Page: Title Page, Page Number: i  
Title Page

Excavating Occaneechi Town
Archaeology of an Eighteenth-Century
Indian Village in North Carolina

Edited by
R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
Patrick C. Livingood
H. Trawick Ward
Vincas P. Steponaitis

With contributions by
Linda Carnes-McNaughton
I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.
Roy S. Dickens, Jr.
Lawrence A. Dunmore III
Kristen J. Gremillion
Julia E. Hammett
Forest Hazel
Mary Ann Holm
James H. Merrell
Gary L. Petherick
V. Ann Tippitt

Web Edition
2003

© 1998, 2003 by the Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

First edition published 1998 on CD-ROM by The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London. ISBN 0-8078-6503-6. 

Web edition published 2003 on the World Wide Web by the Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in cooperation with The University of North Carolina Press and ibiblio. 

Page: Foreword, Page Number: ii  
Foreword

Mécou Wítahe. Ein Yukéwa Yapóske AmaZishuké . . .
["Welcome, friends.  A long time ago, the hilly land . . ."  This is a phrase in the Tutelo-Saponi dialect of the Yésah language, the only surviving dialect of the northern-eastern Siouan peoples.]

	A long time ago, the hilly land that is now called the Piedmont of Virginia and North Carolina was the home of our ancestors, the Yésah, a people who had lived in peace and balance with their world for centuries.  Their numerous villages and towns were spread along the same fertile river valleys and meadows that are so abundant today.  Though these communities were semiautonomous, each distinct village was interconnected with others through a complex web of kinship.  Through time these villages maintained their collective identity as Yésah, the people of the land.

	Relationships and trade were maintained among groups of villages through well-traveled trading paths.  In time, such trails as the Occaneechi Trading Path become the foundation for many of today's major interstate highways.  Though conflicts with other tribes occasionally arose and warfare was practiced with our traditional enemies, the people remained in balance with the land.  Unfortunately, this way of life was not destined to continue.  Dramatic change was sparked by the arrival of the first European explorers to our shores.

	Soon after their initial contact with early Spanish and English explorers, the Indian people of the Piedmont began to suffer from diseases to which they had no immunity.  These early explorers and the colonists and traders who followed also disrupted the lives of the Siouan peoples by introducing  alcohol and its many ill effects to them.  As our ancestors died from these new diseases and addictions, the indigenous population of the Piedmont experienced a drastic decline.  The devastation was so pronounced that in the year 1708, the English explorer and surveyor John Lawson estimated that, as a result of these new diseases, at least five-sixths of the indigenous population within 200 miles of European settlement had succumbed.

	While the Indian people of the Piedmont experienced this decline, European settlers established a firm foothold along the eastern seaboard.  These settlers were eager to trade with the Indian people for furs and other raw and finished materials.  In exchange, our ancestors were introduced to European wares and weapons.  The Indian trade became a political tool of the European powers in North America, leading to additional conflict, which further decimated the indigenous population.  One result of this trade was an increasing dependence on European goods, and eastern Indian nations found themselves in fierce competition for European wares and commodities.  Newly introduced weapons from Europe changed the face of traditional Indian warfare.  War became much more deadly and destructive for our ancestors as incursions and warfare with other Indian nations and settlers increased on a scale never before witnessed by the people of the land.

	Our ancestors settled along the Eno River after the devastating attack by Nathaniel Bacon and his colonial militia at Occaneechi Island in the spring of 1676.  This attack initiated a tragic period of increased warfare, forced migrations, social marginalization, and the resultant cultural decay that ultimately led to our assimilation into the dominant society.  As a result of the social cataclysm that befell us, little of our material culture survived.  However, much of our history and culture still lies protected beneath the earth mother.
	Since the 1980s, the Research Laboratories of Archaeology (RLA) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has undertaken the enormous task of uncovering the archaeological record of the Yésah or eastern Siouan inhabitants of the Piedmont of Virginia and North Carolina.  Perhaps its most effective and informative effort has been in the location and excavation of Occaneechi Town on the Eno River near Hillsborough, North Carolina.

	Through their painstaking work, RLA archaeologists have been able to paint a picture of a people during a period of transition.  They have actively sought the support of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation and have given us, the descendants of the historic Occaneechi, Saponi, and related tribes, a more precise understanding of our unique culture and history as well as a firmer connection to our ancestors.  The Occaneechi-Saponi people have been and continue to be actively involved with the Research Laboratories of Archaeology throughout its excavations.

	The RLA has made a conscious effort to treat our ancestors' remains with respect, allowing us, their children, to reinter them once they have been located and documented.  I give special thanks to H. Trawick Ward, R. P. Stephen Davis Jr., and RLA director Vincas Steponaitis for all their heartfelt support and work with our tribe.  If, when installing this CD-ROM, you elect to view our ancestors' remains, please remember that the images you see are of human beings, our ancestors. Dokalidö Nedúge Liohatéhla Yim Ehuya Konspéwa Kebína Yalopokíwa!  They are to be viewed with respect and good thoughts!

	Excavating Occaneechi Town will allow you, the public, to learn about the Occaneechi people's history and culture from a unique perspective.  You will be able to interact with your computer terminal as if you were actually a member of the excavation team.  Examples will be shown of skilled Occaneechi craft work that has been uncovered as well as numerous indigenous and European artifacts from the site.  In addition, students and professionals alike will see and learn the archaeological skills and techniques painstakingly used to obtain information about our ancestors.  Enjoy using this CD-ROM and learning about the techniques used in this type of archaeological excavation.  Above all, remember the ancient people whose daily lives will be illustrated on your screen.  Please respect their struggles, which brought them to the Eno River valley and which we, their living descendants, continue to this day.  Nekéwa Bíwa.

Lawrence A. Dunmore III,
Tribal Chairperson and Council Chief, 
Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation
December 12, 1997

Page: Preface to First Edition, Page Number: iii  
Preface to First Edition

	Welcome to Excavating Occaneechi Town, an archaeological site report on CD-ROM.  This report describes and interprets the buried remains of Occaneechi Town, a small but important village of the Occaneechi tribe that stood on the banks of the Eno River in North Carolina at the beginning of the eighteenth century.  Also known as the Fredricks site, this village was excavated by archaeologists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in order to study how European colonization of North America affected Native Americans.

	Excavating Occaneechi Town is unique, not just because it is an electronic publication but because it contains a wealth of visual and descriptive information not usually available in an archaeological site report.  In fact, it is a complete, fully searchable record of all the excavated contexts and recovered artifacts from Occaneechi Town.  In addition to describing the archaeology of the site and interpreting what was found, this report contains over 1,000 full-color photographs and maps, and detailed information for over 100,000 analyzed artifacts.  The report also contains an archaeological teaching tool, called the Electronic Dig, which allows students to design their own research strategies and re-excavate Occaneechi Town.

	This report contains numerous hyperlinks, which are highlighted in blue.  Each hyperlink (invoked by clicking the text with your mouse) will take you to another section of the report with more specific and related information, or it will create a new window containing either a map, photograph, or table.  You can also navigate through the report using the menu bar at the top of the page.

A Note on Sources

	The articles and descriptions herein were adapted mostly from research reports previously published and copyrighted by the Research Laboratories of Archaeology.  The original sources(s) of each article are listed at the end of the article itself.  The sources of the feature, burial, and structure descriptions that appear in the Excavations chapter and the Electronic Dig are as follows: Features 2–7 (Ward 1987:81–110); Features 9–13 (Petherick 1987:29–80); Features 14–30 (Ward 1986:15–41); Feature 31 (Ward and Davis 1988:11–30); Features 32–41 (Ward 1986:15–41); Features 42–59 and 61 (Ward and Davis 1988:11–30); Burials 1–9 (Ward 1987:81–110); Burials 10–11 (Ward 1986:15–41); Burial 12 (Ward and Davis 1988:11–30); Burial 13 (Ward 1986:15–41); Burial 14 (Ward and Davis 1988:11–30); Structures 1–3 (Petherick 1987:29–80); Structures 4–9 (Ward 1986:15–41); Structures 10–13 (Ward and Davis 1988:11–30).  Descriptions for Feature 1, Feature 8, and Feature 60 (Burial 27), by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., have not previously appeared elsewhere.

	All human skeletal remains were initially examined by Homes Hogue Wilson.  Her very detailed descriptions of these remains are not presented here.  For more information about this aspect of the site's archaeology, the reader should consult her works published elsewhere (Wilson 1986, 1987).  Subsequently, in 1995, the human skeletal remains were re-examined by Patricia M. Lambert (Davis et al. 1996); these most recent age and sex determinations are the ones used herein.  In most instances, they vary only slightly from the determinations made earlier by Wilson.
 
Acknowledgments

	Archaeological investigations at the Fredricks site, known in the eighteenth century as Occaneechi Town, were conducted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Research Laboratories of Archaeology (formerly Research Laboratories of Anthropology) from 1983 to 1986 and again in 1995.  This field research was made possible by grants from the National Geographic Society, as well as institutional support from the Summer School and the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Without this support, the archaeological finds described herein would never have come to light.  We also are indebted to Frank Frederick, Cyrus Hogue, and Richard Jenrette, who allowed us to dig on their land, and to the dozens of UNC students who toiled under the hot summer sun as Occaneechi Town was gradually revealed.

	Digging a site is one thing, creating an electronic description of the results is quite another.  The impetus that started us down the latter road came from the IBM Corporation in the form of a gift: a free multimedia computer to any UNC department that could think of a good use for it!  Under the umbrella of a broader program called Documenting the American South, we submitted a proposal to produce an electronic archive on Occaneechi Town and were awarded a computer.  The year was 1993. By today's standards, the machine we got was slow and cranky.  But it was good enough to get us going and served us well over the five years it took to produce this CD-ROM.  We are grateful not only to IBM, but also to the individuals at UNC—Katherine Conway, Nancy Dooly, and Kathy Thomas—who administered this gift and helped us put it to good use.

	The computer, however, was only one piece of the puzzle.  Creating this electronic archive required all sorts of additional hardware: a scanner, a digital camera, a CD-ROM mastering unit, various printers, and lots of large hard disks!  UNCs College of Arts and Sciences, Office of Information Technology (now called Academic Technologies and Networks), and Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Graduate Studies and Research all provided funds with which this equipment was acquired.  Key corporate support also came from Roche Image Analysis Systems, whose generous terms helped us purchase the necessary digital camera.  Special thanks go to Geoff Feiss, Linda Spremulli, and Anne Parker of UNC and Ernie Knesel of Roche Image Analysis Systems, who made these arrangements possible.

	Making this hardware work was not always easy.  We were fortunate, therefore, to be able to call on many individuals who provided us with first-rate technical help and consistently good advice.  Among these were Dineane Buttram, Andy Brawn, Helen Cronenberger, Lee Howe, Phil Kaufman, Richard Milward, Ernie Patterson, Pam Sessoms, and Doug Short.

	Our video clips presented some special problems.  We are grateful to Ron Kemp and Donna Barnes of North Carolina State University for supplying the original video footage, and to Andy Brawn and Phil Meyer of UNC for helping us edit and convert this footage to a format suitable for this medium.

	Once the prototype began to take shape (it evolved through at least six beta versions), we showed it to innumerable people—professional archaeologists and amateurs, hackers and cyberphobes, old friends and innocent bystanders—who gave us encouragement and many fine suggestions for improvement.  In this regard we are especially grateful to Mark Aldenderfer, Mitch Allen, Bill Baden, Keith Kintigh, Bruce Smith, and several anonymous reviewers, who kept us on the right track.

	As the process of development moved forward, we eventually began to work with the staff at the University of North Carolina Press, who consistently impressed us with their extraordinary talents (as well as their patience and good cheer).  David Perry, Marjorie Fowler, Shelley Gruendler, Katie Haywood, Beth Snowberger, Pam Upton, and David VanHook were all instrumental in bringing this unusual work to press, and their efforts are much appreciated.

	Finally, we would like to express our thanks to the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, whose past is documented herein.  We greatly value their unfailing interest in, and support for, our work and hope that this publication brings that past to the wider audience it deserves.

R.P.S.D., P.L., H.T.W., V.P.S.
December 14, 1997

Page: Preface to Web Edition, Page Number: iv 
Preface to Web Edition

	When we conceived the idea for Excavating Occaneechi Town in 1993, the world of computers was very different than today's. Windows 3.0 was the latest Microsoft operating system, hypermedia applications were platform-specific and used proprietary file formats, and the world wide web barely existed. We looked at the full range of available options and chose to use Asymmetrix Toolbook (running on an IBM platform) as the software with which to create our electronic monograph. Building a web version never even crossed our minds. Once we made this choice, we had to stick with it to the end. The first edition of Excavating Occaneechi Town was published on CD-ROM by the University of North Carolina Press in 1998.

	Over the six years it took to develop and publish the CD, many things changed. The Windows operating system underwent multiple overhauls (from version 3.11 to Windows 98), computers became even faster, monitors grew larger and could display more pixels, and, most importantly, the web exploded into widespread public use. In light of these developments, we could see the first edition's limitations. One major problem was that our application would not run on Macintosh computers, which were quite common, especially in schools. And we were concerned about our CD's longevity; in other words, how long would our publication remain usable in the face of changing technology? 

	The issues of longevity for electronic works are very different than for conventional print. The main determinant of longevity for a book is how long the paper on which it is printed will last. For electronic works, the longevity of the material holding the information—in this case plastic—is irrelevant, because the technology used to read the information changes much faster than the material itself degrades. 

	One aspect of this problem has to do with the hardware needed to store and read the information in question. For example, since the personal computer was invented, we have seen a progression of storage technologies from 8-inch floppy disks, to 5-inch disks, to CDs, not to mention zip disks and all the changes that have occurred in hard disk drives. Fortunately this aspect of the problem is easy to solve. One simply must keep copying the information to new storage formats and media as they emerge; because the information is digital, there is no degradation in quality or content as each copy is made, and the copying itself is simple. 

	Technological issues involving software, however, are much harder to overcome. As operating systems evolve, there is no guarantee that newer versions will remain "backward compatible" beyond their immediate predecessors. Fifty years from now, the Windows operating system may no longer exist, and even if it survives, its future version may no longer be able to run a program that was compiled in 1998. 

	Thus, even as our original CD went to press, we were already thinking about its longevity and looking for a way to extend the life of our work. The solution we chose was to create an HTML version that could be read with any standard web browser. Of course, there's no guarantee that 50 years from now the web will be the same as it is today or that browsers will be compatible. However, given the enormous world-wide investment in current web standards, we felt it likely that one of two scenarios would play out: either backward-compatibility would be maintained or utilities would be created to convert existing HTML pages to whatever new format would emerge. Thus, creating a web edition seemed like the best bet to insure longevity. A web edition would also have the advantage of being accessible from any computer running either Windows, Macintosh, or Linux. 

	Our goal in creating this edition was to maintain, as much as possible, the "look and feel" of the original. We largely succeeded, although some compromises and changes were necessary to accommodate the new format. For the sake of longevity and compatibility with all browsers, we also decided to keep the format of the work as simple as possible; in other words, we used only the most basic HTML tags and deliberately stayed away from the "bells and whistles." The only chapter in which this policy was violated was, by necessity, the Electronic Dig. Here, we relied on the Java programming language, the longevity of which remains to be seen. The text of all the substantive chapters remains the same as in the first edition, although we took this opportunity to correct a few typographical errors. The only major changes are in the Electronic Dig and its accompanying tutorial; we did not reproduce some of the data-download features of the original Electronic Dig and the tutorial was modified to account for this difference. 

	The development of this new edition has taken many years and was helped along by many people whose contributions we wish to acknowledge. The enormous technical challenge of converting the original CD to a web-compatible version was undertaken by two experienced programmers, Mike Shoffner and Merlin Hughes, whose skill is evident in the final product. Additional technical help was provided by staff of the Metalab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Paul Jones, Andre Burton, Serena Fenton, Max Gustashaw, Patrick Herron, Jason Moore, Fred Stutzman, and Don Sizemore. Mark Simpson-Vos and David Perry of the University of North Carolina Press helped shepherd us through the various publishing issues involved in this transition, most of which were new to all involved. Cat Brutvan and Marcus McKoy, also at UNC Press, designed and tagged the new home page for this edition. And Elena Steponaitis provided both technical and typing help at many points along the way. To all these individuals, we express our sincere gratitude. 

R.P.S.D., P.L., H.T.W., V.P.S.
July 28, 2003

Page: Table of Contents, Page Number: v  
Table of Contents

Getting Started

	The Basics of Using Excavating Occaneechi Town 

	An Annotated Guide to Excavating Occaneechi Town 

Archaeology Primer

	An Archaeology Primer, by Vincas P. Steponaitis and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

Introduction

	Title Page 

	Foreword, by Lawrence A. Dunmore III 

	Preface to First Edition 

	Preface to Web Edition 

Contents

	Table of Contents 

	List of Pages 

	List of Figures 

	List of Tables 

Background

 	Archaeological Background, by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

 	"This Western World": The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525-1725, by James H. Merrell 

 	Occaneechi-Saponi Descendants in the Texas Community of the North Carolina Piedmont, by Forest Hazel 

Excavations

     Context Descriptions, by H. Trawick Ward, Gary L. Petherick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

Artifacts

	Introduction to Artifact Analyses 

	Pottery, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

	Stone Tools, by V. Ann Tippitt and I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. 

	Shell Ornaments, by Julia E. Hammett 

	European Trade Artifacts, by Linda Carnes-McNaughton 

Food Remains

	Animal Remains: 1983-1984 Excavations, by Mary Ann Holm 

	Animal Remains: 1985 Excavations, by Mary Ann Holm 

	Animal Remains: 1986 Excavations, by Mary Ann Holm 

	Plant Remains: 1983-1984 Excavations, by Kristen J. Gremillion 

	Plant Remains: 1985 Excavations, by Kristen J. Gremillion 

	Plant Remains: 1986 Excavations, by Kristen J. Gremillion 

Interpretations

 	Occaneechi Town: A Summary of Archaeological Findings, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

 	The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward 

 	Burial Practices, by H. Trawick Ward 

 	The Impact of Old World Diseases on the Native Inhabitants of the North Carolina Piedmont, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 

 	The Occaneechi and Their Role as Middlemen in the Seventeenth-Century Virginia-North Carolina Trade Network, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward 

Electronic Dig

	Interactive Electronic Dig 

	Electronic Dig Tutorial 

Bibliography

	References A-G 

	References H-R 

	References S-Z 

Downloads

	Overview of Downloads 

	Text Files 

	Map Files 

	Database Files 

Page: Pages i–xxxii, Page Number: vi  
Pages i–xxxii

Page i. Title Page. 

Page ii. Foreword. 

Page iii. Preface. 

Page iv. Acknowledgments. 

Page v. Table of Contents. 

Page vi. Pages i–xxxii. 

Page vii. Pages 1–70. 

Page viii. Pages 71–140. 

Page ix. Pages 141–210. 

Page x. Pages 211–252. 

Page xi. Appendix Pages A 1–A 70. 

Page xii. Appendix Pages A 71–A 140. 

Page xiii. Appendix Pages A 141–A 210. 

Page xiv. Appendix Pages A 211–A 226. 

Page xv. Appendix Pages B 1–B 7. 

Page xvi. List of Figures: 1–70. 

Page xvii. List of Figures: 71–140. 

Page xviii. List of Figures: 141–210. 

Page xix. List of Figures: 211–280. 

Page xx. List of Figures: 281–350. 

Page xxi. List of Figures: 351–420. 

Page xxii. List of Figures: 421–490. 

Page xxiii. List of Figures: 491–560. 

Page xxiv. List of Figures: 561–630. 

Page xxv. List of Figures: 631–700. 

Page xxvi. List of Figures: 701–770. 

Page xxvii. List of Figures: 771–840. 

Page xxviii. List of Figures: 841–910. 

Page xxix. List of Figures: 911–980. 

Page xxx. List of Figures: 981–1050. 

Page xxxi. List of Figures: 1051–1120. 

Page xxxii. List of Tables.

Page: Pages 1–70, Page Number: vii  
Pages 1–70

Page 1. Archaeological Background: Historical Background. 

Page 2. Archaeological Background: Siouan Archaeology. 

Page 3. Archaeological Background: Fredricks Site Discovery. 

Page 4. Archaeological Background: Fredricks Site Excavation. 

Page 5. Archaeological Background: List of Figures. 

Page 6. Archaeological Background: Sources. 

Page 7. History (1525–1725): Introduction. 

Page 8. History (1525–1725): The Invisible Invaders. 

Page 9. History (1525–1725): The Impact of Trade. 

Page 10. History (1525–1725): War and Peace. 

Page 11. History (1525–1725): Conclusion. 

Page 12. History (1525–1725): Notes. 

Page 13. History (1525–1725): Source. 

Page 14. History (1725–present): Introduction. 

Page 15. History (1725–present): Pre–Revolutionary War. 

Page 16. History (1725–present): Post–Revolutionary War. 

Page 17. History (1725–present): Twentieth Century. 

Page 18. History (1725–present): Present and Future. 

Page 19. History (1725–present): List of Figures. 

Page 20. History (1725–present): Source. 

Page 21. Burial 1 Description. 

Page 22. Burial 2 Description. 
Page 23. Burial 3 Description. 

Page 24. Feature 1 Description. 

Page 25. Feature 2 (Burial 4) Description. 

Page 26. Feature 3 (Burial 5) Description. 

Page 27. Feature 4 (Burial 6) Description. 

Page 28. Feature 5 (Burial 7) Description. 

Page 29. Feature 6 (Burial 8) Description. 

Page 30. Feature 7 (Burial 9) Description. 

Page 31. Feature 8 Description. 

Page 32. Feature 9 Description. 

Page 33. Feature 10 Description. 

Page 34. Feature 11 Description. 

Page 35. Feature 12 Description. 

Page 36. Feature 13 Description. 

Page 37. Feature 14 (Burial 11) Description. 

Page 38. Feature 15 Description. 

Page 39. Feature 16 Description. 

Page 40. Feature 17 Description. 

Page 41. Feature 18 Description. 

Page 42. Feature 19 Description. 

Page 43. Feature 20 Description. 

Page 44. Feature 21 Description. 

Page 45. Feature 22 Description. 

Page 46. Feature 23 Description. 

Page 47. Feature 24 Description. 

Page 48. Feature 25 Description. 

Page 49. Feature 26 (Burial 13) Description. 

Page 50. Feature 27 (Burial 10) Description. 

Page 51. Feature 28 Description. 

Page 52. Feature 29 Description. 

Page 53. Feature 30 Description. 

Page 54. Feature 31 Description. 

Page 55. Feature 32 Description. 

Page 56. Feature 33 Description. 

Page 57. Feature 34 Description. 

Page 58. Feature 35 Description. 

Page 59. Feature 36 Description. 

Page 60. Feature 37 Description. 

Page 61. Feature 38 Description. 

Page 62. Feature 39 Description. 

Page 63. Feature 40 Description. 

Page 64. Feature 41 Description. 

Page 65. Feature 42 Description. 

Page 66. Feature 43 Description. 

Page 67. Feature 44 Description. 

Page 68. Feature 45 Description. 

Page 69. Feature 46 Description. 

Page 70. Feature 47 Description.

Page: Pages 71–140, Page Number: viii  
Pages 71–140

Page 71. Feature 48 Description. 

Page 72. Feature 49 Description. 

Page 73. Feature 50 (Burial 12) Description. 

Page 74. Feature 51 Description. 

Page 75. Feature 52 Description. 

Page 76. Feature 53 Description. 

Page 77. Feature 54 (Burial 14) Description. 

Page 78. Feature 55 Description. 

Page 79. Feature 56 Description. 

Page 80. Feature 57 Description. 

Page 81. Feature 58 Description. 

Page 82. Feature 59 Description. 

Page 83. Feature 60 (Burial 27) Description. 

Page 84. Feature 61 Description. 

Page 85. Introduction to Artifact Analyses. 

Page 86. Pottery: Introduction. 

Page 87. Pottery: Fredricks Plain. 

Page 88. Pottery: Fredricks Check Stamped. 

Page 89. Pottery: Simple Stamped Pottery. 

Page 90. Pottery: Cord Marked Pottery. 
Page 91. Pottery: Uwharrie Net Impressed. 

Page 92. Pottery: Brushed Pottery. 

Page 93. Pottery: Cob Impressed Pottery. 

Page 94. Pottery: Complicated Stamped Pottery. 

Page 95. Pottery: Discussion. 

Page 96. Pottery: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 97. Pottery: Source. 

Page 98. Stone Tools: Introduction. 

Page 99. Stone Tools: Glossary of Stone Tool Artifact Types. 

Page 100. Stone Tools: Debitage (Flakes). 

Page 101. Stone Tools: Chipped-Stone Tools. 

Page 102. Stone Tools: Projectile Points. 

Page 103. Stone Tools: Ground-Stone Tools. 

Page 104. Stone Tools: Other Stone Tools. 

Page 105. Stone Tools: Assemblage Characteristics. 

Page 106. Stone Tools: Raw Materials. 

Page 107. Stone Tools: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 108. Stone Tools: Sources. 

Page 109. Shell Ornaments: Introduction. 

Page 110. Shell Ornaments: Pendants. 

Page 111. Shell Ornaments: Tube Beads. 

Page 112. Shell Ornaments: Columella Segment Beads. 

Page 113. Shell Ornaments: Spherical Columella Beads. 

Page 114. Shell Ornaments: Barrel/Cylinder Beads. 

Page 115. Shell Ornaments: Small Disks. 

Page 116. Shell Ornaments: Wampum. 

Page 117. Shell Ornaments: Runtees. 

Page 118. Shell Ornaments: List of Figures. 

Page 119. Shell Ornaments: Source. 

Page 120. European Trade Artifacts: Introduction. 

Page 121. European Trade Artifacts: Architecture Group. 

Page 122. European Trade Artifacts: Arms Group. 

Page 123. European Trade Artifacts: Clothing Group. 

Page 124. European Trade Artifacts: Food Consumption Group. 

Page 125. European Trade Artifacts: Personal Group. 

Page 126. European Trade Artifacts: Construction Tool Group. 

Page 127. European Trade Artifacts: Farm Tool Group. 

Page 128. European Trade Artifacts: Misc. Hardware Group. 

Page 129. European Trade Artifacts: Metal Resource Group. 

Page 130. European Trade Artifacts: Other Artifacts Group. 

Page 131. European Trade Artifacts: Non-recovered Artifacts. 

Page 132. European Trade Artifacts: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 133. European Trade Artifacts: List of Figures (cont.). 

Page 134. European Trade Artifacts: Sources. 

Page 135. Animal Remains (1983–84): Research Questions. 

Page 136. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts

Page 137. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Mammals. 

Page 138. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Birds. 

Page 139. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Reptiles. 

Page 140. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Amphibians.

Page: Pages 141–210, Page Number: ix  
Pages 141–210

Page 141. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Fish. 

Page 142. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Summary. 

Page 143. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Recovery Techniques. 

Page 144. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Analytical Procedures. 

Page 145. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Animals from the Wall Site. 

Page 146. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Animals from the Fredricks Site. 

Page 147. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Comparison of the Sites. 

Page 148. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Habitat Preference and Seasonality. 

Page 149. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Species Diversity. 

Page 150. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Conclusions. 

Page 151. Animal Remains (1983–1984): List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 152. Animal Remains (1983–1984): Source. 

Page 153. Animal Remains (1985): Introduction. 

Page 154. Animal Remains (1985): Analytical Procedures. 

Page 155. Animal Remains (1985): Animals from the Fredricks Site. 

Page 156. Animal Remains (1985): Discussion. 

Page 157. Animal Remains (1985): Conclusions. 

Page 158. Animal Remains (1985): List of Tables. 
Page 159. Animal Remains (1985): Source. 

Page 160. Animal Remains (1986): Introduction. 

Page 161. Animal Remains (1986): Mammals. 

Page 162. Animal Remains (1986): Birds. 

Page 163. Animal Remains (1986): Reptiles and Amphibians. 

Page 164. Animal Remains (1986): Fish. 

Page 165. Animal Remains (1986): Cut and Worked Bone. 

Page 166. Animal Remains (1986): Conclusions. 

Page 167. Animal Remains (1986): List of Tables. 

Page 168. Animal Remains (1986): Source. 

Page 169. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Introduction. 

Page 170. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Preservation and Recovery. 

Page 171. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Identification and Quantification. 

Page 172. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons. 

Page 173. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Nuts. 

Page 174. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Crops. 

Page 175. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Fleshy Fruits. 

Page 176. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Misc. Seeds. 

Page 177. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Diversity. 

Page 178. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Summary. 

Page 179. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Additional Data. 

Page 180. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Cost–Benefit Analysis. 

Page 181. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use. 

Page 182. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use: Spatial Variation. 

Page 183. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use: Seasonal Variation. 

Page 184. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Summary. 

Page 185. Plant Remains (1983–1984): List of Tables. 

Page 186. Plant Remains (1983–1984): Source. 

Page 187. Plant Remains (1985): Introduction. 

Page 188. Plant Remains (1985): Methods. 

Page 189. Plant Remains (1985): Nuts. 

Page 190. Plant Remains (1985): Crops. 

Page 191. Plant Remains (1985): Fleshy Fruits. 

Page 192. Plant Remains (1985): Miscellaneous Seeds. 

Page 193. Plant Remains (1985): Charcoal-Filled Pits. 

Page 194. Plant Remains (1985): Feature 30. 

Page 195. Plant Remains (1985): Comparison of Ranks by Ubiquity and Weight. 

Page 196. Plant Remains (1985): Discussion and Conclusions. 

Page 197. Plant Remains (1985): List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 198. Plant Remains (1985): Source. 

Page 199. Plant Remains (1986): Introduction. 

Page 200. Plant Remains (1986): Methods. 

Page 201. Plant Remains (1986): Results. 

Page 202. Plant Remains (1986): Discussion. 

Page 203. Plant Remains (1986): List of Tables. 

Page 204. Plant Remains (1986): Source. 

Page 205. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Introduction. 

Page 206. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Population. 

Page 207. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Subsistence. 

Page 208. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Trade Influence. 

Page 209. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Pottery. 

Page 210. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Stone Tools.

Page: Pages 211–252, Page Number: x  
Pages 211–252

Page 211. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Other Artifacts. 

Page 212. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Conclusions. 

Page 213. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: List of Figures. 

Page 214. Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Sources. 

Page 215. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Introduction. 

Page 216. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Haw, Eno, and Flat River Drainages. 

Page 217. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Haw River Phase (A.D. 1000–1400). 

Page 218. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Hillsboro Phase (A.D. 1400–1620). 

Page 219. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Mitchum, Jenrette, & Fredricks Phases. 

Page 220. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Upper Dan River Drainage. 

Page 221. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Dan River Phase (A.D. 1000–1450). 

Page 222. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Saratown Phase (A.D. 1450–1710). 

Page 223. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Conclusions. 

Page 224. Evolution of Siouan Communities: List of Figures. 

Page 225. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Notes. 

Page 226. Evolution of Siouan Communities: Source. 
Page 227. Burial Practices: Introduction. 

Page 228. Burial Practices: Approaches to Analysis. 

Page 229. Burial Practices: Ethnohistoric Background. 

Page 230. Burial Practices: Archaeological Background. 

Page 231. Burial Practices: The Susquehannock Connection. 

Page 232. Burial Practices: Mortuary Patterns. 

Page 233. Burial Practices: Socio-Political Implications. 

Page 234. Burial Practices: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 235. Burial Practices: Source. 

Page 236. Impact of Old World Diseases: Introduction. 

Page 237. Impact of Old World Diseases: Siouan Settlement Patterns. 

Page 238. Impact of Old World Diseases: Sixteenth-Century Community Patterns. 

Page 239. Impact of Old World Diseases: Seventeenth-Century Ethnohistoric Accounts. 

Page 240. Impact of Old World Diseases: Seventeenth-Century Siouan Communities. 

Page 241. Impact of Old World Diseases: Conclusions. 

Page 242. Impact of Old World Diseases: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 243. Impact of Old World Diseases: Source. 

Page 244. Occaneechi Trade: Introduction. 

Page 245. Occaneechi Trade: Ethnohistoric Evidence. 

Page 246. Occaneechi Trade: Archaeological Evidence. 

Page 247. Occaneechi Trade: Conclusions. 

Page 248. Occaneechi Trade: List of Tables and Figures. 

Page 249. Occaneechi Trade: Source. 

Page 250. References A–F. 

Page 251. References G–Q. 

Page 252. References R–Z.

Page: Appendix Pages A 1–A 70, Page Number: xi  
Appendix Pages A 1–A 70

A 1. Burial 1 Artifacts. 

A 2. Burial 2 Artifacts. 

A 3. Burial 3 Artifacts. 

A 4. Feature 1 Artifacts. 

A 5. Feature 10 Artifacts. 

A 6. Feature 11 Artifacts. 

A 7. Feature 12 Artifacts. 

A 8. Feature 13 Artifacts. 

A 9. Feature 14 (Burial 11) Artifacts. 

A 10. Feature 15 Artifacts. 

A 11. Feature 16 Artifacts. 

A 12. Feature 17 Artifacts. 

A 13. Feature 18 Artifacts. 

A 14. Feature 19 Artifacts. 

A 15. Feature 2 (Burial 4) Artifacts. 

A 16. Feature 20 Artifacts. 

A 17. Feature 21 Artifacts. 

A 18. Feature 22 Artifacts. 

A 19. Feature 23 Artifacts. 
A 20. Feature 24 Artifacts. 

A 21. Feature 25 Artifacts. 

A 22. Feature 26 (Burial 13) Artifacts. 

A 23. Feature 27 (Burial 10) Artifacts. 

A 24. Feature 28 Artifacts. 

A 25. Feature 29 Artifacts. 

A 26. Feature 3 (Burial 5) Artifacts. 

A 27. Feature 30 Artifacts. 

A 28. Feature 31 Artifacts. 

A 29. Feature 32 Artifacts. 

A 30. Feature 33 Artifacts. 

A 31. Feature 34 Artifacts. 

A 32. Feature 35 Artifacts. 

A 33. Feature 36 Artifacts. 

A 34. Feature 37 Artifacts. 

A 35. Feature 38 Artifacts. 

A 36. Feature 39 Artifacts. 

A 37. Feature 4 (Burial 6) Artifacts. 

A 38. Feature 40 Artifacts. 

A 39. Feature 41 Artifacts. 

A 40. Feature 42 Artifacts. 

A 41. Feature 44 Artifacts. 

A 42. Feature 45 Artifacts. 

A 43. Feature 46 Artifacts. 

A 44. Feature 47 Artifacts. 

A 45. Feature 48 Artifacts. 

A 46. Feature 49 Artifacts. 

A 47. Feature 5 (Burial 7) Artifacts. 

A 48. Feature 50 (Burial 12) Artifacts. 

A 49. Feature 51 Artifacts. 

A 50. Feature 53 Artifacts. 

A 51. Feature 54 (Burial 14) Artifacts. 

A 52. Feature 55 Artifacts. 

A 53. Feature 56 Artifacts. 

A 54. Feature 57 Artifacts. 

A 55. Feature 58 Artifacts. 

A 56. Feature 59 Artifacts. 

A 57. Feature 6 (Burial 8) Artifacts. 

A 58. Feature 60 (Burial 27) Artifacts. 

A 59. Feature 61 Artifacts. 

A 60. Feature 7 (Burial 9) Artifacts. 

A 61. Feature 8 Artifacts. 

A 62. Feature 9 Artifacts. 

A 63. Sq. 180R30 Artifacts. 

A 64. Sq. 180R40 Artifacts. 

A 65. Sq. 180R50 Artifacts. 

A 66. Sq. 180R60 Artifacts. 

A 67. Sq. 180R70 Artifacts. 

A 68. Sq. 190R10 Artifacts. 

A 69. Sq. 190R20 Artifacts. 

A 70. Sq. 190R30 Artifacts.

Page: Appendix Pages A 71–A 140, Page Number: xii  
Appendix Pages A 71–A 140

A 71. Sq. 190R40 Artifacts. 

A 72. Sq. 190R50 Artifacts. 

A 73. Sq. 190R60 Artifacts. 

A 74. Sq. 190R70 Artifacts. 

A 75. Sq. 190R80 Artifacts. 

A 76. Sq. 190R90 Artifacts. 

A 77. Sq. 200R0 Artifacts. 

A 78. Sq. 200R10 Artifacts. 

A 79. Sq. 200R100 Artifacts. 

A 80. Sq. 200R20 Artifacts. 

A 81. Sq. 200R30 Artifacts. 

A 82. Sq. 200R40 Artifacts. 

A 83. Sq. 200R50 Artifacts. 

A 84. Sq. 200R60 Artifacts. 

A 85. Sq. 200R70 Artifacts. 

A 86. Sq. 200R80 Artifacts. 

A 87. Sq. 200R90 Artifacts. 
A 88. Sq. 210L10 Artifacts. 

A 89. Sq. 210R0 Artifacts. 

A 90. Sq. 210R10 Artifacts. 

A 91. Sq. 210R100 Artifacts. 

A 92. Sq. 210R20 Artifacts. 

A 93. Sq. 210R30 Artifacts. 

A 94. Sq. 210R40 Artifacts. 

A 95. Sq. 210R50 Artifacts. 

A 96. Sq. 210R60 Artifacts. 

A 97. Sq. 210R70 Artifacts. 

A 98. Sq. 210R80 Artifacts. 

A 99. Sq. 210R90 Artifacts. 

A 100. Sq. 220L10 Artifacts. 

A 101. Sq. 220R0 Artifacts. 

A 102. Sq. 220R10 Artifacts. 

A 103. Sq. 220R100 Artifacts. 

A 104. Sq. 220R103 Artifacts. 

A 105. Sq. 220R20 Artifacts. 

A 106. Sq. 220R30 Artifacts. 

A 107. Sq. 220R40 Artifacts. 

A 108. Sq. 220R50 Artifacts. 

A 109. Sq. 220R60 Artifacts. 

A 110. Sq. 220R70 Artifacts. 

A 111. Sq. 220R80 Artifacts. 

A 112. Sq. 220R90 Artifacts. 

A 113. Sq. 230L10 Artifacts. 

A 114. Sq. 230R0 Artifacts. 

A 115. Sq. 230R10 Artifacts. 

A 116. Sq. 230R100 Artifacts. 

A 117. Sq. 230R110 Artifacts. 

A 118. Sq. 230R20 Artifacts. 

A 119. Sq. 230R30 Artifacts. 

A 120. Sq. 230R40 Artifacts. 

A 121. Sq. 230R50 Artifacts. 

A 122. Sq. 230R60 Artifacts. 

A 123. Sq. 230R70 Artifacts. 

A 124. Sq. 230R80 Artifacts. 

A 125. Sq. 230R90 Artifacts. 

A 126. Sq. 240L10 Artifacts. 

A 127. Sq. 240R0 Artifacts. 

A 128. Sq. 240R10 Artifacts. 

A 129. Sq. 240R100 Artifacts. 

A 130. Sq. 240R110 Artifacts. 

A 131. Sq. 240R20 Artifacts. 

A 132. Sq. 240R30 Artifacts. 

A 133. Sq. 240R40 Artifacts. 

A 134. Sq. 240R50 Artifacts. 

A 135. Sq. 240R60 Artifacts. 

A 136. Sq. 240R70 Artifacts. 

A 137. Sq. 240R80 Artifacts. 

A 138. Sq. 240R90 Artifacts. 

A 139. Sq. 250L10 Artifacts. 

A 140. Sq. 250R0 Artifacts.

Page: Appendix Pages A 141–A 210, Page Number: xiii  
Appendix Pages A 141–A 210

A 141. Sq. 250R10 Artifacts. 

A 142. Sq. 250R100 Artifacts. 

A 143. Sq. 250R110 Artifacts. 

A 144. Sq. 250R20 Artifacts. 

A 145. Sq. 250R30 Artifacts. 

A 146. Sq. 250R40 Artifacts. 

A 147. Sq. 250R50 Artifacts. 

A 148. Sq. 250R60 Artifacts. 

A 149. Sq. 250R70 Artifacts. 

A 150. Sq. 250R80 Artifacts. 

A 151. Sq. 250R90 Artifacts. 

A 152. Sq. 260L10 Artifacts. 

A 153. Sq. 260R0 Artifacts. 

A 154. Sq. 260R10 Artifacts. 

A 155. Sq. 260R100 Artifacts. 
A 156. Sq. 260R110 Artifacts. 

A 157. Sq. 260R20 Artifacts. 

A 158. Sq. 260R30 Artifacts. 

A 159. Sq. 260R40 Artifacts. 

A 160. Sq. 260R50 Artifacts. 

A 161. Sq. 260R60 Artifacts. 

A 162. Sq. 260R70 Artifacts. 

A 163. Sq. 260R80 Artifacts. 

A 164. Sq. 260R90 Artifacts. 

A 165. Sq. 270L10 Artifacts. 

A 166. Sq. 270R0 Artifacts. 

A 167. Sq. 270R10 Artifacts. 

A 168. Sq. 270R100 Artifacts. 

A 169. Sq. 270R110 Artifacts. 

A 170. Sq. 270R20 Artifacts. 

A 171. Sq. 270R30 Artifacts. 

A 172. Sq. 270R40 Artifacts. 

A 173. Sq. 270R50 Artifacts. 

A 174. Sq. 270R60 Artifacts. 

A 175. Sq. 270R70 Artifacts. 

A 176. Sq. 270R80 Artifacts. 

A 177. Sq. 270R90 Artifacts. 

A 178. Sq. 280L10 Artifacts. 

A 179. Sq. 280R0 Artifacts. 

A 180. Sq. 280R10 Artifacts. 

A 181. Sq. 280R100 Artifacts. 

A 182. Sq. 280R20 Artifacts. 

A 183. Sq. 280R30 Artifacts. 

A 184. Sq. 280R40 Artifacts. 

A 185. Sq. 280R50 Artifacts. 

A 186. Sq. 280R60 Artifacts. 

A 187. Sq. 280R70 Artifacts. 

A 188. Sq. 280R80 Artifacts. 

A 189. Sq. 280R90 Artifacts. 

A 190. Sq. 290L10 Artifacts. 

A 191. Sq. 290R0 Artifacts. 

A 192. Sq. 290R10 Artifacts. 

A 193. Sq. 290R100 Artifacts. 

A 194. Sq. 290R20 Artifacts. 

A 195. Sq. 290R30 Artifacts. 

A 196. Sq. 290R40 Artifacts. 

A 197. Sq. 290R50 Artifacts. 

A 198. Sq. 290R60 Artifacts. 

A 199. Sq. 290R70 Artifacts. 

A 200. Sq. 290R80 Artifacts. 

A 201. Sq. 290R90 Artifacts. 

A 202. Sq. 300R0 Artifacts. 

A 203. Sq. 300R10 Artifacts. 

A 204. Sq. 300R20 Artifacts. 

A 205. Sq. 300R30 Artifacts. 

A 206. Sq. 300R40 Artifacts. 

A 207. Sq. 300R50 Artifacts. 

A 208. Sq. 300R60 Artifacts. 

A 209. Sq. 300R70 Artifacts. 

A 210. Sq. 300R80 Artifacts.

Page: Appendix Pages A 211–A 226, Page Number: xiv  
Appendix Pages A 211–A 226

A 211. Sq. 310R0 Artifacts. 

A 212. Sq. 310R10 Artifacts. 

A 213. Sq. 310R20 Artifacts. 

A 214. Sq. 310R30 Artifacts. 

A 215. Sq. 310R40 Artifacts. 

A 216. Sq. 310R50 Artifacts. 

A 217. Sq. 310R60 Artifacts. 

A 218. Sq. 310R70 Artifacts. 

A 219. Sq. 310R80 Artifacts. 

A 220. Sq. 320R40 Artifacts. 

A 221. Sq. 320R50 Artifacts. 

A 222. Sq. 320R60 Artifacts. 

A 223. Sq. 320R70 Artifacts. 
A 225. Structure 1 Artifacts. 

A 226. Structure 5 Artifacts.

Page: Appendix Pages B 1–B 7, Page Number: xv  
Appendix Pages B 1–B 7

B 1. Beads. 

B 2. Ceramics. 

B 3. Faunal Remains. 

B 4. Historic Artifacts. 

B 5. Historic Ceramics. 

B 6. Lithics. 

B 7. Pipes.

Page: List of Figures: 1–70, Page Number: xvi  
Figures: 1–70

Figure 1. Distribution of Siouan-speaking peoples in eastern North America (based on Mooney 1894). 

Figure 2. Map of the study area locating Occaneechi Island, Occaneechi Town (Fredricks site), and Upper Saratown. 

Figure 3. Close-up view of Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina showing "Acconeechy I." or Occaneechi Island on Roanoke River. 

Figure 4. Close-up view of Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina showing "Acconeechy" or Occaneechi Town on Eno River. 

Figure 5. Title page from John Lawson's journal (Lawson 1709). 

Figure 6. John Lawson's description of his 1701 visit to "Achonechy-Town" (Lawson 1709). 

Figure 7. Map of the Hillsborough locality. 

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 10. Sq. 280R90 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 11. Sq. 270R90 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 12. Archaeologist Trawick Ward describes how the site of Occaneechi Town was discovered. 

Figure 13. Beginning excavation at the Fredricks site in 1983. 

Figure 14. Excavating Burial 1. 

Figure 15. Aerial view of 1984 excavations at the Wall (foreground) and Fredricks (background) sites. 

Figure 16. Aerial view of 1984 excavation. 

Figure 17. Excavating plowed soil at the Fredricks site in 1984. 

Figure 18. Cleaning and photographing burial pits in the cemetery. 

Figure 19. Mapping and excavating burials. 

Figure 20. Outlining Structure 1 and Feature 9 prior to mapping. 

Figure 21. The 1984 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 22. View of excavations at the Fredricks site in 1985. 

Figure 23. Excavating and cleaning archaeological features in 1985. 

Figure 24. Cleaning Structure 6 (foreground) and Structure 5 (background) prior to mapping. 

Figure 25. The 1985 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 26. View of excavations at the Fredricks site in 1986. 

Figure 27. The 1986 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 28. Map of areas excavated at the Fredricks site by field season. 

Figure 29. Excavating and dry-sifting plowed soil. 

Figure 30. Trowelling the top of subsoil to expose features for mapping. 

Figure 31. Cleaning and mapping the top of subsoil. 

Figure 32. Excavating the fill dirt from an archaeological feature. 

Figure 33. Sluices used to waterscreen soils at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 34. Washing fill dirt from an archaeological feature to recover artifacts. 

Figure 35. View of sluice showing series of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch screens. 

Figure 36. Close-up of items recovered by waterscreening. 

Figure 37. Students using a flotation tank to retrieve carbonized plant remains. 

Figure 38. Map showing selected Native American communities in North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 39. James Bruce Whitmore and wife Mary Martin Whitmore (seated), descendants of Andrew Whitmore (c. 1915). 

Figure 40. Tom Guy, Mattie Martin Guy, and son, descendants of William Guy (c. 1910–1915?). 

Figure 41. Andrew Jeffries, a descendant of Drewry Jeffries (c. 1900–1905?). 

Figure 42. Ernest Jeffries (Corn), a descendant of Robert Brooks Corn (c. 1900?). 

Figure 43. Drewry Jeffries home, built circa 1835 in Texas community. 

Figure 44. Walter and Connie Parker Burnette and family, descendants of Abner Burnette (early 1920s). 

Figure 45. Parker Jeffries (Roberson) (c. 1860). 

Figure 46. James Jeffries (1821–1922), Greene County, Ohio (c. 1920). 

Figure 47. David Martin (son of Sam Martin) and wife Adeline Jeffries (c. 1890). 

Figure 48. Goetha C. Whitmore (left) and John Jeffries (right) at the 1991 unveiling of the Occaneechi Historical Marker in Hillsborough, N.C. 

Figure 49. Henry Bowden (left) of Burnette's Chapel community (c. 1920). 

Figure 50. Ruth Burnette Bowden of Burnette's Chapel community (c. 1915). 

Figure 51. Artifact bundle found with Burial 3. 

Figure 52. Artifact bundle found with Burial 2. 
Figure 53. Scissors with fabric and matting from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a624). 

Figure 54. Scissors from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a627). 

Figure 55. Iron knife from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a558). 

Figure 56. Wooden-handled knife from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a626). 

Figure 57. Brass buckle from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a621). 

Figure 58. Lead shot from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a616). 

Figure 59. Dog-lock gun spring fragment from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a566). 

Figure 60. Spoon from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a537). 

Figure 61. Iron knife (fragmented) from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a551). 

Figure 62. Bone-handled knife from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a543/1). 

Figure 63. Bone-handled knife from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a543/2). 

Figure 64. Scissors from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a542/1). 

Figure 65. Scissors from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a542/2). 

Figure 66. Pewter buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a538). 

Figure 67. Vessel 6, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p428). 

Figure 68. Pewter button with design top from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a368). 

Figure 69. Smoking pipes: native clay (top), kaolin (middle), and pewter (bottom). 

Figure 70. Ember tender from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a563).

Page: List of Figures: 71–140, Page Number: xvii  
Figures: 71–140

Figure 71. Iron axe from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a564). 

Figure 72. Large shell gorget from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a535). 

Figure 73. Small shell gorget from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a535). 

Figure 74. Pewter porringer on pedestal from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a555). 

Figure 75. Iron knife (fragmented) from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a553). 

Figure 76. Wine bottle (with engraved "M") from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a568). 

Figure 77. Vessel 19, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p7225/1,p7253/1). 

Figure 78. Vessel 20, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p7194/1,p7225/2,p7253/2). 

Figure 79. Vessel 25, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p248/3,p258/1). 

Figure 80. Vessel 18, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7068/1). 

Figure 81. Vessel 11, a simple-stamped jar from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6275/1). 

Figure 82. Vessel 12, a check-stamped jar from Feature 18 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p6275/2,p6283/1,p6295/1). 

Figure 83. Vessel 13, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/1). 

Figure 84. Vessel 28, a cord-marked jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/1,p619/1). 

Figure 85. Vessel 32, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/5,p619/5,p647/2). 

Figure 86. Vessel 10, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 17 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p6206/1,p6226/1). 

Figure 87. Vessel 14, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6768). 

Figure 88. Vessel 15, a Fredricks Plain bowl from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6769). 

Figure 89. Vessel 16, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6770). 

Figure 90. Artifact bundle found with Burial 11. 

Figure 91. Iron hoe from Burial 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2703). 

Figure 92. Iron knife from Burial 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6671). 
Figure 93. Copper kettle on pedestal from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2553). 

Figure 94. Wire C-bracelet from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6115/1). 

Figure 95. Celt from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6758). 

Figure 96. Tin box from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6112). 

Figure 97. Close-up of bells on floor of Feature 3 (Burial 5) (view to southeast). 

Figure 98. Bone-handled knife from Burial 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2706). 

Figure 99. Mouth harp from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6114/2). 

Figure 100. Lead shot from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6113). 

Figure 101. Brass buckle from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2549). 

Figure 102. Brass bells from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6759). 

Figure 103. Tubular shell beads from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1773). 

Figure 104. Brass bells with leather from Burial 7 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2324). 

Figure 105. Pewter buckle frames from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6114). 

Figure 106. Wine bottle from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1774). 

Figure 107. Vessel 7, a Fredricks Check Stamped pot from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2240). 

Figure 108. Wood or matting from Burial 7 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2327). 

Figure 109. Vessel 9, a cord-marked bowl from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6119). 

Figure 110. Vessel 8, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2543). 

Figure 111. Pewter pipe stem from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2260). 

Figure 112. Bone-handled knife from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2548). 

Figure 113. Pewter porringer on pedestal from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1775). 

Figure 114. Iron hoe from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2262). 

Figure 115. Firing mechanism of musket from Burial 6. 

Figure 116. Fragment of basket from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2545). 

Figure 117. Brass wire bracelets from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2246). 

Figure 118. Scissors from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2242). 

Figure 119. Knife, pipes, and beads on pedestal from Burial 5 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a1998,a1999,a2000,a2001). 

Figure 120. Fredricks Plain and miscellaneous simple-stamped and cord-marked potsherds. 

Figure 121. Vessel 5, a Fredricks Plain bowl from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441/2). 

Figure 122. Vessel 23, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p152/2,p198/3). 

Figure 123. Vessel 29, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/2,p619/2,p646/5,p679). 

Figure 124. Vessel 30, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p554/1,p577/3,p619/3). 

Figure 125. Edge of a potsherd showing fine sand temper. 

Figure 126. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse crushed-feldspar temper. 

Figure 127. Edge of a potsherd showing fine crushed-feldspar temper. 

Figure 128. Edge of a potsherd showing medium crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 129. Potsherd with a smoothed exterior surface. 

Figure 130. Smoothed interior surface of a potsherd. 

Figure 131. Scraped interior surface of a potsherd. 

Figure 132. Fredricks Plain vessel profiles. 

Figure 133. Fredricks Check Stamped potsherds. 

Figure 134. Vessel 2, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p255/1). 

Figure 135. Vessel 3, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p382/1). 

Figure 136. Vessel 4, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441/1). 

Figure 137. Vessel 21, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p152/1,p198/1). 

Figure 138. Vessel 24, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378p248/2). 

Figure 139. Vessel 26, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378p348/1). 

Figure 140. Vessel 31, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/4,p619/4,p647/1).

Page: List of Figures: 141–210, Page Number: xviii  
Figures: 141–210

Figure 141. Vessel 33, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378p1026/1). 

Figure 142. Vessel 35, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/3). 

Figure 143. Edge of a potsherd showing fine crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 144. Potsherd with a check-stamped exterior surface. 

Figure 145. Close-up of Fredricks Check Stamped incised lip treatment. 

Figure 146. Check-stamped potsherds (with drill holes) from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p277). 

Figure 147. Fredricks Check Stamped vessel profiles. 

Figure 148. Fredricks Check Stamped vessel profiles. 

Figure 149. Net-impressed, simple-stamped, and miscellaneous potsherds. 

Figure 150. Vessel 34, a simple-stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/2). 

Figure 151. Potsherd with a simple-stamped exterior surface. 

Figure 152. Simple-stamped vessel profiles. 
Figure 153. Vessel 27, a cord-marked pot from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378p507/1). 

Figure 154. Potsherd with a cord-marked exterior surface. 

Figure 155. Cord-marked vessel profiles. 

Figure 156. Vessel 1, a Uwharrie Net Impressed jar from Feature 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2711). 

Figure 157. Vessel 17, a Uwharrie Net Impressed jar from Feature 30 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6985/1). 

Figure 158. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse sand temper. 

Figure 159. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 160. Net-impressed and brushed potsherds from Feature 30 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6985). 

Figure 161. Potsherd with a net-impressed exterior surface. 

Figure 162. Potsherd with a brushed exterior surface. 

Figure 163. Potsherds with cob-impressed exterior surfaces. 

Figure 164. Potsherd with a complicated-stamped exterior surface. 

Figure 165. Sq. 180R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 166. Brushed, cord-marked, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 4 (Burial 6) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2160). 

Figure 167. Brushed, net-impressed, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3238). 

Figure 168. Check-stamped and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 5 (Burial 7) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2286). 

Figure 169. Check-stamped and plain potsherds from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441). 

Figure 170. Check-stamped and plain potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6864). 

Figure 171. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6206). 

Figure 172. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378p348). 

Figure 173. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378p818). 

Figure 174. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p995). 

Figure 175. Check-stamped, net-impressed, and brushed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2799). 

Figure 176. Check-stamped, plain, and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6811). 

Figure 177. Cob-impressed and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p126). 

Figure 178. Large check-stamped pot fragment from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6275). 

Figure 179. Net-impressed and brushed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2826). 

Figure 180. Net-impressed and plain potsherds from Feature 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2711). 

Figure 181. Plain (top) and check-stamped (bottom) potsherds from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p382). 

Figure 182. Plain and check-stamped pot sections from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p198). 

Figure 183. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p255). 

Figure 184. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3057). 

Figure 185. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3162). 

Figure 186. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481). 

Figure 187. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 26 (Burial 13) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6608). 

Figure 188. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6700). 

Figure 189. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378p68). 

Figure 190. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p152). 

Figure 191. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378p248). 

Figure 192. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378p284). 

Figure 193. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378p386). 

Figure 194. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378p507). 

Figure 195. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378p619). 

Figure 196. Plain and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 57 (RLA catalog no. 2378p865). 

Figure 197. Plain and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2763). 

Figure 198. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3093). 

Figure 199. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6405). 

Figure 200. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378p774). 

Figure 201. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p919). 

Figure 202. Plain, brushed, net-impressed, and simple-stamped potsherds from Feature 23 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6521). 

Figure 203. Plain, check-stamped, complicated-stamped, and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p945). 

Figure 204. Plain, cord-marked, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6938). 

Figure 205. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3138). 

Figure 206. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7068). 

Figure 207. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2602). 

Figure 208. Plain, net-impressed, and cord-marked potsherds from Feature 39 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7146). 

Figure 209. Plain, net-impressed, cob-impressed, cord-marked, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 14 (Burial 11) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6027). 

Figure 210. Plain, net-impressed, cob-impressed, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2628).

Page: List of Figures: 211–280, Page Number: xix  
Figures: 211–280

Figure 211. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p184). 

Figure 212. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 2 (Burial 4) (RLA catalog no. 2351p1586). 

Figure 213. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6897). 

Figure 214. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 3 (Burial 5) (RLA catalog no. 2351p1865). 

Figure 215. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 31 (RLA catalog no. 2378p15). 

Figure 216. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7194). 

Figure 217. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378p577). 

Figure 218. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 6 (Burial 8) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2379). 

Figure 219. Simple-stamped and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6783). 

Figure 220. Simple-stamped and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378p1026). 

Figure 221. Vessel 22, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p198/2). 

Figure 222. Triangular projectile points. 

Figure 223. Chipped-stone biface from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a64). 

Figure 224. Chipped-stone perforator from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a815). 

Figure 225. Used stone flake from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1021). 

Figure 226. Crude chipped-stone choppers from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a345). 

Figure 227. Chipped-stone disk from Sq. 280R30 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4841). 

Figure 228. Stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7244). 

Figure 229. Chunkey stones from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6196). 

Figure 230. Hammerstone from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a239). 

Figure 231. Chipped-stone perforator from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2760). 

Figure 232. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 9 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2832,a2768,a3052,a2759,a2797,a2824). 

Figure 233. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 28 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6815/1,a6781). 

Figure 234. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a765). 

Figure 235. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a989). 

Figure 236. Stone disk fragment from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a344). 

Figure 237. Ground-stone celt fragment from Sq. 210R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1800). 

Figure 238. Ground-stone celt fragment from Sq. 230R110 (RLA catalog no. 2378a2463). 

Figure 239. Refitted stone pipe fragments from Feature 48 and Sq. 270R20 plowzone (RLA catalog nos. 2378a380,2351a4537). 

Figure 240. Hammerstone from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a613). 

Figure 241. Biface and chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 29 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6862,a6893,a6847). 

Figure 242. Bifaces and chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6696,a6695). 

Figure 243. Chipped-stone projectile point and biface from Feature 6 (Burial 8) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2459,a2438). 

Figure 244. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a206). 

Figure 245. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 15 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6165). 

Figure 246. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6475). 

Figure 247. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 26 (Burial 13) (RLA catalog no. 2351a6613). 

Figure 248. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 3 (Burial 5) (RLA catalog no. 2351a1790). 

Figure 249. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a125). 

Figure 250. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a279). 

Figure 251. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 58 (RLA catalog no. 2378a889). 

Figure 252. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351a2673). 

Figure 253. Chipped-stone projectile points and biface from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6398,a6359,a6360). 

Figure 254. Chipped-stone projectile points from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a449). 

Figure 255. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 14 (Burial 11) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6062,a6075). 

Figure 256. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 2 (Burial 4) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a1658,a1724). 

Figure 257. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 23 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6517,a6527). 

Figure 258. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3264). 

Figure 259. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 30 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6982,a7026). 

Figure 260. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 31 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a10,a4). 

Figure 261. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 33 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a7114,a7099). 

Figure 262. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 4 (Burial 6) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2158,a2187). 

Figure 263. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a7243,a7185,a7201). 

Figure 264. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a236,a255). 

Figure 265. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 47 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a318,a354,a325). 

Figure 266. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a377). 

Figure 267. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 51 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a530,a501). 

Figure 268. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a610,a584). 

Figure 269. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 56 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a780,a855). 

Figure 270. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 59 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a940,a913). 

Figure 271. Chipped-stone disk from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3227). 

Figure 272. Crude stone chopper from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a614). 

Figure 273. Large chipped-stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7245). 

Figure 274. Broken stone disk from Sq. 220R60 and Sq. 230R60 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3706,a3905). 

Figure 275. Ground-stone disk from Sq. 310R30 (RLA catalog no. 2351a5622). 

Figure 276. Hammerstone from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a330). 

Figure 277. Hammerstone from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a280). 

Figure 278. Stone disk from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6361). 

Figure 279. Stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7187). 

Figure 280. Stone disk from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a240).

Page: List of Figures: 281–350, Page Number: xx  
Figures: 281–350

Figure 281. Stone disk from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a442). 

Figure 282. Stone disk from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a754). 

Figure 283. Stone disk from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1022). 

Figure 284. Stone disk from Sq. 210R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1801). 

Figure 285. Stone disk from Sq. 230R80 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4029). 

Figure 286. Stone disk from Sq. 240R110 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4191). 

Figure 287. Stone disks from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6195). 

Figure 288. Stone disks from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6399). 

Figure 289. Stone disks from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a768). 

Figure 290. Engraved design on latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 

Figure 291. Shell beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1997). 

Figure 292. Large shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a591). 

Figure 293. Shell disk beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a531). 

Figure 294. Purple wampum beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a529). 

Figure 295. Shell "runtee" beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a583). 

Figure 296. Shell "runtee" beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a590). 

Figure 297. Large polished shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a534). 

Figure 298. Medium disk shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a587). 

Figure 299. Purple wampum beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a585). 

Figure 300. Purple wampum beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a592). 

Figure 301. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a359). 

Figure 302. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a364). 

Figure 303. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a369). 
Figure 304. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a370). 

Figure 305. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a371). 

Figure 306. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a515). 

Figure 307. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a517). 

Figure 308. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a519). 

Figure 309. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a520). 

Figure 310. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a521). 

Figure 311. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a522). 

Figure 312. Shell beads from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a556). 

Figure 313. Shell beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2002). 

Figure 314. Shell beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2247). 

Figure 315. Shell disk beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a530). 

Figure 316. Shell tube and oval beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a532). 

Figure 317. Small circular shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a586). 

Figure 318. Small circular shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a596). 

Figure 319. Small circular shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a601). 

Figure 320. Small disk shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a588). 

Figure 321. Nails from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a629). 

Figure 322. Iron nail from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a558). 

Figure 323. Lead ball and shot. 

Figure 324. Lead shot from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a554). 

Figure 325. Gunflints: locally made (top) and European (middle-bottom). 

Figure 326. Dog-lock musket from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2254). 

Figure 327. Gunflint in hammer of musket from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2255). 

Figure 328. Musket side plate from Sq. 230R20 (RLA catalog no. 2378a2343). 

Figure 329. Musket frizzens from Sq. 180R30 and Sq. 250R10 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a1055,a2841). 

Figure 330. Musket hammers from Sq. 260R30 and Sq. 290R50 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a4414,a5195). 

Figure 331. Small metal trade artifacts from Sqs. 190R30, 190R60, 220R0, 230R10, and 240R30 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a1241,a1339,a1362,a1965,a2296,a2297,a2683). 

Figure 332. Bone-handled punch/awl (?) from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6111). 

Figure 333. Iron scissors from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a575). 

Figure 334. Brass thimble from Feature 49 (RLA catalog no. 2378a462). 

Figure 335. Brass thimble from Sq. 230R30 plowzone (RLA catalog no. 2378a2386). 

Figure 336. European-made buttons and buckles. 

Figure 337. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a373). 

Figure 338. Hollow cast lead buttons from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a609). 

Figure 339. Brass buckle and leather from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2551). 

Figure 340. Copper bracelet and associated leather from Burial 6 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2246,a2248). 

Figure 341. Profile of glass wine bottle from Burial 4. 

Figure 342. Worked wine bottle fragment from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a618). 

Figure 343. Glass wine bottle fragment from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3237). 

Figure 344. Glass wine bottle fragment from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7252). 

Figure 345. Pewter porringer, iron knife, and kaolin pipe from Burial 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6672,a6673,a6674). 

Figure 346. Latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 

Figure 347. Maker's mark on latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 
Figure 348. Small metal trade artifacts from Feature 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3225,a3233,a3234,a3235,a3249). 

Figure 349. Glass trade beads. 

Figure 350. Glass beads from Burial 14 (RLA catalog no. 2378a720).

Page: List of Figures: 351–420, Page Number: xxi  
Figures: 351–420

Figure 351. Cornaline d'Aleppo glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6746/1). 

Figure 352. Black glass beads with stripes from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a540). 

Figure 353. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a243). 

Figure 354. Clay pipe from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1023). 

Figure 355. Clay pipe from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a65). 

Figure 356. Clay pipe from Feature 53 (three views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a617/2). 

Figure 357. Clay pipe bowl from Feature 19 (two views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a6364). 

Figure 358. Pewter pipe from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a562). 

Figure 359. Pewter pipe-bowl liner (?) from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3236). 

Figure 360. Jews harp from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a611). 

Figure 361. Iron axe from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2004). 

Figure 362. Iron axe from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a576). 

Figure 363. Broken iron axe from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3000). 

Figure 364. Broken iron hoe from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3231). 

Figure 365. Broken iron hoe blade from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6253). 

Figure 366. Iron hoe from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6764). 

Figure 367. Bone-handled knife from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a244). 

Figure 368. Bone-handled knife from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a972). 

Figure 369. Knife blade fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a620). 

Figure 370. Iron knife blade from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3185). 

Figure 371. Bone knife handle from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a771). 

Figure 372. Adze-like iron tool from Structure 5 wall trench (RLA catalog no. 2351a7368). 

Figure 373. Iron nails from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a630). 

Figure 374. Lead shot from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6747). 

Figure 375. Lead shot from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a610). 

Figure 376. Lead shot from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a623). 

Figure 377. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6417). 

Figure 378. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 23 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6528). 

Figure 379. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2351a257). 

Figure 380. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a626). 

Figure 381. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a955). 

Figure 382. Part from dog-lock musket in Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2256). 

Figure 383. Gunflint from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a275). 

Figure 384. Gunflint from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3160). 

Figure 385. Gunflint from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6476). 

Figure 386. Gunflint from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6936). 

Figure 387. Gunflint from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7065). 

Figure 388. Gunflint from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a146). 

Figure 389. Gunflint from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a238). 

Figure 390. Gunflint from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a378). 

Figure 391. Gunflint from Feature 49 (RLA catalog no. 2378a460). 

Figure 392. Gunflint from Feature 57 (RLA catalog no. 2378a864). 

Figure 393. Gunflints from Burial 3 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a450,a561). 

Figure 394. Gunflints from Feature 10 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3090,a3101). 

Figure 395. Gunflints from Feature 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3229,a3272). 

Figure 396. Gunflints from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6362,a6401). 

Figure 397. Gunflints from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6706,a6697). 

Figure 398. Gunflints from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378a502). 

Figure 399. Gunflints from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a611,a553). 

Figure 400. Gunflints from Feature 59 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a916,a990,a942). 

Figure 401. Gunflints from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1020). 

Figure 402. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a352). 

Figure 403. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a582). 

Figure 404. Metal button from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a368). 

Figure 405. Small metal fasteners from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7214). 

Figure 406. Wire coil and buckle frame from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a247,a256). 

Figure 407. Iron awl from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a612). 

Figure 408. Wooden knife-handle fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a559). 

Figure 409. Aboriginally modified metal artifacts. 

Figure 410. Coiled brass wire from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1024). 

Figure 411. Copper and leather from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2201). 

Figure 412. Copper and leather object from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2261). 

Figure 413. Copper wire from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2267). 

Figure 414. Small brass object from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6203). 

Figure 415. Clay pipe bowl from posthole in Sq. 180R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3305). 

Figure 416. Clay pipe bowls from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2378a7191). 

Figure 417. Clay pipe bowls from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2378a7250). 

Figure 418. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 14 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6026). 

Figure 419. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1743). 

Figure 420. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6480).

Page: List of Figures: 421–490, Page Number: xxii  
Figures: 421–490

Figure 421. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 31 (RLA catalog no. 2378a13). 

Figure 422. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a67). 

Figure 423. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 42 (three views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a38). 

Figure 424. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a147). 

Figure 425. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a282). 

Figure 426. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a346). 

Figure 427. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378a506). 

Figure 428. Clay pipe fragment from Sq. 210R20 plowzone (RLA catalog no. 2378a1699). 

Figure 429. Clay pipe fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a435,a436). 

Figure 430. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3091). 

Figure 431. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3230). 

Figure 432. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 17 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6187,a6199). 

Figure 433. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2378a6442). 

Figure 434. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a6403,a6431). 

Figure 435. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 28 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a5705,a6808). 

Figure 436. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 29 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6861,a6937). 
Figure 437. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7067). 

Figure 438. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7249). 

Figure 439. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a66). 

Figure 440. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a616). 

Figure 441. Clay pipe from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a617/1). 

Figure 442. Pewter pipe-bowl liner (?) from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7159). 

Figure 443. Black (burgundy) seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a607). 

Figure 444. Black glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a539). 

Figure 445. Black glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a584). 

Figure 446. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a358). 

Figure 447. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a363). 

Figure 448. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a545). 

Figure 449. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6746). 

Figure 450. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6748). 

Figure 451. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6751). 

Figure 452. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6754). 

Figure 453. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6755). 

Figure 454. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6761). 

Figure 455. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6765). 

Figure 456. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6766). 

Figure 457. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6767). 

Figure 458. Glass beads from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6117). 

Figure 459. Glass beads from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6138). 

Figure 460. Glass beads from Burial 14 (RLA catalog no. 2378a710). 

Figure 461. Glass beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a425). 

Figure 462. Glass beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1941). 

Figure 463. Glass beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2199). 

Figure 464. Glass beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2228). 

Figure 465. Large opaque turquoise beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a604). 

Figure 466. Large opaque white beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a605). 

Figure 467. Opaque white seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a608). 

Figure 468. Red with green centers seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a606). 

Figure 469. Red-white-blue-striped bead from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a603). 

Figure 470. Bivariate plots of rank values for 12 animal species at the Wall and Fredricks sites. 

Figure 471. Comparison of ubiquity and percentage rankings for plant remains from the Fredricks site (by weight). 

Figure 472. Map of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 473. Map of the NE quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 474. Map of the SE quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 475. Map of the SW quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 476. Map of the NW quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 477. Settlement plan of the Fredricks site as revealed by archaeological excavation. 

Figure 478. Map showing the Siouan Project study area. 

Figure 479. Distribution of Haw River phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 480. Distribution of Hillsboro phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 481. Excavation plan of the Wall site. 
Figure 482. Distribution of Mitchum, Jenrette, and Fredricks phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 483. Subrectangular house (measuring 17 ft by 22 ft) at the Mitchum site. 

Figure 484. Partial excavation plan of the Jenrette site, 1989–1996. 

Figure 485. Excavation plan of the Fredricks site. 

Figure 486. Distribution of Dan River phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 487. Distribution of Saratown phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 488. Rebuilt house at Lower Saratown (the smaller house is 18 ft in diameter; the larger house measures 20 ft by 23 ft). 

Figure 489. Excavation plan of Upper Saratown. 

Figure 490. Model of Siouan settlement change.

Page: List of Figures: 491–560, Page Number: xxiii  
Figures: 491–560

Figure 491. Fill profiles of Burial Groups 1 and 2. 

Figure 492. Fill profiles of Burial Groups 3 and 4. 

Figure 493. Archaeologist Steve Davis describes the impact of European diseases on Indian populations in North Carolina. 

Figure 494. Map of Siouan study area. 

Figure 495. Plan of Wall site excavations (structures labeled in red). 

Figure 496. Plan of Upper Saratown site excavations (selected structures labeled in red). 

Figure 497. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifacts by class (excluding glass beads) at each site. 

Figure 498. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifacts by material (excluding glass beads) at each site. 

Figure 499. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifact fragments and scraps by material at each site. 
Figure 500. Aerial view of 1984 excavations at the Fredricks (foreground) and Wall (background) sites. 

Figure 501. Animal bones within Feature 29 fill (view to north). 

Figure 502. Burial 1 showing associated artifacts (view to southeast). 

Figure 503. Burial 1 showing associated artifacts (view to southeast). 

Figure 504. Burial 1, plan and profile views. 

Figure 505. Burial 2 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 506. Burial 2 showing associated artifacts (view to southeast). 

Figure 507. Burial 2, plan and profile views. 

Figure 508. Burial 3 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 509. Burial 3 showing associated artifacts (view to southeast). 

Figure 510. Burial 3 with fill partially removed (view to southeast). 

Figure 511. Burial 3, plan and profile views. 

Figure 512. Charcoal and charred corn on Feature 9 floor (view to south). 

Figure 513. Clay hearth fragments in Feature 59 fill (view to northwest). 

Figure 514. Close-up of animal bone and artifacts on Feature 19 floor. 

Figure 515. Close-up of animal bone and artifacts on Feature 20 floor. 

Figure 516. Close-up of bells on floor of Feature 50 (Burial 12) (view to north). 

Figure 517. Close-up of broken pots on Feature 18 floor (view to north). 

Figure 518. Close-up of Burial 1 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 519. Close-up of Burial 3 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 520. Close-up of clay hearth fragments in Feature 59 fill (view to northwest). 

Figure 521. Close-up of Feature 14 (Burial 11) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 522. Close-up of Feature 2 (Burial 4) after excavation (view to southeast). 
Figure 523. Close-up of Feature 26 (Burial 13) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 524. Close-up of Feature 27 (Burial 10) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 525. Close-up of Feature 3 (Burial 5) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 526. Close-up of Feature 4 (Burial 6) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 527. Close-up of Feature 54 (Burial 14) after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 528. Close-up of Feature 6 (Burial 8) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 529. Close-up of Feature 60 (Burial 27) after excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 530. Close-up of Feature 7 (Burial 9) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 531. Close-up of Feature 9 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 532. Feature 1 after excavation (view to southwest). 

Figure 533. Feature 1, plan and profile views. 

Figure 534. Feature 10 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 535. Feature 10 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 536. Feature 10, plan and profile views. 

Figure 537. Feature 11 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 538. Feature 11 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 539. Feature 11, plan and profile views. 

Figure 540. Feature 12 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 541. Feature 12 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 542. Feature 12, plan and profile views. 

Figure 543. Feature 13 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 544. Feature 13 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 545. Feature 13 with rocks on pit floor (view to north). 

Figure 546. Feature 13, plan and profile views. 

Figure 547. Feature 14 (Burial 11) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 548. Feature 14 (Burial 11) before excavation (view to northwest). 

Figure 549. Feature 14 (Burial 11) with upper fill removed (view to northwest). 

Figure 550. Feature 14 (Burial 11), plan and profile views. 

Figure 551. Feature 15 after excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 552. Feature 15 before excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 553. Feature 15, plan view. 

Figure 554. Feature 16 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 555. Feature 16 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 556. Feature 16, plan and profile views. 

Figure 557. Feature 17 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 558. Feature 17 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 559. Feature 17, plan and profile views. 

Figure 560. Feature 18 after excavation (view to south).

Page: List of Figures: 561–630, Page Number: xxiv  
Figures: 561–630

Figure 561. Feature 18 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 562. Feature 18 showing broken pots on floor (view to northeast). 

Figure 563. Feature 18, plan and profile views. 

Figure 564. Feature 19 after excavation (view to southwest). 

Figure 565. Feature 19 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 566. Feature 19, plan and profile views. 

Figure 567. Feature 2 (Burial 4) after excavation (view to southeast). 
Figure 568. Feature 2 (Burial 4) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 569. Feature 2 (Burial 4), plan and profile views. 

Figure 570. Feature 20 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 571. Feature 20 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 572. Feature 20 with upper fill removed (view to south). 

Figure 573. Feature 20, plan and profile views. 

Figure 574. Feature 21 after excavation (view to northwest). 

Figure 575. Feature 21 before excavation (view to northwest). 

Figure 576. Feature 21, plan and profile views. 

Figure 577. Feature 22 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 578. Feature 22 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 579. Feature 22, plan and profile views. 

Figure 580. Feature 23 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 581. Feature 23 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 582. Feature 23, plan and profile views. 

Figure 583. Feature 24 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 584. Feature 24 before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 585. Feature 24, plan and profile views. 

Figure 586. Feature 25 after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 587. Feature 25 before excavation (view to east). 

Figure 588. Feature 25, plan and profile views. 

Figure 589. Feature 26 (Burial 13) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 590. Feature 26 (Burial 13) before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 591. Feature 26 (Burial 13), plan and profile views. 

Figure 592. Feature 27 (Burial 10) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 593. Feature 27 (Burial 10) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 594. Feature 27 (Burial 10), plan and profile views. 

Figure 595. Feature 28 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 596. Feature 28 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 597. Feature 28, plan and profile views. 

Figure 598. Feature 29 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 599. Feature 29 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 600. Feature 29, plan and profile views. 

Figure 601. Feature 3 (Burial 5) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 602. Feature 3 (Burial 5) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 603. Feature 3 (Burial 5), plan and profile views. 

Figure 604. Feature 30 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 605. Feature 30 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 606. Feature 30, plan and profile views. 

Figure 607. Feature 31 after excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 608. Feature 31 before excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 609. Feature 31, plan and profile views. 

Figure 610. Feature 32, plan and profile views. 

Figure 611. Feature 33 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 612. Feature 33 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 613. Feature 33, plan and profile views. 

Figure 614. Feature 34 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 615. Feature 34, plan and profile views. 

Figure 616. Feature 35 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 617. Feature 35 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 618. Feature 35, plan and profile views. 

Figure 619. Feature 36 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 620. Feature 36 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 621. Feature 36, plan and profile views. 

Figure 622. Feature 37 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 623. Feature 37 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 624. Feature 37, plan and profile views. 

Figure 625. Feature 38 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 626. Feature 38 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 627. Feature 38, plan and profile views. 

Figure 628. Feature 39 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 629. Feature 39 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 630. Feature 39, plan and profile views.

Page: List of Figures: 631–700, Page Number: xxv  
Figures: 631–700

Figure 631. Feature 4 (Burial 6) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 632. Feature 4 (Burial 6) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 633. Feature 4 (Burial 6), plan and profile views. 

Figure 634. Feature 40 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 635. Feature 40 before excavation (view to north). 
Figure 636. Feature 40, plan and profile views. 

Figure 637. Feature 41 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 638. Feature 41 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 639. Feature 41, plan and profile views. 

Figure 640. Feature 42 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 641. Feature 42 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 642. Feature 42, plan and profile views. 

Figure 643. Feature 43, plan and profile views. 

Figure 644. Feature 44 after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 645. Feature 44 before excavation (view to east). 

Figure 646. Feature 44, plan and profile views. 

Figure 647. Feature 45 after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 648. Feature 45, plan and profile views. 

Figure 649. Feature 46 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 650. Feature 46 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 651. Feature 46, plan and profile views. 

Figure 652. Feature 47 after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 653. Feature 47 before excavation (view to east). 

Figure 654. Feature 47, plan and profile views. 

Figure 655. Feature 48, plan and profile views. 

Figure 656. Feature 49 after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 657. Feature 49 before excavation (view to east). 

Figure 658. Feature 49, plan and profile views. 

Figure 659. Feature 5 (Burial 7) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 660. Feature 5 (Burial 7) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 661. Feature 5 (Burial 7), plan and profile views. 

Figure 662. Feature 50 (Burial 12) after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 663. Feature 50 (Burial 12) before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 664. Feature 50 (Burial 12), plan and profile views. 

Figure 665. Feature 51 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 666. Feature 51 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 667. Feature 51, plan and profile views. 

Figure 668. Feature 52, plan and profile views. 

Figure 669. Feature 53 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 670. Feature 53 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 671. Feature 53, plan and profile views. 

Figure 672. Feature 54 (Burial 14) after excavation (view to east). 

Figure 673. Feature 54 (Burial 14) before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 674. Feature 54 (Burial 14), plan and profile views. 

Figure 675. Feature 55 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 676. Feature 55 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 677. Feature 55, plan and profile views. 

Figure 678. Feature 56 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 679. Feature 56 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 680. Feature 56, plan and profile views. 

Figure 681. Feature 57 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 682. Feature 57 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 683. Feature 57, plan and profile views. 

Figure 684. Feature 58 after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 685. Feature 58 before excavation (view to south). 

Figure 686. Feature 58, plan and profile views. 

Figure 687. Feature 59 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 688. Feature 59 before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 689. Feature 59, plan and profile views. 

Figure 690. Feature 6 (Burial 8) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 691. Feature 6 (Burial 8) before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 692. Feature 6 (Burial 8), plan and profile views. 

Figure 693. Feature 60 (Burial 27) after excavation (view to north). 

Figure 694. Feature 60 (Burial 27) before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 695. Feature 60 (Burial 27), plan and profile views. 

Figure 696. Feature 61 after excavation (view to northeast). 

Figure 697. Feature 61 before excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 698. Feature 61, plan and profile views. 

Figure 699. Feature 7 (Burial 9) after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 700. Feature 7 (Burial 9) before excavation (view to southeast).

Page: List of Figures: 701–770, Page Number: xxvi  
Figures: 701–770

Figure 701. Feature 7 (Burial 9), plan and profile views. 

Figure 702. Feature 8 after excavation (view to southeast). 

Figure 703. Feature 8, plan and profile views. 
Figure 704. Feature 9 after excavation (view to south). 

Figure 705. Feature 9 before excavation (view to north). 

Figure 706. Feature 9, plan and profile views. 

Figure 707. Gunflint from Feature 31 (RLA catalog no. 2378a11). 

Figure 708. Large carved wood fragments from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2555). 

Figure 709. Leather and matting from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a622). 

Figure 710. Portion of Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina showing "Acconeechy." 

Figure 711. Potsherds and animal bone within Feature 53 fill (view to north). 

Figure 712. Profile of fill in Feature 25 (view to north). 

Figure 713. Profile of fill in Feature 9 (view to north). 

Figure 714. Profile of upper fill in Feature 14 (Burial 11) (view to northwest). 

Figure 715. Profile of upper fill in Feature 26 (Burial 13) (view to northwest). 

Figure 716. Profile of upper fill in Feature 4 (Burial 6) (view to northwest). 

Figure 717. Sq. 180R30 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 718. Sq. 180R40 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 719. Sq. 180R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 720. Sq. 180R50 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 721. Sq. 180R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 722. Sq. 180R60 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 723. Sq. 180R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 724. Sq. 180R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 725. Sq. 180R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 726. Sq. 190R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 727. Sq. 190R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 728. Sq. 190R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 729. Sq. 190R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 730. Sq. 190R30 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 731. Sq. 190R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 732. Sq. 190R40 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 733. Sq. 190R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 734. Sq. 190R50 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 735. Sq. 190R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 736. Sq. 190R60 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 737. Sq. 190R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 738. Sq. 190R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 739. Sq. 190R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 740. Sq. 190R80 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 741. Sq. 190R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 742. Sq. 190R90 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 743. Sq. 190R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 744. Sq. 200R0 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 745. Sq. 200R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 746. Sq. 200R10 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 747. Sq. 200R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 748. Sq. 200R100 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 749. Sq. 200R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 750. Sq. 200R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 751. Sq. 200R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 752. Sq. 200R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 753. Sq. 200R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 754. Sq. 200R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 755. Sq. 200R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 756. Sq. 200R50 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 757. Sq. 200R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 758. Sq. 200R60 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 759. Sq. 200R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 760. Sq. 200R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 761. Sq. 200R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 762. Sq. 200R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 763. Sq. 200R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 764. Sq. 200R90 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 765. Sq. 200R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 766. Sq. 210L10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 767. Sq. 210L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 768. Sq. 210R0 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 769. Sq. 210R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 770. Sq. 210R10 at top of subsoil (view to south).

Page: List of Figures: 771–840, Page Number: xxvii  
Figures: 771–840

Figure 771. Sq. 210R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 
Figure 772. Sq. 210R100 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 773. Sq. 210R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 774. Sq. 210R20 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 775. Sq. 210R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 776. Sq. 210R30 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 777. Sq. 210R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 778. Sq. 210R40 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 779. Sq. 210R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 780. Sq. 210R50 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 781. Sq. 210R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 782. Sq. 210R60 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 783. Sq. 210R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 784. Sq. 210R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 785. Sq. 210R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 786. Sq. 210R80 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 787. Sq. 210R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 788. Sq. 210R90 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 789. Sq. 210R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 790. Sq. 220L10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 791. Sq. 220L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 792. Sq. 220R0 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 793. Sq. 220R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 794. Sq. 220R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 795. Sq. 220R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 796. Sq. 220R100 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 797. Sq. 220R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 798. Sq. 220R103, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 799. Sq. 220R20 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 800. Sq. 220R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 801. Sq. 220R30 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 802. Sq. 220R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 803. Sq. 220R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 804. Sq. 220R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 805. Sq. 220R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 806. Sq. 220R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 807. Sq. 220R60 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 808. Sq. 220R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 809. Sq. 220R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 810. Sq. 220R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 811. Sq. 220R80 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 812. Sq. 220R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 813. Sq. 220R90 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 814. Sq. 220R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 815. Sq. 230L10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 816. Sq. 230L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 817. Sq. 230R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 818. Sq. 230R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 819. Sq. 230R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 820. Sq. 230R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 821. Sq. 230R100 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 822. Sq. 230R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 823. Sq. 230R110 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 824. Sq. 230R110, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 825. Sq. 230R20 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 826. Sq. 230R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 827. Sq. 230R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 828. Sq. 230R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 829. Sq. 230R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 830. Sq. 230R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 831. Sq. 230R50 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 832. Sq. 230R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 833. Sq. 230R60 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 834. Sq. 230R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 835. Sq. 230R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 836. Sq. 230R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 837. Sq. 230R80 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 838. Sq. 230R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 839. Sq. 230R90 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 840. Sq. 230R90, top of subsoil (view to north).

Page: List of Figures: 841–910, Page Number: xxviii  
Figures: 841–910

Figure 841. Sq. 240L10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 842. Sq. 240L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 843. Sq. 240R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 844. Sq. 240R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 845. Sq. 240R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 846. Sq. 240R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 847. Sq. 240R100 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 848. Sq. 240R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 849. Sq. 240R110 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 850. Sq. 240R110, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 851. Sq. 240R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 852. Sq. 240R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 853. Sq. 240R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 854. Sq. 240R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 855. Sq. 240R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 856. Sq. 240R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 857. Sq. 240R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 858. Sq. 240R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 859. Sq. 240R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 860. Sq. 240R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 861. Sq. 240R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 862. Sq. 240R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 
Figure 863. Sq. 240R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 864. Sq. 240R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 865. Sq. 240R90 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 866. Sq. 240R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 867. Sq. 250L10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 868. Sq. 250L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 869. Sq. 250R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 870. Sq. 250R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 871. Sq. 250R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 872. Sq. 250R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 873. Sq. 250R100 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 874. Sq. 250R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 875. Sq. 250R110 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 876. Sq. 250R110, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 877. Sq. 250R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 878. Sq. 250R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 879. Sq. 250R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 880. Sq. 250R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 881. Sq. 250R40 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 882. Sq. 250R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 883. Sq. 250R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 884. Sq. 250R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 885. Sq. 250R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 886. Sq. 250R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 887. Sq. 250R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 888. Sq. 250R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 889. Sq. 250R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 890. Sq. 250R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 891. Sq. 250R90 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 892. Sq. 250R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 893. Sq. 260L10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 894. Sq. 260L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 895. Sq. 260R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 896. Sq. 260R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 897. Sq. 260R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 898. Sq. 260R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 899. Sq. 260R100 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 900. Sq. 260R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 901. Sq. 260R110 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 902. Sq. 260R110, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 903. Sq. 260R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 904. Sq. 260R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 905. Sq. 260R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 906. Sq. 260R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 907. Sq. 260R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 908. Sq. 260R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 909. Sq. 260R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 910. Sq. 260R50, top of subsoil (view to north).

Page: List of Figures: 911–980, Page Number: xxix  
Figures: 911–980

Figure 911. Sq. 260R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 912. Sq. 260R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 913. Sq. 260R70 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 914. Sq. 260R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 915. Sq. 260R80 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 916. Sq. 260R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 917. Sq. 260R90 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 918. Sq. 260R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 919. Sq. 270L10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 920. Sq. 270L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 921. Sq. 270R0 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 922. Sq. 270R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 923. Sq. 270R10 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 924. Sq. 270R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 925. Sq. 270R100 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 926. Sq. 270R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 927. Sq. 270R110 at top of subsoil (view to east). 

Figure 928. Sq. 270R110, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 929. Sq. 270R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 930. Sq. 270R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 
Figure 931. Sq. 270R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 932. Sq. 270R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 933. Sq. 270R40 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 934. Sq. 270R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 935. Sq. 270R50 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 936. Sq. 270R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 937. Sq. 270R60 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 938. Sq. 270R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 939. Sq. 270R70 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 940. Sq. 270R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 941. Sq. 270R80 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 942. Sq. 270R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 943. Sq. 270R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 944. Sq. 280L10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 945. Sq. 280L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 946. Sq. 280R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 947. Sq. 280R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 948. Sq. 280R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 949. Sq. 280R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 950. Sq. 280R100 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 951. Sq. 280R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 952. Sq. 280R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 953. Sq. 280R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 954. Sq. 280R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 955. Sq. 280R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 956. Sq. 280R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 957. Sq. 280R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 958. Sq. 280R50 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 959. Sq. 280R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 960. Sq. 280R60 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 961. Sq. 280R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 962. Sq. 280R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 963. Sq. 280R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 964. Sq. 280R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 965. Sq. 280R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 966. Sq. 280R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 967. Sq. 290L10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 968. Sq. 290L10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 969. Sq. 290R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 970. Sq. 290R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 971. Sq. 290R10 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 972. Sq. 290R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 973. Sq. 290R100 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 974. Sq. 290R100, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 975. Sq. 290R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 976. Sq. 290R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 977. Sq. 290R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 978. Sq. 290R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 979. Sq. 290R40 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 980. Sq. 290R40, top of subsoil (view to north).

Page: List of Figures: 981–1050, Page Number: xxx  
Figures: 981–1050

Figure 981. Sq. 290R50 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 982. Sq. 290R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 983. Sq. 290R60 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 984. Sq. 290R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 985. Sq. 290R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 986. Sq. 290R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 987. Sq. 290R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 988. Sq. 290R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 989. Sq. 290R90 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 990. Sq. 290R90, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 991. Sq. 300R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 992. Sq. 300R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 993. Sq. 300R10 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 994. Sq. 300R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 995. Sq. 300R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 996. Sq. 300R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 997. Sq. 300R30 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 998. Sq. 300R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 
Figure 999. Sq. 300R40 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 1000. Sq. 300R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1001. Sq. 300R50 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 1002. Sq. 300R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1003. Sq. 300R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1004. Sq. 300R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1005. Sq. 300R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1006. Sq. 300R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1007. Sq. 300R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1008. Sq. 300R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1009. Sq. 310R0 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 1010. Sq. 310R0, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1011. Sq. 310R10 at top of subsoil (view to west). 

Figure 1012. Sq. 310R10, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1013. Sq. 310R20 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 1014. Sq. 310R20, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1015. Sq. 310R30 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 1016. Sq. 310R30, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1017. Sq. 310R40 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1018. Sq. 310R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1019. Sq. 310R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1020. Sq. 310R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1021. Sq. 310R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1022. Sq. 310R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1023. Sq. 310R70 at top of subsoil (view to south). 

Figure 1024. Sq. 310R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1025. Sq. 310R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1026. Sq. 310R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1027. Sq. 320R40 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1028. Sq. 320R40, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1029. Sq. 320R50 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1030. Sq. 320R50, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1031. Sq. 320R60 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1032. Sq. 320R60, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1033. Sq. 320R70 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1034. Sq. 320R70, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1035. Sq. 320R80 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1036. Sq. 320R80, top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 1037. Structure 1 after excavation (view to southwest). 

Figure 1038. Structure 1 at top of subsoil (view to southwest). 

Figure 1039. Structure 1, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1040. Structure 10, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1041. Structure 11, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1042. Structure 12, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1043. Structure 13, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1044. Structure 2, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1045. Structure 3, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1046. Structure 4, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1047. Structure 5, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1048. Structure 6, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1049. Structure 7, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1050. Structure 8, plan view (view to north).

Page: List of Figures: 1051–1120, Page Number: xxxi  
Figures: 1051–1120

Figure 1051. Structure 9, plan view (view to north). 

Figure 1052. Top of Burial 2 before excavation (view to northwest). 

Figure 1053. Top of Burial 3 before excavation (view to northwest).

Figure 1054. Wall-trench house at the Jenrette site (interior floor area measures 16 ft by 19 ft).

Page: List of Tables, Page Number: xxxii  
List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of pottery recovered from the Fredricks site. 

Table 2. Distribution of pottery from features, burials, and structures. 

Table 3. Formal attributes for the whole vessels and reconstructed vessel sections from the Fredricks site. 

Table 4. Metric attributes and contexts for whole vessels and reconstructed vessel sections from the Fredricks site. 

Table 5. Distribution of pottery by feature and burial clusters. 

Table 6. Analyzed stone tools from the Fredricks site. 

Table 7. Historic artifacts found at the Fredricks site. 

Table 8. Summary of glass trade beads from the Fredricks site. 

Table 9. Animal remains from the Wall site (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 10. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 11. Expected and actual representation of deer skeletal elements (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 12. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 13. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1985 excavations). 

Table 14. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1985 excavations). 

Table 15. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1986 excavations). 

Table 16. Age of deer from the Fredricks site. 

Table 17. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1986 excavations). 

Table 18. Summary of plant remains from the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites (weights in grams). 

Table 19. Percent of plant food remains from the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites. 

Table 20. Ubiquity of plant remains, as percent of flotation samples at the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites. 

Table 21. Seed counts from the Fredricks site. 

Table 22. Seed counts from the Wall and Mitchum sites. 

Table 23. Percent of nutshell from the Wall, Mitchum, and Fredricks sites. 

Table 24. Comparison of plant remains from burials, features, and structures at the Fredricks site. 

Table 25. Distribution of seeds from the Wall, Mitchum, and Fredricks sites (number per gram of plant food remains). 

Table 26. Plant remains from 1985 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 27. Plant food remains from 1985 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 28. Percentage of plant food remains from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 29. Seed/fruit counts for burials, features, and structure from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 30. Plant ubiquity at the Fredricks site as percentage of features (1985 samples). 

Table 31. Percentages of nutshell from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 
Table 32. Percentages of plant food remains from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 33. Seed/fruit counts and proportions from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 34. Seed/fruit counts and proportions from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 35. Plant remains from Features 35 and 37 (1985 flotation samples; weights in grams). 

Table 36. Plant remains from Feature 36 (1985 flotation sample; weights in grams). 

Table 37. Plant remains from Feature 30 (1985 flotation sample). 

Table 38. Plant remains from 1986 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 39. Weights (in grams) of plant food remains from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 40. Percentage of plant food remains from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 41. Densities of plant remains in features (1986 flotation samples). 

Table 42. Seed and fruit counts from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 43. Absolute and relative quantities of nutshell. 

Table 44. Ubiquity of plant taxa from the Fredricks site as percentage of features. 

Table 45. Percentage of plant food remains from the Fredricks site (1983–1986 flotation samples). 

Table 46. Percentage of seeds and fruits from the Fredricks site, 1983–1986. 

Table 47. Acculturation indices for Fredricks site burial groupings. 

Table 48. Distribution by age category of utilitarian (U) and ornamental (O) artifacts associated with the Fredricks site burials. 

Table 49. Wall post densities at the Wall site. 

Table 50. Wall post densities at Upper Saratown. 

Table 51. Inventory of European trade artifacts from feature and burial contexts at Upper Saratown and the Fredricks site.

Page: Archaeological Background: Historical Background, Page Number: 1  
Historical Background

 	When European explorers first entered the Virginia and Carolina Piedmont, they found it occupied by several small Indian tribes who shared a common culture and a similar language.  These Siouan tribes also shared a mixed subsistence of hunting, gathering, and agriculture, and a social system regulated by ties of kinship and reciprocity (see map).

 	As the colonial frontier was pushed into the Piedmont and as Indian and European interaction was intensified, the Occaneechi tribe became prominent among the Siouan groups.  The Occaneechi controlled much of the deerskin trade, and their language became the lingua franca of the Piedmont.  Their pivotal role in the fur trade came about partly because one of their villages, on an island in the Roanoke River, was astride the Great Trading Path from Virginia to Georgia.

 	The island village of the Occaneechi was visited by John Lederer in 1670 (Cumming 1958).  After the Occaneechis "barbarously murthered" six Cherokees who were attempting to establish trade relations with the Virginia colonists, Lederer, fearing for his life, cut short his visit.  James Needham and Gabriel Arthur, who traveled through the same territory in 1673, observed that the Occaneechis controlled the colonial trade, which endowed them with an importance that far exceeded their numbers (Alvord and Bidgood 1912).  They seem to have maintained and reinforced their role in the trade network through warfare and intimidation.  Thus, the Occaneechi tribe earned a fierce and pugnacious reputation, which eventually led to an eruption of armed hostilities with Nathaniel Bacon's militia in 1676.

 	After pursuing a group of Susquehannock Indians into Occaneechi territory, Bacon convinced some "Manakins" and "Annalectins," who had also joined the Occaneechi, to aid his forces in defeating the Susquehannocks.  After that victory was accomplished, Bacon then attacked the Occaneechis (Billings 1975:267–269).

 	After the battle with Bacon, the Occaneechis were so reduced in numbers that they could no longer defend their island stronghold on the Roanoke (see map).  The survivors abandoned their home territory, retreated southward, and reestablished a village on the Eno River, near present Hillsborough, North Carolina (see map).  In 1701, English surveyor John Lawson visited the relocated Occaneechi Town where he observed that there were "no Indians having greater Plenty of Provisions than these" (Lefler 1967:61) (see Lawson's journal: title page, text).

 	After Lawson's visit, conditions worsened for the Occaneechi, as well as for the other Siouan tribes, and by 1722, disease, warfare, and rum had virtually destroyed Indian societies in the Piedmont.  Remnants of once autonomous groups either huddled together around Fort Christanna in Virginia or moved to join their cousins, the Catawba, in South Carolina.  By 1730, except for a few isolated Indian families, the North Carolina Piedmont lay mostly vacant, awaiting the arrival of hordes of colonists from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

Page: Archaeological Background: Siouan Archaeology, Page Number: 2  
Siouan Archaeology

 	Archaeologists first became interested in studying the remains of the Piedmont Siouans in the 1930s, when village sites thought to be associated with the Keyauwee, Sara, Saponi, and Occaneechi were subjected to excavations of varying intensity (Coe 1937; Lewis 1951).  Though broad in scope, these early efforts were not focused by a structured research design.  At most sites, only small areas were tested, and collections were gathered primarily with an eye toward identifying pottery types of the different tribes.  As part of this early research, extensive excavations were carried out between 1938 and 1941 at the Wall site on the Eno River near Hillsborough (see Hillsborough locality and archaeological district maps).  This site was thought to represent the Occaneechi village visited by Lawson in 1701.

 	The next archaeological research in the Siouan area was undertaken in the 1940s on the Roanoke River, prior to the inundation of Kerr Reservoir in North Carolina and Virginia (Miller 1962).  Under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution's River Basin Salvage Program, extensive excavations were conducted in the reservoir area at the Clarksville site on the east bank of the river opposite "Occaneechi Island," and on the island itself at the Tollifero site.  These two sites contained information on the prehistoric Siouan inhabitants of the area, but no evidence was found of the 1670 Occaneechi village visited by Lederer, Needham and Arthur, and Bacon.

 	In 1972, the Research Laboratories of Anthropology began excavations at the Upper Saratown site on the Dan River in Stokes County, North Carolina (see regional map).  These investigations, which lasted for 10 consecutive field seasons, exposed a group of circular houses with associated storage pits and burials, as well as a sequence of village palisades (Ward 1980; J. Wilson 1983).  Most of the burials were accompanied by nonutilitarian (ornamental) European trade items.  Ethnohistoric records and the recovered trade artifacts suggested that this site was occupied during the late 1600s by the Sara, one of the Piedmont Siouan tribes and neighbors of the Occaneechi.

 	When combined, these initial efforts to investigate the "Siouan problem" seem substantial.  Each project, however, was developed as an end in itself and was not guided by an overall set of research objectives.  Consequently, archaeological coverage of the Siouan area was uneven.  For example, the upper Dan River valley was extensively investigated, whereas the Haw and Eno drainages to the southeast received relatively little attention.  Surveys were opportunistic rather than systematic, and a few larger sites were tested and excavated at the virtual exclusion of many small ones.  Despite all of their shortcomings, these previous investigations provided a foundation for more systematic studies of Piedmont Siouan culture.

 	Although the need to approach Siouan archaeology with a set of specific goals, operationalized by an overall research strategy, was obvious, such a course of study was not formulated until 1983.  At that time, staff of the Research Laboratories of Anthropology developed a research design which included a set of questions focused on Siouan culture change and the archaeological correlates of that change.

 	The archaeological investigations that followed became known as the Siouan Project and focused on the Dan, Eno, and Haw River drainages, heartland of the Piedmont Siouans during the Historic period.  Extant ethnohistoric and archaeological information suggested that there was considerable cultural diversity among the groups in these three river systems, reflecting possible differences in ethnicity, microenvironmental adaptation, and intensity of interaction with the English. Although the Siouan tribes seem to have commonly shifted their villages and to have even changed their territories, by 1675 the locations of their settlements were more or less stabilized within the confines of these three drainages.  The Sara, Tutelo, and Saponi occupied the territory drained by the Dan and its tributaries; the Eno basin was the homeland of the Eno, Shakori, and Occaneechi (after 1680); and the Haw River area was occupied by the Sissipahaw and possibly others (see regional map).

 	Since the Siouan Project was concerned with studying changes in aboriginal culture brought about by contact and interaction with English colonists, a primary goal was to locate and identify towns occupied by the various Indian tribes at specific time intervals from the Late Prehistoric through Contact periods.  These intervals are: Late Prehistoric (A.D. 1300–1525), Protohistoric (A.D. 1526–1625), Early Contact (A.D. 1626–1675), Middle Contact (A.D. 1676–1710), Late Contact (A.D. 1711–1740), and Euroamerican (A.D. 1741–present).  Once sites representing all (or most) intervals were located in each drainage area, it was possible to address more specific questions concerning how the different Piedmont groups adapted within local environments to increasing exposure to European materials, ideas, and institutions.

 	Some initial questions to be addressed were: What were the Siouan cultures like prior to European contact?  After initial European contact, what aspects of culture changed first, and with what relative intensity?  As contact became protracted, did the Indians move more toward the adoption of European ways, or more toward making adjustments in their existing cultural patterns to cope with the European presence?  What were the short-term and long-term effects of European epidemic diseases?  What effects did the deerskin trade have on the native economy, technology, and social organization?  How did man-land interactions change through time?

Page: Archaeological Background: Fredricks Site Discovery, Page Number: 3  
Fredricks Site Discovery

 	Although the ethnohistoric record contains little precise information on the locations of Siouan towns, a description in John Lawson's journal (Lefler 1967) and the survival of "Occaneechi" as a place name provide a strong case for locating the 1701 town of Occaneechi immediately southeast of present-day Hillsborough in Orange County, North Carolina (Rights 1957; Lefler 1967).  This case is strengthened further by Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina which places "Acconeechy" just east of  the Great Trading Path on the north side of the Eno River.  A reconstruction of this path's route through piedmont North Carolina has shown that it crossed the Eno River at Hillsborough (Rights 1931).  Finally, the Eno River floodplain just east of Hillsborough, formed by a bend in the river's course, comprises the only large (ca. 25 acres) expanse of land in the vicinity that would have been suitable for native agriculture (see map of Hillsborough archaeological district).

	When the Wall site was first investigated archaeologically during the late 1930s and early 1940s, it was reasonably thought to be the remains of Lawson's Occaneechi Town because of its location and presumed late date of occupation (Coe 1952).  This interpretation was generally accepted until the inception of the Siouan Project in 1983.  At that time, a cursory re-examination of the 1938–1941 excavation data immediately called to question this interpretation.  It was felt that, given the Occaneechis' active participation in the deerskin and fur trade with the Virginia colony and the comparatively late date for Occaneechi Town, the archaeological remains of that community should contain numerous European-made artifacts.  However, most of the European and Euroamerican artifacts found at the Wall site either dated too late or had been found in disturbed contexts.  Because of this, it was felt that additional field investigations were needed to clarify the chronological placement of the Wall site and to critically evaluate its identification as Occaneechi Town.

A Second Look at the Wall Site

	In the summer of 1983, excavations were resumed at the Wall site.  Initially, sections of the old 1938–1941 excavations were isolated and a site grid was re-established.  A portion of the rich midden surrounding the village was excavated and subjected to fine-scale recovery techniques.  In addition, three burials were excavated and portions of two circular house patterns were exposed.  The few European and Euroamerican artifacts found were from plow-disturbed soil, and most of these dated to the latter half of the eighteenth century or early nineteenth century, well after the time when Occaneechi Town was occupied.  Just as important, no European artifacts were found in undisturbed contexts despite careful waterscreening through 1/16-inch mesh.  Radiocarbon dating provided additional evidence that the Wall site village predated the period of European contact.  Three radiocarbon samples from undisturbed contexts yielded an average corrected date of A.D. 1545±80 years [not calibrated].  These data, in conjunction with a review of the earlier investigations, led to the irrefutable conclusion that the Wall site was too old to be historic Occaneechi Town.

Discovering the Fredricks Site

 	During initial surveys to relocate the Wall site in the spring of 1983, two other village sites were discovered nearby.  At one of these, the Fredricks site, several European artifacts, along with Indian-made pottery fragments, were found on the surface.  Once it appeared that the Wall site was not Occaneechi Town, UNC archaeologists dug several shovel-sized test pits on this newly discovered site in the hope of finding evidence for intact archaeological deposits.  One of these small test pits exposed the top edge of a pit filled with refuse and dark soil.  This discovery was followed by the excavation of eight contiguous 10-ft x 10-ft squares.  These revealed five sharp-cornered rectangular pits (see excavated square) and a line of small postholes (see excavated square).  Both the posthole pattern and the pits were neatly arranged in a northwest-southeast direction.  (See video describing the discovery of Occaneechi Town.)

	Four of the pits were excavated, and three contained human skeletal remains accompanied by grave goods of both European and Indian manufacture.  The fourth pit, identical in shape to the other three, appeared to represent a burial but contained no bones or grave goods.  Two of the burials were the remains of children between three and eight years old at death.  Included with these burials were European trade items such as knives, scissors, and a variety of glass beads.  Aboriginal artifacts included shell gorgets, shell beads, and a ceramic vessel.  One adult male burial contained a wealth of European artifacts, including an intact rum bottle, scissors, knives, a pewter pipe and buttons, a pair of ember tongs, and an iron axe head.
 	Most of the trade artifacts from these burial pits dated to the late 1600s or very early 1700s, the appropriate period for Occaneechi Town.  Archaeological finds from subsequent investigations at the site confirmed this initial chronological assessment.  The site appeared to be well preserved, with no evidence of disturbance other than shallow plowing.  From these observations, it became obvious that more intensive work was needed at the Fredricks site.  Hence, plans were immediately begun for a project in 1984 that would combine a major excavation and testing program at the Fredricks site, along with continued work at the neighboring Wall site.

Page: Archaeological Background: Fredricks Site Excavation, Page Number: 4  
Fredricks Site Excavation

	Because the Fredricks site was discovered late in the 1983 field season, investigations that summer were relatively brief.  A limited excavation of 800 sq ft revealed a portion of a cemetery lying just outside the village (see photo) and a segment of the village palisade (see photo).  Three human burials within the cemetery were excavated.  All three pits were rectangular with sharp corners (indicating that they probably were excavated with metal tools) and contained numerous artifacts of Euroamerican manufacture.  A fourth pit excavated within the cemetery contained neither human remains nor grave associations (see photos of sifting plowed soil, burial excavation).

	A second field season at the Fredricks site, conducted during the summer of 1984 and sponsored by the National Geographic Society, uncovered a much larger area of the cemetery and the adjacent village (Dickens et al. 1984, [ed.] 1987) (see aerial view of Wall and Fredricks site excavations; see aerial view of Fredricks site excavation).  These investigations were designed to obtain additional data on mortuary behavior and to begin sampling domestic areas.  In addition, systematic subsurface testing was undertaken on unexcavated portions of the site to delimit probable site boundaries and to make a preliminary assessment of internal site structure.

	During 1984, 27 new 10-ft by 10-ft units (2,700 ft2) were excavated, and six of the eight units excavated in 1983 were re-exposed (see general view of excavation).  These excavations uncovered six additional burials within the cemetery, a 90-ft palisade segment, and approximately 2,250 ft2 of the village area inside the palisade (see cemetery, burial excavation).  Mapping of postholes revealed two complete domestic structures.  In addition, an oval, wall-trench sweat lodge with an interior fire pit was exposed in the southwesternmost corner of the excavation (see sweat lodge).  Subsurface testing of unexcavated areas consisted of auger sampling at 2.5-ft intervals to identify archaeological features.  This procedure proved to be highly reliable and was successful both in delimiting the remainder of the cemetery and in identifying areas of intensive domestic activity within the village.  It was somewhat less effective, however, in providing a precise definition of site boundaries (see Davis and Ward 1987) (see 1984 crew).

	In 1985, a third season of fieldwork was made possible by additional funding from the National Geographic Society (Dickens et al. 1985; Dickens et al. [ed.] 1986).  These excavations exposed 62 10-ft by 10-ft units, more than doubling the total area uncovered during the previous two field seasons (see general view of excavation).  The large excavated area made it possible to estimate the overall size of the village as well as to predict its internal spatial configuration.  Twenty-five features and three burials were excavated (see feature excavation).  The burials were the last remaining in the cemetery, bringing the total to 12 with an additional probable burial.  Six new structures also were defined as a result of the 1985 work, and approximately 100 ft of the palisade were exposed as it continued to encircle the habitation area (see cleaning house patterns).  At the end of the 1985 field season, it was estimated that the village compound within the palisade was small, comprising only about .25 acres.  A total of 11–12 houses were estimated to have sheltered approximately 50–75 individuals (see 1985 crew).

	The 1986 excavation at the Fredricks site uncovered all the remaining village area enclosed within the palisade except for a small section in the southwest corner where large trees prevented soil removal (see general view of excavation).  Although still small, the village shape was more irregular than predicted after the 1985 field season.  The irregular outline resulted from the fact that the palisade "bowed-out" or expanded to the southwest, thus creating a D-shaped rather than oval configuration.  Although much of the structural evidence continued to consist of vague posthole clusters, two additional wall-trench structures were defined and the 13 pit features associated with the structures were extremely rich.  Their depositional character and contents added significant new data that aided in clarifying general as well as specific behavioral patterns within the village.  In addition, two human burials, two possible burial pits, a possible hearth, and an irregular trench were excavated.  Another probable pit (Feature 60) and a shallow basin (Feature 52) were mapped but not excavated (see 1986 crew).

	In 1995, while excavating the nearby Jenrette site, Feature 60 and the three final 10-ft by 10-ft units at the Fredricks site were excavated.

	For a map showing the area excavated during each field season, click here.

Field Methods

	Archaeological field methods were consistent throughout all field seasons at the Fredricks site.  Each season, preliminary site preparation consisted of bushhogging the work area and re-establishing the site grid and reference point for elevations.  All plowzone (0.5–1.6 ft thick) was excavated in 10-ft by 10-ft units, with soil being dry screened through 1/2-inch wire mesh using hand sifters.  A 20-liter soil sample from the plowzone of each unit was waterscreened through 1/16-inch mesh to assess small artifact content.

	Following the removal of plowzone, the bottom of each excavation unit (top of subsoil) was carefully trowelled in order to identify and record pits and postholes.  The trowelled surface was documented by black-and-white and color photographs and was mapped at a scale of 1 in=2 ft.  The drawings of each excavation unit were subsequently combined to produce an overall plot of the excavation.  Photographs were also made of all procedures and of the general progress of work.  Horizontal and vertical control was maintained through reference to the site grid, using a transit and leveling rod to determine elevations.

	Excavation of features and burials was accomplished using trowels, grapefruit knives, brushes, and other small tools.  Sunscreens, constructed of wooden frames and bedsheets, were erected over features during excavation to minimize the damage to feature contents by the summer sun.  Feature fill was removed in natural zones, when evident, and all fill was waterscreened through sluice boxes having a sequence of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch screens.  This technique permitted the recovery of minute artifacts, including shell and glass beads, lead shot, small animal bones, and carbonized plant remains.  Standard 10-liter soil samples from each zone of each feature were simultaneously processed by flotation to retrieve very small, extremely fragile carbonized seeds and plant parts that might otherwise be lost in the waterscreening.  Elevations were taken following the removal of each soil zone of a feature in order to establish precise provenience for zone contents and to permit the calculation of soil volume.

	After completion of excavation, all features and burials were extensively documented by black-and-white and color photography, and by drawings in profile and plan at a scale of 1 in=1 ft.  Also, extensive notes were kept by all excavators in both field journals and on standardized feature and burial data forms.

	Following completion of each field season, the excavation was immediately backfilled using a front-end loader.

Page: Archaeological Background: List of Figures, Page Number: 5  
List of Figures

Figures: General

Figure 1. Distribution of Siouan-speaking peoples in eastern North America (based on Mooney 1894). 

Figure 2. Map of the study area locating Occaneechi Island, Occaneechi Town (Fredricks site), and Upper Saratown. 

Figure 3. Close-up view of Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina showing "Acconeechy I." or Occaneechi Island on Roanoke River. 

Figure 4. Close-up view of Edward Moseley's 1733 map of North Carolina showing "Acconeechy" or Occaneechi Town on Eno River. 

Figure 5. Title page from John Lawson's journal (Lawson 1709). 

Figure 6. John Lawson's description of his 1701 visit to "Achonechy-Town" (Lawson 1709). 

Figure 7. Map of the Hillsborough locality. 

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 10. Sq. 280R90 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 11. Sq. 270R90 at top of subsoil (view to north). 

Figure 12. Archaeologist Trawick Ward describes how the site of Occaneechi Town was discovered. 

Figure 13. Beginning excavation at the Fredricks site in 1983. 

Figure 14. Excavating Burial 1. 

Figure 15. Aerial view of 1984 excavations at the Wall (foreground) and Fredricks (background) sites. 

Figure 16. Aerial view of 1984 excavation. 

Figure 17. Excavating plowed soil at the Fredricks site in 1984. 

Figure 18. Cleaning and photographing burial pits in the cemetery. 

Figure 19. Mapping and excavating burials. 

Figure 20. Outlining Structure 1 and Feature 9 prior to mapping. 

Figure 21. The 1984 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 22. View of excavations at the Fredricks site in 1985. 

Figure 23. Excavating and cleaning archaeological features in 1985. 

Figure 24. Cleaning Structure 6 (foreground) and Structure 5 (background) prior to mapping. 

Figure 25. The 1985 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 26. View of excavations at the Fredricks site in 1986. 

Figure 27. The 1986 archaeological field crew at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 28. Map of areas excavated at the Fredricks site by field season. 

Figure 29. Excavating and dry-sifting plowed soil. 

Figure 30. Trowelling the top of subsoil to expose features for mapping. 

Figure 31. Cleaning and mapping the top of subsoil. 

Figure 32. Excavating the fill dirt from an archaeological feature. 

Figure 33. Sluices used to waterscreen soils at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 34. Washing fill dirt from an archaeological feature to recover artifacts. 

Figure 35. View of sluice showing series of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch screens. 

Figure 36. Close-up of items recovered by waterscreening. 

Figure 37. Students using a flotation tank to retrieve carbonized plant remains.

Page: Archaeological Background: Sources, Page Number: 6  
Sources

	This article was adapted from the following sources:

Introduction, by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 1–17.

Introduction, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:1–10, 1988.

	They are reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: History (1525–1725): Introduction, Page Number: 7  
Introduction

	On January 26, 1701, an adventurous Englishman named John Lawson left an Indian village along the Catawba River and swung northeast, completing an arc through the Carolina interior that had begun in Charleston a month before and would end on the lower Pamlico River a month hence.  At the halfway mark of his journey, Lawson was a seasoned traveler, having already survived cold weather, poor food, wild animals, and an occasional angry native. Yet the thrill of discovery remained as he traversed the North Carolina Piedmont, "Every Step presenting some new Object, which still adds Invitation to the Traveller in these Parts" (Lefler 1967:54).  Rich soil, tall trees, abundant wildlife, pleasant streams—Lawson was so taken by the scenery in what he called "this Western World" that he considered settling in the area (Lefler 1967:52).

	Fascinated as he was by the landscape, Lawson thought that the native inhabitants he encountered were more interesting still.  Between the Catawba River and the Coastal Plain were the Saponi, Tutelo, Keyauwee, Eno, Shakori, and Occaneechi, and the explorer surveyed them as carefully as he did the soil or streams.  The Saponi headman had lost an eye while measuring gunpowder; the Tutelo blew a special powder into their eyes to improve their sight; the Keyauwee painted their faces with a lead ore; inside their houses the Occaneechi hung bear meat and dried venison; the Eno loved to play a game they called "Chenco" (Lefler 1967:52, 54, 61, 62).  At each village, Lawson found something new and different to remark upon.  His observations offer a window onto a lost world.

	The English traveler was so struck by the diversity of these Indians that he failed to appreciate that they were probably related (see note 1).  Like the Catawba he had just left, the Monacan inhabiting central Virginia, and the Sara then living on the upper Roanoke River, the Occaneechi and their neighbors in the North Carolina upcountry were descended from Siouan-speaking migrants who had come over the mountains several centuries before Columbus arrived in America.  As the newcomers fanned out along the rivers slicing through the region, their cultural uniformity slowly dissolved.  A "people" became one or a cluster of villages, with its own dialect, its own customs, its own identity.  Still, the differences were mere variations on a common theme.  All spoke different forms of Siouan, and may have used Occaneechi as "a sort of general Language" to converse across group boundaries (Beverley 1947:191) (see note 2).  All dwelt in the lands between the Coastal Plain and the Mountains, what the Europeans labeled "the Upper Country," the "hilly Parts," or "Hill-Country" (Lefler 1967:xxxi, 56, 89; see also Cumming 1958:9–10).  All built villages of circular bark houses along the rivers and creeks.  All followed a seasonal subsistence routine that balanced farming the bottomlands along the river, fishing the nearby waterways, hunting in the hills or canebrakes, and gathering wild plants at selected sites.  Despite the barriers imposed by time, distance, and dialect, a fundamental unity underlay Piedmont life, a unity grounded in a shared cultural heritage and a common physical environment.

	These Piedmont peoples also shared a common destiny once Europeans landed on America's shores.  Between the 1520s, when explorers first touched the Carolina coast, and the 1740s, when most Indians had left the region, inhabitants of the upcountry went through four different stages of development.  The first era, covering roughly the years from 1525 to 1625, was characterized primarily by indirect contacts with the visitors from the Old World.  Material goods and lethal bacteria must have been carried into the interior by coastal Indians who had visited Spanish outposts to the south or later English settlements at Roanoke and Jamestown.  Any face-to-face encounters that did occur probably were fleeting.  During the mid-sixteenth century, Spanish armies commanded by Hernando De Soto and Juan Pardo marched up the Catawba River valley before swinging west toward the mountains (Hudson et al. 1984:72–74, Fig. 1; Depratter et al. 1983).  From the east came tentative English probes up the Roanoke and the James (Quinn 1977:332–333, 451–452; Barbour 1964:222–225, 237–239).  Some Piedmont Indians may have headed in the opposite direction, drawn to the lowcountry by a desire to see the strange new beings for themselves (Barbour 1969:300–301).

	Direct contact became much more frequent in the second stage of historical development, which began in the 1620s with the defeat of the Powhatan Confederacy and a concomitant increase in Virginia's interest in lands beyond the falls of the James.  A series of English explorers—some famous, most obscure—ventured inland to search for valuable mines or a westward passage (Cumming 1958:15–41; Alvord and Bidgood 1912:183–205, 209–226; Morrison 1921:217–236).  Close on their heels came other men eager to trade with the Indians.  While natives welcomed the traders, this expanded contact was not without risk.  In the 1650s and again in the 1670s there were bitter clashes between Piedmont warriors and colonial forces, with the Indians generally the losers.  Nonetheless, by the time the Virginia rebel Nathaniel Bacon and his followers destroyed the Occaneechis' Roanoke River trading center in 1676, Virginians had penetrated to the far corners of the Southern Piedmont, and natives there had at least occasional encounters with an alien culture (Cumming 1958:16, 22; Washburn 1957:42–46; Wright 1981:87–90; Michel 1916:30).

	The destruction of the Occaneechi stronghold ushered in a new age on the Piedmont.  With the Occaneechi no longer blocking the principal route into the upcountry, intercultural exchange flourished.  The Indians Lawson saw in 1701 were accustomed to regular visits by Virginia traders, who often stayed for months at a time before heading home. Thus colonists had at last become a familiar sight in the upcountry, and the marvelous goods they brought had become a part of everyday life.

	This period ended in the early years of the eighteenth century.  Soon after Lawson passed through the area, incessant raids by powerful native foes combined with the lure of English trade goods to pull peoples from the interior toward the coast.  By 1711, when Carolina began a decade of intercultural conflict with the Tuscarora and Yamasee, the Saponi had joined the Tutelo, Occaneechi, and Monacan under Virginia's protective umbrella.  To the south, the Sara, Eno, and Keyauwee had drifted into South Carolina's orbit, later to merge with peoples in the Catawba valley to form the polyglot Catawba Nation.  North of that isolated native island—an island that remains to this day—the Piedmont was mostly empty of human settlements until the first European colonists moved into the area during the middle decades of the eighteenth century. Before these permanent intruders arrived, the silence was broken only by an occasional hunting party, a band of Iroquois warriors after a Catawba scalp, a colonial pack-horse train bound for Cherokee villages, or an isolated Indian farmstead.

	A world that vanished in the space of two centuries is easier to mourn than to study.  Few American Indian groups have left as little trace of themselves in the historical record as the peoples of the Carolina-Virginia Piedmont.  Distant from initial European settlements, overshadowed by more prominent neighbors like the Powhatan and Cherokee, the upcountry Indian attracted little attention from observers willing and able to put their impressions down on paper for the benefit of posterity.  With no chronicler like John Smith or James Adair to tell their tale, these peoples lived and died in obscurity, an obscurity that, for the most part, has continued to this day.  Nonetheless, it is possible to shed some light on this shadowy world beyond the skeletal chronology of its demise offered above.  Careful digging in the documents, when combined with equally careful digging in the Piedmont soil currently being carried out by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina, enables us to piece together a fragmentary sketch of these peoples in historic times.  The story that emerges is one of societies that adapted to dramatic change while remaining securely anchored to past ways (see note 3).

Page: History (1525–1725): The Invisible Invaders, Page Number: 8  
The Invisible Invaders

	By far the most drastic upheavals were caused by invisible invaders, the foreign bacteria introduced from the Old World.  Native populations cut off from Europe, Africa, and Asia for millennia were utterly without immunity to smallpox, measles, and other ailments the newcomers unwittingly brought across the seas.  These maladies may have reached the Piedmont well before the first European.  Spanish explorers who marched through what is now central South Carolina in 1540 came upon villages abandoned during an epidemic that had struck the area two years before (Bourne 1904:66).  Did natives living farther north suffer similar devastation?  Did illnesses that swept through the aboriginal population near the English settlement on Roanoke Island in the 1580s find their way upriver (Hariot 1972:27–28)?  The answers require further archaeological research.  But it seems unlikely, even impossible, that inhabitants of the uplands managed to escape all of the epidemics raging through eastern North America during these years.  Certainly by Lawson's day Piedmont Indians were all too familiar with the lethal consequences of contact.  The Sewee along the South Carolina coast were "now very much decreas'd," he reported, "and all other Nations of Indians are observ'd to partake of the same Fate, where the Europeans come, the Indians being a People very apt to catch any Distemper they are afflicted withal" (Lefler 1967:17).

	Precisely how "apt" upcountry natives were to succumb to alien infections remains unclear, but by any standard of measurement the devastation was severe.  Lawson talked of entire communities being wiped out by smallpox and estimated that since 1660 only one Indian in six living within two hundred miles of English settlements had survived (Lefler 1967:232).  Archaeological evidence from a Sara settlement on the Dan River offers grim confirmation of Lawson's claim.  The site, occupied for a single generation in the latter half of the seventeenth century, contained so many bodies in such a short span of time that few could have escaped the terrible scourge (Ward 1980:182; Navey 1982:83).

	Those who did manage to survive had to pick up the pieces of their lives.  It was not an easy task amidst the despair that followed in the wake of demographic disaster.  One village along the Pee Dee River yielded mute testimony of the psychological havoc natives may have suffered.  The area contained a markedly higher proportion of infant burials, suggesting a sharp increase in infant mortality due to disease.  Moreover, the strikingly more elaborate ornamentation interred with each body hints at a heightened sense of loss among the survivors (Lewis 1951:328–329).

	There was little opportunity to dwell on the past, however. Survival demanded that people cope with the present and think of the future.  A village that had been reduced from 600 to 100, or 300 to 50, could no longer carry on alone.  Thus the tattered remnants of Piedmont peoples began to merge with others to create new communities.  Most of these unions went unseen or unrecorded by Europeans, and their documentation therefore must await further archaeological inquiry.  But the first step was probably to join kinfolk from a nearby town or hamlet.  In this manner a "people" that had once comprised a whole series of settlements scattered through a particular region or river valley now collapsed into a single town (Simpkins 1984).  That "people" would still be set off from the world outside by language, customs, appearance, a kinship network—in short, by all of the characteristics that had always combined to create a distinct identify.  But it would now occupy one site rather than many.  The Monacan living along the James River in 1700, for example, were probably descendants of the entire cluster of villages John Smith had recorded for the lands above the falls almost a century before (Mooney 1894:18–22; McCary 1957; Bushnell 1920; Michel 1916:29–30, 122–123).  Similarly, it seems likely that the Occaneechi, Saponi, Keyauwee, Tutelo, and others Lawson visited were remnants, mere shadows, of more populous and more complex societies.

	Lawson himself arrived on the scene in the midst of the second stage of the native response to depopulation.  Continued visitations by alien diseases (the most recent smallpox epidemic had occurred only three years before) eventually reduced native numbers so drastically that survivors were compelled to look further afield for others with whom to unite.  This process may have been underway in some areas by 1600 (Benthall 1969:45–48).  By the time Lawson penetrated the Carolina interior, the Eno, Shakori, and Adshusheer had already come together to form a single community, and the Saponi, Tutelo, and Keyauwee were about to do the same (Lefler 1967:53, 61).  None of these particular combinations endured.  In 1708, the Saponi—alone—moved to the Virginia frontier, and during the next few years the Tutelo, Occaneechi (themselves a collection of groups as early as the 1670s [Alvord and Bidgood 1912:225]), and the Monacan remnants followed them during the next few years (Merrell 1982a:107, 113; Mooney 1894:18–19, 21).  Meanwhile, the Shakori applied to South Carolina for protection, and the Keyauwee, Eno, and Sara combined forces and headed in the same southerly direction (Merrell 1982a:107–108, 113).

	It is virtually impossible to retrace the steps of each native group, to reconstruct the shuffling and reshuffling that became almost routine as Indians sought to adjust to a new disease environment.  It is even more difficult to gauge the impact of these stresses on the people involved.  We can surmise, however, that the effect was profound.  All of the available evidence suggests that inhabitants of the Piedmont, although culturally related, were intensely localistic, focusing their existence within a tightly circumscribed cultural and geographical range.  This localism found expression in a number of ways.  Lawson was astonished to find

a strange Difference in the Proportion and Beauty of these Heathens.  Altho' their Tribes or Nations border one upon another, yet you may discern as great an Alteration in their Features and Dispositions, as you can in their Speech, which generally proves quite different from each other, though their Nations be not above 10 or 20 Miles in Distance.  (Lefler 1967:35)

Thus the Keyauwee had whiskers, and the Tutelo were "tall, likely Men," while the Eno were of "mean stature" (Lefler 1967:58, 54; Cumming 1958:27).  Cultural differences were equally clear.  In 1670 the explorer John Lederer learned that Occaneechis were ruled by two headmen, Eno society was "Democratick," while the Saponi were governed by "an absolute Monarch" (Cumming 1958:25, 27, 24).  Lederer also learned to distinguish among neighboring groups by their signs: the Occaneechi marked themselves with a serpent, the Saponi with three arrows, symbolic embodiments of their separate identities (Cumming 1958:13; Beverley 1947:161).

	Natural boundaries—rivers, swamps, upland ridges, areas of poor soil—had long served to reinforce localism.  Buffer zones, or "deserts" in English parlance, clearly divided Piedmont from Coastal Plain, and within the upcountry itself less obvious "deserts" set peoples off from another (Arber and Bradley 1910:59, 70; Baker 1975:25–36; Turner 1978:42–46; MacCord 1983:9–10; Simpkins 1984).  Tales of the evils awaiting those who dared venture beyond local boundaries strengthened environmental barriers.  A common story about a fierce creature inhabiting the headwaters of Neuse River frightened hunters away and may have been designed to keep people out of a border region (Lefler 1967:130).  Explorers who traveled through uninhabited areas and had to live off the land rather than off the natives were unwittingly charting the ancient physical and cultural boundaries dividing peoples (Varner and Varner 1951:283–284, 331; Bourne 1904:59–62).

	In the aftermath of an epidemic, Indians had to cross these boundaries as never before.  Strangers became friends, the tall and the short lived side by side, necessity invented a common language and a common council of leaders from different groups.  Those involved made the difficult process of adjustment less painful by keeping their old identity as much as possible.  The Saponi, Tutelo, Occaneechi, and Stuckanock (Monacan), who collected in a single village at Fort Christanna on the Meherrin River, were considered "one Nation" by Virginia authorities (Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Series 5, 1714:1316:622).  The Indians thought differently.  Even after merging, each group continued to choose its own headmen and to adhere to its own customs (Brock 1885:88; Wright 1966:315–316).  The Sara in the Catawba Nation did the same, not only heeding their own chiefs more than a generation after joining the Catawba but also living in their own village (Merrell 1982a:311, 400–401).

	Archaeological evidence indicates that segregation extended from this world to the next.  In aboriginal times Piedmont folk buried their dead at random in the village, in effect making the entire community a graveyard and suggesting that everyone in the settlement possessed a common identity.  During the Historic period, on the other hand, interments were made in clusters, creating a handful of discrete cemeteries.  Did several hitherto independent groups now occupy one town and, still acutely conscious of their own identities, express that consciousness by creating distinct burial grounds (Ward 1984b)?  At this point the pattern unearthed is suggestive rather than conclusive.  But it fits well with the other habits recorded by European observers.  Piedmont peoples did not shed their ancient identities overnight or even over a generation.  The Saponi, Occaneechi, and Tutelo had a common destiny but separate identities until the era of the American Revolution, and as late as the mid-nineteenth century the Sara among the Catawba still spoke their own language at home (Hale 1883:10; Pearson 1842:5).  Eroded by disease and by time, ethnic feelings nonetheless endured for generations.

	Piedmont peoples' attachment to the past extended well beyond maintaining ancient loyalties to embrace many aspects of traditional life.  The result of demographic disaster could have been profound despair and cultural ruin, stemming from a feeling that the supernatural forces protecting a society had failed and should be abandoned.  Evidence turned up in the archives and in the earth suggests otherwise.  Even the burials uncovered along the Dan and the Pee Dee, which speak so poignantly of the devastation wrought by an epidemic, also testify to a faith unshaken by recent events.  Orientation of the body, positioning of the remains, inclusion of burial goods to accompany the soul into the afterlife—all suggest careful attention to time-honored customs designed to meet the demands of the supernatural.  Recently discovered hints of feasts that took place at the burial site after interment only strengthen the idea that the old ways still endured in a Piedmont world periodically wracked by inexplicable disaster (Navey 1982; Dickens et al. 1984:30–37, 52).

	If these burial feasts did persist, they were only part of a regular round of ceremonies that stretched across the generations into Lawson's time.  Lawson himself ran across many more examples of rituals with roots in the remote past.  "All the Indians hereabouts," he wrote while among the Keyauwee, "carefully preserve the Bones of the Flesh they eat, and burn them, as being of Opinion, that if they omitted that Custom, the Game would leave their Country, and they should not be able to maintain themselves by their Hunting" (Lefler 1967:58).  Native travelers were no less cautious about propitiating the gods by adding a stone to a pile at a sacred site or placing some tobacco in the hollow of a large rock beside the trail (Lefler 1967:50, 63).  Nor could time erase the fear of breaking customary rules.  While exploring the interior in 1728, William Byrd II discovered that his Indian companion, a Saponi named Ned Bearskin, vehemently objected when the Englishmen in the party tried to cook venison and turkey in the same pot.  No amount of cajoling or ridicule could make Bearskin drop the subject.  He knew—as Southeastern Indians had always known (Hudson 1976:148, 165, 302)—that mixing inhabitants of the earth and the sky would bring disaster.  Byrd considered it the silliest superstition; to the Saponi it was very real and very frightening indeed (Wright 1966:116–117, 243–244).

	Bearskin believed because he, like other Piedmont Indians, had seen sufficient proof that the old magic still worked.  The priests were powerless to stop the new diseases sweeping through their villages, but experience was teaching them how not to respond when smallpox struck.  "Now they are become a little wiser" about the best means of treating it, Lawson reported (Lefler 1967:232).  Moreover, in other cures their wisdom was still unsurpassed.  Using local herbs and ancient skills, natives astonished Lawson again and again with their abilities (Lefler 1967:17, 27, 48–49).  At the Saponi town, an Indian "Doctor" ushered the English traveler into his dwelling and proudly "shew'd me a great Quantity of medicinal Drugs, the Produce of those Parts; Relating their Qualities . . . and what great Maladies he had heal'd by them" (Lefler 1967:54).  Near the village stood several stone sweat lodges which "they make such Use of" as a cure for a wide variety of symptoms, and archaeological research reveals that the Occaneechi also retired to sweat lodges when they felt ill (Lefler 1967:55; Ewan and Ewan 1971:379; Alexander 1972:97; Dickens et al. 1984:3, 39, 42).  Nor were priestly powers confined to healing.  When a fierce wind struck the Saponi settlement the day after Lawson had admired the "Doctor's" pharmacy, the frightened Englishman rushed from his bed to find the headman in the center of the community busy with "his Necromantick Practice."  Lawson's initial skepticism faded rapidly, for "in two Minutes, the Wind was ceas'd, and it became as great a Calm, as ever I knew in my Life" (Lefler 1967:55).  If Lawson were converted, for others this merely confirmed what they already knew: the gods lived.

	Given the continuing power of the ancient system of belief and behavior, it is not surprising that traditional authority figures continued to exert enormous influence.  The elderly, customarily the repositories of secret skills and ancient lore, had been depleted by disease; but their authority remained.  "Old Age [is] held in as great Veneration amongst these Heathens, as amongst any People you shall meet withal in any Part of the World," Lawson wrote (Lefler 1967:43).  Piedmont society set off old from young by different titles, secret languages, and special access to temples or other sacred places.  They took precedence in welcoming visitors, speaking in council, and making decisions (Lefler 1967:43, 177–178, 210, 219, 231; Cumming 1958:14, 27, 41).  Were the aged also differentiated by special burial customs, more elaborate burial goods, or some other distinguishing features?  The answer awaits further archaeological inquiry (Navey 1982:191–194).

	Thus the upheavals caused by sickness had not divorced Piedmont societies from their past.  Life could never be the same again for those lucky enough to come through an epidemic alive.  Still, they managed to rearrange their lives under the most difficult conditions without forgetting the lessons handed down from their ancestors.

Page: History (1525–1725): The Impact of Trade, Page Number: 9  
The Impact of Trade

	A similar blend of persistence amidst change marked the upcountry Indians' response to European technology, the second important innovation introduced from abroad after 1525. The manner in which these unfamiliar wares found their way into the hands of upcountry Indians remains unclear.  The first trickle of material goods must have appeared in the sixteenth century.  European explorers routinely passed out gifts—a knife here, a metal cross there, some beads further on—to ease their passage through Indian territory, and some of these prized possessions probably ended up among more distant communities (Lewis and Loomie 1953:111).  Some natives were not content to wait.  In 1609, for example, Indians living along the Santee River had already made their way north to Jamestown and returned home bearing hatchets, knives, and biscuits made of wheat flour (Barbour 1969:312).  Future archaeological research may reveal whether other curious natives from the Carolina interior made a similar trek and were similarly rewarded.

	As trade with Virginia developed during the mid-seventeenth century, the pattern of exchange became clear.  Each Piedmont settlement went through two distinct stages in its growing acquaintance with new technology, stages that even a novice like John Lederer recognized and that have been tentatively confirmed by recent archaeological work.  The first step, which Lederer reported among the "remoter Indians" and archaeologists have found at Upper Saratown, was marked by a certain native naivete about the range of merchandise available from Anglo-America.  These people were happy to barter for "trinkets" such as mirrors and pictures, glass beads and bracelets, knives and scissors, "and all manner of gaudy toys and knacks for children" (Cumming 1958:42).  The archaeological portrait of Upper Saratown matches Lederer's description closely.  This Sara village, filled with beads and "trinkets," was virtually devoid of European weapons or other metal goods (Wilson 1984).

	A potsherd found at Upper Saratown with the outline of a musket etched into it by some unknown native artisan hints at a growing awareness of the material cornucopia available from Europeans and may signal the beginning of the second phase of a people's relationship with an alien material culture.  Lederer found that "neighbour-Indians," more experienced in the art of intercultural exchange would not be satisfied with "trinkets." They demanded not only knives and scissors but also arms and ammunition, not only beads and bracelets but cloth, axes, hoes, "and all sorts of edg'd tools" (Cumming 1958:41).  By the end of the century, Indians throughout the Piedmont were behaving like "neighbour-Indians."  At the Fredricks site, the probable location of the Occaneechi town Lawson visited in 1701, archaeologists have uncovered an inventory of goods quite unlike that at Upper Saratown, occupied a generation earlier.  Inhabitants of the Fredricks site possessed muskets and pistols, glass bottles and metal pipes, iron axes and pewter porringers—in short, they were more thoroughly integrated into the colonial trade system (Dickens et al. 1984:27–39; Wilson 1984).

	It is easy to exaggerate the changes wrought by this deepening involvement in inter-cultural exchange.  In fact, whereas European goods and colonial intruders were certainly novelties, traders and trade were not, and Piedmont natives fitted the new men and the new merchandise into established patterns of exchange and existence.  Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Indians in the interior had long traded with their coastal neighbors for a variety of items (Merrell 1982a:22).  Some of that trade remained wholly untouched by the growing colonial presence.  In Lawson's day, for example, towns along the coast still gathered yaupon plants (from which Indians brewed the ceremonial "black drink") and sea shells, carried them inland, and swapped them with "remote Indians" for a root that grew near the mountains and was used to make red paint (Lefler 1967:98, 218, 174).

	With the structure of exchange so well established, Indian traders living near the English could easily begin to add new products to the supply of merchandise they hauled into the upcountry.  In 1670, John Lederer met some Sara traders at a village along the Catawba River (Cumming 1958:31).  Since the Sara were in touch with Virginians around that time (Wright 1966:400), it seems likely that some of the goods they carried were of European manufacture.  By the time Lawson passed through, this trend was clear: coastal Indian traders were peddling everything from stolen horses to jugs of liquor in Piedmont villages (Lefler 1967:44, 54, 232).

	Colonial traders gradually supplemented, then supplanted, the native middleman, but they still had to fulfill Indian expectations by conforming to local codes of conduct (Merrell 1982b:5–7) and satisfying their hosts' taste in trade goods.  Despite the new and wonderful products a Virginia trader dangled before their eyes, natives insisted that he also bring goods traditionally carried past the Fall Line from the lowcountry.  "This yeere [1682] the Indyans will have Roanoake," complained Cadwallader Jones, a colonist heavily involved in the Piedmont trade, "not with standing all other com[m]odities be p[re]sented. . . .  I having at this time a considerable parcell of other goods amongst them unsold" (Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Series 1 1682:48:115–116).  In 1691, William Byrd I, another businessman active in the uplands, also complained that the Indians wanted shell beads more than anything else (Trinling 1977:163).  The natives' insistence on acquiring shells may explain a curious shift in the types of shells found at Piedmont villages in the Historic period (Sizemore 1984).  The Fredricks site contained shells from northern shores, and it seems likely that these items arrived there on the backs of colonial packhorses, for colonial traders often looked northward for the supplies Indians demanded.  In 1671 John Lederer received a commission from Maryland's Lord Baltimore to trade with natives in the Southern Piedmont (Cumming 1958:99–100).  A decade later Cadwallader Jones also looked to Lord Baltimore, begging Maryland's Lord Proprietor to grant him permission to collect shells along the colony's Eastern Shore (Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Series 1 1682:48:115–116).  And a decade after that, William Byrd I went even further afield, writing the governor of New York to ask that he send some shell beads to be passed along to Carolina natives (Trinling 1977:163).  The source of supply had changed; native tastes had not.

	Piedmont inhabitants were no less selective in the European wares they did purchase.  To his dismay, the colonial trader learned that Indians would not accept every item he happened to have on hand.  Dark blue cloth sold best, as did larger hoes and smaller glass beads.  But not just any beads: villages west of Virginia wanted blue and red ones, those to the south, black and white (Trinling 1977:30, 41, 57, 64; Ewan and Ewan 1971:385).  Why?  The colonist either did not know or did not say.  He knew only that such idiosyncrasies could spell the difference between profit and loss.

	Those items natives did accept were grafted onto existing ways.  Some were simply substitutions of European for aboriginal manufactures.  Indians happily donned cloth instead of deerskins, painted their faces with vermillion rather than cinnabar, became expert marksmen with a musket as well as a bow, dug graves with iron rather than stone tools (Ward 1984b), and adorned themselves and their dead with glass beads as well as shells.  At other times they reshaped an item to suit themselves.  Lawson reported, and archaeologists have since confirmed, that Piedmont men fashioned arrowheads from broken glass bottles (Lefler 1967:63; Charles 1983:31).  Meanwhile, the women might take a copper kettle and cut it up to make into ornaments, or an Indian fortunate enough to obtain a horse used the animal in ways that made an Englishman cringe.  The Saponi headman proudly showed Lawson "2 of his Horses, that were as fat, as if they had belong'd to the Dutch Troopers."  Natives never rode these creatures, and scarcely ever used them as beasts of burden, preferring instead to keep them as status symbols and stuff them with corn like some pampered pet (Lefler 1967:54, 44).

	The merchandise Indians gave in return for all of these European goods further strengthened attachments to past ways, for each was firmly rooted in aboriginal skills.  The cane baskets William Byrd's men brought back from Piedmont towns were products of a long craft tradition among women there, a tradition flourishing in de Soto's time (Ewan and Ewan 1970:384; Varner and Varner 1951:313, 315–316).  Similarly, the deerskins that made up the bulk of a colonial trader's return cargo entailed no radical departure from previous modes of existence.  Deer were already a vital part of everyday life, and Indians were adept at stalking, killing, and processing the animals.  Even the occasional Indian slave that Virginians brought out of the interior required no revolutionary reversal of customary ways.  Piedmont warriors had habitually captured enemy Indians for adoption, torture, or servitude.  This reservoir of outsiders could now be tapped to supply colonial demands, and replenished by new forays against traditional foes (Merrell 1982a:78–80).

	In short, neither the wares Piedmont folk acquired nor the articles they handed over in exchange revolutionized their lives. It is therefore not surprising to find traditional patterns of belief and behavior intact despite heavy engagement in intercultural trade.  Historic sources and archaeological evidence agree that routine subsistence practices did not break down despite the time Indians devoted to the trade.  Natives had added peaches to their repertoire of foodstuffs, but otherwise a Piedmont Indian in 1700 ate much the same dishes as his ancestors a century or two earlier (Lefler 1967:24, 35, 115–116; Ewan and Ewan 1970:376; Wilson 1977:83, 115–116; Ward 1980:196, 198; Johnson 1984).  Young men still helped with planting, women still tended the crops and gathered wild plants, hunters still went out for food as well as deerskins, bringing back turkey as well as venison (Lefler 1967:17, 31, 34–35, 59, 177).  Nor had the demands of the trade wrenched people free from the ancient system of values.  A hunter  stalking deer to sell the hides to colonists was no less eager to propitiate the gods than his ancestor (Lefler 1967:58).  And when that hunter died, his possessions—even the coveted musket—went with him into the earth and the afterlife rather than being passed on to his kinfolk as people with European notions of property would have done (Dickens et al. 1984:35, 49).

	Thus the threads binding upcountry Indians to the past remained unbroken by the steady expansion of trade with colonists.  Nonetheless, the evidence of cultural persistence cannot altogether obscure signs of profound changes set in motion by the trade.  The most obvious of these changes was alcohol, one European product Indians could not easily incorporate.  Lawson ranked it with smallpox as a killer (Lefler 1967:232).  While exaggerated, his assessment does point to the havoc created by a keg of rum.  Indians would sell all they possessed to acquire it, would not stop drinking until completely intoxicated, and then, freed of customary restraints, proceeded to maim or kill themselves and their townspeople (Lefler 1967:18, 184, 211, 240).  According to Lawson, inhabitants of the interior had only recently become acquainted with liquor (Lefler 1967:232).  If so, they quickly learned how destructive it could be and took steps to combat it.  By 1712, the Saponi were petitioning Virginia authorities to prohibit the sale of liquor to Indians, an appeal repeated many times with no real effect (McIlwaine 1928:312–313).  Officials in Williamsburg proved as helpless to stop colonists from selling it as native headmen were to prevent their people from purchasing it (Wright 1966:315).

	Alongside the obvious addiction to alcohol was a more subtle, more pervasive, and ultimately more destructive addiction to European technology in general.  The erosion of ancient craft skills, virtually undetectable at the time, is clear in the archaeological record, as arrowheads and clay pots became cruder in design and clumsier in execution with the passage of time (Lewis 1951:310; Coe 1964:49–50; Trinkley and Hogue 1979:11).  This ominous development meant that Indians were steadily becoming more dependent upon fresh supplies of European merchandise, a dependence that left them at the mercy of distant markets and unknown forces.

	The shifting Piedmont settlement pattern also leaves subtle clues of the growing importance of trade.  With the exception of the Tutelo and Sara, by 1701 all of the remaining Piedmont groups had chosen to settle astride the principal trail from Virginia to the populous Catawba River towns, the better to waylay itinerant colonial traders headed to those lucrative markets.  Between the time Lawson passed through and the publication of his book eight years later, all of these peoples had taken another important step down the road to dependence, leaving the upcountry to bypass middlemen like the Tuscarora and get closer to their colonial suppliers.  The Sara and others moved south into unfamiliar terrain along the Pee Dee River to establish a trade connection with Charleston (Anonymous 1715?).  The Saponi, Occaneechi, and Tutelo chose to forget their old quarrels with Virginia, and they settled along trading paths on the colony's southwestern frontier where they had easy access to the colonial trading community (Cumming 1958:16, 22; McIlwaine 1928:188, 196, 296, 566).

Page: History (1525–1725): War and Peace, Page Number: 10  
War and Peace

	While disease had compelled independent peoples to consolidate and trade had pulled these remnant groups toward English settlements, the catalyst in these developments—the force driving survivors together and then pushing them out of the Piedmont—was Iroquois warfare, the third and final major change Piedmont groups endured in the Historic period.  The beginnings of this bitter conflict date from the last half, perhaps even from the last quarter, of the seventeenth century.  Before that time the Five Nations of Iroquois were preoccupied with native peoples elsewhere.  Only after 1660 did northern visitors begin to penetrate the Southern Piedmont, and even then intruders were rare—colonial explorers like Lederer made no mention of them.  The real threat to the uplands came in the late 1670s, when the Susquehannock—driven from Maryland by colonial militia in 1675, attacked the next year by upcountry warriors in Virginia, the year following incorporated with the Five Nations—returned south with their new friends to settle old scores. Before long, northern war parties regularly "infested" the southern upcountry, attacking villages and carrying off prisoners (Merrell 1984a:3).

	Warfare was hardly new to the Piedmont.  Archaeological research at earlier village sites has turned up unmistakable signs of palisades, clear evidence that inhabitants of the pre-contact world feared attacks from someone (Benthall 1969:20; Holland 1970:115; Egloff 1980:130).  Nonetheless, these Iroquois incursions were probably unprecedented in their frequency and their ferocity.  The peoples Lawson met between the Catawba and the Tuscarora huddled in their fortified villages in daily fear of another raid.  Lest they forget the dangers, piles of stones marking the graves of earlier victims or the occasional escapee from Iroquois captivity served as painful reminders of the harsh reality (Lefler 1967:50, 59).  The recent discovery of two burials at Occaneechi Town—one showing signs of scalping, the other with a musket ball lodged in its leg—further attests to the precarious existence of Piedmont Indians in this period (Dickens et al. 1984:32, 37, 48). They banded together, acquired firearms, captured prisoners, even ventured north to gain revenge—but nothing they did could halt enemy incursions (Lefler 1967:53; Hazard 1851:138).  Ultimately it was the search for shelter from this Iroquois storm that drove the Sara and their confederates into South Carolina's embrace while the Occaneechi and others sought refuge in Virginia (Wright 1966:398; Lefler 1967:242).

	Peace proved elusive, however.  For a time the Sara and their Keyauwee and Eno compatriots along the Pee Dee River enjoyed the best of both worlds: they kept their ties to Virginia while making new friends with South Carolina.  When men from Charleston stopped at the Sara village in 1712 on their way to fight the Tuscaroras then raiding North Carolina, 42 Sara warriors were heading in the opposite direction to join the Yamasee and others in an attack on South Carolina, and they carried on the fight with grim determination long after most Indians had made peace.  As if South Carolina's enmity were not enough, the Sara also learned that they could run from the Iroquois invaders, but they could not hide.  In 1716 and again in 1723, war parties from the Five Nations wreaked havoc along the Pee Dee River.  By the end of the 1730s, most of the inhabitants had abandoned their new homes to take refuge among the Catawba.  They soon discovered that the Catawba Nation was more target than refuge, and during the 1740s Sara leaders were again talking of moving someplace "where they might have fewer Enemies."  Colonists and Catawbas convinced them to stay, and they agreed, perhaps in large part because past experience had taught them the futility of escaping their implacable northern foes (Merrell 1982a:223, 234, 250, 303, 309, 363, 390).

	The Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi followed a path in some ways different but also quite similar.  In 1714, they signed a treaty with Virginia's Lieutenant Governor Alexander Spotswood that formalized their relationship with the province.  The Indians would live beside the Meherrin River in the shadow of Fort Christanna, an outpost to be built by a trading company and manned by colonial rangers.  In return for their promises to help defend the frontier and pay tribute to Williamsburg, the natives were to receive protection, trade, a reservation, and—Spotswood's pet project—instruction in "civilization" and Christianity.  Spotswood was optimistic, the Indians pronounced themselves satisfied, and a visitor to the settlement in 1716 found native children sitting attentively in a classroom under the watchful eye of an English tutor (Beaudry 1981:2–13; Alexander 1972:90–99).

	For all the high hopes, the experiment was short-lived.  Competing trade interests managed to get the trading company abolished before the end of the decade, and in the 1720s the "Christanna Indians" found themselves harassed by nearby settlers, attacked by northern war parties, and abandoned by colonial officials.  In 1728, they marched back into the Piedmont along the old trading path to join other refugees heading toward the Catawbas.  Their stay in the Nation turned out to be as brief as the Christanna experiment, however.  By 1732, they were back in Virginia, from whence they scattered in several directions.  Some went to live with the Tuscarora still in North Carolina; others drifted into the backwaters of Virginia society; still others found a home with a North Carolina planter engaged in trade with the Catawba; most eventually drifted north to join their old enemies, the Six Nations, and became one of the "props" in the Iroquois Longhouse (Merrell 1982a:305–308; McIlwaine 1930:239; Saunders 1968:537–538, 5:321, 6:616; Holland 1982:42; Grinnan 1895–1896:189–191; White 1981:65–69; Hale 1883:5–10).

Page: History (1525–1725): Conclusion, Page Number: 11  
Conclusion

	The different fates of the Sara and Occaneechi constellations remains puzzling.  Why did Piedmont peoples sort themselves out into this particular configuration and not some other?  Why did the Sara-Eno-Keyauwee groups eventually establish permanent residence with the Catawbas, while the Saponi and their associates did not?  There was no overt antagonism between the two: the Sara and Eno had considered joining the Christanna experiment, and when Christanna Indians returned from the Catawba Nation in 1732 some Saras came along while some Saponis remained behind (McIlwaine 1930:269; Merrell 1982a:113, n.197).  Further archaeological research may yield clues to these and the many other riddles Piedmont peoples bequeathed to future generations.  The answers lie buried beneath the surface of the land these Indians once called home, at Upper Saratown, the Fredricks site, or other places yet uncharted.  Rediscovering that lost world will take time.  But the marriage of history and archaeology has already begun to piece together its outlines, to show that, however different their ultimate fate, the inhabitants of the uplands shared a common history during the first two centuries of European contact, a history marked by creative if painful adaptation to the changes the intruders brought to "this Western World."

Page: History (1525–1725): Notes, Page Number: 12  
Notes

Note 1

	Until further archaeological research is carried out, the claims put forth in this paragraph remain speculative.  It should be noted that the linguistic and cultural patterns in the Piedmont are matters of considerable dispute.  Earlier scholars placed a large number of groups under the Siouan umbrella; more recently, many have demanded firmer evidence.  While agreeing that the first students of the problem may have been too eager to label a people "Siouan" and that nonlinguistic considerations cannot prove linguistic relationships, I am persuaded by William Sturtevant's argument (Sturtevant 1958:741) that where we lack linguistic evidence, we must make do with whatever sources are available.  Here geographical proximity, cultural parallels, aboriginal or historic political relationships, and contemporary statements by colonists about linguistic similarities all suggest that most if not all of the Indians in the Piedmont at the time of English contact spoke some form of Siouan.  Included among these are Catawbas, Saras, Saponis, Tutelos, Occaneechis, Monacans, Mannahoacs for certain, and Waterees, Enos, Keyauwees, Sugarees, Esaws, Shuterees, and Shakoris most probably.  The linguistic debate may be followed in Mooney (1894), Siebert (1945), Miller (1957), Sturtevant (1958), Binford (1959), and Hudson (1970:5–9, 27–28).  For the archaeological work done see Griffin (1945), Coe (1952), Wilson (1977:12), Mouer (1983:21–24), Dickens et al. (1987), and Ward and Davis (1988, 1993).

Note 2

	It is possible that Occaneechi developed as a trade language only in historic times.

Note 3

	The following analysis of native response to disease and trade has been adapted from work I have already published on the Catawba Nation and its neighbors.  See Merrell 1984b:542–555.

Page: History (1525–1725): Source, Page Number: 13  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

"This Western World": The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525–1725, by James H. Merrell.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 19–27.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: History (1725–present): Introduction, Page Number: 14  
Introduction

	In the past, archaeological research in eastern North Carolina and Virginia has tended to concentrate on bits and pieces of history, telling only parts of the whole story.  Seldom has an effort been made to connect the information gleaned from the ground, revealing a picture of Indian life in the past, with groups of Indian people in the state today.  Often this is because of the uncertainty of the actual tribal origins of many of the Indian groups presently living in North Carolina.  The Meherrin of Hertford and Bertie counties, for example, are almost certainly a mixture of Nottoway, Chowan, and Coastal Algonquin, as well as Meherrin, ancestry.  In many cases, archaeologists have not been aware of the existence of Indian descendants in the areas where archaeological work has been done, or have not taken the time to investigate whether or not a connection exists between the living Indians and the sites being studied.

	In 1983, when the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill began work at the Occaneechi village on the banks of the Eno River near Hillsborough, North Carolina, archaeologists were not aware that there might still be descendants of these villagers living in the area.  Yet, within 15 miles of the site are two distinct communities of Indian descendants, both of which conceivably could have had connections with the Occaneechi village.  Over the past six years the author has made an in-depth study of the history of one, the Texas community, and a cursory examination of the other, the Burnette's Chapel community.  This is a summary of the information dealing with the Texas community (more commonly known as Pleasant Grove).  This information strongly suggests that these families were Saponi who did not die off or wander away into oblivion, but who remained in their old homelands.  Gradually, they were deprived of their lands and, ultimately, were deprived of their very identity as Indian people.

	The story of the Texas community is more or less complete.  It is an instance where the Indian people living today in Orange and Alamance counties can learn something about how their ancestors lived and take renewed pride in their sense of history.  Archaeology here has an opportunity to make the past relevant to the present in a way which is often not possible.

	The Texas community is located in the rolling farmland of northeastern Alamance County, in the northern Piedmont of North Carolina (see map).  Most of it is contained in Pleasant Grove Township, but it also spills over into adjacent parts of Caswell and Orange counties.  It is more commonly known today as Pleasant Grove community.  The "Texas" name is of unknown origin; however, it is known to date at least as far back as the 1890s.  William Spoon's 1893 map of Alamance County labels a road in the northern section of Pleasant Grove Township as "The Texas Road," and labels the section below it "Texas."  This name also occurs on Spoon, Lewis, and Camp's 1928 map of Alamance County, although "Texas Road" is used to identify a different road in the same area.  Folk etiology gives two reasons for the name: (1) it was called Texas because the appearance of the people living there resembled that of Indians or Mexicans; and (2) the section was a rough place, like the "wild west," and so it was called Texas.  Research has not revealed any other clear or definitive reasons for the name.

	Until the 1940s, the area was inhabited almost entirely by related families, most of whom owned their own land and, in some cases, had substantial holdings.  Tobacco was the primary cash crop, and it remains important among the community members who still farm.  Social life revolved around the churches and community school, and these are still important influences in the community.

	Research on the history of the Texas community began in 1984, when the author began investigating the possibility that some of the families living in Orange County were, in part, descendants of the Indians who lived at Occaneechi Town and remained in the area.  Initially, this research was done through written sources such as county land records, marriage and court records, and the federal census and military records.  After the researcher became better acquainted with the families, oral histories were obtained along with family genealogies to round out the picture provided by the written records.

	What follows is a summary of the records dealing with the Occaneechi from the time they were living along the Eno River at Occaneechi Town in 1701, to their absorption into the Saponi while in Virginia, and finally to their dispersal and return to the Piedmont, where they formed the Texas community in the late 1700s.

Page: History (1725–present): Pre–Revolutionary War, Page Number: 15  
Pre–Revolutionary War

	John Lawson, who visited the Occaneechi in 1701, gives us what is probably our latest, best known view of how the Occaneechi were living prior to their incorporation with the Saponi.  Coupling Lawson's (Lefler 1967) written account with the information gained by recent excavations at Occaneechi Town by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology (Dickens et al. 1987; Ward and Davis 1988), it is possible to gain a fairly clear picture of a society undergoing rapid change, and yet endeavoring to maintain some semblance of a traditional lifestyle.  In a period of time when small fragmented groups across the Piedmont were banding together for mutual assistance and protection, the merging of families and small tribes at Occaneechi Town would not have been unusual.

	Occaneechi Town was almost completely abandoned by 1713, when the Occaneechi signed a Treaty of Peace with the Virginia colonial government at Williamsburg.  At that point, it is indicated from reading the document that the Occaneechi, Stuckanok, and Tottero, although signing the treaty separately, were dominated by the Saponi.  At least, the whites seemed to regard them all as Saponi.  Governor Spotswood of Virginia would later refer to the Fort Christanna Indians as all going under the name of Saponi.  There are very few references to the Occaneechi as a distinct tribe after the settlement at Fort Christanna, which operated from 1714 to 1717.
	After the Indians were settled on the Meherrin River near present-day Lawrenceville, Virginia, a school and minister were provided for their instruction, along with a small company of rangers who were to guard the eastern colonists from attacks by western tribes such as the Cherokee.  Once they were "civilized" by the influences of Christianity and the English language, the Saponi were no doubt expected to assist in this duty.  The fort also served as a trading center for the Indian trade, but the profits apparently were not great enough to satisfy the project's backers and the fort was closed in 1717.

	This left the Saponi in peace for several years.  It is evident that Virginia continued to trade with the Saponi and found the trade relations important enough to employ an interpreter as late as 1730.  The Virginia Colonial Records show that on May 27, 1730, Charles Kimball petitioned the House of Burgesses for "his allowance Interpreter to the Saponi and Occaneechi Indians may be levied" (McIlwaine 1910:757).  This also indicates that there were still a number of monoglot Saponi speakers, enough to warrant an interpreter.  It is not known when the language died out completely; indeed, very little is known about the Occaneechi and Saponi languages.  The name of the Indian town at Fort Christanna, Junkatapurse, meant "horse's head," probably in reference to a nearby bend in the river.  That is one of only a few dozen words that were recorded for the Saponi language.

	There is some indication that the language may have been remembered until after the Civil War, at least in fragmented form.  Mr. G. C. Whitmore, a resident of Alamance County and, at 97, one of the oldest Indians still living, remembers his grandfather, Andrew Whitmore (see descendants), speaking a language that was not English, and said that his (G. C.'s) father understood what was said and would then translate for the boy.  It is unlikely that Andrew Whitmore could carry on a conversation in the Indian language (if indeed it was an Indian language), but he may have known words and phrases.  This would have been a situation similar to that of the Indian languages of the Virginia Tidewater, which had been reduced to a few words remembered by a handful of individuals by the turn of the twentieth century (Mooney 1907:143, 146).  Unfortunately, Mr. Whitmore is unable to remember any of the words of the language his grandfather spoke.  Further fieldwork may reveal other individuals who remember some bits and pieces of the old language, but the situation does not look promising.

	Also in the Virginia state papers, there is a reference in 1727 to the Occaneechi and the Saponi.  It comes as part of a letter to the governor from one R. Everard, a settler living near the Meherrin Indians, and it refers to disturbances involving the Meherrins and the Nottoways.  Everard says that the Meherrins deny any attacks on the Nottoways, stating "they lay the whole blame upon the old Occaneechy King and the Saponi Indians."  This certainly gives rise to some questions as to what the position of the Occaneechi was within the larger Saponi society.  It infers that the Saponi, even though larger numerically, were actually ruled by individuals of Occaneechi descent.

	After 1730, many of the Saponi left the area to take residence with the Catawbas.  However, they were not happy there and returned to Virginia in 1733, accompanied by some Cheraws.  They were forced to petition Lt. Governor Gooch for permission to resettle in Virginia, which was granted (Merrell 1989:116).  It is interesting to note that at about the same time the Indian school at William and Mary—the Brafferton school—listed one Will Jeffries as a student from 1736 to 1742.  Although his tribe is not specified, it is possible that he was Saponi since many of the Indians who were students at Griffin's school at Fort Christanna went with him to Williamsburg when the school closed.  Many of the names on the school rolls can be identified as Pamunkey, Mattaroni, etc., because of the records of those tribes (Stewart 1988).  But the Jeffries name is not found among any of the surviving Virginia Indian tribes, although it is the most common name among the families of the Texas community.

	When the Saponi returned from the Catawba Nation in 1733, they faced increasing pressure from white settlers in the area.  It was at this point that the Saponi apparently fragmented into several small groups.  Over the next decade, there are records of them in Amelia County, Virginia (1737), where the "Saponi Indians Cabins" are mentioned in a deed (Holland 1982), and in Orange County, Virginia, where, in 1742, 11 Saponi men were brought to court and charged with "terrifying one Lawrence Strouther and on suspicion of stealing hogs" (Orange County Register of Deeds 1741–1743).  The Indians were dealt with leniently, having stated to the court that they were leaving the colony within the week.  Although not specifically identified as Saponi, one of the Indians was named Charles Griffin, which was the same name as the schoolmaster at Fort Christanna, where the Saponi attended school a generation earlier.

	It is also likely that at least some of the Saponi were still living in the vicinity of the old village at Fort Christanna.  The Road Order Books for Brunswick County, Virginia, list Junkatapurse as a place until 1742, after which it was known only in reference to Junkatapurse Road, an indication that the settlement no longer existed (Brunswick County Register of Deeds n.d.).  As noted above, the Orange County Saponi in 1742 were preparing to leave the area, and it may be that both groups left together.

	For the years 1743–1747, Governor Clarence Gooch of Virginia reported to the Colonial Office that the "Saponies and other petty nations associated with them . . . are retired out of Virginia to the Cattawbas" (British Colonial Office 1743).  Once again, the Saponi had traveled south to join their old friends; and once again, they would remain only a short time, returning to Virginia by 1748.

	By 1754, at least one group of 30–40 Saponi had traveled to North Carolina and settled on the lands of William Eaton, where they were enumerated in the Colonial Records of North Carolina (Saunders 1968).  These Saponi have allegedly been ancestral to several Indian groups presently living in North Carolina, although since none of their names are given, it is difficult to make the claim with any degree of certainty.  However, it is known from oral tradition that an Indian named Sam Parker moved to the Texas community from the Vance-Granville county area prior to the Civil War.  In 1752, a Thomas Parker was granted land on Tabb's Creek adjoining lands of William Eaton and William Chavis, another individual who seems to have been of partial Indian ancestry.  There are still Parkers of Indian descent living in that area near the town of Kittrell.  It is also noteworthy that William Chavis, who owned the land near the Saponi settlement in old Granville County, also owned land in what is now Alamance County.  The Orange County deed books show that on August 27, 1768, William Chavis "of the County of Granville" sold to Joseph Pritchit some 320 acres on both sides of the Haw River, "it being part of a tract of land granted to the said Wm. Chavis by deed from Wm. Kinchen bearing the date the __ day of December 1751" (Orange County Register of Deeds 1790).  It may have been entirely coincidental that Chavis owned land near where the Saponi would resettle 20 years later, or perhaps there were Indian families living on or near Chavis's land in Alamance County as well as in Granville County.  The Chavis name is still predominant among the Meherrin Indians of Hertford County and the Lumbee Indians of Robeson County.

	At the same time these Saponi were living in North Carolina, there was at least one other group living in Virginia.  In 1757, the Virginia governor at Williamsburg received a delegation of Indians including "King Blunt and the thirty-three Tuscaroras, seven Meherrins, two Saponies and thirteen Nottoways" (Hillman 1966).  This indicates that not only were the Saponi still in existence, but that they were still a distinct enough group to send delegates to a conference with the governor.  Unfortunately for our purposes, the writer does not record where the Saponi were living at the time.  It seems likely that they were still in the Brunswick-Greensville county area of Virginia.  It was about this time that certain individuals who were ancestral to families in the Texas community began to receive patents of land, primarily in the area around Emporia, Virginia.  Joseph Haltcock was one of these early grantees, receiving 200 acres in 1732.  Other landowners near him bore names such as Jeffries, Whitmore, Burnette, and Stewart, which figure in the history of the Texas families.

	At this point, it should be noted that there is some evidence that the area of Alamance and Orange counties may still have had a few settlements of Indians who never left the region, and who consolidated with the Saponi to form the Texas settlement after the Revolutionary War.  Various tax lists for Orange County in the 1750s include several families of so-called mulattos bearing the surnames Bunch, Gibson, and Collins.  Jeramiah and Henry Bunch received land grants in the area, near the Eno River.  The term "mulatto" had a somewhat different meaning in the 1700s; rather than defining simply a black-white mixture, the term was used to classify a wide variety of mixed-blood peoples, so the Bunches and others could easily have been mixed-blood Indians and not Africans (Forbes 1988).  It is obvious that when Southern Indians ceased living in what the local non-Indians perceived to be an "Indian" manner, they were relegated to the larger "free colored" class.  The situation of the Nottoway and Ginkaskin in Virginia, or the Machapunga in North Carolina, are clear examples of what happened to these remnant Saponi-Occaneechi and other groups like the Meherrin and Chickahominy.  This is not to say, however, that the Indians ceased to think of themselves as Indians, or that all the traditional ways were lost.  It was simply the perception of their neighbors that changed.  Some of the Gibsons later moved to Macon County in western North Carolina where their descendants had the reputation of being of Indian ancestry.  Macon County settlement will be discussed at greater length later.  Other Bunches, Gibsons, and Collinses appear to have moved west, arriving in eastern Tennessee by way of Ashe County, North Carolina, and formed the nucleus for the so-called Melungeon settlement in the vicinity of Hancock County, Tennessee (Price 1950:130).

	In 1756, the Moravians near present Winston-Salem reported that they received a visit of "Cherokees from the fort near Haw River."  Haw River was approximately where it exists today, in Alamance County and far from any known Cherokee settlements (Fries 1922:165).  What is more likely is that the Indians were Sissipahau, or a group related to the Occaneechi Town Indians, who were living in a palisaded village similar to that which was used at Occaneechi Town.  To the settlers, it would certainly look like a fort.  The reference, if taken at face value, indicates: (1) that there were Indians living in the Alamance County area in 1756, years after they were supposed to have vanished; and (2) they were living in a more or less traditional manner.  The oral tradition of various white families in the area support this.  These traditions say that there was an Indian settlement nearby when the town of Graham was first settled, and that along Piney Branch in the southern part of the county the settlers found "Indian Tee-pee wigwams" along the creek, again indicating some type of traditional dwelling.  Archaeological remains in the Pleasant Grove area indicate widespread habitation over a long period of time.  Although no confirmed Contact period sites have been located here, the state archaeological site files include at least one Late Woodland period site in close proximity to an abandoned graveyard that dates to the early 1800s and was once used by the Corn and Jeffries families.

	It would make sense for the Indian people who moved back from Virginia to settle near where they once lived, particularly if there were still Indian families in the vicinity.  The old Trading Path running through the area would have made the journey a comparatively easy one.

	The next reference to the Saponi as a distinct tribe in the area of interest is from the official papers of Lt. Governor Francis Fauquier of Virginia.  In 1763, he wrote to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantation Affairs in response to various queries about affairs in the colony.  Referring to Indians in Virginia, he states "There are some of the Nottoways, Meherrins, Tuscaroras, and Saponys, who tho' they live in peace in the midst of us, lead in great measure the lives of wild Indians" (Reese 1981:1017).  Once again, the indication is that the Saponi retained many of their Indian customs and certainly their Indian identity.  Fauquier contrasts them with the Pamunkey and Eastern Shore Indians (probably the Ginkaskin), whom he says follow the customs of the common planters and wear non-Indian clothing.  The location of the Saponi settlement(s) is again not revealed.

	What appears to be the next to last official reference to the Saponi as a distinct tribe in the South is in 1764 when, according to a report from the Indian superintendent of the South, they and the Nottoway combined had "60 gunmen" (American Historical Review 1915).  This report, although short and lacking in specifics, is an interesting basis for speculation.  It may be inferred from the reference that the Saponi "gunmen" were still a noteworthy military force in the eyes of the superintendent and had adopted the use of firearms (as opposed to earlier references to Indian "bowmen").  It may also be inferred that they were living in proximity to the Nottoway.  It is known that the Nottoway were living in what is now Southampton County, Virginia, near the present-day town of Courtland.  The Saponi settlement appears to have been in neighboring Greensville County, south of Emporia, Virginia.  It is also unknown how many of the "60 gunmen" were Nottoway and how many were Saponi.  At least 5–10 must have been Saponi for them to have been listed separately, but there may have been as many as 15–20 of the 60 who were Saponi.  If a ratio of 1:4 is used to represent the number of adult males to other family members, this suggests that 50–100 Saponi were living in Virginia in 1764.  Added to the 28+ Saponi who were living on Col. Eaton's land in Granville County, North Carolina, in 1754, this would suggest that there were at least 125–150 Saponi shortly before the beginning of the Revolutionary War.  It is known that some of the Nottoway fought in the Revolution; consequently, it would not be surprising for Saponi men like William Guy and Simon Jeffries to have also served with the colonial forces.

	A final reference to the Saponi in Virginia during the pre–Revolutionary War era can be found in James Adair's History of the American Indians, published in 1775.  Adair remarks that "In Virginia, resides the remnant of an Indian tribe, who call themselves Sepóne" (Williams 1930:67).  While it is uncertain whether this statement was still true by the time Adair's book was published, it certainly supports the idea that the Saponi were recognized as a distinct group well into the mid-eighteenth century.

	From the above discussion, it is clear that not all the Saponi died off or removed to the Catawba or the Iroquois.  Fifty years after they were commonly thought to have vanished, the Saponi presumably were still living along the North Carolina–Virginia border, retaining many of their traditional ways.  At the same time the official records speak of the Saponi sending delegates to the governor at Williamsburg (1757), a large community of nonwhite persons, claiming to be Indian, was developing in south-central Greensville County, Virginia.  Early family names were Jeffries, Guy, Watkins, Haithcock, Steward, and Whitmore, all families which moved to what would become the Texas community around the time of the Revolutionary War.  Several of these community members fought in the Revolution; Robert Brooks Corn, William Guy (see descendants), Simon Jeffries, Britton Jones, John Jeffries, and Charles Whitmore are all Revolutionary War veterans from Greensville County who were classed as "Free Persons of Color."  Marriage, land, and other official records from the area show a relationship between members of these families.  For example, when Delila Jeffries, widow of John, filed for money due her as a pensioner's widow in 1855, Charles Whitmore and Drewry Jeffries (see descendant) both gave evidence supporting her claim.  In 1818 (after the community moved to Alamance County), Jacob Jeffries's will, on file in the North Carolina Archives, was witnessed by David Haithcock, and one of his daughters was married to a Guy.  There are numerous examples of these associations, exactly what might be expected from a group of people of the same background.  The tendency toward endogamous marriage is one that has continued up until the last generation or so, and even now the preference is for marriage with a partner of similar background.

Page: History (1725–present): Post–Revolutionary War, Page Number: 16  
Post–Revolutionary War

	Beginning with the Revolutionary War, a movement began in two directions from the Greensville County area.  One was southwest to form the Texas community while the other was west to Ohio and Indiana.  A third migration was from the Texas community to the mountains of western North Carolina, to what became Macon County, North Carolina.  Each of these will be discussed later.

	On the 1790 federal census for Orange County, North Carolina (then including Alamance County, which was formed in 1849), the names of Charles Whitmore, Jesse Whitmore, and Jacob Jeffries appear (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1790).  Since the 1790 census for Orange County was actually made up from a tax list of 1787, it is clear that these heads of households and their families, and possibly others, were here by that date.  In 1787, the Texas community no doubt was a long day's ride from the center of government at Hillsborough, and so it is likely that there were other families there as well.  It also is unlikely that the members of the community were completely trusting of these white government officials, and consequently may have actively avoided contact with them.  The 1790 census does not list the race of the heads of household in Orange County.  Both Whitmores are listed in 1830 as "Free Negro Heads of Households" along with numerous Jeffrieses, Corns, Burnettes, Haithcocks, Joneses, and others for the North District of Orange County.  This "Free Negro" list also enumerates nearly all the families that were ancestral to present-day Indian communities in other parts of North Carolina such as the Lumbee, Coharie, and Meherrin.

	By 1820, the Texas community was intact.  It is not entirely clear how the original settlers acquired the large amounts of land they did.  Some tracts presumably were purchased from whites who had received land grants earlier; some tracts may have been acquired as bounty land for military service; and some may have simply been acquired by a sort of "squatter's rights" situation.  In any case, a few of the families, notably the Corns (see descendant) and Jeffrieses, acquired tracts of several hundred acres, much of which is still owned by the families or their descendants (see view of Drewry Jeffries's log home).

	The Texas families are almost invariably listed on official lists as "Free Colored" or "Mulatto" during the 1800s, as opposed to other families of nonwhites who are consistently listed as "Negros" or "Blacks."  A notable exception is that of Abner Burnette (see descendants), who in the 1860 census for Orange County is listed as Indian; however, by the 1870 Alamance County census he is enumerated as "Mulatto."  The social-racial position of the Texas people within the largely biracial society around them is unclear.  Abner Burnette is also interesting because he appears several times in the court records of Orange and Alamance counties, primarily for violations of the "Black Laws."  In 1855, he was indicted in Alamance County for carrying a gun, which was illegal for "Free Colored" persons.  He pled guilty, was convicted, and was fined $31.00.  It may be speculated that Burnette believed that the law did not apply to him inasmuch as he was not "Free Colored" in the sense of being of African ancestry.  Unfortunately, the details of the trial were not recorded.  In 1860, when he was again indicted for the same offense, he pled not guilty, was convicted a second time, but was fined only five cents.

	As noted earlier, a group of families from the Texas community migrated to Macon County, North Carolina, in the 1820s, after that land was ceded by the Cherokee Nation.  In point of fact, there were still Cherokees living in the area, not far from the settlement formed by these families from Alamance County (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1850).  This settlement was called Sugar Fork, and some of the families who first settled there were  Bucker and Sylvia (Jeffries) Guy, John and Aggy (Whitmore) Guy, Richard and Patsy (Whitmore) Guy, Walton Jeffries, and Hugh Gibson.  This settlement remained distinct for many years, eventually being absorbed into the white population (Lawrence Woods, personal communication).  The community is of particular interest, however, since it was mentioned in U.S. Senate Document #144, dated February 1897, and entitled "The Catawba Tribe of Indians" (U.S. Congress, Senate 1897).  The report on this settlement says that "Dr. Joseph McDowell, of Fairmont, Ga., under date of October, 1872, stated that the Indians referred to, and asking relief of the Government, were Catawba Indians, and 81 in number."  Dr. McDowell (who had married one of the Guy women and wrote at least two letters to the Indian Office on behalf of her people) also provided a list of the names and ages of the individuals whom he said wished the government to assist them in moving west to Indian Territory.  The report further states that "William Guy, of Granville County, Ga. [sic], and Simon Jeffries, of Bellville, Virginia, Catawba Indians, served five years in the Army and were honorably discharged, and these people are their descendants."  The error is that William Guy was from Greensville County, Virginia, although he did die in Granville County, North Carolina.  The letters from Dr. McDowell are also interesting.  For example, he states in his letter of October 1869, addressed to Eli Parker, U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that "I take the liberty of addressing to you a few lines on behalf of a remnant of the tribe of Catawba Indians. . . .  Some 60 or 70 years since they left their tribe and went to Greenville County, Virginia, and then removed to Orange County, North Carolina. . . .  They sold out in Orange and moved to Macon County, N.C. where they purchased land and have remained ever since."

	The identification of these Indians as Catawba presents a dilemma in that anyone familiar with historic Catawba surnames will readily recognize that the names of these families are not traditional Catawba names.  It is this fact that led Chapman Milling (1940:260) to note "The petition, in fact, bears all the earmarks of white effort to collect Indian revenue."  Common Catawba surnames such as Blue, Head, Harris, Kegg, or Ayers are conspicuous in the Macon County community by their absence.  Why then are these people (as well as the Indians who moved from the Texas community to Ohio) identified as Catawba?  The Cherokee name would have been a much better known one, if a name was simply to be chosen out of the air to give credence to claims of Indian ancestry.  Witness today the existence of groups of  "Cherokees" living from Pennsylvania to Florida, including two groups in North Carolina besides the Eastern Band of the Cherokee.

	The only plausible explanation based on the information at hand is that these Indian people, although not Catawba in the strict sense of the word, were aware of the relationship their people once had with the Catawba, and so used that name to identify themselves.  Even as the Occaneechi and others came to identify themselves by the name of Saponi, so too, it appears, did the Saponi come to call themselves Catawba, although they were never absorbed by the Catawba Nation as were other small tribes.  It is also likely that some of the Saponi who returned to Virginia from the Catawba Nation took with them Catawba spouses, so William Guy, Simon Jeffries, and others who were identified in the 1880s as Catawba may well have actually possessed some Catawba blood.

	The other out-migration of Indians from the Texas community occurred from the 1820s to 1840s, when a number of families moved to Greene County, Ohio (with some later moving on to Rush and Whitley counties, Indiana).  It is clear that when the Indians arrived in Greene County, Ohio, there was some degree of uncertainty among the whites as to their ethnic background.  This was also true when some of them moved on to Indiana.  Their uncertain racial status resulted in 13 separate court cases involving members of the Jeffries or related families.

	The first, an Ohio Supreme Court case, occurred in 1842 in Greene County, Ohio, when Parker Jeffries was refused the right to vote by the officials of Xenia Township because "they were of the opinion, as they said, that he was a person of color and not entitled to vote" (Greene County Clerk of Courts 1842).  The jury, however, found "that the plaintiff (Jeffries) is of the Indian race, the illegitimate son of a White man and a woman of the Indian race, and that he has not more than one fourth of the Indian blood in his veins."  On this basis, Jeffries was awarded six cents and allowed to vote thereafter.  Few other details are given in the court records concerning evidence presented or information about Parker Jeffries's mother.

	The second case occurred in 1866 in Whitley County, Indiana, and is referred to as Jeffries vs. Smith et al.  In substance, it was similar to the Parker Jeffries case.  The facts were that Mortimer Jeffries had attempted to vote in 1864 and that the defendants "with knowledge of all the facts concerning the plaintiff's pedigree and blood, willfully refused to receive his vote on account of his color" (Kaler and Maring 1907).  According to court records, Mortimer Jeffries was the son of a quarter-blood Indian father and a white mother, making him white within the scope of the law.  The Indiana Supreme Court found in favor of Jeffries.  A history of Whitley County, Indiana, gives some additional information about the trial and about Mortimer Jeffries.  His father, Herbert Jeffries, was a native of Greensville County, Virginia, who married a woman, supposedly of French descent, in North Carolina.  It further states that "Herbert was of French and Indian extraction and his children in this township have always claimed to be free from African blood, which their stature and physiognomy does not belie."  During the trial, an alleged expert witness was called by the defense to examine a lock of Jeffries's hair, the witness supposedly being able to determine African ancestry by examination of a person's hair.  Unbeknownst to the witness, however, Jeffries's lawyer submitted a lock of hair from the presiding judge, which was duly found to be from an individual of African ancestry.  The judge was not amused, and Jeffries won his case "and was granted suffrage for himself and brothers, which they afterwards exercised undisputed under the scornful eyes of some of their neighbors."

	The third and final case, Jeffries vs. O'Brien Guinn et al. (Rush County Clerk of Courts 1869), is the most detailed of the three, and provides more information about the situation of the Indian people while they were living in the Greensville County, Virginia, area.  This information is contained in the depositions of four witnesses called by William M. Jeffries to give evidence as to the race and background of his parents.  Four persons gave depositions; three of them appear to have been white while the fourth, Shadrack Jeffries, was an Indian and a relative of William Jeffries.  All agreed that: (1) Jeffries mother was of Indian and white ancestry; (2) she was born in Northampton County, North Carolina, near the Virginia line; (3) she did not associate with blacks; (4) his father was Macklin Jeffries, of Greensville County, Virginia; and (5) Macklin Jeffries was a mixed-blood Indian.  The testimony of Susan Wooten is particularly interesting in that she states that "Jeffries' mother associated with White people and those who had Indian blood with regard to her Indian blood.  She descended from an old Indian settlement in that neighborhood."  This indicates that: (1) there were a fair number of these Indian people in the area who had social (as well as kinship and marriage) ties; and (2) they stayed in some distinct geographic location.  Jeffries's mother, who was named Mary Turner, could have been Nottoway, Saponi, Meherrin, or a member of some other tribe.  All three of these tribes lived in that general area and, although the Turner name was found among the Nottoway prior to their absorption into the general population, the "settlement" may also have been that of the Saponi of Greensville County, Virginia, or the so-called Portuguese settlement near Gaston, in Northampton County, North Carolina, where the Turner name also occurs.  It may also refer to another settlement entirely.  Susan Wooten was born, by her reckoning, in 1799, so the settlement she refers to could have dated to the mid-1700s, if she thinks of it as an "old" settlement.  It could conceivably even refer to Junkatapurse, which may have been inhabited until the 1740s.

	Other local histories refer to the Indian blood of the Jeffrieses.  R. F. Dill's History of Greene County, Ohio (Dill 1881) contains short biographies of prominent persons, and gives the following information about James Jeffries: "James Jeffries, Furniture Manufacturer . . . was born in Greenville County, Virginia, January 30, 1821 . . . son of Silas and Susan (Pruitt) Jeffries.  Silas was a descendant of the Catawba tribe of Indians."  Similar information is given for Mason Jeffries, son of Uriah Jeffries, of Greensville County, Virginia, who is also said to be a descendant of the Catawba tribe.

	The Indian people who moved to Indiana and Ohio appear to have been absorbed into the general population, but as late as 1910, the U.S. Census listed some families of Jeffrieses in the Whitley County area as Indian (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1910), showing that the awareness of their heritage may still not have died out completely.

	In 1904, the Eastern Band of Cherokee won a settlement with the U.S. government based on violations of earlier treaties.  This meant that thousands of persons of Eastern Cherokee ancestry were eligible for part of the settlement, and many of these people applied to the U.S. Court of Claims for a share (Jordan 1987–1990).  It is interesting to read these applications, since a significant percentage of applicants were not Eastern Cherokee, but members of other tribes.  These persons would now be identified as Lumbee, Alabama Creek, Meherrin, Haliwa, and Occaneechi (Saponi), along with a number of individuals who probably were of unmixed white or black ancestry.

	At least 20 Occaneechi descendants also applied; all were rejected by the commission as not being of Eastern Cherokee ancestry.  Among these were Aaron Thomas Guy, born in Caswell County, North Carolina, the son of Henry Guy and grandson of Henry Guy.  Henry Guy, Sr., was the brother of Richard Guy, Buckner Guy, and others who moved to Macon County, North Carolina, from the Texas community in the 1820s.  Aaron Guy stated that his mother was a free woman of color, born free and raised by the Quakers in Guilford County, North Carolina.  There is also testimony from a former slave who knew Henry Guy, Jr., to the effect that he was an Indian, married to a colored woman.  Aaron Guy was living in Indiana at the time of his application.

	William C. Wilson, from Wichita, Kansas, also applied.  He stated that he was born near Hendersonville, North Carolina, and was the son of Sam Wilson, a "half Cherokee," and Julian Guy.  Julian Guy was the daughter of Richard Guy and Martha Whitmore, and Martha's mother was Lottie Jeffries.  Wilson claimed that his grandfather, Richard Guy, was a white man, although the Macon County records list him as a "Free Colored head of Household."  He also stated that his father, Sam Wilson, could speak the Indian language.  Assuming he was not exaggerating to impress the government man, William Wilson's father may have spoken the old Saponi language, or he may have learned Cherokee from his neighbors in Macon County.
	William and Joe Gibson, from Murphy, North Carolina, applied, and the note "Probably Negros" was written on their application.  William Gibson stated that his parents "passed as part Indian.  No Negro blood in them."  He further stated that his father spoke the Indian language.  On the bottom of his testimony is a note, presumably written by the agent, which says, "This applicant shows the Indian so does his brother now with him.  However, their ancestors were never enrolled."  These Gibsons, who lived at various times in Tennessee and North Carolina, probably were also related to the Gibsons found in the so-called Melungeon groups of eastern Tennessee and western Virginia, which appear to have originated in the early mixed-blood populations of the North Carolina Piedmont area.

	For the Indian people who remained in the Texas community, life was not too different for them from that of their non-Indian neighbors.  For the most part, they farmed their own land, which enabled them to remain relatively self-sufficient and less dependent on whites than their black counterparts.  Although much of the traditional culture had been lost by the time of the Civil War, some traditions, particularly ones dealing with food gathering and wild plant use, continued.  The art of basket-making had died out only in the last generation; previously, baskets used both for containers and as fishing implements were woven out of oak splints.  Herbal remedies were widely used, and many are still remembered.  Sassafras, ground ivy, mint, ratbane, pinetops, plantain, and wild cherry were but a few of the plants used for medicinal purposes, and some members of the community were widely known for their use of roots and herbs to heal the sick.  Fishing was done both with baskets or with nets woven by some of the older men, and small animals were trapped in so-called rabbit gums, originally made out of hollow logs.

Page: History (1725–present): Twentieth Century, Page Number: 17  
Twentieth Century

	Most of the residents of the Texas community were members of these related families up until just a few decades ago, when other people began moving in in greater numbers, buying land from the original families, who were now depending less on agriculture as a way of life.  Around the turn of the twentieth century, two churches were formed to minister to the spiritual needs of the community, where formerly circuit riding preachers had provided religious guidance.  Jeffries Cross Church and Martin's Chapel Baptist Church were both churches built on land given by members of the community (Joe and Levi Jeffries and Sam Martin [see descendant], respectively).  The churches are still strong, although they no longer are attended solely by members of the Texas community.

	Several small schools served the children of the area, and these were attended primarily by Indian people.  The Martin School, Patillo School, and Crawford School all had large numbers of Indian students, with Martin School being almost exclusively Indian; however, this did not prevent the Alamance County Board of Education from classifying them as "Colored."  In 1930, the Martin School was consolidated with several other small schools to form Pleasant Grove Union School, a move that was not popular in the community since it meant that the school no longer was exclusively Indian.  It did mean an improvement in the educational facilities available to the children, and so it was eventually accepted by the parents.  Today, Pleasant Grove School, still in use as an elementary school, is a source of pride to the community members, many of whom still take an active interest in its affairs.

	In 1934, an effort was made by some of the members of the community to have the federal government provide a school for the Indian children of the area.  Clayton Jeffries, Charles Will Jeffries, and others retained an attorney, contacted another local Indian group (in Person County, which had an Indian school sponsored by the state), formed a list of Indian families, and began correspondence with Commissioner John Collier of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This information exists in the National Archives (U.S. Commission of Indian Affairs 1934–1935) and provides some insight into the social situation of the day in the community.  An agent from the bureau visited Clayton Jeffries and his family, and reported back, in part "that he says his wife nor he have no [sic] colored blood," and further, "I do think we ought to know about these people.  It is almost certain that Clayton and most of the 'Texas' people have some Indian blood."  There are also several letters from Clayton Jeffries, which contain some interesting information.  He stated that there were 90 families of their people in the area and that they came from Virginia around the time of the Revolutionary War.  This would mean an increase from 1830, when 66 families in the area can be identified as Indian or part Indian.  The commissioner and his assistants, despite a letter from Alamance County School Superintendent M. E. Younts that scornfully refers to all members of the Texas community as "Negroes," refers to the community as Indian.  However, the bureau finally ended the correspondence to Clayton Jeffries by saying, "We will keep your particular Indian group in mind and should it be possible for us to do anything for you, your case will receive careful consideration."  No assistance was ever received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the only benefit being their recognition of the community as an Indian community.

Page: History (1725–present): Present and Future, Page Number: 18  
Present and Future

	In 1984, some of the Indians reorganized as the Eno-Occaneechi Indian Association with the goal of preserving the Indian heritage of the community and teaching the young about their own history.  To this end, an annual pow-wow has been held each August, with Indians from many different tribes visiting with the community.  In 1995, the association's name was changed to the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation in order to reflect more properly the historical record.

	A petition for official state recognition was submitted to the North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs in January 1990.  In December 1995, the commission rejected this petition.  This decision currently is being appealed.  Also in 1995, the tribe received a grant from the Administration for Native Americans to begin work on a petition for federal acknowledgment.

	The Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation has worked to correct official records of tribal members, so that birth records and other documents incorrectly recording the person as black or colored may be revised to show the correct race of the individual.  Members of the tribe also have been active in Indian politics statewide, and two tribal members, John Jeffries, assistant chief, and Wanda Whitmore, served as head dancers at the 1990 Meherrin Tribal Pow-wow in Winton, North Carolina.  John Jeffries also has served on the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Indian Cultural Center in Pembroke, North Carolina.  With more young people showing an interest in their traditions and heritage, the future looks promising for the Indian people of the Texas community, as they learn to live in a modern world while never forgetting their roots in the Indian tribes of the North Carolina Piedmont.

	Finally, there are two other communities which should be noted as possibly relevant to ongoing research into the descendants of historic Indian tribes in piedmont North Carolina: the Goinstown community and the Burnette's Chapel community.

	The Goinstown community is located in the northwest corner of Rockingham County, North Carolina, on the border with Stokes County.  The prominent family names are Goins, Hickman, Harris, Richardson, and Kimmons.  These related families can be traced back at least to the early 1800s in the area as so-called free colored persons.  The tradition is that they are descended either from "Croatan" Indians (there was a period in the 1930s and 1940s when it was popular to describe any group of Indian people of uncertain origin as descendants of the "Croatans") or from remnants of the Saura who mixed with non-Indians in the area.  The community had a school until the early 1960s that was officially classed as Indian and has gradually merged with the white community.  There is still a perception among the local whites that the Goinstown people are of Indian descent.  With the location of the old Saura Town nearby on the Dan River, it is possible that these people possess, to some degree, Saura ancestry.  Further research is needed, but would probably not be popular with the members of the community.

	The Burnette's Chapel community of southern Alamance County also can be traced back to the early 1790s, and some families, like the Whites, on into the 1700s.  This community, made up of the Bowdens, Burnettes, Whites, Allens, and others, also has a strong tradition of Indian ancestry, with no tradition of ever having been "under bondage."  In the case of this community, as well as that of Goinstown, the physical features of the people clearly show at least mixed Indian ancestry, with some of the older persons appearing to have little mixture other than that of Indian.  These people may be of Sissipahau descent, although showing conclusive links would certainly be difficult.

	In conclusion, it should be borne in mind that the history of any group of people is a tricky topic to write about.  It is all very neat and clean to write about someone as the "last Nottoway" or the "last of the Tutelo," but the actual picture usually is far less simple.  The common view of the Piedmont Indians having disappeared either through out-migration or death needs revising in light of the present evidence, circumstantial as it may be in some cases, that the Indian people of the Piedmont still exist.  Whether a person visits Goinstown, Burnette's Chapel, or the Texas community, he or she comes away realizing that the Indian people of the Piedmont did not vanish, but continue to survive in the land that they have for so long called home.

Author's Note

	On May 31, 1992, Mr. Goetha C. Whitmore passed into the Spirit World.  At 97 years of age, he was one of the oldest of the Occaneechi people and his keen memory made much of this research possible.  It is to him, and his family, that this research is dedicated.

Page: History (1725–present): List of Figures, Page Number: 19  
List of Figures

Figures: General

Figure 38. Map showing selected Native American communities in North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 39. James Bruce Whitmore and wife Mary Martin Whitmore (seated), descendants of Andrew Whitmore (c. 1915). 

Figure 40. Tom Guy, Mattie Martin Guy, and son, descendants of William Guy (c. 1910–1915?). 

Figure 41. Andrew Jeffries, a descendant of Drewry Jeffries (c. 1900–1905?). 

Figure 42. Ernest Jeffries (Corn), a descendant of Robert Brooks Corn (c. 1900?). 

Figure 43. Drewry Jeffries home, built circa 1835 in Texas community. 

Figure 44. Walter and Connie Parker Burnette and family, descendants of Abner Burnette (early 1920s). 

Figure 45. Parker Jeffries (Roberson) (c. 1860). 

Figure 46. James Jeffries (1821–1922), Greene County, Ohio (c. 1920). 

Figure 47. David Martin (son of Sam Martin) and wife Adeline Jeffries (c. 1890). 

Figure 48. Goetha C. Whitmore (left) and John Jeffries (right) at the 1991 unveiling of the Occaneechi Historical Marker in Hillsborough, N.C. 

Figure 49. Henry Bowden (left) of Burnette's Chapel community (c. 1920). 

Figure 50. Ruth Burnette Bowden of Burnette's Chapel community (c. 1915).

Page: History (1725–present): Source, Page Number: 20  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Occaneechi-Saponi Descendants in the North Carolina Piedmont: The Texas Community, by Forest Hazel.  Southern Indian Studies 40:3–29, 1991.

	It is is reprinted with permission of the North Carolina Archaeological Society and the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Burial 1 Description, Page Number: 21  
Burial 1 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Burial 1 was located at the southeast end of the cemetery at 276.8R90.3.  The pit for Burial 1 was first observed as a rectangular patch of dark brown humus containing a generous amount of charcoal, animal bones, and other refuse.  It was oriented northwest-southeast, had a maximum length of 3.6 ft and a maximum width of 2.6 ft, and was rectangular in plan.  When excavated, the pit was found to have straight walls and a flat bottom, and it was 2.4 ft deep.  The relatively flat walls and bottom showed evidence of having been dug with bladed (probably metal) digging implements.  The fill was comprised of three distinct soil zones. Zone 1 consisted of a dark brown humus rich in refuse, including charred food debris (animal bones and charred plant parts), potsherds, part of a corroded iron knife blade, and numerous glass beads.  The northern half of Zone 1 was noticeably richer than the southern half.  Zone 1 rested upon an irregular layer of mottled orange clay with ashy lens (Zone 2) that appeared to intrude Zone 1 in the northern section of the pit.  It also contained lenses of grayish black fill which were excavated separately from the mottled orange clay.  Zone 2 probably represents a transitional face between Zone 1 and the bottom zone, Zone 3.  The latter consisted solely of mottled orange clay (probably a portion of the soil excavated to create the pit) typical of burial fill at other Piedmont village sites.  The homogeneity of Zone 1 could have resulted only from the intentional filling of the upper portion of the burial pit with refuse-rich soil.

Burial Deposition

	The burial was that of a child of indeterminate sex who died at 3.5 ± 1 years of age.  The child's body was placed into the pit in a loosely flexed position and was lying on its left side. The skull was positioned to the southeast.  The right arm lay across the chest, whereas the left arm lay straight along the left side.

Grave Goods

	Around the wrist, waist, and shoulders were numerous shell beads that probably had been sewn to a blanket or garment.  A bundle containing a latten spoon with a round pecked stone in the bowl, two bone-handled iron knives (see first, second), two pairs of scissors (see first, second), seven lead buttons (also see close-up), and numerous glass beads were located between the face and the southwest corner of the pit.  Over the sternum were a large shell gorget and a small shell gorget with punctated designs.

Page: Burial 2 Description, Page Number: 22  
Burial 2 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Burial 2 was located near the southeast end of the cemetery at 279.3R85.8.  The pit was visible at the base of the plowzone as a rectangular stain comprised of a medium-to-dark brown gritty sandy fill with a large amount of charcoal.  A thin mottled orange collar was evident along the northwest and southwest edge of the stain.  The pit was oriented northwest-southeast, measured 3.1 ft long and 2.6 ft wide, and had a rectangular plan.  It extended to a depth of 2.1 ft below the base of the plowzone.  Two postholes, one along the southwest edge and the other midway along the northeast edge, intruded the pit edge.  The sides were straight, except for the northeast wall, which was undercut to create a bell-shaped bulge at the bottom of the pit.  The pit bottom was flat and smooth, which suggests that metal implements were used in its excavation.

	The fill was excavated as two separate zones.  The top zone (Zone 1) consisted of a brown gritty or sandy humic soil that was rich in refuse, including potsherds, some animal bone, and carbonized plant remains.  This zone was very similar to Zone 1 in Burial 1 except that it was not as rich in animal bone and was thicker (extending about 1 ft below the base of plowzone).  The bottom of this zone was mottled and contained lenses of ash and charcoal.  Zone 2 was a mottled yellow clay containing some charcoal that extended to the bottom of the pit.  It was roughly 1.5 ft thick.

Burial Deposition

	The burial was that of a subadult of indeterminate sex who was 7.5 ± 2 years old at death.  The skeleton was loosely flexed and lying on the right side, with the skull oriented to the southeast.  The arms were bent with the hands lying in front of the face.

Grave Goods

	A bundle of artifacts believed to have been contained in a beaded bag was located on the left side of the chest.  That bundle contained a Jew's harp, several pieces of lead shot, three lead buttons, and three unidentified fragments of iron.  Several small white glass beads, thought to have been sewn on the bag, were located in the same area.  A bone-handled knife also may have been part of the bundle.  Between this cluster of artifacts and the pit wall was a small, Fredricks Check Stamped pottery vessel.  The pot was lying on its side and contained a dark stain around the orifice, perhaps the residue of food originally placed in the vessel.  Next to the back of the skull lay a pewter porringer.  Another bone-handled knife and a cluster of small shell beads were observed adjacent to the wrists on the right side of the burial.  Large columella beads were found in the neck area.

Page: Burial 3 Description, Page Number: 23  
Burial 3 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Burial 3 was located near the southeast end of the cemetery at 282.7R89.1.  The pit for this burial was visible at the base of the plowzone as a rectangular area of brown humus that contained charcoal, animal bone, and other food refuse.  The major axis of the pit was northwest-southeast.  It measured 4.4 ft by 3.2 ft and was 3.0 ft deep, making it the deepest pit in the cemetery.  Pit walls mostly were vertical; however, the southwest wall of this pit sloped in slightly at the bottom and a narrow ledge was present along the bottom of the northeast wall.  Several large rocks, natural inclusions in the soil, protruded into the pit at various points along the bottom edge.  The flat surfaces of the walls and bottom again indicate that it was excavated with Euroamerican metal tools.  As with Burial 1 and Burial 2, this pit contained two major zones of fill.  The upper Zone 1 averaged a little over 1 ft in thickness and consisted of a dark brown humic soil rich in animal bones, carbonized plant remains, and potsherds.  A layer of small pebbles extended through the middle of this zone.  Zone 2 was comprised of a mottled orange clay, which in some areas extended upward around the rim of the pit, thus encircling Zone 1.  In places, Zone 2 was nearly 2 ft thick.

Burial Deposition
	
	The skeleton, that of an adult male who was 32 ± 5 years old at death, was tightly flexed and lying on its left side, with its skull to the southeast.  The skeleton occupied only the southwestern half of the pit and was tucked against the southwest wall.  The arms were bent at an acute angle with the hands in front of the face.

Grave Goods

	A bundle of artifacts was located between the back of the neck and the northeast pit wall.  It contained two pairs of scissors (first, second), two bone-handled knives (first, second), three pewter buttons, a fragment of dark-faceted glass, a metal tack, a brass buckle with part of a leather strap preserved, pieces of lead shot, a dog-lock musket spring, several unidentified fragments of iron, and a clump of red ocher.  Cloth and wood were preserved as fragments in association with the metal artifacts.  All of these items were possibly contained within a wooden box or cloth wrapping.  A smoking kit containing a pewter pipe, an ember tender, and flint was located opposite the face of the skull.  An iron axe head was found between the smoking pipe and the southwest wall.  Other grave associations consisted of a rum bottle positioned behind the skull and adjacent to the artifact bundle.  Perishable items such as cloth or skins may have been placed on the ledge along the eastern edge at the bottom of the pit, as the soil in this area was darker and more organic than the rest of the burial fill.

Page: Feature 1 Description, Page Number: 24  
Feature 1 Description
by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.

	Feature 1 was located near the southeast end of the cemetery at 282.7R80.7.  It measured 3.9 ft long by 2.9 ft wide, and it was 2.8 ft deep.  At the top of subsoil, this feature was very similar in appearance to other nearby burial pits within the cemetery.  It appeared as a rectangular patch of dark brown soil (designated Zone 1) that contained numerous fragments of animal bone, charcoal, shell, burned clay, pottery, and fire-broken rock, and it was oriented along a northwest-southeast axis.  Zone 1 was about one foot thick and was underlain by a mottled clay fill designated Zone 2.  This zone contained significantly fewer artifacts.

	Along the southwestern side of the pit bottom, the excavators encountered an area of softer, organically enriched fill which they interpreted as a probable burial chamber; however, no human bone or funerary objects were found.  Despite this, the location, pit shape, and fill characteristics of this feature all indicate that it is a burial pit.

Page: Feature 2 (Burial 4) Description, Page Number: 25  
Feature 2 (Burial 4) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 2 (Burial 4) was located near the center of the cemetery at 293.5R76.5.  This burial pit was visible at the top of the subsoil as a rectangular stain with slightly rounded corners.  The center portion of the pit was comprised of dark brown humic soil with charcoal, animal bone and potsherds.  This fill is similar to the Zone 1 fill of Burials 1, 2, and 3; a mottled orange clay formed a band around the perimeter of the pit.  The pit, whose main axis was northwest-southeast, measured 3.2 ft by 2.2 ft across the top and was 2.1 ft deep.  The pit walls were straight, and the bottom was flat except for a ledge along the northeast side.  It is again proposed that metal implements were used to excavate this pit.  A dark brown fill (Zone 1) extended unevenly across the middle portion of the pit to a depth of a little over one foot.  This was underlain by a mottled orange clay fill (Zone 2) that contained some of the darker soil near the top.

Burial Deposition

	One of two skeletons in the pit was that of an adult male, 25 ± 4 years old at death, that had been disarticulated and placed in a tight bundle lying against the southwest wall of the pit.  The ledge at the bottom of the pit paralleled the orientation of the body.  Cut marks around the cranium suggest that this individual was scalped.  Mixed with the bundle were the skeletal remains of an infant who was about one month old at death.  Because these remains were not discovered until the adult burial was being cleaned in the laboratory, it is impossible to know the precise spatial relationship of the two individuals.

Grave Goods

	A cluster of 11 long, tubular, columella beads were located within the chest area of the bundle and unquestionably were associated with it.  A wine bottle was found in the southeast corner of the pit next to the adult skull, and a pewter porringer was found at the foot of the bundle adjacent to and on the northeast side of the long bones.  Based on the fact that a wine bottle also was found with Burial 3, an adult, it is probable that the bottle in Burial 4 was meant to accompany the adult.  The porringer, on the other hand, may have been placed with the infant, because a similar specimen was found with Burial 2, a subadult.

Page: Feature 3 (Burial 5) Description, Page Number: 26  
Feature 3 (Burial 5) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 3 (Burial 5) was located near the center of the cemetery at 299.2R69.5.  The pit for Burial 5 was visible at the top of subsoil as a rectangular area of dark brown, charcoal-flecked fill surrounded by an irregular band of mottled orange fill.  In plan view, the configuration of this fill resembled that of Burial 4.  The pit was rectangular in outline, with its main axis oriented northwest-southeast.  It measured 5.1 ft in length, 2.9 ft in width, and had a maximum depth of 2.0 ft.  The pit corners were slightly rounded, and three of the walls were straight.  The northeast wall, however, was undercut at the bottom of the pit creating a small side chamber.  The bottom was flat and smooth, indicating the use of iron tools.

	The burial fill consisted of two primary zones.  The upper zone (Zone 1), which comprised the central two-thirds of the pit, was composed of a dark brown loam with an ashy gray lens near the center.  This central lens was nearly 1 ft thick.  Zone 1 contained charcoal, chunks of burned clay, shell, and both burned and unburned animal bone.  Although the dark fill was homogeneous at the top, it became more mottled and blended into a zone of mottled orange clay (Zone 2) near the bottom.  Zone 2 contained lenses of dark organic fill and ashy deposits similar to Zone 1.  These deposits extended down to the top of the skeleton in the area between the arms and skull and near the thoracic vertebra.  A group of large mammal bones in this fill made it difficult for the excavators to isolate the human skeletal remains.  However, the mottled orange clay comprised the largest volume of fill in Zone 2 and extended over most of the skeleton.  It also extended to the top edge of the pit, forming a broken ring around the dark organic fill.

Body Deposition

	The body was that of an adult male who was 41 ± 9 years old at death.  The skeleton was loosely flexed and lying on its right side, with the skull to the southwest.  The arms were bent with the hands in front of the face.  The body was placed in the northwest half of the pit.

Grave Goods

	The remains of a pouch decorated with wampum shell beads and a bird's clay contained two kaolin-clay trade pipes and a bone-handled iron knife.  The pouch lay adjacent to the elbow. An iron axe head lay in the area between the elbows and knees.

Page: Feature 4 (Burial 6) Description, Page Number: 27  
Feature 4 (Burial 6) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 4 (Burial 6) was located near the center of the cemetery at 300.6R75.7.  Evidence of this burial pit appeared in the plowzone as an area of dark brown soil containing animal bones, potsherds, and charcoal. At the top of the subsoil, the pit was rectangular in outline and measured 5.6 ft by 4 ft.  It extended to a depth of 2.3 ft below the top of the subsoil.  The major axis was northwest-southeast.  Three of the walls sloped slightly inward at the bottom.  The northeast wall was undercut at the bottom, creating a long narrow chamber.  As with the other burials within the cemetery, it apparently was excavated with iron tools.  When first observed at the top of the subsoil, the rectangular pit had a central zone of dark brown humic loam with pebbles (Zone 1).  This dark zone was surrounded by a collar of mottled orange and brown clay (Zone 2), which in turn was encircled by more brown humic loam that contained some clay mottling (Zone 3).  Beneath these fairly shallow zones (with a combined thickness of 0.5 ft) was a mottled orange clay (Zone 4) similar to Zone 2 in most of the other cemetery burials.  The final zone (Zone 5) lay over the body and consisted of a dark brown humus.  The majority of food refuse was found in the west-central band of Zone 1.  In general, the zones of fill in this burial were more convoluted and harder to separate than those in the other pits.

Body Deposition

	Initial osteological analysis indicated the skeleton was that of an adult male between 25 and 35 years old at the time of death.  However, a reassessment of Burial 6 determined that the individual may have been female and was only 19 ± 3 years old at death.  The skeleton was loosely flexed and lying on the right side with the elbows bent and the hands opposite the face.  As with the other cemetery burials, the skull was pointing to the southeast.

Grave Goods

	Accompanying the burial were a clay pot lying behind the skull, a pewter pipe stem and bowl rim between the face and hands, a large iron hoe near the feet, and a dog-lock musket lying parallel to the northeast side of the body.  There was a leather-covered copper-wire bracelet around the left wrist.  A pair of scissors and a piece of lead shot were found beneath and immediately north of the pot.  Glass beads were located under the pottery vessel and at each heel.  Other glass beads were found under the copper bracelet.

Page: Feature 5 (Burial 7) Description, Page Number: 28  
Feature 5 (Burial 7) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 5 (Burial 7) was located near the center of the cemetery at 290.0R80.4.  This burial pit was visible as a nearly oval stain of mottled brown and orange clay at the base of the plowzone.  The pit was oriented with its long axis northwest-southeast and measured 3.4 ft long, 2.3 ft wide, and 1.2 ft deep.  The upper fill of this pit, designated Zone 1, was unique in that it was quite homogenous and did not contain the rich layer of refuse found in the other burial pits within the cemetery.  It was approximately 0.6 ft thick.  A small pocket of brown humus in the southwest corner was the only distinct difference and probably represents a small mass of original humus that was incorporated in the final stage of refilling.  Zone 2 was very similar to Zone 1 and also contained mottled clay that was roughly 0.6 ft thick.  After the floor of the pit was located and troweled, a band of light brown soil was evident along the northeast wall.  This layer was excavated, creating a narrow side chamber that dipped slightly below the level of the rest of the pit and undercut the northeast wall.  The remaining walls sloped inward slightly at the bottom.

Body Deposition

	Burial 7 contained the poorly preserved remains of a neonate who was less than three months old at death.  The individual appeared to be oriented with the head toward the southeast.

Grave Goods

	Two clusters of cast brass bells lay in the northwest half of the pit.  Given the orientation of the other burials, they were associated with the legs of the individual.  There were 10–15 incised bells in each cluster held together by leather thongs, portions of which were preserved, as well as fragments of wood or matting that had been on the floor of the pit.

Page: Feature 6 (Burial 8) Description, Page Number: 29  
Feature 6 (Burial 8) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 6 (Burial 8) was located near the northwest end of the cemetery at 306.5R61.7.  When first observed at the top of the subsoil, this pit consisted of a rectangular stain of mostly brown loamy soil (Zone 1).  The excavated pit measured 4.0 ft by 2.5 ft and was aligned with the long axis running northwest-southeast.  A depth of 2.5 ft made it the second deepest pit in the cemetery.  The sides were straight and not undercut to form a chamber as with many of the other burial pits.  An uppermost brown loamy soil (Zone 1) contained numerous pebbles, and there was a dense concentration of animal bone and charcoal in the northwestern corner.  A small patch of mottled orange and brown clay was located near the center of the top of the pit.  The dark loamy soil, mixed with lenses of mottled clay comprising four zones, extended to a depth of approximately 1.0 ft.  Below this was a thick zone of mottled orange clay that represented the original fill.  Although this latter zone was fairly homogenous, a finger of the brown loam comprising Zone 1 continued to the floor of the pit along the southern wall.

Body Deposition

	The pit contained the poorly preserved skeleton of a child of indeterminate sex who was 3.5 ± 1 years old at death.  The skeleton was loosely flexed on its left side, with the skull to the southeast.  The hands lay on the chest.

Grave Goods

	A copper kettle was positioned between the feet and pelvis.  Several small lumps of vermillion or red ochre were found beneath the chin, and a brass buckle with part of a leather strap attached had been placed near the arms.  Most interesting was a cluster of artifacts located in the southwest corner of the pit opposite the skull.  This cluster consisted of a small Fredricks Check Stamped clay pot flanked by a bone-handled iron knife, a latten spoon, and a brass buckle.  All these objects had been placed in a twilled, split-cane basket, a portion of which was well preserved beneath the spoon bowl.

Page: Feature 7 (Burial 9) Description, Page Number: 30  
Feature 7 (Burial 9) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 7 (Burial 9) was located near the northwest end of the cemetery at 308.7R68.2.  The fill of this burial was observed at the base of the plowzone as a rectangular stain whose long axis measured 5.1 ft.  It was 3.5 ft wide, and extended to a depth of 2.3 ft.  The sides of the pit were relatively straight, except the northeast side, which was undercut at the bottom to create a half-foot-wide side chamber.  The upper fill of the pit was comprised primarily of a brown loamy soil (Zone 1).  Along the northwest side of the pit, this soil contained pebbles, animal bones, and charcoal.  Along the northeast side, it was ashy in texture and had fewer inclusions.  Patches of mottled clay were also noted in the center of the pit and across the southeast ends.  The upper layer of refuse was approximately 1.0 ft thick near the center of the pit.  It rested upon a fairly homogeneous orange mottled clay (Zone 2), which represented the original fill.  This zone extended to the floor of the pit.

Body Deposition

	The poorly preserved skeleton was that of an adult female who was 30 ± 5 years old at death.  It was loosely flexed and lying on its right side.  The skull was oriented to the southeast, and the hands were positioned on and in front of the face.

Grave Goods

	Associated artifacts consisted of an iron hoe placed adjacent to and southwest of the skull (the blade end lay under the shoulder and occipital region of the skull) and a bone-handled iron knife placed under the right forearm.  A possible violent death is indicated by a piece of lead shot that was flattened against the left fibula (i.e., lower leg).  Another piece of lead shot was recovered just above the pelvic area.  Because of poor bone preservation, it was not possible to identify the effect of the lead shot on the fibula.

Page: Feature 8 Description, Page Number: 31  
Feature 8 Description
by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.

	Feature 8 was located just east of Structure 7 at 290.0R58.0.  At the top of subsoil, this feature appeared as an irregular patch of brown loam, about 2.0 ft in diameter, that contained bits of charcoal, animal bone, fired clay, and a large net-impressed rimsherd.  This fill was designated Zone 1, and it was surrounded by a yellow-gray sandy clay (designated Zone 2) that contained small flecks of charcoal.  Both zones extended about 1.5 ft below the subsoil surface.  At this level three root holes about 0.4 ft in diameter became visible and it was determined that Feature 8 was a tree disturbance.  Given the presence of Haw River phase (A.D. 1000–1400) pottery within the fill and the absence of European-made artifacts and Fredricks series pottery, this disturbance likely predates the Occaneechi village.

Page: Feature 9 Description, Page Number: 32  
Feature 9 Description
by Gary L. Petherick

	Feature 9 was a large, deep, cylindrical pit located within Structure 1 at 247.4R56.6.  The pit was 5.0 ft long, 4.7 ft wide, and 2.9 ft deep below subsoil.  A massive rock that extended into the pit on the south side appeared to have been heated repeatedly.  Feature 9 is an excellent example of a pit facility that may have undergone several transformations in its function prior to its abandonment.  The fill zones of this feature reflect these potential transformations. 

	The bottom zone (Zone 3b) consisted of masses of charred bark and clusters of carbonized corn kernels, all on the pit floor.  The masses of corn had been contained in woven baskets, portions of which were recovered during excavation.  These baskets seem to have been intentionally placed on the pit floor around the inside perimeter adjacent to the walls.  The pit floor beneath the bark lining, as well as the lower pit walls, was colored brick-red from having been fired.  The only animal remains from this zone were numerous fragments of charred foot bones from an unidentified small mammal.  A few flakes and small glass trade beads also were found.

	If Feature 9 had functioned as a storage facility the bark lining and corn could represent materials that were left in place when the first observable transformation of the facility occurred.  Although most corn was probably stored on the husk, Harrington observed that the Seneca stored roasted and dried green corn in bags (Harrington 1908b:589).

	An alternative interpretation of Zone 3b is that it represents initial preparation of the feature for use as a fire pit (This does not rule out the possibility that the pit was originally used for storage).  The containers of corn kernels may reflect ritual behavior associated with feasts of thanksgiving at the end of the corn harvest, such as those described by Lawson (Lefler 1967:67, 177).  Such harvest ceremonies were common throughout much of North America (Hudson 1976). 

	Zone 3a accumulated on top of Zone 3b.  This zone reflects repeated episodes of fire building.  Numerous fire-cracked rocks and uncracked hearth stones were present in this zone.  Associated with these hearth stones were a damaged and burnt steel axe head, several lumps of sand-tempered potter's clay, and a small hammerstone.  One of the large rocks showed evidence of having been used as a grinding stone.  These items were contained within a rich organic, ashy-clay loam matrix. Numerous lenses of brick-red fired clay were present throughout this zone as were many fragments of charred wood and bark.  The soil matrix, rocks, fired clay, and fire-reddened and hardened pit walls and floor strongly suggest that this zone of fill accumulated in-place as a result of repeated fires. 

	The plant food remains from this zone were both abundant and diverse.  This seems to imply that plant food preparation on a large scale might have been an important behavioral component in the formation of this zone.  However, it is possible that much of the corn (which represents 68% of the plant food remains by weight) might have originated from the same activities that produced the corn kernel clusters in the underlying zone.  Although there was a diverse assemblage of seeds present in the fill, most of these seeds were of weedy species and could have been introduced into the fill by natural processes.  It fact, an open fire pit might be expected to "capture" an assortment of seeds from nearby plant communities.  The other seeds represented in this zone were grape, maypops, and sumac, all of which could have been consumed while people were sitting within Structure 1 taking sweat baths. 

	Zone 2, a mottled clay loam, contained a mixture of cultural materials, including potsherds, lithic artifacts, animal bone fragments, glass trade beads, wood charcoal, and charred plant food remains.  The mottled composition of the fill suggests that it was a mixture of subsoil and humus excavated to fill the pit after it ceased to function as a fire pit.  This zone was more organically rich where it was bounded by the underlying and overlying zones of rich organic material.  All of the species of plant food remains from this fill were present in the overlying Zone 1 deposit and may have originated from the same activity that produced that zone.  Zone 2 extended to the top of the feature (base of the plowzone).  At that level it appeared as a 0.3-ft ring surrounding a central ashy deposit (Zone 1).

	The upper zone of fill (Zone 1) was a basin-shaped deposit of dark, yellowish-brown sandy ash containing a mixture of diverse plant and animal remains, along with a variety of artifacts.  The artifacts within this zone consisted of potsherds, lithic debris and tools, glass trade beads, kaolin pipe fragments, wood charcoal, fired clay, and daub.  This zone was a very homogeneous and fine-grained deposit of ash.  There was a relatively high percentage of plant food remains, which included hickory nutshell, acorn shell, peach pits, walnut shells, corn, grape seeds, and maypops seeds.  A variety of other carbonized seeds representing non-plant food remains were also present.  Four species of animals (deer, raccoon, bear, and a single horse molar) were represented as bone fragments in the fill.  The textural qualities of the fill and the relatively small amounts of nonbotanical remains represented in the flotation sample suggest that this zone accumulated in situ.  The basin shape of the deposit probably resulted from partial re-excavation (cleaning out) of the pit aboriginally.  The large and diverse assemblage of plant food remains imply that this facility may have been used for the large scale preparation of food, perhaps with feasting that occurred as part of the mortuary practices of the occupants of the village.

Page: Feature 10 Description, Page Number: 33  
Feature 10 Description
by Gary L. Petherick

	Feature 10 was located near Structure 3 at 251.6R70.0.  This was a deep cylindrical pit with undercut walls that gave it a bell-shaped profile.  This feature was 2.6 ft long, 2.3 ft wide, and was 3.1 ft deeper than the top of subsoil.  The depth-to-diameter ratio (1.55) and volume (18.54 ft3) suggest that the pit was used for storage of food or other materials.  It probably served as the primary subterranean storage facility for members of the Structure 3 household.

	Feature 10 contained two zones of fill.  The upper zone, Zone 1, was a dark brown loam that contained a variety of cultural remains.  These remains consisted of potsherds, lithic artifacts, kaolin-clay pipe fragments, glass trade beads, animal bone, wood charcoal, and charred plant food remains.  Deer was the only identifiable animal species represented.  The plant remains recovered were hickory nut, acorn, peach, and corn; wood charcoal also was fairly abundant.  The lower portion of this zone contained most of the above material, as well as a small concentration of fire-cracked rock, charcoal, and sandy ash.  The fill probably represents a brief disposal episode of household debris, including hearth materials.  Zone 2 was a deposit of dark, brownish-orange, mottled clay loam that extended to the bottom of the pit.  This zone was about 2.5 ft thick and contained over 700 g of animal bone fragments representing deer, box turtle, squirrel, and turkey.  A small amount of plant food remains were recovered, consisting of hickory nut and a trace of corn.  Wood charcoal was well preserved but in a smaller amount than in the overlying zone. Potsherds were more abundant than in Zone 1.  Zone 2 seems to represent the initial filling of this pit upon its abandonment as a storage facility.  A lack of lenses in the fill suggests that it accumulated fairly rapidly.  It is not possible to determine the origin of this fill, although its mottled color and variety of cultural debris may identify it as a redeposited mixture of humus soil, midden, and clay subsoil.

Page: Feature 11 Description, Page Number: 34  
Feature 11 Description
by Gary L. Petherick

	Feature 11 was located near Structure 3 at 249.5R77.4.  This small, oval, deep, refuse-filled pit was 3.0 ft long, 2.4 ft wide, and 1.5 ft in depth below the top of subsoil.  A large rock extended into the pit from the surrounding subsoil and the pit wall had been undercut around this rock, perhaps in an attempt to remove it.  The pit had a depth-to-diameter ratio of 0.80 and probably functioned as a small storage facility.  The small volume (10.8 ft3) suggests that it was not used for bulk storage, but rather that it may have functioned as a cache for non-food items. 

	Feature 11 contained a single zone of brown, sandy clay loam with charcoal and fired clay.  This fill contained only a small amount of plant remains (0.01 g of hickory nutshell per 10-liter flotation sample).  Animal remains were present but in very poor condition; only 13 of 94 fragments were identified, all of which were deer remains.  Other cultural materials consisted of potsherds, stone flakes, rocks, kaolin-clay pipe fragments, and glass trade beads.  The sloped bottom of the pit give it a somewhat "unfinished" appearance and it may have been considered unsuitable as a storage pit once the rock was encountered and efforts to remove it failed.

Page: Feature 12 Description, Page Number: 35  
Feature 12 Description
by Gary L. Petherick

	Feature 12 was located between Structure 3 and the eastern palisade entrance into the village (at 264.0R85.5).  It was 3.4 ft long, 3.2 ft wide, and 1.4 ft deeper than the top of subsoil.  The depth-to-diameter ratio was 0.51, suggesting that it could have functioned as a storage facility.  The location of this pit is somewhat enigmatic because of its proximity to the palisade entrance, in what was probably an area of heavy traffic.  It is possible that this feature represents a small soil recovery facility rather than a storage pit. 

	Feature 12 contained two zones of fill.  The upper zone, Zone 1, was a dark reddish-brown sandy loam containing a variety of European trade items, aboriginal potsherds, charcoal, fired clay, charred plant food remains, and a large quantity of animal bone.  The animal remains consisted of box turtle, deer, and bear.  The plant food remains were mostly hickory nutshell, with a small amount of acorn shell, peach pit, and corn.  Among the trade items were glass beads, copper wire, and the handle and blade of an iron knife.  This zone was relatively thin and confined to the central area of the feature.  The composition and texture of this fill suggest that it originated as household debris representing a variety of activities. 

	Zone 2 was a homogeneous deposit of dark brown sandy loam mottled with subsoil.  Numerous animal bone fragments, charred plant remains, wood charcoal, European trade items, lithic artifacts, potsherds, and plant remains were recovered in this zone.  The animal bone consisted of deer, box turtle, turkey, squirrel, and bear.  The plant food remains were mostly hickory nutshell with a small amount of corn and cucurbit.  The homogeneous brown color of the fill, the small amount of wood charcoal, and the diversity of animal and plant species suggest that this fill was redeposited midden and humus.

Page: Feature 13 Description, Page Number: 36  
Feature 13 Description
by Gary L. Petherick

	Feature 13 was located inside Structure 8 at 254.0R85.7.  This oval pit was 2.8 ft long, 2.4 ft wide, and 1.47 ft in depth below the top of subsoil.  It had a depth-to-diameter ratio of 0.85 and an estimated original volume of about 12 ft3.
 
	Two zones of fill were present in this feature.  The upper zone (Zone 2) was a thin deposit of mottled yellow clay which contained only a sparse amount of cultural material other than wood charcoal, animal bone, and charred plant food remains.  The animal species represented were deer and raccoon.  The plant food remains consisted of hickory nutshell, peach pits, and a trace of corn.  The lower zone of fill (Zone 1) was a dark brown, highly organic loam containing diverse animal and plant food remains, abundant wood charcoal, potsherds, lithic artifacts, and a variety of European trade items.  Many of these items, including a brass bell, metal fishhook, brass wire, and aboriginal as well as English kaolin pipes, were more complete and less worn out than most other trade artifacts from non-burial contexts.  The brass bell was associated with one of two complete turtle carapaces recovered from this zone. 

	Feature 13 had a ledge about 0.2 ft wide around the western half of the feature about 0.65 ft above the pit floor.  Six large rocks were found on the pit floor; two of these showed evidence of intentional modification.  One had been bifacially chipped along the edges, creating a shape that conformed to the pit wall.  The six large rocks seemed to fit together and may have originally formed a cover (at about the level of the ledge) over items cached in the bottom of this pit. 

	The animal bones from Zone 1 represent a diverse group of species, including box turtle, deer, passenger pigeon, turkey, frog, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, raccoon, and bear.  This assemblage of animal remains is very similar to that found in the upper fill from Feature 3 (Burial 5) and suggests that Feature 13 may have been filled at the time of the ritual feasting associated with the burial of the adult male in Burial 5.

Page: Feature 14 (Burial 11) Description, Page Number: 37  
Feature 14 (Burial 11) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 14 (Burial 11) was located near the northwest end of the cemetery at 315.2R66.2.  This burial pit, measuring 4.9 ft long by 3.1 ft wide, and 3.1 ft deep, was first observed as a soil stain of dark brown, ashy clay loam containing numerous animal bones, charcoal, pebbles, and pottery sherds.  The upper fill, designated Zone 1, was 1.1 ft thick.  Beneath Zone 1 was Zone 2, a brown, mottled, orange clay loam that contained lenses of mottled clay.  The northwest two-thirds of Zone 2 contained a large amount of burned animal bone, charcoal, and other organic matter, and was similar to Zone 1.  The southeast one-third of the zone, however, was comprised of an almost sterile mottled clay fill.  The bottom zone, Zone 3, was a mottled dark loam with orange clay lenses.  It was 0.5 ft thick and surrounded the body.  Three of the pit walls sloped inward to intersect the flat pit bottom; however, the northwest wall was undercut slightly near the floor.

Body Deposition

	The poorly preserved skeleton was of a young adult of indeterminate sex who was 17 ± 3 years old at death.  The body was loosely flexed and lay on its right side.

Grave Goods

Several artifacts associated with the burial were in clusters and appear to represent separate bundles or containers.  The first cluster, located near the feet, contained several Cornaline d'Aleppo beads, vermillion and red lead, wire C-bracelets, and a snuff tin.  An adjacent cluster contained a case knife, Jews harps, and pieces of lead shot.  A cluster of Cornaline d'Aleppo beads was located adjacent to the right knee.  In addition to these three artifact clusters, four pewter buckle frames were found on and near the skull (possibly part of a head band) and a large cord-marked ceramic bowl lay near the chest.

Page: Feature 15 Description, Page Number: 38  
Feature 15 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 15, a tree stump hole, was located outside the village palisade and north of the cemetery at 318.8R69.3.  Its maximum dimensions were 2.6 ft by 1.5 ft in plan view, and it had a depth of 1.4 ft.  This feature was observed at the top of the subsoil as an irregular reddish brown loamy stain (Zone 1) with small patches of yellowish red mottled clay in the southeast corner and along the northeast edge.  Flakes of charcoal and small pebbles were observed in the top portion of Zone 1; however, the fill quickly changed to a reddish yellow clay.  This zone was devoid of artifacts although flecks of burned clay were encountered near the bottom of the pit.  The irregular configuration of the feature continued as it was excavated, and the bottom was uneven with several cone-shaped depressions representing root channels.

Page: Feature 16 Description, Page Number: 39  
Feature 16 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 16 was a small, shallow, circular pit measuring 1.3 ft long, 1.1 ft wide, and 0.2 ft deep; it was located within Structure 8 at 253.0R96.6.  At subsoil, the pit appeared as a stain of reddish brown, sandy loam soil (Zone 1).  Animal bones and a lead bale seal were recovered from the top of the feature.  Charcoal flecks and potsherds were also present, along with a single glass trade bead.

Page: Feature 17 Description, Page Number: 40  
Feature 17 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 17 was an almost circular pit located within Structure 9 at 233.5R77.5.  It measured 2.7 ft by 2.4 ft in plan view and was 2.1 ft deep.  In profile, the pit was barrel-shaped with walls that sloped slightly inward at the top and bottom.  The pit fill consisted of three zones.  The upper zone (Zone 1) was about one foot thick and contained dark brown loam with charcoal.  Scattered throughout this zone, there were also pockets of orange-yellow clay.  Beneath Zone 1 was a thick (1.1 ft) layer of gray ashy soil (Zone 2) which extended to the bottom of the pit.  This soil was loosely packed, damp, and contained a large number of animal bones and artifacts (e.g., glass trade beads, lead shot, charcoal, a clay pipe bowl, a case knife, an ember tender, stone and pottery disks, numerous potsherds [including part of a Fredricks Plain jar], a hammerstone, a chunkey stone, stone flakes, and chipped stone projectile points).  This storage pit had been backfilled in at least two episodes of refuse disposal.

Page: Feature 18 Description, Page Number: 41  
Feature 18 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 18, a circular pit, was located just outside Structure 9 at 236.5R70.  It measured 3.3 ft in diameter and was 0.9 ft deep.  The walls curved inward to a flat bottom.  The fill at the base of the plowzone was noticeably different from that of neighboring features (i.e., Feature 17, Feature 19,  and Feature 20).  The latter were defined by a homogeneous, dark brownish black loam at the top of the subsoil, whereas Feature 18 was defined by a heterogeneous brown loam (Zone 1) with flecks of orange clay, charcoal, and bits of ash.  At the bottom of Zone 1 was a layer of large potsherds, representing three vessels (first, second).  These lay on top of a thin lens of dark charcoal.  Interspersed among the potsherds were numerous fragments of a large grinding or polishing stone.  Postholes were noted at the bottom of the pit along with a small depression (0.3 ft in diameter) filled with charcoal.

Page: Feature 19 Description, Page Number: 42  
Feature 19 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 19, a roughly circular pit, was located within Structure 9 at 234.5R87.6.  It measured 2.7 ft by 2.6 ft in plan view and was 2.4 ft deep.  At the top of the subsoil, the feature's edges were diffuse.  The fill at the top of the pit was divided into three zones.  Zones 1 and 2 consisted of small pockets of yellowish brown mottled clay and brownish yellow mottled clay, respectively.  The bulk of the surface fill was designated Zone 3 and was comprised of dark yellowish brown loam.  This zone was approximately 0.6 ft thick.  It lay over Zone 4, which extended to the bottom of the pit.  Zone 4 contained mixed lenses of orange mottled clay with pockets of gray to dark brown ashy soil.  The bottom of the pit was lined with a layer of trash including half a deer antler rack, a hammerstone, shells, beads, pottery sherds, rocks, and animal bones.  The feature was barrel-shaped in profile with walls that expanded toward the middle and sloped inward at the top and bottom.

Page: Feature 20 Description, Page Number: 43  
Feature 20 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This circular feature measured 3.0 ft by 2.8 ft and had a maximum depth of 1.5 ft.  It was located just outside Structure 9 at 224.0R71.5.  At subsoil, the pit appeared as a circular patch of dark gray soil with flecks of charcoal and a few fragments of burned clay.  This soil was designated Zone 1.  During excavation, two turtle carapaces and a deer mandible were recovered from Zone 1, which lay atop a brown sandy loam designated Zone 2.  The eastern half of this zone was harder, drier, and contained some orange clay mottled soil.  Pockets of gray ash also were noted.  As Zone 2 was excavated, the density of animal bones increased, with the greatest concentration occurring near the pit floor. Large potsherds, glass beads, and pieces of lead shot were also recovered.  The pit had a slight bell-shaped profile, with the wall, particularly along the eastern edge, sloping outward at the pit bottom.

Page: Feature 21 Description, Page Number: 44  
Feature 21 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 21 was a small, shallow, roughly circular depression that measured 1.2 ft by 1.1 ft in plan view and only 0.1 ft in depth.  It was located within Structure 8 at 248.9R91.1.  It was intruded by a small posthole at its northeastern edge.  Pit fill (designated Zone 1) consisted of a dark yellowish brown, sandy loam with only a small amount of charcoal.

Page: Feature 22 Description, Page Number: 45  
Feature 22 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 22 was a small, shallow, circular depression very similar to Feature 21.  It too was located within Structure 8 (at 251.1R93.7) and measured 0.8 ft long, 0.7 ft wide, and 0.2 ft deep.  The pit fill was a sterile, yellowish red, sandy loam.

Page: Feature 23 Description, Page Number: 46  
Feature 23 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 23 was located within Structure 5 at 291.1R20.0; it measured 1.9 ft by 2.2 ft in plan view and was 1.5 ft deep.  At the top of the subsoil, this pit displayed an irregular shape due to plow smearing.  Fill consisted of a dark brown loam that contained charcoal, animal bones, lead shot, and glass trade beads.  There was also a thin lens of sandy soil in the northeast quadrant of the feature.

Page: Feature 24 Description, Page Number: 47  
Feature 24 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 24 was located within Structure 5 at 286.0R28.5.  This feature was evident at the top of the subsoil as a large oval stain that measured 4.3 ft by 2.2 ft; however, it had a maximum depth of only 0.5 ft.  An apparent intrusion at the northwest end of the feature was excavated first.  The fill in this intrusion was a dark yellowish brown soil which contrasted with the grayish tan fill of the remainder of the feature.  Flecks of charcoal and small bits of red clay were noted throughout the fill.

Page: Feature 25 Description, Page Number: 48  
Feature 25 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This shallow, circular basin measured 2.3 ft in diameter and was 0.6 ft deep.  It was located near the center of the palisaded village at 252.2R48.5.  The fill consisted of a sandy, bright yellow soil that was homogeneous and sterile except for small flecks of charcoal.  The pit walls sloped inward at the bottom to create a conical profile.

Page: Feature 26 (Burial 13) Description, Page Number: 49  
Feature 26 (Burial 13) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 26 (Burial 13) was located near the northwestern end of the cemetery at 312.0R58.0.  As with the other burials in the cemetery, the pit was rectangular in plan;  it measured 4.6 ft by 3.2 ft and was 2.3 ft deep.  At the top-of-subsoil level, the pit appeared as a stain of mottled gray-brown soil with lenses of orange clay (Zone 1).  This zone was 0.8 ft thick.  In contrast to the upper fill zones in most of the cemetery burials, Burial 13 contained only a few poorly preserved animal bones and not many artifacts.  Perhaps the feasting activities associated with this interment were not as elaborate or intense as was characteristic of many of the other burials.  Beneath Zone 1 was an almost sterile mottled clay layer approximately 1.0 ft thick (Zone 2).  The final zone, Zone 3, averaged 0.5 ft thick, had a clay-like consistency, and was very similar to Zone 2.  Although few artifacts were found, all the zones contained a large number of pebbles and rock chips.  The pit walls were straight but sloped inward slightly to join the flat bottom.

Body Deposition

	The skeleton was that of an adult male who was 40 ± 5 years old at death.  The body was loosely flexed and placed on its right side.  Bone preservation was generally poor.

Grave Goods

	A small cluster of artifacts, including a bone-handled case knife, pewter porringer, and a kaolin-clay pipe, lay adjacent to the left lower arm.  A second bone-handled case knife was located near the skull, in front of the face.  These were the only artifacts associated with the burial other than small bits of vermillion in the soil around the skull.

Page: Feature 27 (Burial 10) Description, Page Number: 50  
Feature 27 (Burial 10) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	Feature 27 (Burial 10), located at the northwestern end of the cemetery at 316.5R53.2, was aligned along a northwest-southeast axis like the other cemetery graves.  The rectangular pit measured 3.5 ft long by 2.8 ft wide and was 2.9 ft deep.  At the base of the plowzone, the pit appeared as a rectangular stain of dark gray soil that contained numerous fragmented animal bones, pottery sherds, and small pebbles.  This upper fill zone (Zone 1) was approximately 2 ft deep and covered a mottled orange clay (Zone 2) with pockets of dark gray fill at the northeast and southwest ends of the pit.  Zone 2 extended 0.9 ft to the floor of the pit where several patches of preserved matting were encountered.  The walls of the pit were straight and the bottom was flat.

Body Deposition

	The poorly preserved skeletal remains in Burial 10 were from a sub-adult who was 4.5 years ± 16 months old at the time of death.  The body was loosely flexed and lying on its left side.

Grave Goods

	Artifacts accompanying the burial included a cluster of three broken clay pots (first, second, third) just west of the skull.  Three pieces of lead shot were found beneath the sherd matrix.  A concentration of white, red, and blue glass trade beads were found near the skull in the area of the pots, and there were white glass trade beads on the skull itself.  Immediately southeast of the skull, lying together, were a greenstone celt and an iron hoe blade.  South of the body was a turtle carapace cup, and lying between the legs were nine brass bells.  In addition to the artifacts, there were large patches of fiber matting along the bottom of the pit, indicating that the individual was wrapped prior to interment.

Page: Feature 28 Description, Page Number: 51  
Feature 28 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 28 was located between Structure 4 and the northwest end of the cemetery at 318.0R42.5.  It was originally suspected to be a burial.  The pit was circular in plan view, with a diameter of 3.2 ft and a depth of almost 3.0 ft.  At the base of the plowzone, the feature appeared as a circular patch of dark brown loam (designated Zone 1) with flecks of charcoal and animal bone fragments.  The outer edges were not well defined as the soil here was lighter in color and more mottled.  In the middle of the feature the soil was very moist and somewhat ashy.  Zone 1 contained burned and unburned animal bones, glass beads, a clay pipe stem, and other artifacts.  At about 1.2 ft, Zone 1 changed to a lighter brown soil with clay.  This was designated Zone 2.  A large number of bear bones were noted at the intersection of Zones 1 and 2;  however, as the depth of Zone 2 increased, the amount of bone decreased and preservation deteriorated.  Beneath Zone 2 was a dome-shaped layer of brown mottled clay, labeled Zone 3.  This zone averaged 0.8 ft thick and extended to the bottom of the pit.  Zone 3 contained relatively little cultural material.  The floor of the pit was flat and the walls flared outward at the bottom to create a bell-shaped profile.

Page: Feature 29 Description, Page Number: 52  
Feature 29 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This circular feature lay approximately 5 ft north of Feature 28 and 7 ft northeast of Structure 4.  It was also located northwest of the cemetery burials and just outside the village palisade.  It was centered at 324.7R40.7 and measured 3.0 ft by 2.8 ft in plan view and 3.4 ft in depth.  The center portion of the pit was defined at the base of plowzone by a circular zone (Zone 1) of very dark grayish brown clay loam with animal bones and charcoal.  Surrounding Zone 1 was a band of mottled orange brown clay, designated Zone 2.  When this zone was excavated it created a shallow shelf surrounding the perimeter of the pit.  Zone 2 probably represents a transitional soil band that extended beyond the original pit wall.  Animal bone was concentrated in the center of Zone 1 and increased at the interface between Zone 1 and Zone 3, which was separated from Zone 1 by an ashy lens.  Zone 1 averaged 1.3 ft in thickness.  Zone 3 consisted of a reddish brown, ashy loam with animal bone and charcoal which averaged 0.8 ft in thickness.  Zone 3 lay atop Zone 4, a relatively thin (0.3 ft) band of yellowish red-brown mottled clay loam containing charcoal and animal bones.  Zone 4, in turn, rested on Zone 5, a band (0.6 ft thick) of soil similarly colored to Zone 4 except that it contained light ash at the northern edge of the pit.  The final zone, Zone 6, was defined by a yellowish red mottled clay with brown loam.  It was 0.4 ft thick.  The final four zones were very similar in fill characteristics and probably could be considered together as a single depositional episode.  The pit walls bowed out in the center, creating a barrel-shaped profile.  The pit floor was flat. In general, the amount of animal bone increased with the depth of the pit.  Bear and deer bones were noted, and an unusual number of deer scapulae appeared to be represented.

Page: Feature 30 Description, Page Number: 53  
Feature 30 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 30 was an almost circular feature that measured 2.9 ft by 2.8 ft in plan view and was 2.2 ft deep.  It was located just east of Structure 10 at 271.3R21.5.  At subsoil, the pit appeared as a circular patch of dark brown loam (designated Zone 1) with potsherds, rocks, and animal bone.  This fill zone also contained pockets of ash and yellow sandy clay, and it was approximately 1.5 ft deep.  Zone 1 rested upon Zone 2, which was similar except that it had a more reddish hue.  Zone 2 also contained less cultural material than Zone 1 and was approximately 0.7 ft thick.  The pit sides were straight and the bottom was flat.

Page: Feature 31 Description, Page Number: 54  
Feature 31 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This feature was first observed as an oval area of mottled clay in Sq. 260R20 during the 1985 excavations.  At that time the feature was augered and, based on the resultant fill profile, was thought to represent a possible burial.  Re-troweling in 1986 revealed a surface of orange mottled clay containing brown loam that surrounded a central area of brown loam.  In all respects, this configuration is very similar to that of burial pits as observed at the base of the plowzone.  Generally, the orange clay soil represents the original burial fill, whereas the central deposit of darker loam reflects humus or midden soil that has slumped into a depression created as the cavity surrounding the decayed body collapsed.

	The brown loam was labeled Zone 1 and the mottled clay was designated Zone 2.  Upon excavation, Zone 1 turned out to be very thin (0.2 ft) and contained a small triangular projectile point, a few fragments of animal bone, and flecks of charcoal.  Once Zone 1 was removed, the mottled clay fill extended uninterrupted across the length of the pit.  It, too, contained very few artifacts and the small fragments of bone observed were fragmentary and highly decomposed.  Zone 2 extended to the pit bottom, which was reached at a depth of 2.2 ft below the base of the plowzone.  In other dimensions the pit measured 3.1 ft in maximum length and 2.2 ft in width.  The pit walls were generally straight and sloped in slightly at the bottom.

	Given the size, configuration, and fill characteristics of the feature, the original assessment of it having served as a burial pit still seems valid.  The deteriorated state of the animal bone in the clay fill indicates conditions of poor bone preservation which might account for the lack of human bone at the bottom of the feature.  The size of the pit also indicates that the individual buried probably would have been a young child.  If so, the preservation potential of any skeletal remains would be even less.  It therefore is not surprising that human bones were not present; however, the absence of grave goods is somewhat uncharacteristic in light of the cemetery burials.  Perhaps they consisted of highly perishable organic materials such as cloth or furs.

Page: Feature 32 Description, Page Number: 55  
Feature 32 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 32 was a linear soil stain east of Structure 10 that probably represents a rodent disturbance.  It was mapped but not excavated.

Page: Feature 33 Description, Page Number: 56  
Feature 33 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	At subsoil, this feature had a fuzzy outline that appeared somewhat square.  It measured 3.0 ft long by 2.6 ft wide by 1.7 ft deep and was located within Structure 5 at 281.5R25.9.  A posthole intruded into the northern edge and was included as part of the feature excavation.  The posthole fill was designated Zone 1 and was a reddish brown loam with charcoal and animal bones.  The main fill of the feature, designated Zone 2, was a dark reddish brown ashy loam that contained charcoal, daub, animal bones, and part of a Fredricks Check Stamped jar.  This zone averaged 0.7 ft thick and rested upon Zone 3 which was similar to Zone 2 but more heterogeneous.  In addition to the dark reddish brown loam, Zone 3 also contained lenses of sandy ashy loam, brown yellow sand, and brown sandy clay.  Zone 3 averaged approximately 1.0 ft thick.  The pit walls were irregular with some insloping as well as undercutting.

Page: Feature 34 Description, Page Number: 57  
Feature 34 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This feature represents the remnants of the central hearth associated with Structure 5.  It was centered at 286.0R22.3.  The main body of the hearth has been destroyed by plowing, and Feature 34 represents only small fragments of burned clay that formed the base of the hearth.  It measured 3.2 ft by 3.1 ft on the subsoil surface.  A concentration of fired clay particles also was observed in the plowzone directly above Feature 34.

Page: Feature 35 Description, Page Number: 58  
Feature 35 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This roughly circular, cob-filled pit was located at 307.8R36.6, measured 0.9 ft by 0.8 ft in plan view, and was 0.6 ft deep.  It was the northernmost of three small pits (Feature 35, Feature 36, and Feature 37) aligned northeast-southwest and it intruded the Structure 6 wall trench.  Fill was a mottled orange soil with dense charcoal comprised of wood and corncobs.  The pit was conical in profile.

Page: Feature 36 Description, Page Number: 59  
Feature 36 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 36 was a small, irregular, cob-filled pit measuring 1.8 ft by 0.9 ft in plan view and 0.3 ft in depth.  Fill consisted of a mottled orange-and-brown loam with charcoal and charred cob fragments.  The profile was that of a shallow basin.  Feature 36 was located within Structure 6 in a line between Feature 35 and Feature 37.

Page: Feature 37 Description, Page Number: 60  
Feature 37 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 37 was an oval, basin-shaped feature located west of Structure 5 at 292.6R7.0.  It measured 1.8 ft by 1.0 ft in plan view, and it was 0.5 ft deep.  The feature was aligned on a northeast-southwest axis with Feature 35 and Feature 36.  The fill consisted of an almost sterile brown organic soil with some orange mottling.

Page: Feature 38 Description, Page Number: 61  
Feature 38 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This feature was a shallow, oval pit located just outside the village palisade at 305.5R11.5.  It measured 2.5 ft by 1.3 ft in plan view and had a maximum depth of 0.3 ft.  The fill consisted of swirls of mottled orange clay with some charcoal flecks.  It contained a glass bead, a few potsherds, and animal bones.  The sides sloped inward in all directions, creating a conical profile.

Page: Feature 39 Description, Page Number: 62  
Feature 39 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This was an irregular-shaped, shallow, oval basin located just inside the village palisade and east of Structure 6 at 308.2R39.8.  It measured 2.1 ft by 1.6 ft in plan view and had a maximum depth of 0.7 ft.  It appeared at the top of the subsoil as a patch of dark yellowish brown soil.  This soil, which continued to the bottom of the pit, contained a few large potsherds, pieces of quartz, animal bone, stone flakes, and charcoal.  Pit walls sloped slightly inward, giving the feature a basin shape.

Page: Feature 40 Description, Page Number: 63  
Feature 40 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 40 was a small, shallow basin measuring 1.3 ft by 1.0 ft by 0.2 ft deep.  It was centered at 318.5R33.5.  Fill consisted of a slightly mottled orange and brown loam with small amounts of charcoal.  The sides sloped inward creating a basin-shaped profile.  This feature was located inside Structure 4 and appears to be associated with it.

Page: Feature 41 Description, Page Number: 64  
Feature 41 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This roughly circular feature was located at 288.5R5.0, between Structure 5 and the village palisade.  It measured 3.5 ft by 3.2 ft and had a maximum depth of 1.9 ft.  At subsoil, the feature appeared as a circular stain of dark brown organic fill (Zone 1) with animal bones, charcoal, and several potsherds, including parts of two Fredricks Plain jars (first, second).  A metal pipe-bowl liner, glass beads, and clay pipe fragments also were found.  A concentration of burned and unburned animal bones was located near the bottom of this zone.  Several large rocks and potsherds were also associated with the burned bones.  A second zone (Zone 2), comprised of mottled yellowish orange clay, was noted along the pit walls on the northern and southwestern sides of the feature.  Underlying Zones 1 and 2, was Zone 3, a reddish brown, ashy loam with charcoal, burned clay, burned bone, and potsherds.  This zone was particularly rich in charred plant remains and animal bone.  It also contained an iron axe head, several clay pipe fragments, fire-cracked rocks, glass beads, and an ivory rosary bead.  Zone 1 was 1.2 ft thick, whereas Zone 3 averaged 0.7 ft thick.  Pit walls were straight and the bottom was flat.

Page: Feature 42 Description, Page Number: 65  
Feature 42 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 42 was located near the southeastern edge of the palisaded village at 198.0R73.0.  A circular stain of dark gray soil mottled with charcoal and burned clay flecks (designated Zone 1) defined this pit at the base of the plowzone.  Also noted at the pit surface were numerous animal bones and rock fragments.  Two gunflints and several glass beads were also recovered from Zone 1, which had a maximum thickness of about 0.5 ft.

	At the base of Zone 1, a gray ashy soil (designated Zone 2) was encountered. This zone was noticeably moist and got progressively wetter toward the bottom.  It contained numerous animal bones, several aboriginal and kaolin-clay pipe fragments, and one complete "onion-form" clay pipe.  Several rocks were also encountered.  Zone 2 extended to an average depth of 1.6 ft below the subsoil surface and rested on a thin band of mottled clay and gray soil, designated Zone 3, that contained almost no artifacts.  This zone extended to the bottom of the pit, which was reached at a depth of 1.8 ft.

	In plan, the feature was circular, measuring approximately 3.0 ft in diameter.  The sides bowed out slightly toward the bottom, creating a bell-shaped profile.  Apparently, the feature was originally excavated for storage purposes.  Given the composition of Zone 3, it appears that after the pit was emptied of its contents, an indeterminate amount of time passed before it was filled with debris.  The upper fill zones strongly suggest that hearth areas or other food preparation facilities were cleaned and the resulting refuse used to finish filling the pit.  The clay mottling in Zone 1 probably resulted from subsoil slumping into the pit as the fill settled.

Page: Feature 43 Description, Page Number: 66  
Feature 43 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 43 was located near the southeastern edge of the palisaded village at 209.5R80.5.  This feature is interpreted as a probable hearth and consisted of a fire-reddened area at the top of the subsoil measuring approximately 1.5 ft by 2.0 ft in diameter.  Augering of the center indicated that it was less than 0.3 ft deep.

Page: Feature 44 Description, Page Number: 67  
Feature 44 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 44 was located just east of Structure 13 at 201.2R59.3.  This pit appeared at the base of the plowzone as a roughly circular stain of brown loamy soil with some orange mottling and flecks of charcoal.  Its center was clearly defined and was encircled by a lighter collar of mottled brown and orange soil representing fill that had been smeared across the subsoil surface by plow action.  This rich brown layer, which contained lenses of gray ash, was excavated as Zone 1 and contained animal bone, potsherds, glass trade beads, and a brass bell.

	Zone 1 extended to a depth of approximately 0.9 ft and rested on a less compact zone of dark brown soil that contained large amounts of ash and charcoal.  This layer, designated Zone 2, was further distinguished from the upper fill by containing a dense concentration of animal bones, including three nearly intact turtle carapaces and a bear humerus.  It also contained potsherds, glass trade beads, an ivory bead, an aboriginal clay pipe, and pieces of lead shot.  Zone 2 averaged 0.9 ft in thickness.

	A lump of orange clay, similar to the surrounding subsoil, lay along the western wall of the feature and was labeled Zone 3.  This soil contained no artifacts and may represent slump from the pit wall while the feature was still being used for storage.

	The final zone, Zone 4, was identified by a uniform layer of dark reddish fill that was very moist and contained a considerable amount of ash.  This zone continued to the bottom of the pit and, like Zones 1 and 2, produced a rich array of artifacts and subsistence remains.

	Feature 44 measured 2.8 ft by 2.0 ft in plan and was 2.5 ft deep.  The north, south, and east walls were barrel-shaped in profile, whereas the west wall sloped outward at the bottom, creating a bell-shaped profile.  It is possible that the original west wall was inadvertently cut through during the course of the excavation.  If this was the case, the pit originally would have had a symmetrical barrel shape.

	The size and shape of the pit clearly indicate that it initially served as a subterranean storage facility prior to being abandoned and filled, within a brief time period, with refuse.  The composition of the fill zones suggests episodes of refuse disposal associated with cleaning in and around hearth and cooking areas.  The size of the deposits further suggests multi-household activities.

Page: Feature 45 Description, Page Number: 68  
Feature 45 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 45 was located just northeast of Structure 13 at 207.5R58.8.  This pit was observed at the subsoil surface as a circular stain of brown humus that contained animal bone and charcoal.  The brown humus comprised the only fill zone within the pit, and it was particularly rich in animal bone and European-made artifacts.  The latter include a bone-handled knife, gunflint, kaolin-clay pipe fragments, an iron blade, and numerous pieces of lead shot and glass beads.  The fill also contained two clusters of large fitting pottery sherds.

	The pit walls were straight and the bottom was flat.  After excavation, it measured 2.6 ft in diameter and was 1.5 ft deep.  The relatively shallow depth of the feature would seem to preclude its use as a storage facility.  The homogeneity of the fill indicates that it was refilled rapidly with household refuse, perhaps representing a single dumping episode.

Page: Feature 46 Description, Page Number: 69  
Feature 46 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 46 was located northwest of Structure 13 at 211.5R34.5.  Prior to excavation, this pit appeared as an oval-shaped stain of dark brown loam with charcoal flecks and mottled orange clay.  The outer perimeter of the stain consisted of a thin zone of lighter mottled soil that represented smear from the main body of the feature.  The soil (labeled Zone 1) that appeared at the base of the plowzone continued to the bottom of the pit.  It was homogeneous except for an occasional lump or small pocket of orange clay.  Cultural material consisted primarily of animal bone.  Relatively few artifacts were recovered other than a few European and aboriginal clay pipe fragments, lead shot, potsherds, glass beads, a hammerstone, and a possible grinding stone.

	The feature was slightly barrel shaped, had a flat bottom, and measured 2.6 ft by 2.4 ft.  It reached a depth below the subsoil of 2.0 ft.  The fill was deposited in the pit over a short period of time soon after it was abandoned as a storage facility.  The character of the fill is suggestive of general village midden.

Page: Feature 47 Description, Page Number: 70  
Feature 47 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 47 was located northeast of Structure 13 at 203.8R62.5.  This pit was observed at the base of the plowzone as a roughly circular patch of dark brown sandy soil (Zone 1) that contained several animal bone fragments, charcoal, and pockets of ash.  Toward the outer edge of the feature, the soil was lighter in color; a small pocket of yellow mottled fill was located along the southern edge.  Except for the bone, relatively few artifacts were contained within Zone 1.  European artifacts consisted of a few glass beads and one piece of lead shot.  This upper zone was approximately 0.6 ft thick and overlay Zone 2, which was defined by mottled clay with a mixture of sand, orange clay, ash, and some darker soil similar to Zone 1.  This fill contained numerous animal bones and many more potsherds than the upper zone.  In addition, pockets of ash and sand were noted throughout Zone 2. European-made artifacts from this zone consisted of glass trade beads.

	The walls of the pit sloped inward at the bottom, giving it a barrel-shaped profile.  The bottom was flat and extended to a depth of 1.6 ft below the subsoil surface.  The top of the pit measured 2.6 by 2.7 ft.

	This feature may have originally served as a shallow storage pit or perhaps as a soil recovery facility.  In either case, it was ultimately filled with household refuse, consisting primarily of animal bones.  The ash, sand, and charcoal deposits indicate that hearth areas within structures were also cleaned and their contents dumped into the pit along with the other debris.

Page: Feature 48 Description, Page Number: 71  
Feature 48 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This designation was assigned to a 35-ft segment of a long, irregular trench that ran in a north-south direction and intruded Structure 10 and Structure 11.  It averaged approximately 2.5 ft wide, 0.3 ft deep, and contained small amounts of pottery, rock, and European-made artifacts (primarily glass beads).  Thin traces of this feature were observed at the north end of the excavation in 1985 but were not excavated.  This earlier evidence, coupled with the 35-ft section excavated in 1986, indicate that the trench was at least 75 ft long.  Although this feature certainly post-dates both structures, it cannot be firmly associated with later Euroamerican activity in the site vicinity.  This conclusion is based on the fact that no Euroamerican artifacts were found in the trench that post-date the Occaneechi occupation of the site.  The exact nature and function of this feature is unknown.

Page: Feature 49 Description, Page Number: 72  
Feature 49 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This pit, located just north of Structure 13 at 212.5R49.2, was observed at the top of the subsoil as a roughly rectangular stain of mottled orange clay.  Three poorly defined postholes were plotted across the surface of the feature, but an attempt to separate their fill from that of the pit was unsuccessful.  Consequently, all the mottled orange clay soil, including that from the suspected postholes, was excavated as a unit and labeled Zone 1.

	After removing approximately 0.2 ft of Zone 1, it became apparent that a heavier concentration of charcoal and dark organic soil was present in the northeast section of the pit.  However, the area had no well-defined boundaries, and the transition from mottled clay to mottled clay with charcoal and organic soil was gradual.  At a depth of 0.5 ft below the top of the pit, the area with organic soil expanded until it encompassed approximately two-thirds of the pit area.  When an attempt was made to establish the pit walls, it became evident that a clay subsoil shelf extended around the pit along all but the southern wall.  This shelf created an off-set chamber that slightly undercut the southern wall.  Toward the bottom of the chamber, a thin layer, approximately 0.2 ft thick, of a more compact mottled clay was excavated as Zone 2.  This zone continued to the bottom of the pit, which was reached at a depth of 1.5 ft below the base of the plowzone.

	Very few artifacts or subsistence remains were recovered from the fill of the pit.  A kaolin-clay pipe stem and a gunflint were recovered from Zone 1, while a brass thimble was found near the bottom of the feature in Zone 2.

	Given the nature of the pit fill (i.e., its mottled clay composition with few artifacts) and the shaft-and-chamber configuration of the pit itself, this feature probably was used for human burial.  As with Feature 31, the mottled clay was not conducive to the preservation of organic material such as bone.  Also, the size of the pit suggests the interment of a young child, which would enhance the probability of skeletal remains not being preserved.  The thimble in the otherwise sterile mottled clay of Zone 2 may represent a modest grave offering.

Page: Feature 50 (Burial 12) Description, Page Number: 73  
Feature 50 (Burial 12) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	This burial was placed in a shaft-and-chamber pit and was located in the southern part of the site at 183.4R36.5, just outside the palisade in what appears to be a southern entrance into the village.  The pit was 2.4 ft long, 2.0 ft wide, and 1.1 ft deep.

Body Deposition

	This burial contained the remains of an infant who was about six months old at time of death.  Bone preservation was extremely poor, but it appears that the legs were flexed and the head pointed to the south-southwest.

Grave Goods
	Brass bells, which preserved small fragments of cane matting, were found in the leg area.  The presence of matting suggests that the body was wrapped prior to interment.  A lead bale seal and several shell beads also were present in the leg area.  At the landowner's request, all bones and associated grave goods were left in place and carefully covered with sand and clean soil.

Page: Feature 51 Description, Page Number: 74  
Feature 51 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 51 was located inside Structure 12 at 224.2R5.2.  This storage pit was observed at the base of plowzone as an almost circular stain of brown, ashy clay loam (Zone 2) that encircled an area of burned clay with a charcoal concentration (Zone 1).  Excavation revealed the latter to be a thin lens only about a 0.2 ft in thickness.  The Zone 2 soil maintained its consistency until near the pit bottom where increased amounts of yellow clay were encountered.  The fill was rich in animal bones and contained numerous artifacts, including potsherds, glass beads, clay pipe fragments, gunflints, a bone knife handle, a few stone tools, and fire-cracked rock.

	The pit bottom was slightly concave and the sides sloped inward at the bottom.  It measured 2.4 ft in diameter and was 2.0 ft deep.  This feature was rapidly filled soon after it ceased to be used for storage.  The ashy content of the fill, as well as the upper lens of burned orange clay, may indicate that this soil and refuse was collected as part of cleaning activities around an area of food preparation and consumption.

Page: Feature 52 Description, Page Number: 75  
Feature 52 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This shallow basin, located at 251.4L4.3, was identified during 1986 but was not excavated.  This feature was oval in plan dimension, approximately 2.0 ft in diameter, and intruded the Structure 11 wall trench.  Augering in the center indicated that it lacked any appreciable depth.

Page: Feature 53 Description, Page Number: 76  
Feature 53 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	This pit, located southeast of Structure 12 at 216.0R19.0, appeared at the base of the plowzone as a dark stain of brown loam mottled with orange clay (Zone 1).  On the surface, the central part of the fill was softer and had less clay mottling than the pit perimeter.  Pockets of mottled orange clay were noted in the upper 0.2 ft of Zone 1, which also contained noticeable quantities of charcoal and animal bones.

	At a depth of about 0.5 ft, a collar of slightly mottled orange clay was encountered (Zone 3).  This fill was left intact as excavation continued on Zone 1, which terminated at a depth of approximately 1.0 ft.  Beneath Zone 1 was a rich layer of more homogenous brown loam with charcoal and animal bone (Zone 2).  Large potsherds (first, second) and animal bone were particularly abundant at the top of Zone 2.  Toward the bottom of Zone 2, the soil became ashy and rapidly changed into a mottled orange clay (Zone 4) which contained few artifacts and extended to the pit bottom.  The excavation of Zone 3 revealed that it was a thin band resting on a subsoil clay shelf.

	In addition to the charcoal, animal bone, and pottery, several historic artifacts, including an iron axe, a pair of scissors, lead shot, gunflints, and glass beads, were recovered primarily from Zones 1 and 2.

	After excavation, the oval-shaped pit measured 2.7 by 2.9 ft in plan view and was 2.1 ft deep.  The walls were vertical from the subsoil surface to the top of the clay shelf.  From the shelf to the bottom of the pit, they sloped inward, creating a bowl-shaped profile.

	There is little doubt that the feature was originally intended as a storage facility and later refilled with refuse over a short period of time.  The shelf could have served to support a cover during its use-life as a storage pit.  The refuse indicates multiple dumping episodes from domestic activities associated with food preparation and consumption.  The small quantity of mottled clay in the upper fill zone may reflect deposits resulting from cleaning activities around a hearth area, whereas the more homogenous clay fill in the bottom of the feature may have been deposited as a consequence of soil slumping from the pit walls during its use as a storage facility.

Page: Feature 54 (Burial 14) Description, Page Number: 77  
Feature 54 (Burial 14) Description
by H. Trawick Ward

Pit Morphology

	This grave was located south of Structure 12 at 212.9R11.3.  As with other non-cemetery burials at the site, the deceased was buried in a shaft-and-chamber pit.  After excavation, the pit measured 3.5 ft long, 2.5 ft wide, and 1.3 ft deep.

Body Deposition

	In this burial, the loosely flexed remains of a 12-year-old subadult were placed in the side chamber of a shaft-and-chamber pit with the head oriented to the east.

Grave Goods

	Shell beads were strung around the neck and the right wrist.  European trade artifacts consisted of a brass buckle and several pewter buttons in the waist area, brass rings on the fingers of both hands, and numerous white glass beads in the area of the right hip.  At the landowner's request, all bones and associated grave goods were left in place and carefully covered with sand and clean soil.

Page: Feature 55 Description, Page Number: 78  
Feature 55 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 55 was located just inside the palisade at the southern entrance into the village (at 190.5R36.7).  A circular stain of dark brown loam mottled with orange clay (Zone 1) defined this pit at the subsoil surface.  The orange clay was more pronounced around the edge of the feature.  Zone 1 also contained small flecks of charcoal and calcined bone.  Cultural materials consisted primarily of a few potsherds, animal bones, and glass beads.  At a depth of 0.3 ft below the subsoil, the dark loam was replaced by a mottled orange clay with some brown loam (designated Zone 2).  Very few artifacts were recovered from this fill, which extended to the bottom of the pit at a depth of 0.6 ft.  The bottom was flat and the pit walls were irregular but generally sloped inward at the bottom.  The feature measured 2.6 ft by 2.9 ft at the base of plowzone.

	Feature 55 apparently intruded a segment of a wall trench associated with Structure 13.  Zone 1 fill was very similar to that of the wall trench.  The sparsity of cultural remains in both fill zones, the similarity between the wall-trench fill and Zone 1, and the mottled clay comprising Zone 2 suggest that the pit was quickly refilled with soil that was removed during its excavation.  It is difficult to determine the original function of the feature; however, it may have resulted from soil-recovery operations.

Page: Feature 56 Description, Page Number: 79  
Feature 56 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 56 was located between Structure 11 and the village palisade at 252.5L9.0, and it probably is associated with that structure.  At the top of the subsoil, the fill (Zone 1) from this pit was almost identical to that comprising Zone 1 of Feature 53.  It consisted of a brown loam mottled with small particles of orange clay and contained numerous animal bones and fragments of charcoal.  Also included within the zone were a large number of potsherds, two bone knife handles, a gun part, and both glass and shell beads.  The upper part of Zone 1 also contained a 0.3-ft thick lens of gray ash.  This ashy layer was virtually sterile except for a few potsherds and a couple of fragments of burned bone.

	Zone 1 was underlain by a brown loam mottled with tan ashy soil and small particles of burned red clay (Zone 2).  The artifacts and subsistence remains found in Zone 2 were comparable to those from Zone 1.

	The zone of fill, Zone 3, consisted of a mottled orange clay and also was very similar to the lower zone in Feature 53.  It measured 1.8 ft in thickness and comprised over half the total volume of the pit.  The cultural material recovered from this zone, however, was very sparse.

	The sides of the feature were generally straight, although they did slope inward slightly toward the bottom, which was flat. In plan, the pit was circular with a diameter of 2.8 ft, and was the deepest feature excavated on the site, extending 3.3 ft below the base of the plowzone.

	The pit morphology and fill characteristics suggest the following activity sequence: (1) the feature was initially used to store and probably conceal an unknown variety of goods and resources; (2) after being abandoned for storage, a large volume of clay soil mixed with humus from an unknown source, perhaps a nearby, freshly dug pit, was dumped into the empty hole; (3) food refuse mixed with household debris and ash was deposited atop the mottled clay; and (4) a larger amount of domestic refuse and fill derived from food preparation and consumption activities was used to completely fill the pit.

Page: Feature 57 Description, Page Number: 80  
Feature 57 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 57 was located between Structure 12 and Structure 13 at 215.9R26.3.  This cylindrical pit contained a single fill zone consisting of a mottled brown and yellow clay.  Artifacts included a few pottery sherds, glass beads, and poorly preserved fragments of animal bone.  These were concentrated at the top and bottom of the pit where the organic content was slightly higher.

	The pit walls were straight and sloped into a flat bottom at a depth of 1.3 ft.  The feature measured 2.4 ft by 2.3 ft across the top.  It appears to have been filled rapidly with a homogenous clay subsoil mixed with a small amount of surface dirt.  Although the pit may have originally served as a storage facility, it is relatively shallow compared with other features interpreted as storage pits.

Page: Feature 58 Description, Page Number: 81  
Feature 58 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 58 was located just inside the west wall of Structure 13 at 195.3R36.3.  At the top of the subsoil, this feature was observed to have two distinct zones of fill contained within an irregular oval outline.  Zone 1, located in the southern half, was a dark brown loam with charcoal flecks.  Other than a few poorly preserved fragments of animal bone, this fill was virtually sterile.  Zone 2 consisted of a mottled orange clay and brown loam which was located in the northern half of the feature and beneath Zone 1.  This fill was also sterile except for a few small bone fragments.  After excavation, the feature measured 2.6 ft by 2.2 ft and was 0.8 ft deep.  Given its irregular shape and shallow depth, it may have resulted from soil-recovery activities.

Page: Feature 59 Description, Page Number: 82  
Feature 59 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 59 was located within Structure 12 at 235.0R0.6.  At the subsoil surface, this pit was formed by an irregular-shaped expanse of brown loam (Zone 1) that contained bits of fired clay, charcoal, and animal bone.  Also found in this zone were potsherds and a variety of European-made artifacts, including gunflints, pieces of lead shot, iron fragments, and both glass and ivory beads.  Zone 1 extended to a depth of 0.6 ft and lay atop a brown ashy soil (Zone 2) that yielded numerous animal bones concentrated primarily along the sides of the pit.  Zone 2 also produced several European trade items such as kaolin-clay pipe fragments, pieces of lead shot, and glass beads.  It was roughly 0.6 ft at its thickest point.  Beneath Zone 2 was a layer of fired clay chunks and slabs (Zone 3) intermixed with a small amount of loamy soil.  The clay fragments extended across the pit and appear to have been part of a puddled clay hearth that was broken up and placed in the pit.  Most of the pieces were rough on one side and smoothed and curved on the opposite side.  Beneath the fired clay layer was Zone 4, a brown loamy soil with ash, charcoal, and numerous animal bones.  It also contained several potsherds, pieces of lead shot, and a bone-handled knife.  In most respects, Zone 4 was very similar to Zone 1.

	After excavation, the pit measured 3.6 ft by 2.5 ft and was 1.7 ft deep.  The sides sloped in and the bottom was flat, giving the feature a profile resembling a truncated cone.

	From the standpoint of activity reconstruction, this is one of the more interesting facilities at the site.  Although it is hard to discern the original purpose the pit was excavated to serve (its size and depth suggest storage), the re-filling sequence is fairly straightforward.  First, a layer containing food and household refuse was deposited; this was followed by the deposition of the remains of a clay hearth.  The hearth fragments were, in turn, covered by ash and debris from cleaning around hearth areas.  The pit was capped with another layer of food refuse and household debris.

Page: Feature 60 (Burial 27) Description, Page Number: 83  
Feature 60 (Burial 27) Description
by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.

Pit Morphology

	Feature 60 (Burial 27) was a shaft-and-chamber burial located south of Structure 12 at the southwestern edge of the village (at 211.8R10.0).  It was oriented along a northwest-southeast axis, with the burial chamber undercutting the northeast wall.  Although this feature was identified and  partly mapped in 1986, it was not excavated until 1995 when the final three 10-ft-by-10-ft units at the site (Sq. 190R10, Sq. 200R0, and Sq. 200R10) were exposed.  At the top of subsoil, Feature 60 measured 4.1 ft long by 3.6 ft wide and appeared as an irregular patch of dark brown loam (designated Zones 1 and 1a) surrounded by a mixture of dark brown loam and orange mottled clay (designated Zone 2).  Zones 1 and 1a contained charcoal, animal bone, glass beads, and other artifacts, and were about 0.3 ft thick.  They were underlain by Zone 2 which extended about 2.5 ft to the bottom of the pit.

	The pit morphology and placement of this burial, as well as the kinds of grave goods found, suggest that it may predate the Occaneechi village and be associated with a slightly earlier (c. 1670) occupation of the nearby Jenrette site.

Burial Deposition

	Although the human remains were poorly preserved, the burial appears to be that of an adult of undetermined sex.  The skeleton was loosely flexed and lying on the left side, with the head oriented toward the southeast.

Grave Goods

	At least 10 small columella beads were observed in the neck area and apparently represent a bead necklace.  Three small copper fragments and two small glass beads also were found while cleaning around bone, but it is uncertain whether they are grave goods or simply inclusions within the burial fill.

Page: Feature 61 Description, Page Number: 84  
Feature 61 Description
by H. Trawick Ward

	Feature 61 was located near Structure 12 at 223.8L3.8.  At the surface of the subsoil, this feature appeared to be a large burial pit, roughly circular in outline but oriented along a slight northwest-southeast axis.  The fill was comprised of a single zone, a light brown loam mottled with orange clay.  In the first 0.8 ft, an occasional, poorly preserved animal bone was encountered. At a depth of about one foot, a thicker concentration of animal bone as well as other artifacts was noted.  Most of the bone was deer except for three intact turtle shell carapaces.  In this same general area were several glass trade beads, a kaolin-clay pipe bowl with a split stem, three gunflints, and a large polished-stone disk.  A concentration of large Fredricks Checked Stamped potsherds was uncovered at this same depth along the eastern edge of the pit.

	Unfortunately, the pit was flooded before excavation was completed, making the lower pit sides and bottom difficult to define. The east wall and a portion of the bottom near the center probably were cut through by the excavators.  After excavation, the feature measured 3.7 ft by 3.2 ft and was 2.1 ft deep.

	The function of this pit is enigmatic.  Apparently, the pit was dug, perhaps for storage purposes or even as a burial container, and then rapidly filled with the same excavated soil.  Just before the fill reached the top, a variety of trade artifacts, animal bones, and a broken pot were tossed in.  Subsequently, the filling process continued with the same soil.

Page: Introduction to Artifact Analyses, Page Number: 85  
Introduction

	Four major classes of artifacts were recovered from the Fredricks site: pottery, stone tools, shell ornaments, and European trade items.  Each of these classes is described separately.  Lists of tables and figures, found at the end of each artifact analysis section, allow the reader to view tabular data and numerous illustrations.

	Although native-made clay pipes and pipe fragments have not been systematically and completely analyzed, they are generally described and illustrated (along with English-made kaolin-clay pipes) in the section on European trade items.  Likewise, the few fragments of worked bone from the site are discussed with faunal remains (under Food Remains).

Page: Pottery: Introduction, Page Number: 86  
Introduction

	Native pottery comprises one of the most abundant and ubiquitous classes of artifacts recovered at the Fredricks site. This section describes the assemblage of ceramic artifacts that was recovered from archaeological features during the four years of excavation at the site and considers what the collection may mean in terms of intrasite ethnic composition.  The majority of these artifacts, including those recovered from pits and burials that also contained Euroamerican trade items, represent the material remains of an Occaneechi pottery-making tradition.  Some potsherds, however, are either associated with an earlier Haw River phase occupation (c. A.D. 1000) centered at the nearby Hogue site or represent roughly contemporary vessels that fall outside the range of variability expected for Occaneechi pottery.  Some of these latter potsherds appear to be associated with the late seventeenth-century occupation of the nearby Jenrette site.

	Pottery samples recovered during the 1983–1986 excavation seasons at the Fredricks site are summarized in Table 1.  Potsherds from Feature 60 (Burial 27), excavated in 1995, have not been analyzed.

Pottery Type Descriptions:

	A total of 7,877 ceramic artifacts, including eight whole vessels that occurred as grave offerings, were recovered from undisturbed sub-plowzone contexts at the Fredricks site (see Table 2). An additional 54,875 potsherds were recovered from disturbed plowed soil.  The descriptions that follow are limited to those artifacts that were recovered from pit features and burials which possess contextual integrity (n=7,787).  Of these, 3,864 sherds (49.6%) were either too small or too eroded to be classified.  Sherds from other contexts, such as structure wall trenches and plowzone, are not described here.

	Two pottery types—Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped—comprise 78% of all identifiable ceramic artifacts recovered from features and burials and thus are the predominant types associated with the Occaneechi occupation of the site. Another type—Uwharrie Net Impressed—is associated with an earlier site occupation represented by Feature 30 and radiocarbon dated to A.D. 920 ± 60 (Beta-20378) (uncorrected).  Other pottery categories at the site are defined primarily by exterior surface treatment and include (in descending order of frequency): simple stamped, brushed, cord marked, cob impressed, and complicated stamped.
	Most information about vessel morphology and function is based upon 35 whole vessels and reconstructed vessel sections.  Data specific to these vessels are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.

Page: Pottery: Fredricks Plain, Page Number: 87  
Fredricks Plain

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds (top row), Vessel 5, Vessel 10, Vessel 15, Vessel 19, Vessel 20, Vessel 23, Vessel 29, and Vessel 30.

Sample Size

	N=1,202 (including two whole vessels and five vessel sections).

Distribution

	1,198 specimens from Occaneechi features, four specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: The presence of thickened basal sherds and other sherds displaying coil seam fractures indicate that most vessels were constructed by applying thin annular strips of clay to a basal plate.  In addition, a small number of hand-modeled sherds and two small hand-modeled vessels also were recovered.

	Temper: Sherds are tempered predominantly with fine sand (84.0%).  Other tempering materials that were incorporated into the potters' paste include coarse crushed feldspar (2.0%), fine crushed feldspar (6.0%), crushed quartz (4.0%), and mixed feldspar and crushed quartz (4.0%).

	Texture: Texture is generally even and compact.  Temper particles comprise 10% to 30% of the paste.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Exterior surface color ranges from black (7.5YR 2/0) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pink (7.5YR 8/2).  Most sherds have generally light exteriors and black firing clouds are common. Interior surfaces also exhibit the same range of colors.

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The exterior surface has been smoothed, obliterating evidence of previous stamping.  Although the majority of sherds in the Occaneechi feature sample are uniformly smoothed, about one third (n=400) have exteriors that were only roughly smoothed.  Conversely, three of the four sherds from Feature 30 have roughly smoothed exteriors.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Over 98.0% of the sherds in the Occaneechi feature sample have smoothed interiors, whereas three of the four plain sherds from Feature 30 were scraped on the interior surface.  None of the vessels and vessel sections exhibit any evidence of smudging or sooting.

Decoration

	Decoration of plain vessels was rare, being represented by only 17 sherds.  Modes of decoration include: oblique incisions along the vessel lip (30.8%), V-shaped notches along the lip (23.1%), incised V's along the vessel neck (7.7%), and V-shaped notches along the lip/rim edge (3.9%).  In addition, one neck sherd and eight body sherds have drill holes indicative of attempts to mend cracked vessels and thus to extend their use life.

Form (click to see vessel profiles)
 
	Rim: Of the 131 rimsherds recovered, 106 are of sufficient size to determine parent vessel rim morphology.  The majority represent jars with either simple everted (81.1%), everted and folded (2.8%), or straight (9.4%) rims.  Only a few sherds were recovered which represent bowls with simple inverted (5.7%) or carinated (0.9%) rims.

	Lip: Most lip profiles are either straight-sided and rounded (48.9%) or straight-sided and flat (39.7%).  The remainder are thickened and flat (4.6%), thickened and rounded (2.3%), and pointed (4.6%).

	Body: Of the seven reconstructed vessels and vessel sections recovered, five are restricted sub-conoidal to globular jars and two are unrestricted jars.

	Base: Slightly pointed to rounded.

	Thickness: 2–4 mm (6.4%), 4–6 mm (28.9%), 6–8 mm (51.6%), 8–10 mm (9.9%), >10 mm (2.0%), Indeterminate (1.3%). 

	Size: Both unrestricted bowls (Vessel 5 and Vessel 15) are small, measuring only 9–10 cm in orifice diameter and 7 cm (n=1) in height.  Of the five restricted jars, both hand-modeled vessels (Vessel 10 and Vessel 29) also are small, measuring 11–12 cm in diameter and 11 cm (n=1) in height, while the three coiled vessels (Vessel 19, Vessel 20, and Vessel 30) are substantially larger and measure 18–30 cm in orifice diameter by 20–30 cm in height (estimated).  Based on overall physical condition, these latter vessels apparently were used for storage rather than as cooking pots.

Comments

	Fredricks Plain comprises a major constituent of the pottery assemblage manufactured and used by the Occaneechi at the Fredricks site.  This type represents a variety of different forms that probably were functionally distinct, including small jars, large storage jars, and shallow bowls.  This latter form apparently was only rarely manufactured.  Because of a general lack of carbonized remains or sooting on the sherd and vessel surfaces, it is likely that these vessels normally were not used for cooking. Vessel 30, because of its similarity in form to a cord-marked vessel found in association with it and its dissimilarity to other Fredricks Plain vessels, may represent a different pottery-making tradition.

	As with Fredricks Check Stamped, the other dominant type present within the Fredricks ceramic assemblage, Fredricks Plain sherds have not been recognized within sherd collections from other late period sites within the region.  Consequently, it is not yet possible to map its spatial distribution beyond the Hillsborough locality.  General similarities can be seen in pottery of the Oldtown series, recovered from the historic Upper Saratown site (31Sk1a) and described by Wilson (1983); however, there also are important differences associated with overall morphology and modes of decoration.  Hillsboro Plain pottery, associated with the nearby, late prehistoric Wall site, also is distinctively different with respect to morphology and decoration.

Page: Pottery: Fredricks Check Stamped, Page Number: 88  
Fredricks Check Stamped

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds, Vessel 2, Vessel 3, Vessel 4, Vessel 6, Vessel 7, Vessel 8, Vessel 12, Vessel 13, Vessel 14, Vessel 16, Vessel 18, Vessel 21, Vessel 24, Vessel 25, Vessel 26, Vessel 31, Vessel 32, Vessel 33, and Vessel 35.

Sample Size

	N=1,864 (including five whole vessels and 14 vessel sections).

Distribution

	1,864 specimens from Occaneechi features, no specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Vessels were constructed by applying thin annular strips of clay to a basal plate.  Welding of adjoining coils apparently was not always successful as most large vessel sections represent the upper rim and neck portion of vessels whose bottoms had separated along coil seams just below the shoulder. Despite these failures, Fredricks Check Stamped vessels appear to have been exceptionally well made.  Unlike Fredricks Plain, no examples of hand-modeled check-stamped vessels are present in the ceramic sample.

	Temper: As with Fredricks Plain, sherds are tempered predominantly with fine sand (91.9%).  Other temper types observed include medium-to-fine crushed quartz (7.3%) and crushed feldspar (0.8%).  Almost all crushed quartz tempered sherds are from a single vessel (Vessel 12).

	Texture: Even and compact.  Temper comprises 20% to 30% of the paste.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Exterior surfaces range from black (7.5YR 2/0) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pink (7.5YR 8/2).  In contrast to Fredricks Plain sherds, Fredricks Check Stamped sherds and vessels tend to have darker surfaces.  Most interior surfaces are smudged and range in color from very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0) to black (7.5YR 2/0).

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The exterior surface has been stamped with a carved paddle possessing a square to diamond-shaped grid pattern comprised of parallel grooves cut perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to one another.  Lands usually are 1–2 mm wide and rarely are more than 3–5 mm apart.  Stamp impressions are typically faint, shallow, and hard to discern, suggesting either the use of worn paddles or, more likely, final stamping once the exterior surface had partially dried.  Given this characteristic, it seems likely that several of the sherds classified as Fredricks Plain represent sherds from poorly-stamped Fredricks Check Stamped vessels. A single reconstructed vessel section (Vessel 12 from Feature 18) does not conform to this pattern; instead, it has large checks (lands 3–4 mm wide and spaced 8–9 mm apart) that are boldly applied. Interestingly, this vessel is tempered with medium crushed quartz rather than fine sand and occurred in association with a broken simple-stamped vessel (Vessel 11) with the same tempering material.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Of the 1,860 sherds that can be classified according to interior surface finish, all but two (99.9%) are smoothed.  All of the small vessel and vessel section interiors are smudged and contain deposits of soot and carbonized organic material (unidentified).  Most large vessel sections also possess similar characteristics.

Decoration

	Decoration of Fredricks Check Stamped vessels consists solely of oblique incisions or linear impressions along the lip and occurs on 33.7% of the 187 rimsherds examined.  As with Fredricks Plain, drilled sherds are relatively common (n=23) and indicate attempts to repair cracked vessels.

Form (click to see small and large vessel profiles)

	Rim: Of the 187 rimsherds in the sample, 70.0% are everted, 9.1% are straight, 2.1% are inverted, and 18.8% are indeterminate.

	Lip: Lip profiles are predominantly straight-sided and flat (73.3%) but occasionally are either thickened and flat (16.6%) or straight-sided and rounded (10.1%).

	Body: All 19 whole vessels and vessel sections represent restricted jars.

	Base: Slightly pointed to rounded.

	Thickness: 2–4 mm (28.9%), 4–6 mm (44.2%), 6–8 mm (22.4%), 8–10 mm (1.7%), >10 mm (0.2%), Indeterminate (2.6%).  These data indicate that Fredricks Check Stamped vessel walls are significantly thinner than those of Fredricks Plain vessels.

	Size: In addition to the five whole pots that were recovered, 13 vessel sections are sufficiently complete to allow determinations of overall vessel size.  These specimens suggest the presence of two major size categories.  Small jars, represented by three vessel sections (Vessels 3, 18, and 24) and all five whole vessels (Vessels 6, 7, 8, 14, and 16), range from 12–20 cm in orifice diameter (mean=15.9, s.d.=2.37, n=8) and from 11–18 cm in height (mean=14.2, s.d.=3.12, n=5).  Large jars, represented by 10 vessel sections (Vessels 2, 4, 12, 13, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, and 35), range from 25–34 cm in orifice diameter (mean=30.1, s.d.=2.91, n=10) and from 31–36 cm in height (mean=34.3, s.d.=1.92, n=4).

Comments

	Fredricks Check Stamped was the major ceramic type recovered from Occaneechi features at the Fredricks site and, together with Fredricks Plain, comprise over 90% of all sherds recovered from feature contexts.  Although strict functional studies of vessels representing these two types has not been undertaken, observations made during the analysis regarding vessel form and condition indicate that Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped may be functional complements of one another. Differences in overall vessel size, morphological variability, and vessel wall thickness, together with a prevalence of sooting and caked residues on the interiors of check-stamped vessels and corresponding absence on plain vessel interiors, suggest that Fredricks Check Stamped jars probably functioned primarily as cooking vessels and secondarily as storage jars while Fredricks Plain vessels probably were used more for storage and perhaps culinary activities.  Moreover, these two types seem to represent the primary assemblage of pottery vessels that were manufactured by the Occaneechi inhabitants of the Fredricks site. Other types, excluding Uwharrie Net Impressed which is argued to be contamination from an earlier occupation (see Uwharrie Net Impressed description), may represent vessels that were either made elsewhere or made locally by non-Occaneechi potters.

	The predominance of check stamping in the ceramic assemblage is somewhat problematic in that few other late sites within the region contain more than minor amounts of check-stamped sherds and almost none are reported from surveys and test excavations along the upper Roanoke River, the supposed homeland of the Occaneechi (see Miller 1962).  If Fredricks Check Stamped is derived from Hillsboro Check Stamped, which comprises about 14% of the ceramic assemblage from the earlier nearby Wall site (Davis 1987), then reconstructions of cultural developments within the Eno drainage may be more complex than previously thought.  In any event, Hillsboro Check Stamped represents the sole precedent for check stamping within the northern North Carolina Piedmont.

Page: Pottery: Simple Stamped Pottery, Page Number: 89  
Simple Stamped Pottery

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds (second row from bottom), Vessel 11, and Vessel 34.

Sample Size

	N=213 (including two vessel sections).

Distribution

	213 specimens from Occaneechi features, no specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Same as Fredricks Check Stamped. No examples of hand-modeled vessels were observed.

	Temper: A majority of the simple-stamped sherds are tempered with fine sand (62.4%).  Other tempers include medium-to-fine crushed quartz (25.4%) and fine crushed feldspar (12.2%).  Most of the crushed quartz tempered sherds are from a single vessel (Vessel 11).

	Texture: Even and moderately compact.  Temper comprises about 10% to 25% of the paste.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Exterior surface color ranges from black (7.5YR 2/0) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pink (7.5YR 8/2).  Most sherds have generally light exteriors and black firing clouds are common. Interior surfaces also display the same range of colors. 

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The exterior surface has been stamped with a carved wooden paddle containing a pattern of parallel lands and grooves.  A majority of the sherds, including those from the two reconstructed vessel sections, display shallow stamping with lands and grooves aligned parallel or slightly oblique to the rim edge. This is the predominant method of stamping at other seventeenth-century Piedmont sites where simple stamping occurs (Davis 1987; Wilson 1983).  Only a few sherds conform to the late prehistoric/protohistoric Hillsboro Simple Stamped type, where stamps are typically bold and are applied perpendicular to one another in order to produce a distinctive herringbone pattern.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Over 99.0% of all simple-stamped sherd interiors are uniformly smoothed.  Neither vessel section displays any evidence of smudging or sooting.

Decoration

	Eighteen (51.4%) of the 35 simple-stamped rimsherds are decorated.  Fourteen of these sherds, including those from Vessel 11, have V-shaped notches along the lip; one sherd is notched along the lip/rim edge; one possesses oblique incisions along the lip (similar to the mode of decoration observed for Fredricks Check Stamped); and two sherds with rim folds have circular reed punctations along the fold.

Form (click to see vessel profile)

	Rim: A majority (74.3%) of the rims are simple everted. Other rim forms include everted and folded (5.7%), straight (8.6%), and indeterminate (11.4%).

	Lip: Lip profiles are mostly straight-sided and flat (65.7%), followed by straight-sided and rounded (28.5%), thickened and flat (2.8%), and thickened and rounded (2.8%).

	Body: Both vessel sections and most other rimsherds represent restricted jar forms.

	Base: Rounded.

	Thickness: 2–4 mm (7.0%), 4–6 mm (24.4%), 6–8 mm (43.2%), 8–10 mm (24.4%), >10 mm (0.9%).

	Size: Only one vessel section (Vessel 11) and a large rimsherd (Vessel 34) were large enough to determine overall vessel size and morphology.  Vessel 11, a large jar, is 27 cm in orifice diameter and about 32 cm in height while Vessel 34 is a small jar approximately 14 cm wide at the mouth.  Although these data are limited, they appear to reflect a similar size distribution observed for Fredricks Check Stamped.

Comments

	Simple-stamped sherds are only a minor constituent of the Fredricks site ceramic assemblage, comprising about 5.5% of the feature sherd sample.  Given attribute frequency differences from Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped related to temper type, rim form, and decoration, simple-stamped sherds are not included within the Fredricks ceramic series attributed to the Occaneechi.  However, it is clear from the occurrence of at least two vessel sections within Occaneechi features that some simple-stamped jars were in use during the major occupation of the Fredricks site.  It is suggested here, though by no means demonstrated, that these simple-stamped vessels may be of non-Occaneechi origin or at least manufactured by potters of a different ceramic tradition.  Pottery with similar attributes have been recovered at the Mitchum site, a slightly earlier historic Indian village along the Haw River which is thought to have been occupied by the Sissipahaw (Davis 1987); and similar pottery also has been recovered from the nearby Jenrette site, a possible Shakori village of the late seventeenth century (Ward and Davis 1993).

Page: Pottery: Cord Marked Pottery, Page Number: 90  
Cord Marked Pottery

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds (bottom right), Vessel 9, Vessel 27, and Vessel 28.

Sample Size

	N=83 (including one whole vessel and two vessel sections).

Distribution

	83 specimens from Occaneechi features, no specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Coiling and use of a paddle-and-anvil technique.

	Temper: Although a majority of sherds (86.8%) are tempered with fine sand, some sherds are tempered with fine crushed feldspar (9.6%), medium crushed quartz (2.4%), and mixed quartz and feldspar (1.2%).

	Texture: Even and compact.  Temper comprises 10–20% of the paste.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Exterior surfaces range in color from black (5YR 2/1) to yellowish red (5YR 4/8) to pink (5YR 8/4).  Interior surfaces, usually smudged, range from black (7.5YR 2/0) to gray (7.5YR 5/0).

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The exterior surface has been stamped with a cord-wrapped paddle.  Stamp impressions mostly represent moderately thick-to-fine (1.0–3.0 mm) Z-twisted cordage (88.0%) with the remainder representing S-twisted cordage (12.0%).

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Almost 93.0% of the sherds have plain smoothed interiors; the remainder are scraped.  The whole vessel (Vessel 9) is uniformly blackened on the interior while one of the vessel sections (Vessel 28) contains deposits of carbonized organic material along the interior neck area.

Decoration

	Decoration is rare and consists of oblique incisions along the lip (n=1), smoothing of the rim/lip edge (n=1), and parallel finger impressions along the neck (n=1).  In addition, two neck sherds and one body sherd possess drilled mend holes.

Form (click to see vessel profiles)

	Rim: Seven of the nine rimsherds are everted; one is inverted; and one is indeterminate.

	Lip: Six rimsherds have flat lips while the remaining three are rounded.

	Body: Only the whole vessel (Vessel 9) and one vessel section (Vessel 28) provided specific information about vessel shape. Vessel 9 is a shallow bowl with a rounded body while Vessel 28 is a straight-sided sub-conoidal jar which probably had a pointed base. Although no other shallow bowls like Vessel 9 were recovered, Vessel 28 is very similar in form to a Fredricks Plain jar (Vessel 30) recovered from the same feature (Feature 53).

	Base: See Body discussion.

	Thickness: 2–4 mm (12.0%), 4–6 mm (41.0%), 6–8 mm (43.4%), 8–10 mm (2.4%), >10 mm (1.2%).

	Size: Vessel 9 is 19 cm in diameter and 10 cm high. Vessel 28 is 26 cm in diameter and approximately 22 cm high.

Comments

	Cord-marked sherds, recovered exclusively from Occaneechi features, comprise only 2.2% of the total ceramic sample.  Although their association with the historic occupation of the site was only predicted by previous ceramic analyses (see Davis 1987), this association has since been demonstrated through the occurrence of a whole vessel as a funerary object and the recovery of two other reconstructed vessel sections from feature contexts.  Despite these contextual relationships, it appears unlikely that cord marking was an integral component of Occaneechi pottery-making.  In addition to the aberrant vessel forms represented, almost half of the sherds recovered from features are from only two separate vessels. Both factors argue strongly that these vessels probably were introduced into the site's vessel assemblage by non-Occaneechi potters; however, no possible source areas can be suggested at present.

Page: Pottery: Uwharrie Net Impressed, Page Number: 91  
Uwharrie Net Impressed

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds (top row, second row left), Vessel 1, and Vessel 17.

Sample Size

	N=397 (including two vessel sections).

Distribution

	326 specimens from Occaneechi features, 71 specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Preparation of a basal disk, with the addition of thin annular clay strips that were welded together using a paddle-and-anvil technique.

	Temper: Sherds are tempered predominantly with coarse or fine sand (69.4%), followed by medium crushed quartz (13.2%), fine crushed quartz (9.2%), coarse crushed quartz (4.5%), crushed feldspar (1.8%), and mixed quartz and feldspar (1.8%).  A proportionately greater number of sherds with coarse crushed quartz temper, mostly representing a single vessel, were recovered from Feature 30.

	Texture: Rough, gritty, and compact.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Both exterior and interior surfaces usually have the same color and range from dark brown (7.5YR 4/4) to yellowish red (5YR 5/6).

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The exterior surface has been stamped with a net-wrapped paddle.  Both plain looped and knotted nets are represented; however, no attempt was made to determine specific net types on individual sherds.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Of the 347 sherds that could be classified as to interior surface finish, 92.8% were scraped with a serrated tool.  The remainder have smoothed interiors.

Decoration

	Decoration of Uwharrie Net Impressed vessels was common and occurred along the lip, neck, and shoulder.  Twelve (46.2%) of the 26 rimsherds in the sample have V-shaped notches along the lip or lip/rim edge.  The next most common method of decoration, observed on seven sherds, is the placement of fingernail or fingertip punctations along the neck.  Other decorations include incising along the shoulder (n=3), smoothing of the rim (n=1), short perpendicular incisions along the neck (n=1), and parallel brushed bands along the neck.

Form

	Rim: All identifiable rimsherds in the sample are everted.

	Lip: Twenty-two (84.6%) of the 26 rimsherds have rounded lips; the remaining four are flattened.

	Body: Sub-conoidal jars.

	Base: Conoidal.

	Thickness: Net-impressed sherds are generally thicker than Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped sherds.  Sherd thickness distribution is as follows: 2–4 mm (0.3%), 4–6 mm (4.5%), 6–8 mm (48.9%), 8–10 mm (38.9), >10 mm (6.3%), and Indeterminate (1.1%).

	Size: Only two large rimsherds (Vessels 1 and 17) provide information about vessel size.  Both apparently represent sub-conoidal jars with orifice diameters of 16 cm and 22 cm, respectively.

Comments

	The Uwharrie Net Impressed type, while never formally defined, was used by Coe (1952:307–308) to describe the pottery associated with his Uwharrie Focus, a late prehistoric culture complex in piedmont North Carolina.  Radiocarbon dates from both the Fredricks site and the nearby Hogue site place the use of this pottery type in the Eno Valley at about A.D. 1000.  Areally, this type is widespread and occurs throughout much of piedmont North Carolina and southern Virginia.  Its temporal range also appears extensive when compared to other pottery types recognized for the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods.

	In an earlier analysis of pottery from the Fredricks site, it was concluded that the net-impressed pottery (described here) probably also predated the site's historic Occaneechi occupation since most sherds from features had eroded edges and differed significantly from the other ceramics in terms of most technological and stylistic attributes (Davis 1987).  This conclusion was substantiated by the discovery of Feature 30, which contained an abundance of net impressed pottery (including fitting sherds) in the absence of either European trade artifacts or Fredricks Series pottery.  Whereas Uwharrie Net Impressed sherds made up only 8.5% of the sample from Occaneechi features, they comprised 87.7% of all sherds from Feature 30.

Page: Pottery: Brushed Pottery, Page Number: 92  
Brushed Pottery

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds (second row from bottom, right).

Sample Size

	N=134.

Distribution

	129 specimens from Occaneechi features, five specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Coiling with use of paddle-and-anvil technique.

	Temper: Sherds are tempered predominantly with coarse to fine sand (78.0%) and medium to fine crushed quartz (15.9%).  Other tempering materials include crushed feldspar (3.7%) and mixed quartz and feldspar (2.4%).

	Texture: Varies from even and compact to gritty.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Similar to Uwharrie Net Impressed.

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	Exterior surface has been scraped with a twig brush, serrated shell, or edge of a malleating paddle.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Interior surfaces are either smoothed (54.5%) or scraped (45.5%).

Decoration

	Forty percent of the rimsherds are decorated, which consists of V-shaped or fingernail notches along the lip. Other decorative modes include pinching (along the shoulder ?) and fingernail or fingertip impressions along the neck.

Form

	Rim: Four of the 10 rimsherds are everted, one is everted and folded, two are straight, one is inverted, and two are of indeterminate shape.

	Lip: Eight lips are rounded and two are flattened.
	
	Body: Restricted jars and possibly unrestricted bowls.

	Base: No data.

	Thickness: 4–6 mm (9.8%), 6–8 mm (70.7%), 8–10 mm (17.1%), >10 mm (2.4%).  Sherd thickness is similar to Dan River Net Impressed. 

	Size: No data.

Comments

	Brushed sherds comprise 3.3% of the Occaneechi Feature sherd sample and 6.2% of the Feature 30 sample.  Given that no vessel sections were recovered, it is not possible to determine what vessel forms are represented or to clearly ascertain the cultural association of these remains.  Attributes such as sherd thickness, color, lip form, and decoration correspond more closely to Uwharrie Net Impressed and therefore suggest a non-Occaneechi primary association; however, relatively large brushed sherds were recovered from both feature contexts.  Given this distribution, it is plausible that at least some pots from the historic Occaneechi occupation also were being brushed.

Page: Pottery: Cob Impressed Pottery, Page Number: 93  
Cob-Impressed Pottery

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherds.

Sample Size

	N=15.

Distribution

	14 specimens from Occaneechi features, one specimen from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Coiling with use of paddle-and-anvil technique.

	Temper: Sherds are tempered with sand (86.7%) and fine crushed feldspar (13.3%).

	Texture: Mostly coarse and gritty.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5.

	Color: Same as Dan River Net Impressed.

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	The surface has been impressed with a dried corncob, applied by rolling across the vessel exterior.

Surface Finish (Interior)

	Ten of 13 sherds with preserved interior surfaces were smoothed; the remainder were scraped.

Decoration

	One of four rimsherds have V-shaped notches along the lip.

Form

	Rim: The four rimsherds have everted and rolled (n=2), everted (n=1), and indeterminate (n=1) rim profiles.

	Lip: All rimsherds have rounded lips.

	Body: Only restricted jar forms are represented.

	Base: No data.

	Thickness: 4–6 mm (13.3%), 6–8 mm (80.0%), Indeterminate (6.7%).

	Size: No data.

Comments

	Cob-impressed pottery occurs as a minority type in sherd assemblages from both late prehistoric and protohistoric sites within the northern North Carolina Piedmont, including the nearby Jenrette (31Or231a) and Wall (31Or11) sites (see map),  and the Lower Saratown (31Rk1) and Mitchum (31Ch452) sites (see map).  Although most sherds came from historic features, their association with the Occaneechi occupation at the Fredricks site is uncertain.

Page: Pottery: Complicated Stamped Pottery, Page Number: 94  
Complicated Stamped Pottery

Illustrated Specimens

	Potsherd.

Sample Size

	N=15.

Distribution

	15 specimens from Occaneechi features, no specimens from Feature 30 (Haw River phase).

Paste

	Method of Manufacture: Coiling with use of paddle-and-anvil technique.

	Temper: Twelve sherds are tempered with fine sand and three contain fine crushed quartz.

	Texture: Even and compact.

	Hardness: 2.5–3.5. 

	Color: Exterior surface color ranges from dark brown (7.5YR 4/4) to very pale brown (10YR 8/4).

Surface Finish (Exterior)

	Eleven sherds possess curvilinear stamp motifs while four have rectilinear stamps.  No specific design elements are discernible.

Surface Finish (Interior)
	All sherds interiors are smoothed.

Decoration

	None.

Form

	Rim: The single rimsherd was everted.

	Lip: Rounded.

	Body: Restricted jars?

	Base: No data.

	Thickness: 4–6 mm (33.3%), 6–8 mm (66.7%). 

	Size: No data.

Comments

	Complicated stamping is a rare method of surface treatment within the Eno River drainage and occurs elsewhere (e.g., the Mitchum [31Ch452], early Upper Saratown [31Sk1], and Upper Saratown [31Sk1a] sites) as a minority treatment within Historic period contexts (Davis 1987; Wilson 1983).  Whether these sherds are of a single type or represent two or more different types is uncertain; however, their association with the Historic period occupation at the Fredricks site appears likely.

Page: Pottery: Discussion, Page Number: 95  
Discussion

	One primary goal of the pottery analysis was to create a vessel assemblage model for the Fredricks site.  This was accomplished by a careful examination of attribute similarities and differences among ceramic types, sherd and vessel frequency distributions, the physical condition of ceramic remains, contextual associations, and general spatial distributions.  Consideration of these dimensions of variability permitted the recognition of three ceramic groups: (1) the dominant constituents of the ceramic assemblage, thought to reflect the pottery-making tradition of the Occaneechi; (2) other roughly contemporary pottery that was significantly divergent in form and technology, and most likely produced by non-Occaneechi potters (possibly associated with the nearby Jenrette village); and (3) the ceramic remains of an earlier Late Woodland settlement within the general site vicinity.  These groups are briefly summarized below.

	The primary constituents of the Occaneechi ceramic assemblage have been formally designated Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped.  These two ceramic types comprise over 70% of identifiable sherds (excluding Uwharrie Net Impressed) from features associated with all structures within the village, as well as from burial pit fill within the cemetery (see Table 5).  In addition, these two types are represented by 28 of the 35 whole vessels and vessel sections that were recovered at the site.  Aside from minor differences in decoration and vessel morphology, Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped are technologically identical to one another; however, there is reasonably good evidence in terms of interior vessel condition to suggest that these two types were functionally distinct.  As stated earlier, check-stamped jars (both large and small) appear to have been used primarily as cooking vessels while plain vessels probably functioned more as storage containers.

	With the exception of Uwharrie Net Impressed, the other pottery recovered at the Fredricks site also can be attributed largely to an historic occupational context.  Simple Stamped, Cord Marked, and Complicated Stamped ceramics are probably associated entirely with this later occupation while at least some Brushed and Cob Impressed sherds also are associated with the site's Late Woodland component. These potsherds, because of their divergence from Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped with respect to decoration, technology, and vessel morphology, are argued to be the products of non-Occaneechi potters.  Though some of these artifacts may represent trade vessels, an explanation involving ethnic diversity at the site (or site vicinity) is most plausible, particularly since at least two large storage jars are represented and inter-marriage among different Siouan groups appears to have been common during this period (see Lefler 1967). Spatially, this pottery occurred in greatest numbers within pits associated with Structures 1, 5, and 9, all located on the northeast side of the village (see Table 5).  To what degree this distribution may reflect residence patterns is unknown.

	Finally, all Uwharrie Net Impressed pottery and at least some other pottery can be attributed to a Late Woodland occupation at the site.  This occupation is represented by Feature 30, which contained (excluding indeterminate sherds) 87.7% Uwharrie Net Impressed, 6.2% brushed, 4.9% plain, and 1.2% cob-impressed pottery.  Although Uwharrie Net Impressed pottery also was present in other features, particularly those in the northeastern half of the site, most of these sherds were heavily eroded and did not represent any reconstructable vessel sections.  In fact, both Uwharrie Net Impressed vessels identified at the site were simply large rimsherds that were recovered from Feature 30 and Feature 8 (interpreted as a tree disturbance).

Page: Pottery: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 96  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1. Summary of pottery recovered from the Fredricks site. 

Table 2. Distribution of pottery from features, burials, and structures. 

Table 3. Formal attributes for the whole vessels and reconstructed vessel sections from the Fredricks site. 

Table 4. Metric attributes and contexts for whole vessels and reconstructed vessel sections from the Fredricks site. 

Table 5. Distribution of pottery by feature and burial clusters. 
 
Figures: Ceramic Attributes

Figure 125. Edge of a potsherd showing fine sand temper. 

Figure 126. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse crushed-feldspar temper. 

Figure 127. Edge of a potsherd showing fine crushed-feldspar temper. 

Figure 128. Edge of a potsherd showing medium crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 129. Potsherd with a smoothed exterior surface. 

Figure 130. Smoothed interior surface of a potsherd. 

Figure 131. Scraped interior surface of a potsherd. 

Figure 143. Edge of a potsherd showing fine crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 144. Potsherd with a check-stamped exterior surface. 

Figure 151. Potsherd with a simple-stamped exterior surface. 

Figure 154. Potsherd with a cord-marked exterior surface. 

Figure 158. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse sand temper. 

Figure 159. Edge of a potsherd showing coarse crushed-quartz temper. 

Figure 161. Potsherd with a net-impressed exterior surface. 

Figure 162. Potsherd with a brushed exterior surface. 

Figure 163. Potsherds with cob-impressed exterior surfaces. 

Figure 164. Potsherd with a complicated-stamped exterior surface. 

Figures: General

Figure 7. Map of the Hillsborough locality. 

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 145. Close-up of Fredricks Check Stamped incised lip treatment. 

Figures: Potsherds

Figure 120. Fredricks Plain and miscellaneous simple-stamped and cord-marked potsherds. 

Figure 133. Fredricks Check Stamped potsherds. 

Figure 146. Check-stamped potsherds (with drill holes) from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p277). 
Figure 149. Net-impressed, simple-stamped, and miscellaneous potsherds. 

Figure 160. Net-impressed and brushed potsherds from Feature 30 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6985). 

Figure 166. Brushed, cord-marked, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 4 (Burial 6) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2160). 

Figure 167. Brushed, net-impressed, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3238). 

Figure 168. Check-stamped and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 5 (Burial 7) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2286). 

Figure 169. Check-stamped and plain potsherds from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441). 

Figure 170. Check-stamped and plain potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6864). 

Figure 171. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6206). 

Figure 172. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378p348). 

Figure 173. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378p818). 

Figure 174. Check-stamped potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p995). 

Figure 175. Check-stamped, net-impressed, and brushed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2799). 

Figure 176. Check-stamped, plain, and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6811). 

Figure 177. Cob-impressed and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p126). 

Figure 178. Large check-stamped pot fragment from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6275). 

Figure 179. Net-impressed and brushed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2826). 

Figure 180. Net-impressed and plain potsherds from Feature 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2711). 

Figure 181. Plain (top) and check-stamped (bottom) potsherds from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p382). 

Figure 182. Plain and check-stamped pot sections from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p198). 

Figure 183. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p255). 

Figure 184. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3057). 

Figure 185. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3162). 

Figure 186. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481). 

Figure 187. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 26 (Burial 13) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6608). 

Figure 188. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6700). 

Figure 189. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378p68). 

Figure 190. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p152). 

Figure 191. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378p248). 

Figure 192. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378p284). 

Figure 193. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378p386). 

Figure 194. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378p507). 

Figure 195. Plain and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378p619). 

Figure 196. Plain and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 57 (RLA catalog no. 2378p865). 

Figure 197. Plain and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2763). 

Figure 198. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3093). 

Figure 199. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6405). 

Figure 200. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378p774). 

Figure 201. Plain, brushed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p919). 
Figure 202. Plain, brushed, net-impressed, and simple-stamped potsherds from Feature 23 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6521). 

Figure 203. Plain, check-stamped, complicated-stamped, and net-impressed potsherds from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378p945). 

Figure 204. Plain, cord-marked, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6938). 

Figure 205. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351p3138). 

Figure 206. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7068). 

Figure 207. Plain, net-impressed, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2602). 

Figure 208. Plain, net-impressed, and cord-marked potsherds from Feature 39 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7146). 

Figure 209. Plain, net-impressed, cob-impressed, cord-marked, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 14 (Burial 11) (RLA catalog no. 2351p6027). 

Figure 210. Plain, net-impressed, cob-impressed, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2628). 

Figure 211. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p184). 

Figure 212. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 2 (Burial 4) (RLA catalog no. 2351p1586). 

Figure 213. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6897). 

Figure 214. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 3 (Burial 5) (RLA catalog no. 2351p1865). 

Figure 215. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 31 (RLA catalog no. 2378p15). 

Figure 216. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7194). 

Figure 217. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378p577). 

Figure 218. Plain, simple-stamped, and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 6 (Burial 8) (RLA catalog no. 2351p2379). 

Figure 219. Simple-stamped and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6783). 

Figure 220. Simple-stamped and check-stamped potsherds from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378p1026). 

Figures: Vessel Profiles 

Figure 132. Fredricks Plain vessel profiles. 

Figure 147. Fredricks Check Stamped vessel profiles. 

Figure 148. Fredricks Check Stamped vessel profiles. 

Figure 152. Simple-stamped vessel profiles. 

Figure 155. Cord-marked vessel profiles. 

Figures: Vessels and Vessel Sections 

Figure 67. Vessel 6, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p428). 

Figure 77. Vessel 19, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p7225/1,p7253/1). 

Figure 78. Vessel 20, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p7194/1,p7225/2,p7253/2). 

Figure 79. Vessel 25, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p248/3,p258/1). 

Figure 80. Vessel 18, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351p7068/1). 

Figure 81. Vessel 11, a simple-stamped jar from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6275/1). 

Figure 82. Vessel 12, a check-stamped jar from Feature 18 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p6275/2,p6283/1,p6295/1). 

Figure 83. Vessel 13, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/1). 

Figure 84. Vessel 28, a cord-marked jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/1,p619/1). 

Figure 85. Vessel 32, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/5,p619/5,p647/2). 

Figure 86. Vessel 10, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 17 (RLA catalog nos. 2351p6206/1,p6226/1). 

Figure 87. Vessel 14, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6768). 

Figure 88. Vessel 15, a Fredricks Plain bowl from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6769). 

Figure 89. Vessel 16, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6770). 

Figure 107. Vessel 7, a Fredricks Check Stamped pot from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2240). 

Figure 109. Vessel 9, a cord-marked bowl from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6119). 

Figure 110. Vessel 8, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2543). 

Figure 121. Vessel 5, a Fredricks Plain bowl from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441/2). 

Figure 122. Vessel 23, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p152/2,p198/3). 

Figure 123. Vessel 29, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/2,p619/2,p646/5,p679). 

Figure 124. Vessel 30, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p554/1,p577/3,p619/3). 

Figure 134. Vessel 2, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351p255/1). 

Figure 135. Vessel 3, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351p382/1). 

Figure 136. Vessel 4, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351p441/1). 

Figure 137. Vessel 21, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p152/1,p198/1). 

Figure 138. Vessel 24, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378p248/2). 

Figure 139. Vessel 26, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378p348/1). 

Figure 140. Vessel 31, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378p577/4,p619/4,p647/1). 

Figure 141. Vessel 33, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378p1026/1). 

Figure 142. Vessel 35, a Fredricks Check Stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/3). 

Figure 150. Vessel 34, a simple-stamped jar from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6481/2). 

Figure 153. Vessel 27, a cord-marked pot from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378p507/1). 

Figure 156. Vessel 1, a Uwharrie Net Impressed jar from Feature 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351p2711). 

Figure 157. Vessel 17, a Uwharrie Net Impressed jar from Feature 30 (RLA catalog no. 2351p6985/1). 

Figure 221. Vessel 22, a Fredricks Plain jar from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378p198/2).

Page: Pottery: Source, Page Number: 97  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Pottery, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:31–63, 1988.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Stone Tools: Introduction, Page Number: 98  
Introduction

	The assemblage of stone artifacts from the Fredricks site can be characterized by: (1) the use of predominantly local raw materials; (2) the use of small triangular projectile points; (3) a tool kit dominated by small flake tools; (4) tools made on flakes as opposed to bifacial preforms; (5) very few formalized tools constructed for a long use-life; and (6) relatively few ground-stone tools.  Moreover, the introduction of metal tools probably did not drastically alter the production and use of aboriginal stone tools and weapons.  While the introduction of European metal tools and weapons certainly had an impact on the Indian cultures of the North Carolina Piedmont, many of these items appear to have been integrated into the native social and political systems rather than replacing elements of the existing technology.

Assemblage Description

	A total of 2,896 lithic artifacts were analyzed from the 1983–1986 excavations at the Fredricks site (see Table 6).  About 5,048 other lithic artifacts recovered from disturbed contexts, as well as those artifacts found in 1995, remain unanalyzed.  The analyzed artifacts described here came from 49 features and burials, two structures, and the plowzone of 35 10-ft by 10-ft units (excavated in 1983 and 1984).

Page: Stone Tools: Glossary of Stone Tool Artifact Types, Page Number: 99  
Glossary of Stone Tool Artifact Types

	Lithic tool and debitage types represented in the analyzed assemblages are briefly defined below.

Debitage (Flakes)

	Primary Decortication Flake.  Primary decortication flakes are usually large, broad flakes removed during the initial reduction stage.  These flakes have cortex on the dorsal face and the platform.

	Secondary Decortication Flake.  These are flakes detached in the early stages of reduction.  Cortex is present on at least half of the dorsal surface, but there is no cortex on the platform.

	Interior Flake.  Interior flakes are usually thin, exhibit no cortex on the dorsal surface, and have scars of previous flakes removed from the dorsal surface.  These flakes are usually produced during the thinning or shaping of tools and bifaces.

	Bifacial Thinning Flake.  Bifacial thinning flakes (BTF) have a number of distinctive characteristics that allow their separation from interior flakes.  Bifacial thinning flakes are removed during the thinning or resharpening of bifaces.  These flakes are relatively flat, have broad, shallow flake scars (produced by the detachment of previous thinning flakes from the dorsal face), and tend to exhibit a feathering out of lateral margins.  The proximal end of the flake often retains the edge of the biface and, if the platform is retained, it often exhibits a low angle and evidence of crushing or grinding (i.e., platform preparation).

	Shatter Fragment.  These pieces of manufacturing debris are blocky, angular fragments that do not exhibit bulbs of percussion, striking platforms, or dorsal flake scars.

Chipped-Stone Tools

	Projectile Points.  Projectile points are finished bifaces with lateral edges that converge to a point and have been modified at the proximal end to facilitate hafting.  These artifacts were assigned either to a specific historical type (see Coe 1964) or to a general form, such as "projectile point, probably Woodland."  In addition, six blade and base shapes were used to describe the specific edge configuration of small triangular projectile points.

	Biface.  Bifaces are blanks that exhibit flake-removal scars on both surfaces.  These artifacts are usually irregular in outline and vary in thickness and size.  Many artifacts classified as bifaces are probably tools that broke during manufacture, or bifaces that could not be thinned and were discarded.  Several specimens assigned to this category are represented only by small edge fragments that cannot be further identified.

	Preform.  The bifaces in this category are well thinned but do not have well-shaped or retouched lateral margins.  Many of these represent unfinished hafted bifaces.  Some appear to have been biface blanks that were discarded during manufacture because of a flaw or an inclusion in the raw material.  Others are blanks that were broken during the final stages of thinning.

	Drill.  A drill displays alternate bifacial retouch along the major portion of the working edge resulting in a rod-like projection that is usually biconvex or diamond-shaped in cross section.

	Graver/Perforator.  A graver is a tool with intentional retouch that results in a small triangular-shaped projection, whereas a perforator exhibits intentional retouch that results in a converging point that is larger than a graver.  The retouch forming a graver or perforator may be either unifacial or bifacial but is more often unifacial.

	Scraper.  A scraper (end or side) is defined as a flake which displays regularized edge retouch to produce a uniform and continuous edge.  In the assemblages under consideration, the scrapers also appeared to have been made primarily on flakes.  The morphological differences between retouched flakes and scrapers may be more of a matter of degree rather than kind.

	Utilized/Retouched Flake.  A  retouched flake is defined as a flake which displays edge modification resulting from use or intentional retouch with flake scars that extend at least 2 mm from the edge of the tool.  A utilized flake is defined as a flake with flake scars resulting from use that extend less than 2 mm from the tool edge.  It is presumed that tools exhibiting retouched edges were utilized, however, no microwear analysis was performed during the study to verify this. Usually such modification occurs on flakes and is confined to the flake edge.

	PiPce Esquillée.  A piPce esquillée is a piece of stone which exhibits repeated bipolar percussion blows and is characterized by crushed working edges with sharp perpendicular corners.  Presumably these tools would have been used to slot dense material such as bone and antler.

	Chopper.  A chopper is a heavy-duty tool, roughly chipped to produce an angular working face.  Chipping on these tools may be either bifacial or unifacial but usually only slightly alters the natural shape of the stone.

	Utilized Cobble.  These specimens are cobbles that exhibit flake removal scars and/or utilized edges indicative of chopping or scraping activities.

	Chipped-Stone Disk.  A chipped-stone disk is a flat, circular piece of stone whose edges have been flaked into a disk shape.  The function of these artifacts is unknown.

Ground-Stone Tools

	Mano.  A mano is a cobble or cobble fragment with one or more flat surfaces produced by abrasion and grinding.  Such tools were presumably used for food processing.

	Anvil.  An anvil is a cobble or large stone that displays one or more crushed, depressed, or slightly concave areas, presumably from use in lithic reduction or nut cracking.

	Grinding Stone.  Grinding stones are large stones that display smoothed or ground, flattened surfaces resulting from the processing of plant and animal foods.

	Polished Cobble.  Polished cobbles are cobbles or cobble fragments with smoothed or polished areas resulting from scraping or grinding activities.

	Pitted Cobble.  A pitted cobble is a cobble or cobble fragment that displays battered depressions on one or more faces.  Although the traditional interpretation of these tools is that they are a product of nut processing, they probably also functioned as anvils.

	Ground-Stone Celt.  This ground-stone axe form exhibits a bi-convex working edge, is sub-triangular in form, and has a tapered poll end. Celts were probably manufactured by percussion, pecking, or grinding. Moreover, the bit end was polished to produce a sharp working edge.

	Ground-Stone Disk.  A ground-stone disk is a flat, circular piece of stone whose edges have been flaked and then ground into a disk shape. The function of these artifacts is unknown.

	Chunkey Stone.  These ground-stone artifacts are circular in plan view and plano-convex in cross section.  They are finely ground or polished.

Other Stone Tools

	Hammerstone.  Hammerstones are cobbles or cobble fragments that exhibit battered and pitted edges resulting from use as a percussor.
	Core.  Cores are nodules or chunks of raw material from which one or more flakes have been detached (leaving more than one negative bulb of percussion), and whose flake scars seem to indicate removal for the production of flake blanks or the initial stages of biface production.

Page: Stone Tools: Debitage (Flakes), Page Number: 100  
Debitage (Flakes)

	All stages of the manufacturing process are represented in the debitage from the Fredricks site.  The relative frequency distribution of debitage types for 2,120 analyzed flakes is as follows: primary (1.6%), secondary (12.6%), interior (62.8%), bifacial thinning (4.6%), and shatter (18.4%).  Although all classes are present, interior flakes predominate, and most of the flakes from all contexts are small, being less than 4 cm in size.

Page: Stone Tools: Chipped-Stone Tools, Page Number: 101  
Chipped-Stone Tools

	The chipped-stone tool assemblage contains a variety of tool classes, including small triangular projectile points, drills, perforators, retouched flakes, utilized flakes, scrapers, choppers, and chipped stone disks.

	Of the 2,761 flakes analyzed, 134 showed evidence of use along at least one edge.  The edge damage on the flakes indicated that most had been used for scraping or cutting.  Secondary decortication flakes (33%) and interior flakes (56%) were most often selected for retouch or use.

	A large number of other flakes also exhibit retouch along at least one edge.  Because retouch is confined to the flake edges, flake morphology is evident on these tools.  Similarly, a few scrapers, characterized by formalized retouch, are also present.  This retouch usually resulted in shaping the tool so that it has a symmetrical convex working edge.  These tools apparently were used in scraping and cutting.

	The few drills and perforators present in the assemblage were constructed on flakes and are not highly formalized tools. One exception is a drill that appears to have been recycled from a small triangular projectile point.  Overall, these tools appear to have been expediently manufactured on flakes.  Flaking is primarily unifacial, and restricted largely to the bit end.  Some of these tools also exhibit flaking along the base, presumably to shape the tool for hafting.  These tools were probably used to punch or bore holes.

	Other chipped-stone tools include several large choppers ranging from 6 to 22 cm in length.  These tools were made from local, platy phyllite that had been roughly chipped along the edge to only slightly alter the natural shape of the stone.  The shape and edge characteristics of these tools suggest that they were used in heavy-duty tasks such as digging or chopping.

	Seven chipped-stone disks were recovered from five features.  The raw materials from which they were manufactured include fine-grained granite, argillite, soapstone, and schist.  They range in diameter from about 40 mm to 100 mm, are made on non-cryptocrystalline stone, and are roughly chipped into a circular shape.  Several other broken and unidentified ground-stone disks and polished cobbles are also present.  All were recovered from feature contexts, and the function(s) of these artifacts is unknown.

Page: Stone Tools: Projectile Points, Page Number: 102  
Projectile Points

	The majority of the chipped-stone tools recovered are small triangular projectile points and point fragments.  The small triangular points from the Fredricks site range from 13 to 33 mm in length.  The presence of cortex, patination, or a curved surface indicate that most of these points were constructed by bifacially retouching small to medium-sized flakes as opposed to the use of a biface preform.  Many of the small, equilateral triangular points were made on small flakes that were altered only to shape the lateral margins.  Frequently, the flake platform formed one of the basal corners (or tangs), making it easier to shape the thinner part of the flake into a point.

	Woodland and Archaic projectile points were recovered from the plowzone.  With the exception of a possible Badin point (see specimen at left) recovered from Feature 28, a Kirk Corner-Notched point from Feature 56, and an Archaic point from Feature 59, there were no other Woodland or Archaic artifacts in any features or burials.

Page: Stone Tools: Ground-Stone Tools, Page Number: 103  
Ground-Stone Tools

	Several types of ground-stone tools are also present in the assemblage, including ground-stone disks similar in size and shape to the chipped disks found at the site.  Several other broken, unidentified, ground-stone specimens are also present. Identifiable raw materials from which these artifacts were made include fine-grained granite, schist, igneous, felsic tuff, and some type of metavolcanic rock.  Four broken, polished cobbles are present from feature contexts.  Two chunkey stones—one complete and one broken—were also recovered from feature contexts.  A complete specimen, of fine-grained granite, is well made and very smooth.  It is approximately 65 mm in diameter and plano-convex in cross section.  The other specimen is a highly polished quartz cobble.  Although broken, it appears to have been slightly larger than the complete specimen and also plano-convex in cross section.

	The six ground-stone disks found in 1986 range from 30–50 mm in diameter, are relatively thin, and are flat in cross section.  One specimen, however, is much thicker and more plano-convex in cross section, and somewhat resembles a small chunkey stone.  Still another specimen is half-moon shaped.  It is uncertain whether this item was originally manufactured into this shape or represents a broken disk that was reworked into this form.  Only two of these ground-stone disks could be identified as to raw material; both were made from schist.  The function(s) of these artifacts remain unknown. Several other ground-stone fragments of unidentifiable types also are present in the artifact sample.

	A single ground-stone celt, 95 mm in length, was recovered from Burial 10.  Made of fine-grained granite, the celt has a bi-convex working edge that tapers slightly to a rounded distal end and which gives it a wedge-shaped appearance.  This tool was probably used for chopping.  Two other celt fragments (first, second) were recovered from the plowzone.

	Feature 9 contained a number of large rocks that were fire-cracked or have burned exterior surfaces.  Two large fragments that were separated in the bottom of Feature 9 were refitted.  When the two fragments were joined, worn and smoothed surfaces could be traced on both the upper and lower surfaces.  The smoothing on one surface appears to be the result of use as a grinding stone, whereas the polish on the other surface may have been formed by the movement of the stone against the ground or other surface during its use as a grinding stone.

	Feature 18 was a circular, shallow pit that contained a heavy concentration of simple-stamped and check-stamped sherds.  In addition, it contained a number of stone fragments from a partially reconstructible grinding stone.  One of the surfaces of this tool appeared to have been flattened and smoothed from use.

	Single examples of a mano, nutting stone, and anvil were recovered in 1986.  The mano, made of igneous rock, is roughly rectangular (80 x 67 mm) in shape, relatively thick (37 mm), and triangular to trapezoidal in cross section.  The top and bottom faces of this tool were smoothed by abrasion and grinding.  The nutting stone is a large (210 x 112 mm) flat piece of schist with several circular depressions, similar in nature to the pitted cobble depressions described above, on both sides.  One surface contains approximately 11 irregularly spaced depressions ranging from 10–25 mm in diameter.  The reverse side exhibits about 10 irregularly spaced depressions ranging between 10 and 20 mm in diameter.  The traditional interpretation of artifacts such as nutting stones and pitted cobbles is that they are a product of nut processing.  A portion of a broken corner of an anvil also was recovered.  It is made of metavolcanic rock, has ground edges, is crushed and pitted on one surface.

	Finally, a single fragment of a ground-stone pipe bowl was recovered from feature context.  It also refits with a ground-stone pipe stem recovered from the plowzone of an adjacent square.  The pipe is unfinished and appears to have been broken during manufacture.  The break occurred at a point where the bowl joins the stem.  The pipe bowl had not been completely hollowed out nor had an air hole been drilled through the stem.  The stem is tubular in shape, approximately 50 mm in length, and 16 mm in diameter.  The bowl is circular in plan view and what appears to be a slight lip is present near the top of the bowl.

Page: Stone Tools: Other Stone Tools, Page Number: 104  
Other Stone Tools

	The lithic assemblage also contains hammerstones and cores that were used in the production of other stone tools.  The hammerstones are made of various materials, though most are small quartz river cobbles, and exhibit differing amounts of battering along their edges.  In addition to battering, possible evidence of other tool functions is displayed on two items.  One quartz specimen exhibits two depressions, one on each face, that are similar in nature to those of the nutting stone described above. An igneous hammerstone displays a distinctive smoothed band of grinding along a portion of its edge.  This may reflect use as a mano.

	Feature 13 contained four large stones, two of which had been altered.  One of the rocks had been shaped by rough chipping to a point on one end.  The other altered rock is large and flat (c. 10–12 cm thick and 30 cm in diameter) and had been chipped into a circular form.  None of the rocks from this feature appear to have been thermally altered.

Page: Stone Tools: Assemblage Characteristics, Page Number: 105  
Assemblage Characteristics

	The small-tool kit includes projectile points, drills, perforators, retouched and utilized flakes, and scrapers. Retouched and utilized flakes, and possibly the few scrapers, are expedient tools manufactured on flakes.  These items represent the generalized cutting and scraping tools in the assemblage.  Some functional specialization is present in the small-tool kit in the form of projectile points, drills, and perforators, although these also were manufactured from flakes.

	The large-tool kit represents tools made from cobbles and larger masses of stone raw material.  These include choppers, hammerstones, and a variety of ground-stone and chipped-stone specimens.  While the hammerstones were used in tool production, the majority of the large chipped-stone implements appear to have been used in chopping or digging.  Three of the largest stones show evidence of use in food processing as grinding stones.

	A number of ground-stone and a few polished-stone artifacts are also present in the assemblage.  However most of these are fragments, and their exact function(s) are unknown.  Several whole disks, both ground and chipped, are also present. Finally, two chunkey stones are included in the assemblage.

	In sum, the Fredricks site assemblage is predominantly composed of small chipped-stone tools.  The majority are cutting, scraping, or chopping tools made of local raw materials and are not highly formalized tools constructed for a long use life.  The remaining portion of the assemblage includes ground-stone items, many of which are of indeterminate function.

    Current evidence suggests that the impact of European metal tools on native stone technologies resulted in a difference of degree rather than kind.  Such an interpretation is reinforced by a comparison of the assemblages from all the sites.  Ignoring the possible bias in the near absence of ground-stone tools, the stone-tool assemblage can be characterized largely as small-tool kits (projectile points, drills, utilized/retouched flakes, and other small tools) made from flakes.  The vast majority of these tools are not highly formalized and appear to have been expediently manufactured.  Moreover, most of the small chipped-stone tool types are present at all six sites.  In short, the organizations of the lithic technologies are basically similar.

	Comparisons with assemblages from earlier Piedmont sites suggest that the introduction of guns and metal tools did not bring about major changes in the content or structure of aboriginal lithic assemblages characterized by small flake tools and projectile points.  This is not to say, however, that European contact and the possession of trade goods did not change hunting techniques and tool use among Piedmont Indian groups.

	There are several factors that could distort our view of the impact of European goods on the hunting methods of the Fredricks site inhabitants.  There is considerable evidence elsewhere in the Southeast of changes in aboriginal hunting and food preparation methods caused by the introduction of European goods (e.g., Polhemus 1987).  Perhaps in the Piedmont there was less time for the integration of European tools into the techno-economic system.  Many European goods may have functioned in social and political rather than in utilitarian contexts where they would have replaced native tools.  The character of the lithic assemblage at the Fredricks site also may reflect only a limited range of activities, with hunting and deerskin preparation being conducted away from the village site.  As a consequence, European items would more likely be lost or discarded at other locations.  This pattern also may be reflected in the distribution of bone elements at the Fredricks site.  In addition, there may be specialized activity areas yet to be discovered at the Fredricks site.

Page: Stone Tools: Raw Materials, Page Number: 106  
Raw Materials

	As archaeologists have become more interested in the relationships between settlement-subsistence systems and mobility, and more concerned with the behavioral aspects of technology, there has been an increase in studies of lithic raw materials.  These studies (e.g., Gould 1979; Klippel 1971; Charlton 1978; Meyers 1970; and Novick 1978) have demonstrated that prehistoric peoples selectively utilized a wide variety of lithic materials.  This variety supposedly reflects decisions on the part of prehistoric peoples to select raw materials based on physical characteristics of the rock (e.g., fracture properties, hardness, and how long the material would hold an edge), relative to the properties of the tool that was to be manufactured.  However, Gould (1979) and Flannery (1976) have pointed out that not only should the physical properties of the material and tool structure be considered, but the cognitive or behavioral information that might be reflected in raw material selection also should be considered.  Several ethnoarchaeologists have included this consideration in their studies of raw materials used by hunters and gatherers (Lee and DeVore 1976; Binford 1979).  In his discussion of "righteous rocks" among Australian Aborigines, Gould (1979) points out that raw material variation can also carry religious and social meanings.

	The region of the Piedmont where the Occaneechi and their Siouan neighbors lived is within the geological province known as the Carolina Slate Belt.  In 1822, the rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt were described by Denison Olmstead as part of what he called the "Great Slate Formation" (Allen and Wilson 1968).  With further geologic investigation and formation mapping, it has become clear that the Carolina Slate Belt contains both sedimentary and volcanic rocks.  Although it is commonly called the Carolina Slate Belt, slate is not the major rock type in the zone, and the formation is not a single continuous belt (Butler 1963:169).  The major rock units of the Carolina Slate Belt are argillite, slate, phyllite, greenstone, metamorphosed lithic-crystal tuff, devitrified glassy rocks, breccia, and volcanic conglomerate (Butler 1963:167).  These rock units generally show the effects of low-grade metamorphism, and their mineral assemblages are typical of the cholorite zone of regional metamorphism (Butler 1963:169).

	As detailed by Allen and Wilson (1968), the stratigraphic succession in Orange County contains four major rock units which are summarized below in ascending order.

	Unit I: This unit contains predominantly amygdaloidal basalt flows intercalated with basalt porphyries and lithic and crystal tuffs.

	Unit II: Andesitic to dacitic lithic and crystal tuffs characterize this unit.

	Unit III: This unit is composed predominantly of felsic tuffs and lithic and crystal-lithic tuffs, with occasional flows of rhyolite and rhyolite porphyries.

	Unit IV: Epiclastic argillites, laminated argillites, and graywacke predominate in this zone.  Metavolcanic-metasedimentary rocks are intrusive in some areas, and rocks of Triassic age can be found in a down-faulted basin in the extreme southeastern corner of the county.

	There is a wide variety of materials that could be worked into lithic tools.  Rock types used by Siouans for tools include: chert (local and non-local), quartzite, vein quartz, crystal quartz, rhyolite, argillite, other metavolcanic rocks, welded tuff, vitric tuff, felsic tuff, basalt, and silicate.

Page: Stone Tools: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 107  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 6. Analyzed stone tools from the Fredricks site. 
 
Figures: Chipped-Stone Tools

Figure 222. Triangular projectile points. 

Figure 223. Chipped-stone biface from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a64). 

Figure 224. Chipped-stone perforator from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a815). 

Figure 225. Used stone flake from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1021). 

Figure 226. Crude chipped-stone choppers from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a345). 

Figure 227. Chipped-stone disk from Sq. 280R30 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4841). 

Figure 231. Chipped-stone perforator from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2760). 

Figure 232. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 9 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2832,a2768,a3052,a2759,a2797,a2824). 

Figure 233. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 28 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6815/1,a6781). 

Figure 234. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a765). 

Figure 235. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a989). 

Figure 241. Biface and chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 29 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6862,a6893,a6847). 

Figure 242. Bifaces and chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6696,a6695). 

Figure 243. Chipped-stone projectile point and biface from Feature 6 (Burial 8) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2459,a2438). 

Figure 244. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a206). 

Figure 245. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 15 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6165). 

Figure 246. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6475). 

Figure 247. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 26 (Burial 13) (RLA catalog no. 2351a6613). 

Figure 248. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 3 (Burial 5) (RLA catalog no. 2351a1790). 

Figure 249. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a125). 

Figure 250. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a279). 

Figure 251. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 58 (RLA catalog no. 2378a889). 

Figure 252. Chipped-stone projectile point from Feature 7 (Burial 9) (RLA catalog no. 2351a2673). 

Figure 253. Chipped-stone projectile points and biface from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6398,a6359,a6360). 

Figure 254. Chipped-stone projectile points from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a449). 

Figure 255. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 14 (Burial 11) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6062,a6075). 

Figure 256. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 2 (Burial 4) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a1658,a1724). 

Figure 257. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 23 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6517,a6527). 

Figure 258. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 28 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3264). 

Figure 259. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 30 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6982,a7026). 

Figure 260. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 31 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a10,a4). 

Figure 261. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 33 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a7114,a7099). 

Figure 262. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 4 (Burial 6) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2158,a2187). 

Figure 263. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 41 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a7243,a7185,a7201). 

Figure 264. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a236,a255). 

Figure 265. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 47 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a318,a354,a325). 

Figure 266. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a377). 

Figure 267. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 51 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a530,a501). 

Figure 268. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a610,a584). 

Figure 269. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 56 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a780,a855). 

Figure 270. Chipped-stone projectile points from Feature 59 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a940,a913). 

Figure 271. Chipped-stone disk from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3227). 
Figure 272. Crude stone chopper from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a614). 

Figure 273. Large chipped-stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7245). 

Figures: Ground-Stone and Other Stone Tools

Figure 95. Celt from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6758). 

Figure 228. Stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7244). 

Figure 229. Chunkey stones from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6196). 

Figure 230. Hammerstone from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a239). 

Figure 236. Stone disk fragment from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a344). 

Figure 237. Ground-stone celt fragment from Sq. 210R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1800). 

Figure 238. Ground-stone celt fragment from Sq. 230R110 (RLA catalog no. 2378a2463). 

Figure 239. Refitted stone pipe fragments from Feature 48 and Sq. 270R20 plowzone (RLA catalog nos. 2378a380,2351a4537). 

Figure 240. Hammerstone from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a613). 

Figure 274. Broken stone disk from Sq. 220R60 and Sq. 230R60 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3706,a3905). 

Figure 275. Ground-stone disk from Sq. 310R30 (RLA catalog no. 2351a5622). 

Figure 276. Hammerstone from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a330). 

Figure 277. Hammerstone from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a280). 

Figure 278. Stone disk from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6361). 

Figure 279. Stone disk from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7187). 

Figure 280. Stone disk from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a240). 

Figure 281. Stone disk from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a442). 

Figure 282. Stone disk from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a754). 

Figure 283. Stone disk from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1022). 

Figure 284. Stone disk from Sq. 210R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1801). 

Figure 285. Stone disk from Sq. 230R80 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4029). 

Figure 286. Stone disk from Sq. 240R110 (RLA catalog no. 2351a4191). 

Figure 287. Stone disks from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6195). 

Figure 288. Stone disks from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6399). 

Figure 289. Stone disks from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a768).

Page: Stone Tools: Sources, Page Number: 108  
Sources

	This article is adapted from the following sources:

Lithic Artifacts from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites, by V. Ann Tippitt and I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 217–236.

Lithic Artifacts, by I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:76–84, 1988.

	They are reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Introduction, Page Number: 109  
Introduction

	During the Late Prehistoric period (as evidenced by the nearby Wall site), many native ornaments were made from the columella, or central columns, of large marine gastropods.  These probably were taken from species of the Melogenidae (Crown Conch) family which occur along the Atlantic seaboard from Massachusetts to Florida (Percy 1972).  Small disk beads, gorgets, and pendants were made from the outer whorl of these large univalves.  A small univalve called marginella (of the Marginellidae family) which occurs along the coast from the West Indies to the southern beaches of North Carolina (Percy 1972) was also used as a form of ornament.

	On the whole, the coastal univalves were the source material for the greatest proportion of ornaments.  To a much lesser extent bivalve shells (presumably mussel) and stone fragments were made into small disk beads, and native copper and mica were used for other types of ornaments.

	By the time the Fredricks site was occupied by the Occaneechi, many of the previously available bead forms (pendants, tubes, and sphericals) had been modified and others (columella segments and marginellas) had been all but dropped from use.  Several new types—runtees and cylinder/barrels made from columella, and wampum made from quahogs (Mercenaria mercenaria)—had appeared.  Quahogs occur from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida (Percy 1972). Although small disk beads appear to have retained both their form and function through this time, they too show indications of the impact of European influence.

	In 1709 John Lawson (Lefler 1967:204), who had travelled through North Carolina in 1701 and visited Occaneechi Town, gave a general description of Indian beadmaking:

This [the shell preform] the Indians grind on Stones and other things, till they make it current but the Drilling is the most difficult to the Englishmen, which the Indians manage with a Nail stuck in a Cane or Reed.  Thus they roll it continually on their Thighs, with their Right-Hand holding the Bit of Shell with this Left, so in time they drill a Hole quite through it, which is a very tedious Work; but especially in making their Roanoak, four of which will scarce make one Length of Wampum.

	Based of the above ethnohistorical information, we can expect to see several manifestations in the archaeological record.  The basic beadmaking process appears to have involved first obtaining a preform from the shell by breaking or the groove-and-snap technique, then reducing the piece, and finally drilling, grinding, and smoothing.  Prehistoric tool types for this work would have included hammerstones, stone drills, burins, chisels, and anvils, grinding stones, and stone or pottery abraders.  At historic beadmaking stations, one should find many of the components of the prehistoric tool kit along with the replacement or addition of metal tools such as awls/drills/needles, pincers/tongs/vices for holding preforms, and perhaps also hammers and saws for reducing the shells.  Where the purple wampum were made, we should expect to find Quahog shells (Mercenaria mercenaria).  Where other types of beads and ornaments were manufactured, there should be refuse from univalve shells (called periwinkles in the 1600–1700s).  The lack of such beadworking tools and shell debris at the Fredricks site suggest that shell beads were not manufactured by the Occaneechi but were received in trade.

Types of Shell Ornaments

	Eight kinds of shell ornaments were recovered from the Fredricks site: pendants, tube beads, columella segment beads, spherical columella beads, barrel/cylinder beads, small disk beads, wampum, and runtees.  Most of these were found in association with burials and represent either decorative elements sewn onto garments or jewelry.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Pendants, Page Number: 110  
Pendants

	The two shell pendants from the Fredricks site were found with Burial 1 in 1983.  Both of these pendants have single holes (see large pendant, small pendant).  The hole in the larger one is slightly elongated and appears to have once been two holes so close together that after some wear they broke through, making the two holes one.  The designs on both of the pendants are of the drilled-dot technique.  Sizemore (1984) has described the design on the larger pendant as follows:

Beginning from the center are six punctated lines, each with a short segment hooking to the left at the line's end, thereby making a swastika-like design.  The swastika is included within the Cross design category of Fundaburk and Foreman (1957:39), and is one of the most common designs on Southeastern gorgets.  It is usually enclosed within a "Sun Circle" design.  The swastika on this gorget is closely surrounded by a punctated circle, making up the inner border of a band of punctated chevrons or triangles with their apices pointing inward.  Fifteen chevrons are visible; the rest have eroded.  The bases of these figures rest on another punctated circle which almost completely encircles the gorget, with one segment in the top right portion having been eroded away.  Outside of this circle there are three distinct punctated triangles similar to the others, and what seem to be parts of other triangular designs that are mostly eroded.

	Sizemore (1984) also described the smaller pendant:

On the concave side, and emanating from the central perforation, is a six-pronged star design made of punctations.  Encircling the end of these prongs seems to be two, possibly three, circles of punctations, the inner circle(s) made up of larger depressions than the outer and partially eroded circle of small dot-like punctations.

Sizemore noted that a pendant with a design very similar to the smaller pendant was found at the Irene Mound Site near Savannah, Georgia (Caldwell and McCann 1941:Plate XIX).  Other pendants of the drilled dot technique were also found there, as well as specimens of the incised (and sometimes painted) rattlesnake style of gorget, which was found at Early Upper Saratown (31Sk1).  The latter style has been found at numerous sites to the south and west from Tennessee to St. Catherine's Island off the coast of Georgia.  The drilled-dot pendants, on the other hand, have been found exclusively to the north, primarily in Virginia, with the exception of the Irene Mound specimens (Sizemore 1984).  The distribution of these pendants suggests that the Siouan area may have been at or near the boundary between southern and northern spheres of influence.

	A badly corroded design resembling the one on the larger of the two pendants was scratched or incised onto the back of the metal spoon from Burial 8, another subadult.  Other examples of pendants with similar designs made by this drilled dot technique were recovered from the Potomac Creek site, in northeastern Virginia, and the Irene Mound site near Savannah, Georgia (Caldwell and McCann 1941).  Neither pendant from the Fredricks site is of the incised and painted "rattlesnake" style mentioned above.

	In 1701, John Lawson (Lefler 1967:204) noted that:

They oftentimes make . . . a sort of Gorge, which they wear about their neck on a string; so it hangs on their collar, whereon sometimes is engraven a Cross, or some odd sort of Figure, which comes next in their Fancy.

If his observation is taken literally, one would expect there to be no limits to the stylistic variation on these pendants, except those bounded by the individual's imagination, yet there do seem to be set styles.  If pendant blanks were being traded, then people at specific localities could have individualized their ornaments within the limits ascribed by their group, be they techniques, style elements or motifs.  It remains unclear whether or not specific elements or motifs were owned or controlled by groups or even individuals, yet these pendants may well have served as social identity markers that would probably have been worn while traveling.  This would have allowed the wearer to transmit information about their cultural affiliations, place of origin, and quite possibly any associated allegiances as well.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Tube Beads, Page Number: 111  
Tube Beads

	The 11 tube beads from the Fredricks site were all recovered from the chest area of Burial 4, which was a bundle burial containing a male adult and an infant.  The tubes were found lying together in parallel order on the adult's chest.  The nine tubes that were complete ranged in size from 105–123 mm in length and 6.0–7.4 mm in diameter.  Their hole diameters ranged from 2.0–2.7 mm.  These measurements demonstrate the uniformity of these tubes. On none of them is the silca groove very apparent, unlike tube beads found at earlier sites.  No doubt the use of a metal drill enabled the artisan(s) of these historic tube beads to produce a much more refined product with much less energy expenditure; however, even so some evidence of the groove should be apparent no matter how narrow the tube given the depth of this groove on other tubes from the area.

	These historic tube beads actually resemble the hair pipes used by Plains Indians which were manufactured commercially by Dutch settlers in Bergen County, New Jersey, from the West Indian conch, Strombus gigas (Ewers 1957).  These tubes were made from the thick lip of the outer whorl of the conch.  If the tubes from Fredricks site were made from this thicker-lipped West Indian conch, it would explain the absence of a silca groove, which only occurs on the inner columella part of the shell.  Although the evidence suggests that commercial manufacture of these articles by the Dutch was begun between 1776 and 1798 (Ewers 1957:42), it is possible that the tubes at the Fredricks site represent a somewhat earlier example of trade for this distant source of shell.  If this is true, then tube beads, like the pendants, indicate a longer distance trade network historically than there is evidence for prehistorically at this locality.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Columella Segment Beads, Page Number: 112  
Columella Segment Beads

	Segment beads were made from the columella of large univalves by cutting or by a groove-and-snap technique.  The resulting beads were then smoothed, drilled, and strung.  Their overall shape maintains the basic form of the columella although they vary in size and length; hence they range from almost a tubular shape to a disk shape.  As segments of quite different forms were worn together with no indication of shape distinction, they were lumped under the single class of "segment," with only a size distinction of small, medium, and large noted.
	The preform nature of this basic bead type allowed these segments to be modified into more finished forms of beads, some of which were found at the Fredricks site.  Two beads made from segments having a more finished, symmetrical form and leaning toward the discoidal end of this bead form's spectrum were associated with Burial 5.  These beads were found above the left temporal bone, next to the left ear, and are believed to have been a form of ear ornament.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Spherical Columella Beads, Page Number: 113  
Spherical Columella Beads

	Spherical beads from the Fredricks site occurred with barrel/cylinders, runtees, and wampum around the neck and chest area of Burial 2.  All of these spherical beads were very badly preserved.  It appeared from the few intact surfaces that they were of a more finished quality (i.e., smoother and more polished) than those from the earlier Wall site.  Measurements ranged from 4.6–7.2 mm in length and from 5.4–7.3 mm in diameter.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Barrel/Cylinder Beads, Page Number: 114  
Barrel/Cylinder Beads

	Like the other beads discussed so far, barrel/cylinder beads were made from the columella.  They vary from segments in that they are characteristically longer than wide, and they have been ground along their long axis so that they are more symmetrical than the segments.  Fifty-four barrel/cylinder beads were recovered from around the chest and neck of Burial 2 at the Fredricks site.  They range in length from 12.2–15.4 mm, in diameter from 5.0–8.5 mm, and in thickness from 4.9–7.5 mm.  All are badly damaged.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Small Disks, Page Number: 115  
Small Disks

	Small disk beads, most of which were probably made from the wall sections of large univalves, comprise approximately 90% of the shell ornaments from the Fredricks site.  Correspondingly, small white beads also comprise about 90% of all glass beads at the site.  Apparently there was a continuous use and demand for this general bead form (first shell and then of glass and shell) during the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods.

	Many of the Fredricks site disks were drilled or punched with a small cylindrical object, presumably a metal nail, needle, or awl.  The use of metal tools was suggested by the sharp sides of the bead holes as opposed to the hourglass concavity present on beads which had been slowly drilled from both sides.  Also, a few of the Fredricks site beads revealed a larger, seemingly "unfinished" form.  Several also revealed a triangular- or quadrangular-shaped hole, which suggested they were not drilled but driven through by a very hard object, again a sign of the use of metal tools.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Wampum, Page Number: 116  
Wampum

	Two basic types of  wampum were identified at the Fredricks site: (1) a cylindrical form, which has frequently been described in the literature (bottom rows, illustrated specimens); and (2) a morphological variant on the former type which will be called oval wampum (top row illustrated specimens).  The oval wampum were made by grinding the sharp corners from the ends of the cylinders.  Both purple and white varieties of both types have been identified, although only five purple oval wampum have been recovered so far from this site.  Overall, the wampum range in length from 4.8–7.0 mm and in diameter from 3.2–4.6 mm, with the white wampum making up a higher proportion of the smaller sizes.  All of the white oval wampum were made from smaller white wampum, and they occurred exclusively with this small white cylindrical form.  All the purple wampum, including the oval form, were larger than the white oval wampum.

	The majority of the wampum (68%) was found with Burial 1, occurring around the neck, chest, and the lower arms areas where they were arranged in closely spaced parallel rows.  The wampum with Burial 2 were found around the neck and chest in a similar pattern.  The wampum with Burial 1 appeared to have been strung around the neck.  The rest of the wampum were found with Burial 5.  These latter specimens, probably decoration on a small bag or pouch, were lying over a cluster of two ceramic pipes, a knife, and a bird claw.  The contextual relationship of the wampum at this site suggest they were used as ornaments sewn onto garments and other personal gear, and were strung as necklaces worn around the neck.

Page: Shell Ornaments: Runtees, Page Number: 117  
Runtees

	In 1722, Robert Beverley of Virginia described this type of bead as being made "of the Conch Shell, as the Peak is, only the Shape is flat and like a Cheese, and drill'd Edgeways" (Beverley 1947:145).  The 21 runtees from the Fredricks site ranged from 12.8–17.2 mm in length, 12.8–17.5 mm in diameter, and 4.1–6.4 mm in thickness.  They were found exclusively around the neck and chest areas of Burial 1 (see runtees) and Burial 2 (see runtees).  Those with Burial 2 occurred with spherical and barrel/cylinder beads.  In both instances, they occurred in association with wampum.  No other runtees are known to have been found at Piedmont archaeological sites.

Page: Shell Ornaments: List of Figures, Page Number: 118  
List of Figures

Figures: Beads

Figure 103. Tubular shell beads from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1773). 

Figure 291. Shell beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1997). 

Figure 292. Large shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a591). 

Figure 293. Shell disk beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a531). 

Figure 294. Purple wampum beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a529). 

Figure 295. Shell "runtee" beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a583). 

Figure 296. Shell "runtee" beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a590). 

Figure 297. Large polished shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a534). 

Figure 298. Medium disk shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a587). 

Figure 299. Purple wampum beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a585). 

Figure 300. Purple wampum beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a592). 

Figure 301. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a359). 

Figure 302. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a364). 

Figure 303. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a369). 

Figure 304. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a370). 

Figure 305. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a371). 

Figure 306. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a515). 

Figure 307. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a517). 

Figure 308. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a519). 

Figure 309. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a520). 

Figure 310. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a521). 

Figure 311. Shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a522). 

Figure 312. Shell beads from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a556). 

Figure 313. Shell beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2002). 

Figure 314. Shell beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2247). 

Figure 315. Shell disk beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a530). 

Figure 316. Shell tube and oval beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a532). 

Figure 317. Small circular shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a586). 

Figure 318. Small circular shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a596). 

Figure 319. Small circular shell beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a601). 

Figure 320. Small disk shell beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a588). 

Figures: Food Preparation and Consumption: Utensils

Figure 290. Engraved design on latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 

Figures: General

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 119. Knife, pipes, and beads on pedestal from Burial 5 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a1998,a1999,a2000,a2001). 

Figures: Gorgets

Figure 72. Large shell gorget from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a535). 

Figure 73. Small shell gorget from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a535).

Page: Shell Ornaments: Source, Page Number: 119  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Shell Artifacts from the Carolina Piedmont, by Julia E. Hammett.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 167–183.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Introduction, Page Number: 120  
Introduction

	Archaeological excavations at the Fredricks site recovered almost 17,000 artifacts of European or Euroamerican manufacture.  A majority of these were obtained from English traders from Virginia; the remaining artifacts, which mostly were found in the disturbed plowed soil that covers the site, post-date the establishment of Hillsborough in the mid-eighteenth century.  Because of time constraints when these artifacts were analyzed, approximately 1,700 artifacts from disturbed contexts, and which clearly postdate the occupation of the Occaneechi village, were excluded from study.  These artifacts included brick, unidentifiable iron, slag, cinders, and nineteenth-century ceramics that were recovered from the plowzone during 1985 and 1986.  The remaining artifacts are discussed below and summarized in Table 7.

	Artifacts are discussed by activity group following Stanley South's functional classification scheme (South 1977:95–96).  However, the use of this organizational framework is not intended to suggest that these artifacts always functioned in an aboriginal context in the same way as they were intended to function in the European context.  It also was necessary to modify South's original scheme in order to incorporate categories for glass trade beads, construction materials, metal resources, and some ethnobiological items such as carved wood and leather.  While most of the Euroamerican artifacts or artifact fragments could be identified, only a small number of items (e.g., ceramics, some beads, gun parts, pipe stems, whole bottles, and spoons) could be accurately dated.  The remaining artifacts could only be assigned to a broad temporal range of manufacture or utilization (e.g., a kettle, knives, scissors, iron nails, and iron implements).

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Architecture Group, Page Number: 121  
Architecture Group

	Items belonging to this functional group were subdivided into two classes: (1) construction fasteners, which consist of iron nails, tacks, nuts, and bolts/spikes; and (2) construction materials, which consist of brick, glazed brick, and flat window glass.

Construction Fasteners
	
	All nails (n=232), tacks (n=3), bolts (n=3), and nuts (n=2) were made of iron, and most were extremely corroded, which restricted identification by type and manufacture (wrought cut, machine-made, etc.).  Despite this fact, all nails recovered from undisturbed contexts (i.e., burials and features) were wrought and possessed "T," "L," or "Rose" heads (see nails from Burial 3 and Feature 53).  Each type of nail was manufactured to serve a particular purpose.  Rose-head nails, for example, were employed as an all-purpose nail; L-head nails were used to fasten trim and flooring; and T-head nails, usually also used for flooring, had a flattened disc head hammered over opposite sides of the shaft (Noël Hume 1969:252).  Wrought nails date from the beginning of European contact to as late as 1790, when cut nails became popular.  The presence of wrought nails in undisturbed contexts at the Fredricks site suggests that they were available as a trade good by at least 1700.  Another explanation for the presence of these nails is that they may have functioned as primary fasteners on wooden crates or boxes used to ship trade goods.  It is unlikely that the Occaneechi used these nails as construction fasteners; rather, they probably used them as punches for leather working, or as engraving tools.  Later varieties of nails (machine-cut and wire nails) were recovered from plowzone contexts.

Building Materials
	Flat window glass fragments (n=49) were distinguished from mirror glass by several criteria: (1) the absence of silver backing, which, according to Polhemus (1987:947) "is very fugitive and is frequently eliminated during water screening or artifact processing"; (2) thickness of the glass (panes usually are thinner); (3) surface finish of the glass (polished or not); (4) edge color (typically smoky gray for mirror and more green to yellow-green for pane); and (5) edge treatment (typically mirrors have ground or smoothed edges).  All window glass fragments were found in the plowzone and likely postdate the Occaneechi occupation.

	Bricks (n=232) also needed careful examination.  During preliminary laboratory processing, daub, fired clay (possibly chinking), rocks, and even unglazed or slightly glazed coarse red earthenware potsherds were inadvertently classified as "bricks."  During analysis, however, care was taken to discriminate real brick fragments from these other items.   Attributes for brick identification included: (1) composition of paste (iron and quartz inclusions) for brick as opposed to a typically gritty or sandy paste for daub; (2) edge treatment (most bricks of this period were hand-made in a press-mold box and smoothed over the top edge with a board or trowel, which resulted in linear striations and some edge lipping); and (3) weight (typically bricks are slightly heavier per cubic inch than daub or pottery).  Glazed brick fragments (n=20) were readily identifiable with all specimens exhibiting at least one flat surface.  The glaze appeared to be a thin salt glaze, which is more likely to have resulted from hearth burning than from kiln burning.  Historically, salt has been used to clean out built-up residue in a chimney, with the result being a thin salt-glaze deposit on the interior bricks of the hearth and chimney.  Although the use of brick within the Eno Valley likely coincides with the settlement of Hillsborough in the mid-eighteenth century, three small brick fragments were recovered from the upper fill of three Occaneechi burial pits: Feature 1, Feature 2 (Burial 4), and Feature 7 (Burial 9).  Their occurrence in these contexts is probably a result of post-depositional disturbance.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Arms Group, Page Number: 122  
Arms Group

	The use of firearms by the Occaneechi is indicated by the common occurrence of ammunition, gun parts, and gunflints.  Trade inventories and ethnohistorical accounts suggest that trade guns were an important and valuable trade item.  Guns were used for defense, as status symbols, and to increase hunting efficiency. They were probably the European trade item most prized by the Indians.

Ammunition

	Five hundred and five pieces of ammunition, 43 pieces of lead sprue and other lead scrap, 217 gunflints, one nearly complete gun, and 27 other gun parts compose the arms artifact group.  Lead ammunition was divided into three size categories: (1) balls (15 mm in diameter or .59 caliber); (2) buck shot (7–9 mm in diameter or .30 caliber); and (3) swan shot (4–6 mm diameter or .20 caliber). Two modern brass shotgun shell cartridges were recovered from plowzone context and were identified as 12-gauge Winchester shells. One small .22 caliber, rimfire, brass cartridge, also modern, was also found in plowzone.  All but one of the 419 pieces of lead ammunition retrieved from burial or feature contexts at the Fredricks site were of the buck shot variety, averaging 7.5 mm in diameter.  Most of these exhibited stem remnants typical of shot manufactured in a gang mold.  Also, most of the recovered shot were unfired or undeformed, with prominent equatorial mold seams.  Lead shot of this size would be packed into the gun barrel and fired as multiple projectiles.  It was confirmed by an expert on colonial weaponry (John Bivins, personal communication) that this size of shot would be suitable for hunting turkey, other fowl, deer, and rabbit.

	Forty-two pieces of lead sprue or cut-lead scrap were recovered from burial or feature contexts.  The sprue pieces provide some evidence for on-site ammunition casting.  The cut-lead pieces may represent sprue, or trimming from hand-carved lead pipe stems, such as the one recovered from Burial 6.

Gunflints

	Two hundred and seventeen gunflints (170 from the plowzone and 47 from burial/feature contexts) were also part of this artifact group.  Of these, 38 were aboriginally manufactured gunflints made of local stone.  Morphologically, aboriginal gunflints are square to rectangular in shape, thin in cross section, and bifacially worked on all four edges (Hamilton 1960:73).  Of the 142 European gunflints that could be identified by blank type, 20 were made on flint blades and 122 were made on flint spalls.  Most, if not all, of the gunflints found at the Fredricks site are probably associated with the Occaneechi village.

Dog-Lock Musket

	A nearly whole dog-lock, long-fowler musket was found in Burial 6.  Dog-locks were a transitional design between the snaphaunce and flint-lock.  A "dog" or safety catch was engaged to hold the heel of the haunce in a half-cock position (Peterson 1956:23).  Long-fowler refers to an early style of hunting weapon with a very long, round barrel.  Observations of the Burial 6 musket made in the field and subsequently in the laboratory revealed that the butt-end of the gun stock had been broken off prior to its placement in the burial.  The lock plate was severely bent and the butt-end of the trigger guard broken off.  Also, both ends of the gun abutted the walls of the burial pit, leaving no room for a butt stock.  Some wood from the barrel stock was preserved. The hardware (firing mechanism and barrel) were identified as British and dated to 1625–1640 (John Bivins, personal communication).  Other sources (Peterson 1956:31; Neumann 1967:10) confirm this temporal placement for such an early dog-lock style of gun.  Peterson (1956:31) states that this was the most popular trade gun during the 1625 to 1675 period.  Dog-locks were occasionally used by the English army until after 1700.  These later dog-locks had vertically attaching sear springs, and often the tumbler had notches for half- and full-cock positions.  The cock (or hammer) was long and slender in style.  Two hammers of nearly identical shape to the Fredricks site specimen were recovered from excavations at Upper Saratown, located on the Dan River in North Carolina and believed to date c. 1680.  Early dog-lock long-fowlers were introduced to North American Indians with the first white settlers in Ralph Lane's Company in 1586 and with the Plymouth and Jamestown settlements in the early 1600s (Peterson 1956:42–44).  Peterson also suggests that during the last half of the seventeenth century, long-fowlers were frequently assembled in America using barrels and locks made in Holland or England and stocks of American curly maple.  Although botanical analysis identified the wood preserved on the gun barrel from the Fredricks site as maple, a determination of origin (Europe or America) was not possible.

	Measurements on the gun from the Fredricks site are as follows: the barrel is 55-3/4 inches (141.6 cm) long; base diameter is calibrated at .55; the lock plate measures 6 inches (15.2 cm) long; and the hammer (or cock) is 2-3/4 inches (7.0 cm) high.  The hammer is frozen in an engaged position, the frizzen extended, and the pan exposed.  A flint clamped in the jaws of the hammer appears to be of the spall type.  A small brass "butterfly" rear sight is located on the top rear of the barrel.  The mainspring, lateral sear spring, and "dog" are all intact.  The trigger pull and a portion of the trigger guard are also present.  No manufacturer's marks are visible on the weapon.

Gun Parts

	Twenty-seven other gun parts were found at the Fredricks site. All of these artifacts appear to be iron except for a butterfly sight which is made of brass.  Most are assumed to be from dog-lock muskets like the one found in Burial 6.  Gun parts recovered from features or burials include a barrel fragment, a lock plate, two springs, a trigger guard, a trigger pull.  One of the springs, a mainspring fragment, was found in a "bundle" associated with Burial 3.  The context of this item suggests that it was curated by its owner; however, no aboriginal modification of this gun part was observed.  Numerous other gun parts were found in the plowzone, including a ram pipe fragment, four lock plates, a lock part, a side plate, two springs, a trigger guard, two trigger pulls, six frizzens, two dog-lock cocks, and a butterfly sight.

	This functional artifact group comprised almost one third of all the Euroamerican artifacts (excluding glass beads) found at the Fredricks site.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Clothing Group, Page Number: 123  
Clothing Group

	This artifact group is divided into three classes: (1) sewing implements for the construction and repair of clothing articles; (2) clothing fasteners; and (3) material resources used for clothing construction.  Artifacts related to this functional group appear frequently on trade lists and were popular commodities among the Indians throughout the Historic period.  France (1985) has also discussed the prevalence on trade lists of yard goods and ready-made clothing, which sometimes comprised nearly half of the total inventories.  Since textiles are not often preserved archaeologically, their importance as trade items can easily be underestimated.

Sewing Implements

	Sewing implements from the Fredricks site include two iron awls, one iron pin, five pairs of steel scissors, two scissor fragments, and two brass thimbles.  The iron awl from Burial 3 was found in association with a bundle of other artifacts.  Following Stone's (1974:155) criteria for identification of awls, this specimen is pointed on one end, has the remains of a wooden handle on the other end, and appears to have a squarish shank when viewed in cross-section.  Another awl with a bone handle was associated with Burial 11.  Awls were popular leather working tools and appear on trade lists of the period (France 1985).  Often, iron nails were modified to be used for the same purposes.  One other small sewing implement—a complete straight pin with a coiled head—was found in the fill dirt of Feature 28.

	Five pairs of scissors were recovered from burial contexts at the Fredricks site.  All appear to be of the same style, with wide blades, equal-sized oval-shaped eyes, and a central rivet well below the handle branches.  The blade tips and eye loops of these specimens were not well preserved.  Two pairs of scissors were found "bundled" with other artifacts in both Burial 1 (first pair, second pair) and Burial 2 (first pair, second pair).  The pair of scissors in Burial 6 did not appear to be in a bundle. The individuals in Burials 1, 3, and 6 all were adult males, which may suggest sex or status indicators for these scissors.  A pair of broken scissors also was found in Feature 53 and a scissor handle fragment was found in the plowzone.  Scissors appear frequently on early trade inventories (France 1985).  Considering the quantities of yard goods and clothing traded to the Indians, the presence of scissors as clothing construction implements is not surprising.  Brain (1979:274), in his discussion of acculturation by technological innovation, has placed a high "value" on scissors as tools because they have no native counterpart and represent a "new technique of use."

	One brass thimble was recovered from the floor of Feature 49, interpreted as a probable burial pit, and another thimble was found in the plowzone.  The plowzone specimen was 15 mm in diameter and had a textured head. The other specimen had a hole in the top, perhaps for use as an ornament.

Clothing Fasteners

	Forty-five of the artifacts associated with clothing (excluding small glass beads) were fasteners.  These consisted of 26 buttons, 17 buckle frames, and two buckle tines.  Nineteen of the buttons were recovered from Burial 1.  Twelve were black glass buttons with iron wire eyelets (some missing) and seven were solid cast pewter buttons.  The black glass buttons (not typed by South) measure 11.6 mm to 14 mm in diameter.  Ten of the black glass buttons were found in the neck area of Burial 1 which suggests three possible functions: (1) they were strung on a necklace like beads; (2) they were sewn onto a garment for decoration; or (3) they were used as fasteners on a European trade garment.  The other two black glass buttons were found in the fill of Burial 1.  The seven solid cast pewter buttons from Burial 1 measure 12 mm in diameter and have the dome and eyelet cast as one piece.  They were found in association with a "bundle" of artifacts interred with Burial 1, and were possibly used as ornamentation sewn to the outside of this bundle.  All of the cast pewter buttons appear to have a tri-part floral motif on the "face" or dome of the button.  A similar decorative motif has been found on slightly larger buttons (14 to 16 mm diameter) from the Fort Michilimackinac site and have been dated by Stone (1974:46–48) to the early 1700s.  Cast pewter buttons, most of which date to the 1720s, have also been recovered at many Overhill Cherokee sites in Tennessee (Carnes 1983:192).

	Three hollow-cast pewter buttons were found in Burial 2.  Noël Hume (1969:89) suggests that hollow-cast buttons, of either white metal (pewter) or brass, were common during the early eighteenth century.  A floral motif is slightly visible on these three specimens, which are more eroded than the solid cast pewter buttons previously described.  These buttons were also associated with a "bundle" of other artifacts and may have been used, along with numerous glass beads, to decorate a bag.

	Four additional brass buttons were found in the plowzone and appear to postdate the Occaneechi occupation at the site.

	Nine of the 17 buckle frames found were associated with Burial 11.  These cast pewter frames were found in the head area, obviously adorning some type of head band.  They are circular, approximately one inch in diameter, and have a leaded (embossed) decoration on one side.  No tangs were found with these frames, suggesting they were either sewn or woven onto the head band.

	A complete brass buckle was recovered from Burial 3 and two similar buckles (first, second) were associated with Burial 8.  These buckles are of standard brass construction and have D-shaped frames.  The two buckles from Burial 8 have the remnants of leather adhering to the metal, indicating that they were belt or strap fasteners.  Fragments of similar brass buckles also were recovered from Feature 45 (n=3) and the plowzone (n=2).  Finally, two iron buckle tines were recovered from Feature 28 and the plowzone.

Material Resources

	Clothing materials used by the Occaneechi are represented only by seven pieces of leather or buckskin that were preserved by being in contact with two copper wire bracelets found on the left arm of Burial 6, and by three pieces of a coarse-woven fabric that was preserved by being in contact with a pair of scissors in Burial 3.  Although the fiber of this fabric could not be positively identified, the weave appears to be a simple one-over and one-under pattern, and the texture resembles a coarse canvas or duck type of cloth.  It is suggested that this cloth, found in association with a "bundle" of artifacts, represents the remains of a bag or tote sack, rather than an article of clothing.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Food Consumption Group, Page Number: 124  
Food Consumption Group

	Items related to food preparation, serving, and storage comprise this artifact group.  Classes consist of glass containers, Euroamerican ceramics, metal containers, and utensils.  The glass container class included two whole wine bottles, 266 bottle glass fragments, three stemware fragments, 16 tumbler fragments, two canning jar fragments, two lamp base fragments, and 44 indeterminate glass container fragments.  A total of 104 non-aboriginal (mostly European) potsherds from the plowzone also were analyzed.  Metal containers are represented by a nearly whole brass kettle, three kettle fragments, and three badly decomposed pewter porringers.  Two latten spoons (an alloy of copper, zinc, and iron) and two broken spoon handles represent the utensils class.

Glass Containers

	The two dark green English wine bottles (first, second) were found in burial contexts—one in Burial 3 and one in Burial 4.  Both bottles were analyzed using Carrillo's (1974) statistical model, Baker's (1974) modification of Carrillo's model, Dumbrell's (1983) descriptive information, and Noël Hume's (1974) comparative summary.  A series of 32 measurements was recorded for each specimen, including basal ring width, mouth radius, height, width, and height of kickup.  A vessel profile of each bottle was constructed to facilitate comparison. These measurements produced a date of 1688–1700 (mean date=1694) for the Burial 4 bottle and a date of 1700–1704 (mean date=1702) for the Burial 3 bottle.

	The Burial 3 bottle measures 16.5 cm in height, with a maximum diameter of 43 cm.  The shape is short and squat with straight sides, narrow neck, and a broad, slightly domed kickup.  An incised mark (possibly the initial "M" or "W") is present on the shoulder of this bottle.  It could not be determined if this initial was of European or aboriginal origin.  Wilson (1984:7) has suggested that "this symbol may have been a trader's mark, or the mark of a European who could not afford a proper seal."

	Visual comparison of the Burial 4 bottle with examples illustrated by Dumbrell (1983:36) suggested a 1680 date for this specimen.  Also, lip and neck profiles were compared to those illustrated by Noël Hume (1974:195), and these provided a date of 1685.  Compared to the Burial 3 bottle, this specimen is slightly shorter (15.8 cm or 6-1/4 inches) with more rounded sides and has a thicker, shorter neck; it has an overall width of 13.7 cm or 5-3/8 inches.  Whole bottles, as containers for rum and other liquids, appear on trade lists of the period (France 1985).  These bottles probably also served as water containers when rum was not available.

	The identification of specimens as bottle glass was determined by the presence of diagnostic attributes (e.g., lip, rim, shoulder, base, kickup, wall thickness, and color).  Of the 266 glass bottle fragments recovered from the Fredricks site, only 37 came from feature or burial contexts.  Dark green bottle glass fragments were found in 21 features or burials, including Burials 3 (see photo), 5, and 10, and Features 1, 9, 10, 13 (see photo), 17, 19, 24, 31, 38, 41 (see photo), 44, 45, 46, 49, 53, 56, 57, and 59.  The ubiquitous occurrence of bottle glass within these contexts suggests that: (1) glass containers were relatively common items among the Occaneechi; and (2) much of the glass from the plowzone is probably also associated with the Occaneechi occupation.

	With the exception of three unidentified glass container fragments, all other glass artifacts (e.g., stemware, tumbler, canning jar, and lamp base fragments) were recovered from the plowzone and postdate the Occaneechi occupation.

Euroamerican Ceramics

	A total of 104 sherds of non-aboriginal ceramics were analyzed according to South's ceramic typology and mean ceramic dating formula (South 1977:210, 217).  All were recovered from the plowzone.  Only 64 (59%) could be positively identified and assigned a manufacturing range and median date.  The resulting mean ceramic date was 1810.48 and clearly postdates the Occaneechi occupation of the Fredricks site.

Metal Containers

	One crushed but nearly whole sheet brass kettle was found in Burial 8.  The diameter of the kettle was 19.5 cm, and its estimated height was 12 to 14 cm.  Six fragments of an iron bail handle were associated with it.  The bail "ears" were of sheet brass and were attached to the kettle walls with paired rivets.  The rim appears to have been rolled over a circular iron wire.  Similar kettles have been found at the Guebert site in Illinois, dating 1670–1730 (Good 1972:166); the Tunica site (Type A, Variety 2), dating 1718 (Brain 1979:173); and the Conestoga site in Pennsylvania, dating 1676–1680 (Kent 1984:209).

	One kettle patch, identified by the presence of rivets, was found.  No type could be determined for this fragment; however, it appears to have been aboriginally modified or cut.  Sheet brass scraps without diagnostic attributes (i.e., patches, rolled rims, or "ears," etc.) were placed in the Metal Resource artifact category.  For some Southeastern Indians, it has been found that kettles were a primary source of sheet brass from which to make items of personal adornment or metal projectile points (Carnes 1983:199).

	Two kettle lugs were recovered from Structure 5 and the plowzone.  Kettle parts are more common at early eighteenth-century sites than late eighteenth-century sites, which may reflect a decline in the availability of brass kettles and probably some replacement of them by tin containers (Carnes 1983:199; Newman 1977:32; Polhemus 1987:963).

	Three badly decomposed pewter porringers were recovered from Burial 2, Burial 4, and Burial 13.  The porringer from Burial 2 was circular in shape with a single pierced handle; it measures 14 cm in diameter, 4 cm in depth, and has a 3.8 mm handle.  The porringer from Burial 4 appeared to have a tapered, scallop-shaped handle and measured 14.5 cm in diameter.  The Burial 13 porringer was too poorly preserved to obtain positive information about its dimensions and handle shape.  All three specimens probably are of English origin.  Similar porringers have been recovered from the Tunica site (Brain 1979:160), Fort Michilimackinac (Stone 1974:192), and Jamestown (Cotter and Hudson 1957:45), all dating from the early 1600s to early 1700s.  Unlike brass kettles, pewter porringers are not often listed on trade inventories; however, they were popular domestic items among the white settlers in the Coastal Plain region according to personal estate records (Brad Rauschenburg, personal communication).  For the inhabitants of the Fredricks site, these porringers may have served as liquid or food containers.

Utensils

	Eating utensils are represented by two complete latten spoons and two spoon handle fragments.  Latten, which is composed of 73% copper, 25% zinc, and 2% iron, was not made in England until the latter part of the sixteenth century (Raymond 1952:228).  The latten spoon recovered from Burial 1 has a round bowl with an unadorned straight handle that is hexagonal in cross section. There is residue of tin plating on the bowl and a small circular maker's mark on the concave bowl portion of the spoon.  The mark appears to consist of a circular cartouche surrounding three spoons (the outer two pointing in the opposite direction from the center one) flanked by two indistinguishable initials.  Price (1908:35–37) contends that the three-spoon mark with initials is a common trade mark.  Unfortunately, no guild for whitesmiths had yet been established in England in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century (Merry Outlaw, personal communication).  A second complete latten spoon was found in Burial 8.  Stylistically, it is different from the one described above, in that it has a seal-top finial on the handle and a fig-shaped (or oval) bowl.  It also exhibited traces of tin plating.  The touch mark, clearly visible on this specimen, consisted of a circle surrounding three spoons and the initials T and S.  Again, no maker or exact date could be determined for this spoon.  The bowl of the spoon had aboriginal modification in the form of incised geometric designs. The interior designs resembled cursive "L"s, arranged in a series around the bowl rim.  The exterior patterns appeared to be a stylized chevron, again arranged in a series around the bowl perimeter.  Similar geometric patterns were noted on a shell gorget from Burial 1.  Whether this spoon was worn as an ornament or was just a vehicle for artistic expression is unknown.  Similar spoons with similar touch marks are reported for Susquehannock sites in Pennsylvania and are believed to date to 1660–1700 (Kent 1984:287-293).  Noël Hume (1969:180–181) proposes that tin plating replaced silver plating around 1650.

	Finally, two spoon handle fragments were recovered.  One of these, the mid-section of a hexagonally-shaped latten spoon handle, was found in the fill of Feature 13.  The finial and bowl were missing, and the handle was bent, which suggests aboriginal modification.  The other fragment, found in the plowzone, has a trifid handle tip and may not be associated with the Occaneechi occupation.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Personal Group, Page Number: 125  
Personal Group

	This artifact group, which contained the greatest number and variety of European trade items, was divided into three classes: (1) ornaments; (2) grooming implements; and (3) entertainment items.  The ornament class was the largest and consisted of jewelry items such as glass beads, brass bells, and wire bracelets.  A few of the artifacts from the personal group were datable.

Ornaments

	A total of 12,488 glass beads were found at the Fredricks site.  Three ivory beads also were recovered.  Wampum beads and other aboriginally manufactured shell beads are discussed with shell ornaments.

	The three ivory beads were recovered from Burial 2, Burial 3, and Feature 13.  All are 6 mm in diameter, 5 mm long, spherical, have polished exteriors, and were yellowed with age. Beads of this type, often called "rosary beads," have been found at Fort Michilimackinac (Stone 1974:114–115), the Tunica site (Brain 1979:221), the Cherokee town of Tomotley (Carnes 1983:202), and the Guebert site (Good 1972:123).  Stone (1974:115) suggests that these beads were traded individually as well as being attached to religious apparel, and that they were present as early as 1680 and lasted through the mid-1700s.

	Glass beads ranged in size from small (<4 mm in diameter) "seed" beads to very large (>10 mm in diameter) necklace beads and were of several colors (see Table 8).  Color preference varied with bead size.   Glass beads were present in most excavated contexts at the Fredricks site; however, none were recovered from Feature 8 or Feature 30, both of which are prehistoric features that predate the Occaneechi occupation.

	Small seed beads (n=11,232) were the most common and probably were sewn on articles of clothing.  A majority of these beads were white (89.3%), though numerous redwood (8.9%) and blue seed beads (1.4%) also were recovered.  Kent (1984:211–223) has placed the peak popularity for blue seed beads at 1575 to 1760, with a major increase from 1600 to 1665.  The popularity of white beads seems to have remained fairly consistent throughout the Historic period.  For the most part, however, the trade records lack details of glass beads.

	Glass beads greater than 4 mm in diameter likely were worn on strands and only secondarily as sewn decorations on garments.  In contrast to the small seed beads, the larger beads were predominantly redwood in color and of a type commonly referred to as Cornaline d'Aleppo beads.  Most of the other medium-to-very-large beads were white, blue, or "fancy" beads.

	A few of the fancy beads provided additional chronological information.  "Roman" beads recovered from Burial 1 were opaque black with yellow glass inlaid lines and of wire-wound construction (Kidd and Kidd's [1970] Type IIj).  Brain (1979:113) contends that these beads originated in Amsterdam, and he reports dates of 1669 to 1799 for the type.  They have been found at the Tunica site (Brain 1979:113), the Guebert site (Good 1972:115), Fort Michilimackinac (Stone 1974:99), the Tomotley site (Carnes 1983:206), and Susquehannock sites in Pennsylvania (Kent 1984:214–215).  A large blue bead (translucent), identified as Kidd and Kidd's Type IIa55 was found in Burial 6.  These are dated 1600–1800 by Brain (1979:112).  An opaque, turquoise blue bead with a compound white/red stripe, found in Burial 2, is dated 1680–1836 (Brain 1979:104).  It is Kidd and Kidd's Type IIb7.

	Several varieties of Cornaline d'Aleppo beads, identified as Kidd and Kidd's Type IVa, were found.  In general, these beads have a redwood colored opaque slip over a gray, green, clear, or white core and occur in all sizes.  They date from 1600 to 1836 (Brain 1979:106).  A single, dark red-purple tubular bead, found in Feature 13, may represent glass wampum.  Good (1972:120) found similar beads at the Guebert site, and assigns them a date of 1660–1677.  Three translucent navy blue beads with alternating red and white stripes were found in Features 9 and 13 and can be dated to 1700–1740 (Good 1972:109).

	Finally, Kent (1984:213) offers a few critical observations on the use of bead types as chronological indicators.  At Susquehannock sites, straw beads (tubular or cane beads) had their greatest popularity between 1630 and 1670; sites dating after 1670 contained fewer straw beads and more tumbled seed beads.  Also, numbers of wire-wound beads (all sizes) increased on sites dating to the middle-to-late eighteenth century.  Polhemus's (1987:939–946) observations at Overhill Cherokee town sites confirm these temporal trends in bead popularity.  The only wire-wound beads found at the Fredricks site were the "Roman" beads.  Based on the above information, a date between 1670 and 1740 for the historic occupation of the Fredricks site is reasonable.

	Bells appear frequently on trade inventories and apparently were popular ornamental items among the Indians.  Thirty-five sheet brass bells were recovered from the Fredricks site, and all but two were recovered from features or burials.  Twenty-three bells were found in Burial 7.  These bells appear to have been sewn together on straps or on a garment and fastened around the knees of the individual, 12 around one knee and 11 around the other.  The bells from Burial 7 are identified as a flush-edge type, made of stamped sheet brass by flush-loop construction, and they measure 15.5 mm in diameter.  A small iron sphere was visible through the holes of the lower hemisphere of each bell.  Brain (1979:197) reported finding identical bells at the Tunica site that date 1699–1730.  A single bell from Feature 13 is also made from stamped sheet brass, but the equatorial seam is flanged rather than flush.  It measures 18 mm in diameter and has a flush loop for attachment.  This variety, which is often referred to as a "Saturn bell," has been found at the Fatherland site (1699–1730), Fort Michilimackinac (1700–1730), and other sites dating 1659–1681 (Brain 1979:202).  Eight brass bells also were associated with Burial 10.  Four of these had flush edges and were 15 mm in diameter; the other four were Saturn-type bells and were 18 mm in diameter.  Two other brass bells were recovered from the plowzone, and a bell fragment was found in Feature 44.

	Wire bracelets were associated with Burial 6 (n=2) and Burial 11 (n=1).  Both of the bracelets with Burial 6 are made of brass and are of the same style and gauge of wire, but are of slightly different size.  These compound, C-shaped bracelets were found on the left forearm of the individual and appeared to be partially covered with leather (possibly the remains of a garment lying on the bracelets).  The Burial 11 bracelet was made of iron wire but otherwise was similar to the Burial 6 artifacts.  Iron bracelets have been recovered from the late seventeenth-century Upper Saratown site (31Sk1a) (see map) and one made of brass wire was found at the Madison site (31Rk6).  All of these others were found in burial contexts.  C-shaped bracelets are diagnostic of the early to middle period of Indian trade (Brain 1979:193), when they were common ornamental items.

	Often, bulk quantities of metal wire (e.g., brass, iron, and copper) were traded to the Indians specifically for modification into ornaments, fishhooks, or coils.  A single brass wire coil was found in the fill of Feature 13.  Similar coils have been found at the Tunica site (Brain 1979:196) and at many of the Cherokee sites in Tennessee (Carnes 1983:208; Polhemus 1987:963), mostly in burial contexts.  It has been suggested that these coils functioned either as ornaments or sometimes as hair pluckers (tweezers) or ear ornaments (Brain 1979:196).

	Other ornamental items found at the Fredricks site included: (1) two brass finger rings (a whole ring from the plowzone and a fragment from Feature 47); (2) cut brass dangles from Feature 18 (n=1), Feature 19 (n=4), and the plowzone (n=1); (3) a tubular brass bead and a spiraled, brass wire frog(?) effigy from Feature 41; and (4) two unidentified brass ornament fragments from Feature 17 and Feature 45.

Grooming Implements

	Four pieces of flat mirror glass were found at the Fredricks site.  While two of these came from the plowzone and cannot be firmly associated with the Occaneechi occupation, the others were recovered from the Structure 1 wall trench and the fill of Burial 14.  Mirrors, or looking glasses, show up frequently on trade lists (France 1985).  It has been noted at Cherokee sites, however, that mirrors sometimes functioned as personal adornment, suspended from the neck or sewn on clothing, rather than as grooming implements (Carnes 1983:208).

Entertainment Items

	Artifacts within this third class of personal artifacts have been collectively termed entertainment items and include smoking pipes, ember tongs, a snuff box, and iron Jew's harps.  Kaolin pipe fragments were common in both plowzone (n=139) and feature/burial (n=357) contexts.  Three relatively complete kaolin pipes also were recovered from Feature 45 (see pipe), Feature 61 (see pipe), and the plowzone overlying Structure 11.  In contrast, only 107 aboriginally-made pipe fragments and four complete pipes (see first, second) were found.  Many of these fragments were from terra-cotta pipes, some with fine rouletted designs, which imitate the English kaolin pipe form.  Two complete terra-cotta pipes were associated with Burial 5.  It has been suggested that these pipes may have been made by either Virginians or Virginia Indians for the fur trade (Ward and Davis 1993:365–368).  In addition to clay pipes, two pewter pipes were associated with Burial 3 (see pipe) and Burial 6 (see pipe), and three other pewter pipe fragments were recovered from Feature 41 and the plowzone (n=2).

	Stem fragments of kaolin pipes from the Fredricks site were sorted by context and by bore diameter.  A general period of manufacture was calculated for each bore diameter using the formula of Harrington (1954:6–8).  Of 42 measurable mid-section fragments recovered during 1983 and 1984, 55% belong to a 1650–1680 period of manufacture, whereas 33% date to 1680–1710.  When Binford's (1962:19–21) regression formula was applied to the sample, a date of 1678.95 was determined for plowzone pipe stems, and a date of 1683.16 was calculated for pipe stems from burial/feature contexts.  This finding strongly suggests that the pipe stems recovered in the plowzone can be identified with the same occupation that is responsible for the burials and features.  Because of the small sample (18 stems from plowzone and 24 from burial/feature contexts), and criticisms of the validity of pipe-stem dating, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these dates.

	Aboriginally manufactured clay pipes from the Fredricks site were analyzed for form, decoration, composition, completeness, and dimensions of stem length, bore diameter, and bowl-to-stem angle.  Decorations on a few of the bowls and stem sections included incised bands, roulettes, punctations, and dentate designs. Paste consisted of micaceous clays, sometimes with fine-grain grit tempering.  Although none was glazed, many exhibited evidence of burning through soot deposits.  A few specimens revealed marks of metal tools.  An attempt was made to correlate bore diameters of the finer-made, or tooled, aboriginal pipes to the bore diameters of European kaolin pipes.  Using the same gauges as were used on the aboriginal specimens, an average bore diameter of 8/64 in (3.7 mm) was obtained from 26 specimens.  Binford's (1962:19–21) regression formula was used on 13 specimens to obtain a date of 1673.21 for burial/feature contexts.

	The cast pewter pipe recovered from Burial 3 was identified as a tulip-bowl style, possibly of Dutch or British origin.  Although cast pewter pipes could not be found on any of the trade lists reviewed (France 1985), they have been found archaeologically at Iroquois sites in New Jersey dating to 1650–1687 (Heye and Pepper 1915:50), and Kent (1984:287) reported a pewter pipe stem from the Conestoga site (c. 1680s).  It is also possible that this pipe could be of Anglo-American origin and was produced specifically for trade among the Indians.  Noël Hume (1969:308) has noted that metal pipes were popular items among White hunters and travelers in the latter part of the eighteenth century because clay pipes tended to be too fragile for travel.  Archaeological remains of lead ammunition manufacturing at the Fredricks site suggests that the natives themselves were knowledgeable about casting methods and could have made this pipe.  A second, hand-carved pewter pipe stem found in Burial 6 strengthens this observation.  The stem consists of a hollow tube of pewter encased in an outer sleeve with geometric cut-outs decorating the bowl end.  Three small spurs were noticed at this end and may have served to attach a wooden bowl (not archaeologically preserved).  Observations in the field during excavation of this object suggested the deteriorated remains of a metal bowl rim or liner were present.  A funnel-shaped, hand-made pewter object found in Feature 13 has been tentatively identified as a pipe-bowl liner for a wooden bowl.  A similar pipe-bowl liner made of copper was found at an historic Indian cemetery known as the Grimsby site (Kenyon 1982:108).  A bowl liner of this type could have been used with the carved pipe stem from Burial 6.

	Two iron ember tongs or "tenders," also known as "smoker's companions" or spring tongs, were found in Burial 3 and the plowzone.  Three other pieces of ember tongs were recovered from Feature 17 and the plowzone (n=2).  Wilson (1984:4) has suggested that the tongs in Burial 3 were associated with a smoker's kit or bundle.  Ember tongs or "tobacco tongues" are described in ethnohistorical accounts of this period and appear on trade inventories (France 1985).  Noël Hume (1969:309) suggests that ember tongs were used throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Burial 3 tong is made of iron and has rounded pincer arms and flattened handle ends for easy gripping.  The spring clip found with the specimen was broken off.

	The only other tobacco-related artifact is a snuff box, or perhaps a trinket box, that occurred as part of a bundle of items in Burial 11.  This round box was constructed of tin-plated (or washed) iron and is about two inches in diameter.

	Two iron Jew's harps also were found in the same Burial 11 "bundle," and another Jew's harp was recovered from a bundle of artifacts in Burial 2.  A nearly whole specimen also was found in the plowzone near Burial 12.  Similar artifacts have been found archaeologically at other contact Indian sites such as the Guebert site (Good 1972:132).

	The artifacts comprising the personal group represent  almost 87% of all trade artifacts found at the Fredricks site.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Construction Tool Group, Page Number: 126  
Construction Tool Group

	Four whole (or nearly whole) iron axes and two axe blade fragments comprise this artifact group.  The whole axes were associated with Burial 3 (see axe) and Burial 5 (see axe).  The axe from Feature 53 was nearly complete except for a chipped blade, and the Feature 51 specimen was a large axe (with a 13 cm long blade) that appears to have been recycled into a hoe after the hafting eye or loop broke. The two axe blade fragments came from the bottom of Feature 9 (see fragment) and the plowzone.  The specimen from Feature 9 was the blade portion only and may have been discarded when it broke and could not be repaired.  The two axes from Burial 3 and Burial 5 were complete and nearly identical in style, with oval "hafting" eyes and blade dimensions of approximately 3 inches (7.7 cm) in width and 5-1/2 inches (14.3 cm) in length.

	These axes were made by bending a thick sheet of iron around a mandrel to form the eye of the haft, then forging the two ends of the sheet together into a blade, and finally spreading and thinning the blade toward the bit which was ground to a sharp edge.  Sometimes a steel bit was added to the working edge to prolong sharpness.  Similar axes have been found at the Tunica site (Brain 1979:140), the Guebert site (Good 1972:162), Fort Michilimackinac (Stone 1974:301), and Susquehannock sites in Pennsylvania (Kent 1984:236).  Also called "hatchets" or "tomahawks" on trade inventories, small axes of this variety were popular commodities in the Indian trade (France 1985).  Brain (1979:140) notes that "while axes were distributed widely throughout the Historic period there was little or no change in basic styles, which renders them of little use for dating or other correlations."

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Farm Tool Group, Page Number: 127  
Farm Tool Group

	Five iron hoes and hoe fragments comprise this artifact group.  Two complete hoes were associated with Burials 6 and Burial 9.  The specimen from Burial 6 is a broad-blade variety with a blade width of 8 inches (20 cm) and blade length of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm).  This piece has a cylindrical haft which is heavily reinforced by a strong ridge at the bottom, at which point a prominent tang extends approximately half-way down the inner surface of the blade.  The blade has rounded shoulders and a flaring bit.  This hoe is identical to the type found at the Tunica site and classified by Brain (1979:144) as Type A, Variety 1.  Broad hoes have also been recovered from many of the Overhill Cherokee towns (Carnes 1983:176), where they replaced stone and wooden tools for digging and farming.  On period trade lists, broad hoes appear to have a higher value in deerskins than narrower hoes (France 1985).

	The second intact iron hoe was recovered from Burial 9 and is a narrow-blade variety.  This type of hoe has been described at the Tunica site by Brain (1979:146) as Type C.  It was constructed in a similar fashion to the Type A hoe except that the haft was not reinforced and the central tang was not pronounced.  The blade is six inches (15 cm) wide and eight inches (20 cm) long.  Another hoe of this type was found at Jamestown (Cotter and Hudson 1957:74) and dates to the late seventeenth century.

	Three broken hoes were recovered from Feature 13, Feature 18, and Burial 10.  The broken hoe from Feature 13 seems to be the broad-blade variety, but the blade is missing.  No evidence of retouch or reuse was noted.  The Feature 18 specimen is a blade fragment.  The broken iron hoe from Burial 10 was found in association with a polished greenstone celt near the skull.  The blade end of the hoe shows either damage or reworking.  This item probably was selected out of the everyday toolkit for burial accompaniment.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Misc. Hardware Group, Page Number: 128  
Miscellaneous Hardware Group

	Several miscellaneous hardware items make up this artifact group, including: knives and knife parts, an iron hook, wire fishhooks, horseshoes, a cooper's tool, lead bale seals, and rod/bar fragments.  Most numerous in this group were knives and knife parts.  Fourteen whole or nearly whole iron case knives were recovered from Burial 1 (see first, second), Burial 2 (see first, second), Burial 3 (see first, second), Burial 5 (see knife), Burial 8 (see knife), Burial 9 (see knife), Burial 11, Burial 13 (see first, second), Feature 45 (see knife), and Feature 59 (see knife).  All have bone handles except for the two knives from Burial 3 which appear to have wooden handles.  Measurements taken on the more complete knives indicate that blade lengths ranged from 3 to 5 inches (8–12 cm), and blade width ranged from 1/2 to 1-1/4 inches (1.5–3 cm).  Handle shape also varied from a rounded end to a beveled apex.  Most blade tips were missing.  Knife-blade fragments were common throughout the excavation and were found in Burial 1, Burial 3 (see fragments), Feature 12 (see fragment), Feature 17, Feature 59, and the plowzone (n=20).  Knife-handle fragments were recovered from Feature 19, Feature 41 (n=3), Feature 51 (n=3), Feature 56 (n=2, see handle), Feature 59, and the plowzone (n=9).  Knives were common trade items, typically sold or traded in bulk quantity (France 1985).  Brain (1979:153) states that metal knives were the first Euroamerican item to replace a native counterpart (i.e., stone knives).

	Two brass wire fishhooks were recovered from undisturbed contexts, one from the upper fill of Burial 1 and the other from the fill of Feature 13.  Both fishhooks had tapered tips and flattened tops for attachment.  European-made fishhooks appear on trade inventories and were sold by the dozen (France 1985).  Another hook, an iron snap hook made to be attached to a leather strap, was recovered from the plowzone.

	Excavation of the Structure 5 wall trench produced numerous Euroamerican artifacts including an iron cooper's tool.  This tool, similar to a small curve-bladed adze, was used originally to shave the interior of barrel staves.  John Lawson, writing in the early eighteenth century, observed that the Tuscarora carved wooden bowls for trade with other Indians, including the Occaneechi (Lefler 1967:64).  It is possible that this woodworking tool was used for that purpose.

	All other items classified as miscellaneous hardware came from the plowzone and thus cannot be definitely associated with the Occaneechi occupation.  These include: an iron horseshoe and three horseshoe fragments, two iron washers, five iron rod or bar fragments, and three lead bale seals.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Metal Resource Group, Page Number: 129  
Metal Resource Group

	Artifacts placed in this group include nine pieces of wire, 23 pieces of metal scrap (lead and iron), 98 pieces of cut sheet-metal strips (mostly of brass), and 11 wire fragments.  Many of these pieces probably represent by-products of aboriginally modified Euroamerican artifacts.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Other Artifacts Group, Page Number: 130  
Other Artifacts Group

	This final artifact group contains 11 by-products of heat-generating activities (e.g., coal, slag, cinders) found in the plowzone.  All of these items likely postdate the Occaneechi occupation at the site.

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Non-recovered Artifacts, Page Number: 131  
Non-recovered Artifacts

	During the 1986 excavation, two burials were discovered.  In accordance with property owner's wishes, the two burials were carefully excavated, cleaned, and documented, but not removed from the ground.  Consequently, the historic trade items that were observed in association with these two burials are not listed in the artifact catalog for the site, nor do they appear in Table 7 or Table 8.

	Burial 12 (Feature 50) was located near the palisade line at the southern end of the site.  Excavation revealed a shaft-and-chamber pit containing the remains of a small child or infant. Nine glass trade beads were recovered from pitfill.  Associated artifacts included 12 brass bells, one lead bale seal, and possible fabric remnants.  Cane matting and shell beads also were associated with this burial.  The bells were found in the leg or knee area of the child, similar to Burial 7 and Burial 10 within the cemetery. The bells, made of sheet brass, were of a flush-edged type with a flush loop and iron pebble.  The lead bale seal was stamped with an unintelligible mark.  Three other bale seals have been recovered from the plowzone.

	Burial 14 (Feature 54) also was located in the southwestern area of the site near a palisade entrance.  This burial also was identified as a shaft-and-chamber burial type and contained the remains of a subadult approximately 12 years old.  One piece of lead shot, one mirror fragment, two bone-handled knife fragments, and 436 glass beads were recovered from pitfill and from cleaning around the skeletal remains.  Of the glass beads, 96% were white, a color pattern exhibited in all other burials found at the site.  Historic artifacts occurring as burial associations consisted of nine pewter buttons, one brass buckle frame, 21 brass rings, and several hundred white glass beads.  The pewter buttons, similar to South's Type 31 (Noël Hume 1969:91), were cast with eyelet and disc molded as a single piece.  Similar buttons were recovered from Burial 1.  The buttons and the buckle were found in the waist and hip areas of the burial.  Of particular interest were the several brass rings that adorned this child.  Nine rings were observed on each hand (i.e., three rings on three fingers).  Three additional rings were found near the right arm.  Only one other brass ring was found elsewhere at the site.  Noël Hume (1969:265) describes this style of ring as "the most common type, a simple band, convex on the outside and flat inside, which occurs on eighteenth-century sites but which is itself undatable."  Numerous white glass beads (Kidd's type IIa) were observed near the right hip and may represent the remains of a beaded garment or sash.
	Unlike other burials at the site, neither of these burials appeared to contain "burial bundles" or clusters of artifacts. This may suggest cultural or status differences for these two individuals.  In addition, these burials also contained fewer and less variety of grave goods than most of the previously excavated burials within the cemetery.  The higher incidence of ornamental objects, however, is similar to other subadult burials at the site (see Ward 1987).

Page: European Trade Artifacts: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 132  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 7. Historic artifacts found at the Fredricks site. 

Table 8. Summary of glass trade beads from the Fredricks site. 
 
Figures: Architecture Group: Construction Fasteners

Figure 321. Nails from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a629). 

Figure 322. Iron nail from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a558). 

Figure 373. Iron nails from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a630). 

Figures: Arms Group: Ammunition

Figure 58. Lead shot from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a616). 

Figure 100. Lead shot from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6113). 

Figure 323. Lead ball and shot. 

Figure 324. Lead shot from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a554). 

Figure 374. Lead shot from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6747). 

Figure 375. Lead shot from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a610). 

Figure 376. Lead shot from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a623). 

Figure 377. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6417). 

Figure 378. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 23 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6528). 

Figure 379. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2351a257). 

Figure 380. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a626). 
Figure 381. Pieces of lead shot from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a955). 

Figures: Arms Group: Dog-Lock Musket

Figure 115. Firing mechanism of musket from Burial 6. 

Figure 326. Dog-lock musket from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2254). 

Figure 327. Gunflint in hammer of musket from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2255). 

Figures: Arms Group: Gun Parts

Figure 59. Dog-lock gun spring fragment from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a566). 

Figure 328. Musket side plate from Sq. 230R20 (RLA catalog no. 2378a2343). 

Figure 329. Musket frizzens from Sq. 180R30 and Sq. 250R10 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a1055, a2841). 

Figure 330. Musket hammers from Sq. 260R30 and Sq. 290R50 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a4414, a5195). 

Figure 382. Part from dog-lock musket in Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2256). 

Figures: Arms Group: Gunflints

Figure 325. Gunflints: locally made (top) and European (middle-bottom). 

Figure 383. Gunflint from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a275). 

Figure 384. Gunflint from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3160). 

Figure 385. Gunflint from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6476). 

Figure 386. Gunflint from Feature 29 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6936). 

Figure 387. Gunflint from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7065). 

Figure 388. Gunflint from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a146). 

Figure 389. Gunflint from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a238). 

Figure 390. Gunflint from Feature 48 (RLA catalog no. 2378a378). 

Figure 391. Gunflint from Feature 49 (RLA catalog no. 2378a460). 

Figure 392. Gunflint from Feature 57 (RLA catalog no. 2378a864). 

Figure 393. Gunflints from Burial 3 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a450,a561). 

Figure 394. Gunflints from Feature 10 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3090,a3101). 

Figure 395. Gunflints from Feature 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3229,a3272). 

Figure 396. Gunflints from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6362,a6401). 

Figure 397. Gunflints from Feature 27 (Burial 10) (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6706, a6697). 

Figure 398. Gunflints from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378a502). 

Figure 399. Gunflints from Feature 53 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a611,a553). 

Figure 400. Gunflints from Feature 59 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a916, a990, a942). 

Figure 401. Gunflints from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1020). 

Figures: Clothing Group: Clothing Fasteners

Figure 57. Brass buckle from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a621). 

Figure 66. Pewter buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a538). 

Figure 68. Pewter button with design top from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a368). 

Figure 101. Brass buckle from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2549). 

Figure 105. Pewter buckle frames from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6114). 

Figure 336. European-made buttons and buckles. 

Figure 337. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a373). 

Figure 338. Hollow cast lead buttons from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a609). 

Figure 339. Brass buckle and leather from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2551). 

Figure 402. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a352). 

Figure 403. Glass buttons from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a582). 

Figure 404. Metal button from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a368). 

Figure 405. Small metal fasteners from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7214). 

Figure 406. Wire coil and buckle frame from Feature 45 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a247, a256). 

Figures: Clothing Group: Sewing Implements

Figure 53. Scissors with fabric and matting from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a624). 

Figure 54. Scissors from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a627). 

Figure 64. Scissors from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a542/1). 

Figure 65. Scissors from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a542/2). 

Figure 118. Scissors from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2242). 

Figure 332. Bone-handled punch/awl (?) from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6111). 

Figure 333. Iron scissors from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a575). 

Figure 334. Brass thimble from Feature 49 (RLA catalog no. 2378a462). 

Figure 335. Brass thimble from Sq. 230R30 plowzone (RLA catalog no. 2378a2386). 

Figure 407. Iron awl from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a612). 

Figures: Construction Tool Group

Figure 71. Iron axe from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a564). 

Figure 361. Iron axe from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2004). 

Figure 362. Iron axe from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a576). 

Figure 363. Broken iron axe from Feature 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3000). 

Figures: Farm Tool Group

Figure 91. Iron hoe from Burial 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2703). 

Figure 114. Iron hoe from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2262). 

Figure 364. Broken iron hoe from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3231). 

Figure 365. Broken iron hoe blade from Feature 18 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6253). 

Figure 366. Iron hoe from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6764). 

Figures: Food Preparation and Consumption: Glass Containers

Figure 76. Wine bottle (with engraved "M") from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a568). 

Figure 106. Wine bottle from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1774). 

Figure 341. Profile of glass wine bottle from Burial 4. 

Figure 342. Worked wine bottle fragment from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a618). 

Figure 343. Glass wine bottle fragment from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3237). 

Figure 344. Glass wine bottle fragment from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7252). 

Figures: Food Preparation and Consumption: Metal Containers 

Figure 74. Pewter porringer on pedestal from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a555). 

Figure 93. Copper kettle on pedestal from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2553). 

Figure 113. Pewter porringer on pedestal from Burial 4 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1775). 

Figure 345. Pewter porringer, iron knife, and kaolin pipe from Burial 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6672,a6673,a6674). 

Figures: Food Preparation and Consumption: Utensils 

Figure 60. Spoon from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a537). 

Figure 290. Engraved design on latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 

Figure 346. Latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547). 

Figure 347. Maker's mark on latten spoon from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2547).

Figures: General 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 119. Knife, pipes, and beads on pedestal from Burial 5 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a1998, a1999, a2000, a2001). 

Figures: Gorgets 

Figure 72. Large shell gorget from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a535). 

Figures: Miscellaneous Hardware Group 

Figure 55. Iron knife from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a558). 

Figure 56. Wooden-handled knife from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a626). 

Figure 61. Iron knife (fragmented) from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a551). 

Figure 62. Bone-handled knife from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a543/1). 

Figure 63. Bone-handled knife from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a543/2). 

Figure 75. Iron knife (fragmented) from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a553). 

Figure 92. Iron knife from Burial 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6671). 

Figure 98. Bone-handled knife from Burial 9 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2706). 

Figure 112. Bone-handled knife from Burial 8 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2548). 

Figure 367. Bone-handled knife from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a244). 

Figure 368. Bone-handled knife from Feature 59 (RLA catalog no. 2378a972). 

Figure 369. Knife blade fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a620). 

Figure 370. Iron knife blade from Feature 12 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3185). 

Figure 371. Bone knife handle from Feature 56 (RLA catalog no. 2378a771). 

Figure 372. Adze-like iron tool from Structure 5 wall trench (RLA catalog no. 2351a7368). 

Figure 408. Wooden knife-handle fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a559). 

Figures: Other Figures 

Figure 331. Small metal trade artifacts from Sqs. 190R30, 190R60, 220R0, 230R10, and 240R30 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a1241, a1339, a1362, a1965, a2296, a2297, a2683). 

Figure 348. Small metal trade artifacts from Feature 13 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a3225,a3233,a3234,a3235,a3249). 

Figure 409. Aboriginally modified metal artifacts. 

Figure 410. Coiled brass wire from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1024). 

Figure 411. Copper and leather from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2201). 

Figure 412. Copper and leather object from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2261). 

Figure 413. Copper wire from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2267). 

Figure 414. Small brass object from Feature 17 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6203).

Page: European Trade Artifacts: List of Figures (cont.), Page Number: 133  
List of Figures (continued)

Figures: Personal Group: Entertainment Items (Other) 

Figure 70. Ember tender from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a563). 

Figure 96. Tin box from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6112). 

Figure 99. Mouth harp from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6114/2). 

Figure 360. Jews harp from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a611). 

Figures: Personal Group: Entertainment Items (Pipes) 

Figure 69. Smoking pipes: native clay (top), kaolin (middle), and pewter (bottom). 

Figure 111. Pewter pipe stem from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2260). 

Figure 353. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 45 (RLA catalog no. 2378a243). 

Figure 354. Clay pipe from Feature 61 (RLA catalog no. 2378a1023). 

Figure 355. Clay pipe from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a65). 

Figure 356. Clay pipe from Feature 53 (three views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a617/2). 

Figure 357. Clay pipe bowl from Feature 19 (two views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a6364). 

Figure 358. Pewter pipe from Burial 3 (RLA catalog no. 2351a562). 

Figure 359. Pewter pipe-bowl liner (?) from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3236). 

Figure 415. Clay pipe bowl from posthole in Sq. 180R50 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3305). 

Figure 416. Clay pipe bowls from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2378a7191). 

Figure 417. Clay pipe bowls from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2378a7250). 

Figure 418. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 14 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6026). 

Figure 419. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1743). 

Figure 420. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 20 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6480). 

Figure 421. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 31 (RLA catalog no. 2378a13). 

Figure 422. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a67). 

Figure 423. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 42 (three views) (RLA catalog no. 2378a38). 

Figure 424. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 44 (RLA catalog no. 2378a147). 

Figure 425. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 46 (RLA catalog no. 2378a282). 

Figure 426. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 47 (RLA catalog no. 2378a346). 

Figure 427. Clay pipe fragment from Feature 51 (RLA catalog no. 2378a506). 

Figure 428. Clay pipe fragment from Sq. 210R20 plowzone (RLA catalog no. 2378a1699). 

Figure 429. Clay pipe fragments from Burial 3 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a435,a436). 

Figure 430. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a3091). 

Figure 431. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 13 (RLA catalog no. 2378a3230). 

Figure 432. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 17 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6187, a6199). 

Figure 433. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 19 (RLA catalog no. 2378a6442). 

Figure 434. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 19 (RLA catalog nos. 2378a6403, a6431). 

Figure 435. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 28 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a5705, a6808). 

Figure 436. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 29 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a6861, a6937). 

Figure 437. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 33 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7067). 

Figure 438. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7249). 

Figure 439. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 42 (RLA catalog no. 2378a66). 

Figure 440. Clay pipe fragments from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a616). 

Figure 441. Clay pipe from Feature 53 (RLA catalog no. 2378a617/1). 

Figure 442. Pewter pipe-bowl liner (?) from Feature 41 (RLA catalog no. 2351a7159). 

Figures: Personal Group: Ornaments (Bells and Bracelets) 

Figure 94. Wire C-bracelet from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6115/1). 

Figure 102. Brass bells from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6759). 

Figure 104. Brass bells with leather from Burial 7 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2324). 

Figure 117. Brass wire bracelets from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2246). 

Figure 340. Copper bracelet and associated leather from Burial 6 (RLA catalog nos. 2351a2246, a2248). 

Figures: Personal Group: Ornaments (Glass Beads) 

Figure 349. Glass trade beads. 

Figure 350. Glass beads from Burial 14 (RLA catalog no. 2378a720). 

Figure 351. Cornaline d'Aleppo glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6746/1). 

Figure 352. Black glass beads with stripes from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a540). 

Figure 443. Black (burgundy) seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a607). 

Figure 444. Black glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a539). 

Figure 445. Black glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a584). 

Figure 446. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a358). 

Figure 447. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a363). 

Figure 448. Glass beads from Burial 1 (RLA catalog no. 2351a545). 

Figure 449. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6746). 

Figure 450. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6748). 

Figure 451. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6751). 

Figure 452. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6754). 

Figure 453. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6755). 

Figure 454. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6761). 

Figure 455. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6765). 

Figure 456. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6766). 

Figure 457. Glass beads from Burial 10 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6767). 

Figure 458. Glass beads from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6117). 

Figure 459. Glass beads from Burial 11 (RLA catalog no. 2351a6138). 

Figure 460. Glass beads from Burial 14 (RLA catalog no. 2378a710). 

Figure 461. Glass beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a425). 

Figure 462. Glass beads from Burial 5 (RLA catalog no. 2351a1941). 

Figure 463. Glass beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2199). 

Figure 464. Glass beads from Burial 6 (RLA catalog no. 2351a2228). 

Figure 465. Large opaque turquoise beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a604). 

Figure 466. Large opaque white beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a605). 

Figure 467. Opaque white seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a608). 

Figure 468. Red with green centers seed beads from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a606). 

Figure 469. Red-white-blue-striped bead from Burial 2 (RLA catalog no. 2351a603).

Page: European Trade Artifacts: Sources, Page Number: 134  
Sources

	This article was adapted from the following sources:

Euroamerican Artifacts from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites, by Linda F. Carnes.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 141–165.

Euroamerican Artifacts, by Linda F. Carnes.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change. Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1986, pp. 77–90.

Historic Artifacts, by Linda F. Carnes.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:64–75, 1988.

	They are reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–84): Research Questions, Page Number: 135  
Research Questions

	Analysis of the faunal remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites provided information important to interpreting cultural changes among the Piedmont Indians during the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods.  Prior to the faunal analysis a series of research questions, based on information from the ethnohistorical record and from previous archaeological work, was formulated.  Although several of these questions later proved to be unsuitable for the particular faunal assemblages found at the Wall and Fredricks sites, they did provide some insights that allowed this researcher to move beyond simple identification and toward an interpretation of faunal exploitation in the context of culture change.

	The patterns of exploitation of faunal resources reported for several prehistoric North Carolina and Virginia sites (e.g., Barber and Williams 1978; Coleman 1982; Egloff et al. 1980; Runquist 1979; Waselkov 1977) are similar to the pattern reported by Smith (1974) for Middle Mississippi sites in the Mississippi Valley.  In addition to showing a concentration on many of the same species as Smith's groups, the North Carolina and Virginia assemblages reflect a similar pattern of selective, seasonally oriented exploitation.  Smith (1974:288) hypothesizes that

this cycle of selective, seasonal exploitation of certain animal species groups by Middle Mississippi populations was a procurement strategy that concentrated on those sections of the biotic community that would provide a maximum meat yield for a minimum of expended energy.

For the analysis of the faunal remains from the two Eno River sites, Smith's pattern provides two general research questions:

  1. How did the overall pattern of faunal exploitation differ between the two sites?

  2. Can the subsistence strategies exhibited at the two sites be explained in terms of maximization of meat yield and minimization of energy expenditure?

	In order to answer the general research questions, more specific questions were formulated:

  1. What was the relative importance of the various species of animals utilized by the occupants of the two sites?

  2. Was faunal exploitation a seasonal activity at the two sites? If so, during what season(s) was each species hunted?

  3. What strategies were employed for procuring the exploited species?

  4. How selective were the inhabitants of the sites in their exploitation of animal populations?

	Other questions formulated prior to the analysis were:

  1. Can patterns of butchering of the major species be identified?

  2. Is there evidence of hunting species primarily for their hides?

  3. How was faunal exploitation related to plant procurement and exploitation?

  4. Was the pattern of faunal exploitation altered by the introduction of European technology?

  5. Did introductions by Europeans of new plants and animals affect the existing pattern of faunal exploitation?

	These questions formed the initial base from which methods were developed to describe and compare the assemblages recovered from the two sites.  As the questions indicate, in addition to identifying the patterns of faunal exploitation of the inhabitants of the sites, a major goal of this research was to examine the possible effects of European contact on the use of faunal resources.

	It was acknowledged, however, that differences between the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages could not be attributed automatically to European-induced changes in aboriginal subsistence.  For example, differences could have resulted from the fact that the faunal remains from the two sites were retrieved from dissimilar archaeological contexts.  Over 95% of the bones from the Wall site were found in a large midden associated with the palisade along the periphery of the village, and the remainder from the fill of a single burial pit.  Nearly 88% of the bones from the Fredricks site, on the other hand, were obtained from burial fill and the rest from feature fill.  All except one of the burial pits from the Fredricks site contained sizeable quantities of bone fragments in the zones of fill above the human skeletal remains.  These deposits seem not to be the result of overlying midden having slumped into the pits, since the plowzone in the area around the burial pits contained relatively few artifacts.  Although the differing contexts of the bones (sheet midden versus pit fill) are significant, the bones from the fill in the tops of the burial pits at the Fredricks site, and the bones from the midden at the Wall site, can all be considered to represent the disposal of food refuse.
	In addition to reflecting different methods of refuse disposal, the different contexts also may not have provided equal conditions for the preservation of bone.  Whereas the midden at the Wall site probably represents the activities of many people over a period of several years, the remains from the Fredricks site, especially the remains from the burial pits, probably represent much briefer activities of fewer people.  Thus, differences in the assemblages from the two sites may reflect differences in seasons of activity or differences in the behavior of large versus small segments of the representative communities.

	Also, because the remains from the Fredricks site were primarily from burial fill, they may represent ceremonial activities, which could have been quite different from every-day subsistence practices.  Finally, some of the differences between the two assemblages may relate to the fact that the sample from the Wall site (n=30,257) is much larger than that from the Fredricks site (n=16,393).

	Despite these problems, it should be recognized that the assemblages from these two sites offer an excellent opportunity to compare pre-contact and post-contact patterns of exploitation of animal resources in a setting in which variables of the natural environment can, for the most part, be held constant.  Further, both sites were exposed to similar factors affecting the preservation of archaeological remains and they were excavated and recorded utilizing the same field techniques.  Finally, the remains from the two sites were processed, sampled, and analyzed in an identical manner.

	Given the rapidity with which European diseases and social manipulations succeeded in disrupting and ultimately destroying aboriginal culture in piedmont North Carolina, it seemed likely that the faunal remains from the Fredricks site would show at least some evidence of a change in patterns of faunal exploitation from prehistoric to historic times.  It was also expected that differences in the remains would reflect increased participation in the deerskin trade, rather than major changes in subsistence patterns, since ethnohistoric accounts (Lefler 1967:182–184; Swanton 1946:256–257) suggest considerable continuity between prehistoric and historic subsistence practices in North Carolina and Virginia.  Late prehistoric subsistence was based primarily on corn and bean agriculture and deer hunting, with other plants and animals utilized to a lesser extent.

	The seasonal round during late prehistory emphasized deer hunting and food storage in winter, small game capture in spring, fishing and wild and domestic plant food harvesting throughout the summer, and nut gathering and turkey hunting in the fall and early winter (Waselkov 1977:230).

	Swanton (1946:256–257) provides an outline of the historic Southeastern subsistence cycle:

Corn, beans, pumpkins, and a few other vegetables were raised, and the fields where these grew usually determined the sites of the towns.  This was because they required labor and protection and because most of the crop was stored for later consumption.  Dried meat was also stored there, but it was never possible to tell where game animals were to be found, while the location of the field was definite.  This, of course meant that the people were generally in or near their villages in summer. . . .  Between planting and harvest, they did, however, often get time for a shorter hunt.  After harvest they would remain in town until well toward winter to enjoy the produce of their fields and thus place it beyond the reach of human or animal predation.  As the harvest was seldom sufficient to last—nor was it expected to last—until another crop came in, the Indians were obliged to seek natural food supplies elsewhere and, since such supplies were not usually concentrated, this meant that the people themselves scattered about in camps where they remained until planting time.

Swanton (1946:257) also mentions that fish were included in the diet during the summer.

	In his account of the diet of the Siouan groups of North Carolina, Lawson named as staples many of the species found at late prehistoric sites in the same area (Lefler 1967:182–184; Wilson 1983).

	Whereas neither Swanton's nor Lawson's accounts give the kind of information needed to quantify relative dependence upon any particular resource, both indicate that the historic subsistence pattern was similar to the late prehistoric pattern.

	In both the late prehistoric and historic patterns, hunting for food was an important activity.  It seems likely that if the inhabitants of Occaneechi Town did participate in the deerskin trade, their participation involved (at least initially) only an expansion of the hunting activities which were already of major importance in their adaptive strategy.  With increased participation in the deerskin trade over time, it is expected that qualitative (rather than simply quantitative) differences would develop between the hunting activities prior to and after contact.  Rather than merely hunting more often or killing a greater number of animals, it is possible that the Indians began to range further from their villages, exploit portions of the environment that previously had been rarely utilized, or hunt species that had not been hunted frequently in the past.

	We know that during the period at least from 1650–1676, when they were living on an island in the Roanoke River, the Occaneechi played an important role in the deerskin trade.  It is not known, however, whether this participation increased after they moved to the site on the Eno River after around 1680.  If the Occaneechi maintained their strong participation in the deerskin trade after their move south (and the abundance of trade goods at the Fredricks site indicates that this is likely), the faunal remains from the Fredricks site might be expected to differ from those of the late prehistoric Wall site by exhibiting some or all of the following characteristics:

  1. more opportunistic hunting patterns (e.g., hunting should be less seasonally oriented and there should be more evidence of hunting at all times of the year);

  2. less balance between maximization of meat yield and minimization of energy expenditure;

  3. evidence of exploitation of portions of the environment that previously had not been heavily utilized;

  4. changes in procurement strategies (e.g., Waselkov [1977] suggests that the method of hunting deer may have evolved from stalking to community drives);

  5. possibly less specialization and more variability in the faunal assemblage;

  6. increased evidence of hunting for fur and hides rather than for meat, such as increased evidence that animals were butchered in the field with only portions of the carcasses being returned to the site; and

  7. possible increases in the numbers of tools and features associated with hide-working (such as smudge pits).

	The first four expectations would reflect qualitative changes in hunting patterns that might have had the effect of increasing, at least temporarily, the quantity of animals (and skins) obtained.  The fifth expectation might have arisen if the Occaneechi had begun to hunt any available fur-bearing animals, including those species that had not been desirable prior to the onset of European trade.  The sixth expectation would reflect a marked increase in the number of animals killed beyond those required to fulfill the needs (subsistence and raw material) of the site inhabitants.  The final expectation would manifest an increase in the number of tools and features associated with hide-working that might occur with an increase in hide procurement for trade.

	Although this list of preliminary expectations is far from exhaustive, it provides a basis on which to compare the two faunal assemblages beyond merely comparing the frequencies of identified species from each site.  As work with the assemblages has progressed, the initial list has been reevaluated, further questions added, and others eliminated.  Some of these adjustments to the original list of research questions arose when new information was gleaned from the ethnohistorical record.  More frequently, the original questions had to be modified because of limitations imposed by the faunal assemblages themselves.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistor..., Page Number: 136  
Ethnohistoric Accounts of Animal Use

	Among the many ethnohistoric accounts for the Piedmont area of North Carolina and Virginia are those of John Lederer, James Needham and Gabriel Arthur, Robert Fallam, Edward Bland, Abraham Wood (Alvord and Bidgood 1912), and John Lawson (Lefler 1967).  With the exception of Lawson's account, however, none of these documents provides detailed information about hunting, fishing, and other subsistence activities of the historic North Carolina Indians.  In A New Voyage to Carolina, John Lawson described his 1701 exploration of the region from Charleston, South Carolina, through the North Carolina Piedmont, to New Bern, North Carolina.  In addition to presenting the scenes and events of his trip, Lawson also wrote a chapter detailing the "Vegetables," "Beasts," "Insects," "Birds," and "Fish" of North Carolina.  Lawson's account thus provides a wealth of information on the use of faunal resources by North Carolina Indians.

	During his winter journey, in addition to making direct contact with the Occaneechi in their town on the Eno River (Lefler 1967:61), Lawson encountered a number of other groups including the Eno, Keyauwee, Saponi, and Tutelo.  Although he gives considerable attention to the ways in which the Piedmont (and also the coastal) Indians utilized faunal resources, he provides only scanty information about the ways in which the animals were procured (hunted, trapped, etc.).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Mammals, Page Number: 137  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Mammals

	According to Lawson, deer was the most important mammalian resource to the North Carolina Indians.  He mentioned "barbaku'd" and roasted venison, venison broth thickened with acorn meal, and "a Dish, in great Fashion amongst the Indians, which was Two young Fawns, taken out of the Doe's Bellies, and boil'd in the same slimy Bags Nature had plac'd them in" (Lefler 1967:51, 58).  Parts of the deer were utilized in a variety of ways in addition to food.  For example, deer hides were used for clothing, shoes, as covers for drums, and were also an important commodity for trade with the Europeans.  "The Bone of a Deer's Foot" was used for scraping the hair off of hides, and deer brains (after being baked and then soaked in water) were used in tanning hides (Lefler 1967:217).  Lawson also mentioned the use of the "Head of a Buck" as a decoy with which to hunt other deer (Lefler 1967:29).

	Swanton (1946:249) lists a number of ways in which Southeastern Indians used various parts of the deer in addition to those mentioned by Lawson.  Horns were boiled for glue and made into projectile points, ornaments, and needles; hooves were made into rattles; and sinews and skins were used to make fishnets and bowstrings.  Ribs were made into bracelets, and tibiae into flutes.  Tools constructed from deer bones that have been recovered from archaeological sites include metatarsal beamers (hide scrapers), ulna awls, and antler flakers (Waselkov 1977; Runquist 1979).

	In addition to describing the technique of stalking deer, Lawson mentioned that

when these Savages go a hunting, they commonly go out in great Numbers, and oftentimes a great many Days Journey from home, beginning at the coming of Winter. . . .  Thus they go and fire the Woods for many Miles, and drive the Deer and other Game into small Necks of Land and Isthmuses, where they kill and destroy what they please.  (Lefler 1967:215–216)

Other techniques used by North Carolina and Virginia Indians for hunting deer were stalking them without the use of a decoy, and driving them to water without the use of fire (Waselkov 1977:108).

	While visiting Occaneechi Town, Lawson was served "good fat Bear," and the next day, in Adshusheer, he feasted upon "hot Bread, and Bears-oil."  The Indians considered the paws to be the most edible part of the bear, whereas the head was always thrown away (Lefler 1967:122).  In addition to being eaten, bear's oil was used for frying fish, and was mixed with "a certain red Powder" and daubed on the body and used for greasing the hair (Lefler 1967:121, 174).  Lawson also mentioned that the "Oil of the Bear is very Sovereign for Strains, Aches, and old Pains" and that bear's fur was used for making muffs and facing caps (Lefler 1967:122–123).  The only method of capturing bear mentioned by Lawson involved killing the animals that were flushed during the fire drives used for hunting deer (Lefler 1967:17).

	Opossum was used for food by the Indians, but the fur of this animal was "not esteemed nor used" except when it was spun to make baskets, mats, and girdles (Lefler 1967:125–126, 195).  Raccoon meat was served to Lawson on several occasions during his voyage, and raccoon skins and furs were used by the Indians for clothing and blankets (Lefler 1967:23, 126, 200).  Although skunks (or polecats) were used for food, Lawson stated that their skins were not used in any way (Lefler 1967:124).

	Rabbits (or hares) and squirrels were roasted without being gutted, and their skins were used for clothing and blankets.  Although Lawson stated that rabbits were caught during fire drives, he did not provide a description of the ways in which opossums, raccoons, skunks, or squirrels were hunted (Lefler 1967:182, 200).

	Beavers were prized for their thick fur, and their skins were used in making shoes, mittens, and other clothes (Lefler 1967:125, 200).  Beaver meat was also eaten, and its tail was considered a delicacy (Lefler 1967:66, 125).  Lawson encountered a Saponi Indian who maintained traps for capturing beaver (Lefler 1967:54).

	Lawson listed a variety of rodents and insectivores that were found around the houses and fields of the Indians (Lefler 1967:120, 130–131).  These animals may have been used for food, although Lawson did not mention such a practice.

	European-introduced animals present in North Carolina and utilized by the Indians encountered by Lawson during his voyage consisted of horses and pigs.  Although cattle were present, Lawson does not indicate that they were used by the Indians for food.  According to Lawson, the only use made of the horse by the Indians was for carrying deer back to their villages (Lefler 1967:44).  Although Lawson alluded to hog stealing by the Indians, he did not indicate that hogs were raised by them (Lefler 1967:64).  He did mention, however, that the "Paspitank" Indians on the Coastal Plain kept cattle at one time, although he was not sure if they were still raising these animals at the time of his travels.

	All of the mammals identified from the 1983–1984 faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites (with the exception of the shrew and vole) were described by Lawson.  Mammals mentioned by Lawson that were not identified in these archaeological assemblages are buffalo, panther, wild cat, "tyger," otter, minx (mink), elk, and lion.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Birds, Page Number: 138  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Birds

	Lawson listed over 110 birds that could be found in North Carolina at the time of his journey (Lefler 1967:140–141).  Of these, the turkey and the passenger pigeon were the most important to the Indians as sources of food.  Turkey bones were also made into many different kinds of tools (e.g., awls and beamers) and ornaments (e.g., beads).  Turkey feathers were used by Southeastern Indians in making feather mantles and fans, and in feathering arrows.  Arrow points were also manufactured from turkey spurs (Swanton 1946:251).  Turkey meat was offered as food to Lawson so often that it eventually "began to be loathsome" (Lefler 1967:34).

	Although the passenger pigeon is now extinct, Lawson's description provides a vivid picture of this bird and the way it was hunted and used by the Indians.

Pigeons . . . were so numerous in these parts that you might see many Millions in a flock. . . .  You may find several Indian Towns, of not above 17 Houses, that have more than 100 Gallons of Pigeons Oil, or Fat; they using it with Pulse, or Bread, as we do Butter. . . .  The Indians take a Light, and go amongst them in the Night, and bring away some thousands, killing them with long Poles, as they roost in the Trees.  At this time of the Year, the Flocks, as they pass by, obstruct the Light of the Day.  (Lefler 1967:50–51)

	Another bird identified in the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites is the bobwhite quail.  This bird was probably an important source of food and it also provided feathers which could have been used for clothing and decoration.  Other birds identified from the faunal assemblages include sparrows, killdeer, bluejay, great horned owl, woodpecker, and lesser scaup.  Of these only the lesser scaup could be considered, with any certainty, to have been used for food.  Lesser scaup is also the only bird identified in the faunal assemblage that was not mentioned by Lawson.

	It is important to note that Lawson stated that "all small game, such as Turkeys, Ducks, and small Vermine, they [the Indians] commonly kill with Bow and Arrow, thinking it not worth throwing Powder and Shot after them" (Lefler 1967:216).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Reptiles, Page Number: 139  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Reptiles

	The box turtle was probably the most important reptile utilized by the Indians that Lawson encountered.  Box turtle meat was eaten, and the shell was made into rattles, cups, and dippers (Lefler 1967:138).  Other turtles represented in the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites were snapping turtle, painted turtle, musk turtle, and mud turtle.  None of these others was mentioned specifically by Lawson, but all (with the exception of the musk turtle, which was probably not eaten because of its offensive smell) probably were utilized in the same manner as the box turtle.

	Vertebrae from a variety of poisonous and nonpoisonous snakes were identified in the two faunal assemblages.  Lawson mentioned that "all Indians will not eat them [snakes], tho' some do," that the skin of the king snake was used to make girdles and sashes, and that rattlesnake teeth were used in an instrument for scarifying (Lefler 1967:137, 182, 223).  He also noted that the coastal Indians avoided killing snakes "because their Opinion is, that some of the Serpents Kindred would kill some of the Savages Relations, that should destroy him" (Lefler 1967:219).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Amphibians, Page Number: 140  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Amphibians

	Amphibians identified in the archaeological assemblages were the spadefoot toad and indeterminate frogs and toads.  Although Lawson noted the presence of frogs in North Carolina and listed them among the "Insects," he did not mention whether they were used by the Indians for food or for any other purpose.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Fish, Page Number: 141  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Fish

	Lawson listed 20 types of freshwater fish in North Carolina (Lefler 1967:156).  Of these, two (catfish and suckers) were identified in the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites.  The other two species identified archaeologically (gar and sunfish) were not mentioned by Lawson.

	Fishing with hooks, weirs, and with bow and arrow (on the coast) were all described by Lawson (Lefler 1967:218).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Ethnohistoric Accounts: Summary, Page Number: 142  
Ethnohistoric Accounts: Summary

	In addition to describing the ways in which individual species of animals were procured and utilized by the Indians, Lawson provided some additional information useful for interpreting the two faunal assemblages.  He mentioned that the Indians "boil and roast their Meat extraordinary much, and eat abundance of Broth" (Lefler 1967:231).  He also stated that "All the Indians hereabouts carefully preserve the Bones of the Flesh they eat, and burn them, as being of the Opinion, that if they omitted that custom, the game would leave their Country, and they should not be able to maintain themselves by their Hunting" (Lefler 1967:58).  Both of these statements provide information that is helpful in evaluating how accurately the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites reflect the original assemblages of bone produced at these sites and in interpreting any patterns observed in the surviving archaeological assemblages.

	Nearly every species identified in the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites was mentioned by Lawson.  Although Lawson's descriptions of the ways in which the Indians utilized these animals are not consistently detailed, they do provide information that cannot be obtained from the archaeological record alone.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Recovery Techniques, Page Number: 143  
Recovery Techniques

	At the Wall site, after removal of the plowzone, the midden was excavated (with shovels in the first square excavated and with trowels in each subsequent square) in two levels.  These levels corresponded with a slight change in color between the upper and lower midden soil.  The soil from each level in each 10 10-ft square was kept separate and waterscreened through a sluice box equipped with a sequence of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch screens.

	Excavation of burials and other features at the Wall and Fredricks sites was performed with small hand-tools such as trowels, dental probes, and brushes.  Each natural zone within a feature was removed separately, and all fill from each zone was waterscreened as a unit through the sequence of graduated screens.  Special care was taken with the animal bones to ensure that, although dried thoroughly before being placed in plastic storage bags, they did not become cracked and brittle from excessive exposure to sunlight.  Ten-liter samples of soil from each zone in each feature was processed by flotation.  The bones retrieved through this procedure were subsequently screened in the laboratory through 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch screens to permit comparison of these bones with the faunal remains recovered through field waterscreening.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Analytical Procedures, Page Number: 144  
Analytical Procedures

	Only those bones and bone fragments recovered from undisturbed contexts were included in the material analyzed from the Wall and Fredricks sites.  In other words, bone from the plowzone was excluded. The vast majority of the analyzed faunal remains from the Wall site was from four 10 10-ft units of undisturbed sheet midden.  Although three burial pits were excavated at this site in 1983, the fill from only one of those pits contained more than a few poorly preserved bone fragments.  Therefore, the remains from the fill of only one burial pit and four squares of midden make up the sample analyzed from this site.  The 1983–1984 faunal assemblage from the Fredricks site was recovered from the fill of fourteen pits.  Nine of these were burial pits, one was a fire pit, one was a storage pit, and three pits were of indeterminate function.  No sheet midden was found at the Fredricks site.

	Identical analytical procedures were used on the assemblages from both sites.  All of the bone recovered in the 1/2-inch and 1/4-inch mesh screens was analyzed.  There were numerous tiny, unidentifiable fragments of bone retrieved by the 1/16-inch screen.  Because it would have been a time-consuming and (probably) pointless task to separate all of these minute fragments from the fine gravel that was also recovered in this size screen, only those bones and bone fragments which appeared to be identifiable were pulled from the 1/16-inch washings.  The bones and bone fragments from each excavated unit (10 10-ft square of midden, or feature) and from each level or zone within each excavation unit were kept separate during analysis.  Also, bones from different-sized screens were not combined during analysis.

	The basic procedures followed in identifying and analyzing the faunal remains from the two sites closely follow those outlined by Smith (1976): (1) each bone fragment was initially sorted into one of three groups (unidentifiable, identifiable only to class, or identifiable as to skeletal element); and (2) each of these fragments (whether it was identifiable or not) was examined for evidence of modification such as burning or cutting.

	For those bones that could be identified beyond the level of class, the side of the body (when applicable) and portion of the bone (proximal, distal, or shaft) was noted.  After that, a taxonomic identification was made for each of the identifiable bones and bone fragments.  Several of the variables that affected whether a fragment could be identified beyond family or order were: "(1) the specific skeletal element in question (i.e., rib versus mandible), (2) the amount of diagnostic surface present, (3) the ability of the person identifying the specimen, (4) the size of the comparative collection being employed, and (5) the degree of morphological similarity of species within the taxonomic group" (Smith 1976:281).  To help minimize problems introduced by variables (3) and (4), a group of 205 bones and bone fragments was sent for identification to Elizabeth Reitz at the Zooarchaeological Laboratory, University of Georgia.  This sample consisted of bones that appeared to be identifiable but for which the type collection at the Research Laboratories lacked comparative specimens.

	In addition to determining the total number of fragments in each taxonomic category, all of these fragments were weighed.

	When possible, the age and sex of the animal represented by a particular fragment was assessed.  In most cases, these characteristics could be determined only for the remains of white-tailed deer.  Deer age was estimated by noting whether or not the epiphyses of the long bones were closed, and by using Severinghaus's (1949) criteria of tooth development and wear.  Sex of the deer was determined by using the pelvic girdle criteria set forth by Edwards et al. (1982).  Attempts to determine age and sex of several other species, such as rabbits, squirrels, and raccoons, were less successful than for deer.  This problem resulted, in large part, from characteristics of the faunal assemblages themselves.  Many of the bones, or portions of bones, that display the characteristics used to distinguish between animals of different ages or sexes simply were not present in the remains being studied.

	Information obtained from the procedures discussed above constitute primary data or "direct quantification of identified material" (Wing 1979:119).  Several factors can influence how accurately these primary data reflect the original faunal sample.  All bones, for example, do not stand an equal chance of being represented in an archaeological assemblage.  The survival of bone after it has been discarded is affected, primarily, by two factors: its physical condition at the time of disposal, and the nature of the environment in which it was placed.  Whether a bone was burned, boiled, or roasted affects its chemical and physical properties, which, in turn, influences preservation (Chaplin 1971:15).  Also, the basic structure of the bone must be considered.  Teeth and phalanges are stronger than ribs and vertebrae, and thus are less likely to be destroyed (Payne 1972:68).

	The manner in which a particular bone was discarded further affects its survival.  If the bones were buried in a trash pit, for example, the rate of disintegration would depend on factors such as the "acidity or alkalinity, degree of aeration, movement of water, bacterial population, as well as the structure and seasonal properties of the soil" (Chaplin 1971:16).  If it remained on the surface of the ground, it would be more accessible to scavengers, more likely to be damaged by weather, and more susceptible to being stepped on and crushed.

	Excavation techniques also affect the number and kinds of bones eventually available for analysis.  The portion of the site excavated, sieving techniques utilized, and steps taken to protect the fragile bone after excavation all affect the sample.

	For these and other reasons, one can assume that any collection of archaeological bone will represent only a portion of the faunal remains originally associated with the site.  Thus, the primary data obtained probably will not provide enough information for reliable interpretations of what the assemblage represents in terms of past behavior.  For this reason, secondary data, "which involve interpretation, extrapolation, or estimations based on primary data" (Wing 1979:118) are neccessary.  Examples of secondary data include calculations of minimum numbers of individuals, and estimates of usable meat weight.

	Chaplin (1971) lists three of the most commonly named methods for quantifying the species represented by a collection of animal bones: (1) the fragments method, (2) the weight method, and (3) the minimum-numbers method.  Whereas there are advantages to each method, Chaplin and most others (e.g., Daly 1969; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Smith 1976; Styles 1981; and White 1953) prefer the minimum-numbers method.

	With the fragments method one counts the total number of identifiable bones and fragments of each species and determines the ratio of different bones or different species.  The number of identified specimens (bones or bone fragments) per species is sometimes abbreviated as NISP (Grayson 1979; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Payne 1975).  The NISP is little more than a list of bones of different animals present in an assemblage.  The number of bones of a particular species represented in an assemblage does not necessarily indicate what percent of the diet of the original inhabitants was made up of the meat from that animal.  For example, some species of animals have more bones than others.  Also, although hunters may bring back the entire carcass of a smaller animal, they are liable to return with only the more useful parts of a larger one.  Thus, only the broadest questions about subsistence can be answered using NISP.

	In another approach, used to arrive more directly at conclusions about the relative dietary importance of each species, the analyst weighs the bone from each species and then multiplies that weight by a factor to determine the amount of meat represented by each type of animal.  In using this method, however, every scrap of bone must be utilized in order to arrive at an unbiased approximation of amount of meat (Daly 1969:149).  Because much of the bone analyzed usually is fragmented, it is nearly impossible to place each scrap into its appropriate species category.  Further, it is impossible to account for all of the bone missing from the site or not retrieved during excavation.  Also, the weight of the bone is affected by whether or not it was burned or charred and by the thoroughness with which it was cleaned and dried after excavation.  Another objection to the weight method is the fact that it begins with the assumption that there is a fairly constant relationship between the weight of an animal and the weight of its bones.  Although there is a correlation between these two factors, the relationship is variable (Smith 1975a:100).  To counteract this bias it would be necessary to apply a different live weight value for each age and sex category for each species analyzed.  Because it is not always possible to identify the species to which a fragment belongs, let alone the age or sex of the animal, the weight method is only appropriate for use with relatively few completely identified fragments.

	The minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) method avoids many of the problems that plague the other two methods.  Using the simplest form of this procedure, the minimum number of animals of each species is determined by counting the maximum number of any particular bone.  When possible, the age, sex, and size of the animal is taken into account to increase the accuracy of this method.  This analytical procedure is superior to the other procedures for a number of reasons.

	The minimum number of animals that the bones could have come from is an indisputable fact.  It is, moreover, a direct measure of a number of animals involved and is an abstraction of the true number of animals involved only within fixed limits.  It also involves no assumptions about differential preservation of bone which can not be checked by examination of the specimens or by a site inspection.  It is therefore using verifiable facts throughout (Chaplin 1971:70).

	Grayson (1973:70) notes that the minimum-numbers method "provides us with units which are necessarily independent of one another, and which may therefore be validly used in further statistical manipulation."

	Despite these advantages, the minimum-numbers method also has several shortcomings.  First, there is more than one way to derive the minimum number figure from an assemblage. Variation in the way in which faunal material from a site is grouped, for example, affects the results of analysis.  If the material is separated into clusters according to the stratum and excavation unit in which it is found, it will yield the largest estimation of MNI.  If the excavation unit is ignored, the minimum number decreases, and if neither excavation unit nor stratigraphy is used in grouping the material, the number will be even smaller (Grayson 1973:433).  The comparability of the data produced by the minimum-numbers method is still suspect unless the analyst explicitly states how he arrived at his figures.

	All three methods were used to quantify the faunal remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites.  The NISP method was used because it was calculated automatically as the bone fragments were identified.  Also, the weight of the bone identified for each taxonomic category was calculated.  Comparison of the relative abundance of each species, as revealed by the number of identified fragments and by the weight of these fragments, provided information useful not only in determining the possible importance of these animals to the original inhabitants, but also information about the conditions (such as fragmentation or preservation) that affected how much of the assemblage could be identified and to what taxonomic level.  The weights of the identified bones were not converted to meat weights because of the vast array of biases introduced by the use of the weight method.

	The minimum numbers of individuals method was relied on most heavily in interpreting the two faunal assemblages.  In comparing the assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites, MNI was calculated from each site as a whole, with neither the excavation unit nor site stratigraphy taken into consideration.  Although it yielded the smallest number of individuals, this method was necessary because of the different contexts from which the two assemblages were recovered.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Animals from the Wall Site, Page Number: 145  
Animals from the Wall Site

	The analysis of the faunal remains from the 1983–1984 excavations at the late prehistoric Wall site concentrated on the bone from four 10 10-ft squares of undisturbed midden located just inside the outermost palisade surrounding the village.  Although several burials were excavated at this site in 1983, the fill of only one contained more than a few poorly preserved fragments of bone.  The remains from the fill of this one burial were also included in the analysis.  As previously mentioned, all fill from the midden and the one burial was waterscreened through a sequence of three sized screens.  A total of 30,257 fragments was examined from the 1983–1984 excavations.  This total consists of 6,040 fragments from the 1/2-inch screen, 19,688 fragments from the 1/4-inch screen, and 4,529 fragments from the 1/16-inch screen.  Approximately 42% of the collection (12,714 fragments) could not be identified.  The majority of these fragments seem to be pieces of long bones of large mammals (probably deer).

	A complete account of the faunal remains recovered in the 1983–1984 excavations is provided in Table 9.  Burial 1 had two zones of fill containing a total of 1,340 bone fragments.  The only passenger pigeon remains represented in the 1983–1984 assemblage were recovered in the fill of this burial.  As there were no other obvious qualitative differences between the bones recovered from the burial and those recovered from the midden, the assemblage will be treated in the following discussions as though it were retrieved from a single context.

	The first excavations at the Wall site were carried out between 1938 and 1941 (Coe 1952, 1964).  Analysis of the faunal remains from these excavations was performed by Jeanette Runquist (1979).  The majority of the remains that Runquist examined were recovered from a zone of undisturbed midden that was sifted through 1/4-inch screen.  A sample of the midden from each 10 10-ft square was waterscreened, as was the fill from the few burials and features included in Runquist's sample.  Her total assemblage consisted of 6,000 bones and bone fragments.  Runquist's findings are occasionally included in this discussion of the results of analysis in order to provide the most complete description possible of the animals originally represented at the Wall site.

	A total of 856 fish bones representing 190 individuals (66.0% of the total number of individuals for the assemblage) were identified.  The majority of these individuals were catfish.  Other fish identified were sucker, sunfish, and gar.

	Amphibians accounted for a minimum of 13 individuals (4.5% of the total number of individuals), identified from 107 fragments.  Reptiles accounted for 16.78% of the identified bone and 3.1% of the number of individuals identified.  Remains of box turtle formed a significant portion of the assemblage, as this species was second only to white-tailed deer in percent of fragments identified to species.  Snake bones accounted for 2.2% of the fragments recovered and less than 1% of the individuals.
	With the exception of the wild turkey, birds do not seem to have been used frequently by the inhabitants of the Wall site.  Three individuals (turkeys), representing 1.0% of the total number of individuals, were identified in the present analysis.  From a count of spurs, Runquist determined that three of the eight individuals in the 1938–1941 assemblage were males, whereas one of the three individuals in the 1983–1984 sample was male.  In both cases, the proportions of males to females are somewhat higher than one might expect.  In a study of over 6,000 turkeys harvested over a five-year period in Virginia, for example, only 18.9% of the turkeys captured were adult males (Gwynn 1964).  The combined totals from the two Wall site samples indicate that four of the eleven individuals identified are male.  This is a considerably higher percentage (36.4% versus 18.9%) than Gwynn's (1964) studies indicate would occur in the same general area today.

	Other than turkey, birds identified in the 1983–1984 assemblage from the Wall site consist of bobwhite quail, bluejay, great horned owl, and passenger pigeon.  Passenger pigeon is represented by a single individual in the 1983–1984 assemblage. The bluejay, great horned owl, and bobwhite quail also are represented by only a single individual.

	A total of 13,010 bones, representing a minimum of 69 mammals, was identified in the 1983–1984 assemblage.  With the exception of the white-tailed deer (MNI=36), squirrel (MNI=10), raccoon (MNI=4), and rabbit (MNI=4), none of the mammals in the assemblage accounted for more than two individuals (0.7% of the total number of individuals).

	White-tailed deer comprised 36 individuals (12.5% of the total number of individuals), determined from 4,732 fragments.  Because of the small number and fragmentary nature of the deer mandibles in this assemblage, it was not possible to determine the age distribution of all of the deer represented.  Of the six mandibles that could be aged, using the method described by Severinghaus (1949), one was approximately 13–17 months old, one was approximately 2-1/2 years old, one was approximately 5-1/2 years old, and three (two lefts and one right) were approximately 7-1/2 years old.

	Additional information about the ages of deer hunted by the inhabitants of the Wall site was obtained by examining the epiphyses of the long bones.  A minimum of six individuals in the population had open epiphyses (distal femur).  This adds another five deer between the ages of 2-1/2 and 4-1/2 years (Lewall and Cowan 1963:635).  Using the criteria of pelvic suture closure (Edwards et al. 1982) it was determined that five individuals were less than one year old.  Assuming that none of the long bones or pelves represented the same deer as the mandibles, it was possible to determine the ages of a maximum of 17 individuals.  A more cautious approach assumes that a long bone, mandible, and/or pelvis falling in the same age category belonged to the same individual. Using this approach, a minimum of 15 individuals could be aged.  Of these 15 individuals, 33.3% were less than 1-1/2 years old, 46.7% were between 1-1/2 and 5-1/2 years old, and 20% were approximately 7-1/2 years old.  This sample is clearly too small to provide an accurate indication of the age distribution of the exploited population.

	The sample studied by Runquist included 145 individuals (46.0% of the total), 144 of which could be aged.  Of these individuals, 17% were fawns, 63% were between 1-1/2 and 7-1/2 years old, and 20% were 7-1/2 years old or older (Runquist 1979:229).

	One method of determining the sex ratio of the deer represented by a faunal assemblage is through an examination of frontal bones for the presence of antlers, antler pedicles, or the denser bone that distinguishes males from females.  This method was not useful for the 1983–1984 assemblage from the Wall site because very few deer skull fragments were recovered, and because the few antler fragments that were recovered were very small.  However, it was possible to employ a technique developed by Edwards et al. (1982) which uses characteristics of the pelvic girdle to distinguish male from female deer.  For deer in which the sutures between the ilium, ischium, and pubis are fully ossified (deer one year old or older), the shape and position of the ilio-pectilineal eminence are different in males and females.  Fourteen right and thirteen left innominate bones complete enough to display the ilio-pectilineal eminence were recovered in the 1983–1984 assemblage.  Of these, five right and four left represented individuals below the age of one year and thus could not be used.  On one left and one right innominate bone the characteristics of the ilio-pectilineal eminence were neither clearly male nor clearly female.  Finally, however, it was possible to determine that five right and five left innominates represented males, and that three left and three right represented females.

	An attempt was made to determine the ages of individuals of several species other than deer that were represented in the assemblage.  Marks and Erickson (1966) developed criteria for determining ages of black bear based on skull morphology, canine cementum layers, tooth replacement and wear, epiphyseal suture closure, and baculum growth and maturation.  As the only element identified as black bear in the Wall site assemblage was a single fragment of thoracic vertebra, it was not possible to determine the age of this individual.  Although the age of raccoons can be determined using tooth wear criteria (Grau et al. 1970), this technique could not be applied successfully to the 1983–1984 faunal remains because no intact raccoon mandibles with enough teeth to permit aging were preserved in the assemblage.  Age determination in fox and gray squirrels and in cottontail rabbits is based upon the degree of epiphyseal closure.  The distal radius and ulna were utilized by Carson (1961) to develop age classes for squirrels.  Of the 332 fragments identified as squirrel, only one was a distal radius and no distal ulnae were preserved.  The epiphysis of the single distal radius was closed and thus indicated the presence of an individual at least 33 weeks old (Carson 1961:91).  Hale's (1949) technique for aging cottontail rabbits is based on the degree of epiphyseal closure in the humerus.  Four individuals from the present sample were represented by distal humeri, the epiphyses of which were all closed, indicating that these individuals were at least nine months old (Hale 1949:222).

	No butchering marks were observed on any of the bones identified from the 1983–1984 Wall site assemblage.  Guilday et al. (1962:64) indicate that it is possible to butcher an animal without leaving any marks on the bones, and that the probability that a bone will be cut in some way is greater if the person butchering the animal is unskilled, careless, or in a hurry.  The absence of butchering marks on bones in the Wall site assemblage, thus, may indicate that the animals represented by the assemblage were dismembered by skillful and unhurried butchers.  Although the majority of the bone from the Wall site was well preserved, the outer surface of most of the bones was somewhat eroded. It is possible, therefore, that if the original butchering did not leave deeply cut marks, those marks could have become worn away with the passage of time.

	The only bone tools found in the 1983–1984 assemblage were one deer metatarsal beamer, one complete turkey tarsometatarsus awl, and fragments of three more awls.  Three small pieces of worked antler and one cut bird bone that might have been a bead were also found.  In sum, analysis of the faunal remains from the 1983–1984 excavations at the Wall site identified a total of 288 individuals representing 32 species.  The five most important species in terms of percent of MNI were catfish (64.93%), deer (12.50%), squirrel (3.47%), frog (2.78%), and box turtle (1.74%).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Animals from the Fredricks Site, Page Number: 146  
Animals from the Fredricks Site

General Observations

	The faunal remains from the 1983–1984 excavations at the Fredricks site were recovered from the fill of nine burials and five features.  A total of 16,393 fragments from this site were examined.  This total consists of 3,428 fragments from the 1/2-inch screen, 11,494 fragments from the 1/4-inch screen, and 1,469 fragments from the 1/16-inch screen.  A total of 142 individuals representing 35 species was identified.

	A full listing of the faunal remains from the Fredricks site is provided in Table 10.  A brief discussion of the results of analysis of the site as a whole is provided below.  Following that, a more detailed treatment of the same remains is provided within a discussion of the features and burials from which the remains were recovered.

	A total of 727 fragments from the assemblage were identified as fish.  These fragments represented a minimum of 72 individuals (50.7% of the total number of individuals).  The vast majority of these were catfish, the most abundant species (in terms of MNI) in the assemblage.  Other fish identified were sunfish, sucker, and gar.

	Amphibians accounted for eight individuals (5.6% of the total), represented by 92 fragments.  The only amphibians identified were spadefoot toad, frog, and unspecified toad.

	Reptiles were represented by 17 individuals (12.0% of the total) determined from 2,397 fragments.  Most of the fragments identified as reptiles were small fragments of turtle carapace.  Box turtle accounted for 10 of the individuals (7.0% of the total) and was the second most abundant species in terms of MNI.  A large number (228 fragments) of snake bones were recovered, but many of these were ribs or fragmented vertebrae that could not be identified as to species.

	Turkey and passenger pigeon were the most abundant bird species identified.  Passenger pigeon accounted for six individuals (4.2% of the total), identified from 47 fragments.  Turkey was represented by 148 fragments, accounting for four individuals (2.8% of the total).  Based on the presence of spurs, three of the four individuals were males.  Other birds identified were bobwhite quail, red-bellied woodpecker, lesser scaup, and members of the Charadriidae (plover), Fringillidae (sparrow), and Anatidae (duck) families.

	Approximately 56% of the identified bone fragments from the Fredricks site belonged to mammals.  With the exception of the white-tailed deer (MNI=9) and squirrel (MNI=5), none of the mammalian species identified was represented by more than two individuals.  The presence of European-introduced mammals in the assemblage is indicated by a single femur fragment of a pig and a single horse molar.

	The presence of a minimum of nine deer (6.3% of the total) was determined from 1,134 fragments.  There were four deer mandibles in the assemblage that were complete enough to be aged using the technique based on tooth development and wear described by Severinghaus (1949).  Of these four, one was approximately 4-1/2 years old, one 5-1/2 years old, one 7-1/2 years old, and one 8-1/2 to 9-1/2 years old.  Through an examination of the epiphyses of the long bones of the deer, it was determined that two individuals had unfused distal femora and could thus be aged at between 2-1/2 and 4-1/2 years (Lewall and Cowan 1963:635).  A sample of six individuals is too small to permit conclusions about possible exploitation strategies based on age for the Fredricks site.  Of the deer that could be aged, however, 50.0% were between 2-1/2 and 4-1/2 years old, 16.7% were approximately 5-1/2 years old, 16.7% were approximately 7-1/2 years old, and 16.7% were approximately 8-1/2 to 9-1/2 years old.

	No deer innominate bones were preserved in the Fredricks site assemblage, upon which Edwards et al.'s (1982) criteria for sex determination could be applied.  Two of the deer frontal fragments recovered at this site were fairly delicate and did not possess antlers, and another frontal piece had an antler attached.  These fragments indicate the presence of at least one male and possibly two females.

	Of the 10 fragments identified as black bear, only one (a proximal metacarpal) could be utilized with the methods described by Marks and Erickson (1966) for determining age.  This single bone indicated an individual between the ages of one and two years (Marks and Erickson 1966:404).

	The technique proposed by Grau et al. (1970) for determining the age of raccoons could not be applied to the faunal assemblage from the Fredricks site.  This technique is based on an analysis of wear on the lower teeth of the raccoon.  No mandibles with adequately preserved dentition were recovered.

	Although 95 bones and bone fragments were identified as squirrel, none of these was distal radii or distal ulnae.  Because of the lack of these elements, it was not possible to use Carson's (1961) technique for determining age of gray and fox squirrels.

	Cut marks were observed on 20 of the deer bones in the Fredricks site assemblage.  The neck portion of one scapula exhibited several transverse cut marks, as did the distal epiphyses of four humerii.  The proximal epiphyses of one tibia and two radii all exhibited several cut marks.  One pubis fragment exhibited what appears to be a cut made by an axe and two ilium fragments exhibited cut marks.  Three rib fragments, one cervical vertebra, three lumbar vertebrae, and one astragalus also had cut marks.  A cut mark on one of the rib fragments may have been inflicted with an axe.  These fragments represent 1.8% of the deer bones recovered at the Fredricks site.  Because this is such a small percentage, it is difficult to reconstruct the butchering process utilized by the original inhabitants.  However, most of the cut marks are consistent with the skinning and butchering procedures reported for several prehistoric sites in the East (e.g., Guilday et al. 1962).

	Fragments of three bone knife handles and a highly polished, tapered splinter of bone that might have been a needle were the only examples of worked bone found at the Fredricks site.  All four items had been manufactured from mammal bones but it was not possible to determine the species.

Feature and Burial Fill

	Burial 1.  There were three zones of fill in Burial 1 containing a total of 3,169 bone fragments, 504 of which could be identified to species.  The majority of the bones (89.2%) were retrieved from the top zone of fill, which was a dark brown organically rich soil.  The mammals identified were white-tailed deer, opossum, gray squirrel, unidentified squirrel, and raccoon.  Birds consisted of turkey, passenger pigeon, bobwhite quail, red-bellied woodpecker, and a single fragment belonging to the family Charadriidae (plovers).  The reptiles and amphibians identified were frog, box turtle, and musk turtle. The four types of fish identified from this pit were catfish, sucker, sunfish, and gar.

	Burial 2.  There were only two zones of fill in Burial 2.  The top zone, a dark brown humus, contained 84.5% of the bone fragments.  The fill of this pit contained only 129 animal bone fragments, 30 of which were identified to species.  Deer, squirrel, and raccoon were the only mammals identified, and the only birds identified were turkey and passenger pigeon.  Box turtle was the only identifiable reptile, there were no amphibian remains, and there was only one fish bone (catfish).

	Burial 3.  The two zones of fill in Burial 3 contained 5,008 fragments of bone, 873 of which could be identified to species.  Of the total number of animal bone fragments recovered from the site, 30.5% were recovered from the fill of this pit.  Although a few unidentifiable fragments were located in the lower zone of fill, 99.4% were in the top zone of dark brown humus.  Identified mammals consisted of black bear, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, raccoon, skunk, and cotton rat.  A single fragment was identified as domestic pig.  The birds identified were turkey, passenger pigeon, and lesser scaup.  Reptiles and amphibians consisted of box turtle, snapping turtle, painted turtle, musk turtle, mud turtle, Crotalidae (poisonous snake), and frog.  Fish identified were catfish, gar, and sucker.

	Feature 1.  Feature 1 had two zones of fill, the uppermost of which contained 95.6% of the 1,539 animal bone fragments.  Of these, 257 fragments could be identified to species.  The mammals represented were white-tailed deer, squirrel, raccoon, and cotton rat.  The only birds represented were turkey and passenger pigeon.  Remains of box turtle, mud turtle, poisonous snake, frog, catfish, sucker, and gar were also recovered.

	Feature 2 (Burial 4).  Two major zones of fill were identified in Feature 2 and a total of 982 bone fragments (157 of which could be identified) was recovered.  The first zone, a dark brown soil with charcoal fragments, contained 65.6% of the bone in this pit.  The second zone, a mottled orange clay, contained 34.4% of the bone.  White-tailed deer, raccoon, white-footed deer mouse, turkey, passenger pigeon, and box turtle were identified.

	Feature 3 (Burial 5).  Of the 2,375 bone fragments in the fill of Feature 3, 467 were identified.  There were two major zones of fill.  The uppermost zone (a brown loam with ash) contained 82.8% of the bone and a second zone (mottled orange clay) contained 17.2%.  The mammals represented in the fill were white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, unidentified squirrel, raccoon, cotton rat, meadow vole, white-footed deer mouse, short-tailed shrew, mountain lion, and black bear.  Turkey and passenger pigeon were the only birds present.  Reptiles and amphibians consisted of toad, frog, box turtle, mud turtle, and unidentifiable snake.  Fish identified were catfish, suckers, and gar.

	Feature 4 (Burial 6).  The five zones of fill in Feature 4 contained a total of 301 bone fragments.  Only 23 of these fragments could be identified.  In the other burial pits, the majority of the animal bone was located in an uppermost zone of dark organic soil.  In this feature, however, 65.4% of the bone fragments were from two deeper zones of mottled orange clay, and 23.6% were from two zones of brown loam mottled with orange clay.  In fact, only 11.0% of the bone was retrieved from the uppermost zone of dark organic soil.  All of the bone fragments which could be identified from this pit were white-tailed deer.

	Feature 5 (Burial 7).  No animal bone fragments were found in the fill of this burial pit.

	Feature 6 (Burial 8).  Six major zones of fill were distinguished in this burial pit.  These zones contained a total of 683 bone fragments, 110 of which were identifiable to species.  The first zone, a brown loam with numerous small pebbles, contained 39.8% of the bone fragments.  The third zone, also a brown loam, contained 37.2%, Zone 5 contained 10.5%, and the rest (12.5%) was contained in the bottom zone.  Animals represented were white-tailed deer, squirrel, raccoon, white-footed deer mouse, passenger pigeon, box turtle, snapping turtle, and painted turtle.

	Feature 7 (Burial 9).  This burial pit had two primary zones of fill that contained 217 fragments of animal bone.  Only 15 of these fragments were identifiable, and all were white-tailed deer.  The deepest zone of fill, a mottled orange clay, contained 65.9% of the bone, and the rest (34.19%) was contained in the upper (brown loam soil) zones of fill.

	Feature 8.  Feature 8 was a tree disturbance and did not contain animal bone.

	Feature 9.  Feature 9 has been interpreted as a fire pit associated with Structure 1, probably the remains of a sweat house.  The bottom of this pit was lined with charred bark, and clusters of charred maize kernels were found lying within the charred remains of woven containers, probably baskets.  Along with the maize kernels, one of these clusters contained the charred foot bones of a gray fox.  The uppermost zone of fill in this pit (a dark yellowish-brown sandy ash) contained 26.1% of the bone fragments, the center zone (a combination of fill similar to that in Zone 1 mixed with orange clay) contained 6.7%, and the deepest zone (charcoal, reddish clay, and ash), which contained the charred maize, accounted for 67.2% of the bone.  All of the bone fragments in this third zone of fill were charred.  In addition to the fox bones and a single horse molar, there was white-tailed deer, raccoon, bear, and dog.

	Feature 10.  Feature 10 was a trash-filled storage pit with two zones of fill.  The uppermost zone was a dark brown loam, which contained 96.3% of the 722 animal bone fragments.  Of these fragments, 134 could be identified as white-tailed deer, squirrel, turkey, and box turtle.

	Feature 11.  Feature 11 contained 13 identifiable bones (from a total of 94 fragments), all of which were identified as white-tailed deer.  There was only one zone of fill in this feature.

	Feature 12.  Feature 12 had two zones of fill containing 282 bone fragments.  The upper zone, a dark reddish-brown soil, contained 54.2% of the bone, and the lower, a brown sandy loam mottled with orange clay, contained 45.7%.  The 75 identifiable bones were comprised of white-tailed deer, squirrel, white-footed deer mouse, black bear, and box turtle.

	Feature 13.  There were two zones of fill in Feature 13.  An uppermost shallow zone of mottled yellow clay, which contained almost no bone, intruded into a thicker zone of dark brown, highly organic soil, which contained 98.1% of the bone.  Of the 755 bone fragments, 209 were identifiable.  Animals represented were white-tailed deer, fox squirrel, unidentified squirrel, raccoon, bear, turkey, passenger pigeon, sparrow, box turtle, frog, sunfish, and sucker.

	Comparisons.  The four burial pits most similar in terms of fill were Burial 1, Burial 2, Burial 3, and Feature 1.  In all of these pits, the vast majority of the animal bone was recovered from the uppermost zone of fill, a dark, organically rich soil.  The bone from these pits was well preserved and each pit contained most of the 31 species identified in the overall assemblage.  The four pits also were very closely aligned in terms of spatial arrangement.

	Feature 2 (Burial 4) is somewhat similar to these four pits in that the majority of the bone fragments were recovered from an upper zone of dark organic fill.  Only 65.6% of the bone from this pit was recovered from this zone, however, as opposed to the 84.5–99.4% for the same zone in the other aforementioned pits.

	Feature 3 (Burial 5) likewise could be grouped with the burial pits mentioned above.  The majority of the bone was recovered from an upper zone of fill that consisted of a dark organic soil.  Also, the species identified in this pit were almost identical to those identified in Feature 1.

	Feature 7 (Burial 9) and Feature 4 (Burial 6) were very similar to one another and quite different from the other pits.  In addition to being located next to one another, the two pits are similar in that the only identifiable remains recovered in either is white-tailed deer.  The remainder of the bone fragments were too poorly preserved to identify.  In both pits, about 65% of the bone was recovered in a deep zone of mottled orange clay.  It is likely that the acidic nature of this clay is responsible for the poor preservation.  Zones of brown loam or humus were identified in each of these pits, but unlike Burials 1–3 and Feature 1, these zones contained very few animal bones.

	Feature 6 (Burial 8) was unique in that the faunal remains were recovered in zones of brown loamy soil separated from one another by zones of orange and brown mottled clay.  No single zone contained the vast majority of bone.  The preservation of the bone in this pit was not as good as in the other burial pits.

	Finally, Feature 5 (Burial 7) was unique in that it was the only burial pit from which no faunal remains were recovered.  This pit was also more shallow (by 0.75 ft) than any of the other pits and lacked an upper zone of dark organic soil (which may have been plowed away).

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Comparison of the Sites, Page Number: 147  
Comparison of the Sites

	Before a discussion of the use of faunal resources by the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites can be attempted, the state of preservation of the two faunal assemblages should be evaluated.  As noted earlier, the contexts from which the bones were retrieved at the two sites were dissimilar.  A majority of the bones from the Fredricks site were recovered from burial pit fill, whereas a majority of those from the Wall site were recovered from deposits of sheet midden.  It has been suggested that "small fragments just would not survive" in a midden deposit (Runquist 1979:342) and that bones deposited in pits are less likely to be stepped on, exposed to scavengers, or damaged by weather than are bones which are not placed in pits (Chaplin 1971:16; Waselkov 1977:84).

	At the Wall site, 19.96% of the bone was retrieved from 1/2-inch screen, 65.07% from 1/4-inch screen, and 14.97% from 1/16-inch screen.  At the Fredricks site, 20.91% was recovered from 1/2-inch screen, 70.12% from 1/4-inch screen, and 8.96% from 1/16-inch screen.  Obviously, more small bone fragments were preserved in the midden deposits from the Wall site than in the pitfill at the Fredricks site.  It should be noted that only those bones and bone fragments that appeared to be identifiable were pulled from the material recovered in the 1/16-inch screen.  Thus, the percentage of small, identifiable fragments is actually higher in the Wall site assemblage than in the Fredricks site assemblage.  At both sites, much of the bone recovered in the 1/2-inch screen consisted of identifiable fragments of bones of larger animals and complete, or nearly complete, bones from medium-sized animals.  Identifiable bone from the 1/16-inch screen belonged, for the most part, to smaller species, such as fish and amphibians.  The vast majority of the bone recovered in the 1/4-inch screen, however, consisted of fragments of bone that either were too small or too fragmented to be identified.  The percentage of bone fragments that could not be identified was higher for the Fredricks site assemblage (47.28%) than for the Wall site assemblage (42.02%).  It is likely that this is a result of the fact that the percentage of bone recovered in the 1/4-inch screen was also higher at the Fredricks site than at the Wall site.

	Another way in which the condition of the bones from the two sites can be evaluated is by comparing the extent of fragmentation of the bones in the two assemblages.  Extent of fragmentation can be determined from the number of fragments of deer bones present per individual identified (Runquist 1979:172).  At the Wall site, a minimum of 36 individuals and 4,731 fragments were identified as white-tailed deer, which yields a ratio of 131.42 fragments per individual.  For the Fredricks site, nine individuals and 1,128 fragments were identified as white-tailed deer, which yields a ratio of 125.33 fragments per individual.  Thus it seems that, at least for the white-tailed deer, the bones in the Fredricks site assemblage are only slightly less fragmented than those in the Wall site assemblage.  As noted earlier, the faunal remains from the Fredricks site may represent refuse cleaned from house floors, which would make the original contexts of the analyzed bone from both sites quite similar.  Therefore, the slight difference in the ratios suggests to some extent that large bones deposited in pits may not be subjected to factors causing fragmentation as frequently as those deposited in sheet midden.

	Almost 31% of the bone from the Fredricks site was burned whereas only 8.9% of the bone from the Wall site was burned.  This suggests the possibility that the deposits from which the Fredricks site assemblage were derived represent a limited range of activities such as cleaning house floors or hearths.  A greater range of activities that did not produce burned bone may be represented by the Wall site assemblage.  Table 11 shows the percentage of deer skeletal elements represented in the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages.  With the exception of six elements (innominate, atlas vertebrae, axis vertebrae, cervical vertebrae, sacrum, and patella) there is a higher percentage of every element represented at the Fredricks site than at the Wall site.  This is one indication that the Fredricks site assemblage is better preserved than the Wall site assemblage.  However, it could also be an indication that deer bones were treated differently by the inhabitants of the two sites.  If, for example, the inhabitants of one of the sites frequently utilized deer bones as tools, it is possible that certain skeletal elements would not be discarded in the midden as food refuse.  These tools would be curated, and thus would not be recovered in the midden in the same percentages as would be expected if preservation were the only factor being considered.

	For example, proximal metacarpals and metatarsals should survive better than less-resistant elements such as proximal humeri or frontals.  Proximal metacarpals and metatarsals were made into beamers by some Piedmont groups, and several of these hide-working tools have been identified in the Wall site assemblage (one in the 1983–1984 assemblage and nine in the assemblage examined by Runquist).  As yet, however, no tools of this kind have been recovered from the Fredricks site, whose inhabitants had access to metal tools that may have made bone beamers obsolete.  The percentages of proximal metacarpals (13.9%) and metatarsals (45.8%) recovered at the Wall site are not much higher than the percentages of other elements which could have been expected to be less well-preserved.  At the Fredricks site, the percentages of proximal metacarpals (94.4%) and of metatarsals (77.8%) is considerably higher than the percentages for many of the other elements.  Thus, it is likely that the different representation of deer skeletal elements at the two sites is a result of differential patterns of use and discard of the bones by the inhabitants of the two sites in addition to the possible effects of differential preservation.

	There is no evidence, therefore, that the bone from one site is appreciably better preserved than the bone from the other site.  It also follows that, in this case, that bones deposited in a pit are not better preserved than those discarded in an open midden.  It is possible, however, that large bones deposited in pits will be slightly less fragmented than bones deposited in sheet midden.

	Overall, the faunal assemblages from the Wall and Fredricks sites are very similar.  Only seven species were identified at the Wall site that were not present in the Fredricks site assemblage.  These were rabbit, beaver, chipmunk, muskrat, meadow vole, flying squirrel, and bluejay.  With the exception of rabbit (MNI=4) and meadow vole (MNI=2), none of these species was represented by more than a single individual.  Whereas meadow vole was represented by two individuals, it is very likely that these burrowing animals were intrusive in the deposit and were not utilized by the site's inhabitants.  Rabbit is the only species from the Wall site assemblage that can be considered notable in its absence from the Fredricks site assemblage.

	Ten species were identified from the Fredricks site that were not identified in the 1983–1984 assemblage from the Wall site.  These were horse, pig, skunk, gray fox, mountain lion, red-bellied woodpecker, lesser scaup, musk turtle, sunfish, one individual belonging to the family Charadriidae (plover), and one individual belonging to the family Fringillidae (sparrow).  As only one of these species, skunk, was present in the assemblage analyzed by Runquist, it is likely that none of these species was utilized to any great extent, if at all, by the inhabitants of the Wall site.  With the exception of the sparrow (MNI=2), these species were only represented by a single individual each in the Fredricks site assemblage.  The presence of two European-introduced mammals, pig and horse, in the Fredricks site assemblage is important.  However, pig was represented by only one femur fragment and horse by only one molar.

	Thus, based on the presence or absence of individual species, the data suggest there were no major differences in the utilization of faunal resources by the inhabitants of the two sites.  The two exceptions noted are the absence of rabbit and the presence of two European domesticates in the Fredricks site assemblage.

	Although the gross inventories of species utilized by the inhabitants of the two sites are virtually the same, there seem to be differences in the ways and relative amounts in which these species were procured and utilized.  In an attempt to determine which species were most important in the diet of the inhabitants of the sites, the amount of meat available from each was calculated, using estimations by Smith (1975a), White (1953), and Cleland (1966).  These figures are presented in Table 12.  It should be noted that the bones, skins, furs, and carapaces of these animals were often important to the Indians as materials for tools, clothing, utensils, and other goods.  Thus, a particular species would not always have been selected on the basis of its value as a source of food.  The presence of only a single molar identified as horse indicates that this animal probably was not used for food by the inhabitants of the Fredricks site.  Therefore, the amount of meat provided by this animal was not included in the calculations of available meat at this site.

	The most important animals in the Wall site assemblage, listed in rank order of estimated meat yield, were deer, catfish, bear, raccoon, beaver, and turkey.  At the Fredricks site the order was deer, bear, catfish, pig, mountain lion, turkey, and raccoon.  Again, the assemblages appear to be quite similar.

	In an attempt to gain a more detailed indication of the relative importance of the various species utilized, 13 species or species groups were ranked according to a technique proposed by Smith (1975b:125–127).  Using this approach, the species were ranked by their relative importance in terms of both the minimum number of individuals and projected meat yield (see bivariate plots).

	At both sites, the species cluster into four groups.  Deer and fish ranked very high on both scales and were evidently the most important faunal resources at the two sites.  The second cluster consists of animals that ranked fairly high in terms of meat yield but were not frequently utilized.  At the Wall site these animals were black bear, mountain lion, and beaver; at the Fredricks site, they were black bear and pig.  Smith (1975b:126) notes that the low exploitation of bear and beaver at the Middle Mississippian sites whose faunal remains he analyzed may have been due to the fact that these species have low rates of reproduction, and thus were rarely encountered.  It is interesting to note, however, that in his description of his visit to Occaneechi Town, Lawson (Lefler 1967:61) mentioned that the Indians brought him "good fat Bear" and that "Their Cabins were hung with a good sort of Tapestry, as fat Bear, and barbakued or dried Venison."  It is also unlikely that pig would have been readily available to the inhabitants of the Fredricks site since this site was occupied early in the colonization process.

	The third cluster consists of species that were utilized in high numbers but which yielded relatively small quantities of meat.  At the Wall site, these species were rabbit, squirrel, and turtle.  At the Fredricks site, they were turtle, squirrel, and passenger pigeon.  At Fredricks, turtles were represented in higher numbers than were deer.

	The fourth cluster of animals includes those species whose MNI and meat yield ranks were nearly equal.  None of these species ranks highly in terms of either criterion of importance.  At both sites these species were raccoon, turkey, and opossum.

	At both sites, then, deer and catfish were the most important faunal resources.  Turtle and squirrel were major secondary resources, as was rabbit at the Wall site and passenger pigeon at the Fredricks site.  Raccoon, turkey, and opossum were utilized on a more limited basis at both sites.  Bear and beaver at the Wall site, and pig and mountain lion at the Fredricks site, provided large quantities of meat but were not as frequently encountered as were other species.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Habitat Preference and Seasonality, Page Number: 148  
Habitat Preference and Seasonality

	The species utilized by the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites can be divided into three groups based on their preferred habitats.  Evidence for the seasons during which each species would have been procured is very limited.

	Fish and all of the turtle species except box turtle are aquatic.  Beaver are also dependent on an aquatic habitat.  There is no archaeological evidence indicating at what seasons these species were collected.  However, both turtles and fish are less readily available for exploitation during the winter.  As only one beaver incisor was identified from the Wall site, it was not possible to determine the age of the individual or the season in which it was killed.  The lesser scaup (identified in the Fredricks site assemblage) winters in North Carolina and occurs on lakes, rivers, and ponds.

	Shelford (1963:59–60) lists white-tailed deer, black bear, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, and turkey among the species of the oak-hickory forest.  Flying squirrel and mountain lion are also forest species.  Of these animals, deer, gray squirrel, raccoon, and opossum also commonly utilize the forest edge.  Other forest edge species identified in the assemblages are cottontail rabbit, gray fox, and bobwhite.  With the exception of the passenger pigeon, which was present during the fall (Schorger 1955:268, 280), all of these forest and forest edge species were year-round residents of the North Carolina Piedmont.  Thus, their presence in the assemblages provides little indication of the seasons during which they were exploited.  The low representation of juvenile rabbits in the assemblages may indicate that this species was exploited primarily during the spring when the ratio of mobile juveniles to adults would have been lower than at other times of the year (Smith 1975b:100, 115–116).  Turkey and passenger pigeons would have congregated in large flocks during the fall, in order to take advantage of the mast available at that time; therefore, they would have been more easily exploitable during those months.

	The fact that no rabbits were identified in the faunal assemblage from the Fredricks site, and that passenger pigeon was represented by only one individual at the Wall site, makes it possible that the deposits from which the Fredricks site assemblage was derived are more representative of fall activities, whereas those deposits from which the Wall site assemblage was derived are more representative of spring activities.

	Archaeologically, it is possible to determine the season during which deer were killed for those individuals represented by skulls having antlers attached (indicating May–February) or shed (indicating December–May).  It is also possible to determine the season during which fawns (less that 20 months old) were killed based on stages of tooth eruption (Severinghaus 1949).  At the Wall site it was only possible to determine the season during which two of the 36 individuals were killed.  One individual was killed between May and February, as indicated by an antler attached to a frontal fragment, and another individual was killed during the spring or early summer, as indicated by the stage of dental eruption evident in one mandible.  From the Fredricks site assemblage, it was possible to determine that one of nine individuals had been killed between May and February.  The seasons during which the other individuals had been obtained could not be determined.

	There are no clear indications that the inhabitants of one of the sites exploited specific portions of their environment to either a greater or lesser extent than the inhabitants of the other site.  Likewise, there are no indications that there were major differences in the seasons during which the species were exploited.  This apparent similarity, however, may simply be the result of a lack of evidence discernible in the archaeological record.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Species Diversity, Page Number: 149  
Species Diversity

	One way in which it was possible to distinguish differences in the use of faunal resources by the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites was through the calculation of diversity.

	Using the Shannon-Weaver Index, species diversity was calculated as 1.46 for the Wall site assemblage and 2.19 for the Fredricks site assemblage.  These numbers indicate that there is a greater diversity of species represented in the Fredricks site assemblage than in the Wall site assemblage.  Using the same formula, Wing (1977) calculated diversity for assemblages from 43 other sites in the Southeast.  The diversity indicated for the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages is lower than that indicated for all 43 of Wing's assemblages.  The three sites that displayed diversity nearly as low as that of the Wall and Fredricks sites were sites at which the economy was based on specialized fishing (Wing 1977:87).  As neither the techniques used in analyzing the faunal remains nor lists of species identified at each site were presented in Wing's discussion, it is difficult to evaluate whether or not a comparison of the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages with those reported by Wing is valid.  However, at both the Wall and Fredricks sites, fish represented over 50% of the individuals identified and were the second most important resource, following deer, in terms of meat yield.  At both sites, deer and fish were the most important resources.  At the Fredricks site these species accounted for 56.68% of the MNI, whereas at the Wall site they accounted for 79.5% of the MNI.  It is the dominance of these two resources that accounts for the fact that the two sites appear to be similar, in terms of diversity, to the specialized fishing sites described by Wing (1977).

	Another method chosen for calculating diversity is Lieberson's variation of Simpson's Index of Diversity.  This method is described by Dickens (1980:40) as providing an "index that represents statistical probability of obtaining unlike characteristics in a population."  The percentages of individuals of each species identified from the Wall and Fredricks sites were used with this formula.  The resulting percentages were 0.55 for the Wall site and 0.73 for the Fredricks site.  This indicates that there were only 55 chances out of 100 that any two randomly selected individuals identified from the Wall site assemblage will be different, whereas the chances of two individuals from the Fredricks site being different species are 73 out of 100.

	The final method is Simpson's Index of Diversity.  Using this index, the lowest possible diversity would be 0 whereas maximum diversity for an assemblage is 1 – 1/s, s being the total number of species (Styles 1981:45).  At the Wall site maximum diversity is 0.969 and actual diversity is 0.539.  For the Fredricks site assemblage, maximum diversity is 0.966 and actual diversity is 0.726.  Thus, using Simpson's Index of Diversity, the Fredricks site assemblage exhibits more diversity than the Wall site assemblage.  Also, the Wall site assemblage is only moderately diverse, whereas the Fredricks site assemblage exhibits fairly high diversity.
	From the results of all four calculations, it is clear that the faunal assemblage from the Fredricks site exhibits more diversity than that from the Wall site.  Increased diversity of faunal exploitation may have been a trend already developing in the Piedmont prior to European contact or it may represent a response to increased disruption of the social and natural environments following contact.  To further investigate this problem, calculations were made of the diversity exhibited by assemblages from an Early Contact site and a Middle Contact site, both located in the North Carolina Piedmont on the upper Dan River.  Early Upper Saratown (31Sk1) dates to the early seventeenth century, and nearby Upper Saratown (31Sk1a) dates to the late 1600s (see Wilson 1983:225).  In age, Early Upper Saratown falls between the Wall and Fredricks sites, whereas Upper Saratown may overlap slightly with the early portion of the occupation of the Fredricks site.  The later of the two Dan River sites exhibited greater diversity than the earlier site when calculated using the first and third formulas, whereas the second formula yielded equal values for both sites.  The results when each formula was used, however, indicate that the assemblages from these two sites exhibited greater diversity than either the Wall or Fredricks sites.  Thus there is no evidence to indicate that increased diversity in faunal exploitation was a general trend from late prehistoric through historic times in the Piedmont.  Likewise, there is no clear indication that the utilization of a greater diversity of species was necessarily a response to environmental disruption created by the presence of Europeans.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Conclusions, Page Number: 150  
Conclusions

	Although the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites exploited a wide variety of species, both relied most heavily on deer and catfish.  Turtle and squirrel were important secondary resources at the two sites, as were rabbit and raccoon at the Wall site and passenger pigeon at the Fredricks site.  Turkey and opossum were supplementary resources at both sites, as was raccoon at the Fredricks site.  Bear and beaver were only occasionally used at the Wall site; bear, pig, and mountain lion were only occasionally utilized at the Fredricks site.  European domesticated animals, although present at the Fredricks site, had not become important as subsistence items.

	The lack of data on the age and sex of most of the animals utilized made it impossible to determine with any certainty how selective the inhabitants of the two sites were in their exploitation of particular species.  Nor was it possible to determine whether or not the patterns of exploitation can be explained in terms of maximization of meat yield and minimization of energy expenditure.  Neither of the two most reliable methods for determining seasonality was very useful in interpreting the assemblages from the two sites.  The presence of migratory fowl, passenger pigeon and lesser scaup, indicates some exploitation by the Occaneechi of fall and winter species.  The presence of juveniles of particular species (e.g., rabbit and squirrel) also provides evidence of seasonality.  The fact that only adult rabbits were identified indicates that the inhabitants of the Wall site may have utilized this species in the spring.

	It is possible that the reliance upon deer as a primary resource reflects an effort to minimize energy expenditure while maximizing meat yield.  Deer congregate in relatively high densities during the fall and early winter in order to feed upon mast.  They are thus easier to exploit at these times of year than at others (Smith 1975b:138).  Ethnohistoric accounts and prehistoric evidence (Lefler 1967:215–216; Swanton 1946:256–257; Waselkov 1977:230) indicate that Southeastern Indians hunted deer primarily in the fall and winter.  As it is not possible to determine the season during which the deer in the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages were killed, it is not possible to determine whether the inhabitants of the two sites utilized the same strategies as other Southeastern groups.

	Knowledge of the age and sex of a few of the deer identified from the two sites, however, makes it possible to hypothesize about the methods used to hunt this species.  At both sites, a nearly equal number of males and females was identified.  Because such a low percentage of the total number of individuals could be sexed, though, these figures may not be an accurate reflection of the actual sex distribution of the animals utilized.  In both assemblages, the majority of the individuals were neither very young nor very old.  This indicates that it is likely that drives or surrounds, rather than stalking, were the methods used in hunting deer (Waselkov 1977:120).

	Catfish was the second most important resource at both sites in terms of meat yield.  The preferred water habitat of this species is small rivers with sluggish current (Smith 1975b:61), conditions which are met by the Eno River.  Catfish are available in large numbers during the spring spawning season and also in the summer when the water level is low (Smith 1975b:60).  The seasons during which the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites exploited this resource cannot be determined.  However, Swanton (1946:257) proposes that many Southeastern Indian groups relied on fishing during the summer.

	The secondary resources identified from the Wall and Fredricks sites differ from those reported for other sites which seem to represent minimized energy expenditure–maximized meat yield strategies.  At the Middle Mississippi sites reported by Smith (1975a:137–138) and the late prehistoric Dan River sites reported by Waselkov (1977:101), raccoon and turkey were reported as important secondary resources.  These species, like deer and catfish, exhibit high population densities during the fall and winter, when they were most likely to have been hunted.  With the exception of passenger pigeon at the Fredricks site, the species identified at both sites as important secondary resources do not congregate in easily exploitable groups at any time of the year.  Squirrel, turtle, and rabbit may have been abundant near the sites and fairly easy to capture.  That these species were such important resources to the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites suggests that the exploitative strategy used by these people was not entirely dominated by a concern for maximization.

	Calculations of diversity indicated that the Occaneechi at the Fredricks site used a greater diversity of species than the inhabitants of the Wall site.  There is no indication, however, that this increased diversity through time was a general trend in the Piedmont.  Nor is there any clear indication that it was necessarily a response to the disruption of the social and natural environments produced by Europeans.

	From the data available thus far, contact (either direct or indirect) with Europeans seems to have had little effect on the basic pattern of faunal exploitation of the inhabitants of the Fredricks site.  The presence of one horse molar and one fragment of pig bone indicates that animals introduced by Europeans probably were not important to the diet of these people.  The increase in butchering marks found on deer bones from the Fredricks site, however, may be the result of different butchering practices following contact.

	While the many European artifacts found at the Fredricks site indicate considerable participation in the deerskin trade by the Occaneechi, there is no direct evidence for this in the faunal assemblage, and there is no indication that species were being hunted primarily for their hides rather than for meat.  Nor is there evidence that portions of the environment were being exploited either more or less heavily than in the past.  Even though good evidence for the exact strategies used to hunt deer is lacking, there is an indication that procurement strategies used by the Occaneechi were not very different from those at the Wall site.  Also, no increase in the number of tools or features associated with hide-working is evident at the Fredricks site.  In fact, no hide-working tools have been found at the Fredricks site.  There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy between the presence of a large number of European artifacts at the Fredricks site and a lack of evidence for participation in the deerskin trade in the faunal assemblage.  The majority of the remains from the Fredricks site were recovered from burial pitfill and may reflect special ceremonial behavior that was not related to hunting activities associated with the deerskin trade.  A second possibility is that activities associated with the deerskin trade, in general, were carried out at hunting camps away from the village.  A third possibility is that in their role as trade "middlemen," the Occaneechis were not directly involved in the hunting activities associated with the deerskin trade.

	Analysis of the ethnobotanical remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites (Gremillion 1984; also see analysis of plant remains) also shows surprisingly little evidence of differences in plant utilization between precontact and postcontact sites.  With the exception of peach, no plant species introduced by Europeans were identified at the Fredricks site.  Although acorn was not as plentiful at the Fredricks site as at the Wall site and hickory was more abundant at the former, corn, beans, and squash were important resources at both sites.  The faunal remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites, when combined with this ethnobotanical evidence, support the contention that a basic late prehistoric subsistence pattern was maintained well into the Historic period of aboriginal occupation in the Carolina Piedmont.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 151  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 9. Animal remains from the Wall site (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 10. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 11. Expected and actual representation of deer skeletal elements (1983 and 1984 excavations). 

Table 12. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1983 and 1984 excavations). 
 
Figures: General

Figure 470. Bivariate plots of rank values for 12 animal species at the Wall and Fredricks sites.

Page: Animal Remains (1983–1984): Source, Page Number: 152  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Faunal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites, by Mary Ann Holm. In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 237–258.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Introduction, Page Number: 153  
Introduction

	The 1985 excavations at the Fredricks site recovered nearly twice the amount of faunal material as previous excavations.  Analysis of this assemblage continues an earlier investigation (Holm 1985) into the patterns of faunal utilization of the inhabitants of this historic Indian site.  A goal of the earlier (1983–1984) analysis was to determine, through a comparison of the remains from the historic Fredricks site with those from the protohistoric Wall site, the extent to which contact with Europeans affected the utilization of animals by Piedmont Indians.  It was determined that the presence of Europeans had little impact on faunal utilization.  The overall patterns at both sites were very similar.

	Many of the same species were utilized at both sites, and the only differences were in the relative quantities used.  Also, the order of importance of the species, in terms of minimum numbers of individuals and meat yield, was very similar at both sites.  There is no evidence that participating in trade with the Europeans had a major impact on the utilization of deer or any other species.  As one fragment of pig bone and one horse molar were the only remains of domesticated animals recovered from the site, it is unlikely that European-introduced species were of major importance to the Occaneechi.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Analytical Procedures, Page Number: 154  
Analytical Procedures

	Sampling and analytical procedures applied to the 1985 assemblage from the Fredricks site were identical to those used on the 1983–1984 assemblage.  A brief discussion of these procedures follows.  A more detailed treatment of this subject can be found in the earlier report (Holm 1985; also see Faunal Remains: 1983–1984 Excavations).

	The faunal remains from the 1985 excavation of the Fredricks site were recovered from the fill of three burials, 14 pits, and the wall trench of one structure.  All fill was waterscreened through a series of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch mesh screens.  All of the animal bones recovered in the 1/2-inch (11,028 fragments) and 1/4-inch (20,408 fragments) screens were examined.  Only those fragments which appeared to be identifiable were sorted from the material recovered in the 1/16-inch screen (465 fragments). A total of 31,901 bone fragments was examined.

	Minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) were calculated on the basis of paired elements.  In order to facilitate comparison with the faunal assemblage recovered in the 1983–1984 excavations, MNI was calculated from the 1985 assemblage as a whole without taking the excavation units into account.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Animals from the Fredricks Site, Page Number: 155  
Animals from the Fredricks Site

	A total of 112 individuals representing 21 species was identified from the faunal assemblage from the 1985 excavations of the Fredricks site.  A full listing of the faunal remains making up this assemblage is provided in Table 13.

	Thirty-two percent of the identified individuals were fish. One of these was gar, one was sucker, and the remaining 34 were catfish.  Catfish was the most abundant species in the assemblage.

	Only one frog bone was identified in the 1985 assemblage, representing 0.9% of the individuals.  No other amphibian remains were identified.

	Reptiles accounted for 10 individuals, or 8.9% of the total number of individuals.  The majority of the 1,438 fragments identified as reptile were small pieces of turtle carapace. Because of the highly fragmentary nature of these remains, it is likely that the minimum number of turtles underestimates the actual number of individuals in the assemblage.  Box turtle was represented by a minimum of eight individuals, whereas snapping turtle and painted turtle were each represented by one individual.  Seven elements were identified as belonging to snake but could not be identified as to species.

	Birds accounted for 17.8% of the individuals in the assemblage.  Two of these individuals were passenger pigeons, two were members of the family Fringillidae (sparrows), and one was of the family Picidae (woodpeckers).  Fifteen of the birds identified were turkeys.  A count of spurs indicates that at least three of these individuals were males.

	Just over 79% of the bone fragments were identified as mammal.  A majority of these fragments appeared to be from the long bones of large mammals such as bear or deer and could not be identified beyond this level.  About 40% of the individuals in the assemblage were identified as mammals.  Deer, with a minimum of 24 individuals, accounted for over 20% of the individuals identified in the 1985 assemblage.  Squirrel, represented by nine individuals, was the second-most numerous mammal.  Although a minimum of four white-footed deer mice was identified, it is likely that these animals were intrusive in the deposits in which they were found.  A minimum of three individuals identified as black bear was represented in the assemblage.  All other mammals identified, namely opossum, raccoon, short-tailed shrew, indeterminate rodent, and one individual belonging to the family Canidae (dog, wolf, fox) were represented by only one individual each.  No European-introduced species were identified in this assemblage.

	Although a minimum of 24 deer was identified in the 1985 faunal assemblage, only seven mandibles were complete enough to age using Severinghaus's (1949) method based on tooth development and wear.  Using this technique, it was determined that one of the individuals was between the ages of 13 and 17 months and another between 17 and 20 months at the time of death.  One individual was approximately 3-1/2 years old, three were approximately 4-1/2 years old, and one was approximately 6-1/2 years old.  Using Edwards et al.'s (1982) criteria for pelvic suture closure, it was also possible to determine that one individual was less than one year old at the time of death.

	Ten innominates and innominate fragments were complete enough to permit the use of Edwards et al.'s (1982) method for determining sex of the deer.  Of the seven individuals represented by these innominates, three were females and four were males.

	The age of black bears can be determined using Marks and Erickson's (1966) technique based on epiphyseal closure.  Using this technique, it is apparent that the three individuals represented in the 1985 assemblage were each at least five years old.  Using Carson's (1961) method for determining the age of squirrels (also based on epiphyseal closures) it was determined that at least four of the nine squirrels were a minimum of 33 weeks old.  The age of raccoons can be determined using tooth wear criteria (Grau et al. 1970); however, no raccoon mandibles were recovered.

	A total of 85 bones and bone fragments exhibited cut marks.  The majority of these marks (n=64) were observed on deer bones.  Cut marks were also present on bone fragments identified as bear (five fragments), turkey (13 fragments), and indeterminate mammal (three fragments).  All of the marks on the deer and bear bones were consistent with the description provided of the cuts produced during the skinning and butchering of the animals at the Eschelman site in Pennsylvania (Guilday et al. 1962).  Only four of the 13 turkey bones exhibiting cut marks were consistent with those found at the Eschelman site.  It was hypothesized that the absence of cuts on such elements as the femora, innominates, dorsal vertebrae, and sternums indicated that the turkey carcasses were probably boiled to remove the meat (Guilday et al. 1962:80).  Three femora, four humeri, and two carpometacarpuses from the Fredricks site exhibited cuts, possibly indicating that meat was stripped from the bones rather than boiled off.

	Only a very few fragments of worked bone were present in the 1985 faunal assemblage.  These consisted of the bone handles of several European knives, one awl of European manufacture, and two pieces of a highly polished deer ulna awl of aboriginal manufacture.  Other fragments of worked bone recovered were: one small, polished fragment of deer antler; one pointed and slightly polished splinter of long bone from a large bird (probably turkey); and one polished splinter of long bone from an indeterminate mammal.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Discussion, Page Number: 156  
Discussion

	The 1985 faunal assemblage was nearly twice as large as the 1983–1984 assemblage from the Fredricks site (31,901 fragments as opposed to 16,393 fragments).  Despite this, the number of species and the number of individuals represented in the 1985 assemblage was far smaller than in the earlier assemblage.  The following species and families represented in the 1983–1984 faunal remains were not present in the 1985 remains: striped skunk, hispid cotton rat, horse, pig, mountain lion, gray fox, Charadriidae (plovers), bobwhite, lesser scaup, musk turtle, mud turtle, Crotalid (poisonous snake), spadefoot toad, Bufo sp. (toads), and sunfish.

	Although the 1985 assemblage contained fewer species, it exhibited a higher diversity index.  A Simpson's diversity index for the 1983–1984 assemblage is 0.73 (with a maximum of 0.97), and for the 1985 assemblage it is 0.83 (with a maximum of .95).  The fact that the 1985 assemblage has a higher diversity but fewer species identified indicates that it displays greater equitability of representation of species than the assemblage analyzed earlier.  The 1983–1984 assemblage, however, is richer.

	Fish and reptiles both appear less important in the 1985 assemblage than in the 1983–1984 assemblage.  Whereas fish accounted for 50.0% of the individuals in the earlier assemblage, it accounted for only 32.1% of the total in the 1985 assemblage.  Reptiles represented 12.0% of the total number of individuals in the earlier assemblage, and 8.9% of the individuals in the later assemblage.  Amphibians also decreased in importance from 5.6% to only 0.9% of the individuals.

	Although fewer species of birds were represented in the 1985 assemblage, their importance in terms of MNI increased.  Birds accounted for 11.9% of the individuals in the 1983–1984 assemblage, but they accounted for 17.8% in the 1985 assemblage.  This increase in importance can largely be attributed to the increase in representation of turkeys from four to 15.  Whereas 75.0% of the individuals identified in the first assemblage were males, only 20.0% of the individuals in the second assemblage were males.  When data from the two assemblages are combined, the results indicate that 31.6% of the individuals identified as turkeys were males.  The proportion of males to females is considerably higher than that found in a study of turkeys harvested in Virginia in which only 18.9% of the 6,000 turkeys captured during a five-year period were adult males (Gwynn 1964).  It thus seems likely that Occaneechi hunters were selecting males over females, possibly because of the larger size of the males.

	Deer represented a significantly higher percentage of the total number of individuals in the 1985 assemblage than in the 1983–1984 assemblage (21.4% vs. 6.3% of the total number of individuals).  Whereas 50.0% of the individuals that could be aged in the earlier assemblage were 4-1/2 years old or less, 87.5% of the individuals in the 1985 assemblage comprised this age category.  When combined, the two assemblages contain individuals ranging in age from less than one year to 8-1/2 – 9-1/2 years.  Individuals between 2-1/2 and 4-1/2 years accounted for 50.0% of the individuals identified.  It was possible to determine the sex of only 10 of the 33 individuals identified.  Five of these were males and five were females.  This suggests that the Occaneechi were neither selecting male over female deer nor hunting primarily weaker animals (the very young or very old).  It also indicates that the methods used to hunt deer were drives and surrounds rather than stalking (Waselkov 1977:120).

	Among some historic tribes of eastern North America "bear bones were often revered or given preferential treatment to propitiate the spirit of the animal, treatment which would eliminate them from the bone refuse ordinarily associated with an Indian village site" (Guilday et al. 1962:65).  In the 1985 assemblage from the Fredricks site, a total of 471 fragments identified as bear were found in seven different features.  This widespread distribution, coupled with the fact that the bear remains were found mixed with the remains of other animals, indicates that bear bones may not have been given preferential treatment by the Occaneechi.  However, 77.1% of the bear bones were burned whereas only 31.5% of the deer bones from the same assemblage were burned.  The majority of those bear bones which were burned were foot bones (both broken and complete).  It is interesting to note that six complete long bones (1 tibia, 3 ulnae, and 2 radii) were found that had not been cracked for their marrow but had been left intact.  Of these six elements, three showed evidence of pathology.  One radius and one ulna exhibited signs of inflammation with areas of bone deposition and pitting.  Evidence of a small tumor was found on the shaft of the other ulna.

	No rabbits were identified in either the 1983–1984 or 1985 assemblage from the Fredricks site.  Guilday et al. (1962:72) have hypothesized that the scarcity of rabbit remains in assemblages from Pennsylvania sites is due to the presence of dogs around Indian villages.  At the late prehistoric Wall site (located 200 yards from the Fredricks site) dogs were present, yet rabbit was the third most numerous mammal identified in the assemblage.  Therefore, it is questionable whether the rabbit population around the Fredricks site would have been severely limited by the presence of dogs.  Differential preservation does not seem to be a plausible explanation either, as more fragile bones (such as those from birds) and bones of smaller species (e.g., mice and fish) were found in abundance.  Instead, it seems likely that some other factor, such as disease, limited the number of rabbits available at the time Occaneechi Town was occupied.

	The 1983–1984 and 1985 assemblages were compared in terms of the relative importance of the contribution made by each species to the diet of the inhabitants of the site.  The calculations of available meat were based on estimations by Smith (1975a), White (1953), and Cleland (1966).  The results of these calculations for the 1985 assemblage are presented in Table 14.  In terms of estimated meat yield, the most important animals in the 1985 assemblage were deer (which provided 70.0% of the available meat), bear (2l.6%), turkey (4.4%), and catfish (1.8%).  None of the other species represented provided more than 0.5% of the total estimated meat yield.  The most important animals in the 1983–1984 assemblage were deer (providing 58.2% of the total estimated meat yield), bear (16.0%), catfish (7.9%), pig (5.7%), mountain lion (4.6%), turkey (2.6%), and raccoon (1.1%).  The remaining species identified in this assemblage each contributed less than 1.0% of the estimated meat yield.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Conclusions, Page Number: 157  
Conclusions

	Analysis of the faunal remains from the 1985 excavations at Occaneechi Town yielded results that were similar in many ways to analysis results following 1983 and 1984 field seasons. Deer, bear, turkey, and catfish provided a majority of the meat represented by the two assemblages.  Pig, mountain lion, and raccoon were also important in the 1983–1984 assemblage. Overall, the 1983–1984 assemblage contained a much wider variety of species than the 1985 assemblage.  It has been suggested (Ward 1984b) that the refuse contained in the fill of many of the burial pits from the Fredricks site represent the remains from ritual feasts.  If so, it is not surprising that more unusual species would be identified in the fill of these pits than in the fill representing refuse from everyday behavior.

	Nearly 88% of the faunal remains recovered during the 1983–1984 excavations were retrieved from burial fill, whereas only 4.6% of the remains from the 1985 assemblage were from burial fill.  This difference in contexts from which the faunal remains were derived may account for the greater variety of species in the 1983–1984 assemblage.  Except for this difference, analysis of the faunal remains from the 1985 assemblage provided solid confirmation of the patterns of faunal exploitation defined by the 1983–1984 analysis.  European-domesticated animals did not play a major role in the subsistence patterns of the Occaneechi, and basic patterns of faunal exploitation remained similar to those employed in late prehistory.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 158  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 13. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1985 excavations). 

Table 14. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1985 excavations). 
 
Figures: General

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district.

Page: Animal Remains (1985): Source, Page Number: 159  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Faunal Remains, by Mary Ann Holm.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1986, pp. 130–142.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Introduction, Page Number: 160  
Introduction

	The 1986 assemblage from the Fredricks site was sampled and analyzed using procedures identical to those used for the assemblages from the 1983–1984 and 1985 field seasons.  The 1986 assemblage consisted of 25,832 fragments.  Only faunal remains from undisturbed contexts were analyzed.  These remains were recovered from the fill of 16 pits.  One of these was a burial (Burial 14), two were probable burial pits containing no human bone, one was an irregular trench, and 12 were storage pits or soil recovery facilities.  The fill from these features was waterscreened through a series of 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and 1/16-inch mesh screens.  All of the faunal remains recovered in the 1/2-inch (6,202 fragments) and 1/4-inch (18,277 fragments) screens were examined.  Only identifiable fragments were sorted from the material recovered in the 1/16-inch screen (1,353 fragments).

	Minimum numbers of individuals were calculated on the basis of paired elements.  In order to facilitate comparison with the faunal assemblages recovered from the Fredricks site in earlier excavations, MNI was calculated from the 1986 assemblage as a whole without taking the excavation units into account.

Results of Analysis

	Twenty-two species, represented by a minimum of 107 individuals, were identified in the 1986 assemblage from the Fredricks site (Table 15).  Of the individuals identified, 59% were mammals, 14% were birds, 11% were reptiles, 6% were amphibians, and 10% were fish.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Mammals, Page Number: 161  
Mammals

	No domesticated mammals were represented in the faunal remains from the 1986 assemblage.  The earlier assemblages recovered from Occaneechi Town yielded only one fragment identified as horse and one identified as pig.  It is thus apparent that European-introduced animals were not contributing significantly to the Occaneechi's diet.

	White-tailed deer was the most common mammal represented, with a minimum of 21 individuals accounting for approximately 20% of the individuals identified.  Eleven deer mandibles in the assemblage were complete enough to determine the approximate age of death using Severinghaus's (1949) method based on tooth development and wear.  One individual was between the ages of 9 and 11 months and two were between 13 and 17 months old.  One individual was 2-1/2 years old, two were 3-1/2 years old, two were 4-1/2 years old, and three were 5-1/2 years old.  From the assemblages recovered between 1983 and 1986, it has been possible to determine the age at death for 21 of the deer identified (Table 16).  This is only a small percentage of the total number of deer from the site and may not be representative of the actual age distribution of the deer; however, as the majority of the deer that could be aged were neither very young nor very old, it is likely that drives or surrounds were used in hunting the deer rather than stalking (Waselkov 1977:120).

	There were only eight deer innominates in the 1986 assemblage that were complete enough to allow the use of Edwards et al.'s (1982) method for determining the sex of deer. A minimum of five individuals were represented by these innominates, four of which were males and one of which was a female.  In the 1983–1984 assemblage there were no innominates sufficiently preserved to allow the use of this criterion.  In the 1985 assemblage, three females and four males were identified.  Thus, of the 12 individuals for which sex could be determined, eight were males and four were females.  As this is such a small percentage of the total number of deer represented in the assemblage, it is not possible to draw any conclusions as to whether or not the inhabitants of the Fredricks site were preferentially hunting male rather than female deer.

	The only large mammal identified in the 1986 assemblage other than deer was black bear, which was represented by a minimum of two individuals.  The 78 fragments identified as bear yielded only two that were useful for determining age.  Marks and Erickson (1966) indicate that the distal epiphyses of bear metacarpals fuse during the second year and that complete fusion of the epiphyses of the radii and ulnae occurs between five and six years in females and by seven years in males.  The one fused metacarpal and one fused ulna in the assemblage indicate that at least one of the individuals represented in the assemblage was between five and seven years old.

	A total of 559 fragments of bear bones were identified from the Fredricks site.  These remains represent a minimum of four individuals distributed in the fill of 16 features.  Guilday, Parmalee, and Tanner (1962:65–66) have noted that bear bones may not be abundant in prehistoric sites in the East because of the practice of bear ceremonialism and the attendant special treatment given to bear bones.  They hypothesize that the introduction of firearms and the fur trade caused an increase in bear hunting and thus an increase in the number of bear bones identified in historic as opposed to prehistoric sites.  Bear was second only to deer in terms of meat yield at the Fredricks site.  Coupled with the fact that the bear bones were scattered in 16 pits, this indicates that bears and their remains may not have received special treatment from the inhabitants of the Fredricks site.

	Lawson (Lefler 1967:122) noted that among the Indians he visited, the paws were considered to be the most edible part of the bear.  It is interesting to note that 68.5% of all the bear bones identified from the Fredricks site were burned and that the majority of these burned fragments were foot bones.  In contrast, only 25.4% of all the deer remains were burned and those fragments that were burned represent elements from all portions of the deer.

	Small mammals accounted for nearly 36% of the individuals identified in the 1986 assemblage from the Fredricks site.  No rabbit remains were represented in the 1983–1984 or 1985 assemblages and only ten fragments of rabbit bones, representing one individual, were identified in the 1986 assemblage.  Rabbit was the third most numerous mammal represented at the nearby late prehistoric Wall site.  This distribution is indicative of change in either the environment or in subsistence habits between the time of occupation of the Wall site and that of the Fredricks site.

	White-footed deer mouse was second only to deer in terms of the number of individuals identified in the 1986 assemblage.  Eighteen individuals were identified, 15 of which were recovered from a single feature (Feature 42).  Remains of other small mammals (such as cotton rats) and amphibians also were found in the fill of this feature.  These remains probably represent animals that became trapped in the pits before they were completely filled with refuse.  As the remains of these small animals were found in all three zones of fill, it can be hypothesized that the pit was partially filled and then left standing open on as many as three occasions.  Whyte (1986:4–9) has found that small animals tend to become trapped in open pits most often in late spring, summer, and early fall.  The large number of small animals represented in the fill of Feature 42 indicates that this pit may have been filled with refuse between spring and fall, rather than in the winter.

	No mammals were identified in the 1986 assemblage that had not been represented in the assemblages from earlier field seasons. The remains of fox squirrel, shrew, horse, pig, and mountain lion were the only mammalian species identified earlier that were not represented in the 1986 assemblage.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Birds, Page Number: 162  
Birds

	The only birds identified in the 1986 assemblage were turkey and passenger pigeon.  Together, these species accounted for approximately 14% of the individuals in the assemblage.  Sparrow, plover, bobwhite, red-bellied woodpecker, and lesser scaup are the species of bird represented in earlier assemblages from the Fredricks site that were not identified in the 1986 assemblage.

	All of the remains of passenger pigeon, representing two individuals, were found in Zone 1 of Feature 14 (Burial 11).  As passenger pigeon is a migratory bird, this indicates that this particular fill zone represents refuse deposited in the pit during the fall.

	Turkey accounted for over 12% of the individuals in the assemblage and was second only to deer among animals represented that would have been important food resources for the inhabitants of the Fredricks site.  Based upon the presence of spurs, all 14 of the turkeys identified in the 1986 assemblage were males.  Thirty-three percent of the turkeys identified from all of the faunal remains from the Fredricks site were males.  As only approximately 19% of turkeys in the wild are males (Gwynn 1964), it is evident that the inhabitants of the Fredricks site were selecting males over females.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Reptiles and Amphibians, Page Number: 163  
Reptiles and Amphibians

	As in the earlier assemblages, box turtle was the most numerous of the reptiles in the 1986 faunal remains.  Eleven individuals were identified.  It is likely, based upon the presence of a large number of carapace and plastron fragments, that this severely under represents the actual number of box turtles in the assemblage.  A single snapping turtle and the remains of an unidentified snake also were identified.  In the 1983–1984 and 1985 assemblages, painted turtle, mud turtle, and musk turtle also were represented among the faunal remains.  One spadefoot toad, two unidentified frogs, and one unidentified toad were present in the 1986 assemblage.  This inventory is very similar to the representation of amphibians in earlier assemblages from the Fredricks site.  The remains of the amphibians from the 1986 assemblage were found in Feature 42, Feature 44, and Feature 55 and indicate that these features may have been left open and not immediately filled with refuse.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Fish, Page Number: 164  
Fish

	Catfish, minnow, sucker, and gar accounted for approximately 9% of the individuals in the 1986 assemblage.  This is a marked decrease compared to the representation of fish in the earlier assemblages.  Approximately 32% of the individuals in the 1985 assemblage were fish and approximately 52% of the individuals in the 1983–1984 assemblage were fish.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Cut and Worked Bone, Page Number: 165  
Cut and Worked Bone

	As with the assemblages recovered during earlier excavations of the Fredricks site, only a very small percentage of the bones recovered in 1986 were worked or exhibited cut marks. Worked bone consisted of a fragment of a deer radius beamer, two awls made from long bones of unidentified mammals, one perforated raptor talon, and a small fragment of perforated bird bone.  Cut marks were observed on one indeterminate mammal long bone, 10 fragments of deer bones, and one bear cervical vertebra.  The cut marks on the deer bones were located on fragments of two antlers, one ramus, three scapulae, one lumbar vertebra, one thoracic vertebra, one cervical vertebra, one sacrum, and one astragalus.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Conclusions, Page Number: 166  
Conclusions

	One goal of the faunal analysis was to determine the relative importance of each species identified in the 1986 assemblage to the Occaneechi diet.  Calculations of available meat were based on estimates by Cleland (1966), Smith (1975a), and White (1953).  The results of these calculations are presented in Table 17.  The most important animals, in terms of estimated meat yield, were deer (75.8% of the available meat), bear (16.3%), turkey (4.6%), and raccoon (1.2%).  Each of the other species provided 0.5% or less of the available meat.  Deer, bear, and turkey were all important (in terms of meat yield) in the previous assemblages from the Fredricks site; however, catfish was considerably more important in both of the earlier assemblages.

	A Simpson's diversity index was computed for the 1983–1984, 1985, and 1986 faunal assemblages from the Fredricks site.  The 1986 value was 0.88 with a maximum of 0.96.  The 1985 value was 0.83 with a maximum of 0.95, and the 1983–1984 value was 0.73 with a maximum of 0.97.  The 1985 and 1986 assemblages are much more similar to one another than either is to the 1983–1984 assemblage.  In the 1983–1984 assemblage a minimum of 142 individuals representing 35 species was identified.  In the 1985 assemblage 21 species were represented by 112 individuals, and in the 1986 assemblage 22 species were represented by 107 individuals.  The fact that the 1985 and 1986 assemblages exhibited higher diversity but fewer species identified indicates that they display greater equitability of representation of species than does the 1983–1984 assemblage.  However, despite the fact that it is far smaller than the other two assemblages, the 1983–1984 assemblage is richer (both in terms of the number of individuals and the number of species identified).

	The differences in diversity and equitability of representation exhibited by the three assemblages may be explained by the contexts from which the assemblages were recovered.  Nearly 88% of the faunal remains recovered in the 1983–1984 excavations were retrieved from the fill of burial pits.  Only 4.6% of the remains from the 1985 assemblage and only 0.10% of the remains from the 1986 assemblage were recovered from burial fill.  The burials excavated in 1983 and 1984 were located in the cemetery outside of the palisade along the northeast side of the village.  Most of these burial pits exhibited a distinct upper layer of fill containing large quantities of faunal remains and other refuse.  It has been suggested (Ward and Davis 1987a:38) that this refuse represents the remains of ritual death feasting.  If this is the case, it does not seem illogical that a wider variety of species would have been utilized during these feasting rituals than would have been used for everyday subsistence.

	Despite the fact that the Occaneechi were heavily involved in trade with Europeans, there is no evidence that European-introduced animals were of any importance in their diet.  The inhabitants of the site relied most heavily on deer, bear, turkey, catfish, and raccoon.  In this respect, it seems that the Occaneechi Town inhabitants relied on a pattern of faunal exploitation very similar to that employed prehistorically.

	It is quite likely that a large portion of the refuse produced by the Occaneechi was disposed of in the nearby Eno River rather than in pits within the palisaded village.  When the results of the 1983–1984, 1985, and 1986 assemblages are combined, however, all of the faunal remains originally deposited in the village, and still preserved, can be accounted for.  This provides an excellent situation for establishing hypotheses concerning patterns of refuse disposal and food distribution that can then be tested at other sites for which only samples of the faunal remains have been recovered.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 167  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 15. Animal remains from the Fredricks site (1986 excavations). 

Table 16. Age of deer from the Fredricks site. 

Table 17. Estimated meat yield in pounds (1986 excavations). 
 
Figures: General

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district.

Page: Animal Remains (1986): Source, Page Number: 168  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Faunal Remains, by Mary Ann Holm.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:85–94 (1988).

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Introduction, Page Number: 169  
Introduction

	The relationships between humans and their environment are conditioned to a large extent by the search for food and other material resources.  And, since subsistence and other aspects of culture are mutually interdependent, the study of food acquisition is an important aspect of any examination of cultural stability and change.  Decisions made by individuals and groups about which resources to exploit reflect and are affected by changes in social organization and communication with outside groups as well as by changes in the natural environment.  For aboriginal Piedmont groups, the period between the first European entrance into North America and their ultimate loss of cultural identity was one in which many such changes took place.

	The interpretations given here are based upon analyses of plant remains collected during the 1983 and 1984 excavations at the Fredricks (c. 1700), Mitchum (c. 1650–1680), and Wall (c. 1400–1500) sites.  The concluding synthesis of ethnobotanical data is based upon all excavated data from the Fredricks site.  Unlike the ethnographer, the archaeologist does not have access to living informants, a situation which multiplies the problems normally encountered in describing a way of life and its historical development.  The database for this study of the use of plant foods is primarily archaeological, supplemented only by the few available historical records.  Nevertheless, it is felt that the analysis of plant remains has a great deal of potential for adding to our knowledge of European contact and culture change in the North Carolina Piedmont.

	Despite the fact that archaeologists do not have the advantage of direct observation of food-getting practices, reconstruction of subsistence patterns can be accomplished with due attention to the transformations undergone by plant remains both before and after they enter the archaeological record.  In addition, possible explanations can be offered for changes in plant procurement patterns.  In this study, these explanations will be based upon a cost-benefit model derived from economic and ecological theory.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Preservation and Recovery, Page Number: 170  
Preservation and Recovery

	Like archaeologists in general, paleoethnobotanists are faced with the problem of how to interpret human behavior on the basis of material remains and their context.  The transfer of items from a systemic to an archaeological context (Schiffer 1976) introduces a number of factors which tend to mask relationships between the remains themselves and the behavior that produced them.  For the most part, techniques developed for determining true relationships between plant remains and subsistence practices are still rudimentary.  However, recognition of intervening biases is a first step toward guarding against incorrect interpretations and constructing ones that are relatively secure.  Such questions of method are quite complex and invite detailed discussion.  However, a brief look at some basic problems and their relevance to the current project is sufficient to establish a background for the interpretations that follow.

Material Factors

	The material makeup of plant parts is one important factor influencing the probability of their preservation in an archaeological context.  At open-air sites, only carbonized plant remains can be securely associated with a past occupation (Yarnell 1982; Dimbleby 1978).  Conditions that result in the preservation of durable materials (such as peach pit and thick nutshell) may tend to destroy more fragile materials (e.g., roots, leaves, and flowers) or simply render them unrecognizable to the analyst.  Although items like acorn shell are amenable to carbonization, they tend to fragment easily both during and after deposition.  Post-depositional disturbance in the form of pedoturbation thus affects the distribution of preserved plant remains in the soil by dispersing, breaking, and abrading them.

Food Processing and Consumption

	The activities of site occupants also affect the probability that certain kinds of plant parts will be recovered archaeologically.  Food-processing practices that make use of fire, such as drying or parching, increase the likelihood of carbonization.  Lawson (Lefler 1967:112, 182) has documented the fruit-drying techniques of Piedmont Indians.  Corn and other grains may also have been dried or parched for storage and consumption.  The fact that beans were probably boiled rather than parched may be responsible for their relatively sparse representation archaeologically in the East (Yarnell 1982).  The practice of using food wastes such as corncobs and hickory nutshells for fuel may similarly result in their overrepresentation relative to other kinds of remains that may actually represent greater quantities of food.

Deposition

	Plant remains may thus be deposited (that is, transferred to an archaeological context) either intentionally or unintentionally.  Edible parts can be lost accidentally during consumption or processing, whereas waste products usually are intentionally deposited, often in a circumscribed area such as a village midden or trash pit.  Frequently, food remains rather than food itself are preserved archaeologically (Dennell 1976).  In the case of hickory nutshell, the remains are more representative of some quantity of food consumed.  However, fruit and weed seeds must be evaluated more carefully.  These sometimes may have been carbonized fortuitously rather than having been lost during processing.  Amounts of food represented by seeds must be determined with reference to quantity, fruit size, and number of seeds per fruit.

	Determination of the relative amounts of food represented by archaeological plant remains thus depends to a great extent on an understanding of the contexts in which they occur.  In trash-filled pits, for example, a fairly heterogeneous mixture of plant remains can be expected to occur.  As garbage, these deposits are perhaps more representative of subsistence practices during a given time period than those that result from more specialized activities.  A village midden, the type of context from which most of the Wall site sample was drawn, is also a heterogeneous mixture.  However, it has been shown (Johnson 1983) that different parts of a midden can have lower or higher densities of plant remains than pit fill from the same site.  In any case, the chief difference between midden and feature fill may often lie in relative density of plant remains rather than the kinds of remains represented.

	Most of the Mitchum site plant remains samples were drawn from trash-filled pits, as were several each from Wall and Fredricks.  Some upper burial fill from Wall and Fredricks seems to represent intentional deposition of food remains, possibly associated with special activities.  Feature 9 at the Fredricks site is a deep stratified pit surrounded by a wall trench.  Its formation seems to have been associated with a complex series of activities.  Problems encountered in interpreting plant remains assemblages from this feature will be discussed in more detail below.  In recognition of the seasonal and behavioral parameters of deposit formation and their effect upon plant remains collections, results from different contexts are presented separately in the tables.

Recovery

	The behavior of the archaeologist also has significant effects upon the composition of plant remains assemblages.  The amount of a site that is excavated is such a factor.  However, recovery methods are equally important.  Flotation, or water separation, has been shown to be the most effective recovery method since it minimizes damage to fragile materials and employs a fine screen (in this case, a 0.71 mm mesh) that recovers even small seeds.  Most of the manipulations of plant remains data in this study will, therefore, rely on flotation samples (both heavy and light fractions), which have the advantage of being documented as measured quantities of fill.  Although one can process large (unmeasured) quantities of fill by waterscreening, it is necessary to use a high-pressure water source that tends to damage fragile plant remains.  Waterscreened material from the 1983 field season was examined for purposes of comparison with flotation samples and to supplement the flotation database.  These results are presented separately, but included in site totals.  Midden flotation samples from the 1983 excavation at the Wall site are also included in the tables, but are excluded from further manipulations since only light fractions were analyzed.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Identification and Quantification, Page Number: 171  
Identification and Quantification

	The standardized analysis procedure followed for all samples approximates that presented by Yarnell (1974).  Each sample was weighed and then sifted through a series of U.S. Standard geological sieves ranging in mesh size from 6.35 mm to 0.21 mm.  All sorting and identification of plant remains was done with the aid of a binocular microscope.  Material greater than 2.00 mm in diameter was completely sorted by genus and species if possible.  Material passing through the 2.00 mm screen was searched for seeds only and for items not represented in the larger size category.  Quantities of each component in the 1.41 mm to 0.71 mm size class were extrapolated on the basis of their representation in the 6.35 mm to 2.00 mm category (Table 18).  It is assumed that components are represented equally in these two size classes.  Even though this assumption is not always satisfied, the procedure provides a better estimate of actual quantities than quantification of only the largest size class.  Material passing through the 0.71 mm screen was excluded from calculations, since it was composed mainly of fine soil particles.

	Several techniques were used to compare plant remains data from different sites and contexts.  Percentage of plant food remains by weight is especially useful for comparing remains of the same class (Table 19).  However, since these classes differ in their durability and likelihood of preservation, between-class comparisons are sometimes misleading if based upon relative representation by weight.  Ubiquity measures assess the frequency of occurrence of plant taxa without regard for their quantity (Table 20).  Here, ubiquity was calculated by finding the percentage of flotation samples comprising both light and heavy fractions in which an item occurred (most of these samples represent 10 liters of fill; the few exceptions probably do not introduce significant bias).

	A modified version of Simpson's diversity index (Peet 1974) also was used to compare data.  This index, designed for ecological community studies, measures both richness (numbers of taxa represented) and equitability (evenness of representation of taxa), and its value can range from zero to one.  Diversity (D) is computed as

				D = 1– S pi 2 ,

where p is the proportion of item i in the assemblage.  Proportions of each plant food in a sample are determined using a ubiquity measure in which values sum to one and using equal numbers of samples from each site.  It is assumed that these proportions reflect proportions in the diet to some extent, but the diversity of the plant food resource base for each community as a whole is of primary interest.

	Seeds (except for common bean, corn, peach pit, and nut remains) were combined and their aggregate weight presented for each context.  Numbers of seeds are presented in separate tables along with estimated corn cupule and kernel counts (Table 21, Table 22).  In addition, actual counts were converted to number per gram of plant food remains, a procedure that takes into account differences between sample sizes.  All comparative techniques are of course subject to the cautions presented above.

	Most of the categories in the tables are self-explanatory.  Non-botanical materials and uncarbonized plant parts were sorted completely for light fractions and weighed as an aggregate for heavy fractions, but only plant remains are reported in the tables.  The "wood charcoal" category also includes stem charcoal and bark.  "Residue" is the unsorted material less than 0.71 mm.  Corn remains are presented as aggregate weights of cupules and kernels but are itemized in the seed count tables.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons, Page Number: 172  
Site Comparisons

	Although plant remains from three sites are included in this study, comparison will focus on the Wall and Fredricks sites, which represent sequential occupations of the same approximate location.  The Mitchum site occupation, temporally intermediate between the first two, is anomalous in certain respects.  In fact, calculation of a similarity index (King 1982) based upon plant taxa (expressed as twice the number of shared taxa divided by the total number of taxa for both sites) shows greater similarity between Wall and Fredricks than between either of them and Mitchum.  One reason for this distinctiveness is that some deposits at the Mitchum site display a seasonal profile different from those of the other two sites.  This factor, as well as the location of Mitchum in a different river valley and the relatively small area of the site that was sampled, makes it difficult to assess change using all three sites.  Therefore, the Mitchum site plant remains probably should not be considered representative of a transitional subsistence pattern in a developmental sequence from the Wall site occupation to that of the Fredricks site.  Although the cultural connectedness of the Wall and Fredricks site populations is still in question, they shared a similar local environment and probably had a similar range of plant foods from which to choose.  Comparison, therefore, will focus on the use of plant foods by these two populations.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Nuts, Page Number: 173  
Site Comparisons: Nuts

	Nuts were important aboriginal foods throughout the East, beginning at least during Early Archaic times.  Acorn was probably the most important plant food in the Southeast prehistorically until Mississippian times (after about A.D. 1000), although hickory seems to have dominated in some locations.  Walnut is generally less abundantly represented than either hickory or acorn (Yarnell and Black 1983).

	All three nut types are represented at the three sites in question.  Hickory was the most abundant nut type at all three sites based on percentage by weight (Table 23).  However, acorn shell fragments more easily than thick nutshell and is therefore probably greatly underrepresented.  In addition, hickory nutshell represents smaller quantities of nutmeat than does acorn shell because of acorn's higher meat-to-shell ratio.  Acorn shell may represent anywhere from five to 200 times as much nutmeat as an equivalent quantity of hickory shell (Lopinot 1983).  Accordingly, Yarnell and Black (1983) have recommended multiplying acorn shell quantities by 50 in order to arrive at a corrected acorn-to-hickory ratio.  Using site totals, the acorn-to-hickory ratio (based on estimated food quantities) for the Wall site is 5.72, in contrast to the Fredricks site value of only 0.42.  The Mitchum site value is 2.97.
	It is clear that acorn is much better represented at the Wall site than is hickory.  By the time of the Occaneechi occupation at the Fredricks site, a shift to greater emphasis on hickory seems to have occurred.  The drop in hickory nutshell as percentage of plant food remains from Wall to Fredricks may be a consequence of its highly variable representation in different contexts.  In addition, hickory nutshell was more ubiquitous at both Fredricks (100.0 %) and Mitchum (100.0 %) than at Wall (83.3 %).  Acorn percentage and ubiquity both show significant drops between the Wall and Fredricks sites (Table 23).

	There is, therefore, good evidence for increasing emphasis on hickory nut collection during the Historic period with a concomitant decrease in the use of acorn, although the results from the 1985 excavations at the Fredricks site indicate that the differential representation of these two foods is not as great as was previously thought.  Walnut is represented by small quantities at all three sites, but shows a similar decrease in both ubiquity and percentage.  The Wall site population does seem to have exploited the range of available nut resources more evenly, whereas the Occaneechi focused on hickory.  Using the modified Simpson index discussed above, the Wall site flotation samples show a higher diversity for nut taxa (D=.6272) than do an equal number of Fredricks site samples (D=.5412).  Since richness and sample size are held constant (both sites have three nut taxa), differences in equitability must be responsible for this contrast.  This finding, in contrast to the more evenly distributed representation of nut types at the Wall site, supports the notion of a focus on exploitation of one nut type at Fredricks.  This conclusion is based upon ubiquity; comparison of food represented could present a different picture.  Differential use of hickory and acorn seem more pronounced at Wall than at Fredricks, based on the corrected ratio.

	The Mitchum site assemblage is similar to that of the Wall site in this respect.  At Mitchum, acorn and walnut are both better represented as percentage of nut remains than they are at Fredricks.  However, ubiquity values for the three nut types at Mitchum are closer to those for Fredricks.  It is difficult to decide how to interpret these data, but it does seem that acorn was used to a greater extent than hickory at the Mitchum site, judging by its corrected acorn-to-hickory ratio.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Crops, Page Number: 174  
Site Comparisons: Crops

Corn

	Corn remains, like hickory nutshell, are well represented at all three sites.  Ubiquity and percentage are both highest for the Fredricks site, based on site totals.  However, corn percentage is highly variable between contexts at the Fredricks site, ranging from a low of 2.6% (Structure 1) to a high of 68.3% (Feature 9, Zone 3).  The high proportion of corn in Feature 9 is largely responsible for the surprisingly high site total of 41.0%.

	Whether or not to accept the Fredricks site corn percentages as directly comparable to those from the other two sites depends to a large extent upon how Feature 9 differs from other features in the composition of its plant remains assemblage.  Feature 9, especially Zone 3, contains a high number of seed taxa compared to upper and lower burial fill from selected burials, fill from Features 10, 11, 12, and 13 (all shallow pits), and Structure 1 (associated with Feature 9) (Table 24).  Corn percentage is also unusually high, particularly for Zone 3.  In Zone 3b within Feature 9, which is defined as clusters of charred corn kernels and bark resting on the floor of the pit, corn comprises 95.8 % of plant food remains.  For this reason, results from this zone were not included in site totals. Zone 3b possibly represents some specialized activity involving food processing or consumption, and, as such, it is not directly comparable with other contexts (such as midden and shallower pits) that probably represent trash deposits.

	Although Feature 9 is a rich source of information, some care must be exercised in interpreting its plant remains.  For comparison between sites, similar contexts should be compared in this case.  Burial fill from Wall and Fredricks contains similar proportions of corn remains.  Similarly, the number of kernels per gram of plant food remains is quite close based upon waterscreened material (no corn kernels were found in the Wall site burial flotation samples).  Neither an increase nor a decrease in use of corn can be established between the Wall and Fredricks site occupations.  It is certain that corn remained an important crop into historic times, and likely that it may have retained its former level of importance.

	Although the overall percentage of corn at the Mitchum site is relatively low, the presence of two cob-filled pits at the site points to its importance there.  Additionally, a study of the seed assemblage from several features at the site indicates that some of those features probably were formed during early- to mid-summer.  There is a fairly strong correlation between low corn percentage and summer seasonal profiles (r=0.82, Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient, significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed), based on selected feature data from all three sites.  Thus, the unexpectedly low representation of corn at Mitchum may be a reflection of a seasonally specific strategy of harvesting grasses (primarily maygrass, a relatively reliable seasonal indicator) during the spring and summer when corn stores were low and other crops were not yet available.  Corn was an important crop for Mitchum site people, but its relative importance on a year-round basis cannot yet be determined.

Beans

	Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is rare on archaeological sites in the East until after c. A.D. 1200 (Yarnell 1983:5).  It was found at both the Wall and Fredricks sites.  Its representation at these two sites is quite similar in both ubiquity and percentage.  The fact that beans may have been prepared by boiling rather than parching or roasting may account for its limited occurrence at both sites.  Beyond this, little can be said about the importance of beans for the Wall and Fredricks site populations.

Cucurbits

	Rind fragments of cucurbits (members of the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae) were found at Mitchum and Fredricks.  They represent either bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria Standley) or "squash" (Cucurbita sp.).  The latter taxon is also represented at the Fredricks site by three seeds of Cucurbita pepo L., probably a gourdy (as opposed to fleshy) variety, on the basis of seed size (Richard Yarnell, personal communication 1984).  It is likely that the fruits were used as containers, and perhaps for food as well.
Native Grains

	Several different kinds of grasses are represented at the Fredricks and Mitchum sites.  Most of these could be identified only to the family level (Poaceae) or to the category "barley/fescue," which includes grains similar to little barley except for their size.  However, large numbers of maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana Walter) and smaller numbers of little barley (Hordeum pusillum L.) grains were found in Feature 6 at the Mitchum site.  Chenopod (Chenopodium sp.) from Wall and Fredricks and sumpweed (Iva annua var. macrocarpa Jackson) from Wall will also be discussed as grain seeds (in some cases more properly called fruits; here the term "seeds" will be used to refer to both).

	A single sumpweed seed was recovered from the fill of a Wall site burial.  Its dimensions (6.7 x 5.3 mm with corrections for carbonization) place it well within the range of the cultigen variety of Mississippian times (Yarnell 1978).  This large-seeded variety, which was presumably the result of human-mediated selection, is known only archaeologically, and its decline as a crop is not yet well understood.  Although the Wall site population may have grown sumpweed, its importance there cannot be assessed on the basis of a single specimen.  It is important to note, however, that this native crop plant persisted so late in the Piedmont, and that it was dispersed so far to the east from its native range in the Mississippi drainage.

	A small number of chenopod seeds was recovered from the Fredricks site, and a single specimen was found in a Wall site midden flotation sample.  Like sumpweed, chenopod was an important crop plant in some parts of the East, and shows some evidence of morphological change under domestication (Fritz 1984; B. Smith 1985).  However, chenopod is also a weedy taxon, and its presence in small numbers does not argue convincingly for its use here as food.

	The Mitchum site shows the strongest evidence for utilization of native starchy seeds, mainly in the form of maygrass and little barley grains.  Maygrass has been found archaeologically outside of its modern natural range, which is considered evidence of its role as a crop (Cowan 1978; Yarnell 1983).  Since it is an annual species that fruits in the early part of the year, maygrass has been classified as a "cool-season" grass (Bohrer 1975).  In west-central Illinois, little barley has also been classed as a crop plant because of its abundance in archaeological contexts (Asch and Asch 1983:687).  The large numbers of maygrass grains found at Mitchum provide strong evidence of harvesting and perhaps also husbandry.

	The deposits at Mitchum that contain maygrass have in general a relatively early seasonal profile based upon seed types.  They also contain relatively small amounts of corn remains.  Therefore, the presence of large quantities of maygrass may be evidence of a seasonal pattern of grass-collecting in the spring and early summer months, when most edible fruits as well as crops would have been in short supply.  Although there is as yet no evidence for similar patterns at Wall or Fredricks, the possibility of their existence should not be ruled out until material from deposits with similar seasonal parameters can be examined.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Fleshy Fruits, Page Number: 175  
Site Comparisons: Fleshy Fruits

	Seeds of fleshy fruits are quite common at all three sites, with persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.), grape (Vitis sp.), and maypops (Passiflora incarnata L.) being the most common taxa.  A greater number of fruit types is represented at Fredricks than at the other two sites, and most are from Zone 3 of Feature 9, which contained a particularly rich assemblage of plant food remains.  Most of the fleshy fruit types found at the Wall site were also found at Fredricks.  In general, the fruit types recovered can be classified as weedy taxa adapted to early successional habitats, forest edges, and disturbed ground.  Some of these plants, such as maypops, may have been tended or simply tolerated as garden volunteers because of their food value.  The peach (Prunus persica L.) was certainly introduced as a crop, but its weediness contributed to its rapid spread to aboriginal groups.

	Except for peach, which is present at Fredricks but absent from the Wall site, it is difficult to discern any major differences in the use of fleshy fruits.  Persimmon, grape, and maypops all remained important, although grape shows a slight decline based on number per gram of plant food remains (Table 25).  Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) seems to have been relatively important at all three sites.  The abundance of fruit types in Feature 9 at the Fredricks site may be a reflection of special activities such as fruit drying rather than of a trend toward use of a greater variety of fruit types.  In any case, although fleshy fruits were not staple foods, they were commonly used.

	Peach does, however, deserve some attention here as a species introduced by Europeans that was readily adopted by aboriginal groups.  Sheldon (1978) has correctly pointed out the significance of peach remains as indicators of European contact.  However, historical accounts (Lawson, in Lefler 1967; Salley 1911) of the presence of populations of peach trees in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries attests to the spread of this species somewhat independently of intentional propagation.  The domesticated peach grows well with little or no tending (Hedrick 1972) and bears fruit within several years of germination.  Therefore, peach remains are more properly considered signs of indirect rather than direct contact with Europeans.

	At the Mitchum site, peach pits comprise 9.5% of plant food remains and occur in 23.5% of samples analyzed.  Its representation at Fredricks is similar.  Peach was certainly used during both occupations, although the density and durability of peach pit probably results in its overrepresentation relative to other plant foods.  The rapid diffusion of peach and its partial independence from human care may be responsible for its abundance at Mitchum despite the scanty evidence there of contact in the form of trade goods.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Misc. Seeds, Page Number: 176  
Site Comparisons: Miscellaneous Seeds

	Several of the seed types present at the Wall, Mitchum, and Fredricks sites probably were not used as food.  They may have become included in the deposits fortuitously because they grew on the site, or may have had non-food uses.  Bedstraw (Galium sp.) seeds can be used to make a beverage, but it is more likely that the vegetative part of the plant was used as bedding.  Morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), spurge (Euphorbia maculata L.), and bearsfoot (Polymnia vedalia L.) were probably garden weeds.  Dogwood (Cornus sp.) and the Pink family (Caryophyllaceae) may have been incidental inclusions.  Unidentified Type A is fairly distinctive, but has not yet been identified using standard reference works (Martin and Barkley 1961; Montgomery 1977; USDA 1974), and thus is classed as miscellaneous.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Diversity, Page Number: 177  
Site Comparisons: Diversity

	A Simpson diversity index was computed for the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages as well as for nut types.  Based on equal numbers of samples from each site, diversity values for the Wall and Fredricks sites are quite close (.8384 and .8812, respectively).  Both are also high, indicating relatively heterogeneous assemblages.  The Fredricks site assemblage is somewhat more diverse than that of Wall; however, the difference is not as great as might be expected considering the fact that 23 taxa are represented at Fredricks, compared with only 12 from Wall.  This finding indicates that the relatively high Wall site index reflects greater equitability of representation of plant taxa in that assemblage.  The Fredricks site assemblage, on the other hand, is richer.

	One interpretation of these results is that more plant resources were used during the later occupation but that there was a concentration on exploitation of only a few of these.  Although these findings must be considered highly tentative, diversity indices may prove to be useful tools for interpreting subsistence remains, with appropriate attention to potential sources of bias (Wilson 1983).  Since ecologists working with observable organisms often disagree on the meaning and proper use of diversity indices (Peet 1974), archaeologists must exercise extra caution in using them.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Summary, Page Number: 178  
Site Comparisons: Summary

	Several differences in patterns of plant use between the Wall and Fredricks site occupations are apparent.  Acorn and walnut were used more frequently at Wall, whereas hickory dominates at Fredricks.  An earlier pattern of more equitable use of all three nut types gave way to one of concentration on hickory with retention of acorn and walnut as relatively minor resources.  Corn remained the chief staple crop, and may have become even more important in the Historic period.  Native grasses available in spring and summer were seasonally important at least to the Mitchum site population.  The Wall site population either grew or acquired cultigen sumpweed, but there is no evidence of the use of indigenous grain crops at Fredricks.  The peach was used and probably cultivated by the time of the Mitchum site occupation, but had not yet become available to the Wall site population.  There may have been a trend at the Hillsborough locality toward use of more plant resources with intensive use of a small number of these, but this interpretation is still tentative.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Site Comparisons: Additional Data, Page Number: 179  
Site Comparisons: Additional Data

	Comparison of plant remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites is particularly informative about changing aboriginal subsistence in one part of the Eno River valley, and the Mitchum site data provide a glimpse of Historic period plant use in the adjacent Haw River valley.  However, another seventeenth-century Piedmont site has yielded ethnobotanical data that are useful for comparison with these results.  This is the Upper Saratown site in the Dan River drainage of the northwestern North Carolina Piedmont, located about 50 miles northwest of the Mitchum site.  This site was occupied during the late sixteenth century, about the time that the Occaneechi occupied the Fredricks site.  Information on plant remains from Upper Saratown is taken from Wilson (1977, 1983).

	Since the Upper Saratown plant remains were recovered by waterscreening through 1/16-inch mesh, they will be compared with waterscreened material from Fredricks.  The assemblages are similar in a number of ways.  The hickory nutshell percentage for Upper Saratown (51.6%) is quite close to that for Fredricks (52.4%).  However, the corrected acorn-to-hickory ratio for Upper Saratown is nearly one (0.94), which suggests that the two nut types had similar importance there; the ratio for Fredricks based on waterscreened samples is only 0.17.  Walnut and hazelnut are also better represented at Upper Saratown than at Fredricks.

	Corn percentage is higher at Upper Saratown (37.5%), but this may be a consequence of the greater variety of feature types represented there.  Common bean and squash occur in small amounts at Upper Saratown, in addition to bottle gourd.  Except for sunflower (represented by one seed), no native grain seeds were recovered from the site.  However, watermelon, another European introduction, is represented in addition to peach.  As at Fredricks, grape, persimmon, and maypops are the most abundant seed types.  A Simpson diversity index of .8876 was obtained for Upper Saratown, which is quite close to that calculated for Fredricks (.8812).

	Thus, the Upper Saratown population exploited the same types of resources that were used at Fredricks.  Fleshy fruits, including peach, occur in similar proportions at both sites.  The same is true for all non-indigenous crop plants except for corn.  Both sites show evidence of considerable European contact.  A number of factors including local environment, group size, trade relations with Europeans, and archaeological excavation procedures may account for the differences between the two assemblages.  In any case, plant use seems to have been similar in both areas during the Historic period.  Data on plant remains from earlier sites in the Dan River drainage would be useful for determining whether there were similar changes in plant use between the Protohistoric and Historic periods there as were noted at the Eno River sites.

	Elsewhere in the East, changes in plant food use during the period of European contact are in some respects different from those assessed for the North Carolina Piedmont.  In the lower Little Tennessee River valley (Chapman and Shea 1981), corn percentage is generally higher than in the Piedmont for both the Late Mississippian Dallas phase (c. A.D. 1300–1600) and the Historic Cherokee period (c. A.D. 1700–1819), with corn percentage increasing sharply during historic times.  Although acorn seems to have undergone a similar decline in importance, walnut and butternut were still used frequently in the Historic period.  In eastern Tennessee, sunflower, chenopod, maygrass, and knotweed (Polygonum sp.), all indigenous grain seed sources, are as abundant or more abundant at Historic period sites as they are in Late Mississippian components.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Cost–Benefit Analysis, Page Number: 180  
Cost-Benefit Analysis

	Having described changes in the archaeological record of plant use in the North Carolina Piedmont during the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods, the task of explaining those changes remains.  Although the following suggestions should be considered informal hypotheses rather than conclusions, they can be used to guide further research.  Additionally, this discussion is intended to integrate archaeological information on plant use with consideration of other aspects of aboriginal Piedmont culture during the Historic period, including relationships with Europeans.

	Cost-benefit models are derived mainly from microeconomic theory.  However, ecologists have incorporated some economic concepts into their own models of diet choice, territoriality, and group organization.  Optimal foraging theory has integrated economic and ecological concepts in attempting to model optimal subsistence and survival strategies for both human groups and non-human animals.  Examples of the use of cost-benefit models in interpreting archaeological subsistence data include the work of Earle (1980) and of Keene (1981), who also uses an optimal foraging approach.

	Cost-benefit and optimization models include the assumption that humans, like other animals, tend to exploit resources in such a way that costs are minimized and benefits maximized.  Subsistence practices vary in their efficiency in terms of time and energy costs, and it is assumed that increased efficiency results in increased fitness (Winterhalder 1981).  Although these assumptions are not always justified, they will be used here for heuristic purposes.  The proximate cause of changing frequencies of different behaviors within a population (i.e., decision-making by individuals or groups) will not be discussed here.  However, since cost-benefit relationships affect decision-making, it should be acknowledged that the selection of certain behaviors ultimately will be made at the expense of others.

Currencies, Cost and Benefits

	The currency (i.e., measure of efficiency) most commonly used in cost-benefit assessments is energy (Winterhalder 1981).  Complex currencies such as nutrients are sometimes used in linear programming approaches (Keene 1981).  Time factors should also be taken into account, which allows for assessment of acquisition rates (E. Smith 1979).  Since the non-quantitative approach used here eliminates the complexities of mathematical modeling, time, energetic, and nutritional factors will all be considered where appropriate.

	Cost components of resource acquisition include search costs, pursuit and handling costs, and opportunity costs.  Search costs, which are incurred while locating prey, vary according to technological resources and distribution of prey in space.  For agricultural products, for instance, search time would be essentially zero, in contrast to that for mobile fauna.  Pursuit and handling costs consist of prey capture, transport, processing, consumption, and other related activities.  All of these costs reflect time spent as well as energy expended on a given task.

	Time spent on one activity is necessarily lost for other activities.  Therefore, the cost of procurement of a given resource can be seen to include the value of activities in which resources could have been alternatively invested, or what has been called its opportunity cost (Winterhalder 1983:15).  This opportunity cost model can be especially useful for comparing activities that result in different types of material gain (e.g., hunting for trade purposes versus hunting or other procurement for subsistence purposes).

	Returns exist in the form of both energy and nutrients.  It is assumed that decisions on what resources to use are made in an effort to maximize at least short-term returns, even though people lack complete and perfect information about their environment.  Non-material benefits may also be relevant, but will not be considered in detail here.

Applying the Model

	Relationships between subsistence activities, environmental variability, group organization, and information flow in human groups are always complex.  When Europeans arrived in the North Carolina Piedmont they brought with them new potential resources as well as epidemic disease and attendant changes in population (Dobyns 1984) and group organization.  By the time of the Occaneechi occupation of the Fredricks site, there is evidence of ongoing trade between aboriginal and European groups.  We know from historical sources that trade in deerskins was prevalent in this period and certainly must have affected the costs and benefits of other activities.  This evidence is persuasive, despite the fact that studies of faunal remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites are inconclusive regarding changes in the frequency or kind of deer hunting.  With this information in mind, we can begin to assess the relationships between the European presence (particularly in the form of trade networks) and changes in plant food use as reflected in the archaeological record.

	Trade and Opportunity Cost. 	 At the Hillsborough locality, use of acorns declined in the Historic period, whereas hickory nuts remained an important resource.  In the East as a whole, acorn use seems to have declined prehistorically after a peak during the Early Woodland period in Tennessee (c. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1), reaching its lowest levels during the Historic period (Yarnell and Black 1983).  Its decline may in part reflect an increasing importance of corn and other grain crops.

	Some modern time and energy expenditure studies comparing nut processing techniques suggest that the costs of processing acorns for consumption may be higher than that for hickory nuts, depending on the techniques employed (Petruso and Wickens 1984; Talalay et al. 1984).  Although acorns may actually yield more meat per unit time spent shelling, most types of acorns require leaching to render the meats palatable.  Hickory nut meats, on the other hand, can be easily extracted by pulverizing whole nuts and boiling the mixture to extract oil and hickory "milk" (provided that appropriate containers are available), a practice documented for North Carolina Indians during the early eighteenth century (Lefler 1967).  Put into a cost-benefit framework, a prehistoric scenario might be as follows.  If acorn processing costs were in fact relatively high, other resources with lower associated costs, higher benefits, and similar nutritional content (such as corn) could have outranked acorns.

	This scenario is not, however, adequate for explaining why acorn use declined even further during the Historic period.  Trade may have played a role in decreasing acorn's ranking.  As trade items exchanged for deerskins became, in effect, a new resource for aboriginal groups, the opportunity cost of procuring acorns (as well as certain other plant foods) might have risen.  Increased opportunity cost induced by the introduction of trade goods might have acted to lower the rank of acorns still further.

	A similar argument can be advanced to explain decreasing use of walnut in the same area.  Except for a few time periods at a few locations, walnut has not been a primary resource in the East based upon available archaeological evidence.  Its distribution in the Carolinas is scattered (Radford et al. 1968), resulting in higher pursuit costs (in the form of travel time) relative to other nut resources.  With the advent of the deerskin trade, a shift to a focus on the highest-ranked nut resource (hickory) could have made more time available for trade-related activities, particularly during the fall, when the deer rut and the fruiting times of most nut-bearing species partly coincide.

	In the case of corn, the change in cost-benefit ratio was probably less severe.  As a crop, corn would have had negligible search costs, moderate handling costs (including garden maintenance), and probably high yield compared to other food crops.  High energetic and nutritional gains would have compensated for any increased opportunity costs resulting from trade.  The symbolic significance of corn and its prominence in ritual are non-material factors that perhaps acted to encourage its maintenance.  Trade brought in ornaments, tools, and alcohol, none of which could have replaced a staple food such as corn except through further complication of trade networks.

	If use of "cool-season" grasses did in fact become less common, trade could have similarly introduced scheduling conflicts and increased opportunity costs.  However, it seems that maintenance of grass harvesting as a seasonal strategy would have had relatively low associated costs and high benefits during a period of relative resource scarcity.  Another possibility is that information about using these resources was simply lost because of depopulation and reorganization of human groups.  Discontinuities introduced into the path of information flow between generations could have led to loss of some traditional procurement techniques.  This suggestion is highly speculative, but presents some possibilities for further research.

	The adoption of peach is easily explained using a cost-benefit approach.  All fleshy fruits represented at the three sites are somewhat weedy species that tend to be highly productive in disturbed habitats such as those around Indian settlements.  Search costs would have been correspondingly low, and processing cost would have been negligible.  The peach was simply a newly available fruit with similar qualities.  In addition, peach fruits had the large size and perhaps the increased palatability often associated with selection under domestication.  Even as a crop, the maintenance costs of peach use would have been low because of its ability to grow well with relatively little care.  Processing costs for storage would not have been any higher than those associated with native fruits.

	Division of Labor and Group Size.  Up to this point, subsistence activities have been discussed as if they were participated in equally by all group members.  It should at least be pointed out that sexual division of labor is a factor to be considered.  For instance, if deer hunting and trade with Europeans were male activities, and plant procurement a female activity, there would not necessarily have been direct scheduling conflicts between trade-related activities and nut collection, grass collection, and corn harvesting and planting. However, if women were the processors of deerskins, their activities would have closely tracked those of the men, resulting in a similar overall effect of increased opportunity cost.  Similarly, group size and population structure would have affected the efficiency ratios of different activities.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use, Page Number: 181  
Occaneechi Plant Use

	 Differences between pre-contact and post-contact plant use and the explanation of apparent subsistence changes have been the main focus of the ethnobotanical research discussed here.  However, it is also important to establish as complete a reconstruction as possible of plant use during the Occaneechi occupation of the Fredricks site.  Using the excavated ethnobotanical data as well as information about contemporary vegetation and historical sources, the pattern of plant use and plant management by the Occaneechi can be outlined.  Two basic parameters of plant resource use will be used to orient this discussion, namely spatial and temporal variation in resource occurrence and human responses to them.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use: Spatial Variation, Page Number: 182  
Occaneechi Plant Use: Spatial Variation

	Even in a mature ecological system, such as the oak-hickory forest that was probably the dominant vegetation pattern in the pre-contact Piedmont, areas of contrasting vegetation inevitably occur.  This is because environment is not simply a stable backdrop for human activity, but rather a dynamic phenomenon subject to historical processes that produce both spatial and temporal variability (Winterhalder 1980:136).  If mature hardwood forest is taken as a matrix, areas that contrast in some way with these surroundings can be termed patches (Wiens 1976; White and Pickett 1985).  Natural disturbance in the form of fire or fallen trees are likely to create patches of varying sizes.  The presence of human populations produces additional agents of disturbance, sometimes intentional (e.g., firing of forested tracts to drive game or encourage browse for herbivores) and sometimes less so (e.g., patches of herbaceous or shrub vegetation in fallowed agricultural fields, at various stages of succession).  Thus the surroundings of Occaneechi Town, represented archaeologically by the Fredricks site, should be viewed as a mosaic of vegetational patches in a forested matrix, including anthropogenic (human-generated) patches as well as ones differentiated on the basis of natural factors such as disturbance, slope, elevation, soil substrate, and hydrology.  Patch distribution is variable in time as well as space, producing a mosaic of vegetational patches at different stages of development (Wiens 1976:82), each with its own assemblage of species.

	A formal survey of existing vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the Fredricks site has not yet been undertaken. Although such a survey would be useful and may be done in the future, its usefulness would be limited because of two important factors.  First, because of the shifting nature of patches, especially in the context of considerable human disturbance, the distribution of vegetational patches at the time of occupation would be impossible to reconstruct on the basis of modern distributions.  Even during the site occupation (estimated at less than 20 years) the dynamics of patch distribution would have become increasingly complex as agricultural fields were abandoned and new patches created through clearance.  Second, the present-day composition of early successional habitats (i.e., areas recently disturbed and characterized in forested areas by sun-loving herbaceous species that grow and reproduce rapidly) has been drastically altered through the introduction of Old World weeds, which have in many cases out-competed indigenous species usually dominant in such situations.  Nineteenth-century land survey records (Delcourt 1975) and charcoal analysis (Chapman et al. 1982) have also been used in the Eastern Woodlands to reconstruct past environments.  Pollen analysis, if feasible, would also be a useful tool for this task.  However, none of these methods has yet been used at the Fredricks site.

	Therefore, only a speculative reconstruction of environmental patches near Occaneechi Town can be offered, based on general knowledge of community types common in the Piedmont today (Moore 1973; Moore and Wood 1976; Shelford 1963).  Ethnographic information is available from a different cultural and geographical area.  Alcorn (1984) has carefully analyzed anthropogenic vegetation zones and their management for the Teenek of northeast Mexico.  Direct extrapolation from modern to prehistoric land use would of course be inappropriate since different cultures and vegetational environments are considered, as well as different time periods.  No formal analogies are being drawn between observed and past behavior-to-artifact relationships.  However, information about relationships between a farming society and its land can be used to generate ideas about what kinds of patches might have been used by the Occaneechi.  Although such a reconstruction is admittedly speculative, it is valuable nonetheless as a background for understanding subsistence behavior as it is revealed archaeologically.

	One of Alcorn's (1984) important findings was that most vegetation zones used by the Teenek can be classed as anthropogenic, even local forest.  This was probably true of the Occaneechi Town locale as well, since hardwood forest was an important source of food (hickory, acorn, and walnut) and may thus have been managed to some extent (including the most drastic form of management, burning).  However, hardwood forest may be considered the naturally occurring matrix vegetation within which anthropogenic patches would have occurred.  Hardwood forest was probably the most common ecological community near the village.  Except for nut harvests, though, hardwood forest with its thick canopy and sparse understory probably provided little in the way of edible herbaceous plants.  Extensive management of hardwood forest was probably minimal, although selective removal of certain trees can provide additional light for nut-bearing species and other food plants.  Although oak and hickory trees have too long a generation time to allow for extensive human manipulation through planting and harvesting, limited management of some kind may have been practiced.  A close relationship involving some sort of management even seems likely, since acorns and hickory nuts were apparently staple foods, but there is no direct evidence of this.
	Within the forest, large patches in various stages of succession may have been present as a consequence of burning.  Firing of forest to encourage browse for game or to encircle deer has been documented for Southeastern groups (Hudson 1976; Swanton 1946).  Lawson (Lefler 1967:31, 215) noted extensive burning of forest during game drives.  Nut-bearing trees might have been either damaged or temporarily removed from these areas, but the resulting herbaceous vegetation would have produced more edible seed-bearing and fruit-bearing species than closed-canopy forest.  Also, trees growing in more open locations, such as forest edges, are more productive.  Plant species that dominate in such disturbed areas typically are annuals that produce large numbers of propagules (Horn 1974; Odum 1976).  Most of the fleshy fruits used by the Occaneechi at the Fredricks site (including bramble, grape, and elderberry) grow well in such disturbed habitats.  Lawson (Lefler 1967:34) mentioned "savannahs" near Congaree full of fruit-bearing bushes.

	Closer to the village, anthropogenic patches were probably even more common.  Perhaps most obvious would have been agricultural fields in which the dominant crops were corn, beans, cucurbits, and possibly others.  The quantities of corn apparently consumed by the site inhabitants, as well as historic references to "fields" (Lefler 1967:56), indicate that separate agricultural fields (as opposed to small mixed gardens) were probably located near the village.  Along with crops, weeds would have been present in fields, some of which may have been useful and hence spared.  Teenek often spare useful trees when clearing a field in which to plant maize and beans (Alcorn 1984:346).  Sun-loving weeds of agricultural fields near the Fredricks site might have included some of the fleshy fruit species mentioned above, as well as less useful ones such as morning-glory (Ipomoea sp.), still a common cornfield weed today.  We do not know how extensively cornfields were weeded.  However, William Hilton's "A Relation of a Discovery," speaking of the Carolina coast near the mouth of the Cape Fear River in 1664, mentions the high productivity of cornfields, "although the Land be overgrown with weeds through their lazinesse" (Salley 1911:44).  It may be that European ethnocentrism mistook sparing of useful weeds for sloppy husbandry.

	Abandoned agricultural fields may constitute a distinct type of anthropogenic patch.  Among the Teenek, these are used in various ways before being replanted; sometimes they are replanted as mixed gardens, and sometimes simply maintained as habitats for useful wild or weedy species, especially medicinals (Alcorn 1984:367–370).  Old fields were potential sources of fleshy fruits and medicinal plants.  At Occaneechi Town, old field habitats may have been similar to those of other patches deforested through burning, though perhaps somewhat closer to the village.

	Still closer to or within the village, patches of ground maintained in a more or less disturbed state were undoubtedly common.  Among the Teenek, dooryard "gardens" constitute an anthropogenic zone near houses.  Some of the plants managed in this zone are conscientiously tended and propagated; others are simply spared.  Many are medicinals (Alcorn 1984:331).  The existence of dooryard "gardens," or clusters of useful plants, is purely speculative for the Fredricks site.  Lawson did not mention such "gardens" in Piedmont villages, but it is possible that an Englishman would not have recognized a confusion of apparent weeds as a garden (in contrast to cornfields, which were apparently similar enough to European agricultural fields to be noted as such).
	Another anthropogenic patch is equally speculative for Occaneechi Town, and would be analogous to the cafetal, or coffee orchard of the Teenek (Alcorn 1984:372).  The cafetal is essentially a managed forest, planted sometimes with coffee or a variety of fruit-bearing trees.  The possible existence of such zones near Occaneechi Town is of particular interest because of the importance of fruit-bearing trees like persimmon, hawthorn, and peach.  Certainly some amount of management of fruit trees is likely, particularly in the case of peach, which was a domesticate when it was introduced to North America.  Lawson's account does not mention stands or orchards of fruit trees; however, he did state that peaches "are the only tame Fruit, or what is Foreign, that these People enjoy" (Lefler 1967:173).  Piedmont Indians apparently had a long-standing relationship with native fruit trees before contact and with the peach thereafter.  Certainly the existence of maintained stands of fruit trees analogous to the Teenek cafetal is a possibility.

	In sum, a speculative reconstruction of main anthropogenic vegetational zones and patches near Occaneechi Town, with economic plants possibly found in each, can be summarized as follows:

 1.  Hardwood forest.  Oak, hickory, and walnut.  Also blueberry, hawthorn (on poorly drained soils), and grape (in low woods and on stream banks);

 2.  Large non-forested patches.  Possibly Lawson's "savannahs."  Patches in various stages of succession after burning.  Sumac, bramble, possibly maypops, poke, and hawthorn;

 3.  Active agricultural fields.  Corn, common bean, cucurbits, and weedy annuals (ground-cherry, poke, maypops);

 4.  Old fields.  Groundcherry, poke, maypops, hawthorn (?), and bramble (?);

 5.  Dooryard "gardens" (?).  Medicinals and herbs (?); and

 6.  Fruit tree stands (?).  Persimmon, peach, and hawthorn (?).

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Occaneechi Plant Use: Seasonal Variation, Page Number: 183  
Occaneechi Plant Use: Seasonal Variation

	In addition to spatial variability resulting from vegetational patchiness on the landscape, Occaneechi Town inhabitants had to cope with temporal variability.  For purposes of scheduling subsistence activity, the more-or-less predictable seasonality component of temporal variability was probably of utmost importance.  Unfortunately, most archaeological deposits at the Fredricks site contain remains of plants that ripen in the late summer and early fall.  The storage of some of these foods (e.g., corn and nuts) complicates any attempt to determine season of deposition for particular deposits.  However, a general outline of the Occaneechi's "seasonal round" for plant foods can be proposed on the basis of the general plant remains assemblage from the Fredricks site, botanical evidence of fruiting seasons for the species involved (Radford et al. 1968), and historical information from Lawson's account (Lefler 1967).

Mid-Summer to Early Fall

	This was undoubtedly the season during which most crop harvesting took place.  Perhaps most importantly, the chief crop, corn, would be ripe in late summer to early fall, as would common bean and cucurbit.  If more than one corn crop was sown in a given year, a summer harvest, perhaps of "green corn," might have taken place as well.  Fleshy fruits also become ripe during this broad time period, among them grape (August to October), hawthorn (August to October), elderberry (July to August), maypops (July to October), peach (June to July), persimmon (September to October), and blueberry (June to October).  Summer and early fall would thus have been busy times for harvesting crops (including tree crops such as the peach) as well as collecting fruits growing mainly in old fields and other disturbed areas.  Lawson reported (Lefler 1967:217) that fruits were dried and pounded into cakes for winter storage.  Processing and storage of corn was also a fall activity.

Early Fall to Early Winter

	The most important nut resources for the Occaneechi, acorn and hickory, would have been available for collection roughly from September to November.  The best time for collecting acorns and hickory nuts may have overlapped somewhat with the time of crop harvesting.  After collection, acorns probably were processed to make acorn oil and hickory nuts prepared for storage (Lefler 1967:51, 105).

Mid-Winter to Early Spring

	This part of the year is something of a terra incognita for the paleoethnobotanist seeking archaeological evidence of seasonal plant use.  Most plants are dormant in the winter, and except for late nut crops, few or no fresh plant foods would have been available.  It is during this part of the year that foods stored in the fall would have been consumed.  This also may have been a time for hunting forays (possibly to obtain deerskins for trade as well as meat for food), as was reported by Lawson (Lefler 1967:217).

Spring to Late Summer

	Spring may well have been the leanest time of year for the Occaneechi.  Most plant species resume growth in the spring, and some flower during this time, but fruiting generally does not occur until later in the year.  Fresh greens would, however, have been available.  Stores of crops, nuts, and fruits from the previous fall would be nearly depleted by this time.  Perhaps animal foods dominated the diet in the spring; in fact, Lawson (Lefler 1967:217) noted the use of weirs to take herring coming upstream to spawn in March and April.  Even further inland, the Occaneechi may have turned to the nearby Eno River in springtime for fish (catfish bones are abundant in Fredricks site deposits, as reported by Holm [1985]).  Another important spring activity was planting corn and other crops, which, like the harvest, was probably accompanied by rituals.  Perhaps trade with Europeans became more active in the spring.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Summary, Page Number: 184  
Summary

	The preceding analysis of plant remains from three archaeological sites that span the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods has produced some useful working hypotheses about the effects of European-Indian interaction on aboriginal subsistence practices.  Differences in the amounts of various nut remains (e.g., more acorn and walnut relative to hickory at the later sites) may indicate a trend toward displacement of already low-ranked resources because of increased time and energy devoted to trade-related activities, principally deer hunting.  In other words, the opportunity costs of exploiting certain low-ranked plant resources would have increased as trade-related activities increased.  If corn remained important, as evidence so far suggests, its persistence in Piedmont subsistence may have been due to its role as a high-ranked staple not easily substituted by European domesticates or other traditional aboriginal foods.  An apparent decline in "cool season" grasses is not easily explained in terms of changing costs and benefits, since these species would have continued to constitute a valuable resource during a part of the year when most other plant foods were unavailable.  Scheduling conflicts resulting from trade activities or information loss about traditional plant procurement techniques are two possible explanations for such a decline.  Adoption of the peach, a European introduction, was certainly related to low procurement and processing costs of this plant, as well as to its high energy returns and palatability.

	Despite the differences noted between pre-contact and post-contact plant use, there is no evidence at the Fredricks site of adoption of European crops (except peach) or abandonment of native ones, and there is only moderate evidence of adjustments in the proportions of native plant foods contributing to subsistence.  Perhaps the presumed position of Occaneechi Town as a trading center made it atypical in this respect.  For example, if individuals from other depopulated areas aggregated at this village, its pre-contact population level might have remained stable despite losses through disease.  And if Occaneechi men acted as middlemen in the European trade network, they may not have traveled far afield to hunt specifically for trade.  We may find that the apparent stability of subsistence as revealed archaeologically in fact reflects a considerable amount of behavioral change (Winterhalder 1980). Behavioral changes may have been necessary to maintain the traditional diet represented archaeologically in the face of considerable peturbation.

	In future research, we should look beyond the Piedmont to other parts of the East for comparisons of subsistence change and possible correlations between contact and aspects of change in other areas.  Archaeological data on changing plant use in the Historic period are still not abundant (except, for example, Chapman and Shea 1981; Caddell 1981).  As more data become available, however, it will be possible to profitably ask questions about variability in the effects of contact on subsistence.  For example, were highly complex societies such as the Southeastern chiefdoms more resistant to change than simpler groups?  Was change in subsistence more prevalent where trade with Europeans was most intense?  Is depopulation really associated with "loss" of some traditions?  Was subsistence change more rapid in areas where European settlers, as opposed to traders and travelers, were present as competitors for local resources?  With regard to other effects of colonization, we might ask whether groups in heavily missionized areas such as Spanish Florida changed their subsistence practices more rapidly in response to pressures from European authorities.  All of these questions are important ones, although they cannot yet be answered.  However, studies focused on limited areas, such as the North Carolina Piedmont, will ultimately provide a basis for moving forward.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): List of Tables, Page Number: 185  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 18. Summary of plant remains from the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites (weights in grams). 

Table 19. Percent of plant food remains from the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites. 

Table 20. Ubiquity of plant remains, as percent of flotation samples at the Wall, Fredricks, and Mitchum sites. 

Table 21. Seed counts from the Fredricks site. 

Table 22. Seed counts from the Wall and Mitchum sites. 

Table 23. Percent of nutshell from the Wall, Mitchum, and Fredricks sites. 

Table 24. Comparison of plant remains from burials, features, and structures at the Fredricks site. 

Table 25. Distribution of seeds from the Wall, Mitchum, and Fredricks sites (number per gram of plant food remains). 

Figures: General

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 37. Students using a flotation tank to retrieve carbonized plant remains.

Page: Plant Remains (1983–1984): Source, Page Number: 186  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Plant Remains from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites, by Kristen J. Gremillion.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 259–277.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Introduction, Page Number: 187  
Introduction

	A major goal of the Siouan project is to describe and explain change in aboriginal Piedmont cultures after European contact.  Since data on plant remains from the 1985 field season add to the available body of archaeological evidence of plant use during the Historic period, one purpose of this paper is to assess previous interpretations of subsistence change in light of the newly acquired information.  Concentration during the 1985 season on the Fredricks site (31Or231) has provided a large and carefully sampled quantity of plant remains from a single occupation.  Therefore, an opportunity will be taken to outline in a general way the subsistence practices of the Fredricks site population with respect to plant foods. Archaeological evidence from the 1985 season, as well as past seasons, will be used to determine both the range of plant foods used and the relative contributions of various plant foods to the diet.  Problems of interpretation will be discussed, including the relationship between preservability and frequency ranking of various types of plant remains.

	Responses to spatial variation in the form of vegetational patches and regular temporal variation in the form of seasonality also will be addressed.  Although archaeological evidence for the precise composition of the past environmental mosaic is not yet available, informed speculation about the use of different patch types can be offered on the basis of modern vegetational studies and archaeological evidence of plant use.  Similarly, seasonality of particular deposits is difficult to determine due to background "noise" resulting from food storage.  The fact that most food plants tend to ripen during the same time of year makes occurrence of specifically seasonal deposits of plant remains unlikely for certain times of year.  Hypotheses about seasonal plant use patterns can nevertheless be proposed on the basis of existing evidence.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Methods, Page Number: 188  
Methods

	In 1985, plant remains were recovered from a variety of feature contexts, including three burial pits, 13 pits and basins containing mixed fill (including one pit, Feature 30, which is associated with a prehistoric occupation), one tree stump stain, one wall trench, and three charcoal-filled pits (one of which contained abundant corn remains).  A total of 605 liters of fill was processed by flotation to yield the samples analyzed for this report.  In the text, percentage and ubiquity values refer to 1985 data only unless otherwise specified.  Results from charcoal-filled pits are presented separately, as are those from Feature 30.

Recovery

	All plant remains analyzed were drawn from flotation samples processed in the field using a device similar to the SMAP machine described by Watson (1976).  Water was mechanically pumped from the Eno River into a 55-gallon drum, agitating the water into which each soil sample was poured.  The resulting light fraction was collected in a U.S. Standard Geological sieve with 0.71 mm mesh; the heavy fraction was collected in a 1/16-inch mesh screen.  All flotation samples were measured by volume in buckets as they were collected, generally in 10-liter quantities.  Highly consistent recovery was achieved by limiting processing to a small number of crew members.  All samples were dried for about a day before processing to facilitate charcoal recovery.

Analysis

	The method of analysis approximates that described by Yarnell (1974).  Each sample is sifted through a series of U.S. Standard geological sieves ranging from 6.35 mm to 0.21 mm.  Carbonized plant materials greater than 2.00 mm in diameter were sorted completely and quantified by weight.  Material passing through the 2.00 mm sieve was searched only for seeds, cultigen remains, and plant materials not found in the largest size category.  Quantities of plant remains in the 1.41–0.71-mm size category were then extrapolated on the basis of their proportional representation in the 6.35–2.00-mm category.  This procedure assumes that proportions of various items in a given sample are similar in all size categories retained in screens of size 0.71 mm and larger.  Although this assumption is not always justified, it is useful in offering a more realistic estimate of absolute quantities of plant remains in a sample.  For purposes of comparison, relative quantities are most important, and these are ultimately derived from fully sorted material.  Plant remains from Feature 36 were sorted completely only through the 2.38 mm screen due to the large size of this sample.  These results were not extrapolated.

	Extrapolated weights of plant remains are presented in Table 26 and Table 27; percentages of plant food remains by weight appear in Table 28.  Seeds are reported as aggregate weights and percentages in Table 26, Table 27, and Table 28; counts of seeds and fruits appear in Table 29.  Corn, common bean, peach pit, and nut remains are itemized by weight as well as by number.

Methods of Comparison

	Calculation of percentage of plant food remains by weight is a simple method by which to compare items of similar physical composition that have similar food-to-waste ratios (e.g., walnut shell and hickory shell).  However, most plant foods differ in how much food they represent and in likelihood of preservation.  For this reason, proportions of remains by weight can be misleading.  For example, acorn shell usually comprises a smaller proportion of an assemblage by weight than hickory nutshell (which is more durable and more likely to have been preserved through use as fuel) even though acorn probably represents more food per unit of shell weight.  In this case, an adjusting factor can be used (discussed below) to provide a more realistic estimate of food represented.  Another method of comparison involves calculating the ubiquity of each food type as the percentage of features from which it was recovered.  This method does not take account of quantities and is thus more suitable for comparing remains dissimilar in preservability and food-to-waste ratio.  Ubiquity values appear in Table 30.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Nuts, Page Number: 189  
Nuts

	Hickory (Carya sp.) nutshell is the most abundant plant-food remain by weight (56.1%).  A high proportion of hickory shell is quite common at aboriginal sites in the eastern United States, which is due in part to the thickness of the shell and its tendency to become carbonized when fired rather than completely combusted and consequently lost from the archaeological record.  There is also some evidence that hickory, as well as other types of nutshell, may have been used as fuel by some aboriginal groups (Yarnell 1982), which further increases the likelihood that it would have become carbonized.  These circumstances argue for some caution in equating abundance of hickory nutshell with subsistence importance.  In fact, Keene (1981) has gone so far as to suggest that hickory was probably a much less important resource in the Late Archaic of the Saginaw Valley than its abundance suggests, since it does not appear in the set of resources generated by his optimal foraging model.

	However, there are other lines of evidence to indicate that hickory was a staple food at the Fredricks site.  Its ubiquity based on features sampled is 94.7%, ranking second only to corn (Table 30).  To some extent, high preservability may have adjusted the proportion of hickory upward in relation to other plant food types, but it seems unlikely that this factor alone accounts for both high weight proportion and high ubiquity.

	In addition, there is ample historic evidence that hickory was a staple food of North Carolina Indians.  John Lawson (Lefler 1967) makes a number of references to preparation of hickory "milk" and storage of nuts for winter consumption.  Lawson (Lefler 1967:105) says "These nuts are gotten, in great Quanitities, by the Savages, and laid up for Stores, of which they make several dishes and Banquets."  Lawson's evidence is particularly useful for assessing the Fredricks site plant remains, since he traveled extensively through the Piedmont and Coastal Plain during the period of the occupation with which we are concerned. It does not seem likely that so many types of preparation and effort of storage would be devoted to an unimportant resource.  Mature hickory trees were probably abundant in the north central Piedmont in both lowland and floodplain habitats, as they are today (Moore 1973; Moore and Wood 1976).  In fact, they were probably more abundant when the Fredricks site was occupied, before disturbance of forest by Euroamericans became extensive (Gleason and Cronquist 1964).

	Other nut types are somewhat less well represented.  Acorn (Quercus sp.), in contrast to hickory, has a thin shell that is easily fragmented and consequently less likely to survive both pre- and post-depositional disturbance.  This factor may partly account for its relatively low percentage by weight (6.5).  Acorn shell makes up only 10.0% of total nutshell compared to 86.2% for hickory (Table 31).  Comparison of hickory and acorn quantities is further complicated by the fact that a gram of acorn shell may represent from five to 200 times as much nutmeat as a gram of hickory shell, as estimated by Lopinot (1983).  To reduce the bias introduced by different food-to-nonfood ratios, acorn shell quantities can be multiplied by 50 and divided by quantity of hickory shell to produce an acorn to hickory ratio (Yarnell and Black 1985).  By applying this calculation to site totals, one obtains an acorn-to-hickory ratio of 5.82, indicating that acorn may have in fact contributed more food to the diet than hickory.

	In fact, this ratio contrasts strongly with that of 0.42 calculated for data from the 1983 and 1984 seasons.  This led the author to suggest that acorn had declined in importance since the time of the late prehistoric occupation of the nearby Wall site (Gremillion 1985).  The Wall site acorn-to-hickory ratio was 5.72.  The conclusion that acorn was used less frequently than hickory at the Fredricks site must therefore be revised.  Fredricks site totals for three seasons yield an acorn-to-hickory ratio of 2.15.  From this figure, it can be assumed that acorn was not a less important resource than hickory at Fredricks, although the degree of differential representation of the two nut types is less at the later site.

	Despite its relatively low preservability compared to hickory, acorn has a ubiquity value of 68.4%, ranking third after corn and hickory.  Cumulative site totals for three seasons yield a ubiquity value of 74.3% and a rank second only to corn and hickory.  Even by assigning rank according to percentage of plant food remains, acorn ranks fourth (after peach, whose remains are as durable as those of hickory).  These results argue strongly that acorn and hickory were both staple foods for the Fredricks site population, with acorn probably used to a greater extent.  Carbonized acorn meats also were found at Fredricks, although only in one feature.

	Lawson also attests to the reliance of Piedmont groups on acorn harvesting when he recounts the processing of acorn oil made from live oak acorns (Lefler 1967:100), and there is a mention of trading of acorns in the account of the "Gentlemen" sent from Barbados to the Cape Fear River area in 1663 (Lefler 1967:77).  But perhaps most illuminating is Lawson's inclusion of "Acorns and Acorn Oil" in his enumeration of Indian foods (Lefler 1967:182).  We can assume that Lawson is speaking in a general way about subsistence based on his travels through the Coastal Plain as well as the Piedmont, so his account does not provide information about local variations in subsistence practices. However, it may be significant that hickory is not mentioned in this summary of foods, though he seems to have considered it important to the Indians, as evidenced by the comments cited above.

	Walnut (Juglans nigra L.), in contrast to hickory and acorn, is represented only in small quantities at Fredricks (2.4%).  Three-season totals provide a value (1.2%) close to that for acorn (Table 32), but it should be kept in mind that the physical composition of walnut shell (and hence its preservability) is more similar to that of hickory than of acorn.  Ubiquity of walnut was 36.8% (37.1% for three-season totals) resulting in a rank of fifth (fourth for three-season totals).  As percentage of total nutshell, walnut at 3.7% is much less well represented than hickory (86.2%) and somewhat less abundant than the much more fragile acorn shell (10.0%) (Table 31).

	So although walnut was presumably used for food, it was apparently not a staple, as were hickory and acorn.  Black walnut is not as abundant today in Piedmont forests as are oak and hickory (Moore 1973; Moore and Wood 1976) and conditions were probably similar in the recent past.  Lawson does not mention walnut as a native food, so presumably he did not encounter it in this context, or did not note its use.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Crops, Page Number: 190  
Crops

	All of the domesticated species present at Fredricks are native to Mesoamerica.  Of these, namely corn (Zea mays L.), common bean (Phaseolus sp.), and "squash" (Cucurbita sp.), corn is by far the most well represented.  Corn remains comprise 18.2% of plant food remains by weight, and corn kernels make up the largest percentage of identified seeds (Table 33).  Corn ranks first in ubiquity, and ranks second only to hickory based on three-season totals.  Corncob, like hickory shell, may have been used as fuel and hence frequently preserved.  However, corn kernels alone account for 61.6% of total identified seeds.  Clearly corn was a staple and probably (considering comments by European observers, including Lawson) was the most important plant food used by Fredricks site inhabitants and their neighbors.

	Corn percentage by weight does vary somewhat between features and feature types.  Of mixed-fill pits, Feature 29 has the highest corn percentage (42.1%); other features of this type have corn percentages ranging from 2.6% to 15.9%.  The three burials had for the most part somewhat higher percentages (Table 28) than most of these pit features. The same is true of 1983 and 1984 samples, except for Feature 9, which was particularly rich in plant remains in general and corn in particular.  Whether this fact might indicate a different depositional context for plant remains associated with burial fill than for other feature fill cannot be determined, but further quantitative studies might be useful in determining the nature of deposition of upper burial fill in certain of the Fredricks site burial pits.  It is suspected that organically rich zones in the upper zones of some of these burials may have been the result of intentional ritual deposition (Ward 1985).

	Common bean and cucurbit remains are poorly represented by weight. However, bean has moderately high ubiquity (26.3%), ranking sixth. Beans are likely to have been boiled rather than roasted, which contributes to a rather low likelihood of preservation.  Therefore common bean may have been a more important food than its weight percentage indicates.  Cucurbit rind is poorly represented at Fredricks, but the inclusion of seeds brings the ubiquity value of cucurbit up to 10.5%.  Cucurbit rind is fragile and subject to fragmentation, and although little is known about the processing of edible cucurbits by Piedmont groups, it seems safe to assume that they were neither parched nor smoked, procedures that facilitate preservation through carbonization.  Perhaps both cucurbit and bean are underrepresented because of processing techniques.

	In this connection it is interesting to note that Lawson (Lefler 1967:82–83) considers the many varieties of "Pulse" too "tedious to name," and he enumerates several types of cucurbit grown in the Piedmont, including some Old World varieties.  His inclusion of "Gourds; Melons; Cucumbers; Squashes; Pulse of all sorts . . ." (Lefler 1967:182) in his catalogue of the "Indians Food" suggests that both cucurbits and common bean were more important crops than the archaeological evidence indicates.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Fleshy Fruits, Page Number: 191  
Fleshy Fruits

	A large variety of fleshy fruits was used by the Fredricks site population, but only a few are represented in relatively large quantities.  Grape (Vitis sp.) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.) are both particularly well represented.  Groundcherry (Physalis sp.) seeds were found in the same quantities as grape seeds in the 1985 sample.  However, three-season totals rank grape higher than groundcherry both as percentage of identified seeds and as number per gram of plant food remains.  Maypops (Passiflora incarnata L.) also ranks higher than groundcherry based on these totals (Table 34).  In the 1985 sample, bramble (Rubus sp.) was present but less well represented than most other fleshy fruit taxa.  Of the fleshy fruits exclusive of peach, grape also ranks highest by ubiquity, followed by persimmon and hawthorn (Table 30).

	Peach (Prunus persica L.), however, ranks higher than any of the presumably non-cultivated fleshy fruits mentioned above.  Peach was first introduced to North America by the Spanish (Sheldon 1978) and spread rapidly to Southeastern Indian groups apparently somewhat independently of direct contact with Europeans (Gremillion 1985).  It is represented archaeologically by fragments of the stony endocarp or pyrene, commonly called the "pit," rather than by whole seeds or pits. For these reasons it is given a separate category in weight determinations.  As might be expected, representation of peach pit by weight is high (Table 28), as is its ranking by ubiquity (Table 30). Because of the nature of its remains, peach is difficult to compare with smaller-seeded fruits.  However, it is safe to say that peach was commonly used, as evidenced by Lawson's observations (Lefler 1967:217) of its use in preparation of "Quiddonies" or cakes, along with other fruits.

	Piedmont Indians may have had some familiarity with arboriculture, since they made use of tree fruits like persimmon and hawthorn.  These species, like peach, tend to colonize and bear maximum fruit in open rather than thickly forested habitats.  Peach trees grow easily with little tending, and produce a large quantity of palatable food relative to the amount of energy invested in their care.  Piedmont Indians could probably have grown them quite easily, particularly if they already had experience tending or protecting indigenous fruit trees.  However, peach does not appear to have replaced native fleshy fruits, but rather was added to the existing diet.  There is no reason to suspect that the minimal amount of energy necessary to maintain a peach tree population would have interfered with other activities.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Miscellaneous Seeds, Page Number: 192  
Miscellaneous Seeds

	Some seed types represent weedy species, which were used only incidentally or not at all.  These include wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta L.), beggar's lice (Desmodium sp.), Jaquemontia sp., bedstraw (Galium sp.), Lespedeza sp., poke (Phytolacca americana L), henbit (Lamium sp.), chenopod (Chenopodium sp.), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), and nightshade (Solanum sp.).  Poke may have been used as cooked greens (as it sometimes still is in the rural South), but is represented by only one seed.  Bedstraw is frequently found in archaeological deposits in the eastern United States, but its use, if any, is not known.  Knotweed and chenopod were both indigenous starchy cultigens in many parts of the prehistoric East and Midwest (Yarnell 1983; Asch and Asch 1986) but as yet only small quantities have been found at Fredricks.  There is little convincing evidence that these starchy annuals were used, since small numbers of seeds from these weedy species could easily have entered archaeological deposits independently of human agency.  There is certainly no evidence that they were cultivated by Fredricks site inhabitants.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Charcoal-Filled Pits, Page Number: 193  
Charcoal-Filled Pits

	Three features (Features 35, 36, and 37) deserve some separate consideration because the fill they contained was more rich in carbonized plant remains than the fill of burial pits, other pit features, or Structure 5.  Features 35 and 37 contained large quantities of wood charcoal, but few plant food remains (Table 35).  Feature 36 may be described as a cob-filled pit, although it contained some wood charcoal as well as charred corncob fragments and a single corn kernel fragment (Table 36). These three shallow pits occurred close together in a nearly linear configuration, and all of them probably resulted from smoldering fires (judging by the density of fuel materials) constructed for a particular purpose (such as hide smoking or pot firing).

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Feature 30, Page Number: 194  
Feature 30

	Plant remains from Feature 30 have been presented separately (see Table 37) and omitted from site calculations of ubiquity and percentage because this feature dates to an earlier occupation of the site based on ceramic types.  Of particular interest are the large number of bedstraw seeds (a total of 94) as well as smaller numbers of bearsfoot (Polymnia uvedalia L.) achenes and henbit seeds.  Only one corn cupule was recovered from the feature, along with moderate quantities of hickory and acorn shell.

	What is especially interesting about the seed assemblage from Feature 30 is that it contains large numbers of seeds from species that are not usually considered food plants by paleoethnobotanists.  Bedstraw seeds have a traditional use in northern climates of the Old World as a beverage (Hedrick 1972); it has also been speculated that the vegetative part of the plant was used as bedding (Uphof 1968:236).  A use such as the latter might account for bedstraw's fairly regular occurrence in prehistoric archaeological deposits in the East.  It is generally dismissed as a non-economic plant, or its use listed as unknown.

	Henbit belongs to the mint family (Lamiaceae).  Most species were introduced from the Old World and are naturalized widely in eastern North America (Radford et al. 1968:908).  This fact casts some doubt on the placement of these seed in the genus Lamium, although the family designation is more likely to be correct.  In any case, these seeds are not those of any recognized food plant typically found on archaeological sites.

	The identification of bearsfoot is not in doubt.  Bearsfoot is in the aster or composite family (Asteraceae) and, like bedstraw, is found in archaeological deposits in the Southeast fairly regularly, although its use, if any, is not known.

	There are several interpretations of the association of these seeds in Feature 30: (1) one or more of these plants was used as food, and simply has not yet been recognized as a food plant by paleoethnobotanists (this alternative seems unlikely, unless prehistoric Piedmont Indians had a subsistence pattern rather different than that noted for parts of the East for which good paleoethnobotanical sequences have been established); (2) none of these species were utilized, but were incidentally or unintentionally carbonized and deposited (This alternative also seems unlikely for bedstraw and henbit, for which there were rather large numbers of seeds.  Although all of these species might have grown in human-disturbed habitats, none of the seeds or fruits are typically windborne, which would make incidental deposition unlikely.); or (3) the species in question had nonfood uses (medicinal, ceremonial, or construction) that resulted in the deposition of seeds or seed-bearing parts either as waste or in some other behavioral context.  This latter interpretation seems most likely in light of available evidence.

	The possibilities are intriguing, particularly since the plant remains from Feature 30 are so different from those of the Occaneechi occupation at the Fredricks site.  However, any conclusions about the behavioral correlates of deposition of these plant remains must await further information.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Comparison of Ranks by Ubiquity and Weight, Page Number: 195  
Comparison of Ranks by Ubiquity and Weight

	Both ubiquity and percentage by weight were used in the above analysis to interpret the relative importance to site inhabitants of various kinds of plant foods.  Each of these comparative techniques is useful in different contexts.  Ubiquity, for instance, ignores mass in favor of frequency of occurrence and can be used for comparing plant remains that have different probabilities of being preserved in large quantities or that vary greatly in mass and food-to-waste ratio. Therefore, it might be expected that the two methods would yield very different rankings of resources.  However, this is not the case for the resources categorized separately by weight (e.g., hickory, acorn, walnut, corn, peach, bean, and cucurbit) (see graph).  For this illustration, ubiquity rankings have been determined with respect only to the taxa used in the figure, and not to seed taxa, which are not itemized by weight.  The close correspondence between ranks using these two methods could mean that interpretations based on them are likely to be more secure than if they were widely divergent.

	But what if ubiquity and percentage ranks are similar simply because the same biases have affected both cases?  It is apparent that in most cases the most highly ranked species are also ones with remains that have relatively high preservability (e.g., hickory shell, walnut shell, corn).  However, there are notable exceptions.  Acorn rank is high by both methods, despite its low preservability relative to, say, walnut.  Grape ranks as high as walnut shell by ubiquity (Table 30), although seeds are in general less preservable than thick nutshell (although fruit-drying over a fire, if practiced, would make grape seeds more likely to be preserved).  Also, most of the highly ranked and highly preservable plant types are those mentioned as important foods ethnohistorically.  Thus, the close correspondence of rankings lends some strength to the interpretations presented above.  But if correspondence is this close, what is the utility of using both methods?  The biggest advantage of using both methods is that ubiquity allows for comparison of classes (e.g., seeds and nutshell) that are quantified differently (by count versus by weight) because of their very different physical characteristics.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Discussion and Conclusions, Page Number: 196  
Discussion and Conclusions

	The Occaneechi can best be described in subsistence terms as diversified agriculturalists/collectors.  Although these people devoted a great deal of time and energy to collection and processing of certain species (particularly corn, acorn, and hickory), they used a wide variety of plant foods, most of which would have been abundant in anthropogenic habitats such as old fields.  The Occaneechi had a relationship of husbandry with crops they planted and tended, like corn and common bean.  In addition, they made use of fleshy fruit species that grew in areas they had disturbed through farming and burning.  Perhaps the relationship between the Occaneechi and these latter species is best described as one of incidental or specialized domestication (Rindos 1984); that is, a symbiotic, coevolutionary relationship resulting from human feeding on plants, initiated and maintained chiefly through dispersal and protection.  These characteristics of incidental and specialized domestication stand in contrast to the seed storage, weeding, and tilling characteristic of agricultural domestication, which would have been the type of domesticatory relationship shared with crop species like corn.  Specialized domestication implies a specialized dispersal relationship between humans and plants, and is usually accompanied by storage and planting (Rindos 1984:163).  Peach (and perhaps other fruit-bearing species as well) probably had this sort of relationship with the Fredricks site population.  Even nut trees, typically considered "wild" resources, may have had at least a relationship of incidental domestication with the Fredricks site population involving some sort of protection.

	What evidence do we have that this pattern differs from that typical of populations living in the same area prior to contact?  How did trade with Europeans and other contact-related phenomena affect earlier patterns?  Evidence is still inconclusive on these points, but so far no drastic differences have been noted between plant remains assemblages from Fredricks and the nearby early protohistoric Wall site (Gremillion 1985).  The types of plant foods used were basically the same at both sites; although acorn may have declined somewhat in importance, the difference is not as great as was supposed based on evidence only from the 1983–1984 seasons.  In fact, acorn may have been collected in greater quantities than hickory at the Fredricks site. Corn remained important, and perhaps became more so after contact; however, there is no evidence for a narrowing of diet breadth.  Peach was introduced by Europeans and rapidly incorporated into the subsistence system of the Fredricks site population, but it took its place alongside indigenous fleshy fruits rather than replacing them.

	It is therefore difficult at this point to formulate hypotheses about the effects of European contact on subsistence.  Presumably depopulation and the introduction of new trade networks and new tools and technologies acted to change decision-making about subsistence activities in most areas.  But at the Fredricks site, there is no evidence of adoption of European crops (except peach) or abandonment of native ones, and only slim evidence of adjustments in the proportions of native plant foods contributing to subsistence.  Perhaps the presumed position of the Occaneechi village on the Eno as a trading center made it atypical in this respect.  For example, if individuals from other depopulated areas aggregated at this village, its pre-contact population level might have remained stable despite losses through disease.  And if Fredricks site men acted as middlemen in the European trade network, they may not have traveled far afield to hunt specifically for trade. It is apparent that explanation of subsistence stability is as important for this project as the explanation or establishment of change.  We may find that the apparent stability of subsistence as revealed archaeologically in fact reflects a considerable amount of behavioral change (Winterhalder 1980).  Behavioral changes may have been necessary to maintain the traditional diet represented archaeologically in the face of considerable perturbation.

Page: Plant Remains (1985): List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 197  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 26. Plant remains from 1985 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 27. Plant food remains from 1985 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 28. Percentage of plant food remains from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 29. Seed/fruit counts for burials, features, and structure from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 30. Plant ubiquity at the Fredricks site as percentage of features (1985 samples). 

Table 31. Percentages of nutshell from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 32. Percentages of plant food remains from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 33. Seed/fruit counts and proportions from 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 34. Seed/fruit counts and proportions from 1983, 1984, and 1985 flotation samples. 

Table 35. Plant remains from Features 35 and 37 (1985 flotation samples; weights in grams). 

Table 36. Plant remains from Feature 36 (1985 flotation sample; weights in grams). 

Table 37. Plant remains from Feature 30 (1985 flotation sample). 
 
Figures: General

Figure 471. Comparison of ubiquity and percentage rankings for plant remains from the Fredricks site (by weight).

Page: Plant Remains (1985): Source, Page Number: 198  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Plant Remains, by Kristen Johnson Gremillion.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1986, pp. 91–129.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): Introduction, Page Number: 199  
Introduction

	Four seasons of excavation at the Fredricks site have resulted in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of a sample of plant remains drawn from most of the site's exposed features.  The data on plant use at Fredricks have been drawn from all areas of the site and from all represented feature types.  Although only a small percentage of soil excavated at the Fredricks site was processed by flotation, a systematic sampling procedure was implemented in order to provide a reasonably representative subsample of deposits containing plant remains. 

	This report presents the findings of the 1986 field season and also summarizes the paleoethnobotany of the Fredricks site to date.  Each season has added data needed to answer the research questions formulated at the outset of the Siouan Project.  These include the following: What was the overall pattern of plant use of Fredricks site inhabitants during its brief period of occupancy?  Specifically, what kinds of plant foods were used, and in what proportions?  What European-introduced plant species found a place in the aboriginal subsistence system? 

	Other questions have proved more elusive, but are being explored with some success as data accumulate.  These are related to changes in aboriginal subsistence that may have been stimulated by contact with Europeans, particularly through the medium of trade.  The influence of trade was apparently felt both through introduction of artifacts and, more indirectly, in the effects of the European quest for hides and furs.  European economic pursuits may have encouraged changes in aboriginal scheduling of subsistence activities both intentionally or unintentionally, as was the case for the Huron of the Northeast (Hunt 1967).  Even more difficult to assess using archaeological evidence are the effects that population decrease on either a regional or local level may have had on the organization of subsistence activities, including agriculture and collection of non-cultigens such as acorns and hickory nuts. 

	Answering such complex questions about change will require at minimum additional data from pre-contact sites.  However, the excavations at Fredricks have been complete enough to allow for construction of a descriptive account of plant use at that site.  In addition, these data, in conjunction with ethnohistoric sources, have made possible a tentative reconstruction of the Fredricks site group's scheduling of subsistence activities (see Gremillion 1986).  At the same time new questions have arisen about the extent of trade specialization at the site and the sources of food remains found in archaeological deposits there.  Whether or not Fredricks site inhabitants grew and collected all or most of the plant foods represented archaeologically is a question that may be unanswerable on the basis of present evidence. 

	Nevertheless, a number of questions about plant use at this site have been answered, and this report will summarize those findings.  The present assessment of the data includes revisions of some of the seed identifications made in previous years (Gremillion 1986, 1987) and brings up to date absolute quantities of various types of plant food remains, as well as relative measures of their occurrence.  The relevance of these paleoethnobotanical data to more complex questions about European contact, culture change, and plant use also will be discussed.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): Methods, Page Number: 200  
Methods

	Flotation samples from 16 features at the Fredricks site were analyzed.  The data were drawn from one burial pit (Burial 14), two probable burial pits, and 13 pits.  Soil samples were drawn from all feature zones in 10 liter bucket-measured quantities.  Additional 10 liter samples were taken from fill zones containing abundant visible charcoal.  All samples were processed in the field using a device similar to the SMAP machine described by Watson (1976).  Light fractions were collected in a U.S. Standard geological sieve with mesh openings of 0.71 mm, and heavy fractions were captured in a 1/16 in mesh screen inside the flotation tank.  Each fraction was then dried in the field and transported back to the laboratory for cataloguing and analysis.  In addition, several seeds were sorted from waterscreened material and will be mentioned where appropriate but neither included in site totals nor subjected to quantification.

	Procedures for analysis approximated those reported in Yarnell (1974).  Each sample was weighed and sifted through a series of U.S. Standard geological sieves with mesh sizes ranging from 6.35 mm to 0.21 mm.  Material retained in the 2.00 mm and larger screens was sorted completely and weighed (for heavy fractions, only carbonized plant remains in this size category were sorted completely).  Material passing through the 2.00 mm screen was searched only for seeds, cultigen remains, and carbonized plant remains not found in the largest size category.  Total plant remains quantities in the 1.41 mm, 1.00 mm, and 0.71 mm screens were estimated on the basis of their representation in the fully sorted (2.00 mm and greater) size class.  These extrapolated values appear in Table 38; extrapolated weights for plant food remains are itemized in Table 39. 

	Most of the flotation samples were analyzed completely.  However, three heavy fractions contained large quantities of fired clay, rock, soil, and other inorganic material.  Since the heavy fractions were not separated into charcoal and non-charcoal components using chemicals or a second washing, these heavy fractions would have been unwieldy and time-consuming to sort by hand.  Therefore, in these cases a 50% sample was obtained using a riffle-type sample splitter.  Samples treated in this way are indicated in Table 38. 

	Two primary methods of quantification of plant remains data for comparative purposes were used, namely percentage (by number for seeds and by weight for other types of plant food remains) and ubiquity. Percentage by weight is flawed as a comparative tool for assessing relative importance of various types of plant foods because of differences in durability, preservability, method of deposition, and food-to-waste ratio between these food types.  However, percentage by weight (Table 40) does give a rough measure of quantities of plant food remains and can be useful for comparing remains classes with similar preservability (such as hickory shell and walnut shell).  Less preservable types of plant remains such as small seeds and acorn shell may appear to be poorly represented on the basis of percentage by weight alone.  Ubiquity (as the percentage of features in which a plant taxon is represented) has the advantage as a comparative measure of considering only frequency of occurrence without ranking by quantity and is useful for comparing plant remains classes with different physical characteristics and/or types of remains manipulated differently by people.  Densities of plant remains, plant food remains, and seeds in feature fill are given in Table 41 as a quick reference to the concentration of plant remains in different features and feature types. 

	Seeds are reported by number (Table 42) and weighed as an aggregate for each feature (Table 39).  Heavy, durable propagules like nuts and peach pits, which usually occur as fragments, were weighed but not itemized by number.  Cultigen remains (common bean, maize kernels and cupules, and cucurbit rind) are itemized by weight as well as number, except for cucurbit seeds, which were weighed together with other seeds. Seed quantities also are expressed as percentage of total identified seeds.  Interpretation of the importance of plant foods represented by whole seeds depends upon number of seeds per fruit, durability, and method of preparation as well as on relative or absolute quantities.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): Results, Page Number: 201  
Results

	Flotation samples analyzed from the 1986 excavations represent the processing of 500 liters of feature fill.  A total of 504.62 g of plant remains was recovered from these samples, including 396.52 g of wood and stem charcoal and 88.06 g of plant food remains.  Carbonized fragments of root or rhizome, one unidentified bud, one pedicel or peduncle, and other unidentified fragments also were found in the flotation samples (Table 38). 

	In general, analysis of plant remains from the 1986 season at Fredricks confirmed earlier interpretations of plant use at the site. The following discussion will, for the most part, depend upon the cumulative findings of four field seasons.  This comprehensive data set is more useful as a basis for interpretation of plant use since its division into sets by date of excavation is an artificial one imposed by researchers and has no direct relevance to the activities of site occupants.  However, several types of plant remains not recovered in previous years deserve special mention. 

	The most important of these is watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris Schrader ex Ecklon and Zeyher).  One watermelon seed was found in a flotation sample from Feature 45 (Table 42) and an additional seed was sorted from a waterscreened sample from Zone 2 of Feature 47.  Like peach, watermelon was introduced to North America by Europeans.  It was apparently first grown in North America by Spanish colonists in the coastal Southeast as early as the late sixteenth century.  Watermelon seems to have reached the Atlantic Coast colonies somewhat later by way of the West Indies (Blake 1981:194).  Unlike peach, which originated in Asia, watermelon is thought to be native to Africa.  Its adoption by post-contact Native American groups of the Eastern Woodlands was no doubt facilitated by the aboriginal practice of cultivation of New World cucurbits.  The only other occurrence of watermelon from North Carolina is from Upper Saratown (31Sk1a), a site roughly contemporaneous with Fredricks on the Dan River in Stokes County, from which a single seed was reported (Wilson 1977).  It is difficult to assess the extent of use of watermelon at Fredricks.  Because of its thin rind and the fact that the fruit would not have been dried for storage or cooked for consumption, watermelon remains are likely to be underrepresented archaeologically relative to the frequency of its use. 

	Other plant taxa not recovered during previous seasons at Fredricks are strawberry (Fragaria virginiana Duchesne) and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.).  Strawberry seeds are minute and have not been recovered frequently from Eastern archaeological sites.  Strawberry plants probably grew near the village in old fields and woods edges, which are the species's preferred habitat today (Radford et al. 1968:533).  The food value of this species is somewhat limited by the size of the fruits, but strawberry could have been a useful diet supplement or "snack food" in the spring and early summer, when most other fruit-producing species are still maturing. 

	Species of amaranth are common weeds in fields and disturbed ground.  Although cultivated varieties were developed in Mesoamerica and are still used there today, amaranth is seldom reported from North American sites.  The presence of a single seed in Feature 51 at Fredricks is best explained by the plants having grown near the site and their seeds having been carried into a fire by wind or, unintentionally, by people.  Although amaranth could have been used as spring greens, the seeds would have been present in the fall. 

	Most types of plant food remains recovered during 1986 had been recovered in previous seasons at the site and occurred in similar proportions.  Hickory (Carya sp.) nutshell was the most abundant nutshell type by weight at 97.1%, followed by acorn (Quercus sp., 1.7%), walnut (Juglans nigra L., 0.9%), and Juglandaceae (the family including both walnut and hickory, 0.3%) (Table 43).  In addition, acorn meat was found in Feature 53, including one whole carbonized acorn. 

	Comparison of weights of the inedible portion of different nut types (the shell) may, however, be misleading because of different ratios of "meat" (that is, the edible portion comprised of embryo and cotyledons) to shell.  The difference in meat-to-shell ratio between acorn and hickory in particular can be quite large.  Studies have shown that a given quantity of acorn shell can represent anywhere from five to 200 times as much food as an equal quantity of hickory nutshell (Lopinot 1983).  If the total quantity of acorn shell is multiplied by 50 (a factor suggested for general use by Yarnell and Black [1985]) and divided by the quantity of hickory shell, an estimated ratio of acorn to hickory meat of 0.87 is obtained.  In other words, the representation of edible quantities of acorn and hickory is similar for the 1986 sample. 

	Site totals to date, however, yield an acorn-to-hickory ratio of 1.67, although percentages of nutshell types are similar to those for the 1986 season alone (Table 43).  Despite the difficulties of interpretation involved, it can be stated confidently that acorn and hickory were used extensively by the Fredricks site people, with a possible bias in favor of acorn.  Walnut was of only minor importance, perhaps because of the comparatively high effort required in processing it compared to hickory (Talalay et al. 1984) and/or its scattered distribution in the Piedmont (Radford et al. 1968). 

	Ubiquity values for 1983–1986 seasons (as percentage of features in which a taxon is represented) rank hickory first and acorn third (after maize) (Table 44).  The values are, however, quite close and probably also reflect acorn shell's lower preservability.  A ranking of nutshell occurrences by ubiquity results in the same relative order as ranking by weight (hickory first, acorn second, and walnut third).  Considering acorn's high meat-to-shell ratio and lower shell preservability relative to hickory, the interpretation that acorn was perhaps a larger dietary component than hickory nuts at Fredricks and probably of approximately equal importance is a reasonable one.  Walnut was only a minor food. 

	The relative subsistence importance of these three nut types is relatively easy to determine because we have some knowledge of the meat-to-shell ratios of two of the genera and also an understanding of preservation factors that might influence representation of nutshell types.  Trying to compare nuts to cultigens or different types of cultigens to each other, on the other hand, is subject to considerable difficulties.  Hickory nutshell is dense and durable and likely to be preserved through carbonization, unlike more fragile remains such as Cucurbita rind.  Maize cupules and rachis fragments are fairly dense, whereas the kernels are starchy and less durable.  Common bean is more likely to be prepared by boiling than by parching or roasting, so the seeds are less likely to become carbonized.  The three Mesoamerican cultigens found at the Fredricks site (maize, Zea mays L.; pepo squash, Cucurbita pepo L.; and common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.) therefore produce archaeological remains that can be difficult to interpret. 

	However, of the three Mesoamerican cultigens, maize was certainly the most important.  Although the percentage of maize remains is quite low compared to most other types of plant foods from the 1986 season at 4.7% (Table 40), maize cupules and kernels are still much more abundant than common bean cotyledons or cucurbit rind (both less than 0.05%). Cucurbit seed weights are included in totals for all seeds, but are neither numerous nor heavy and would not affect this ranking.  Maize quantities are higher for site totals (Table 45) at 28.4% of plant food remains for all feature types, compared to less than 0.05% for Cucurbita rind and 0.3% for common bean.  

	The relative prominence of maize remains by weight can be accounted for in part by the fact that the maize cob (botanically, the rachis) and cupules are durable and useful as fuel, contributing to the likelihood of their carbonization.  However, kernels alone still comprise 2.5% of plant food remains and make up more than half of the total maize recovered in the 1986 sample.  Site seed and fruit totals strengthen the interpretation that maize was the most important of the Mesoamerican cultigens at Fredricks, since maize kernels comprise 53.8% of total identified seeds and fruits (Table 46).  Thus maize far outranks any other seed type found at the site, with grape a distant second at 7.7%. The best way to compare plant food remains of different types, such as seeds and nutshell, is to consider ubiquity.  Site totals for Fredricks (Table 44) indicate that maize remains occurred in 86.5% of features sampled and was exceeded only by hickory, which occurred in 92.3% of features.  In comparison, common bean and pepo squash rank tenth and twelfth, respectively. 

	The importance of maize to the Fredricks site population as a staple is confirmed using several methods of comparison and quantification.  What quantities of common bean and pepo squash were used by this group is impossible to tell.  Lawson (Lefler 1967:82–83, 182) refers to several types of legumes and squashes grown by Indians in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, so presumably both were of some dietary importance during the Historic period.  Preservation and depositional factors have probably resulted in the underrepresentation of these cultigens relative to their actual importance.  Although maize was more important than common bean or pepo squash (probably used in quantities similar to acorn and hickory nuts), the magnitude of difference in importance is impossible to assess. 

	Only two Old World domesticates, watermelon and peach (Prunus persica L.), were found at Fredricks.  Watermelon is discussed above along with other taxa first discovered in the 1986 sample.  Like peach, watermelon is somewhat weedy, being capable of colonizing highly disturbed habitats.  Watermelon occurs today as a waif in waste places (Radford et al. 1968:999); although it can germinate successfully without human aid, it requires some husbandry in order to maintain a population.  Watermelon has growing requirements similar to those for other cucurbits, and was probably easily incorporated into the aboriginal gardening system.  Peach is frequently found today as an escape from cultivation (Radford et al. 1968:566).  Native to Asia, the peach was first imported into the New World by the Spanish as a mission crop in the sixteenth century (Sheldon 1978).  The English brought peach pits to the Massachussetts Bay Colony as early as 1669 (Hedrick 1972:463).  In part because of its weedy properties, peach may have been dispersed somewhat independently of direct aboriginal/European contact. A number of European observers (Salley 1911; Hedrick 1972:463) noted peach trees growing "wild" in the Southeast.  However, they may not have recognized signs of limited husbandry. 

	Although peach trees can grow and produce fruit without human intervention, they were probably tended to some extent at the Fredricks site, at least through removal of plants competing for light and nutrients and perhaps through planting as well.  Fredricks site inhabitants may have tended, planted, or otherwise protected native fruit trees such as persimmon before contact, although there is no direct evidence for such practices.  Peach trees produce fruit in three to five years after germination (Sheldon 1978) and relatively little investment of time or energy would have yielded large amounts of palatable fruit (reported by Lawson to have been dried and made into cakes for later consumption [Lefler 1967:217]).  The stony endocarp, or pit, of the peach fruit is quite amenable to carbonization and comprised 1.3% of plant food remains in the 1986 sample (Table 40) and 3.4% of the total plant food remains from the site (Table 45).  Although it was probably an important fruit crop, peach was a dietary supplement and not a staple.  Considering the weight and durability of the pit, greater representation would be expected if peach were as important as a food such as hickory nut.  Preparation of the fruit by drying also should make peach pit overrepresented relative to some other types of plant food remains.  However, peach pit ranks high by ubiquity (ranking fourth at 48.1% of features, Table 44), which indicates that it was probably important relative to other (wild or semi-cultigen) fleshy fruit types. High preservability probably increases the contrast in representation between peach and other fleshy fruits. 

	The indigenous fleshy fruits recovered from the Fredricks site are mostly heliophilic species or genera that favor disturbed ground or edges between wooded and open areas.  All of them generally produce greater quantities of fruit in these kinds of habitats than in closed-canopy situations.  Taxa found at Fredricks such as bramble (Rubus sp.), sumac (Rhus sp.), strawberry, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), viburnum (Viburnum sp.), and grape (Vitis sp.) all indicate some degree of forest opening (Yarnell 1982:5) because of their preference for gaps in the forest canopy.  Thus there is strong evidence for a symbiotic relationship between humans and these taxa, probably something on the order of Rindos's (1984) incidental or specialized domestication, in which humans increase habitat areas for useful plants and disperse their seeds incidentally to consumption of the fruits. 

	For some taxa there is a stronger case for prehistoric domesticatory relationships.  Maypops (Passiflora incarnata L.) has been considered a quasi-cultigen because of its close association with humans in eastern North America prehistorically (Yarnell 1987).  Even tree fruits such as persimmon have had similar long-standing relationships with human groups.  It is possible that some management of fruit trees such as persimmon was practiced prehistorically and helped facilitate the adoption of peach as a tree crop.  The quantities of persimmon seeds found at Fredricks (Table 46) indicate that use of this species was common, although its seed's durability may skew its apparent importance relative to other fruit types.  However, no direct evidence for management of fruit trees has been found.  An expected morphological criterion for domestication of edible fruits is increased fruit size, a change that cannot be studied at most open sites using archaeological evidence since fleshy fruit parts are ususally destroyed when burned. Management of some kind does seem likely given the long-standing relationship between populations of humans and persimmon trees in the East, but may have been somewhat casual by European criteria. 

	Numbers of fleshy fruit seeds recovered during the 1986 season appear in Table 42.  Of fleshy fruits, grape comprises the greates percentage of total identified seeds and fruits (7.7%), followed by maypops (6.4%) and persimmon (3.7%).  Persimmon has from three to eight seeds per fruit and grape one to four, whereas maypops has many. Although "minimum number of individuals" or some similar measure has not been calculated for seed and fruit types, number of seeds per fruit is a factor that should be considered.  Therefore, maypops may be overrepresented relative to persimmon and grape.  However, calculation of ubiquity ranks these fruit types similarly (Table 44) with maypops and persimmon reversed in rank order (but with very similar values). Thus it appears that grape, persimmon, and maypops were the most commonly used indigenous fleshy fruits at Fredricks.  Other taxa that rank relatively high in numbers and ubiquity include bramble, groundcherry (Physalis sp.), and sumac.  Other taxa that occurred in smaller quantities at Fredricks include viburnum, nightshade (Solanum sp.), blueberry, elderberry, strawberry, huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), and hawthorn. 

	Grain or weed seeds found at Fredricks include knotweed (Polygonum sp.), amaranth (discussed above), and chenopod (Chenopodium sp., found in previous seasons).  All three of these genera include species that have been cultivated in North America prehistorically (although cultigen amaranth has not been recovered north or east of the Ozarks).  The numbers of seeds of these taxa are quite low, and all occur as weeds today on disturbed ground.  Thus there is no reason to assume that they were cultivated (or used) at Fredricks.  The same can be said of poke (Phytolacca americana L.), another weed used prehistorically as a source of greens (Yarnell 1983). 

	Several seed types are included in the "Miscellaneous" category.  Most occurred in small numbers and probably represent incidental inclusions in cultural deposits.  Lespedeza sp., wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), unidentified Type B (listed in previous reports as possible henbit, Lamium sp.), bearsfoot (Polymnia uvedalia L.), beggar's lice (Desmodium sp.), spurge (Euphorbia sp.), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), and Nightshade family (Solanaceae), have been discussed in Gremillion (1986, 1987).  Horse gentian (Triosteum sp.) seeds have been identified in the 1985 samples since publication of Gremillion (1986).  This is an herbaceous genus in the Honeysuckle family (Caprifoliaceae) that grows in woods and openings on neutral or basic soils.  T. perfoliatum L. was used as a coffee substitute by Germans in Pennsylvania (Hedrick 1972:576) but its use by aboriginal groups, if any, is not known. Bedstraw (Galium sp.) was used as a coffee substitute and as bedding in northern Europe (Hedrick 1972:285; Uphof 1968:236).  Aboriginally some bedstraw species have ethnographically documented medicinal uses among some North American groups (Moerman 1986).  It is not known how bedstraw was used at Fredricks, but it was found in relatively large quantities there (5.6% of total identified seeds, ubiquity 28.8% of features).  Use of the vegetative parts of the plant as bedding would explain the presence of large numbers of seeds of this genus, which usually grows in wooded rather than open habitats. 

Summary of Plant Food Remains

	The paleoethnobotanical data from the 1986 field season at Fredricks support previous interpretations of plant use at the site (see Gremillion 1986).  Maize was the most important crop, and common bean and pepo squash also were grown.  Hickory and acorn seem to have been staples, although their contribution to the diet relative to that of maize has not been assessed.  Since there was presumably a long tradition of human use of nut-producing trees in the Piedmont as elsewhere in the East, nut trees were possibly managed in some way, if only indirectly through protection and culling of competing species.  In addition to the tropical Mesoamerican cultigens, the Fredricks site people had close relationships with various herbaceous and woody fruit-producing taxa growing in anthropogenic habitats.  Management of such species probably spanned a continuum from toleration and unintentional habitat enrichment to protection and perhaps propogation as well.  The only Old World domesticates grown at Fredricks, peach and watermelon, were both fleshy fruit crops. 

	Excavations to date have revealed no evidence of cultivation or consumption of indigenous starchy or oily grains such as sumpweed, maygrass, chenopod, or knotweed.  The only occurrences of such grains at Fredricks are in such small quantities that there is no compelling reason to assume that they are anything other than weed seeds.  In many parts of the East, grains like chenopod and maygrass declined from a utilization peak during Woodland times as maize became more important (Yarnell and Black 1985, Asch and Asch 1986, Fritz 1986).  However, except for sumpweed, these grain crops (possibly only quasi-cultigens) continued to be used in Historic times in the East, at least at Cherokee sites in the Little Tennessee River valley (Chapman and Shea 1981).  

	Although indigenous grains are poorly represented at Fredricks, maygrass was found in large quantities at the Mitchum site on the Haw River, an Historic period site occupied slightly earlier than Fredricks (Gremillion 1987).  Paleoethnobotanical data from prehistoric sites in the Piedmont will be needed to determine whether cultivation of these indegenous grain-producers was ever a Piedmont tradition as it was elsewhere in the Eastern Woodlands.  Perhaps the Mitchum site maygrass represents the persistence of such a tradition into historic times.  The Fredricks site people, if they ever had similar traditions (an important question since ethnic relationships between groups occupying sites like Mitchum and Fredricks are unclear), either abandoned them for reasons as yet unknown or carried them out in localities away from the village on the Eno represented by the Fredricks site.  In any case, only further excavation can help answer these important questions about Historic period aboriginal subsistence.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): Discussion, Page Number: 202  
Discussion

	In general, the kinds of research questions and relevant data to be discussed here focus on the possible interaction of aboriginal subsistence traits like scheduling and patch use with European activities, especially trade.  Because of the lack of sufficient paleoethnobotanical data from prehistoric sites in the Piedmont, assessment of change from prehistoric to historic times is somewhat speculative.  However, two probable aspects of the influence of the European cultural presence on aboriginal subsistence patterns can be discussed on the basis of present evidence.  These are (1) more or less indirect influences on subsistence activity patterning conditioned by native involvement in European trade networks, and (2) more direct effects of European contact on plant use in the form of introduced Old World species and their incorporation into aboriginal subsistence systems.

	If the Fredricks site population, or part of it, was active in the deerskin trade with Europeans, it is reasonable to assume that other subsistence activities would have been adjusted in some way to accomodate this new strategy.  Unfortunately, sufficient evidence from prehistoric sites in the area is not available with which to directly compare the Fredricks site paleoethnobotanical evidence.  However, a picture of the seasonal round of subsistence activities at Fredricks can be drawn using ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence. 

	Observations on the scheduling of activities by European travelers are not available for the immediate vicinity of Fredricks site but do exist for nearby parts of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain as well as coastal and piedmont Virginia.  Such accounts indicate that movement of groups in the fall to hunting grounds was a common pattern in post-contact times.  Strachey (Major 1849:75–76) reports movement of coastal Algonquin groups into the interior to hunt deer during which times women and children accompanied the men.  Similarly, Lawson (Lefler 1967:215), probably speaking of coastal North Carolina, describes the movement of groups at leaf-fall to hunt specifically for hides to trade.  The precise timing of transport of hides can only be guessed at without further research into contemporary sources. Aboriginal groups like that occupying Fredricks lived in a frontier region that had not yet been settled by the English.  Trade contacts probably took place in the aboriginal villages, with English traders and adventurers transporting hides back to the North Carolina coast or to Virginia for transport overseas (Robinson 1979).  However, Adair (Williams 1930:436), writing late in the eighteenth century and generalizing about Southeastern groups, reports that in early May Indian traders set off for English settlements.  Presumably the exchange of goods would be put off until spring, when enough hides had been collected and travel was easier. 

	What evidence is there for such a winter/spring hunting pattern at Fredricks?  Assessment of seasonality of activities using paleoethnobotanical remains is complicated by the fact that most temperate flowering plants fruit in the fall rather than in the winter or early spring.  The absence or rarity of spring-ripening seeds may merely indicate scarcity of these species rather than a lack of human activity at the site during these times of year.  Thus, at the Fredricks site, it is not surprising that nearly all the food plants represented by seeds were collected in late summer and early fall.  Exceptions such as strawberry (which flowers and fruits between March and June), bedstraw (which produces fruit anywhere between April and August), and bramble (which fruits in May and July) indicate that there could have been human activity that resulted in deposition of these remains as early as March.  However, ripening patterns generally extend over several months, which makes it impossible to determine the timing of human deposition activities with any precision.  The only conclusion to be drawn is that, although all or part of the Fredricks site population may have been elsewhere during winter and spring, there is no strong paleoethnobotanical evidence that they were. 

	Thus, seed data provide no evidence either for or against the hypothesis that the Fredricks site people hunted for marketable hides during the winter.  There is so far no evidence for increased harvesting of deer in the faunal record.  Based on a comparison of the nearby protohistoric Wall site (occupied c. A.D. 1550) with Fredricks, quantities of deer bones (based on MNI as well as raw counts) are not significantly greater at the later site (Holm 1987).  Abundant and diverse trade goods at Fredricks (Carnes 1987), as well as ethnohistoric mentions of the Occaneechi as trade specialists in their island home in southern Virginia before their move to the village on the Eno (Dickens et al. 1986) and the location of Fredricks near a major trading path (Simpkins 1984), indicate that the Fredricks site people were quite active in exchange with the English.  A plausible explanation for the lack of evidence of increased deer hunting based upon faunal evidence is that the Fredricks site traders acted as middlemen acquiring hides from other aboriginal groups (Holm 1987), a pattern which was common elsewhere in the interior Southeast (Waselkov 1986).  A similar degree of trade specialization occurred among groups such as the Huron in the Northeast (Hunt 1967). 

	The paleoethnobotanical evidence is inconclusive on this point.  It is possible that the Fredricks site people acquired their plant foods through trade, reserving most of their time and energy for deerskin trade rather than gardening and collecting.  However, the diversity of plant foods found at the site indicates that all or most plant foods were grown or collected locally.  Lawson's contemporary account of nearby groups (Lefler 1967) also supports this interpretation.  It is more likely that trade activity would have modified scheduling of such activities as acorn and hickory collection, which would have taken place in mid- to late fall.  On the other hand, a sexual division of labor that allowed women to harvest nuts and crops, gather fruits, and maintain gardens would have allowed men to specialize in trade without disruption of most traditional plant exploitation activities. 

	Considerable shifts in scheduling of seasonal activities might not have been needed to allow the Fredricks site people to devote time and energy to trade with Europeans, if scheduling conflicts between trade and traditional subsistence activities did not occur.  Maize remained a staple crop based on comparisons of plant remains assemblages from Fredricks and from the Wall site (Gremillion 1987).  The difference between relative quantities of acorn and hickory is greater at Fredricks than at Wall, but quantities of nut remains indicate that acorn was probably about as important as hickory at both sites.  Thus, changes in seasonal subsistence activity patterning, if in fact it occurred among the Fredricks site population and similar groups as a result of contact, apparently did not alter diet composition a great deal.  It would have at least been possible to incorporate trade activities into an existing seasonal round without rescheduling or abandoning activities such as planting and harvesting of maize and other fall crops and collecting nuts and fruits.

	Similarly, responses to spatial variation in the form of environmental and vegetational patchiness could have continued in much the same way as in pre-contact times.  Managed patches such as gardens and fields were important sources of plant foods, as well as unmanaged or mininally managed woodlands and forest edges containing fruit and nut trees and herbaceous fruit-producing taxa.  At the time of the Fredricks site occupation, the Piedmont was not yet settled by Europeans.  Thus, modification of the local vegetational mosaic had probably not increased much beyond the effects that aboriginal settlement had already had, unless fire drives for deer became more frequent and/or more intense. 

	Although it seems probable that trade relationships with Europeans required modifications of pre-contact subsistence scheduling, there is as yet no archaeological evidence to support this conclusion for the Fredricks site.  There is likewise no indication that different kinds of vegetational patches were exploited; gardens and/or fields, woods, and woods edges all seem to have been sources of plant foods for the Fredricks site population.  Despite their trade relationships with Europeans, the Fredricks site people used a variety of plant foods from different types of vegetational patches. 

	Most of the plants used were ones with a long history of association with human populations in the Eastern Woodlands.  Some, like oak, hickory, and most of the fleshy fruits, are native to Eastern North America.  The most important cultigen, maize, was a Mesoamerican import as were beans and presumably pepo squash.  However, only two Old World species were found at the site.  Both peach and watermelon were presumably easy to grow and productive in in the Southeast.  Presumably the effort involved in managing these introductions was minimal, and probably did not require abandonment of other subsistence activities. There is no evidence at Fredricks of Old World cereal crops; either the English made no attempt to introduce them, or the local groups did not adopt them, preferring to plant maize.  Watermelon and peach, both somewhat weedy, could have been adopted as cultigens with little or no effort on the part of the English, who seem to have made little effort to "improve" Indian agriculture through introduction of European crops, unlike the Spanish elsewhere in the Southeast (H. Smith 1956).  Direct effects of European contact on the Fredricks site in the form of introduced plant species were minimal. 

	Our knowledge of the ethnobotany of the Fredricks site and the subsistence patterns of the people who lived there has increased greatly.  We know of only two European introductions that found their way into the aboriginal subsistence system, and that these probably required little effort to exploit and did not displace other indigenous fleshy fruits.  It also has been established that maize was as important at Fredricks as might be expected from contemporary European accounts and data from other sites in the Southeast, whereas indigenous starchy and oily grains were apparently not used.  Harvesting of acorn and hickory, collecting of fruits, and management of gardens where annual crops (and perhaps tree crops as well) were grown, combined to provide a nutritionally diverse plant food resource base that depended on a variety of activities.  Although data from pre-contact sites such as Wall have been used to generate hypotheses about possible differences between earlier and later sites, e.g., the behavioral correlates of the differences in relative quantities of acorn and hickory between the two sites, more prehistoric data are needed before questions about change can be properly addressed.  Until then, however, collection and interpretation of plant remains from the Fredricks site has been invaluable for reconstructing the subsistence patterns of this Historic period village and suggesting directions for future research.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): List of Tables, Page Number: 203  
List of Tables

Tables

Table 38. Plant remains from 1986 flotation samples (weights in grams). 

Table 39. Weights (in grams) of plant food remains from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 40. Percentage of plant food remains from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 41. Densities of plant remains in features (1986 flotation samples). 

Table 42. Seed and fruit counts from 1986 flotation samples. 

Table 43. Absolute and relative quantities of nutshell. 

Table 44. Ubiquity of plant taxa from the Fredricks site as percentage of features. 

Table 45. Percentage of plant food remains from the Fredricks site (1983–1986 flotation samples). 

Table 46. Percentage of seeds and fruits from the Fredricks site, 1983–1986.

Page: Plant Remains (1986): Source, Page Number: 204  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Plant Remains, by Kristen Johnson Gremillion.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:95–117 (1988).

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Introduction, Page Number: 205  
Introduction

	Archaeologists often find it useful for research purposes to segment the past into archaeological "cultures" or phases, based on the occurrence of specific artifacts or artifact characteristics within a relatively brief interval of time and over a relatively limited geographical area.  Within the Eno River valley where the Fredricks site is located, archaeologists have identified four sequential phases for the period of Native American occupation after A.D. 1000 and prior to European settlement in the mid-1700s.  They are: the Haw River phase (A.D. 1000–1400), the Hillsboro phase (A.D. 1400–1600), the Jenrette phase (A.D. 1600–1680), and the Fredricks phase (A.D. 1680–1710).

	The Fredricks phase defines the archaeological remains of the Occaneechi after they moved from the Roanoke River to the Eno River following Bacon's Rebellion in 1676.  The definition of this phase is based on the archaeological research conducted by the University of North Carolina at the Fredricks site.  This site is thought to be "Achonechy Town" that was visited and briefly described by John Lawson in 1701 (Lefler 1967:61).

	The archaeological excavation at the Fredricks site revealed a fortified settlement that covered a little over a quarter of an acre (see excavation plan).  The settlement consisted of multiple houses arranged around an open courtyard, within which was a sweat lodge.  In and around the houses were many storage pits.  The entire village was surrounded by a defensive wall or palisade.  A cemetery was located to the northeast, just outside the village wall (see detailed maps: northeast quadrant, southeast quadrant, southwest quadrant, northwest quadrant).

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Population, Page Number: 206  
Population

	Examination of the site plan reveals that at least 10 domestic structures were built within the palisade (see settlement plan).  At any given time, probably no more than 50–75 people inhabited the village compound and the occupation probably lasted no longer than 10 years.  The size of the village and the population estimates support demographic models suggested by the ethnohistoric documents and contrast markedly with late prehistoric and early historic occupations on which there is adequate archaeological data for comparison.

	There is no doubt that disease, slavery, and the deerskin trade had a tremendous impact on the Occaneechi and other Indian tribes living in the North Carolina Piedmont during the Historic period.  Massive depopulation, social and political fragmentation, and heightened hostilities swept across the landscape in reverberating waves of disruption as English traders and settlers crept southward from Virginia and northward from South Carolina. By 1730, most of the remaining tribal remnants had vacated their North Carolina homelands in search of peace and security with relatives and even former enemies now living in South Carolina, Virginia, and New York.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Subsistence, Page Number: 207  
Subsistence

	Although the Fredricks phase represents a time of dramatic disruption and upheaval, a surprising degree of continuity is reflected in the subsistence data.  As with the preceding Jenrette phase (A.D. 1600–1680), the peltry trade and the introduction of European tools and trinkets seem to have had a minimal impact on the day-to-day subsistence of the Occaneechi.  Deer continued to be the favorite meat source, supplemented by turkey, fish, turtle, and various small mammals.  Only one bone each of pig and horse attest to the European presence (Holm 1987:245).  The only evidence of the use of Old World plants during the Fredricks phase consists of a single watermelon seed and numerous peach pits, both probably introduced indirectly by the Spanish (Gremillion 1989a).

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Trade Influence, Page Number: 208  
Trade Influence

	While most native traditions appear to have remained intact during the Fredricks phase, trade between Indians and whites intensified considerably during the last quarter of the seventeenth century.  This is seen primarily in the grave goods associated with the Occaneechi burials.  Knives, hoes, kettles, and guns were added to the beads and ornaments common during earlier phases of the Contact period.  The shaft-and-chamber pits that had served as receptacles for the dead for hundreds of years were abandoned in favor of rectangular, straight-sided graves dug with the aid of metal tools.  Bodies were still flexed and wrapped, but the burial pits were no longer placed in and around dwellings.  The Fredricks site burials were carefully aligned and interred in at least two cemeteries located adjacent to and outside the palisade surrounding the small village.  The existence of separate cemeteries may reflect the amalgamation of different ethnic groups forced to band together as a consequence of depopulation; or, more likely, they may reflect episodes of epidemics and a recognition of the contagiousness of Old World diseases (Ward 1987; Ward and Davis 1991).

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Pottery, Page Number: 209  
Pottery

	Pottery of the Fredricks phase is attributed to the Fredricks series (Davis 1988) and is represented by two types: Fredricks Plain and Fredricks Check Stamped.  Fredricks Plain represents a variety of vessel forms, including small jars, large storage jars, and small bowls.  Fredricks Check Stamped vessels, conversely, apparently functioned primarily as cooking jars and secondarily as storage jars.  While the Fredricks series most likely developed out of the carved-paddle stamped pottery tradition represented by the earlier Jenrette series, and also may have its origins in the still-earlier Hillsboro series, stylistic and technological differences between the Jenrette series and the Fredricks series indicate that these two series are only distantly related.  Unlike Jenrette series pottery which represents relatively heavy, thick-walled vessels with coarse temper, poorly stamped or smoothed exteriors, and the frequent use of simple stamping, Fredricks vessels invariably were tempered with fine sand, had very thin walls, and had exteriors that were either smoothed or check stamped.  Decoration, when present, consisted solely of fine, oblique incisions or linear impressions along the vessel lip and occurred only on check-stamped vessels.  The remarkable consistency in style and manufacture evidenced by most of the Fredricks site pottery suggests that it may be the product of one or a few potters.  Although some simple-stamped pottery was recovered from Fredricks phase features, these sherds probably are associated with the adjacent Jenrette site.  Other pottery found at the Fredricks site, including a cord-marked bowl and a large section of a cord-marked, conoidal jar, most likely represent trade vessels.

	Because the Occaneechi are known from the ethnohistoric record to have resided on the Roanoke River prior to their settlement along the Eno River, the characteristics of the Fredricks site ceramic assemblage pose an interesting problem.  No plausible antecedents to the Fredricks series were identified during reconnaissance surveys and site excavations conducted within the Buggs Island Reservoir (now Kerr Lake)—the historically documented home of the Occaneechi prior to 1676 (Miller 1962; UNC-RLA site files).  In fact, no historic Indian village sites were identified on Occaneechi Island, although there is evidence from a private collection of a Contact-period site on Nelson Island, immediately upstream from Occaneechi Island (Keith Egloff, personal communication).  While it is likely that the pre-1676 Occaneechi potters also produced carved-paddle stamped pottery, there is no way to substantiate this.  Because the late prehistoric pottery of the Occaneechi Island area (i.e., the predominantly net-impressed Clarksville series) bears no similarity to the Fredricks series, it is possible that the Occaneechi had only recently settled here when Edward Bland's Appomattuck guide first made reference to them in 1650 (Bland 1651:12–13).  If so, the ceramic similarities that do exist—largely related to the use of carved instead of net-wrapped malleating paddles—between the Fredricks series and the Hillsboro and Jenrette series may indicate a late prehistoric homeland for the Occaneechi closer to the Eno, Flat, and upper Haw river valleys.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Stone Tools, Page Number: 210  
Stone Tools

	Despite the introduction and widespread use of European-made weapons and metal tools during the Fredricks phase, the overall character of the Fredricks lithic artifact assemblage conforms to a generalized stone-tool tradition that can be traced back to at least the beginning of the Late Prehistoric period.  Small triangular projectile points continued to be made and used to tip arrows, and other tasks such as hideworking, woodworking, plant food processing, and possibly bone working still employed stone tools such as bifacial drills, perforators, gravers, scrapers, utilized and retouched flakes, manos, and milling stones.  Interestingly, comparatively fewer stone tools were recovered from the Fredricks site, and those that were found displayed considerable variability in both form and raw material.  Although this may be due in part to sample contamination from earlier occupations at the adjacent Jenrette and Hogue sites, it also may reflect recycling of both tools and raw materials from these and other sites.  Many projectile points were similar in size and raw material to those recovered from earlier features at the Hogue site.  Recycling is not unique to the Fredricks phase, but is reflected in most Piedmont lithic assemblages that date to the Late Prehistoric or Contact periods.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Other Artifacts, Page Number: 211  
Other Artifacts

	Other aspects of native technology were only poorly represented at the Fredricks site.  Bone tools were virtually absent; most of the worked bone fragments that were found represented handles of iron trade knives.  Numerous shell ornaments, including two gorgets, columella beads, disk beads, wampum, and runtees, were recovered at the Fredricks site; however, all of these probably were manufactured by coastal groups and traded to the Occaneechi.  Serrated shell scrapers, common at earlier Hillboro phase and Contact period villages within the Eno and Haw drainages, and marginella beads were conspicuously absent at Fredricks.  The general picture that emerges is that the Occaneechi were not heavily involved in either shellworking or boneworking, and met their needs for ornamental items largely through trade.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Conclusions, Page Number: 212  
Conclusions

	On the surface, the history of the Piedmont Indians during the Contact period is a history of abrupt and devastating changes.  However, upon closer inspection, the story becomes much more complex.  The archaeological record of the Occaneechi documents rapid culture change, but it also reveals a picture of remarkable stability.  People did die violent deaths and did so in increasing numbers; strangers were forced to become friends and to live together; and the white man's weapons and tools were grafted onto the native technology.  Yet the basic necessities of life, the game that was hunted and the crops that were planted, remained unchanged.  Knives and guns were no doubt prized possessions, but stone tools continued to be manufactured and the bow and arrow remained a deadly weapon.  Copper kettles were available but they did not replace the clay pot.  And although some of the dead were buried in cemeteries, in pits dug with metal tools, they still began their journey to the Other World in the security of traditional beliefs and rituals.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: List of Figures, Page Number: 213  
List of Figures

Figures: General

Figure 472. Map of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 473. Map of the NE quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 474. Map of the SE quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 475. Map of the SW quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 476. Map of the NW quadrant of the excavations at the Fredricks site. 

Figure 477. Settlement plan of the Fredricks site as revealed by archaeological excavation.

Page: Occaneechi Town, Summary of Archaeological Findings: Sources, Page Number: 214  
Sources

	This article was adapted from the following sources:

Summary and Conclusions, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:118–122., 1988.

Siouan Culture, Chronology, and Process.  In Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont, A.D. 1000 to 1700, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph No. 2, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1993, pp. 408–432.

	They are reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Archaeological Society.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Introduction, Page Number: 215  
Introduction

	When the first English traders and explorers entered the Virginia and Carolina backcountry during the mid-seventeenth century, they encountered several small tribal societies living along the major rivers and their tributaries.  Although some of these travelers were struck by the apparent diversity in native customs, more careful study has shown that most of these tribes possessed similar lifeways and were related by language, marriage, and trade (Merrell 1987, 1989).  These Eastern Siouans, as they are now known, consisted of more than 40 separate tribes and occupied the Piedmont region between the Appalachian mountains and the Atlantic coastal plain, from north-central Virginia to central South Carolina (Mooney 1894) (see map).  The heart of the Siouan territory lay along the headwaters of the Neuse, Cape Fear, and Roanoke rivers in  north-central North Carolina and southern Virginia.  During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, this area was inhabited by the Eno, Occaneechi, Shakori, Sissipahaw, and Sara.

	The comparatively sparse ethnohistoric record for these peoples consists of brief accounts by a few travelers through the region.  The more prominent chroniclers were: John Lederer, who in 1670 traveled southwest from Fort Henry, Virginia, and purportedly visited settlements of the Akenatzy (Occaneechi), Oenock (Eno), Shakory (Shakori), and Sara (Cumming 1958); James Needham and Gabriel Arthur, who in 1673 followed the Occaneechi Trading Path from Fort Henry through Occhenechee Town, Aeno, and Sarrah (Alvord and Bidgood 1912); and John Lawson, who reconnoitered the Carolina backcountry in 1701 for the colony's Lord Proprietors, and visited Achonechy-Town on Eno River and remnants of the Shakory and Eno Indians at Adshusheer (Lefler 1967).  In particular, Lawson's journal provides our best glimpse of Siouan culture during the Historic period.

	All three accounts describe societies that had been substantially disrupted by the European presence and suggest three major factors that contributed to culture change among the Eastern Siouans.  First, the chroniclers witnessed a greatly diminished native population that had been ravaged by Old World diseases. Lawson (Lefler 1967:232), referring to smallpox and rum, remarked that "there is not the sixth Savage living within two hundred Miles of all our Settlements, as there were fifty Years ago."  Equally telling is the fact that Lawson encountered very few villages once he left the Catawba settlements south of present-day Charlotte.  The periodic influx of epidemic diseases during the late seventeenth century served both to disrupt social and political systems and to bring about the relocation of settlements.  This latter process merged formerly separate social groups into new communities.

	Second, it is clear from the ethnohistoric record that the various Siouan tribes were continually subjected to raiding by northern Iroquois war parties.  This pattern of hostility appears to have been established prehistorically, perhaps by the fifteenth century, and may have been responsible for the development of nucleated settlements in some drainages.

	Finally, the seventeenth-century world of the Eastern Siouans became one of ever-increasing participation in the deerskin trade, a European-based economic system that brought both a wide range of ornamental and utilitarian trade goods as well as power and prestige to some individuals and tribes.  The Occaneechi were a principal beneficiary of this trade, and although few in number, they exerted considerable power as middlemen in an extensive trade network.

	The purpose of this paper is to examine how these factors of contact and conflict affected the structure and composition of native Siouan communities.  For practical reasons, this study is limited to the Siouan heartland of north-central North Carolina and southern Virginia (see map of project area).  Since 1983, this region has been the focus of the University of North Carolina's Siouan Project.  As part of the project, intensive regional surveys were conducted within the Haw, Eno, Flat, and upper Dan river drainages (Simpkins 1985; Simpkins and Petherick 1986), and excavations were undertaken at 15 Siouan sites occupied between A.D. 1000 and 1710 (Dickens et al. 1985a, 1986, 1987; Ward and Davis 1987a, 1987b, 1988).  Substantial private collections, particularly from southern Virginia, also have been incorporated into this research (see note 1).

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Haw, Eno, and Flat River Drainages, Page Number: 216  
Haw, Eno, and Flat River Drainages

	The Haw, Eno, and Flat rivers comprise the major headwaters of the Cape Fear and Neuse rivers. Topographically, all three of these rivers are comparatively small streams with limited floodplain development.  These drainages are closely related archaeologically and during the seventeenth century were occupied by the Sissipahaw, Eno, Shakori, and Occaneechi Indians.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Haw River Phase (A.D. 1000–1400), Page Number: 217  
Haw River Phase (A.D. 1000–1400)

	The late prehistoric occupation of this area is represented by the Haw River phase.  Assignment of archaeological components to this as well as later phases is based largely upon pottery.  Most Haw River sherds are classified into the Dan River series (Coe and Lewis 1952), and have net-impressed exteriors, scraped interiors, and crushed quartz or coarse sand temper.

	Over 20 sites within the Haw, Eno, and Flat drainages have produced substantial collections of Dan River series pottery (see distribution map).  Five of these sites have been excavated.  Most represent small settlements comprised of widely dispersed households with associated storage pits, hearths, and burials.  The low frequency of artifacts at these sites and the scarcity of pit features probably reflect both a low population density and a lack of extended site occupation.  At the Guthrie site (RLA-Am145), for example, intensive, systematic auger testing (at 2.5-ft intervals) over a 0.55-acre area identified only seven pit features: one shallow basin, three pit hearths, one burial, and two possible burial pits.  Extensive auger testing at several other sites also has identified only isolated or widely scattered pit features.  Alternatively, some Haw River sites appear to represent small, compact communities made up of multiple households.  The Holt site (RLA-Am163), situated atop an upland knoll near Alamance Creek, is an example of such a settlement.  This site was defined by a dense surface scatter of artifacts over a 0.25-acre area, and excavations uncovered several trash-filled storage pits.

	The Mitchum site (31Ch452), which appears to contain a late Haw River phase (c. 1500) component, suggests a somewhat different community plan.  This site is situated on a large alluvial terrace of Haw River.  The Haw River component is represented only by a thin midden and large numbers of artifacts within the overlying plowzone.  Because of a substantial historic occupation at the site, the spatial limits and configuration of the Haw River component are unclear.  However, the density of artifacts that can be attributed to this component and the presence of a midden suggest that this settlement may have been much larger and occupied longer than other Haw River sites presently known in this area.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Hillsboro Phase (A.D. 1400–1620), Page Number: 218  
Hillsboro Phase (A.D. 1400–1620)

	The Haw River phase is followed by the Hillsboro phase (see distribution map).  This phase encompasses the period during which initial contact was made between Europeans and Southeastern Indians; however, no European trade artifacts have been found in clear association with Hillsboro phase material.  Although the most significant impact of European contact probably was the introduction of Old World diseases, there is no direct archaeological evidence that such diseases reached the Siouan population in piedmont North Carolina during this early period.

	Archaeologically, Hillsboro phase components are recognized by the presence of Hillsboro series pottery (Coe 1952; Davis 1987).  This pottery contrasts markedly with the earlier Dan River series pottery with respect to paste, vessel form, and surface treatment, and indicates the introduction of an entirely new ceramic tradition, if not a different people.  Interestingly, early Hillsboro pottery assemblages contain no Dan River vessels, whereas later assemblages usually contain net-impressed jars in addition to Hillsboro series smoothed bowls, simple-stamped jars, and check-stamped jars.

	Two settlement types are recognized for the Hillsboro phase.  A few sites appear to represent compact, nucleated villages.  Evidence suggests that these settlements are associated only with the early part of this phase and may reflect site-unit intrusions.  The best example of this settlement type is the Wall site (31Or11) on the Eno River.  Over one-fourth of this site, estimated to cover 1.25 acres, has been excavated.  These excavations revealed a settlement composed of circular houses and surrounded by multiple palisade lines (see excavation plan).  Aside from a small number of shaft-and-chamber burials, few other pit features were found.  The center of the village, though largely unexcavated, probably was an open plaza.  It is likely that maximum population size did not exceed 150 persons, or 15 to 20 households.

	Later Hillsboro phase sites usually are small, and are situated along the valley margins or adjacent uplands of small tributary streams.  These sites probably represent small hamlets composed of multiple households.  None appear to have been palisaded.   

	Two such sites have been excavated.  The Edgar Rogers site (RLA-Am162), located on Cane Creek, contained a dense cluster of pits and postholes within a 0.4-acre area.  Excavated features included eight trash-filled storage pits, a large, shallow basin containing rich deposits of ash, charcoal, animal bone, and pottery, and a single human burial located away from the habitation area.  No house patterns were discernible.  

	The George Rogers site (RLA-Am236), located on a high alluvial terrace overlooking Alamance Creek, contained a similar array of features and artifacts.  In addition, part of a circular house similar to those at the Wall site was identified.  Although this site covers less than an acre, Hillsboro phase artifacts are widely distributed both upstream and downstream from the site, and most likely represent scattered households.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Mitchum, Jenrette, & Fredricks Phases, Page Number: 219  
Mitchum, Jenrette, & Fredricks Phases (A.D. 1620–1710)

	Sites within the Haw and Eno drainages that contain historic trade artifacts have been assigned to three phases.  The Mitchum phase (c. 1620–1670) is attributed to the historic Sissipahaw occupation of the Haw River valley; the Jenrette phase (c. 1620–1680) may be associated with the Shakori tribe, visited by John Lederer in 1670, that occupied the Eno and New Hope drainages; and the Fredricks phase (1680–1710) represents the Eno River occupation of the Occaneechi following their withdrawal from the Roanoke River in 1676 (see distribution map).

	Details of settlement structure for the Mitchum phase are known only for the Mitchum site (31Ch452), located on Haw River and probably occupied after 1650.  Excavations indicate that it was a palisaded village, covered less than 1.5 acres, and contained sub-rectangular and probably circular wigwam-like houses approximately 20 ft in diameter (see excavated house).  Storage pits, dug near houses, comprise the primary feature type.  The absence of comparable sites for the Mitchum phase suggests that the seventeenth-century Sissipahaw population already may have greatly reduced by disease; however, only two burials were found within the 3500-sq-ft excavation area.

	The Jenrette phase is best represented at the Jenrette site (RLA-Or231a), located along the Eno River immediately adjacent to the Fredricks site.  This site was recently discovered in 1989 while searching for additional evidence of the Occaneechi occupation beyond the Fredricks site palisade, and may represent the Shakori village of "Shakor" mentioned by John Lederer in 1670.  Excavation of a 5200-sq-ft area (about 12% of the site) in 1989 revealed approximately 50 pit features containing rich refuse deposits, a single shaft-and-chamber burial, and at least two structures along two overlapping palisade lines (see excavation plan and note 2).  One of these structures was a rectangular wall-trench house measuring 13 ft by 18 ft; the other was an oval structure of single-post wall construction measuring 26 ft by 28 ft.  A third wall-trench house, excavated in 1990, measured about 16 ft by 19 ft.  These data indicate a circular, palisaded village that covered about 0.5 acres and probably had a population of about 150 people.  As with the Mitchum site, no archaeological evidence of epidemic disease was found.

	The Fredricks phase (1680–1710) is attributed to the Occaneechi occupation of the Eno drainage.  Observations made by John Lawson in 1701 suggest that the Occaneechi lived in a single town.  A site believed to be this settlement, the Fredricks site (31Or231), was excavated in its entirety between 1983 and 1986 (Dickens et al. 1987; Ward and Davis 1987b) and provides a clear picture of Occaneechi Town's community plan and probable population size (see excavation plan).  The town was small compared to earlier site occupations at the Jenrette, Mitchum, and Wall sites, and covered just over 0.25 acres.  The Occaneechi population here probably did not exceed 75 individuals.  The settlement contained at least 11 circular or oval houses of both single-post and wall-trench construction.  These houses ranged from about 15 ft to 20 ft in diameter, and were arranged in a circle around an open plaza that contained a sweat lodge.  Surrounding the settlement was a palisade or fence of light construction.  All but two of the 18 burials associated with Occaneechi Town were placed in straight-sided pits in at least two separate cemeteries located just outside the village palisade.  Given that this settlement probably was occupied for less than a decade (based on a lack of evidence for rebuilding of houses and the palisade), the small population size and relatively high burial frequency stand in sharp contrast to earlier villages in the region.  Sometime before 1710, the Occaneechi abandoned the Eno valley and shortly thereafter settled with the Saponi, Tutelo, and other weakened tribes at Fort Christanna in southeastern Virginia.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Upper Dan River Drainage, Page Number: 220  
Upper Dan River Drainage

	The upper Dan River drainage is one of two major headwaters of the Roanoke River.  Unlike the Haw, Eno, and Flat rivers, the upper Dan is a major river with extensive terrace development and expansive bottoms.  Its principal tributaries, the Smith and Mayo rivers, and Town Fork Creek, also are major streams with broad floodplains.  Ethnohistoric records indicate that this area was occupied primarily by the Sara tribe throughout most of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Dan River Phase (A.D. 1000–1450), Page Number: 221  
Dan River Phase (A.D. 1000–1450)

	The late prehistoric occupation of the upper Dan drainage is assigned to the Dan River phase.  Dan River sites are more numerous and many are substantially larger than contemporary sites in nearby drainages, suggesting a far greater regional population that resided in larger settlements (see distribution map).  In fact, most alluvial bottoms within this drainage contain Dan River phase sites.  

	There is some evidence to suggest that early Dan River settlements were composed of small household clusters lacking formal internal arrangement.  Excavations at one of these—the Leatherwood Creek site (44Hr1)—uncovered a small cluster of circular and rectangular houses, with associated storage pits and burials, scattered along a small (0.5 acre) sloping terrace of Leatherwood Creek.  Excavations at the Powerplant site (31Rk5), another early site located on the Dan River, uncovered numerous pit features and suggest a linear pattern of households extending almost 700 ft along the terrace edge.  

	During the late Dan River phase (after c. 1300), large villages were established along the wide alluvial terraces of the Dan River and its major tributaries.  This development probably is associated with increased population and intensification of maize agriculture.  Investigations at three late village sites—Belmont (44Hr3), Koehler (44Hr6), and Lower Saratown (31Rk1)—indicate that these settlements were circular, palisaded villages that covered one to two acres and probably contained 15 to 25 households.  Houses, with associated hearths, storage pits, and burials, were located along the interior of the palisade and surrounded an open central plaza.  Given the number of Dan River phase sites that have been recorded, it is likely that several villages were occupied at the same time.  The development of large, fortified communities by the fifteenth century may be partly related to the rise of Iroquois raiding into the Eastern Siouan heartland or increased village rivalries as good crop land became a more prized commodity.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Saratown Phase (A.D. 1450–1710), Page Number: 222  
Saratown Phase (A.D. 1450–1710)

	The period following the Dan River phase, and generally coinciding with the Protohistoric and Historic periods, is characterized by massive depopulation, a regional shift in settlement, and evidence of increased contact with other cultures, including the English, in adjacent regions.  By about 1450, the principal tributaries as well as much of the Dan River were largely abandoned, and new settlements were established near the mouths of those tributaries (see distribution map).  Pottery assemblages, which contain new vessel forms with burnished and carved paddle stamped exteriors in addition to more traditional Dan River net-impressed jars, reflect an introduction of new pottery styles from the Catawba drainage to the south.  

	Three subphases of the Saratown phase are recognized.  The early Saratown phase (c. 1450–1620) is defined largely from excavations at the Early Upper Saratown site (31Sk1) (Wilson 1983).  This site, located along Dan River near the mouth of Town Fork Creek, covers about 2.5 acres and contains both a thick, rich midden and numerous pit features.  Given these attributes of site size and density of cultural material, Early Upper Saratown probably had a larger resident population than any previous Dan River phase settlement in the region. 

	The middle Saratown phase (1620–1670), a period during which the Sara began to receive trade goods from the English and Indian intermediaries, is represented by the Lower Saratown site (31Rk1).  This site is located along Dan River, just below the mouth of Smith River, and represents a compact, palisaded village, probably with an internal structure similar to that documented for earlier Dan River phase villages.  This village covered about 1.5 acres.  To date, only one house has been identified at this site.  It is a sub-rectangular structure that measures 20 ft by 23 ft and contained a central hearth and numerous storage pits along the interior wall (see excavated house).

	Finally, the late Saratown phase (1670–1710) represents the terminal Sara occupation of the upper Dan River drainage, and is well documented by extensive excavations at the Upper Saratown site (31Sk1a), limited testing at the nearby Kluttz site (31Sk6), and donated collections and records from the Madison site (31Rk6).  It is significant that all three of these sites resemble large cemeteries more than villages.  In fact, the Madison site has previously been regarded as a cemetery rather than a habitation site based on the extremely high density of burials there (Gravely 1969).  Testing at the Kluttz site also revealed a probable cemetery area that contained numerous shallow graves.  The latter seventeenth century clearly was a time of death among the Sara.  

	Settlement structure during the late Saratown phase is best known from the Upper Saratown site, located just downstream from Early Upper Saratown (Ward 1980; Wilson 1983).  Approximately one-fourth of this site has been excavated, exposing portions of at least 13 houses, 225 pit features, and 111 burials (see excavation plan).  Upper Saratown also was a palisaded village, covering about 1.5 acres, and probably contained 20 to 25 households, or a maximum of 200 to 250 individuals.  Houses were circular and ranged from 20 ft to 30 ft in diameter.  Storage pits and burials often were dug into house floors, but also were placed elsewhere.

	Given present evidence, the final Sara occupation appears to have been at the Kluttz site, located just downstream from Upper Saratown.  The large number of burials found here suggests that the mortality rate continued to remain high.  However, the intrasite settlement plan apparently shifted from a compact nucleated village to one consisting of more widely dispersed households over a 6.5-acre area.  Furthermore, the marked stylistic diversity within the pottery from the site suggests that the Kluttz site may represent a refuge community that incorporated different Siouan groups.  Following this occupation, the Sara retreated to the southeast where they joined the Catawba along the lower Catawba River.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Conclusions, Page Number: 223  
Conclusions

 	A comparison of the Haw/Eno/Flat and upper Dan drainages suggests both similarities and differences in community patterns and their evolution through time (see model).  Within the Haw, Eno, and Flat drainages, the late prehistoric population density remained low and most settlements comprised clusters of separate households scattered along both the major rivers and their tributaries.  Nucleated villages apparently developed only very late, possibly in response to inter-tribal conflict.   Both the Wall and Fredricks sites appear to represent site-unit intrusions that may have precipitated hostility or at least competition with the indigenous population.

	After direct trading relationships were established between the English and the Eastern Siouans in the mid-seventeenth century, the native population was greatly reduced by disease, forcing the consolidation of tribal remnants into new, multi-ethnic communities.  The Eno-Shakori settlement of "Adshusheer" mentioned by John Lawson (Lefler 1967), as well as the Late Saratown phase occupation at the Kluttz site, represent two examples of such communities.  In fact, by the late seventeenth century, most of the Haw drainage was entirely depopulated and only a few small villages composed of tribal remnants remained along the Eno and Flat rivers.  Of these, only Occaneechi Town appears to have played an active part in the deerskin trade, and it represented a newly established community, positioned along the Trading Path after 1676. 
 
	In the upper Dan drainage, where the population density at any point in time was substantially greater, the Late Prehistoric period witnessed steady population growth and the shift from small dispersed settlements to large, compact villages.  The development of these fortified communities also may coincide with the establishment of a pattern of inter-tribal conflict that persisted well into the Historic period; however, whether or not warfare was a primary causal factor in settlement change is unknown.

	Dramatic population decline within the Sara villages can be traced to the late seventeenth century and the introduction by English traders of European diseases.  Although the overall population remained large enough to maintain a few sizable fortified villages, much of the territory formerly occupied was abandoned.  The overall Sara population dwindled and previously autonomous villages periodically merged to form new communities, most likely for defensive reasons.  In many instances, old villages were abandoned for new ones located less than a half-mile away.  As this process continued, village populations became more and more diverse.  

	By 1710, both drainage areas had been largely abandoned although a very small remnant population may have remained.  The former inhabitants of the Haw, Eno, and Flat drainages moved northeast to join other Siouans at Fort Christanna while the Sara moved to the south where they later combined with the last surviving Siouan group—the Catawba.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: List of Figures, Page Number: 224  
List of Figures

Figures: General

Figure 1. Distribution of Siouan-speaking peoples in eastern North America (based on Mooney 1894). 

Figure 478. Map showing the Siouan Project study area. 

Figure 479. Distribution of Haw River phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 480. Distribution of Hillsboro phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 481. Excavation plan of the Wall site. 

Figure 482. Distribution of Mitchum, Jenrette, and Fredricks phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 483. Subrectangular house (measuring 17 ft by 22 ft) at the Mitchum site. 

Figure 484. Partial excavation plan of the Jenrette site, 1989–1996. 

Figure 485. Excavation plan of the Fredricks site. 

Figure 486. Distribution of Dan River phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 

Figure 487. Distribution of Saratown phase sites (areas of suspected settlement concentration are shown in red). 
Figure 488. Rebuilt house at Lower Saratown (the smaller house is 18 ft in diameter; the larger house measures 20 ft by 23 ft). 

Figure 489. Excavation plan of Upper Saratown. 

Figure 490. Model of Siouan settlement change. 

Figure 1054. Wall-trench house at the Jenrette site (interior floor area measures 16 ft by 19 ft).

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Notes, Page Number: 225  
Notes

Note 1

This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida, November 11, 1989.  An earlier version, entitled "Diversity and Change in Community Pattern Among Late Prehistoric and Historic Siouan Tribes in Piedmont North Carolina," was presented at the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Calgary, Alberta, November 12, 1988.  For the past six years, the Siouan Project has been generously supported by the National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, and North Carolina Division of Archives and History.  The late Richard P. Gravely, Jr., also contributed significantly to the project by donating his artifact collections and site records from southern Virginia to the Research Laboratories of Anthropology.  Finally, we would like to thank Vin Steponaitis for his many helpful comments, criticisms, and ideas for approaching problems of Siouan prehistory.

Note 2

Results of the 1989 and 1990 excavations at the Jenrette site are reported in Ward and Davis (1993).  Additional excavations were conducted in 1992, 1995, and 1996.  These have now exposed over half of the village and are shown in the site plan.

Page: Evolution of Siouan Communities: Source, Page Number: 226  
Source

	This article is adapted from the following source:

The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward, Southeastern Archaeology 10(1):40–53, 1991.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference.

Page: Burial Practices: Introduction, Page Number: 227  
Introduction

	In this section, the mortuary complex at the Fredricks site will be discussed as it reflects the organization of late seventeenth-century Siouan Indian society and the processes of prehistoric-to-historic culture change.  Comparative data will be presented from the archaeological and ethnohistoric records to reconstruct changing mortuary patterns of Siouan peoples as well as those of neighboring groups.

	Mortuary practices at Siouan sites occupied during the Late Prehistoric and early Historic periods will be compared with the mortuary pattern at the Fredricks site to elucidate temporal changes in spatial organization, burial pit morphology, and grave associations.  Finally, questions concerning Indian-colonial interaction and acculturation will be addressed in the context of the Fredricks site mortuary complex.

	The Occaneechis were very influential in the development of Siouan societies during the Historic period.  They occupied a strategic position in a trade network that was comprised of Native American and colonial groups.  It is probable that their prominence in this network was established early in the Historic period because of pre-existing ties and relationships with groups to the north.  The Susquehannocks, for example, seem to have been at least partially responsible for the development of the Occaneechis as a major link in the Virginia-Carolina trading system.  As the intensity of colonial influence increased during the latter part of the seventeenth century, the Occaneechis, as with other interior tribes, had to cope with depopulation and other consequences of the colonial expansion. Social and cultural adjustments should be reflected in Siouan mortuary practices.

Page: Burial Practices: Approaches to Analysis, Page Number: 228  
Approaches to Analysis

	Over the past two decades, studies of mortuary behavior have dramatically increased.  This trend is often seen as a direct consequence of the rise of anthropological archaeology and the acceptance of the analysis of social organization as a proper domain of archaeological inquiry.  As a result, mortuary data are no longer used only to speculate about primitive belief systems but rather to provide the main focus for studying social differentiation, cultural complexity, culture change, and demography (Bartell 1982:52; O'Shea 1984:1–3).  In fact, mortuary ritual probably contains more information concerning social processes and culture change than does any other data category available to the archaeologist (Goody 1962:142; Tainter 1978:110).

	It should also be kept in mind that the primary archaeological manifestation of mortuary behavior, a burial, represents only one link in the behavioral chain surrounding the ceremonial treatment and disposal of the dead.  Mortuary practices involve several distinct stages: death, body preparation, burial chamber preparation, interment, and post-interment activities (Bartell 1982:53).  The burial itself, however, should inform on precedent and subsequent behaviors (i.e., what happened before and after the body was placed in a pit or other receptacle).

	Most studies of mortuary practices by American archaeologists have been concerned with status differentiation, particularly within ranked societies, and have used grave associations as their primary source of information (e.g., Brown 1971).  Tainter (1978:121), however, has found that social distinctions were symbolized by mortuary associations in less than 5% of a sample of 93 mortuary systems described in the ethnographic literature.  Because the way a culture disposes of its dead can mirror a complex web of economic and sociopolitical variables as well as ideological beliefs, Bartell (1982:52), Brown (1971), Binford (1971), Rothschild (1979), and others have pointed out that for studies of mortuary behavior to be productive, they must take into account the structure and organization of the total mortuary system, not simply the material content resulting from burial behavior.

	After critically reviewing recent approaches to the analysis of mortuary behavior, O'Shea (1984:14) proposes that if mortuary remains are to be understood directly it is necessary to assume that only a single set of cultural directives governing mortuary treatment was in operation throughout the duration of a burial group.  Following Binford (1971:13–18), O'Shea further states that there are regularities that link a society and how it disposes of its dead.  The most important relationships are: (1) mortuary differentiation is patterned and integrated with other components of the cultural system; (2) mortuary differentiation accorded an individual is consistent with and reflects his social position (i.e., "social persona") in the living society; and (3) mortuary differentiation becomes more complex as societal complexity increases (O'Shea 1984:21).

	In societies with little complexity, the dimensions of status differentiation are based on age, sex, and "differential capacities" for performing cultural tasks.  In more complex societies, on the other hand, status differentiation is determined by culturally defined sociocentric statuses (Binford 1971:18; Service 1962:155).  At the same time, there are no set rules concerning the degree of mortuary differentiation within any given society.  Some may permit a lot of variation, whereas others permit only a little.  And all social differences may not be recognized through differential mortuary treatment.  In some societies, for example, the way a person dies may have primary influence in determining mortuary treatment (O'Shea 1984:36).

	The spatial dimensions of the structure and organization of mortuary systems can be a sensitive barometer of social variability (Saxe 1971).  Peebles (1971:87) in his analysis of Moundville burials found that individuals of high status were spatially separated from lower status individuals.  Persons were segregated within cemeteries, and cemeteries within the site were ranked relative to one another.  Individuals buried in mounds were further segregated from those buried in cemeteries.  A similar mound-cemetery segregation has been reported at Etowah (Larson 1971) and Spiro (Brown 1971).  "Status space" is a characteristic and significant feature of the mortuary practices of complex, ranked societies, and the structure of cemetery burials is reflective of the hierarchical nature of their social organization.

	Cemetery burial may also provide information on social variables other than status.  Tainter (1978:123) suggests that the presence of cemeteries reflects the importance of individual corporate groups; Saxe (1971:51) interprets cemeteries among egalitarian societies as indicating strong lineal affiliation; and Bartell (1982:51–52) states that societies with social structures characterized by clan or lineage organization usually will have distinct geographical burial locations within cemeteries.  Thus, cemeteries may be expected in unranked, as well as ranked, societies as long as strong unilineal kinship ties define corporate groups.

	One of the primary reasons for the acceptance of mortuary analysis into the mainstream of archaeological thought is that it can be tied directly to ethnohistoric and ethnographic data (O'Shea 1984:1).  Although the use of these data does not suggest a one-to-one correlation between the acts of one culture and the material remains of another, descriptive accounts of mortuary practices can reveal behaviors that may be detected as patterns in the archaeological record.  Obviously, the correlation between ethnographic or ethnohistoric observations and archaeological remains is considerably strengthened if there is an historic connection between the two, as there is with the Occaneechis. Nonetheless, ethnohistoric descriptions in particular must be closely scrutinized because they are usually filtered through the biased eyes of individuals from an alien culture.  The ultimate test of whether such accounts are relevant to the interpretation of archaeological remains depends on how close the fit is between facts revealed by the archaeological record and the ethnohistoric or ethnographic model (see Ucko 1969:263).

Page: Burial Practices: Ethnohistoric Background, Page Number: 229  
Ethnohistoric Background

	The following are ethnohistoric descriptions of Siouan mortuary behavior as well as accounts of such behavior in other, neighboring cultures, particularly groups that lived to the northeast where there is a rich reservoir of ethnohistoric data.  There were strong cultural affiliations between some of the interior northern tribes and the Siouans, particularly the Occaneechi.  This relationship is best supported by the fact that many of the Tutelo, Occaneechi, and Saponi ultimately settled with the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy in New York (Mooney 1894:55).

	In searching the ethnohistoric record for descriptions of burial practices among Siouan groups and their neighbors, one quickly discovers a paucity of such observations by European visitors.  The extant written records are by individuals who visited the tribes for relatively brief intervals.  Given communities with populations of about 200, and a high mortality rate of 30 per 1000, there would be an average of about six deaths per year (Gruber 1971:64–65).  It is obvious, therefore, that the chance of a traveler such as John Lawson or John Lederer observing a burial ceremony first-hand would be very slight.  Certainly the frequency of observations would not have been sufficient to allow detailed descriptions of patterns of mortuary behavior.  Also, it should be recognized that, even if an outsider did arrive at a village at the time of a death, it is unlikely that he would be told about the death or allowed to observe the mortuary ritual.  This point is made clear by Adair (1930:189), who observed among the Cherokee that

they will not associate with us, when we are burying any of our people, who die in their land: and they are unwilling we should join with them while they are performing this Kindred duty to theirs.

	Thus, because of the relatively low frequency of death and burial, and the fact that most groups probably did not allow outsiders to observe or participate in burial ceremonies, most of those descriptions that are available probably are second-hand.

	John Lawson, the most detailed chronicler of the Indians of the Carolina Piedmont, wrote concerning the South Carolina Indians that their tombs were located near the cabins, with the implication that these tombs were grouped.  "Near to these Cabins are several Tombs made after the manner of these Indians; the largest and chiefest of them was the Sepulche of the late Indian King of the Santees" (Lefler 1967:27).  Lawson goes on to describe in detail the burial customs of the Santee.

The manner of their interment is thus: A Mole or Pyramid of Earth is raised, the Mould thereof being worked very smooth and even, sometimes higher or lower, according to the Dignity of the Person whose Monument it is.  On the Top thereof is an Umbrella made Ridgeways, like the Roof of an House, this is supported by nine stakes, or small posts, the Grave being about six or eight Foot in Length and four foot in Breadth; about it is hung Gourds, Feathers and other such Trophies, placed there by the dead Man's Relations, in respect to him in the Grave. (Lefler 1967:28)

	Lawson continues by describing pre-burial mortuary behavior and states that when someone died, they were laid out in the sun and "seasoned" with a concoction made of bear fat and a red root.  This ointment was also used by the living as a hair dressing.  After two or three days, the body was covered with pine or cypress bark.  The worldly possessions of the deceased were brought to the body, and a close male relative sang "a mournful Ditty" for three or four more days.  Finally, when it decayed to the extent that it could be stripped from the bone, the flesh was removed and burned.  The bones were then thoroughly cleaned, oiled, and put into a wooden box to be kept by the deceased's closest relative (Lefler 1967:28).

	Lawson also mentions a burial ceremony that took place while he was visiting a Tuscarora town and stated that it was "much the same as that of the Santees, who make a great feast at the interment of their Corpse" (Lefler 1967:66).

	Lawson (Lefler 1967:185–189) also discusses mortuary rituals in his general description of the Indians of Carolina.  He lists a sequence of the events that is very similar to his description of the Santee ritual.  There was a great deal of mourning by the nearest relatives, and the corpse, after lying in an outbuilding constructed for that purpose for a day and a night, was wrapped in a blanket or match coat and two or three cane or rush mats.  This bundle was then enclosed by a web of woven reeds or cane.  Next, the body was taken outside the village ("into an orchard of Peach-Trees") where the individual's kinsmen and other members of his tribe as well as representatives from allied tribes listened to a shaman ("Doctor or Conjurer") give a detailed account of the highlights of the dead person's life.  After this lengthy discourse, the corpse was carried to the burial pit which was six feet deep and eight feet long.  A forked branch of pitch pine or light wood was driven down either side of the grave, and several layers of bark were placed on the bottom.  The corpse was then laid down gently, and a pole was placed across the two forked sticks.

Having a great many Pieces of Pitch-Pine logs about two foot and a half long, they stick them in the sides of the Grave down each End and near the top thereof, where the other ends lie on the Ridge-Pole, so that they are declining like the Roof of a House.  These being very thick placed, they cover them (Many times double) with Bark; then they throw the Earth thereon that came out of the Grave, and beat it down very firm; by this means the dead Body lies in a Vault, nothing touches him; so that when I saw this way of Burial, I was mightily pleased with it, esteeming it very decent and pretty, as having seen a great many Christians buried without the tenth part of that Ceremony and Decency.  (Lefler 1967:18)

	After the flesh had rotted, the bones were taken out, dressed in deer skins, and placed in a charnel house to accompany the remains of other "Kings" and "War-Captains."  Lawson continues his description by saying that, although the burial ceremonies differed slightly among the various Indians, all had in common

the Mourning, which is, to appear every night at the Sepulchre, and howl and weep in a very dismal manner. . . .  If the dead Person was a Grandee, to carry on the Funeral Ceremonies, they hire People to cry and lament over the dead Man.  (Lefler 1967:189)

	The first part of Lawson's descriptions seems appropriate and generally conforms to the archaeological record.  However, there is no archaeological evidence that the Occaneechis or other Siouan burials were unearthed, defleshed, and placed in communal burial houses.  It appears that Lawson combined some attributes of Siouan mortuary customs with the Algonquian practice of defleshing bodies and storing them in charnel houses until they were interred in a communal pit or ossuary.  There is abundant archaeological evidence from Siouan sites, including Occaneechi Town, that bodies were wrapped prior to interment and that the graves contained chambers or vaults (Navey 1982).

	The only other description of Siouan burial ritual comes from John Lederer, written in 1670.  Lederer's account is interesting because he clearly states that individuals were buried in cemeteries.

Their places of Burial they divide into four quarters, assigning to every Tribe one: for, to mingle their bodies, even when dead, they hold wicked and ominous.  They commonly wrap up the corpse in beasts skins, and bury with it Provision and Household stuff for its use in the other world.  When their great men die, they likewise slay prisoners of war to attend them.  (Cumming 1958:14)

	As with Lawson, Lederer mentions that the bodies were wrapped before burial.  He also states that grave goods, in particular utilitarian items, were placed with the dead.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain what social divisions Lederer's "tribe" refers to.  The implication is that these were clans of one village, since they shared a common cemetery that was divided into spatial units.  There are no historical accounts or archaeological evidence to support his contention that prisoners of war were killed at the time of the death of their "great men."  This statement, rather, seems to reflect Lederer's familiarity with de Acosta's account of the Mexican Indians rather than a first-hand observation of Siouan mortuary behavior (see Cumming 1958:13, footnote).

	There are several ethnohistoric accounts of mortuary behavior of the Indians located just north of the Siouan area.  These accounts are important because they seem to have some close counterparts in the archaeological record of the Occaneechis.  A recurring theme in virtually all of these accounts is the emphasis placed on feasting in the mortuary ritual.  Lawson, however, only refers to feasting indirectly when comparing the Santee burial customs with those of the Tuscarora.  Another important aspect of mortuary behavior shared by most of the northern groups is the fact that gift-giving and redistribution also were part of the mortuary pattern. Among Algonquian groups in Maine, the Jesuit Pere Pierre Biard observed that the village prepared a feast which continued, day and night, from the time of death until all of the food was gone (Bushnell 1920:12).  In describing the burial ritual Biard states that

They arch the graves over with sticks, so that the earth will not fall back into it, and thus they cover up the tomb. . . .  If it is some illustrious personage they build a Pyramid or monument of interlacing poles. . . .  If it is a man, they place there as a sign and emblem, his bow, arrows, and shield; if a woman, spoons, Matachias, or jewels, ornaments, etc. . . . They bury with the dead man all that he owns, such as his bag, his arrows, his skins and all his other articles and baggage.  (Baird, quoted in Bushnell 1920:13)

	The description of the grave with sticks arching over it to prevent dirt from touching the body is very similar to Lawson's account.  Also of interest is the mention of grave offerings being differentiated by sex and of the graves being marked on the surface by some of the belongings of the deceased.  Apparently among these Algonquians, all of the personal property of the deceased was buried with him and not redistributed among the living.

	A description of the burial of a Delaware chief's wife in 1762 clearly indicates the importance of feasting and the redistribution of goods, particularly European trade goods, in the burial ritual (Bushnell 1920:22).  As with the Algonquians, burial was in a cemetery located outside the village, and graves were marked with painted or decorated posts.  The deceased was wrapped and covered to avoid contact with the dirt.  At the end of the funeral procession from the village to the cemetery area, "two stout men [carried] loads of European manufactured goods upon their backs."  After the grave was covered and surrounded by a palisade, food was prepared and passed out.

Then presents were distributed the many things which had been carried by the two men in the rear of the procession.  Those who had rendered assistance were given the most valuable and highly prized pieces, but no one was omitted. . . .  At dusk after the burial, a kettle of food was placed upon the grave, and this was renewed every evening for three weeks.  (Heckewelder, quoted in Bushnell 1920:22)

	A couple of important inferences can be drawn from the above description.  First, the re-distribution of European goods as part of the mortuary ritual may provide a clue as to how these goods were generally distributed within various social groups.  Second, not only was there a feast for the living, but food was also placed on the grave so that the deceased might share in the feast.  The fact that food is placed on the grave itself has archaeological implications that will be discussed later in this section.

	The Delaware also put

tobacco pouch, knife, tinder box, tobacco and pipe, bow and arrow, gun powder and shot, skins and cloth for clothes, paint, a small bag of Indian corn or dried bilberries, sometimes the kettle, hatchet, and other furniture of the deceased, into the grave, supposing that the departed spirits would have the same wants and occupations in the land of souls.  (Loskiel, quoted in Heye and Pepper 1915:77)

	There are also detailed descriptions of the mortuary behavior of the Shawnee, who are thought to be related to the Seneca and Delaware.  These accounts state that the graves were lined with wood or bark which also covered the body.  Before burial, gifts were brought to the dead person's kinsmen and redistributed.  After burial, a small house was constructed over the grave, and a large feast was served to the funeral guests.  After the third day, an all-night vigil was held.  A meal was prepared for the deceased and served to the dead and his blood kin prior to and during the vigil (Voegelin 1944:240–245).

	Food and fire were placed on the grave for three nights during the journey to the other world.  On the fourth morning, food for a feast was again set near the grave.  At this time, the funeral leader spoke to the dead while burning tobacco in a small fire made near the grave.  The Shawnee believed that the smoke created by the tobacco being thrown in the fire would take the leader's words upward to the dwelling place of the spirit of the dead (Voegelin 1944:261–268).

	Another interesting feature of Shawnee burial ritual is that all the dirt excavated from the burial pit had to be placed back on top of the grave.  If this was not done, the Shawnee believed that another death would occur shortly in the same family (Voegelin 1944:390).  Feasts were held and gifts were redistributed one year after an individual died.  Accounts prior to 1687 indicate that these feasts were given annually for a period of four years (Voegelin 1944:297).

	The most detailed description of Susquehannock culture comes from the 1666 writings of George Alsop, who published the following account of their mortuary practices:

When any among them depart this life, they give him no other intombment, then to set him upright upon his breech in a hole dug five feet long and three feet deep, covered with the Bark of Trees Arch-wise, with his face Du-West, only leaving a hole half a foot square open.  They dress him in the same Equipage and Gallantry that he to be trim'd in when he was alive, and so bury him (if a Soldier) with his Bows, Arrows, and Target, together with all the rest of his implements and weapons of War, with a Kettle of Broth, and Corn standing before him, lest he should met with bad quarters in his way. . . .  They bury all within the wall of Palisade'd impalement of their City or Cannadogo as they call it.  (Alsop, quoted in Kent 1984:41)

	Kent (1984:41) finds that Alsop's description of the Susquehannock form of burial fits fairly well with the archaeological evidence.  According to Kent, individuals originally placed in burial pits in a sitting position later would have fallen over from pressure of collapsing dirt, thus creating the flexed posture normally found in Susquehannock burials.  Alsop's description of grave goods also matches the archaeological record.

	Every detail of the ethnohistoric descriptions should not be accepted uncritically, but there are regularities and trends that suggest that the more general aspects of the descriptions are accurate.  For example, the burials were always wrapped to avoid contact with the earth.  In addition, they were usually covered and placed in a dirt-free chamber.  Some had other coverings, in the form of small house-like structures, placed on the top of the grave.  In some cases, the burials were protected by palisades.  All the ethnohistoric accounts indicate that burials were grouped in cemeteries spatially distinct from the habitation areas.  Feasts were prepared as part of the mortuary ritual, and in some instances, these feasts were renewed for several years on the anniversary of the death.  Usually, although these feasts were prepared by the deceased's relatives, they were participated in by the village as a whole.  Food was also prepared for the dead and placed on or near the grave.  A redistribution of material goods, usually items of European manufacture, almost always accompanied the redistribution of food.  In most cases, special attention was given leaders, with "grandees" and "kings" receiving greatest accord.

	It is also important to note that food and personal property were placed with the burials.  Among the Susquehannocks, these items included implements and weapons that the individual had owned during life.  Algonquians buried with the dead all that he owned, and the Delaware placed food, weapons, and tools with the dead.  A common theme seems to be that an individual was given what his kinsmen determined that he would need in the afterlife, and these needs were perceived as being similar to those the individual had while alive.

Page: Burial Practices: Archaeological Background, Page Number: 230  
Archaeological Background

	Having presented ethnohistoric descriptions of the mortuary rituals of the Siouans and other groups along the Eastern Seaboard, it is now appropriate to turn to the archaeological record to isolate correlates of the ethnohistoric accounts.  First, archaeological sites that are known to have been occupied by Siouan groups during the Late Prehistoric and early Historic periods will be discussed.  Then archaeological data from groups known to have interacted with the Siouans during the Historic period will be presented.  These latter data are presented because it is believed that there are closer similarities between the Occaneechi burials at the Fredricks site and those of groups such as the Susquehannock and Delaware than there are between the prehistoric and historic Siouan mortuary patterns.

	The Wall site, located immediately east of the Fredricks site, dates to the Protohistoric period.  Although roughly 16,000 ft2 have been excavated, only eight burials have been identified. All the burials were inside or in the vicinity of houses.  The individuals were flexed, and all but one were placed in ovoid shaft-and-chamber pits with their heads usually positioned to the southeast.  Grave goods consisted entirely of aboriginal artifacts.  Decorative items such as shell beads and gorgets were found along with aboriginal pots and smoking pipes.  The latter were associated with adults, whereas the former were found with children (Dickens et al. 1987).

	At the Clarksville site, located near Occaneechi Island and dating to the Late Prehistoric period, burials were randomly dispersed across the excavation area.  Although these burials probably also were in the vicinity of houses, no such structures were identified by the excavators (Miller 1962).  The overall inventory of grave goods at the Clarksville site was very similar to that from the Wall site.

	During the summer of 1983, excavations at the Mitchum site on Haw River, an historic village site, uncovered an oval house structure and a single shaft-and-chamber burial lying within the floor area of the house.  Grave goods were represented by a necklace of small glass trade beads and two copper ear ornaments (Dickens et al. 1987).

	At the Madison site, located in Rockingham County, North Carolina, 120 burials were removed from an area of approximately 14,000 ft2.  Unfortunately, most of these burials were taken out by pot-hunters.  However, some records of the excavations were kept.  This site probably dates to c. 1660–1680 and was occupied at about the same time as Upper Saratown, discussed below.  Twelve of the burials were arranged in a semi-circle around a cluster of refuse pits, and the remaining burials radiated out from the primary group in a more or less random fashion.  The burials were flexed and all but one was oriented in an eastward direction.  European trade goods, found in 70% of the graves, consisted mostly of glass beads and brass ornaments (Gravely 1969:11).  In general, this pattern is very similar to that described below at Upper Saratown.  Postholes and house patterns among the burials probably were present but were not observed by the excavators.

	At Upper Saratown, occupied during the latter half of the seventeenth century, an area similar in size to that of the Wall and Madison sites has been excavated and 111 burials identified.  All these interments were found either inside or in the vicinity of house structures.  Navey (1982:152) notes that, "It can be stated with certainty only that the preferred burial locations were within the village and in the proximity of houses."  Only 12% of the burials were in shaft-and-chamber pits.  The most popular pit type was ovoid to rectangular in shape and usually had shelves for a burial covering near the top of the pit.  The bodies were flexed and the heads generally oriented in an easterly direction (Navey 1982:158–168).  The most common grave goods were glass beads and brass ornaments, followed by aboriginal shell ornaments (Navey 1982:170).

	At the Wall, Madison, and Upper Saratown sites, areas almost equal in size have been excavated.  A like number of burials were found at the latter two sites, 120 at Madison Cemetery and 111 at Upper Saratown, whereas only eight were found at the Wall site.  A comparison of the Wall site and Upper Saratown shows that a similar number of houses was constructed at both sites, although there is more evidence for rebuilding and overlapping houses at Upper Saratown.  That Upper Saratown was occupied somewhat longer is also suggested by a denser concentration of artifacts, but there is no reason to suspect that it was a viable community for more than 50 years.  In all likelihood, the Wall site was occupied for about 20 years, given the multiple palisade alignments and a rich midden deposit around the periphery of the village.  The difference in numbers of burials between the two sites, therefore, is much too large to be dismissed as the result of sampling error or different durations of occupation.  It is rather a clear indication of the devastating impact of European diseases on the aboriginal populations, and that this is one area where the accounts of the early traders and explorers were not exaggerated (e.g., Lefler 1967:232).
	In summary, there seems to be a definite pattern in the dimensions of Siouan mortuary behavior during the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods.  During the Late Prehistoric period there was a preference for ovoid shaft-and-chamber burial pits.  Although this type of pit was continued into the early Historic period, its popularity diminished.  Grave goods consisted of aboriginal utilitarian and decorative artifacts with shell ornaments being most popular.  During the middle seventeenth century, the most popular type of grave was ovoid to rectangular in shape and usually had shelves to support a covering.  Aboriginal decorative artifacts were replaced by glass beads and brass or copper ornaments.  Aboriginal utilitarian artifacts, however, were still popular (Wilson 1984).

	During the Late Prehistoric and early Historic periods, bodies were flexed and the heads usually pointed in an easterly direction.  During both periods, most burials were randomly distributed in the villages, although some may have been associated with houses.  With the possible exception of the Madison site, graves were not spatially segregated into clusters or aligned with one another.

	An early archaeological account that describes a cemetery complex is the Munsee Cemetery report (Heye and Pepper 1915).  The Munsee site, located in southern New Jersey, consists of a circular palisaded village and cemetery occupied by members of the Delaware tribe during the middle seventeenth century.  Although the cemetery was excavated during the summer of 1914 and thus there are some problems in interpreting the remains because of the relatively poor archaeological field methods at that time, it is clear that the cemetery contained burials that were aligned with one another along a northwest-southeast axis.  Several of the pits also contained upper zones of refuse, and in some instances deer bones and charcoal were intermingled with the human skeletal material.  Heye and Pepper (1915:22) interpreted the animal remains as representing refuse from a feast.  The clearest evidence of feasting activity was found in a child's burial.

In association with this burial there were evidences of a feast, for over the body there was a broad discolored area in which were much charcoal and many cracked animal bones, mostly those of deer.  Other burials showed evidences of accompanying feast-pits, but none was so strongly marked as this.  (Heye and Pepper 1915:28)

	Pewter pipes and artifact bundles were also reported associated with the burials.  "Resting against the left shoulder was a deposit of objects consisting of two flints and fragments of a steel, two circular mirrors with metal backs, a clay pipe of European manufacture, and a pewter pipe" (Heye and Pepper 1915:53).  Several other pewter pipes were also found, and these were determined to have been imports from Iroquois groups to the west and north (Heye and Pepper 1915:53).  In addition to the pipes, brass kettles and bracelets, metal spoons, glass and shell beads, and fragments of European fabric were found in the graves.  In summary, the inventory of grave offerings at the Munsee site, though larger than that of the Fredricks site, is quite similar in overall content.

	Several Susquehannock sites exhibit marked similarities, through time, to the Siouan sites.  The Ibaugh site, located near Washington Boro in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, is a Susquehannock cemetery and village that dates between 1600 and 1625, a time when the Susquehannock were first becoming intensively involved in the fur trade.  The population of the Ibaugh site is estimated to have been around 1,000 (Whitthoft et al. 1959:119).  Here, the grave depths averaged 31 inches and appeared to have been dug with hoes.  The pits were oval in outline with flat bottoms and sloping sides.  In most cases, the pits were larger than necessary to accommodate the burial (Whitthoft et al. 1959:105).

	At the Ibaugh site, all the bodies except infants were flexed.  Most were loosely flexed; only two were tightly flexed. The dominant orientation of the burials was west or southwest, with the heads oriented westward.  In a single incident of secondary burial, two bundled individuals had been placed in the same pit with a flexed skeleton.  Whitthoft et al. (1959:109) states that

it seems quite obvious that the secondary nature of this interment was not the result of any traditional burial practice, but that it represents the remains of two persons who had died away from home, perhaps in warfare or in a hunting accident.  The bones had been found in the woods at a somewhat later date and had then been carried home and placed in the first available grave, an open one which had just received a fresh corpse.

	Most of the burials contained both aboriginal artifacts and Euroamerican trade goods.  Large quantities of glass beads were found in clusters as if sewn on clothing.  Small white and blue glass "seed" beads were most common, with only a few tubular shell "wampum" beads being present.  The graves of children and infants contained more beads than those of adults.  Iron artifacts included knives, axes, hoes, scissors, and a few nails.  Also recovered were pipes, kettles, bracelets, and tubular beads made from glass.  Artifacts sewn on clothing were discoidal shell beads, conch columella beads, shale beads, perforated elk and bear tusks, brass cones and bells, and a sheet brass breast ornament.  Most of the burials also contained aboriginal ceramic vessels that contained the remains of food offerings (Whitthoft et al. 1959:110–115).

	The Strickler site, also located near Washington Boro, is a large palisaded Susquehannock village with at least three associated cemeteries.  It is estimated that the village was occupied between 1650 and 1675 (Futer 1959:147) or between 1645 and 1665 (Kent 1984:367).  It may have contained as many as 3,000 inhabitants (Kent 1984:363).  Burials at the Strickler site averaged 25 inches deep below the subsoil surface.  As with those at the Ibaugh site, the pits were bathtub shaped and had an average horizontal measurement of 65 inches by 30 inches.  Most skeletons were flexed either on their right or left sides; 23% were extended (Kent 1984:365).  A majority of the bodies were oriented northwest-southeast, with the heads to the northwest (Futer 1959:136).

	Most of the Strickler burials were accompanied by brass kettles, gun parts, metal or kaolin pipes, and glass beads, in addition to aboriginal clay pots and pipes.  Four pewter pipes were recovered, and fragments of trade cloth and blankets were found preserved by contact with the metal artifacts.  The inventory also included several flintlock and dog-lock muskets, axes, hoes, knives, swords, a single pistol, and over 200 musket balls.  Other artifacts included hawkbells, Jews harps, and buckles (Futer 1959:137–140).  In short, "Grave offerings at Strickler consist of virtually every kind of material item made by, or which came into the hands of, the Susquehannocks" (Kent 1984:366).

	The final site to be occupied by the Susquehannock was Conestoga Town, located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  This village, established after the 1675 defeat of the Susquehannocks by the Iroquois, is believed to have been occupied between 1690 and 1730 (Kent 1984:386).  Excavations in 1972 revealed striking differences between this site and earlier Susquehannock villages.  Instead of long houses, the houses were more cabin-like, and the space between houses was greatly increased over earlier villages. The small settlement, confined to an area less than 90,000 ft2, is estimated to have been occupied by only 100 to 200 individuals (Kent 1984:282–283).

	Conestoga Town contained five distinct clusters of burials, which seem to have been spatially related to different groups of houses.  It is known that different ethnic groups occupied the site at the same time (Susquehannocks, Seneca, and possibly others), and these distinctions may be reflected in the burial clusters.  Most of the burials were extended (supine position) instead of being flexed, and each grave pit was dug just large enough for the body.  A few apparently were coffin burials.  Most of the skeletons had their heads oriented to the west-northwest; however, a few graves were oriented toward the southwest, southeast, east, and northeast, with greater variability than at earlier Susquehannock cemeteries (Kent 1984:387).

	All the burials at Conestoga Town that had not been looted contained some form of grave goods, ranging from a few beads or a knife to thousands of glass beads accompanied by a variety of other trade artifacts.  "Generally it was the adolescents who had the largest quantities of objects interred with them" (Kent 1984:387).  The most common grave associations were beads, iron knives, and brass kettles, the latter often serving as repositories for artifact caches.  Wooden spoons and fragments of split-cane baskets were sometimes found with the kettles.  The overwhelming majority of burial artifacts were of European origin, and the list includes almost every imaginable item from beads and buttons to guns and bullets (Kent 1984:389).

The various kinds of objects and their quantities found buried with the dead at Conestoga Town are indicative of the retention of certain old native beliefs, together with a cumbersome admixture of ideas borrowed from Christianity.  In our opinion the kinds of quantities of objects do not reflect anything about individual status or economic conditions of the community.  (Kent 1984:390)

	The earliest historic Siouan villages, such as Upper Saratown, do not compare with Susquehannock towns such as Ibaugh.  The latter are at least 10 times as large and have spatially distinct cemetery areas, whereas the former are relatively small and have burials distributed throughout the village.  However, in both cases the vast majority of the bodies are loosely flexed and oriented in specific directions; the Siouans usually to the east, and the Susquehannocks usually to the west.  There are also similarities in the kinds of European artifacts used as burial furniture.  Although non-utilitarian goods such as beads are predominant at Upper Saratown and the Ibaugh site, axes, hoes, and other utilitarian objects are also found with the burials at both sites.  The Ibaugh site, however, appears to have produced a greater variety of iron and brass artifacts than Upper Saratown.
	There are no known parallels in the Siouan area to the Strickler site.  Most of the Siouans never coalesced into a single village or group of villages that match the Strickler site in size and complexity.  It was, however, during the span of occupation of the Strickler site that most of the cultural interaction took place between the Susquehannocks and the Siouans.  And the original home of the Occaneechis on Occaneechi Island may have been in the process of becoming like Strickler when it was raided by Bacon in 1676.  Three "forts" were occupied on the island when Bacon attacked.  Immediately before Bacon's attack, the Occaneechi King, Posseclay, started

massing his Indians and also the Hayhelocks, and Manakins and Annalectons, man all his forts and lined the other side of the river thick with men so that wee could neither well attack nor depart the Island.  (Billings 1975:268)

	As the militia tried to stop the Indians from entering the fort, King Posseclay attempted to appease Bacon by blaming the Manakins and Annalectons who were "too numerous for him [the king] to control" (Billings 1975:268).

	From this account, it would seem that the Occaneechis and their allies who occupied Occaneechi Island in 1676 were somewhat more numerous than the archaeological and ethnohistoric records indicate for other Siouan villages and in some ways more comparable to the Strickler site.  Unfortunately, Occaneechi Island is now inundated, and archaeological research on the island prior to its flooding failed to locate the village and forts of the Occaneechis (Miller 1962).

	There are numerous similarities and a few differences between the Fredricks site as it is currently known and Conestoga Town.  As for the differences, most of the burials at Conestoga Town were extended and a few were in coffins, perhaps reflecting Christian influence.  Also, burial orientation was variable.  In contrast, the burials at the Fredricks site were all flexed and oriented in the same direction.  The two sites are similar in the presence of a wide range of Euroamerican trade artifacts used as grave offerings and in the clustering of burials into small cemeteries.  The two sites are also similar in the fact that subadults received a great deal of attention at the time of burial.  In terms of overall village size, the two sites seem to be very similar, and both villages included a mix of once distinct tribal groupings.  It is believed that the mixed ethnic composition at both sites is the reason for the relatively small and distinct burial clusters.

Page: Burial Practices: The Susquehannock Connection, Page Number: 231  
The Susquehannock Connection

	Native peoples located north of the Occaneechi and their Siouan neighbors had a significant impact on the development of Siouan cultures during the Historic period.  Ethnohistoric data indicate that the Susquehannocks were particularly influential in the southern Piedmont, and that they may have been responsible for setting up the Occaneechis as "middlemen" in the Carolina-Virginia deerskin trade.

	From the beginning, trade with Europeans along the Atlantic Seaboard was controlled and managed by a relatively small number of Indian tribes.  No doubt, in many cases these strategic positions had been at least partly established prior to European contact, and the large-scale trade with the colonists simply enhanced and entrenched existing trade networks (Merrell 1982:72).

	In the northeast, European trade was controlled by the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy: the Mohawks, Onondagas, Cayugas, Oneida, and Seneca, the latter being the westernmost and the largest of these groups.  The Seneca also appear to have been the most hostile in their relations with other tribes, particularly those to the south (Abler and Tooker 1978:505).  Initially, Seneca raids were aimed primarily at the Susquehannocks who were located in a strategic position in the lower Susquehanna valley.  Many of these raids were prompted by Susquehannock attacks on the Seneca's shipments of furs to their eastern markets (Hunter 1959:15).  After the defeat of the Susquehannocks in 1675, the Seneca continued raiding the southern frontier and into Siouan territory.  In 1684, William Byrd I mentioned that he had spoken with 50 Seneca Indians who "promised to behave themselves hereafter very peaceable towards the English" (Trinling 1977:16).  In 1701, John Lawson was warned by the Virginia trader Massey "to strike down the Country for Ronoack, and not think of Virginia, because the Sinnagers, of whom they were afraid, though so well armed and numerous" (Lefler 1967:61).

	The Susquehannocks occupied a strategic position in the trade network and acted as intermediaries as early as 1608, when John Smith reported that the Tockwogh living at the head of Chesapeake Bay had knives, hatchets, and pieces of iron and brass they had received from the Susquehannocks (Kent 1984:26).  The Susquehannocks' geographic location and their role as entrepreneurs placed them in a continual state of hostility with the Seneca.  For a time they were allied with the Maryland colony against the Seneca.  However, in 1674 Maryland made peace with the Seneca and declared war against the Susquehannocks, who were defeated by the Seneca the following year.  Weakened, the Susquehannocks were subsequently pursued by the Maryland and Virginia militia and sought refuge with the Occaneechis who were, at that time, living on Occaneechi Island in the Roanoke River.

	In contrast to the hostile relations the Susquehannocks had with the Seneca, they appeared to have lived in harmony with the neighboring Delaware Indians, as well as with groups to the south, especially the Occaneechis (Hunter 1959:15).  Because of this relationship, the Susquehannocks appear to have established themselves as middlemen in the fur trade with the Siouans prior to 1670.  And in establishing this position, they also made the Occaneechis, located astride the major north-south trading path, their primary trade agents.  Up to this period, few white traders had yet ventured into the southern Piedmont.  John Lederer, on his second exploration in 1670, hired a Susquehannock guide, Jackzetavon, to lead him through Siouan territory.  This guide may have been familiar with the Carolina Piedmont from participating in earlier Susquehannock trading expeditions, an interpretation that is supported by Lederer on his approach to a Siouan town.

You must by your scouts inform your self whether they hold any correspondence with the Sasquesahanaughs: for to such you must fire notice of your approach by a gun; which amongst other Indians is to be avoided, because being ignorant of their use, it would affright and dispose them to some treacherous practice against you.  (Cumming 1958:41)

	Lederer's comments suggest that not only did the Susquehannocks trade with the Siouans, but they traded in firearms and probably other Euroamerican utilitarian goods in addition to beads and trinkets.

	Shortly after 1670, the Occaneechis had established their own reputation as trade middlemen.  In 1673, Abraham Wood observed that the Occaneechis' store of arms and powder made them "the Mart for all the Indians for att least 500 miles" (Wood, quoted in Merrell 1982:91).  During this same period the Occaneechis had established ties with several other tribes, and their village was said to be:

Strongly fortified by nature and that makes them so insolent for they are but a handfull of people besides what Vagabonds repaire to them it being a receptakle for rogues.  (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:225)

	The Susquehannock-Occaneechi connection is clearly illustrated by the fact that after being defeated by the Iroquois in 1675, and being chased by the Virginia and Maryland militia, a band of Susquehannocks sought refuge among the Occaneechis.  That same year, "Manakins" and "Annalectins" had also retreated to Occaneechi Island.  Nathanial Bacon conspired with these two groups to betray the Susquehannocks, which they did along with capturing 30 individuals who were turned over to Bacon's forces and put to death (Billings 1975:267).  It is important to note that the Occaneechis were not involved in the Susquehannocks' betrayal but rather continued to play their role as middlemen by trying to stall Bacon.  Their strategy did not work, and the Occaneechis were attacked by Bacon and so devastated that they were forced to abandon the island and retreat southward to the vicinity of present-day Hillsborough, North Carolina (Billings 1975:267–268).

	It is hypothesized that ties of trade brought with them bonds of social responsibility, and it is likely that a strong trade relationship was sanctioned by an equally strong network of social ties.  This relationship of mutual obligations is evident in the above accounts and in an earlier 1663 report of the Virginia General Assembly which states that some of the "ill-omened and murderous Doeg (Susquehannock) Indians" had taken up sanctuary with the Occaneechis (Rights and Cumming 1958:119).  Social bonds between the Siouans and Susquehannocks are also evidenced by the fact that neither Lederer nor his Susquehannock guide were threatened by any of the Siouans they visited.  This is in sharp contrast to the reception given by the Occaneechis to five Cherokees who were visiting among them at the same time as Lederer.  The Cherokees wanted to establish trade relations directly with the Virginia colonists, and this so angered the Occaneechis that they murdered their visitors (Cumming 1958:261).  A similar fate met James Needham in 1674, when he also attempted to establish trade relations independent of the Occaneechis (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:217).

	Thus, the ethnohistoric and archaeological records argue for a strong connection between the development of Piedmont Siouan tribes and tribes of the Susquehanna valley.  The northern groups first felt the invasion of the Europeans, and early in the seventeenth century, they established extensive trade networks with them and other Indian groups.  By the middle of the seventeenth century, trade competition from the Iroquois Confederacy to the north forced the Susquehannocks to look to the southern Piedmont for potential trading partners.  It is believed that they found in the Occanneechis, both geographically and culturally, an ally that would allow them to monopolize the Siouan trade.  The Occaneechis were in a sense "set up" by the Susquehannocks as middlemen with whom they could deal directly.  And, as Susquehannock influence was on the wane after 1670, the Occaneechis were just coming into their own as a major trading influence when attacked by Nathaniel Bacon.  This no doubt affected their unchallenged prominence in the Siouan fur trade.  However, even after moving to Hillsborough in the late seventeenth century, they apparently were still prosperous.

	During the early 1700s, European diseases and slavery greatly reduced the tribes of the middle Atlantic region.  Remnants of various groups coalesced to maintain social solidarity and to try to overcome the effects of depopulation.  By 1700, similar cultural patterns had developed in both the Susquehanna valley and in the hills of the Eno, and as a consequence, Conestoga Town and Occaneechi Town shared many characteristics that are still visible in the archaeological record.

Page: Burial Practices: Mortuary Patterns, Page Number: 232  
Mortuary Patterns

	The Fredricks site burials are described individually under Archaeological Contexts (see Main Menu).  To go directly to a burial context, click on one of the following: Burial 1, Burial 2, Burial 3, Burial 4, Burial 5, Burial 6, Burial 7, Burial 8, Burial 9, Burial 10, Burial 11, Burial 12, Burial 13, Burial 14, and Burial 27.  Below is a discussion of mortuary patterns as reflected by the first nine burials (Burials 1–9) excavated within the village cemetery.

	Although there were differences in the content and complexity of fill in these burial pits, some attributes were shared.  In all but one case, there was an upper zone of brown loamy soil that contained relatively large amounts of animal bone, charred plant remains, pottery, and other refuse.  This zone sometimes extended across the entire top surface of the pit, and in most instances, it contained considerable grit and/or pebbles.  In some cases, this layer was underlain by or graded into a dark grey ashy layer, which was not as rich in refuse as the upper zone.  Nonetheless, there were enough differences in the fill zones of the graves to separate the pits into four groups.

Burial Group 1

	The first group is represented by Burials 1, 2, and 3 (see fill profile).  These pits were tightly grouped in the southeast end of the cemetery.  Compared with the other burial pits, these three were rectangular and their edges were more sharply delineated.  They also contained a rich dark brown loam that was usually homogeneous across the pit surface, extended to the pit edges, and had an average depth of one foot below the subsoil surface.  This homogenous zone lay atop a grey ashy layer that in turn capped the typical mottled yellow burial fill.

Burial Group 2

	Burials 4 and 5 comprise the second group (see fill profile).  They are characterized by an upper fill zone that is slightly lighter brown in color and not as rich in refuse as the dark loamy fill of the first group.  Nor was this zone homogeneous across the pit tops, as yellowish-orange clay formed a band around the pit edges. The pit outlines also were not as sharply delineated, and they were not as rectangular.  The profiles of these burials show a semi-circular zone of loamy fill sloping toward the center of the pits that does not extend to the pit edges.  It is instead surrounded by a mottled yellow clay collar which follows the perimeter of the pits.

Burial Group 3

	The pit outlines of Group 3 burials (Burials 6, 8, and 9) were sharper than those in Group 2, but not as sharp as the first group of pits.  The subsoil surface displayed a restricted zone of brown loam with orange clay present in the middle of the pits and around the edges.  In profile, the brown humus formed a shallow depression that was surrounded by abundant orange clay (see fill profile).  These soils sometimes overlay a fairly thick zone of brown humus that was lensed with orange clay.  The latter rested on mottled orange clay burial fill.

Burial Group 4

	The final category of burial fill was represented by a single burial, Burial 7.  An oval stain of light brown soil mottled with yellow clay was approximately 0.6 ft thick across the top of the pit and overlay a zone of mottled orange and brown clay (see fill profile).  The pit edges of Burial 7 were not distinct from the subsoil and the fill was not as rich in cultural materials as the other burials.

Comparisons

	The different categories of burial fill may reflect somewhat different behavioral activities in the final act of covering the bodies with soil.  The first group of burials, those with the most distinctive fill profiles, suggest the following sequence of events.  At death, the individuals were wrapped, placed in the pits, and covered initially by fill dug from the graves.  (That the bodies were wrapped is suggested by the presence of a concentration of dark humic soil immediately over and around the skeletons.)  There is no evidence that a vault as described by Lawson was ever constructed.  The grey ashy soil overlying the initial burial fill indicates that ashes were cleaned from hearths and deposited in the pits.  In situ fire is ruled out since there is no evidence of burning on the surface of the fill.  After the ashes were thrown into the graves, domestic refuse was deposited on top to complete the filling of the pits.  This final layer seems to represent the remains of feasts prepared and served at the time of death.  As noted earlier, many ethnohistoric accounts of eastern North American Indians describe feasts as part of burial ritual.  And, in the case of the Delaware and Shawnee, there are accounts of food and sometimes fire actually being placed on new graves.

	It is surprising that there is no evidence of vaults or house-like structures constructed over the burials.  There was, however, a small side chamber in Burials 2 and 3.  Apparently, the small chambers at the Fredricks site were used to hold perishable grave goods such as furs or cloth, which were mentioned as grave offerings several times in the ethnohistoric literature.  Such materials are indicated by the fact that all of the chambers contained a mottled humic soil, similar to that surrounding the bodies, of the type that would be formed by the decay of a large amount of organic matter.

	A set of behaviors different from Burial Group 1 is indicated by the fill in the pits of Groups 2 and 3.  The primary differences lie in the fact that the top brown loam or humus layers contained fewer remains and were not homogeneous across the pits.  In all cases, this zone(s) sloped inward toward the center of the pits and was partially or totally surrounded by mottled orange clay.  In at least one instance (Burial 6), a zone of brown loam with lenses of orange clay overlay the typical mottled clay burial fill.  The activities responsible for the filling of these pits are not as clear as those for the first group.  More time seems to have elapsed during the filling process, as indicated by the lensing of the fill and the slumped, rather than sharp, profiles of the brown loam.  A longer filling period is also indicated by the less distinct outlines of the pit walls.  It almost seems as if the pits were originally only partly filled with soil added as previous layers settled.  However, the last layer (brown loam) did contain refuse, although not as much as the first three burials.  Perhaps the cleaning and feasting activities were delayed for a period of time after the pits were initially filled.  It could be further suggested that the feasting rituals involved fewer individuals and were not as intense as those proposed for the first burial group. Three of the graves from Groups 2 and 3 did contain either ledges (Burial 4) or small side chambers (Burials 6 and 9) where organic materials had been placed.

	Burial 7 contrasts markedly with the others in the simplicity of its fill.  The pit was dug with a relatively deep side chamber which probably also contained organic remains such as cloth or furs.  After the infant was placed in the pit, it was apparently quickly refilled, and there was little or no attendant ritual.

	An examination of the associated grave goods reveals differences that parallel the spatial and fill clusters described above, and that indicate age and sex parameters.  Using Brain's (1979) "acculturation index," the European artifacts were each assigned a value between 1 and 4, and the values were then totaled for each burial (Table 47).  If it is assumed that the numbers and kinds of trade artifacts associated with a burial are to some extent a reflection of access to such items and indirectly of status, then Brain's index should provide a means of numerically expressing the social dimensions of burial ceremonialism.  Additionally, all burial-associated artifacts, European and aboriginal, were compared as to whether they were utilitarian or ornamental (Table 48).  The glass and shell beads, which, when present, were in great quantities, were compared only on a presence or absence basis.  Lead shot, buttons, and nails were treated in like fashion.  Thus, it was assumed that 10 beads or nails were not 10 times more important than one such item.  For the beads, in particular, a large group may reflect nothing more than a single decoration on an article of clothing.

	Using Brain's index, Group 1 has the highest average at 25.3, followed by Group 3 at 10.7 and Group 2 at 4.5.  Group 1 also displays the highest standard deviation because of the extremely high innovative value for Burial 3, which is more than triple that of any other burial (Table 47).  Although the overall burial sample is small, there appear to be clusters of artifact associations that parallel the groupings based on fill characteristics.  Even if Burial 3 was removed from Group 1, the remaining burials of that group still have the highest scores on the acculturation index.  The uniqueness of Group 1 is further enhanced if the large numbers of shell and glass beads are considered by total numbers rather than only by presence or absence.  The burials in the other groups contained very few beads.  Originally, it was thought that large numbers of beads were a characteristic of subadult burials because the beads were sewn on burial garments special to children.  This still may be the case for the subadults in Group 1 (i.e., Burials 1 and 2), but Burial 8 (Group 3), also a subadult, had no associated beads, glass or shell.  And in terms of fill attributes, Burial 8 was more like adult Burials 6 and 9.

	There also appears to be a dichotomy of burial associations based on age.  Most of the artifacts associated solely with subadults fall into the ornamental category, whereas the majority of the artifacts associated only with adults are utilitarian (see Table 48).  Those utilitarian artifacts associated with subadults are not tools and are associated with activities that are not technomic in nature.  Spoons, kettles, and baskets (associated with children) are used for eating and for containers, which is in sharp contrast to the gun, gun parts, hoes, and axes (associated with adults), which are used in heavy labor and subsistence-related activities. The items shared by adults and subadults, such as knives, scissors, and beads, represent activities and items that probably would be shared by both age groups.

	In summary, pitfill characteristics and associated artifacts suggest that at least two levels of treatment were accorded the Fredricks site burials.  The first three burials are very distinctive.  The upper zone of refuse-laden soil indicates a more intense burial ritual probably having to do with ritual feasting.  Apparently similar, but less intense, ceremonies were conducted for the other burials, except Burial 7.

	In general, children received the most attention.  Burials 1, 2, and 8 all contained large numbers of European artifacts, and Burials 1 and 2 also contained shell gorgets and numerous shell beads.  Although most of the beads were probably sewn on garments, the gorgets and some of the larger beads represent deposition of individual items having sociotechnic or ideotechnic meanings.  Other historic cemetery sites have also shown a pattern of large numbers of beads and shell artifacts being associated with children (e.g., Whitthoft et al. 1959:115).

	Although children received much attention, neonates received almost none.  Burial 7 contained only a few brass bells, and the infant associated with Burial 4 was accompanied probably by only a pewter porringer.  Feature 1 probably also contained the remains of a small infant that was not accompanied by any nonperishable grave goods.  The chamber of this burial, however, did contain a darker soil indicating that perishable artifacts such as blankets or furs may have been included.

	Where children received elaborate treatment, Burial 3, a young adult male, contained the largest collection of burial furniture and richest upper fill of any burial in the cemetery.  Burial 3, therefore, may represent the highest-ranking individual in the cemetery.  Burial 6, also a young adult male, appears to have occupied a social position akin to that of Burial 3.  Both contained large numbers of primarily utilitarian artifacts, probably personal property.  Burial 3 contained a smoking kit, scissors, knives, gun parts, as well as a rum bottle and an iron axe head.  Burial 6 contained an almost comparable array of smoking artifacts along with a musket and a large iron hoe.

	In contrast with Burials 3 and 6, Burial 4, an adult male of similar age, contained very few grave associations, only a group of tubular shell beads and a rum bottle.  This burial was unique in the fact that it was bundled, which suggests that the individual died away from the village.  Cut marks on the skull also indicate that he died a violent death.

	All of the burials within the cemetery seem either to have been made over a short interval of time or to have been precisely located by above-ground markers, or both.  Only one burial pit, Burial 2, was intruded by posts which suggest they may have served as markers; however, smaller postholes were found near most of the pits.  Interment over a short interval is indicated by the precise orientation of the skeletons along a northwest-southeast axis and the fact that the heads all point in the same southeastward direction.  If a solar reference point was used to align the bodies, they must have been interred over a very brief period of time (cf. Gruber 1971).

Page: Burial Practices: Socio-Political Implications, Page Number: 233  
Socio-Political Implications

	During the prehistoric and early historic times, mortuary beliefs and practices seem to have been shared by an entire village, which was composed of closely related unilineal-descent groups.  This pattern is reflected in the scattered placement of burials within villages, such as at the Wall site and Upper Saratown.  During this time, the village itself was, in effect, a "cemetery."  The lack of spatial segregation of burials at these villages suggests an egalitarian social structure and may also indicate that village membership was more important than clan or lineage affiliation (cf. Tainter 1978; Bartell 1982).  These earlier villages probably represent exogamous residential components of lineal tribes as defined by Service (1962:128–133).

	From the ethnohistoric records, it is obvious that by 1700 disease and warfare had decimated the Indian population of the Piedmont.  Villages had fragmented and remnants of groups once linguistically and politically distinct were forced to join together in an effort to cope with the constant pressures of colonial expansion and the perpetual hostilities from northern neighbors (cf. Dobyns 1983).  During this time, the Keyauwee, Shakori, Saponi, and Tutelo combined with the Occaneechi to resist Iroquois raids.  In fact, Lawson turned south of the Occaneechi trail because of the threat of an Iroquois attack in Virginia (Lefler 1967:61).

	This process of decimation, fragmentation, and recombination of village groups necessitated structural changes in all components of Siouan culture.  Large unilineal descent groups (lineages or clans) and sodalities probably lost much of their social significance.  The ceremonial and ritual behavior that sanctioned these groups also were lost or drastically modified.  In short, villages and tribes that had been unified and held together by a deep traditional network of kinship and shared ideology probably vanished as early as 1670.  In their places were villages comprised of groups consolidated for expedience rather than on the bases of kinship and a shared system of beliefs.  Within these villages, social segments were defined by ethnic and linguistic affiliation, not by unilineal kinship ties.  Kindred-like social groups (cf. Speck 1935) formed the primary units of production and consumption, and mortuary ritual and ceremonial beliefs were held in common within these groups.

	The cemetery at the Fredricks site may have resulted from the mortuary practices of one of these social units, in which individuals were differentiated by age and sex as well as personal achievement.  Children were held in high esteem, and it was possible for adults to achieve positions of high status.  By the late 1600s, individuals may have risen to positions of prominence by developing special relationships with white traders.

	Traditionally, tribes are led by "big men" who achieve a high status position by being successful warriors, magicians, and hunters.  In short, they are individuals who excel in tribal society (Sahlins 1968:22).  Since external political and economic dealings were left to the big men, those individuals who excelled in trade and other dealings with the colonists probably gained added respect, and through their generosity, a degree of social control that exceeded what they would have obtained within the traditional social structure.  Based on the Fredricks site data, these big men were young adult males who probably replaced the more elder leaders who had been most influential prior to European contact.

	Given the massive depopulation of the Piedmont over a short period of time, acculturation, in the traditional uses of that term (Beals 1962; Spicer 1961), did not take place.  Certainly the social and ideological changes postulated above should not be seen simply as a borrowing of colonial customs.  They were, instead, internal systemic adjustments made in an effort to adapt to and cope with a very destabilizing cultural environment.  Obviously, the Piedmont Indians were borrowing material culture from the colonists.  But as others have pointed out (e.g., Seehan 1980:135; Merrell 1987:4), the Indians were capable of absorbing great quantities of European trade goods without losing the integrity of their native culture.  On this point, it is interesting to note Service's comments on the evolution of composite tribes:

One salient consequence of civilization on a great many tribes has been depopulation through foreign disease, most usually carried by Europeans; another is disturbance of the resource base by such things as economic exploitation and alienation of native lands or outright removal; still another but frequently overemphasized in studies of changes in social organization, is acculturation—direct borrowing from the invaders.  (Service 1962:136, emphasis added)

	These comments could not be more applicable had they been directed specifically at the Piedmont Siouans.  They suggest that the arrangement of burials in a cemetery at the Fredricks site does not mean that, by the end of the seventeenth century, the Occaneechis were burying their dead like the colonists.  To the contrary, this shift in mortuary behavior may be interpreted as a consequence of internal changes in Siouan social organization, changes expected in a society evolving from a lineal to a composite tribe.  Perhaps if the bodies had been extended instead of flexed, or interred in coffins, an emulation of colonial mortuary practices might be postulated (cf. Axtell 1981:123–124).  Such was not the case, however.

	The rectangular shapes and straight walls of most of the burial pits at the Fredricks site do not represent mimicking of colonial burials; rather they were the result of the use of metal tools.  Sharp corners and straight sides are a more likely consequence of the use of iron hoes and spades than of wood or stone implements.  Though many of the grave goods from the Fredricks site burials are European in origin, almost all have aboriginal counterparts.  Their incorporation in the mortuary complex seems to reflect only replacement of aboriginal items and not changes in native ritual and ideology.

	In short, the mortuary evidence suggests that Siouan culture change should not be viewed as an increasing accommodation to European ways.  Rather, these changes are better interpreted as adaptive responses within societies that remained, in many respects, resistant to change and that attempted to maintain their traditional cultural systems in the face of devastating pressures.

Page: Burial Practices: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 234  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 47. Acculturation indices for Fredricks site burial groupings. 

Table 48. Distribution by age category of utilitarian (U) and ornamental (O) artifacts associated with the Fredricks site burials. 
 
Figures: General

Figure 8. Excavated sites in the Hillsborough archaeological district. 

Figure 9. Selected archaeological sites in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. 

Figure 491. Fill profiles of Burial Groups 1 and 2. 

Figure 492. Fill profiles of Burial Groups 3 and 4.

Page: Burial Practices: Source, Page Number: 235  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

Mortuary Patterns at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites, by H. Trawick Ward.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1987, pp. 141–165.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Introduction, Page Number: 236  
Introduction

	During the latter half of the sixteenth century and throughout the seventeenth century, irreversible changes occurred across the cultural landscape of the North Carolina Piedmont.  Many factors were responsible for these changes; however, the most devastating change was brought about by the most minuscule of agents, the microbes that bore diseases deadly to the natives.  When these diseases were introduced and the extent of their spread recently has become the subject of debate in the fields of demography, archaeology, physical anthropology, and ethnohistory.  (See video describing the effects of disease on the North Carolina Piedmont.)

	Some researchers (e.g., Ramenofsky 1987; Smith 1987) have generally supported the position taken by Henry Dobyns (1983).  In a nutshell, Dobyns believes that waves of pandemics swept through the interior Southeast with the arrival of the earliest Spanish explorers in the Caribbean, Mexico, and the Gulf coastal region.  These "virgin soil" epidemics struck with a deadly fury, causing drastic population declines in regions far removed from the initial areas of face-to-face contacts between foreigners and Indians (Dobyns 1983:13).

	Other researchers (e.g., Blakely and Detweiler-Blakely 1989; Henige 1989; Milner 1980:47; Snow and Lanphear 1989) have followed a more cautious path and pointed out that the impact and spread of Old World pathogens were probably dependent on a number of local and regional variables.  Community size, inter-village interaction, and the degree and intensity of trade and contact all affected the rapidity and scope of the spread of epidemic diseases such as smallpox, measles, and influenza.

	Both positions rely primarily on historical and ethnographic data.  Archaeological data, at least excavation data, have rarely been employed in demographic studies.  Archaeologists who have approached the problem of population collapse in the Southeast usually have done so by ordering sites chronologically within the context of regional surveys and reconstructing population changes based on shifting site frequencies.  In this paper, we reconstruct population dynamics by presenting data from extensive excavations in a relatively small region where a detailed chronology has been developed.

	Recent research in the northeastern North Carolina Piedmont has resulted in the development and refinement of the cultural chronology spanning the period between A.D. 1500 and 1700 (Dickens et al. 1987).  During this period, the Siouan tribes who occupied the region witnessed the sporadic and episodic adventures of the Spanish explorers as well as the prolonged and intensified commercial endeavors of the English traders.

	Excavations and surveys conducted in the Haw, Eno, and Dan river drainages (see map) over the last six years have produced not only a fine-grained chronology of settlement change (Davis and Ward 1991) but also detailed community plans of individual villages and extensive mortuary material.  When these data are coupled with information from the ethnohistoric and historic documents, a vivid picture of life on the Carolina Piedmont during the Contact period emerges.

	In order to focus on that portion of the picture which maps the impact of alien diseases on the Piedmont Siouans, archaeological data from the sixteenth century will be compared with similar data from the seventeenth century and with the ethnohistoric accounts of early travelers.  If Dobyns is correct, there should be evidence of massive depopulation during the sixteenth century because of epidemics introduced by the Spanish while exploring the coastal and interior Southeast.  If, on the other hand, the spread of Old World diseases was dependent on more direct and sustained interaction between natives and Europeans, then the seventeenth century and the arrival of the English should foreshadow the beginning of the depopulation process.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Siouan Settlement Patterns, Page Number: 237  
Siouan Settlement Patterns

	From the standpoint of the ethnohistoric record, the sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century Carolina Piedmont is virtually terra incognita.  De Soto and Pardo may have traveled through the western fringes of the region, but the relatively small tribes nestled along the easterly flowing streams held little interest for the treasure-seeking Spanish.  Consequently, it is necessary to rely almost entirely on the archaeological record to reconstruct populations and to investigate any changes that may have occurred as a result of the Spanish entradas and early English settlements.

	In the Haw and Eno river drainages, the Haw River and Hillsboro phases define the period between A.D. 1000 and 1600.  The Hillsboro phase, dating between A.D. 1400 and 1600, brackets the period when the first contacts should have been made between Indians and Europeans.  In the Dan River drainage, the period between A.D. 1000 and 1450 is defined by the Dan River phase, whereas the Early Saratown phase encompasses the Early Contact period between A.D. 1450 and 1620.

	Between A.D. 1540 and 1620, the Spanish troops of de Soto and Pardo not only marched along the western margin of the Piedmont, they also established settlements on the South Carolina coast.  Toward the end of this period, English settlers attempted to form a colony on Roanoke Island on the North Carolina coast and managed to carve a precarious toe-hold on the James River in Virginia.

	 If "virgin soil" epidemics resulted from these early contacts, evidence of depopulation and settlement instability should surface during the latter part of the Hillsboro and Early Saratown phases.  Numbers of settlements and perhaps settlement sizes should decrease in a dramatic manner from those dating to the latter part of the Haw River and Dan River phases.  Furthermore, villages should contain fewer and perhaps less permanent structures, and an increase in mortality rates should be reflected by an increase in numbers of burials and perhaps multiple or mass burials.

	Survey data pertaining to the pre-contact Haw River phase indicate a preponderance of small dispersed settlements characterized by low artifact outputs and few features.  Apparently households were loosely grouped along the flanks of secondary streams in a hamlet-like fashion.  The Mitchum site, located on the Haw River, is an exception to this pattern.  Here a more compact and long-term occupation is indicated by high artifact densities and midden accumulation (Davis and Ward 1991).

	The pre-contact Dan River phase in the upper Dan River drainage reveals a much different pattern of settlement.  Here larger, more compact villages are the norm.  During the latter part of the Dan River phase, most sites appear to be between one and two acres in size and probably contained at least 15–20 households within their palisades.  Pit features, including burials, are associated with the structures.  Fortifications and corresponding settlement nucleation may have resulted from an intensification of maize agriculture and competition for good crop land, as well as from outside threats from northern Iroquois groups (Davis and Ward 1991).

	The Hillsboro phase in the Haw and Eno drainages sees the continuation of the basic settlement and community patterns observed during the preceding Haw River phase.  Like the earlier Mitchum site, the Wall site located on the Eno River reflects a compact palisaded village of approximately 1.25 acres with several circular houses and an extensive midden (see excavation plan).  More dispersed settlements also occur along the tributary streams (Davis and Ward 1991).  Although Hillsboro phase sites are fewer in number, artifact and pit feature densities increase markedly over those of the earlier Haw River phase settlements.  This increased occupation intensity is particularly noticeable during the last half of the Hillsboro phase, the time when early European contact would have been taking place (Davis and Ward 1991).

	Settlement changes are also evident on the Dan River during the Early Saratown phase, dating between A.D. 1450 and 1620.  Villages were moved to near the confluences of the Dan and its major tributaries, and site sizes increased dramatically (Davis and Ward 1991).  As with the Haw River settlements, overall numbers of sites decrease, but this decrease is a consequence of amalgamation rather than depopulation.  Data from excavations shed further light on these changes during the Early Contact period.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Sixteenth-Century Community Patterns, Page Number: 238  
Sixteenth-Century Community Patterns

	Several sites within the Dan, Haw, and Eno river basins have been excavated extensively.  In addition, numerous sites have been subjected to limited excavations and extensive auger testing to locate intact features.  Auger testing has been particularly helpful in providing distribution and density information on subsurface features and burials at the more dispersed settlements.

	The most extensively excavated sixteenth-century site in the North Carolina Piedmont is the Wall site (Petherick 1987:30).  Excavations have uncovered 14,300 ft2 or approximately one-fourth of this palisaded village.  At least seven domestic and two special purpose structures have been identified along with eight burials and 73 other features (see excavation plan).  Most of the latter consist of large postholes or shallow basin-shaped pits.  Deep storage facilities are rare at the site.  The population at the Wall site is estimated to have been between 100 and 150 people, based on the size and number of structures (Davis and Ward 1991).  Multiple palisade alignments and the replacement rate of wall posts within structures (cf. Warrick 1988) further suggest that the site was occupied for between 10 and 20 years.

	The Wall site, like other Hillsboro phase sites, is characterized by a sparsity of burials.  Assuming that the burial population is randomly scattered across the site, which is the normal Siouan pattern, an additional 24 graves for a total of 32 would be expected.  If the other population parameters are even close to being correct, this translates into a low crude death rate.  For example, if the site was occupied for only 10 years by a small population of 100 individuals, the crude mortality rate would be 32 (per 1000).  If, however, it was occupied for 20 years by a population of 150 individuals, the crude mortality rate declines to 11 (per 1000) (see Ubelaker 1978:96).

	Based on architectural and stylistic evidence, we believe the latter estimates to more accurately reflect the population dynamics of the Wall site.  But even the higher crude mortality rate is less than that calculated for a large pre-contact Siouan burial population.  The analysis of 129 skeletons from the Shannon site in southern Virginia yielded a crude mortality rate of 38 (per 1000) (Hogue 1988:99).

	A low density of burials also has been indicated at other Haw and Eno river sites dating to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.  Only two burials have been identified at the Mitchum site, and these date to the mid-seventeenth century.  Extensive auger tests (covering an average area of 11,000 ft2), and excavations in areas with high pit densities, have resulted in the identification of only two other definite burial pits from six sites dating to the Haw River and Hillsboro phases.  This contrasts with the excavation of 66 non-burial features from these same sites.  Given the extent of the auger coverage and the fact that all site areas with subsurface feature concentrations were sampled, it is highly unlikely that burials clustered in cemeteries or other discrete site areas went undetected.

	To summarize, there is no archaeological evidence, either from settlement data or extensive site excavations, that massive population declines occurred during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in the Siouan area of the North Carolina Piedmont.  Neither the purported Spanish forays into the fringes of the region nor the early English settlements in Virginia and along the North Carolina coast had any noticeable impact on the inhabitants of the interior Piedmont.  This situation, however, began to change after 1650 when English traders from Fort Henry began to travel into the North Carolina interior, and it is after this time that we have the first written accounts of the Piedmont tribes.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Seventeenth-Century Ethnohistoric Accounts, Page Number: 239  
Seventeenth-Century Ethnohistoric Accounts

	Based on the ethnohistoric documents, it would appear that the initial period of contact between Virginians and the Piedmont Indians did not result in immediate, massive epidemics and rapid depopulation.  As late as 1673 James Needham and Gabriel Arthur traveled through the north-central Piedmont on their way to Cherokee country and gave no indication that native populations had been decimated or severely disrupted in any fashion.  Once they reached the Cherokee, or Tomahitan town, Gabriel Arthur described a thriving community with "an abundance of corne and all manner of pulse with fish, flesh and beares oyle" (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:213).  He also stated that the Tomahitans kept 150 canoes, each of which could carry 20 men.  And this town was located only eight days from the Spanish settlements on the South Carolina coast, with which the Tomahitans had been trading for some time (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:213).

	Even John Lawson, traveling through the South Carolina and North Carolina Piedmont in the winter of 1700–1701 was impressed with the numbers of people he encountered during the southern leg of his journey.  Once he left the coast of South Carolina, where the Sewees had been decimated by European diseases, Lawson described the Esaw or Catawba as "a very large nation containing many thousand people "(Lefler 1967:46).  Three days later Lawson again described the landscape as being very "thick" with Indian settlements (Lefler 1967:49).  And the next day he stated that "we passed through a great many towns and settlements, that belong to the Sugeree-Indians" (Lefler 1967:49).

	However, as Lawson's journey took him closer to the settlements of the Keyauwee, Tutelo, and Saponi, groups that had been intensively engaged in the Virginia deerskin trade, his observations changed.  A few days after leaving the Sugeree, Lawson described small towns of "not above 17 Houses" (Lefler 1967:50).  He then traveled four days to the Sapona Town without meeting any Indians, and when he arrived at Sapona, Lawson mentioned for the first time the amalgamation of distinct tribes into single villages (Lefler 1967:50–53).

	Lawson's journal suggests that although epidemic diseases had impacted the native tribes of the Carolinas by 1700, this impact was not uniform in its devastation.  The more isolated groups along the South Carolina–North Carolina border seem to have been doing very well in 1700.  However, the coastal tribes living near the English and Spanish had certainly felt the full brunt of the European presence, as had the northern Piedmont Siouans who had become involved in the Virginia deerskin trade.  These tribes who had experienced direct, sustained contact with Europeans are the groups that Lawson was, no doubt, referring to when he observed that there is not the "sixth Savage living within 200 miles of our Settlements as there were fifty years ago" (Lefler 1967:252).

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Seventeenth-Century Siouan Communities, Page Number: 240  
Seventeenth-Century Siouan Communities

	Although the Piedmont Siouans were spared the early outbreaks of epidemic diseases during the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century, their luck did not hold.  After 1670 epidemics swept through the northern Piedmont, decimating entire villages.  Men like John Lawson recorded this devastation as footnotes in their journals and diaries, but the most dramatic and vivid expression of the effect of the new diseases on seventeenth-century native populations can be seen in the archaeological record of the Dan and Eno river drainages.

	At the village of Upper Saratown on the Dan River, occupied during the Late Saratown phase (A.D. 1670–1710) by the Siouan-speaking Sara Indians, extensive excavations have uncovered one-fourth of a palisaded village that extends over approximately 1.5 acres (see excavation plan).  Within the excavated area, portions of at least 13 houses, 225 pit features, and 111 burials have been recorded.  The burials were densely scattered across the site, in and around house structures.  They were so concentrated that during the excavations, it was almost impossible to remove the plowzone from a 10 10-ft excavation unit without encountering the tops of burial pits.  At the nearby Madison site, occupied during the same time period, a similar-sized excavation revealed 120 graves so closely packed that the amateur archaeologists who excavated the site thought it represented a cemetery (Gravely 1969:11).

	A detailed analysis of the burials from Upper Saratown indicates a crude mortality rate of 48 (per 1000) (Hogue 1988:99).  This rate yields an estimated population of 231 individuals if the site was occupied for 10 years (Ubelaker 1978:96).  A 20-year occupation span would decrease the overall size of the population to 116 individuals.  We suspect that the higher figure more accurately reflects the Upper Saratown population (Davis and Ward 1991).

	The density of burials at Upper Saratown and the Madison site contrasts markedly with that of the earlier Sara villages of Lower Saratown and Early Upper Saratown, occupied before A.D. 1670.  And so does the quantity of European trade goods found at these sites.  Whereas Upper Saratown and the Madison site have produced large quantities of glass beads and copper ornaments, Lower Saratown and Early Upper Saratown have yielded only a few glass and copper beads.  The paucity of trade materials, in conjunction with the lack of evidence for disease and depopulation, point to limited and probably indirect contacts between natives and Europeans prior to 1670.

	Comparing the sixteenth-century Wall site on the Eno River with the seventeenth-century Upper Saratown village on the Dan River provides significant insights into the question of the timing of depopulation on the Piedmont.  In both cases large village areas have been uncovered which reveal patterns of houses, palisades, pit features, and burials.  The burial density of Upper Saratown is obviously much higher than that of the Wall site, although the overall site sizes are nearly identical.  A larger resident population has been suggested for the Dan River village, but the crude mortality rate of 48 is considerably higher than the highest possible estimate of 32 for the Wall site.

	That the differences in crude mortality rates are real and a consequence of epidemic diseases during the seventeenth century is further supported by the fact that wall post density and replacement rates at Wall and Upper Saratown are very similar (see Table 49 and Table 50).  This correspondence as well as other architectural and stylistic evidence suggest that both sites were occupied for approximately the same length of time.  In fact, Upper Saratown appears to have been occupied for a slightly shorter period of time than the Wall site, suggesting an even higher mortality rate than that calculated from the skeletal population.

	 Because the type of wood used in house construction cannot be determined with certainty (none of the structures were burned at either site), the actual period of occupation based on wall post replacement rates cannot be accurately assessed.  However, if readily available hardwoods were used in house construction, the previously suggested occupation spans of between 10 and 20 years would not be out of line with estimates based on wall post density/replacement rates (compare Warrick 1988:Figure 3 with Tables 1 and 2 above).

	Disease continued to ravage the Dan River Sara during the last two decades of the seventeenth century.  At the William Kluttz site, located just downstream from Upper Saratown and occupied c. A.D. 1690–1700, 30 burial pits were uncovered within an area of only 600 ft2.  Most were subadults placed in shallow pits less than 2 ft deep.  Two adult burials located some distance away were placed in more traditional, central shaft-and-chamber pits dug to a depth of over 4 ft.  The shallow-burial cluster containing mostly children may have resulted from a single disease episode, perhaps one of the smallpox epidemics that struck the Piedmont between 1696 and 1699 (Dobyns 1983:115).  The fact that most of the graves were those of children also suggests that by this time adults who had survived the earlier epidemics seen at Upper Saratown may have developed some immunity to the deadly virus.

	The smaller tribes within the Eno and Haw river drainages were not exempt from the late seventeenth century epidemics either.  The number of sites post-dating 1670 provides the most apparent evidence of the toll taken by smallpox, influenza, measles, and other Euro-African diseases.  In 1701, Lawson found only three villages in the area.  To date we have located only one, the Occaneechi village near Hillsborough, North Carolina.

	The 1983–1986 excavations at Occaneechi Town (also known as the Fredricks site) uncovered a small palisaded compound in its entirety, revealing 11 domestic structures within an area less than one-fourth acre in extent.  A cemetery containing 13 graves was placed just outside the palisade (see excavation plan).  Evidence of an additional cemetery (with at least four burials) was uncovered during excavations at the nearby Jenrette site  in 1989.  The original 13 burials indicate a crude mortality rate of 57 (per 1000), even higher than that at Upper Saratown (Hogue 1988:99).

	This death rate is admittedly based on a very small and potentially biased skeletal population.  However, architectural evidence (i.e., the lack of structural rebuilding), the size of the site, and characteristics of the ceramic sample all point to a very small population (50–75 individuals) living in the village for a short period of time (less than a decade) (Davis and Ward 1991).  These estimates support the high mortality figure even though the skeletal population from which it was derived is small.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Conclusions, Page Number: 241  
Conclusions

	Although Euro-African diseases were slow in entering the North Carolina interior, their end result was no less devastating than if they had swept across the foothills with the arrival of the early Spanish explorers.  By 1740, when the first white settlers began venturing into the northern Piedmont, they met no resistance from the native tribes.  In fact, they met few natives.  Over a period of less than 100 years after the first Virginia traders bartered their wares, the villages of the Sara, Occaneechi, Eno, Sissipahaw, Tutelo, Saponi, and Shakori lay vacant, surrounded by abandoned fields that were soon to be tilled by the newcomers.

	There can be no argument that alien diseases were a major cause of depopulation and the cultural demise of Southeastern Indians; however, to view the spread of these diseases as waves of uninterrupted pandemics during the sixteenth century oversimplifies complex processes of culture contact and change.  Many factors contributed to the spread and "deadliness" of Old World microbes, including native population densities, the intensity of interaction between tribes and newcomers, and intertribal relations.  The etiology of the various diseases also must be considered in conjunction with geographic and topographic factors.

	In short, a complex of many cultural, social, and biological variables contributed to the timing and rate of depopulation in the Southeast.  It is far too simplistic to place most of the blame on the sixteenth-century Spanish explorers.  They, no doubt, contributed their share in some parts of the Southeast, but it was the late seventeenth-century English traders who introduced the Carolina Piedmont Indians to these deadly, invisible invaders.

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 242  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 49. Wall post densities at the Wall site. 

Table 50. Wall post densities at Upper Saratown. 
 
Figures: General

Figure 485. Excavation plan of the Fredricks site. 

Figure 493. Archaeologist Steve Davis describes the impact of European diseases on Indian populations in North Carolina. 

Figure 494. Map of Siouan study area. 

Figure 495. Plan of Wall site excavations (structures labeled in red). 

Figure 496. Plan of Upper Saratown site excavations (selected structures labeled in red).

Page: Impact of Old World Diseases: Source, Page Number: 243  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

The Impact of Old World Diseases on the Native Inhabitants of the North Carolina Piedmont, by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Archaeology of Eastern North America 19:171–181, 1991.

	It is reprinted here with permission of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: Introduction, Page Number: 244  
Introduction

	Historians have long recognized the pivotal role played by the Occaneechi tribe in the Virginia deerskin trade during the latter half of the seventeenth century.  This role is rather clearly portrayed in the contemporary writings of Abraham Wood, William Byrd, John Lederer, and others.  Clarence Alvord and Lee Bidgood (1912), and more recently James Merrell (1989), both have suggested that the Occaneechi were one of several influential tribes along the colonial frontier who profited as middlemen and affected the flow of European goods—and Europeans—into the Virginia and Carolina Piedmont.  With the Occaneechis' well-documented reputation as middlemen and bullies on the frontier, and their strategic position astride the Virginia trading path at its Roanoke River crossing, the question of how this role is reflected in the archaeological record naturally arises.

	In this section, we consider the ethnohistoric evidence for the Occaneechi as shapers of frontier economy and politics.  Then, we examine the trade artifact assemblages from late seventeenth-century village sites occupied by the Occaneechis and their neighbors in order to determine the extent of Occaneechi influence upon the trade.  By doing so, we hope to add depth and detail to the picture sketched by the written documents, and show that the Occaneechis were indeed a potent force that their neighbors and the Virginia traders had to deal with.

	We propose that the Occaneechis acted as a filter on the Virginia trade and sorted out arms, armaments, and possibly other items for their own use, while allowing mostly non-utilitarian goods to pass through to their neighbors.  Their monopoly, which apparently emerged shortly after 1650 and persisted unchecked until Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, not only allowed them access to the most desirable goods and the most profit, but more importantly it provided the Occaneechis with the means to maintain political as well as economic dominance over larger, more populous tribes to the west and south.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: Ethnohistoric Evidence, Page Number: 245  
Ethnohistoric Evidence

	The unique position of the Occaneechi and their efforts to maintain power through intimidation is perhaps best portrayed in the writings of John Lederer and Abraham Wood.  Lederer, who visited the Occaneechi (then located on Occaneechi Island near Clarksville, Virginia) and their neighbors in the summer of 1670, provides two observations that are of particular importance.  The first account was of an incident that he witnessed while in the Occaneechis' village.  The day following his arrival, a Rickohockan ambassador and five attending Indians visited the Occaneechis, presumably to establish trade relations but possibly on their way toward the Virginia traders at Fort Henry (now Petersburg, Virginia).  According to Lederer (1672:14), during evening festivities held in their honor "the Room was suddenly darkned, and for what cause I know not, the Rickohockan and his retinue [were] barbarously murthered" (Lederer 1672:14).  Given that other interior tribes such as the Cherokee were attempting to establish direct trading contacts with Virginia during this period, it is quite possible that this turn of events was brought about by the discovery of the Rickohockan ambassador's true intentions.

	Equally telling of Occaneechi control in the trade is Lederer's advise to would-be traders.  For trading with frontier Indians such as the Occaneechis, Lederer (1672:26–27) recommends

a sort of course Trading Cloth . . . Axes, Hoes, Knives, Sizars, and all sorts of edg'd tools.  Guns, Powder and Shot, etc. are Commodities they will greedily barter for: but to supply the Indians with Arms and Ammunition, is prohibited by all English Governments. . . .  To the remoter Indians you must carry other kinde of Truck, as small Looking-glasses, Pictures, Beads, and Bracelets of Glass, Knives, Sizars, and all manner of gaudy toys and knacks for children.

Lederer's observations here probably are more a reflection of the status quo imposed by the Occaneechi than the unsophisticated desires of their southern and western neighbors.  And, while guns were contraband, this prohibition clearly had little impact on the Occaneechis themselves (Merrell 1982:91).  As will be seen shortly, this dichotomy in trade goods conforms closely to the archaeological evidence available for these groups.

	A similar portrayal of Occaneechi trade influence and control is evidenced in Abraham Wood's account of the James Needham and Gabriel Arthur expedition in 1673–1674 (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:209–226).  This expedition was undertaken to establish direct trade with the Tomahitans (possibly the Overhill Cherokees).  On their first trip westward from Fort Henry, Needham and Arthur were met by the Occaneechis and forced to turn back.  Their second attempt was more successful, and beyond Occaneechi they met up with a large contingent of Tomahitans who were on their way to the Occaneechis.  Despite Occaneechi attempts to breed ill will between the Tomahitans and the Virginians, nine Tomahitans proceeded eastward to Wood's plantation while Needham, Arthur, and the remaining Tomahitans headed west toward the mountains.

	Following a lengthy journey across the Carolina Piedmont and mountains, the party finally reached the Tomahitans' village, possibly located on the Little Tennessee River in eastern Tennessee.  After a brief stay, Needham and 12 Tomahitans returned to Wood's plantation in Virginia while Gabriel Arthur stayed behind to learn the language.  Once business with Wood was completed, James Needham and his Tomahitan companions again set out for the Tomahitan settlements to retrieve Gabriel Arthur.

	In the events that followed, the Occaneechis demonstrated how far they were willing to go to maintain their hegemony.  Apparently they were not keen on the idea of the Tomahitans establishing direct trade ties with the English.  Such an arrangement not only would have subverted their role as middlemen with the Tomahitans but, perhaps more importantly, it also would have sent a clear message to neighboring Siouan tribes like the Sara that they no longer needed their services.  Such a direct connection with the English also meant that the Occaneechis' neighbors could supply themselves with firearms and ammunition.

	At Occaneechi Island, James Needham was joined by several Occaneechis including a trader named Indian John or Hasecoll.  The party then journeyed to Aeno, and westward to Sarrah and the Yadkin Trading Ford where Hasecoll murdered Needham.  After mutilating Needham's body and pronouncing his distaste for the English, Indian John instructed the Tomahitans to return home and kill Gabriel Arthur.  Although Arthur's life was spared, his return trip to Virginia was fraught with danger from the now-hostile Occaneechis.  When Arthur and 20 accompanying Tomahitans finally reached Sarrah on their return trip the next year, they were confronted by four Occaneechis.  Though small in number, these four frightened and intimidated the Tomahitans to the point of abandoning all the goods they had brought to trade with the English.  Gabriel Arthur himself only narrowly escaped death.

	On the surface, it is difficult to understand how such a small group of Occaneechis could cause so much trouble for the more numerous Tomahitans.  However, it is important to remember the words of Abraham Wood, who noted that the Occaneechis are "strongly fortified by nature and that makes them so insolent for they are but a handfull of people besides what Vagabonds repaire to them it being a receptakle for rogues" (Alvord and Bidgood 1912:225).  Furthermore, the Occaneechis' supply of arms and ammunition made them "the Mart for all the Indians for att least 500 miles" (Wood, quoted in Merrell 1982:91).  No doubt the four Occaneechis at Sarrah were well armed not only with guns and shot but also with a violent and pugnacious reputation.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: Archaeological Evidence, Page Number: 246  
Archaeological Evidence

	From the preceding discussion, it should be clear that the Occaneechis possessed and maintained a unique level of political and economic power.  Furthermore, the ethnohistoric record strongly implies that the Occaneechis controlled access to English goods being sought by neighboring tribes.  We will now see to what extent Occaneechi influence is manifested in the archaeological record.  This will be done by comparing trade artifact assemblages from two late seventeenth-century sites in piedmont North Carolina—the Fredricks and Upper Saratown sites—where extensive excavations have been undertaken (see map).

	The Fredricks site was occupied by the Occaneechis immediately following their removal from the Roanoke valley, whereas Upper Saratown was a village of the neighboring Sara tribe.  Unfortunately, the earlier Occaneechi Island village on the Roanoke River, occupied at the height of their power, has never been located and in all likelihood lies beneath Kerr Reservoir.  However, the Fredricks trade artifact assemblage is believed to be representative of that period and probably contains numerous items that the Occaneechi brought with them from the Roanoke valley.  In short, differences in trade artifact assemblages at the two sites probably are more a reflection of access to trade goods than a consequence of temporal changes in the nature of the deerskin trade.

Upper Saratown

	The Upper Saratown site is situated along the Dan River in eastern Stokes County, North Carolina.  This village probably was occupied between 1660 and 1690, while the Occaneechis still controlled the interior trade, and may be where the Occaneechis attempted to ambush Gabriel Arthur in 1674.  Archaeological excavations at Upper Saratown between 1972 and 1981 opened up over 16,000 sq ft, or about one-fourth of the 1.5-acre village, and exposed 13 houses, 225 features, and 111 burials (Wilson 1983).  With very few exceptions, all fill from features and burials was carefully waterscreened, permitting the systematic recovery of small artifacts such as glass beads in addition to larger, more conspicuous items.  English trade goods were recovered from most of these contexts and, in some instances, were recovered in large numbers.

	Over 325,000 trade artifacts were recovered from features and burials (see Table 51).  Most artifacts from feature fill represent items that were discarded or lost, whereas those from burials are associated with clothing or grave associations.  The overwhelming majority of trade artifacts from Upper Saratown are ornamental items (see bar graph).  Glass beads were by far the most common artifact type and comprised all but 937 of the trade artifacts found.  Most beads came from burial contexts and represent the non-perishable remains of beaded funerary clothing.  In several instances, these garments were extensively decorated with tens of thousands of small blue and white glass seed beads.  Other kinds of beads only occasionally were used.  Large glass beads, particularly opaque blue, white, and blue with white stripes, sometimes were used in necklaces and bracelets.

	Copper and brass ornaments were the next most common artifact class and comprised almost 87% of the remaining trade artifacts (see  bar graph).  As with beads, these occurred primarily with burials and include: rolled tubular beads, bells, rings, conical tinklers, circular gorgets (or pendants), and triangular danglers.  Other identifiable trade items were rare and include: bottle glass fragments, lead shot, gunflints, iron nails, two pairs of scissors, an iron knife, an iron hoe, and a brass spoon.  Interestingly, the scissors, knife, and spoon, along with most of the brass bells, rolled tubular beads, and over 40,000 glass beads, were recovered from a single burial.  Although no gun parts were found in feature or burial contexts, and gunflints and lead shot only rarely were found, it it clear from an incised representation of a trade musket found on a potsherd that the Sara were familiar with these new weapons.

	In addition to these trade items, numerous small scraps of copper, brass, and occasionally iron were found in widely scattered contexts, and suggest that the recycling of these relatively scarce metals by the Sara was extensive (see bar graph).

Fredricks Site

	The Fredricks site is located at Hillsborough in Orange County, North Carolina, where the seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century trading path from Virginia to the Catawba crossed the Eno River.  This village was settled by the Occaneechis sometime after 1690, following their abandonment of the Roanoke valley, and was visited by John Lawson in 1701.  The wealth of material goods observed here by Lawson (Lefler 1967:61) led him to remark that "no Indians [have] greater Plenty of Provisions than these."  Lawson most likely was referring to the stores of English manufactures possessed by the Occaneechis.  If so, it suggests that much of the material wealth that the Occaneechis accumulated as middlemen in the trade was brought with them to their new home.  Regardless, comparisons of the archaeological remains at the Fredricks site with historical accounts of what the Occaneechis were likely receiving in trade 10–20 years earlier show no significant differences.

	The Fredricks site was excavated in its entirety between 1983 and 1986 (Dickens et al. 1987; Ward and Davis 1988).  These excavations, covering about 16,000 sq ft, revealed a roughly circular palisaded village less than one-third of an acre in size.  It contained at least 11 small houses and probably had a population of only 50–75 individuals.  The lack of evidence for rebuilding suggests that the occupation was comparatively brief, probably for less than 10 years.  Fifty features and three burials were excavated within the village compound; 12 other burials were excavated within a cemetery located just beyond the northeast palisade.  A second cemetery west of the village, and containing four graves, was excavated in 1989 and 1990.

	Almost 13,000 trade artifacts were recovered from Fredricks site features and burials (see Table 51).  While this sample is numerically smaller than that obtained at Upper Saratown, it represents a material wealth not found on any other Contact-period site in Piedmont North Carolina.  In simplest terms, this wealth is reflected by a far greater proportion of utilitarian goods to ornamental items (see bar graph).  Glass beads are still the most frequent trade artifact class; however, the ratio of glass beads to other trade artifacts is only 14:1 at Fredricks whereas it is 416:1 at Upper Saratown.  It appears that beadworking, particularly using small glass beads to decorate clothing, was not pursued with the intensity that it was among the Sara.  Furthermore, a high percentage of the glass beads found at Fredricks were large Cornaline d'Aleppo beads that probably were strung on necklaces, bracelets, and anklets.

	Eleven hundred and twenty-one trade artifacts other than glass beads were recovered from features and burials at the Fredricks site.  In contrast to Upper Saratown, only a small minority of these were ornaments (see bar graph).  Almost 60% of all identifiable trade artifacts were associated with firearms and include: 437 pieces of lead shot and lead sprue, 47 gunflints, two gun springs, and a dog-lock musket occurring as a burial association.  Numerous gunflints and gun parts also were recovered from plowzone excavations.  Pipes and pipe fragments also were common and comprised about 18% of identifiable trade artifacts.  While most of these were made of kaolin, pewter pipes and molded pipes of non-kaolin clay also were well represented.  In striking contrast, only a small handful of kaolin pipe fragments were recovered from all excavations at Upper Saratown.

	Likewise, metal and glass implements, instruments, and containers were well represented at Fredricks and comprise almost 14% of identified trade artifacts.  Iron implements include 39 nails (most likely used as awls), 31 knives or knife fragments, six pairs of scissors, five axes, five hoes, two ember tenders, two awls, two fishhooks, and a cooper's tool.  Three Jews harps also were found.  Other metal artifacts include three brass or latten spoons, a brass thimble, and a brass fishhook.  Containers are represented by 54 bottle glass fragments and two whole bottles, three pewter porringers, three brass or iron snuff boxes, and a brass kettle.

	Ornaments were the least frequent class of trade artifacts.  Most of these artifacts represent finished ornaments or clothing fasteners and include: 35 brass bells; 21 brass, glass, lead, and pewter buttons; 19 brass and pewter buckles; two brass wire coils possibly used as ear ornaments; two brass wire C-bracelets; and two brass tubular beads.
	Finally, numerous unidentifiable or scrap pieces of iron, brass, pewter, and lead were recovered (see bar graph).  Many of these pieces are quite large compared to similar metal fragments found at Upper Saratown.  When viewed alongside the numerous usable implements and containers that occur as burial accompaniments, it becomes readily apparent that the Occaneechi, unlike the Sara, were not lacking in trade goods nor were they compelled to recycle or conserve what they received in trade.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: Conclusions, Page Number: 247  
Conclusions

	The latter half of the seventeenth century was a period of rapid and fundamental change for the Indians along the colonial frontier of Virginia and North Carolina.  In 1650, the Virginians were only beginning to explore territories to the west and south that were in firm control of the native population.  By 1701, most native societies in this region had disintegrated and John Lawson could remark that there is not the "sixth Savage living within 200 miles of our Settlements as there were fifty years ago" (Lefler 1967:252).

	For groups such as the Occaneechi, the Wainokes, and the Tuscaroras, this period also offered unprecedented opportunities, through trade and the acquisition of firearms, to obtain and exert considerable economic and political power.  All of these groups were located along the ever-advancing colonial frontier and thus were in a position where they might control or at least influence contacts with more remote tribes.  The Occaneechis, being positioned astride the principal trading path out of Fort Henry, were particularly successful in this respect.

	What the archaeological record shows is that the Occaneechis not only acquired material wealth from trading with the Virginians; perhaps more importantly, they were able to dictate the kinds of European manufactures that were available to their neighbors.  Viewed in this context, John Lederer's curious assertion that the remote Indians trade for beads, bracelets, gaudy toys, and knacks says more about the filtered contents of the trader's pack than it does the desires of the native consumer.  By controlling access to firearms and using intimidation when necessary, the Occaneechis were able to maintain their dominant position as middlemen.  Significantly, when their downfall came in 1676 it was not at the hands of their deprived "trading partners" but by the superior force of Nathaniel Bacon and his well-armed militia.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: List of Tables and Figures, Page Number: 248  
List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 51. Inventory of European trade artifacts from feature and burial contexts at Upper Saratown and the Fredricks site. 
 
Figures: General

Figure 2. Map of the study area locating Occaneechi Island, Occaneechi Town (Fredricks site), and Upper Saratown. 
Figure 485. Excavation plan of the Fredricks site. 

Figure 489. Excavation plan of Upper Saratown. 

Figure 497. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifacts by class (excluding glass beads) at each site. 

Figure 498. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifacts by material (excluding glass beads) at each site. 

Figure 499. Bar graph showing the distribution of trade artifact fragments and scraps by material at each site.

Page: Occaneechi Trade: Source, Page Number: 249  
Source

	This article was adapted from the following source:

The Occaneechi and Their Role as Middlemen in the 17th-Century Virginia–North Carolina Trade Network, by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, Virginia, 1991.

Page: References A–G, Page Number: 250  
References A–F
Abler, T. S., and Elisabeth Tooker
   1978  Seneca.  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger.  Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Adair, James
   1930  History of the American Indian.  Watauga Press, Johnson City, Tennessee.

Alcorn, Janis B.
   1984  Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany.  University of Texas Press, Austin.

Alexander, Edward P. (editor)
   1972  The Journal of John Fontaine.  An Irish Huguenot Son in Spain and Virginia, 1710–1719.  Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Allen, E. P., and W. F. Wilson
   1968  Geology and Mineral Resources of Orange County, North Carolina.  Bulletin No. 81, North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Raleigh.

Alvord, Clarence W., and Lee Bidgood (editors)
   1912  The First Explorations of the Trans-Allegheny Region by the Virginians, 1650–1674.  Arthur H. Clark Co., Cleveland.

American Geological Institute
   1962  Dictionary of Geological Terms.  Doubleday, New York.

American Historical Review
   1915  Observations of Superintendent John Stuart and Gov. James Grant of East Florida on the Proposed Plan of 1764 Regarding the Future of Indian Affairs.  American Historical Review 20(4):815.

Anonymous
   1715?  "Map of Carolina.  Showing the route of the Forces sent in the years 1711, 1712, and 1713, from South Carolina to the relief of North Carolina, and in 1715 of the Forces sent from North Carolina to the assistance of South Carolina, also showing the controverted Bounds between Virginia and Carolina.  About 15 miles to 1 inch.  [1715.] 29 in x 20 in." Public Record Office, Colonial Office Library, Carolina 4, London.

Arber, Edward, and A. G. Bradley (editors)
   1910  Travels and Works of Captain John Smith President of Virginia and Admiral of New England 1580–1631.  2 vols.  John Grant, Edinburgh.

Asch, David, and Nancy Asch
   1983  Archaeobotany.  In Excavations at the Smiling Dan Site: Delineation of Site Structure and Function During the Middle Woodland Period, edited by Barbara D. Stafford and Mark B. Sant, pp. 635–725.  Center for American Archaeology, Contract Archaeology Program, Reports of Investigations No. 137.

   1986  Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 149–204.  Anthropological Papers No. 75, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Atkinson, D. R.
   1986  English West Country Pipes of circa 1680–1730.  In Historic Clay Tobacco Pipe Studies, Volume 3, edited by Byron Sudbury. Published by Byron Sudbury, Ponca City, OK.

Axtell, James
   1981  The European and the Indian.  Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bahou, W. F. 
   1975  The Relationships of Particular Trace Elements in the Dickson Mounds Skeletal Population.  Paleopathology Newsletter 11:15–17.

Baker, Steven G. 
   1975  The Working Draft of: The Historic Catawba Peoples: Exploratory Perspectives in Ethnohistory and Archaeology.  Ms. on file, Department of History, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Baker, Vernon
   1974  Carillo's Statistical Study of English Wine Bottles: Some Comments and Further Considerations.  Conference on Historic Sites Papers 1972, vol. 7, part 4, edited by Stanley South.

Barber, Michael B., and Joseph A.  William
   1978  Faunal Analysis.  In 44Cp1, the Onion Field Site, Dan River Focus.  Unpublished B.A. thesis by J.A.  Williams, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.

Barbour, Philip L. 
   1964  The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith.  Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Barbour, Philip L. (editor)
   1969 The Jamestown Voyages Under the First  Charter, 1606–1609. 2 vols.  Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society, Cambridge, England.

Barnwell, Joseph W. (editor)
   1908 The Tuscarora Expedition.  Letters of Colonel John Barnwell.  South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 9:28–54.

Bartell, Brad
   1982  A Historical Review of Ethnological and Archaeological Analyses of Mortuary Practice.  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:32–58.

Beals, Ralph
   1962  Acculturation.  In Anthropology Today, edited by Sol Tax, pp. 375–395.  The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Beaudry, Mary C.
   1981  Colonizing the Virginia Frontier: Fort Christanna and Governor Spotswood's Indian Policy.  Ms. submitted for publication in The Comparative Archaeology of European Colonialism, edited by Stephen L. Dyson.

Benthall, Joseph L.
   1969  Archaeological Investigation of the Shannon Site, Montgomery County, Virginia.  Virginia State Library Publications No. 32.  Virginia State Library, Richmond.

Beverley, Robert
   1947  The History and Present State of Virginia.  Edited with an Introduction by Louis B. Wright.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Billings, Warren (editor)
   1975  The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606–1689.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Binford, Lewis R.
   1959  Comments on the "Siouan Problem." Ethnohistory 6:28–41.

   1962  A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples.  Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9:19–21.

   1967  Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning.  American Antiquity 32:1–12.

   1971  Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential.  In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown.  Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:58–67.

   1972  An Archaeological Perspective.  Seminar Press, New York.

   1979  Nunamuit Ethnoharchaeology.  Academic Press, New York.

Blake, Leonard W.
   1981  Early Acceptance of Watermelon by Indians of the United States.  Ethnobiology 1:193–199.

Blakely, Robert L., and Bettina Detweiler-Blakely
   1989  The Impact of European Diseases in the Sixteenth-Century Southeast: A Case Study.  Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 14:62–89.

Bland, Edward
   1651  The Discovery of New Brittaine.  Thomas Harper, London.

Blatt, H., G. Middleton, and R. Murray
   1972  Origin of Sedimentary Rock.  Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Bohrer, Vorsila L.
   1975  The Prehistoric and Historic Role of the Cool-Season Grasses in the Southwest.  Economic Botany 29:199–207.

Bourne, Edward G. (editor)
   1904  Narratives of the Career of Hernando De Soto in the Conquest of Florida. . . . 2 vols.  A. S. Barnes, New York.

Brain, Jeffrey P.
   1979  Tunica Treasure.  Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology No. 71, Harvard University, Cambridge.

British Colonial Office
   1743  British Records on Microfilm, #2.5 132 N. Colonial Office 5/1326:10B–19B, August 22, 1743.  N.C. Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Brock, R. A. (editor)
   1885  The Official Letters of Alexander Spotswood, Lieutenant-Govenor of the Colony of Virginia, 1710–1722.  Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, n.s., vol. 2.  The Society, Richmond.

Brown, Allen
   1948  Shell Wampum Beads of North American Indians.  Tennessee Archaeologist 4(3).

Brown, James A.
   1971  Introduction.  In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown.  Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:1–6.

Brunswick County Register of Deeds
   n.d.  Road Order Books.  Lawrenceville, Virginia.

Bushnell, David I., Jr.
   1920  Native Cemeteries and Forms of Burial East of the Mississippi River.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 71, Washington.

   1930  The Five Monacan Towns in Virginia, 1607.  Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 82(12).  Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Butler, J. Robert
   1963  Rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt in Orange County, North Carolina.  Southeastern Geology 4(3).

Caddell, Gloria May
   1981  Plant Remains from the Yarborough Site.  Ms. in author's possession.

Caldwell, Joseph, and Catherine McCann
   1941  The Irene Mound Site.  The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Carnes, Linda F.
   1983  Appendix II: Identification of Euro-American artifacts. In Tomotley: An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village, by William W. Baden.  Report of Investigations No. 36, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

   1985  Euroamerican Artifacts from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change. Final Report of 1984 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 340–415.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Euroamerican Artifacts from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 141–165.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Carrillo, Richard
   1974  English Wine Bottles as Revealed by a Statistical Study: A Further Approach to Evolution and Horizon in Historical Archaeology.  Conference on Historic Sites Papers 1972, vol. 7, part 4, edited by Stanley South.

Carson, James D.
   1961  Epiphyseal Cartilage as an Age Indicator in Fox and Gray Squirrels.  Journal of Wildlife Management 25:90–93.

Chaplin, Raymond E.
   1971  The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. William Claus and Sons, London.

Chapman, Jefferson
   1978  The Bacon Farm Site and a Buried Site Reconnaissance. Report of Investigations No. 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Chapman, Jefferson, Paul A. Delcourt, Patricia A. Cridlebaugh, Andrea B. Shea, and Hazel R. Delcourt
   1982  Man-Land Interaction: 10,000 Years of American Indian Impact on Native Ecosystems in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, Eastern Tennessee.  Southeastern Archaeology 2:115–121.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea B. Shea
   1981  The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley.  Tennessee Anthropologist 6:61–84.

Charles, Tommy
   1983  Thoughts and Records from the Survey of Private Collections of Prehistoric Artifacts: A Second Report. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Notebook 15:1–37.

Charlton, T. H.
   1978  Teotihuacan, Tepeapulco, and Obisdian Exploitation. Science 200:1227–1236.

Cleland, Charles E.
   1966  The Prehistoric Animal Ecology of the Upper Great Lakes Region.  Anthropological Papers No. 29.  Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Coe, Joffre L.
   1937  Keyauwee, a Preliminary Statement.  Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of North Carolina 3(1), Chapel Hill.

   1952  The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont.  In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301–311.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

   1964  The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 54(5), American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

   1972  Field Report of Highway Salvage Archaeology at Site Yd1, Yadkin County, North Carolina.  Ms. on file at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Coe, Joffre L., and Ernest Lewis
   1952  Dan River Series Statement.  Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin.  Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Coleman, Gary N., Douglas H. Ubelaker, Michael Trinkley, and Wayne E. Clark
   1982  The Reedy Creek Site, 44Ha22, South Boston, Virginia.  Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 37(4):150–188.

Cotter, John
   1962  New Discoveries at Jamestown.  National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Cotter, John, and J. Paul Hudson
   1957  New Discoveries at Jamestown.  National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Cowan, C. Wesley
   1978  The Prehistoric Use and Distribution of Maygrass in Eastern North America: Cultural and Phytogeographical Implications.  In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 263–288.  Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 67, Ann Arbor.

Cumming, William P. (editor)
   1958  The Discoveries of John Lederer.  University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Daly, Patricia
   1969  Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology.  American Antiquity 34:146–158.

Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr.
   1983  Aboriginal Ceramics From the Eno and Haw River Valleys and Their Bearing Upon the Identification of John Lawson's Occaneechi Town.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg.

   1987  Pottery from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 185–215.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1988  Pottery.  In Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians, edited by H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Southern Indian Studies 36–37:31–63.

Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., Patricia M. Lambert, Vincas P. Steponaitis, Clark S. Larsen, and H. Trawick Ward
   1996  NAGPRA Inventory of the North Carolina Archaeological Collection: Unaffiliated Human Remains and Funerary Objects (2 vols).  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward
   1987  A Comparison of Plowzone and In Situ Site Structure at the Fredricks Site, A Siouan Village in Piedmont North Carolina. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston.

   1991  The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina.  Southeastern Archaeology 10(1):40–53.

DeBoer, Warren
   1984  Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from Eastern North America.  Ms. on file at the Department of Anthropology, Queens College, New York.

de Bry, Theodore
   1590  Thomas Hariot's Virginia.  University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor.

Delcourt, Hazel R.
   1975  Reconstructing the Forest Primeval, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.  Melanges No. 10, Museum of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Dennell, R. W.
   1976  The Economic Importance of Plant Resources Represented on Archaeological Sites.  Journal of Archaeological Science 3:229–247.

DePratter, Chester, Charles Hudson, and Marvin T. Smith
   1983  The Route of Juan Pardo's Explorations in the Interior Southeast, 1566–1568.  The Florida Historical Quarterly 62:125–158.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
   1980  Ceramic Diversity as an Indicator of Cultural Dynamics in the Woodland Period.  Tennessee Anthropologist 5:34–46.

   1984  In Search of Occaneechi: Archaeology and History of the North Carolina Piedmont, Symposium Introduction.  Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

   1985  The Form, Function, and Formation of Garbage-filled Pits on Southeastern Aboriginal Sites: An Archaeobotanical Analysis.  In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward.  University of Alabama Press, University.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
   1984  The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Preliminary Report of 1984 Investigations.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1985a  The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1984 Investigations. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1985b  The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Preliminary Report of 1985 Investigations.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1986  The Siouan Project: An Investigation of Culture Change on the North Carolina Piedmont.  Research proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.  Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. (editors)
   1986  The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1985 Investigations. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dill, R. F.
   1881  R F. Dill's History of Greene County, Ohio.  Odell & Mayer Publishing Co., Dayton, Ohio.

Dimbleby, Geoffrey
   1978  Plants and Archaeology.  Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.

Dobyns, Henry F.
   1983  Their Numbers Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America.  University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Driver, Harold E.
   1969  Indians of North America.  The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dumbrell, Roger
   1983  Understanding Antique Wine Bottles.  Antique Collectors' Club Ltd., Woodbridge, Suffolk, England.

Earle, Timothy K.
   1980  A Model of Subsistence Change.  In Modeling Changes in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Andrew L. Christenson, pp. 1–30.  Academic Press, New York.
Edwards J. K., R. L. Marchinton, and G. F. Smith
   1982  Pelvic Girdle Criteria of White-tailed Deer.  Journal of Wildlife Management 46:544–547.

Egloff, Keith
   1980  Crab Orchard Site: A Late Woodland Palisaded Village. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 34:130–148.

Egloff, Keith, Michael B. Barber, and Celia Reed
   1980  Leggett Site: A Dan River Agricultural/Riverine Hamlet.  Ms. on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg.

Ewan, Joseph, and Nesta Ewan (editors)
   1970  John Banister and His Natural History of Virginia, 1678–1692. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Ewers, John C.
   1957  Hair Pipes in Plains Indian Adornment: A Study in Indian and White Ingenuity.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 164, Anthropological Paper 50, Smithsonian Insitution, Washington.

Faulkner, Charles H.
   1977  The Winter House: An Early Southeast Tradition. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2:141–159.

Flannery, Kent V.
   1976  The Early Mesoamerican Village.  Academic Press, New York.

Forbes, Jack
   1988  Black Africans and Native Americans.  Basil Blackwell, Inc., New York.

Ford, Thomas
   1979  A Descriptive Analysis of the Euro-American Artifacts from the Citico Site (40Mr7) 1978 Excavations.  Unpublished report submitted to the Tennessee Vally Authority, Knoxville.

France, Linda G.
   1985  Mercantilism and Piedmont Peltry: English Perceptions of the Southern Fur Trade, circa 1640–1740.  Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Fries, Adelaide L. (editor)
   1922  Records of the Moravians in North Carolina, vol. I.  Edwards & Broughton Printing Co., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Fritz, Gayle J.
   1984  Identification of Cultigen Amaranth and Chenopod from Rockshelter Sites in Northwest Arkansas.  American Antiquity 49:558–572.

   1986  Prehistoric Ozark Agriculture, The University of Arkansas Rockshelter Collections.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Fundaburk, Emma L., and Mary D. F. Foreman
   1957  Sun Circles and Human Hands:  The Southeastern Indians' Art and Industries.  Paragon Press, Montgomery, Alabama.

Futer, A. A.
   1959  The Strickler Site.  In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by John Witthoft and W. Fred Kinsey, III, pp. 136–147.  The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Page: References H–R, Page Number: 251  
References G–Q
Gardner, Paul S.
   1980  An Analysis of Dan River Ceramics from Virginia and North Carolina.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Gleason, Henry A., and Arthur Cronquist
   1964  The Natural Geography of Plants.  Columbia University Press, New York.

Good, Mary Elizabeth
   1972  Guebert Site: An Eighteenth Century Historic Kaskaskia Indian Village in Randolph County, Illinois.  Memoir II of The Central States Archaeological Society, Inc.

Goody, J. R.
   1962  Death, Property and the Ancestors.  Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Gould, Richard A.
   1979  Exotic Stones and Battered Bones: Ethnoarchaeology in the Australian Desert.  Archaeology 32(2):28–37.

Grau, G. A., G. C. Sanderson, and J. P. Rogers
   1970  Age Determination of Raccoons.  Journal of Wildlife Management 34:364–372.

Gravely, Richard P., Jr.
   1969  The Madison Cemetery.  Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 27:11.

Grayson, Donald K.
   1973  On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis.  American Antiquity 38(4):432–438.

   1979  On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas.  In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 200–238.  Academic Press, New York.

Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office
   1682  Series 1, vol. 48.  Microfilm copy in Virginia Colonial Records Project, Colonial Williamsburg Archives, Williamsburg.

   1714  Series 5, vol.  1316.  Transcript in the Library of Congress Manuscript Room, Washington.

Greene County Clerk of Courts
   1842  Supreme Court Case of 1842.  Zenia, Ohio.

Gremillion, Kristen J.
   1984  Aboriginal Use of Plant Foods and European Contact in the North Carolina Piedmont.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1985  Plant Foods at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1984 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp.  642–677.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1986  Plant Remains.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change, Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 91–129.  Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Plant Remains from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 185–215.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1989  Late Prehistoric and Historic Period Paleoethnobotany of the North Carolina Piedmont.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Griffin, James B.
   1945  An Interpretation of Siouan Archaeology in the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia.  American Antiquity 10:321–330.

Grinnan, A. G.
   1895–1896  The Last Indians in Orange County, Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 3:189–191.

Gruber, J. W.
   1971  Death in a Late Prehistoric Village in Pennsylvania. American Antiquity 36:64–76.

Guilday, John E., Paul W. Parmalee, and Donald P. Tanner
   1962  Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at the Eschelman Site (36La12), Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32(2):59–83.

Gwynn, John V.
   1964  Virginia Upland Game Investigations: Restoration of the Wild Turkey.  Annual Report, Virginia Pittman-Robertson Project.

Hale, Horatio
   1883  The Tutelo Tribe and Language.  Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 21(114):1–47.

Hale, J. B.
   1949  Aging Cottontail Rabbits by Bone Growth.  Journal of Wildlife Management 13:216–225.

Hamilton, T. M. (editor)
   1960  Indian Trade Guns.  Missouri Archaeologist 22, Columbia.

   1980  Colonial Frontier Guns.  The Fur Press, Chadron, Nebraska.

Hammett, Julia E.
   1983  Preliminary Classification of North Carolina Shell Bead Artifacts: Some Indications and Implications.  Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Shell Artifacts from the Carolina Piedmont.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 167–183.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Harrington, Jean C.
   1954  Dating Stem Fragments of 17th and 18th Century Clay Tobacco Pipes.  Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 9(1):10–14.

Harrington, Mark R.
   1908a  Catawba Potters and Their Work.  American Anthropologist (n.s.) 10:399–407.

   1908b  Some Seneca Corn-Foods and Their Preparation.  American Anthropologist (n.s.) 10:575–590.

Hariot, Thomas
   1972  A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia.  The Complete 1590 Theodor De Bry Edition. Introduction by Paul Hulton.  Dover Publications, New York.
Harris, Frances L. (editor)
   1937  Lawson's History of North Carolina.  Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.

Hazard, Samuel (editor)
   1851  Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania, from the Organization to the Termination of the Proprietary Government, vol.  2.  Jo. Severns, Philadelphia.

Hedrick, U. P. (editor)
   1972  Sturdevant's Edible Plants of the World.  Dover Publications, New York.

Henige, David
   1989  On the Current Devaluation of the Notion of Evidence: A Rejoinder to Dobyns.  Ethnohistory 36:304–307.

Heye, George C., and George H. Pepper
   1915  Exploration of a Munsee Cemetery near Montague, New Jersey.  Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, vol. 2, Heye Foundation, New York.

Hillman, Benjamin J. (editor)
   1966  Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, vol. 6.  Richmond, Virginia.

Hogue, Susan H.
   1988 A Bioarchaeological Study of Mortuary Practice and Change among the Piedmont Siouan Indians.  Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Holland, C. G.
   1970  An Archaeological Survey of Southwest Virginia. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 12, Washington, D.C.

   1982  A Saponi Note.  Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 37:42.

Holm, Mary Ann
   1985  Faunal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 578–641.  Ms. on file at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1986  Faunal Remains.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change, Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 130–142.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Faunal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 237–258.  Monograph Series No. 1.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Holmes, William H.
   1903  Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Twentieth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1898–1899, pp. 1–237, Washington, D.C.

Horn, Henry S.
   1974  The Ecology of Secondary Succession.  Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:25–37.

   1978  Optimal Tactics of Reproduction and Life-History.  In Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, edited by J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, pp 411–429.  Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Hudson, Charles M.
   1970  The Catawba Nation.  University of Georgia Press, Athens.

   1976  The Southeastern Indians.  The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
   1984  The Hernando De Soto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3:65–77.

Hunt, George T.
   1967  The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Intertribal Trade Relations.  University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Hunter, W. A.
   1959  The Historic Role of the Susquehannocks.  In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by John Whitthoft and W. Fred Kensey, III, pp.  8–18.  The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Johnson, Kristen J.
   1983  Formation of Archaeological Refuse Deposits at the Wall Site.  Ms. in author's possession.

   1984  A Preliminary Statement on Plant Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Jordan, Jerry (editor)
   1987–1990  Cherokee by Blood.  3 vols.  Heritage Books, Bowie, Maryland.

Kaler, S. P., and R. H. Maring
   1907  History of Whitley Co., Indiana.  B. F. Bowen and Company, Evansville, Indiana.
Karklins, Karlis
   1982  Glass Beads.  History and Archaeology 59.  National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Keene, Arthur S.
   1981  Optimal Foraging in a Nonmarginal Environment: A Model of Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies in Michigan.  In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by Bruce Winterhalder and Eric Alden Smith, pp. 171–193.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kent, Barry C.
   1984  Susquehanna's Indians.  The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series, No.  6. Harrisburg.

Kenyon, W. A.
   1982  The Grimsby Site: An Historic Neutral Cemetery.  Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.

Kidd, K. E., and M. A. Kidd
   1970  A Classification System for Glass Trade Beads for the Use of the Field Archaeologists.  Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 1:45–89.

King, Frances B.
   1982  Preliminary Analysis of Botanical Remains from Phillips Spring.  In Holocene Adaptations Within the Lower Pomme de Terre River Valley, Missouri, vol. 3, edited by Marvin Kay, pp. 701–727.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City.

Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe
   1984  The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Klippel, Walter
   1971  Prehistory and Environmental Change along the Southern Border of the Prairie Peninsula during the Archaic Period. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl
   1980  Settling with the Indians.  Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, New Jersey.

Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
   1971  Archaeological Implications of Social Stratification at the Etowah Site, Georgia.  In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:58–67.

Lawson, John
   1967  A New Voyage to Carolina, edited with an introduction and notes by Hugh T. Lefler.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

LeBlanc, Steven
   1971  An Addition to Naroll's Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relationship.  American Antiquity 36:210–211.

Lederer, John
   1672  The Discoveries of John Lederer.  Samuel Heyrick, London.

Lee, Richard B., and Irven DeVore
   1976  Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
   1967  A New Voyage to Carolina by John Lawson.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Lewall, E. F., and I. McT. Cowan
   1963  Age Determination in Black-tail Deer by Degree of Ossification of the Long Bones.  Canadian Journal of Zoology 41:629–636.

Lewis, Clifford M., and Albert J. Loomie
   1953  The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570–1572.  Published for the Virginia Historical Society by the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Lewis, Ernest
   1951  The Sara Indians, 1540–1768: An Ethno-Archaeological Study.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Lieberson, Stanley
   1969  Measuring Population Diversity.  American Sociological Review 34(6):850–862.

Lopinot, Neal H.
   1983  Analysis of Flotation Sample Materials from the Late Archaic Horizon.  In The 1982 Excavations at the Cahokia Interpretive Center Tract, St. Clair County, Illinois, by Richard W. Jefferies, pp. 77–108.  Research Paper No. 37, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

McCary, Ben C.
   1957  John Smith's Map of Virginia.  With a Brief Account of Its History.  University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

McCollough, Major C. R., Quentin R. Bass, II, William O. Autry, and Duane R. Lenhardt
   1980  Phase II Archaeological Investigations of Ten Specified Locales in the Falls Lake Reservoir Area, Falls Lake, North Carolina.  Submitted to Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.

MacCord, Howard A., Sr.
   1983  Indians of Piedmont Virginia: An Abbreviated Culture History.  Paper presented at A Conference on Piedmont Archeology, Yorktown, Virginia.

McIlwaine, H. R. (editor)
   1910  Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1727–1740.  Richmond, Virginia.

   1928  Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, vol. 3.  Virginia State Library, Richmond.

   1930  Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, vol. 4.  Virginia State Library, Richmond.

McManus, Jane M.
   1985  An Analysis of the Lithic Artifact Assemblage from the Forbush Creek Site (31Yd1), Yadkin County, North Carolina. Honor's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Major, R. H. (editor)
   1849  The Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia, by William Strachey.  Hakluyt Society, London.

Marks, S. A., and A. W. Erickson
   1966  Age Determination in the Black Bear.  Journal of Wildlife Management 30(2):389–410.

Martin, Alexander C., and William D. Barkley
   1961  Seed Identification Manual.  University of California Press, Berkeley.

Merrell, James H.
   1982a  Natives in a New World: The Catawba Indians of Carolina, 1650–1800.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

   1982b  "Our Bond of Peace": Patterns of Intercultural Trade in the Interior, 1650–1700.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.

   1984a  "Their Very Bones Shall Fight": Catawba-Iroquois Relations.  Paper presented at the Forty-Fourth Conference on Early American History, "The 'Imperial' Iroquois," Williamsburg, Virginia.

   1984b  The Indians' New World: The Catawba Experience.  William and Mary Quarterly (3rd ser.) 41:537–565.

   1987  "This Western World": The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525–1725.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 19–27.  Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1989  The Indians' New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Meyers, J. T.
   1970  Chert Resources of the Lower Illinois Valley.  Reports of Investigations 18, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Michel, Francis Louis
   1916  Report of the Journey of Francis Louis Michel from Berne, Switzerland, to Virginia, October 2, 1701–December 1, 1702.  Translated and edited by William J. Hinke.  Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 24:1–43, 113–141, 275–288.

Miller, Carl F.
   1957  Reevaluation of the Eastern Siouan Problem with Particular Emphasis on the Virginia Branches—The Occaneechi, the Saponi, and the Tutelo.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 164, Anthropological Papers 52, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

   1962  Archaeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin , Roanoke River Virginia–North Carolina.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 182, River Basin Surveys Papers 25, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Milling, Chapman J.
   1940  Red Carolinians.  The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Milner, George R.
   1980  Epidemic Disease in the Postcontact Southeast: A Reappraisal.  Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 5:39–56.

Moerman, Daniel E.
   1986  Medicinal Plants of Native America.  Research Reports in Ethnobotany, Contribution 2, Technical Reports No. 19, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,  Ann Arbor.

Montgomery, F. H.
   1977  Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and Northeastern United States.  University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Mooney, James
   1894  The Siouan Tribes of the East.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 22, Washington, D.C.

   1907  The Powhatan Confederacy, Past and Present.  American Anthropologist n.s. 9(1):129–152.

Moore, Julie H.
   1973  Preimpoundment Studies, Falls Project, a Survey of the Vascular Plants.  Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Moore, Julie H., and Emily W. Wood
   1976  B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake: Assessment of the Vegetation.  Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Morris, Percy C.
   1975  A Field Guide to Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies.  Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Morrison, A. J.
   1921  The Virginia Indian Trade to 1673.  William and Mary Quarterly (2nd ser.) 1:217–236.

Morton, Richard L. (editor)
   1956  The Present State of Virginia from Whence Is Inferred a Short View of Maryland and North Carolina, by Hugh Jones.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Mouer, L. Daniel
   1983  A Review of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Monacans.  In Piedmont Archaeology: Recent Research and Results, edited by J. Mark Wittofski and Lyle E. Browning, pp. 21–39.  Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 10, Richmond.

Myers, Albert Cook (editor)
   1970  William Penn's Own Account of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians.  The Middle Atlantic Press, Somerset.

Navey, Liane
   1982  An Introduction to the Mortuary Practices of the Historic Sara.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Neumann, George
   1967  The History of Weapons of the American  Revolution. Harper and Row Publishers, New York.

Newman, Robert
   1977  An Analysis of the European Artifacts from Chota-Tanasee: An Eighteenth Century Overhill Cherokee Town.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Noël Hume, Ivor
   1969  A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America.  Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

   1974  All the Best Rubbish.  Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
Novick, L. A.
   1978  Prehistoric Lithic Material Sources and Types in South Carolina: A Preliminary Statement.  South Carolina Antiquities 10(1), Archeological Society of South Carolina, Columbia.

Odum, Eugene P.
   1976  The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.  In Human Ecology: An Environmental Approach, edited by P. Richerson and J. McEvoy, III, pp. 81–95.  Wadsworth, Belmont, California.

Orange County [North Carolina] Register of Deeds
   1790  Deed Books.  Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Orange County [Virginia] Register of Deeds
   1741–1743  Order Book 3:308–309.  Orange, Virginia.

Orchard, William C.
   1929  Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians.  Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

O'Shea, John M.
   1984  Mortuary Variability, An Archaeological Investigation. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Payne, Sebastian
   1972  On the Interpretation of Bone Samples from Archaeological Sites.  In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 65–81.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

   1975  Partial Recovery and Sample Bias.  In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. T. Clason, pp. 7–17.  North Holland, Amsterdam.

Pearson, Philip Edward
   1842?  Memoir of the Catawbas, sent to Governor James Henry Hammond.  Ms., typescript copy in the York County Public Library, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Peebles, Christopher S.
   1971  Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations of Mortuary Practice II.  In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown.  Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:68–91.

Peet, Robert K.
   1974  The Measurement of Species Diversity.  Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:285–307.

Percy, George
   1972  A Trewe Relacyon of the Proceedings and Ocurrentes of Momente which have Happened in Virginia from . . . 1609, until . . . 1612.  In Virginia, Four Personal Narratives, edited by Richard C. Robey.  Arno Press, n.p.

Peterson, Harold
   1956  Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526–1783.  The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg.

Petherick, Gary L.
   1985  Architecture and Features at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1984 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 53–178.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Architecture and Features at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 29–80.  Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Petruso, Karl M., and Jere M. Wickens
   1984  The Acorn in Aboriginal Subsistence in Eastern North America: A Report on Miscellaneous Experiments.  In Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America, edited by Patrick J. Munson, pp. 360–378.  Prehistory Research Series, vol. 6, no. 2, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Pianka, E.
   1978  Evolutionary Ecology.  Harper and Row, New York.

Polhemus, Richard (editor)
   1987  The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town.  Report of Investigations 41.  Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Price, Edward, Jr.
   1950  Mixed-blood Populations of the Eastern United States as to Origins, Localizations, and Persistence.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

Price, F. G. Hilton
   1908  Old Base Metal Spoons.  B. T. Batsford, High Holborn, London, England.

Quinn, David B.
   1977  North America from Earliest Discovery to First Settlements: The Norse Voyages to 1612.  Harper and Row, New York.

Page: References S–Z, Page Number: 252  
References R–Z
Radford, Albert E., Harry F. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell
   1968  A Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Ramenofsky, Ann F.
   1987  Vectors of Death.  University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Raymond, Percy E.
   1952  Latten Spoons of the Pilgrims.  In Antique Metalware, edited by James Mitchell.  University Books, New York.

Reese, George (editor)
   1981  The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier, vol. 2.  The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Rights, Douglas L.
   1931  The Trading Path to the Indians.  North Carolina Historical Review 8(4):403–426.

   1957  The American Indian in North Carolina.  John F. Blair, Winston-Salem.

Rights, Douglas L., and William P. Cumming
   1958  Essay on the Indians of Lederer's "Discoveries".  In The Discoveries of John  Lederer, edited by W. P. Cumming, pp. 111–126.  University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Rindos, David
   1984  The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, New York.

Robinson, W. Stitt
   1979  The Southern Colonial Frontier, 1607–1763.  University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rothchild, Nan A.
   1979  Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization at Indian Knoll and Dickson Mounds.  American Antiquity  44:658–675.

Runquist, Jeannette
   1979  Analysis of the Flora and Faunal Remains from Protohistoric North Carolina Cherokee Indian Sites. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Rush County Clerk of Courts
   1869  Court Papers: Jefries vs. O'Brien case of 1869.  Rushville, Indiana.

Sahlins, Marshall D.
   1968  Tribesmen.  Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Sainesbury, W. N. (editor)
   1893  Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies, 1669–1674.  Printed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by Eyre and Spottiswoods, London.

Salley, Alexander S. (editor)
   1911  Narratives of Early Carolina, 1650–1708.  Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Saunders, William L. (editor)
   1968  The Colonial Records of North Carolina.  AMS Press, New York.  Originally published 1886–1890, P.M. Hale, Raleigh.

Saxe, A. A.
   1971  Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in Mesolithic Populations from Wade Halfa, Sudan.  In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown.  Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:39–56.

Schiffer, Michael B.
   1972  Archaeological Context and Systemic Context.  American Antiquity 37:156–165.

   1976  Behavioral Archeology.  Academic Press, New York.

Schorger, Arlie W.
   1955  The Passenger Pigeon: Its Natural History and Extinction. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Schroedl, Gerald F.
   1980  Structure and Village Pattern at the Historic Overhill Cherokee Towns of Chota and Tanasee.  Paper presented at the 37th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans.

   1983  Eighteenth Century Overhill Cherokee Domestic Structures. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia.

Seehan, B. W.
   1980  Savagism and Civility: Indian and Englishmen in Colonial Virginia.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Service, Elman R.
   1962  Primitive Social Organization.  Random House, New York.

Severinghaus, C. W.
   1949  Tooth Development and Wear as Criteria of Age in White-tailed Deer.  Journal of Wildlife Management 13(2):195–216.

Sheldon, Elisabeth Shepard
   1978  Childersburg: Evidence of European Contact Demonstrated by Archaeological Plant Remains.  Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special Publication No. 5, pp. 28–29.

Shelford, Victor E.
   1963  The Ecology of North America.  University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.

Siebert, Frank T., Jr.
   1945  Linguistic Classification of Catawba.  International Journal of American Linguistics 11:100–104, 211–218.

Simpkins, Daniel L.
   1984  Some Spatial Configurations of Late Archaeological Components in the Carolina-Virginia Piedmont.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg.

   1985  First Phase Investigations of Late Aboriginal Settlement Systems in the Eno, Haw, and Dan River Drainages, North Carolina.  Report submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Simpkins, Daniel L., and Gary L. Petherick
   1986  Second Phase Investigations of Late Aboriginal Settlement Systems in the Eno, Haw, and Dan River Drainages, North Carolina.  Report submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Sizemore, Beverly A.
   1984  "Gorges" and "Wampum": Shell Artifacts from the Wall and Fredricks Sites.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historic Archaeology, Williamsburg.

Smith, Bruce D.
   1974  Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations: A Predictive Model.  American Antiquity 39(2):274–291.

   1975a  Toward a More Accurate Estimation of Meat Yield of Animal Species at Archaeological Sites.  In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. T. Clason, pp. 99–106.  North Holland, Amsterdam.

   1975b  Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. Anthropological Papers 57.  Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

   1976  "Twitching": A Minor Ailment Affecting Human Paleoecological Research.  In Cultural Change and Continuity, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 275–292.  Academic Press, New York.

   1985  The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-Maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States.  Southeastern Archaeology 4(1):51–72.

Smith, Eric Alden
   1979  Human Adaptation and Energetic Efficiency.  Human Ecology 7:53–74.

Smith, Gerald P.
   1965  An Archaeological Survey of the New Hope River Valley. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Smith, Hale G.
   1956  The European and the Indian: European-Indian Contact on Georgia and Florida.  Special Publication No. 4, Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville.

Smith, Marvin T.
   1987  Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period.  Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History No. 6.  University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Snow, Dean R., and Kim M. Lanphear
   1989  More Methodological Perspectives:  A Rejoinder to Dobyns.  Ethnohistory 36:299–304.

South, Stanley
   1959  A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1964  Analysis of the Buttons from Brunswick Town and Fort Fisher.  The Florida Anthropologist 17:113–133.

   1977  Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.  Academic Press, New York.

Speck, Frank G.
   1919  The Functions of Wampum among the Eastern Algonkian. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 6(1):3–71.

   1935  Siouan Tribes of the Carolinas as Known from Catawba, Tutelo, and Documentary Sources.  American Anthropologist 37:201–225.

Spicer, Edward H. (editor)
   1961  Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Stewart, Karen
   1988  So Good a Work: The Brafferton School.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Stone, Lyle
   1974  Fort Michilimackinac 1715–1781.  Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Sturtevant, William C.
   1958  Siouan Languages in the East.  American Anthropologist 60:738–743.

   1975  Two 1761 Wigwams at Niantic, Connecticut.  American Antiquity 40:437–444.

Styles, Bonnie Whatley
   1981  Faunal Exploitation and Resource Selection: Early Late Woodland Subsistence in the Lower Illinois Valley.  Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Evanston, Illinois.

Sumner, W. M.
   1979  Estimating Population by Analogy: An Example.  In Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Carol Kramer, pp. 164–174. Columbia University Press, New York.

Swanton, John R.
   1946  The Indians of the Southeastern United States.  Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137, Washington, D.C.

Tainter, J.
   1978  Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems.  In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 105–141.  Academic Press, New York.

Talalay, Laurie, Donald R. Keller, and Patrick J. Munson
   1984  Hickory Nuts, Walnuts, Butternuts, and Hazelnuts: Observations and Experiments Relevant to Their Aboriginal Exploitation in Eastern North America.  In Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America, edited by Patrick J. Munson, pp. 338–359.  Prehistory Research Series 6(2), Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Trinkley, Michael, and S. Homes Hogue
   1979  The Wachesaw Landing Site: The Last Gasp of the Coastal Waccamaw Indians.  Southern Indian Studies 31:3–20.

Trinling, Marion (editor)
   1977  The Correspondence of The Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia, 1684–1776.  2 vols.  University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Turner, E. Randolph
   1978  An Intertribal Deer Exploitation Buffer Zone for the Virginia Coastal Plain–Piedmont Regions.  Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 32: 42–48.

Turner, F. J., and J. Verhoogen
   1960  Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology.  McGraw-Hill, New York.

Tyler, Lyon Gardiner (editor)
   1907  Descriptions of Virginia and Proceedings of the Colonie, by John Smith.  In Narratives of Early Virginia.  Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Ubelaker, D. L.
   1978  Human Skeletal Remains.  Adeline Publishing, Chicago.

Ucko, Peter
   1969  Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains.  World Archaeology 1:262–280.

Uphof, J. C.
   1968  Dictionary of Economic Plants.  2nd ed.  Wheldon and Wesley, Ltd., Codicote, Hertfordshire, England.

U.S. Bureau of the Census
   1790  Records of the 1790 Federal Census in Orange County, North Carolina.

   1850  Records of the 1850 Federal Census Records in Macon County, North Carolina.

   1910  Records of the 1910 Federal Census in Whitley County, Indiana.

U.S. Commission of Indian Affairs
   1934–1935  Commission of Indian Affairs Papers.  National Archives Record Group 75-3218-34-800, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, Senate
   1897  The Catawba Tribe of Indians.  Senate Document #144.  Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
   1974  Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States.  Agriculture Handbook No. 450, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Varner, John G., and Jeanette J. Varner (translators and editors)
   1951  The Florida of the Inca.  University of Texas Press, Austin.

Vaughan, Alden T.
   1977  New England's Prospect by William Wood.  University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

Voegelin, E. W.
   1944  Mortuary Customs of the Shawnee and Other Eastern Tribes. Indiana Historical Society, Prehistoric Research Series 2(4).

Ward, H. Trawick
   1980  The Spatial Analysis of the Plow Zone Artifact Distributions from Two Village Sites in North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1984a  Intra-Site Patterns at the Warren Wilson Site.  Paper presented at the Conference on Cherokee Prehistory, Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.

   1984b  The Spatial Dimension of Siouan Mortuary Ritual: Implications for Studies of Change.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historic Archaeology, Williamsburg.

   1985  Social Implications of Storage and Disposal Patterns.  In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 82–101.  University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

   1986  Burials, Features, and Structures.  In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1985 Excavations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 15–41.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Mortuary Patterns at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 81–110.  Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
   1987a  The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change, Preliminary Report of 1986 Investigations. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987b  A Comparison of Plowzone and In Situ Site Structure at the Fredricks Site, a Siouan Village in Piedmont North Carolina.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston, South Carolina.

   1988  Archaeology of the Historic Occaneechi Indians.  Southern Indian Studies 36–37.

   1991  The Impact of Old World Diseases on the Native Inhabitants of the North Carolina Piedmont.  Archaeology of Eastern North America 19:171–181.

   1993  Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont, A.D. 1000 to 1700.  Monograph No. 2, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Warrick, Gary A.
   1988  Estimating Ontario Iroquoian Village Duration.  Man in the Northeast 36:21–60.

Waselkov, Gregory A.
   1977  Prehistoric Dan River Hunting Strategies.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1986  Seventeenth Century Middleman Trade in the Colonial Southeast.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville.
Waselkov, Gregory, Brian M. Wood, and Joseph M. Herbert
   1982  Colonization and Conquest: The 1980 Archaeological Excavations at Fort Toulouse and Fort Jackson, Alabama. Auburn University, Montgomery.

Washburn, Wilcomb E.
   1957  The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Watson, Patty Jo
   1976  In Pursuit of Prehistoric Subsistence: A Comparative Account of Some Contemporary Flotation Techniques. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:77–100.

Watts, Steve
   1985  Native vs. Trade Items in the Eighteenth Century Material Culture of the Catawbas and Other Southeastern Native Peoples.  Ms. on file, Schiele Museum, Gastonia, North Carolina.

White, P. S., and S. T. A. Pickett
   1985  Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics: An Introduction. In The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics, edited by S. T. A.  Pickett and P. S. White, pp. 3–13.  Academic Press, New York.

White, T. E.
   1953  A Method for Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples.  American Antiquity 18:396–398.

White, Wesley
   1981  Historical Overview of the [Saponi] Tribe: Second Essay.  Ms. in possession of author.

Whitthoft, John, W. Fred Kinsey, III, and C. H. Holzinger
   1959  A Susquehannock Cemetery: The Ibaugh Site.  In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by John Whitthoft and W. Fred Kinsey, III, pp. 99–119.  Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Whyte, Thomas R.
   1986  A Middle Woodland Fishery of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Wiens, J.
   1976  Population Responses to Patchy Environments.  Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7:81–120.

Williams, Roger
   1643  A Key into the Language of America.  George Dexter, London.  (Reprinted for the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Tercentary Committee, Inc., 5th ed., Roger Williams Press, Providence, 1936).

Williams, Samuel C. (editor)
   1930  Adair's History of the American Indians (Reprint of the 1775 London edition).  The Watauga Press, Johnson City, Tennessee.

Wilson, Homes H.
   1984  European Trade Goods from the Fredricks Site (31Or231).  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg.

    1986  Human Skeletal Remains. In The Historic Occaneechi: An Archaeological Investigation of Culture Change.  Final Report of 1985 Investigations, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 42–76.  Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1987  Human Skeletal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites.  In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 111–139.  Monograph Series No. 1, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Wilson, Jack H., Jr.
   1976  Final Report: 1974 Excavations within the New Hope Reservoir.  Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1977  Feature Fill, Plant Utilization and Disposal Among the Historic Sara Indians.  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1983  A Study of Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic Indians of the Carolina and Virginia Piedmont: Structure, Process, and Ecology.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

   1985  Feature Zones and Feature Fill: More than Trash.  In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 60–81.  University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wing, Elizabeth
   1977  Subsistence Systems in the Southeast.  The Florida Anthropologist 30(2):81–87.

   1979  Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Lifeways. Academic Press, New York.

Winkler, Helmut G. F.
   1976  Petrogenesis of Metomorphic Rock.  Springer-Verlag, New York.

Winterhalder, Bruce
   1980  Environmental Analysis in Human Evolution and Adaptation Research.  Human Ecology 8:135–170.
   1981  Optimal Foraging Strategies and Hunter-Gatherer Research in Anthropology: Theory and Models.  In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by Bruce Winterhalder and Eric Alden Smith, pp. 13–35.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

   1983  The Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Diet: Stalking an Optimal Foraging Model.  Paper prepared in advance for Wenner-Grenn Symposium No. 94, Cedar Cove, Florida.

Wright, J. Leitch, Jr.
   1981  The Only Land They Knew: The Tragic Story of the American Indians in the Old South.  The Free Press, New York.

Wright, Louis B.
   1947  The History and Present State of Virginia, by Robert Beverley.  University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Wright, Louis B. (editor)
   1966  The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover: Narratives of a Colonial Virginian.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Yarnell, Richard A.
   1974  Plant Food and Cultivation of the Salt Cavers.  In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 113–122.  Academic Press, New York.

   1978  Domestication of Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North America.  In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 289–299.  Anthropological Papers 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

   1982  Problems of Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains of the Eastern Woodlands.  Southeastern Archaeology 1:1–7.

   1983  Prehistoric Plant Foods and Husbandry in Eastern North America.  Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.

   1987  Prehistoric Plant Foods and Husbandry in Eastern North America.  Missouri Archaeologist (in press).

Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black
   1983  Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Prehistoric Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America.  Revised version of a paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina.

   1985  Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4:93–106.