Journal of Field Archaeology

ISSN: 0093-4690 (Print) 2042-4582 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20

Island Archaeology and the Native American

Economies (2500 B.C.–A.D. 1700) of the Georgia
Coast

Victor D. Thompson & John A. Turck

To cite this article: Victor D. Thompson & John A. Turck (2010) Island Archaeology and the Native
American Economies (2500 B.C.–A.D. 1700) of the Georgia Coast, Journal of Field Archaeology,
35:3, 283-297, DOI: 10.1179/009346910X12707321358991

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/009346910X12707321358991

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 124

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20
Island Archaeology and the Native American
Economies (2500 B.C.–A.D. 1700) of the Georgia
Coast
Victor D. Thompson
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

John A. Turck
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Our research along the Georgia coast of the southeastern United States explores the role that small islands
played in Native American economies over some 4000 years (ca. 2500 B.C.–A.D. 1700). Most archaeological
research in the region has concentrated on large barrier islands that front the Atlantic Ocean. Less
understood are the much smaller back-barrier islands, also called marsh islands, located in the inter-tidal
environment. Our survey of four of these islands, Little Sapelo Island, Pumpkin Hammock, Mary Hammock,
and Patterson Island, indicates that such landforms were important for most of the prehistoric and early
historical Native American occupations of the coast. These landforms were key components in subsistence
systems that relied heavily on estuarine resources. We discuss the implications of our study regarding
method and theory in archaeology, and consider long-standing debates as to the productivity of coastal
and maritime resources and the notion of insularity in island archaeology. Specifically, we suggest that, for
some regions, small islands facilitate connectivity between areas. Further, the methodological implications
of our study suggest that many small islands should be investigated as sites. That is, the nature of activity
over the entire landform should be the focus of investigations.
Keywords: Island archaeology, Coastal archaeology, Southeastern United States, Native American, Settlement patterns

Introduction the coast of Africa were often colonized prior to

Islands are attractive to people for a number of
reasons including physical beauty, access to resources,
and as refuges. These landforms were attractive to
groups that settled them in the past as well as the
present. Unfortunately, what makes a ‘‘good’’ island
in the past does not necessarily make it amenable to
archaeological investigations. Archaeologists have
tended to focus on large, often easily accessible islands,
thus neglecting those smaller and harder to-get-to
places of coastal and marine environments.
Recently, Keegan and his colleagues (2008; see also
Fitzpatrick et al. 2008; Keegan and Diamond 1987)
explored the bias towards large islands. In their study of
human occupation and colonization of the Caribbean
region, they found that size has little to do with an
island’s relative importance to human groups. Rather
more significant is the island’s location vis-à-vis key
resources—either terrestrial or aquatic (Keegan et al.
2008: 636). Such a pattern is not localized to the
Caribbean. Mitchell (2004) found that small islands off
settlement of the larger islands in the region. In terms of
land-use, archaeological excavations by Mellars at a
small island called Oronsay in the Inner Hebrides group
off the coast of Scotland show ‘‘intensive and economic
exploitation by Mesolithic groups’’ (1987: 2). Likewise,
many small islands in the Pacific evidence long-term use
and colonization (e.g. Bedford 2006; Kirch 1997). The
main point offered by Keegan and his colleagues, that
comparatively small islands could provide ‘‘opti-
mal habitat’’ (2008: 651) should be considered by
all archaeologists working in coastal and maritime
settings.
Archaeological work along the southern Atlantic
coast of North America has, for the most part, been
focused on large islands. On the Georgia coast
specifically, most research centers not only on the
oceanfront Pleistocene-aged, barrier islands, but also
on the larger sites found on those landforms (Crook
1984; Thomas 2008a; Thompson 2007). These inves-
tigations have contributed to a host of anthropological

ß Trustees of Boston University 2010

DOI 10.1179/009346910X12707321358991 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 283
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
issues: subsistence (e.g. Hutchinson et al. 1998; Keene
2004; Larsen et al. 1992; Reitz 1988, 2008), the
development of inequality (e.g. Thomas 2008b),
community organization, (e.g. Crook 1984), hunter-
gatherer mobility and monument construction (e.g.
Crook 2007; Thompson 2007, 2010; Thompson
and Andrus in press), identity and interaction (e.g.
Thompson et al. 2008; Worth 2009), health and
population (e.g. Hutchinson et al. 1998; Larsen et al.
2001; Stojanowski 2005), and colonial encounters (e.g.
Thomas 1993; Worth 1995, 2009). Despite the key
information that these studies provide we do not
understand how site-specific information from large
islands articulates with the broader landscape. To put
this in perspective, there are at least 1400 marsh islands
(this number excludes those marsh islands that were
created by ballast and dredging during the historical
era) along Georgia’s 160 km-long segment of the
Atlantic coast. The vast majority of these islands are
less than 0.5 sq km; most (85%) do not amount to more
than diminutive patches (,0.04 sq km) of uplands
(Clark Alexander personal communication 2010).
Thus, we know little of how Native Americans occupied
the broader landscape that is composed mostly of small
islands.
The research presented here explores the role that
numerous small islands played in Native American
coastal economies of the Georgia coast. Based on
archaeological survey, we show that Native Ameri-
cans utilized small islands for over 4000 years.
Despite major environmental and social disruptions
such as changes in sea level, shifts in socio-political
complexity, the addition of maize agriculture, the
coming of Europeans, and endemic disease, these
islands continued to be important to coastal groups
until their abandonment in the early 18th century. We
suggest that small islands were central to the
functioning of Native American coastal economies
during the entire time humans intensively occupied
this region. This was due, in part, to the location of
these landforms next to key resources in the intertidal
environment.
The present study allows us to address, in general,
three key interrelated issues in terms of the archae-
ology of such environments. As noted above, the first
of these issues is the biased view of the archaeology of
large islands alone, particularly with regards to
settlement and colonization (sensu Keegan et al.
2008). Related to this topic is what the archaeology
of small islands, particularly those that are in close
proximity to the mainland and other islands, con-
tributes to long-standing debates and models of
coastal adaptations. In particular, our study has
implications for what Erlandson (2001: 290) has
termed the ‘‘Gates of Hell’’ and ‘‘Garden of Eden’’
models of coastal adaptations. These models basically
284 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
posit that aquatic resources were either unproductive
and unable to support stable populations, or abundant
and plentiful. Following Erlandson (2001), we believe
that such a dichotomy does not really exist. However,
we believe these models provide a useful framework to
discuss coastal studies. Finally, our data allow us to
address the nature of ‘‘island’’ archaeology itself.
The key issue is the question of insularity and
connectivity among groups that inhabited various
islands (Anderson 2004; Boomert and Bright 2007;
Fitzpatrick 2004; Fitzpatrick and Anderson 2008;
Fitzpatrick et al. 2007; Renfrew 2004; Rainbird 2007).
Many researchers discuss islands that are truly remote,
such as those found in the Pacific. Our study allows us
to explore the commonalities among these seemingly
more isolated locations and those of places like the
Georgia coast, where the next island may be a short
canoe ride away, or walk, depending on the tide. We
argue that such places have common ground, and when
taken as a comprehensive whole, they have the potential
to enlighten us about how humans have taken
advantage of such environments throughout history.
Defining Small Islands along the Georgia Coast
The islands of the Georgia coast are situated in an
expansive marsh-estuarine system subject to a tidal
range of up to 3 m. This complex ecosystem is part
of what is known as the Georgia Bight, a large
embayment that extends from Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida (Hubbard et al.
1979; Reitz et al. 2009: 48). The Georgia coast is
characterized by a series of major barrier islands that
are separated from the mainland by a ca. 10-km
intertidal area of estuaries, tidal creeks, sounds, and
salt marshes (FIG. 1). Of the 15 major barrier islands,
eight are Pleistocene in origin, while the others are
Holocene in age. The sizes of these islands vary from 5
to 15 km long and 1 to 5 km across (Hubbard et al.
1979; Reitz et al. 2009: 48). While the smaller of these
barrier islands, such as Tybee Island at just over
6 sq km, is the size of Tikopia in the southwestern
Pacific Ocean, the subject of our research is on still
much smaller landforms.
Behind the relatively larger barrier islands are
numerous marsh islands that either are Holocene in
age or are remnants of former Pleistocene shorelines
(Hoyt and Hails 1967; Hubbard et al. 1979). While
some larger marsh islands are found in this back-
barrier environment, our focus was on marsh islands
smaller than 0.5 sq km (FIG. 2). Marsh islands can be
defined as landforms that are bounded mainly by
tidal marsh, but also by tidal creeks and/or estuaries,
and that support a terrestrial vegetative community
(Whitaker et al. 2004). An aerial photograph of one
of these marsh islands, Mary Hammock, shows the
surrounding environment in detail (FIG. 3).
3
 Thompson and Turck
Figure 1 The Georgia coast and its major environmental zones.
While marsh islands are minuscule compared to
the barrier islands, they are more numerous than
their larger counterparts. These marsh islands repre-
sent the smallest stable landforms utilized by Native
America groups. When and how intensively these
islands were utilized is central to understanding the
overall settlement and subsistence system of the
Georgia coast.
The Archaeology of the Georgia Coast
In order to contextualize our research on marsh islands,
here we provide a brief background regarding sea level
fluctuation, chronology, subsistence, biocultural adap-
tations, and demographic trends. Culturally and
chronologically, our study is concerned with the
Native American groups that occupied the coast
between and following 2500 B.C.–A.D. 1700. This time-
frame includes what regional archaeologists refer to as
the Late Archaic (2500–1100 B.C.), Early Woodland
(1100–400 B.C.), Middle Woodland (400 B.C.–A.D. 500),
Late Woodland (A.D. 500–1000), Early Mississippian
(A.D. 1000–1325), Late Mississippian (A.D. 1325–1580),
and the Historical Contact sub-periods (A.D. 1580–1700)
(DePratter 1991; Thomas 2008a). These sub-periods can
Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
be further subdivided into phases based on ceramic
types (DePratter 1991). However, for simplicity we will
use chronological dates with the sub-period denoted in
parentheses so that it will be clear to readers who are
both familiar and unfamiliar with these terms.
While it is probable that there was intensive
settlement of the Georgia coast prior to 2500 B.C.
(Russo 1996; Thompson and Worth in press), it is
only after this time that occupation is archaeologi-
cally visible; sea level had risen near to the present-
day coastline, about 1.2 m below present mean sea
level (Colquhoun and Brooks 1986; DePratter and
Howard 1980, 1981; Gayes et al. 1992). From 2500
B.C. to 1100 B.C. (Late Archaic), coastal populations
intensively exploited estuarine resources. The most
archaeologically obvious of these resources is the
Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Large shell-
bearing sites are ubiquitous during this period. Some
of these deposits are as tall as 3 m and form complex
ring shapes almost 100 m in diameter (DePratter
1979; Russo and Heide 2001; Saunders 2002;
Thompson et al. 2004; Thompson 2007). These sites,
termed ‘‘shell rings,’’ are home to some of the earli-
est pottery in North America (Sassaman 1993;
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 285
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
Figure 2 The locations of the four marsh islands in the present study, and their relation to the mainland and Sapelo Island, one
of the major barrier islands on the Georgia coast.
Thompson et al. 2008) and are argued, in part, to
represent sedentary villages (Thompson and Andrus
in press; see also Russo 1998, 2004).
By 1100 B.C. (Early Woodland), sea levels had
reversed direction, dropping possibly as much as
4 meters below present mean sea level (DePratter and
Howard 1980; 1981; Gayes et al. 1992). Based on the
regional site database, Thompson and Turck (2009)
found that many of the larger barrier islands were
either not occupied during this time, or not as
intensively occupied as they had been during the
preceding timeframe. During this time it appears also
that there was a greater reliance on terrestrial and
inland river valley resources (DePratter 1976, 1977,
1978: 70–72; Marrinan 1975: 78). By 400 B.C., sea
level had risen to approximately where it was prior to
the drop. It is possible that some sites that date to the
1100–400 B.C. period are now inundated due to
ongoing elastic sea level rise, including sites that were
located on the fringes of marsh islands.
After 400 B.C., there is ample evidence for human use
of the coastal and estuarine environments in the form
of large shell middens (Thompson and Turck 2009).
Analysis of sites dating to between 2500 B.C. and A.D.
1000 (Late Archaic–Late Woodland) by Thompson
and Turck (2009) corroborate studies of sites con-
ducted on the major barrier island of St. Catherines
that indicate a continual rise in population after 400
B.C. (Thomas 2008b). In terms of subsistence, the
inhabitants of the coast from 2500 B.C. to A.D. 1000
286 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
(Late Archaic–Late Woodland) can be rightly thought
of as coastal foragers (Reitz 1988; Thompson and
Turck 2009; Thomas 2008a; Thomas and Larsen
1979). In fact, there is little evidence for use of
cultigens (prior to the introduction of maize later) for
most of the lower coastal plain of the eastern United
States (Gremillion 2002: 485, 500; see also Reitz 1988).
Although the type of estuarine resources that Native
groups focused on changed over time, species from this
habitat remained an important part of the overall
economy during most of the occupation of the coast
(Reitz et al. 2009; Reitz 1988, 2008; Quitmyer and
Reitz 2006). The exception to this is the clear reduction
in marine foods during the mission era in the 16th
century (Hutchinson et al. 1998; Larsen et al. 1992).
After A.D. 1150, (throughout the Early–Late Mis-
sissippian and Historical Contact periods), maize was
utilized to varying degrees (Hutchinson et al. 1998;
Keene 2004; Larsen et al. 2001). In general, the
pattern identified by Hutchinson and his colleagues
(1998), based largely on isotopic and other bioarch-
aeological data, indicates a gradual increase in the use
of maize after A.D. 1150, but with some variation (see
Larsen et al. 1992). This greater reliance on maize
was accompanied by a moderate decline in health in
the form of increased carious lesions, increased infec-
tion and infectious disease, and reduced adult height
(Hutchinson et al. 1998; Larsen 1982). However,
while maize does make its way into the coastal diet,
populations continued to depend heavily on estuarine
3

Figure 3 Close-up aerial photo of Mary Hammock, one of the marsh islands in the present study. The general environmental
context of such islands includes tidal marsh, tidal creeks, and estuaries.
resources prior to European contact (Hutchinson
et al. 1998; Larsen et al. 2001; Schoeninger 2009:
637). After European contact and the establishment
of Spanish missions along the coast, the diet of
coastal Native Americans becomes more homoge-
nous and there is a greater reliance on maize
(Hutchinson et al. 1998; Larsen et al. 2001;
Schoeninger 2009). This shift along with population
aggregation in the context of demographic collapse
was accompanied by a precipitous decline in the
health of coastal populations (Hutchinson et al. 1998;
Larsen 2002; Larsen et al. 2001; Stojanowski 2005).
In addition to shifts in demography and subsis-
tence, Native Americans also experienced substantial
shifts in organizational and socio-political complex-
ity. From 2500 B.C. on there is evidence of large,
intensively occupied sites suggesting organizational
complexity beyond that which is associated with
small, highly mobile, hunter-gatherers (Thompson
2007, 2010; Thompson and Andrus in press).
Further, just prior to the introduction of maize, there
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
is evidence to suggest that groups were organized into
complex polities with inherited leadership positions
(e.g. chiefdoms) (Thomas 2008b; Thompson and
Worth in press). This idea is largely based on the
research carried out on St. Catherines Island and the
documentation of large-scale architecture in main-
land coastal sites (Anderson 1994; Thompson 2009;
Thomas 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
Finally, with the coming of Europeans, coastal
populations were subjected to endemic diseases,
assimilation pressure from the Spanish, and revolts;
in general a deteriorating quality of life (Larsen 1990;
Larsen et al. 2001; Thompson and Worth in press;
Worth 1995). For example, an epidemic in the winter
of A.D. 1654, thought to be smallpox, is said to have
wiped out nearly half of the Guale population, the
group that occupied the northern Georgia coast
(Milanich 1999: 160; Thomas 1993). By the late
1600s, the last of the Spanish missions had been
wiped out ‘‘and the Georgia coastline was abandoned
by its indigenous peoples’’ (Worth 1995: 42).
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 287
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
Several key points should be noted. First, although
there are fluctuations in sea levels throughout the
Holocene, the general trend is a slow rise with at least
one major drop at the end of the Late Archaic.
Second, the general trend in human demography is a
steady rise in population, except during the period
from 1100–400 B.C. (Early Woodland) and during the
period of European contact, when there was a decline
in population as well as health in general. Third, the
majority of the subsistence resources that formed the
base of Native American economies over the past
4000 years are located in estuarine environments.
While maize became a part of the coastal economy
shortly after A.D. 1000, intensive production and
heavy reliance on this plant did not occur until the
European mission system was established in the A.D.
1500s. Thus, the overall picture of coastal popula-
tions is that these groups experienced several major
changes to their way of life over time in terms of
political organization, health, demography, subsis-
tence, and environment change.
Recent Archaeological Survey
The preceding sketch of the archaeology of the
Georgia coast is based on research carried out on
the large barrier islands, and sites located on the
mainland adjacent to coastal areas. As stated above,
our research was focused on the marsh islands within
the back-barrier environment that exists between the
mainland and the barrier islands. To what extent did
Native Americans utilize small marsh islands over the
past 4000 years? In the following sections, we will
show that these landforms were heavily utilized on
and off during this timeframe. Further, the density of
human refuse on some of these marsh islands is
comparable to some of the large aggregate village
sites investigated by archaeologists on the barrier
islands. Finally, despite the numerous changes that
Native populations underwent, these islands contin-
ued to play a pivotal role in coastal economies.
Methods
In order to carry out our research, we selected four
islands (Little Sapelo Island, Pumpkin Hammock,
Mary Hammock, and Patterson Island) between
Sapelo Island and the mainland (FIG. 2). These islands
vary in position in the back-barrier environment, but
fall within our working size definition (i.e. smaller
than 0.5 sq km). Little Sapelo Island (0.47 sq km) is
the largest island in our sample, while Pumpkin
Hammock (0.03 sq km) is the smallest. The other two
marsh islands, Mary Hammock (0.10 sq km) and
Patterson Island (0.18 sq km), fall in between.
To fully sample the range of materials present on
these islands, we conducted a shovel test probe survey
at 20-m intervals, often through dense vegetation
(FIG. 4). Shovel test probes were 50 cm in diameter,
288 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
excavated until two sterile (20 cm) levels were
encountered at the bottom, and usually did not
exceed 1 m in depth. The locations of shovel test
probes were recorded using a Trimble Global
Position System (GPS) using the North American
1927 datum. Table 1 shows detailed shovel test probe
information. In addition to the shovel test probes, we
also collected materials from the exposed shore
scarps of Pumpkin Hammock to supplement our
survey. The locations of these general collection areas
were recorded using the GPS.
All soil from shovel test probes was passed through
6 mm mesh screen. Shell was weighed and discarded
on Pumpkin Hammock, Mary Hammock, and
Patterson Island. On Little Sapelo Island, (the first
island surveyed), shell was not weighed, but the
thickness of shell midden layers were recorded. We
decided after our survey of this island to switch to
shell weight as we felt, given our experience with
student fieldworkers, this was a more objective and
comparable measure than shell midden thickness. On
all marsh islands, the presence or absence of shell was
also recorded.
All artifacts were bagged for analysis and then
processed according to standard archaeological
procedures. Ceramics were classified according to
the sequence developed for the northern Georgia
coast (DePratter 1991; Williams and Thompson
1999). Following classification, all artifacts were then
weighed and counted. Since Native American pottery
sherds represent the most ubiquitous, and time
sensitive artifacts along the coast, we used them
exclusively in this study for dating. The pottery
sequence developed for the northern Georgia coast
allowed us to place ceramic sherds into broad
chronological timeframes: Late Archaic (2500–1100
B.C.), Early Woodland (1100–400 B.C.), Early-Middle
Woodland (1100 B.C.–A.D. 500), Late Woodland (A.D.
Figure 4 Photo of one of the field crews making their way
through the dense vegetation on Mary Hammock. These
conditions are typical of marsh islands.
3

500–1000), Late Woodland-Early Mississippian (A.D.
500–1325), Early-Late Mississippian (A.D. 1000–
1580), Late Mississippian (A.D. 1325–1580), Late
Mississippian-Historical Contact (A.D. 1325–1700),
and Historical-Contact (A.D. 1580–1700), along with
an unknown category. The reason for the over-
lapping timeframes in our analysis (e.g. Early-Middle
Woodland) is that some of the ceramic types cannot
be definitely placed into one time period over
another. It is important to keep in mind that these
categories do not represent intermediate time periods;
they are simply more general categories for ceramics
that cannot be distinguished as belonging to one of
two adjoining time periods.
Values for ceramic sherd counts and weight, shell
weight, and shell midden thicknesses (for Little
Sapelo Island) were then entered into Microsoft
Excel, along with the GPS positions of each shovel
test probe. These data were then converted to a point
shapefile in ESRIs ArcGIS, and then imported into a
Geographic Information Systems database known as
a file geodatabase. This geodatabase was then used to
create maps illustrating the spatial distribution of
ceramics and shell deposits.
The first set of maps was made using the point
data, showing which shovel test probes had ceramics,
shell, or both (FIG. 5A–D). The ‘‘shell’’ referred to in
these maps, is simply its presence or absence. In order
to examine where the densest shell-bearing deposits
were on each island, a second set of maps was created
using shell weight (and shell midden thickness for
Little Sapelo Island) (FIG. 6A–D). The point data were
used to create isopleth maps, using the shell weight or
shell midden thickness as the third dimension of the
map. These maps provide broad overviews of how
space was utilized on these islands. In addition to the
shovel test probe and isopleth maps, we created
histograms for each island showing the percentage of
the total number of sherds and percentage of the total
sherd weight for each time period (FIG. 7A–B). These
values are used as an indication of the intensity of
occupational use by time period for each island
surveyed.
Results
As indicated by the amount of prehistoric pottery, the
four marsh islands have been utilized intensively over
Table 1 Number and percentage of the total number of shovel test probes (STP) on each marsh island that had both
Native American pottery and shell, only pottery, only shell, or were sterile.
Little Sapelo Pumpkin Hammock
STP content #STP %STP #STP %STP
Pottery and shell 214 27.8% 12 21.1%
Pottery only 71 9.2% 9 15.8%
Shell only 212 27.6% 6 10.5%
Sterile 272 35.4% 30 52.6%
Total 769 57
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
time (TABLE 2). They all have a high number of
positive shovel test probes (TABLE 1), as well as a wide
distribution of artifacts and human-deposited shell
(FIG. 5A–D). Mary Hammock (FIG. 5C) has the highest
percentage of positive shovel test probes, with 68%
containing some evidence for prehistoric Native
American activity. This is followed by Little Sapelo
Island (FIG. 5A) with 65%, Patterson Island (FIG. 5D)
with 59%, and Pumpkin Hammock (FIG. 5B) with
47% positive shovel tests probes.
Interestingly, there are a significant number of
shovel test probes that contain either pottery with no
shell, or shell with no pottery (TABLE 1). Only 21% of
the shovel test probes on Pumpkin Hammock had
both pottery and shell, with roughly 30% of the shovel
tests on Little Sapelo, Mary Hammock, and Patterson
Island having both pottery and shell. This finding is
important with regards to how surveys should be
conducted on marsh islands. Archaeological surveys
cannot rely solely on the presence of shell or shell
middens for locating sites. Our findings stress the need
for sub-surface survey in non-shell midden areas to
recover the full range of variation in terms of artifacts
and site types.
The isopleth maps provide a better indication of
where shell middens occur on these islands (FIG. 6A–D).
As noted above, shell midden thickness was used to
make the isopleth map for Little Sapelo Island. While
there are middens on the interior of Little Sapelo
(FIG. 6A), the densest middens seem to be along the
outer edge. Pumpkin Hammock seemingly has a
relatively light concentration of shell (FIG. 6B); how-
ever, erosion is probably a major factor influencing
this under-representation of shell. The eastern edge of
this marsh island, which has a large shell midden
component, is being eroded away by a tidal river.
What is left of the island, especially in the southern
section, is a very thin area of uplands grading into the
marsh, with the remnant edge of dense (ca. 0.75 m
thick) shell midden. On Mary Hammock, the heaviest
concentrations of shell are on the southwestern
portion of the island (FIG. 6C). It is also worth
mentioning that the heaviest amount of shell
(98.7 kg in one shovel test probe) was recorded on
Mary Hammock. The densest shell midden on
Patterson Island occurs on the southern half of the
Mary Hammock Patterson Island
#STP %STP #STP %STP
69 31.1% 117 29.8%
12 5.4% 34 8.7%
69 31.1% 82 20.9%
72 32.4% 160 40.7%
222 393
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 289
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies

Figure 5 Maps for A) Little Sapelo Island; B) Pumpkin Hammock; C) Mary Hammock; and D) Patterson Island showing shovel
test probes having Native American pottery and shell, Native American pottery only, and shell only. Note that the sizes of the
shovel test probes are not to scale.

island (FIG. 6D). It must be noted that in the past, the was constructed sometime between 1942 and 1959,
middle portion of this island was most likely covered and as a result the shell was pushed into large berms
with extensive shell middens. However, a grass air strip along the northern edge of the air strip. These

290 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3

 Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies

Figure 6 Isopleth maps of A) Little Sapelo Island; B) Pumpkin Hammock; C) Mary Hammock; and D) Patterson Island showing
the detailed distribution of shell over the four islands. Note that the shell weight categories and shading are the same for B), C),
and D), for ease of comparison.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 291

Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies

Figure 7 Histograms of A) percentage of total sherd count for each time period for each island; and B) percentage of total
sherd weight for each time period for each island, from Table 2.

292 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3

 Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies

disturbed shell berms were purposefully avoided when
laying out the shovel test probe grid, and thus they
were not a factor in our interpretations. The large
amounts of shell contained in these berms would have
skewed the shell weight map.
While there is a general trend for an increase in
occupation over time, each island had a unique
occupational history as indicated by the percentages of
total sherd count (FIG. 7A) and the percentage of sherd
weight for each period (FIG. 7B). Occupation of Little
Sapleo Island was low during the Late Archaic and
Early Woodland periods, with slight increases in the
Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Early-Late
Mississippian periods. There is a dramatic increase in
occupation during the Late Mississippian period, with
a large decrease during the Historical Contact period.
The Late Archaic period occupation on Pumpkin
Hammock was moderate-to-low, and the island
seems to be abandoned during the Early Woodland
and Middle Woodland periods. We do note, how-
ever, that large numbers of Late Archaic sherds (n 5
42; 1587 g) were recovered from the shoreline of this
island. Thus, it is likely that much of the Late Archaic
period occupation has been eroded away. There is a
significant increase in occupation during the Late
Woodland period, with a decline in occupa-
tion that lasted throughout the Mississippian period.
Different than every other marsh island, there was a

Table 2 Native American sherd counts, weights, and percentages of total sherds for each period for the island surveyed.
LA 5 Late Archaic, EW 5 Early Woodland, MW 5 Middle Woodland, LW 5 Late Woodland, EM 5 Early Mississippian, LM
5 Late Mississippian, HC 5 Historical Contact, UNK 5 Unknown.

Island name Period Sherd count % Count Sherd weight (g) % Weight

Little Sapelo Island LA 19 2.3% 98.3 2.3%

EW 5 0.6% 58.3 1.3%
EW/MW 23 2.7% 396.6 9.1%
MW 21 2.5% 232.9 5.3%
LW 11 1.3% 359.2 8.2%
LW/EM 14 1.7% 78.1 1.8%
EM/LM 95 11.3% 490.3 11.2%
LM 247 29.4% 1389.2 31.9%
LM/HC 38 4.5% 283.3 6.5%
HC 17 2% 173 4%
UNK 351 41.7% 802.1 18.4%
Total 841 4361.3
Patterson Island LA 48 10.2% 605.8 16.4%
EW 3 0.6% 7.6 0.2%
EW/MW 4 0.9% 14 0.4%
MW 42 9% 353 9.6%
LW 12 2.6% 108.3 2.9%
LW/EM 67 14.3% 705.4 19.2%
EM/LM 38 8.1% 288.7 7.8%
LM 82 17.5% 696.5 18.9%
LM/HC 12 2.6% 205.6 5.6%
HC 8 1.7% 65.8 1.8%
UNK 153 32.6% 632 17.2%
Total 469 3682.7
Mary Hammock LA 0 0% 0 0%
EW 4 1.5% 57.9 3.7%
EW/MW 0 0% 0 0%
MW 14 5.2% 160.3 10.2%
LW 19 7.1% 154.4 9.8%
LW/EM 22 8.2% 123.4 7.8%
EM/LM 41 15.2% 197.5 12.5%
LM 130 48.3% 688.1 43.7%
LM/HC 2 0.7% 20.3 1.3%
HC 5 1.9% 51.4 3.3%
UNK 32 11.9% 121.2 7.7%
Total 269 1574.5
Pumpkin Hammock LA 2 3.2% 35.3 8.2%
EW 0 0% 0 0%
EW/MW 0 0% 0 0%
MW 0 0% 0 0%
LW 6 9.5% 70 16.2%
LW/EM 2 3.2% 16 3.7%
EM/LM 3 4.8% 15.5 3.6%
LM 5 7.9% 30.5 7.1%
LM/HC 2 3.2% 9.5 2.2%
HC 16 25.4% 142.9 33.1%
UNK 27 42.9% 112.3 26%
Total 63 432

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 293

Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
dramatic increase in the use of Pumpkin Hammock
during the Historical Contact period.
The occupational patterns on Mary Hammock offer
one striking difference when compared to the other
islands. This island appears to have not been occupied
during the Late Archaic period, but was occupied
during the Early Woodland period. Occu-
pation increased slightly during the Middle and Late
Woodland periods, as well as during the Early-Late
Mississippian period. As on Little Sapelo Island, there
was an exponential increase in occupation during the
Late Mississippian period, and a precipitous drop-off
during the Historical Contact period.
There was a more intense occupation of Late Archaic
peoples on Patterson Island than any other island. As is
typical for most of the Georgia coast, there is a decline
in occupation during the Early Woodland period for
Patterson Island, with an increase in the Middle
Woodland period. Although there seems to be a decline
in the Late Woodland period, this is most likely because
of the large amount of pottery in the Late Woodland-
Early Mississippian category. In fact, this extended
category has the highest percentage of the total sherd
weight (not including the unknown sherd category). It is
probably safe to say that the occupation of Patterson
Island was similar during the Middle Woodland
and Late Woodland periods. The overlapping of the
various Mississippian periods (Late Woodland-Early
Mississippian, Early Mississippian-Late Mississippian,
and Late Mississippian) makes it difficult to tease out
any subtle trends, except to say that the increase in
occupation during the Late Mississippian period was
not as pronounced as other marsh islands. As with the
other islands, there was a decrease in occupation during
the Historical Contact period.
Discussion
We believe that the positive shovel test probes
indicate intensive occupation of these marsh islands,
although when pottery is used to differentiate time
periods of use, the results are not linear. There are
unexpected periods of non-use (e.g. during the Late
Archaic on Mary Hammock and the Early and
Middle Woodland periods on Pumpkin Hammock),
as well as periods of intense occupation (e.g. during
the Late Mississippian on Mary Hammock, the Late
Archaic on Patterson Island, and the Historical
Contact period on Pumpkin Hammock). This illus-
trates just how complex the settlement and subsis-
tence system was for the coastal peoples of Georgia,
and the intricate role these marsh islands played in
those systems.
Being small areas of upland elevation surrounded
by fairly extensive tidal and intertidal habitats, marsh
islands were important areas for the acquisition of
both terrestrial and estuarine resources. Also, due to
294 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
their unique locations, we suggest that marsh islands
would have facilitated connections between people
and resource-use of the mainland and the barrier
islands. Travel to these areas, while often difficult for
archaeologists carrying equipment in large boats,
would have been easy for people in canoes and who
were intimately familiar with the ebb and flow of the
tides (DePratter 2010). In addition, these areas
contain the highest amount of biomass for the coastal
environment (Day et al. 1989). Zooarchaeological
studies of the Georgia coast from multiple time-
frames indicate that resources found in the intertidal
areas contributed significantly to the subsistence
economies of Native Americans that occupied
Georgia’s large barrier islands (Reitz 1988; Reitz
et al. 2009). At the very least, these marsh islands
would have been convenient places for people to stop
on long journeys between the barrier islands and the
mainland. It is also possible that some islands had
permanent settlements, given the amounts of cultural
materials on these islands that accumulated, in some
instances, over short periods of time.
One thing is certain: Native Americans occupied
these marsh islands intensively, although dis-conti-
nually, over time. There are few areas left on them
that show no signs of past human use. The intensity
of use was so great that we propose that each island
should be considered a site, made up of varying
occupational components. Finally, we suggest that
understanding the history of occupation for these
small islands is critical to contextualize the broader
history of the Georgia coast.
Implications for Island Archaeology
Our study of small intertidal islands along the Georgia
coast has implications for coastal and island archae-
ology in general. The methodological implications of
our study are that small islands should be treated, at
least for the Georgia coast, as sites. When choosing a
survey sampling interval, therefore, it is more appro-
priate to employ one that seeks to delineate activity
areas rather than to ‘‘discover’’ sites, as the island is
often more or less isomorphic in the distribution of
cultural materials. For our study we chose a sample
interval of 20 m instead of 30 m, the latter being the
normal spacing for site discovery in Georgia.
Furthermore, archaeologists working in areas where
the consumption of shellfish was prevalent, tend to rely
on the distribution of such remains to define and
identify sites and/or components. Our study shows
that even on small islands, the disposal of artifacts can
occur away from shell deposits.
In terms of its theoretical significance, our study of
the Georgia coast contributes to the recent trend in
studies concerning island archaeology, as well as to the
study of coastal adaptations among human societies.
3

A key concept in island archaeology is the notion of
insularity (Fitzpatrick 2004: 3). As such, a debate has
arisen around notions of connectivity and isolationism
regarding the nature of island societies, and such
discussions have been dominated by archaeologists
working on specific types of islands, largely those
found in the Pacific and the Mediterranean (Moss
2004: 165). Like Moss’s (2004) study of Tlingit
territories, the island societies of the Georgia coast
do not fit the stereotype of insular island societies. In
fact, they are quite the opposite. We argue, however,
that by including studies like Moss’s of the Alaskan
Alexander Archipelago and ours from the Georgia
coast, archaeologists must reconsider what makes
island archaeology significant.
We suggest that the question of connectivity and
isolationism is essentially what defines island archae-
ology. As opposed to studies on mainlands where
connectivity is assumed, island archaeology must first
ask the question: To what degree are groups
occupying or using different islands connected?
Following this, we ask: How were these connections
facilitated? Usually, for islands like those found in the
Pacific, discussions turn to watercraft and navigation
(e.g. Bellwood 1987; Kirch 2000). For the Georgia
coast, we suggest that, in part, it was the small islands
found in the intertidal environment, along with
knowledge of the large tides that dominate this
region that facilitated connections and use of the
broader landscape, which includes the tidally influ-
enced portions of the mainland. Thus, following
Fitzpatrick and Anderson (2008), it is in part the very
nature of the aquatic boundary that structures both
connectivity and isolationism.
As a final point, our study of small islands is
important with respect to the nature of coastal
adaptations in general. Erlandson (2001: 289–292;
see also Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006) summarizes
perspectives on the role of aquatic adaptations in
human history, categorizing scholarly writing on this
subject into two opposing viewpoints referred to as
the ‘‘Gates of Hell’’ and ‘‘Garden of Eden’’ models.
For the Georgia coast, our study of small islands
suggests that despite major shifts in climate, socio-
political complexity, and the introduction of maize,
aquatic adaptations in general, and the use of small
islands specifically, continued to be important to the
economies of Native peoples of the Georgia coast.
While the use and ubiquity of aquatic resources
certainly fluctuated in time and space, such as we
have identified here and elsewhere (e.g. during the
Early Woodland timeframe, see Thompson and
Turck 2009), we nonetheless view the aquatic
resources along the Georgia coast as being important,
productive, and central to the economies of Native
Americans, as opposed to a marginal resource. Thus,
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
the Georgia coast serves as an example of the
diversity of relationships that humans have with the
sea, encompassing the ‘‘Gates of Hell’’ the ‘‘Garden
of Eden’’ and everything else in between.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported, in part, by a grant in
association with the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems
LTER project and the National Science Foundation
Grant (NSF grant OCE-0620959). The Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), the
Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Department of Anthropology at The Ohio State
University, Department of Anthropology at the
University of West Florida, and the Department of
Anthropology at the University of Georgia provided
additional support. Several individuals were instru-
mental in supporting our fieldwork and include
David Crass, Dorset Hurley, Fred Hay, and Buddy
Sullivan. Chester DePratter also provided advice to
us in the field as well as aided in the identification of
some of the ceramic assemblages. We thank him
immensely for his support of this project. We would
also like to thank the undergraduate and graduate
students of the 2007 and 2008 University of West
Florida archaeological field schools. Their help,
enthusiasm, and endurance ultimately made this
work possible. The authors would like to thank
Steven Pennings and Merryl Alber of Georgia
Coastal Ecosystems Long Term Ecological
Research project for their support of our past and
ongoing research. We also thank Clark Spenser
Larsen for his insight on an earlier draft of this
paper. Finally, we are grateful to William Keegan
and two anonymous reviewers whose comments and
critiques greatly improved this paper.
Victor D. Thompson (Ph.D. 2006, University of
Kentucky) is an Assistant Professor at The Ohio State
University. He has been involved in field and museum
based work in Mexico, the Midwest, and the Southeast,
especially in Veracruz, Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida.
His research interests include the archaeology of islands
and coasts, archaeological survey, shallow geophysics,
historical ecology, hunter-gatherers, and monumental-
ity. Mailing address: Department of Anthropology, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210. E-mail:
thompson.2042@osu.edu
John Turck (M.A. 2003, Florida Atlantic University)
is a doctoral candidate in the Department of
Anthropology at the University of Georgia. He has
performed archaeological fieldwork in New York,
Florida, and Georgia. His interests lie in the archaeology
of coastal areas and the natural and human processes
that affect settlement and subsistence patterns. As such,
geological and geographical techniques figure promi-
nently in his endeavors to understand the dynamic
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 295
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
interactions between humans and the environment.
Mailing address: Department of Anthropology, the
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail:
jaturck@uga.edu
References
Anderson, A. 2004. ‘‘Islands of Ambivalence,’’ in S. M. Fitzpatrick
ed., Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 251–274.
Anderson, D. G. 1994. The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political
Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
Bedford, S. 2006. Pieces of the Vanuatu Puzzle: Archaeology of
North, South and Centre. Canberra: Pandanus Books.
Bellwood, P. 1987. The Polynesians. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boomert, A., and A. Bright. 2007. ‘‘Island Archaeology: In Search
of a New Horizon,’’ Island Studies Journal 2: 3–26.
Colquhoun, D. J., and M. J. Brooks. 1986. ‘‘New Evidence From
the Southeastern U.S. For Eustatic Components in the Late
Holocene Sea Levels,’’ Geoarchaeology 1: 275–291.
Crook, M. R. 1984. ‘‘Evolving Community Organization on the
Georgia Coast,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 247–263.
Crook, M. R. 2007. ‘‘Prehistoric Pile Dwellers Within an Emergent
Ecosystem: An Archaeological Case of Hunters and Gatherers
at the Mouth of the Savannah River During the Mid-
Holocene,’’ Human Ecology 35: 223–237.
Day, J. W., C. A. S. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A. Yáez-Arancibia.
1989. Estuarine Ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
DePratter, C. B. 1976. ‘‘The Refuge Phase on the Coastal Plain of
Georgia,’’ Early Georgia 4: 1–13.
DePratter, C. B. 1977. ‘‘Environmental Changes on the Georgia
Coast During the Prehistoric Period,’’ Early Georgia 5: 1–14.
DePratter, C. B. 1978. ‘‘Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence
Systems, Skidaway Island, Georgia,’’ Early Georgia 6: 65–80.
DePratter, C. B. 1979. ‘‘Shellmound Archaic on the Georgia
Coast,’’ South Carolina Antiquities 11: 1–69.
DePratter, C. B. 1991. W.P.A. Archaeological Excavations in
Chatham County, Georgia: 1937–1942. University of Georgia
Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 29. Athens:
University of Georgia.
DePratter, C. B. 2010. ‘‘Thoughts on the Late Archaic/Early
Woodland Transition on the Georgia and South Carolina
Coasts,’’ in D. H. Thomas and M. Sanger, eds., Trend,
Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern
Archaic? Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History. New York: American Museum of Natural
History, 247–252.
DePratter, C. B., and J. Howard. 1980. ‘‘Indian Occupation and
Geologic History of the Georgia Coast: A 5000 year
Summary,’’ in J. Howard, C.B. DePratter, and R.W. Frey,
eds., Excursions in Southeastern Geology: The Archaeology of
the Georgia Coast, vol. 20. Atlanta: Geological Society of
America, 1–65.
DePratter, C. B., and J. Howard. 1981. ‘‘Evidence for a Sea Level
Lowstand Between 4500 and 2400 years B.P. on the Southeast
Coast of the United States,’’ Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
51: 1287–1295.
Erlandson, J. M. 2001. ‘‘The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations:
Paradigms for a New Millennium,’’ Journal of Archaeological
Research 9: 287–350.
Erlandson, J. M., and S. M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. ‘‘Oceans, Islands,
and Coasts: Current Perspectives on the Role of the Sea in
Human Prehistory,’’ Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology
1: 5–32.
Fitzpatrick, S. M. 2004. ‘‘Synthesizing Island Archaeology,’’ in S.
M. Fitzpatrick, ed., Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of
Islands. Westport, CT: Praeger, 3–20.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., and A. Anderson. 2008. ‘‘Islands of Isolation:
Archaeology and the Power of Aquatic Perimeters,’’ Journal of
Island and Coastal Archaeology 3: 4–16.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., J. M. Erlandson, A. Anderson, and P. V. Kirch.
2007. ‘‘Straw Boats and the Proverbial Sea: A Response to
‘Island Archaeology: In Search of a New Horizon,’’’ Journal of
Island Studies 2: 229—238.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., W. F. Keegan, and K. Sullivan Sealey. 2008.
‘‘Human Impacts on Marine Environments in the West Indies
During the Middle to Late Holocene,’’ in T. C. Rick and J. M.
296 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3
Erlandson, eds., Human Impacts on Ancient Marine
Ecosystems. Berkeley: University of California Press, 147–164.
Gayes, P. T., D. B. Scott, E. S. Collins, and D. D. Nelson. 1992. ‘‘A
Late Holocene Sea-Level Fluctuation in South Carolina,’’ in C.
H. Fletcher, III and J. F. Wehmiller, eds., Quaternary Coasts of
the United States: Marine and Lacustrine Systems, SEPM
Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication No. 48.
Tulsa: Society for Sedimentary Geology, 155–160.
Gremillion, K. J. 2002. ‘‘The Development and Dispersal of
Agricultural Systems in the Woodland Period Southeast,’’ in
D. G. Anderson and R. R. Mainfort, Jr., eds., The Woodland
Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 483–501.
Hoyt, J. H., and J. R. Hails. 1967. ‘‘Pleistocene Shoreline
Sediments in Coastal Georgia: Deposition and Modification,’’
Science 155: 1541–543.
Hubbard, D. K., G. Oertel, and D. Nummedal. 1979. ‘‘The Role of
Waves and Tidal Currents in the Development of Tidal Inlet
Sedimentary Structures and Sand Body Geometry: Examples
from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,’’ Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology 49: 1073–1092.
Hutchinson, D. L., C. Spenser Larsen, M. J. Schoeninger, and
L. Norr. 1998. ‘‘Regional Variation in the Pattern of Maize
Adoption and Use in Florida and Georgia,’’ American
Antiquity 63: 397–416.
Keegan, W. F., and J. M. Diamond. 1987. ‘‘Colonization of Island
by Humans: A Biogeographical Perspective,’’ in M. B. Schiffer,
ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 10.
San Diego: Academic Press, 49–92.
Keegan, W. F., S. M. Fitzpatrick, K. Sullivan Sealey, M. J.
LeFebvre, and P. T. Sinelli. 2008. ‘‘The Role of Small Islands
in Marine Subsistence Strategies: Case Studies from the
Caribbean,’’ Human Ecology 36: 635–654.
Keene, D. A. 2004. ‘‘Reevaluating Late Prehistoric Coastal
Subsistence and Settlement Strategies: New Data from
Grove’s Creek Site, Skidaway Island, Georgia,’’ American
Antiquity 69: 671–689.
Kirch, P. 1997. ‘‘Microcosmic Histories: Island Perspectives on
Global Change,’’ American Anthropologist 99: 30–42.
Kirch, P. 2000. On the Road of the Winds. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Larsen, C. S. 1982. The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island: 3.
Prehistoric Human Biological Adaptation. Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 57.
New York: American Museum of Natural History.
Larsen, C. S. 1990. ‘‘Biological Interpretation and the Context for
Contact,’’ in C. S. Larsen, ed., The Archaeology of Mission
Santa Catalina de Guale: 2. Biocultural Interpretations of a
Population in Transition. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 68, New York:
American Museum of Natural History, 11–25.
Larsen, C. S. 2002. Bioarchaeology of the Late Prehistoric Guale:
South End Mound I, St. Catherines Island, Georgia.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History No. 84. New York: American Museum of Natural
History.
Larsen, C. S., M. C. Griffin, D. L. Hutchinson, V. E. Noble, L.
Norr, R. F. Pastor, C. B. Ruff, K. F. Russell, M. J.
Schoeninger, M. Schultz, S. W. Simpson, and M. F. Teaford.
2001. ‘‘Frontiers of Contact: Bioarchaeology of Spanish
Florida,’’ Journal of World Prehistory 15: 69–123.
Larsen, C. S., M. J. Schoeninger, N. J. van der Merwe, K. M.
Moore, and J. A. Lee-Thorp. 1992. ‘‘Carbon and Nitrogen
Stable Isotopic Signatures of Human Dietary Change in the
Georgia Bight,’’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 89:
197–214.
Marrinan, R. A. 1975. ‘‘Ceramics, Mollusks, and Sedentism: The
Late Archaic Period on the Georgia Coast,’’ unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Flordia, Gainesville.
Mellars, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay: Prehistoric Human
Ecology on a Small Island. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Milanich, J. T. 1999. Laboring in the Fields of the Lord: Spanish
Missions and Southeastern Indians, Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Mitchell, P. 2004. ‘‘Towards a Comparative Archaeology of
Africa’s Islands,’’ Journal of African Archaeology 2: 229–250.
Moss, Madonna L. 2004. ‘‘Island Societies are not always Insular:
Tlingit Territories in the Alexander Archipelago and the
adjacent Alaskan Mainland,’’ in S. M. Fitzpatrick, ed.,
Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands. Westport,
CN: Greenwood Press, 165–183.

Quitmyer, I. R., and E. J. Reitz. 2006. ‘‘Marine Trophic Levels
Targeted Between A.D. 300 and 1500 on the Georgia Coast,
U.S.A.,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 806–822.
Rainbird, P. 2007. The Archaeology of Islands. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Reitz, E. J. 1988. ‘‘Evidence for Coastal Adaptations in Georgia
and South Carolina,’’ Archaeology of Eastern North America
16: 137–158.
Reitz, E. J. 2008. ‘‘Nonhuman Vertebrate Remains,’’ in D. H.
Thomas, ed., Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines
Island, Georgia II. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History No. 88. New York: American
Museum of Natural History, 615–665.
Reitz, E., I. R. Quitmyer, and R. A. Marrinan. 2009. ‘‘What Are
We Measuring in the Zooarchaeological Record of Prehispanic
Fishing Strategies in the Georgia Bight, U.S.A.?’’ Journal of
Island and Coastal Archaeology 4: 2–36.
Renfrew, C. 2004. ‘‘Islands Out of Time? Toward an Analytical
Framework,’’ in S. M. Fitzpatrick, ed., Voyages of Discovery:
The Archaeology of Islands. Westport, CT: Praeger, 275–294.
Russo, M. 1996. ‘‘Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settle-
ments,’’ in K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, eds.,
Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, Gainesville:
University Press of Florida, 177–199.
Russo, M. 1998. ‘‘Measuring Sedentism with Fauna: Archaic cultures
along the Southwest Florida Coast,’’ in T. R. Rocek and
O. Bar-Yosef, eds., Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological
Perspectives from Old and New World Sites. Cambridge, MA:
Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 143–164.
Russo, M. 2004. ‘‘Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality,’’ in
J. Gibson and P. Carr, eds., Signs of Power: The Rise of
Cultural Complexity in the Southeast, Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press, 26–70.
Russo, M., and G. Heide. 2001. ‘‘Shell Rings of the Southeast
U.S.,’’ Antiquity 75: 491–492.
Sassaman, K. E. 1993. Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and
Innovation in Cooking Technology. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press.
Saunders, R. 2002. The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42):
Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the
Late Archaic. Columbia: South Carolina Department of
Archives and History.
Schoeninger, M. J. 2009. ‘‘Stable Isotope Evidence for the
Adoption of Maize Agriculture,’’ Current Anthropology 50:
633–640.
Stojanowski, C. M. 2005. Biocultural Histories in La Florida: A
Bioarchaeological Perspective. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
Thomas, D. H. 1993. ‘‘The Archaeology of Mission Santa Catalina
de Guale: Our First 15 Years,’’ in B. G. McEwan, ed., The
Spanish Missions of La Florida. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida, 1–34.
Thomas, D. H. 2008a. ‘‘Synthesis: the Aboriginal Landscape of St.
Catherines Island,’’ in D. H. Thomas, ed., Native American
Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia III.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History No. 88. New York: American Museum of Natural
History, 990–1042.
Thomas, D. H. 2008b. ‘‘Population Growth, Intensification, and
the Emergence of Social Inequality on St. Catherines Island,’’
in D. H. Thomas, ed., Native American Landscapes of St.
Thompson and Turck Island Archaeology and the Native American Economies
Catherines Island, Georgia III. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 88. New York:
American Museum of Natural History, 1046–1094.
Thomas, D. H. 2008c. Native American Landscapes of St.
Catherines Island, Georgia III. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History No. 88, New York:
American Museum of Natural History.
Thomas, D. H., and C. S. Larsen. 1979. The Anthropology of St.
Catherines Island 2. The Refuge-Deptford Mortuary Complex.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History No. 56. New York: American Museum of Natural
History.
Thompson, V. D. 2007. ‘‘Articulating Activity Areas and
Formation Processes at the Sapelo Island Shell Ring
Complex,’’ Southeastern Archaeology 26: 91—107.
Thompson, V. D. 2009. ‘‘The Mississippian Production of Space
Through Earthen Pyramids and Public Buildings on the
Georgia Coast, U.S.A.,’’ World Archaeology 41: 445–470.
Thompson, V. D. 2010. ‘‘The Rhythms of Space-Time and the
Making of Monuments and Places during the Archaic,’’ in D.
H. Thomas and M. Sanger edss, Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil:
What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic? Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 93.
New York: American Museum of Natural History, 217–228.
Thompson, V. D., and C. F. T. Andrus. in press. ‘‘Evaluating
Mobility, Monumentality, and Feasting at the Sapelo Shell
Ring Complex,’’ American Antiquity.
Thompson, V. D., M. Reynolds, B. Haley, R. Jefferies, J. K.
Johnson, and L. Humphries. 2004. ‘‘The Sapelo Island Shell
Rings: Shallow Geophysics on a Georgia Sea Island,’’
Southeastern Archaeology 23: 192–201.
Thompson, V. D., W. D. Stoner, and H. D. Rowe. 2008. ‘‘Early
Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Along the Atlantic Coast of the
Southeastern United States: A Ceramic Compositional Study,’’
Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3: 191–213.
Thompson, V. D., and J. Turck. 2009. ‘‘Adaptive Cycles of Coastal
Hunter-Gatherers,’’ American Antiquity 74: 255–278.
Thompson, V. D., and J. Worth. in press. ‘‘Dwellers by the Sea:
Native American Coastal Adaptations along the Southern
Coasts of Eastern North America,’’ Journal of Archaeological
Research.
Whitaker D. J., J. W. McCord, P. P. Maier, A. L. Segars, M. L.
Rekow, N. Shea, J. Ayers, and R. Browder. 2004. An
Ecological Characterization of Coastal Hammock Islands in
South Carolina. Charleston: Ocean and Coastal Resources
Management, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control.
Williams, M. J., and V. D. Thompson. 1999. ‘‘A Guide to Georgia
Indian Pottery Types,’’ Early Georgia 27: 1–167.
Worth, J. E. 1995. The Struggle for the Georgia Coast. The Struggle
for the Georgia Coast: An Eighteenth-Century Spanish
Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. Anthropological Papers
of the American Museum of Natural History No. 75. New
York: American Museum of Natural History.
Worth, J. E. 2009. ‘‘Ethnicity and Ceramics on the Southeastern
Atlantic Coast: an Ethnohistoric Analysis,’’ in K. Deagan and
D. H. Thomas, eds., From Santa Elena to St. Augustine:
Indigenous Ceramic Variability (A.D. 1400–1700). Anthropo-
logical Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
No. 90. New York: American Museum of Natural History,
179–208.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 3 297