high-energy environment, organisms are subjected to rigorous conditions, including frequent disruption by wave reworking. Thus, except for animals such as Callianassa major--which builds deep, reinforced burrows (see Fig. 16; Frey et al., 1978) --biogenic activity recorded here commonly is only an ephemeral sketch~f the most recent event.
In areas where the substrate is 50 to 90 percent bioturbated (Fig. 11B), biogenic activities of some specific organisms remain recognizable (Fig. 13); but masking occurs commonly, because of abundant 11 overprinting" in specific beds by a variety of organisms, or repeated reworking by numerous individuals of the same species. In this zone, as in the zone of zero to 50 percent bioturbation, undisturbed sediments commonly consist of laminated sands; formation of these evidentl,y destroyed preexisting records of animal reworking.
In the area of 90 to 100 percent bioturbation, sediment is completely homogenized. Much of this area, as well as that of 50 to 90 percent bioturbation, is in the Hemipholis elon ata zone (Fig. 13A), which contains maximum numbers of species and individuals Fig. 12; Dorjes, 1972). Here, potential preservation of phys i ca1 structures probably is dependent 1arge.ly on occurrence of storm-wave conditions, a rare event on the Georgi a coast.
:!!; ..
Thus, in general, intensity of bioturbation increases seaward from the vicinity of beaches and shoals. However, offshore palimpsest sands are less
80

3000

N

E

~ 2000
~
z

~1000

u

~
CJ)

0

N

E
N

40

~ d

uILl 20

~

CJ)

0

I

I

I

I I

2.4 _0,\ \

R

z

\

''

Transect B - - - - Transect C

a0m:
<l
(.)
z(.)

0.4

-\-I- \ cirII --\I i~-, }

:~,\ \ : \ \

I

I

I

\

I

I

I

~, ~

0.3

1-1-1--1-r- o

<l
(!)
0::: 0
0 ~

-/~ v 0.2

I1 II

II I1

I 0

\ I

II ;!'-

0.1

~,e-/u

\ '\
\
, 'o\)~.-.-0'-.-l\, ~

0

I

I

I

l

0 2

4

6

8 10 12 14

DISTANCE OFFSHORE- KMS

Fig. 12. Relationship between diversity and abundance of benthic organisms and organic carbon in nearshore sediments. See Fig. 7 for orientation of transects, which correspond to N and S transects of Fig. 9 (From Pinet and Frey, 1977.)

intensely bioturbated than finer sediments immediately landward of them (Figs. 118, 12). The major recognizable source of bioturbation in this area is the heart urchin Moira atropos, which burrows at depths of 14 em or less below the substrate surface, destroying all preexisting physical and biogenic structures and leaving behind a characteri stic bi oturbate texture (Fig. 138; Howard et ~- , 1974).

Zonation of Facies
Interrelationships among sedimentary textures, physical and biogenic sedimentary structures, and associated parameters reveal a characteristic zonation of facies (Fig. 14):
81

'

0

0



0





0



. ....

'4

. . . ..

. .





0



. ...

c
- . . ~.. .. . E

F

Fig. 13.

Selected examples of benthic macroinvertebrates, burrows, and dwelling tubes from nearshore shelf sediments. Not to scale. (A) Ophiuroid Hemipholis elongata. (B) Heart urchin Moira atropos. (C) Polychaete Heteromastus filiformis. (D) Polychaete Onuphis microcephala. (E) Polychaete Diopatra cuprea. (F) Polychaete Notomastus sp. (G) Shrimp Callianassa biformis in muddy layer; systems are developed less extensively 1n cleaner sands. (Adapted from Hertweck, 1972; Howard et ~., 1973.)

(1) Upper shoreface: planar laminated sand--zero to ca. 1-m depths; essentially a continuation of beach foreshore; physical processes greatly predominant over biogenic ones. Principal organisms are haustoriid amphipods and the surf clam Donax variabilis (Dorjes, 1972); few species but numerous individuals.
(2) Lower shoreface: ripple laminated sand--ca. 1- to 2-m depths; fully intergradational with upper shoreface and upper offshore; physical processes generally predominate over biogenic ones. Organisms very similar to those of upper shoreface.
(3) Upper offshore: laminated and bioturbated sand--ca. 2- to 5-m depths, the later occurring in higher energy areas near shoals; relative balance between physical and biogenfc processes; impingement of gently fluctuating wave base results in interbedded deposits of laminated and bioturbated sand. Organisms dominated by brittle stars (Fig. 13A); diversity greater than in landward facies (Dorjes, 1972; Hertwerk, 1972; Dorjes and Hertwerk, 1975).
[ '.

82

r Upper Shoreface
~Lower Shoreface !===!Upper Offshore C:::::l ( 2-5m ) ~Upper Offshore .~ (S-10ml ~Lower Offshore
!Ill[ Shoals
....
:? nm 0 1 2 3 4 krn
Fig. 14. Generalized facies pattern, nearshore shelf off Sapelo Island. (From Howard and Reineck, 1972.)
(4) Upper offshore: bioturbated sand-- ca. 5- to 10-m depths, less in lower energy areas free of shoal influences; biogenic processes greatly predominate over physical ones; bioturbate textures exclude all but vague remnants of physical structures. Zone of maximum diversity and abundance of organisms (Fig. 12; Dorjes, 1972), below low-energy wave base. (5) Lower offshore: palimpsest sand--ca. 10-m depths to mid-shelf region; characterized by interplay between megarippled sand (Fig. 11A) and heart urchin bioturbation (Fig. 138); influenced by high-energy wave base; abundance of organisms (Dorjes, 1972) insufficient to affect total reworking.
Inlet Shoals Major tidal inlets or estuary entrances along the Georgia coast are flanked by complex shoal systems on both their north and south sides (Figs. 1, 7; Oertel and Howard, 1972; Oertel, 1973a, 1973b, 1977; Hubbard et ~., 1979). Because of
83

constricted inlets between adjacent barrier islands, current velocities are accelerated dramatically-- a 11 jet effect. 11 The result is a deep scour hole within the inelt and lateral shoal systems, part of an ebb-tidal delta, extending 6 to 10 km seaward.
South-side shoals tend to be continuous, although of irregular topography, whereas north-side shoals tend to be breached by many channels. The difference is partly a refelction of the separation of ebb and flood channels within shoals, as influenced by pr-evailing northeasterly winds and consequent 11Squeezing 11 of wave fronts between beaches and north-side shoals, a focusing of energy. Smaller distal shoals also may be present. The overall system represents a sediment trap that may be more important in accretion and migration of barrier islands than longshore drift or inlet by-passing of sediments.

Sediment Textures

In the vicinity of shoals, grain size is highly variable. In channels between

shoals and beaches, layers of coarse, medium, and fine sand may be intermixed.

Megaripples adjacent to shoals contain coarse sand whereas intertidal shoal surfaces

commonly are composed of fine or medium sand, much like that in the adjacent beach

foreshore. Lobes of mud-, carbon-, and carbonate-rich sediments tend to accumulate

in seaward lees of shoals and in deeper channels among north-side shoals (Howard and

Rei neck, 1972; Pi net and Frey, 1977; Frey and Pi net, 1978).



Sedimentary Structures and Subfacies
Throughout the main shoal system, physical processes predominate over biogenic ones. The principal sedimentary structures (Figs. 9, 10, 11) are trough-crossbedded sand, representing swash bars, megaripples, and sand waves, and smaller cusp ripples. Organisms present are comparable to those in the upper shoreface (Dorjes, 1972). In lee areas and deeper tidal channels among shoals, physical and biogenic sedimentary structures are similar to those of equivalent depths in the lower shoreface.
Complex topography, hydrodynamics, and sediment supply produce a characteristic suite of subfacies (Figs. 14, 15). Scour holes typically contain a veneer of coarse lag deposits, including Tertiary and Pleistocene bedrock clasts and fossil and recent shells (Frey et al., 1975) . Seasonally, these lags may be covered by ebb-oriented sand waves!Dr even skims of mud. Peripherally, sediments become increasingly cleaner and better sorted tqward the shallower, higher energy parts of shoals. Mud-pebble clasts, ripped up by tidal currents, ~re common in some subfacies; however, many mud layers are derived from fecal pellets which, hydrodynamically, are more akin to sand grains than to individual particles or flocules of clay (Oertel, 1973a; Pryor, 1975).

BEACHES AND BEACH-RELATED FEATURES

Numerous depositional and erosional features are typical of the Georgia strand.

These include not only beaches and dunes but also washover fans, relict salt marsh

deposits, spits, and tidal flats (Frey and Howard, 1969; Howard et al., 1973).

Median grain size of beach and dune sediments is finer, and CaC03content lower,

,

1

j:

84

Fig. 15. Diagrammatlc dlstribution of characteristic subfacies and carbon-rich sands in inlet shoals. Scour holes may be more than 30 m deep. (Adapted from Oertel, 1973b; Pinet and Frey, 1977.)
than anywhere else on the southeastern U.S. coast (Giles and Pilkey, 1965). Because of intertidal to supratidal exposure of beaches and dunes, and consequent rigorous conditions for marine life, the abundance and diversity of organisms generally is lower than in subtidal facies (Dorjes, 1972).
Beaches
Beach slopes commonly are less than 2, and seasonal changes are slight. Ridges and runnels are well developed on the foreshore (Wunderlich, 1972). The berm typically is poorly developed. or absent. Sediments consist predominantly of fine-grained, well-sorted, quartz sand. Heavy minerals are concentrated in the upper foreshore, backshore, and dunes, which accentuates stratification of sediments (Giles and Pilkey, 1965; Woolsey et ~, 1975). Stratification features are disrupted locally by 11 bubble sandS 11 (Hoyt and Henry, 1964). Rill and swash marks and antidune, oscillation, current, and rhomboid ripples are found on beach surfaces; ripples in the backshore and dunes commonly are of aeolian origin. The previous tidal excursion ordinarily is marked by a wrack line composed of shells of offshore animals and fragments of the marsh grass Spartina alterniflora, transported from estuaries.
Foreshore
Subdivision of this zone into upper and lower foreshore is based on a change in slope about two-thirds of the way up the beach from the low-tide line. The lower foreshore commonly is about 90 m wide and has a seaward dip of 2; the upper foreshore is narrower and has a dip of 1o. In addition to slope inflection, the boundary commonly is expressed by accumulated shell material and especially by density of burrow apertures of the shrimp Callianassa major; burrows are noticeably less dense in the upper foreshore (Fig. 16 .
Other than storm effects, the most dramatic changes in the foreshore are migrations of ridges and runnels (Howard et ~., 1973, Fig. 3). Unlike more or
85

<11111------- ZONE OF OCYPOOE QUAORATA--------~
1111(

ZONE OF CALLIANASSA MAJOR---l

DUNES

BACKSHORE

n
UPPER FORESHORE LOWER FORESHORE

Fig. 16.

Zonation of decapod burrows in Georgia beaches and dunes. Relative abundance of burrows of ghost shrimp Callianassa major differentiates upper and lower foreshore; size and morphology of burrows of ghost crab Ocypode guadrata exhibit progressive changes from lowermost backshore to dunes and slacks. (From Frey and Mayou, 1971.)

less permanent shoreface or offshore sand bars, these ridges form at or just below the low-tide line and move up the beach somewhat as a very large sand wave. Deposition occurs on the leading edge, and erosion on the trailing edge (Fig. 17).

Internal physical sedimentary structures, other than in ridge lee faces, are remarkably consistent (Howard et al., 1973): low-angle, seaward dipping sets (about 20) of wedge-shaped laminae. The wedge shape occurs because upper and lower bounding planes of sets are incongruent erosional surfaces. Erosion invariably and immediately preceeds deposition. Furthermore, the dip angle of laminae formed in the depositional phase of the cycle is less than the dip angle resulting from truncations during the erosional phase.

These consistent wedge-shaped sets, unique among Georgia depositional environments, occur at all levels in the hierarchy of bedding units: (1) the smallest lamina or set occurring with the most insignificant wave surge (erosional phase) and backwash (depositional phase); (2) sets of laminae associated with diurnal flood (erosional phase) and ebb (depositional phase) of the tide; (3) cosets of laminae that form in response to significant downcutting (erosional phase) during storms, and resedimentation (depositonal phase) as the storm subsides; and (4) major accumulations of sediment on beaches by accretion or migrat.ion of spits.

High-angle beach stratification is formed on leading edges of migrating ridges (Fig. 17; Wunderlich, 1972, Pl. 2). Foreset beds dip into the runnel at angles occasionally as much as 300. These landward dipping structures are preserved where beaches prograde rapidly in the absence of storms. With storms, however, highangle stratification is destroyed and replaced by more typical, low-angle, seaward dipping sets.

Secondary features of the foreshore include (1) occasional mud lenses,

(2) shell layers, (3) ripple laminae, and (4) biogenic sedimentary structures.

Muds, whether fl asers or discrete thin 1ayers (<15 em) , accumu1ate in troughs

of runnels. Whereas the associated ridge is an ephemeral feature, the base of the

adjacent runnel may be preserved. Commonly, mud consists of fecal pellets and (or)

a.lso contains fine fragments of marsh grass;, either as discrete layers or scattered

' u

throughout.



86

" I
I

["

RUNNEL

RIDGE

+-EROSION DEPOSITION

Fig. 17.

Depositional and erosional processes on ridge and runnel system during tidal flood. (A) Swash and backwash on stoss side. (B) Swash begins moving water over crest; lee side erodes. (C) Sand crosses crest in suspension; settles on lee side and heals previous scour slope. (D) Crest submerged; waves cross to landward beach slope; lee deposition continues. (Adapted from Wunderlich, 1972.)

Layers of shells and shell fragments are common on the beach surface. Most are derived from the tiny bivalves Mulinia lateralis, Donax variabilis, Abra aequalis, and Tellina spp. Except after storms, shells of larger organisms from offshore are comparatively rare. Shell layers may accumulate as windrows 5 to 15 em thick on the beach slope just landward of a runnel, at a level comparable to the height of the ridge crest (Fig. 17D). Such layers apparently are associated
with wave plunge in runnels, and their burial accounts for most shell laminae observed in beach sediments. Commonly, coarser sand occurs in these layers.

87

Elsewhere, random samples of foreshore sediment average only about 3 to 5 percent calcium carbonate. As in clean, permeable sands in other depositional environments, however, shells and shell layers have relatively little prospect for long-term preservation; in Pleistocene beach deposits the shells of Donax and Mulinia, if present, are mere ghosts (Frey, 1975, Fig. 2.2B).

Despite the abundance of ripple marks locally on beaches, subsurface ripple laminae are rather minor features. Most surficial structures, physical or biogenic, do not survive the processes of erosion and depositon outlined above. Preserved ripple laminae, like mud lenses, formed in protected parts of. the beach. Ripples may be abundant in runnels, formed not only by currents as these channels drain swash or ebbing waters from the beach but also by waves during flood tide. Fecal pellets and other fine detritus may accumulate in ripple troughs to form flaser bedding.

Because of high levels of physical energy in beaches and harsh conditions for animal life, bioturbate textures are comparatively rare. Organisms living in the foreshore exhibit low species diversity, although individuals of particular species may be abundant (Dorjes, 1972). Suspension feeders are best adapted to this environment. The most obvious inhabitant is the shrimp Callianassa major (Fig. 16); its burrow density (surface apertures) commonly is 8 or 10jm2 in the lower foreshore. Surficial evidence for these crustaceans consists only of a small burrow opening commonly surrounded by accumulated fecal pellets (Weimer and Hoyt, 1964; Frey et al., 1978). However, a few centimeters below the surface, the burrow increases in size and possesses a thick wall constructed of muddy pellets; these dwellings consist of an essentially vertical, interconnected burrow system as much as 3 to 5 m deep. Ancient counterparts, the trace fossil Ophiomorpha nodosa, are found commonly in local sedimentary rocks (Frey, 1975, Fig. 2.2A).

The most abundant beach dwellers of the Georgia coast are amphipods, generally

overlooked because of their small size. Seven species of these tiny crustaceans

live i2 foreshore sediments (Croker, 1~67; Dorjes, 1972) and may be as dense as

1000/m . These organisms dwell only in the uppermost layers of sediment; they

effectively disturb primary laminae, although on a microscale, a process we term

11 cryptobioturbation" {cf. Fig. 18; Frey and Howard, 1969, Pl. 3, Fig. 2; Howard

and Elders, 1970; Howard, 1971). Mole crabs such as Lepidopa websteri and

I n

Emerita talpoida may cause comparable bioturbation on a macroscale (Frey and

i
L

Howard, 1972).

Backshore

The backshore dips much less than the foreshore, and typically is about 30m

wide. In contrast to the smooth, wave and swash-planed surface of the foreshore,

the backshore commonly possesses a variety of irregular structures. Sand is

delivered by surf action during higher than normal tides, and accumulations sub-

sequently are modified and.reworked to some extent by wind. Beach drift trapped

in the backshore presents diverse obstacles to erosional and depositonal processes.

In addition to normal marine flotsam, more or less unpredictable in composition,

the drift commonly contains abundant coarse stalks of the marsh grass Spartina

and scattered mollusc shells. The ltter are larger than those of the foreshore;

i J

whereas small shells tend to lodge on the beach slope immediately landward of a

runnel, the surf regime sorts large shells and moves them farther up the beach,

88

Fig. 18.

Amphipod cryptobioturbationin Pleistocene backshore sediments, St. Marys River, Florida, identical with present-day examples from Georgia coast. Otherwise sharp heavy-mineral laminae become blurred by repeated minature disruptions (A), and may be virtually obliterated (B). Circular crosssection of inclined ghost crab burrow in (A). (Adapted from Frey and Mayou, 1971.)

eventually into the backshore. Similarly, heavy-mineral concentrations commonly are left on the backshore surface, as the lighter fraction is carried to dunes by wind. Thus, backshore sediments are much less homogeneous in appearance than are foreshore sediments.
Sedimentary structures are diverse. Wave- and current-formed ripples may occur where water is constricted or stranded in berm ponds. If the backshore is left exposed to wind conditions for several days, it becomes highly sculpted, having a variable surface consisting of wind ripples, small-scale blowouts, and wind shadows or miniature sand dunes around various items of beach drift. Because of the irregular surface, sets of wind- and water-formed laminae may dip in virtually

89

any direction and are complexly truncated by other sets (cf. Fig. 18A). Individual sets are of limited lateral extent. Wind ripples typically have coarser sediments on crests than in troughs. Yet such surficial features are seldom preserved; when surf waters cover the backshore during spring or storm tides, erosion and reworking produce a planed surface and well-laminated, generally seaward dipping sets (cf. Fig. 18B). Backshore sediments along the Georgia coast nowhere show the consistent homogeneity of foreshore sediments, however; irregularities in laminae invariably are discernible. Heavy-mineral laminae in the backshore also are much more prominent than in the foreshore, because of wind-proquced mineral separation; in the foreshore, heavies are more uniformly distributed throughout the sand.
Except for local shell concentrations at the toe of dunes, shell lenses or layers are absent in the backshore. Although much less abundant here than in the foreshore, shells are larger and more obvious, especially those of the gastropods Polinices duplicatus, Busycon carica, and~- canaliculatum, and bivalves Anadara brasiliana, A. ovalis, Crassostrea virginica,"Cyrtopleuracostata, Dinocardium robustum, Dosinia discus, and Raeta plicatella.
Burrows of Callianassa major are absent in the backshore, because this area is so seldom covered by water. In their place are unlined, commonly J-shaped burrows of the ghost crab Ocypode quadrata (Fig. 16), a beach scavenger. Most burrows are 0. 5 m or 1ess in depth, but may be. as much as 1 m (Frey and Mayou, 1971) , and have been observed in Pleistocene deposits (Fig. 18A). During burrow excavation, the crabs deposit large, incohesive pellets of sand on the beach surface. Abundant tracks and trails attest to their mobility while foraging. Burrows of insects also are found commonly in the backshore; most are unlined, straight, narrow burrows 10 to 20 em long (Frey and Howard, 1969, Pl. 2, Fig. 5).
Perhaps surprisingly, amphipod cryptobioturbation is more obvious in backshore than in foreshore sediments, despite the infrequency of tidal inundation. However, these fully aquatic animals do not ordinarily live there. During spring or storm tides, they migrate in with surf, from the foreshore. Bioturbate textures so formed are observed equally in Holocene and Pleistocene backshore sediments (Fig. 18).

Dunes

A row of dunes typically 0.5 to 2 m high, but in places as much as 6 m high, marks the landward edge of the beach. With rare exception, the only depositional agent here is wind. Saltation of sand across dunes occurs almost continuously, although dune positions become somewhat stabilized by plants. Low areas between dunes occasionally are subjected to unusually high waters associated with spring
tides or strong onshore winds, and the dunes themselves may be undermined by surf or destroyed by barrier washover.

With diminution or termination of storm conditions, normal processes tend to restore the beach-dune equilibrium profile. However, small pioneer dunes formed during relatively low-energy conditions of summer may be destroyed during higher energy conditions of autumn (cf. Fig. 35).

Three charac(teristic stages in dune healing or rec)over(y)from destruction have

i"

been recognized Oertel, 1974; Oertel and Larsen, 1976: .1 straw dunes--small,

I ;l

90
u -

isolated, initial dunes formed by sediment trapping around accumulated dead stalks of the marsh grass Spartina alterniflora, more or less in the geographic position of the uppermost backshore, colonized primarily by the saltwort Salsola kali and the spike grass Distichlis spicata; (2) foredunes--intermediate dunes bu~by accretion not only upon straw dunes but also laterally through continued sediment trapping and binding by the beach hogwart Croton punctatus, the bitter panicgrass Panicum amarulum, the salt meadow cordgrass Spartina patens, and other plants; and (3) primary dune ridges--final, more or less continuous large dunes developed through coalescence of foredune growths, chiefly vegetated by the sea oat Uniola
paniculata.

Under conditions of beach-dune progradation, two or more dune ridges may be
present. The more landward of these tend to be vegetated by large bushes, such as the wax-myrtle Myrica cerifera, or even trees. Intervening troughs, or dune slacks, are colonized by .the sandbur Cenchrus pauciflorus and species of the woody vine Smilax. Several other plants also may be present (Johnson et ~., 1974).

Wave action on the seaward side of dunes, and wind erosion on the landward

side, sometimes produce excellent exposures of detailed dune lamination. Dune

slip faces are either undulatory or convex leeward. Most are formed by prevailing

dry winds, 8 to 18 mph (Beaufort 3-4) on the Georgia coast; storm winds usually

are accompanied by rain, which destroys the faces. Characteristics subaerial

depositior. and erosion yield wedge-shaped sets of laminae, or planar-cuneiform

beds, that dip from zero to 420 (Land, 1964). Sets of heavy-mineral laminae, up

to 10 em thick, rarely are traceable more than 3 m laterally. Dip angles seem

to be controlled in part by the type of vegetation prevalent at the time of slip-

face development (Oertel and Larsen, 1976); low foredunes with short grasses have

dips less than 10 but higher ones with bushy plants dip 10 to 15, and dune ridges

I !

with tall grasses have dips greater than 25.

Physical slump structures occur locally in Georgia dune deposits. Some

involve displaced clasts of laminated sediment more than 50 em long. Such blocks

slump downdune faces oversteepened by wind or surf erosion, and may be reincorporated

in the deposit during subsequent dune recovery. Others involve collapse of ghost

I I

crab burrows (cf. Fig. 16); these burrows may appear as much as 0.4 km inland

from the beach--.

Dune stratification is modified to some extent by plant roots and animal bioturbation. Burrowing is less intense here than in the foreshore or backshore; but in addition to ghost crabs, insect burrows and occasional burrows of rabbits and moles are seen. Other terrestrial animals may be present (Johnson et al., 1974). On prominent older beach ridges, plant roots obliterate virtually all sedimentary structures and replace them with a vague mottling. Severe leaching of heavy minerals such as hornblende also diminishes the distinctiveness of dune cross-
stratification in local Pleistocene deposits.

Washover Fans
Washover fans occur at numerous places on the Georgia coast (Fig. 19). Fans form initially in response to storms but may continue to develop after storms have passed. Similarly, most storm-induced fans flood only during spring tides, yet some remain active daily. Water depths on fan surfaces during washover rarely exceed 30 em.

91

TYBJ:E TYBEE

ST CATHERINES

BLACK8EARD

0

5 10 15 20

Kilometers

ST. SIMONS

Fig. 19.

Location of major barrier washovers on Georgia coast. Closely spaced arrows on north end of St. Catherines Island indicate group of coalesced washover fans. Exc.luded from bottom of map at St. Simons, Jekyll, and Cumberland Islands, areas of less washover activity. (Adapted from Deery and Howard, 1977.).

Fans tend to be associated with one or more of three distinctive coastal features: (1) shoals-- all fans lie withi,n 2 km of major shoal systems, and most are much closer; (2) mud outcrops on adjacent beaches -- relict marsh deposits exposed by beach erosion, discussed subsequently; and (3) spits -- much washover activity may be correlated with southward progradation of spits. Sediments nourishing fans are derived from shoals, spits, the shoreface, and local and updrift beaches and dunes. All washovers have essentially the same surface morphology and physical and biogenic sedimentary structures, divisable into active and pass.ive phases of activfty (Deery and Howard, 1977).
,.
u

92
r., -

Active Phase Structures

Active phase structures are formed during actual washover, at which time
biogenic processes are minimal. In addition to the following structures, smallscale antidunes form (but evidently are not preserved) and convolute bedding occurs
rarely.

(1) Subhorizontal stratification--parallel, gently landward dipping sand laminae,
1 to 2 mm thick, imparted by alternating layers of different grain size, heavy mineral concentrations, or both; formed during maximum washover.

(2) Ripple lamination--small-scale crossbedding, composed of ripples 2 to 5 em high; ripple layers range from about 1 to 10 em in thickness and average 3 em; formed by low-velocity currents across fan surface or, where waters are ponded, by wind-
waves.

(3) Foreset lamination--planar foreset crossbedding in tabular sets 1 to 5 mm thick;

sets and cosets are up to 50 em thick and dip landward at angles up to 300; developed

along advancing edge of fan, especially when prograding over marsh surfaces flooded

,_,.

by sluggish tidal waters.

(4) Trough crossbedding--trough-shaped sets consisting of elongated scours filled with curved laminae that plunge down-current; form in bars developed among large washover channels; lenses of medium-grained sand, up to 5 mm thick, may be enclosed within troughs but pinch out abruptly.

Passive Phase Structures
Passive phase structures are formed during periods of relative quiescence. Fan surfaces become dry, except during rains or ti-dal flooding from landward marshes, and aeolian and biogenic processes become increasingly important. In addition to the following features, thin surficial sheets of windblown sand and marginal "levees," formed throu1gh trapping of wi ndb1own sand by the marsh grass Sparti na alterniflora, occur infrequently. Levees inhibit tidal flooding from marshes.
(1) aeolian dunes -- sets of crossbeds having dip angles up to 30, occurring at boundary between backshore and washover fan; potential nucleus for new dune ridge.
(2) wind ripples -- ripples less than 5 em high, having coarser sediments on crests than in troughs; typically associated with aeolian dunes.
(3) blowouts -- depressions typically less than 10 em deep, formed by wind erosion; form in gaps between dunes.
(4) climbing ripple lamination -- local small-scale crossbedding on distal margins of fans; form from thin veneers of loose, windblown sands during periods of heavy rainfall and surface runoff.
(5) biogenic sedimentary structures -- burrowing, bioturbation, and root mottling by abundant organisms, especially the fiddler crab Uca pugilator, but also the

93

ghost crab Ocypode guadrata, mole crickets and other insects, and various marsh grasses, principally Spartina alterniflora (Frey and Howard, 1969; Frey and Mayou, 1971; Edwards ahd Frey, 1977; Deery and Howard, 1977). In inactive or slightly active fans, the result is gradual obliteration of physical sedimentary structures and conversion of deposits to vegetated salt marsh sands.
Washover Fan Facies Georgia washover fans may be divided into three main facies (Fig. 20):
(1) beach, (2) main fan, and (3) marginal fan. Boundaries are gradational, and

I I I I .I
I I
I
I I I I

i!l] MARSH

oliiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiii~5~o~~~Joo
METERS

MARSH SEDIMENT
D BEACH I WASH OVER
~ ~ DUNE SEDIMENT

Fig. 20. Schematic diagram of Georgia washover fan geom~try, major facies, and relationship to adjacent environments. (From Deery and Howard, 1977.)

94

\_ "

subfacies may be distinguished. Beach facies include attached shoals; the latter consist of clean, fine- and medium-grained sands and subhorizontal stratification, trough and planar crossbedding, and asymmetrical ripple lamination. Beaches are erosional and thus differ in profile and process from those described previously; the backshore essentially is absent, and dunes, if present, are small and discontinuous. Relict salt marsh muds typically crop out in such places. The main fan facies consists of three subfacies:
(1) washover channel subfacies -- aeolian dunes and channels between them. Dunes are 1 m or less in height and are irregular; washover channels develop in intervening gaps. Slight meanders may develop. The sedimentary sequence consists of trough crossbedding overlain by current-ripple lamination, in turn overlain by subhorizontal stratification.
(2) central fan subfacies -- central part of fan, areally the most extensive subfaices; typically a flat, sparsely vegetated plain having surface channels developed by rainfall runoff. Subhorizontal stratification is dominant, although ripple lamination and planar crossbedding may be present.
(3) distal fan subfacies -- all areas that border on or grade into other facies; surface somewhat similar to that of central fan subfacies, although small channels result mostly from tidal flooding from adjacent salt marsh. Tidal currents also transport and deposit silt, clay, and organic matter on the fan, thus enhancing sediment accumulation and producing a transitional marsh boundary. Physical structures are dominated by subhorizontal stratification. Ripple lamination, formed by both marine overwash and rainfall runoff and foreset lamination may be present. Bioturbation is intense and tends to destroy physical structures.
The marginal fan facies (Fig. 20) includes adjacent marshes and other marginal areas, such as relict beach ridges. The former is essentially a high-marsh facies, described subsequently. Other marginal areas also tend to remain discernible as separate facies.
Collectively, washover fan facies (Fig. 20) comprise a lobate deposit, wedgeshaped in cross-section, thinning landward from the beach to the marsh, its long axis normal to the coastline. If the coast remains stable and the fan inactive, the beach ridge is reestablished and dunes may form on the central fan; marshes established at fan margins gradually incorporate fan sediments. If slight subsidence occurs, the marsh quickly encroaches upon and reclaims areas lost to washovers. If subsidence is continuous and fairly rapid, however, the fan will be preserved beneath a cover of marsh sediment.
Beach-Related Tidal Flats
Although tidal flats ordi~arily are considered to be back-barrier facies, they may occur in beach-like locations wherever wave and current energy are reduced. The most common locations on the Georgia coast are beach zones protected either by inlet shoals or spits. Examples include Nannygoat and Cabretta tidal flats near Sapelo Island (Howard and Dorjes, 1972). Nannygoat flat occurs in a small protected bight where the beach recurves into Dobey Sound, and Cabretta flat occurs in the lee of shoals and a spit prograding southward from Blackbeard Island (Fig. 10, 11).
95

Sediment Textures
Because of the water circulation system in Doboy Sound and adjacent inlet shoals, sediment-laden waters rich in organics stall within a beach reentrant at high tide, permitting settlement of considerable fine detritus on Nannygoat flat. Muds so derived commonly comprise 5 to 10 percent of the sediment and may range as high as 16 percent. Such sediments provide nutrition for abundant organisms which, in turn, produce copious fecal pellets and pseudofeces that also become incorporated within the substrate (Pryor, 1975). The remainder of sediment is predominantly fine- to medium-grained sand derived from adjacent beaches.
Cabretta flat sediments, in contrast, contain only 0.5 to 1.5 percent mud. The remainder is fine- to medium-grained sand like that of adjoining beaches. Heavy minerals are somewhat more common than in Nannygoat flat.
Physical Sedimentary Structures
Surficial features on Nannygoat flat consist chiefly of ripple marks having amplitudes of 1.5 to 3.0 em and wave lengths of 4 to 6 em. Ripples are oriented with respect to dominant wave energy. Nearly all troughs are filled with fecal materials and organic detritus, the latter derived from salt marsh plants. Internal structures of ripple lamination reveal both onshore and offshore dip directions, although onshore directions predominante. Rising tides and onshore currents help create ripples, and falling tides truncate or otherwise modify them. In the subsurface, however, most ripple lamination is destroyed by bioturbation.
The surface of Cabretta flat also is characterized by ripple marks, but these typically lack trough accumulations of fecal pellets and organic detritus. Ripples are formed by waves during high tide and currents draining large troughs during low tide. Thus, ripple crests in higher parts of the flat ordinarily parallel the shoreline, whereas cusp ripples in lower parts reflect the direction of ebb flow. As in Nannygoat flat, subsurface sediments are intensely bioturbated; little physical stratification is preserved.
Biogenic Sedimentary Structures
In the low-energy setting of both flats, biogenic processes greatly predominate over physical ones. Burrows and bioturbate textures thus constitute the preserved record of these tidal flat deposits. Distinctive burrows of small animals such as the clam Donax variabilis may be present in incredible numbers (Frey, 1975, Fig. 2.10). Differences between ichnofaunas (Fig. 21A,B) reflect subtle differences between energy levels and mud content of the two flats, e.g., Callianassa biformis in
Nannygoat muddy sands and f. major in cleaner Cabretta sands. Another characteristic
structure, especially on Nannygoat, are holes made by sting rays while foraging on polychaetes and other animals (Fig. 22). Animals in exposed, higher energy parts of the flats are like those in adjacent beaches or shoals (Dorjes, 1972).
, n
I
~ i
96

[_

\0 '.J

Fig. 21.

Animals, burrows, and dwelling tubes characteristic of beach-related tidal flats. (A) Nannygoat.
(B) Cabretta. Ap =mole crab Albunea pareti. Ba = enteropneust Balanoglossus sp. Bp = amphipod Bathyporeia sp. Ca = shrimp Callianassa biformis. Cm =f. major. De= polychaete Diopatra cuprea.
Hf = polychaete Heteromastus filiformis. Ma = polychaete Magelone sp. Ml = bivalve Mulinia lateralis.
Nv = gastropod Nassarius vibex. Oa = shrimp Ogyrides alphaerostris. Om= polychaete Onuphis microcephala. Os = gastropod Oliva sayana. Pc = commensal crab Pinnixa chaetopterana. Sb = polychaete Spiophanes
bombyx. (From Howard and Dorjes, 1972.)

Fig. 22. Sting ray hydraulically excavating sediments in search of prey; fragmented worm tubes, such as those of Onuphis, litter foreground. (From Howard et ~-, 1977.)

Facies Settings
If preserved in the rock record, both flats would be represented by lenses or thin wedges of bioturbated sand pinching out against, or partially incorporated within, normal beach sequences. Nannygoat flat might intervene between underlying estuarine sediments and overlying bea.ch deposits. Cabretta flat. might grade laterally into shoal or spit sediments.

Relict Salt Marsh Deposits

Erosional beaches are abundant on the Ge.org'ia coast, especially in areas of barrier washover (Fig. 19), and many reveal old salt.marsh muds formerly overlain by beach sands (Frey and Howard, 1969; Howard et al., 1973; Morris and Rollins, 1977). Mollusc shells from relict marshes on Cabretta Island (Fig. 23) yielded radiocarbon dates of 500 to 1000 yr BP. Because salt marshes require low-energy (back-barrier) conditions for development, presence of relict marshes on present beaches indicates that Holocene barriers formerly lay farther seaward. The present landward retreat of beaches is related partly to storm incidence but mainly to rising sea level (Hicks and Crosby, 1974).

Exhumed marsh deposits are of special interest because they permit examination-~

in outcrop fashion--of typical Holocene marsh deposits. At least three marsh sub-

environments are represented by these coherent muds. Plant rootlets and clumps

r

of the oyster Crassostrea virginica--some in growth position and others imbricated

by currents--reflect tidal creek banks grading upward into streamside-levee marshes

(see Fig. 32). Clusters of the mussel Geukensia demissa and stems of the grass

r -
'I
I
\;:
98

1.0 1.0
Fig. 23. Relict salt marsh muds exposed by beach erosion, Cabretta Island. (Photo by P.B. Basan.)

Spartina alterniflora, both in growth position, indicate normal marsh conditions-possibly both the back-levee low marsh and the shoft-Spartina high marsh. Overlying sandy sediments and stems of the grass Salicornia and the rush Juncus .represent high-marsh subenvironments. As in modern marshes, bioturbation by animals and plant roots has destroyed virtually all stratification.
Another significant aspect of these muds is that their exposure places a firm, very fine-grained substrate in the surf zone--the Glossifungites ichnofacies (Frey and Seilacher, 1980, Table 4)--now occupied by boring pholads such as Petricola holadiformis and Cyrtopleura costata (Frey and Howard, 1969; Morris and Rollins, 1977 . Relict burrows of the fiddler crab Uca pugnax are being reexcavated by present-day crabs of the same species, which venture onto the deposits. Scattered marine bivalves (e.g., TaJelus divisus, Mercenaria mercenaria) and polychaetes (Diopatra cuprea, Polydora sp. that presently exploit the muds do not live in salt marshes per se. Shells of modern beach to offshore animals wash onto and lodge within surface irregularities on the outcrop. The overall result is a strange mixture of burrows and shells (Frey, 1969). Bioerosion by borers speeds up breakdown and removal of old marsh deposits; mud balls found on adjacent beaches are derived from such outcrops.
ESTUARIES
Back-barrier environments are extensive on the Georgia coast (Fig. 1). More important ones include estuarine channels, channel banks, point bars, tidal flats, and salt marshes. All are intimately related parts of the estuarine system, as are inlet shoals (Fig. 15). For convenience of discussion, however, each is treated essentiallY as a separate entity. Hydrography, the principal common denominator, is included here.
All channelized back-barrier bodies of water on the Georgia coast are termed 11 estuaries 11 (Howard and Frey, 1975a). Riverine estuaries, having true rivers at their heads, include Savannah, Ossabaw, Altamaha, St. Andrews, and St. Marys Sounds, whereas salt marsh estuaries, consisting mainly of tidal waters, include Wassaw, St. Catherines, Sapelo, Doboy, and St. Simons Sounds (Fig. 24). Among riverine estuaries, another distinction of sedimentologic importance is whether the river originates in the Piedmont Province (igneous and metamorphic rocks) or the Atlantic Coastal Plain (sedimentary rocks). Only the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers head in the Piedmont.
Hydrography
Although back-barrier depositional environments usually are considered to be 11 protected., 11 the term must be viewed in the context of beach-shoreface wave energy rather than total energy. Except where fetch is sufficient to generate substantial wind-waves during squalls, wave energy is reduced in back-barrier environments. Yet current energy tends to be much stronger here than on the nearshore shelf. The strongest interactions between waves and currents occur in the vicinity of inlet shoals (Fig. 15).
Small tidal drainageways, in places extremely dense, are characteristic of the estuarine system (Howard and Frey, 1980a, Fig. 6.4). Because this vast back-barrier
100

Sf Marys Entrance

10

10

20

20 mi 30 Km

Fig. 24. Distribution of major estuaries on Georgia coast. (Adapted from Howard and Frey, 1975a.)
area (1,555 km2) is predominantly intertidal, the role of intricate drainages is substantial (Wadsworth, 1980). Tidal streams typically are contained within natural levees; waters that flood the marsh move along progressively smaller channels, which ultimately dissipate on the marsh surface.
Tidal current velocities seldom exceed 10 em/sec on the marsh surface, and flood currents seem to predominate over ebb currents (Letzsch and Frey, 1980b). In contrast, current velocities are much greater in adjacent creeks and larger tidal streams, and ebb currents predominate over flood currents. In a salt marsh

101

estuary near Sapelo Island (Zarillo,_1979), maximum ebb-current velocities are about 130 em/sec and maximum flood-current_velocities are about 100 em/sec.

Flood dominance of tidal currents on the marsh surface is perhaps related to channelization of water during most of flood tide and 11 sudden 11 debouching through drainage headwaters, and (or) pronounced hydraulic pressure exerted upon
the marsh by the full force of the estuarine flood. Ebb dominance of tidal currents in creek and estuary channels evidently results from inefficient drainage of water from adjacent marshes (Zarillo, 1979). During initial ebb, frictional drag of
marsh grasses helps retard flow of water, whereas ebb flow in nearby channels is relatively efficient. The result is an enhancement of the ebb slope or pressure gradient, which causes rapid acceleration of currents. Peak currents otcur early in the ebb, just after maximum high tide.

Depths of main estuary channels average 13 to 18 m and become progressively

less in smaller tributaries; in the smallest drainages, channels lie completely

exposed at low tide. Scour holes, present at nearly every interval of the drainage

hierarchy, occur at estuary entrances (Fig. 15) and where tributaries join the

next larger channel.

Even

in

creeks

dry 11

11

at

low

tide,

ponding

of

water

typically

occurs in scours as deep as 1 m at tributary junctions.

Sediment Textures and Physical Sedimentary Structures
Estuarine sediments consist dominantly of fine sand and mud but also contain significant amounts of medium and coarse sand, and even granules and pebbles (Howard and Frey, 1973, 1975b, 1980a). Coarse sands and gravels are relict in that they originally were deposited during Pleistocene time. Locally, however, present-day estuarine currents are sufficient to rework these sediments. Most deposits, regardless of texture, are oriented with ebb rather than flood tides.
The type of estuary, and whether piedmont or coastal plain rivers are involved, has a bearing on sediment distributions; yet local sediment sources and hydrographic regimes modify these patterns substantially (Table 1). Predominant textures are indicated below.

Coarse and Medium Sand

Clan, coarse- and meqium-grained sands are found mainly in the Altamaha River and Sound and the landward part of the Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound estuaries. Coarse sand typically occurs in megaripples having graded sets; locally, sands
comprise planar crossbeds. Most crossbedded sands lack bioturbate textures, and even distinctive biogenic sedimentary structures are rare. Mud occasionally is
found in association with medium and coarse sand; these sediments ordinarily are
highly bioturbated, occur in the lower part of the estuary, and presumably reflect introduction of coarse sand into a muddy area during river flood. Organisms that
prefer muddy substrates survived, or else reoccupied the sediments after cessation of flooding.

Coarse, clean sands also are found locally in all salt marsh estuaries; Sapelo

Sound is characterized by such sediments in its upper reaches (Table 1). These

~--

r ,

102

\ "

Table 1. Major Characteristics of Georgia Estuarine Sediments. (Based upon box cores: Visher and Howard, 1974; Dorjes and Howard, 1975; Mayou and Howard, 1975; Howard and Frey, 1975b.)

A--RIVERINE ESTUARIES

Piedmont Rivers

Savannah River and Sound: no box cores taken because of dredged shipping channels; dams and reservoirs on river. Abundant mud and muddy sand in lower reaches (see
references cited by Biggs, 1978). Altamaha River and Sound: sound mouth literally choked with coarse sand. Dominated
by coarse, graded, trough-crossbedded sand, alternating in lower reaches with coarse sand, muddy coarse sand, ripple-laminated to bioturbated muddy fine sand, and laminated to wavy interbedded mud and sand. Shells and mud clasts common locally.

Coastal Plain Rivers

Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound (Fig. 28): medium to coarse, graded, trough-crossbedded

sand, locally shelly or gravely or with mud clasts, in upper and middle reaches,

alternating with ripple-laminated fine sand, interbedded mud and sand, and bioturbated

muddy fine sand, locally shell, in lower reaches.

Satilla River-St. Andrews Sound (Fig. 26): coarse sand to graded, trough-crossbedded

coarse sand and bare bedrock in upper part; laminated mud to interbedded wavy, lenti-

cular, and flaser muds and sands and local mud clasts through most of estuary; bio-

turbated muddy fine sand in seaward end .

St. Marys River and Sound: sediment-starved river originating in Okefenokee Swamp;

bare bedrock in numerous places. Sediments dominated by coarse sand derived from

Pleistocene sources, commonly graded or ungraded and trough-crossbedded; local flasers,

mud drapes, mud clasts, and ripple-laminated to bioturbated muddy fine sand, most

common in lower reaches.



B--SALT MARSH ESTUARIES

Wilmington River-Wassaw Sound: laminated to wavy and lenticular bedded mud and sand in upper reaches; bioturbated muddy fine sand and shells in middle reaches; ripplelaminated fine sand and graded, medium to coarse, trough-crossbedded shelly sand in lower reaches.
Midway River-St. Catherines Sound: dominated thro~ghout by bioturbated muddy fine sands, locally gravelly in upper and middle reaches; coarse, graded, planar and trough-
crossbedded sands near Pleistocene sources. South Newport and Sapelo Rivers-Sapelo Sound: coarse, graded, trough-crossbedded,
locally gravelly sand in upper one-half, derived from Pleistocene sources; bioturbated, locally pebbly or shelly, muddy fine sand in lower one-half. Bare bedrock in scour holes near entrance.
Deboy Sound (Fig. 25): muddiest estuary on Georgia coast. Dominated by laminated mud, lenticular and wavy bedded sand and mud, and bioturbated muddy fine sand,
alternating locally with laminated to ripple-laminated fine sand and coarse, trough-
crossbedded sand. Local shells, pebbles, and mud clasts. Turtle River- St. Simons Sound: most sediment-starved estuary on Georgia coast; bedrock exposed over broad areas. Sediments present dominated by shelly coarse sand, troughcrossbedded locally.

103

These sands are derived from erosion of Pleistocene barrier island and channelfill remnants within the estuary. Thus, even in closed estuaries, coarse sediment may be an important compon~nt.
Fine Sand and Mud
The most abundant sediment texture-structure type in Georgia estuaries consists of interbedded fine sand and mud, in the continuum described by Reineck and Wunderlich (1968). Flaser, wavy, and lenticular bedding, although not restricted to tidal flats or estuaries, commonly result from some type of tidal influence and associated fluctuation of energy.
Where interbedded sand and mud is present, a gradual decrease in mud occurs from the deepest part of the channel toward the shallow margins, together with a change in physical sedimentary structures from laminated mud, having very thin sand laminae, to lenticular, wavy, and flaser bedding. Relative percentages of structures, especially end members, vary with the specific estuary in which they are found. For instance, Doboy Sound (Fig. 25) has abundant muddy sediment; the deeper channel is characterized by laminated mud having thin sand laminae and relatively little flaser bedding. St. Andrews Sound (Fig. 26), the estuary of a sand-choked river, contains little laminated mud whereas flaser bedding is abundant.
The increase in sand: mud ratios from deep to shallow estuarine waters results from interrelationships of current, suspended sediment, and depth. Many mud layers and lenses originate as fecal pellets and pseudofeces rather than as discrete or flocculated particles of clay.
Shells and Shell Fragments
Although molluscs and other producers of skeletal carbonate are common in many Georgia estuaries, distinctive shell beds are not (e.g., Fig. 25, 26). The greatest accumulations of shells and shell fragments occur as lag concentrates in scour holes at large tidal stream confluences and in estuary entrances (Fig. 15; Frey et al., 1975); erosion has reached Tertiary bedrock, freeing abundant fossils and mixing them with reworked Pleistocene fossils and contemporary shells. Aside from scour holes, significant accumulations of shells, also mixed temporally and environmentally, are found in Wilmington River-Wassaw Sound and Turtle River-St. Simons Sound estuaries. "
Biogenic Sedimentary Structures
More than 250 species of benthic macroinvertebrates have been reported from Georgia estuaries (Howard and Frey, 1975a). Principal producers of biogenic structures are polychaetes, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Many species occur in both subtidal and intertidal environments, although most exhibit characteristic habitat distributions according to salinity, energy levels, substrate characteristics, and food supply.
Burrows and Bioturbation
The most pervasive individual lebensspuren in Georgia estuaries are feeding structures produced by polychaetes, especially capitellids (Fig. 27C,E,H). Vertical
104

I

lli~m )~.~

li.l'

.... ~ 10 10

~

1~" !~3~.-I~ I.. ~~~ ~~ num~

r--~:-_

~'i\

23 't0
21 22

' ...

~ - 1'Ii?!!lJll, ~~ ~

coarse sand

L 1 -8 -~.2~ ,:-.~ I~.
liI .;,. . ' . ' . I I~ -~- I ~~~ ~ I" I~-.----~ ----0-r

19
. ..., )

13~

~ 12

11

91

16~ ;~~ ~ ~)LI ~' I I II

I -.~ ~ 7

,__.,;;~

w . . ~/ ~~~.1'''"' '.

,--~~..

6

.

2

I :

fine sand muddy sand mud I rough crossbedded sand laminated sand ripple laminafed sand flaser bedding wavy bedding lenticular bedding laminated mud <helh

1-'
0
(J1

~~ ~-~~ ''-,'\;

l ~~ ~ I . 1113 1 "' ~~ ..J, /'

y

12 n.r:..

M

u_u l1. GJ...

4~3-~ ~ r~.m , 1Im. 5eIli ~-~

111

;EJ 1iil

% bioturbation
0 trace
<30 30-60

60-90

iJ 12 ~ wit ~ i J

~,.. -~

90-99 100

11111 .~ 1I1 I m~ ' E= l -

~

.;;

liiil ~

111-li

0

U20 40

box co.e scale

60 em

Fig. 25. Graphic summary of box-core data from Doboy Sound, a salt marsh estuary; muddiest estuary on coast. (From Mayou and Howard, 1975.)

% bi?turbation
0 trace
<30 30-60 60-90 90-99 100

M bedrock or L.J no core

I-'
0 0'\
Sati/la
River

~~0 40

box core scale

60 em

S t Andrew Sound

1

0

1

2

3

4-

5 nautical miles

0

2

4

6

8

10 Kilometers

coarse sand fine sand muddy fine sand muddy coarse sand mud marly clay trough crossbedded sand crossbedding with mud flasers graded trough crossbedding graded planar crossbedding ripple .laminated sand !laser bedding wavy bedding laminated sand and mud lenticular bedding laminated mud convolute bedding shells shell fragments pebbles mud clasts sand clasts rock fragments plant fragments sand-filled burrows. shell-filled burrows brittle stars_

Fig. 26. Graphic summary of box-core data from Satilla River-St. Andrews Sound, a riverine estuary; contains abundant fine sand. (Adapted from Howard and Frey, 1975b.)

"'

/":'~~..
A E

c
D

j G I

fl

Fig. 27.

Selected examples of estuarine burrows and tubes. Not to scale. (A) Mantis
shrimp Sguilla jmpusa. (B-I) Polychaetes. (B) Arabella sp. (C) Heteromastus filiformis. (D Spiochaetopterus oculatus. (E) Such burrows are made by Prionospio and Capitomastus species. (F) Such burrows are made by Glycera, Nephthys, Scoloplos, and Sthenelais species. (G) Such burrows are made by Magelona and Scolecolepides species. (H) Notomastus sp. (I) Onuphis eremita. (Adapted from Howard and Frey, 1975b.)

cylindrical dwelling tubes of the polychaetes Onuphis microcephala, Q. eremita, and
Diopatra cuprea also are abundant. Large ramifying burrows are made by the shrimp Upogebia affinis, Callianssa major,~- biformis, and Alpheus heterochaelis, and the stomatopod Sguilla empusa (Fig. 27A). Holes excavated by rays (Fig. 22) are common locally and have been observed in Pleistocene and older rocks as well (Howard et al., 1977). These and numerous other animal traces and habitat distributions were----
described by Howard and Frey (1973, 1975b, 1980a), Mayou and Howard (1975), and Dorjes and Howard (1975).

107

Biogenic reworking of sediment ranges in intensity from isolated burrow penetrations (Fig. 27) to total derangement of sediment fabrics. Cryptobioturbation by amphipods, mentioned previously, and 11 Smearing 11 of sediments by brittle stars are the only forms of intense biotu~bation among Georgia estuaries in which the animals identity remains obvious. Prolonged or continuous bioturbation (Howard and Frey, 1975b, Pl. 13; 1980a, Fig. 6.13) is one of the chief processes by which interbedded mud and sand, or lenticular, wavy, and flaser bedding, is converted to 11 bioturbated muddy fine sand, 11 encountered commonly in estuarine sequences
(Table 1).

Patterns of Bioturbation
Approximately 30 percent of cores taken in Georgia estuaries were either totally bioturbated or contained beds 10 em or more in thickness that were completely bioturbated. As with sediment distributions and physical sedimentary structures (Table 1), one cannot necessarily predict specific gradients or patterns in estuarine bioturbation. Because abundance and diversity of benthic animals tend to increase as salinity increases, a seaward increase in biogenic activity is expected. Although generally true for riverine estuaries (Fig. 26), this pattern does not hold for salt marsh estuaries; in Doboy Sound (Fig. 25), intensity of bioturbation increases in a landward direction.
In the Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound estuary (Fig. 28), bioturbated sediments are most conspicuous in the middle reaches. In the upper reaches, species diversity is low but individuals are abundant (Dorjes and Howard, 1975, Fig. 8); nevertheless, their activities have left little biogenic record because of coarse grain size and frequent reworking by physical (fluvial-type) processes. In the middle reaches, animal diversity and abundance are low, whereas sediments are thoroughly bioturbated; even though variations in salinity produce stressful conditions for animals, rates of deposition and physical reworking are low relative to the activities of the few animals present. In the lower reaches, animal diversity and abundance are high, yet intensity of bioturbation is variable; here, high-energy conditions associated with the mouth, especially shoaling across an ebb tidal bar, result in physical reworking of much of the biogenic record even though benthic animals are active. Past the bar, under open shelf conditions, abundance and diversity of animals and intensity of bioturbation increase, commensurate with lower energy and inception of the marine environment. Thus, the general concept of increasing bioturbation in a seaward direction is valid; but the circumstances are complex, and important exceptions occur.

Facies Patterns

I

I .

An obvious characteristic of subtidal deposits from Georgia estuaries is the
record of a dynamic environment. Energy levels fluctuate tremendously, and processes of erosion, deposition, and physical and biogenic reworking of sediments are in evidence nearly everywhere. Such processes typically interact with, and thereby modify, one another, and may in turn be modified by sediment supply, palimpsest
versus relict or recent substrates, and depth to bedrock.

In terms of local environmental conditions, most physical and biogenic sedimentary structures (Figs. 25, 28) are rather easily interpreted. However, examinations of estuarine sediments and sedimentary structures ala~~ are not necessarily sufficient to reconstruct the entire geologic setting (Table 1; Howard and Frey, 1973, 1975b,
1980a). For example, (1) the Ogeechee, a coastal plain river, is more like the

108

I '-

........
0 1.0

0

0

2

~ 2 n.mi

4

6 Km

~--

box core Scale
[] ~0 40
60 em

%bioturbation
0
trace
<30 30-60 60-90 90-99 100

coarse sand fine sand muddy fine sand
muddy coarse sand
mud I rough cross bedded sand crossbedding with mud flasers graded trough crossbedding laminated sand ripple laminated sand flaser bedding wavy bedding laminated sand and mud laminated mud she II s shell fragments pebbles mud clasts sand clasts plant ragments

-~rp-~~,;;'5-6_ ~:-~

II
7;

....A. ?.:-

~~

------------------------

Fig. 28. Graphic summary of box-core data from Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound estuary and nearshore shelf. (From Dorjes and Howard, 1975.)

Altamaha, a piedmont river, than other coastal plain rivers; (2) St. Marys River and sound, a coastal plain river, is more like Turtle River-St. Simons Sound, a
salt marsh estuary, than other riverine estuaries; (3) Turtle River-St. Simons Sound, on the other hand, is strikingly unlike Doboy Sound, a similarly configured
salt marsh estuary; and (4) South Newport and Sapelo Rivers-Sapelo Sound, a salt marsh estuary, is more like Altamaha and Ogeechee-Ossabaw riverine estuaries than other salt marsh estuaries.

Except for a slight i1excess 11 of mud, Dobey Sound (Fig. 25) is more typical

of Georgia salt marsh estuaries. The Satilla River-St. Andrews Sound estuary

(Fig. 26) is more representative of coastal plain rivers, and the Altamaha River

and Sound (Visher and Howard, 1974) of piedmont rivers, albeit with a slight 11 excess 11

of sand.



POINT BARS
Point bar deposits lie mainly in the lower to middle part of the intertidal zone, between mean low-water spring and about half-tide level (Frey and Basan, 1978, Fig. 4); subtidal parts grade into estuarine channel deposits. Such bars, in areal view, appear to be the least expansive of all major back-barrier facies. However, their potential contribution to the stratigraphic record far outweighs their apparent restricted distribution at any given moment; they also represent a key facies in documenting ancient offshore-estuarine-intertidal sequences (Howard et ~., 1975; Howard and Frey, 1980b; Frey and Howard, 1980). Of major Georgia estuaries, point bars are perhaps best developed in the Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound area (Fig. 29), although various others have been studied (Land and Hoyt, 1966; Howard et ~., 1973).

Sediment Textures and Subfacies

Most coastal point bars are located in tidal stream or estuary channels that dissect salt marshes (Frey and Howard, 1980, Fig. 7.1). Small bars occur commonly
even within first- or second-order tributaries of intricate dendritic drainages. Predominantly sandy textures of bars contrast strikingly with predominantly muddy textures of adjacent stream banks and salt marshes.

Pleistocene and Holocene barrier island remnants, which supply abundant sediments

to point bars, consist mainly of medium-grained sand; coarse sands occur locally

in Pleistocene deposits. In general, the farther the bar is located from its primary

sand source, the finer the texture of the bar. Other local factors, such as energy

regimes and subfacies differentiation, commonly mask this trend, however (cf.

Table 1).

--

In spite of above generalities, one of the most conspicuous surficial features of point bars is a characteristic variation in texture. Bars typically consist
of two principal subfacies, which divided the bars longitudinally. The channel
(high energy) side is composed primarily of sand containing distinct layers, laminae, or flasers of mud, whereas the marsh (low energy) side is comprised primarily by bioturbated muddy sand containing few or no layers of clean sand (Frey and Howard, 1980, Figs. 7.5, 7.6).

110
\_,..

Altamaha, a piedmont river, than other coastal plain rivers; (2) St. Marys River and sound, a coastal plain river, is more like Turtle River-St. Simons Sound, a salt marsh estuary, then other riverine estuaries; (3) Turtle River-St. Simons Sound, on the other hand, is strikingly unlike Doboy Sound, a similarly configured salt marsh estuary, is more like Altamaha and Ogeechee-Ossabaw riverine estuaries than other salt marsh estuaries.
Except for a slight "excess" of mud, Doboy Sound (Fig. 25) is more typical of Georgia salt marsh estuaries. The Satilla River-St. Andrews Sound estuary (Fig. 26) is more representative of coastal plain rivers, and the Altamaha River and Sound (Visher and Howard, 1974) of piedmont rivers, albeit with a slight "excess" of sand.

POINT BARS

Point bar deposits lie mainly in the lower to middle part of the intertidal

zone, between mean low-water spring and about half-tide level (Frey and Basan,

1978, Fig. 4); subtidal parts grade into estuarine channel deposits. Such bars,

in areal view, appear to be the least expansive of all major back-barrier facies.

However, their potential contribution to the stratigraphic record far outweighs their

apparent restricted distribution at any given moment; they also represent a key

facies in documenting ancient offshore-estuarine-intertidal sequences (Howard et

~ , 1975; Howard and Frey, 1980b; Frey and Howard; 1980). Of major Georgi a -

estuaries, point bars are perhaps best developed in the Ogeechee River-Ossabaw

Sound area (Fig. 29), although various others have been studied (Land and Hoyt,

1966; Howard et ~-, 1973).



Sediment Textures and Subfacies

Most coastal point bars are located in tidal stream or estuary channels that
dissect salt marshes (Frey and Howard, 1980, Fig. 7.1). Small bars occur commonly even within first- or second-order tributaries of intricate dendritic drainages. Predominantly sandy textures of bars contrast strikingly with predominantly muddy textures of adjacent stream banks and salt marshes.

Pleistocene and Holocene barrier island remnants, which supply abundant sediments

to point bars, consist mainly of medium-grained sand; coarse sands occur locally

in Pleistocene deposits. In general, the farther the bar is located from its primary

sand source, the finer the texture of the bar. Other local factors, such as energy

regimes and subfacies differentiation, commonly mask this trend, however (cf.

Table 1).

-

In spite of above generalities, one of the most conspicuous surficial features of point bars is a characteristic variation in texture. Bars typically consist of two principal subfacies, which divided the bars longitudinally. The channel
(high energy) side is composed primarily of sand containing distinct layers, laminae,
or flasers of mud, whereas the marsh (low energy) side is comprised primarily by bioturbated muddy sand containing few or now layers of clean sand (Frey and Howard,
1980, Figs. 7.5, 7.6).

111

-o 20
;!?.

w 0

15

z

<(

~
10

>-

-I-
z
:::;
<(

5

... ...

Vl

5

4

3
w
~~
:JU 2 ~--~
~w
w o..0z
1 ::E<( w ~
I-
3

0

0

2

2 3 n.mi

4

6 Km

Fig. 29. Distribution of point bars in Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound estuary. Salinity, temperature, and topographic profiles given for 5 bars studied by Howard et al. (1975); large elongate bar (tidal flat) immediately east of Bar-1-was studied by Greer (1975).
Currents on the channel side may exceed 1.1 m/sec during early ebb tide. Currents on the marsh side are substantially less; except for current maxima near high-water slack (Zarillo, 1979), these lee waters may remain essentially ponded, permitting settlement of fines and organic detritus from suspension. Substantial quantitites of mud also accumulate or are transported in the form of fecal pellets and pseudofeces.
(;".
I
112

Physical and Biogenic Sedimentary Structures
Four principal types of physical sedimentary structures occur commonly within point bar deposits: (1) trough-type megaripples having amplitudes of 15 to more than 30 em, (2) smaller trough-type cusp ripples superimposed on megaripples, (3) large curving foresets having amplitudes of 70 to more than 100 em, and (4) laminated to cross- or wavy-laminated channel-margin muds. Because of their large size, the curving foresets, formed during migration of the entire bar, are most easily studied in Pleistocene analogs than in present-day channel environments. All four structures consist to some extent of alternating layers, lenses, or stringers of sand and mud, in various combinations.
Internally, megaripples and cusp ripples translate into large-scale troughcrossbedded sand and small-scale ripple laminated sand. The former typically is coarser grained than the latter. As in many subtidal facies, individual cross-sets commonly exhibit graded bedding (Howard and Frey, 1980a, Fig. 6.5). Large-scale crossbeds also may grade upward into ripple laminated sand. Wavy bedded fine sand and mud are common locally. Channel-margin muds are typified by wavy or flaser bedding, much of the mud being derived from fecal pellets. Muds deposited to the lee of swash bars also contain fecal pellet layers, but these are interbedded with fine-grained sand in relatively continuous layers. Cross-stratified deposits typically are ebb oriented rather than flood oriented.
A representative sequence of depositional events on the bars is: (1) initiation of megaripple migration during maximum ebb flow, just past high-water slack, (2) formation of cusp ripples later into the ebb, as currents decelerate, (3) deposition of a small quantity of suspended mud during low-water slack, (4) erosion of ripple and megaripple crests during accelerated flood flow, and (5) deposition of additional suspended mud at high-water slack. Fecal muds, quantitatively more important, are entrained during high-velocity flow but accumulate in cusp and megaripple troughs during reduced flow, as is true of organic detritus derived from salt marsh grasses.
Except for absence of a capping layer of planar bedforms, climbing ripples, or antidunes, the overall estuarine point bar sequence is comparable to that reported from many fluviatile systems (Reineck and Singh, 1975). Because of active channel meanderings, point bar deposits in either system are apt to have wide distribution in the rock record (Howard and Frey, 1980b). The two thus might be confused in ancient settings were it not for their conspiciously different biogenic sedimenta~ structures (Pryor, 1967).
Unlike fluvial systems, animals are diverse and abundant in estuarine point bar deposits (Howard et al., 1975, Tables 1-5), and are responsible for much sediment reworking. In general: the muddy, low-energy subfacies is characterized by bioturbate textures whereas the sandy, high-energy subfacies is characterized by distinct, identifiable lebensspuren (Frey and Howard, 1980, Figs. 7.7, 7.8). Intense bioturbation obliterates planar, wavy, and ripple laminae in many sediments, and homogenizes interbedded sand and mud layers. Distinct lebensspuren occur in bar muds, however, and the cleaner, well-stratified sands may be totally bioturbated on a miniature scale (Cryptobioturbation).
113

Paradoxically, identifiable lebensspuren found here are individually more characteristic of other depositional environments, yet their particular combination makes the resulting assemblage diagnostic of point bar deposits (Frey and Howard, 1969, Table 1; 1980, p. 193). Nowhere else on the Georgia coast are such diverse
lebensspuren brought together in such close juxtaposition. Nevertheless, the point bar distribution of these lebensspuren corresponds essentially to the principal bar subfacies, mud-loving animals such as the shrimp Upogebia affinis (Frey and Howard, 1975) burrowing in the lower energy side of the bar and sand-loving animals such as the shrimp Callianassa major (Frey et ~, 1978) burrowing in the higher energy side.

Variations Among Point Bars
The succession of bars within the Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound system (Fig. 29) provides an excellent example of longitudinal variations within a given estuary. Pronounced differences occur in animal distributions and in physical and biogenic sedimentary structures (Fig. 30). Except for ubiquitous amphipods, animals show a general increase in diversity and abundance seaward, as anticipated; yet, as in associated channels (Fig. 28),, intensity of bioturbation is greatest in the middle reaches of the estuary. Decreased bioturbate textures in the seaward part reflects not a decrease in animal activity but rather the predominance of physical reworking over biogenic reworking of sediments; increased wave and current energy also are recorded here by increased grain sizes and amplitudes of physical sedimentary structures. Decreased bioturbate textures in the upper reaches correspond to decreased salinities, predominance of individually distinctive lebensspuren, and, in the landwardmost bar, inception of stronger currents due to channel constriction combined with local sources of abundant sand.
Thus, one cannot necessarily equate gradients in grain-size distribution, bioturbate textures, and physical and biogenic sedimentary struc,tures directly with landward or seaward directions. Anticipated trends can be modified substantially by local differences in hydrographic regime, sediment supply, and rates of deposition, reworking, and erosion (cf. Table 1).

TIDAL FLATS
A large, flat, intertidal area dissected by tidal streams lies landward of the barrier island complex (Fig. 1). However, most such areas are densely vegetated and hence are termed 11 Salt marshes 11 rather than 11 tidal flats 11 (Frey and Basan, 1978). Unvegetated tidal flats also occur in Georgia estuaries, at about the same hydrographic datum as point bars, but are considerably more restricted in lateral extent than are marshes. These tidal flats range in size and texture from small mud flats (Frey et al., 1975, Pl. 2) to relatively large tracts of sandy mud or muddy sand (Greer: 1975).
Larger flats studied recently includeone in Wassaw Sound (Scott and Howard, 1976) and another in Ossabaw Sound (Fig. 29; Greer, 1975). Both features qualify as tidal flats in the classical sense, not only because they are unvegetated intertidal sequences having gentle, seaward dipping depositional slopes, but also because of diagnostic physical and biogenic sedimentary structures (Reineck and Singh, 1975). Both tidal flats are developed on erosional surfaces and continue to grow as a result of retreating shoreline, related to a gradual rise in sea level (Hicks and Crosby, 1974).

114

\'_-

14 12 10

6

~
u
~ 2

l1'4 t::'~1
5

..

~ ISOPODS
0 DECAPODS
~ AMPHIPODS ~ POLYCHAETES
MOLLUSCS ~~~ NEMERTEANS
__.

4

-

_1. '

40-.

,.,,..,

30 ...~.

A

.o.c-.-.o,.....

20

...U'

Vl
u-UJ

.

UJ a,_

10

....

Vl

5

4000

..



3000 "'E '-...
Vl -'
2000 <(
::::J
-0 >
0 1000 z
-

I-'

J

I-'

(Jl

~

/3

0

1 2

3 n.mi

0

2

4

6 Km

UJ coarse sand

~u

trough crossbedded sand ripple laminated sand

floser bedding

wavy bedding

laminated mud

mud clasls

sandy muddy peat
~core lost

!

~ ~;~~~"f,~-I J(/

~ o%b;otuoboHon :;;
30-60
.60-90
90-99

c-~~ '~at.:,:.:] A /

8

100

Fig. 30. Animal-sediment relationships among point bars in Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound estuary. (A) Abundance

and diversity of major groups of animals. (B) Graphic summary of can-core data. (From Howard et al.,

1975.)

--

Except for swash bars and other features related to higher energy exposure of seaward parts, and coarser sands derived from local Pleistocene sources, animal~ sediment relations of these deposits are rather like those of beach-related tidal flats, described previously (Fig. 21, 22).
CHANNEL BANKS
The only practical difference between large estuary margins and small cre~k banks is size of the associated channel or body of water. Animals, sediments, and physical and biogenic sedimentary structures are essentially the same in both, except as modified by channel depth (subtidal vs. intertidal channel floors) and local hydrographic regime. During flood tide, both are extensions of the contemporaneous estuarine system.
Channel banks have gently to steeply dipping slopes, span the lower to upper part of the intertidal zone--from 1ow-water spring to about mean high-water neap (Frey and Basan, 1978, Fig. 4.)--and grade into stre'amside marshes (see Fig. 32). The facies is deceptively more widespread and important than typical map views of this area would suggest, because of the tremendous abundance of inlets, estuaries~ and tidal drainages (Frey and Howard, 1980, Fig. 7.1; Howard and Frey, 1980a, Fig. 6.4). The lower part of this zone is a continuation of subtidal estuarine facies, discussed previously. The upper part differs, however, as a result of increased subaerial exposure, steeper depositional slopes, and processes of mass wasting (Frey and Basan, 1978).
Sediment Textures Sediment grain size is related close.ly to sediment source and to adjacent marshes or barrier island remnants. Where the latter are trunc~ted by channel migration, channel banks may consist of clean, well-sorted sand. Where flanked by extremely muddy marshes or mud flats, the banks may consist of nearly pure, slurry clay. Sediment textures typically 1ie between these two extremes, however,
consisting of nearly equal mixtures of silt and clay and minor amounts of sand (see
fig. 33).
The only noteworthy exceptions are local accumulations of oyster shells (Crassostrea virginica). This setting constitutes the only Georgia intertidal enwiron~ ment in which coarse carbonate rubble may be deposited in abundance (Wiedemann, 1972; Frey et ~-, 1975; Frey and Howa_rd, 1980). The rubble is most closely associated with live oyster beds but may be redistributed laterally and vertically along the banks.
Physical and Biogenic Sedimentary Structures Most physical sedimentary structures are overprinted with burrow mottles. In the upper part of the intertidal zone these structures are made primarily by marsh decapods (Basan and Frey, 1977) whereas in the lower part they are made by hosts of animals, most of them found subtidally within estuarine sediments as w~ll (Howard and Frey, 1975b).

(."

116

\" ~

Because of channel migration, mass wasting, and stream bank aggradation or degradation, the suite of sedimentary structures is best considered in terms of depositional and erosional sites. On a long-term basis, of course, a given site may change from aggradation to degradation, or vice versa. Channel banks in the uppermost reaches of small tidal drainages are considerably more stable than any discussed below, however, and are subject mainly to intense bioturbation akin to that in salt marshes. Indeed, headwaters regions of these drainages grade directly into the vegetated marsh surface.
Depositional Sites
Stable or accreting sites are characterized especially by slightly to intensely bioturbated, planar to cross-stratified laminae or small-scale wavy and lenticular beds. These structures are analogous to those of adjacent estuarine or point bar deposits. Longitudinal bedding (Reineck and Singh, 1975) may result where marshes and associated channel bank deposits aggrade over point bars, ebb spits, or similar features.
Sparse to massive live oyster beds and dead shell accumulations also occur at stable or accreting sites (Frey and Basan, 1978; Frey and Howard, 1980). In highenergy settings, detrital shells may form a shingled pavement armoring stream banks, or massive 11 levees 11 capping adjacent salt marsh margins (Fig. 31). Such shell deposits are abundant in Wassaw Sound. Boat wakes augment the process, which thus helps prevent subsequent erosion. Preserved oyster beds or extensive shell pavements represent potentially important reference boundaries between estuarine and salt marsh deposits (Edwards and Frey, 1977).
Shapes of individual oyster shells may indicate relative rates of deposition. At stable sites, shells tend to be squat or oval in outline. At accreting sites, they tend to be conspicuously elongated, reflecting the animal's attempt to keep pace with sedimentation. Oyster shells also may be useful in reconstructing the position of the low-tide line; subtidal shells are intensely bored by the sponge Cliona whereas intertidal ones are not (Wiedemann, 1972).
Erosional Sites
Processes operating along unstable banks are considerably more pronounced. Examples include alternate burial and exposure of in-situ oyster beds along the banks, tidal current plucking of mud and sod clasts from the banks and adjacent streamside marshes, small- to intermediate-scale slumping along oversteepened banks, and intense bioerosion by decapods (Frey et al., 1975; Edwards and Frey, 1977; Basan and Frey, 1977; Frey and Basan, 1978; Letzsch and Frey, 1980a). The result is a 11 Chaotic 11 bedding style among unstable channel bank sediments that also constitutes a potentially important reference boundary between estuarine and salt rna rsh deposits.
Rates of slope retreat by these processes, as measured during a 7-yr study of a Sapelo Island marsh, ranged between zero and 720 cm/yr and averaged 29 cm/yr (Letzsch and Frey, 1980a; Letzsch, in prep.). In addition, 25 to 45 percent of the mean stream bank surface was evacuated of sediment through decapod bioerosion; this process also enhances bed roughness, diminishes the shear strength of sediments, helps promote tidal scour and plucking of mud and sod clasts and small-scale slope failures, and releases considerable quantities of sediment back into the depositional
117

A

B

Fig. 31.

Accumulations of oyster shells (Crassostrea virginica) on estuary margin,
Duplin River, Sapelo Island. (A) Shells not only armor bank but also accentuate natural levee along marsh edge. (B) Loose shingling of valves under moderate energy conditions. (C) Tight imbrications at points of high-energy turbulence along bank. (From Howard and Frey, 1980b.)

118

system. The latter undoubtedly accounts for much of the suspended sediment concentrations observed in Georgia estuarine waters (Oertel, 1976).
SALT MARSHES
Of all Georgia intertidal facies, salt marshes are most widespread (Fig. 1).
These vegetated tidal flats are developed high in the intertidal zone, from about mean high-water neap to high-water spring (Frey and Basan, 1978, Fig. 4). The lower boundary, a channel bank (Fig. 32), is abrupt; the upper boundary, a terrestrial zone, may be marked by a low but distinct scarp or may be transitional over a distance of a few meters. The boundary between low and high marshes, also transitional, lies at about mean higher high water (mean annual level of the higher of twice-daily tides).
The upper boundary of salt marshes ordinarily abuts against either the mainland or a Pleistocene or Holocene barrier island remnant. Small, isolated remnants, called "hammocks," may be scattered like islands in the marsh. Yet some marsh hammocks are initiated or enhanced by ballast piles from early sailing ships (Reineck, 1970a) or kitchen middens of aboriginal Indians_(DePratter and Howard, this volume).
Abruptness of the channel bank-low marsh boundary (Fig. 32) has important ramifications in hydrography and sedimentation. Unlike North Sea coasts where marshes are fronted by extremely broad, gently sloping tidal flats (Reineck, 1970b), Georgia marshes are fronted by narrow, steeply sloping banks capped by natural levees. Thus, in the North Sea, where the Postma scour-lag/settling-lag model was developed (van Straaten and Kuenen, 1957), sediment-laden waters may move directly across tidal flats into fringing marshes (Beeftink, 1966). In contrast, waters that flood Georgia marshes must first move along progressively smaller channels, the headwaters of which ultimately dissipate on the marsh surface, rather than spilling directly over channel banks. Hence, except at erosional banks where levees are destroyed, a given particle of water or suspended sediment travels a long, circuitous route before finally reaching the marsh surface.
Furthermore, the duration of high-water slack is considerably greater in the North Sea than in Georgia. Here, suspended sediments have relatively little time to settle from suspension. Biodeposition by microbes and invertebrates is proportionately more significant (Frey and Basan, 1978, p. 137-141).
Equally important, unlike textbook-type examples of marsh development, Georgia marshes typically constitute veneers overlying either a Pleistocene "basement" or a channe1 fi 11-poi nt bar sequence rather than a traditiona1 11 1agoon-fi 11" sequence (Basan and Frey, 1977; Frey and Basan, 1978; Howard and Frey, 1980b). Physiographically, this marsh-estuary system thus is somewhat analogous to the meandering channel, levee, splay, and floodplain deposits of fluviatile systems, although respective depositional processes differ markedly.
Salt marshes along the Georgia coast also are well known for high productivity among macrophytes (Turner, 1976). Low and transitional marshes and the lowermost part of the high marsh (Fig. 32) are vegetated by the smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora; the remainder -of the high marsh is vegetated primarily by the glasswort Salicornia bigelovii, the sampshires ~ europaea and~ vir inica, the spike grass Distichlis spicata, and the marsh rush Juncus roemerianus see Table 2). Other plants may be present on the terrestrial fringe (Frey and Basan, 1978). Highmarsh vegetation or even terrestrial weeds and bushes may appear on levees enhanced by dredged spoil piles or shell accumulations (Fig. 31A).
119
I
L

I
: - - - - - L o w marsh

I
:

I

I

'-High marsh-' Land

I I

I

I

: l

i - Back-levee low marsh~:

I ;

,,:.m.U.c'):::

tE: .r:

-"' I

Ill
~

c

Ill

m

E

.0

-"'
Q)
Q)
......
u

.r:
:I;l;l

E

.r:

~

Ill

QJ

~

IV
~

Ill
E

~

0

"0

"'QJ

~

..c

V.....l.

.r:

(1:1

~

.

.r:
Ill
~
Ill
E

E
(1:1
c
0

Ill
E
-~ ~ .

~ ~
Ill
E

.r: ~
Ill
E

Ill

Ill

~

c::

0

~

"0 Ill

~

QJ

C"D'

~

t
0
.ern:

/ - - - - - - - m u d - - - - - sandy mmuudddy sand - - s a n d -----~

Fig. 32.

MHWN- mean high-water neap MSL- mean sea level

(not to sea Ie)

usually admixed with Spartina

.

.

Diagramatic classification of Georgia salt marsh habitats. Broad expanse

of low, transitional, and short-Spartina high marsh is vegetated by different

growth fonns of~ alterniflora. (Adapted from Edwards and Frey, 1977.)

Decomposition, disintegration, and tidal flushing of this plant matter accounts for much of the turbidity in local waters. Dispersed very-fine to very-coarse organic detritus also becomes incorporated within diverse coastal sediments, from estuarine channels and point bars to beaches, beach-related tidal flats, and the nearshore shelf (Pinet and Frey, 1977).

Sediment Textures and Subfacies
Inspite of their homogeneous appearance as viewed from a distance or from aerial photographs, salt marshes exhibit considerable variation in habitat and sediment grain size. The most striking difference is the change from muddy low marsh to sandy high marsh (Fig. 32). Numerous smaller scale zones are also discernible. Low~marsh habitats are defined primarily by geomorphic criteria, which correlate somewhat with sedimentologic and hydrographic criteria, whereas high-marsh habitats are based purely upon botanical criteria and show little sedimentologic variation.
Gradients in sedim~nt texture (Fig. 33) reveal nearly constant proportions of clay and silt throughout the marsh. The proportion of sand is more variable; it becomes increasingly important in the transitional and high marsh. Unlike numerous marshes of the Gulf and northeastern coasts of North America (Frey and Basan, 1978), peat deposits are rare in Georgia and neighboring southeastern marshes. Dearth of peat here reflects pronounced tidal flushings of the marsh, combined with warm climates that accelerate biological degradation of plant matter.
In a sense, in-situ marsh grasses nevertheless may be considered as potential sediment, whether in the form of detritus or .of carbon compounds. Plant stems are luxuriant in many marsh habitats (Table 2); root production is equally important. Even after export of considerable detritus, particulate organic carbon levels, enhanced by algal and bacterial blooms, remain signficant (Pinet and Frey, 1977; Letzsch and Frey, in press). Unoxidized fractions of carbon, together with abundant

120

~"' Q)<f)

~

-"' "0 ....
~"Q'E)
a...;. a>.>
C- /)_QJ)

-c:::
0 -.J::
"c:'::"._' ~"'E"'

"'Q)
c. E
"'

........ c

Q)

(.....)..

~ 0-

~

tillEJ Sand

WSilt

~Clay

~l00-~7777771777STS?Hh?77277~7377TI7:~~~~~

::::l
E
::::l
u

0 - ,.._-___________________________ -- -------- _____________ ----------------------------_-_-_-;_-_-_-:-:-:-:-:-:: -
Marsh environments
Fig. 33. Grain-size distribution of salt marsh sediments, Sapelo Island. (From Edwards and Frey, 1977.)
dead room masses in reduced substrates (cf. Barnes et ~, 1973, Table 1), are potential sources of hydrocarbons.
Physical and Biogenic Sedimentary Structures
Unlike salt marshes in the North Sea and elsewhere in America (Bouma, 1963), Georgia and numerous other marshes of the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States are almost totally bioturbated (Frey and Basan, 1978). This intense sediment reworking is accomplished primarily by abundant decapods and plant roots {Edwards and Frey, 1977). The only noteworthy exceptions, all of local occurrence, are oyster shell layers capping streamside-levee marshes (Fig. 31), smallscale desiccation cracks, discontinuous laminae of sand, silt, and clay in SalicorniaDistichlis marshes, and sheets of sand spread across various marsh surfaces through barrier washover (Figs. 19, 20) or where torrential rains wash sands off the terrestrial fringe (Fig. 32). Even the latter deposits become intensely bioturbated, however, and soon lose their distinctiveness as discrete sand layers.
121

Table 2. Selected Measurements on Salt Marsh Plant Stems, Sapelo Island, Georgia. (Adapted from Basan and Frey, 1977.)

Marsh Habitats (see Fig. 32)

Mean Height
(em)

Mean Density (stalks/m2)

Mean Dry We~ght
(g/m )

Low-marsh environments:

Streamside marsh

100

85

1300

Levee marsh

65

70

815

Back-levee low marsh:

Meadow marsh

50

130

720

Ponded water marsh

65

45

550

Transitional marsh

40

. 165

500

High-marsh environments:

Short-Spartina marsh

30

265

345

Salicornia-Spartina marshes 15

1275

225

Distichlis marsh Juncus marsh

30

1200

290

80 .

215

660

Table 3. Estimated Rates and Volumes of Sediment Accumulated in a Sapelo Island Salt Marsh. Mean Values from a 7-yr Study, 1973..;1979. (Adapted from Letzsch and Frey, 1980b; Letzsch, in prep.)

Marsh Habitats (see Fig. 32)

Percent Total Marsh

Marsh Mean Area Deposition (km2) (cm/yr)

Mean Sediment Vlume (m /yr)

Streamside marsh Levee marsh Meadow marsh
Ponded water marsh Transitional marsh High marsh

6.3 .

0.11

1.2

1354

18.7

0.32

0.9

2762

37.5

0.64

0.2

1330

15.6

0.27

0.2

635

6.3

0.11

0.0

0

15.6

0.27

0.1

304

Total Marsh

100.0

1. 70

0.4

6385

122

In spite of the ubiquity of bioturbate textures in marsh sediments, major burrows and plant root patterns are potentially preservable, as demonstrated by their abundance in old marsh muds cropping out on erosional beaches (Fig. 23). Like plant stems (Table 2), root systems tend to become smaller but denser from the streamside to the high marsh, Juncus being the exception (Edwards and Frey, 1977; Frey and Howard, 1980). Decapod and polychaete burrows also exhibit characteristic
habitat distributions (Fig. 34; Basan and Frey, 1977, Table 2).

Rates and Processes of Deposition

Rates of depositon in salt marshes vary annually, seasonally, and environmentally (Letzsch and Frey, 1980b). Streamside-levee marshes are the only sites of relatively
high rates of deposition (Table 3), for essentially the same reason that natural levees are sites of rapid deposition among fluviatile systems. Coalescing levees at stream confluences and scattered small crevasse-splays result in thin veneers of sediment spread across adjacent low-marsh surfaces. Sand is less abundant here than in any other marsh environment (Fig. 33).

Back-levee low marsh habitats (Fig. 32) are analogous, geomorphologically, to

floodplains of fluviatile systems. Here, current velocities are so low (<10 em/sec)

that sediment trapping by marsh grasses is ineffectual. Sediment accumulation is

enhanced, however, by biodeposition of feces and pseudofeces by suspension feeding

animals such as the mussel Geukensia demissa (Kraeuter, 1976; Frey and Basan, 1978).

Meadow marshes (not to be confused with high-marsh meadows of New England) are most

widespread of Georgia marsh habitats. Ponded water marshes exhibit the most variable

rates of obscure,

sedimentation moderately to

wweitlhl-invetgheetabteadck1-1 lheevaedewaztoenrse.11

Most ponded areas represent regions of small tidal drainages,

whereas others are impoundments behind levees; all involve only microtopographic

differences in relief on the marsh surface. Scattered small clumps of the oyster

Crassostrea virginica enhance biogenic sediment trapping in these areas. Grass

stems are relatively tall but sparse (Table 2).

Much of the high marsh is inundated only by spring or storm tides (Frey and Basan, 1978), hence its low rate of tidal sediment accumulation (Table 3). Appreciable episodes of deposition occur only during barrier washover or heavy rainfall on adjacent terrestrial fringes. In transitional and high marshes, where sediments are sufficiently coarse to move by traction (Fig. 33), winds and windinduced waves may cause local, intermittent migrations of sediment across the marsh surface. This entrainment evidently accounts for the discontinuous laminae in
Salicornia-Distichlis. marshes, mentioned previously.

Seasonal influences upon rates of deposition are equally striking. Seasonal deposition increases progressively from a minimum in autumn, through winter and
spring, to a maximum in summer (Fig. 35). The autumn minimum coincides with the period of greatest storm-wind incidence on the Georgia coast. Sediments evidently
are resuspended and flushed out of the marsh at this time because of relatively high wind-wave energy during flood tide. The summer maximum coincides with low storm-wind incidence.

Various authors (e.g., Oertel, 1976) have suggested that erosion during periods of intense rainfall, either by surface

mruanrsohffsuorbsbtyrat11edseflsoucfcfue-r

lation11 of clays upon contact with fresh water. Here, however, seasons of greatest

123

creek bank

lower creek bank

upper creek bank zone

streamsidelevee
complex

low marsh
back-levee low marsh

low marshhigh marsh
transition

high marsh

........

N

~

Polychaete

traces

~~~:gnax

Characteristic Lebensspuren

Alpheus heterochaelis

Panopeus herbsti

ff!JJJt}' s::,~;::tum

~.

Eurytium limosum

!~~-~u:ilator tilu:~nax

Nereis succinea

deep, v~rtically penetrating roots

'fWli~fJ' shallow, horizontal roots

not to scale
Fig. 34. Schematic illustration of characteristic salt marsh lebensspuren and plant-root patterns. (Adapted from Basan and Frey, 1977; Frey and Howard, 1980.)

rainfall coincide with seasons of greatest deposition (Fig. 35), and vice versa. Increased marsh deposition during seasons of intense rainfall probably reflects an increased supply of terrigenous detritus delivered by rivers or derived from local terrestrial sources through surface runoff.
On the whole, Georgia marshes seem to be more or less in equilibrium with present coastal conditions (Letzsch and Frey, 1980b; Letzsch, in prep.). Amounts of sediment presently accumulating (Table 3) tend to be accomodated by rising sea level, without major modification of tidal drainage systems or total volume of the back-barrier tidal prism. Appreciably increased growth, laterally or vertically, will depend largely on more pronounced eustatic or tectonic changes.

Net sediment accumulation (cm/2yn

Percent stormy days (winds> bf 3) + Prev aiIi ng wind

Mean rainfall (Cm)

e Number days with rainfall> 1.0 em

60
i . . I

I ~

I
55 19

i .95i ~. . . .--?

i50l.1s1l

~
/ . / "'----.-"~~

35 11

40
I

~~:~ ~.
.55 -------------

25

* 7

A

W Sp Su

s+ NEjt NW-W~

st

Fig. 35. Seasonal differences in mean marsh deposition, precipitation, and
prevalent wind velocity and direction. Storm-wind velocities exceed 10 kts (>Beaufort 3). Autumn= Sept.-Nov.; Winter= Dec.-Feb.; Spring= Mar.-May; Summer= Jun.-Aug. (From Letzsch and Frey, 1980b.)

Variations Among Salt Marshes
As noted previously (Fig?. 25, 28, 30; Table 1), local and regional settings may modify the characteristics of back-barrier facies, whether intertidal or subtidal. In salt marshes, the most obvious example is the proximity of Holocene or Pleistocene barrier island remnants, which provide sand for high-marsh development (Figs. 32, 33).

125

Such local sand sources are so abundant that sandy high marshes are considered to be typical of the southeastern U.S. coast. In contrast, isolated or large sandstarved marsh tracts may fail to develop a complete high-marsh sequence because of the ineffectiveness of tidal deposition of suspended sediments in the uppermost part of the intertidal zone. In such marshes, the ,substrate may build upward to a tidal datum level comparable to that of the lower part of high marshes elsewhere, but sediments consist mainly of mud or sandy mud. Thus, the postulated vertical transition of southeastern marshes into supratidal or terrestrial environments (Frey and Basan, 1978, Table 1) probably cannot occur without influx of sediment from adjacent terrestrial sources or, perhaps, barrier washovers.
Another major variation, albeit one not yet investigated on the Georgia coast, is the lateral transition from salt marshes to freshwater marshes in the upper reaches of riverine estuaries. Little is known about associated sediments or physical and biogenic sedimentary structures, although vegetational. changes are conspicuous. The rush Juncus roemerianus becomes increasingly abundant in moderately brackish marshes, even spreading into low-marsh zones, and Salicornia and Distichlis become correspondingly less abundant. With continued freshening, Spartina alterniflora is replaced by
the big cordgrass i cynosuroides. Past that point, strictly nonmarine vegetation
appears, whether consisting of grasses or of higher plants (Dorjes and Howard, 1975, Fig. 9).
BACK-BARRIER FACIES ASSOCIATIONS
Whereas the Georgia continental shelf is uniform over broad areas and is more or less in static equilibrium, the estuarine system consists of a heterogeneous suite of facies in dynamic equilibrium with coastal conditions. Most facies have gradational boundaries and are subject to abrupt fluctuations in energy levels, sediment supply, and many other factors.
Furthermore, ,preservable sedimentologic characteristics of individual estuaries and associated facies have no direct correlation with the presence or absence of major rivers (Table 1). In the rock record, therefore, the difference between riverine and salt marsh estuaries would be obvious only where preservation and stratigraphic control permitted reconstruction of landward parts of thalwegs; salt marsh estuaries would terminate in small dendritic drainages whereas riverine estuaries would grade into fluviatile systems.
Vertical Sequences
Within the coastal zone, vertical sequences of riverine and salt marsh estuaries likely would exhibit more similarities than differences. In idealic, simplified models (Howard and Frey, 1980b, Figs. 8.1, 8.2), the lower part of each sequence consists of channel-lag or channel-fill crossbedded sand, derived principally from reworked Pleistocene sediments originally deposited during a lower stand of sea level. Either may contain local deposits of grav~l d~rived from the same source; scour holes may provide tertiary shells and rock clasts. In riverine estuaries, another sediment source is the interland associated with.fluvial drainage systems. Salt marsh estuaries are more likely to contain local estuarine shells or shell deposits in the upper reaches. Overall, textures and structures in the upper part of this thalweg-fill facies are apt to be more variable in salt marsh estuaries than in riverine estuaries.
126 \_-

Estuarine accretionary beds, overlying the channel-fill facies, represent the most typical facies of Georgia estuaries. In both riverine and salt marsh estuaries, accretionary beds begin with bioturbated muddy sand and she 11 units, grading vertically into wavy, flaser, and lenticular bedded units. Predominance or relative proportions of physical and biogenic sedimentary structures is largely a matter of physical energy and sediment texture. In riverine estuaries, the upper part of the sequence may consist of interbedded sand and mud or laminated mud, a reflection of increased interactions between estuarine and fluvial-type processes. Bioturbated muddy sands typically represent thorough biogenic reworking of interbedded sand and mud. In general, salt marsh estuaries contain greater quantities of bioturbated sediments in landward parts than do riverine estuaries. Where energy levels are higher, sedimentary units exhibit a vertical change from lenticular to wavy to flaser bedding, commensurate with decreasing mud accumulations.
Overlying the accretionary beds is a sequence of crossbedded to ripple-laminated sand, having varying proportions of flaser and wavy beds. This sequence represents the transition from subtidal to intertidal deposition and represents a variety of shoals, tidal flats, and point bars, depending on local conditions. Point bar deposits are most important. Their main features include crossbeds, flaser-rich ripple laminae, and abundant lebensspuren; bioturbate textures also may be abundant locally, especially in muddy sands. Tidal flat sediments typically are muddier and more intensely bioturbated than point bar sediments, whereas shoal sands tend to be cleaner and less bioturbated. Although point bars are comparatively small features at any given time, channel meanderings and (or) sea level changes would result in broad distribution of point bar deposits, somewhat like 11 Sheet sands. 11
This predominantly sandy facies is overlain, in turn, by increasingly muddy sediments of channel margins, virtually identical in riverine and salt marsh estuaries. The lower part of the channel-margin facies consists primarily of laminated to bioturbated muddy sand, grading vertically into more intensely bioturbated sandy mud. Oyster beds, oyster-she11 pavements, and chaotic bedding may be abundant locally.
Finally, both estuarine sequences are topped by identical salt marsh sediments, the most intensely bioturbated deposits of the entire coastal zone. The lower part of the facies also consists of the muddiest sediment found on the coast. This slightly sandy mud ordinarily grades upward to highly sandy mud and muddy sand, to nearly pure sand, depending on adjacent sources of terrestrial or washover sediment. Thus, if preserved, the uppermost part of the entire estuarine sequence would be capped by a thin layer of highly bioturbated sand.
Estuary: A Stratigraphic Definition
For diverse and complex reasons, biologists, hydrographers, geographers, mathematical modelers, and sedimentologists probably never will agree on a single, concrete definition of an estuary, or the preci se differences between deltas, estuaries, lagoons,sounds, and bays. Consideration of Georgia estuaries and the potential rock record, however, yields the following stratigraphic definition (Howard and Frey, 1980b): an estuary is a complex of intertidal and shallow subtidal intercoastal facies dominated to some extent by tidal processes, exhibiting conspicuous variations in sediment texture, composition, and provenance, and in physical and biogenic sedimentary structures. Individual depositional environments comprising this complex of intercoastal facies may be as varied as: tidal deltas and shoals, protected beaches and spits, washover fans, swash and point bars, tidal flats, salt marshes,
127

and stream banks and channels. Salinity5 as reflected by organisms and biogenic structures 5 may vary widely in space and time; similarly5 geometry of the total estuarine body may vary widely in magnitude and proportions5 depending on coastal morphology, maturity5 structure, and relict or inherited topography.
Thus, an estuary is a depositional system of the same hierarchial rank as a delta5 recognizable as a distinct entity but consisting of numerous individualistic component facies. This approach stresses processes and products directly applicable to the rock record; it distinguishes between estuaries and deltas (river-dominated facies) but appropriately ignores geographic configuration of the water body (parallel, normal, or inclined to shore 5 etc. 5 as in 11 sounds 11 or 11 lagoons 11 ) as well as presumed salinity gradients (cf. Table 1). Emphasis upon 11 tidal domination 11 implies saline waters of some sort51Nhether a major gradient in a riverine estuary or a minor gradient in a salt marsh estuary; and the term 11 intercoastal 11 implies proximity of terrestrial environments and the prospect of some freshwater influences. Such characteristics typify the preservable features of Georgia back-barrier facies associations5 and in fact may be more representative of many so-called 11 lagoon-fill sequences 11 elsewhere than current literature would suggest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For reviewing the manuscript, we thank S. George Pemberton5 University of Georgia. Our original field 5 shipboard5 and laboratory work was aided immeasurably by assistants5 students, and colleagues too numerous to list here. The work was supported mainly by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract DACW-72-68-C-0030 5 National Science Foundation grants GA-719, GA-10888, GA-22710, GA-30565, GA-39999X5 and OCE-76-02320, and awards from the Georgia Sea Grant program.
REFERENCES CITED Antonine, J.W. and Henry5 V.J., Jr., 1965. Seismic refraction study of shallow part
of continental shelf off Georgia coast. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Bull., v. 495 p. 601-609. Barnes5 S.S.5 Craft5 T.F.5 and Windom, H.L. 1973. Iron-scandium budget in sediments of two Georgia salt marshes. Georgia Acad. Sci.5 Bull., v. 31, p. 23-30. Basan, P.B., and Frey5 R.W.5 1977. Actual-palaeontology and neoichnology of salt marshes near Sapelo Island5 Georgia. In Crimes, T.P., and Harper, J.C. (eds.), Trace fossils 2. Geol. Jour., Spec. Issue 9, p. 41-70. Beeftink, W.G.5 1966. Vegetation and habitat of the salt marshes and beach plains in the south-western part of The Netherlands. Wentia, v. 15 5 p. 83-108.
Biggs5 R.B., 1978. Coastal bays .!!!. Davis, R.A. (ed.), Coastal sedimentary environ-
ments. New York5 Springer-Verlag5 p. 69-99. Bouma5 A.H.5 1963. A graphic presentation of the facies model of salt marsh deposits.
Sedimentology, v. 2, p. 122-129.
128

Brokaw, R.W., Jr., and Howard, J.D., 1979. Role of bioerosion in mass-wasting of Pleistocene outcrops on the Georgia coast (abs.). Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Bu 11. , v. 63, p. 424.
Carver, R.E. and Kaplin, D.M. 1976. Distribution of hornblende on the Atlantic continental shelf off Georgia, United States. Marine Geol., v. 20, p. 335-343.
Croker, R.A., 1967. Niche diversity in five sympatric species of intertidal amphipods (Crustacea:Haustoriidae): Ecol. Monogr., v. 37, p. 173-200.
Deery, J.R., and Howard, J.D., 1977. Origin and character of washover fans on the Georgia coast, U.S.A., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Scos., Trans., v. 27, p. 259-271.
DePratter, C.B., and Howard, J.D., 1977. History of shoreline changes determined by grchaeological dating: Georgia coast, U.S.A., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs., Trans., v. 27, p. 252-258.
Dorjes, J., 1972. Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. VII. Distribution and zonation of macrobenthic animals. Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 4, p. 183-216.
Dorjes, J. and Hertweck, G., 1975. Recent biocoenoses and ichnocoenoses in shallowwater marine environments. In Frey, R.W. (ed.), The study of trace fossils. Springer-Verlag, New York, p--.459-491.
Dorjes, J., and Howard, J.D., 1975. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. IV. Fluvial-marine transition indicators in an estuarine environment, Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 137-179.
Doyle, L.J., Cleary, W.J., and Pilkey, O.H., 1968. Mica: its use in determining shelf-depositional regimes. MarineGeol., v. 6, p. 381-389 ..
Edwards, J.M., and Frey, R.W., 1977. Substrate characteristics within a Holocene salt marsh, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 9, p. 215-259.
I i
Frey, R.W., 1969. Mixed benthic assemblages in Holocene clays, Cabretta Island beach, Georgia (abs. ). Geol. Soc. Amer., Abs. Prog., Atlantic City, New Jersey, p. 71.
Frey, R.W., 1975. The realm of ichnology, its strengths and limitations. In Frey, R.W. (ed.), The study of trace fossils. New York, Springer-Verlag, p.l3-38.
Frey, R.W., and Basan, P.B., 1978. Coastal salt marshes. In Davis, R.A. (ed.), Coastal sedimentary environments. New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 101-169.
Frey, R.W., and Howard, J.D., 1969. A profile of biogenic sedimentary structures in a Holocene barrier island-salt marsh complex, Georgia. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs., Trans., v. 19, p. 427-444.
Frey, R.W. and Howard, J.D., 1972. Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. VI. Radiographic study of sedimentary structures made by beach and offshore animals in aquaria. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 4, p. 169-182.
129

Frey, R.W., and Howard, J.D., 1975. Endobenthic adaptations of juvenile thalassinidean shrimp. Geol. Soc. Denmark, Bull., v. 24, p. 283-297.
Frey, R.W., and Howard, J.D., 1980. Physical and biogenic processes in Georgia estuaries. II. Intertidal facies. In McCann, S.B., (ed.), Sedimentary processes and animal-sediment relationships in tidal environments. Geol. Assoc. Canada, Short Course Notes, v. 1, p. 183-220.
Frey, R.W., and Mayou, T.V., 1971. Decapod burrows in Holocene barrier island beaches and washover fans, Georgia. Senckenbergiana Marit., v. 3, p. 53-77.
Frey, R.W., and Pinet, P.R., 1978. Calcium-c~rbonate content of surficial sands seaward, of Altamaha and Doboy Sounds, Georgia .Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 48, p. 1249-1256.
Frey, R.W., and Seilacher, A., 1980. Uniformity in marine invertebrate ichnology. Lethaia, v. 13, p. 183-207.
Frey, R.W., Howard, J.D., and Pryor, W.A., 1978. Ophiomorpha: its morphologic, taxonomic, and environmental significance. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., v. 23, p. 199-229.
Frey, R.W., Voorhies, M.R., and Howard, J.D., 1975. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. VIII. Fossil and recent skeletal remains in Georgia estuaries. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 257-295.
Giles, R.T. and Pilkey, O.H., 1965. Atlantic beach and dune sediments of the southern United States. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 35, p. 900-910.
Greer, S.A., 1975. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. III. Sandbody geometry and sedimentary facies at the estuary-marine transition zone, Ossabaw Sound, Georgia: a stratigraphic model. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 105-135.
Hails, J.R. and Hoyt, J.H., 1969. The significance and limitations of statistical parameters for distinguishing ancient and modern sedimentary environments of the lower Georgia coastal plain. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 39, p. 559-580.
Haines, E.G., and Dunstan, W.M.,. 1975. The distribution and relation of particulate organic material and primary productivity in the Georgia Bight. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci., v. 3, p. 431-441.
Hayden, B.P., and Dolan, R., 1979. Barrier islands, lagoons, and marshes. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 49, p. 1061-1072.
Henry, V.J., Jr., and Hoyt, J.H., 1968. Quaternary paralic and shelf sediments of Georgia. Southeast. Geol., v. 9, p. 195-214.
Hertweck, G., 1972. Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: sedimentology. and biology. V. Distribution and environmental significance of lebensspuren and in-situ skeletal remains. Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 4, p. 125-167.
Hicks, S.D. and Crosby, J.E., 1974. Trends and variability of yearly mean sea level, 1893-1972. U.S. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Memo. 13, 14 p.
130

Howard, J.D., 1969. Radiographic examination of variations in barrier island facies; Sapelo Island, Georgia. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Sacs., Trans., v. 19, p. 217-232.
Howard, J.D., 1971. Amphipod bioturbate textures in recent and Pleistocene beach sediments. In Howard, J.D., Valentine, J.W., and Warme, J.E., Recent advances in paleoecology and ichnology. Amer. Geol. Inst., Short Course Lect. Notes, p. 213-223.
Howard, J.D., 1975. The sedimentological significance of trace fossils. In Frey, R.W. (ed.), The study of trace fossils. New York, Springer-Verlag, p--.131-146.
Howard, J.D. and Dorjes, J., 1972. Animal-sediment relationships in two beach-related tidal flats; Sapelo Island, Georgia. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 42, p. 608-623.
Howard, J.D., and Elders, C.A., 1970. Burrowing patterns of haustoriid amphipods from Sapelo Island, Georgia. In Crimes, T.P. and Harper, J.C. (eds.), Trace fossils. Geol. Jour., Spec. Issue 3, p. 243-262.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1973. Characteristic physical and biogenic sedimentary structures in Georgia estuaries. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Bull., v. 57, p. 1169-1184.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1975a. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. I. Introduction. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 1-31.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1975b. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. II. Regional animal-sediment characteristics of Georgia estuaries. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 33-103.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1980a. Physical and biogenic processes in Georgia estuaries, I. Coastal setting and subtidal facies. In McCann, S.B. (ed.), Sedimentary processes and animal-sediment relationships in tidal environments. Geol. Assoc. Canada, Short Course Notes, v. 1, p. 153-182.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1980b. Physical and biogenic processes in Georgia estuaries. III. Vertical sequences. In McCann, S.B. (ed.), Sedimentary processes and animal-sediment relationships in tidal environments. Geol. Assoc. Canada, Short Course Notes, v. 1, p. 221-232.
Howard, J.D., and Reineck, H.-E., 1972. Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. IV. Physical and biogenic sedimentary structures of the nearshore shelf. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 4, p. 81-123.
Howard, J.D., Edlers, C.A., and Heinbokel, J.F., 1975. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. V. Animal-sediment relationships in estuarine point bar deposits, Ogeechee River-Ossabaw Sound, Georgia. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 181-203.
Howard, J.D., Frey, R.W., and Reineck, H.-E., 1973. Holocene sediments of the Georgia coastal area. In Frey, R.W. (ed.),. The Neogene of the Georgia coast. Guidebook, 8th Ann. Field Trip, Georgia Geol. Soc., Athens, Georgia, p. 1-58.
Howard, J.D., Mayou, T.V., and Heard, R.W., 1977. Biogenic sedimentary structures formed by rays. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 47, p. 339-346.
131

Howard, J.D., Reineck, H.-E., and Rietschel, S., 1974. Biogenic sedimentary structures formed by heart urchins. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 6, p. 185-201.

Hoyt, J.H., and Henry, V.J., Jr., 1964. Development and geologic significance of soft beach sand. Sedimentology, v. 3, p. 44-51.

Hoyt, J.H., Henry, V.J., Jr., and Howard, J.D., 1966. Pleistocene and Holocene sediments, Sapelo Island, Georgia and vicinity. Guidebook, Field Trip 1, Southeast. Sect., Geol. Soc. Amer., p. 6-27.

Hoyt, J.H., Weimer, R.J., and Henry, V.J., Jr., 1964. Late Pleistocene and recent

sedimentation, central Georgia coast, U.S.A., In van Straaten, L.M.J.U. (ed.),

Deltaic and shallow marine deposits. Developments in Sedimentology, v.1,

p. 170-176.

.

Hubbard, O.K., Oertel, G., and Nummedal, D., 1979. The role of waves and tidal currents in the development of tidal-inlet sedimentary structures and sand body geometry: examples from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 49, p. 1073-1092.

Johnson, A.S., Hillestad, H.O., Shanholtzer, S.F., and Shanholtzer, G.F., 1974. An ecological survey of the coastal region of Georgia .. U.S. Nat. Park Serv., Monogr. 3, 233 p.

Kraeuter, J.N., 1976. Biodeposition by salt-marsh invertebrates. Mar. Biol.,v. 35, p. 215-223.

Land, L.S., 1964. Eolian cross-bedding in the beach dune environment, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 34, p. 389-394.

Land, L.S. and Hoyt, J.H., 1966. Sedimentation in a meandering estuary. Sedimentology, v. 6, p. 191-207.

Letzsch, W.S., and Frey, R.W., 1980a. Erosion of salt marsh tidal creek banks, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Senckenberg. Marit., in press.

Letzsch, W.S., and Frey, R.W., 1980b. Deposition and erosion in a Holocene salt marsh, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 50, p. 529-542.

Letzsch, W.S., and Frey, R.W., In press. Organic carbon in a Holocene salt marsh, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Georgia Jour. Sci.

Mayou, T.V., and Howard, J.D., 1975. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. VI. Animal-sediment relations of a salt marsh estuary--Doboy Sound. Senckenberg. Marit., v. 7, p. 205-236.

Meade, R.H., 1969. Landward transport of bottom sediments in estuaries of the Atlantic coastal plain. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 39, p. 222-234.

Morris, R.W., and Rollins, H.B., 1977. Observations on intertidal organism associa-

tions of St. Catherines Island, Georgia. I. General description and paleo-

ecological implications. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., v. 159, Article 3,

p. 87-128.

.

Oertel, G.F., 1973a. Examination of textures and structures of mud in layered sediments at the entrance of a Georgia tidal inlet. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 43, p. 33-41.

132

Oertel, G.F., 1973b. A sedimentary framework of the substrates adjacent to Georgia tidal inelts. In Frey, R.W. (ed.), The Neogene of the Georgia coast. Guidebook, 8th Ann. Field Trip Georgia Geol. Soc., Athens, Georgia, p. 59-66.
Oertel, G.F., 1974. A review of the sedimentologic role of dunes in shoreline stability, Georgia coast. Georgia Acad. Sci., Bull., v. 32, p. 48-56.
Oertel, G.F., 1975, Post Pleistocene island and inlet adjustment along the Georgia coast: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 45, p. 150-159.,
Oertel, G.F., 1976. Characteristics of suspended sediments in estuaries and nearshore waters of Georgia. Southeas~ Geol., v. 18, p. 107-118.
Oertel, G.F., 1977. Geomorphic cycles in ebb deltas and related patterns of shore erosion and accretion. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 47, p. 1121-1131.
Oertel, G.F., and Howard, J.D., 1972. Water circulation and sedimentation at estuary entrances of the Georgia coast. In D.J.P. Swift, D.B. Duane, and O.H. Pilkey (eds.), Shelf sediment transport:--process and pattern. Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, p. 411-427.
Oertel, G.F., and Larsen, M., 1976. Developmental sequences in Georgia coastal dunes and distribution of dune plants. Georgia Acad. Sci., Bull., v. 34, p. 35-48.
Pevear, D.R. and Pilkey, O.H., 1966. Phosphorite in Georgia continental shelf sediments. Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., v. 77, p. 849-858.
Pilkey, O.H., Schnitker, D., and Pevear, D.R., 1966. Oolites on the Georgia continental shelf edge. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 36, p. 462-467.
Pilkey, O.H., Blackwelder, B.W., Doyle, L.J., Estes, E., and Terlecky, P.M., 1969. Aspects of carbonate sedimentation on the Atlantic continental shelf off the southern United States. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 39, p. 744-768.
Pinet, P.R., and Frey, R.W., 1977. Organic carbon in surface sands seaward of Altamaha and Deboy Sounds, Georgia. Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., v. 88, p. 1731-1739.
Pinet, P.R., and Morgan, W.P., Jr., 1979. Implications of clay-provenance studies in two Georgia estuaries. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 49, p. 575-580.
Pryor, W.A., 1967. Biogenic directional features on several recent point bars. Sediment. Geol., v. 1, p. 235-245.
Pryor, W.A., 1975. Biogenic sedimentation and alteration of argillaceous sediments in shallow marine environments. Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., v. 86, p. 1244-1254.
Reineck, H.-E., 1970a. Die Ballast-Inseln. Nature u. Museum, v. 100, p. 105-110.
Reineck, H.-E. (ed.), 1970b. Das Watt. Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt am Main, 142 p.
Reineck, H.-E., and Singh, I.B., 1975. Depositional sedimentary environments. New York, Springer-Verlag, 439 p.
133

Reineck, H.-E., and Wunderlich, F., 1968. Classification and origin of flaser and lenticular bedding. Sedimentology, v. 11, p. 99-104.

Scott, R.M., and Howard, J.D., 1976. Sedimentary environments of a tidal flat created by erosion in a tidal estuary (abs.). Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Bull., v. 60, p. 720-721.

Sen Gupta, B.K., and Kilbourne, R.T., 1974. Diversity of benthic Foraminifera on the Georgia continental shelf. Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., v. 85, p. 969-972.

Sen Gupta, B.K., and Kilbourne, R.T., 1976. Depth distribution of benthic Foraminifera . on the Georgia continental shelf. Maritime Sediments, Spec. Pub. 1, p. 25-38.

Turner, R.E., 1976. Geographic variations in salt marsh macrophyte production: a review. Contr. Mar. Sci., v. 20, p. 47-68.

van Straaten, L.M.J.U., and Kuenen, Ph. H., 1957. Accumulation of fine grained sediments in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Geol. en Mijnbouw, v. 19, p. 329-354.

Visher, G.S., and Howard, J.D., 1974. Dynamic relationship between hydraulics and sedimentation in the Altamaha estuary. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 44, p. 502-521.

Wadsworth, J.R., 1980. Geomorphic characteristics of tidal drainage networks in the Duplin River system, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. Georgia, Athens, 259 p.

Walker, R.G. (ed.), 1979. Facies models. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Ser. 1, 211 p.

:,.

Weimer, R.J. and Hoyt, J.H., 1964. Burrows of Callianassa major Say, geologic

indicators of littoral and shallow neritic environments. Jour. Paleontol.,

v. 38, p. 761-767.

.

Wiedemann, H.U., 1972. Shell deposits and shell preservation in Quaternary and Tertiary estuarine sediments in Georgia, U.S.A. Sediment. Geol., v. 7, p. 103-125.

Windom, H.L., Neal, W.J., and Beck~ K.C., 1971. Mineralogy of sediments in three Georgia estuaries. Jour. Sediment. Petrol. v. 41, p. 497-504.

Winker, C.D. and Howard, J.D., 1977. Correlation of tectonically deformed shorelines of the southern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Geology, v. 5, p. 123-127.

Woolsey, J.R., Henry, V.J., and Hunt, J.L., 1975. Backshore heavy-mineral concentration on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Jour. Sediment. Petrol., v. 45, p. 280-284.

Wunderlich, F., 1972. Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: sedimentology and biology. III. Beach dynamics and beach development. Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 4, p. 47-79.

Zarillo, G.A., 1979, Interrelation of hydrodynamics and sediment transport in a salt marsh estuary. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. Georgia, Athens, 221 p.

134

THE INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH IN ARCHAEOLOGY:
A VIEW FROM ST. CATHERINE$ ISLAND, GEORGIA
David Hurst Thomas Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024
ABSTRACT
Interdisciplinary research is a relatively recent addition to archaeological methodology. Increasing complexity of archaeological techniques for excavation and analysis necessitates close collaboration between archaeologists and specialists in other disciplines, including biology, zoology, palynology, geology, geochronology, physical anthropology, and others. A.V. Kidder, working on Maya sites in the 1920s, played a major role in development of the interdisciplinary approach; but 19th century projects such as C.B. Moore's coastal Georgia excavations and Heinrich Schliemann's work on the site of ancient Troy should be considered as precursors of modern interdisciplinary studies. Recent interdisciplinary research on St. Catherines Island, Georgia, employed the services of a wide range of specialists to assist in collection and analysis of archaeological materials from both survey-related test excavations and more exte~sive mound excavations. Such cooperation led to more precise reconstruction of past lifeways and will provide the basis for later studies of culture processes.
INTRODUCTION
Origins of the interdisciplinary approach to archaeology conventionally are traced to the work of A.V. Kidder (1928). Shortly after assuming directorship of the Division of Historical Research at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Kidder outlined a masterplan for conducting a broad-scale assault on contemporary problems of Maya research, involving many interrelated areas of expertise. Although he gradually relegated himself to an administrative role, he amassed a staff of qualified scientists having the broadest possible scope of interest. This plan became a landmark in archaeological research, stressing the importance of enriching the narrrow range of archaeology with a much wider range of anthropology and other disciplines. The Carnegie Maya program supported research by ethnographers, geographers, physical anthropologists, geologists, meteorologists and, of course, archaeologists having a wide variety of specialized interests. Kidder established the effectiveness of aerial reconnaissance, for instance, by convincing Charles Lindbergh to participate in the Maya research program. Early in 1929, Lindbergh and Kidder flew throughout British Honduras, Yucatan, and the Peten, not only discovering new ruins, but also recording ecological information previously unavailable.
Since Kidder's day, the interdisciplinary method has become de rigueur in archaeology. Implicit in W.W. Taylor's conjunctive approach of the 194os was the close interweaving of broad-based ecological studies with the more commonplace archaeological analysis of artifacts in their cultural contexts (Taylor, 1948, 1957). The interdisciplinary approach of the 1950 1 s was exemplified by regional
135

programs such as the Viru Valley project in Peru (Willey, 1974). During the 1960's and 1970's, research proceeded on a large scale, perhaps best illustrated by the Tehuacan project in central Mexico (MacNeish, 1967) and the Koster site in the lower Illinois Valley (Struever and Carlson, 1977; Struever and Holton, 1979) But interdisciplinary studies had begun much earlier.
EARLIEST INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES
Origins of the interdisciplinary approach were beginning even earlier than Kidder's efforts at Chichen Itza. In fact, Schliemann's now-famous search for the archaeological site of Troy seemingly was conducted in an acceptable interdisciplinary mode (Thomas, 1979). Even in the 1870's, Schliemann worked with several specialists on the Trojan campaigns, including the naturalist Rudolph Virchow, who conducted geomorphological studies of the nearby Scamander Plain, Emile Burnouf, the French archaeologist and scholar, Wilhelm Dorpfeld, the architect, plus a legion of cartographers and photographers. Similarly, while analyzing his finds, Schliemann consulted professionals whenever necessary. When dealing with the famous 11 Priam's Treasure, 11 he consulted Carlo Giuliano, a wellknown London goldsmith, who marvelled at the purity of the Trojan gold and was puzzled as to how primitive goldsmiths could execute work of such high quality. Then, as now, the prudent archaeologist knew when to recognize his own limitations, and when to back off and call for help from qualified specialists.
C.B. Moore clearly applied an interdisciplinary approach to the archaeology of the Georgia coast in the 1890's. From the outset, Moore's archaeological campaigns were models of efficiency and organization. As an independently wealthy socialite, Moore purchased a specially equipped steamboat, the Gopher, from which he staged his archaeological efforts on waterways throughout the American southeast. Moore generally was accompanied by his friend, Dr. Milo G. Miller, who functioned variously as secretary, coworker, physician and, more importantly, physical anthropologist. From their base aboard the Gopher, Moore and Miller located archaeological sites, made arrangements with landowners, then commenced excavations,- which generally began in winter months and continued into spring. Subsequent summers were spent cleaning, repairing, photographing, and studying the collection, and final reports were prepared for publication the following fall (Moore, 1897).
Moore's research probably can be considered a forerunner of the interdisciplinary approach because of his assistance by Miller, a trained physician. Whenever human skeletons were located in the excavations, Miller would examine the bones in the field, attempting to determine sex, age, probable cause of death, and any unusual pathologies. Even in the 1890's, Moore recognized the importance of making such primary osteological observations in the field; skeletal preservation in the southeast often is so poor that these observations and measurements must be made in situ because many skeletons crumble beyond recognition when removed from their matrix:--Many contemporary mortuary projects, such as my own on St. Catherines Island, require the presence of a trained physical anthropologist any time human skeletal material is encountered (Buikstra, 1976; Ubelaker, 1978).
/
136
,. ~--

- - - - - ----------------

Moores research, by contemporary standards, can be faulted on many scores; but in the context of the late 19th century, his work was of the highest quality.
In some ways, Moores research still sets an excellent standard for problemoriented research, based as it was on an interdisciplinary framework and executed with professionalism. His rapid, complete publications also serve as models, even for the contemporary southeastern archaeologist.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN FIELD STUDIES

The importance of the interdisciplinary approach to contemporary archaeology cannot be questioned. A few years ago~ Stuart Struever (1968) noted that archaeology was in the middle of a 11methods explosion, 11 which included power
equipment, the proton magnetometer, innumerable dating techniques, together with
theoretical developments in botany, zoology and palynology. Assistance in application of these new techniques in excavation and analysis is critical for the archaeologist, because the expertise needed to understand, much less perform, all these analyses is far beyond the capacity of any given individual (Struever, 1968).

Today, with a bit of hindsight, the interdisciplinary approach -- both its objectives and methods -- may even pose certain problems in the process of solving others. Consider, for example, the difficulties associated with a
project in regional archaeology. The controlling archaeologist must design the various stages of fieldwork, and in the process, must make some tough decisions
as to exactly what data to collect and what information to ignore.

Nowhere is the danger of too much technology greater than in projects attempting an interdisciplinary approach. The botanist wants every level,
sterile or not, meticuously floated and sorted, a procedure that can take a month of lab time for every week spent in the field. The faunal analyst often insists on the use of 1/811 (or smaller) sifting screens, a procedure that can double or triple excavation time. The geologist wants detailed stratigraphic drawings of all exposures, generally requiring that excavation cease on that part of the site while the sections are drawn. The geomorphologist might insist on deep stratatrenches through culturally sterile areas, siphoning excavators and equipment from the major focus of the dig. The ethnohistorian may request
detailed mapping of dozens of surface sites, so that he can look for settlement modes mentioned obliquely in the documents. And so on.

' I

Where does it all stop? If permitted to progress on its own, such an

imaginary project rapidly would exhaust both time and finances, minimal attention

having been devoted to the cultural remains themselves. While my example

deliberately is exaggerated, most interdisciplinary teams are well aware

of conflicting objectives and strategies for fieldwork.

Next, consider how these results are to be published. Although I will refrain from doing so, I could readily muster examples of .,interdisciplinary
site reports 11 that are no more than a collection of wholly unrelated papers that happen to treat the same site, valley, or island. Thes~ often express no common purpose, no coordination of either fieldwork or analysis, and no attempt to

137

integrate findings. The task of synthesizing and integrating all too often is left to the reader, who may be poorly equipped to do so.
The point, nevertheless, is to proceed with an interdisciplinary approach to archaeological research; clearly I wish to encourage such endeavors, but urge closer integration of research objectives -- regardless of the speciality. Interdisciplinary projects must commence with a series of stated objectives. Most archaeologists now realize that the mere presence of specialists does not necessarily increasethe amount of relevant information. The coherently organized interdisciplinary project must assess, from the outset, the anthropological objectives of the project and decide which ancillary studies will contribute to those objectives. Do we need a detailed soils analysis? Is a palynologist necessary? Do we require the services of a geomorphologist? Are we asking questions that concern a faunal analyst, or a computer specialist, or an ethnohistorian? Such questions can be answered only by one familiar with all aspects.
ST. CATHERlNES ISLAND, GEORGIA, ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT
The St. Catherines Island project is an example of how one such archaeological effort attempted to execute the interdisciplinary approach to anthropological research.
Background
The island, located in Liberty County, Georgia, is an ideal setting in which to conduct interdisciplinary, regional archaeological research. It is owned and operated by the Edward John Noble Foundation; a non profit corporation. When the American Museum of Natural History assumed research responsibilities for the island, a major vegetation study was undertaken. A consulting firm prepared a detailed vegetational map, and a complete series of low-level aerial photographs was commissioned. Several departments of the American Museum then conducted preliminary inventories of natural resources available on the Island. These data are invaluable in assessing the current ecological status of the area, and we, as archaeologists, are fortunate to be able to draw on these specialized studies. Detailed inventories of contemporary St. Catherines are available for mammals, birds, herps, and insects (Anderson, 1972; Zweifel and Cole, 1974; Lanyon and Short, 1975). A long-range study of raccoon populations may provide some indication of seasonally available foodstuffs in the natural environment, and these studies have obvious implications for human huntergatherer groups (Hudson, 1978; Lotze, 1979). Recent geological studies may enable us to reconstruct various interrelated environments that have since disappeared (Morris and Rollins, 1977). All these projects provide useful background data for the ecologically oriented archaeologist. Other studies provide indications of seasonal availability of both plants and animals.
We realized early that any attempt to conduct fruitful anthropological research in this area would require an interdisciplinary framework. The overall research program was conceived in terms of heirarchical, yet relatively independent, three-year programs. This framework was established relatively early and is presented in the first of a projected series of monograph-length reports, The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island: I. Natural and Cultural History --(Thomas et ~., 1978).
138

Consider, for a moment, the four authors who prepared the 1978 monograph. I am primarily a prehistoric archaeologist, and most of my background is in research related to prehistory of desert areas. Grant D. Jones, a cultural anthropologist specializing in ethnohistory, has primary research interest in Spanish-Maya relations in Central America; his experience with 16th and 17th century Spanish documents made him invaluable i"n dealing with the early historic period on St. Catherines Island. Roger S. Durham, a historian interested in the antebellum and Civil War period, assembled a comprehensive summary of the later historical record of St. Catherines Island. Clark Spencer Larsen, a physical anthropologist, brought to the project a familiarity with mortuary archaeology in the southeast, excavation procedures, laboratory analysis, an overview of previous research in the area, and a general awareness of how the specifics of the southeastern mortuary complex relate to general is.sues in physical anthropology. As a team, we collaborated in preparing a baseline statement on the anthropology of St. Catherines Island.
Ongoing Projects
Phase I of our research project centered around the early mortuary complex during the Deptford and Refuge Periods. Preliminary fieldwork disclosed the presence of a relatively early, poorly understood mortuary complex. A series of nine small sand mounds was excavated between 1975 and 1977, and this research was framed in broad interdisciplinary terms (Thomas and Larsen, 1979). Physical excavation of each mound, for example, required collaboration of specialists. These mounds are extremely subtle features of the landscape, and a cartographer, Richard Gubitosa, prepared detailed topographic maps, at 10 em contour levels, prior to excavation. The burials were in extremely poor condition and much of the osteological analysis had to be conducted in the field by our physical anthropologist, Clark Larsen. Had Larsen not been available at the time each individual was discovered, a signific~nt amount of osteological data would have been irrevocably lost.
The extremely friable skeletal remains of humans required that we pay close attention to recording each burial. A graphic illustrator always was on hand to prepare drawings of each burial as exposed, and to prepare detailed stratigraphic drawings of various profiles as they were excavated. Additionally, a photographer was responsible for photographing all burials, stratigraphies, and for preparing general photographic records of excavation procedures.
As excavation proceeded, we found a shell feature associated with the central tomb in one of the mounds. This led to an ancillary study with George R. Clark, who monitored seasonal growth in modern clam shells (Mercenaria mercenaria) so that seasonal information could be obtained from shells encountered in prehistoric sites. Thin sectioning determined that all clams from the central tomb had been collected in December or January (Clark, 1979).
Phase I research on St. Catherines Island also required the cooperation of specialists within the archaeological community. Chester B. DePratter collaborated in analysis of ceramics recovered during our excavations and prepared a major synthesis of north Georgia coastal ceramics (DePratter, 1979). Additional faunal studies were needed on both mammal and fish remains encountered at the sites. Donald Grayson, a specialist in identification and analysis of small
139

mammal remains from archaeological sites, agreed to collaborate in the settlement pattern project. Richard Casteel joined the project as a specialist in fish remains. Identification of animal remains found in archaeological sites provides information related. to particular food sources being exploited prehistorically, as well as the potential to determine seasonal occupation of prehistoric sites.
Phase II research on St. Catherines Island, now in progress, is proceeding along a very different course. This is a regional approach that transends the single site and focuses, instead, on definition of broad regional patterns of interaction and adaptation (Thomas, 1979). Although studies of this sort are common in the western United States, relatively little systematic research has been conducted on related problems in the southeast. Fieldwork on Phase II involves a 20 percent regional random sample of archaeological resources on St. Catherines Island. More than 140 sites have been located and mapped in this survey, and are being partially excavated.
REFERENCES CITED Anderson, S., 1973, St. Catherines Island recent mammals and research potential:
Report to the American Museum of Natural History, 12 p.
Buikstra, J.E., 1976, Hopewell in the lower Illinois Valley: a regional study of human biological variability and prehistoric mortuary behavior: Northwestern Archaeological Program Scientific Papers, v. 2, 90 p.
Clark, G., 1979, Appendix: Seasonal growth variations in the shells of recent and prehistoric specimens of Mercenaria mercenaria from St. Catherines Island, in Thomas, D.H., and Larsen, C.S., The anthropology of St. Catherines Island: -rhe Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 56, part 1, p. 161172.
DePratter, C.B., 1979, Ceramics, in Thomas, D.H., and Larsen, C.S., The anthropology of St. Catherines Island: The Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 56, part 1, p. 109131.
Hudson, E.M., 1978, The raccoon (Procyon lotor) on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. 2. Relative abundance in different forest types as a function of population density: Novitates of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 2648, 15 p.
Kidder, A.V., 1928, The present state of knowledge of American history and civilization prior to 1492: Paris, International Congress of History, Oslo, 1928. Compte Rendu, p. 749-753.
Lanyon, W.F. and Short, L.L., 1975, An annotated check-list of the birds of St. Catherines Island: Report to the American Museum of Natural History, second edition, 70 p.
Lotze, J., 1979, The raccoon (Procyon lotor) on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. 4. Comparisons of home ranges determined by livetrapping and radiotracking: Novitates of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 2664, 25 p.
I "
140

MacNeish, R.S., 1967, A summary of the subsistence, in Byers, D.S., ed., The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley: Austin, University of Texas Press, v. 1, p. 290-309.
Moore, C.B., 1897, Certain aboriginal mounds of the Georgia coast: Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 11, second series, part 1, p. 2-138.
Morris, R.W. and Rollins, H.B., 1977, Observations on intertidal organism associations of St. Catherines Island, general description and paleoecological implications: Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 159, article 3, p. 87-128.
Struever, S., 1968, Problems, methods and organization: a disparity in the growth of archaeology. in Meggers, B.J., ed., Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas: Antnropological Society of Washington, p. 131-151.
Struever, S. and Carlson, J., 1977, Koster site: the new archaeology in action: Archaeology, v. 30, no. 2, p. 93-101.
Struever, S. and Holton, F.A., 1979, Koster: Americans in search of their prehistoric past: New York, Anchor Press, 282 p.
Taylor, W.W., 1948, A study of archaeology: American Anthropological Association, Memoir 69, 256 p.
Taylor, W.W., ed., 1957, The identification of non-artifactual archaeological materials: National Academy of Sciences, Natural Resources Council, Publication 565, 64 p.
Thomas, D.H., 1973, An empirical test for Stewards model of Great Basin settlement patterns: American Antiquity, v. 38, p. 155-176.
Thomas, D.H., 1979, Archaeology: New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 510 p.
Thomas, D.H. and Bettinger, R.L., 1976, Prehistoric pinon ecotone settlements of the upper Reese River Valley, central Nevada: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 53, part 3, p. 263-366.
Thomas, D.H., Jones, G.D., Durham, R.S., and Larsen, C.S., 1978, The anthropology of St. Catherines Island: 1. Natural and cultural history: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 55, part 2, p~ 155-248.
Thomas, D.H. and Larsen, C.S., 1979, The anthropology of St. Catherines Island: 2. Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 56, part 1, p. 1-180.
Thomas, D.H., SouthS., and Larsen, C.S., 1977, Rich man, poor men: observations on three antebellum burials from the Georgi~ Coast: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 54, no. 3, p. 393-420.
141

Ubelaker, D.H., 1978, Human skeletal remains, excavation, analysis, interpretation: Chicago, IL., Aldine. 116 p.
Willey, G.R., 1974, The Viru Valley settlement pattern study, in Willey, G.R., ed., Archaeological researches in retrospect: Cambridge, MA., Winthrop, p. 149-178.
Zweifel, R.G. and Cole, C.J., 1974, An annotated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: Report to the American Museum of Natural History, 32 p.
I,j "
142

-- - - - --

-------- --

PRINCIPLES AND PROBLEMS IN ESTABLISHING
A HOLOCENE SEA-LEVEL CURVE FOR SOUTH CAROLINA
Donald J. Colquhoun Department of Geology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
Mark J. Brooks Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
William H. Abbott South Carolina State Geological Survey, Co.lumbia, South Carolina 29210
Frank W. Stapor Marine Resources Research Center, Charleston, South Carolina 29412
WalterS. Newman and Richard R. Pardi Queens College Radiocarbon Laboratory, City University of New York,
Flushing, New York 11367
ABSTRACT
The pattern of South Carolina coastal archaeological sites established between 4200 radiocarbon yr BP and the present day lends support to and adds information concerning, the determination of sea-level changes by means of joint archaeological and stratigraphic studies. Criteria developed through such studies, reviewed herein, have been used to reconstruct a provisional sea-level curve. Although additional data are needed, preliminary trends suggest a general rise in sea-level, together with a series of 1- to 2-m fluctuations at 400 to 500 yr intervals; this trend seems to coincide with transgressive and regressive phases reported previously in northwest Europe and elsewhere, suggesting that these fluctuations may be eustatic. This postulated coincidence, in light of geographic differences between South Carolina and northwest Europe, further suggests that the mechanism for sea-level change more likely is glacio-eustatic than geodetic or 11 Storminess, 11 as proposed recently.
INTRODUCTION
Investigations of Holocene tectonics and sea-level variability are being conducted in the South Carolina coastal zone, using stratigraphy, diatom identification, and archaeological data from inter-riverine and coastal-estuarine communities. Many techniques developed for the European lowlands (northern France, Belgium, Ho 11 and, northwest Germany) are app 1i cab1e to the South Caro1ina coast because of geomorphological similarities.
Techniques developed to plot sea-level curves in the European lowlands are based on archaeological and geological investigations of crustal distortions over broad areas. Similar observations (sediment sequences and archaeological sites) and conclusions have been made for the South Carolina coastal zone, using

143

-~
~' '

data obtained from the Cooper, Santee, Pee Dee, North Edisto, Combahee, and Savannah River estuaries.
Our sea-level curve remains preliminary because of insufficient data. Many lacunae are present for which the relative position of sea-level is unknown. Local tectonics may play an important role, hence the developing curve should not be considered only a measure of eustatic changes. Nevertheless, possible coincident trends between the two shores of the Atlantic should be investigated further.

OBSERVATIONS IN NORTHWEST EUROPE

Holocene fluctuations in water levels of the North Sea and adjacent Rhine, Meuse, and other rivers of lowland, northwest Europe have been recognized by studying coastal archaeological sites and sedimentary deposits. Sediment sequences indicate that environments have shifted in response to sea-level changes and (or) variability in freshwater influx from associated river drainage basins. These environments include, from the coast inland, beach and dune, lagoon and tidal flat, and perimarine areas. Each area exhibits sedimentary facies related to changing sea-level, sediment supply, or freshwater discharge.
Sedimentary data, together with the study of archaeological sites, permits tentative paleo-geographical reconstruction.

Of particular importance to sea-level studies is (1) recognition of lagoon and tidal flat facies that reflect North Sea marine and tidal conditions, and that (2) perimarine tidal facies reflect fresh to brackish influences of the Rhine or other rivers. Specific observations from the European lowlands pertinent to development of a sea-level curve for the South Carolina coast include:

( 1) Brackish water peats were deposited at~ or close to, mean sea level, near freshwater-saltwater boundaries in paralic environments (Hageman, 1960; Jelgersma, 1961; Brand et ~., 1965).

(2) Holocene brackish water peats occur in two forms: (A) intercalated peats separated by salt marsh clays that reflect incursion of freshwater into formerly brackish and marine regions; (B) basal peats developed on compacted Tertiary or Pleistocene sediments, reflecting rising watertables and, where overlain by marsh clays, marine incursion (Pons and Wiggers, 1959; Jelgersma, 1961; Hageman, 1963; Brand et ~., 1965).

(3) The periodic transition from salt marsh clays to peats to salt marsh clays in a Holocene vertical section indicates either (A) transgression-regressiontransgression, resulting from rise-fall-rise in sea level, or (B) prolonged low rainfall-high rainfall-low rainfall in an estuary and associated fluviatile drainage basin; peaty sediments of brackish or freshwater origin may prograde seaward at the expense of marine-influenced clays.

(4) Radiocarbon dates from tops and bottoms of blanket peats show remarkable

coincidence over extensive areas of northern France, Belgium, Holland, and

~.

northwest Germany, indicating that processes operating under (3), above,

extended across broad regions (Pons and Wiggers, 1959; Paepe, 1960; Hageman,

1,

144

1960; Brand et al., 1965; Riezebos and DuSaar 1969; Somme, 1975; Behre et ~ , 1975). -
(5) More than eight transgressive-regressive cycles have been identified between the present day and 8,000 BP in the European lowlands (Brand et al., 1965; Hageman, 1969). Similar sequences have been reported in northwestern England (Tooley, 1976), Atlantic France (Ters, 1973), and southwestern Sweden (Moerner, 1979).
(6) Actual elevation of sea-level during transgression and regression is indicated by coincident radiometric dates of associated basal peats deposited on compacted Pleistocene sands, intercalated peats possibly also being compacted.
(7) In the European lowlands, sea level was 3 to 5 m below its present surface 5,000 radiocarbon yr BP, and below 21m 10,000 yr BP (Jelgersma, 1961).
OBSERVATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Certain physiographic, hydrographic, climatic, and tectonic conditions in the northwest European lowlands are similar to those of the South Carolina coastal zone: (1) a broad coastal plain flanked by well-developed barrier island systems; (2) a temperate humid climate that allows development and preservation of peat, although warmer climes of the South Carolina coast enhance microbial decomposition of plant remains (Frey and Basan, 1978); (3) a discharge from river systems of fresh water necessary for excursions into tidal regions; and
(4) a stable or slightly negative tectonic warping to permit preservation of
requisite sedimentary facies and archaeological sites.
Deposits thought to represent perimarine and salt marsh facies have been dated in the Cooper (Brooks et al., 1979), Combahee, Savannah, North Edisto, Santee, and Pee Dee Rivers ofSouth Carolina (Colquhoun et al., unpubl. data). The fresh and saltwater ori~ins, respectively, of marsh facies are suggested by results of diatom analysis (Table 1) and identification of clay-mineral assemblages traced to shelf and freshwaters (Colquhoun, 1973). Basal and intercalated peats also thought to be of fresh and brackish water origin have been dated in relation to overlying and underlying salt marsh clays and muds (Table 2; Brooks et al., 1979, Table 1; unpubl. data). Elevations of transitions from brackish or fresh to saltwater sediments deposited on compact Pleistocene or Tertiary sediments were obtained relative to the present high-marsh surface. Plotted dates and elevations form an important data set with respect to the overall sea-level curve.
The South Carolina coastal zone yields numerous prehistoric archaeological sites within lagoonal, salt marsh, and perimarine areas, and in adjacent barrier island and mainland areas. These sites include estuarine shell middens and interriverine sites located in adjacent uplands (Brooks and Scurry, 1978). Certain variables relating site location to environment (e.g., distance to nearest drainage, soil type, elevation of basal surface, etc.) and dates of sites provide a second data set important to our developing curve.
145

Table 1. Typical diatom assemblages in marsh sediment core from South Carolina coastal zone, and implied water type. Limehouse 7~ min. quad. Lat. 329 1 l0 11 N, Lon. 8057 1 30 11W. Center of small depression 100 m east of midden. All measurement relative to local high-marsh surface, in meters. Interpreted by Abbott, after Hendey (1964) and Patrick and Reimer (1968).

0.0- 0.2 Standing water (high tide).

0.2- 1.2 Marsh clay (approximately 75% clay, 25% silt), with Spartina roots.

Diatoms: (Approximately 80% of assemblage, listed in relative abundance)

Cyclotella stylorum Brightwell

(Brackish)

Coscinodiscus divsus Grunow

(Neritic-littoral)

Rhaphoneis am hiceros (Ehr.) Ehrenberg

(Brackish)

Paralia sulcata Ehr.) Cleve

(Brackish)

Eunotia diodon Ehrenberg

(Freshwater, acid, cool)

Rhapalodia gibberula var. vanheurchkii (Grunow) (Freshwater, moderately

Cleve - Euler.

high conductivity)

Rhaphoineis rhombica Andrews

(Brackish}

Nitzschia granulata Grunow

(Brackish, high marsh)

Navicula mutica var. chonii (Hilse) Grunow

(Fresh brackish)

Interpreted as brackish water

1.4 - 1.6 Peat, compact, finely mascerated, black.

Diatoms: (listed in relative abundance)

Eunotia sp.

.

(Freshwater)

Eunotia sp. aff. f. major (W.S.) Rabh.

(Acid-freshwater)

Melosira numuloides Agardh

(Brackish)

Coscindodiscus divisus Grunow

(Fresh)

Pinnularia latevittata Cleve

(Brackish)

Nitzschia lorenziana var. subtilis Grunow

(Brackish)

Navicula cuspidata Kutz

(Freshwater)

Navicula mutica var. chonii (Hilse) Grunow

(Fresh-brackish)

Interpreted as brackish water

QC-715, 374110 radiocarbon yr BP

1.6 - 1.8 Peat, as above. Diatoms: Negative
Pollen (Taxodium, water lily, grass) suggests freshwater QC-715, 1440165 radiocarbon yr BP

2.0 - 2.4 Peat, as above.

Diatoms: (Approximately 70% of assemblage, liste~lin relative abundance)

Gomphonema angustatum (Kutz) Rabh

(Circumneutral to slightly

alkaline freshwater)

Unknown A

Pinnularia biceps Greg

(Freshwater)

Pinnularia acuminata var. W.S.

(Fresh, low mineral content)

Cyclotella st loreum Brightwell

(Brackish)

Melosira distans Ehr.) Kutzing

(Fresh to slightly brackish)

Eunotia sp.



(Fresh, high mineral, to brackish)

Navi.cula salinaurm var. intermedia (Grun) Cleve (Fresh, high mineral, to brackish)

Melosira nummulodies Agardh



(Brackish)

Eunatia sp. aff. f. major .

(Acid freshwater)

Interpreted as fresh to slightly brackish water

146

Table 2. Elevations of Transitions from Brackish or Fresh to Salt Water Deposits, South Carolina

Laboratory Number

General Location (lat., len.)

Source of Information

Position with respect to high-marsh surface
(in m)

Type of materials Radiocarbon Age (yr BP)

CRA 64 A
CRA 61 A
QC 589 QC 593 QC 586
QC 587 QC 588 QC 717
QC 716
0 1047 I 3047 M 1209 QC 602 QC 715 M 1111

cage Romain 33 5N 7922W
Cape Romain 335N 79022W
Combahee River 32040N 80o40W Combahee River 32040N 8040W Cooper River 32o58N 7952W
Cooper River 32o58N 7952W Cooper River 32o58N 79o52W Savannah River 32o9N 810Q7W
Savannah River 329N 81007W
Skull Creek 32014 oN 8045 oW Auld Mound 3205Q 0 N 7940W Pee Dee River 3323N 79o14W Savannah River 329N 8oo57W Bilbo site 3205N 815W

C. Ruby (1980, personal comm.)
C. Ruby (1980, personal comm.)
Stapor and Newman (unpubl. data) Stapor and Newman (unpubl. data) Brooks et ~ (1979)

8.7 - 9.2 below
8.2 - 8.7 below
4.15 - 4.35 below 4.0 - 4.2 below 4.3 - 4.7 below

Brooks et ~ (1979) 3.4 - 3.7 below

Brooks et ~ (1979) 2.8 - 3.1 below

Colquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data)

1.8 - 2.0 below

Colquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data)

1.6 - 1.8 below

Williams ( 1968)

1.0 below

Calmes ( 1967)

1.0 above

Crane and Griffin (1964) At high marsh surface

Stapor and Newman (unpubl. data) Colquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data)

3.4 - 3.6 below 1.4 - 1.6 below

Williams (1968)

1.0 below

Intercalated peat 10,000 150

with fresh to

(approx.)

brackish water

diatoms (Abbott)

Intercalated peat 8700 140

with fresh to brack- (approx.)

ish water diatoms

(Abbott)

Basal peat

5400 115

Basal peat

5280 115

Basal peat with 5005 140

fresh to brackish

water diatoms

(Abbott)

Basal peat with 4290 125

salt to brackish

water diatoms (Abbott)

Basal peat with 4135 65

salt to brackish

water diatoms (Abbott)

Intercalated peat 4145 165

lacking diatoms;

fresh above and below

(Abbott)

Intercalated peat 4140 165

lacking diatoms;

pollen suggests fresh

water (Abbott)

Charcoal 2 m below 4125 115

top of small midden,

0 - 15 em below MSL

Charcoal

3890 110

Oyster shell

3770 130

Basal peat

3690 150

Intercalated peat 3740 110

with brackish water

diatoms (Abbott)

Charcoal just

3820 125

above midden base

147

Table 2. (Continued)

I 2850 I 2848 GX 2281 GX 2279 I 2849 I 2847 QC 596 {1) QC 596 (2) QC 584 QC 697 QC 784
QC 585 QC 785
QC 600 QC 611 QC 583 QC 786-788 QC 699
Historic
Historic
Historic

Skull Creek 3214'N 8045'W Sea Pines 3209'N $!llll45'W Daws Island 3216'N $045'W Sewee Mound 3255'N 7!JIIl38'W Skull Creek 3214'N $01'l45'W Sea Pines 3209'N $11JIIl45'W Santee River 3312'N 7!9m24'W Cooper River 3258'N 7!952'W Wando River 3248'N 7!9m53'W Savannah River 32lt9'N 81 111D7'W
Cooper River 3258'N 7952'W Savannah River 3209'N 8107'W
Savannah River 3808'N 81D(l)59'W Cooper River 32o5$'N 7!9'52'W Cooper River 32058'N 79~52'W Wando River 325(!)' N 7!lll55'W Combahee ~iver 3217'N 1W'40'W
Paris Island "Santa Helena" 32017'N 8040'W Fort Moultrie "Fort Arbuthnot" 3245'N 7950'W
Charleston Tidal records

Calmes {1967) Calmes (1967) Michie (1~73) Edwards (196 ) Calmes (1967) Calmes (lm) Stap1r and ~ewman (unpuBl. tlata) Br!loks et ~- {1979)

1.0 below At high marsh surface 1.3 below At high marsh surface 1.0 above At high marsh surface 3.0 - 3.2 below
2.5 below

CGlquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data)
C!lllquhoun, Lepionka and Newman (unpubl. data)
Brmmks et al. (1979)

3.15 - 3.45 below 1.5 - 1.7 below 2.0 below

Colquhoun, Lepionka, and Newman (unpubl. data) Stapor and Newman (unpubl. data) Colquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data) Brooks et ~- (1979)

0.4 - 0.6 below
2.5 - 2.7 below 0.6 - 1.8 below 1.0 below

Colquhoun, Brooks,

at high marsh

and Newman (unpubl. data) surface

Colquhoun and Newman (unpubl. data)

3.0 - 3.3 below

S. South (1979, personal comm.) S. South (1974)

1.0 below 0.3 below

Hicks (1972)

various data

Charcoal

3585 115

Clam shell

3400 110

Oyster shell

3395 100

Conch shell

3295 110

Oyster shell

3120 110

Clam shell

3110 110

Basal peat

3135 140

3105 5

Basal peat with 3100 100

salt to brackish

water diatoms (Abbott)

Intercalated peat 3060 105

with fresh water

diatoms (Abbott)

Oyster shell from 3020 115

base of midden corre-

lated to marsh strati-

graphy by clays

Cypress stump in 2695 115

contact with marsh

clay at -2m

Oyster shells

2460 110

from near top of midden

correlated to marsh

stratigraphy by clays

Intercalated peat 2320 110

(not basal)

Intercalated peat 2150 110

with brackish water

diatoms (Abbott)

Cypress stump in 2035 105

contact with marsh

clays

Oyster shell

1345 100

from base, middle 1250 90

and top of midden 1535 95

Peat near base

1250 130

of section, with

tidal marsh diatoms

{Abbott) overlying

wood (channel?)

Drainage ditch

1577 - 87 A.D.

in slightly silty

sand, uncollapsed

therefore above high tide

Timber at base

1782 A.D.

of parapet, with no

sign of marine

incrustation, presently

below water table

Tidal gauge

1920 to present

Charleston Harbor

148

STRATIGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES
Problems in Data Acquisition
We have experienced relatively little difficulty in acqu1r1ng relevant geological data, although more are needed and all must be evaluated carefully, both individually and collectively. A possible problem exists in selection of a high-marsh surface datum for our curve, because of its variability. Adams (1963) and Redfield (1972) noted that relief of the equilibrium marsh surface vegetated by a phreatophytic sere climax in Massachusetts usually is 0.3 m or less. Marsh tidal datum levels there differ from those in the Georgia Bight, however (Frey and Basan, 1978). The various data used in all marsh-surface studies are strictly local, therefore, and are not tied into a global geodetic leveling system. Furthermore, any such system would have to take into account not only global variations in the geoid surface but also local and regional differences in eustatics, tectonics, tidal ranges, and sediment compaction.
Few problems have been encountered in obtaining radiocarbon dates, although many more are needed and three factors influencing precision of the dates must be considered:
(1) Sample size must be sufficiently large to provide an adequate amount of carbon for age determination. Samples smaller than about 8 g of dry peat have to be diluted for counting, which causes a corresponding loss in precision.
(2) Peats accumulate as soil-like profiles composed of both living and decaying plant materials. Hence, stratigraphic levels in a core may be 11 Smeared. 11
(3) Material dated must have been living contemporaneously with the depositional event in question. We have chosen to date peats and stumps for this purpose, because they generally fulfill this criterion and because they have proven successful in integrated studies in other areas (Brand et al., 1965; Tooley, 1976; Devoy, 1979). Peats nevertheless may be disPlaced from their original depositional surface through floating, and also may be penetrated by younger materials at latter times, giving mixed dates. In order to diminish the first problem, we look for blanket peats deposited over large areas in the Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, South Edisto, Combahee, Ashepoo, and Savannah River valleys. In terms of the second problem, peats are examined carefully for evidence of successive depositional episodes. A further measure is to obtain several dates from within the sampled site, and from several places within the same bed. Shells are not dated unless (A) present ecologic range of the species being dated is known, (B) stratigraphic position indicates that the specimen was in conformity with this range, and (C) they are found in growth position. The possibility of spatial or temporal displacement by man or by natural processes also must be considered.
Principles and Techniques Employed
Holocene stratigraphy in coastal lowland areas has provided useful information on sea-level trends when approached in interdisciplinary studies. Nearly all pioneering papers in foreign literature are based on shallow subsurface stratigraphy, diatom and pollen analyses, radiocarbon dating, and archaeological studies (Pons and Wiggers, 1959; Hageman, 1960; Jelgersma, 1961).
149

Depositional environments within an estuary are interpreted, and subsurface facies are traced and correlated laterally, through series of shallow marsh cores. Radiocarbon dates are obtained from fresh and brackish water peat strata at several locations in order to verify their contemporaneity and lateral continuity. Marsh clays intervening between peat beds in a stratigraphic column may be identified, and hence traced laterally, by theircontained plant (e.g., Allen, 1977) and clay mineral assemblages {e.g., Colquhoun et al., 1973). Peats may be formed in fresh, brackish, or saltwater environments;but only brackish water peats (as determined by diatom analysis) provide information on the position of the salt- to freshwater zone developed in relation to existing sea level. Transitions from marsh clay to.peat to marsh clay indicate long-term migrations of the salt wedge within an estuary, as suggested also. by elevations of dated archaeological sites with respect to present sea level (Brooks et E.}_., 1979).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES
In Europe, prehistoric and historic sites have been correlated with the high-marsh surface through stratigraphy and palynology. Of significance in documenting sea-level changes, many sites, dating at least to the Bronze Age, are inundated by marsh clays. Dating of these sites is accomplished through historic records, a highly refined cultural chronology in prehistoric settings, and radiometry (Bennema and Pons, 1957; Kooijmans, 1974; Dekker and DeWeerd, 1975; Rohde, 1978).
The effects of Holocene sea level fluctuations on prehistoric populations have been reported in Alabama (Holmes and Trickey, 1974) and Georgia (DePratter, 1977; DePratter and Howard, 1977). Although this problem has been the subject of considerable speculation in South Carolina (Edwards, 1965; Michie, 1973; Hemmings, unpubl. manuscript) only in the last two years has it been the subject of intensive study (Brooks and Scurry, 1978; Brooks et E.}_., 1979).
Archaeological sites most useful in deriving sea-level data are: (1) those resulting, in part, from shellfish uttlization in the coastal zan~ (shell middens), and (2) those in interior, inter-riverine areas representing utilization of coastal zone resources not associated with marshes (probably acorns, hickory nuts, and deer; Brooks and Scurry, 1978; Brooks et ~., 1979). A major archaeological assumption in this research is that prehistoric sites were located in close proximity to the resources being exploited for subsistence (Jochim, 1976). Therefore, changes in distribution and abundance of various resources caused by sea-level trends would alter the spatial distribution of sites through time.
Problems in Data Acquisition
Two major archaeological problems in acqu'iring data relevant to sea-level variability are: (1) absence of a refined cultural chronology for the South Carolina lower Coastal Plain, and (2) accurate determination of variables among sites that may be correlated with sea-level change. Radiometric dating of inland, inter-riverine sites usually is not possible because soil acidity has leached carbon and carbonate materials (bones and shells) if they existed. Consequently, relative dating techniques, such as cross-dating and seriation of artifact assemblages (Marquardt, 1978), usually are necessary. Although results yielded by these techniques may be informative, several possible sources .t error must be considered (e.g., Ford, 1962; Deetz and Dethlefsen, 1972;
150

Le Blanc, 1975; Marquardt, 1978) and discrimination of time intervals on the order of 400 to 500 yr in some cases is highly questionable.
In contrast, most coastal zone midden sites have abundant shell material for dating. However, because cultural deposits are involved, stratigraphic principles must be applied with care. The possibility that materials being dated radiometrically are not contemporaneous with the deposit in which they occur must be considered. Field notes of sites investigated by other archaeologists of the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology are consulted for information on dating by ceramics or radiometry. Dated site elevations are compared with the present high-marsh surface.

Variables examined for inland, inter-riverine sites indicate relative, but

not absolute, height and trends of sea-level stands. Such data may be important

when used in conjunction with other, more refined observations (Brooks et al.,

1979).

--

By virtue of their location, shell middens provide a more direct measurement of sea-level variability than interior, inter-riverine sites. Bases of middens
likely were higher than the high-marsh surface at the time of occupation. Further, those middens located in present-day marshes are dated in order to observe trends in sea-level change. Types and distribution of midden and coastal estuarine sites during various intervals of time are examined in relation to changing ecological patterns, in order to deduce sea-level changes (Kooijmans, ~974; Dekker and DeWeerd, 1975; DePratter, 1977; Lepionka et ~., 1979; Michie, 1n prep.).

Principles and Techniques Employed
Techniques currently employed for data collection are necessarily different for estuarine shell middens and inter-riverine sites. Each site represents human exploitation of a specific range of resources available in a particular environmental setting. Sea-level variability differentially effected these two types of environments, their respective resources, and hence the location of sites. Consequently, different variables must be examined for each type of site necessitating different data-recovery techniques.
Well to moderately well-drained soils produce the highest densities of oak and hickory (Quarterman and Keever, 1962). Inter-riverine sites of all prehistoric periods tend to be associated with such soils, suggesting that these trees (nuts) were being exploited; deer also were an important food source (Brooks and Scurry, 1978; Brooks et al., 1979). However, site association with soil type seems to have been somewhat variable through time because of reductions in area of well to moderately well-drained .soils during high sea-level stands. Temporal variability in site-soil association thus has been monitored and related to relative sea-level position.
Examination of three variables for inter-riverine sites (site-soil association, elevation of site above nearest drainage, and site dates) indicate that these sites tend to be clustered during high, as compared to low, sea-level stands.

151

During high sea-level stands, reduction in amounts of better drained soils resulted in more intensive exploitation of nuts and deer which, in turn, resulted in heavily utilized, more recognizable sites. Further, by comparing or integrating data reflecting these variables, the relative height of hi9h stands may be possible to determine. At higher stands of sea-level: (1) more sites were established; (2) more sites occurred on l~ss well-drained soil patches; (3) sites were located at higher elevations; and (4) sites were located at greater distances from the nearest drainage (Brooks et ~., 1979).
In contrast, coastal estuarine shell middens primarily represent exploitation of aquatic resources (shellfish and fish). In some instances, exploitation of terrestrial resources also is indicated (Edwards, 1965; Calmes, 1967; Hemmings, 1970; Wadd~ll, 1965, 1971; Michie, 1973, 1974, 1976; Sutherland, 1974; Combes, 1975; Trinkley, 1976). Earlier sites (ca. 4,200- 3,300 BP) tend to occur near mouths of estuaries and contain remains of a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial resources. Later sites (ca. 3,300 - 1,000 BP) are smaller, more numerous, more dispersed, and tend to occur farther landward in estuaries adjacent to small tidal creeks (Trinkley, 1980; Michie, in prep.; Scurry and Brooks, 1980). A much narrower range of resources (primarily intertida.l oysters) were exploited at these later sites. Remains of fish and'terrestri~l animals tend to be minimally represented or absent.
OBSERVATIONS
In comparison with Holocene sea-level curves produced elsewhere (e.g., Tooley, 1976; Bittencourt et al., 1978; Martinet al, 1979), the sea-level curve presented here (Fig. 1) has-5everal gross deficiencies:
(1) It is based on relatively few dates, whether 14c or ceramic, and some of
these need additional substantiation. Thus, many gaps exist in which the position of sea-level is unknown, although the trend of change may be indicated. For a curve of this type to be reliable, several hundred dates should be used, each carefully evaluated, and no lacunae should be present.
(2) It is based on data obtained from several estuaries along a coastline more than 200 km long, and laterally along estuaries for distances up to 40 km. Within such an area, local tectonics may.be important but will remain unknown until sea-level curves are constructed and compared for each estuary.
In spite of these deficiencies, the curve shows some significant features that should be studied further in light of information obtained by other workers:
(1) The curve suggests that sea-level during the Holocene in the southeastern United States fluctuated against a background of general rise; fluctuations seem to resemble those of the Fairbridge Curve (Fairbridge, 1961), and the general rise that of the shepard Curve (Shepard, 1963).
(2) Low stands in sea-level are more easily determined than high stands. That Holocene sea-level has not previously achieved its present elevation along this coast cannot be stated with certainty such data are lacking.
(3) From present knowledge, the duration of cycles of fluctuation seems to be 400 to 500 yr, which is similar to proposed European cycles (Hageman, 1969; Kooi jams, 1974).
152

I

)

THOUSANDS OF RADIOCARBON YEARS BEFORE PRESENT

I-3047A ' Al-2850 Al-2849

T

T

T

6

5

2

788 796 787
A AA

/. 0 ,+0

._ 0-10'4--7--A M-11'1-1- ,r\

T

I GX-2281 / '

~A 1

4 I111

'

II~

IlIAT/
I

~II
~

\ I\
1

1 1
I I

I :
I

/ /583
I

I\ II
I I

I I
\

I I
I

1 :
~I I

I~ I ..---t.-,
\ f

I I III III
\i

I1~I
1rn6 II 558949

11

I

660

I

16!91


I I
:/ I.

u w 2 Li!:
a:: :::>
(/)

::c

3

(/)
a::

.......

GQD l!::rJ

<{
:E

cw..n

~593

589

G

6

6 6 6

::c

4

(!)
:C

1z -

w

- D BASAL PEAT ON COMPACTED SURFACE

5

(/)
w

aa.:.:.

RADIOCARBON AGE
RADIOCARBON LABORATORY~ XXX I}DEPTH RANGE SAMPLED
NUMBERS ~
RADIOCARBON YEARS
:.r; ., ~r~-~.,
\ld/"'' ~u;;

o INTERCALATED PEAT ON SALT MARSH MUD (SEA LEVEL MUST BE ABOVE)

A ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE AT HIGH MARSH SURFACE
D (BY DIATOMS OR CLAY MINERALOGY)

A
T
6

ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE ABOVE HIGH MARSH SURFACE (SEA LEVEL MUST BE BELOW)- ESTUARINE SHELL MIDDENS
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE CLUSTERS IN INTERRIVERINE AREAS

e HISTORIC DATA

6 ~ w...J CD

(/)

7

a:: w

1-
w

:E

8

9

Fig. 1. Combined geological (basal and intercalated peat; in-situ stumps) and archaeological data (interriverine and coastal estuarine midden) relative to sea-level change, South Carolina coast.

(4) Some correspondence seems to exist between European lowland transgressiveregressive phases and our postulated trend, suggesting that eustatic changes play an important role. Transgression between 2,300 and 2,000, 3,300 and 3,000, and 4,500 and 4,000 yr BP (Fig. 1) possibly correlate with Dunkirk 1 {2,100- 2,000), Dunkirk 0 (3,500- '3,000), and Calais IVA (4,500- 4,000) of Hageman (1963), Brand et al. (1965), and DeGroot (1979). The Calais IVB transgressive phases (4,000 ~3,750) of Hageman (1963) may be reflected as well, although not strongly supported by our present data.
{5) Range of variation between low and high stands during a single fluctuation evidently is on the order of 2 m or less. This range is at variance with the Fairbridge curve, but is in general agreement with curves by Ters (1973), Tooley (1974), Moerner {1979), and Bittencourt et ~ (1978).
(6) Comparing our curve (Fig. 1) with that for the Netherlands (Jelgersma, 1961) reveals similar estimates for sea-level variation from the present to approximately 5,500 yr BP. Divergence is apparent prior to this time, where both Carolina and Dutch data are deficient. Tectonic similarity between these two areas is possible.
SIGNIFICANCE
If trends depicted in our preliminary curve prove valid, they will have significance in several areas of study. Coincident transgressive-regressive phases in northwest Europe and South Carolina over the last 5,000 yr, at 400 to 500 yr intervals with 1- to 2-m fluctuations, might indicate that eustatism is involved. Geodetic variance, as proposed by Moerner (1979), is not supported by such coincident changes. Times of storminess, as suggested for proposed coincidence between northern Canada and northwest Europe (Hillaire-Marcel and Fairbridge, 1978), might be applicable. However, a documented link between South Carolina and The Netherlands, in view of geographic and climatic differences, would indicate that glacial-eustatism, as suggested by Fairbridge (1961), is a more likely explanation.
Such curves also might help explain the lack of shell middens on this coast prior to 4200 yr BP, a date at variance with South American and European data. Lower sea level prior to the 4000-yr BP transgression (Fig. 1) may indicate that shell middens prior to that time presently are buried landward, or eroded seaward, of the oldest beach ridges on coastal barrier islands. Brazilian coasts, although recording Holocene fluctuations, indicate higher sea-level stands, as reflected by intertidal algal incrustations (Bittencourt et al., 1978), than on Carolina coasts. Therefore, Brazilian middens prior to 4000yr BP are elevated above present sea level, and not submerged.
The sequence of progressively younger archaeological sitesseaward on beach ridges associated with barrier islands is explained by the progressive establishment of ridge crests (DePratter and Howard, 1977}. Development of barrier islands probably is related intimately to sea-level fluctuations. The oldest ridge on Kiawah Island, and emplacement of a washed shell-lag deposit in the subsurface near Cape Romain, seem to indicate a relationship with the 4000-yr-BP transgression (Fig. 1; Maslow and Colquhoun, 1980; C. Ruby, 1980, personal comm.). Younger beach ridge crests established seaward of the initial crest also may be
154

emplaced by Holocene transgressive-regressive episodes; but because ridge crests are more numerous than known fluctuations, the picture remains unclear.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, D.A., 1963, Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in North Carolina salt marshes: Ecol. v. 44, p. 445-456.
Allen, E.A., 1977, Petrology and stratigraphy of Holocene-Coastal-Marsh deposits along the western shore of Delaware Bay: DEL-SG-20-77, University of Delaware, Newark, 287 p.
Behre, K.E., Brandt, K., Barchkhausen, J., and Streif, H., 1975, Guidebook to the 1975 coastal excursion of INQUA subcommission shorelines bf N.W. Europe: Niedersachsisches Landesame, D-3, Hannover 51, 14 p., 18 figs.
Bennema, J. and L.J. Pons, 1957, The excavation at Velsen: The Holocene deposits in the surroundings of Velsen and their relation to those in the excavation: VERH. K.N.G.M.G. GEOL. SERlE XVII, pp. 199-218.
Bittencourt, A.C.S.P., G.S. Vilas Boas, T.U. Flexor and Martin, 1978, Excursion to the Quaternary Formations of the Salvador Coastal Region: Bahia-Guidebook, pp. 80-115.
Brand, G., B.P. Hageman, S. Jelgersma and K.E., Sindowski, 1965. Die lithostratigraphische Unterteilung des marinen Holozans an der Nordselkuste: Geol. Jahrb 82, pp. 363-384.
Brooks, M., J. Colquhoun, D.J., Pardi, R.R., Newman, W.S., and Abbott, W.H., 1979, Preliminary Archaeological and Geological Evidence for Holocene Sea level fluctuations in the Lower Cooper River Valley, S.C.: The Florida Anthropologist, v. 32, No. 3., September pp. 85-103.
Brooks, M.J. and Scurry, J.D., 1978, An intensive archaeological survey of Amoco Realty Property in Berkeley County, South Carolina with a test of two subsistence-settlement Hypotheses for the Prehistoric Period: Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, 147, pp. 43-63.
Calmes, A., 1967, Test excavations at three Late-Archaic shell-ring mounds on Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina: Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bull. 8: 22p.
Crane, H.R. and Griffin, J.B., 1964, University of Michigan Radiocarbon Date XI: Radiocarbon, V. 6, pp. 1-24.
Colquhoun, D.J., Bond, T., and Chappel, D., 1973, Santee submergence: Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 133 . 475-496.
Combes, J.D., 1975, The archaeology of Kiawah Island: In Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island, Environmental Research Center, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 2-32.
155

Deetz, J. F. , and Deth1efsen, s. , 1972, Death s Head, Cherub Urn and Will ow:
In Comtemporary Archaeology, edited by Mark P. Leone, pp. 402-410, . Southern Illinois University Press., Carbondale.

DeGroot, T.A.M., 1979, Holocene marine sedimentation in the Boorne River Basin, Friesland (the Netherlands): International meeting on Holocene marine sedimentation in the North Sea Basin, Abstracts, TEXEL, The Netherlands, September 17-23, 1979, pp. 4-5.

Dekker, L.W. and DeWeerd, M.D., 1975, Bodmvondsten En Bodemopbouw in Midden Westfriesland: Boor En Spade 19, pp. 39-53.

DePratter, C. B., 1977, Environmental changes on the Georgia coast during the Prehistoric period: Early Georgia 5(1,2), pp. 1-14.

DePratter, C.B., and Howard, J.D., 1977, History of shoreline changes determined by Archaeological dating: Georgia Coast U.S.A.: Transactions-Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 27, pp. 252-258.

Devoy, R.J.N., 1979, Flandrian sea level changes and vegetational history of the lower Thames estuary: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, val. 285, no. 1010, pp. 355-410.

Edwards, W.E., 1965, Preliminary report on excavations at Sewee Indian Mound: Report prepared for the Francis Marion National Forest, pp. 1-55.

Fairbridge, R.W., 1961, Convergence of evidence on climatic change and the

Ice Ages: Ann. New York Acad. Sci., val. 95, art. 1, pp. 542-579.

/

Ford, J.A., 1962, A quantitative method for deriving cultural c~ronology; Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-118.

Frey, R.W. and Basan, P.B., 1978, Coastal salt marshes: In Davis, R.A., Jr., (ed.), Coastal sedimentary environments. Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101-
169.

Hageman, B.P., 1960, De Holocene ontwikkeling van de Rihn-Maasond: Geol en Mijnb. 39, pp. 661-670.
(
Hageman, B.P., 1963, Prefieltypelegenda van de nieuwe Geologische Kaart van het Zeeklei - En Riverkieigebied: Tijdschr. Kon. Ned. Aardr. Gen. 80, pp. 217-229.

Hageman, B.P., 1969, Development of the Western Part of the Netherland during Holocene, Geol. en Mijnb 48~ pp. 373-388.

Hendey, I.N., 1964, An introductory account of the smaller algae of British coastal water: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Fishery Investigations Series IV, London, Her Majestys Stationary Office, 317 p.

Hemmings, E.T., Information concerning shell ring sites on the Coast of South Carolina: Manuscript on file at the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, (undated), pp. 1-38.

156

Hemmings, E.T., 1970, Preliminary report on excavations at Fig Island, South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, The Notebook II, pp. 9-11.
Hicks, S.D., 1972, Vertical crustal movements from sea level measurements along the East Coast of the United States: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 77 (30), pp. 5930-5934.
Hillaire-Marcel, C. and Fairbridge, R.W., 1978, Isostasy and Eustasy of Hudson Bay~ Geology, Vol. 6, pp. 117-122.-
Holmes, N.H. and Trickey, E.B., 1974, Late Holocene sea level oscillations in Mobile Bay: American Antiquity, Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 122-124.
Jelgersma, S., 1961, Holocene sea level changes in the Netherlands: Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden; Meded Geol. Sticht. CVI 7, 100 p.
Jochim, M.A., 1976, Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A predictive model: Academic Press Inc., New York, pp. 47-64.
Kooijams, L.P., 1974, The Rhine/Meuse Delta/Four studies on its prehistoric occupation and Holocene geology: Profeschrift Leiden, 421 p.
LeBlanc, S.A., 1974, Micro-seriation: A method for fine chronological differentiation: American Antiquity, 40 p. 22-38.
Lepionka, L., Colquhoun, D.J., and McCollum, D., 1979, Preliminary report on the Second Refuge site, Locatidn 22, in the Savannah Wildlife refuge, submitted to the U.S.D.I., I.A.S., Atlanta, 82 p.
Marquardt, W.H., 1978, Advances in archaeological seriation: in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by M.B. Schiffer, Academic Press, New York, pp. 257-314.
Martin, L., Suguio, K. and Flexor, J.M., 1979, Le Quaternarie marin du Littoral Bresilian entro Caneneia et Barra de Guaratiba, B.J.: in Proceedings of the Int. Sym. on Coastal Evolution in the Quaternary Sao Paulo,Brazil, edited by K. Suguio, Sao Paulo,Brazil, pp. 296-355.
Michie, J.L., 1973, Archaeological indications for sea level 3,500 years ago: South Carolina Antiquities 5(1), pp. 1-11.
Michie, J.L., 1974, A second burial from the Daw's Island shell midden, 38BU9, Beaufort County, South Carolina: South Carolina Antiquities 6(1), pp. 37-47.
Michie, J.L., 1976, The Daw's Island shell midden and its significance during the formative period: Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on South Carolina Archaeology, pp. 1-8.
Michie, J.L., in preparation, An intensive shoreline survey of Port Royal Sound and the Broad River estuary, Beaufort County, South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, pp. 1-138.
157

Moerner, N-A., 1979, Eustasy and geoid changes as a function of core mantle changes: In Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy, edited by N-A. Merrner, Wiley and Sons,
New York, pp. 1-32.

Moerner, N-A., 1979, Eustatic and climatic changes during the last 15,000 years: Geologie en Mijnbouw 48, pp. 389-399.

Maslow, T.F., and Colquhoun, D.J., Stratigraphy of Holocene barriers in the Southeastern United States, significance to the origin of barrier islands in Europe: Resume of communications of Symposium 23, Variations in Sea Level, XXVII Intertnational Geological Congress, Paris (to appear).

Paepe, R., 1960, La plaine maritime entre Dunkerque et la frontiere Belge: Bull. Soc. Belg. et Geogr., pp. 1-29.

Patrick, R. and Reimer, C.W., 1968, Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, No. 13, 688 p.

Pons, L.J. and Wiggers, A.J., 1959, De Holocene Wordingsgeschiedenis van Noordholland en het Zuiderzeegebied: Tisdschr. Kon. Ned. Aardr. Gen., 76, p. 104-152 and 77, pp. 1-57.

Quarterman, E. and Keever, C., 1962, Southeastern mixed hardwood forest: climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain: Ecol. Mono. 32, pp. 167-187.

Redfield, A.C., 1972, Development of a New England salt marsh: Ecol. Mono., v. 42, pp. 201-237.

Riezebos, P.A. and Du Saar, A. du, 1969, Een dwarsdoorsnede doore de mariene Holocene Afzettingen Tussen Uijfhuizen En Vikeveen: Med. Risks Geol. Dienst., N.S. 20, pp. 85-92.

Rohde, H., 1978, The history of the German coastal area: in Die Kuste, Archive for
Research and Technology on the North Sea and Baltic Coast, Heft 32, Heide 1, Holse, pp. 1-49.

Scurry, J.D. and Brooks, M.J., 1980, An intensive archaeological survey of the South Carolina State Ports Authority's Belleview Plantation, Charleston County, South Caroli.na: Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, 158, pp. 75-78.

Shepard, F.P., 1963, Thirty-five thousand years of sea level; in Essays in Marine Geology in honor of K.O. Emery, Univ. of Southern Carlifornia Press, Los Angeles, p. 10.

Somme, J., 1975, Les Plaines du Nord de la France et leur Bordure: Thesis Paris.

South, S., 1974, Palmetto Parapets: Occasional papers of the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Anthropological Studies1, pp. 19-53.

Sutherland, D.R., 1974, Excavations at the Spanish Mount Shell Midden, Edisto Island,

South Carolina: South Carolina Antiquities 6(1), pp. 25-36.

~
Ters, M., 1973, Les variations du niveau marin depuis 10,000 ans le long du littoral

. ;
1

Atlantique Francais: in Recherches sur le Quaternarie marin, Le Quaternaire,

Centre National de la recherche Scientifique, pp. 114-135.

158

Tooley, M.J., 1974, Sea level changes during the last 9,000 years in north-west England: Geology Journal, Vol. 140, pp. 137-152.
Tooley, M.J., 1976, Flandrian sea-level changes in west Lancashire: Geology Journal, vol. 2(2), pp. 137-152.
Trinkley, M.B., 1976, A typology of Thorn's Creek pottery for the South Carolina coast: M.A. Thesis, University of North Carolina, pp. 1-77.
Trinkley, M.B., in preparation, Investigation of the Woodland period along the South Carolina coast: Ph.D. Diss.ertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, pp. 333-389.
Waddell, E.G., 1964, A C-14 Date for Awendaw Punctate: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3, pp. 82-84.
Waddell, E.G., 1971, A ceramic sequence for the coastal plain of South Carolina: South Carolina antiquities 3(1), pp. 7-27.
Williams, S., 1968, The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, edited by Stephen Williams: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology LVII, pp. 329-330.
159

CHRONOLOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL REEXAMINATION OF THE IRENE CERAMIC COMPLEX
Fred c. Cook P.O. Box 117, Midway, Georgia 31320
ABSTRACT Ceramic type descriptions and a chronological sequence currently in use on the Georgia coast originated in federally-sponsored depression period archaeological projects of the 1930s. Temporal. placement and identifying characteristics of the original chronological scheme has changed with the advent of l4c dating and continues to evolve as additional dates are added and new excavations are made. For the Irene period (650 to 400 BP), modifications include recognition of Irene Burnished Plain as a separate ceramic type, identification of rim decoration as a temporal indicator, and comparisons of form and decoration on mortuary and domestic vessels. Recent work at the Kent Mound and Pine Harbor site provided stratigraphic evidence for late temporal placement of the Irene Incised type and for the ulilitarian or domestic origin of most mortuary vessels.
INTRODUCTION The Irene period constitutes a late Mississippian archaeological period on the Georgia coast that has been studied sporadically since the middle 1930 1 s (Caldwell and Waring, 1939a, 1939b; Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Caldwell, 1943; Larsen, 1955, 1957, 1958a, 1958b; Pearson, 1977; DePratter, 1977; Cook, 1978). Describing ceramics and establishing chronologies were the concerns of the earlier years; but in the last two decades interest in topics more directly related to anthropology, such as subsistence and settlement patterns, have been stimulated by revolutionary changes in American archaeology. Unfortunately, many assumptions and premises upon which modern coastal archaeology depends have been founded on incomplete or even erroneous chronologies (DePratter, 1977). With all their ancillary specialists and processual attitudes, coastal researchers often have been led down an interpretive dead-end street by synchronic views of ceramic types that are almost entirely diachronic (Martinez, 1975; Milanich, 1977; Cook, 1978). Reexamination of the Irene period ceramic complex on the Georgia coast is the purpose of this paper. Specifically, the intent is to provide a finer delineation of Irene ceramics with regard to chronological position of certain decorative attributes and the functional context in which these attributes occur. Chronological range for the Irene ceramic complex used for this paper is 650 to 400 BP, although DePratters (1977) .recently proposed range is 50 years lower.
Prev1ous Work The Irene period was recognized as a result of Caldwell and McCanns WPA excavations of the Irene site near Savannah, Georgia (Caldwell and McCann,
160

1941). Although Irene probably was more representative of a Savannah River than a coastal culture, the descriptive data on ceramics, mortuary practices, and architecture from the site form the basis of an archaeological period that extended geographically from South Carolina to north Florida (Caldwell and Waring, 1939a; Caldwell and McCann, 1941). This ceramic complex is composed of three types: Irene Filfot Stamped, Irene Plain, and Irene Incised (Caldwell and Waring, 1939b).
Some minor rev1s1ons of this complex have been suggested. The first, proposed by Larsen (1958a), subdivided the Irene ceramic complex of the central Georgia coast to include the Pine Harbor complex, through recognition of an additional ceramic type, Mcintosh Incised. This type is an elaborately decorated ceremonial ware that bears incised representations of eagle and serpent beings. Mcintosh Incised is distinctly different from Irene Incised in its elaboration of anthropomophic or zoomorphic figures rather than simple geometric design described for the Irene ceramic complex (Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Larson, 1958a).
Another proposed variation in the Irene ceramic complex was made by Pearson (1977). This revision consists of a subdivision of Irene Plain into two categories based on surface finish; the two groups were designated Irene Plain and Irene Burnished Plain.
Problems Remaining
I do not question the theoretical basis for Caldwell and Waring's (1939a) original ceramic types, but certain inherent problems must be discussed before an analysis and interpretation of current data can be presented. First, the type descriptions illustrate surface decoration and vessel form as interdependent factors. In reality, ceramic vessels from several sites demonstrate a considerable degree of variation in surface decoration. The most extreme examples probably are vessels decorated with both filfot stamping and incising (Caldwell and McCann, 1941; Pearson, 1977; Cook, 1978). Obviously, none of the existing Irene-type names are appropriate for these vessels. Incising on these vessels usually occurs on a surface that is burnished a considerable distance above and below the decorated area; to assign parts of a single vessel to three different types is therefore possible: Irene Filfot Stamped, Irene Plain, and Irene Incised.
Another concern is with identification of Irene Plain, which is difficult or impossible to distinguish in dual component Savannah-Irene sites. Although Irene Plain often can be segregated on the basis of its course grit temper, in other cases it is indistinguishable from Savannah Plain. Caldwell experienced difficulty in classifying Irene Plain in multi-component contexts at the Irene site. Consequently, he resorted to lumping all plain ware from the last constructional stage of the platform mound into a single category, termed "Residual Plain" (Caldwell and McCann, 1941).
161

A

0

20cm

8

Seale for A an.d B

c

0

10cm

Scale for C, D, and E
E D

Fig. 1.

Pottery vessels of the Irene ceramic complex. (A) Simple geometric incised, filfot stamped, and burnished vessel. (B,C) Barred oval and filfot stamped vessels. (D) Elaborate incised and burnished vessel. (E) Elaborate incised vessel.

162

MICROCHANGE IN THE IRENE CERAMIC COMPLEX
A series of mound construction stages at the Kent Mound on St. Simon's Island provides evidence for changes in certain decorative attributes during site occupation. Most noteworthy of these is a shift from near absence of incised ware in the earliest levels to a high frequency in the latest (Tables 1, 2). The conclusion that incising was an insignificant decorative technique in the early Irene ceramic complex is supported by stratigraphic data from the Irene site itself (Caldwell and McCann, 1941) and the Pine Harbor site in Mcintosh County (Cook, 1979).
The earliest aboriginal pit at the Kent Mound exhibited a frequency of only 0.1 percent incised, whereas the largest refuse midden in the northern sector of the Pine Harbor site produced no incised sherds in the six lower levels of a test excavation. Mound eight at the Irene site is not postdated by additional construction stages, but whole vessels of both Irene and the previous Savannah complexes found in its fill point to a chronological position of transistional Savannah-Irene. Frequency of incised ware in mound eight also is extremely low (Table 1). Several other major architectural features at the Irene site indicate that occupation continued for a considerable time after the completion of mound eight. Unfortunately, Caldwell did not report ceramic counts for excavation levels within mound eight; whether the six incised sherds were found in various levels near the surface is not known.
Later levels at all three of the above sites demonstrated a dramatic increase in frequency of incising. Percentage of incised sherds in those levels ranges between 3.0 and 20.6 percent, the highest percentage being from the same midden at Pine Harbor that contained no incised sherds in the six lower levels.
Incised elements on Irene sherds show variability in design, but several decorative patterns can be identified and arranged chronologically. Irene sites from Charleston, South Carolina, to the north Florida coast have produced sherds that bear simple scrolls or rectilin~ar motifs executed in broad lines that average 1.5 mm in width (Caldwell and Waring, 1939a). The design usually is applied near the rim or on the shoulder of bowls and more rarely on jars. This form of simple geometric incising was most popular following introduction of incising in middle Irene and continued in use until the early 17th century (Fig. lA). The Kent Mound produced examples of simple geometric incising from contexts that represent middle and late (post-European?) occupations (Cook, 1977).
Even though simple geometric incising continued in use after European contact, a greater proportion of it was replaced during late Irene by several other forms of incising. The first of these consists of a combination of rectilinear and (or) curvlinear motifs enclosing an open barred oval (Fig. 10, lE). The oval itself is a stylistic element of the broadly distributed Mississippian Southern Cult (Waring and Holder, 1968). Incising on this ware is typically executed with a fine pointed tool, and the lines averaged 1 mm in width. Ceramics bearing this decorative technique have been found in post-European levels on St. Catherines Island (Caldwell, 1972), at the Pine Harbor site (Cook, 1979), Kent Mound site (Cook, 1978), and at the Walker Point site and St. Augustine, Florida (Hemmings and Deagan, 1973).
163.

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGES OF EACH DECORATIVE MODE FROM EARLY IRENE CONTEXT AT THREE IRENE SITES. SHERD COUNT IN PARENTHESIS. VALUE FOR IRENE PLAIN NOT GIVEN {CALDWELL AND McCANN, 1941).

Provenance

Fil fat Stamped

Plain

Incised

Kent MoundFeature 1 Irene- Mound 8
Pine HarborTest C, levels 3-8, 20-80 em

84.8 (733) 99.7 ( 1843) 83.0 (44)

15.1

0.1

(130)

(1)

o. 3.

(6)

17.0

0

{9)

(0)

TABLE 2. PERCENTAGES OF EACH DECORATIVE MODE FROM LATE IRENE CONTEXT AT THREE IRENE SITES. SHERD COUNTS IN PARENTHESIS EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED.

Provenance

Filfot Stamped

Plain

Incised

Filfot-Indsed

Kent Mound-

73.1

22.0

4.9

0

Feature 11

(343)

(103)

(23)

Kent Mound-

70.0

22.5

7.5

0

Feature 9

(56)

( 18):

{6)

Kent Mound

66.7

30.3

3.0

0

Burial 1975-9

(22)

(10)

(1)

(sherds in pit fill)

Kent Mound-

18.1

0

27.3

54.6

Burial 1975-9

(2)

(3)

(6)

(whole and restor-

able vessels)

Irene site-

79.5

12.8

7.7

0

Mortuary vessels

(31)

(5)

(3)

Pine Harbor site-

68.3

11.1

20.6

0

Test C, levels 1

(43)

- (7)

(13)

and 2, 0-20 em.

164

A second type of post-European incising is composed of large, elaborately executed motifs that depict a wide variety of Southern Cult symbolism. Crosses, concentric circles, barred ovals, batons, hands, and conventionalized serpents are presented on vessels from the Kent Mound and the Pine Harbor site (Fig. 1B, C). The incised lines were produced with a broad tool, as in simple geometric incising, and rather large sherd size is a prerequisite to accurate identification. Elaborately incised vessels of this type have been found at the Kent, Taylor and Pine Harbor burial mounds (Cook and Pearson, 1973; Cook, 1978, 1979). The most universal feature of this type of decoration is a series of dots, dashes, and blank spaces that occur non-randomly around the vessel. Distribution of these designs is assymetrical, and their arrangement may represent an ordered symbolism.
Larson's (1958a) Mcintosh Incised probably should be included with this second type of incising, .but the Mcintosh incising is achieved by a series of fine lines, and parts of the vessel were scraped away to produce a design in relief. The chronological range for elaborate incising is approximately the same as for barred oval incising; several examples were found in the latest levels at the Kent Mound.
The last decorative category to be considered is rim decoration. The Kent Mound excavations (Cook, 1978) provided data suitable for analysis of long-term rim development. Rim decoration consisting of a strip of clay segmented by a blunt, rectangular tool was most popular during the early Irene period (Table 3). Undecorated rims are next in frequency, followed by a minority attribute consisting of a wide strip of clay that bears a series of punctuations produced with a hollow circular tool. Hollow punctuation of a plain rim occurs also, but the frequency is very low. A gradual change in each rim attribute may be summarized as follows: (1) a decline in the rim strip, (2) an increase in frequency of hollow punctuation and decrease in segmentation and, (3) an increase in frequency of undecorated rims. Although the sample size is small, the Kent Mound trend is substantiated by whole vessels in Pine Harbor Mound (Cook, 1979). There, a filfot stamped vessel having a segmented rim strip was associated with a simple geometric incised and filfot stamped bowl. These vessels were found stratigraphically below a deposit of seven other vessles, four of which had hollow punctuated rim strips, and three had plain rims. One of these vessels was elaborately incised. Stratigraphic placement of these groups nf vessels is representative of middle and late Irene, respectively.
An apparently additional stage in ceramic development was noted at the Pine Harbor site, but not at Kent Mound. In the latest Pine Harbor village and burial mound contexts, several rim sherds were found that contained a wide rim fold decorated by a series of large hollow punctuations. This type of rim is characteric of historic period Altamaha-San Marcos vessels. Body decoration on rim sherds from the Pine Harbor site is in some instances cross-simple stamped (Caldwell, 1943; Otto and Lewis, 1974), but more frequently it is Irene Filfot Stamped. These sherds probably represent vessels that are transistional IreneAltamaha. Recent examination of ceramic collections from the historic San Juan Del Puerto site on Ft. George Island in northeast Florida revealed several sherds that also were filfot stamped. Hence, distribution of filfot stamped historic ceramics may be more widespread than previously suspected.
165

TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RIM STYLES AT THE KENT MOUND SITE. SHERD COUNTS IN PARENTHESIS EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED.

Provenance

Stratigraphic Segmented Hollow Punct. Hollow Punct. Plain

Order

Rim Strip Rim Strip

Plain Rim

Rim

Feature 1

1

Feature 11

2

Feature 8

3

Feature 9

4

Burial 1975-9

5

(tomplete and

restorable

vessels)

45.0

18.3

(32)

(13)

42.3

13.3

(19)

(5)

22.2

33.4

(4)

(6)

16.7

16.7

( 1)

( l)

9.1

.o

(1)

1.5

35.2

(1)

(23)

6.7

37.7

(3)

( 17)

0

44.4

(8)

16.7

49.9

(1)

(3)

36.4

54.6

(4)

(6)

TABLE 4. IDENTIFIED SHERDS FROM THE PINE HARBOR SITE CROSS-TABULATED BY SOCIOCULTURE CONTEXT AND ATTRIBUTE-TYPE.

Filfot Stamped

Incised

Total

Village

434

Burial Mound

136

Total

570

55

489

13

149

68

638

r
166
\:

FUNCTIONAL CONTEXT OF IRENE CERAMICS
Milanich (1977) contended that definitions for 11 the Savannah and Irene series were based largely on pottery specimens recovered from ceremonial contexts at the Irene Site," and that those descriptions are not applicable to ceramics from village deposits on the lower Georgia coast. This idea was supplemented by suggestions that Irene Incised may be a special ceremonial or mortuary ware. Thus far, premises behind these conclusions have been subjective. A more logical approach to this problem would be to determine, first, the sacred or secular associations of decorative attributes. Subsequent statistical analysis of these data might indicate the original function of the vessels. The Pine Harbor site was selected for such an analysis because data could be collected from village and mortuary contexts within the same locale. Village ceramic collections were made from 24 individual shell middens located in the northern one-third of the site, after each midden had been scattered by recent commercial development (Cook, 1979). Ceramics from mortuary context in the burial mound were recovered during test excavations in a 13.75 m2 area.
Decorative attributes, filfot stamping and incising, rather than three ceramic types -- Irene Filfot Stamped, Irene Plain, and Irene Incised -- were used in the analysis. In order to reduce analytical error, only those two attributes that could be positively identified and assigned to the Irene period were utilized (Table 4). The overall ceramic collection from the village was about 67 percent Irene and the remainder was primarily Savannah. Several Altamaha sherds were found in addition to a few Wilmington and Deptford period sherds. Composition of the burial mound was similar to the village and about 60 percent of the sherds are assignable to the Irene period. Savannah ceramics made up most of the balance, although Altamaha, St. Catherines, Wilmington, and St. Johns sherds (imported from Florida) were present as minority types.
Statistical analysis of Pine Harbor site ceramics followed the logic and mathematical procedure presented by Spaulding (1953) and Siegel (1956). Basically, their procedure suggests use of an appropriate statistic to test the validity of a hypothesis that assumes independence within logically tabulated data. In this case, the null hypothesis to be tested was: The ceramic assemblages of burial mounds and villages are not significantly different from one another and can be considered to have come from the same population. A Chi-square test was used to determine the probability that sherd collections from the village and burial mound represented sampling variation alone in a population having independent decorative attributes. The Chi-square value of .82 (computed for data in Table 4) indicates that the associations tabulated could have occurred by chance alone between 30 and 50 times in 100. In other words, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05 level of significance, indicating that neither stamping nor incising can be used to descriminate mortuary from domestic vessels.
The eleven whole vessels from the Pine Harbor burial mound are of little additional value in determination of primary function, because nine are from the latest context. That two of the nine vessels are incised probably is due to relative increase in incised ware during the late Irene period.
Indications of the function of whole Irene vessels from the Kent and Pine Harbor mounds can be inferred from certain aspects of their physical condition.
167

Some vessels have oxidized bases and heavily sooted exterior walls, a condition similar to that observed on Spariish earthenware vessels from St. Augustine, Florida. Aboriginal vessels utilized by the Spanish and aboriginal vessels from St. Augustine have heavy encrustations of carbon on the interior surface that has been attributed to burned food(Otto and Lewis, 1974; Cook, 1977). One of the barred oval-filfot stamped vessels from the Kent Mound had similar exterior and interior deposits. The best explanation for this vessel's condition is that it hadbeen subjected to extensive culinary service prior to its placement as a burial offering. Other vessels from the Kent and Pine Harbor mounds have minor rim damage that apparently was present before deposition in the mounds. Sections of rim are missing, and in several cases, broken edges were ground smooth to extend the vessels usefulness. Finally, many Kent Mound and Pine Harbor vessels have perforations of the base that probably are intentional ceremonial fractures made at the time of burial and are not related to normal use.
SUMMARY
As a result of excavations at the Kent Mound and Pine Harbor sites, several refinements in Irene ceramic type descriptions and chronological placement have been suggested. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that Irene Incised was developed late in the Irene period and continued into the historic Altamaha period. Early incised decoration was composed of simple geometric motifs, whereas a variety of more elaborate forms, including crosses, batons, hands, and conventionalized serpents, were later developments. Rim decoration on early Irene vessels included segmented or punctuated rim strips, although many rims were not decorated. Later in the Irene period, segmented rim strips decreased in frequency, and both punctuated and undecorated rim frequencies increased. Still later, during the Altamaha period, another type of rim decoration, consisting of a folded rim having hollow punctate,was developed. Evidence suggests that most vessels from the Kent and Pine Harbor burial mounds were designed and constructed for domestic service but were later used as burial urn offerings. At present, to demonstrate any significant differences between sherds found in village deposits and mound fill is not possible; the number of whole pots from the two mounds analyzed was not sufficient to allow comparison of mortuary vessels to village sherds.
REFERENCES CITED
Caldwell, J.R., 1943, Cultural relations of four Indian sites on the Georgia coast. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Chicago. 58 p.
Caldwell, J.R. and Waring, A.J., Jr., 1939a, Some Chatham County pottery types. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 1 (5 and 6), 24 p.
Caldwell, J.R. and Waring, A.J., Jr., 1939b, The use of a ceramic sequence in the classification of aboriginal sites in Chatham County, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 2(1):6-7.
Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., 1941, The Irene Mound Site, Chatham Coun_t.Y~. .~PI~ University of Georgia Press, Athens, 84 p.
Cook, F.C., 1978, The Kent Mound: A Study of the Irene Phase on the Lower Georgia coast. Unpublished M.S. Thesis Florida State University, Tallahassee, 163 p.
168

Cook, F.C., 1979, The Pine Harbor Survey. Society for Georgia Archaeology Newsletter, No. 23, p. 9-11.
DePratter, C.B., 1977, Environmental changes on the Georgia coast during the prehistoric period. Early Georgia 5(1-2):1-14.
Hemmings, E.T. and Deagan, K.A., 1973, Excavations on Amelia Island in Northeast Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, No. 18, Gainesville, 95 p.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1955, Unusual figurine from the Georgia coast. Florida Anthropologist 8(3): 75-81.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1957, The Norman Mound, Mcintosh County, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 10(1,2): 37-52.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1958a, Southern cult manifestations on the Georgia coast. American Antiquity 23(4): 426-430.
Larson, L.H., Jr., 1958b, Cultural relationships between the northern St. Johns area and the Georgia coast. The Florida Anthropologist 11(1):11-22.
Martinez, C.A., 1975, Culture sequence on the central Georgia coast, 1000 B.C.1650 A.D. M.A. Thesis in Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, 112 p.
Milanich, J.T., 1977, A chronology for the aboriginal cultures of northern St. Simons Island, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 30(3): 134-142.
Otto, J.S. and Lewis, R.L., Jr., 1974, A formal and functional analysis of San Marcos pottery from site SA 16-23. In: Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4: 97-117. Dept. of State, Tallahassee.
Pearson, C.E., 1977, Analysis of late prehistoric settlement on Ossabaw Island, Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 12, Athens, 152 p.
Siegel, S., 1956, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavorial Sciences. McGraw Hill, New York, 312 p.
Spaulding, A.C., 1953, Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18(4):305-313.
169

COASTAL GEORGIA DEPTFORD CULTURE--GROWTH OF A CONCEPT

Jerald T. Milanich Department of Social Sciences,
Florida State Museum, Gainesville, Florida 32611

ABSTRACT
Recognition of the prehistoric Deptford culture, as well as other coastal Georgia cultures, resulted from Depression-era, Federal relief archaeology programs established in Glynn and Chatham counties during the late 1930s. Initial research from this period stressed description of the Deptford ceramic complex and determination of its relative chronological position. By the mid1950s, absolute dates and data from the Florida Gulf coast and elsewhere in the southeast placed Deptford and related complexes in time and space. Research undertaken in the last decade has clarified these data further and, more importantly, has produced information on settlement and subsistence strategies. Projects presently underway suggest additional results applicable to significant and related problems in anthropology, geology, and ecology.

INTRODUCTION
The late 1930s was an exciting period for archaeologists engaged in research in the southeastern United States. During that.time the federal government, as part of its effort to free the country from the mire of the Great Depression, funded numerous relief projects intended to put Americans back to work. Archaeology was viewed as an excellent means of providing employment for large numbers of people because it was labor-intensive and required little equipment and few skilled supervisors, i.e., trained, professional archaeologists. As a result, several large-scale archaeological projects were begun in the Southeast during that half decade. These projects provided basic data on distribution of prehistoric cultures in time and space in the southeast. In fact, realization that cultureal deposits in the eastern United States were stratigraphically ordered came as a result of the federal relief archaeology program. Understandably, archaeologis-ts can refer in jest to Herbert Hoover, president at the time of the collapse of 1929, as the father of American archaeology.

Legacy of the WPA

On the Georgia coast, these depression period relief projects, especially

the Works Progress Administration (WPA) employed hundreds of workers in the

excavation of several large, prehistoric archaeological sites (Caldwell and

McCann, 1941; Williams, 1968c). Excavation of these sites resulted in creation

of a regional ceramic typology and construction of a ceramic chronology based on

stratigraphy (Caldwell and McCann, 1939a, 1939b). The Deptford culture was

first recognized during this period, but the extensive WPA excavations resulted

only in definition of the Deptford ceramic complex and identification of a

limited range of associated cultural features and nonceramic artifacts. More

recent research has been concerned with reconstructing lifeways of the Deptford

'\

culture.

170

Several WPA archaeology projects were begun on the Georgia coast, in Chatham and Glynn counties. Waring, in a manuscript written in the late 1940s and published posthumously (Waring, 1968a) provided an excellent overview of the history of Georgia archaeology up to World War II, including various coastal Georgia excavations sponsored by the WPA. Coastal depression-era archaeologists, including Waring, Caldwell, McCann, and Holder, were faced with a scientific tabula rasa. Although long recognized that archaeological sites, including both sand mounds and heaps of shell refuse, contained various kinds of artifacts, early workers exhibited little or no understanding of the meaning of these archaeological materials. Heuristic concepts explicit in modern archaeological method and theory were being developed; knowledge regarding archaeological assemblages, which we accept today as starting points for further inquiry, did not exist. Consequently, coastal archaeologists focused a large part of their attention on stratigraphic excavations, which provided samples of archaeological materials through time and space and allowed the definition of artifact complexes.
The majority of human-manufactured artifacts recovered from these excavations were potsherds; consequently, ceramic complexes became the basic analytical tool. These complexes from various sites were compared and their temporal and spatial relationships described. Names such as St. Simons, Refuge, Deptford, Wilmington, Savannah, Irene, and Altamaha were derived from sites excavated and assigned to the ceramic complexes~ each thought to be associated with a prehistoric culture within the Georgia coastal region (Caldwell and Waring, 1939b; Williams, 1968c).

11A Contemporary Perspective~~

In the harsh light of todays interdisciplinary studies, which employ

recovery and analytical techniques from palynology, zooarchaeology, paleobotany,

geology, and other sciences, criticism of the work of WPA archaeologists

is easy, especially their failture to publish most of their results. However,

their work was slanted toward recovery of pottery, stone, and shell artifacts,

which could provide the types of data they needed. And, although they did not

necessarily publish raw numbers of artifacts, they did communicate both in print

and face-to-face (especially through the newly formed Southeastern Archaeological

Conference and the Society for Georgia Archaeology). Descriptions of the ceramic

complexes were published and were well understood at the time (Caldwell and

Waring, 1939a, 1939b).



Today we should view their legacy as providing a basic when-and-where framework over which we can stretch our fabric of why-and-how. [Not all work was centered on stratigraphic cuts; excavation of the Irene site near Savannah
(Caldwell and McCann, 1941) still is viewed as one of the most thorough investigations of a large mound complex.] Perhaps one reason why greater effort was
not made to publish results of WPA excavations was realization that many data were redundant and original research objectives already had been reached.

A ROAD CUT AND A CONCEPT IS BORN
Waring and Holder (1968) noted that the Deptford ceramic complex site came into being in 1937, when a roadway was cut through the deposit. Disturbance of

171

the site, which is located on a bluff of the Savannah River (they refer to the
site as Deptford Bluffs) turned up a collection of check stamped, linear check''
stamped, and simple stamped potsherds. Apparently, all of the types were known
at that time from other collections, but the Deptford site provided the first evidence that they occurred together and comprised a complex. Subsequent tests
at the site were conducted by Waring (Waring and Holder, 1968) and later by Caldwell and McCann (n.d.). In 1938, Holder excavated several tests at the
Evelyn site in Glynn County and provided data for the stratigraphic position of the Deptford complex. This project provided the basis for relative temporal placement of Deptford materials being found at still other WPA-excavated sites
in Chatham County. Caldwell and Waring (1939a) provided descriptions of Deptford pottery types and clarified their temporal position on the Georgia coast (1939b).
These publications were followed in 1940 by the Waring and Holder (1968) manuscript. The concept of a Deptford culture had entered southeastern archaeology.

After formal definition, the Deptford ceramic complex quickly was recognized along the northwest Florida coast by Willey and Woodbury (1942). Their excavations indicated a relatively early position for the complex within the cultural
sequence. Along the Georgia coast, the following chronological outline was established (from oldest to most recent): St. Simons (characterized by fired clay pottery, vegetable fibers being added as tempering material), Deptford, Wilmington, Savannah, and Irene. Along the Florida Gulf Coast, Deptford was viewed as the earliest complex; followed by Santa Rosa-Swift Creek, Weeden
Island, and Fort Walton. Willey and Woodbury (1942) published a chart showing
temporal relationships of the two regions. During the 1940s, pottery related to Deptford types was recognized in the Georgia piedmont and elsewhere in the southeast.

All chronologies of the late 1930s and 1940s were relative. Radiocarbon
dating had not yet been invented, and archaeologists had no absolute temporal
data to which they could tie the sequences. The first coastal date came from a
shell ring site associated with the St. Simons ceramic complex on Sapelo Island, excavated in 1949 (Waring and Larson, 1968). Thi~ date, 3700 250 radiocarbon yr: 1750 BC, was first published by Griffin (1952). It was fol1owed in the
early 1950s by several other, similar dates for fiber-tempered pottery complexes in Florida and elsewhere on the southeastern Atlantic coast (Bullen, 1956, 1958; Williams, 1968a). Thus, by the mid-1950s, a chronological framework was firmly
established for the Georgia coast (and elsewhere in the southeast) and the
relative position of the Deptford within that framework was clarified (although no radiocarbon dates for coastal Georgia Deptford were yet available).

One refinement of the early coastal chronology was made by Waring as a

result of his 1947 excavations at the Refuge site in Jasper County, South

Carolina (Waring, 1968b). The Refuge complex was determined to lie between the

St. Simons and related fiber-tempered pottery complexes and the Deptford complex.

Subsequent radiocarbon dates and stratigraphic data confirmed this relative

placement.



Another refinement was presented in 1970 by Caldwell (1971)~ when the first

radiocarbon dates for coastal Deptford were obtained from St. Catherines Island.

Two dates confirmed that the Deptford began as early as 2400 BP. However,

additional dates indicated that the end of Deptford and the beginning of Wilmington

was about 1300 BP, not 2000 BP, as previously thought (Williams, 1968b).



172

1937 to 1971--A DEPRESSION-ERA CONCEPT GROWS UP (SLOWLY)

The initial flurry of archaeological activity surrounding the Atlantic region Deptford culture came to a close with the onset of World War II. Beyond
pottery types, temporal position, and descriptions of a few nonceramic artifacts, little else was known. This dearth of data is reflected in a summary of the culture by Caldwell in 1949, published later (Caldwell, 1952). Nor was much
else known about the Deptford of the Florida Gulf coast region (e.g., Willey,
1949).

This situation persisted throughout the 1960s. Deptford, although frequently recognized or referred to in archaeological literature (Willey, 1966), existed only as a chronological period and a ceramic complex; the initial framework remained relatively bare. In an effort to learn more about how. Deptford people lived and evolution of their culture--which helped to bridge the temporal and evolutionary gap between the presumed hunters and gatherers of the St. Simons and Refuge cultures and the later agricultural Guale peoples who inhabited much of the Georgia coast when the first Europeans arrived in the sixteenth century-! undertook limited excavations at two Deptford period sites on Cumberland Island on the south Georgia coast. My goal was to flesh out the Deptford framework by gathering data on such things as settlement, community, household, and subsistence patterning. Presumably, these data would allow some tentative statements about societal organization, and other aspects of culture would lay the groundwork for future, more detailed work by others. Conclusions from these 1970 excavations, as well as an overview of allied information compiled from the research of other archaeologists, were presented in my dissertation (Milanich, 1971), from which the remainder of this paper is largely derived.
I i
Coastal Deptford sites appear as shell middens. The shell seems to have accumulated both in small, annular piles 7 to 10m across and 30 em or less thick and in larger, linear piles made up of smaller, overlapping deposits. The latter probably were dumps near shellfish-collection locales, whereas the former probably were refuse deposits immediately adjacent to house structures. Most of the midden shell (90-95%) is comprised of the oyster Crassostrea virginica; other, less-used species include clams such as Mercenaria mercenaria, and whelks, especially Busycon contrarium.

As one would predict from knowledge of ecology and food resources of the coastal zone, Deptford sites are located on live oak-magnolia hammocks both on the mainland and the barrier islands, and adjacent to the salt marsh. From such ecotonal locations, Deptford peoples could utilize hammocks, marshes, and tidal
streams. Other habitats--ocean, beach, and dunes-- also were close by, but evidently were not as important to subsistence as the hammocks and the rich marshes, with their tidal streams and abundant animal life.

Milanich (1971) updated lists of the minimum number of individuals (MNI)

for nonshellfish animal species recovered from the excavation of a single house

area on Cumberland Island and from all Cumberland Island excavations combined

(Table 1). Major meat sources were deer, raccoon, and salt-marsh (or diamondback)

I. I

terrapin, together with fish and oysters. Surprisingly, sea mammals also played

a relatively important part in the Deptford diet. The West Indian seal, now

extinct, is a probable victim of human predation in the nineteenth century.

173

TABLE 1. ANIMALS IDENTIFIED FROM CUMBERLAND ISLAND EXCAVATIONS

Animal

Common name

MAMMALS Didelphis marsupialis Procyon lotor Monachus tropicalis Cetacean Dolphinidae Odocoileus virginianus Geomys sp. cf. ~ cumberlandius
REPTILES Terrapene carolina Chrysemys sp. Malaclemmys terrapin Tri onyx ferox Deirochelys reticularia Gopherus polyphemus Cheloniidae Sternotherus sp.
FISH Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvier Sphyrnidae Pogonias cromis Scianops ocellata Dasyatidae Myliobatidae Bagre marinus Ariidae Ari us fe 1is Archosargus probatocephalus
BIRDS Mergus serrator

opossum raccoon West Indian seal Whale/porpoise dolphin deer pocket gopher
box turtle painted turtle salt-marsh terrapin softshell turtle chicken turtle gopher tortoise
sea turtle musk turtle
requiem shark tiger shark hammerhead shark red drum channel bass sting ray eagle ray gafftopsail catfish sea catfish channel catfish sheepshead
red-breasted merganser TOTAL

* Minimum Number of Individuals.

MNI* MNI* house total

1

13

20

2

2

1

1

1

11

39

1

3

?
,J

1

9

22

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

6

1

1

2

3

4

3

5

1

1

2

4

5

1

2

7

2

3

2

60

140

174

We know almost nothing about Deptford use of plant resources at the coastal sites. Ba$ed on estimates from other preagricultural societies, we can guess that at least one-half of their total diet came from nuts, fruits, tubers, and other wild plant foods. The possible role of agriculture in the Deptford diet also is unknown; no evidence for any type of agriculture has yet been discovered. Evidence from elsewhere in the southeast suggests that few, if any, Georgia coastal dwellers practiced cultivation of maize prior to 1200 to 1000 BP. Squashes, on the other hand, were grown elsewhere in the southeast during this period, including the northwestern coast of Florida. But if agriculture in any form was present on the Georgia coast during Deptford times, it was insignificant. Deptford peoples were hunters, gatherers, and fishers who practiced a subsistence pattern like their coastal ancestors.
Although coastal strand Deptford sites are best known, limited surveys indicate small amounts of Deptford materials adjacent to estuaries at the mouths of the many rivers that flow across the Georgia coastal plain into the Atlantic. Materials also have been collected inland, within coastal plain river valleys. Recent collections reported by Snow (1977) indicate that the coastal Deptford complex does not extend more than 80 km inland from the coast. I suspect that most such sites eventually will be found restricted to within 20 km of the coast. We know almost nothing about the contents of inland Deptford sites, but can speculate that they had special functions; possibly they were occupied only for short periods of time by small groups engaged in hunting, fishing, or collecting plant foods, especially nuts. Investigations of such sites are needed.
Estimates of the size of coastal hammock camps are difficult. Surface reconnaissance on Cumberland Island tenuously suggests that in the early part of the Deptford period, five or so dwellings were occupied within a camp at any one time, reflecting a population of 30 to 50 individuals. Such an .estimate is within the range of population size for other human groups organized socially into bands.
We can guess that throughout the Deptford period, populations increased and the bands became larger. Possibly, social organization became more complex. We know that by the sixteenth century, Guale Indians had developed ranked societies having hereditary chiefs, together with subsistence and settlement strategies calculated to allow optimum use of the coastal environment relative to their level of technology. Such a cultural system probably was present on the coast as early as 800 BP, suggesting that evolutionary changes must have begun at least several centuries before, perhaps in late Deptford times.
Our knowledge of individual Deptford houses comes from two excavations on Cumberland Island, one of which revealed almost in its entirety an apparent cold-weather (winter) house and the other a warm-weather (summer) house. Size indicates that each structure would have been occupied by a single nuclear family composed of as many as six persons. The oval "winter" structure measured 9.75 by 6.7 m; wall openings were situated both on an end and a side. A large, bathtub-shaped hearth on which oysters were steamed and other foods cooked, dominated the half of the structure having the two wall openings, to allow access and smoke dispersal. A small pore partition, anchored in a narrow slot
175

dug into the floor, divided this half of the structure from the other. Exterior walls were anchored in much larger wall trenches. Refuse was scattered around the hearth and up against the walls. Outside the sid~ entrance was a pile of shell refuse about 7.6 m in diameter. and 18 em thick in the middle. Some postmolds extended down below the shell, suggesting that a roof adjoined the structure. Much activity had occurred on the shell accumulation; perhaps it was used as an outdoor work area. Part of a similar Deptford period structure, with a massive wall trench, was uncovered by Bullen (1969) on the Oklawaha River in northcentral Florida.
The presumed warm-weather structure also was characterized by shell refuse on which activity had taken place. Posts had been set in separate holes as much as 1m apart, supporting a roof over the oval, 6.7 by 4.3 m structure. One bell-shaped storage pit extended down from the shell-littered floor.
Artifacts recovered from these Deptford structures and other coastal Deptford sites include a variety of materials: decorated and undecorated pottery representing types described above and, rarely, other types; shell tools, Busycon-hafted picks and hammers and Busycon-columella gouges and chisels; bone awls and pins; a few stone tools; some spear points; hammerstones, hones, and grinding stones. Chert or flint outcrops are not known for the barrier islands; stone implements manufactured from these materials came from farther inland. Coquina and limestone also were used for tools. Relative to other southeast hunters and gatherers, nonceramic artifacts at Deptford sites are extremely rare. Presumably, the people made great use of wood and other perishable raw materials that are not found in the archaeological record.
FUTURE PROSPECTS During the 1970s we have seen attempts to define the Deptf6rd further, using criteria other than pottery complexes alone. We can now generate models regarding settlement and subsistence patterns and other aspects of Deptford culture that can be field-tested. And we can begin to use Deptford as a case study to investigate basic questions about the evolution of aboriginal populations in the Americas, from hunters and gatherers into peoples who utilized large civic-ceremonial complexes, like the Irene site, and who supplemented their diets with cultivated produce. Of importance also are recent archaeological studies by DePratter (1977) and DePratter and Howard (1977), suggesting sea level rises (and ecological changes), and documenting shoreline growth and alteration. DePratter's thesis that significant sea level changes occurred between St. Simons and Deptford times (resulting in a depleted shellfish population during Refuge times) is of great interest to anthropologists. If his findings can be collaborated by other lines of evidence, sites from the period ca. 3100 BP into the early Deptford period will provide a significant laboratory for the study of change among human populations in an environment changing relatively rapidly. In 40 short years, Georgia coastal archaeology has reached maturity.
176

REFERENCES CITED

Bullen, R.P., 1956, Some Florida radiocarbon dates and their significance: Florida Anthropologist, v. 9, p. 31-46.

Bullen, R.P., 1958, More Florida radiocarbon dates and their significance: Florida Anthropologist, v. 11, p. 97-110.

Bullen R.P., 1969, Excavations at Sunday Bluff, Florida: Contributions of the Florida State Museum Social Sciences, no. 15, 66 p.

Caldwell, J.R., 1952, The archaeology of eastern Georgia and South Carolina, in Griffin, J.B., ed., Archaeology of eastern United States: Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, p. 312-321.

Caldwell, J.R., 1971, Chronology of the Georgia coast: Southeastern Archaeological Conf. Bull., v. 13, p. 88-92.

Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., 1941, Irene mound site, Chatham County, Georgia: Athens, Ga., Univ. Georgia Press, 84 p.

Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., n.d., The Deptford Bluffs site, Chatham County, Georgia: typescript manuscript on file, Athens, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Georgia, 47 p.

Caldwell, J.R. and Waring, A.J., Jr., 1939a, Some Chatham County pottery types:
Southeastern Archaeological Conf. Newsletter, v. 1, no. 5, p. 4-12, v. 1, no. 6, p. 1-9.

Caldwell, J.R. and Waring, A.J., Jr, 1939b, The use of a ceramic sequence in the classification of aboriginal sites in Chatham County, Georgia: Southeastern Archaeological Conf. Newsletter, v. 2, no. 1, p. 6-7.

DePratter, C.B. 1977, Environmental changes on the Georgia coast during the prehistoric period: Early Georgia, v. 5, p. 1-14.

DePratter, C.B. and Howard, J.D., 1977, History of shoreline changes
determined by archaeological dating: Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Sacs., v. 27, p. 252-258.

Griffin, J.B. 1952, Radiocarbon dates for the eastern United States, in Griffin, J.B., ed., Archaeology of eastern United States: Chicago--, Univ. Chicago Press, p. 365-370.

Milanich, J.T., 1971, The Deptford phase: An archaeological reconstruction (Ph.D. diss.): Gainesville, Univ. Florida, 237 p.

Snow, F., 1977, An archaeological survey of the Ocmulgee Big Bend region: Occasional Papers from South Georgia College, no. 3, 129 p.

I I

' '

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968a, A history of Georgia archaeology, in Williams, S.,

ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum papers 58, p. 288-299.

177

Waring, A.J., Jr., 1968b, The Refuge site Jasper County, South Carolina, in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum papers 58, p. 198-208.
Waring, A.J., Jr. and Holder, P., 1968, The Deptford ceramic complex, in Williams S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum papers 58, p. 135-151.
Waring, A.J., Jr. and Larson, L.H., 1968, The shell ring on Sapelo Island, in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum Papers 58, p. 263-278.
Williams, S., 1968a, Appendix: Radiocarbon dates from the Georgia coast, in Williams S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum Papers 58, p. 329-332.
Williams, S., 1968b, Epilogue: Some thoughts on:Georgia prehistory, in Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum Papers 58, p. 315-325.
Williams, S., 1968c, The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Museum papers 58, 345 p.
Willey, G.R., 1949, Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Smithsonian Misc. Coll. v. 113, 599 p.
Willey, G.R., 1966, An introduction to American archaeology, vol. 1, North and Middle America: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 530 p.
Willey, G.R. and Woodbury, R.B., 1942, A chronological outline for the northwest Florida coast: Am. Antiquity, v. 7, p. 232-254.
178

LATE PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS ON OSSABAW ISLAND, GEORGIA
Charles E. Pearson Coastal Environments, Inc.,
1260 Main Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
ABSTRACT
Comparison of archaeological sites dating to two late prehistoric periods on Ossabaw Island, Georgia, indicates a dramatic shift in settlement patterning about 650 yr ago. The Savannah period (850-650 BP) settlement system consisted of a large, centrally located, primate center, two smaller but important secondary sites, and 9 other smaller sites. In contrast, the Irene period (650-450 BP) settlement system also had a single primate center, 7 second level sites that assumed some functions of the earlier Savannah period primate center, and 50 other small sites belonging to two distinct size classes. During both periods, localities on well-drained soils providing high potential agricultural productivity were selected for occupation, although small sites tended to be on less desirable soils. No apparent preference was exhibited for a particular type of forest cover in habitation sites. Reasons for the shift from a nucleated Savannah period settlement system to a more dispersed pattern during the Irene period is not currently known, although subsistence changes do not seem to have been a factor.
INTRODUCTION
Analysis of settlement patterns has beome an increasingly important aspect of prehistoric archaeology because it offers an effective, expedient means of assessing a wide variety of prehistoric cultural phenomena. Application of systemic and ecological models and methods in settlement research enables archaeologists to examine interrelationships between human populations and their natural and sociocultural environments. Morphology and distribution of human settlements reflect these interrelationships, and analysis of settlement patterns leads to understanding of cultural processes and adaptation.
Settlement systems of late prehistoric period populations of Ossabaw Island, Georgia, are examined here. Archaeological manifestations of this period on the Georgia coast are the Savannah and Irene periods. Present estimates for dates of these two periods are 850 to 650 BP for the Savannah period and 650 to 450 BP for the Irene period (Caldwell, 1971). The two periods are distinguished primarily on the basis of ceramics, although as pointed out here, they also differ in settlement structure and presumably in other, as yet unidentified, cultural phenomena.
PREVIOUS WORK
Particular interest has been directed at analyses of the internal structure of settlement systems of the Savannah and Irene periods, as well as in their
179

distribution upon the landscape. These analyses led to (1) recognition of change in settlement structure and configuration through time, (2) development of useful techniques for characterizing settlement phenomena and, (3) formulation of anthropologically valid generalizations concerning observed settlement patterns.
Basic to the systemic approach to settlement analysis is the concept of 11Wholeness 11 ; major components of the system (settlements) functioned as parts of a single, larger entity, which operated 11 together to achieve some sort of functional stability11 (Odum, 1971). This concept requires that the settlement system be bounded in some legitimate manner. Establishing realistic boundries for cultural systems often is difficult, if not impossible, when dealing with archaeological data. Archaeologists generally have reasonable temporal boundaries for structures, but rarely in settlement system analysis are they able to develop realistic spatial or physical boundaries. Unless cultural boundaries can be identified by distinct differences in artifacts, distinct geographic boundaries may best serve to delimit boundaries of prehistoric settlement systems. Ossabaw Island (and islands in general), offers a relatively isolated, discrete geographic unit upon which settlement system analysis may be conducted. The island, with its abundance of natural resources, may have supported prehistoric populations that acted as relatively autonomous socioeconomic units.
Settlement pattern analysis is amenable to use of surface survey data because many relevant, quantifiable attributes of individual settlements, as well as those of overall systems, can be gathered efficiently. Settlement data used in this study were derived from several archaeological surveys conducted on Ossabaw Island (DePratter, 1974; Pearson, 1979). Approximately 30 to 35 percent of the habitable part of the island, including parts of all types of biotic and physiographic areas found on the island, has been covered by surveys. Except for the beach front, sites found in each area provide information on the range of variation in site location and type.
Natural Setting
Ossabaw Island, one of a chain of barrier islands on the southeastern Atlantic coast referred to as the 11 Sea Islands, 11 includes approximately 78 km2 of land area. An extensive salt marsh interlaced with tidal creeks and rivers separates the island from the mainland and partially bisects the island (Fig. 1). Topographic relief is low; the western (Pleistocene) part of the island is characterized by broad flat ridges and shallow depressions, and the eastern (Holocene) section by steep, parallel dune ridges.
Soils on the island tend to be porous and subject to severe leaching. Whereas most higher areas are excessively drained, low areas are poorly drained and contain many ponds or swamps. Soils tend to be acid and infertile (Johnson et ~., 1974).
The projected climax forest for the island is a maritime live oak forest (Hillestad et ~-, 1975), characterized by dominance of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and abundance of other oaks and nut-bearing trees. Differences in forest species composition, although slight, exist in the mature forest covering different areas of Ossabaw Island. These differences seem to be due mainly to soil drainage
180

~SALT MARSH
Fig. 1. Ossabaw Island.
characteristics. Soil data from Ossabaw Island, therefore, can be used to reconstruct the four major forest communities that existed on the island: (1) mixed oak-hardwood forest, (2) oak-palmetto forest, (3) lowland mixed forest, and (4) high-marsh plants. Each community would have offered different plant resources to prehistoric inhabitants and may have effected site location.
Animal species found on the island today include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus), raccoon (Procyon later), bobcat (Lynx rufus), otter (Lutra canadensis , and mink (Mustela vison). Black bear (Ursus americanus), not present today, inhabited the Sea Islands in the recent past (Hillestad et ~-,
1975).
Salt marshes support an abundance of shellfish and fish, including oyster (Crassostrea virginica), hardshell clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), blue crab
181

(Callinectes sapidus), diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin),.shrimp (Penaeus

sp.), and numerous seasonal and year-round fish species. The marshes, together

,

with the flora and fauna of terrestrial parts of the island, provided abundant,

easily exploited food resources for preh1storic human populations.

Although contemporaneous with inland archaeological Mississippian period
populations, paucity of what may be considered classic Mississippian cultural attributes at Savannah and Irene period coastal sites indicates their peripheral
position and relative isolation from the mainstream of Mississippian cultural development. Low, conical burial mounds occur frequently at Savannah and Irene
sites, but the only known rectangular platform mound on the Georgia coast is at the Irene site near Savannah (Caldwell and McCann. 1941).

Available subsistence data for both periods indicate heavy reliance upon marsh-estuary resources (Larson, 1969; Pearson, 1979). Acorn and hickory nut
fragments were recovered from sites on Ossabaw~ . Cultivated plant remains are rare, however; only small quantitites of maize and a possible bean have been reported. Low fertility of coastal soils, combined with unlimited abundance of marsh-estuary resources, may have resulted in lessened reliance on horticulture.

OSSABAW SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
More than 200 archaeological sites have been recorded un Ossabaw Island. Of these, 65 exhibit evidence of Savannah or Irene period occupation; 12 contain Savannah period components and 61 have evidence of Irene period occupation. Eight sites were occupied during both periods. Thus, the Irene period is represented by 5 times moresites than is the Savannah period.
If reliance is placed solely on number of sites, the dramatic difference in site frequency could be interpreted as representing significant differences in populations occupying the island. However, area occupied, rather than the number of sites occupied, is. a more meaningful measure of intensity of settlement and, by extension, of populatio2. The total area of Savannah period occupation is estimated at approximately 0.5 km , and of Irene period occupation about 0.65 km2, a 20 percent increase in total area occupied from the Savannah to the Irene period. In general', the relationship between number of sites in each period and total area occupied by these sites indicates that the Savannah is characterized by small numbers of sites, one or two of which are very large, whereas the Irene is characterized by large numbers of sites, most of which are of small or moderate size.
This initial assessment suggests differences in settlement structure of the two periods. Examination of structural arrangement of settlements within each period, based on distribution of settlements by size, is useful because such variations can be considered an initial indicator of possible variation in settlement function. On Ossabaw Island, site size and location are considered to be the most adequate mea~ures of cultural response to variation in the social and physical environment.
A common technique for examining settlement size distribution involves

182

comparing settlement size to settlement rank. Shape of the rank-size distribution reflects identifiable socioeconomic factors operating in settlement systems (Berry and Garrison, 1958; Berry, 1961; Dziewonski, 1972).
Size distributions of Savannah and Irene period sites conform to a 11 primate 11 distribution: one settlement is much larger and presumably more complex and inherently more important than the others. Primate sites probably occupied the apex of their respective settlement systems in terms of many, or most, sociocultural activities. Additionally, primate distribution suggests that most of the interaction between Ossabaw Island and the mainland or other islands was channeled through the largest (primate) site during each period.
An additional point of significance is the central location of the primate settlement of each period. Because larger sites are assumed to be more complex functionally and supported a greater range of activities than other sites, their common central location apparently reflects centralization of activities within a region for maximum efficiency (Morrill, 1970) and reduces the effort needed to extend sociocultural control over the island. The physical environment also influences site location, but it may be a less critical factor (within limits) than central placement.
Geographers suggest that the ratio between size of the largest and second largest settlements in a system indicates relative importance of the primate settlement to the settlement system as a whole (Haggett, 1971). Examination of Savannah period data indicates that the largest site is 2.7 times larger than the second largest site, and the largest Irene site is 2.5 times larger than the second largest site of that period; the difference between ratios is not significant. Size of the primate sites in relation to the size of all sites in their respective periods, as well as to each other, however, show considerable difference. The largest Irene period site comprises only 21 percent of the total area of occupation during this period, whereas the largest Savannah site comprises 60 percent of the total Savannah occupation. This largest Savannah site is 2.3 times larger than the largest Irene site.
These data suggest the importance of a single large site during the Savannah period. Although one primate site may be considered a 11 Center 11 during the Irene period, it seems less important in relation to the settlement system as a whole than does the major Savannah center. Hence, during these two periods, a shift occurred in relative and absolute size and, presumably, importance of the primate settlement.
Settlement Hierarchies
Settlement systems of each period can be assessed further, in terms of relationships between size of settlements arid their functional range, through examination of hierarchical structure of the two data sets (Haggett, 1971; Smith, 1979). The underlying assumption of these studies is that functional variability (i.e., range of activities) existed among levels in the proposed hierarchies. Identification of hierarchical levels in prehistoric settlement systems has been based on presence or absence of mounds and types of mounds at a site. In this study, however, site size is the criterion used for establishing a settlement hierarchy,
183

because size is considered the only reliable variable available. Relationship between size of settlements and their functional range is generally accepted, and geographers have argued that the continuum displayed by settlement sizes possess latent hierarchical structure (Dziewanski, 1972). If so, settlement size continuua should provide a basis for examination and evaluation of the hierarchical structure proposed on Ossabaw Island.
Site size reflects range and kinds of activities-being conducted at a site. Therefore, sites of equivalent size should display similar sociocultural traits and occupy approximately similar functional position or level within settlement hierarchy. Cluster analyses of site sizes, using Ward's method to provide an objective means of grouping sites into discrete size classes (Anderberg, 1973), was employed to identify hierarchical levels within the continuum of site sizes of each period.
Results of the cluster analysis of Savannah period site sizes (Fig. 2a) suggest a three-cluster solution, or three-level settlement hierarchy, whereas a four-cluster solution (Fig. 2b) is most reasonable for Irene period data. In each cluster, levels of proposed hierarchies are termed 11 Site size classes; .. these reveal the central location of the primate (class I) site during each period~ (Figs. 3a,b).
Although hierarchies established for the two periods are appealing intuitively, the question remains as to whether these hierarchi~s represent a realistic model of late prehistoric settlement systems operating on Ossabaw Island. Cluster analysis has been used to identify analytical units, the site size classes or hierarchical levels, about which a variety of questions can be asked.
A histogram of site frequency per size class for each period (Fig. 4a) reflects the expected patterns: a large number of small sites and a few large sites. Geographers have shown that the J-shaped curve produced from the data corresponds to theoretical expectations of the size distributiori of settlements operating within a settlement system.
However, differences can be seen between the two settlement systems. During the Irene period, the number of medium size sites increased and a range of smaller sites developed; these smaller sites were less abundant during the Savannah period. Based on size of primate sites, the increase in number of sites during the Irene apparently took place at the expense of the largest site. Possibly, some functional activities of the primate settlement during the Savannah period were absorbed by smaller class II and III sites during the Irene period. This idea is supported somewhat by occurrence of burial mounds at several class II and III Irene sites, whereas Savannah burial mounds on the island are located only at the primate site (Pearson, 1979).
Area of occupation represented by sites in each site size class may offer a more meaningful measure of the relative importance of that size class in the total settlement system than does number of sites (Fig. 4b). For both periods, the relative number of sites follows a similar, expected, J-shaped curve. However, rather dramatic diffe.rences are seen in the occupied area of each site size class. The Savannah displays a steady drop from class I to III in terms of proportion of area occupied by site class. The single class I Savannah period site comprises 60 percent of the total area of occupation on the island; class
.184

6u

z1-
w

50

iJ

u..:.:.:.

w

840

wuz ~30
5

I->
co
(.J1

0w11:
1-
~.....20

u

I

0w11:

1-

~ 10

I I

I I

m
SITE SIZE CLASSES

li I

Fig. 2a. Cluster analysis of Savannah period site sizes.

60
1z-so
!:!::! u
.u.:.:.:.
w
840
u z w ~30
5
~ w
1-
":v..:..'. 20 I . ~
LLI
.z... ,0

m:

m n

SIZE CLASSES

Fig. 2b. Cluster analysis of Irene period site sizes.

.ec...no....
\_/

u'<~~
0 ~,o
A"f\.~~
0 KM

CLASS Ill SITES

~SALT MARSH

~ #
0
'(.,o A"f\..~~

CLASS I SITES
e CLASS II SITES
CLASS Ill SITES 0 CLASS IV SITES

0 KM
~SALT MARSH

Fig. 3a. Location of Savannah period sites.

Fig. 3b. Location of Irene period sites.

[ ] SAVANNAH PHASE

D 40 -1

IRENE PHASE

~~ 30

~~---'

~~ "'
~~ 20

n

z::)

10~

I I

I

II

m Dr

SITE SIZE CLASSES

Fig. 4a. Frequency distribution of sites by size class.

80

SAVANNAH PHASE-AREA// SAVANNAH PHASE-NUMBER

70 1 OF OCCUPATION

OF SITES

601
so
z ~~ICII:: 40
30
20
w

t ,

\

\
\ \
I \
\ \
' \ 1-..

~I ~ IRENE

PHASE-NUMBER OF SITES

/, !'-.... _

I \

''.

/

,

I

1\
\ I I

I '

)

\I
I

'\~IRENE PHASE-AREA

I \

\ OF OCCUPATION

I

\

'

/ .I

' \
\

\ \ \

/

/

I li m nz:
SITE SIZE CLASSES

Fig. 4b. Relative number of sites versus relative area of occupation per site size class.

II provides 32 percent, and class III only 5 percent. Irene sites are quite different, a single class I primate site comprising only 21 percent of the total occupation area; class II comprises 40 percent, class III 31 percent, and class IV 7 percent.
As previously mentioned, site size may be a relative measure of popula:tion and range of activities, and in general, provides a rough gauge of overall sociocultural importance of individual sites. The data (Fig. 4b) suggest significant differences between settlement structure of the Savannah and Irene periods. Increase in area of middle range sites (classes II and III) during the Irene implies their increasing relative importance. Apparently, a shift occurs away from a structure totally dominated by a single site to one in which medium size sites increase in number and, presumably, importance, evidently at the expense of the primate site. While this structural shift occurred, an attempt was made during each period to enhance spatial efficiency within the settlement system through the central location of the primate settlement. Additionally, the Irene period saw a proliferation of very small sites -- a site class not present during the Savannah period -scattered over the island.
Site Location Variability
Only two environmental variables are considered here, soil and forest type; both are important controls on settlement location. These variables can be ranked according to their presumed importance to Ossabaw's late prehistoric populations: soil types according to their drainage characteristics and horticultural potential, and forest communities according to food potential.
Soil types, ranked in terms of presumed decreasing value to settlement, are (1) Lakeland fine sand, (2) Chipley fine sand, (3), Olustee fin~ sand, (4) Leon fine sand, (5) Ellabelle loamy sand, and (6) Kershaw-Osier complex (Wilkes, et ~-, 1974). Forest communities in decreasing importance, are (1) mixed oak--hardwood, (2) oak-palmetto, and .(3) lowland-mixed (Pearson, 1979). Site relationship is viewed in terms of area of occupation associated with each forest community and soil type, compared with expected proportion determined directly from the relative area of each forest community or soi_l type.
The data reflect an obvious selection for the most valued soil type and a selection against the least valued. typeduring both periods (Fig. 5a). The only other soil type apparently selected is the second most desirable soil type, (type 2) during the Irene period, a time of increase in number of intermediate size sites. Perhaps some settlements represent permanent or relatively permanent habitation sites. As new sites were settled, the most desirable locations, relative to a variety of environmental and social factors, including soil types, would have been selected. Because of some of these factors, especially spatial ones, some medium size sites would be situated on less desirable soils albeit on types that would have allowed permanent habitation without seasonal flooding. This trend seems to be indicated by the occurrence of more Irene period sites on soil type 2 than would be expected; the majority of these are class II and III sites (Pearson, 1979). Similarity in the three forest community curves (Fig. 5b) may indicate that these communities were not significant factors influencing site location.
188

100 90 80 70 60
..z....
v 50
"~ '
40
30 20 10

.#' SAVANNAH PHASE SITES

~ IRENE PHASE SITES

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL TYPES

100
90 80 70 60
.z.. .."~..'..50
40 30 20 10

_.. SAVANNAH PHASE SITES

2

3

FOREST COMMUNITES

Fig. 5a. Observed versus expected area of occupation across soil types.

Fig: 5b. Observed versus expected area of
occupation across forest communities

A similar pattern of site relationship to environmental variables is seen for both periods when additional environmental variables are tested (Pearson, 1979). Larger sites tend to be associated with assumed more valued environmental variables than smaller sites. During both periods, site size decreases are accompanied by increasing variability in site location and lessening of overall environmental quality associated with site location. This trend indicates increasing specialization as sites become smaller, with concomitant decrease in functional complexity and activity range.
CONCLUSIONS
Analyses suggest that significant structural changes occurred in settlement patterns on Ossabaw Island during the late prehistoric period, characterized by: (1) large increase in total number of sites, (2) less dramatic increase in total area of occupation, (3) shift from a settlement structure in which a single site is totally dominant to one in which several medium size sites develop, and (4) increase in, or possible appearance of, a large number of small, probably temporary, special activity sites. In general, the structure of Savannah period

189

settlement systems is nucleated whereas that of the Irene is dispersed, in terms of both internal structural arrangement of settlement systems and the pattern of distribution of sites across the island.
Even though changes occurred, certain aspects of settlement strategy were maintained through both periods, including obvious hierarchical arrangement. A single large, centrally located 11 primate 11 settlement existed in each period, which contained more and larger burial mounds than did any other site. More variability occurred in environmental settings of smaller site locations than in that of larger sites, and in general, smaller sites were located in less valued environmental settings.
Various additional factors probably lie behind observed differences and similarities in the two settlement systems. Characteristics of these factors are not yet apparent, although initial analysis of subsistence data suggests no significant differences in subsistence strategies employed by Savannah and Irene populations (Pearson, 1979). Sociocultural factors other than shifts in subsistence apparently caused the settlement differences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Sharon Goad Pearson, Don Graybill, and Bruce Smith for their comments and criticisms of earlier versions of this paper.

REFERENCES

Anderberg, M., 1973, Cluster an~lysis for application: New York, Academic Press, 359 p.

Berry, B.J.L., 1961, City size distributions and economic development: Economic Development and Cultural Change, v. 9, p. 573-588.

Berry, B.J.L., and Garrison, W.L., 1958, Alternate explanations of urban.
rank size relationships: Annals of the Association for American Geographers, v. 48, p. 83-91.

Caldwell, J.R., 1971, Chronology of the Georgia coast: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, v. 13, p. 89-91.

Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., 1941, Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, Athens, 84 pp, 25 plates.

DePratter, C. B., 1974, Archaeological survey of Ossabaw Island; a preliminary report:/mimeo/ Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Research Manuscript 344, 63 pp.

Dziewonski, K., 1972, General theory of rank-size distributions in regional

settlement systems: A reappraisal and reformulation of the rank-size rule:

Papers of the Regional Science Association, v. 29, p. 75-86.



190

Haggett, P., 1971, Locational analysis in human geography: New York, St. Martins Press, 339 p.
Hillestad, H.O., Bozeman, J.R., Johnson, A.S., Berisford, C.W. and Richardson, J.L., 1975, The ecology of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, Camden County, Georgia: Technical Report Series, Georgia Marine Science Center, v. 75-5, 299 p.
Johnson, A.S., Hillestad, H.O., Shanholtzer, S.F. and Shanholtzer, G., 1974, An ecological survey of the coastal region of Georgia: National Park Service Scientific Monograph, v. 3, 233 p.
Morrill, R.L., 1970, The spatial organization of society: Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publication Company, 267 p.
Odum, E., 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology: Philadelphia, Saunders, 574 p. Pearson, C. E., 1979, Patterns of Mississippian Period adaptation in coastal
Georgia/Ph.D. dissertation/: Athens, University of Georgia, 246 p. Smith, B.D. (ed.), 1979, Mississippian settlement patterns: New York, Academic
Press, 512 p. Wilkes, R.L., Johnson, J.H., Stoner, H.T., Bacon, D.O., 1974, Soil survey of
Bryan and Chatham Counties, Georgia: Washington, U.S. Dept. of Agri., Soil Conservation Service, 153 p.
191
I I

HUMAN SKELETAL AND DENTAL HEALTH CHANGES ON THE PREHISTORIC GEORGIA COAST1

Clark Spencer Larsen Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
.southeastern Mas~achusetts University,
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747

ABSTRACT
Examination of human skeletal remains from coastal Georgia burial mounds indicates that a major shift in subsistence occurred about 850 BP, when maize became an important dietary component and village populations became larger and more permanent. Frequency analysis of both dental caries and periosteal reactions {generally caused by infection) indicates that these changes in subsistence adversely effected human health. Frequency of dental caries rose from 9 percent in the pre-850 BP period to almost 60 percent after 850 BP. Similarly, frequency of periosteal reactions increased dramatically during the same interval.
Increase in dental caries can be attributed to the dietary addition of maize, which is a carbo~drate having a high sugar component; increase in periosteal reactions resulted from concentration of populations in larger, more permanent villages and attendant inadequate sanitation facilities.

INTRODUCTION

Extensive mortuary archaeology, which documents prehistoric burial records,

has been accomplished on the Georgia coast. In the late 1800s, Clarence B. Moore

excavated more than 50 burial mounds and exposed approximately 3000 individual

interments (Moore, 1897; Thomas and Larsen, 1979). In the 1930s, the Works Project

Administration (WPA) recovered more than 600 individual skeletons in Glynn and

Chatham Counties (Holder, 1936-1937, 1938; Caldwell and McCann, 1941). More

recently, the University of Florida recovered a sizeable skeletal sample from

St. Simons Island (Zahler, 1976). On St. Catherines Island, a large sample of

human skeletal remains also has been recovered (Caldwell, 1971; Thomas and

Larsen, 1979).



As physical anthropologist for the St. Catherines Island Archaeological
Project (Thomas and Larsen, 1979, .I became interested in the relationship between
mode of subsistence and human biology on the prehistoric Georgia coast. Results of that interest, the relationship between subsistence and status of health
(as reflected in human skeletal populations) for this region, is the subject of this paper.

lThe basis of this paper was presented at the Society for Georgia Archaeology Conference on Coastal Archaeology, Armstrong State College, Savannah, Oct. 2627, 1979
192

Aboriginal Subsistence
Prior to 850 BP, the Georgia coastal economy was based on a hunting-gathering mode of subsistence characterized by the exploitation of local wild plant and animal resources. Following ca. 850 BP, corn horticulture was added to the dietary regime, but hunting and gathering continued to contribute a major part of the diet. Evidence for addition of corn includes the remains of burned cobs and kernals recovered from several post-St. Catherines period (1000-850 BP) archaeological localities: Kent Mound (Cook, 1978), Irene Mound (Caldwell and McCann, 1941), Red Bird Creek (Bates, 1975), Pine Harbor (Larsen, 1969), and Wamassee Pond. Furthermore, most large habitation localities on the Georgia coast are restricted to the Savannah (700-850 BP) and Irene (1300-1550 BP) periods (Pearson, 1978), suggesting that during these cultural periods the population on the Georgia coast increased due to increased utilization of storable food crops, particularly corn.
This reconstruction of subsistence patterns is tentative and subject to rev1s1on. Findings of burned corn only in sites that post-date 850 BP does not preclude the presence of horticulture prior to that time, however. Considerable work on coastal settlement patterns also is needed. On-going research on St. Catherines Island and other areas of the Georgia coast will add to our knowledge of prehistoric settlement change for this area.
Materials and Methods
At attempt to reconstruct patterns of subsistence for the Georgia coast originally was restricted to a study of skeletal material from St. Catherines Island. Unfortunately, the entire human skeletal sample for that island is, with minor exception, restricted to pre-850 BP sites -- those associated only with the hunter-gatherer economic regime. In addition, most of the sample is fragmentary and incomplete. For these reasons, the study was expanded to include as much of the Georgia coast as possible.
I ' '
For this analysis, Georgia coastal mortuary sites were divided into two groups: an earlier pre-agricultural group, which included sites occupied prior to 850 BP (Fig. 1), and agricultural sites occupied after 850 BP (Fig. 2). Separation of skeletal remains into two groups is not meant to represent a simple dietary dichotomy for the prehistoric Georgia coast, i.e., the "preagricultural group" probably does not represent a totally hunting-gathering adaptation. Similarly, the "agricultural group" most likely represents an adaptation including a mixture of hunting, gathering, and horticultural subsistence. Rather, 850 BP is viewed as the earliest date for which we can suggest that horticulture provided a significant proportion of the diet. If this change in diet had any effect on human health, then skeletal materials should reflect the subsi~tence changes. Detailed analyses were made of all available burials. A complete description of the skeletal sample and methods of analysis is in preparation.
Initially, each skeleton was examined for evidence of two pathological conditions -- dental caries and periosteal reactions -- which are indicators of health status. Dental caries is a disease process characterized by focal demineralization of dental hard tissues by acids that result from bacterial fermentation of
193

!""- -- - - - -- -- -- -----
-------------

/ "'
/

/ /

;\

I "--

/

')

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

Bryan Co.

( I I

' \,., \

Liberty Co.

/ I

'-.. \

I

',,

J

Long Co.

'-..

!,.=

. ..

.z Little Tybee Is.

"<;....:. .NY~ff;;JJJ'

ir ,Wilmington Is.

./""'""%''''

Georgia

I

,-JI I

\

I
I

,.,I I

I
) I I I
I I I
I

Little St. Simons Is.

Little Cumberland Is.

-i'north
10 Okm10

Florida

Fig. 1.

Preagricultural Period mortuary sites. 1 = South New Ground mound; 2 = Cunningham mound C; 3 = Cunningham mound D; 4 = Cunningham mound E; 5 = McLeod mound; 6 = Seaside mound I; 7 = Seaside mound II; 8 = Evelyn plantation; 9 = Airport; 10 = Deptford; 11 = Walthour;
12 = Cannons Point; 13 = Cedar Grove mound A; 14 = Cedar Grove mound B;
15 = Sea Island mound; 16 = Johns mound; 17 = Marys mound; 18 = Charlie
King mound; 19 ~Cedar Grove mound C.

194

( ----------------

!..
"'/ / / / /
/ ;\'--,,

Bryan Co.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

\

I I

' \...._

Liberty Co.

I

\

I

'-...

/

'....

I

'

Long Co.

Georgia
/ -J I \ I / !"
I
) I I I
I

-+north
10 Okm10

: I
Florida

Fig. 2.

Agricultural Period mortuary sites. 1 = North End mound; 2 = Low
mound, Shell Bluff; 3 = Townsend mound; 4 = Deptford mound; 5 = Norman mound; 6 = Kent mound; 7 = Lewis Creek mound A; 8 = Lewis Creek mound B; 9 =Lewis Creek mound E; 10 =Red Knowll; 11 =Seven Mile Bend; 12 = Oatland mound ; 13 =Seaside mound II (Burial 8); 14 = Irene mound.

195

dietary carbohydrates, especially sugars (Rowe, 1975). Periosteal reactions represent a type of nonspecific skeletal lesion that occurs with a wide variety of disease conditions affecting bone (Greenfield, 1976). This pathology usually occurs as smooth or irregular new layers of bone that appear as swelling on the bone surface. Infection is the most common cause.
The hypotheses are (1) if corn, a carbohydrate having a high sugar component, became an important dietary item following 850 BP, then frequency of dental caries should increase, and (2) if population size increases consequent to the marked increase in use of storable plant ~omesticatci, then the larger population should support a general increase in infectious diseases due to more crowded living conditions. The increase in infectious disease most likely would be caused by increased numbers of people living in permanent villages, as opposed to nonpermanent, small settlements. In part, an increase in disease would be reflected by an increase in bony infections.
RESULTS
Examination of adult and preadu.lt dental samples in the preagricultural group (Table 1) shows that less than 10 percent are affected by dental caries and that all preadults are caries-free. The agricultural group, in contrast, shows that nearly 60 percent of the individuals examined werecarious; females showed greater frequency of disease than males.
An even better indicator of the increase in dental caries is illustrated by comparing dental regions of the preagricultural and agricultural dentitions (Fig. 3). Although all tooth regions -- incisors, canines, premolars and molars show significant increases in percent of teeth affected by dental caries, the posterior teeth -- premolars and especially molars -- show greatest frequency increases in the agricultural group relative to the preagricultural group. In addition, the percent increases seem to be greater in agricultural females relative to agricultural males (Figs. 4a, 4b).
Periosteal reactions also follow an expected pattern: increase in frequency. For this part of the analysis, rather than compare frequency of individuals affected by pathology, as was done for the caries data, the frequencies by. individual bone category (e.g., humerus, radium, ulna, etc.) were compared. In the total adult sample (females, males, indeterminate sex combined), significant increases in frequency of periosteal reactions occur for the humerus, radius, femur, tibia, and fibula; i.e., most major arm and leg bones show significant increases (Table 2). The most noteworthy frequency increases for periosteal reactions occur for the female tibia and fibula and the male tibia (Tables 3, 4). In the preagricultural group, 2.4 percent of female tibiae show some sort of bone infection, whereas in the agricultural group, 16 percent of the tibiae show similar inflammatory responses. Female fibulae exhibit an 8.5 percent increase in number of bones affected by periosteal reactions, and male tibiae show an 11.8 percent increase in frequency for the same pathology in the agricultural group relative to the preagricultural group.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Human skeletal remains from the Georgia coast show a tremendous increase in dental caries in the post-850 BP group of dentitions relative to the earlier
196

TABLE 1 FREQUENCIES (%) OF INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY DENTAL CARIES: COMPARISONS OF PREAGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL TOTAL SAMPLES (ADULTS AND PREADULTS COMBINED),
FEMALES, MALES, AND PREADULTS

Preagricultural

Agricultural

Chi-square

Total Sample
Adult Female
Adult Male
Preadult
I
I I

(N=201)
9.0 (N=75) 10.7 (N=49)
6.1 (N=36)
0.0

(N=275)

58.9

.001

(N=108)

69.4

.001

(N=80)

58.7

.001

(N=56)

48.2

.001

N=Number of Individuals

I I
. D PREAGRICULTURAL

l20
18 ~

AGRICULTURAL

I I

16

14

1z -
IJJ

12--j

(.)

a:

IJJ IL

10~

I

sj

Fig. 3. Comparison of adult dental regions affected by caries. (I = Incisors, C = canines, P =premolars, M=molars.)

6

4

2

0

TOOTH

I

c

p

M

DENTAL CARIES DISTRIBUTION : TOTAL

197

22421

20~
18~
I
16

14

ztw-

12

0

aw0::.:

D PREAGRICULTURAL
AGRICULTURAL

20

18

16

z1-

14

w

u
Q::

12

w

Cl.

10

8

D PREAGRICULTURAL
AGRICULTURAL

6

4

2

0

TOOTH

I

c

p

M

DENTAL CARIES DISTRIBUTION: FEMALE

4

2

:

0

"

TOOTH

I

c

p

M

DENTAL CARIES DISTRIBUTION : MALE

Fig. 4a. Comparison of female dental regions affected by caries. 4b. Comparison of male dental regions affected by caries. (!=Incisors, C=canines, P=premolars, M=molars.)
' "'
, n
198

TABLE 2 FREQUENCY (%) OF PREAGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PERIOSTEAL REACTIONS: ADULT (FEMALES, MALES, SEX INDETERMINATE COMBINED) COMPARISONS BY BONE

Bone

Preagricultural % N

.A%gricultuNral

% change*

Chi-square

Clavicle

1.9 107

4.7 274

+2.8

Humerus

0.5 190

3.2 273

+2.7

.05

Ulna

0.7 147

3.7 327

+3.0

Radius

0.7 136

4.5 335

+3.8

.05

Femur

2.1 193

6.8 . 410

+4.7

.05

Tibia

4.5 156

. 15.0 374

+10.5

.001

Fibula

1.7 116

8.3 289

+6.6

.05

*computed by subtraction of Preagricultural %from Agricultural %.

TABLE 3
I I
FREQUENCY OF PREAGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PERIOSTEAL REACTIONS: FEMALES

I !
Bone

Preagricultural % N

Agricultural % N

% change*

Chi-square
(

Clavicle

0.0 61

2. 9 140

+2.9

Humerus

0.0 106

3.7 190

+3.7

Ulna

1.2 82

3. 6 167

+2.4

Radius

0.0 77

4.0 173

+4.0

Femur

1.8 110

7.2 207

+5.4

Tibia

2.4 84

16.0 187

+13.6

.005

Fib-ula

1.4 74

9. 9 152

+ 8.5

.05

*computed by substraction of Preagricultural %from Agricultural %.

TABLE 4 FREQUENCY OF PREAGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PERIOSTEAL REACTIONS: MALES

Bone

Preagri cultura1

Agricultural

%change* Chi-square

% N

% N

Clavicle

5.6 36

5.3 114

-0.3

Humerus

2.0 51

3.6 140

+1.6

Ulna

0.0 42

2.3 130

+2.3

Radius

0.0 43

2.9 140

+2.9

Femur

2.0 49

6.4 156

+4.4

Tibia

4.0 50

15.8 146

+11.8

.05

Fibula

0.0 37

5.3 114

+5.3

*computed by subtraction of Preagricultural %from Agricultural %.

199

sample. This contrast strongly suggests that the.later group of skeletons represents an adaptation that utilized a diet having a high carbohydrate (sugar) content, i.e., corn. Furthermore, the increase in periosteal reactions most likely reflects an increase in population size associated with an increased utilization of agricultural foodstuffs. Alternatively, the increase in periosteal reactions may have been caused by the introduction of a new disease after 850 BP. However, if such disease was the cause, several bones in the same skeleton would have been affected. Instead, in the later Georgia coastal sample, generally only isolated bones of individuals were affected by inflammatory processes. I interpret this to mean that the frequency increases for periosteal reactions reflect a decrease in sanitation associated with larger, more permanently occupied villages. With increased utilization of agricultural foodstuffs un the prehistoric Georgia coast, the status of health greatly deteriorated in teeth and bones, in particular, and in the body, in general..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was initiated through the generous support of the American Museum of Natural History and the Edward John Noble Foundation. Completion of research was made possible by a Smithsonian Institution Predoctoral Fellowship.
REFERENCES CITED Bates, J., 1975, A Paleoethnobotanical study of the Red Bird Creek Site.
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Research Manuscript, 12 p. Caldwell, J.R., 1971, Chronology of the Georgia coast: Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin, v. 13, 89-91. Caldwell, J.R. and McCann, C., 1941, Irene Mound Site. University of Georgia
Press, Athens, 84 p. Cook, F.C., 1978, The Kent Mound: a Study of the Irene Phase on the lower Georgia
coast. Master's Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 158 p. Greenfield, G.B., 1975, Radiology of bone diseases, J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, 465 p. Holder, P., 1936-7, Letters on file, National Anthropoloogical Archives, Smithsonian Institution, 25 p. Holder, P., 1938, Excavations on St. Simons Island and vicinity, winter 'of 1936-1937: Proceedings of the Society for Georgia Archaeology, v. 1, p.8-9. Larson, L.H., Jr., 1969, Aboriginal subsistence technology on the southeastern coastal Plain during the late Prehistoric Period. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 344 p. Moore, C.B., 1897, Certain aboriginal mounds of the Georgia coast. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Journal 11: 4-138.
200

Pearson, C.E., 1978, Analysis of late Mississippian settlements on Ossabaw Island, Georgia. In: Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B.D. Smith. Academic Press, New York, pp. 53-80.
Rowe, N.H., 1975, Dental caries. In: Dimensions of Dental Hygiene; Second
Edition, edited by P.F. Steele: Lea &Febiger, Philadelphia. pp. 198-220.
Thomas, D. H. and Larsen, C.S., 1979, The anthropology of St. Catherines Island: 2 The Refuge-Deptford Mortuary Complex. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 56, 180 p.
Zahler, J.W., Jr., 1976, A morphological anaJysis of a proto-historic skeletal population from St. Simons Island, Georgia. Masters thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 156 p.
201

MAN AND SEA LEVEL AT THE SECOND REFUGE SITE

Larry Lepionka Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina at Beaufort
Beaufort, South Carolina 29902

ABSTRACT
The Second Refuge site (38JA61), located within the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, is a deep, stratified Refuge period (3100-2400 BP) habitation midden. Excavations indicate that the site extends to a depth of 2.4 m below the present land surface; the lowest part of the midden extends approximately 1.0 m below present ground water level. Changes in relative proportion of fresh and saltwater shellfish recovered indicate that inhabitants of the site were forced to change their subsistence pattern as the local environment changed in response to falling sea level.

INTRODUCTION
In March and April, 1979, the University of South Carolina at Beaufort conducted archaeological excavations in the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge under a contract with Interagency States Fish and Wildlife Service. Work was necessitated by proposed alterations in the dike-canal system of the refuge. An earlier surface survey of the refuge by Marrinan (1978) recorded several archaeological sites including location 22 (38JA61), on an island near the Back River channel of the Savannah River. The fsland is small (7 x 15 m) and low~ rising to a maximum elevation of 1.3 m above the surrounding swamp. Part of the island was removed during canal construction, and site 38JA61 was exposed in the canal profile. Archaeological excavations were init~ated due to the presence of deep, stratified deposits exposed in profile.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

A circular, mortarless, brick fireplace occupies the high~st ground in the

northeast quadrant of the island. The fireplace is of 20th Century construction

(galvanized nails were found beneath the bricks) although constitutent bricks

may be older, perhaps coming from 19th Century plantation structures in the

vicinity. Associated artifacts (strapping metal, lead ingot, Mason jars) suggest

a still and an associated fireplace. Remnants of 20th century stills are common

in the refuge (Marrinan, 1978).



Major excavations were concentrated in the central and northern parts of the island. Excavations revealed an upper .level (ca. 75 em thick) of disturbed soil containing historic materials (brick fragments, nails) and scattered shells; prehistoric pottery from practically every post-Refuge period between Deptford and Irene also was present. Refuge ceramic types, predominantly simple stamped

'~
202

and plain, were also present. This upper level was mixed thoroughly, and the relatively small quantities of post-Refuge pottery came entirely from disturbed soils. This mixing follows the pattern of the first Refuge site, where Waring
(1977) noted evidence for post-Refuge reutilization. This upper level may be redeposited, but no source for the materials has been identified. Presumably,
the original site was a Refuge deposit overlain by a thin crust of later materials
that derived from occasional occupations.

Between 75 and 150 em beneath the surface, soil predominated, but shell
became much more common, occurring as thin, discontinuous, horizontally bedded lenses that followed the slope of the present surface. Such deposits would have formed during occasional site usage but are too thin to represent intensive
occupation.

Minor amounts of post-Refuge ceramics were found in the 75 to 150 em level, whereas all Refuge varieties (simple stamped, plain, incised, punctated) except
dentate stamped were present. Plain and simple stamped forms predominated. Of the latter group, the form recognized by Waring (1977) as "Deptford simple stamped" was most abundant in the site at all levels. This type was identified
by the even, shallow, parallel application of the stamp occuring in either a linear or cross stamped pattern covering most of the vessel surface. The cruder "Refuge Simple Stamped," as defined by Waring (1977), also was present and can best be described as a series of irregularly spaced gashes. It can be distinguished readily from the "Deptford" type in extreme cases, but examination of vessel
bases suggests that some overlap may exist. The two variants clearly were contemporary, and both occurred in all levels of the site; the most clearly
definable "Refuge stamped" types were most common in the concentrated midden
below 150 em. DePratter (1979) suggested that the two simple stamped variants should be combined into a single type, Refuge Simple Stamped. Other Refuge traits, including use of sherds as abraders and decoration of both the exterior and interior of vessels, also were present (DePratter, 1976; Thomas and Larsen,
1979). Interior decoration was not common, however, and abraded sherds were difficult to quantify because many from below 150 em had an "eroded" appearance caused by damage from calcium carbon.ate.

At ca. 150 em, a thick, black, "boundary stratum" was encountered

at the transition between upper soil deposit and a lower shell layer, at about

the level of the present water table ... A few centimeters below this boundary,

a dense, muddy, shell stratum began and extended down to ca. 240 em. This

1 1

midden stratum rested on a silt-clay unit that overlay a peat layer; the peat

rests uncomformably on sand. Primary shell constituents of the midden were

oysters (Crassostera virginica), freshwater mussels (Elliptio icterina), and

freshwater snails (Viviparus georgianus). The mixed molluscan species indicate

that site occupants utilized both riverine and estuarine resources.

Pottery from this midden was primarily Refuge. Fifteen sherds of Refuge Dentate Stamped were recovered from the midden level; none was found in upper levels of the site, suggesting that dentate stamping was an early decorative technique not continued into the late Refuge period. Our test pits revealed no evidence for intensive utilization of the site during the St. Simons period. A total of 17 St. Simons period sherds (15 plain, 2 punctate decorated) were found but were scattered throughout the site. Those sherds may be related to

203

""\
occupation of a St. Simons site at nearby location 23 (Marrinan, 1978). Presence of a basal fiber-tempered deposit and the higher proportion of Refuge punctated, incised, and plain sherds at the original Refuge site (Waring, 1977) suggest that it was occupied earlier than location 22.
Two 14c dates were obtained from location 22. A shell sample from the lower surface of the midden (ca. 240 em below the surface) was dated at 1070 BC 115 (QC-784), whereas a sample from the upper surface of the same midden level (ca. 170 em below the surface) produced a date of 510 BC 100 (QC-785). These dates, which fall within the range proposed previously for the Refuge period (Williams, 1977; DePratter, 1979), indicate that the site was occupied over a long time span. Thinness of the midden, however, suggests only intermittent occupation; this may be partly the result of fluvial erosion during the Refuge period, although evidence relating to such erosion is lacking.
No significant lithic, bone, or shell artifacts were associated with the ceramics. Eight projectile points were found, including two probable Savannah River and two Groton stemmed types(Stoltman, 1974). A few hammer stones, rubbing stones, chert flakes, and numerous petrified wood splinters constituted the remainder of the lithic assemblage. A few bones and antler tines were notched or showed other signs of modification, but no finished pieces were recovered. The only whelk shell from the site had abraded knobs and a circular hole cut through its outer whorl. Waring (1977) encountered similar paucity of nonceramic implements at the first Refuge site.
Occupants of the site exploited land and fresh and saltwater environments. Charred hickory nut shell fragments were frequent occurrences, but only one acorn was found above the peat stratum, perhaps because of poor preservation. Preserved bone indicates that deer was the animal most common hunted. Deer were utilized fully, and most large bones were shattered during butchering and processing. Hence, only bones of the extremities--metapodials, phalanges, teeth, antler tines--having little or no nutritional value, were preserved intact. Similar processing on smaller animals leaves little bone for identification, but bird, opossum, raccoon, rabbit, and rodents definitely were present. Turtle and fish bones were common and obviously made up a considerable part of the diet. Fortyone charred fragments of human bone were found in the lowest part of the midden. Cremation or burning of a burial in a peat fire are possible explanations for their presence and condition. A previous suggestion, by Moore (1897), that such charred human bone may be the result of cannibalism could be correct.
Terrestrial faunas are not particularly useful for environmental reconstruction, because most species occur in a wide range of lo~al environments. Molluscan remains are more revealing. To determine precise salinity adjacent to the site from shellfish remains alone is impossible; but the site evidently was proxirr,al to both fresh and saltwater environments. However, the only saltwater moll uses that occurred in quantity were oysters .. Only one whelk and two or three clam shells were found. The remainder of midden shells were freshwater forms.
Shellfish utilization varied through time, although absolute quantitites of oyster remained fairly constant throughout the area excavated. Proportions of mussel to oyster were lowest at t~e base of the midden and highest at the top. Occurrence of freshwater snails varied from le~el to level. Va~iations in
204

shellfish present could be the result of food preference and selection, but probably reflect shifts in local availability. The increase in proportion of freshwater shellfish utilized through time probably reflects decreasing salinity of water in the vicinity of the site, Presumably, the result of a drop in sea level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project was funded through a contract with Interagency States Fish and Wildlife Service. L. Lepionka acted as archaeologist and principal investigator, with the consulting assistance of Donald Colquhoun, geology, David McCollum, plant and molluscan identification, Rochelle Marrinan, faunal analysis, William Abbot, diatom analysis, and James Michie, archaeology.
REFERENCES CITED DePratter, C.B., 1976, The Refuge phase on the coastal plain of Georgia:
Early Georgia, v. 4, p. 1-13. DePratter, C.B., 1979, Ceramics, In Thomas, D.H. and Larsen, C.S., The anthro-
pology of St. Catherines Island: The Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers of the Amer. Mus. of Nat. Hist., v. 56, part I, p. 109-131. Moore, C.B., 1897, Certain aboriginal mounds of. the Georgia coast: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, v. 16., 152 p. Marrinan, R., 1975, Ceramics, molluscs and sedentism: the late Archaic period on the Georgia coast. (Ph.D. Diss.): Gainesville, Univ. Florida, 262 p. Stoltman, J.B., 1974, Groton Plantation: Harvard Univ. Peabody Mus. Monographs, v. 1' 308 p. Thomas, D.H., and Larsen, C.S., 1979, the anthropology of St. Cahterines Island: the Refuge-Deptford mortuary complex: Anthropological Papers Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., v. 56, part I, 179 p. Waring, A.J., Jr., 1977, the Refuge site, Jasp.er County, South Carolina, In Williams, S., ed., The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Mus. Papers, v. 58, p. 198-208. Williams, S., ed., 1977, The Waring Papers: Harvard Univ. Peabody Mus. Papers, v. 58, 345 p.
205

SANTA ELENA, A SPANISH FOOTHOLD IN THE NEW WORLD
\
Stanley South Institute of Archeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
ABSTRACT
Between 1566 and 1587, Parris. Island, South Carolina was the site of the Spanish town, Santa Elena, and its three successive forts, Fort San Felipe I (1566-1570), Fort San Felipe II (1570-1576), and Fort San Marcos (15771587). Prior to 1979, archaeological explorations were limited to locating and identifying one or more forts. Beginning in 1979, a series of systematically distributed 1 m2 test units were excavated to locate the forts and remains of the town. To date, test excavations in three areas encountered the remains of Fort San Felipe II and 13 houses in town. Expansion of excavations indicates that the fort was squared with. corner bastions and was surrounded by a moat 14 ft wide and 5 ft deep. Eastern parts of the fort and town apparently have been lost through erosion. The only house excavated to date was a small, D-shaped structure 12 ft across constructed of wall posts and interwoven cane lathes plastered with clay. Large iron nails found beside each post demonstrate the Spanish origin of this structure. Future excavation plans include delineation of the town, excavation of residences and other structures, and further work on delineating the three forts.
INTRODUCTION
A fort site on the southern tip of Parris Island, South Carolina, has been of interest from the 185os, when Captain Georgia Parsons Elliott and the historian Jeptha R. Simms conducted excavations there (Hoffman, 1978). Other excavations were carried out in 1916, 1918, and 1923; the latter work by Major Georgia H. Osterhout (1923) was the most revealing. As a result, the fort he excavated was identified as the French 11 Charlesfort'.' of. 1562.
A controversy developed when historians Mary Ross (1925) and A.S. Salley (1925, 1927) clearly identified the Parris Island site as the Spanish city of Santa Elena and its forts, San Felipe I (1566-1570), San Felipe II (1570-1576), and San Marcos (1577-1587). In 1957, artifacts from Osterhouts 1923 dig were identified as Spanish by Manucy (1957). Thus, historical documents and archaeological data suggested that the Parris Island site was indeed Spanish and probably was the site of Santa Elena. This evidence, and subsequent research by Hoffman (1978), demonstrated the need for an archaeological investigation on the site. One week of exploratory excavations was conducted in July 1979, followed by a longer project to assess the potential of the Parris Island sites for extensive archaeological research. This project was completed in the fall of 1979; Stanley South was principal investigator arid R.L. Stephenson was project director .
. 206

1979 EXPEDITION

In 1979, Osterhout's 11 Charlesfort 11 was identified tentatively, on the basis of historical documents, as the Spanish Fort San Marcos. The same documents
indicated that both the town of Santa Elena and Fort San Felipe II (1570-1576) were located to the north of Fort San Marcos between 1577 and 1587 (Hoffman, 1978). Therefore, archaeological testing north and west of the site of Osterhout's fort was undertaken in 1979, in an attempt to locate the remains of both the town of Santa Elena and Ft. San Felipe II. Expected major evidence was 16th century Spanish pottery and fired clay daub, produced when structures in the town burned in 1576. The structures are known to have been made of wood and
clay and probably were thatched with local materials such as palmetto leaves.

Knowing that burned clay-daubed. structures existed, to construct and implement

a stratified, systematic, unaligned sampling design it was possible (Redman and

Watson, 1970); that would facilitate the search for houses. After excavations,

the houses would be identifiable as concentrations of daub fragments on a

computer-printed map (Dudnick, 1971; South and Widmer, 1977; Lewis, 1977). Such

clustering allows precise location of specific sites for detailed excavation.

Artifacts, whether nails, Spanish pottery, or other objects, also would reveal

! 1

..

clustering if present in sufficient quantities to be contained in sampling

units. Large quantities of fired daub, compared with other artifacts left by

Spanish occupation, would be the major means for identifying house sites.

The area to be tested, an oak-covered site about 200 ft wide and several

hundred feet long, was located between the Marine Corps golf course and the

marsh (Fig. 1). Such an area could not be sampled adequately in a one-week

period. Thus, a smaller zone, 90 by 420 ft, was selected and divided into 42

plots, each 30 ft2 (Fig. 2). Inside .each square, a 3-ft square was excavated

and its contents sifted through a 0.25-in mesh screen. This represents a 1

percent sample of the entire 37,800 ft area.



While excavation was underway, some squares revealed the edge of a ditch that, unexpectedly, was in alignment with the archaeological grid. Exploratory trenches cut from these squares to determine width of the ditch, exposed a large 14-ft wide ditch. Additional trenches exposed a two-bastioned moat (Figs. 1,
2). From documentation of the Spanish occupation, we realized that we had discovered the moat of Fort San Felipe II, which guarded the town of Santa Elena from 1570 to 1576 (Hoffman, 1978). The moat itself, however, dated from 1574 to 1576 and was in use only two years.

Discovery of this bonus was exciting, but ~evertheless resulted in reduction of the area where potential structures could be delineated by clustering of fired clay daub and Spanish pottery. However, using a computer-printed map of the concentration of artifact classes, a suspected house site was pinpointed at
the southwest edge of the research frame (Fig. 3). Thus, a one-week project resulted in discovery of San Felipe II and the presumed site of structures in the town of Santa Elena.

Concentration of daub and Spanish pottery was thought to be certain indication of a Spanish structure of Santa Elena, but demonstration of this was not possible

207

Archeologists ASSIStants

Ston ley South Leland Ferguson Michael Hartley
John Goldsborough Bryan Watson

Project D~rector Robert L Stephenson
I
I
I I

I
I
I I
I I I I I I

.. .. -- ~., ,.. .

(.~
..,, ~..::-
:;-:.
Jnc1sed tnd1an sherds

1%

from the Span1sh hul

"'

Feo 162A-159

Archeological Map of the Forts and Other Site Features at
SANTA ELENA I (/566-1576)
(38BU/62)
and
SANTA ELENA II (/577-1587)
(38BU5/)

" w ~.

;
I I
Fo1rwoy

I I
I I I
I

lnc1sed olive JOr sherd from the Spon1sh hut
Fea. 162A-159

A Joint Project of
THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Un1vers1ty of South Corol1no and
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
1n Cooperation with
U.S MARINE CORPS

,j

dnving range

'

N 0
00

Is 4 and Olin

.

fL~;Jv -.. .._

g 11'1ent or

sand trap- .._ .._s:Jv74

()

; D. ~.h H.0_e_-. _
). . ...

e .. . . ------~ .0---- ,. ~----- ~ ~-~ -~~ :

~



sam~le ~

3-footsqU'ares

I



--hJ ~e~~~~~h-A~~~-i628"'" "'f:- ------------------ ------o-

Fa~rway

~

0

,fit ~ 4i

scale feet 10 30 60 90
-400

-~

,,

nmlm oak

I Conjectured
-100 -70 -40 . 0

Fig. 1. Archaeological map of forts and other site features at Santa Elena I and II.

I~

Scale feet

\
fiiHWOJ70'

Sl Elena Would Hove BeenWesl of !he fori

f<l~oyiO~'

Legend
IRIIUSIODIRIOSUbSOII ~J1~= lnterpololed oreo
o=Enovoledoreo A Reference rod for grid

f
Fouwoy70'

~he Site of 38BUI62

I

FORT SAN FELIPE IT

'

(1570 -1576)

/
9 Somple Squares Shuck I lie Fori Moot

"The Old Fort Which.Was Lost"

~

~
"

0

"-l

"

!1:1

3

"

0

0>1
4

7

~
-~~~~~n;e~~~~:s ,

D
"

fil
20

N

['l 2

.:>: 10 '':.

0

16

0
U)

r?i' :PA

l:l

9 ASSIGNED

6

ElIOO

0

15

0

19

/~;,;.

0

-. __,....SeplicTonk

18

90 by 420 Somplmg Area

1!'1

0

32

35

0
29

~~

The fori Wos Burned by Indians in 1576

AN EXPLORATORY ARCHEOLOGY PROJECT OF The Institute of Archeology and Anthropology
ond The Office of Research
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Porns Island, South Corohno July 1-8, 1979 Through the Cooperation of the U.S Manne Corps

Archeologist STANLEY SOUTH Historian: PAUL HOFFMAN

Bon~Ed9e~

S South 79 79

Fig. 2. The sampling area (research frame), showing location of 42 sampling squares and most of Fort San Felipe II.

420'

Research frame
Concentration of Fired Clay Daub
0 =sample point ::-: =value range 60-250 gms.
:m> =value range 250-1712 gms.
@..

0

30FT.

III I

Concentration of Sixteenth Century Spanish Pottery o = sample point
<> = value range 21-30 sherds ;.y = value range 31 ~40 sherds
COMPUTER PROJECTED ARTIFACT DENSITIES AT THE SITE OF FORT SAN FELl PE 1I IN SAN TA ELENA, S.C.
S.Sout.h 881~79
Fig. 3. . Concentration of fired clay daub predicted from sample squares (top) and concentration of sixteenth centurySpanish pottery predicted from sample squares (bottom).

210

until an area 20 by 30 ft was excava~ed and the posthole pattern for a Spanish hut was revealed (Fig. 4). The 3ft sample had been placed at the entranceway to a 0-s:~?r..rped structure 12 ft wide having a burned hearth area in the center (Fig. 1 -- Research area 162A). The structure was built of posts set into holes 5 ft apart. Large nails found beside each post indicate that horizontal timbers were fastened to each post. Impressions in fired clay daub found beside each post revealed that canes likely were woven vertically between horizontal timbers, and the entire fabric plastered with clay. As the vertical posts burned, the adjacent clay wall was oxidized to an orange brick-red color and crumbled to the ground. The rapidity with which the town caught on fire after the fort of San Felipe II was abandoned in 1576 (Connor, 1925) suggests that the structures were roofed with a highly flammable material, probably palmetto thatch.
Discovery of a small D-shaped hut constructed of local materials, probably once housing a single soldier or perhaps a slave, suggests that the combination of elements of fired clay daub, Spanish pottery, and a posthole are positive clues to the location of structures in Santa Elena. Based on this knowledge, three other research frames were established for sampling, using the 3 ft2 approach. These squares, placed away from the edge of the shoreline (Fig. 1 -- Research areas 51A and 1628) revealed less Spanish pottery and almost no evidence of structures. Squares placed along the shoreline between the two forts, in a southern extension of Research area 162, however, revealed 12 areas where the proper combination of daub-pottery-postholes was present. These data suggest that each test square encountered a Santa Elena structure. One of these areas was expanded, and a large rectangular posthole pattern was found, indicating that structures larger than the little Spanish hut also existed on the site of Santa Elena.
In addition to evidence for 12 structures, a possible well 9 ft wide was found. Alignment of this well and 10 of the 12 structures suggests a row of houses extending along the edge of Parris Island. However, because two of the bastions of Fort San Felipe II have been eroded away, one or two blocks of the town also may have disappeared. What remains is probably evidence for a row of structures on the back side of the town.
A section 10 ft wide excavated across the Fort San Felipe II moat, near the center of the west curtain wall, indicated that the moat was backfilled. This circumstance is consistent with documentation that the fort was leveled in 1577 to prevent its use by Indians to attack nearby Fort San Marcos (Eugene Lyon, 1979, personal comm.). Large fragments of majolica, an olive jar, and a bullet mold were found in the moat fill.
An additional aspect of the assessment phase of the Santa Elena Project was excavation of exploratory squares over the four walls of Fort San Marcos, to locate palisade posts reported by Osterhout (1923). Such posts were exposed, as were neat trenches cut by the Major. This work indicates the potential for revealing architectural data of great value in interpreting this last Spanish fort on Parris Island.
An unsuccessful search was made for the site of the first Fort San Felipe. Apparently, this fort was located in an area DOW covered by tidal marsh, and finding and recovering archaeological data from it is unlikely.
211

Archeologists' Assistants=
Volunteers~

Stanley Soulh Leland Ferguson Michael Harlley John Goldsborough Bryan Watson
David South Marshall W Williams

Scale' feet

The Site of a Spanish Dwelling (Ruin# I) at the First
SANTA ELENA (/566-1576)
(38BU/62A)
on Parris Island, South Carolina
Excavated September 10-28,1979
A Joint Project of
THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
University of South Carolina and
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPI!IC SOCIETY
in Cooperation with
THE U.S. MARINE CORPS

Conjectural drawing of I he Spanish dwelling which burned.

I11o. R.Pl 265L 75
.. ,

!260 L75

~

LEGEND
structural posthole with fired clay daub feature with fired clay daub

0

unexcavoted feature with brown soil fill

shallow feature not visible below 1.2' depth fired clay daub from walls of dwelling tree root disturbance interpreted clay wall of Spanish dwelling interpretive line 96 feature number

NOTES ON THE DWELLING

12 foot wide 110~shaped structure with door on straight side

Horizontal slats spiked to upright posts were laced with vertical cones.

Aber-tempered daub was hand-smoothed against the cone wattle.

dirt floor with central hearth

smoke hole in peaked, palmetto thatched roof



The alignment with Fort San Felipe is that used from 1566 to 1576.

The dwelling was burned, probably in 1576, by Indians.

Household refuse (Indian and Spanish pottery, animal bone, etc.), Was discarded near the door.

The dwelling is a product of the blending of Spanish and

Indian building materials and methods.

The site was used as a vineyard during the period of the
... second Santa Elena (1577-1587)*when vineyard ditches
aligned with Fort San Marcos intruded on the dwelling ruin.
A thriving vineyard was at Santa Elena in 1568.

* Hoffman, Paul E., Sixteenth century fortifications

* * Lyon, Eugene,

Parris Island, S.C. Manuscript.

1Nhoe.tiMo!n~a!lJ!Griesoegraopf hFiclo,sroidcaie. tTy.hWe aUshnlinvgertsointy,l978.

.: '--------"~'-'------"'--'-'-'-'--'-'-"-..:..-.~~"'-""-"--'-'-'-'_:_:-'_;_:_;-'-'..:..;.-'--'.-'-'-'-'-'-'-~.:..:....:...:._:..:~-'1

Presses of Florida. Gainesville. 1976. p.204.

South 9 301979

Fig. 4. Site of Spanish dwelling at first Santa Elena. 212

CONCLUSIONS
Now that the site of the capitol of Spanish Florida and two of its forts have been located, extensive archaeological excavation is needed to reveal the story lying beneath the soil of Parris Island. We hope to do so in the years to come.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The one week project at Parris Island was a low budget, largely volunteer effort with help from several people, who have my sincere thanks. Special acknowledgement is due Dr. A. Riley Macon, University of South Carolina, through whom a grant from the Committee on Research and Productive Scholarship was obtained, and Dr. Robert L. Stephenson, State Archaeologist, through whose office the expedition was undertaken.
I acknowledge with thanks financial support from the National Geographic Society, which funded the second phase of the project in conjunction with the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology.
Jose R. Judge, National Geographic Magazine, and Dr. Paul E. Hoffman, Louisana State University, introduced me to the site of Fort San Marcos and Santa Elena in September, 1978, and shared with me their research suggestions on location of the city and the three forts that guarded it. The fullest cooperation was received from the United States Marine Corps, Parris Island, South Carolina.
Thanks are due to those individuals who assisted with the excavation and other logistic and professional help with the successful completion of these projects at Santa Elena. Valuable comments and interaction on Spanish artifacts was provided by Charles Fairbanks, University of Florida.
REFERENCES
Connor, J.T., 1925, Colonial records of Spanish Florida: Letters and reports of governors and secular persons . . . Translated and Edited by J.T.C. Vol. 1, Florida State Historical Society, Publication 5, Deland, v. 1, 367 p.
Dudnick, E. E., 1971, SYMAP user's reference manual for synagraphic computer mapping: Department of Architecture, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, 130 p.
Hoffman, P.E., 1978, Sixteenth century fortifications on Parris Island,.South Carolina. Manuscript on file at the National Geographic Magazine, Washington, 57 p.
Lewis, K.E., 1977, Sampling the archaeological frontier: regional models and component analysis, in Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, edited by Stanley South: Academic Press, New York, p. 151-202.
Manucy, A., 1957, Report on relics from 1923 excavation of fortification site on Parris Island, South Carolina: Typescript, St. Augustine, Florida, 16 p.
213

Osterhout, G.H.,. 1923, After three hundred and fifty years-being the story of Charles' Fort, built by Jean Ribault in 1562 on what is now known as Parris Island, South Carolina. The Marine Corps Gazette, June 1923:98-109.

Redman, C.L. and Watson, P.J., 1970, Systematic, intensive surface collections:

American Antiquity 35: 279-291.



Ross, M., 1925, The Spanish Settlement of Santa Elena (Port Royal) in 1578: Georgia Historical Quarterly, IX (1925), 352-379.

Salley, A.S., Jr., 1925, The Spanish Settlement at Port Royal, 1565-1586: South Carolina History Magazine 26 (1925), 31-40.

South, S. and Widmer, R., 1977, A subsurface sampling strategy for archaeological reconnaissance. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, edited by Stanley South: Academic Press~ New York, p. 119-150.

214

GUALE INDIANS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES COAST
.Grant D. Jones Department of Anthropology,
Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323
ABSTRACT
When first encountered by Spanish explorers and colonists in the 1520s, Guale Indians occupied the coastal area of Georgia. At that time, the Guale w~re divided into three strongly centralized political units, each controlled by a "mica," a paramount chief. A mixture of hunting, gathering, fishing, and maize horticulture permitted development of permanent villages on the mainland and nearby islands. When Spanish control of Guale territory was solidified in 1566, missions and military garrisons were established. The Guale successfully revolted against this foreign domination in 1576 and 1597 and drove out the Spaniards, but each time the foreigners returned more determined to Christianize and subjugate the Indians. In 1683, the Spanish abandoned the Guale coast because of increasing conflict with the English; surviving Guale either fled inland (some defected to the English side) or were resettled near San AUgusti~, Florida. During the last 132 years of Spanish domination, the Guale were decimated by European diseases, forced to relocate their towns for the convenience of the invaders, stripped of their political autonomy and religion, subjected to repeated attempts at Christianization, and were enslaved to serve as forced laborers. By 1700, the Guale ceased to exist as a cultural entity.
INTRODUCTION
Among the first indigenous peoples encountered by Europeans in North America north of Mexico were the Guale Indians {pronounced walley), of the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. Rather poorly known, in contrast to the many native North American groups that survived the onslaught of European intrusions, the Guale had ceased to exist as an intact people by the end of the 17th century. They were first contacted by the Spanish briefly in 1526 and then subjected to more intensive intrusions by French Huguenot settlers in 1562 and 1563. Beginning in .1566 the Spanish gained control over the Guale coast, resulting in a period of intense colonization that lasted until 1684. After that date, part of the few remaining Guale fudians were relocated closer to San Augustin, whereas others moved inland to join . remnant native groups in response to the expanding English Carolina colony.
The Muskhogean-speaking Guale inhabited an area extending from the Satilla River in southern Georgia to the North Edisto River in South Carolina (Fig. 1). Their settlements were located along the lower reaches of freshwater rivers and along the tidal creeks west of barrier islands. Mainland settlements were at least as common as island settlements during early contact times, but during the 17th century, the bulk of the population was relocated onto the islands. This region was rich and diverse environmentally, and the Guale utilized its resources through hunting, fishing, shellfish collecting,
215

10 0 km 20
km 20
Fig. 1. Approximate locations of Spanish period towns and settlements along Guale coast. Dased line denotes approximate boundaries of southern chiefdoms. (From Jones, 1978.) 216

wild plant collecting, and horticulture. This resource base supported permanent towns, stratified and politically centralized societies (chiefdoms), and both local and interregional exchange systems.
This paper summarizes some of our present knowledge of the Guale Indians, under three headings: (1) a brief sketch of the history of the Guale coast as it effected the native population, (2) a sketch of known Guale subsistence patterns, and (3) the subsistence system as related to the Guale pattern of settlement location and distribution and to certain features of political and social nrganization.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Although the Spaniard Lucas Vasquez de Ay116n contacted the South Carolina coast in 1521 in a successful search for slaves (Martyr, n.d.; Oviedo y Valdez, 1959), his landing point probably was in Siouan territory north of the Guale (Swanton, 1922). However, in 1526 Ayll6n returned to establish a short-lived colony in the vicinity of the Savannah or Broad River, within Guale territory. Spanish. materials introduced to the Guale by the Ayll6n colony were carried far. inland by Indian traders and were found there by members of DeSotos 1540 expedition (Elvas, 1907). This colony probably also introduced the devastating European diseases that had decimated some of the interior groups_ehcountered by DeSoto (Varner and Varner, 1951).
A group of French Huguenots under Jean Ri.baut established the colony of Charlesfort on Parris Island in Port Royal in 1562. They described several chiefdoms, among them Guale ( 11 0ade 11 or 110uade 11 in French accounts), Orista (Audusta), and Escamacu (Maccous). Leaders of these groups, who presumably also had encountered Ayllons colony, provided the Huguenots with large quantities of maize and beans and assisted them in construction of their houses (Lorant, 1946; Ribaut, 1964; Laudonniere, 1975). This colony was abandoned in 1563, but a second Huguenot colony established on the St. Johns River in Timucuan territory to the south made peaceful contact with the Port Roya1 chiefdoms in 1564. Inhabitants of this second co1ony, Fort Caroline, were massacred under the orders of the Spanish adelentado Pedro Menendez de Aviles in 1565. In that year Menendez founded the town of San Augustin, initiating a long period of Spanish control over much of the Southeast or 11 La Florida. 11
During 1564, Manrique de Rojas destroyed what remained of Charlesfort at Port Royal and briefly contacted the Indians of Guale and Orista (Wenhold, 1959). Further explorations of the Port Royal area and lands to the interior were conducted under Juan Pardo in 1566 and 1567 (Ketcham, 1954). Menendez himself met with several native chiefs in 1566, and boldly set about to establish Spanish colonial authority around Port Royal south to Ossabaw Island (Barcia, 1951; Barrientos, 1965). At the town of Guale, where the head of the chiefdom of that name resided, Menendez established the first Spanish garrison on the Guale coast. Although_a town called Guale was found later on St. Catherines Island, the early Guale probably was located on the inland side of Ossabaw Island.
217

Jesuit missionaries were first sent to the Guale coast in 1568 (Barcia,
1951). Their efforts centered around the garrison town of Santa Elena (South, 1980), were unrewarded in terms of the gathering of souls. The
Jesuits abandoned their missions in 1570, having alienated the native population by their association with the Spanish garrison, which demanded heavy payments by the Indians in cultivated foodstuffs. The missionaries also were blamed by the Guale for introduction of a massive epidemic in 1569 and 1570 (Vargas Ugarte, 1935, Zubillaga, 1941, 1946).

Following these Jesuit failures, Franciscan missionaries began to

evangelize the Guale coast in 1573. Although their initial efforts seemed to

meet with some success, the Indians soon began to resent meddling by the

Franciscans in secular -- in particular, political -- affairs of the

native communities. Continued demands by Spanish authorities for food-

tribute payments and a general pattern of Spanish military harrassment did

much to harden Guale resistance to resident missionaries. This resistance

was expressed in open rebellion against the town of Santa Elena in 1576.

Anti-Spanish hostility continued through early 1579, when the Spanish

retaliated by burning more than 19 towns, killing many Indians and destroying

much of the maize stored in Guale communities. That this destruction

covered a coastal distance of 45 leagues indicates the widespread degree of

native resistance. The missions then were abandoned by the Franciscans, and

the rebellion intensified even further from 1580 through 1582. New sets of

Franciscan friars arrived in Florida in 1584 and 1587, but none dared reestablish

Guale coastal missions. In 1587, the Santa Elena garrison was withdrawn~-

and the coast was considered for the moment to be a lost cause (Lanning,

1935; Geiger, 1937; South, 1980).



The Franciscans renewed their effort in 1595, limiting their activities
to the area from St. Catherines Island southward. As was true prior to the
1576 rebellion, their initial work seemed to be successful. However, in 1597, rebellion again resulted in assassination of all but one of the
re~ident Franciscan missionaries. The single survivor was taken by the rebels to an interior community, where he was tortured and humiliated until his release the followi.ng year (Ore,' 1936; Geiger, 1937). This massive
revolt, which involved the entire Guale coast, climaxed 27 years of nearly uninterrupted rebellion against Spanish excesses in continuing food demands and military harrassment (San Miguel, 1902). Detailed documentary evidence suggests that the revolt was conducted by awell-integrated federation of
chiefdoms, but the strength of rebel leaders was broken by a particularly
vicious series of reprisals by the Spanish during 1598. By 1601 these leaders were in hiding, some distance inland, among Indian allies known as Salchiches. Under leadership of the Spanish, the by then completely subdued coastal chiefdoms led a massive attack upon the fugitive rebels. This . attack, like the rebellion of 1597, represented a federation of virtually the entire Guale coast.

Peaceful political reorganization of the Guale under Spanish authority
began in 1603 (Serrano y Sanz, 1912; Pearson, 1974). Franciscan missionaries,
undaunted by their previous experiences, returned to the coast in 1605; soon they were joined by the Bishop of Cuba and Florida, who set about exhorting the apparently repentent Guale to cooperate with Church and State

218

in establishment of a peaceful frontier (Geiger, 1937). The modern Franciscan historian Maynard Geiger regarded the following years as the 11 Golden Age 11 of Florida history; at last, the Guale were subdued completely. However, the remainder of the 17th century was for the Guale a tragic period of slow decline in both numbers and sociopolitical autonomy (Matter, 1972).
Beginning in 1609, remaining mainland settlements were urged by the missionaries to relocate onto the barrier islands; mission settlements with convents were established on Jekyll Island (Guadalquini), Sapelo Island (San Jose de Sapala), St. Simons Island (Santo Domingo de Asao), and St. Catherines Island (Santa.Catalina). In most cases, single mission towns comprised remnants of several earlier towns. Population decline was steady throughout the 17th century, resulting from continuing epidemics, removal of some population to San Augustin for forced labor programs, increasing attacks agai.nst the coastal missions by English-supported interior Indians, and a steady trickle of Guale defectors to the interior.
During the last half of the 17th century, some Gualeans were moved to several settlements near San Augustin, where they could be called upon as laborers. As English attacks along the coast increased, a plan to abandon the coast from Cumberland Island northward was set in action. In 1683 the mission towns were evacuated; those Guale Indians who did not choose to defect to the Carolina settlements or to hostile interior native groups were deposited in communities on or near St. Marys Island. In 1689, these relocated settlements contained only 185 families, the tragic remnants of the Golden Age of Guale.
PATTERNS OF GUALE SUBSISTENCE
Guale settlements were situated primarily within the adaptive zone labelled "Coastal Sector11 in Larson's (1969) study of Southeastern Coastal Plain subsistence technology. Within this sector, native populations, according to Larson, were concentrated almost entirely in the Lagoon and Marsh section throughout prehistoric .times. The remaining Strand and Delta sections were characterized by an.absence of resources necessary to attract a large or stable aboriginal population. The more heavily settled Lagoon and Marsh section is characterized by a wide variety of floral and faunal resources, among which the most important for native populations were the hardwood forests on high ground, molluscs and fish in the aquatic range, a wide variety of birds, and the white-tailed deer. The interior Pine Barrens Sector, in Larson's view, was of little value to native populations except by seasonal fishermen who exploited the floodplain and perhaps by occasional agricultural settlers who sought the floodplain during periods of drought.
The historic period Guale Indians followed a similar pattern of settlement, except that permanent populations -- although probably not large --were located both along banks of major rivers, even beyond influence of estuarine saline water, and within the Pine Barrens Sector. Relatively little is actually known about specific locations of Guale communities, although available evidence strongly suggests that they occurred in a wide variety of
219

microenvironments so that varied regional resources could be used. Approximate boundaries of the principal Guale chiefdoms (Fig. 1) suggest significant potential existed for exchange of a wide variety of resources, both wild and cultivated, because of ecological variability within and between chiefdoms. This variability was associated not only with efficient distribution of communities among microenvironments but also with development of political institutions that functioned in part to redistribute products available in various communities.
Guale Indians planted maize, beans, and varieties of squash and melons. Little is known about their agricultural techniques or the specific distribution of agricultural plots in relation to variations in soil types or botanical features. Although a form of swiddening, in which fallowing cycles were followed, has long been assumed, the historical record is singularly uninformative on the subject. However, production of maize was sufficient to last in storage from the late summer harvest through at least April, when planting began again. According to one 17th century English report (Hilton, 1911), more than one crop was harvested annually.
Maize was parched and ground into flour. Both a drink and a form of flat round cake or torta were prepared from this flour (San Miguel, 1902). The mode of preparation of other cultivated crops is not known .. During autumn the Guale gathered acorns which, like maize, were stored and ground into large flat cakes. In later years, 11 root cakes 11 reportedly were made from a root that grew in the marshes (Hilton, 1911; Carteret, 1911). Hickory nuts also were consumed.
Oysters apparently played a major role in Guale diets. Oyster beds of coastal marshes produced generously and helped to offset, together with acorns and other wild plants, any natural disasters that threatened horticultural production. During the colonial period, shellfish collecting provided insurance against Spanish threats to Guale maize supplies. Deer were the animal most commonly hunted, their skins being used extensively for clothing and trade; bears and wild turkeys also were hunted.
Some Guale possibly changed their winter residence in order to be nearer hunting, fishing, or shellfish collecting grounds; most individuals apparently maintained permanent residence in a single community. Trips for the purpose of hunting, fishing, or collecting wood undoubtedly took individuals away from the community on a temporary basis. Guale settlements were located primarily along banks of rivers and tidal creeks, in a pattern that seems to indicate a strategy of being simultaneously near shellfish, hunting grounds, and horticultural lands. However, microenvironmental differences between settlements may well have resulted in a degree of economic specialization, among communities, resulting in the need for org~nized systems .of inter-community exchange.
Although evidence concerning settlement patterns is distressingly sparse, the following description of the town of Orista in 1666 probably could have been applied to most Guale towns:
11 The Towne is scituate on the side or rather in the skirts of a faire forrest, in which at several distances are diverse feilds of maiz with many little houses straglingly amongst them f6r the habitations of the particular families 11 (Sandford, 1911).
220

This and other reports suggest a 11 dispersed town 11 form of settlement, in which horticu1tural plots and homesteads were scattered in the vicinity of the town center. In most towns, located along river or creek banks, these maize plots would have been located 11 behind 11 the town center itself.

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

Throughout the historic period, the Guale were grouped into several well-

organized, politically stratified chiefdoms. Although boundaries and membership

of these chiefdoms shifted in-response to changing external politics, three

principal .chiefdoms existed throughout the period between earliest European

contact and beginning of the 17th century (Fig. 1). Each chiefdom possessed two

principal towns in which the leader and some family members and retainers lived.

The town centers included a large, round, community building in which periodic

1 1

councils and inter-community feasts were held. The ritual chunkey game, common

to many Southeastern Indians societies, was performed with poles and a disk-

shaped stone in a playing ground adjacent to the community buildings (San

Miguel, 1902; Sandford, 1911; Hudson, 1976) ..

Each chiefdom had a principal leader, known as the mico, or as the Spanish sometimes referred to him, the mica mayor. In some case~panish reports
distinguish between two hierarchically related leaders, the mica and mica mayor, each of whom was resident in one of the two principal towns of the chiefdom. The Spanish also used the Caribbean term cacique for the leader of the town of secondary importance. Primary leadership of a chiefdom was rotated between the
two principal towns. The leadership council was comprised by these two principal individuals and numerous other leaders (referred to both as caciques and principales) who apparently resided in the secondary towns. The micas frequently were accompanied
by other important, titled individuals (mandador, aliagita, tunaque, and heredero
or heir to the mica). The latter are poorly understood, although they may also have lived in the principal towns.

Principal leaders probably were the heads of clans in which descent was traced matrilineally. Positions of authority ordinarily were inherited by a person's younger brother, sister's son, or in later years, by a sister's daughter.
During the 17th century, female leaders became increasingly common, perhaps because of the effects of repeated epidemics and reduced participation of males in the mission communities. Franciscans sometimes opposed the principle of matrilineal succession, but their primary opposition was directed against the common practice
of polygyny. Male leaders often had more than one wife, and sometimes the wives were sisters; the wives resided in separate houses. Franciscan attempts to
abolish the practice of polygyny and to interfere in Guale principles of succession clearly were major factors in the native uprising of 1597.

Guale communities apparently were distributed to take maximum advantage of wild food resources and lands appropriate for horticulture. In early contact times, before population densities declined seriously due to disease and other
factors, such practices resulted in community patterns where settlements were specialized economically. Chiefdom organization apparently was a principal
means of integrating economic diversification; chiefs served as collectors and

221

redistributors of food and other products. The principal form of redistribution was that of periodic ritual feasts in which such items as maize, fish, oysters,
and acorns were served to 1arge gatherings. Early French reports indicate that
chiefs either owned a large part of available horticultural land or had authority to collect tribute in maize for their own use as well as future distribution in community feasts (Laudonniere, 1975). Chiefs also 11 paid 11 their followers in military activities with valued items such as shell money, deer skins, and metal tools received from the Spanish.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the Guale conducted an active, long-distance trade with inland peoples (Larson, 1969). This trade primarily was in elite or nonessential goods, suggesting that the Guale political hierarchy may have plqyed a central role in this sphere of exchange as well as in local redistribution. Still to.be explored is the implication of such long-distance contact for the flow of information of a nonmaterial sort between coastal and inland regions. Such information, especially knowledge concerning religious ideology and systems of political organization, would have drawn the Guale into a larger sphere of cultural, as well as economic, interaction. That such a larger cultural sphere might have existed may be explored through examination of the relationships between Guale and interior Creek society and culture. Even on the basis of our present, inadequate knowledge, however, the Guale were not an isolated, provincial people.
POSTSCRIPT
Readers who wish to explore this subject. fur-ther might begin by consulting two recent, secondary sources (Jones, 1978; Larson, 1978). Larson offered a valuable discussion of material culture, which, for reasons of limited space and an effort toward synthesis, was slighted in this chapter. Documentary and secondary sources for study of the Guale may be found in discussions by Jones (1978). The Guale remain a poorly understood people, largely because of weaknesses in historical records.
REFERENCES CITED
Barcia, A.G., 1951, Barcias chronological history of the continent of Florida, Kerrigan, trans: Gainesville. University of Florida Press, 426 p.
Barrientos, B., 1965, Pedro Menendez de Aviles, founder of Florida, Kerrigan, trans.: Gainesville, University of Flodda Press, 149 p.
Carteret, Mr., 1911, Mr. Carteret's .relation. of their planting at Ashley River '70 (1670), in Salley, A.S., ed., Original narratives of early American history, v. 15: New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 116-120.
Elvas, Gentleman of, 1907, The narrative of the expedition of Hernando DeSoto, by the gentleman of Elvas, in Spanish explorers in the southern United States, 1528-1543. Original narratives of early American History: New York, Charles Scribner's Sons.
Geiger,~., 1937, The Franciscan conquest of Florida (1573-1618), Studies in
222

Hispanic-American History 1: Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America, 319 p.

Hilton, W., 1911, A relation of a discovery by William Hilton'(l664), in Salley, A.S., ed., Original narratives of early American history, v. 15: New York,
Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 37-61.

Hudson, C., 1976, The southeastern Indians: Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, 573 p.

Jones, G.D., 1978, The ethnohistory of the Guale Coast through 1684, in Thomas, G.D., Durham, R.S., and Larson, C.S., The Anthropology of St. Catherines
Island. 1. Natural and Cultural History: Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History, v. 55, part 2, p. 178-210.

Ketcham, H.E., ed. and trans., 1954, Three sixteenth century Spanish chronicles relating to Georgia: Georgia Historical Quarterly, v. 38, p. 66-82.

Lanning, J.T., 1935, The Spanish missions of Georgia: Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press (reprinted 1971, St; Clair Shores, MI., Scholarly Press). 321 p.

Larson, L.H., Jr., 1969, Aboriginal subsistence technology on the Southeastern
Coastal Plain during the late pre-historic period, Ph.D. dissertation: Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 345 p.

Larson, L.H., Jr., 1978, Historic Guale Indians of th~ Georgia Coast and the
impact of the Spanish mission effort, in Milanich, J. and Proctor, S., eds., pp. 120-140: Tacachale; Essays on the Indians of Florida a.nd Southeastern Georgia during the historic period: .Gainesville, University Presses of
Florida.

Laudonniere, R., 1975, Three voyages, Bennett, C., trans.: Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 232 p.

Lorant, S., ed., 1946, The New World: The first pictures of America: New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 292 p.

Martyr, P., n.d., The historie of the West Indies . . . Published in Latin by Mr. Hakluyt and translated into English by M. Lok: London, printed by Andrew Hebb, 318 p.

Matter, R.A., 1972, The Spanish missions of Florida: the friars versus .the governors in the 11 Golden Age," 1606-1690, Ph.D. dissertation: Seattle, University of Washington, 439 p.

Ore, L.J. de, 1936, The martyrs of Florida (1513-1616), Geiger, Maynard, trans.,

I
I I

Franciscan Studies 18: New York, Joseph W. Wagner, 145 p.

Oviedo y Valdes, G.F. de, 1959, Hi.storia general y natural de las Indias, v. 4, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Torno CXX: Madrid, Ediciones Atlas, 443 pp.

223

Pearson, F.L., Jr., 1974, Spanish Indian relations in Florida, 1602-1675: some

aspects of selected visitas: Florida Historical Quarterly, v. 52, no. 3,

p 261-273.

.

Ribaut, J., 1964, The whole and true discouerye of Terra Florida: Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 139 p.

Sandford, R., 1911, A relation of a voyage on the coast of the province of Carolina (1666), in Salley, A.S., Jr., ed., Original Narratives of early American history, v. 15: New York, Charles Scribners Sons, p. 82-108.

San Miguel, Fray Andres de, 1902, Relacion de las trabajos que la gente de una nao llamada Nra Se~ora de la Merced padeci6 y de algunas casas que en aquella flota sucedieron, in Garcfa, G., ed., Dos antiques relaciones de la Florida; J. Aguilar Vera y Campania, Mexico, p. 153-226.

Serrano y Sanz, M., ed., 1912, Documentos .historicos de la Florida y la Luisi ana. Siglos XVI al XVIII: Biblioteca de los Americanistas, Madrid, Libereria General de Victoriano Suarez, 466 p.

South, S., 1980, This volume.

Swanton, J.R., 1922, Early history of the Creek Indians and their neighbors: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amer. Ethnology, Bull 73, 492 p.

Swanton, J.R., 1946, The Indians of the southeastern United States: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amer. Ethnology, Bull. 137, 832 p. 107 plates.

Vargas Ugarte, R., 1935, The first Jesuit mission in Florida, Historical Records and Studies, v. 25: New York, U.S. Catholic Hist. Soc. 99 p.

Varner, J.G. and Varner J.J., 1951, The Florida of the Inca. Written by the Inca, Garcilaso de la Vega: Austin, University of Texas Press, 655 p.

Wenhold, L.L., 1959, Manrique de Rojas report on French settlements in Florida, 1564: Florida Historical Quarterly, v. 38, p. 45-62.

Zubillaga, F., 1941, La Florida: la misi6n jesuitica (1566-1572) y la colonizacion espanola, Bibliotheca Instituti Histor1ci S.I., v.. 1: Rome, Institutum Historicum S.I., 473 p.

Zubillaga, F., 1946, Monumenta antiquae Floridae (1566-1572), Monumenta Missionum Societatis Iesu, v~ 69, Monumenta Missionum Societatis resu, v. 3: Rome, Institutum Histo.ricum S. I., 692 p.

224

SKIDAWAY ISLAND: A FRONTIER OUTPOST, 1733-1740
John F. McGowan Consultant
Georgia Marine Program P. 0. Box 13687
Savannah, Georgia 31406
Chester p. DePratter
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Georgia Southern College Statesboro, Georgia 30460

ABSTRACT

When James Oglethorpe and his colonists landed at Yamacraw Bluff (Savannah)

in 1733, Georgia was on the frontier of Englands territorial claims; Spanish

St. Augustine was only 200 mi (320 km) to the south. Oglethorpe established

defensive outposts at several locations around Savannah, including one on Skidaway

Island. Eachoutpost was manned by up to 10 families, who were responsible for

construction of defensive fortifications, clearing and planting their 50 acre

grants, and maintenance of themselves and their families. Most settlements were

abandoned less than 10 yr after they were established, because the densely

I I

forested land was hard to clear and the settlers were mainly craftsmen, not

farmers. With the founding of Ft. Frederica on St. Simons Island in 1736, the

outposts defensive functions faded, and those who died or moved away were not

replaced.

I NTROD UC TI ON

Life at the Skidaway outpost, occupied between 1733 and 1740, was filled with hardship and dispair. In this paper, original documents by settlers and
visitors are used to describe the settlement.

Shortly after Oglethorpe established Savannah with his original group of 144 settlers in 1733 (see DePratter and Howard, 11 Historic Holocene, .. 1980), his thoughts turned to defense of the fledgling colony. Small fortified outposts were soon establshed at Hampstead and Highgate (southwest of the city) and at
Thunderbolt, Abercorn on the Savannah River, Tybee Island, and Skidaway Island.

These outposts were primarily defensive; potential agricultural productivity was not a factor in site selection. Nonetheless, each settler was expected to
clear and farm his 50 acre lot in order to become self-sufficient as soon as possible. Supplementary rations, guaranteed for the first year, were either paid for in advance by the recipient or were supplied to poorer colonists by the Trustees. Indentured servants also were provided to some colonists (Martyn, 1910).

The Skidaway outpost was placed at a location critical to the colonys defense. To the west of the island lay the Skidaway and Burnside Rivers, important

225

links in the inland waterway network that stretched along the entire coast. Oglethorpe stationed a scoutboat atthe Skidaway Narrows connecting the two rivers in the summer of 1733, and when new settlers arrived in the colony early in 1734, ten men, some with families, were assigned to Skidaway Island.
A limited number of documents relating to the Skidaway community appear in Georgias Colonial Records and a few other sources. Many of these documents were written by the colonists or by visitors to the island; on the following pages, these documents will be quoted.extensively, allowing the settlers story to be told in the words of those who actually endured the tria1s and hardships of frontier life.

LIFE ON SKIDAWAY

Although precise location of the Skidaway outpost remains a mystery, it was located near the northern end of the island. Settlers assigned to Skidaway were a diverse lot (Coulter and Saye, 1949). William Dalmas, a professional soldier,
was placed in charge of the outpost. Others originally assigned to Skidaway included Thomas Mouse (clogmaker), Samuel Ward (ropemaker)~ John Stonehewer (Perukemaker =wigmaker or barber}, Thomas Smith (victualler), John Griffin (weaver), Head Gardiner (weaver), Paul Joyce (dyer), William Elphington (apothecary),
and Charles Wheeler {book binder). Smith, Gardiner, and Elphinton were married but without children, Mouse had a wife and five daughters. Griffins wife died
in passage from England, but he was accompanied by a daughter. Because the first order of business was construction of a defensive structure, all original
settlers were forced to live in the guardhouse until they were able to build their own houses (Kelly, 1980).

By August, 1734, work on both the fort and private residen~es was well under way. Dalmas {1910a) described the defensive position as follows:

11





a Square. redoubt upon our Point, with an

Intrenchment

on ye Inside, &a possee without, we have 4 Swivell. &~Carriage

Gun mounted wch both comands ye River &the Aproaches to our Hutts,

So that if any thing should hapen I do not in ye least doubt but we Shall

be able to Stand a good argument against a farr Superior Number; I cant

help but take notice that we were but Six to carry on the aforesaid

work, ye rest refusing to do anything without being paid for it. 11

Apparently, not all settlers were as concerned with defensjve matters as was Oglethorpe.

Prob1ems did not end with comp 1eti on of forti fi cations and houses.. Every man was given a tract of land, which he was supposed to clear and plant in order
to support himself as soon as-possible. None of the original settlers was a
farmer, however. A year after his arrival, Dalmas (1910b, P. 12-13) reported that he was 11 Situated upon one of ye Pleasantess Islands in America (as indeed all ye Country is Beautifull) and will with ye Smallest Industry answer all ends
proposed. 11 But added that he was 11 Very much Straightened for want of Some Small Conveniencys, as Poultery, Hoggs, Garden Seeds, Tools & other things Useful in Husbandry. 11 Seemingly, the Skidaway settler~ may have been sent to the island to farm without being provided with either: the necessary skills or supplies!

226

A letter written to James Oglethorpe by Thomas Mouse in January 1735 illustrates the conflicts brought about by having to be a farmer, a soldier, and a family man in a colonial outpost. Part of Mouse's (1910, P. 168-170) 1etter fo 11 ows:

"You being well acquainted with out Settlement at Skidoway, I have made bold to inform your Honour, of the Improvement belonging to my own Lott, which I call the House Lott, it is pailed out, and I have two large hutts built thereon. One is twenty four by Sixteen and is sett all round with Large upwright Loggs, the other is twenty one by fourteen with Clap boards only; which I propose as a Store House with a yard and Conveniencys for
Bread, where I keep my Fowls, of which I have about thirty, besides what
I have Sold which came Cheifly from the Fowle which your Honour was pleased to give me, but I have not had altogether such good Luck with my
Sow, she has had two Litters of Pigs the first Died being nine, and the last litter, five only two living, which are large thriving Piggs. The Cows
and Calves which we had are all run into the woods, and can't bring them up having so few hands, that Pretend they cannot Spare time to Hunt for them and theirs.

I am now to Inform your Honour that the.Ground brings forth Plenty of Callavances, Potatoes, and Indian Corn and will I don't doubt Produce many other things which I intend to Try, I hope your Honour will not forgett to send over some new Settlers for our Island, It being very hard for a man
(who has a Large Family) to watch continually every third or fourth night and for refusing one Night, I have been tied Necks and Heels by Mr. Dalmas
our Tythingman I am very sorry I should deserve to be served in that manner, but his being Tything Man over so few people as we are at present, he has more times to do a Service for said place than he has, but must Submitt to an Officer in Power, I am informed that it is in his power to Tye me Neck and heels when he pleases which I submit to if deserved, but If a Man is to be governed by an Officer who will Reign Arbitrary it is very hard to
Subscribe to and if it is to be so I most Humbly beg your Honr. please to permitt me and my Family to Proceed for England, alltho I like Skidoway
better than any place I have seen in the Colony. I realy declare that I think it hard to be used as a Common Soldier, as I like my Place of Settlement so well, and to leave the same after I have taken so much Pains for my family's Sake is still more hard to me.

I take the freedom to acquaint your Honour, that I do not mention out

of Vanity but I do assure you I have made the most Improvements on my Lott

of anyone in the Settlement, am very unwilling to trouble your Honour with

what Improvements others have made, not Doubting but you and the Honble.

Trustees will be informed therein as to our Land which is belonging to us

is lately run out the 17th December.



I understand by Mr. Causton That the Honble. Trustees have thought fit to Allow the People of Skidoway another year Provisions for which Great favour your Honours have mine and my Familys Humble Thanks."

Shortly after arrival on the island, settlers began to die because of the rigors of living in a new land. William Elphington lasted only a few days after his arrival on Skidoway, and Paul Joyce survived for less than a month. Both

227

Thomas Smith and Wi 11 i am Da lmas died during the second year (Cou 1ter and Saye, 1949). Life on Skidaway was not easy.

A report written by William Ewen and Thomas Mouse (n.d.) in February, 1741, tells most eloquently the story of hardships endured by Skidaway settlers, including some who were assigned to replace those who had died. The fallowing excerpts are from that letter:

"Head Gardiner, Wife and Child, having cleared about 2 Acres of Land could not get a Maintenance by it he continued about 4 years on the Island most part in a poor Condition. He hired himself in the Scout Boat. After he left the Scout Boat, he worked as a Laboure at Savannah; then he went to work at Mr. Whitfield's Plantation, where a Branch of a Tree fell on him and killed him-[1739]. He left a Widow and two Sma1l Children, who now 1i ves at. Savannah and gets her 1i vi ng ih a poor manner partly by work at her Needle.

Sam. Ward. Having cleared 5 Acres of Land.could not get a Maintenance by it, he lived about 4 years on the Island, part of the time in poor condition; afterwards he hired himself in the Scout Boat and went to the Southward [to Frederica?], and married there, then left the Scout Boat, came to Savannah, .where he stayd some time, then went to South Carolina, and from.the~ce he and his wife went to England.

Paul Joue [Joyce]. Dyed soon after his arrival.

John Stonehewer. Having cleared about 5 Acres of Land, but could not get a Maintenance by it. After having continued 4 years on the Island he left all his Improvements and went to Beaufort in S. Carolina, and worked at his Trade he being a Barber, and dyed there.

Charles Wheeler. Having cleared about 1 Acre of Land: he being broken Back'd was not fit for hard Labour: continued about 4 years in the Island, during which time was most Supported by his Friends in England. Afterwards he went to Chas. Town in South Carolina, where he got his living by his pen and Dyed there.

Goodwin Cheney. Having cleared no Lands continued about 3 years, then went to the Settling of St. Georges Island to the Southward where he dyed.
\
Daniel Harwood. Went away soon after his arrival, to Philadelphia.

John Griffin and Daughter. Having cleared about 5 Acres of Land and

could not get a Maintenance by it, he continued about 3 years on the

Island. Was obliged to leave all his Improvements and go to Savannah

for Employ where he stayd some time: Afterwards went to Philadelphia

and lives there by his Trade, he being a Weaver, his Daughter lives at

Savannah.



John Latter and Andrew Barber. Both working in Joint Labour their Lands lying together, they cleared about 16 Acres: The Scout Boat at this

228

time was Stationed here, & they both worked in it: John Latter soon
after went Commander &A. Barber in the Boat where she was moved
to: they did not plant any more there. John Latter has continued
in that and other Boats till this time. Andrew Barber stay'd on the Island about 6 month longer than Jno. Latter. He continued in that Scout Boat and other Boats till he went to North Carolina.

Wm. Ewen. Having cleared about 5 Acres of Land but could not get a Maintenance by it, having continued about 3 years was obliged to leave all his Improvements, and go to Savannah for Employ, and is now there. 11

More is known of the activities of William Ewen than of any other
I I
settlers except Thomas Mouse and his family. Ewen was a basket maker who

arrived at Savannah in October, 1734. For the next couple of years he worked in

the public storehouse in Savannah. By November, 1736, he had been granted a

plot of land on Skidaway and, in a letter to the Board of Trustees, requested a

servant to help work his holdings. Ewen, granted 4 German servants, moved to

Skidaway in 1737 (Kelly, 1980). In December, 1740, Ewen (1913, P. 455-458)

wrote another letter to the Board of Trustees outlining the continuous setbacks

he suffered following that move.



"I take this opportunity to Acquaint your Honrs. that I have been a planter, for three years last past in Georgia; on the Island of Ski dowa: and after that I had Spent, a11 my time; and a11 that I was worth; and had brought my self in Debt; I was obliged to
leave my Settlement; and go to Savannah for Imployment.

The first year: I planted a Spot of land; of about 16 acres which

had been clear'd and planted by John Latter and Andrew Barber; but

had left it for some time. I Imployed 4 Dutch Servants on the Said

land; who did me no other Service: but attend the Corn; Peese; Rice;

and Pottatoes. I had a very bad crop this year; being 9: bushels

corn, and~ bushel of peese; no rice, nor pottatoes; I afterwards

cleared about 5 acres of my own Land: and planted it with corn, pease,

1

I

and pottatoes; I found that I was not able to mentain my Servt. by

I

planting so I wrote a letter to General Oglethorpe; desireing I might

have the liberty of returning my servants again to the Store. General

Oglethorpe: sent orders to Mr. Thomas Jones; to take my servants and

i I

discharge my Acct. of them. Accordinly I delivered them to Mr.

Jones: and they are now in your Honrs. Service; but Mr. Jones has not

yet; credited; not discharged; my Acct. of them: tho I have often ask

him. This year, General Oglethorpe: had promised Incouragement to the

planters: and the Stores should take their crops; at a certain price;

and have a bounty of 2s. per bushel; for corn; &peese; and 1s. per

bushel, for pottatoes. I raised 90 bushels of corn; but had no peese,

nor pottatoes. I had my crop measured, in preasents of three persons:

as was order'd: and a Certificate under their hands: for the Same. It

was now very low with me; I waited on Mr~ Jones: and desired him to

bye part of my crop; which he consented to, but never did. I offer'd

Mr. Jones my certificate: for the bounty money, and desired; he would

229

pay it me. I told hi.m him I was in want: and it would be a great help to me; but he made an excuse; and Seemd to be angry. I came to town Several times; being 20 miles by water, from my plantation; and ask Mr. Jones, to pay me the bounty money, but he was always full of Excuses; and with an angry countenance: would tel me: he had no time; and was in haste with doeing other buissenes, the last time I waited on him; he told me I Should have come Sooner; for now he had paid all the money he had: for that purpose. (tho I was one of the first that had brought a certificate to him) few men but my self he has paid all their bounty money or part. (but it is to those that he likes best,) I have had very bad luck; with my cattle; for my calves dyed; and many of my hogs; run away: which keept me poore; for I could gett none to Sell; and many times none for my own use. which had Mr. Jones: have paid me the bounty money, it would have been the greatis help to me; and I Should have been able to [sic] continued: on my Settlement: till it had pleased God; I Should have had better Success. Mr. Whitfield arrived about this time; and I whent and offered him my boards and Shingles, which I had for building my house. and he bought them of me. this money furnished me with Shoes to my feet; and Other things which I much wanted &c all the Inhabetants of this place was gon; excepting Mr. Mouse: and my self, and now he was reduced so low, that he had Scarce cloaths to cover him, he haveing a large family very soone after this: he left his settlement: with all his Improvements; and whent with his family to live at Savannah. I need not amuse your Honrs. with the many Curiossites; that may be raised here (with care, and pains) as well as in Europe. but those are things that will not Satisfye a man. when he is hungry; rior cloath him; when he is Naked; for many times: I have had: no other provisions to eat but Homony and Salt; tho I have used my utmost endeavours.
This last year I Planted again; and when my Corn was in ear; the Cattle broak the fence in the night, and distroyed all I had growing on the ground, and what few hogs I had; run away so that this was a bad year to me, for I had not one grain of any kind of my land. I had only a boy with me on the Island, and he was lent me for a little time. I had now: almost broak mY Constituion; with hard working; and hard Liveing and could not see any prospect; of any returns of my Labour; now I was Obliged to leave my settlement. (tho, much against my Inclination.) and Skidoway: without Inhabetants. 11
After returning to Savannah, Ewen was pe~sistent in his claims against the public store for the servants he returned andfor a canoe he claimed was stolen by Indians but the result of those claims. is not recorded. In Savannah, Ewen resumed his role as store clerk, thisHme working for a Mr. Brownfield. Later, Ewen turned against British rule of the Colony, and by the 177os he was an avowed Revolutionary who held the important position of President of the Council of Safety (Kelly, 1980). At that point, Ewen disappears from the documentary record.
Thomas Mouse and his wife, Lucy, were the rnost persistent of original Skidaway settlers. They were among the first to arrive and were the last to
230 .

leave. Thomas Mouses 1735 letter to Oglethorpe outlining problems encountered during the first year, already quoted in its entirety, noted that the Trustees had extendP.d their support (supply) of the Skidaway settlement for another year; additional extensions were required in 1736 and 1737. In 1737, Mouse received from the public stores fifteen bushels of Indian corn, one pound of spun cotton, one barrel of beef, shoes for his entire family, a dress and coat for his wife and for each daughter, and a coat and shoes for himself (Kelly, 1980).

The Ewen-Mouse (n.d.) letter of 1741 cited previously noted that Mouse applied for and received a 11 licence for a public Houseu or inn, because his landing was a11 place that the Boats Generally Stays at for the tide in their way to the Southward. 11 Little is known concerning operation of the inn, but an incident occurring there in 1737 was cause for a threatened license revocation. The episode, as recorded in the Journal of Thomas Causton (n.d.) keeper of the public store, is as follows:
I i
11 A woman belonging to ye Savannah Indians, complained yt. She being at Skidoway Island, some of Mrs. Mouses Daughters had beat her. Mrs. Mouse, being in town, I sent for her (Mrs. Mathews being present to interpret, as also ye Indian womans.husband. Upon examining into ye matter I found that they had frequently barterd wth. Mouse for trifling things and had receivd
Strong liquors at that time, &were drunk. I gave Mrs. Mouse a Severe reprimand for giving Strong liquors to Indians, &for dealing with them in
any Sort, assuring her yt. if any Such practices were Carried on for ye future, they must expect not only to lose their License, but to be prosecuted.

The Indians Seemed very well Satisfied, &Mrs. Mouse promis 1 d to take
more care for ye future. 11

From the Causton account, Mrs. Mouse apparently operated the inn while Thomas was involved in standing watch, clearing land, and trading as far south as Frederica (Kelly, 1980). Both John and Charles Wesley visited Skidaway
several times in 1736 to conduct services for island residents, and both mention
being entertained at 11Mrs. Mouses 11 ; perhaps the inn already was in operation by the time of their first visit in April, 1736 (Curnock, 1938).

' I

I I

While visiting Skidaway on that first visit, a humorous, but nearly tragic

episode involving John Wesley occurred. Wesleys account (Curnock, 1938, P. 218),

as contained in his diary, is as follows:

"April 4, Sunday, 1736

About four in the afternoon I set out for Frederica in a periaguaa sort of flat-bottomed barge. The next evening we anchored near Ski doway Is 1and where .the water, at flood, was twe1ve to four.teen feet deep. I wrapped myself up from head to foot in a large cloak, to
keep off the sandflys, and lay down on the quarter-deck. Between one and two I waked under water, being so fast asleep I did not find where I was till my mouth was full of it. Having left my cloak, I know not

231

how, upon deck, I swam around to the other side of the peri agua, where a boat was tied, and climbed up by the rope.without any more hurt than wetting my clothes.
Thus, methodism nearly lost one of its major proponenets while he was paying a visit to the Skidaway settlers.
The Mouse family continued to maintan their holdings on Skidaway throughtout the 1730's despite ever worsening conditions. By June, 1739, William Ewen had moved to Savannah, and the Mouses were the only residents of Skidaway. Soon, maintenance of their island holdings became too difficult, and in 1740 Thomas Mouse and his family returned to Savannah. Their condition was so desperate that they were forced to place two of their daughters in the Bethesda orphanage, which had just been established by George Whitfield (Kelly, 1980). Thomas Mouse found a job at the orphanage, and his wife, Lucy, took in sewing and became a midwife. An epidemic killed Thomas and one of his two married daughters in 1742, and Lucy then moved in with a widowed daughter (Kelly, 1980).
In 1747, Lucy Mouse wrote a letter to the Trustees summarizing some of the hardships she had endured including the loss of a son-in-law to the Spanish, the death of her husband, and being left with two dependent daughters. Her letter (1904, P. 505) continued that she had been forced to:
11 quit his [T. Mouse's] plantation at Skeedoway and seek a livelihood at Savannah where I have not an house but that of my son-in-law and in my absence from Skeedoway the boards of my house have been stolen and put up in an adjacent isle and the frame burnt by the Indians. The inhabitants of Skeedoway agreed to sell each their share of the cattle that was upon the island, as also the shares of those deceased, at a price they should all agree to, and the purchaser was limited to the time of two years to get up the stock, after that to put.on fresh as they were able. That two of the decased were indebted to my husband, as appears by his book, to whom I loyally administered. That the purchase' money of the living Freeholders has been paid but the Magistrates have ordered that what is due the deceased be paid into the Store, without first satisfying my demand, tho they had seen my account and don't contradict it. That I have no house anywhere and must follow my business in Savannah. I hope the Trustees will grant me the lot of Peter Grant, himself his wife and child being dead. 11
Lucy Mouse's claim to additional proceeds from the cattle sale was rejected by Colonel Stevens, who was President of the colony at the time .. Five years after the letter, Mrs. Mouse was granted a lot, but not the one she.requested. In 1754, Mrs. Mouse bequeathed the 50 acre Skidaway lot to one of her grandsons, and she died sometime during the following 10 or 12 years (Kelly, 1980)..
Thus ended the first known attempt by Europeans to settle Skidaway Island. Gradually, the island returned to its natural state. As Ewen and Mouse noted at the conclusion of their 1741 letter:
11All the habitations on the Islands are near, or gone to ruin, and all the cleared land is grown up with weeds, and small trees, and is now become a Strange place to the Inhabitants.
232

There was a Guard House Built here and is now gone to Ruin, and the Guns carried to some other P1ace. 11

REFERENCES CITED

Causton, T., n.d., Journal-25 May 1737 to 24 July 1737: Phillips Collection Egmont manuscripts, University of Georgia, v. 14203, part 1, p. 9-72.

Coulter, E.M., and Saye, A.B., eds., 1949, A list of the early settlers of Georgia: Athens, University of Gerogia Press, 103 p.

Curnock, N., 1938, The journal of the Rev. John Wesley: R. Culley, London, 8 vols.

Dalmas, W., 1910a, Letter to Board of Trustees, August 23, 1734: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 20, p. 12-13.

Dalmas, W., 1910b, Letter to Honorable James Vernon, January 24, 1734-1735: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 20, p. 171.

Ewen, w., 1913, Letter to Board of Trustees, December 4, 1740: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 22, part 2, p. 455-458.

Ewen, W., and Mouse, T., n.d., A true account of the inhabitants in the village on the island of Skidaway in the province of Georgia from their first settling there on the 16 January, 1733: Phillips Collection Egmont manuscripts, University of Georgia, v. 14205, part 2, p. 160-167.

Kelly, T., 1980, A history of Skidaway Island, Georgia: Savannah, Branigar Corp.,

158 p.

.

Martyn, B., 1910, Letter to Monsr. DePfeil at Ratisbon, July 4, 1734: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 20, p. 54-56.

Mouse, L.) 1904, Letter to Board of Trustees, December 21, 1747: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 1, p. 505-507.

Mouse, T., 1910, Letter to James Oglethorpe, January 23, 1735: Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. 20, p. 168-170.

233

FIELD TRIP GUIDE TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY-GEOLOGY OF THE GEORGIA COAST

James D. Howard Skidaway Institute of Oceanography,
P.O. Box 13687, Savannah, Georgia 31406

Chester B. DePratter Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Georgia Southern College, Statesboro, Georgia 30460

INTRODUCTION

On the Georgia ~oast are thousands of archaeological sites that range in size from a few square meters to those covering 65 hectares (Fig. 1). They include linear shell ridges, former villages having numerous individual midden mounds, shell rings, and burial mounds. Some of the major sites (Fig. 2) were
first recognized by Europeans as long ago as the early 1700s (Caldwell and McCann, 1941) and were first investigated by archaeological field parties in the 19th century. Several sites in the Savannah area (designated as WPA; Fig. 2) excavated in the 1930's by the Works Project Administration. Shells and wood associated with artifacts recovered from these sites subsequentlY were dated by 14c in the early 1960's. These dates represent the beginning of a continually evolving ceramic chronology that is the foundation for our studies. A significant contributor to the development of this chronology was Dr. Antonio Waring, to whom this guidebook is dedicated .

.----_...~ N 0 R T H C A R 0 L I N A r-'
l---.1.---:;r_,..-----?r\______ '

\ j

SOUTH

'

\ i \

\
' (
i
\
I
-...:il.
~--------- ~~..

Fig. 1. Index map of southeastern U.S. coast.

...

234

Ft. Stewart~

Savannah River Entrance
TYBEE ISLAND
. Catherines Sound
ISLAND ISLAND

1

! :

l

CUMBERLAND ISLAND

51. Marys Entrance

5 0 e::s::a

10

20

-E530 ~

5

10

30 km
}---3
15 n mi

Fig. 2.

Major archaeological sites on Georgia coast~ Sites excavated in 1930 1 s

by

Works

Project

Administration

indicated

by

WPA 11

11



1 =Second Refuge

site; 2 =Refuge (WPA); 3 = Irene (WPA); 4 =Dotson (WPA); 5 = Dulany;

6 = Deptford (WPA); 7 = Bilbo (WPA); 8 =Budreau (WPA); 9 = Oemler (WPA);

10 = Oemler Marsh midden north (WPA); 11 =Walthour (WPA); 12 = Oemler

Marsh midden south (WPA); 13 = Indian Kings tomb; 14 =Meldrim (WPA);

15 =Pagan Plum Point; 16 = CedarGrove (WPA); 17 = Ch 111; 18 = Ch 77;

19 = Cane Patch; 20 = Middle Place; 21 = Marys mound; 22 = Seaside site;

23 = Johns mound; 24 = King New Ground; 25 = Wamassee; 26 = Mcleod Cunning-

ham mounds A-E; 27 = Pine Harbor; 28 = Sapelo Island shell ring; 29 = A.

Busch Krick; 30 = Kenan Field; 31 = Ft. King George; 32 = Evelyn site (WPA);

33 = Cannons Point shell ring; 34 = Taylor mound; 35 = Oatland mound;

36 = Airport (WPA); 37 = Charlie King (WPA); 38 = Kent Mound; 39 = Table

Point; 40 = Stafford North.

235

~ HOLOCENE ~ ~ PLEISTOCENE
I

0510

20

30

- - KILOMETERS

I

CUMBERLAND
Fig. 3. Relationship of Pleistocene and Holocene depositional sequences on Georgia coast. Areas to be Visited
On the Georgia coast, tides, weather, and availability of boats co.ntrol access to sites; therefore, our trip will be confined to a small area. In selecting places to visit, we decided to examine small areas in detail rather than to cover a large area superficially. Hence, we will focus our attention on the northern part of the Georgia coast, where the greatest amount of archaeological and geological detail is expressed.
During the course of this field trip we will visit the northern part of a triangle of Holocene deposits (Fig. 3) south of the Savannah River; this area is
236

i I

Fig. 4.

Northern Georgia coast. Although our combined geology-archaeology studies extend along the whole coast, the main emphasis to date has been in this area. Ossabaw, Skidaway, and Wilmington Islands are composed of Pleistocene sediments; everything to the east is Holocene. Along the south side of the Savannah River, this expanse represents nearly 10 km of progradation. Southward from the Savannah River, this Holocene wedge thins until, at the south end of Ossabaw Island, Pleistocene and Holocene trends merge.

237

bounded on the west by the Pleistocene barrier remnants of Wilmington and Skidaway Islands, and on the east by the Holocene Tybee and Wassaw Islands (Fig. 4). The apex of this triangle, Ossabaw Island, i~ composed of a Pleistocene
remnant to the west and a Holocene barrier on. the east. The southward narrowing of this wedge-shaped Holocene accumulation results from a downdrift reduction of sediment as the distance from the Savannah River increases.

Use of the Field Trip Guide
This field trip log is somewhat different from those used for automobile and bus trips. On boats, an odometer is useless. Hence, you will need to call on your powers of observation and imagination. Instead of referring to mileage, we offer some maps, letter designations, a few bon mots, and some sketches and photographs. A logical place to begin is with the letter A 11 11 (Fig. 5).

DAY 1

A

We will board a research boat at the Skidaway Institute of

Oceanography dock and proceed northwestward on the Skidaway River to its

confluence with the Wilmington River. Today's trip will take us through a

small part of the vast estuary system of the Georgia coast. A description

of physical and biogenic aspects of estuarine sediments is included in papers

: LJ

by Howard and Frey (1975a, 1975b, this volume).

B

To your right, along the Skidaway River, is an example of extensive

erosion of a Pleistocene barrier island remnant. The north end of Skidaway

Island has undergone extensive erosion, and the area is now characterized

by saltmarsh.

C

As we proceed south along the Wiimingtoh River, you will see evidence

of very intense erosion on Wilmington Island, to your left. Shoreline

residents here continue to expend considerable time and money for the

privilege of owning a dock and walkway (Fig. 6). You will see few boats

moored to the docks, however, because currents and waves can be rather

energetic here and because some of these floating docks rest on mud and

sand at low tide. Cost of these long walkways is estimated at about $40

per linear foot.

Wassaw Sound, at the mouth of the Wilmington River, is the main
entrance for commercial shrimp boats of the Savannah fleet. Georgia shrimpers commonly 11 harvest 11 7 to 8 million pounds of shrimp per year, about one-third of which is landed in the Savannah area. At present
prices, the Georgia shrimp industry produces approximately $20 million in
sales. Shrimp boats work nearshore shelf waters from within a few meters of the beach, at high tide, out to 10 km offshore in water depths of 12 m.
Most shrimp boats are diesel-powered, wooden boats that average 20 m in
length and have crews of 2 or 3. Throughout the trip you will see numerous red plastic floats in the water. These are tied to crab traps, usually
placed in 2 to 4 m of water. An average annual Georgia blue crab harvest represents 8 million pounds having a value .of $1 million. As the tide recedes, you will see the third largest marine animal resource of the coastal waters, extensive beds of oysters. Harvesting of both crabs and
oysters is the work of small boats manned by 1 or 2 people. The oyster

238

"c:
0
-.,

Wassaw Sound

~

N
j

0

2

4

6

kilometers

Fig. 5. Field trip map. Points of interest mentioned in text of field trip guide indicated by letters A, B, C, etc.

crop in Georgia is between 5,000 and 10,000 bushels per year, at a value of $5.00 per bushel.

D

On your right is a large dock and, slightly farthe~ on, a marina.

This is Priests Landing, a part of Skidaway Island. The dock belongs to

Skidaway Institute but is now being used by the U.S. Coast Guard, .which

keeps busy along this coast aiding. recreational boaters and confiscating

recreational drugs. The marina is part of The Landings, a housing develop-

ment of the Branigar Corporation, a part of Union-Camp Paper Company.

E

For the next few kilometers we will see salt marshes along both sides

of the Wilmington River. Throughout the coastal zone, except for high-

marsh fringes, the salt marsh is covered almost exclusively by the grass

239

Spartina alterniflora. Marsh sediments are highly bioturbated because of
extensive root systems that support this luxuriant growth and myriad invertebrates living in the substrate (Fig. 7). The definitive work on salt marshes of the Georgia coast is by Robert W. Frey and students, summarized recently by Frey and Basan (1978).

Along both sides of the river, large tightly packed, wave deposited
accumulations of dead oyster shells (Fig. 8) form discontinuous 11Windrows 11 and help to protect the marsh against further erosion by
waves and currents.

F

The marsh area to your left is known as Cabbage Island (Fig.

9). On its seaward side is Cabbage Island tidal flat, which occurs on a

wave-cut platform. In the past 100 years, Cabbage Island tidal flat has

increased in width by about 1 km as the shoreline has eroded westward

(Scott and Howard, 1976).

Fig. 6.

Erosion along north side of Wilmington River. Extensive erosion along the river necessitated building of long walkways to boat docks. However,
boats are very difficult to moor here, because of vigorous currents and waves on the river.

240

N
~
........
Fig. 7. Salt marsh edge along channel bank. Grass on top of bank is Spartina alterniflora, the cordgrass that covers most parts of the vast Georgia intertidal marshes. Clumps of grass that occur below the marsh surface, left side of photo, are in slumped mud blocks. Muds are highly bioturbated by decapods, especially the crab Panopeus herbsti. (Photo by Robert W. Frey.)

Fig. 8.

Oyster shell ramparts along marsh margin. Throughout this coastal region,
many kilometers of channel banks are characterized by accumulations of dead shells of the oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Such deposits (A)
have a relief of 1-2 m above the marsh surface. Wave reworking of
oyster valves results in a very dense, compact packing (B).

G

On our right is the Wassaw Island National Wildlife Refuge.

H

On the horizon is the main barrier ridge of Wassaw Island. In the

foreground, off to our right, are several forested 11 hammocks 11 , which are

remnant beach ridges of former Holocene shorelines. All the hammocks

contain shell middens with Wilmington period and la t er she rds (less than

1,500 yr old). Position of Indian occupation sites expanded throughout

Holocene time (Fig. 10). Rate of progradation here, based on net accretion,

is approximately 0.2 km/100 yr. The dated lines on this map represent beginning

times of the oldest ceramic phase found on any particular hammock; they

242

TLANTIC
OCEAN
/

Fig. 9.

Cabbage Island and Wassaw Sound. This large, open sound is subject to
strong wave action produced by east and southeast winds. Resulting
erosion has formed a broad, shallow subtidal to intertidal flat on the east side of Cabbage Island marsh. In the past 100 years the flat has widened approximately 1 km at the expense of the salt marsh.

do not represent shoreline positions. Indeed, because all sherds are found with oyster shells, we surmise that the middens were located on hammocks lying behind barrier islands; hence, the actual shoreline lay farther to
the east. Furthermore, dating based strictly on surface morphology indicates only net accretion, whereas the actual shoreline position varied because of
low-stands and high-stands of s~a level.

I

On the north end of Wassaw, a large cement struGture, tilted over and

sitting on the beach (Fig. 11), is all that remains of a gun emplacement

243

~0

Sound

Fig. 10. Holocene time lines (i.n years BP) based on lndi'an''oc,cupation'sites~

Northeast-southeast oriented lines connect middens dated by contained

pottery sherds or, in the case of the 20- and 150-yr lines, historic

(

records. 2900-yr line is based on subsurface information; all others

are from surface data.

built in the 189os as part of the coastal defense for the Spanish-American War. A study of barrier island erosion by Oertel and Chamberlain (1975) indicates that this beach. has retreated nearly 400 m since 1897.
From this point, off the north end of Wassaw, we proceed across Wassaw Sound. The large navigation aid on our left (No. 16) marks the seaward end of Cabbage Island spit, a depositional feature built by waves and currents along the margin of the subaqueous part of Cabbage Island flat.

!i.
244 \J"

Fig. 11. Nineteenth century gum emplacement. When originally built (~1890) this cement structure was on high ground, approximately 400 m from the beach.

J

Off

to

your

right

(east)

you

can

see

a

series

of

black

Can 11

11

buoys

that indicate the right (south) side of the channel, going seaward. The

waters we are now crossing are the deepest in the estuary; average depth

is 10 to 12 m, and scour holes are as much as 20 m deep. Seaward of this

area, the entrance shallows to less than 3m across the ebb-tide delta.

The black cans mark the edge of the extensive shoal system building seaward

from Wassaw. Ebb-shoal systems on the Georgia coast were described in

detail by Oertel (1973). The shoreface and nearshore shelf sediments at

Sapelo Island, Georgia, were described by Howard and Reineck (1972).

Results of that study, although from an area south of here, probably are

applicable to this area as well.

Our landfall on the north side of Wassaw Sound is known collectively as Tybee Island (Fig. 12). This large area of Holocene sediments includes
marsh, barrier remnants (hammocks) in the marsh and, on the seaward side, active beach ridges. Savannah Beach (also known as Tybee Beach) to the north, is a residential, commercial, and recreational area. The largest
hammock in this area, a feature of special interest on this trip, is known
informally as Little Tybee Island. Most hammocks here are owned by KerrMcGee Oil Company, which at one time, had plans to conduct massive strip mining operations for phosphate deposits. State and public responses to
that plan initiated 11 environmental awareness 11 on the Georgia coast in the late 1960s and was responsible for the Marshlands Protection Act that now controls modification or destruction of marsh areas.

K

We are now proceeding north along Tybee River, on the west side of

Tybee Island. Off to our right are extensive beach ridges of Little Tybee

Island.

L

We turn right at Lazaretto Creek. All marsh north of the creek is a

protected area belonging to Fort Pulaski National Monument. Fort Pulaski

245

Fig. 12. Detailed map of Little Tybee Island area. Letters K, L, Mand N are points mentioned in field trip g~ide.

was named in honor of Count Casimir Pulaski, a war hero from Poland who fought with the American revolutionaries." The fort is a Civil War defense that remained in Confederate hands until February, 1862, when it was surrendered following prolonged artillery bombardment by Union forces on Tybee Island.

M STOP 1 -- LAZARETTO CREEK BEACH RIDGES

Beach ridges remnants (Fig. 13) adjacent to Lazaretto Creek are the oldest recognized Holocene beach ridges on the Georgia coast. Estimates based on distribution of archaeological sites place the age of the b~ach ridges at 3,000 to 4,000 yr (DePratter and Howard, 1977).

Relative elevations ~f the several ridges visible suggest that sea

level was rising at the time the ridge sequenc~ developed. The westernmost

ridge, formed when sea level was lower, is buried beneath the marsh and is

recognized only by probing; its surface lies approximately 1.0 m below the

present marsh surface. The next ridge to the east (Fig. 14) has been covered

"

partially by marsh sediments, but high parts of its crest protrude above

the marsh surface and can be recognized by clumps of vegetation. Successive

r~dges are higher and expos~d along their entire length.

246

Aboriginal occupation of the beach ridges between 4,200 and 1,000 yr

BP is demons t rated by at least 23 archaeological sites. The oldest sites

provide an es timate of the age of the ridges; individual ridges obviously

are older t han the oldest archaeological site they contain. Visible beach

ridges contain evidence of St. Simons period (4200 - 3100 BP) occupation,

indicating that all ridges were formed prior to 3,100 BP. Wilmington

(1400 - 1000 BP) and Savannah (825 - 675 BP) period occupations also are

represented on the ridges.

-

After ou r examination of the Lazaretto Creek beach ridges, we will reboard the boat, return to Tybee River, and travel to Little Tybee.

N STOP 2 - - LITTLE TYBEE
We estimate that Little Tybee Island formed between 1500 and 1000 yrs BP. This particular locality is a channel recently excavated by dragline. Dredg i ng penetrated 2 to 3m into the marsh before reaching submarsh sands,

Fig. 13. View of Lazaretto Creek ridges, looking south. 247

which seem to be remnants of an earlier set of beach ridges that are part
of the depositional sequence visited at Stop i.
Orientation of the Lazaretto Creek ridges (M -- Stop 1) and Little Tybee ridges differ significantly (N -- Fig. 12). The Lazaretto ridges are oriented N250E and the Little Tybee ridge N600E; Little Tybee ridge alignment crosses the Lazaretto ridge lineation. Identifiable Lazaretto ridges were formed during a period of sea-l eve1 rise fa11 owed by a regression. Thus, at least two of the Lazaretto ridges were completely inundated by subsequent rise in sea level. One. of these submerged beach ridges was encountered in the dragline operations. Although the actual ridge is not visible on the surface, we postulate its existence by the discovery of sherds of Indian pottery in dredge spoil brought up by the dragline. All pottery sherds recovered from the dredge spoil date to the Refuge (3100-2400 BP) or early Deptford (2400-1700 BP) periods, apparently originating on a site situated on the now-submerged surface.
Refuge and Deptford period pottery sherds also have been found in

0

50 100

feet

~~l

.

Nt<.~; shell midden

!~ -4

.

. .

2ID ~

.

.

.



A

./""\..__--~----J

Fig. 14. Surface profiles across Lazaretto Creek ridges. Profile A is approximately 1000 m, and B approximately 500 m, south of Lazaretto Creek. 248

dredge spoil at two other locations on Little Tybee; one is at the southeastern end of the same dragline channel we are visiting, and the other is on another channel dredge spoil pile on the northeast end of Little Tybee. We would njoy explaining in great detail how our discovery of a Refuge age land surface below Little Tybee Island was based on some intricate logic
or, perhaps, on an obscure or cryptic old Indian legend. In fact, exposure of these sites is a testimonial to serendipity (with a little help from the
Chatham County Mosquito Control Unit). Furthermore, these exposures indicate that a tremendous accumulation of archaeological material must underlie Little Tybee. A more detailed discussion of our substantiation of
fais find, and the presence of additional supporting data in terms of C dates of stumps from throughout the Georgia and South Carolina coast,
is presented elsewhere (DePratter and Howard, in press).

Our interpretation of these Holocene barrier remnants raises a question: Where was the shoreline during this lowstand? We do not yet know the
answer. None of the numerous hammocks in the marsh to the east of Little Tybee is old enough to have been formed during this lowstand; however, they may have been built on top of the 11 Refuge-age 11 barrier. Some carefully
selected core sites, and the application of detailed facies analysis, will
eventually answer that question. The answer, no doubt, will result in modification of current ideas on barrier island formation on the Georgia coast.

Another fascinating aspect of this study is consideration of the
Holocene record elsewhere on the Georgia coast. The area we are visiting represents the most extensive seaward progradation on the coast. Farther south, some barrier islands are composed of Holocene beach ridges accreted directly onto the seaward edge of Pleistocene barrier remnants, indicating very little net Holocene accretion. Hence, the vertical sequence in a core
should exhibit a very condensed record of a wide variety of events, presenting an exciting challenge in facies interpretation. No doubt, many ancient
depositional sequences that we study in a gross way are composed of equally complex, condensed sequences.

When we leave this stop, the boat will take us to the historic section of downtown Savannah, via the Wilmington and Savannah Rivers. Hence the next several kilometers will retrace the route we followed earlier.

0

On our left is the town of Thunderbolt, the main shrimp processing

center for Savannah. At Thunderbolt, we go through a bascule bridge on

U.S. 80. This part of the trip, from Skidaway River to the Savannah River,

is on the Intracoastal Waterway which extends from Maine to Mexico and is

maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

P

On our left is Bonaventure Cemetery, one of the oldest cemeteries in

Savannah. In 1872, John Muir, on a hike from Louisville, Kentucky, to

Cedar Keys, Florida, spent five days 11 Camping out 11 in the Bonaventure

cemetery. When he arrived in Savannah, Muir was supposed to receive some

money in the mail from a brother. Being without funds, he hid-out here

and walked downtown every day to see whether his money had arrived at

genera 1 de1i very. When it finally did arrive, he was mildly hasse1ed

249

because, for identification, he had only an old letter addressed to 11John

Muir11 (Earle, 1975). Perhaps because of his forced delay here, his journal

remarks about Georgia and the Sea Island Section are less glowing than they

might have been. If things had gone better for him, the leading environmental

organization in the United States might now be known as the 11 Golden Isles

Club 11 or the 11 Sea Island Club 11 instead of the Sierra Club.



All along this route are steep bluffs cut by tidal creeks meandering

against a Pleistocene barrier that dates to 110,000 BP, when sea level was

approximately 8 m higher than at present. Eroding bluffs such as these

are,

we

believe,

an

important

and

perhaps

the

only,

source

of

new 11

11

sand

in

the coastal zone today (Howard and Frey, 1975b). The fundamental initiators

of erosion in these cliffs are burrowing invertebrate organisms and plant

roots (Brokaw and Howard, 1979).

Q

Causton Bluff is the last Pleistocene outcrop we will see until

arriving at downtown Savannah. At this point, we pass through another

bascule bridge on U.S. 80 toll road.

R

On our right is a liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal. When this

facility was being built, the plant architect boasted to one of us (C.B.D.)

that the storage tanks were designed to blend in harmoniously with the

local environment. Indeed they do. In fact, they can be seen to blend in

from as far away as Tybee Island. LNG from Algeria and the Gulf of Mexico

is brought here for redistribution.

S

On our left is Fort Jackson, the oldest brickwork fort in Georgia, which

was manned in both the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Adjacent to Fort

Jackson is an American Cyanamid plant.

T

River Street is the site of numerous shops, restaurants and bars.

Most of these buildings were cotton warehouses in the 19th century. The

cobblestone streets and lower parts of the buildings here are built mainly

of ballast stones, so one can view here a great variety of European rock

types. The front side of these buildings, on Bay Street, is an area known

as Factors Walk, the location of the Savannah Cotton Exchange in the 19th

Century. From River Street to your hotel is a ~ or 4 block walk, depending

on where we tie up.

DAY 2

We begin todays trip at Skidaway Institute of Oceanography again. Before departing for the field we will look at some temporary displays of archaeological
materials and some permanent displays of various depositional environments on the Georgia coast.

u STOP 3 -- SKIDAWAY SHELL RING

'C

This structure (Fig. 15) is a primary refuse heap occupied during the

0 '

St. Simons period, which dates between 4200 and 3100 yr BP. During occupation,

it was situated at the edge of Skidaway Island. The surface on which this

midden is built is approximately 1m below the present marsh surface. We

r;
250

_:

t

N
I

feel

contours in feet obove m.s.l.

Fig. 15.

Skidaway Island shell ring. This whole feature, composed entirely of

shells, was occupied by Indians during the St. Simons and Refuge periods

(4,200 - 2,400 BP). Based on preliminary investigations, we believe

this feature originally was roughly circular but that wave action,

probably associated with higher sea level, has eroded the east side.

We further assume that the small spit on the north side and the large

spit on the south end are depositional features formed of erosional

products.



feel confident that a barrier exited farther to the east, because the shells that compose the mound are mainly oyster, a brackish water species. Excavations and analysis of contained fish and shellfish remains, now being conducted by one of us (C.B.D.) and should provide information relating to the local environment at the time of occupation.
When this site was occupied, sea level was 1 to 2 m lower than at present. This estimate, based on cores and test pits completed earlier this year,

251

similar evidence from University of Florida excavations on St. Simons Island and Michies (1973) Daws Island excavations where a midden (14c dated at 3450 BP) is covered by more than 1 m of water at high tide.
Present configuration of the shell heap is the result of a combination of depositional and erosional factors. Originally the site no doubt was closed to form a ring. However, erosion by tides and waves has modified the east side, producing the observed C-shape. The open center is a common feature on shell heaps of the St. Simons Period. Originally, we considered the possibility that present-day morphology of this shell mound may have been the form in which it originally was built. However, subsequent examination showed that the spits built off the ends of the 11 C-shaped 11 structure (Fig. 15) show two features that indicated reworking by physical processes. One is size grading of shell particles; shells and shell fragments become smaller away from the main shell accumulation. The other is the way in which the oyster valves are packed (cf. Fig. 8B). In the midden itself, whole valves lie in random orientation.--The recurved part is composed mostly of abraded shell fragments. Whereas the shell ring was built on a surface that lies below the present marsh surface, probing indicates that recurved parts are built on the present marsh surface. The recurved feature on the south end of the ring is more extensive than the one on the north, this difference reflecting the strong northeast wind. In contrast, the smaller recurved feature on the north was built by wave reworking in response to weaker east and southeast winds.
We have taken two cores on the front of the shell ring. In one core, we encountered a St. Simons period sherd at 56 em below the present marsh surface. This sherd lay on top of an oxized sand, which we interpret to be the same surface as that on which the shell ring was built. The same core penetrated 240 em of find sand and bottomed out in a hard, yellow, semi indurated sand that probably is the upper shoreface of the Pleistocene Skidaway Island barrier. Thus, this sequence suggests a net vertical accretion of 240 em in the past 4500 yr and a net accretion of 56 em in the past 3000 yr.
From the shell ring, we will walk north along the eastern shoreline of Skidaway Island. The land surface seems to be a wave-cut terrace that probably is less than 3000 yr old. As we walk along the edge of the island, we will see a series of prehistoric archaeological sites that are between 2400 and 450 yr old. Another group of sites situated in the marsh date to the same interval (4200-3100 BP) as the large St. Simons period shell ring we visited earlier. They were occupied when sea level was 1 to 2 m lower than at present; all show evidence of wave reworking, which occurred during either storms or high stands of sea level.
At two locations on the east side of Skidaway Island are large shell heaps deposited in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some Blacks living bn the islands after the Civil War made their living by collecting oysters. The oysters were opened near the oyster beds, and only the meat was carried into Savannah and sold. Strict sanitation laws passed in the 1920s ended this practice, and sale of the island in the 1930 1 s resulted in eviction of the Blacks.
0 '
252

REFERENCES CITED
Brokaw, R.S., Jr., and Howard, J.D. 1979. Role of bioerosion in masswasting of Pleistocene outcrops on the Georgia coast (abs.): Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Bull. val. 63, p. 424.
DePratter, C.B. and Howard, J.D., 1977, Shoreline progradation dating by use of archaeological techniques. Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geol. Soc., Trans., val. 27, p. 252-258.
DePratter, C.B. and Howard, J.D., in press, Evidence for sea level fluctuation 4500 and 2400 years B.P. on the southeast coast of the United States. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology.
Earle, J., 1975, John Muir's Longest Walk: Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 123 pp.
Frey, R.W. and Basan, P.B., 1978, Coastal salt marshes. In Davis, R.A., (ed.), Coastal sedimentary environments: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 101-169.
Howard, J.D. and Frey, R.W., 1975a, Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Sedimentology and biology. I. Intrpduction. Senckenberg. Marit., Vol. 7' p. 1-31.
Howard, J.D. and Frey, R.W., 1975b. Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Sedimentology and biology. II. Regional animal-sediment characteristics of Georgia estuaries. Senckenbergiana Marit., Vol. 7, p. 33-103.
Howard, J.D. and Reinech, H.-E., 1972, Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.: Physical and biogenic sedimentary structures of the nearshore shelf. Senckenbergiana Marit., Vol. 4, p. 81-123.
Michie, J.L., 1973, Archaeological indications fo.r sea level 3500 years ago, South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 5, p. 1-11.
Oertel, G.F., 1973, Sediment transport of estuary entrances shoals and the formation of swash bars. Jour. Sed. Petrology, Vol. 42: 858-863.
Oertel, G.F. and Chamberlain, C.F., 197"5, Differential rates of shoreline advance and retreat at coastal barriers of Chatham and Liberty Counties, Georgia. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., Vol. 25, p. 383-390.
Scott, R.M. and Howard, J.D., 1976, Sedimentary environments of a tidal flat created by shoreline erosion in a tidal estuary (Abst.) Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., Vol. 60, p. 687.
253