Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Sarah E . Cowie

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Sources: Macon Plateau (Mason 1963:218; Smith 1992:65); Tarver Sites (Pluckhahn 1997:242); Upatoi sites (Elliott et al. 1998:XIV-65); Kasita town (Willey and Sears 1952; Smith 1992:65); Ochillee Creek site (Cowie 2001). Pinched applique sherds are not included, as they may belong to either brushed or plain vessels. Table 2. Comparative Percentages of Ceramic Types from Creek Site Assemblages.

Table 2 Sources: Macon Plateau (Mason 1963:218; Smith 1992:65); Tarver Sites (Pluckhahn 1997:242); Upatoi sites (Elliott et al. 1998:XIV-65); Kasita town (Willey and Sears 1952; Smith 1992:65); Ochillee Creek site (Cowie 2001). Pinched applique sherds are not included, as they may belong to either brushed or plain vessels. Table 2. Comparative Percentages of Ceramic Types from Creek Site Assemblages.

Related Figures (5)

Figure 1. Sketch of the household compound of the Apalachicola Prince, ca. 1775, redrawn from Davis’ copy of Bartram’s illustration (the location of Bartram’s original drawing is unknown). In Bartram’s key, H is a lodging house, C is a cook house, W is a ware house, and P is a pavilion (Bartram 1995[1853]:157).
Figure 1. Sketch of the household compound of the Apalachicola Prince, ca. 1775, redrawn from Davis’ copy of Bartram’s illustration (the location of Bartram’s original drawing is unknown). In Bartram’s key, H is a lodging house, C is a cook house, W is a ware house, and P is a pavilion (Bartram 1995[1853]:157).
Figure 2. Map of ceramic concentrations from shovel tests at the Ochillee Creek Site (9C e379).
Figure 2. Map of ceramic concentrations from shovel tests at the Ochillee Creek Site (9C e379).
Table 1. Artifact Summary for the Ochillee Creek Site. percent of the Creek component. The strong representation of the Kitchen Group is due largely to the presence of thousands of native- made ceramics at the site. The Architecture Group (n=184), Miscellaneous Group (n=91), and the Activities Group (n=143) are pres- ent, but much less so, each representing be- tween one and four percent of the collection. The Clothing Group (n=16), Furniture Group (n=1), Personal Group (n=3), Arms Group (n=15), and the Tobacco Group (n=3) each represent well under one percent of the surface collection. cs aE a, SE, Oo Twelve sherds from eight different contexts were evaluated with this formula by Daniel Elliott (personal communication 1999). The values of x varied between 1.12 mm and 5.88 mm, with an average of 3.13 mm. This yielded a date of 1820.226 for the incised ceramics at the site. Although a sample size of only twelve sherds is too small to prove statistically valid, the date does fall comfortably into the Late Lawson Field date range. It should also be not- ed that Knight’s technique was developed for dating Upper Creek sites, and it is not known whether the dating method is equally applica- ble to Lower Creek sites. S: 2: See A ee cee cam sea aeme apm sme _ 7.
Table 1. Artifact Summary for the Ochillee Creek Site. percent of the Creek component. The strong representation of the Kitchen Group is due largely to the presence of thousands of native- made ceramics at the site. The Architecture Group (n=184), Miscellaneous Group (n=91), and the Activities Group (n=143) are pres- ent, but much less so, each representing be- tween one and four percent of the collection. The Clothing Group (n=16), Furniture Group (n=1), Personal Group (n=3), Arms Group (n=15), and the Tobacco Group (n=3) each represent well under one percent of the surface collection. cs aE a, SE, Oo Twelve sherds from eight different contexts were evaluated with this formula by Daniel Elliott (personal communication 1999). The values of x varied between 1.12 mm and 5.88 mm, with an average of 3.13 mm. This yielded a date of 1820.226 for the incised ceramics at the site. Although a sample size of only twelve sherds is too small to prove statistically valid, the date does fall comfortably into the Late Lawson Field date range. It should also be not- ed that Knight’s technique was developed for dating Upper Creek sites, and it is not known whether the dating method is equally applica- ble to Lower Creek sites. S: 2: See A ee cee cam sea aeme apm sme _ 7.
Figure 3. Features in relation to ceramic concentrations at the Ochillee Creek Site.
Figure 3. Features in relation to ceramic concentrations at the Ochillee Creek Site.
Table 3. Functional Artifact Groups in Test Units within Artifact Concentrations
Table 3. Functional Artifact Groups in Test Units within Artifact Concentrations
Related topics:
ArchaeologyHistorical Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved