Sarah Grace Rogers

Dr. Nathan Lawres

ANTH 6175: Southeastern Archaeology
21 August 2022
Week 2 Reading Summaries

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman

2012 Foundations of Modern Southeastern Archaeology. In Recent Developments in
Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity, pp. 1-34. The Society for
American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
Anderson and Sassaman explain what they claim to be the "Southeast" and how the field
of archaeology in the region started and evolved. They argue the Southeast is the region
south of the Ohio and Potomac rivers and discuss how the region's climate, life, and land
have changed and affected populations over the past 20,000 years. The authors then
discuss the history of Southeastern archaeology, claiming the field did not develop fully
until after the Civil War when detailed reports served as early models for fieldwork.
Anderson and Sassaman argue there have been three great research periods in the
Southeast that were backed by federal support. The first was in the late nineteenth
century with the Mound Division. The period between the first and second waves
involved more sporadic work and the mound reporting of CB Moore. The second wave
was through New Deal programs during the Great Depression; much data was generated
during this period. The need to analyze and report data led to the establishment of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Following WWII, project size decreased with
funding. Years later, New Archaeology emerged; the authors note that the Southeast was
hesitant to accept the ideology though now they are at the forefront of it. The third wave
occurred in the 1970s. Critical pieces of legislation passed, including the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental Act of 1969, and the
Archaeological Recovery Act of 1974. These created standards and expectations of
practice in the field and with reporting. While Anderson and Sassaman note the
challenges of modern Southeastern Archaeology, they argue now there is better quality
data that provides archaeologists with a better understanding of the past.

Jenkins, Cliff.
2015 Pimento Cheese and Bacon? Revisiting Mounds in the Lower Mississippi Delta. In
Exploring Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Patricia Galloway, Evan Peacock, and
Jeffrey P. Brain, pp. 23-40. University. Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
Jenkins explains how the Lower Delta Mound Trail project shed light on the state of
mound data systems, describing why databases on mounds needed updating prior to his
work on the project. The Lower Delta Mound Trail developmental group was formed
primarily to identify mounds in the Lower Mississippi Delta that could be seen from the
road and offer some interpretive opportunities. After reviewing, evaluating, and visiting
84 sites (29 without earthworks remaining), the team discovered some covered by trees,
in the middle of cultivation fields, in maintained lawns, or with cemeteries atop them; one
had a historical house atop it. Most are on private land and threatened by agricultural
practices and land leveling. These visits led Jenkins to understand the state of
 archaeological site data. He argues that, in light of possible threats to their conservation,
information needs to be updated. Jenkin's interest in mound site databases sparked
research endeavors into the accuracy and detail of those databases. This research revealed
low archaeological data quality, especially in standardized nomenclature within
description fields for the sites. Issues and discrepancies were addressed by the mound
inventory. Jenkins complemented his research with archival sources to generate an
inventory of mounds, created GIS shapefiles to better record more precise location
information, assessed their condition, and created high-quality data on the elevations of
all archaeological sites in the region. Jenkins identified 211 sites, about half of which
have extant earthenworks. Jenkins concluded by arguing that managing data is essential
in maintaining sites and in researching patterns of activity and abandonment. His research
demonstrates the need to protect mounds in the Lower Delta in response to how many
have been lost over time to expansion and agriculture.

Peacock, Evan.
2015 Chapter 2. Archaeology on the National Forests of North Mississippi: A Brief
Retrospective. In Exploring Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Patricia Galloway,
Evan Peacock, and Jeffrey P. Brain, pp. 9-22. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Peacock argues that archaeological fieldwork, especially that of National Forests, should
be high-quality work. In the late twentieth century in Mississippi, Samuel Brooks pushed
to ensure this, leading to a dramatic shift in how work was completed in north
Mississippi's National Forests. More care toward shovel tests and screening led to a
significant increase in the number of sites found. Fieldwork allowed for the development
of better methods and practice in the broader archaeological field. Peacock outlines how
archaeological work in the National Forests of Mississippi revealed Native American
occupation across several periods. He describes evidence of Paleo-Indian and Archaic
occupation via stone tool work; using these examples to warn archaeologists that
systematic shovel testing is not always extensive enough to reveal early occupation; it
oftentimes requires a more liberal attitude. Peacock describes how work on Woodland-
era occupation in the area generated even more archaeological knowledge, arguing that
this was likely in response to increased sedentariness that resulted in middens and
mounds. The Mississippian period saw a decline in occupation, though. Peacock notes
how historic-period archaeology is less developed in north Mississippi's National Forests,
based on the few examples of aboriginal and European mixed finds. One of the major
points Peacock argues is that archaeological and documentary data are complementary to
one another. Peacock used the example of archaeological work in the National Forests of
Mississippi and exhibits how important fieldwork is in developing and refining practices
and methods to provide the best and most insight into the past.
Pitblado, Bonnie L.
2011 A Tale of Two Migrations: Reconciling Recent Biological and Archaeological Evidence
for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Journal of Archaeological Research
19:327-375.
Pitblado argues that the people of the Americas occurred in two stages, both from Siberia.
The first occurred on the Pacific Rim and coast of Alaska by watercraft 16,000 to 15,000
 years ago. The second occurred 1000 years later via a land mass in Beringia. Pitblado
argues that the traditional Bering Strait hypothesis is constricted and that archaeologists
should develop a theory that is more holistic and accurate based on available evidence.
She notes that many sites in the Americas predate Clovis and that Beringia was ice free
by 15,000 to 16,000 years ago. Pitblado suggests that the First “Americans” migrated to
the New World around this time, moving through Siberia to Beringia and pausing. They
continued into the New World first via boat along the coastline, then via land mass after
waning glaciers. While genetic evidence points to at least two migrations, archaeological
and osteological data are vital to supporting the theory. By 13,100 years ago, two waves
of hunter-gatherers with different lifestyles are visible in the archaeological record on the
continent. Pitblado also notes issues with her dual-migration model. The Beringian
archaeological record does not completely support her argument, and she notes several
sites that may challenge her argument. Despite this, however, she concludes that the
Bering Strait hypothesis is not sufficient to explain the peopling of the Americas; rather
an earlier migration would have had to occur.
Steponaitis, Vincas P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of
Anthropology 15:363-404.
When Europeans arrived in North America, they encountered diverse native peoples.
Much southeastern archaeology more recently has focused on the development of native
populations. Southeastern archaeology truly developed in the past century, especially in
response to New Deal programs and 1960s and 1970s legislation. Humans first arrived in
North America between 15,000 and 40,000 years ago when the northern part of the
country was covered in ice and sea levels were lower, allowing people to cross over a
land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. Paleoindian occupation (up to about 8000 BC) is
marked by toolmaking, particularly Clovis and lanceolate points (fluted), dating between
10,000 and 8,500 BC. The Archaic period (8000-700 BC) was marked by warmer and
drier climate and is divided into three segments: Early (8000-6000 BC), Middle (6000-
4000), and Late (4000-7000). The Early and Middle periods are marked by changes in
point styles. People lived in small camps that frequently moved and continued hunting,
fishing, and gathering, practicing similar occupation activities across different regions.
The Late Archaic was characterized by plant cultivation, larger middens, heavy pottery,
and long-distance trade; this points to larger populations, greater sedentism, and newer
economic practices. The Woodland period (700 BC-AD 1000) is also divided into
segments: Early (700 BC-AD 1), Middle (AD 1-600), and Late (AD 600-1000). It was a
time of gradual changes, more emphasis on gathering seed-bearing plants, increased
sedentism, mortuary rituals, increased subsistence diversity, and population increases.
The Mississippian period (AD 1000-1700) is characterized by shell-tempered pottery,
wall-trench houses, flat-topped pyramidal mounds, agricultural subsistence, heredity-
based sociopolitical organization, and the adoption of maize culture. This complexity
impressed Europeans arriving in the mid-sixteenth century, but massive depopulation
began in 1700 and evictions in the nineteenth century pushed indigenous people further
west.
Sullivan, Lynne P., Bobby R. Brady, Michaelyn S. Harle, and Shannon D. Koerner
2011 Remembering New Deal Archaeology in the Southeast: A Legacy in Museum
Collections. Museums and Memory: Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological
Society 39(5):65-108.

Sullivan and colleagues argue that the story of New Deal era archaeology deserves to be
told to better understand the evolution of archaeology, especially in the South, and
highlight the history of collections and information obtained from those projects. After
the stock market crash in 1929, FDR initiated New Deal programs to create jobs for many
Americans. One such program involved archaeological labor, especially in the South
where there were many in poverty and many projects involved intensive labor. These
programs had significant impacts on the field by creating more museums, anthropology
departments at universities, and federal relief programs. It also led to vast collections of
prehistoric indigenous people and a chronicling of people of the Great Depression era.
The five main providers of archaeological funding were the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration (FERA), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Works Progress
Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). This era birthed a generation of archaeologists who sought to
practice better techniques and educate future professionals. The New Deal thus nurtured
the development of new methods and more standardized data collection that brought in
more and better data. These programs also allowed for the creation of museums and
departments that would house and analyze the vast collections generated and led to the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference in 1938 to discuss finds. Sullivan and
colleagues argue the New Deal laid the foundation for what archaeology has become
today. While there are still artifacts being processed from this period, they continuously
enlighten researchers about human health, organization, material culture, gender, warfare,
and relationships.

Additional Articles
Holen, Steven R., Thomas A. Deméré, Daniel C. Fisher, Richard Fullagar, James B. Paces,
George T. Jefferson, Jared M. Beeton, Richard A. Cerutti, Adam N. Rountrey, Lawrence
Vescera, and Kathleen A. Holen 
2017 A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA. Nature 544(479-
483).
Holen and colleagues argue that the peopling of the Americas is a contentious topic. They
note that sites must have archaeological evidence in a geologic context, radiometric
dating to determine age, evidence from multiple sources, and artifacts demonstrating
context in an unquestionable state. They conducted research on the Cerutti Mastodon site
in California, which dated to the early late Pleistocene after discovering hammerstones
and anvils associated with a mastodon. The site featured bone fragments indicating fresh
breaking that appears to have occurred at the site as well as use-wear and impact marks.
Radiometric dating places the age of the site around 130,000 years old. Their findings
point to the presence of a human ancestor occupying the area in the early late Pleistocene.
This places the human line in the Americas about 100,000 years prior to what has been
previously thought and follows patterns of Paleolithic bone technology also present in
Africa and Eurasia. This is the oldest in situ archaeological site in North America and
 places the human line in the Americas much earlier than thought. It also brings to light
questions of migration and human ancestry into play.
Magnani, Matthew, Dalyn Grindle, Sarah Loomis, Alexander M. Kim, Vera Egbers, Jon
Clindaniel, Alexis Hartford, Eric Johnson, Sadie Weber, and Wade Campbell
2019 Evaluating claims for an early peopling of the Americas: experimental design and the
Cerutti Mastodon site. Antiquity 93(369):789-795.
Archaeological and genetic data shows that Native Americans are descended from
ancient Siberia and founding populations that separated from North Asia between 25,000
and 16,000 years ago. People likely passed below ice sheets and dispersed into the
Americas. Recent work by Holen and colleagues brought to light evidence of stone tools
in California that date to 130,000 years ago. This Cerutti Mastodon site would push back
the peopling of the Americas back, though. This has met a lot of criticism with scholars
arguing it could be explained by non-anthropogenic processes and more modern
influences that altered the site. However, some contend that these arguments are not
sufficient in explaining away the evidence. Magnani and colleagues examine Holen and
colleagues’ evidence and argument, concluding that their hypothesis was problematic and
did not allow for the testing of other explanations. They argue that experimentation
should be completed in conditions as close to the original as possible as well. Magnani
and colleagues notice, too, variation in raw materials during Holen’s experiment, making
it difficult to compare results confidently. Magnani and colleagues suggest more and
more consistent experimentation. While their experiments were qualitative, Manani and
colleagues suggest future endeavors include quantification to allow for more comparison.
This article represented a significant part of researching the peopling of the Americas in
that experimental archaeology is incredibly insightful but must be conducted carefully
and thoroughly to ensure accuracy.
Potter, Ben A., James F. Baichtal, Alwynne B. Beaudoin, Lars Fehren-Schmitz, C. Vance
Haynes, Vance T. Holliday, Charles E. Holmes, John W. Ives, Robert L. Kelly, Bastien Llamas,
Ripan S. Malhi, D. Shane Miller, David Reich, Joshua D. Reuther, Stephan Schiffels, and Todd
A. Surovell
2018 Current evidence allows multiple models for the peopling of the Americas. Science
Advances 2018(4):1-8.
Research into the peopling of the Americana has generated much research and several
models to explain how it occurred. Potter and colleagues argue that the most popular
argument of early entry via coastal migration about 25,000 to 15,000 years ago is too
narrow and suggest that more research and evidence is needed to refine models. Genetic
data indicates Native American ancestors separated from Siberian populations 18,400 to
24,900 years ago. Ancestral Native Americans could have split from Ancient Beringians
in northeast Asia/Siberia or in eastern Beringia between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago;
data supports the former more. Previous genetic evidence also points to a bottleneck
during this time with expansion between 16,000 and 13,000 years ago. Ancient
Beringians were present in Alaska and surrounding areas between 12,500 and 6000 years
ago. Initial colonization could have occurred early via the North Pacific coast (NPC) or
ice-free corridor (IFC), but there is evidence against and for both and patterns that cannot
be explained by a single hypothesis. Potter and colleague argue both are viable
hypotheses and require more research. There was an early reliance on interior sources in
Beringia (obsidian) thousands of years prior to coastal sources, which suggests the IFC
was the initial pathway. Potter and colleagues argue, though, that other lines of evidence
(genetic) provide more insight into the place of origin and the bottleneck as well as the
route of initial migration. They conclude that migration likely occurred after the last
glacial maximum between 16,000 years ago and 13,500 years ago, when there is evidence
of Paleoindian occupation. This is exemplary of a lack of consensus among
archaeologists and researchers of the origin of people in America and demonstrates the
need for more research.