The
Mann
Site
&
The
Leake
Site:

Linking
the
Midwest
and
the
Southeast
during
the
Middle
Woodland
Period

Scot
Keith
New
South
Associates
Midwest
Archaeological
Conference
Bloomington,
Indiana
October
2010
 THE MANN SITE AND THE LEAKE SITE:
LINKING THE MIDWEST AND THE SOUTHEAST
DURING THE MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD

Scot Keith
New South Associates

Midwest Archaeological Conference

Bloomington, Indiana
October 21-24, 2010
[TITLE SLIDE]

Numerous archaeologists have noted the similarity of the complicated stamped

ceramics at the Mann site with the Swift Creek type found in the Southeast (e.g., Black

1940; Adams 1949; McMichael 1960; Kellar 1979; Rein 1974; Ruby et al. 1993; Ruby

and Shriner 2000, 2005; Smith 1979). The presence at Mann of these and sand/grit

tempered fine line simple stamped wares that resemble Southeastern ceramic types has

long been recognized for its potential to provide information regarding Hopewellian

interregional interaction between the Midwest and the Southeast (e.g., Black 1940;

Adams 1949; Martin 1954; Kellar 1979; Smith 1979). Since the Mann site probably

needs little introduction here, and in the interest of time, I will limit myself to say that

Mann was a large Middle Woodland Hopewellian center, located along the Ohio River

approximately 100 miles southwest of here as the crow flies. In a prescient statement

from 1998 regarding interaction between Swift Creek communities and the Midwest,

David Anderson (1998:280) stated that Mann might have been a “gateway community or

way station” linking the Midwest with the Southeast. [SLIDE]

Swift Creek pottery was produced from approximately 100 BC until AD 800

(Anderson 1998:276; Stephenson et al. 2002) over a large area of the Southeast, from the

Gulf Coastal area of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi up into the Appalachian

mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina, along the Savannah River Valley to the

Atlantic Coast. It occurs at a variety of sites, from small domestic occupations to major

mound centers, particularly those which evidence a connection with the Hopewellian

sphere (see Willey 1949; Caldwell 1958, 1964; Kellar et al. 1962a, 1962b; Smith 1975,

1979), including Seip in Ohio (Greber 2006) and Pinson in Tennessee (Mainfort 1986;
Mainfort et al. 1997). Simple stamped pottery, generally typed in the

Georgia/Florida/Alabama area as Cartersville in the Piedmont and Deptford in the

Coastal Plain, is a close associate of Swift Creek wares. [SLIDE]

In her 1974 thesis documenting the complicated stamped wares at Mann, Judith

Rein wrote that the “resemblances between Early Swift Creek and Mann styles certainly

outweigh the differences, which primarily appear to be ones of stylistic degree” (Rein

1974:69). Rein (1974) found three complicated stamp designs on Mann sherds that

closely resemble examples from Southeastern Swift Creek sites, although she

documented slight differences in each of these possible matches; she also noted numerous

sherds displaying the rectilinear Crooked River and St. Andrews Swift Creek designs

(Willey 1949:383-386) common at Coastal Plain sites.

More recently, Bret Ruby and Christine Shriner (2000, 2005; Ruby et al. 1993)

conducted compositional analyses of complicated stamped and simple stamped sherds

from Mann in an attempt to determine their origin. The results indicated that the

complicated stamped and bold simple stamped sherds were made with local clays, while

the fine line simple stamped sherds were made from non-local materials indicative of

Southeastern Blue Ridge and Piedmont metamorphic materials. Ruby and Shriner (2000,

2005) look to the Appalachian Summit area of eastern Tennessee and western North

Carolina for the origin of the Mann fine line simple stamped wares, and equate the Mann

examples with the type Connestee Simple Stamped.

Ruby and Shriner (2000, 2005) discuss several scenarios and mechanisms that

could account for the non-local simple stamped wares at Mann. One explanation is that

these are the products of utilitarian exchange between Midwestern and Southeastern
groups; however, this is considered unlikely due to the great transport costs involved.

Another scenario is that Southeastern simple stamped pottery was ideologically valuable,

so that individuals striving for leadership and social prestige would have brought back

such pottery from journeys as proof of their exploits and acquired knowledge (see Helms

1988; Seeman 1995). A third model involves pilgrimages by Southeasterners to visit

Mann and other Midwestern mound centers (Ruby and Shriner 2005:570). Pilgrims

would have been lured to these distant places due to tales of such great and powerful

monumental places, and simple stamped vessels may have been brought along for

support purposes, and/or for intentional gifting to people at Midwestern sites. A fourth

possibility is that these wares were exchanged among the leaders of Mann and

Southeastern peer polities, but Ruby and Shriner (2005:570) discount this scenario based

on the lack of Middle Woodland central leadership.

In interpreting the locally-made Swift Creek pottery, Ruby and Shriner

(2005:570-571) discuss several other models of interaction. One is based on Penney’s

(1989) suggestion that the widespread distribution of Hopewellian items may be evidence

of long-distance travels for the purpose of learning and buying manufacturing rights of

specific ceremonial items. Upon acquiring such rights, persons could manufacture items

of distant styles using locally available materials. In this scenario, Mann area potters

traveled to the Southeast to acquire the rights to make Swift Creek pottery. Production of

such styles back at Mann would have bestowed some measure of prestige to the artisans,

as well as been a symbol of their worldliness and openness to visitors (Ruby and Shriner

2005:571). Another explanation that could account for this pottery is that Swift Creek

paddles were transported to Mann, independent of the potters who used them, either
through direct procurement or exchange (Ruby and Shriner 2005:571). Evidence against

this scenario includes the lack of exact design matches to Southeastern pottery,

suggesting that the paddles were carved locally; Stoltman and Snow’s (1998)

petrographic study of Southeastern Swift Creek wares indicating that paddles and potters

did not move independently; and the lack of data supporting exchange among leaders of

regional peer polities (Ruby and Shriner 2005:571). Finally, one scenario that may

account for the locally made Swift Creek vessels at Mann is that Southeastern Swift

Creek potters produced them while visiting or living at the site (Ruby and Shriner

2005:571). Under this “ritual visitors” scenario, the Mann site was host to foreign visitors

that were likely participants in the ritual activities. These interactions may also have led

to long-term relationships such as marriage and adoption. The frequency of the Swift

Creek pottery at Mann is based on the assumption that the foreigners were responsible for

its production rather than Mann locals who tried to imitate it. At Pinson, Mainfort et al.

(1997) argue that the presence of foreign artifacts made using local materials is due to a

similar situation, with foreign visitors producing these items with local materials. Ruby

and Shriner (2005) favor this ritual visitors model. [SLIDE]

It was during the investigation of the contemporaneous Leake site in northwest

Georgia (see Keith 2010) that Co-Principal Investigator Dean Wood and I learned of the

Mann site and its unusual ceramic assemblage. Situated on the floodplain of the Etowah

River, the Leake site consists of the remains of three earthen mounds, a semi-circular

ditch enclosure, extensive midden deposits, and thousands of features such as postmolds,

hearths, and cooking pits. Within the dense Swift Creek midden that dates from

approximately 100 A.D. until the abandonment of the site circa 650 A.D., Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped and Cartersville Simple Stamped are the predominant pottery

types, while non-local ceramic types reveal the presence of peoples from the Gulf and

Atlantic coasts, the Lower Mississippi Valley, the Midsouth, and the Midwest. [SLIDE]

Similar to the Mann site, the midden contains utilitarian and ceremonial items, including

FCR, points and debitage of local chert; cut mica; copper; galena; ceramic human and

animal figurines; prismatic blades of Ohio Flint Ridge chert, local chert, and clear/crystal

quartz; modified quartz crystals and clear/crystal quartz debitage; graphite; hematite;

greenstone; and phyllite. Communal feasting deposits are present, and much of the

ceremonial materials are in the form of debris that remains from the production of

specialized items by participants in Hopewellian systems. [SLIDE]

Additionally, there are three sites approximately one-half mile to the north of

Leake on Ladd Mountain that I contend were constructed and used by Middle Woodland

peoples associated with the Leake site; collectively, I refer to this as the Leake complex.

These sites include a large cavern [Ladd Cave (9BR194)] which contained human

remains (Anonymous 1885a, 1885b, 1915; Sneed 1998, 2007); a stone wall enclosure

(9BR17) around the summit (Whittlesey 1883; Smith 1936; Smith 1962; Wauchope

1966); and a stone burial mound [Shaw Mound (9BR24)] at the base of the mountain

which held a single individual interred with Hopewellian grave goods (Whittlesey 1883;

Smith 1936; Waring 1945; Wauchope 1966). Leake was situated at the edge of the

Cartersville and Swift Creek cultural areas near the interface of the Tennessee River

Valley with several Gulf and Atlantic rivers systems, and served as a cultural and

geographical gateway community at which northward and southward bound travelers

stayed and passed through.

 The dense Swift Creek component and the Hopewellian connections exhibited at

Leake, the considerable frequencies of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and sand/grit

tempered simple stamped pottery at the Mann site, and the geographic situation of Leake

at the edge of the Swift Creek area near a travel corridor leading to Mann and the

Midwest Hopewell area all suggested to us that we should take a look at the Mann site

collections. Thus, we came here to Indiana, with the generous support of Chris Peebles

and the Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, where we went through the two primary

collections from the Mann site, the private collection of Charles Lacer in Evansville

(which is now owned by the Indiana State Museum) and the collection housed here at the

Lab. [SLIDE]

While we had some idea of what to expect, we were quite surprised by the sheer

amount of Swift Creek and simple stamped pottery in the Mann collections. Regarding

the Swift Creek wares, we noted that an early Swift Creek pottery rim trait - deep and

closely spaced rounded notches - is very common at Mann; this occurs at Leake as well

as other Southeastern Swift Creek sites. In terms of the designs, there are obvious and

strong similarities, with many shared design elements between Mann and Leake, such as

diamonds, concentric circles, and eye shapes. We brought with us photographs of Swift

Creek sherds from Leake in order to search for potential design matches with those from

Mann. While we did not find any exact design matches, two sherds from Mann are very

similar to designs from Leake. One of these is similar to Frankie Snow’s design

reconstruction #138 that matches Leake Specimens 1394 – 1396; the other is similar in

theme to the designs on Leake Specimens 1345 – 1348. Upon examination of the fine line

simple stamped Mann wares, Co-Principal Investigator Dean Wood remarked that one
would not be able to distinguish these from the Cartersville Simple Stamped pottery

found at Leake if they were mixed together.

A few differences between the Swift Creek assemblages of Leake and Mann are

worth noting. One, the barred elements so common at Leake are relatively rare at Mann.

Two, we noted numerous examples of the zigzagged Crooked River design at Mann (also

noted by Rein (1974)), which is common in the Gulf Coast and southwestern Georgia

region, and conversely absent at Leake. Also, it recently occurred to me that the

intentional smoothing over and obscuring of designs that may occur at Leake and other

Southeastern sites is generally absent at Mann; rather, designs are quite clearly and

carefully stamped (see Wallis 2009 for discussion of stamp legibility). [SLIDE]

Several other artifacts and materials may provide additional evidence of the

interaction between the two sites. The rare diamond-dot pottery type found at Mann and a

handful of other Hopewellian sites in the Southeast and Midwest [Seip, Harness, and

Rockhold in Ohio (Prufer 1968); Bird Hammock (8Wa30) in Florida (Penton 1970;

Miner’s Creek (9Da91) (Chase 1994, 1998; Crawford 1977), Mandeville (Smith

1975:71), Shoal Creek 4 (9Hy98) (Espenshade et al. 1998), and Butler Creek (9Co46)

(Cable and Raymer 1991) in Georgia; Biltmore Mound (Kimball 2009) in North

Carolina; and Yearwood (Butler 1979) in Tennessee] is present at Leake, and there is

some evidence for its production in the Atlanta area south of Leake (see Keith 2010).

While gray and bluish-gray chert common at Mann is available in several of the area’s

formations (e.g., Wyandotte), the material of a dark gray and white biface at Mann is

macroscopically identical to the local Ridge and Valley chert used at Leake. Further,

several tools of Tallahatta Quartzite (TQ) are present within the Mann assemblage, and
one point of this material was identified at Leake. TQ outcrops along the Gulf Coastal

Plain, primarily in Florida and Alabama, yet it also occurs just west-southwest of

contemporaneous Kolomoki Mounds, where it is found in minor frequencies (Pluckhahn

2003). Recently, upon processing the Lacer collection, Michele Greenan, Indiana State

Museum Curator, informed me that there is quite a bit of TQ in the collection. [SLIDE]

Shortly after return to Georgia from our Mann research trip, I was selecting sherds

for petrographic analysis to be conducted by Jim Stoltman when I came across a

complicated stamped notched rim sherd. Upon inspection, I immediately had a very

strong feeling that it originated at the Mann site, based upon the paste and the rim form. I

included it in the collection for Stoltman to examine, and with the aid of Mann samples

generously provided by Ruby and Shriner, he found the paste composition to be identical

to the Mann Swift Creek wares (Stoltman 2007). Additionally, a small rocker stamped

rim sherd from Leake has a similar petrographic signature, indicating it too was produced

in the Mann area. Stoltman also found that the paste and the decoration of Cartersville

Simple Stamped wares from Leake are very similar to those from Mann, as well to

specimens from Tunacunnhee, leading him to state that both Mann and Tunacunnhee

were probable recipients of Leake vessels.

With the petrographic data from Leake, we now have physical evidence of a

direct connection between Mann and Leake. While Stoltman (2010) is hesitant to make

such a statement until additional analysis can be conducted, I will state that given this

connection, it is reasonable to look to Leake and the Cartersville series as the primary

source of Mann simple stamped pottery rather than to the Connestee wares of the

Appalachian Summit. Further, it is likely that the Swift Creek wares and the fine line
simple stamped wares at Mann represent the material culture of the same group or groups

of people, groups that had close connections with the Leake site.

As Ruby and Shriner (2005) argue, multiple modes of interaction at variable

scales and directions account for the Mann ceramic assemblage. In the interest of time, I

must necessarily generalize, to the detriment of a detailed historical reconstruction of the

events and processes that account for the archaeological record of which I speak.

[SLIDE] Nevertheless, at the heart of the issue is the meaning of Swift Creek pottery

designs. Along the lines of Pauketat’s (2007) recent arguments regarding identity and

community, I believe that Swift Creek designs were outwards expressions of the

owners/producers’ religious identity (cf. Snow 1998; Espenshade 2008), that they

denoted affiliation with a religious cult centered in modern-day Georgia and the Gulf and

Atlantic coastal area that archaeologists have labeled as the Swift Creek culture. This cult

operated at several scales, including local, regional, and interregional levels (see

Williams and Elliott 1998). Swift Creek producers were members of traditional lineage

and clan-based communities throughout Georgia and portions of surrounding states; at

the regional level, Swift Creek participants frequently traveled throughout the Southeast

and created ceremonial centers along major travel corridors (see Snow and Stephenson

1998; Stoltman and Snow 1998; Anderson 1998); and at the interregional level, Swift

Creek peoples were part and parcel of an overarching pan-Eastern religious cosmological

expression which we refer to as Hopewell. Evidence from Leake, Mann, Pinson, Seip,

and other large contemporaneous centers in the Eastern U.S. indicates that peoples from

different areas and cultures, including Swift Creek members, congregated and acted

cooperatively as members of fluid communities. Activities at such places centered on

religious ceremonies and expressions, including purification and renewal, feasting,

dancing and singing, and the creation of monuments and sacred space. It is evident that

both Leake and Mann were relatively open and cooperative communities (cf. Carr and

Case 2005:42), at which non-locals were welcome, perhaps even especially so.

Obviously, there are many details of the relationship between Mann and Leake that need

addressing, but with these new data, Anderson’s (1998) supposition regarding Mann as a

gateway community can be extended, in that both sites appear to have operated as

geographical and cultural gateways into their respective regions and the area in between.

Perhaps Mann and Leake could even be considered sister cities in the sense that they also

functioned as gateways to each other, with a back and forth of people, materials, and

ideas.
 References Cited

Adams, William R.
1949 Archaeological Notes on Posey County, Indiana. Indiana Historical Bureau,
Indianapolis.

Anderson, David G.
1998 Swift Creek in a Regional Perspective. A World Engraved: Archaeology of the
Swift Creek Culture, edited by M.W. Williams and D.T. Elliott, pp. 274-300.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anonymous
1885a Accession Card No. 16227. United States National Museum. July 8.

1885b Accession Card No. 16678. United States National Museum. October 17.

1915 Report on Ladd Quarries. Submitted to S.W. McCallie, State Geologist,

Atlanta, Georgia.

Black, Glenn A.
1940 Cultural Complexities of Southwestern Indiana. Proceedings of the
Indiana Academy of Science 50:33-35.

Butler, Brian M.
1979 Hopewell Contacts in Southern Middle Tennessee. Hopewell
Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by D.S. Brose and N. Greber, pp.
150-156. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Cable, John S., and Leslie E. Raymer

1991 Archeological Test Excavations at the Lake Acworth (9Co45) and Butler
Creek (9Co46) Sites: Two Prehistoric Settlements in the Piedmont Uplands,
Allatoona Lake, Cobb County, Georgia. New South Associates Technical Report 54,
New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American
Anthropological Association Memoir 88.

1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell

and R.L. Hall, pp. 133-156. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers Volume 12.

Carr, Christopher and D. Troy Case

2005 The Gathering of Hopewell. Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual
Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D.T. Case, pp. 19-50. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum
Publishers, New York.
Chase, David W.
1994 Miner’s Creek Archaeological Site Final Report. Submitted to DeKalb County
Parks and Recreation Department, Decatur, Georgia.

1998 Swift Creek: Lineage and Diffusion. A World Engraved: Archaeology of the
Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 48-60.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Crawford, Peggy L.
1977 The Miners Creek Site (9Da91); A Preliminary Ceramic Analysis. Laboratory of
Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Espenshade, Christopher T.
2008 Woodland Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia: Update 2008.
Prepared for the Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta by New South
Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Espenshade, Christopher T., Linda Kennedy, William F. Stanyard, and David S. Leigh
1998 The Prehistoric Occupation of the Shoal Creek Reservoir Basin: Data Recovery
Investigations at 9HY95, 9HY98, and 9HY104 in Henry County, Georgia. TRC
Cultural Resource Group, Atlanta, Georgia. Prepared for Clayton County Water
Authority, Morrow, Georgia.

Greber, N’omi
2006 Personal communication.

Helms, Mary
1988 Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographic
Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Keith, Scot J.
2010 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia.
Southern Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia.

Kellar, James H.
1979 The Mann Site and “Hopewell” in the Lower Wabash-Ohio Valley. Hopewell
Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by D.S. Brose and N. Greber, pp.
100-107. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Kellar, James H., A.R. Kelly and Edward McMichael

1962a The Mandeville Site in Southwest Georgia. American Antiquity 27(3): 336-
355.

1962b Final Report on Archaeological Excavations at the Mandeville Site, 9CLA1,

Clay County, Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series
Report No.8, Athens.
Kelly, Arthur R.
1950 News and Notes. Early Georgia 1(1):43-45.

1951 Limestone Caves in Bartow County, Georgia. Manuscript #284, on file at the
Georgia Archaeological Site File, University of Georgia, Athens.

1952 North Georgia Burial Caves. Manuscript #32, on file at the Georgia
Archaeological Site File, University of Georgia, Athens.

Kimball, Larry
2009 Personal communication.

Mainfort, Robert C. Jr.

1986 Pinson Mounds: A Middle Woodland Ceremonial Center. Tennessee
Department of Conservation, Nashville.

Mainfort, Robert C., Jr., James W. Cogswell, Michael J. O’Brien, Hector Neff, and
Michael D. Glascock
1997 Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Pinson Mounds and Nearby Sites
in Western Tennessee: Local Production vs. Long-Distance Importation.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22(1):43-68.

Martin, Francis P.
1954 A Vanderburgh County Site with Southern Affinities. Proceedings of the
Indiana Academy of Science for 1953 63:57-58.

McMichael, Edward V.
1960 The Anatomy of a Tradition: A Study of Southeastern Stamped Pottery. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University.

Pauketat, Timothy R.
2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, Lanham,
Maryland.

Penney, David W.
1989 Hopewell Art. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.

Penton, Daniel T.
1970 Excavations in the Early Swift Creek Component at Bird Hammock (8-Wa-30).
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J.
2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to
750. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Prufer, Olaf H.
1968 Ohio Hopewell Ceramics: An Analysis of the Extant Collections. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Rein, Judith S.
1974 The Complicated Stamped Pottery of the Mann Site, Posey County, Indiana.
M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Rogan, John P.
1883 Notes on Mounds in Georgia. Inventory of the George E. Stuart Collection of
Archaeological and Other Materials, 1733-2006, Collection Number 5268, Wilson
Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Ruby, Bret J.
1997 The Mann Phase: Hopewellian Subsistence and Settlement Adaptations in the
Wabash Lowlands of Southwestern Indiana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, Bloomington.

Ruby, Bret J.
1997 The Mann Phase: Hopewellian Subsistence and Settlement Adaptations in the
Wabash Lowlands of Southwestern Indiana. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.

2006 The Mann Phase: Hopewellian Community Organization in the Wabash

Lowland. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E.
Buikstra, pp. 190-205. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ruby, Bret J., Christopher Carr, and Douglas K. Charles

2005 Community Organizations in the Scioto, Mann, and Havana Regions: A
Comparative Perspective. Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual
Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D.T. Case, pp. 119-176. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York.

Ruby, Bret J., and Christine M. Shriner

2000 Ceramic Composition and Hopewellian Interactions at the Mann Site,
Southwestern Indiana. Paper presented at the “Perspectives on Middle Woodland at
the Millennium” Conference, Grafton, Illinois.

2005 Ceramic Vessel Compositions and Styles as Evidence of the Local and
Nonlocal Social Affiliations of Ritual Participants at the Mann Site, Indiana.
Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D.T. Case,
pp. 553-572. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York.

Ruby, Bret J., Christine M. Shriner, and Clifford M. Ambers

1993 Southeastern Stamped Ceramics at the Mann Site: Identifying Local and Non-
Local Production. Http://gbl.indiana.edu/abstracts/93/ruby_93.html.
Seeman, Mark F.
1995 When Words are Not Enough: Hopewell Interregionalism and the Use of
Material Symbols at the GE Mound. Native American Interactions: Multiscalar
Analyses and Interpretation in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by N.S. Nassaney and
K.E. Sassaman, pp. 122-143. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Smith, Betty Anderson

1975 A Re-Analysis of the Mandeville Site, 9 CLA 1, Focusing on its Internal History
and External Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Georgia, Athens.

1979 The Hopewell Connection in Southwest Georgia. Hopewell Archaeology: The

Chillicothe Conference, edited by D.S. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 181-187. Kent State
University Press, Ohio.

Smith, Phillip E.
1962 Aboriginal Stone Constructions in the Southern Piedmont. University of
Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 4, Athens.

Smith, R.W.
1936 Unpublished Notes on the Archaeology of Quarry (Ladd) Mountain.
Document in the Georgia Archives, Atlanta.

Sneed, Joel M.
1998 Ladd’s Cave: Story of a Destroyed Treasure. National Speleological Society
(NSS) News, August.

2007 Bartow County Caves: History Underground in North Georgia. Published by

Joel Sneed, Flowery Branch, Georgia.

Snow, Frankie H.
1998 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford Case. A World Engraved:
Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliott, pp.
61-98. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Snow, Frankie H., and Keith Stephenson

1998 Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interaction. A World Engraved:
Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliott, pp. 99-
111. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow

2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plains. The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C.
Mainfort, pp. 318-351. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stoltman, James B.
 2007 Petrographic Observations on Middle Woodland Pottery from the Leake Site.
Report submitted to Southern Research, Ellerslie, Georgia.

Stoltman, James B., and Frankie Snow

1998 Cultural Interaction within Swift Creek Society. A World Engraved:
Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliott,
pp.130-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wallis, Neill J.
2009 Locating the Gift: Swift Creek Exchange on the Atlantic Coast (A.D. 200-
800). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr.

1945 “Hopewellian” Elements in Northern Georgia. American Antiquity 11(2):119-
120.

Wauchope, Robert
1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology, Number 21, Salt Lake City, UT.

Whittlesey, Charles
1883 The Great Mound on the Etowah River, Georgia. Annual Report of the
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for 1881, pp. 624-630. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.

Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott

1998 Swift Creek Research: History and Observations. A World Engraved:
Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliott, pp.
1-11. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
 Swift
Creek
&
Cartersville
pottery

Cartersville
Swift
Creek
Complicated
Stamped Simple
Stamped

Swift Georgia
Creek Swift
Creek
area sites
Mann
Swift
Creek
&
fine
simple
stamped
wares
Leake
Site
location
and
layout
Leake
Site
ceremonial
items
Human Animal
effigies
effigies

Galena

Mica Graphite

Ohio
Flint
Ridge
Prismatic
Blades
Hematite

Hematite
Pendant

Copper
Shark’s
tooth
Crystals
Leake
Complex
 Mann
Site
Research
Visit
Swift
Creek
sherds
Lacer
collection

Mann
sherd
Crooked
River
(Mann)

Leake
Sp.
1348

Mann
sherd
Leake
Sp.
1395
 Other
Artifact
Connections?
Leake

Leake

Diamond­dot
pottery
Mann Tallahatta
Quartzite
Mann

Ridge
&
Valley
chert?
Mann
area
sherds
found
at
Leake

Rocker
stamped
&
incised
Swift
Creek
notched
rim
 Swift
Creek
Interactions

(Swift
Creek
designs
by
Frankie
Snow)