You are on page 1of 27

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): 336355. 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 NonLocal 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. 99111. 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. 200800). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1945 “Hopewellian” Elements in Northern Georgia. American Antiquity 11(2):119120. 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

Swift
Creek
Complicated
Stamped
Swift Creek area Georgia Swift
Creek sites

Cartersville Simple
Stamped

Mann
Swift
Creek
&
fine
simple
stamped
wares

Leake
Site
location
and
layout

Leake
Site
ceremonial
items
Human effigies Animal
effigies Galena

Mica

Graphite Ohio
Flint
Ridge
Prismatic
Blades

Hematite

Hematite
Pendant Copper Crystals

Shark’s tooth

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

Swift
Creek
notched
rim

Rocker
stamped
&
incised

Swift
Creek
Interactions

(Swift
Creek
designs by
Frankie
Snow)