PePOy) Pain ve a9 ee) ey " Pte nrye SIS emer Heer ae WHR} ¥ iegi ade edelt 44a 1 ‘. FA a’ Et aiitastante tied dally atcteighed Aah teas tend ait MU Aaa 1 ¢ Ties ve 2h hake d oboe iit a + ; iis * GI 0 rites yh i ie ’ crehirr Ae} Hota yh 1 d es ey dea giond r cre} a4 i) i. nes , vat oaaa os Mate ys we * yb le ove at Nan aeed turin Hest hueeta its sie rent di eed Lot 7 Hae ath ae Betsey Pada P| faiuireey we abr in oi 4 Hier itashedeh tease " it Rigen rat fe estes i it fa we Si isiaandond itis te Gieitag at hee sits teal y anit Y has aah jae a8 i hats D at ae ¢ Taneteats atts eee b *§ * # Cie Hi i i 4 iii 4 ? i Paetie) ike + dup eee anh pert saetiag stad ard ests i Sy Nbealtdeal oak har “hath nH 198 ens weet ae alata BE arab eh lee HBR I ARAN Ctr Beatie atte. aut i i vl i Wi nh 4 a2 a a ip, PE rh et v0 7 7 1? Ni AA: vi \ id : ; ia “Y) i i) ma ef 7 ACK Ug ; SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PEACHTREE MOUND AND ae SITE, CHEROKEE COUNTY % ts E ~ NORTH CAROLINA By FRANK M. SETZLER AND JESSE D. JENNINGS . oe ae ae | Sie WITH APPENDIX SKELETAL REMAINS FROM THE PEACHTREE SITE, NORTH: CAROLINA (By TD: STEWART DORE IG ay PHONON y Fain, ony SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 r PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, CHEROKEE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA By FRANK M. SETZLER AND JESSE D. JENNINGS WITH APPENDIX SKELETAL REMAINS FROM THE PEACHTREE SITE, NORTH CAROLINA By T. D. STEWART UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. - - - - + = - Price 40 cents LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SMITHSONIAN INstITUTION, Bureau oF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY, Washington, D. C., June 20, 1940. Sm: I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled “Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Caro- lina,” by Frank M. Setzler and Jesse D. Jennings, with appendix entitled “Skeletal Remains From the Peachtree Site, North Carolina,” by T. D. Stewart, and to recommend that it be published as a bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Very respectfully yours, M. W. Stimiine, Chief. Dr. C. G. Axsszort, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. = ia = 7 o > > : 7 4. a : ae are 7 | aa ee i ' - att 9 ii a =¢ . 7 7 - : oe : 7 : : ware > 7 : oe 1a : . + 7 - eer ce o : a). 7 1 _— ; ” a : Op fee Dae tia, a * 4 7 a . 7 y ee ‘it | he i we 7 pe “ (Leet a Os uae. ea ae i =) 4 a bee pity re a as hepa a - : r aan ‘4. Ta wy ee Gali Cy awed > o> < ) So al ; * —— ——_— : 7 ee o = | 5 7 : “Nad a . - io > - < oo ed : CONTENTS PAGE FTE iGO LC een eee meee EE te Se a oe ees ee ee eS 10,6 SNe GLUT G10 Meese a ee oe ee es oe ee Be Sr ee oe ete 1 General archeological picture in the Southeast_-_-___--_---_------------ 3 imasonomiy OF AbOLIpINal ciiltiires....<. 1... 2222... 52 ecee esc eben 6 Bameinerer ACH OTOUNC ae een ote Se ea ame aaa a eneeEe 6 TED SSC EINLE 0 Vg ee ag pl tN PR an eee nee re es 13 even Gre ee VG Un ses eerste i a steer a ee ee Ete ee 14 PaneIReCONCALY MONG os -— 522 omen aetna ee eee oe 18 Floors and wooden steps or ramps._____---------------------- 18 MM emprine hy MGW = ee a ee 24 Me eR OG Oh iC ara eee oe A et a ee ene apne oe 26 parent tig eee ee ee Se ae enn cint eee ee epee 29 Ven ber t RC UG Ue eae eee 2 ey ee SE Set oe es 29 Architecture and house-life._._._--$ 2 ee eee 29 @ostume-and dress-2--- 2 ee ee eee ee eee eecee ss 30 @ustomsiand ceremonies -- 5-22 5 - ee eee 33 Pines BRO suODNCCOn< 2204s Sees 2 oa ee es wees See 34 Wertare and Nutter. 6.) 2 le Seen kee 35 GSD a a te a ate ae ea ae ee ye eel = Se ees 36 Descripion of manvfacwured Objects_.---...-2-<--- 9 32-- a2 -cee= 36 SU ea eer ree re pe my Se 36 NS OM GRAM Glestin Ule re ee eae ee ea Bee: Se SNe en eee 38 SS He eee ee ne Ee eee Re Sy ee ay 38 (Taye 1 CT Re men A aI sete gl a a ve epee EN OU yam 38 “1S cif [3 Seen Ag ee iota Be ere SC Se 39 1 BCI ICE Rg eta ene ee a ay SO SR ORO Oe fe, el ee Nee te 39 UV SUT se Nt pee ar ee ee eS es See 41 NACE Hci Bie eal Sanaa Se AON aca SDR LOO See SEV ape Nore 43 Wisrenis ee ees Se meee Bae se eo ee eee eee ee 45 A N/E Vee © al ee SSOP, oO UY PSEC es ginfene ave OPO 45 DV Veurr com x Neate pte cere were ee ee one ee nee 46 DV 2057 1D) epee mes ee pe ee 46 IATCHCOLOSICAl IMPUCAONS = acccc220cces oct cecne eee nen ee cue eat eee 50 CB TTC UTS 11S pea ee et em ne ee ee ee en EY Pet GOLA ee atte ee ab enn are ee ae eee oe ee a we See 58 Appendix A. Diagnostic traits from Peachtree___.____---------------- 65 Appendix B. Comparison of traits from Peachtree and seven other sites_- 66 Appendix C. Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates__.--------- 72 Appendix D. The skeletal remains from the Peachtree site, North Carolina, FV UC Weer 2 ee ee eee ee ere es Si sic ot en 81 Mesenipmon OL specimens. .o0.. 062000 oe wena eens eee 81 BSS NNN Ara Vee ere pee ae 2h oe ea es 92 WOM Clusia ee eet es Ree meee ee ee ee 96 icerstiTenc tec eee meena ek ge ee 99 TG ener re Pe ee ce ee Oe See eae ee 101 Vv VI . Clay and stone pipes. (Provenience, see pp. 73-74) . Fragments of pottery pipes showing variations in form and decorations_ . Unusual types of stone pipes. (Provenience, see p. 74)_-_---______-- . Representative selection of chipped projectile points . A, Crudely made notched stones, or net sinkers. B, Miscellaneous PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES . A, The section of Nantahala Mountains between Franklin and Shooting Creek, N. C., on U. 8S. Route No. 64. B, The fertile valley at the junction of Peachtree Creek and the Hiwassee River. C, Clearing and surveying the Peachtree Mound____..--__------- . A, Profile L-1, showing the various stages of construction. B, Pro- file 15, showing lensed appearance and the charcoal strata. C, Prohlen3s see eee ea se oa ee wee ee 2 . A, Feature 16, showing 14 horizontal poles lying upon a stratum of brown sandy loam, the remains of a series of steps upon a ramp leading to the top of the primary mound. B, Profile 16, showing the begin- ning of feature 16 in the left center. C, Profile 17. The thin sand line from R-2 to L—5 extends a distance of 70 feet__._._-._-_-_----- . A, The first indication of feature 29. B, Layer of flint boulders in sections 17, 18, and 19. C, The clearing of feature 29____________ . A, Another view of feature 29. B, Showing feature 29 after it had been COMpICTely exCaValed 22-2 ee ao een eee woe coe eee eee . A, Showing the reconstructed outline of feature 29. B, Showing feature 29 completely uncovered, the log molds fully traced_____-_- . A, The cleared interior of feature 29. B, Close view of the center block after the earth and stones had been removed_______________ . A, Feature 29 completely cleared and reconstructed. 3B, Feature 29 after the stones had been removed______________-_-______-__-__. . A, Feature 18, a small circular fire pit full of charcoal. 3B, Small cir- cular flint-lined fireplace containing potsherds______.____._-___-_- . Shell ornaments, beads, and pins. (Provenience, see p. 72)_._-_.-__- . Copper and brass objects. (Provenience, see p. 72)___._--_-------- . European trade articles, iron, brass, and lead. (Provenience, see p. 72) _ . Bone awls and pins, antler projectiles, bone fishhook, and grooved canine tooth... CProvenience see p,. 7a)... 222. eee tee eee . Miscellaneous objects of stone and clay. (Provenience, see p. 73)-_-__ . A, B, Top and side view of intrusive flexed burial Pm—42, feature 21, square (SHG. 22 sak oa Sd bee eel on Oke hee ee ee . A, Stone-lined grave, Pm—57, feature 30. 3B, Flexed burial, Pm—58, TQ EUU UNS eo a ee ee . A, Flexed adult burial in stone vault, Pm—20, feature 10. 3B, The most important burial, Pm—41, square 15-L-1_______________________- . A, Poorly preserved adult flexed burial, Pm—39, square 12-L-6. B, Intrusive flexed burial, Pm-30, square 16-R-1___________________ stone objects: axes, grooved club head, mauls, celts, adzes, ground hematite. (Provenience, see pp. 74-75) _________-____-__-------- . Celts and adzes. (Provenience, see p. 75)_.-..------------------- . A, B, Stone disks. (Provenience, see p. 75).........---.---------- . Pottery disks, edges smooth, made from a variety of potsherds. (Pro- venience, see pp. 75—-76)____._______- PAGE 80 80 80 80 27. 45. 46. 47. ILLUSTRATIONS A, Grinding stone or shallow mortar. Square 6-R-1, below mound level. Biconcave. B, Grinding stone or shallow mortar. Found in boulder stratum on east side of mound. Biconcave____.___-___-_- . A, B, Cupstones. Sometimes called nutstones or drill rests. (Pro- venience, h€6-p, 76).222252222c205525e0seresscers ssl skh ls . Steatite vessel fragments. (Provenience, see p. 76)__.--___---__--- . A, Hammerstones. Fragments of pestles re-used for pounding or crushing. 3B, Abrading or grinding stones. (Provenience, see p. 76)_ . Drilled ornaments, pendants, and sinkers. (Provenience, see p. 76) - . Pottery vessels of ware A. (Provenience, see pp. 76-77)-__.------ . A, Pottery vessels of ware A. B, Pottery vessels of ware B. (Prove- MNBUGe GEOCHIM ti) ase teen aie ee te eons hea cee ae ae . Various rim fragments, ware A. (Provenience, see p. 77)_----_------ . Round bottoms and feet of pottery vessels. Ware A. (Provenience, . A, B, Rim sherds illustrating incised, trailing, and stamped design elements. Ware A. (Provenience, see pp. 77—78)_-------------- . A, B, Amore specialized treatment of incised and stamped designs on rim sherds. Ware A. (Provenience, see p. 78)------------------ . Painted jar. From central portion, feature 29. Ware B-1_______- . Negative painted plate with a wide outcurving rim. Paddle-stamped exterior. Ware B-1. Feature 138. (Provenience, see p. 78) ----- . Series of vessel fragments illustrating ware B. (Provenience, see p. 78) - . Two restored pottery vessels illustrating ware C. Part of feature 13, a large refuse pit below mound level. (Provenience, see p. 78)_-_- . Selected rim sherds of ware C and C-1. (Provenience, see p. 78)_--- . Miscellaneous sherds of wares A, B, and C, showing secondary features of rim and lip. (Provenience, see p. 79)__.-_...__---_------------ . Vessel fragments illustrating various types of decorations, such as basketry, textile (ware D), and painted (ware C-1). (Provenience, SSRI CL) ea a Re hee pra Side and top views of skull Pm-4 i in Frankfort position showing type Ofecdclormityam OUVEDIICEE= 2 22 ae see eee ee a eee ee Three lower jaws showing a pointed contour formed by the biting edges of the incisors, caused apparently by early loss of the upper Me CH SET CISO LS ss ee ee ee ee Side and top views of skull Pm—14 in Frankfort position showing type of deformity like that shown in plate 45. Old female__________-_- . Side and top views of skull Pm—20 in Frankfort position, showing type of deformity. Adult male_______..______-_____-----_------ . Side and top views of skull Pm—53 in Frankfort position, showing type olmdeformity., Adult males.222 2222. 242225222 oceeseee sos e sees . Side and top views of skull Pv—2 in Frankfort position, showing type of deformity. Adult male.___._________-----_----.----------- FIGURES . Map of southwestern North Carolina. Inset gives location with re- gard to the Southeastern States_____________________-_--.------ . Location of the Peachtree site within the Cherokee Country__-_----- . Section 5 (X) above is all the area between the 5 and 6 lines of the grid: (CY) is the left half .of section 8.....2-22c22.c2c22---c2cn-05 VII PAGE 100 VIII ILLUSTRATIONS . Schematic drawing showing periods of mound construction . Schematic cross section of mound through the long axis (not drawn to . Decorated copper bracelet with shallow indentations . Pottery forms of wares A, B, and C Wound Noor plall 22 222 oo. 5 Se ee See ee ee eee Ground pias. = 52432 aoe ee et aie ie ee ee fe Wooden disks covered with copper. A and B from burial Pm-—41; C from burial Pm—20 dypieal rim sections of. wares: A.and Csi. 2.4/2.2 2.22.2. 2222822 22 FOREWORD As liaison officer between the Smithsonian Institution and the Civil Works Administration, my duties were equally divided among all of the archeological projects under the supervision of the Smith- sonian in late December 1933 and the first half of 1934. I was par- ticularly interested in the work near Murphy, N. C., but had little to do with the actual excavations at the Peachtree site. I assisted Mr. Jennings during the analysis of the specimens after they reached the Museum, and would have been assigned to write the report from his field notes if Mr. Jennings had not desired to use them for a thesis at the University of Chicago. His thesis, entitled “The Significance of the Peachtree Site in Southeastern Prehistory,” served as the basis for this report. It has been changed from a theoretical discussion to a descriptive report, certain sections transposed and enlarged, others reduced. The bulk of the manuscript has been in- corporated and due credit should rightfully be given to Mr. Jennings. This final report embodies the opinions and conclusions of both authors in 1935-36, although scattered references are made to publications appearing since 1936. We are well aware of the rapidly accumulat- ing data from the Southeast which in a few years may modify some of the comparisons and reconstructions offered in our analysis. Frank M. Serzirr. Ix ne - af dt <4 PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, CHEROKEE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BY FRANK M. SETZLER AND JESSE D. JENNINGS INTRODUCTION In December 1933 the Civil Works Administration assigned 11 archeological projects to the Smithsonian Institution for supervision and scientific direction. This was part of a large Government pro- gram for reducing unemployment. For several reasons the Institu- tion was pleased to accept the responsibility this unusual opportunity afforded. First, it was eager that the results be as extensive and as scientifically complete as conditions would permit; second, it offered its archeologists an opportunity to extend their research, especially in the Southeast, which previously had been sadly neglected. The choice of sites was necessarily limited by climatic and eco- nomic factors. All projects were launched within 2 weeks and ac- counted for the employment of 1,500 laborers. Besides this North Carolina project, seven were in Florida, under the immediate direc- tion of M. W. Stirling, Chief, Bureau of American Ethnology, and one each in Georgia, Tennessee, and California. Harry L. Hopkins, Julius Stone, and especially the late Morton M. Milford, all Federal CWA officials, greatly facilitated the work by their interest and cooperation here in the Washington office. This report deals only with the excavation of the Peachtree Mound and village site near Murphy, N. C. (fig. 1). Work began Decem- ber 21, 1938, and ended April 1, 1934. The project was under the administration of W. B. Colburn. His ability as coordinator in keeping the project functioning smoothly permitted Jesse D. Jen- nings to devote his entire time to directing the excavations. Coop- eration was received from the State and local CWA officials, who furnished 104 men. Acknowledgments are due to William Moore, who permitted the excavation on his property, Burnham S. Colburn, F. O. Scroggs, R. Teems, Hobart Hughes, and other local men whose interest was a large factor in effecting a first-class job. The foremen and laborers performed their duties willingly and became considerably interested. In 1935 Hobart Hughes and Dale Lee again assisted by making two smaller excavations, giving a further check al 2 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 131 =“ S, TENNESSEE, SSS a Bi lena, A "My "% 4 Wie, i Wily Inset gives location with regard to the Southeastern States. ay wr NHS hong % 2 AM} hay Te Zp ayes puis, 3 ROY Vita 23 Ficuri 1.—Map of southwestern North Carolina, SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 3 on the occurrence of certain pottery types. Jane Noyes Chase, Dale Lee, and Carl Gudat completed the drafting and sketches used in this report. The pictorial survey, established in the Department of An- thropology at the University of Chicago under Prof. Fay-Cooper Cole, provided funds for Mr. Jennings to make the necessary study and analysis of the material after it reached the United States National Museum. GENERAL ARCHEOLOGICAL PICTURE IN THE SOUTHEAST Except for the work in Florida by the Bureau of American Eth- nology, no definite program of archeological research in the South- east had been undertaken by any of the larger research institutions; explorations had been more or less haphazard with the exception of the pioneer efforts and accomplishments of the late Clarence B. Moore. Mr. Moore, associated for a time with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, sampled practically every impor- tant site, particularly along the navigable streams, in South Caro- lina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. His published reports (Moore, 1892- 1918), especially the series (vols. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16) in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, have served as a basis for most of the subsequent explorations. Through his efforts and interest in this practically untouched field, numerous aboriginal cultures were revealed by the unexcelled illustrations in his publications. A few men preceded Moore, such as Charles C. Jones, Jr. (1873), G. P. Thruston (1890), and Cyrus Thomas (1894), each contributing valuable data, but none as extensive in scope or amount of exploration. Since then various men, such as C. 8. Brown (1926); D. I. Bushnell, Jr. (1919, 1920, 1922, 1927); H. B. Collins, Jr. (1932); J. W. Fewkes (1925); J. A. Ford (1935, 1936); G. Fowke (1910, 1922, 1928); M. R. Harrington (1922); G. G. Heye, F. W. Hodge, and George H. Pepper (1918); W. H. Holmes (1884, 1886, 1896, 1903); J. Mooney (1889, 1894, 1900); W. K. Moorehead (1932); W. E. Myer (1928); N. C. Nelson (1918); F. M. Setzler (1933) ; F. G. Speck (1907); M. W. Stirling (1935); J. R. Swanton (1911, 1922, 1928); W. M. Walker (1936); and W. S. Webb (1938) have contributed to the reconstruction of various phases of the aboriginal cultures. For the most part these men specialized on certain problems within one or another of the Southern States. Numerous ethnologists and historians have also materially assisted in the elucidation of aboriginal problems. No archeological area, except perhaps the Pueblo region of our Southwest, is more blessed with direct ethnological and historical accounts pertaining to the organization and movements of Indian 4 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL, 131 tribes than the general Southeast. For this reason every effort should be and is being made to interpret archeological data from these early historical reports. This procedure is the only sound method for determining the ancestors of our historic Indian tribes and properly interpreting the few remaining indestructible frag- ments of their material culture. Archeological techniques have improved within the past 10 years. The work thus far completed has now put us in a position to glimpse in a very general way the outline of certain aboriginal tribal move- ments and cultures in the region. 32 35 — a ad 7 Ps TRS “I Feohure 25 ] 25 Pmlors | 27 al 42 Fe) LtGtno 2m ptr @ SCATTLALD STONES == INCLINED POST HOLL ie ¢ 2n-450 3 ie 1! POST HOLE ¢ DEPTH OF ORIGIN il = =I TQ puaneo CLAY ARLA ae: DRLVIOUS LXCAVATION <= 10G CAST BASE OF DREVIOUS EXCAVATION [ 5 ae (Seale: 1 square=10 feet, ) RTGERd 247600—41 (Face p. 20) SprzLeR-JHNNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 21 the entire mound, and a new, possibly larger, floor was made. Profile 15 (pl. 2, B) showed the same gray layer distinctly lower in the mound. Over it were numerous lensed and mottled zones, which increased the surface area. The post hole in profile L1, just below stake 11, was probably a support of the building originally accompanying the first floor. The other significant structural features of the secondary mound were the two ramps or series of “steps” (see mound structure plan, fig. 6) on the southeast side of the mound. The first of these, feature 16, is a series of 12 logs or poles, averaging 4 inches in diam- eter, and from 8 to 12 feet in length. These lay horizontally on the brown and black lensed stratum just referred to above, as the first stratum of the secondary mound (see description of floors) and just under the next or gray “cap” stratum. The poles vary in depth or level, the one farthest away from the center of the mound being the lowest, a surface depth of 6.4 feet, which, at this point, was the base of the mound. Each succeeding pole was higher and closer to the center of the mound, until the last one of the series was only 3.2 feet below the surface. The surface rise of these steps is then 3.2 feet in a horizontal distance of 11.3 feet, but an actual rise of over 4 feet from datum. Over them lay the gray clay stratum which covered the first two floors. The ramp is associated with the first of the floors, which rested upon the brown-black lensed stratum of which the stairway or ramp wasa part. The steepness of the stairs indicates that the level top area could not have extended past line 15, at which the stair ended. In connection with the pole ramp it should be mentioned that at each end of the logs small, deep post holes were found. These were only on the lower side, evidently the remains of small posts which held the logs in place on the steep slope of the mound. In plate 3, A, the step arrangement of the feature and its steep pitch is clearly shown. ‘To show this structure more clearly in the photo- graph, canes were placed in the log or pole molds, while shorter canes can be seen in the vertical post holes. It is interesting to note that one pole was quite close to the surface, near the top of the gray clay stratum. This pole did not, apparently, have any connection with the series beneath it. The series of logs could not have been a structure which had col- lapsed, since the logs were all in order. They show no displacement or criss-crossing as was noted later in a collapsed edifice (feature 29) ; nor is it likely that there would be any building on such a steep slope. No evidence of supporting timbers was found, though the post holes at the exact ends of the logs indicate their original occurrence there. It seems justifiable, therefore, to consider this feature as a log pve BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Buy. 131 stairway on a ramp leading up to the floor of a temple or house structure. Twenty feet nearer the center of the mound, beginning at the base and running from a surface depth of 8.6 feet to 5.6 feet (3.6 feet rise above datum), we find a similar series of 13 poles (feature 26) lying on the side of the primary mound.” This series, as reference to the figure of the mound structure plan shows, did not ascend the slope as uniformly as did feature 16. Post holes also occurred here at the ends of the horizontal logs. Under the logs was a thin hard layer of sand, which is possibly the same as the sand layer over the primary mound. No floor was associated with the upper level of this ramp. To the north of feature 26 was a thin layer of bark which rested conformably on the stratum for the length of the steps, from the mound base to the uppermost log. | Just to the east of feature 26, on a slightly higher level, was a series of four poles, whose arrangement was similar, and whose function may have been like that of features 16 and 26. Other post molds and frag- ments of wood were encountered at various places through the mound. These were considered accidental inclusions. Small areas of charred grass and cane were found at various levels. No explanation for these pockets of material appeared. Adjacent to feature 26, but higher and in another stratum, was a series of three large log molds which ran parallel to, rather than across, the slope of the stratum on which they lay. No explanation could be found for this structure. These molds were above the base of the mound. Complete exploration did not reveal any associated structural phenomena, so a definite explanation of these logs is lacking. Another feature of the secondary structure is visible in profile 15 (pl.2,8). Here five dark refuse strata are visible. The first of these, A, lying just beneath the gray-clay layer, was followed on through section 14 and was observed to fuse with the lowest of these three floors near stake 11, at the same datum depth as that at which the floor originated. (See p. 19 ff. ve depth of first floor.) It is thus demon- strated that sufficient time elapsed after the construction of this floor for the accumulation of a certain amount of debris. The other levels, B, C, D, E, were higher and later (pl. 2,8). Their origins did not tie in definitely with any other feature in the mound. (See p. 49 for pottery types in level A.) Throughout the mound, aside from burned portions of the floors, small areas of burned clay, from 11% to 6 feet in diameter, and from 1 to 8 inches thick, occurred. These were random occurrences and seemed to have no significance or relationship either to the mound as On p. 18 a statement is made that structural features from three natural divisions would be discussed by divisions. Description of primary mound ramp at this point is a logical exception. Serzien-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 23 a whole or to each other. Artifactual material was seldom encoun- tered on these burned-clay areas. In the mound fill single boulders were often found. These occurred at no particular level nor in any degree of order. They are assumed to be accidental inclusions. Another feature as interesting as the floors and starways just dis- cussed was the collection of water-borne boulders in sections 17, 18, and 19 along the Ll line (pl. 4, 8). This layer of boulders—21 feet in length and 13 feet in width—formed a close, evenly laid “floor” of boulders, one foot in thickness, resting on the eastern slope of the mound, It was put in place after the last addition to the mound was deposited. It also appears that the stones begin at the edge of the mound, at its base. The plane on which they lie rises with the mound strata. The depth of the rock stratum at line 19 is about 2.5 feet, while at line 17 the depth is only 1.0 foot. This indicates the depth to which erosion had covered the lower end. Further up toward the center of the mound, profile 17 showed that some of the mound strata had come to the edge of the stones, but no evidence appears which indicates that any later artificial layer had covered the stones. It has been suggested that this regular arrangement of stones was the fioor of a sweat house. A few small irregularly spaced post holes near the outer periphery would further verify this sweat-house theory. Possibly these post holes were all that remained of a house. In profile 17 (pl. 3, C) a thin sand stratum in which were water laminae, is seen, originating at the edge of the rock area. The profile indicates its possible use as a stone ramp. Its nearness to the surface, however, makes it barely possible that this entire feature was not aboriginal but modern in origin. In section 7, largely obliterated by earlier work, was a series of 20 post holes, only a foot in depth, lying under a sand stratum. These were identified with the first stage of the secondary mound construction. They lay on the same stratum as the steps (feature 16) on the other side of the mound. Inadequate exploration of this series of post holes makes any definite explanation impossible. On the “mound structure” plan (fig. 6) will be seen the surface and basal outlines of the pits put down by the Valentine brothers in 1885. This aree extends over portions of sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 18. Fortunately, this digging, which obscured much of the evi- dence regarding floors, post holes, ete., on the surface, did little actual damage to the central feature at the base of the primary mound. Probably a more adequate explanation of the post holes, ete., could have been made if this part of the mound had not been disturbed. However, the floors seem fairly good evidence for assuming that structures once existed on the mound, although the exact size and shape can never be determined. 247600—41——3 24 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Buiy. 131 PRIMARY MOUND The most spectacular and complete structure, feature 29, lay on the prepared floor under the primary mound. This feature, occupying the right half of sections 8, 9, 10, and 11, was a large structure, built of stone and wood, oriented roughly with the cardinal points. This central structure, approximately 22 feet square in the interior dimensions and 31 feet in exterior dimensions, possessed a wide stone bench around the four sides and a timber superstructure containing separate compartments along its walls. Reference to plate 5, B, shows the appearance and distribution of the stones as they were found. The canes were placed in the picture to indicate the length and direction of the log molds, all that remained of the collapsed roof and wall sections which overlay the stones. This picture also shows the depth and arrangement of the external or peripheral stones which made up the wall some 2 feet in height. Inside, and only inside, this wall there were scattered single stones. No stones were found outside the line of the peripheral wall. The loose central stones were placed on the thick and unshifted peripheral stones to reproduce the original outline of the structure. The stones of the wall proper lay flat on the prepared floor, while all the central stones had fallen into their place with such force that their impact with the floor had made shallow indentations.17 The fact of a forceful collapse was emphasized when the two halves of a broken boulder were found 10 feet apart inside the enclosure. This fracture had occurred during the collapse of the wooden structure. The larger piece was found partially embedded in the floor, lying against the stone upon which the break had occurred. It is quite possible that the larger central stones had been placed on the roof of the wooden structure in order to secure or hold down mats or reeds. The finding of four large corner post holes indicated the main roof supports. These post holes were first encountered 6 feet above the clay floor of the house and extended through the undisturbed soil beneath the village site. They averaged 12 inches in diameter. Their size and vertical position were doubtless the reasons they stood through the collapse. The smaller cross beams formed the molds scattered among the stones within the edifice. A glance at the “mound floor” plan (fig. 7) shows that the direction of the collapse was toward the southwest. No charred specimens were found, so that joints or meth- ods of fastening timbers could not be determined. The exterior walls were built of small vertical poles outside the area covered by the stones (pl. 8, 4) and served as the outer roof See pl. 8, B, for the smooth floor beneath the walls and compare with pl. 7, B, which shows a portion of the central section with the boulders “gouging” into the floor. | (Seale: 1 squa ol = LG i aS ies all Ore Charcoal / |» Feature MOUND FLOOR PLAN PEACHTREF MOUND Cherokee Co, NC — tictno @ SCATTERED STONES (@) PREVILLS EXCAVATION of! POST HOLE ¢ DEPTH OF ORIGIN Q ovaneo ctay aca == INCLINED posT HOLL —— 106 CAST °F.) ob “Gr =|: % NG —— (Seale: 1 square=10 feet.) Ficore 7. 247600—41 (Face p. 24) AIG TOOT GvIOM| ASOT ADA qYyJoMmM Vf fo) ssionedD pAVADKY 2/1394 eS ZMMOIe GININTAN @ MHING TO HIMId} IK feaw las 31H 1400 O39) =~ AatA ¥AID asnaua Ga? | (cAD oO) ie? an i aT Ahoy Wan My ia Shs : es, 4 np.” apts 4 toe ee (Jest Of=otanpa [ :91K9a) SerzLer—JNNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 25 supports. The roof was probably of thatch or cane matting. Some decayed, formless organic material among the roof or wall cross members is the basis for this assumption. The six vertical yellow clay and sand walls, as seen on plate 8, B, were reinforced with 114-inch posts which were sunk deep in the mound floor. The yellow bands extended 2 feet above the stone layer. These transverse walls are not easily explained, but by virtue of their size, shape, and arrangement, they are considered to be parti- tions. The relations of these cross walls of clay to the rock base of the structure is shown in the floor plan of the central feature 29; one of the bands is labeled 31. They showed definite color contrast to the matrix of the primary mound and to the post reinforcements. A burned area in the center of the square may have served as the fireplace for the building, although burned zones occur at various places all over the floor of the mound. Two of these shown on the ground plan run under the boulders of the structure. These burned areas seem to have no direct relation to the house itself."* This structure collapsed after the primary mound had been built and probably during the building of the secondary mound. The internal evidence of the arrangement of the ruin itself indicates a forcible inward collapse. The sand layer which covered the entire primary mound seemed to dip considerably directly above the struc- ture. Instead of this sand layer forming a dome, the center and highest point slumped, giving the appearance of a geological fold. The lowest point in this sand line was near the center, while the highest peaks were directly above the walls. Since the traces of timber found were log molds and small rotten wood fragments, %8The theoretical reconstruction of feature 29 as a thatch-covered, wooden structure, with a continuous stone bench against its walls, and partitions rising above the bench was verified by an identical structure excavated by the junior author in December 1936 and January 1937 for the Tennessee Valley Authority, Chickamauga Basin Survey. The feature referred to was on site 8 Ha 1, in Hamilton County, Tenn., some 15 miles upriver (NH.) from Chattanooga, Tenn. In location (i. e., the core of a small mound), size, general orientation, presence of a bench of similar width with partitions (of almost identical arrangement), post holes at the rear of the bench, a central firepit (only a burned area in Peachtree), beams for roof supports, with thatch and matting roof, all constructed over a prepared level, makes the Tennessee find a remarkably similar phe- nomenon. It is true that the Tennessee edifice was destroyed by fire, which baked to bricklike hardness the puddled clay of its benches and floor and partitions, thus preserving more details of construction. Charred beams, pieces of matting, and thatch roof mate- rial were readily identifiable. The Tennessee manifestation differed further in being semi- subterranean, having been built in a shallow depression, which was obviously made to accommodate the structure. It also differed in having an entrance and a short curved entry way or “storm-door” outside the building, probably to reduce drafts inside. The benches were not made of stone but of puddled clay. These showed evidence of occasional aboriginal repair. It is possible that the Peachtree bench was covered with clay, but the clay covering was not observed at excavation because it had not been fired and no distinction was observed. The two sites, Peachtree and 8 Ha 1 in the Chickamauga series, are no more than 150 miles apart by river and were doubtless subject to similar or identical cultural influences. 26 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 rather than charcoal and charred wood, it seems logical to conclude that the collapse of feature 29 was due to pressure rather than fire. An additional feature, more difficult of explanation, largely be- cause amateur digging had obliterated part of the evidence, was the series of long, slanting post molds in section 8. Ten of these originating at a surface depth of 4.0 feet, and extending down through the base of the mound, offer a puzzling feature. They were arranged in a gentle arc, their tops slanting toward the center of the mound. The mound structure was unbroken around them—i. e., it was lensed and contained no changes in material—showing that they were in place during the erection of the primary mound, or that they were forced into the mound when the work was partially done. In section 7 a similar group of posts, feature 25, originated just above the top of the primary mound and extended through the mound base into the undisturbed soil. It is probable that these post holes represent some part of a temporary structure erected on the northwest edge or slope of the primary mound. No floor or transverse timbers or other evidence of an edifice were encountered, THE VILLAGE SITE Several features of construction in the village site have been hinted at earher. Refuse pits, burial pits, hundreds of post holes, some with stones arranged around them, fire pits both lined and un- lined with stones, caches of animal bones, pits containing char- coal, ete., appeared at many points. Refuse pits were uniformly dug from the original surface into the basic or undisturbed brown soil and were clearly distinguishable, in both vertical and hori- zontal profile. They were filled with rich black soil, in which broken bones, charcoal, and cultural objects were found. Their occurrence and size were irregular. The majority of the burials discovered were in the village site, inhumed in pits dug from the original sur- face. These burial pits varied from a size just large enough to contain a flexed or infant burial, to long oval pits in which an ex- tended body could be placed. They varied from 114 to 4 feet in depth. For further discussion of burials, see pages 33-34. In one instance (skeleton Pm—16) a grave was dug into an older refuse pit. In profile these two types were easily distinguishable. Burial pits were filled with light-colored mottled earth from the surface and subsoils, while the refuse pits were always filled with black, rich soil. In sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 a refuse pit was connected to a burial - pit by a trench 20 feet long, with a depth equal to that of the two | pits. The trench was filled with the usual black soil. No explana-— tion can be offered, | / ~» 4 ¢ r aoe Ae (Seale | goon | fect) ie 247600—41 (Face p. 20) Ri Dal et Pravee 8, 5 Bpiten. 2, ‘0 (Scale: 1 square=10 feet.) lo =e earth, aaiaienieerens ho ae, J EOS a @ SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 27 Beneath and around the mound a profusion of irregularly spaced post holes occurred, which justifies the assumption that houses were destroyed and rebuilt many times, and possibly indicates a rather long occupation before the building of the mound. The homogene- ous nature of the humus on the camp site surface made it impossible to locate the origin of post holes in the first and significant foot of soil. ‘Traces were only visible after the digging had gone below the original humus, at which point they were readily detected through their contrast with the brown subsoil. Empty molds or casts were rarely encountered. Sometimes the burial pits were dug through several post holes. In another case (Pm-52) a post had been driven through the head of a skeleton some time after inhumation. On the northeast side of the mound, running across sections 7 to 13, were two long and regular rows of posts, averaging 15 feet apart. These (fig. 8) do not seem to form either an enclosure or a structure. It has been suggested that they were portions of a stockade. Seven instances of clearly defined post holes, surrounded by a cluster of flint pebbles, varying in size from 21/, inches by 6 inches down to 114 inches by 3 inches appear. These probably served to wedge the posts when inserted in the ground. The fact that floors were never found in connection with the numerous series of post holes in the village makes possible the conjecture that the houses were slightly raised, the posts serving for piles. This assumption of pile dwellings, based on purely negative evidence, is not so unreasonable as it may seem, since the entire village site is and doubtless was flooded several times a year, and a raised house would be a distinct advantage.’ Another phenomenon worthy of mention was the seven instances of small clusters of stones, occurring sporadically, unassociated with post holes and sherds. Reference to the ground plan shows a “pile of rocks” here and there. Their surface depth varies, although usually they were in small holes well down in the old humus zone. Ii is pos- sible that these flint stones were heated and put in a hole, which was later sealed for some type of cookery. The stones were not, however, subjected to regular intense firing, inasmuch as they were neither dis- colored nor cracked, as heated stones usually are. Various fireplaces, sometimes deep, round holes, with fire-reddened bottom or merely a small flat burned area, occurred frequently. Usually they had some broken sherds associated with them. One round pit lined with smoothed but unburnt clay and filled with sherds and charcoal was found. This pit was sunk from the original sod level (pl. 9, A). Another (pl. 9, B) shows a fire pit lined with 122 No historic descriptions of raised houses were encountered in the Southeast ethno- logical literature. 28 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLu. 131 pebbles. Under the pebbles ran a thin layer of talclike material, no more than 14 inch thick, running under the entire burned area. Its significance is unknown. One other example of a pit lined with tale, in this case not a fire pit, occurred in section 11, shown on ground plan as “pipe clay pit.” It was about 5 feet in diameter, and was sunk from the old sod level to a depth of perhaps 3 feet. Possibly it was a storage or cache pit, hence the lining. Numerous areas or zones of charcoal occurred. One cache or deposit of corn cobs was found. It should be mentioned here that the village site, or mound base was not always determinable in the same way. As hinted previously, the two levels, mound and village site, were usually separable on the basis of a definite sand line. This was true only of the secondary structure. When the limits of the basilar portion of the secondary mound were passed and excavation en- croached upon the primary mound, it was discovered that the pri- mary mound rested upon a hard prepared floor, averaging about 6 inches in thickness. This floor was made of a mixture of sandy clay, burned clay, strata of ash and of charcoal, and was quite hard throughout.”° Near the center there seemed to have been a smaller floor, at a slightly greater depth, over which the more extensive floor which served as a base for the primary mound was placed. Large parts of this floor were burned (fig. 8, secs. 11 and 12). The fact that this prepared floor had a wide extent, from sections 8 to 18 (50 to 60 feet) should be kept in mind. On the northeastern periphery of the village site under the mound were a great number of stones. All these stones lay on the original surface, which in some cases was packed and hardened in a manner comparable to that of prepared floors. The great number of post holes nearby indicated that several structures existed here successively. Just what the structures were is problematical. In sections 13 and 16 a roughly circular group of pest holes, which originated at the old surface are shown. In the village site proper, excavations were begun at a burned area which proved to result-from a fire at the top of a pit in which a double burial had been placed. An attempt to delineate a house structure in the present village site was unsuccessful. A long double series of post holes was followed for 70 feet, but no explanation of the arrangement was found. Probably the structure was a stockade, since the posts were not in evidence either in color or texture until a depth of 2 feet was reached. Due to the homogeneity of the soil, the level of origin cannot be stated; therefore the relative age of the structure cannot be postulated. * Harlier descriptions Indicate that this large floor served, without modification, as the floor of feature 29. SerzLer-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 29 SUMMARY In summarizing these data it may be said that the Peachtree site consisted of an artifactually rich and extensive habitation site which was pock-marked with refuse pits, burial pits, and evidence of wooden dwellings. Upon this village site was built a hard-packed area which jater became the floor of a large ceremonial structure of stone and wood. This was covered by a small round-topped mound, about 60 feet in diameter. Over this mound, and separated from it by a sand stratum, was a larger secondary mound which underwent at least two major periods of construction and several minor additions. The sec- ondary mound had upon it three successive ceremonial buildings, as evidenced by the three superimposed floors. MATERIAL CULTURE” This brief description must be correlated with the illustrations for a complete grasp of the material evidence constituting this component. (See pp. 72-79.) ARCHITECTURE AND HOUSE-LIFE The evidence on this phase is unfortunately incomplete. As men- tioned in the chapter on excavations, the chief features consist of the numerous post holes, clay floors, fireplaces, and an occasional frag- ment of burned clay which carries the imprint of cane wattle work. The probability is that these houses were made of poles, with thatched roofs (a few “patches” of charred grass were found in the mound and village site) and walls of wattle and daub (Adair, 1775). The arrangements of the post holes were such that no accurate record of the number of houses occupied over a given period of time could be ascertained. Historically the Indians of the Southeast are known to have had variations of the above type of house. The evidence of Peachtree Mound was only corroborative. No definite house shapes or sizes were determined, nor was the type of construction discernible. The household furnishings included items of wood, shell, and vessels of stone and pottery. Grain food was largely corn, of which many specimens were found. It was ground on milling stones (pls. 27, A, and 27, B). Flesh food was provided by deer, bear, opossum, turtle, and turkey. Mats and skins were in use. Tobacco was known and was probably cultivated by the group. There seems little doubt con- 2 This division could have been arranged in several ways, but this style, similar to Aztalan by Barrett (1933), the Pictorial Survey of the Mississippi Valley (University of Chicago), and Cole and Devel (1937), seems more useful, tending to erect a direct interpre- tation from the material evidence left by the aborigines, The added ease of reading will, it is hoped, overbalance the admitted interpretive nature of this type of organization. A list of all traits appears in Appendix B; detailed descriptions of the illustrated artifacts will be found in Appendix C, pp. 72-79. 30 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL, 131 cerning the fact that these aborigines were agriculturalists. How- ever, they also depended upon the gathering of wild nuts and the seasonal hunting of wild animals. The dog was probably the only animal domesticated. COSTUME AND DRESS Upon this subject considerable evidence was unearthed. Among the articles used for dress were beads, ear ornaments, ear rings and ear plugs, pendants, hairpins, wristlets or bracelets, and rolled metal beads or jinglers (pls. 10, 11, 12, and 14; figs. 9 and 10). Beads were largely of shell, although stone and pottery were em- ployed; glass beads were common after European contact. The shell beads include massive ones, made from the columella of conch shell, Olivella and Oliva shells perforated longitudinally, long slender flat- tened tubular beads of cut shell (pl. 10), small round beads with flat- tened sides, small cut shell disk and cylindrical beads. The glass beads are of all sizes, Plate 12 shows the range and type. On plate 14, figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 are pottery beads. Note the biconical shape of 13 and 15 and the centrally constricted cylinder of 14. Figures 39 and 40 on plate 14 show two stone beads. Figure 39 is small and hemispherical, while figure 40 is long, with tapered ends and is made of highly polished chlorite. A few European brass beads and buttons are shown in plate 11, figures 12, 13,16. and 17. (Note string still present in fig. 18.) Beads served as necklaces, bracelets, and anklets (pl. 17, B, burial Pm-41). Ear ornaments were made of copper, shell, clay, and stone. The copper ornaments are disk shaped, made of wood and covered with copper. The three examples of this type of ear crnament (pl. 11) differ slightly from one another. The ornament on plate 11, figure 1, is oval rather than round, has a central perforated boss with a series of 13 peripheral nodes. The edge of the copper is turned under the overhanging rim of the wooden plug and is thus secured in place. It has a chamfered groove running down the center of the reverse side. The other two copper-jacketed ornaments came from Pm-41. Figure 2, plate 11, is round with a central perforated boss, lacking the peri- pheral nodes, but is held in place by the overlapping metal edge (fig. 9, A). The third ornament is the smallest of the three. It is round and lacks the central boss, although it is perforated. The edge of the copper is not turned under the beveled edge of the wooden disk, but is held in place by a short wooden peg which was driven through the copper (fig. 9, B). Plugs of clay and stone, which were considered ear plugs, although they could well have been nose or lip ornaments, were fairly common. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 81 Ficurp 9.—Wooder disks covered with copper. A and B from burial Pm—41; 0 from burial Pm-20. Copper plating on A and C should be shown as turning under the beaded wooden edge (see description, p. 30). 32 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 Plate 14, figures 22-26, 30-34, are examples of clay plugs; figures 27-29 and 36-38 are broken plugs made of tale and coal shale (or cannel coal). These last may be hairpins. Plate 14, figures 1 and 2, shows two clay pulley-shaped objects, one whole and one fragmentary. These are probably ornaments which were inserted or suspended from the lobe of the ear. Hairpins of shell, made from the columella of conch (pl. 10), and double pointed objects of polished bone were represented. Figure 10.—Decorated copper bracelet with shallow indentations. Pendants, fairly common, were of several kinds. The stone speci- mens, all of which are shown in plate 31, are very crudely executed, with the exception of the first two figures on the left. The first figure is a long flat celt-shaped object of yellow slate with crude engraved designs. It is perforated, with a constricted neck. The second figure is a tapering, well polished, double-perforate, boatstone-shaped object which has been grooved around the central part, possibly for suspen- sion. The remainder of the perforated stones which are considered pendants are rough, crude pieces showing but little attempt at orna- mentation or careful shaping. Other publications have referred to these objects as “net sinkers.” A modern spring-back knife wrapped in fabric (pl. 12, upper row, 8th fig.) was found lying on the sternum of skeleton Pm-19. A frag- mentary, almost disintegrated shell, found on the thorax of burial Pm-—16, may have been a gorget or pendant, but could not be positively identified. i ) Serzier-JunNincs] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N.C. 33 Aside from the shell bead bracelets, 16 copper wire bracelets were found with burial Pv-4. These (pl. 11, figs. 8-10), eight on each wrist, were plain, except for figure 10, which is decorated, as shown in text figure 10. These bracelets are doubtless of European origin, since a metal tankard (pl. 12, top row, 1st fig.) was also with this burial. Plate 11, figure 15, shows two of the tapering conoidal brass “jingles” which were rolled or coiled, found in the surface soil. A canine tooth, grooved for suspension, was found in level AA (pl. 13, fig. 24). The hairdress of these people, as deduced from the effigy pottery heads discovered, consisted of a high knot or “pile” along the sagittal portion, with two lesser knots on both sides of the central one. Whether this hairdress was the mode for male or female or both is uncertain. Dress was of both skins and fabric, as shown by the presence of both with one of the burials. (See burial traits, below.) The use of bone awls (pl. 13), implies partially tailored garments, al- though no needle forms were found. Use of ochre for body painting is probable since several frag- ments of hematite with various ground faces were found. CUSTOMS AND CEREMONIES Under this heading we shall consider burial customs, pipes and tobacco,” warfare, and games. Burial customs have been hinted at in earlier sections.?? Bodies were uniformly buried in the flesh, usually in pits barely large enough to contain the body readily. There were 68 burials encountered, of which 8 were extended, 19 fully flexed, 17 semiflexed, and 24 unde- termined. Thus more than 50, and probably as many as 75 percent of the burials were flexed. The burials were not usually accompanied by grave goods, If any were included they were near the throat and head (in one case anklets were found, Pm-41) and consisted of beads, hair and ear ornaments, or pendants. With Pvy-5 were two small bowls (pl. 32, figs. 2 and 3). Even though numerous burials occurred in the mound, these were primarily of an intrusive nature, indicating that the mound was used only secondarily as a burial mound. Four intrusive stone cyst burials were added after the mound had been completed (pls. 15, 16, 17, 4). Three of the cysts were floored as well as having sides, end walls, and covers of stone slabs; while the one containing Pm-58 (pl. 16, B) lacked a floor. The cov- ers of burials Pm-20 and Pm-42 had not been sufficiently well fitted to 2 Pipe smoking was historically practiced in ceremonial contexts. See p. 26 and Appendix D, 34 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 prevent infiltration of earth, but those over Pm—57 and Pm-58 (pl. 16) had fitted covers which kept the loose earth out of the cysts. ‘The narrow side slabs around burial Pm-58 were battered and splin- tered on their upper ends, indicating that they had been driven into place with hammers or mauls of some sort (pl. 16, B), while the walls of the other three cysts were no deeper than the floor slabs, apparently having been placed alongside. In burial Pm-58 (feature 35) matting, fur, and skins, a conch- shell cup or dish, and various beads had been placed with the body (pl. 16, B), while with Pm—57 (feature 30) matting, skins, and some maize leaf were recovered. From burial Pm-20 (feature 10) came a copper-jacketed ornament (fig. 9, C). No other artifacts were discovered in these cysts. | Aside from two examples, Pm-28 and Pv-38 and Py-4 (a double burial) , no evidence of a ceremony at the time of death was observable. In the two cases mentioned above, however, an intense fire had been built over the filled-in pit at the current surface. This fire seemed to follow immediately after burial. Perhaps the finely made celt with burial Pm—56 (pl. 24, fig. 1) was a ceremonial implement or was a symbol of the ceremonial importance of the dead individual. There is a possibility, of course, that the burials inhumed in the top of the mound after its completion were persons of high standing in the com- munity. No evidence of a deliberate cremation and subsequent burial of the burned bone fragments was present. The skeletal material was generally poor, caused by the acidity of the soil and the intermittent extreme dampness, due to high flood water extending above the level in which the burials were laid. The burials in the mound were almost entirely disintegrated, because the pits dug for their reception were usually in clay fill which prevented immediate drainage of the water. Burials Pm-30 and Pm-39 (pl. 18) are examples of this condition. These alternate moist and dry periods would easily account for their disintegration. For a treatise on the physical type, see Appendix D, by Dr. T. D. Stewart (pp. 80-99). PIPES AND TOBACCO The tobacco complex seemed to play a large role in the life of these people. No massive stone effigy forms were found.** Dozens of small whole pipes and many fragmentary ones were encountered. These smaller pipes, made from stone and clay, were uniformly well carved and modeled, some combining technical skill with artistic exe- cution to make objects of extreme beauty (pls. 19-21). °4Two massive efigy pipes from Cherokee County are figured by West (1934, pl. 86, p. 653). SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 35 The predominant type was the elbow pipe and its variants. There were also some stemless forms, all from the mound level. One Siouan calumet, two examples of Micmac type—one stone and one pottery— and various bizarre effigy forms, all stemless, were found.” Considerable variation is observed in the equal armed styles. In some the stem is longer than the bowl, with various developments of the stem collar treatment. A few of the long-stemmed pipes have the bowl forming an obtuse angle with the stem, while the stems of the same length as the bowl usually form a right angle with the bowl. In section the long stems are round, octagonal, or square, and square with rounded corners. Usually the stemmed pipe has a small bowl proportionate to the dimensions of modern briers. In some instances, however, ornate bowls with small short stems were discovered. Several examples of pipes with highly decorated flaring bowl and short stem (pls. 19 and 20) are comparable to those from the Etowah (Moorehead, 1932, p. 92) and Nacoochee Mounds (Heye, Hodge, Pepper, 1918, pp. 73-86). Two examples of the “bird pipes” with conventional bird beak running up the front of the bowl were encountered. The pipes were not found with burials, but occurred at random throughout the site. Usually they still contained the carbon or “cake” due to long usage. Some gave evidence of having been broken and reworked for further use. One bow] had been chipped but the pipe kept in use, as the carbon extended over the edge of the fracture to some depth. The stemless pipes are not well made, but are crude and heavy (pl. 21). WARFARE AND HUNTING The triangular, concave base projectile point is the predominant type. The size, proportions, and type of material and chipping vary over an enormous range. Generally it can be said that points are made either of a core or a large flake inasmuch as all show chipping over their entire surface. One or two exceptions to this occur. The minority of the points are of the stemmed type. These are uniformly well chipped, though not finished with the same care as the triangular examples, although many of the latter are quite rough. The two types, stemmed and triangular, occur throughout the site from surface to basic clay. As indicated above, it is felt that both styles are typical of the Peachtree component. Points with careless chipping, triangu- lar, stemmed, stemmed and notched of every kind occurred at all levels (pl. 22). Two antler projectile points were also found (pl. 18, figs. 13 and 14). Reference should be made here to the notched and grooved stones of plate 23, A, and the ax forms of plate 23,B. Celts on plate 24 (except 25 See p. 74 for description and provenience. 36 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL, 131 figure 1) all show use and were probably employed in hunting, indus- try, or war. The axes and celts were used for weapons and hunting» tools. Some of the celts are unusual in that they have been sharpened — at each end, and may be called double bitted. Although the ax is rare, it shows great variety in form, as in plate 23, B. Of these, only — figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 could have been used as axes. The notched stones on plate 23, A, may be considered axes, although their lack of © wear at the bit seems to make this Ronehicion doubtful.?° | GAMES Evidence regarding games is restricted to the hundreds of small discoidals found. That the smaller ones figured as counters in hand games, gambling, or similar amusements is probable. The larger pieces may have been used in the chunkey game (Timberlake, 1765, p. 100) mentioned by writers on Southeastern archeology for the last generation (Colburn, 1936, pp. 1-6). The discoidals and “counters” are made of stone and potsherds, varying in size from 5 inches to 3% of an inch. Some of the stone specimens were given a high polish and are extremely well made. Others are crudely roughed out and are possibly unfinished, although it is likely that they were used in their crude state. Occasionally the edges are beveled, i.e., their shape, if projected, would be conical; others are biconcave. Most are biconvex or parallel sided with rounded edges. Some have incised lines on the flat surfaces, but the greater number are undecorated (pl. 25). The sherd discoidals or pottery disks (pl. 26) are made of any suitable sherd, varying in the care with which they are turned out. Some have central perforations.?? DESCRIPTION OF MANUFACTURED OBJECTS STONE The only objects of chipped stone were projectile points and scrap- ers. The predominant technique was pressure flaking. Projectiles were made from both flakes and cores. The majority of stone speci- mens, such as pipes, beads, discoidals, celts, hairpins, and earplugs, can be grouped as polished stone techniques. Ground or polished stone pieces were usually made of steatite, slate, or chlorite. In many cases the polishing of the pipes did not obliterate the marks of the earlier process of manufacture. Inife or scraper marks are clearly shown on numerous stone specimens. 2° Heye, Hodge, and Pepper (1918, p. 87) refer to similar objects as net sinkers, This use may be correct. Some of the forms discussed above may also have been net sinkers or forms other than axes. 27 These forms have been considered spindle whorls. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 3/1 The sole examples of polished stone beads are the two shown in plate 14, figures 39 and 40. The long, tapering-end specimen (fig. 40) is highly polished. Discoidals were sometimes of polished stone. The disks were apparently ground to shape on the sandstone abrad- ers and then polished. The polish may have resulted from long use, although this seems improbable. Celts were made of slate and in nearly every case were highly polished. It should be mentioned that these celts were sharpened or “bitted” on each end. This is not acommon celt form. One of the celts (pl. 24, fig. 1) is perforated with a tapering hole. Ax forms were rare, but included a variety of shapes. Reference to plate 23, B, figure 1, shows an unusual asymmetrial notched type; a round, full-grooved club head (fig. 5); a thick, full-grooved celt- shaped specimen (fig. 6); a rough full-grooved object of steatite (fig. 7); one thin, symmetrically ground and notched piece; and two slate objects of questionable type (figs. 3 and 4). None of the axes was carefully made, except figure 2. This piece is so small, and of such soft stone (slate), that its use as an ax seems imprac- ticable. Perhaps it is a child’s piece or a ceremonial object. The other ax forms all have ends pecked from use. On the same plate (23, B, figs. 10 and 11) are two highly polished “pick” forms, and two squares of hematite which have ground edges (figs. 12 and 13). Figures 8 and 9 are probably celt fragments or blanks. Plate 23, A, shows several large pieces of shale and flint with fairly deep notches on each side which have been roughly shaped by peck- ing and breaking. It is not probable that these stones were axes or mauls because there is no evidence of wear on either bit or poll of the stones. Apparently they were used as they now appear. The term “net sinker” has been applied to them, but no real evidence as to their use can be found. They do seem, however, to be a trait of this component, since they are very common. Rough stone work included mortars or milling stones, notched stones, mortars of the “nutstone” type, steatite vessels, pendants (perforate pieces), abrading stones, and a few problematical pieces. The mortars or milling stones were merely large flat boulders of flint with a depression worn on one side by constant grinding (pl. 27, 4 and B). Shaping of the stones was apparently not prac- ticed. A suitable flat one was merely selected and used without modification. Plate 28, A and B, illustrates numerous examples of cupstone frag- ments, which are called by many people “nutstones.” The pits are smooth, having been abraded rather than pecked. Even the small garnets which occur throughout all the slate have been worn smooth 38 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuL. 131 in the depressions. The use to which these stones were put cannot be stated with certainty. It has been suggested that they were paint mortars. No stains of ochre or other materials were found in these cups, leaving this theory without a strong basis. They may have served as drill rests. Whatever the use, the frequency of these objects makes them artifacts typical of the component. Steatite vessel fragments, occurring at all levels, are exemplified in plate 29. Here the exterior treatment shows very well. The tool- roughened decoration and flange handles are illustrated. The interior of these vessels is smoothly finished. Plate 30, B, shows numerous abrading stones which have been shaped by grinding or cutting, after which their flat surfaces were used for grinding, sharpening, or smoothing. Plate 31 shows roughly shaped fragments of steatite ves- sels, and slate, all of which are perforated. These take on a variety of shapes, but are considered together as pendant forms because of the perforation. Pitted hammerstones were fairly common and were of the usual type as shown in plate 30, A. BONE AND ANTLER Working of bone was not common. The entire collection of bone and antler artifacts from the component is shown on plate 18. The following objects were made of bone and antler: Awls, hairpins, fish- hooks, projectile points, and flaking tools. Five awls were made of the ulnae of various animals; one flattened form, a few splinter awls of both animal and bird bones, one sharpened fibula, and five hairpins or bodkins complete the list of piercing tools. One small grooved fishhook and one canine tooth grooved for suspension conclude the list of bone objects found. No bone beads, ear or nose ornaments, or implement handles were found. The failure of the aborigines to use more bone artifacts seems unusual; however, this scarcity of bone objects may be a diagnostic trait of the focus. SHELL Shell was used for manufacturing a considerable variety of objects, most of which were used as ornaments, such as beads (see section on costume, on p. 30), gorgets, hairpins, and ear plugs. The large conch shells were used for drinking cups or vessels. Pulverized shell was also used to some extent as an aplastic in making pottery (pl. 10). COPPER Objects made from copper were rare. It was used in sheet form for making ornaments. Plate 11, figures 1-3, shows three ear orna- ments of copper-jacketed wooden disks. 'The copper was beaten thin, pressed against a wooden ornament, and took its design from the SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 39 bosses or nodes carved on the wooden base. The small coil (pl. 11, fig. 11) was an aboriginal piece of copper wire. The four fishhooks of copper (pl. 11, figs. 4-7) are of European wire, all having been found in the surface levels. The copper bracelets (pl. 11, figs. 8-10) came from burial Py—4 and were in association with other European objects. The bracelets were all quite plain, except one, which had the simple embossed design shown in text figure 10 and plate 11, figure 10. The other illustrated metal objects are of European origin. Metal objects on plate 12 were found in graves and in the surface soil. The metal (iron) tankard (top row, Ist fig.) was at the head of burial Py-3 and Py-4. The knife (top row, 8th fig.), on which can be seen copper pins, was with burial Pm—19, an intrusive burial on the east side of the mound (see Appendix D). Pvy-3 had with it a knife illus- trated in plate 12 as the 7th figure (top row). The scissors, buckle, iron axes, copper bells, and other objects were found throughout the surface soil. TEXTILES The only evidence of textiles was that found with burials Pm-41 and Pm-57, preserved by copper salts. These textiles are plain twilled plaiting, over three and wnder three. Materials used in weaving have not been identified, but they were probably cane. POTTERY Since pottery is one of the most essential characteristics for com- paring related archeological components, as well as reflecting cultural change or the influence of foreign groups, more space has been devoted to this section than to any other. Lack of time prevented an analysis of every sherd (estimated 250,000) from the site. This vast amount made it necessary to select certain squares, more or less at random, but especially those which would give an adequate cross section from both the mound and village site. All the sherds from these selected 10-foot squares, both above and below mound level, were used in pre- paring the following summary. This method of selection, however, should be taken into consideration in any comparative studies. The ceramic material from Peachtree Mound was analyzed in the light of definitions set forth by Guthe, although the “wares” here discussed are more nearly comparable to the “types” of his definition (March, 1934, pp. 1-6). Guthe’s definitions follow: A ware is a ceramic group tn which all attributes of the paste and the surface finish remain constant. A style of decoration is a ceramic group in which decorated design and technic both remain constant. A style of form is a ceramic group in which the form as a whole remains essentially constant, and 247600—41——_4 40 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 131 is distinguished by some outstanding feature. A type is a ceramic group wherein the similarity is a generic one of all four characters caused by the entire pottery complex of the designated culture group. His discussion mentions the four major aspects which are sig- nificant in pottery treatment. These four are paste, surface finish, decoration, and form. The divisions made by Guthe should be de- rived from the aspects of ceramics most easily treated objectively. This attempt to apply Guthe’s ideal to an actual mass of data was done in the interests of objectivity, inasmuch as culturally significant “wares” cannot yet be safely described for the Southeast. The ob- jective facts are here recorded and are naturally open to any inter- pretations. We have attempted to define certain diagnostic types in such a way that they can be readily recognized by other workers in the field and be used in comparative analysis. Theoretically the application of objectivity to pottery seems ab- surdly simple. In practice it is fraught with difficulity. Difficulties occur in the range of relative hardness, presence of various size aplastic, and color, to mention but a few. To what extent is color significant, if it is at all? (Kidder and Shepard, 1936.) If two sherds have the same decoration, color, and shape, but have different aplastic, are they the same “ware” or are they different “wares”? Objectively the two pieces are separate, but culturally they may be identical. All the difficulties encountered in pottery treatment may be sum- marized by this question: Which is more important, the materials from which pottery is made, or the way the material is treated as seen in the final product? To be objective means that material and treatment are both considered important, with materials having slightly greater weight. Ideally, pottery complexes should be considered as a part of a total of other archeologically associated complexes, and objective dif- ferences minimized as in the Southwest, where workers have em- ployed a more useful method of establishing wares.?* It is to be hoped that additional information will permit a similar treatment by Southeastern workers, but until that time the objective treatment seems advisable.” Wares have been set up on the basis of paste (or aplastic, texture, hardness, and color) and surface finish. Classification is possible on the basis of decorative motif, color, or texture. Interpretive bases, such as the ceremonial or utilitarian functions of the material, have *8 Kidder’s opinion is that body form (specifically rim sections) and decorative technique and motif are of major importance in the order named. 79 Since this section was written, a series of informal conferences on pottery analysis have been held in the Southeast. Se1zLeR-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 41 points in their favor, and may even be more valuable for purposes of determining cultural affiliations. The pottery from the Peachtree component was not significantly different by levels. Certain wares differed slightly in percentage, as is shown in table 2. Classification into four major divisions or “wares” was made. The “wares” A, B, C, and subwares B-1 and C-1, constitute 99 percent of the pottery. Ware D, extremely rare, but strikingly different from A, B, B-1, C, and C-1, will be dis- cussed Jater. WARE A Ware A (pls. 32-37 and figs. 11 and 12), constituting more than 90 percent of all pottery from all levels, is a strong, though rough, ware. The paste has grit aplastic of sand or crushed stone, some- times including both in the same sherd. It has a medium to hard surface, but is not uniform from sherd to sherd; fracture is slightly rough, not flaky or crumbly, though it may be friable if badly over- fired or weathered. Mica flecks are present in paste, but it is not certain that this is intentional. Color is variable from a dull black or gray, through red, to a light brown or tan. The surface finish is plain, smoothed, or polished. If plain, marks of paddle construction are sometimes still visible. Slips of different or self color (mechanical) are sometimes, though rarely, applied. The interior is scraped, smoothed, or, very rarely, polished. Concerning decoration, the techniques include carved-paddle stamping, fine and broad incising, and punctate markings, while 13.9 percent of all sherds are plain. The motifs of the carved paddle de- signs include the check or grid, many types of curvilinear patterns, numerous combinations of the straight-line stamps and “concentric” straight-line designs. The incised and trailed patterns include the scroll, guilloche (intersecting lines, usually curvilinear), the her- ringbone, and hachured triangle designs. Punctate impressions usually occur on the rim and handle, but take on no particular pat- tern. Most common among body shapes are the large, wide-mouthed jars with everted rims. Straight-mouthed jars and bowls, especially the cazuela types (Harrington, 1922, p. 184) occur next in fre- quency. Shallow bowls, both plain and effigy types, water bottles, and plate forms rarely occur. Among the secondary features of the ware are single lug or flange handles, which originate on the rim well below the lip of the vessel. These may be small nodes rather than the “tongue-shaped” lug com- monly used. The flanges are often portions of effigies. The most common handle is the strap, and the allied loop form. These are normally inserted just below the rim and may be plain or have either punctate or incised decoration on them. 42? BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 131 Ware A Oe 1 Straight (eck Jar 2 dar 3 Pow! (Cazuela) 4. Shallow Bou J. Mow? Yate 4 4. Bottle 2. Bowl (Cazuela) 3 Wate 4 Beaker / eJar 2. Bowl Figur 11.—Pottery forms of wares A, B, and C. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 43 Bottoms are usually rounded, although conoidal and flat bottoms occur. Legs are commonly found among the sherds. These are solid and are attached firmly to the base of the vessel. As a rule they are decorated with the same stamp as the vessel. Scalloped rims are occasionally found with a lug or node projection just below the peak of the scallop. Usually there are four scallops. Jar rims, as shown by figures 11 and 12, have an everted lip, with possibly an applied strip of clay just below the lip. This strip is decorated by pinching, leaving alternate peaks and depres- sions; it may be incised or scratched transversely, or unmodified. The lip itself is everted and is seldom decorated. Where no clay has been added below the lip, a single or double series of punctate designs with varying degrees of regularity may occur. The lip is usually finished after the body has been decorated because partially effaced paddle marks can be seen on some of the more poorly finished lips. Bowl rims may be unmodified or thickened. When thickened, the lip is widened proportionally, and perpendicular incisions may occur on the rim, just beiow the outer edge of the lip. On shallow bowls effigy heads of both animal and human types occur in rare cases. The area decorated, if stamped, covers the entire vessel from lip to base. The modified appliqué rim is added after the stamping is done. Incising is always on the upper portion of the vessel. The handles may be incised, as well as the area just below the lp down to the shoulder. Cazuela bowls are usually incised only from lip to shoulder. Shallow bowls may have incising below the lip on the exterior. The remainder is usually plain. WARE B Ware B (pls. 33, B, 40; and fig. 11) differs from ware A in size and uniformity of temper and in possessing a uniform polish. This ware, including about 2.7 percent of the pottery, character- istically contains no aplastic or may contain very fine sand evenly distributed throughout the paste. The paste is very hard and strong, with a straight smooth fracture. Minute fiecks of mica appear in the paste and on the surfaces. Color of paste is usually black. The surface finish is plain, smoothed, and polished, exterior and interior, in some cases developing a glossy black surface. The major decoration is an incised scroll with hachured triangle designs common. Paddle stamping occasionally occurs on the lower portion of the cazuela bow] type of vessels. Attention should be called to the fact that the line of division between wares A and B is difficult to determine. Probably 3 percent of the sherds could be placed in either category, but the ideal sherds of each classification are easily separable. The major differences of wares A and B are found, first, in the aplastic, which is very fine and 44 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Buty 131 (CMCC n¢h AX TYPICAL WARE A RIM SHERDS LEFT SIDE [INTERIOR Typreat WarE AR™ SHERDS &nge-Ptuched 7Gims LEFT Siog [NTER/IOR WIGS TypicaAL WarE C Rm SHERDS LEFT SIOE INTERIOR Ficurn 12.—Typical rim sections of wares A and C, SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 45 uniform, or even lacking in ware B, as opposed to the coarser, less uniformly distributed aplastic of ware A, and, second, in the finish, which is typically a highly polished black, with a preponderance of incised decoration. Ware A varies in excellence of finish and workmanship, while B is uniformly well made. WARE B-1 Ware B-1 (pls. 88 and 39), of which very few examples were found, includes pieces which judged by paste and finish would fit into ware B, but which have been painted. The color is either black-on- orange or red-on-gray. Ware B-1 is then identical with ware B except for painting.*° Water bottles occur. These are usually of ware B-1 with painted design (pl. 88, and fig. 11). The examples of this form are all tech- nically excellent. Beakers were represented only by sherds, so the occurrence of this form is based on fragments entirely. These may actually be neck fragments of large water bottles. Plates are fairly common forms. They may have either plain or scalloped rims. Bottoms are usually rounded. Handles are rare. Lips of the cazuela bow] type are usually not thickened or modified in any way except for rounding and smoothing. WARE C Ware C (pls. 41 and 42, and figs. 11 and 12), about 6.8 percent of all the sherds, is entirely different from the aforementioned wares. It is usually a soft ware, either shell or cell tempered.*t The shell differs in size from fine to coarse. The cell-tempered ware is particularly light in weight, the shell temper being naturally heavier. Texture is not uniform, some sherds tending to crumble, others tending to flake or laminate upon fracture. Mica flecks are not present, as they were in the paste of A, B, and B-1. The color of the paste is usually gray, though dull red occurs. It is suggested that the lack of mica in the paste of ware C indicates a different source of clay for the shell- tempered ware. The mica particles in the paste of wares A and B are probably unintentionally included since all the basic clay in the region has this mica in it, and any pottery clay obtained nearby would, of course, contain a certain percentage of it. The surface of the ware is always plain, smoothed, and often carries a good polish. Roughness, or inequalities of the surface, found on smoothed pieces of ware A, do not occur. A slip may be added which is either self-slip (mechanical) orared. Thisslip is not to be confused with the red or orange paint of ware C-1. %0 This is probably the polychrome ware of Harrington’s pre-Cherokee culture. (Har- rington, 1922, p. 191, fig. 31.) *1 Classed together as the same original aplastic. 46 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (BuLL, 131 Decoration on ware C is uniformly lacking, the vessels being plain and smooth. Rare pieces have paddle-stamped decoration on their lower halves. No examples of incising or scratching were found. Two textile marked sherds were noted. The body forms of ware C include the jar with small orifice, possibly water bottles, plates, shallow bowls, and flattened globular jars with wide mouth and strap handles. An irregular jar type, with a large flaring rim, the diameter of which is larger than any other part of the vessel, was found. The basilar portion of this pot is globular. Its appearance is that of an old-fashioned cuspidor; two such sherds were found. (See Harrington, 1922, pl. 56, opposite p. 185.) In this ware flat bottoms are the rule. The strap handles of the jars originated at the lip, being actually attached to it, and terminated about 114 inches down on the shoulder area. The lip of this type vessel is rarely everted, differing in this respect from the jars of ware A. In one instance effigy features ap- peared as flanges on the side of a shallow bow] sherd. WARE C-1 Ware C-1 (pl. 42, figs. 8-15; pl. 44, figs. 19-21) is subject to the same description as C except for the addition of paint. This painting is usually a wash of red, which covers the entire exterior of the vessel, including the base. If it is a plate form, the interior is also painted, although such forms are rare. A few pieces had designs of red on buff. WARE D Ware D (pl. 44, figs. 1-4, 10-13, 17-18) is an unrelated ware, which does not seem to fit into the general complex. It has grit temper- ing, but instead of this being sand of various coarseness, it is rotten rock or pieces of burned clay. The size of the temper is extremely variable. Such pottery is not strong, and crumbles badly when fractured, In color it is usually red or brown. The most notice- able or useful trait distinguishing this ware is its gritty or friable “feel.” While ware A is often rough to the touch, it is hard and rarely crumbles. Ware D, on the other hand, is so friable that fragments of clay and grit are removed by rubbing the fingers over the sherd. The fabric or textile markings of these sherds are most distinctive. Some are marked by cord paddling; others bear basketry impres- sions; still others have impressions of a rough irregular textile which may be identified as a hair textile. Leaving for a moment the professed “objective” view, it should be stated that this ware D seems to be of a general Woodland type.®* ® Ydentical with Harrington’s Round Grave material, and with sherds called “Baumer” found at lowest levels of the Kincaid site in southern Illinois. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 47 Another type of ware, of which not more than 10 sherds were found, is a tan-gray ware, which is very hard and dense, usually thick, with fairly large grit aplastic. These were included as ware A, although separate note is made of them. It is possible that they constitute a separate ware. In retrospect, it seems that the purposes of this type of classifica- tion would be equally well served had the division into wares been made on the primary basis of aplastic material, further divisions be- ing set up on the basis of type of decoration. Actually this is approximately all that has been done, except that the grit aplastic group has been broken up into divisions which tend to overlap. In any event, the table which follows gives the wares, with percentages of occurrence, with ware A broken up into decoration groups, so that the prevalence of various designs may be observed. The carved paddle stamps are divided into four types. These are curvilinear, which includes any design employing curved lines; grid or check; “concentric” straight lines; and straight-line designs, not concentric, aside from the grid. Classes for plain and undetermined are listed in the tables. The degree of care with which stamped designs were matched varies enormously. Some examples are well matched and clearly stamped; others are not. In some instances wear, erosion, or weather- ing, or even intentional scraping has almost obliterated the stamped design. Some of the larger sherds of the plates show the variation in sharpness of stamp. In other sites of the Southeast these variations in stamped decorations may occur in determinably stratified sites, while here at Peachtree we have a variety of types in a more or less homogeneous situation, as indicated by table 2. It is important to mention that a certain percentage, probably not more than six or eight percent, of ware A was marked by brushing. These sherds, at the time of analysis, were not recognized as having a different decoration and were included in either a miscellaneous or straight-line group. The straight lines of brushing were considered weathered stamping and were consequently not put into a separate class. An analysis of the percentages listed in table 1 produces several suggestive facts. First, the curvilinear stamped paddle design comprises but 8.9 per- cent of the sherds analyzed. The relative scarcity of this decorative motif may be considered diagnostic of a focus inasmuch as it is reputed to occur in greater percentages in other sites, notably to the west. One fruitful line of study, i. e., the relative frequency of this specific decoration, might give a valuable clue to sources of origin. Grid stamping is also fairly rare. 48 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bu. 131 TABLE 1.—Average percentages of wares from all samples Ware A 1 2 3 4 5 6 ae Ware | Ware | Ware Level of origin Con- B Cc D Curvi- Check centric |Straight- Miscel- linear aban straight-| line Plain ; lane- stamp P| line | stamp ous stamp Mound levelsteos 2222 225ce=— 9.5 6.1 2:2 26. 1 15.9 31.1 2.4 6.2 0.1 Below mound level-_-_------- 8.9 9.9 4.5 20.3 13.3 35.4 1.8 4.7 Par Feature 29____..._-.-------- 6.5 16.9 4.0 12.3 5.6 35.2 5.0 13.6 .4 Average percentage of wares SY A |: ae a Re 2.9 8.5 3.3 22.7 13.9 32.8 nt 6.8 50) It is perhaps necessary to point out that the occupation levels in the mound, AA, A, B, C, D, and E, occurring in that order from bottom to top (see pl. 2, B, profile 15), vary markedly from the “mound level” squares proper in sherd percentages. These levels, as before mentioned (p. 22) were strata of charcoal, burned clay, and refuse, which had apparently been swept or dumped off the current top of the mound at various times during mound construction. They indicate possible minor fluctuations of prevailing wares over the later periods of occupation. Most significant of these percentages is the relatively high frequency of wares C and C-1, the shell- tempered wares. While the average for the three entire squares of “mound level,” including surface, is slightly over 2.5 percent, the average of the six levels is about three times as high. This would indicate that in recent times ware C was becoming less common. The effect of these levels on the entire “mound level” group is to raise the percentage of occurence of ware C two and a half times. Ware B, the polished black ware, on the contrary, shows from the six levels about the same percentages as would have been found had only the full depth been sampled, as seen in squares 5R1, 6L1, and 1511. Highly significant 1s the fact that the last two lines of table 2— feature 29 and “above feature 29”—are the high percentages of ware C. We see from the average percentages above, from below mound level, that ware C was more generally found below the mound than above. The percentage of the last two emphasizes this difference. A possible explanation of the great frequency of ware C above feature 29 is that the primary mound covering feature 29 was built in some measure from humus, which contained sherds and other village debris. Obviously then, there were more ware C vessels in use prior to the building of the primary mound than there were subsequently, or the relative high frequency of the ware C sherds would not occur. Another significant point is the much greater percentage of ware D, the “alien” ware, which occurs below the mound. Actually the per- 49 PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. SETZLER—JENNINGS] ‘ON qua0Lag 1810.1. omooocoeoo | g C AeA | | ee ead OOT qt FI 8 2S 98 L’? Zol 0°9 6g 2g ial 0's 0g 8% 9 3'9 98 PIL 7 ToT ¢ £°8 II 87 IT 0°s 4 9°€ 8 0% 9 a4 ras oS OF quaosad | “ONT I-O O 2B M rc aaa So ee ie eee ae Seales 97S t0y SIVA JO 9FRJUedIEd VSBIOAY g 9 Ph Se ae a erm Gta arte ae ae [810.L 86 1 0 || Sa 62 9.1N}vE} BAOG VY 1's ZL} ({{ punow AreuTId) gz 01n4we,7 68 GOL ato tee oo eae ce 1830.1, 19 QCM Alpe eran erenbs [JT SOI lpg. {|S -ees seeps erenbs 1/79 9° 99 a1eNbs {TST 0’ 82 elenbs ZU IT ;J9A0] PUNOM MOTO g 6 981 yk? Ce te eae ae [®}0.L, FI GQ? qEX25e22 asec as ae cae OH [PAo'T A C [0aeT 0°81 TAP acs as get ae agen oa O [PAT 9° Go. wil SRsseteasoso eae nescss [PAoT 4 (iY » dpe eres V [PA0'T rete. | yay | (PSRs VY [0407 era po itp -esr eee ances a orenbs [TST ee orenbs 1/79 ad 09. |rrcaoccecteern oreo oe orenbs 7Yg Juarlad | ‘ONT ae Sera dureys IwouyfiAINDO UISIIO JO BACT La a ee CHG S| a Cele |e =, LCG, leanne SS? Sila Pec BSE aa tick 0's LE (iets LZ | 9°9 6E £°3I 98 0'F 62 6°9T SIT 9% 8 0'SF OFT | 1S 9T o‘&T IF 6'T 9 PLT gg 9° 62 g°St 16 19 £% QIT bP 19 £% 9°91 £9 8'T 8h bGE 9F6 | €'ST 046 | £06 rer | SP 86 66 £23 L@ 8 £ bP €8& | ‘Or 88 8ST SOI | €% 0G 16 62 ea U £ 6% 6L a 0g 6 °S% OL 6% 8 6ST GE axa £% GSE gosh | ZIT sor | IST ctr | 09 0g 9°6 G6 PT £ 82S 6F $02 bP ¥ 1S oF £6 02 62 LT a a a ee ee rz OF T Ts F68 | 6ST 98% | 1°9% seg | 3% 802 | T'9 LES 0 0 (43 rat 9°8 € 9 ‘Té Il 0 0 0 9 Ine i! Lot g TST g b9E (ai 0 0 19 z Tae ¥ € 1s o7 9°11 ST 1°82 LE T’é b CT G 8'P Tt 9°83 9 €'8é Z o°6 é 0 0 96 z Gt 4 ele GB 0°0€ ¥ 8°82 &@ ' 0 0 g% j 9° £ 0 Sa 1% 6 IT Or 6 ‘98 1g o'T I 8° 7 v's OL 88h Ost | IFT oP 8 FT bP 0 0 TIL ce (a T G08 PST | OFT GL re 8ST | 9% €1 g°9 €& o'T 8I G ‘OF 009 =| t'F #g L ‘LT 023 | § ST O6T | 8’Or 6ST qUarsad | ‘ONT |2Ua0L9qT | “ONT | JUIILAT| “ONT |7UAI4Ad | “ONT |7UAILIT | ‘OAT |7UI0L9q | “ONT durs4s dure4s i dareys pa 9} BUTULIEJepUT Ue[d oury-yU31e3g eat i oe Jo x90 Led OBA 9 g 4 g a V O18 AA ayes WOLf pauwonra splays yp fo sishyoun pajivjaq@—Z BIAV 50 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY {[BuLu, 131 centage at any level is negligible, being much less than 1 percent, but the relatively greater percentage found below the mound shows the priority of this ware and its later decline. Unless the analysis of the sherds is in error, there are only three such sherds above the base of the mound, while a dozen were encountered below the floor and the primary mound. Reference to the provenience of sherds on plate 44 shows that there were more than three sherds reported from above the mound floor, but the percentage would probably be no more than is shown for 6L1. These sherds probably were in- cluded in the upper levels through scooping up of soil for the mound. Other percentages as to frequency of various motifs are manifest in the condensed table. Ware A shows the same distribution of fre- quencies at all levels. It is of significance, then, that the Peachtree site shows a certain gradation of ceramic wares from bottom to top. Shell-tempered ware C seems to have been more common in the earlier history of the site. This is also true of the polished black fine ware B and B-1. Certain “alien” sherds, ware D, occur more frequently in the lower levels. It is very interesting to observe that these percentages check Har- rington’s (1922) sequence of cultures most admirably, particularly when the wares B and B-1 are identified with Harrington’s poly- chrome ware of the “pre-Cherokee,” and ware D with that of the “Round Grave Peoples.” Interpretation of the above comments will, of course, vary. We feel that it indicates a developing acculturation of a group, rather than evidence of a series of occupations. This ceramic data must be re- garded as but one bit of evidence indicative of shift of culture as op- posed to the homogeneous nature and uniform occurrence of other artifacts (except, of course, European artifacts). ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Tt should be stated in beginning the archeological comparisons that the authors are well aware of the difficulty of treating archeologicai data in a purely objective way. In line with the dissatisfaction re- sultant from the early analysis of archeological data, recent workers have selected “significant” traits and considered these traits as single, independent, and of equal importance (Deuel, 1985; Cole and Deuel, 1987; Griffin, 1935). They have handled these traits statistically. This attempt toward scientific detachment is subject to criticism on two points. First, traits selected as significant are determined sub- jectively through long experience with various archeological materials, and are the traits which seem to the investigator to be significant. It is also noteworthy that workers, with equal opportunities for study, do not concur with regard to the significant traits. Given a similar SErzLeR-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. dl series of artifacts and the necessary data, the investigators will obtain a different list of significant traits. The statistical results obtained through handling the two sets of data might conceivably produce diversified cultural answers. The second point is that traits, set up as indicated above, are not always of equal weight in cultural deter- mination, and cannot, therefore, be handled as independent units of equal value. This type of evaluation will be the most essential factor and yet the most difficult to obtain. To evaluate properly the traits which shall be considered significant will require considerable data, study, and experience, both in the field and laboratory. This minor criticism is not intended to minimize the importance of such analysis, but to point out some of the problems inherent in such an approach, The traits used in the table included in Appendix B were selected on much the same basis as those by Deuel and Griffin, although the table is not carried as far as that of other workers reanalyzing archeo- logical material. This procedure has been followed so that the data may be used for reference in establishing the correct cultural affilia- tions for this site. Many of the traits listed as diagnostic will be regarded as trivial by some; others will feel that more important traits have been omitted. An effort has been made, however, to record everything in the report, so that those interested in the an- alysis of material traits for comparison or classification will be adequately served. (See Appendix B.) At the same time we feel that the more general conclusions should not be so involved with minutiae that the nonspecialist wiil lose interest in the more general problems. Reference should be made to M. R. Harrington’s work on the Ten- nessee River between the mouths of the Little Tennessee and Hiwas- see Rivers (1922). He described three leveis of cultural occupation: 1, The lowest level, which he termed “Round Grave Culture,” charac- terized by stemmed arrowpoints, crude basket-marked pottery of ovoid, pointed-bottom shape, steatite vessels, polished gorgets, bone work, canine tooth pendants, and certain burial customs; 2, “Pre- Cherokee,” which he classifies by triangular projectile points, celts, much shell, partial cremation, polychrome pottery; and 3, “Modern Cherokee,” whose artifacts include those of “pre-Cherokee” type, especially pottery. Harrington’s identification of historic Cherokee seems valid, since it is based on historic data. The “Round Grave People” he places in the “Algonkin” category; the “pre-Cherokee” he deals with as a probable “Siouan” tribe; the “Cherokee” proper as a branch of the northern Iroquoian stock. It is rather significant that the material reported by Harrington as belonging to three distinct horizons occurred in all levels at the Peach- tree site. For example: Steatite vessel fragments occurred under, in, 52 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bu u, 131 and on the surface of the mound. Stemmed projectile points and tri- angular points occurred in every level. Pottery typical of Round Grave culture occurred (Jess than 0.5 of 1 percent) both above and below the mound level, as was true of all the pottery types encountered. Also a few polychrome pieces (pl. 44) were found below the mound in a refuse pit at Peachtree. A few fragments also occurred in the mound fill. These facts are susceptible to two explanations: First, that the Cherokee at Peachtree had a cultural combination of all these elements, with a predominating percentage of the material used by the historic Cherokee. Second, that the earliest inhabitants of the site were comparable to Harrington’s “Round Grave People,” and that the Cherokee, displacing them, employed such artifacts as they left and lost them in the mound during its construction; or in gathering up surface material to build the mound, artifacts of this earlier culture (Woodland in type) were left in the mound associated with more recent artifacts typical of the Cherokee. Thus we have two possible situations at Peachtree. First, a cul- ture exhibiting, archeologically, a contemporaneous blend or mix- ture of Mississippi and Woodland traits, which must be accepted as a cultural manifestation or, second, we have two cultural levels represented by artifacts, which were so mixed during aboriginal occupation as to leave an apparently homogeneous site. The latter explanation seems feasible if we consider that the various elements of Woodland and Mississippi type recorded by Harrington were distinct as to level but lacking in definite aboriginal strata. On the other hand, it seems possible in view of known facts of cultural dynamics that at the Peachtree site there existed a culture in which certain elements appeared which are not culturally the same in origin. Whatever the explanation, Appendix B (see p. 66) shows the close similarity between seven sites, three of which are known to have been Cherokee at one time—Hiwassee Island, Etowah, and Nacoochee. It is also possible that the three levels described by Harrington should be considered as a Cherokee complex. If so, the “Round Grave People” typify the culture used by the Cherokee upon their arrival in the Tennessee Valley; the pre-Cherokee might be a transitional stage; while the Cherokee represents the final adoption of the general Southeastern pattern. This is particularly interesting when we realize that Harrington’s stratigraphic differences are per- centages and frequencies rather than discernible, vertical stratifica- tion separated by sterile layers. Vertical stratification, where an unbroken horizon of sterile earth— due to erosion, flood deposits, etc.—separates one archeological level from another, quite obviously is not being considered here. Such stratification, provided it represents two distinct habitation surfaces, Serzier-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 53 not a refuse dump, would be undeniable evidence that the objects in the lowest stratum represent the material culture of the first inhabit- ants and the artifacts in the upper stratum—provided they are not comparable—represent a culture more recent and unrelated to the lower horizon. On the other hand, it must be stated that we are by no means con- vinced that Woodland and Mississippi cultural traits are always readily distinguishable or that the presence of stemmed arrowheads and cord-marked pottery in combination with a variety of vessel shapes and a rich industry in shell and bone always indicates a series of culturally unrelated occupations. Work done by Greenman (1932, pp. 493-502) in his analysis of the Adena phase points toward a genetic relationship of Cherokee with the Adena and Hopewell archeological horizons. In this section of his report Greenman refers to Harrington’s work at Lenoir, Bussell’s, and Hiwassee Island. He points out that each of Harring- ton’s three cultures have certain Adena-like characteristics. These include: Sandstone rasp or smoothing stone, pointed bottom vessels, bone awls, stemmed projectile points, gorgets, suspended animal teeth, celts, Olivella shell beads, and stone disks. On these and other traits Greenman is inclined to label Adena type mounds as Cherokee in origin. Greenman’s claims must be accepted with caution in view of the controversy concerning diagnostic traits of the “Adena” phase. In any event, the traits employed to illustrate the possible genetic rela- tion between manifestations of the Cherokee archeological cultures and the Adena complex are actually very general traits which have widespread distribution and may do little more than indicate conformity to a general pattern. Reference to Appendix A will show that at the Peachtree site a few basic Woodland determinants and traits are present. These include predominantly flexed burials with grave goods rare (especially pot- tery), flint core or coarse flake used in projectile points, stemmed and notched points common, grooved axes, and occasional conoidal vessels present. Mississippi traits are much more in evidence. These include ex- tended burials accompanied (when grave goods are found) by orna- ments, mounds built for substructures, discoidals abundant, grooved axes (rare), equal arm pipes, awls from ulnae, fishhooks, numerous shell beads, copper jacketing of wood, whetstones, and milling stones. Flattened globular vessel forms of considerable variety and numerous other characteristic traits exist (Cole and Deuel, 1937). These traits, the majority of which are Mississippi, indicate that a mixture of basic determinant elements appears at the Peachtree site. This is important when we realize that these differences occur only when statistical comparisons of the specimens are made. 54 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLy. 131 | It should be mentioned that pottery, especially polychrome and carved-paddle stamped ware, has been thought by students to be of such general Southeastern distribution and so uniform as to pre- clude its specific use as a cultural determinant (Stirling, 1982, p. 23). Recent emphasis upon the differentiation of carved-paddle stamped design elements has indicated that clearly demonstrable divisions, referable to chronologically separate horizons, can be successfully made. Heretofore only the more specialized forms, such as the dis- tinctive engraved black ware from Moundville, Ala., have been recognized as diagnostic traits within the Southeast. It is felt by some that the stone graves of Nacoochee and Etowah — indicate different cultural periods, even though pottery and other artifacts in association are net observably different. Single — extraneous culture elements or traits recognizable as intrusive do not indicate displacement of one group by another with intervals of various occupations. It is much more lkely that these anachron-_ istic forms imply a certain degree of cultural contact and an exchange of ideas or specimens rather than tribal oscillations. For example, the stone graves of Nacoochee are recorded for the lower levels or primary mound structure. At Peachtree they were intrusive into the current surface of the mound, although none contained any articles © of European manufacture. Harrington reports no stone cyst graves | from Hiwassee Island. Aside from this difference of level, no apparent differences between Nachoochee and Peachtree cysts are observable. It would seem more logical to conclude that the idea of lining a grave with stone reached these groups at various times or was adopted as part of the burial complex at different times, rather than that the two sites were at one time under actual domina- tion of another group. There is a time difference indicated by the relative positions of these stone-lined graves when we compare the two sites. Assuming that the knowledge of stone-grave burials, quite common in the Tennessee-Cumberland area, came from the north, it would have touched Peachtree first, reaching Nacoochee later. Since the Peachtree Mound was completed before the four stone graves were intrusively placed in it, while the graves at Nacoochee were much lower and were sunk into the primary mound, it is safe to assume that the Peachtree Mound was com- pleted before the secondary mound at Nacoochee was constructed. Although the cysts are more numerous along the Tennessee and Cumberland Valleys, they are by no means lacking as far west as the Mississippi River, as far north as Quincy, Ill, and as far south as Cartersville, Ga. It is true that the cysts occur at different levels (see Nacoochee, Etowah, and Peachtree), but their value as time indicators is debatable. ; SerztER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 909 Pipes from the Peachtree Mound belong to two general types: The elbow type and the stemless bowl type. Numerous significant varia- tions exist among the elbow type, i. e., stems of different length, bowl at right and obtuse angles, and general lack of decorative treatment on the bowl. The bowls of stemless pipes are generally crude and heavy, the exception being a few well-made efiigy forms. Similar pipes are recorded for the other components. The elbow pipe and the massive stone efligy pipe are typical of the entire east- ern half of America, and as such would not serve as focal determi- nants (West, 1934). The variations on the stem treatments, such as shape, presence of band or collar, are felt to be diagnostic (see Appen- dix B). The pottery forms are different from the stone specimens only in their more ornately decorated bowls. These decorative bowl treatments are also deemed an important diagnostic trait. The closest correspondences between the traits of Peachtree, Hiwas- see Island, Nacoochee, and Norris Basin sites 10 and 19 are shown in Appendix B. The specific correspondence between these sites 1s sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the five sites represent a cultural unit or focus. The correspondence with certain levels of Etowah is obvious after a comparison with pottery from the village site. The original statement of the hypothesis upon which this report is based was that the Peachtree site 1s Cherokee in origin, and that the culture artifactually represented there is typically Cherokeean. As the idea has been scrutinized from various angles, the conclusion is forced that though this site is Cherokee, no generalizations as to the whole of Cherokee culture can be made. The difficulty of the histori- cal approach is once more demonstrated. A comparison of all arche- ological manifestations definitely known as Cherokee, when checked against Timberlake’s and Adair’s accounts of the ethnology of the Cherokee, indicates the extreme variation in the cultural objects em- ployed. It is clear that the Cherokee, as a linguistic or tribal unit, employed a wide variety of nonperishable objects. That their nonmaterial culture was perhaps more uniform is possible, but not proved. Material objects from this site (except pipes) indi- cate a Cherokee “pattern” not noticeably different from adjacent Southeastern sites which were historically occupied by Indians whose social organizations and language set them apart from the historic Cherokee. Our conclusion, then, is that at this community, Peach- tree Mound and village, a Cherokee group had a material culture which at the present time would be interpreted as a combination of Woodland and Mississippi elements, the same admixture which seems to constitute the nucleus of a general Southeastern pattern. 247600—41 5 56 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (BULL. 131 The cultural relation of this site to others must be determined on the basis of objects and inferred nonmaterial practices. It is un- denied that such relationships as are postulated on the basis of “objective” traits will show relationship and contact, but it will not and cannot enable the research workers to determine tribal classifica- tions. This, from the historical point of view, is the major weakness of the classificatory scheme now under development. The system must be used with a full realization of its limitation as a historical tool. It appears that Hiwassee Island, Nacoochee, and Peachtree can be considered historical Cherokee sites. But both Cherokee and Creek occupation are recorded for Hiwassee Island, while Etowah has also been shown to have had Creek occupation. The chart of trait correspondence shows considerable similarity between the latter two sites, yet we know that each had more than one linguistic and tribal occupation. A situation of this kind, where representatives of two or more tribal groups used similar material objects, forces the conclusion that they belong to the same prehistoric culture (pat- tern). In other words, irrespective of tribal distribution, we can say with certainty that a more or less uniform material culture existed. The basic unity of this area is shown by the persistence of the fol- lowing traits: The use of a carved paddle to decorate pottery vessels; shell utensils and ornaments; celts and the lack of grooved axes; elevated town houses or ceremonial buildings; erection of mounds at river banks; association of stemmed and triangular projectile points ; and use of either shell or grit aplastic in the same type of earthen- ware vessels. To break this broad region into smaller divisions is beyond the scope of the summary. That this can be done eventually is shown by the analysis of the Norris Basin by Webb (1938, pp. 363-882). His analysis deals with cultural remains which are nearly identical; diag- nostic traits, such as pottery rim treatment and handles, or the size of log employed in town house structures serve as differential deter- minants. Such minor points of difference are not necessarily valuable as diagnostic traits. Only when, as shown by Webb, definite correla- tions exist, can they be assumed significant. His report points the way in which further understanding of the Southeast is to be attained. Further excavation and further analysis, if done as accurately as Webb has begun, will permit subdivision of Southeastern cultures into cate- gories of various magnitude. Webb’s report (1938) also corroborates the conclusions of this report, in that it suggests historical connections, although he labels them as “Speculations.” He states on page 871 that “. . . it becomes at once apparent that it is not easy to determine what traits are definitely diagnostic of Cherokee material culture,” and again on page 375, “Because of this widespread distribution of SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. ar many so-called Cherokee traits, it may well be doubted whether it will ever be possible to definitely fix on a list of traits defining Chero- kee material culture.” This agrees precisely with conclusions arrived at independently in this report. CONCLUSIONS By way of brief conclusion it can be said that the Peachtree site is a component in which both Woodland and Mississippi traits occur simultaneously, blended or fused to make a culturally homogeneous site. It has a temporal range from 1830, or thereabouts, back to pre- white contact, and was probably occupied by Cherokee during this entire period. Since the absolute identification of the builders of the site may always remain questionable, we would hesitate to label the component as pure Cherokee, or even to assign it unequivocably to any linguistic or ethnic group. The objective classification of culture as developed by Midwest archeologists is, through its present incompleteness, not clearly appli- cable to this region, but, following the methodology of this group, we assign the Peachtree Mound to a focus including Nacoochee, Stalling’s Island (upper level), and Peachtree. This focus might also include the Etowah manifestation, Hiwassee Island, and Norris Basin sites 10 and 19. Present knowledge does not warrant allocation of these sites to the larger units in the classificatory system. The complete lack of such data as the number of inhabitants, the number of individual dwellings, methods and extent of horticultural occupations and dependence is discouraging when viewed from the larger and more general anthropological point of view. This site has given us only a glimpse of the life of the people who inhabited it for a few hundred years. Satisfactory reconstructions and conclusions can- not be made, yet the descriptive report and objective treatment of the material may, we hope, form another link for eventually rounding out the aboriginal picture in the general Southeast. BIBLIOGRAPHY ADAIR, JAMES 1775. History of the American Indians. London. AIMES, H. H. S. 1919. The Etowah Mound Group. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 94-98. Barrett, S. A. 1988. Ancient Aztalan. Bull. Pub. Mus. Milwaukee, vol. 13. BARTRAM, WILLIAM 1792. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, east and west Florida. London. 1793. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, east and west Florida. Dublin. Brown, C. 8. 1926. Archeology of Mississippi. Miss. Geol. Surv., University, Miss. BUSHNELL, D. I., JR. 1919. Native villages and village sites east of the Mississippi. Eur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 69. 1920. Native cemeteries and forms of burial east of the Mississippi. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 71. 1922. Villages of the Algonquian, Siouan, and Caddoan tribes west of the Mississippi. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 77. 1927. Burials of the Algonquian, Siouan, and Caddoan tribes west of the Mississippi. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 83. CLAFLIN, W. H., JR. 1931. The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Pap. Pea- body Mus. Amer. Archaeol. and Ethnol., vol. 14, No. 1. Ciark, W. M. 1878. Antiquities of Tennessee. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1877, pp. 269- 276. CoLBuRN, WILLIAM B. 1936. The use of beveled discoidals in northern Georgia. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1-6. Cote, F.-C., and DEUEL, T. 1937. Rediscovering Illinois. Univ. Chicago Press. CoLiins, Henry B., Jr. 1932, Excavations at a prehistoric Indian village site in Mississippi. Proce. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 79, art. 32, pp. 1-22. CONFERENCE ON SOUTHERN PRE-HISTORY 1932. Report of the conference on southern pre-history, held under the auspices of the Division of Anthropology and Psychology, Committee on State Archaeological Surveys, Nat. Res. Council. Washington. Cornelius, ELIAS 1818. Report on Etowah Mound. Silliman’s Amer. Journ. Sci. and Art, Ist ser., Vol. 1, pp. 822-824. De Soro Expmpirion Commission. See UNITED States Dr Soto EXpmpirion CoMMISSION. 58 SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 59 DsveEt, T. 1935. Basie cultures of the Mississippi Valley. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 387, No. 3, pt. 1, pp. 429-445. 1937. (See Cog, F.-C., and DEUEL, T.) Barty Man. See MAcCurpy, Grorce GRANT, Eprror. FEWKES, J. W. 1924. Preliminary archeological explorations at Weeden Island, Florida. Smithsonian Mise. Coll, vol. 76, No. 18. 1924. Archeological field-work in Florida. Explorations and Field-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1923, pp. 88-98. 1925. Prehistoric aboriginal culture of the Gulf States. Explorations and Vield-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1924, pp. 92-108. 1928, Aboriginal wooden objects from southern Florida. Smithsonian Misc. Coll, vol. 80, No. 9. Forp, JAMES A. 1935. Ceramic decoration sequence at an old Indian village site near Sicily Island, Louisiana. Louisiana Geol. Surv., Dept. Conservation, Anthrop. Study No.1. New Orleans. 1936. Analysis of Indian village site collections from Louisiana and Mis- sissippi. Louisiana Geol. Surv., Dept. Conservation, Anthrop. Study No. 2. New Orleans. FOWKE, GERARD 1910. Antiquities of central and southeastern Missouri. Bur. Amer. Ethnol, Bull. 37. 1922. Archeological investigations. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 76. 1928. Archeological investigations—II, 44th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Hthnol., 1926-27, pp. 3899-540. GREENMAN, E. F. 1982. The Adena culture. Ohio Arch, and Hist. Quart., vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 411-5238. Grirrin, J. B. 1935. An analysis of the Fort Ancient culture. Mus. Anthrop., Univ. Mich. Notes, No. 1. Harrington, M. R. 1922. Cherokee and earlier remains on upper Tennessee River. Ind. Notes and Monogr., No. 24, Mus, Amer. Ind., Heye Foundation. Hawks, F. L. 1858. History of North Carolina. 2 vols. Fayetteville, N. C. Heyer, Grorce G. 1919. Certain mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. Contr, Mus. Amer, ind., Heye Foundation, vol. 5, No. 3. Heve, G. G., Honcs, Ff. W., and Pepper, G. H. 1918. The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contr. Mus. Amer. Ind., Heye Foun- dation, voi. 4, No. 3. HoLMeEs, WILLIAM H. 1884. Prehistoric textile fabrics of the United States, derived from im- pressions on pottery. 3d Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1881-82, pp. 393—425. 1886. Ancient pottery of the Mississippi Valley. 4th Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1882-83, pp. 861-436. 1886. Prehistoric textile art of the eastern United States. 13th Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1891-92, pp. 8-46. 60 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY {Burv, 131 HoiLMEs, WILLIAM H.—Continued. 1908. Aboriginal pottery of the eastern United States. 20th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1898-99, pp. 1-201. Howarp, Enaar B. 1935. Evidences of early man in North America. Mus. Journ., Univ. Pa., vol. 24, Nos. 2-3. 19386. An outline of the problem of man’s antiquity in North America. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 38, No. 3, pt. 1, pp. 3944138. 1936. Early man in America. Proc, Amer, Phil. Soc., vol 76, No. 3. JONES, CHARLES C. 1861. Monumental remains of Georgia. Pt. 1. Savannah. 1869. Ancient tumuli in Georgia. Worcester. 1873. Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the Georgia Tribes. New York. 1878. Aboriginal structures in Georgia. Ann, Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1877, pp. 278-289. 1886. A primitive storehouse of the Creek Indians. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1885. pp. 900-901. Kerr, W. C, 1871. [Note on mound in Macon County, North Carolina, Tennessee River Valley.] In article by Col. C, Whittlesey. Amer. Naturalist, vol. 5, pp. 543-544. Kipper, A. V., and SHEPARD, A. O. 1936. The pottery of Pecos. Vol. 2. Pap. Southwestern Exped., No. 7, Dept. Archeol., Phillips Acad., Andover, Mass. Kina, WARREN R. 1925. Water resources of Tennessee ... Tenn. Dept. Eduec., Div. Geol., Bull. 34. Kron, F. J. 1875. Antiquities of Stanly and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1874, pp. 389-890. LAWSON, JOHN 1860. History of Carolina, containing the exact description and natural history of that country. London, 1714. Reprint, Raleigh. 1808. History of Carolina. Charlotte. LEDERER, JOHN 1672. Travels in Carolina and Virginia. Trans. from Latin by Sir W. Talbot. London, MacCorpy, G. G. 1915. The Wesleyan University collection of antiquities from Tennessee. Proc. 19th Internat. Congr. Amer., pp. 75-95. Washington. 1915. Some mounds of eastern Tennessee. Proc. 19th Internat. Congr. Amer. pp. 59-74. Washington. 1937. Early Man. International Symposium. Edited by George Grant MacCurdy. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. MaArcH, BENJAMIN 1934. Standards of pottery description. Mus. Anthrop.. Univ. Mich., Oce. Contr., No. 3. McKern, W. C. 1934. Certain cultural classification problems in middle western archeology. Nat. Res. Council, Circular Ser., No. 17. Ann Arbor, Mich. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 61 MOooNeEY, JAMES 1889. 1894. 1899. 1900. 1912. Cherokee mound building. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 2, pp. 167-171. The Siouan tribes of the East. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 22. The end of the Natchez. Amer, Anthrop.,n.s., vol. 1, No 3, pp. 510-521. Myths of the Cherokee. 19th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1897-98, pt. 1. [Article] Cherokee. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 30, pt. 1, pp. 245-249. Moore, CLARENCE B. 1892-94. Certain shell heaps of the St. John’s River, Florida, hitherto unex- 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. . Certain aboriginal remains of the northwest Florida coast, pt. 2. plored. Jn Amer. Naturalist, vols. 26-28. (Reprinted as a separate.) Certain sand mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sei. Philadelphia, vol. 10. Certain sand mounds of Duval County, Florida. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 10. Additional mounds of Duval and of Clay Counties, Florida. Privately printed, Philadelphia. Certain aboriginal mounds of the Georgia coast. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. Certain aboriginal mounds of the coast of South Carolina. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. Certain aboriginal remains of the Alabama River. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. Certain antiquities of the Florida west coast. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. Certain aboriginal remains of the northwest Flerida coast, pt. 1. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. 9 Journ, Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, vol. 12. . Certain aboriginal mounds of the central Florida west coast. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 12. . Certain aboriginal remains of the Black Warrior River (Moundville). Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philade!phia, vol. 18. . Moundville revisited. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 13. . Certain mounds of Arkansas and of Mississippi. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 18. . Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel- phia, vol. 14. . Antiquities of the St. Francis, White and Black Rivers. Jeurn. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 14. . Some aboriginal sites on Mississippi River. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 14. . Some aboriginal sites on Red River. Journ. Acad, Nat. Sci. Phila- delphia, vol. 14. . Some aboriginal sites in Louisiina and in Arkansas. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 16. . Aboriginal sites on Tennessee River. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila- delphia, vol. 16. . Some aboriginal sites on Green River, Kentucky. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 16. . The northwestern Florida coast revisited. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sei. Philadelphia, vol. 16. 62 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL, 131 MooreHeEAD, W. K. 1932. Etowah Papers. Exploration of the Etowah site in Georgia. Dept. Archaeol., Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. Myer, W. HE. 1894. An old Shawnee town in Tennessee. Archeologist, vol. 2, pp. 6-13. Waterloo, Indiana. 1915. The remains of primitive man in Cumberland Valley, Tennessee. Proc. 19th Internat. Congr. Amer., pp. 96-102. Washington. 1921. Archeological explorations in Tennessee. Explorations and Field- Work Smithsonian Inst. 1920, pp. 113-120. 1924. Archeological Field-Work in Tennessee. Explorations and Field-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1923, pp. 109-118. 1928. Two prehistoric villages in Middle Tennessee. 4ist Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1919-24, pp. 485-614. 1928. Indian trails of the Southeast. 42nd Ann. Rep. Bur, Amer. Ethnol.,, 1924-25, pp. 727-857. Nexson, N. C. 1918. Chronology of Florida. Anthrop. Pap., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 22, pt. 2, pp. 77-108. 1936. The antiquity of man in America in the light of archeology. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1935, pp. 471-506. PEABODY, CHARLES. 1910. The exploration of mounds in North Carolina. Amery. Anthrop., n. S., vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 425-433. POWELL, J. W. 1891. Indian linguistic families of America North of Mexico. 7th Ann, Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1885-86, pp. 1-142. Roserts, FRANK H. H., JR. 1934. Description of Folsom point and illustration. Literary Digest, p. 18, New York City. 1935. A Folsom complex. Preliminary report on investigations at the Lindenmeier Site in Northern Colorado. Smithsonian Mise. Coll, vol. 94, No. 4. 1936. Recent discoveries of the material culture of Foisom Man. Amer. Naturalist, vol. 70, No. 729, pp. 887-345. 1987. New World Man. Amer. Antiquity, vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 172-177. 1937. The Folsom problem in American Archeology. Early Man, pp. 158-162. Philadelphia. (Reprinted in Ann, Rep. Smithsonian Inst. for 19388, pp. 581-546. 18389.) Royce, C. C. 1887. The Cherokee Nation of Indians. 5th Ann. Rep. Bur. Hthnol., 1883-84, pp. 129-378. SETZLeR, FRANK M, 1933. Pottery of the Hopewell type from Louisiana. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. &2, art. 22, pp. 1-21. 1934. A phase of Hopewell Mound Builders in Louisiana. Explorations and Field-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1933, pp. 38-40. Serzuer, F. M., and Strona, W. D. 1936. Archeology and relief. Amer. Antiquity, vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 301-309. SHETRONE, H. C. 1986. The Folsom phenomena as seen from Ohio. Reprinted from Quart. Ohio State Archeol. and Hist. Soc., pp. 3-19. Columbus, Ohio. SurzLer-JenNiNcs] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 63 SKINNER, ALANSON 1921. Notes on Iroquois archeology. Ind. Notes and Monogr., Misc. No. 18, Mus. Amer. Ind., Heye Foundation. SMITH, C. D. 1877. Ancient mica mines in North Carolina. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1876, pp. 441-443. SPAINHOourR, J. MAsSon 1873. Antiquities in Lenoir County, North Carolina. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1871, pp. 404-406. Speck, F. G. 1907. Some outlines of aboriginal culture in the Southeastern States. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 287-295. 1909. Ethnology of the Yuchi Indians. Anthrop. Pubi., Univ. Pa. Mus., Vol 1,.No. 4; 1916. Remnants of the Machapunga Indians of North Carolina. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 18, n. s., No. 2, pp. 271-276. 1920. Decorative art and basketry of the Cherokee. Bull. Pub. Mus. City Milwaukee, vol. 2, No. 2. 1935. Tutelo rituals: Aborginal Carolina cultural history revealed in Cana- dian research. Bull. Archeol. Soc. North Carolina, vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-7. Stiruine, M. W. 1932. The prehistoric southern Indians. Conference on Southern Prehistory, Nat. Res. Council, pp. 20-31. 1935. Smithsonian archeological projects conducted under the Federal Emer- gency Relief Administration, 1933-34. Ann Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1934, pp. 371-400. Strone, W. D. 1936. Anthropological theory and archaeological fact. Essays in Anthro- pology, pp. 859-370, Univ. Calif. Press. Swanton, JOHN R. 1911. Indian tribes of the lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 43. 1822. Early history of the Creek Indians and their neighbors. Bur, Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 73. 1928. The interpretation of aboriginal mounds by means of Creek Indian customs. Ann Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1927, pp. 495-506. 1928. Social organization and social usages of the Indians of the Creek Con- federacy. 42nd Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1924-25, pp. 23-472. 1928. Religious beliefs and medical practices of the Creek Indians. 42nd Ann. Rep. Bur, Amer. Ethnol., 1924-25, pp. 473-672. 1928. Aboriginal culture of the Southeast. 42nd Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1924-25, pp. 673-726. 1929. Myths and tales of the Southeastern Indians. Bur. Amer. Ethnol Bull. 88. 1982. Ethnological value of the De Soto narratives. Amer. Anthrop., n.S., vol, 34, No. 4, pp. 570-590. 1985. Tracing De Soto’s route. Explorations and Field-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1984, pp. 77-80. 1935. Notes on the cultural province of the Southeast. Amer, Anthrop., n. s., vol. 87, No. 3, pt. 1, pp. 373-385. } 64 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (BULL, 131 _ THOMAS, CYRUS 1890. The Cherokees in pre-Columbian times. Fact and Theory Papers. | New York. 1891. Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 12. 1894. Report on the mound explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. 12th Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1890-91, pp. 3-730. THRUSTON, G. P. 1890. The antiquities of Tennessee. Cincinnati, Ohio. TIMBERLAKE, HENRY 1765. Memoirs of Lieut. Timberlake, London. UNITED STATES DE Soto EXPEDITION COMMISSION 1939. Final report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. H. R. Doe. No. 71. 76th Congr., 1st Sess. WALKER, W. M. 1936. The Troyville mounds, Catahoula Parish. La. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 1138. WEBB, WILLIAM S., 1988. An archaeological survey of the Norris Basin in eastern Tennessee. Bur. Amer, Ethnol. Bull. 118. WEST, GEORGE A. 1934. Tobacco, pipes, and smoking customs of the American Indians. Bull. Pub. Mus. City of Milwaukee, vol. 17, pts. 1 and 2. WILLOUGHBY, C. C. 1932. History and symbolism of the Muskhogeans. Etowah Papers, pt. 2 pp. 7-67, Dept. Archeol., Phillips Acad., Andover, Mass. WINTEMBERG, W. J. 1981. Distinguishing characteristics of Algonkian and Iroquoian cultures. Ann. Rep. Nat. Mus. Canada 1929, Bull. 67, pp. 65-126. i APPENDIX A DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS FROM PEACHTREE The following basic determinants, usually considered as forming a part of the diagnostic traits of the Woodland pattern, were recovered at the Peachtree site: Burials predominantly flexed; grave goods lacking or only a few in number; pottery vessels rarely buried with the body; some of the pottery tempered with crushed rock or sand; projectile points chipped from a core or a coarse flake, size ranging from medium to large, mostly made by primary flaking; a few indicated secondary chipping; both notched (diagonally) and stemmed points. The following traits from the Peachtree site are considered diag- nostic of the Mississippi pattern : The mound used primarily as a substructure; ornaments and in- signia associated with burials; discoidal stones; elbow type of pipes, both plain and effigy; fishhooks fashioned out of bone, copper, and shell; numerous beads made from cut and whole shells; carved wooden objects overlaid with copper; grooved ax (rare) ; whetstones and flat mealing stones present. Pottery was quite abundant, consist- ing of a variety in form and decoration; tempering of crushed shell; fine and medium textures in paste; well controlled firing technique; fairly high degree of technical perfection; basal portions of vessels globular or modified to be almost flat; effigy heads used as decora- tion; walls thin to medium in thickness; a few strap handles, more lugs and collars; area of decoration varied considerably. (See Pot- tery, analysis of different wares, pp. 39-50.) If these and other traits were to be further analyzed we might find that a large amount would fall into a Lower Mississippi phase, with about two traits fitting into an Upper Mississippi phase, and one in the Middle Mississippi phase. However, we fee! it is too early to establish such general classification. More sites must be carefully excavated and analyzed in order to establish the necessary traits to form a series of components, foci, aspects, and phases, be- fore such a site as Peachtree can be correctly placed into the classi- ficatory system. The complete summary of all traits from this site, which can be used eventually for establishing the correct cultura! aspect and focus, is hsted under Appendix B. 65 APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF TRAITS FROM PEACHTREE AND SEVEN OTHER SITES In table 3 all material culture traits are grouped in various cate- gories and the actual number of specimens found at the Peachtree site is given. It also includes a comparison of these traits with similar specimens as reported by other investigators from seven other com- parable sites in this general area (pottery vessels did not receive as detailed an analysis as might be desired) : Vacoochee, The Nacooche Mound in Georgia, by G. G. Heye, F. W. Hodge, and G. H. Pepper (Contr. Mus. Amer. Ind., Heye Foundation, vol. 4, No. 3, 1918); Htowah, Exploration of the Etowah Site in Georgia, by W. K. Moore- head, et al. (Dept. Archaeol., Phillips Acad., Andover, Mass., 1932) ; Stalling’s Island, The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia, by W. H. Claflin, Jr. (Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. and Kthnol., Harvard Univ., vol. 14, No. 1, Cambridge, Mass., 1931) ; Holly- wood, Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. by Cyrus Thomas (Twelfth Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol., 1890-91, pp. 317-326, 1894) ; Hiwassee, Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee River, by M. R. Harrington (Ind. Notes and Monogr., No, 24, Mus. Amer. Ind., Heye Foundation, pp. 93-146, 1922) ; Morris Basin, sites Nos. 19 and 10, An Archaelogical Survey of the Norris Basin in Hastern Tennessee, by William 8S. Webb (Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 118, 1938). Specimens not made by the American Indians but which definitely indicate contact with European traders, such as glass beads; iron knives, tools, or vessels; brass or copper utensils, are not included in these tables. These objects serve primarily as time indicators rather than traits which can be used for aboriginal culture comparisons. Most of the protohistoric and historic sites in the Southeast would probably contain much the same type of European trade objects. 66 SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 67 TABLE 3.—Material culture traits from Peachtree site compared with 7 oiher sites belonging to the same general culture } Culture traits MOUND STRUCTURE ~ Pyramidal mound_...........-...-.--.-_--+. WeAt Dank Of Slreams....222-22. =. ss22- 52 cee a Bulidingsion top. 2-5 -224-- 2. none e nee eee” . Erected on prepared clay floor______-__-__-__- . Secondary mound erected on sand layer over LIMA y OUR sooo eee ee et ene ee Wooden steps or ramp-_________-_____-----___ . Intermittent construction and enlargement__ mpm trusivie, DUriaSse26) 2 sas Fae a ee ee . Wattle and daub house construction_-_-______- . Many burned-clay zones__._..--_------_----- . Prepared dwelling floors_.......--------.---- wSvone-filled post holes:.:2--22.--.2.<22-22-2- =» Olusters of stone. ........-........<. Gi peers x K x See x x Deo eee aS > an (eerie >) ee > a (ene x > > a oa x x > a ener >. a | haat 9 |- x 6 x 2 eee SQiieee == 5 x 3 x Ce hee Hie Tees 2 0) ee 1 x a Polisi 2222 5 x aoa \ quents|-~" ~~~ 2 if 3 1 1 al eee 25 x 1 x 12 || X< 1 x Gr /ezeans jal > 50%! xX St Ho = (?) x x aes (?) eee x Eee eet x eae ae > a) eae x | @) x | @® re metres > GM ae Me leaeeee > ak ere | No. Ba, | pa | age Site | Site 19 10 es ae | xX < eee x x Dees, S x x ee mere || ere eee Dx is Ese s 4 . xX ern | &X x ie eee or >, aa pene ee x x weiss ESS At (cee ices ipa Paced cen se Pewee Isc eee Mm lene? aod ee eens ee aa tat x ere xx oe x as Be: ae ee: otra! * eee 1) me IR ae eee x x ee x x x = x Peeces| |) x (?) Mo deel one 1 Na=Nacoochee; Et=Etowah; St=Stalling’s Island, upper level; Ho=Hollywood; Hi=Hiwassee; No. Ba.=Norris Basin. 68 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (BULL, 131 TapBLe 3.—JJaterial culture traits from Peachtree site compared with 7 other sites belonging to the same general culture—Continued | | = ame Peach- = Culture traits fen Na STONE ARTIFACTS—continued | 59, Chisels, adzes, or picks, polished__._-.------- 2| x 60. Discoidals ...----.---- Sa ee oe ae 100’s x 61. Discoidals—polished _...-.--.---. ------------ 50%) xX 62. Discoidals—biconcave. ......--.-------------- 1 eee 63. Discoidals—beveled edge__-__.__ ------------ 5 «x 64, Discnide!s—parallel sides with rounded edges. 50%| X 85. Discoidals—central depression. -..-----..----- 9/ xX 65. Discoidals—perforate. ---- jas celsee asesees 1 x 67. Discoidals—incised cross lines__--.---.------- a 68, Discoidals—variety of material......-.------- >< oe 69, Discoidals—pitted __.....-------------- .----- 1 x 70. Hematite—-ground fragments....-..----- ---- Die ae 71. Hairspreader—canne! coal_._--.-.-.------..--- AS as | Sees? 72, Hairpins—tale or steatite_... .---...-.---=--- PHA < 73. Hairpins—shale, cannel coal_-_--.------- a : Jal Ree (ener een eae $25 | 22S. 2s | eee | eet 74, Mica—fragments-__-..---.-------------------- green (ete HK |------]--- --|------| XX |------ 75. “Nut stones’’—slate_ __- Ses ccees 10220 '|2,-.-,..4) sates | Seb eee x aeelbaseee 76. “Nut stones’*—pecked to” oughly — square F] 0}: 5 0, ee eee ee ae 10720) [<3 | bates eee Seely Ky ease 77. Notched stones—roughly shaped, poorly pecked notches__..__ - eae SUG) oe eee | ce ees > aa ane < 78. Notched stones— carefully shaped, “deep and smoothly pecked notches.---..------------ DOUG om Pee seelEaeee eee aes eeee pan (9) 70° Hammerstones— pitted 2-2. == oe ee ls oe es OG LESS Se ee seal (alas Se 80. Hammerstones—pecked ends only _----------]. -------- > Gan eee ee ears eee ee aed | ee 81. Mortars—rough stone, shallow a end de- pressions s2-= 2h te ee ee Ja eer peas Dae eee eae Mie see ee Eee 82. péstles—bell- shaped, slate... ...-2-.-. 222-222 NS | eee ee eee |S ee ee Xo eo eee 83. Pipes—equal arm elbow_-___.-_.------------- 20-30 | X x S255 pa ee epee Wee x 84. Pipes—long stem, band or collar on stem, Stem round’ or square. = -. === =_ -- = === 2. 10 x DRA oe oleh oe | caters eee | eee 85. Pipes—long stem, square, no collar___-.----- OK aah pe eeee CP | See eee 88. Pipes—long, square stem, effigy stem-_--.---- D2 OS. Neha coe ee ee eee SPOR Perr S7./Pipes—nightianeles-- 2. 222. se Sh My (baat Meee ee ee ee (?) 88. Pipes—obtuse angle, between bow] and stem, {6 or \ x x stem type being disregarded _._-_------ MOLES 3) oe. te ts ae ace |e Oe | een a eg x 89. Pipes—stem same length as bowl, or shorter, Scare stemlt.2.5*. 22s one oo oe G) |eee nd et 53 ee a Se Lee ee eee 90. Pipes—stem same length as bow], or shorter, TOUNORStGM1. 032s oe ee Bian este = See Sees eee xX 91. Pipes—flange rim, expanded _.__-.._...-.-.-- 3 > eae ok a ae [ease De | Dee eee | x 92. Pipes—disk bow] or rim (modified flange) - -_- [| ees oe a8 | Eye Loe eh 2 a eee 93. Pipes—modified rims and lips other than Hanged see 4 ss EE oe ee Biles eee el eee | ee ae | eee = ea 94. Pipes—forward projecting or decorated | | Siching oe occa ke oe i ae Oe ee A | Seaeeieen| Siar meee (eae) perme) eens (ee x 95. Pipes—calumet type-....--..----_.--..------ Vel ees | ete | esas ee | ee ee 96; ‘Pipes—stemless... ..... .--_-------.-=----22c- 16-15 c.f ee | ee | ee |e | 7. Pipes—massive, biconoidal, flaring, crude___. BS ae eh SS eee eee \iaoee 98. Pipes—specialized effigy or ‘other highly dee- orated forms, polished, stemless __----_- 2 6 | eae ee el es oe ee oe | ee | ener ee 99. Bile NecHee pipestone, decoration on Oe ee ee ee nO a | iis Seer a ee | Rote a RA | EER PS, Bee ee | eee 100. Projectile points—stemmed and triangular 100’s | X >A ~ x x ?) < 101. Pendants—polished, biperforate, Phoat= a BLONG 726. Baer nae hoe et So be ape ey He sene eee se ce (i pee berm A) Fenee e x 102. Pendants—grooved, engraved, perforate, celt-shaped, unpolished_________.____----- D0 | oe eee Dees [eee | oe | eee eee | 103. Pendants—fragments of steatite vessels. ____ 5 Ja > Coa aa x 3b ee > ean ee meres ee 104. Boudante.roueuly chipped or ground, SLA CG tae hole ake ee Ce eee emesis [ered bee a Ree wl Ne Eel 195. Serapers—long slender, curved, chipped 1901 (; eae Spee ne eet eee eee, Lk. Seed eos eee ee | ae ee > x 106. Serapers—small, snubnosed, secondarily | ce made of a core, ‘thumbnail’ | Vie aed o> = 2: ae ee ee eee | Oh: [St IE es Teele Se | ee So aes Se 107. Smoothing or abrading stones—rectangular, | round GdPeS.W8 casa ee | ed ae | eee | meee | ee a Pag See x 108. Smoothing or abrading stones—unshaped | pebbles, flat surfaces..__......_.-_---_--__- | ae ee oe ae | eee | eee bey eeriere [ese tom 109. Steatite pottery—smooth interior, rough- | ened exterlor: 2. 23-22 See ee | LOS Oe Nee ele SG. eee ae ee Serzier-Jennincs]) PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 69 TaBLe 3.—Material culture traits from Peachtree site compared with 7 other sites belonging to the same general culture—Continued | No. Ba. Culture traits at Na | Et | St | Ho | Hi Site | Site 19 10 STONE ARTIFACTS—continued | NO; Steatite pottery—lugs:_- .-- 2-2 2.--- seen 4) [Corea | Pee cen|eaawes| See lee pee eee (eee 111. Miscellaneous forms—pottery polishing SLONOS!0 223 See sa5 5 sa oe eee es eee Many OSG Neen) [Ee eee ea > AA ees < Ie Dorey og E: a: <: eee ee eee 2 ee een ee ee ee ee x 113. Miscellaneous forms—‘‘Paint cups’? (con- CLE UIONS Be see a eee aos ene Dh are ton | Sen ee gee as |e eee > all Pesce eae SHELL ARTIFACTS 114. Beads—massive, columella of conch_-_----- 115.7 Beads—oliva, perforate longitude ---- 116. Beads— Olivella, perforate longitude-- 117. Beads—cut:shell disk: ..-:..s-<---2:-=s223.- ‘e x 118. Beads—cut shell small cylindrical__.._-.-__-- x 119. Beads—cut shell small spherical___...------- 50 m4 120. Beads—cut shell long flattened tubular_--_- 44 (ee Soe 5 al [eee eS (ee es eae x 121. Hairpins—columella of conch___..-.-------- 6 | xX x > ae Dae > ail eee x Deh OTE Rie a ee ho se ee cea seees i ae, < x > an ee x x x 123. Drinking cups of conch..__.....--....------- Aa ae “cas Womens oe | eee > aia ea x 124] Pottery aplastics22=2- 25 S222 = e2e- x 3 >< > ae eae De x x METAL ARTIFACTS 125. Copper jacketing of wooden earspools-__----- Bena es > Gaus ra Oe eee ae < 126. Copper fishhooks, barbless_._.-.------------ S| or | ee ooo we ee | eee Bel eee ree Ten OD DON COLL a ee ean eee eee een yi eee | Le ee |e FA Denis Lae seein eso fa [hn A 128. Copper bracelet-_-.-.-...<---.=2-=---=-=---- 5} eee See afin: ese TUE Seal ee pelea Noo eGop pen inPlerss =. sens ee ae Sas eee poll (as Pee eee |e ee TEXTILES | 1s0mC@heck,.3 overs underic==: -22- aan ee | x plslsi@ane: strips: <225- =22- 520. nese ee ek 1 Bal kan cae eee oe FS x (?) x 132. t Jiilke te onE 2 ooo |e oes > ea eres eae Po seeOM Otel Ve mee ees. Se Se nk 2S eae le ee | ee cee x x xX POTTERY ARTIFACTS lets elpes—equaliarm 22-25-2202 s ne soseneua All| X > ie (ae x ae eee eee 135. Pipes—fiaring funnel-shaped bow] and short stem with or without facets, nodes, or obnemaecorationas ee se ee ee 9-15} > ag! (meet Cereeeeganee! Pace nae Pee eee | Peay oe 136. Pipes—stems round with expanding collar or [920s Ee ee eae eee eee 18-20! X > | Rese x > Sag esa Pena a 137. Pipes—bulbous bowl__...._-.-...--...------ Bie Aas SO a 6 eee eae eee 138. Pipes—punctate decoration._._.-..__.._-._- at cee SG Hts | Rees eens 5 | eee 139. Pipes—bird-beak decoration_...........__-- Tie eee SG lee ee ieee sleeesee ee ae oe | eens 140. Pipes—celt hafting stem_.._..._.._.-_...-_- ] Sig p|e one Lae yoo a | ee ass 141. Pipes—effigy figure bowl, hands or feet on C1 11 eae ae ee ee | Fae paces NER, | NERS Che eek SNR bate aae] Fes aye 142. Pipes—rim or Jip flange regardless of bow] SE yl ese ee nee eee ee bo Quiles 28 5 ae | PRE eared ie eee (Pe A |e PN echo 143. Pipes—‘‘chinned”’ Arkansas type...----___- ye aie pein | Reema po een eee eee | ee 144. Pipes—traces of red paint on pipe__...--___- 1 x Seer |e Fa oe eee soe eee 145. Pipes—Micmac...-==.........2...----..---- Teles cles ee ete seas 2 See se eee re 146. Beads—cylindrical, constricted center______- ft \ecles SCL Sey Se ee oes | ee 147. Beads—cylindrical, expanded center_____-_.. Sl Se ole eae alee tl ieee ee. iene alee oes 148. Beads—cylindrical, cut from pipe stem_-____- jie fap car] (pea eet em nen (eae) (ome eee Aer 149. Earplugs—tapering, pin-shaped, with hemi- spherical head2=2==- #2 = 2-5. ==. 222 150. Earplugs—polished above__....._-_-_.-_.-___ 151. Earspools—pulley-shaped__-..........-.---- 152. Toy vessels—carefully made...._-_.._.----_- 153. Pellets of clay with punched cavities 1045 Sherd discoidals==2 2220-5 28. 2222 ees 155. Sherd discoidals—well shaped_.--.-....._._- 156. Sherd discoidals—crudely made.-.._--_.__-- 157. Sherd discoidals—perforated_______________- 158. Sherd discoidals—size variable_.___..-._.__- Sega 5 | aan eat Pea rea eevee peat | Xx 70 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 TasBlLe 3.—Jlaterial culture traits from Peachtree site compared with 7 other sites beionging te the same general culture—Continued Culture traits POTTERY ARTIFACTS—continued Potiery utensils, shapes . Waterbottle—plain . Olla, globular or flattened glebe____________- . Widemouthed . Straight neck . Shallow bowl], plain . Shallow bow], effigy . Plato Secondary features . Appliqué effigy features on shallow bowls__- . Scalloped rim . Ornamental nodes near rim or on scallop__- nL oy LUPS a2 aes ee es ee enn . Loop handles—riveted___.___...___.__.____- . Strap handles—appliqué, often incised . Painted basilar legs or rests conical . Rounded bottoms___.._.-....----2-2-2------ Decorative techniques . Incising . Scratching or engraving._.__________________ . Paddle stamping—earved . Paddle stamping—cord . Textile marking . Basket marking._..._.._....._...__-__-__..- . Puncitate . Fingernail marks . Painting . Brushing Rim and lip treatment . Lip unmodified . Lip everted . Lip incised MORE GENERAL TRAITS . Bone articles—not common__.__-_.__________ . Stone articles—very common..-.__...._-_..._- . Celts occur in caches___..._..._.____._______ . Grave goods—rare._ ____.__________________. 5. Grave goods—near head only________________ . Grave goods—anklets or bracelets_..________ . Grave goods—pottery____......--.---.---__- . Grave goods—shell . Double flange or lug handle_____._.__________]._--------]_----- SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 71 The following traits were present in the Nacoochee mound but. were not found at the Peachtree site: Copper celts; painted split cane textile; four copper rods; pearls; sheet copper ornaments—claws of bird, hand and body of man, arm bands; grave goods; grave goods at pelvis and at arms; over-four- under-four technique in weaving; shell gorgets—perforate, central hole, paddle shape; bark-covered cyst—buria! mound; stone fireplace; platform pipe; disk pipe; Marginel/a beads; dippers of pottery; flat- headed shell ear plugs—eccentric; stemless clay pipes; plummets; shell refuse heaps. The following traits were present at the Stalling’s Island site but. not recovered from the Peachtree site: Shell in mound; made over a natural rise; mound by accumulation ; burned bottom storage pits; banner stones; tools of antler; perforate awls or needles; bone handles or hafts; engraved bone (deer mandibles) or whistles; “drawer pull” ear plugs of shell; well-made full-groove and three-fourth-groove axes; steatite pendants, shaped and finished; bundle burials; no pipes; blades in caches; trephining; shell gorgets, round, gingerbread. The following traits were present at the Hollywood site but not at Peachtree: Copper celts; human effigy pipes; anima! effigy pipes; painted pot- tery; effigy tripods; shell thick in debris under mound; Moundville pottery ; repoussé copper; galena; burial mound. Traits reported by Harrington but not present at the Peachtree site: Incised bone tubes; cylindrical pestles; worked antler objects; bone reamers (drawshaves); long drills, flint; shell earplugs, eccentric type; Marginella beads; unworked columella of conch; pearls; hone beads; copper beads. 247600—41—— - 6 the finding places of the artifacts. APPENDIX C PROVENIENCE OF SPECIMENS ILLUSTRATED IN PLATES Table 4 constitutes an explanation of plates with additional data on The plates that carry fully ex- planatory legends have not been included in the table. The following abbreviations are used in the table: Specimens recovered within the mound itself are indicated by ML, “Mound Level”; specimens recov- ered from the village site beneath the mound are marked BML, “Below Mound Level”; Py indicates humane from the Peachtree village site, Pm indicates burials from the Peachtree mound; and TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates iUnless otherwise indicated. Figure Name Square! Level ! eee ee ae ee emres Shoelltorndments: == 2. oases eee al eee ee ee | ee Copper jacketed wooden ear orna- | Burial Pm-20___| Feature 10. aa Da Rir ese es el Ont oe ee ee Ree Burial Pm-41___| BML. Cee eee “Copper wire fishhooks we se|\ W4-L-To<2- 2 o-- ML. || aa pee eaee ete TEGO See re ee Se ne 11-L-6____ BML. fj Se (1p Sawn SG Oe age ee 17-L-5__-_____-- ML. Le eee ee GOs ee Pe ee ee 7-L-5..-.-_----- | ML. (2! (ee perme Samples of 16 copper bracelets, 8 on | Burial Pv—4.____ each wrist. 1 ft eee ee an er Copper wite 2. =). ee ee 11-L-6_ BML. 1 ne en eee Brass'@arnings2 =o 528s ee Ee Burial Pm-8__ 1b eee ee eee Brass beads (note cordage)... === ___|____- G02. 52223 fie ele Ce oe Brass coiled springs_________________- poe Pm-6_- 1 ee ei ee Ce, Brass (?) cones from necklace___.______| 2-L-2.__________ ML. 162 et Brass DUCLOUS = eo at eee Doe ee ee rele Oe ee ee eee 1Soe en Oe eee Copper wire________ 10 Seen oe 8 ee Twisted copper wire Top row, from left to right. Second row, from left to right. Third row, from left to right. Bottom row. .- 72 Shears or scissors (2 pairs) Spring knife, horn handle___- Buckle Supine knife, horn handle, used as a pendant. Tron blade Sleigh bell_- Brass ferrule from ‘pistol butt. IBTASS SPUD osaae oe ae ee eee ee Brass bell Brass ferrule from pistol butt Lead bullets, various sizes Tron nail or awl Iron fishhook Tron nail Troniax Dlgdes2=2 ese Various. _______- Surface. ML. Surface. 27 in. 13 in. Surface. 30 in. Various. SETZLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 3 TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates—Continued Plate Figure Name | Square ! Level! | 1 ere Ono Meee ee oe Bone awl, antler tool, bird-bone aw}__| 5-L-1__________- ML. Die Aine Nee ae Bone awl (secondary mound)---_----_- 14-L-4__________ ML. ar ae ee Se eee BONO Wile eee ee ee ee 14-L-2__.--___.- BML | Pea eee er eee (6 (a peeh ee Sec a eee Pe Feature 2______- BML bs ae ene eral | Nea a C0 C6 a eps pe reper eee oY ie pa Surface (hee ee ee Bone awl, well polished___-_-_______- 10-L-8___------- ML. ne Se ete BONG a Wie 2-2 6s oe eee Goa ee nce BML. |: ee eee Se eae Bone awl, fragment. _-----.-.------.- Lied 5 —R fo eee BML. LOR 122 ee Spatulate (?) and bone awls__________ 15-L-2___-.--__ ML and BML, i: Genie ae ene Antler point, length 4.5 cm_ See (ot Ver eee ee (Oe eae eo S58 Antler projectile point, length 5 5.4em__| 13-L-8___---____ BML. WELD Wlif Beene cena Bone hairpins with burial Pm-41____}|_________________- LGM eee eee ee Bone hairpin, polished, length 6.7 em_| 17-R-2_________- ML ; 18_.. =-=-..-..| Bone.awl, length 11-2'em-_ 22.2: =~ _ 19.22 _.-.--.-| Bone awl, polished at both ends__-_-_- 20__- _--------| Shaft of bone awl___---------_------- 22523 ete one Bone awl and barbless fishhook -__--_- 1 Cate, Sap pana aes Grooved canine tooth___--___-______- 1, | DSS Se cee ee oe Pulley-shaped ear ornament, pottery Qi ee eee Fragment of pulley-shaped ear orna- ment, pottery. Pace oe eg ae Toy pottery vessel, brown, grit- tempered. E Rae o ee mn Ae | ORR 10 ea eee eee a eee | ae Oe eee eee Goer eee Flint flake knife_-_______----__-____-- EE en meee GumtintSisesesee snes ome eee eas Sorat. eens eee Sood (6 U0 Yen eed epee ae ep OIF eR ae oO eee C0 (Soar ERE as ere eee 1b eee See eas oe (ee 1 ee ey eee ee ee eee i bi ae pa oe errs inl (ea CO Serene ee ee eee eee aes oe Red-clay pottery bead __------------. iS eee ee i (ee Oe FS 28 ee Se 1 i: Lea De nee ae eee Nea ae Oe ee ee eee Lb Lee eo eee Cl re ee ae eae LOSS ASS eee es Red-clay pottery bead, made from pipestem. 1 ere re Notched slate fragment__----____-_- Seay | ee Seat Fragmentofpottery. Holespunched before firing. ; 1: RX ae a ee Fragment of polished chlorite, pipe fragment. 20 Ree sete oF Aa Soapstone fragment, drill rest (?)-___- oe ee ee eee A Hracment of mica_.-- 6.22.02. atte 3 8 ene e DD en, Se. Se 320 ott earplug, grit- tempered pee Diese ene eee Soapstone ornament fragment_______- Dae Bee eee eee Cannel coal, problematical___________].____._--___-__-_-- DAY eee one et ee Soapstone, problematical_____________ {0 a ee ae eee Fragment of pottery earplug, grit- tempered. 5 ES Se ree eee ares (eet hn ee ee Oa eae ee ee ORE Sen eee aoe es Boe oo eee OOF ee fee eee |e OS ee ee ee ea oases FY Se ell eee meee (nea C0 fs ea a ae = ee DO eee aee eee se oe Ground object of slate___._____--____- Seat ee ee eae Fragment of stone earplug___________ a Se ees Mipeient of soapstone earplug_______ OO mee See eee Partially drilled stone bead__________ AQ Sete Ge Drilled stone bead, highly polished_ 1! Lae ae Top row, from | Clay pipe, notched flange, 8 nodes left to right. below rim. Clay pipe with drilled holes in nodes __ chy pipe, slight flange, smooth sur- ace. aaa ane erit temper, bulbous bow], u Clay pipe, red paste, similar to No. 4__ Second row, from | Clay pipe, grit-tempered____________- left to right. Clay pipe, fine grit temper__ Clay pipe, roughly made_____________ Clay pipe, roughly finished elliptical bowl. Clay pipe, punctate decoration forms | a ‘‘U”’ on each side. ! 1 Unless otherwise indicated. x V4 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLb, 131 "TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates—Continued Plate Figure Name Square ! Level! 19 (cont.).| Third row, from | Clay pipe, grit temper, red slip, con- |--_.-..----------- ML. left to right: ventional bird-beak design. Clay pines: 240.5. eee eee eas Sy nes ML. Clay pipe, trailed line below bowlrim_| 15-L-1_-_-...__-_- ML. | Fourth row, from | Clay pipe, uneven grit temper and | 17-R-2___.-_-._- ML. left to right. mica. Clay pipe, blue-gray paste__________- 15-L-2__.__...._.| ML. Clay pipe, fine grit temper, bowl dec- | 15-L-4._________- ML. orated with nodes near base, now roissing. Clay pipe, fine grit temper, probably | 6-L-2__..._.__.-| ML. one of the “‘funnel’’ bowl types. Fifth row, from left | Stone pipe, beaded rim, polished_-__- Village site_____- 18 in. to right. Stone pipe, octagonal stem ___________]--__- dope 222. 20 in. Stone pipe, beaded rim______________- 13-L-8. __....._- ML. Sixth row, from left | Stone pipe, incised lines on stem __~__- y (ol ed BML. | to right. SONG ING s- ee eee 1 6=T8 ve se seaee ML. Stone pipe, short square stem, highly | 9-L-6_____.-___- | ML, polished. Stone pipe, octagonal stem__________- Sasrh ae ML. Stone pipe, square stem, ‘‘chin’’______| 3-L-1__________- ML. Stone pipe, ‘‘echin’’______.-._..______- §-R-4___.______. ML. Seventh row, from | Stone pipe....._.__._--.--.--.-__--_- 16-2 ee ML. left toright, = |----- COR see eee nt ate oe 14-L-6__..-.---- ML. een GO. 2 ee 6H ee enc GO. an ee ea ee, Stone pipe, possible effigy feature at | 18-L-4__-______- ML. base of bowl. Eighth row, from | Stone pipe___.__-.._-.--------..___-- 14-L-4___.-__ ML. left toright. —‘|----- GS ree ae eek os oe A 16-L-1__..--.--- ML. oe es 6 (0 ae in ge Re eR UI ANDI is =) Ey (28 eee | 14 Lp Gea do____._------------------..-----| 9-L-4__-_.-...-.]| ML eee Oe ER ee BNE beets COs oe ee ee EL OST 8 2 ce eM Ninth row, from | Stone pipe stem, square, highly pol- | 8---------------- BML. left to right. ished. ae 0 ee nae se a ee ee Sa ce ee 10's oe ee ee ee | Village site Tenth row, from | Stone pipe stem, square, highly pol- | 3-L-3____._____- ML. left to right. ished. eee C0 sn 2e2ssoe cea eee 2 aR ee ny eS | Bottom row, from |----- Ce eae oe ee ee Miscellaneous. _- left to right. ee GO ee ee bao ee ee Vi rset do____--___-_._____________..._...| Miscellaneous 23 Lee ee Top row, from left | Stone effigy pipe bow], no stem _-___- 4-L-3_____._-_- ML. to right. Stone pipe; eitigy(7)=_ Hl Oy fear ML. Stone pipe, Micmac style. Incised | Village site______ 16 in. and drilled decoration. Hole for stem in side of bow]. | Pottery pipe, Micmac type_________- 1 | Stone pipe, engraved decoration _____- a see BML. Second row, from | Stone pipe bowl_________--___________- Village site._____ 20 in, left to right. Stone pipe bow], stem broken_-_-___--_- 4-L-3____-_.___- ML. ee GOn a es ee eel) Village’sites-= =. el San hnGcor COSe ee eee es Third row, from | Stone pipe, calumet, square stem_____ 6-L-6____-_-__-- ML. left to right. Stone pipe stem, decorated__________- a) Vy (eee eee BML. Bottom row, from | Stone pipe bowl______.___..________-- 15a 520 ML. left toright. = {_-__- Ones at eee eee 6-L-6___.------- ML. aT ome ees See Se ee Oe ed ee ee et 7 eee WA Ms 2 coe eo ee Crudely notched stone, or net sinker__| 13_-__---------_- BML rs Se Oe ee OMe ee eee ee 1 7 ena ML bape eee Sieg ee ates Ok eer ee eee Miscellaneous. _- y eeeeeiat Oe Aree sh Crudely notched stone, or net sinker, | 15-LL-3_________- M8. formerly a ‘‘nutstone.”’ | {ieee ee be Some Crudely notched stone, or net sinker__| 5-R-2____- Serer Surface. D5 Fy | Kee De ae Stone'ax, eround= 2... === Miscellaneous___ ) See end fee Stone.ax, slate-_-2 2 2 se 15-L-2.________- ML. 6 i ee st Stone ax, fragment, chipped and | Miscellaneous-__ ground. hn hee oo ee ee ee COU ag ia Be Soe ete p23 i) ee ae ML. Goss ea eaees Soe Stone club head, round, pecked, and | 18-L-3..__-__-_. ML. grooved. (eee ae Stone ax, roughly grooved_______- 16-L-3_________- ML. Wine ee es Steatite hammer or maul, partially | Miscellaneous- -- grooved. |: eee ee a Stone celt (?), ground edges- --_------ | 4-L-6_.--------- BML. ,! ee eee ee eae Fragment of highly polished celt____- | ee ee eee Surface. MQ: ssseeceeeaces- Fraginent of highly polished pick oradz_; 15-L-2___..----- | BML. 1 Unless otherwise indicated. SeTZLER-JENNINGS}] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 75 TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates—Continued Plate Figure Name Square ! Level ! 23(cont.)_| B, 11_._.._..-_-.__| Fragmentofhighly polished pickoradz} 12-L-6______.__- BML UDie FEF one on s Bigmative with rubbed surfaces_____-- Life Sree ete ee BML ee ee ee ered One ae see hae ewe Sen eee Le 1 SME eee eee BML Paes (Reet A nee es Drilied celt. Corners at top and |......._.._____._- ML. edges are square. No evidence of use along blade. 2 (ew Ae -e peo nak celts rounded poll, one side concave__| 17-L-8_________- BML ; ee Celt, suarpened at both bit and poll__ (ee Cee ae Celt, wounded poll | (ae eae eee ea Celt, poorly shaped, poll missing. ___- 18-L-4________- BML Sti ses ee Celt, sharpened bit, poll polished___.} 2-L-3__________- BML Downe ose A, Top row, from | Stone disk, polished, truncated cone, | 13-L-1_________- ML. left to right. beveled edge. Byone disk, unpolished, rounded | 6-L-1_____--__-- BML edges. Stone disk, unpolished, smooth, | 15-L-2_________- ML. rounded edges. Stone disk, biconvex, straight edges__| Miscellaneous. _- Stone disk, unpolished, straight faces | 16-L-2.________- ML and edges. Second row, from | Stone disk, roughly made, straight | 183-L-6__________ ML left to right. faces and edges. Stone disk, roughly made, pecked | 18-L-G_____..__.| ML finish. Stone disk, irregular faces, biconvex__} 17________--.----| ML Stone disk, rough, faintly biconcave, | 15-L-3_________- ML edge partially straight, part round. Stone disk, ground and pecked, con- | 14-L-3_________- BML vex on one side, pecked hole on j other side. | Third row, from | Stone disk, roughly finished, straight | Miscellaneous- __| left to right. edges. Stone disk, slate, roughly finished, | 15-L-6_________- ML. engraved lines on each face. Stone disk, smoothed on one side_____| 14-R-1______--_- Stone disk, slate, roughly made_____- 16-L-2_._..--.-. ML Stone disk, slate, roughly made, ground edges. se Deo ee | ML. Fourth row, from | Stone disk fragment, biconvex, deep- | Feature 29__-__- | | lefttoright. y pecked holes in each face, straight | edges. Stone disk, very crude_-__------------ Miscellaneous. ..| Highly polished discoidal stone frag- | 17-R-2__-_._---- ML. ment. Bo Mop: Vid ww, i stone Giske = -2 8 ee oo nk Pa le: Se ML. fromleft to right. Stone disk, highly polished_.._...__._|_--_-------------- OF SEONG CISK sae Or ree re as Liesl 6 ee: Sn ML. oe Ce ee LO Raa ee VEL Stone disk, concave------------------ 18-L-4____.._--- BML eee ie ee ere Feature 29___..- ees Oe oe ee ee | OST Me: Second row, from | Stone disk___________-.--___-------_-- fe Na~ (ee nee ML. left to right. axa (6 [a epee Se keg aa gn ee et eel (9 7 ree : eam ere ba Fp actos (lope nee OR a ee eee ee se pusrellaneoue Rae CL en a er a | ee eee eee NLT a G6 (7 eee erento 16-L-4___.-.----| ML. wee? (0 eee eee 10-L-1_____.....| ML. eae AEE c (oO Pale be ML. Third row, from |___-_- 0 ee eee ee et ee eee 16-L-5__.______- ML. left to right. | Stonemiskp pitted. -s2224s2sa-2--5s5—- 8-L-7___-------- | ML. ore (ol eee ee eee es eee ee Surface gees) Oe en oe ee ek AR 2 ee BM Stone disk, pitted, engraved_________] 14-L-4____-_-_-- ML. Stone disk, concavo-convex, per- |---------.-------- Surface forated. | Bottom row------- River pebbles possibly used as dis- |_._------.-------- coidals. 26.25 Top. row; {rom |) Pottery diske.-------2-_5-22.4---...— 16-L-5_...------ | ML. left to right. eee do________-----_------------------] 4-R-2__.....-...| BML. se Oe! Oa oe ee eee ee) BEE; tC] (eee Ae et ee eee ee ny od V7 ee, BML. ee cle ees ae EET pak iene ee Miscellaneous. .-| Awe LG eee er ee ee |S Oe eee ELS 1 Unless otherwise indicated. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens itlustrated in plates—Continued Plate 26 (cont.) - Figure Second row, from left to right. Third row, from left to right. Fourth row, from left to right. B, top, left B, top, right B, bottom, left____ B, bottom, right_ - Top row, from left to right. Center_____._.-__- Bottom row, from left to right A, Top row, from left to right. Second row, from left to right. Bottom row. from left to right. | B, Top row, from left to right. Bottom row, from left to right. Top row, from left to right Bottom row, from left to right. pottery disk, drilled Pottery disk Steatite vessel fragment______________ piperue vessel fragment___._.________ Sisatite fragment (not part ofa vessel) Fragment of cylindrical pebble, peene at end. “Harnertone. pecked on all surfaces. Roughly ground hammerstone, cen- pes pecking: on both sides. Hound pebble, central pecking on both sides and ends. Discoidal, central pecking on both sides. Fragment of flat mortar___._________- Possibly an abrader_____--___________ Hammerstone, pecked and abraded on the two larger surfaces. Abrading stone, rectangular. Both surfaces show use. both sides used, Used Abrading stone, edges square. Part of a broken steatite celt. for abrading and hammering. Rectangular abrader. Rounded edges and corners. Stone pendant, ground, crudely in- cised. Biconoidal boring. Stone pendant, biperforate, polished, biconoidal boring. Slate pendant, chipped and ground, biconoidal boring. Bipetlorie se Modified olla type, rounded bottom, grid-carved-stamp decoration. Ap- pliqué incised rim, everted lip, and occasional mica flecks (represented by light spots on surface). t Unless otherwise indicated. = Square ! | Level! | | | |g eee ee | ML. ae oem ee BML Miscellaneous- gE Oy Gree nee ee ML. 6-L-1_______-_-- BML Misceilaneous__- CS) ML Miscellaneous __- 16—RaH2 se ML 14-R-3_________- ML. Feature 29_______ Miscellaneous_- 15-L-1________-- BML 4-Ral oe BML 16-L-5_________- ML. Miscellaneous -_ 15-L-1_________- BML Galilee ie ML. Deed 5 ener ee BML FoR ae oe seen ML. ( i ere BML 1) 5 eee eee ML. Oh Oe eee 8 Surface Miscellaneous__- 15-L-5_________- ML. aed 5 BML OSD eee eee ML. io eee ee BML Miscellaneous--- en ae ee BML. Miscellaneous-__ Miscellaneous__- (Reon 2 eee ee ML. Miscellaneous. _- 2) Cs een eee AL. Miscellaneous. __ 1G Ed 0 (ee a ML. Miscellaneous-___ I= R=2 BML 16-L-3__-______- ML. Feature 29______ oe dons ee d0-2-.2)- == ree don 10-R-3_____-__-- 12-L-6____-_---- BML 4-L-6_______---- BML 15-L-1___.____..] ML. Miscellaneous--- Miscellaneous__- 15-L-8_____----- ML Miscellaneous. __ 15-4. 2222-222 ML 6-L-2______-_--- ML. 16-L-6___..---_- BML. 21-L-4_.._--- =. Surface. Gla 2 oct ML. Dy rae BML ial) eee ML Dee ae ML. i et By bec ee eee ML Ware A. | [BULL. 131 Serzier—JENNINGs] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. C. 77 TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates—Continued Plate Figure | Name Square ! Level! | | BUKCONG) S| 2oseans. see soe oe Similar in form and decoration to | Village site._____ | fig. 1. Found near the shoulder of Burial Pv-5, together with a Euro- pean spring-back knife. Ware A. Da ee This vessel was inserted in fig. 2atthe | Burial Py-o_____ | time of burial. Smoothed surface. Ware A. Ci eee | A. op 2-2 22s. Grid paddle stamp. Ware A__.____- 16-L~-6_.-...---- { Center_._.-_....| Curvilinear stamp. Ware A. Diam- | 1-R-1__._______ eter, 10 in. | Bottom... <2: Goraninese stamp. Ware A. Height, | Feature 12______ 72 1D. | B, Upper left... ._- Polished surface, black interior. Ware | Feature 13_____ | B. Diameter, 47% in. | Upper right___-- Polished surface, inverted rim. Ware |----- (6 (ope eres B. Diameter, 54% in. @enter:__.------ Fragment of strap handled bowl. |-----do_----_-___- Ware B. Rim diameter, 714 in. Bottom left__-_- Inverted rim, polished surface. Ware |----- G0. eee Diameter, 646 in. Bottom right____| Inverted rim, polished surface. Ware | 1-R-1__________- 1-2 ft. Diameter, 8 in. 1 Top row, from] Rectangular stamp decoration, | 8-L-7__---_____- left to right. Ware A sherd. : Grid stamp decoration. Ware A | Village site ____- sherd. Curvilinear stamp decoration. Ware! Feature 13_____- A sherd. , Rectangular stamp decoration. | Miscellaneous __- Ware A sherd. Lobed pot, smooth surface. __________ coo Fs eee eee BML. Second row, from | Grid-stamp decoration. Ware aeneeeeeee > fa ae ae eh Plain flat-bottom sherd, some of the | 18-R-1___--____- BML. pane worn off through use. Ware fed 1 See eee ee Plain sherd of ware C-1___..-.------- Opel gr eee ML. Pa eee, Nee oe eee Qe eee 19-R-1___------- ML. otf a eee See eens eer OO ee ee eee eee 19-R-1_____----- 1 Unless otherwise indicated. SETzLER-JENNINGS] PEACHTREE MOUND AND VILLAGE SITE, N. Cc. 79 TABLE 4.—Provenience of specimens illustrated in plates—Continued Plate | Figure | Name Square ! Level! | SS Sh aaa os = — = = — erent a — 43. aba Sse amare eee ee re ine Miscellaneous sherds of wares A, B, |-.-.-_-.-_______-- and ©, showing secondary features | of rim and lip. Top ‘Tow, “from: |) Ware'©.. 2.2. ...-2-222-2.5.22.e222: 6al-222225 2 -- BML, | left to right. WATE Ae eee hn nee See eee ee oes 6-L-1_ _.-...-..- BML Winte 1 ee es Se ee 18-R-2________.- ML Wisk OAs -ee Bk Spee Sem 8 Sen eee §-L-1__...=_...- ML Peres GO te ee oa eens aaa ata le ene en Vy Second row, from || Ware ©. --..2.-2-2 2222.2. 5-2sss2 ee Pos=25s eee oe.) BME, left to right. ee CLO eee as Oe ee 6-2 eee VION Ae ee en ee eee 5 R=1E tee. ML. Wis ORD econ eet re ees sere ae 19-L-3__ .-.-.--- Surface. VV Sa (1s) eee ee es ee a Res eee a BML. Bottom row, from | Ware'C_ =... 2 =- 2-2 = s-._- = 4-L-6§__.---_-_- left to right. WWETORN 33 -Beeoe wt wee eee be! OF ee ee eee BML. rege (0 Fe a = ae ia roca en a Ae ea peer eee an ree (08 1 FB res __do Pesala aa ae ee eee eee eeeas 11-L-5_______ ML VITO sae ae te re rene Ne Village site____- Ce el a ee eee Vessel fragments illustrating various |_._...-_...._..__- types of decoration, such as bas- ketry and textile (ware D), and painted (ware C-1). Rough textileemarked sherd, ware D_} 13-L-7_________- BML, EE eee ae) Oe do___ pea Pape isl 8 oe ee ek FY Fenner ee Erin, Nera OOo eres 15-L-7_______-- ML Sa eee Fel | seeps ope SR a ney ee remem fe ym et eee BML RS EES EATS FREE 0 (0 EE pee pee ee 16-L-4___- ML Cord- PECdis ial sherd, ware D_} 15-L-5_________- ML i SR pe ee eel (eee (0 eta pe ange A ye ep ceed [ied (pps lm ML Se ete ee see eee CO eg ee oe Se een ESI cones | ene GOES See: Se Bley eee | Beas ae ee | Basketry-marked sherd, ware D____- 3-R-2__--__-_--- ML Rees See ele oe O25. 5250 - ee aeRe M en Pees COs ene 2 aes eee scene see (W8=R-Seek oe! Ma ees see aera |e anees LOS ee OO e eee ee eee soe CO eee ee ee are eee |S st 2) oer a SVilge Similar to ‘‘salt pan’’ ware textiles of | 16-R-1_________- BML. eae and Cumberland. fee a oe eee OL Reh eee ok eres ea ee eee 15-L-1_..._._...| ML Hous textile-marked sherd, ware D_ | (Reo es. ML ee ee ee LO ae ee eo 5-L-3__.....----| ML. (eigintadenend. red on brownor orange | 7-L-8____._____- | BML. ware C-1. Same asifige 19) 2 aa ML. Se a ee TRIOS cea COse ee eee dimluat eee BML. 1 Unless otherwise indicated. 247600—41——7 oy 7 oo. or _ a a » is — 2” “ae, BS ee eee ee BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BUELEDRIN ST PEATE 2 A, The section of Nantahala Mountains between Franklin and Shooting Creek, N. C., on U. S. Route No. 64. B, The fertile valley at the junction of Peachtree Creek and the Hiwassee River. C, Clearing and surveying the Peachtree Mound. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PEATE 2 A, Profile L-1, showing BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULEEMIN ist PEATE 3 A, Feature 16, showing 14 horizontal poles lying upon a stratum of brown sandy loam, the remains of a series of steps upon a ramp leading to the top of the primary mound. B, Pro- file 16, showing the beginning of feature 16 in the left center. C, Profile 17. The thin sand line from R-2 to L—5 extends a distance of 70 feet. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 “PEATE 4 i B Layer of flint boulders in sections 17, 18, and 19. This may indicate the remains of a sweat house. Post holes occurred around it. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN .131 PLATE 5 A, Another view of feature 29. The troweled lines indicate the outline of pits dug by amateurs. B, Showing feature 29 after it had been completely excavated. Log molds have been indi- cated and show how the timbers of the roof had fallen in all directions. The benches above the stones comprise feature 31. Small post holes are indicated by vertical reeds. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PEATEs A. Showing the reconstructed outline of feature 29. The interior has been removed and the inner stones piled upon the higher periphery. The block standing in center was left to show structure. B, Showing feature 29 completely uncovered, the log molds fully traced. This also shows the interesting clay compartments in one corner of the structure. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN. 131° PLATE 7 A, The cleared interior of feature 29, showing post holes in the corners and a close view of the lensed mound structure left standing as a control. B, Close view of the center block after the earth and stones had been removed. The unevennesses above the floor line are the impressions made by the stones presumably fall- ing from the roof. This is in contrast to the even floor found around the foundation of the sweat house. The trowel line marks the bottom of the mottled clay floor. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 SRPEATES A, Feature 29 completely cleared and reconstructed. The interior has been dug to the undisturbed brown soil. Block in the center shows the stones left in the control block. B, Feature 29 after the stones had been removed. This also shows feature 31, clay compart- ments erected above the floor. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 9 A, Feature 18, a small circular fire pit full of charcoal. The pit was 2 feet deep and extended from the mound floor into the brown subsoil. B, Small circular flint-lined fireplace containing potsherds. The canes have been placed in post holes dug from the old surface of the mound into the subsoil to penetrate the fireplace itself. , KOOTIONHLA NVYDOIYAWY SAO NVvsayNNaA (zz ‘d aas ‘gouatuaaoig) ‘suojjNq pur ‘sauod ‘aIIM ‘sajBuRq sseiq ‘sja[ad"Iq ‘syooyYsy ‘sjudUvUIO Iva payayoel-raddog *sjoafqo ssviq pur saddoy & oe, @ © \\ 4 & BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 1381 SPEAGE 12 ‘ x \ Sime toe r. -_ f te 3° © ofo | ee aa8 ee hamid g Yo of S > % t r a 20% Sa. a. ®e, . ¥ °° $ eo 0 e ° ° eae | ° F © See re ° oe &o @ & 6 European trade articles. Iron, brass, and lead. Tankard, scissors, spring knives, bells, (Provenience, see p. 72.) lead bullets, ax blades, and glass beads. EL Satvad *(¢Z ‘d aas ‘aouatuaAolq) fel NILAT1INGA /z Se ea epee oz ov a/ Nn vr *YIOO} 9UIURD paaools puv “yooyysy suog ‘saynoefoid saQuv ‘suid pur sme auog 4/ ASDOTONHILA NVOIMAWY AO nvaynad (¢7 *d.o0s ‘QoudTUIAOIg) “Av]D puv ou0}s Jo syoofqo snoosur]posify oF B } : 6 7? PEATIETS SS ee ec A, B, Top and side view of intrusive flexed burial Pm—42, feature 21, square 13-L-6, The stones used to cover vault had fallen and crushed some of the bones. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 1381 PEATE 16 “ 4 ae A, Stone-lined grave, Pm—57, feature 30. Skeletal remains very crumbly. Lower right half of mandible indicated old age. Note bark matting in lower left corner of cyst. This was floored with slate. B, Flexed burial Pm—58, feature 35. Large conch shell in upper right corner, powdered matting over femora; numerous types of shell beads were around upper portions of body. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BUELCERIN ist PLATE 17 . ’ ae Paes hy 4, Ee * > + Me = oo Pare Z ed _— A, Flexed adult burial in stone vault, Pm—20, feature 10, On forehead was a copper-covered wooden disk. Square 12-L-8. B, The most important burial. Pm-—41, square 15-L-l. This flexed body had been placed in a pit extending below the original surface, made prior to the erection of mound. With it were two copper-covered wooden ear ornaments, three types of shell beads around wrists and neck, and two circular fragments of cane matting. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 REATE Ws B, Intrusive flexed burial, Pm—30, square 16-R-1. Disintegrated charcoal but no weaving molds in bottom of pit. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 19 Clay and stone pipes. Top four rows are baked clay, all others are stone. (Provenience, see pp. 73-74.) *SUOI]VIOIOP PUL WIOJ UL SUOIPLLIVA suimoys sodid Araqjod jo sqyuIWs vd] Oc 3ALW1d lel NILATING ASDOTONHILA NVOIYAWY AO NVAYNG BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULEEGUN 131 PEATE 2uk Unusual types of stone pipes. (Provenience, see p. 74.) *s[aAa] [[B UO WOfIUN sadAq Jo UONNqIASIp ey fp, *squlod afnsefoid paddiys fo uondayes vAteyUasaiday e¢ ALV1d lel NILATINGA ASOTONHLA NVOIYAWY AO NVvVayNa BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PEATE 23 A, Crudely made notched stones, or net sinkers. 8 70 “ 43 B, Miscellaneous stone objects: Axes, grooved club head, mauls, celts, adzes, ground hema- tite. (Provenience, see pp. 74-75.) a (‘cz ‘d 998 ‘9ouaIUaAOIg) *xXdAUOD ZUINq Opis 19Y}0 dy} ‘opis yey auO aAvyY SUdUUIDEds pal[lIp Idaoxe “Py “sezpe pur sia bo 3 Ll ce cae ve SALVid lel NILA Tine ADSOIONHLA NVOIYMAWY AO NVAYHNE BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN ist PLATE 25 A, B, Stone disks, ranging from highly polished edges and convex sides to rough unworked sides, and fragments of concave discoidals. (Provenience, see p. 75.) (9/-S ‘dd 9as ‘QOUZIUDAGI) “Spsoysyod jo AJOUPA 8 WO} IPLUL *YOOUS saBpa ‘sysip AI9}10q 9¢ ALV1d t€l NILATING ADSOTONHILA NVOIYMAWYV AO NVAYNSa BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULEETIN 131 (PEATE 27 4, Grinding stone or shallow mortar. Square 6-R-1, below mound level. Biconcave. B, Grinding stone or shallow mortar. Found in boulder stratum on east side of mound. Biconcave. (9L sd) 99S ‘QOUIIUIAOIG) “UOT RUIW IO Ip SJIVMe osn JORX' | “$]Sol [4p 10 souojysynu pel[eo SolWTZIWIO$ ‘souoysdny gd F 8¢ AlW1d lel NiLSET1INe ASOTONHLA NVOIMAWY AO NVAYNG ‘d 908 “QOUdTUDA Iq) “yyoous 318 SIOTIOQUT ‘mod ioddn ul So[pu ae | I0f sosury 910N *sJUOUIS RI] ]OSSoA PUPEIYS 6¢ ALV1d 1€t NILATINGA ADSOTONHILA NVYOIYAWY AO NVadNa BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 30 A, Hammerstones. Fragments of pestles reused for pounding or crushing. (Provenience, see p. 76.) B, Abrading, or grinding stones. (Provenience, see p. 76.) (‘97 *d aas ‘aouatuaAorg) ‘sioyurs pu ‘syurpuad ‘sjuomeuso pol[uqd Alvid l€)1 NiILaT1INa ADOIONHLA NVOIMAWY AO NVaeNG (‘21-91 ‘dd aas ‘aquatuaaoig) "VW 21eM Jo sjessoa AlN} g & ce AlVv1d lel NILATING ADOTIONHLA NVOIMAWY AO NVAYENG BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN: 131. PLATE 33 A, Pottery vessels of ware A. (Provenience, see p. 77.) B, Pottery vessels of ware B. (Provenience, see p. 77.) ve (ZL ‘d vas ‘aouatuaaoig) “VW ote mM “s]UdTUS PIT WIT SNOLUe A 3aLVW1d lel NiIt371Na ASOTONHLA NVYOIYAWYV SO NVAYNSs BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE Round bottoms and feet of pottery Ware A. (Provenience, see p. 77.) 35 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 36 by parecer a A, B, Rim sherds illustrating incised, trailing, and stamped-design elements. Note variety of rim treatment. Ware A. (Provenience, see pp. 77-78.) BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BUELETIN 131 PLATE 37 B A, B, Amore specialized treatment of incised and stamped designs on rim sherds. Ware A. (Provenience, see p. 78.) BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 38 Painted jar. From central portion feature 29, flat base and rim treatment. Ware B-1. A conch-shell cup served as a cover. Note BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 39 Negative painted plate with a wide out-curving rim. Paddle-stamped exterior. Ware B-l. Feature 13. (Provenience, see p. 78.) (‘gz ‘d vas ‘aouatuaAcig) “g adem ZUIQeIISN]]! SJUdUIZeIZ [aSS9A JO SdIIIg Ov 3ALV1d lel NILATING ADSDOTONHLA NVOIMAWYV AO NVayNa BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 41 Two restored pottery vessels illustrating ware C. Part of feature 13, a large refuse pit below mound level. Exterior has a deep red wash. Note flat bottoms and rim treatment. Rim of lower vessel broken off and the edges subsequently smoothed. (Provenience, see p. 78.) (‘gz ‘d aas ‘aouatudACIg) *[-D pue d areM JO splays WH paid2]a¢9 Cy Sa Valde LelaN EL Ssislige ASOTONHIA NVOIMAWY AO NVAYNSG 61 ‘d vas ‘gouatudAol ‘dy pue uit yo sainqeay Arepuosas Zutmoys ‘> pure ‘gq ‘Vy soleM JO splays snoaur][aosi]Vj ( kee NeR Kal : Mae J e nent Ie J Nee Ev Evade NiLansine ADOTNONHLA NVOIYSAWYV AO NVSHNG (6L ‘d 99s ‘aud AOI) *(T-<2 aie) poquied pur *(q o1UM) d]1}xXo7 ‘Arjayseq sv yons ‘suonrsosap Jo sod.A44 SNOMIVA SULVAISN |] SJUILUB LIT [OSSo 4 92% G+ vy ALV 1d l€l NILATING ASOTNONHLA NVOIMAWYV SO NVeayna APPENDIX D SKELETAL REMAINS FROM THE PEACHTREE SITE, NORTH CAROLINA By T. D. STEWART Division of Physical Anthropology, United States National Museum The skeletal material from the Peachtree site is very fragmentary, so in the description of each specimen the parts recovered are first briefly itemized. For the same reason only the more important measurements and observations are given. All specimens recovered are described. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIMENS Pm-3 (U.S.N.M. No. 369558) —Paired temporal bones, fragment of left molar, and a fragment of mandible including the right anterior tooth sockets. Temporal bones show slight exostosis in each ear, with considerable antero-posterior flattening of the meatus; also a slight perforation of the tympanic plate on the right (left?). Mandibular fragment shows extreme alveoloclasia and antemortem loss of first molar. Probably adult female. Pm-4 (U.S.N.M, No. 369559) —Incomplete skull with lower jaw. Skull exhibits a peculiar and extreme type of fronto-occipital flattening (pl. 45). Length, 14.6 cm.; breadth, 16.4 cm.; cranial index, 112.3. Sutures very simple and ununited. Two parietal foramina symmetrically placed. No ear exostoses, but marked antero- posterior flattening of the meatus. Small perforation of the tympanic plate on each side. Permanent incisors and first molars erupted; canines, anterior premolars, and second molars erupting. Upper median incisors shovel-shaped. Juvenile, approximately 10 years of age. Pm (U.S.N.M. No, 369560) —Fragmentary skull, lower jaw, and incomplete skeleton. 81 247600—41——-8 82 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 Skull probably undeformed and moderately long headed. No ear exostoses; meatus rounded; no tympanic plate perforation on right (left?). All teeth erupted, in regular positions, and but slightly worn. Proximal epiphyses of femur and distal epiphysis of tibia but recently united; proximal epiphysis of tibia uniting; distal epiphysis of femur probably beginning union. Bicondylar length of left femur near 41.5 cm. Maximum length of left tibia 36.0 cm. Sciatic notch of innominate bone presents an acute angle. Adolescent (about 18 years) male. Pm-6 (U.S.N.M. No. 369561). —Fragmentary skull and lower jaw. Skull shows moderate fronto-occipital deformity of the type shown in plate 45. Sutures of medium complexity, largely obliterated en- docranially. No ear exostoses or perforation of the typmpanic plates; meatus rounded. Marked dental destruction. Adult male. Pm 7 (U.S.N.M. No. 369562) —Paired temporal bones; upper and lower jaws. No ear exostoses; slight perforation of tympanic plate on each side; meatus rounded. Teeth show moderate wear; antemortem loss of upper median incisors has occasioned peculiar wear of anterior lower incisors (pl. 46, A). Probably adult female. Pm-11 (U.S.N.M. No. 369563) —Paired fragments of innominates; paired femora; two tibiae probably not mates. Bicondylar length of right femur near 46.5 cm. Right tibia de- formed by old healed osteitis (syphilis ?); left shows no involve- ment. Sciatic notches in the form of moderately acute angles. Probably adult male. Pm-12 (U.S.N.M. No. 369564). —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull (no lower jaw). Skull asymmetrical and moderately flattened in the occipital region, especially on the right.1_ Sutures relatively simple and in an advanced stage of closure. Two parietal foramina, symmetrically placed. No ear exostoses or perforation of the tympanic plates; meatus rounded. Upper teeth moderately worn; median incisors probably just being lost (alveoloclasia ?). The long bones give the following measurements: Femur (bicon- dylar length): right, 44.5 cm.; left, 44.8 cm. Humerus (maximum 1In this and all of the other cases of simple occipital deformation, the plane of the flattened occiput is essentially vertical to the Frankfort plane. STHwaRT] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 83 length) : right, 31.8 cm. Radius (maximum length): left, 25.4 cm. Sciatic notch shows moderately acute angulation. There was probably an old fracture of the lower end of the left fibula with subsequent exostosis both of the fibula and tibia and beginning bony union at a point 2 to 3 cm. above the usual place of articulation. Adult male. Pm-13 (U.S.N.M. No. 369565). —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull and lower jaw. Skull probably is undeformed, although there is more than usual flattening in the region of lambda. Mesocranic by inspection. Suture closure is advanced. Left temporal (right not present) shows no ear exostosis, but a large perforation of the tympanic plate. The jaws are practically edentulous. Long bones very light in weight. Tibiae show traces of old healed osteitis (syphilis ?). Deformity of posterior arch of atlas suggests intraspinal tumor. Sciatic notches moderately angular. Senile male (?). Pm-14 (U.S.N.M, No. 369566) —Fragmentary skull with lower jaw, paired fragmentary innominates, and miscellaneous small bones. Skull shows marked fronto-occipital flattening of the type shown in plate 47, which is like that shown in plate 45. Length, 14.4 cm.; breadth, 15.2 cm.; cranial index, 705.6. Sutures obliterated. No ear exostoses or perforation of the tympanic plates; meatus rounded. Jaws nearly edentulous. Skeletal parts show little of interest except fusion of second and third cervical vertebrae. The sciatic notches are moderately broad. Senile female. Pm-15 (US.N.M. No. 369567).—Incomplete skeleton with skull fragments and lower jaw. Skull not complete enough to give shape. Pieces thick. Large ear exostoses present on both anterior and posterior walls of meatus— both sides; no tympanic perforations. Medium tooth wear with some antemortem loss of molars. Bicondylar length of left femur is 44.7 cm. Maximum length of left tibia is 37.1 cm. There is a large septal aperture in the left humerus (right ?). The sciatic notches are narrow. Adult male. Pm-16 (US.N.M. No. 369568). —Relatively complete skeleton with damaged skull and lower jaw. Skull undeformed. Maximum length, 17.3 cm.; maximum breadth, 13.6 cm.; cranial index, 78.6 (mesocranic) ; high vaulted. Advanced suture closure. Parietal foramen on right only. Trace of ear exos- 84 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL 131 tosis on each side; no tympanic perforations; meatus rounded. Jaws nearly ede alous The long bones give the following measurements: Femur (bicondy- lar length) : left, 417 em.; tibia Sah length) : left, 35.5 cm.; humerus (maximum lenses left, 30.2 cm.; ulna (mieten length) : right, 25.2 cm., left, 24.6 cm. There is a ali point” septal aperture in the right humerus, none in the left. The sciatic notch approaches a right anoles in shape. Adult female. Pm-18 (U.S.N.M. No. 369569) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull and lower jaw. Skull shows extreme degree of the same type of fronto-occipital flattening shown in plates 45 and 47. The sutures are in an advanced stage of closure. There are no ear exostoses present; a slight tym- panic perforation is present on the right side, none on the left; the meatus are rounded. The dental arches are well formed and wear is only medium. The only measurable long bone is the right tibia: maximum length, 35.8 cm. Right humerus is without a septal aperture (left?). Sciatic notch quite narrow. Adult male. Pm-9 (US.N.M. No. 369570).—Incomplete skeleton with skull fragments. The shape of the skull fragments give good reason for believing that this individual was undeformed. No ear exostoses are present; a slight tympanic perforation occurs on the right, a smail one on the left; the meatus are rounded. The teeth include permanent incisors and first molars with roots almost completely formed (small terminal aperture) ; canines, premolars, and second molars with roots about 24 complete. Upper median incisors are shovel-shaped. All major epiphyses of long bones ununited. Bicondylar length of right femur (epiphyses replaced) is 31.8 cm. Juvenile, approximately 10 years of age. Pm-20 (U.S.N.M. No. 369571). —Incomplete skeleton with nearly complete skull. Skull shows a moderate degree of fronto-occipital flattening (pl. 48) of the type probably in which the plane of the flattened occiput is vertical. There are copper stains on the forehead. Sutures are in an advanced stage of closure. Parietal foramen on the right side only. Each ear has a medium-sized exostosis; tympanic perforations are absent; the meatus are somewhat elongated. Orbits are square and moderately inclined. There is a sharp nasal border. Suborbital fossae are absent. The teeth are regular and only medium worn. STPWART] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 85 One tooth, the lower left first molar, has been lost antemortem. The principal measurments (cm.) follow: Maximum length (deformed) 16.8 | Basion-alveolar point--_------~~- 9.0 Maximum breadth (deformed). 14.8 | Nasal height-----------------~- 6.0 Basion-bregma height-____--.___ 14.8 | Nasal breadth-_-_______._____- 25 Cranial index (deformed) ~----- SOela Nasal: ind @x- 2a ees ee 40.0 Mean height index (deformed) 90.5 | Orbital height_---__-__--___--- 3.7 Minimum frontal diameter____ 9.6 | Orbital breadth (lac.)~-------~-- 3.7 Total facial height_._-__-____--- 3:0 OLDItaly Index = ee eee 100.0 Upper facial height-_--------- 8.5 | Alveolar length---___.-___-__~-_ 5.5 Bizygomatic diameter____----- (T4:3), |PAlveolar sbreadth=] 2222-22" 2 Height of symphysis_--------- 4.17 | Alveolar index...=-—s2_22-=-- s= 130.9 Basion-nasion.=——- 2 = = 10.1 The only measurable long bone, the left femur, gives a bicondylar length of 43.3 cm. The sciatic notch is fairly narrow. Adult male. Pm-23 (U.S.N.M. No. 369572) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull and lower jaw. Skull small, asymmetrical, and prebably slightly flattened at the occiput. Cranial index, 79.9 (length, 16.4 cm.; breadth, 13.1 cm.). Sutures simple; stage of closure uncertain. Single parietal foramen to the right, but near the midline. Ear exostosis on the right large, on the left medium; no tympanic perforations. Teeth show slight wear, but considerable antemortem loss. No long bones measurable. Medium-sized septal aperture of left humerus (right ?). Sciatic notch broad. Adult female. Pm-24 (U.S.N.M. No. 369573).—Incomplete skeleton with frag- mentary skull and lower jaw. Skull undeformed; mesocranic by inspection. Sutures simple; stage of closure uncertain. No parietal foramina visible. Moderately large ear exostosis on each side; no tympanic perforations. Teeth medium worn but with considerable antemortem loss. Bones of upper extremities are well preserved and give the follow- ing measurements: Maximum length of humerus, right, 27.0 cm. ; left, 27.1 cm. Maximum length of radius, right, 21.2 cm.; left, 20.7 cm. Maximum length of ulna, right, 23.0 em.; left, 22.7 cm. Small septal aperture of the humerus on each side. Sciatic notch broad. Adult female. Pm-25 (U.S.N.M. No. 369574) —Incomplete skeleton with jaws. Teeth are extremely worn and most of the posterior ones lost ante- mortem. 86 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL 181 Bicondylar length of left femur 47.7 cm. Tibiae and fibulae show extreme osteitis (syphilis ?). Small septal aperture of left humerus, none on right. Sciatic notch narrow. Adult male. Pm-26 (U.S.N.M. No. 3869575) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull small and moderately flattened at the occiput, especially on the left. Sutures are of medium complexity with beginning endo- cranial closure. A single parietal foramen is located on the right. There are no ear exostoses; a small perforation of the tympanic plate on the left, none on the right; the meatus are rounded. The dental arch is regular, the teeth only slightly worn, but already some of the first molars are carious. The following measurements were obtained on the long bones: Bicondylar length of right femur, 38.9 cm. ; left, 39.2 cm. Maximum length of right tibia, 31.8 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of right humerus, 28.2 em.; left, 28.0 em. Maximum length of right radius, 22.2 em.; left, 22.4 em. Maximum length of right clavicle, ?; left, 18.1 cm. A medium-sized septal aperture is present in the right humerus, and a very small one in the left. The sciatic notch is broad. Adult female. Pm-27 (USN.M. No. 369576).—Incomplete skeleton with frag- mentary skull. Skull shows moderate occipital flattening. Sutures nearly obliter- ated. Left ear free from exostosis and tympanic perforation (right ?) ; meatus elongated. Jaws nearly edentulous. Bicondylar length of right femur, 44.0 em.; left, 44.1 cm. No septal aperture in either humerus. Adult male. Pm-29 (US.N.M. No. 369578) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull fragments definitely indicate the absence of deformity. Su- tures probably beginning closure endocranially. Two parietal foram- ina close together. No ear exostoses; medium-sized perforation of tympanic plate on each side; meatus somewhat elongated. Arthritis of left temporo-mandibular joint. Teeth medium worn with some antemortem loss of right lower molars. Long bones small, but unmeasurable. Sciatic notch medium broad. Adult female. , Pm-30 (U.S.N.M. No. 369577) —Few fragments of skull and long ones. STEWART] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 87 Portion of frontal bone shows massive supraorbital ridge. Left temporal bone shows small ear exostosis (right ?). Teeth of lower jaw medium worn; the resulting form of the anterior teeth is shown in plate 46, B. Long-bone fragments show extensive osteitis (syphilis ?). Adult male. Pm-31 (U.S.N.M. No. 369580). —Skull fragments. Temporal bones show medium-sized exostosis in left ear, none in right; no tympanic perforations; right meatus rounded. Portion of right mandible nearly edentulous. Adult male ?. Pm-32 (U.S.N.M, No. 369581) —Skull fragments. Upper jaw indicates complete eruption of milk dentition ; only crown of first permanent molar formed. Child, probably 4 to 5 years old. Pm-34 (UO.S.N.M. No. 369582) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull moderately flattened at the occiput and perhaps slightly in the frontal region. Single parietal foramen on the right. Tem- porary dentition completely erupted; the crowns of the first permanent molars are well above the alveolar borders and these teeth show beginning formation of the individual roots. The bicondylar length of the left femur (epiphyses replaced) is about 22.3 cm. Child, near 6 years of age. Pm-36 (UO.S.N.M. No. 369583).—Incomplete skeleton with frag- mentary skull. Extreme asymmetry of skull, suggesting postmortem pressure change. Probably very little, if any, deformity antemortem. Su- tures of medium complexity; stage of closure uncertain. Two pari- etal foramina. Large depressed scar in upper midfrontal region. Slight exostosis in each ear; tympanic plates unperforated; meatus rounded. Fine dental arches with all permanent teeth erupted and only slight wear. The incisors are shovel-shaped. Femora show recent closure of distal epiphyses; humeri have their proximal epiphyses in the stage of beginning closure. Bicondylar length of right femur, 44.8 cm. Maximum length of left tibia, 36.9 em. Medium-sized septal aperture in each humerus. Sciatic notches narrow. Male, near adult (about 20 years). Pm-37 (U.S.N.M. No. 369579) —Skull fragments. Temporal bones show no ear exostoses; medium-sized perforation of tympanic plate on each side; meatus rounded. Tooth wear me- dium; antemortem loss considerable. Chin square. 88 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 131 Probably adult male. Pm-41 (US.N.M. No. 369585) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Moderate occipital flattening. Sutures of medium complexity and ununited. Smail exostosis in each ear; no tympanic perforations; meatus rounded. Supraorbital ridges absent. Teeth only slightly worn, but carious. Incisors shovel-shaped. Sternal end of clavicle shows an epiphyseal surface considerably excavated and probably in the stage of beginning union. The epi- physis of the iliac crest also shows incomplete union. All other major epiphyses united. Bicondylar length of right femur, 438.6 cm. Septal aperture not present in the left humerus (right?). Sciatic notch fairly broad. Young adult female. Pm-42 (O.S.N.M. No. 369586) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull undeformed; probably mesocranic. Sutures in advanced stage of closure. One parietal foramen on left. No temporal bones present. Teeth moderately worn but without loss. No long bones measurable. Both tibiae show traces of old osteitis (syphilis?). Humeri probably not mates; no septal aperture on right, medium on left. Last (?) lumbar vertebra has separate neural arch. Sciatic notch narrow. Adult male. Pm-45 (U.S.N.M, No. 369587) —Fairly complete skeleton with frag- mentary skull. Moderate occipital flattening, especially on right. Sutures of medium complexity with beginning closure endocranially. Single small parietal foramen on right. Temporal bones damaged. Teeth show only slight wear, but resulting in an alignment of the inferior incisors, as shown in plate 46, C. There is a supernumerary tooth be- tween the upper median incisors and the latter are directed forward, increasing the alveolar prognathism. The upper median incisors are shovel-shaped. The long bones are fairly well preserved and yield the following measurements: Bicondylar length of femur, right, 46.0 cm.; left, 45.8 cm. Maximum length of tibia, right, 38.3 cm.; left, 38.6 cm. Maximum length of fibula, right, ?; left, 37.3 cm. Maximum length of humerus, right, 32.7 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of radius, right, 25.8 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of ulna, right, 27.9 em.; left, ?. Maximum length of clavicle, right, ?; left, 15.6 cm. There is an area of active osteitis on the medial surface of the distal fifth of the right fibula, with a slight reaction on the corre- Stewart] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 89 sponding part of the tibia. No septal apertures of the humerus are present. The pelvis is masculine. Adult male. Pm-47 (U.S.N.M. No. 369588) .—Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull undeformed and relatively long headed. Sutures of medium complexity; stage of closure uncertain. Single parietal foramen on right. No ear exostoses or perforations of the tympanic plates; me- atus rounded. Teeth show most wear antero-superiorly ; that antero- inferiorly being of the type shown in plate 46. There is a super- numerary or malposed premolar on the right side of the lower jaw (the state of decay of the tooth occupying the position of the first premolar makes it impossible to say whether or not the temporary molar was retained). The epiphyseal surface at the sternal end of the clavicle shows the fairly deep excavation characteristic of beginning union. The pre- served long bones give the following measurements: Bicondylar length of femur, right, 44.5 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of humerus, right, ?; left, 32.1 cm. Maximum length of radius, right, ?; left, 25.6 cm. Maximum length of ulna, right, ?; left, 27.3 cm. Maximum length of clavicle, right, 14.7 em.; left, ?. Neither humerus shows a septal aperture. The left femur was fractured at a point between the upper and middle thirds; side-to- side union resulted, with the upper shorter fragment displaced an- teriorly. Sciatic notch narrow. Young adult male. Pm-61 (U.S.N.M. No. 369589) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull probably slightly flattened posteriorly. Sutures nearly obliterated. Two parietal foramina. Widespread old scarring, but especially on right parietal. Small exostosis in each ear; no per- foration of the tympanic plates. Lower jaw fragment shows mod- erate tooth wear and some antemortem loss. Bicondylar length of left femur approximately 45.0 cm. Both femora show considerable irregular swelling of the shaft owing to an old osteitis; other long bones do not show this. No septal aper- ture in the left humerus (right ?). The last (%) lumbar vertebra has a separate neural arch. Sciatic notch narrow. Adult male. Pm-62 (U.S.N.M. No. 369590) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Skull brachycranic by inspection; deformity uncertain. Sutures of medium complexity; stage of closure uncertain. No parietal 90 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuLL. 131 foramina present. Ears free from exotoses and perforations; meatus rounded. Third molars unerupted; other teeth unworn. Incisors shovel-shaped. Proximal epiphyses of humeri and distal epiphysis of left ulna just uniting (right ulna ?). Bicondylar length of left femur, ap- proximately 39.5 cm. Maximum length of left humerus, approxi- mately 27.5 cm. Sciatic notch broad. Female, near adult (about 20 years). Pm-53 (U.S.N.M. No. 369591) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Moderate fronto-occipital flattening of the type shown in plate 49. This case seems somewhat intermediate in type between those shown in plates 47 and 48. Cranial index approximately 100 (length and breadth near 16.2 cm.). Sutures obliterated. Two parietal foramina. Slight exostosis in left ear; right ear occluded by a bony partition situated 3 to 4 mm. within the meatus (hole pushed through it in the course of investigation); no tympanic perforations; meatus rounded. The teeth show considerable wear with some antemortem loss, notably both upper and lower median incisors. Bicondylar length of right femur, 47.0 em.; maximum length of right tibia, near 40.0 cm. Sciatic notch fairly narrow. Adult male. Pm—54 (US.N.M. No. 369592) —Fragmentary skull with a few pieces of long bones. Undeformed; probably dolichocranic originally. Sutures obliter- ated. Single parietal foramen on right. Small ear exostosis on right, none on left; no tympanic perforations; meatus somewhat elongated. Jaw fragments show considerable but irregular wear occasioned by tooth loss. The chin is square, Probably adult male. Pv-1 (U.S.N.M. No. 369593) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Moderate fronto-occipital flattening approaching the type shown in plates 45 and 47. Sutures in an advanced stage of closure. Small parietal foramen seen on right (left ?). No ear exostoses or tympanic perforations; meatus rounded. Lower jaw shows medium wear of anterior teeth and antemortem loss of most of the posterior teeth. The following measurements were obtained on the better preserved long bones: Bicondylar length of femur, right, ?; left, 41.7 cm. Maximum length of tibia, right, ?; left, 34.6 cm. Maximum length of humerus, right, ?; left, 29.8 em. Maximum length of radius, right, 23.2 cm.; left, 23.1 em. Maximum length of ulna, right, ?; left, 25.2 em. STEWART] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 91 Small septal aperture in left humerus; none in right. Sciatic notch broad. Adult female. Pv-2 (U.S.N.M. No. 369594) —Incomplete skeleton with skull and lower jaw. Moderate fronto-occipital flattening of the type shown in plate 50. This case approaches the true flathead type in which the plane of the flattened occiput nearly parallels that of the frontal. Cranial index, 83.7 (length, 17.2 em.; breadth, 14.4cm.). Sutures in an advanced stage of closure. No parietal foramina visible. Slight exostosis in left ear, none in right; slight perforation of tympanic plate on each side; meatus flattened. Teeth considerably worn and decayed, with some antemortem loss. The better preserved long bones give the following measurements : Bicondylar length of femur, right, ?; left, 47.1 cm. Maximum length of tibia, right, ?; left, 40.0 em. Maximum length of fibula, right, ?; left, 39.7 cm. Maximum length of humerus, right, 33.3 cm.; left, 33.2 cm. Neither humerus has a septal aperture. The pelvis is masculine. Adult male. Pv-3 (U.S.N.M. No. 369595) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Undeformed; probably mesocranic. Bulging forehead. Sutures of medium complexity and open (except basilar). No ear exostoses or tympanic perforations; meatus rounded. Teeth but slightly worn: no antemortem loss; incisors shovel-shaped. Proximal epiphysis of humerus in stage of beginning closure. Bicondylar length of right femur, 41.7 cm.; maximum length of right tibia, 34.3 cm. Neither humerus shows a septal aperture, Male, near adult (about 20 years). Pv-4 (U.S.N.M, No. 369586) —Incemplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull. Undeformed; mesocranic by inspection; infantile in appearance. Sutures relatively simple; open (except basilar). No parietal fora- mina visible. No ear exostoses or perforations of the tympanic plates; meatus rounded. Third molars and lower right second premolar un- erupted, incisors shovel-shaped. Considerable alveolar prognathism. Epiphyseal union appears to be at a stage comparable to No. 39 of the series published by the author in 1934 (table 2, pp. 440-441). Bicondylar length of left femur (epiphysis replaced), 88.7 cm.; maxi- mum length of left tibia (epiphysis replaced), 30.6 cm. Slight septal aperture in left humerus, none in right. Sciatic notch wide. Probably female, adolescent (17-18 years). Pv-6 (U.S.N.M. No. 369597) —Incomplete skeleton with fragmen- tary skull (no lower jaw). 92 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 131 Undeformed; cranial index, near 75.0. Sutures simple; open (ex- cept basilar). Single parietal foramen on right. No ear exostoses. Medium sized tympanic perforation on each side; meatus rounded. Third molars unerupted. . Distal epiphyses of femur, radius, and ulna; proximal epiphysis of humerus show recent closure. Epiphyses of iliac crest and clavicle ununited. Bicondylar length of femur, right, 41.8 cm.; left, 41.8 cm. Maximum length of tibia, right, 33.8 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of humerus, right, 30. 2 cm.; left, ?. Maximum length of radius, right, 23.6 cm.; left, ?. Small septal aperture in right humerus, large in left. Pelvis feminine. Female, near adult (about 20 years). SUMMARY Sex—Of the 39 individuals recovered, 17 are certainly males and 5 probably males; 10 are certainly females and 3 probably females. The remaining 4 are children. Thus males predominate about 22 to 13. Age.—The number of individuals in the age groups represented, beginning with the youngest, are as follows: COU AH I(0 Laete: Cg aha of ¥> of ea ee an Oana See roe ein) OnE ROE ees acs 1 Childs near: G6 yeals == es see ee ee ale DUVeENnT eC 10) vy Cangas ees ee ee ee eee 2, Adolescent; alv=18) years 222s re ee ee ee ee 2 Adolescent, 20 (yea ts: = = ee ee eee 4 Young adult. about 25 yearses2 = == eee eee ve Mature (adultes se.) a= eee er Seve ot dt 2 Sey te 2D POS CT] es 0 9D Uy pees oe oe me pe, SOD Ndr dee ae NR, 5 SPS IEA ao ce 2 E00 Gea ear rea ee ee ee 39 Deformation—Two general types of deformity occur in this group: 1, Simple occipital flattening (probably unintentional), and 2, fronto- occipital flattening (certainly intentional). Each of these types is represented by eight individuals. Fourteen others appear to be unde- formed, whereas nine are too incomplete to give this information. The general type of deformity known as fronto-occipital has been divided by Imbelloni (1930) into two subtypes: 1, That in which the plane of the flattened occiput is nearly vertical to the Frank- fort plane, and 2, that in which it is inclined (about 120°) to this plane, so as nearly to parallel the frontal. The specimens shown in plates 48 and 49 probably fall into subtype 1, whereas the speci- men shown in plate 50 falls more nearly into subtype 2. Naturally, extreme representatives of these two subtypes are more distinct in appearance than those here shown. STPWART] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 93 In addition to these two subtypes the present material includes five examples ofa variant type of fronto-occipital deformity that does not appear to be widely recognized. If we may generalize from the few specimens available (see pls. 45 and 47), it would seem that pressure has been applied at three points on the head by means of boards. Thus the plane of the flattened occiput is nearly vertical and forms a broad angle near obelion with the flattened parietals, which in turn form a nearly right angle near bregma with the flattened frontal. In other words, this new subtype differs from the first of Imbelloni’s two subtypes, described above, in having the anterior parts of the parietals flattened.2 It will be recognized that, because the parts along the midline of the cranial vault were confined, growth could take place only laterally. There results, thus, the two following characteristics of this third subtype of deformity: 1, A high cranial index (often over 700), and 2, a maximum height from basion located near bregma, instead of more posteriorly (even at obelion) as in the other types. Of the few records of cranial deformity available for the Southeast only one seems to indicate the presence of this variant type. This lone record is Funkhouser’s (1938) report on the skeletal material from Webb’s site 19 in the Norris Basin, eastern Tennessee. Al- though the specimens illustrated are not entirely typical, the cranial indices of others range up to 116.3. Funkhouser says, moreover : The extreme flattening occurs in both the frontal and parietal regions... and this, of course, has produced a compensatory bulging in the parietal regions on both sides. [P. 282.] The presence or absence of cranial deformation at the Peachtree site may be analyzed further according to sex, age, and position rela- tive to mound (table 1). It is perhaps significant that of the burials identified as being the oldest, that is, having been interred before construction of the mound, none shows fronto-occipital deformation, although simple occipital flattening is represented. However, one example of fronto-occipital deformity appears among the small group inclusive in the mound, and three examples occur among the intrusive group. Of the large group of burials encountered beyond the periph- ery of the mound, which undoubtedly includes late burials (one with European articles) and perhaps earlier ones, there are four examples of this intentional deformity. It is noteworthy, also, that of the three individuals accompanied by European articles, two are inten- tionally deformed (variant type). There appears to be no relation- ship between deformity and sex or age. 2 After this report was written, I described this type of defomity at a meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, using the term ‘fronto-parieto-occipital.” (See Stewart, 1939.) [BuLy. 131 “yuodSe[OpV “quadso[opy *qudDSefOPY “WnpV “WApVy “PHYO “PLO, “WOpV “WOpV “WnpV “UNpV “WnpV “WAV “WOpVy “WaApy NPV “HApV “Ap V “ynpVv “yUadSe]OpY¥ “Prado “Wap V BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY osy djysuorjve1) punour jo Aroydiod episjno *syoofqo uvedoing Aq porusdmoay , *PUNOUI UIYIIM [9A] 0} a[qviejal ynq 100Y punow Moog 7 eee CU 5s (ane Jopug |" 9 cul | eee jopug, |" >” b ING lcs reean: Jopuy) | -7 € Thien mete Fa 000-"1N |77 77> z 1S EAD (eee d00-"1qq |77 77> I-4d & |777 (1d) 290 [777 "¥8 60 Weak ee (8) |77 772s (i aA ations bite Jopuy) |~~~ “62 IN |e ees 090 |"" 71% a | ees Se 29Q |7 ~~" 9% WN ite oe (4) |77 779% A: Feed eae JOpuf) |" ~~ “Fz ey ane ees. 4990 |" ~~" &% WN eee (8) |77 77ST ty ence Sonn 72) SE Ceca “7 Ot “‘Wnpy ~~~~"jopu “Fo tW magia 40), oasalL “WOpy | W | Jopuy) |" "ZF “yUOOS9[/OP V = yJopu “eg om je) ae ‘OPV | Wf (2) 25108 mpy | W | Jopuy |" 2h W [7-7 7777000-"1g |" "29 ‘wopy | W | 000-1 |" " "0G “WOpy | W | o00-"TT |~7189 ‘wopy | WY 020 | SF TN || Enea Jopuy) j7"" "gs SDITO |) se sae Jopun) |" 261 STD We CNG ee aeons £990 |" TS ‘$mpy | a 090 | IF Oe ees 900-IT [777 "F ‘sMOpy | W | 000-"I |" "2 8T “$OpV | JW (O)a ee 228 ‘yuoosejopy | W | 7 gyepun |-9g df (4) |" 7" -¢-Wd om) U0) ec 000-1. |" FI-Ug “MOpy | gs PO (4) |7" "1g “VWOpV ie ees jopuy) | 9I-ad xog AqyurI0joq “ON osV xog Aqua10jaq. ‘ON aay xag Ayu10joq ‘ON Coats xog | Ayim0joq | “ON (amouyun (moron14su00 (ao1jonI4s (aoT}ONI3SsSu00 PuNnoUT punouUl ZUIMOT[OJ) punoul Uy @AISNIyUT -000 punom sulINp) puNnou Uy sArsn[ouy surpeoeid A[qeqoid) 100g punoul Molog 94 Uor1jan4jsuod punow fo porsad 0} Ajyrvusofap yjnys fo drysuory]ay—' |. AAV, StpwarT] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 95 TABLE. 2.—Comparative data on the lengths (cm.) of the major long bones MALE Gincn Tibia Humerus Radiu Ulna Site length) —_| (™ax. length) | (max. length) | (max. length) | (max. length) R L R L R L R L R L (| @! |) @| @ @ aw e@! ala ig { 1.9) 44.9 nt art] a8] 328] 25 : 25 8 ond} 273 ’ 3 ti) (eae Boytt’s Field, Ark.!_._._..__- { 18 6 2a se sa? sa 2 3) 2 DL Oe a ‘ 10 10 a ie Ba a a eee ay 44.2) S71] 37.1) 327 927) 26, : 25 Wess ee 7 2. 11 6 8 Madisonville, Ohio ?--....--- 49 44.7| 37.5) 978] 318 | 316) a4) 24 rye ae eee ce Fes gag emery (a 7 eA A sere Paseo lameness Bama : 5 2 a 11 9 8 9 os a a (452 8 | as] a8] 925] 32,6] 25.6 25 Ea ime ee tay N4e1| 4501 "802|° s06| 388 | 289 || ee FEMALE 3} ©} @| @! @ ©] @®| @] @|! @ a iar {at 40, ' 28 33.6 28.5 or tas ea ee ae Bote ea {4.0 41,2) 3.2] 33.2) 28-9 x SE Es 4 econ 12 1 10) 10) 13) 13) 14) 14) 9 9 ee aE ag] sis] S| ho] Sag) wb] maz) 28 | a4) on F 1 5 Madisonville, Ohio---....--.. are 41.9 4.8 | 34.7 99, 23.6 | 23.5 eo one elas apes aaa Sif ae) bent sel evel eco an (13) (13) (14) (14) (15) (12) (11) (12) (1 ll Seema ce i] 410] 38] 96.2) 90.7) 90.2] 23.7] 25.6] 26 2| 28 1)! cee a eens 4) eee es ees Roebuck, Ontarlo-......----- { 42.3 | 42.3] 35.5! 35.8] 30.6 | 30.2 1 Ardlitka, 1909. eon Measurements.—Because of the presence of cranial deformity in so many specimens, and the general fragmentary condition of the collection, the available cranial measurements have little signifi- cance. A summary of the lengths of the major long bones, however, shows that these are very similar to the reported measurements of other Indian groups (table 2). Ear exostoses ——This is one of the few nonmetrical observations for which some comparative data are available. In the present ma- terial there are 58 (27 right, 31 left) temporal bones represented, of which 23 (10 right, 13 left) have ear exostoses. This is about 40 percent. The highest percentage found by Hrdlitka (1935) among American Indian groups was 30 (Indian Knoll, Ky). He found this feature to be less common in the Northeastern States generally. In a group from western Virginia, possibly Cherokee, the frequency was 19.2 percent. 96 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (Butt. 181 Septal apertures—Although but 33 (15 right, 18 left) humeri are sufficiently preserved to show the presence or absence of septal apertures, these defects were observed in 15 (5 right, 10 left), or in about 45 percent. Hrdlicka (1932) has reported the general average for the American Indians to be about 40 percent. There are few figures available for individual groups. Pathology.—tt is still debatable whether or not the signs of osteitis and periostitis seen not uncommonly in Indian long bones, especially the tibia, are due to syphilis. It is, if anything, more debatable whether or not syphilis is a pre- or post-Columbian disease in North America. Under these circumstances it is noteworthy that five cases of osteitis, typical of syphilis as we know it, occur in the most recent group, and in that found beyond the mound. Of the remaining older specimens only two (Pm-45, -51) show this condition, and here it is atypical of syphilis. The other pathological conditions observed in this material seem to be without tribal and chronological significance. CONCLUSION It is important to state first of all that the above morphological and anthropometrical observations alone on the Peachtree skeletons do not prove them to be the remains of Cherokees. This situation is not due entirely to the fragmentary condition of the collection. Rather, it is due to the lack of thoroughly identified Cherokee skeletal material for comparison. Moreover, the presence of cranial deform- ity at the Peachtree site prevents adequate anthropometric compari- son with the linguistic relative of the Cherokee to the north, the Iroquois. If, on the other hand, we assume that because European objects were found at this site, because the culture is uniform throughout the mound, and because the location of the site is within the historic Cherokee territory, the skeletal remains are therefore Cherokee, then the observations take on a particular significance. With this not un- reasonable assumption we can conclude that: 1. The Cherokee practiced intentional cranial deformation at the time of European contact. As far as can be discovered this fact does not seem to have been recorded by any of the early travelers in the Cherokee territory. Mooney says: [The Catawba] were . .. called Flatheads ... by the Iroquois, a name which leads to some confusion, as it was also frequently applied by the same people to the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Cherokee. The name was properly applicable to the Choctaw, who practiced the custom of head flattening, as did also the Waxhaw of South Carolina adjoining the Catawba; but there seems to be no allusion to the existence of this strange custom among the Catawba themselves. [1894, p. 68.] STpwarT] SKELETAL REMAINS FROM PEACHTREE SITE 97 2. Not only did the Cherokee practice intentional cranial deforima- tion, but they often obtained a type of deformity that is not found generally outside their territory. The fact has been mentioned that a similar type of deformity occurs at Webb’s site 19. Other examples exist in the national collection from Nacoochee (Georgia) and various sites in southeastern Tennessee. I will present further details sup- porting this conclusion in a forthcoming publication. 8. Although the evidence is limited to a single nonmetrical char- acter, there is reason to believe that the Cherokee and Iroquois differ somewhat physically. Iroquois skeletal remains have not been dis- tinguished clearly yet from Algonkian, but together these two groups have ear exostoses rather uncommonly, whereas the Cherokee (as- suming the Peachtree skeletons to be this) have them commonly. If we accept Hrdlitka’s conclusion that ear exostoses have an heredi- tary element as their predisposing cause, then this difference between Cherokee and Iroquois must be more profound than would result from recent separation. That linguistic relationship does not neces- sarily connote physical relationship has been pointed out by Hrdlitka in connection with several Indian tribes (for example, 1927, p. 78). Aside from the question of whether or not the Peachtree skeletons are those of Cherokees, the findings at this site lead to the following more general conclusions: 1. The stratigraphic positions of the intentionally deformed skulls not only suggest, but in view of findings elsewhere, make it seem probable that the custom of deforming the head reached the South- east rather late. Thus Kelly (1938) says, in speaking of the excava- tions pertaining to the trading post on the middle section of the Macon plateau: Both in and around the enclosure were found burials of Indians of all ages and sexes associated with European trade artifacts and objects of Indian manufacture, including pottery. A number of burial traits not previously observed were encountered ... the presence of artificial frontal deformation in a number of burials implied that this custom was much more prevalent in historic than in prehistoric times. [P. 52.] Furthermore, Collins (1927) obtained in Louisiana undeformed skulls associated with elements of the Tchefuncte culture and intentionally deformed skulls associated with a later type of pottery. The late appearance of cranial deformity in the upper Mississippi Valley (see Neumann, 1937, observations not summarized) is probably significant also in this connection.? 2. As in the case of cranial deformity, the stratigraphic positions of the skeletons at Peachtree, together with evidence from elsewhere, 3 Since this report was prepared, I have amplified this argument in my contribution to the Swanton Anniversary Volume. (See Stewart, 1940.) 247600—41 9 98 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY make #t seem probable that syphilis was net common among North American Indians until recent (even post-Columbian) times. If this were not so; why has this disease not been reported for the old remains of Algonkians and Eskimos? And why is it not found among the skeletons of the “prepottery” people of Indian Knoll, Ky.¢ Atten- tion may be called again also to Collins’ finds in Louisiana (1927) : The undeformed Tchefuncte people showed no signs of major bone pathology, whereas the more recent deformed people gave much evidence of osteitis. “These two general and rather bold conclusions, admittedly based on weak evidence, are advanced here in the hope that others with more extensive material from the Southeast will present data bearing thereon. 4J hesitate to say that this disease was absent in pre-Columbian times because occa- sionally bones with similar pathological lesions are found among the old Pueblos and Hopewellians. LITERATURE CITED CoLuins, Henry B., JR. 1927. Archeological work in Louisiana and Mississippi. Explorations and Field-Work Smithsonian Inst. 1926, Smithsonian Mise. Coll., vol. 78, No. 7, pp. 200-207. FUNKHAUSER, W. D. 1988. A study of the physical anthropology and pathology of the osteological material from the Norris Basin. Jn Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 118, pp. 225-251. (Sce Webb, William 8.) HooTon, EARNEST A. 1920. Indian village site and cemetery near Madisonville, Ohio. Pap. Pea- bedy Mus. Amer. Archaeol. and Ethnol., vol. 8, No. 1. 1922. The skeletal remains (from the Turner site, Ohio.) Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol, and Ethnol., vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 99-182. HrpiicKA, ALES 1909. Report on an additional collection of skeletal remains from Arkansas and Louisiana. Journ, Acad. Nat, Sci. Philadelphia, 2nd ser., vol. 14, pt. 1, pp. 171-249. 1916. The physical anthropology of the Lenape or Delawares, and of the Eastern Indians in general. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 62. 1927. Catalogue of human crania in the United States National Museum collections. The Algonkins and related Iroquois; Siouan, Caddoan, Salish and Sahaptin, Shoshonean, and California Indians. Proce. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 69, art. 5, pp. 1-127. 1932. The humerus: Septal apertures. Anthropologie, vol. 10, pp. 31-96, Prague. 1635. Ear exostoses. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 98, No. 6. IMBELLONI, J. 1930. Die Arten der kiinstlichen Schiidelformation. Anthropos, vol. 25, pp. 801-830, Vienna. Ketty, A. R. 1988. A preliminary report on archeological explorations at Macon, ¢ Bur. Amey, Ethnol. Bull. 119, Anthrop. Pap. No. 1. KNOWLES, Sir FRANcIS H. S. 1987. Physical anthropology of the Roebuck Iroquois. Canada Dept. Mines and Res., Nat. Mus. Canada, Bull. 87 (Anthrop, ser, 22), Ottawa. Moonzry, JAMES 18%. The Siouan tribes of the East. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 22. NEUMANN, Grora K, 1937. Preliminary notes on the crania from Fulton County, Illinois. Redis- covering Ilinois, appen. 4, pp. 227-264. Univ. Chicago Press. Stewart, T. D. 1934. Sequence of epiphysical union, third molar eruption and suture closure in Eskimos and American Indians. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 19, p. 483452. 1939. Two new types of cranial deformity in the Southeast: (a) fronto- parieto-occipital; (b) obelionic. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 25, suppl. to No. 1, p. 10, abs. 5 and 6. 1940. Some historical implications of physical anthropology in North America. Smithsonian Mise. Coll., vol. 100, pp. 15-50. ~N AA. 99 st » ™ - . : = — 7 af ¢ - = - ' 7 : S = = _ > fal =; 1 - O} 3 8 - ~ 7 = 7 fy a = ; 7 “ ewes Ve ova ty ai nae ‘ ot 7 re oe o _ ea - 7 at : “i : i ~~ J fee og oa gas 4 Nt : J-F — aN oa > & 160. _ > ~~ 6 7 1 nat?) olathe an ~~ @- -): " a : _ ave - ~ a sae - — a : = 5 = + -t Se - ae 7 - 1 er . mers. © ee cee Ve ae (« awe fl : ~ nfs y p 35 : = a > — ’ 7 . : 7 : : i je a 7 - 3 ip : : : - na _— : ; ~ - al = | = - : : tT wer a : i) _ ” C fi - _ 1eal, ane rane : a a at - o ‘aed - a a - - -* _ i 7 - 7 ay, ae 7 . ae ee - : ie a - 7 a yy ~ *{ - -_ — - es 7 ; : @ = ‘ : 7 =A _ Te Ss ociew 2 : | (tp TE Ze _ : i i AP : fr Oh WAP = oe : pou os es Dn) ( - ; ‘i : oe iy; _ = ata divs) =a : Ae oe Or ase i ’ 7 spe roger ty. m+ we wii) 14 3 : a . YY te sosthn ed _ - : Vis a vy @ tie i= f “_- : — ” a 7 “46 - eo) sey. eer . 7 “ oe ead) - rr i \ + Deva, =} - 7 1 _ | fl ee a - aed : : 7 ; eet ; 7 = so 7 : a a ye ol Sieh wot 7 ~ Ta ; tit ; BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 45 Side and top views of skull Pm—4 (U.S.N.M. No. 369559) in Frankfort position showing type of deformity. Juvenile (1 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULEERIN 131™ PEABRE AG Three lower jaws showing a pointed contour formed by the biting edges of the incisors, caused apparently by early loss of the upper median incisors. 4 is Pm-7 (U.S.N.M. No. 369562); B is Pm—-30 (U.S.N.M. No. 369577); C is Pm—45 (U.S.N.M. No. 369587). (Natural size.) BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 47 ‘Side and top views of skull Pm-14 (U.S.N.M. No. 369566) in Frankfort position showing type of deformity like that shown in plate 45. Old female (14 natural size), fa BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE: 48 Side and top views of skull Pm—20 (U.S.N.M. No. 369571) in Frankfort position showing type of deformity. Adult male (1 natural size). BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PEATE 49 Side and top views of skull Pm—53 (U.S.N.M. No. 369591) in Frankfort position showing type of deformity. Adult male (14 natural size). BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 131 PLATE 50 Side and top views of skull Pv-2'(U.S.N.M.? No. 369594) in Frankfort position showing type of deformity. Adult male (42 natural size). INDEX Abrading stones, mentioned, 37 “Adena” phase, characteristics, 53 Algonkian, mentioned, 96, 97 Amusements. See Games Antler and bone, 38 Archeological implications, 50-57 Archeology, picture in the Southeast, 3-6 Architecture and house-life, 29-30 Artifacts, provenience, 72-79 See also under individual names Awls, 33, 38 Axes, 35-36 description, 37 grooved, mentioned, 65 iron, mentioned, 39 Aztecs, reference to mounds, 5 Beads, 11, 18, 30, 37, 65 Bells, copper, mentioned, 39 Bone artifacts, 33, 38 compared with other sites, 67 See also Provenience Boulders, water-worn, 23 Bowls. See Pottery Bracelets, 30, 38, 39 Brass, mentioned, 11 Buckle, mentioned, 39 Burial customs, 338-384 compared with other sites, 67 Burials, 16-17, 65 number, 33 stone-grave, 54 See also Skeletal remains Cane wattle work, mentioned, 29 Celts, 85-36, 37 Ceremonies and customs, 33-386 Charcoal, at village site, 26 Cherokee, evidence of occupation, 9-13, 55-56, 57 Peachtree others, 52 skeletal evidence, 95-96 Chestua, location mentioned, 9 Chicago, University of, acknowledg- iment to, 3 Civil Works Administration, acknowl- edgment to, 1 choice of site, 13 mentioned, ix number of men furnished, 1, 14 Clay, burned, 22-23 Coal, used for ornaments, 32 Colburn, W. B., administrator of proj- ect, 1 Cole, Prof. Fay-Cooper, ment to, 3 Coles Creek complex, reference to, 5, 6 site compared with acknowledg- Copper, 11, 38-39, 65 ornaments, 30 See also Provenience Corn cobs, 28 Costume and dress, 80-33. Creeks, mentioned, 56 Culture, analysis, 52 Cherokee, evidence at Peachtree, 55-56 material, 29-50 Peachtree compared to other, 55, 56, 66-71 Southeast compared with other. 4-5 See also Traits Cultures, aboriginal, taxonomy, 6 Cupstone fragments, 37-38 Customs and ceremonies, 33-36 Cysts, burial, 33-34, 54 Date of mound, 57 project, 1 Deasonville complex, reference to, 5 De Soto, Hernando, reference to, 9, 13 Discoidals, 36, 37, 65 Dog, mentioned, 30 Dress. See Costume and dress Ear ornaments, 30, 32 Eskimos, mentioned, 97 Etowah Mound, 35 Creek cecupation, 56 stone graves, 54 traits compared 66-71 European objects, mentioned, 11, 66, 95 see also Provenience Excavations, 13-29 plan, 14-15 Fireplaces, 25, 27-28 Fishhooks, 38, 39, 65 Flaking tools, 38 Floors, 16, 18-21, 28 “Folsomoid” artifacts, 4 Food, 29, 30 Funkhouser, W. D., quoted, 92 Fur, found with burial, 34 Games, 86 Grave goods, reference to, 65 Graves. See Burials Great Hiwassee, located on Hiwassee River, 9 Greenman, BE. F., work referred to, 53 Guasili, probable location, 9 reference to town, 13 Guthe, Carl E., quoted, 39-40 Hairdress, 33 Hairpins, 30, 32, 8 with Peachtree, 18, 101 102 D Hammerstones, 3 Harrington, M. R., reference to work, 51-52, 53, 54, 71 Historical background, 6-13 Hiwassee, location of town, 9 traits compared with Peachtree, 66-71 Hiwassee Island, a Cherokee site, 56 Hiwassee River, description, 14 Hollywood Mound, Georgia, descrip- tion, 6 traits compared with Peachtree, 66-71 Hopewellian Phase, referred to, 5 Hopkins, Harry L., acknowledgment to, 1 House-life and architecture, 29-30 Houses, 24-26, 27 Hunting and warfare, 35-36 Iron, mentioned, 11, 18 Iroquoian stock, reference to, 51 Iroquois, reference to, 10, 95, 96 Kelly, A. R., quoted, 96 Knives, 11, 32, 39 Louisiana reference to explorations, 5 Lower Mississippi phase, mentioned, 65 See also Mississippi pattern Maize leaf, found with burial, 34 Manufactured objects, descriptions, 36-50 Marksville or Southern Hopewell cul- ture, referred to, 5 Material culture, 29-50 Mats, mentioned, 29 Matting, found with burial, 34 Maya, reference to mounds, 5 Mealing stones, mentioned, 65 Milling stones Metal artifacts, 11. 33 compared with other sites, 69 Miemac-type pipes found, 35 Middle Mississippi phase, mentioned, 65 See also Mississippi pattern Milford, Morton M., acknowledgment to; 1 Milling stones, mentioned, 29 See also Mealing stones; Mortars Mission, established near Peachtree, 10 Mississippi pattern, traits, 52-53, 55, 65 Mooney, James, quoted, 10, 95 Moore, Clarence B., archeological work in the Southeast, 3 Mortars, description, 37, 38 See also Mealing stones; Milling stones Mound, Peachtree, 14-18 date compared to Nacoochee, 54 mound used as substructure, 65 primary mound, 24-26 secondary mound, 18-23 structure compared with other sites, 67 Nacoochee, a Cherokee site, 56 mound, mentioned, 35 reference to cranial deformity, 96 stone graves, 54 See also INDEX Nacoochee—Continued. traits compared with Peachtree, 66-71 “Net sinkers,” 382, 37 Norris Basin, analysis of cultural re- mains, 56-57 traits compared with Peachtree, 66-70 Nottely, location. 9-10 “Nutstones.” See Cupstone fragments Ochre, 33 Ornaments, 80-33, 38-39 associated with burials, 53, 65 Paint. See Ochre Painting, on pottery, 45 Paint mortars (?), 38 Peachtree mound. See Mound, Peach- tree , Peachtree site. Pendants, 32, 37 “Pick” forms, 37 Pipes, and tobacco, 34-35 description, 55 Mississippi pattern, 65 See also Provenience Post holes, 21-24, 26-28 passim Posts, 27 Pottery, 39-50 as a cultural determinant, 54 bowls found with burial, 33 compared with other sites, 69-70 Mississippi pattern, 65 tan-gray ware, 47 Ware A, 41-43, 48, 49, 50 Ware B, 48, 45, 48, 49, 50 Ware B-1, 45, 49, 50 Ware ©, 4546, 48, 49 Ware C-1, 46, 49 Ware D, 46, 48, 49, 50 Woodland pattern, 65 See also Provenience “Prepottery” people, 97 Projectile points, 35, 38, 65 oceurrence, 52 Provenience (of specimens illustrated), 72-19 Ramps, 21-22 Scissors, mentioned, 39 Shell, 38 artifacts compared with other sites, 69 cup found with burial, 34 See also Provenience Sherds, in fireplaces, 27 See also Pottery Siouan calumet pipe found, 35 ; Site, Peachtree, Cherokee occupation, 9-138, 55, 56 choice and description, 138-14 conclusions, 57 cultural relation to other sites, 56 date of occupation, 57 summary, 29 traits compared with other sites, 66-71 village site, 26-28 Sce Site, Peachtree INDEX Sites (C. W. A.), location, 1 Skeletal remains, 80-97 age, 91 conelusions, 95-97 condition, 34 deformation, 91-93 description, 80-91 ear exostoses, 94 measurements, 94 pathology, 95 septal apertures, 95 sex, 91 Skins, found with burial, 34 Skulls. See Skeletal remains Smith, Sibbald, informant, 11 Soil, 16, 17 in pits, 26 See also Strata Southeast, archeological picture, 3-6 Southern Hopewell culture, referred to, 5 Specimens, provenience, 72-79 Stairways. See Ramps Stalling’s Island, traits compared with Peachtree, 66-71 Steatite vessels, 387, 38 occurrence, 51-52 Steps. See Ramps Stockade (7), 28 Stone, 36-38 artifacts compared with other sites, 67-69 See aiso Provenience; Stones Stone, Julius, acknowledgment te, 1 Stones, 28 clusters, 27 notched and grooved, 35 Strata, 16, 22 Swanton, John R., reference to, 13 - Sweat house (?), 23 Syphilis, pre- or post-Columbian 95, 96-97 Tale, uses, 28, 32 Tankard, iron, 39 Taxonomy of aboriginal cultures, 6 Tchefuncte culture, mentioned, 96, 97 Textiles, 39 compared with other sites, 69 Tlanusiyi, location, 9, 11 Tobacco, and pipes, 34-35 mentioned, 29 Trail, description, 9-10 Traits, 65 method of selection, 51 Peachtree compared Sites, 55, 56, 66-71 See also Culture Trench, connecting refuse pit with bur- ial pit, 26 United States National Museum, men- tioned, 3 Upper Mississippi phase, mentioned, 65 See also Mississippi pattern Valentine pits, reference to, 19, 23 Valleytown, possible location at Peach- tree, 10 Village site, 26-28 Warfare und hunting, 35-36 Wattle. See Cane wattle work Weapons. See Warfare and hunting Webb, William S., quoted, 56-57 Weeden Island Component, reference to, 5 Whetstones, mentioned, 65 Woodland pattern, traits, 52, with other oO, OD, 65 Yuchi, reference to, 13 O : == 1° : - a ot 2 a 7 aD -_ are an ‘= 7-9 7 - se 5 Sa ie Tes a a lee : = : a ante, a 7 Se on ‘ip - a 7 a : rere 1 i cy he = a cs - — — = y : a “se . - aa - tee Vay ae aa _ a >) = _ a 7 : Pare ie 7 “ eee SSO - 7. © r a . : 7 7 Tr = » no ti Oat ae. - oe = - = l= i - a J 7 nan = _ 7 7 es 7 . i : a 3s : y 7 ue i | G SI ; : - 7 7 - : > i MO NELIDRAEATICDEGEN TA ReSTAE AL Mela RSA Ren eaitdeal de Lranaene Oe hint (eit Pom AEN BRO MEU NER Betis! dbm Gs te Deis Rh Woe ak a Othe 4 Oth be : He eRee Nahe GW Ae tani he Wet si HAAG EGEDE OE Hee BEN FO Tf Piece ey be te fi % f Wy Fa Parris Vice AO hon RD Oey bop “ eh SSA fief Leh (hte NW tae Meth ALAA Re Ay Wel Oe wel ag Bp bebo beh ha ep W bie HMM of) fh. Ps le feb Seihayedbatbe thy Pod oa eye Pew MO COT eae aT oa MY ion Tp Sals meth Ua M WeWvE Nash Hehe aot ree rat diac} paren eezy TOMA Oa aN Ye VS ON CO Ss DCO OR UCR ars Aerenar Grins tat pene Aa wots UEUONED TAN ae BENE Oboe Wht Medey Me Develo Mey Mth Bet fee te ve Bf fick) Rel oy PSD ORG HAND EW Geb eA Notiet ‘ ’ Pe he oe " Be eWeM Ale Hiky) Aa tan MUM HE ets eye WN de thy Ma ab fh Siebs COMODO Deh sO WAR Me NW OM RGR fe Be Mr be W be BBB I bebo tek a poked Liedeibsthe ti SMS Me ehich- A Wy behig hi Hsdie hepeh’ DheGeh Me bs Ucae Ohh sty AeA MAb ly WSN Me fa BeboWe Ubi Geli br bcweiehedBaL Arar eye yeep beset Mpearecet as ua Ee NL ERIE MAL AH MSA IEDR MALE WG Meh bith d Hy Gore WoW Kehanem We boy Maa Perea ie ts eet Sata Ae tetie hatte RS ANN Thetis ey at Wee eS OM eth eR Ok beh eibeBl pike jofewt eHeWe be TD A WAU Whey Al be meHow belt MCh Aone PMs telk wile bet WEE heN EMG WoW UA MEN OEY SEP MEAN IOM Sy MEG Tee PEO SLE et We ae OnME ARBs RM ee et CLO Reels ROU re Sr ts mS REE a CO AEWA Ne pheb abate Nehels he vk Me phatedbe tab De eAel AVEAE he W HEME Ue Ae Bek, WESC VE MEME be Gh tee OME bo Wph oahia § elie Ge eth Heel HE hebebicts Wophy fee oS gy! He Wee w SEU ed WEEE Abbie aby HEMP R HE Hebb! MWe Wee fe ERMi e BEN WA A HSeyo Ua ba Se Slee WE Nets A ULM Ve th eth OE Ab ON LIBRARIES edith ney HAVEN WW HUSH ENEMERESE WULON HAW UENO Meat Beh bp leap anew vnpe ly : ‘ cat) ) " SUP RBA yee eAbGL sgh’ FF Shel Ny i : y Wathtd iy WebeheOey nt te . ‘hs DeDLOeU PEM EH be Oe ane tiny re ‘ Ase ty AY We IAA Ai eu aet Res 4 ‘ eee P ES GPEUE Reba Mae pA sedi ihe Bit) ks thew! ww UL Ohh AEE iM 1 MRA QO PER he SOME Bem dy Veit: NAW TE WM AR Abu ue D rab it mb KS, Hs USPEMM MAEM Y hastisie Us dadicfiade pb neninth ie Use ty © Mai OAH Hh 8 fais ALEMEW EA: He Mlawed He WEN eM H HEM be The Meme ANA eKiP hoy, leew can APOE oh th TUE AU Ue eof pel EAE ORM VoR EM Ce Magi A ehh ts CO HF Ove She Ak EGBA SNA Fon a hee the the AN) GU AR nhs eh We News Memon: hes Cora eh bar ti es Poe MOL PEN ALEE Net 8 Re te bette MONO tb y TAL Meta Ete ba ESD be eh EOD Meh Wey ¥ WEE MENG th Mee URE EES Meth OMA OL IRL MEM GE AE Os Sle Ab aah iar MDH nu Rh Abt ey heiyy Webs bes Nhe reread fey) i WAL Me ihe fiek be ty) phy MUSE ANH HS hp WL Ney Mayle gt Wed Ye Wee (Ob Bik NEM MEGEDE MULAN AEA MDA ME HN We MEMO M ets bah Be pelind, MENGE GENE APD Vewe tl Qrue Nur ey WAVE OMEN be CMM SE AF SeUES RUE ATK COMA HENEM DMEM UE MDA mem eel eer het gey WEI PREM Hebe Me eT MP Le mM Oe OW OM We Mote ds Pabhss sey Heo eee wel Oily {thee DP Mb the Ns ANEW Hee OMEN Heh Hey beprtbetio PME Hi Lah er Wei lee elen BMbig ese Sie LW AL SS) pies pMRANL Shy te. AY rays Mar gnS AY MsGe wath siew nahi Youd ga whistle: 6 RB) ith a PRR MRS ehatar gS Patan Me OTT Aa PEA NT Hi aE WB VRW ME WGN ae gi teb iene Hod A HG REMEM ELE Wetted gh bya) eWe tb pd Ns He WOME YE AEA Us Rete Wap the DAM HOM i No Batieaebey APART MP Org Weta Te site beled PM Re CHAM be OW FON ShaTeE Mee Gahad yopad BYES SO Melee AE fede Ree Helis NNN Mies meh O ME (etal ph te Mes lb AN WEE O Ma Ne 49 Whale he ORE TNe B MEN He eet Mead ey SATTSnyeAeCuP ara (ta cs Pa rome ciraay (ha Wrenn peer ts Meare | Pi bseh yep eho Weed ANG EA Mee. HOG Mb lhy terns Le ita nr ans reed Havre a ar SVE WE TOMS CIE Ub Me ify Oke a ened Wie ha ed Ee Bete Me Ket egl yor Aly JCM Mepepen Be Dehed rt : We @ bape aT AL dle they ti Nbetie Wethe w WADE bs eEse PMH ER ere ASAT H Altay eegh Seg GE NOL CVE ALOR Me hs hetebe neds tees me rh et ORM Ae Ri ueh eaves Mirae bere pe aurert Whe p COM TS PONTIR GT err Water WRI Le RS UE PRO RRS SEOUL oe Mee ek i HETGAR Dewey fe iO th & SSR eh One Sure ere are Ts ee te ee CEC SCO ON Re eke Cert Ube be bed! hans hb yeh Waly \\ AMCs Hee RENE MEN heb atle HYG MEE amet hairiest vacer tare cies Wry Vit arena BO ve HSE WeAL pebdlebieby Wepehed. oth Wei E MeMhae NAS Uy Vel Rie ehiobe ently dh Ok g Vig Ake ADEA A RR Heh WORE Ey GPM PRA MENLO BELG Ball gp we ath Set TAG ON Ben PPPOE Obes ba i" Wiles s WAH A NUOROPN EHO UR LES Leuseenen: Crd l Ava eet be May ed He OEM A USS ARE bye ee tee « Wey pen awe WED HO Wee Belk ey beak paw & Geige the Gah WA SEWED DBS hese Wh hee (POEL Ms A 4 alist et Uelietiot 8 es Norn eater tran TE Prortvericaer Wy saree ein eerie ere PUB Aiea Ke ak gh wpe Phebe fh tell CW eran BEA A hE OOM Meare pee hes Ne ya tats yn CSS eae ‘ Cheah VEN Ge hay y 4 ray Web athens Wake eye Woy Te eee OAs teh ehin eat S OO OU NGO: adhe hele hs NtNAeB aE THL pl me hand a iaerepha ip Gattot Habe ih scene ey vehi 4 ‘ ey Ab Deb ahy hieh vs 0) SATE RENEE MISA SCO Le Wey Abe fr ted. W LNs Wahi Ys Tein epee Gist Walssyespeb ent HSH GCUTNER GONE RT ees men tue ROTATES Nes { Ws tithe PA ePDaROL HLM iets WOH eRe ee Th eC Corie Om UTES CORY SIPT A) eer TE WA MH. Heh Wey DeHed Ween edhOEM) OHIO URI OED a tal WEG Sel SETS ORBER Henpre he Nes WABLA seme Ary Wey Os by i WB PRE H AIL athe howe b ehey CeCe or te eae} SHELA LHe NEOLA HEOLSM EL EMI Mb lel pies ede | rineaiy Maarten Hip Eva OED Hay frets Web Vee bs Oe yay We Ye Pods N let Wee i bn) § ‘) Dy siptyeay tibte AL Moh e thy e Me feat We he Ogee ey BA QGue | La neiele O WRRIRM Eb AGU Hew Mejia: | ‘ yay aay AD Bo vetieh. Gi Nebes F acopuen hone se seis Ee Helle AMI bale etiled PA Pe a eh Se ; sian MPRA SELB BRBDY OPN Weby i eur ya {i het Ht Pitatgens hone hie 6 TPH eos A SM STUUR TUE Chit ab ee y to ib cried yy Weel HS Weds HELM OY Dede yt ‘ WM PEGE Eyes Peay 4 Huai earn ib eV BIN | ear ca vat haart Ors Oe er ea Hebe QUE Megh they ut we eeSibeb mp RaKe FR HP flaw LW Mowe ge hits f.G eWeWe ts Se NMI Hel Tee liet’ deen sib lbetaf " ia pe eee py me a ACE Nr wis bagi et \ HY ‘ isi ie iyeh ey, Vows ky peak hae ee Mie ted aout WA ted HN Hite at] ’ Gintaen Vauyet wea Mee eye Mihi Oousties SNe eD Mote Ne MeUh Os oe We Wa pe Mey, Gop ae he 4 {Oy \ He DD en f CH ie the Petre eee a oe My: TUECieN Mua VA vO Cre Oo MeV EIC Ss 8 i HEP Pees Delay Sik Abb WAAL Cie HEM ATe s H De E SNE OHNE BH PAS kG ga) Py MNS TE Ste Ta Rae Te RD te Ap Pate Wee EE ede some eg ai) ie rt PAT CCH MLCT 3 fed fiery te ts haneodecn nis Wel THe ner re LH Feb WEN wh Peres ac ete (rss 4G ; frst CE ns a Wife eile Magee hte 4 Ler brqamned Wray ave ia a) a (A wv heave eer peaiynel SeHeW MON Nyy Gatto ee Pehl. ree er el yD Myf ith HR USS bite Ae Pit Wee atehe UO Gob Ham ebb’ MEVledle pe lie vie ‘ Aiea pes} aE) USPS AWE eesti Hi be teen de beneane ih i eee (hy aw lel BW Wap eot He hb te ene Pap bri PM OLA Pet Wet s Y TIPPS Bipot Hise hme hey yah ty hela R LEAN bihe cart eh Beth Wed { WY Teh bee: Ody Marat eA ANE ae we etide tt fie ast hed Arbon Wik Tees ern ay Hes Deh Gey BACT RU SL PD veh ens ei hice Sipiebep yale EMILE EERE MAN falhe® Vaheheyee beta i uehiy j ey Wel pi) i Cen hOhy ARDEA RRO! be tgeuce vhs Bis ey Ve le hesietion gy ianineree ay at reat) Ve Me DENY Hi) wef Pe ene Bae ATAM LOCI 4 TEACHES thu Pros ieyeyt Ue DS EL Poaceae Bye « WUE EL Shear Pep ediage ila Wel aasae DFA) A itd ate ee | VAP ALO MrENy iri) FL BAe Veda OED d Pale GAGE ih DAE vr DEOL VED ‘ Dens beaten Ua a rea) iB Atay nace he weet abit eek le biiatieds & FLOSS TET a Winoy CoE qealnieael WHOLE OS RL Ohh lad hhekasd hed Py biel Grae Bove ie Lem Ape T ide Pliab sare Gallom eae bth eee ety fer bebe Heby eral eT met eG: bab P Lenk eedioaed ristienls he hed ‘ ork ‘ Ph Mae peas ‘ yb es esse fy lige bbe ONPEr Cnt Mts ag Coal aerate is rind bi pe POPLAR: GEA gWeee} OMe DEH eM? ae DORE TAL i 6 ty ii HU ee tee Mens is bre reed eie bah relat Hates Bho be eH ee iy AiueeE Hf By Fob hes ail | pposeny taylor Reniad STL aU en Uybeuer Hae Ba ghoves Delite BP y hone Chr aie ar Th ED RE Sy Peo, we ie eee s UF ek i 4 bohet e Ghiee bablaeeetabiy ip by hee O Beeeyeurs lh Stes Trlep bs embin gs ange te reat Pheichiisdy heath O Lea turk tah ae bed Wek Le bebe rent. (de bebeb Var peh wih hye bbs babs ydebit nde VS mb e ined ye ts US Be es ba gee tls Uy ak ae Web biased: beats 8 KPdiy Weve HA DFTISE GF held ob We lhe es Oy od re AALS Lape ee Tniiiged lee bie te Heda eae Goake ths Deeb be aly BoC OTe Os a aU rcepa he OM a de bea sbab gue art Ritrahra/erie Lite EM tee ep ere Lege engin be ue vb ht jak ten hr ee ee eee ee eee owt de Hee eee Ue z JPME UE Dane t ‘ Sih Gols Raeate hepAmoas ae thi tink er LP he aH! Oe bre ewe nts OPeb PENS eC IGE UF ERLE Rha Uy abe hearers erat arched Troreoverprioatr ie Mir nate ge ert re he (aR Hey eee te bebe bie yehe gate bignbeeete Ty debe tet Avil i We Weake Geb nee ad ane tone ah ve be del i) Wi ek Brat ibee heey veliey Br hiner. Fe nibectisbeit i ius gute tur Heeb We oe i mm cheers ben keh Ue We be We ke be be Be Be ee Bo be Bs te neloe sh bee presedeied OMAN LeMans Rut Awe nese iste tink RAN TIRE Qs Ua lbe be hee > a iernnnvhenay dietytini ke | syeiises ude md oweastt ee +54 Het yam bend eee HERP ee Dee Ue Ae eH me At eD ee be He Uagls tebe IP We be Rar y Lew end Bri rieeea tee) URD dee teehee ebap aera he BOT Es Ute arb 14 heme Be lt Sie Upton, Wels Rive liye Ub liebe pst ash cS apis Bead erate EAR HH ad Eng HURL BOS We He Dei he de the Wow rat polis mone tebe wad iee bets bp ane Arie ip wee Bebe ie Pade hia HE NE Hetie y= tabivas ated CUE Sane Pepiote ite He bth» be Hen beet ewe ies eB Haale Beeb eto HALE Hie bir EO ree ak attri ae ete ia Dena eep free Pere etn pode by Die Medes rege it hae We Behe Vir is brnr deded et Cee eure rereties bee a) Peat ener ties Meta cane es Protas der hee Lis ae Web en iin db gree Dri crliseat WGP ee bie beh iry creas Bisbee lite Aah se nats heiebay Peet yee ath BLE ea) phe none leone eh i Or Hoilslained! bah at VAPASD HARM Le Coley he Bebe hh tab tH EDEMPVelistiiabetheny baicueatl tebe ie date ds MOT UEibD UW Bodine td daBNaiee be i bbhinbe | teh nteeaey iaghe PTL ETH EM y edb APES ALS hs Hebi Uieade dopa (I shah Weiyeb tee webadue Wwe bbs Yee des tas dbe lie be ae td betle by Pelicithbe De ge CFT Ben teett Ieancdedt § i ey Ipahe ibd Pep ONSET CCS TL: OUP ReWReDeASUS TD. feb e Lhe Orble PMA be hy by lA wnt Wee Diode tiple pe he Webb Ad Orie ab lt tals hie bee ea ee th Le bie (Vr dub ne he heb pd ne A thie aret bee Hiei EAE Des Web bieghe he nae qiSHie Heh eden: Ab ore Rb ss foe gr De Hence Peewee Ue Hist Dice (lebe ite Up myer Wether ee Phe tM heb Me HED eRe dlepeacme ne het Wil Wek bell Sher set pe bh Desa Vow k UDRRE Bie Hem pe ie ay ta oth: abe beabe Helene ae bt Alea Vol PeVe Vee reeee be Hey bee HREM RN UE By HES TU ERIE RMS gbe phite Cel ells heehee ’ Fit aledemnen He NaN ah WIS WP” Re d= fhedhe RANA Leeda nemewimene te (ete tly b Phebe pee gleckey ale he VER bys dee awnaye ber we toe RE pre Ech aha (ena witty bead Mt CU oon Le Vg be heb Hoare bbbde bel vettes Hyd eb ENS Wem eke BOTH Wepre tie ily “ie bw Hirde bebe toes rbir Ure imeem tian tele dele le pe iiag dca Dakine ep one De Belen ecb desde bovis bes Peele Denke tho b | eee ba prnsnebene Ss ebep thea pes Nebeeite TPP RE beet ube Dede Re Babies bok Rieke de pe jn abo bebo nelle tt Achy Mh Dome Hebets Terence adeeb) Oh * ha Bhbeasc) Gh PLeded dba raten Wien ths ate Wiebe bow Oe iebde> bre) DUDE 7 dae DLA TABS lee bw Gneee Ble OOP Bb eae hel (eberwe Abie be hebbMindis | Wieeeee ae Fs adeeb Glecbrenpebw ih at