Archaeological Site Prediction

Houston County, Georgia

Woodland Indians

Laura Barfoot

Abstract

This GIS project aims to establish a model for predicting likely locations of archaeological sites. Due to lack of resources and time, the project focused on the Woodland Indians of Houston County, Georgia. Upon completion of the project, central Houston County, just South of Perry, GA, was discovered to be the location most likely to yield archaeological sites. It contains an area of 115,451,000 meters squared and a perimeter of 110664 m.

Introduction This GIS project deals with the

prehistorical archaeology of the Woodland Indians of Houston County, GA. Predicting new sites is a difficult, time consuming process that deals with long hours of research and preliminary surveys. Many newly discovered sites are the result of Phase I Cultural Resource projects, which are usually conducted before construction of a new building. Pedestrian surveys are time-consuming, and test trenches and pits are expensive and may cause unnecessary site damage and disturbance. By isolating the environmental and subsurface conditions most favorably disposed to both preserving archaeological features and artifacts and providing the people’s favored habitation environment, one might be able to predict areas that will most likely yield archaeological treasures.

Introduction:Purpose The purpose of this

project is to narrow down new locations of archaeological sites for Woodland Indians (1000 BC – AD 1000), and hopefully to establish a new method for locating sites for future utilization.

Introduction:Data Sources

Background Research:1. Goldberg, Paul and Richard Macphali. Pracitcal and Theoretical

Geoarchaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Ltd., 2006.

2. Holliday, Vance. Soils in Archaeological Research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

3. White, Max. The Archaeology and History of the Native Georgia Tribes. Gainesville, Fl: University Press of Florida, 2002.

4. Hammack, Stephen. Email correspondence. Archaeological Director at RAFB.

5. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy.

Introduction:Data Sources

Data Layers:1. Georgia GIS Clearinghouse. https://gis1.state.ga.us. US Bureau of Census.

Houston County hydrography, Houston County contour, Houston County boundary. 1:100,000, UTM 1983 projections, 1998.

2. USGS Georgia Department of Natural Resources. USGS Center for Spatial Analysis Technologies – GIS Data for Georgia. (22 March 2006). http://csat.er.usgs.gov/statewide Georgia Slopes and Georgia Soils NAD 1983, 1:100,000

3. ESRI Tigerline 2000 Census Data – US Bureau of Census. http:arcdata.esri.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_county.cfm?sfips=13. Designated Places 2000, (28 March 2006)

MethodologyMethodology

Methodology

1. Downloaded and saved all of my data.

2. Imported it into ArcGIS (rasters, shapefiles, and Export)

3. Clipped GA soils with Houston boundary to form SoilClip.

Methodology

4. In a new map, used on-the-fly projection to put GA slope with houston boundary, converted the slope raster into a vector, and then clipped the slope for Houston County.

5. Added SoilClip to new map.

6. After I was unable to align the flood data, I decided to add basic Houston hydrography to the map instead.

Methodology

7. Selected the two areas that had the soils where they would most likely live.

8. Added a new data frame with labeled soils.

9. Added a new data frame with selected slopes that would be best for habitation.

Methodology

10. Continued to create new data frames for the areas I selected: one with the selected slopes contained within the layers, selected by attribute best soils and slopes for preservation, selected by location the selected slopes contained within selected soils.

11. I created the final map by selecting by attribute the best soils, selected the slopes by location within the selected soils, then, I selected by attribute the best slopes within the contained area.

12. Imported contour elevation.

Methodology

10. Went back and for all my data frames created new layers from the selected features.

11. Created symbology for each layer, customized labels, renamed layers and data frames, created background (linear gradiant), and then saved all as layer files.

10.I added all the layer files in, and then removed excess layers.

11.Downloaded 3 major places to create a sense of location.

12.Drew Analysis and Conclusions.

Final Map

Woodland Woodland

IndiansIndians

Woodland Indians (1000 BC – AD 1000) (White 41-52)

Part of the Hopewell Culture, centered in the Ohio Valley

The Woodland Indians “followed the seasonal cycle, hunting and gathering as natural foods became available in different environmental zones…”

Woodland Indians

Early Woodland (1000 BC – AD 1)

-- Round-house structures, storage pits, ate acorns, walnuts, and hickory nuts

-- Medium-Sized triangular projectile points

-- “sites are typically on the floodplain of rivers and sometimes cover an acre or more. Thick middens have been found at some sites of this period, and the larger cooking pits are up to 3 feet deep” (44), and found in deciduous forest

Woodland Indians

Middle Woodland (AD 1-500)-- More permanent village life-- Began minimal horticulture

Late Woodland (AD 500-1000)-- still living in mounds-- began farming maize (AD 660), sunflower,

squash--Stratified culture

Conclusions: Soils in HoustonI discovered from the maps the following soils

exist in Houston County:Series OrderVaucluse UltisolsLakeland EntisolsOrangeburg UltisolsChewacla InceptisolsRiverview InceptisolsChastain InceptisolsFaceville UltisolsLucy UltisolsBoswell AlfisolsGreenville UltisolsBibb EntisolsTifton UltisolsDothan UltisolsGrady UltisolsOsier EntisolsPelham UltisolsRains Ultisols

Ultisols – supported hardwood and coniferous forests, freely drained

Entisols – housed steep, eroded slopes, floodplains, tolerates permanent and sporadic wetness, supports forest and wildlife

Inceptisols – forest vegetation, very poor drainage, water near surface

Alfisols – deciduous forest setting

Conclusions: Best Habitation Sites

I surmised that the best habitation sites would be those that the soils contained evidence of forests and floodplains, and the lower slopes.

Boswell-Greenville-Bibb

Chewacla-Riverview-Chastain

Osier-Pelham-Rains

Vauclusa-Lakeland-Orangeburg

Orangeburg-Faceville-Lucy

Conclusions: Best Preservation Conclusions: Best Preservation SitesSites

Soils (Goldberg 47)Entisols – less erosion, acidic, can handle

stability, good location for people to live, but bad for future preservation

Inceptisols – form in humid regions, which destroys organic materials and is bad for overall preservation

Ultisols – weathered soils, found in older landscapes and good for preservation

Conclusions: Best Preservation Conclusions: Best Preservation SitesSites

Alfisols – somewhat good for preservation, especially ecofacts (pollen and charcoal, bone, etc.), keeps the horizon levels which preserves stratigraphy

Top 3: Orangeville-Faceville-Lucy

Tifton-Dothan-Grady

Boswell-Greenville-Bibb

Conclusions: Best Preservation Sites(Goldberg 78-79)

Upper Slopes Topsoils, A horizons

Displaced artifacts, common location of negative features (pits, ditches, postholes

Midslopes Bedrock, exposed in gullies, eroded/ overthickened sediment, well drained soils

Buried features and artifacts

Lower Slopes Stabilized top soils and stony horizons

Overthickened A horizons

Increased stratigraphic resolution, potential locations of buried occupation sites

Valley Floor Poor Drainage, seasonably high water tables, peats, human activities

Good stratigraphy, possible preservation of organic materials and “routeways” (bridges, causeways, fords, industrial activities)

Conclusions: General Analysis

53 bodies of water currently reside in the selected region, which could provide support for a community of hunter-gatherers with slight horticulture.

The most common elevation is 100 meters high, with a range between 70 and 110 meters.

The perimeter of the soil area is 110,664 m and an area of 115,451,000 sq meters.

Conclusions: General AnalysisGA097 CROPS FLOOD_DURA DRAINAGE ARCHAEOLOGY

Greenvill None Wellburied/eroded features, oxidation of organic remains, loss of

stratigraph

Bibb Long (Dec-May) Poorexposed artifacts, loss of stratigraphy, can preserve organic

remains in

Boswell None Medium Well some stability, stratigraphy preserved, habitation sites preserved

All soybeans

oats

bermuda grasses

grass hay

corn

peanuts

tobacco

Future use of conclusionsFuture use of conclusions

Look at the area and determine future Look at the area and determine future construction and developments, and construction and developments, and what is already therewhat is already there

Compare the area with the Compare the area with the environmental conditions of known environmental conditions of known archaeological sitesarchaeological sites