Normandy Archaeological Project Explained

The Normandy Archaeological Project was a rescue excavation designed to preserve the archaeological history of the area before it became submerged by the construction of the Normandy Reservoir Dam through funding from the Tennessee Valley Authority. After the construction of the dam, historic information about that area could not be accessed, so prior to the construction of the dam, as much research as possible had to be done on the area. This salvage effort was conducted in the Duck River Valley area, of middle Tennessee from March 1971 until the summer of 1975, prior to the completion of the dam in 1976. The fieldwork was done mainly by researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, under contract to the Tennessee Valley Authority Contract and National Park. The dam creating the Normandy Reservoir was built on the Duck River at mile marker 248.6 in Coffee and Bedford County, Tennessee, named after the town of Normandy, Tennessee. The two nearest cities are Manchester and Tullahoma.[1]

Large excavation projects need time for full evaluation of the project area in order to determine the relationship of the findings and obtain usable information through focusing on the hypothesis. In this way a wide view of the area and the time space within it was obtained. This large project also allowed a rare opportunity for young archaeologists to receive field training on a site soon to become forever inaccessible. The fieldwork on the Normandy project began with an investigation of surface collections to ascertain the intensity of prehistoric occupation in this portion of the valley. The sites were then mapped, with assistance from local collectors and the Coffee-Franklin County Chapter of the Tennessee Archaeological Society. Eighty three archaeological sites were found in the general project area twenty eight of which were determined to be out of the range of the maximum pool stage of the reservoir although still in danger of damage from development. Sixty-nine of the sites had previously been discovered prior to the excavations in the reservoir. Thirty of these sites were found by members of the Coffee-Franklin County Chapter of the Tennessee Archaeological Society.[2] Although previous sites had been surveyed, the surrounding uplands were most often not included. Those typological areas are included in this project in an attempt to gain a better analysis of the patterns of culture and history of the ancient peoples of the Duck Valley.

History

Prehistoric environment

The Upper Duck Valley lies between the Highland Rim and the Nashville Basin in central Tennessee. The valley floor of the area lies in the basin while the rim of the valley is the highland. The Normandy Reservoir was to be built over these landscape formations. Each of these two areas were segmented into four different environmental zones; The floodplain, older alluvial terrace, valley slopes and bluffs, and uplands. Previous studies and information indicated large prehistoric sites were present in this area.The subtropical climate of the area is characterized by hot summers and mild winters with the most rainfall occurring during the winter and spring, creating heavy stream flow in the Duck River from November to May.[3]

The project area has four bio geographic zones: Flood Plain Zone, Older Alluvial Terrace Zone, Valley Slopes and Bluff Zone, and the Upland Zone.[4] Each zone has varying vegetation and flood patterns. Since prehistoric settlement in the area was determined, in part, by the availability of natural resources it was assumed that by examining the sites and materials found in each zone one could determine habitation and subsistence patterns in the Duck Valley area for the native inhabitants. Major occupations were found spanning the period from the Late Archaic, through the Mississippian periods.[5] Many of the earlier sites, dating to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, were covered by later occupations. During the Middle Archaic period (c. 4000-6000 BC), larger sites appeared, with locations again guided by environmental factors, as was the case throughout prehistory.[5]

Agriculture and resources

Lithic resources

Lithics found in the greatest abundance in the Duck Valley included: cryptocrystalline quartz, blue-grey and tan chert, gray banded chert, fossiliferous chert, limestone, shale, mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone. Large quantities of chert artifacts were found indicating the importance of chert as a resource for tool making.[4]

Some lithic resources found in the reservoir are thought to have been derived locally, although there were also exotic materials present. These were most likely obtained through trade with peoples in the surrounding region. Some of the exotic materials included: cryptocrystalline quartz, blue-green nodular chert, Dover chert, novaculite, quartz, vein quartz, chalcedony, Horse Mountain agate, sandstone, hematite, steatite, slate, green slate, banded slate and igneous rock. These materials are, in some cases long distances from their source. Some came from as far away as the Great Lakes. This suggests that the groups of the upper Duck Valley were not secluded, but were instead active participants in established trade with other distant groups.[4] The amount of lithic material suggests repeated use of the area over time, and was most frequently used during the Early Archaic and Late Archaic/Early Woodland periods.

Escalation of increased contact with other groups throughout the Mid-South is suggested by the occurrence of steatite and Dover chert at the Banks I and Banks II sites indicating inter-regional trade in the Upper Duck Valley by 1000 BC.[6]

The project was reported in a number of volumes written by Dr. Charles Faulkner and Major C.R. McCollough, the project directors.

Faunal resources

The prehistoric Indians of the Duck Valley region could have utilized the rich faunal resources available. There are at least three hundred and three vertebrates, excluding fish, which were available. Mollusk species, many still present in the Duck River today, could have also been integrated into their subsistence system. One hundred seven species of fish were available in the Duck River. Turtles, alligators, turkey, owls, quail, waterfowl, deer, raccoon, gray fox, red fox, mink, muskrat, woodchuck, squirrel, opossum, eastern cottontail, and otter are some of the primary animal species available. Some large mammals that were without doubt utilized by these populations included elk, mountain lion, black bear, gray wolf, white-tailed deer, and bison. The white-tail remained as the most commonly used source of meat and very constant in the diet of the Duck River Valley inhabitants.[7]

Floral resources

The Duck Valley is a transitional zone between the Western and Mixed Mesophytic forests of the highland rim and Nashville Basin. The inhabitants of this area would have had ample natural resources at their disposal. The plant resources available in this region are closely tied to soil topography and climate. The types of plant resources dominant in the Nashville Basin are as follows:[8]

Zones

Archaeological sites in the Flood Plain Zone

Along the river, waterfowl, birds, fish, turtles, aquatic mammals and mollusk could all be utilized. Spring, early summer, late summer, and early fall would have been the most productive time for exploiting the resources of this region. Although resources may have been sparse in the winter months food would have still been available because of the variety of wildlife in this zone. Five sites have been recorded in this zone[9] Although artifacts were found in this zone no well defined early assemblages were recovered. The rich biodiversity, fertile soil and available lithic resources made this area perhaps the most attractive zone to prehistoric inhabitants.[10]

Archaeological sites in the Older Alluvial Terrace Zone

The large number of sites (n-64) found at the older alluvial terrace is due to the topography of the area, since there were not many animal resources available in this zone. In the closed canopy the only mammal that would find this zone attractive would be the raccoon. Spring would be the most productive time for this zone.[11]

Archaeological sites in the Valley Slopes and Bluff Zone

Spring, late summer, early summer, and fall would be the time of maximum productivity in this area. Only two sites documented in these zones.[12]

Archaeological sites in the Upland Zone

Late summer, early fall and fall would be a productive time for this region. Fourteen sites were found at this zone.[13]

Archaeology

Survey of the Normandy Reservoir

The fieldwork in Normandy project began with an investigation of surface collections to ascertain the intensity of prehistoric occupation in this portion of the valley. The excavation was to take place between the years of 1971 to 1976. Each season would provide segmenting markers for the excavation. A volume of work was published following each complete seasonal cycle including some additional publications. The area of the Normandy project was naturally divided into two areas. The Upper Rim and the Nashville Basin, both of which were divided again for the purpose of the project, into four areas: the floodplain zone, older alluvial terrace, valley slopes, and uplands. The dam's scheduled construction was to begin in 1976. Under this time constraint for such a large project, the project had to proceed efficiently. This is the planned and executed layout of the excavations that went underway including the most noted or distinguished sites. The course of action was to follow these steps:

Excavation sites of interest

Phase I: 1971-1972

During this time, one-hundred and sixty eight sites were discovered with a total of two-hundred and forty five identifiable components. It is possible for a single site to have more than one component. The cultural phases associated with the components were determined by identifying the projectile points and ceramics associated with the component. These components are uncovered in phase I mainly by removal of the plow zone in search of features that may require further excavation. The component's phases identified as following: six Paleo-Indian/Clovis, ten Transitional Paleo-Archaic/Dalton/Big Sandy, seventeen Middle Archaic, twenty four Terminal Archaic/Wade, six Early Woodland/ Watts Bar/ Long Branch, forty Middle Woodland, sixteen late Woodland, ten Woodland, four Mississippian, and four late-eighteenth-to-nineteenth-century Euro-American sites.

Phase II: 1972-1973

This phase began in 1973 following the phase II, tested four large sites; Riddle, Boyd II, Wiser-Stephens, and Anthony II.. During this phase two sites with indication of heavy occupation were recovered.

Wiser-Stephens: Dating reveals this site to be associated with the Late Archaic period and Late Woodland period with greater occupation during the Late Woodland.

Phase III: 1973-1974

In the following spring, summer and fall of 1973, phase III progressed.

The last two years: 1975-1976

Focus was shifted during these last two years. This time would be spent on intensive excavation of the four sites with the most significant elements. This was done to maintain most focus on the initial hypotheses which asked the question; What was the relationship between environment and culture during the late Archaic and Mississippian periods, or the past 4000 yrs?

Interpretations

Cultural phases

The following categorizations are the result of radiocarbon dates in association with the cultural components to draw an image of the passing cultural phases. This data was derived from a sample pool consisting of eighty two radiocarbon dates and seven archaeomagnetic dates. By combining these factors, cultural phases can be placed into the proper archaeological time periods. The following is an interpretation of the cultural phases within their associated time periods. By classifying artifacts, a picture of what cultures occupied the Basin during what times can be understood. In addition, a view of when the basin remained uninhabited can also be drawn. Identifying cultural time periods and phases, along with determining patterns of occupation, can also be very beneficial when determining the amount of contact between cultural phases and groups residing simultaneously.

Normandy Basin cultural phases present
PaleoindianArchaicWoodlandMississippian
 Middle ArchaicLate ArchaicEarly WoodlandEarly Middle WoodlandMiddle WoodlandLate Middle WoodlandLate WoodlandMississippianLate Mississippian
  Ledbetter PhaseLong Branch PhaseMcFarland PhaseMcFarland PhaseOwl Hollow PhaseMason PhaseEmergent Mississippian Phase 
  Hicks PhaseWatts Bar Phase Owl Hollow PhaseMason Phase Early Mississippian Phase 
  Wade PhaseNeel Phase Mason Phase    

Conclusions

Subsistence developments

The hypothesis concerning the usage of plants and animals in the culture and how that relates to settlement pattern, was focused on and tested against the materials found. The question of whether or not the patterns of hunting and gathering shifted into a more agricultural focus in coordination with the passage of time from Archaic to Mississippian. White tailed deer was the primary source of meat but other vertebrates were a constant alternative. When questioning which plants were a source of food, a variety of herbaceous annuals were utilized from the late archaic and increased onto the Middle Woodland. Maize was found in context with the Owl Hollow, while other food sources such as squash and gourd rind were also recovered. Domestication of herbaceous plants such as the chenopodium, marsh elder, and even the domestication of some of these plants was evident by the Middle Woodland period. This shift to intensive gardening seems to coincide with a shift from sparse settlements to condensed communities within the fertile floodplain of the lower reservoir zone in the Owl Hollow and Banks phases.

Settlement and community patterns

The past four-thousand years was the time span in question and was concentrated on most intensively to determine whether or not the individuals were living a mobile hunter gatherer lifestyle of whether they were living in a permanent villages. In the early Middle woodland period, homes were found scattered throughout both reservoir zones, but these scattered temporary settlement patterns had shifted to more permanent homes found only in the lower reservoir by the late McFarland phase. This may have been a result of the efforts toward the construction of the Old Stone Fort enclosure. Permanent homes were found only in the lower reservoir zones during the Mississippian cultures and during the Owl Hollow phases. These observed shifts in settlement are explained with a correlation to their subsistence patterns, patterns of gardening herbaceous annuals, and some maize farming done by the Owl Hollow people. An alternative way of determining whether a home is temporary or permanent is to observe the frequency of food preparation and storage facilities. In the Archaic phase the only site with evidence of this time period is the Eoff III. The completeness of the components found here indicates the reduced frequency of use of this area as a temporary seasonal dwelling as the community shifted towards a less mobile lifestyle. In the Ledbetter phase, more storage pits, burials, and postholes are observed. Continuing in to the wade phase a greater degree of permanency is indicated by homes with walls and roofs. More exotic materials such as dover chert and steatite are seen in this phase which indicated a greater degree of complexity in trade and communication.

Major occupations were found in the area spanning from the Late Archaic period, through the Mississippian periods. "From archaeological observation, there is no verification of late or protohistoric Mississippian occupation of the Reservoir area".[5] Initial Native American populations were mobile hunter-gatherers living in small groups. Many of the earlier sites, dating to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, were covered by later occupations. During the Middle Archaic period (c. 4000-6000 BC), larger sites appeared, with locations again guided by environmental factors, as was the case throughout prehistory.[5] Ceramics appeared after 1000 BC. during the Woodland period. Cultural continuation is evident between the Early Woodland Long Branch and Middle Woodland McFarland Phases. The latter phase of which seems to relate with the Copena culture of Northern Alabama. Connections to Scioto and Havana Hopewell in Ohio and Illinois and southern Hopewellian sites, like Tunacunnhee, are indicated by foreign grave goods, extravagant burial practices, and earthworks. With c. AD 200 comes the appearance of the Owl Hollow culture. There is little to no connection between the Owl culture and the Mason phase. Although some Mason culture traits, such as net impressed pottery and shaft-and-chamber graves are found in Late Woodland Cultures. Sites from the Woodland period remain small, little can be determined from this period. Only Jernigan II shows evidence of extended seasonal occupation even though occupation decreased on the Duck River during this time. Within the Upper Duck Valley, the Middle Woodland periods exhibits proof of having the densest population which consisted of 25-30 individuals, or three extended households. The upper duck river valleys continued to undergo testing to ascertain the subsistence and settlement patterns of the Middle Woodland phase.

Surrounding sites

Not far from Lake Normandy lies the Old Stone Fort Archaeological state park, a 2000 yr old Indian ceremonial site. Built by the people of the Middle Woodland culture, the walls and mounds that were once believed to be a fort are now thought to be a 50-acre enclosure making a ceremonial site and gathering place. The park is on the National Register of Historic Places.[15]

Scientific publications

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973p)
  2. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973, p329-330)
  3. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973p9-10)
  4. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973,p11-34)
  5. (Excavations and Testing, Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project,1974, p580)
  6. (Excavations and Testing, Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project,1974, p582)
  7. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973, p34-40)
  8. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973, p8-11
  9. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973p11-17)
  10. (Excavations and Testing, Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project,1974, p573-580)
  11. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973p18-23)
  12. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973, p24-28)
  13. (Introductory Report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, Volume 1, Department of Anthropology, 1973, p28-34)
  14. (Third Report on the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project, University of Tennessee, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1976, p27-57)
  15. http://www.lakelubbers.com › USA › South › Tennessee › Middle

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Normandy Archaeological Project".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.