ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people become involved in a project such as this.
I would like to express my thanks to the members of the agencies and
institutions without whom the project could never have been begun
and completed, especially Mr. Maxwell Ramsey, Mr. J. Bennett Graham, Mr. Thomas Waller, and Dr. Major C.R. McCollough of the Tennessee
Valley Authority; Dr. Bennie Keel and Dr. Stephanie Rodeffer of
the National Park Service; and Dr. William
M. Bass and Dr. Carl O. Thomas, the University of Tennessee.
The 1976 excavations were supervised by Dr. Alfred K. Guthe, Principal
Investigator, and directed by Dr. Gerald F. Schroedl.
I would like to thank Dr. Guthe for making unpublished information
concerning the 1973-4 excavations at the site available to me.
I would like to offer special thanks to Dr. Schroedl for his help
in reconstructing the 1976 field season and, more importantly, for the
stimulating discussions we had concerning Cherokee archaeology.
Field assistant for the 1976 excavations was Robert Newman.
Ann Magennis supervised the burial excavations.
The field crew consisted of:
| James Bates | Joe Henderson |
| Tracy Brown | Debi Jones |
| Judy Canonico | Robert Jolly |
| Marion Drescher | Keith Kleber |
| Lori Ann Frye | Jill Mihalow |
| Leslie Hickerson | Thomas Zwicker |
The Principal Investigator for the 1979-83 site analysis was Dr.
Jefferson Chapman.
At times consultation and advice from friends and colleagues were required.
I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. James Bates, Mr. Larry Kimball, Mr. Stephen Davis, Mr. Thomas Ford, Mr. Brett Riggs, Mr. Richard Polhemus, and Dr. Carl Kuttruff for
their expert advice which greatly facilitated the production of the report.
This report required the technical services of a great many people.
Acknowledging their work does not adequately express my gratitude for their
efforts and perseverance.
These people include: Mr. Richard Anuskiewicz (analysis of postmolds),
Mrs. Marla Baden (data entry), Ms. Nancy Bell (lithic identification),
Mr. Neal Brun (drafting), Mr. Arthur Bogan (faunal identification),
Ms. Linda F. Carnes (identification of all Euro-American artifacts
and authorship of Appendix II), Ms. Marion Drescher (drafting), Dr.
David Glassman (analysis of the burial material and authorship of
Appendix III), Ms. Andrea Brewer Shea (botanical identification) and Thomas Whyte (cover art work).
All computer work was undertaken at the University of Tennessee's
Computing Center, Knoxville.
I would like to offer my thanks to Mrs. Alice Beauchene of UTCC
for her ability to span two disciplines and solve problems and make suggestions as the need arose.
I undertook the analysis of the aboriginal ceramics, development of a
computer coding system for the site, all computer programing, and the authorship of Chapters 1-5.
ABSTRACT
The 1976 excavations at the site of the Cherokee village
of Tomotley (40MR5) on the Little Tennessee River exposed 98,595 square feet of surface area.
Following the removal of the plowzone with a self-loading pan, 147
features and 18 burials were excavated.
A total of 2198 postmolds were exposed and 19 structures were identified.
Identification procedures were applied to 14,051 aboriginal ceramic sherds,
6150 lithic artifacts, 11,893 Euro-American items, 4.85 kgms of botanical
material, and 13,998 animal bones and shell fragments.
The assemblage of artifacts collected suggests that the site area
has been occupied since the
Early Archaic (7900-6100 B.C.).
The most extensive occupations consisted of a Mississippian I/II (Martin Farm/Hiwassee Island)
component represented by at least two structures and the apparent basal portion of
one burial mound or cemetery, and a Cherokee occupation which produced the largest
amount of material.
Ethnohistoric accounts suggest that the historic village may have been founded and occupied by Lower, Middle, or Valley Cherokee refugees between
1751 and 1776.
Archaeological evidence (structure form and ceramic types) corroborates this.
Because archaeologically the site appears to represent a rather short term
occupation with very little feature overlap, it provides evidence of
clear patterns in refuse disposal practices and space utilization.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
| Table | page |
| 1.1 | Diagnostic lithic and sherd types for recognized East Tennessee temporal units | 3 |
| 3.1 | Excavation statistics of each area | 39 |
| 4.1 | Statistics on shell tempered sherds | 102 |
| 4.2 | Mean measurements on complete bifacial lithic
artifacts | 103 |
| 4.3 | Tabulation of the botanical material recovered
from Tomotley | 104 |
| 4.4 | Feature characteristics | 108 |
| 4.5 | List of descriptive statistics for structures | 112 |
| 4.6 | Cultural associations of each feature and burial | 113 |
| 5.1 | Frequency of non-finescreen material by
provenience | 169 |
| 5.2 | The ten highest density proveniences for each
material type | 172 |
| 5.3 | Correlations and mean measurements of pit
volume and percentage composition | 173 |
| II.1 | Compilation of trade goods by period | 231 |
| II.2 | List of Group-Class-Element classification for
historic trade items along with their frequencies | 232 |
| II.3 | Datable ceramic types by period and provenience | 235 |
| II.4 | Frequency of glass trade beads | 236 |
| III.1 | Summary of the Tomotley burials | 273 |
| III.2 | Age and sex composition of the Tomotley
Mississippian IV burials | 275 |
| III.3 | Mississippian IV burial flexure by sex | 276 |
| III.4 | Mississippian IV burial deposition by sex | 277 |
| III.5 | Mississippian IV body orientation by sex with
reference to cardinal direction | 279 |
LIST OF FIGURES
(Unavailable On-Line)
| Figure | page |
| 1.1 | Map of excavated Cherokee sites | 5 |
| 1.2 | Excavation areas 1973-74 and 1976 | 6 |
| 1.3 | 1979 view of 40MR5 looking west | 7 |
| 1.4 | DeBrahm's map showing "Little Tomothly" | 8 |
| 1.5 | Timberlake's 1762 map of the Overhill Country | 9 |
| 3.1 | Heavy equipment stripping plowzone | 40 |
| 3.2 | View looking west at Areas 4, 1, and 2 | 41 |
| 3.3 | View looking southeast at Area 6 in the
foreground and Area 5 in the background | 41 |
| 3.4 | Map of panned test strips | 42 |
| 3.5 | Map of Area 1 | 43 |
| 3.6 | Map of Area 2 | 44 |
| 3.7 | Map of Area 3 | 45 |
| 3.8 | Map of Area 4 | 46 |
| 3.9 | Map of Area 5 | 47 |
| 3.10 | Map of Area 6 | 48 |
| 4.1 | Size 1 sherds | 117 |
| 4.2 | Size 2 sherds | 118 |
| 4.3 | Size 4 sherds | 119 |
| 4.4 | Size 8 sherds | 120 |
| 4.5 | Rimstrip motifs and techniques of application | 121 |
| 4.6 | Plain jar from F383 | 122 |
| 4.7 | Plain jar from F295 | 122 |
| 4.8 | Complicated stamped jar from F383 | 123 |
| 4.9 | Plain jar from F383 | 123 |
| 4.10 | Complicated stamped jar from F313 | 124 |
| 4.11 | Diamond checked stamped jar from F313 | 124 |
| 4.12 | Plain bowl from F313 | 125 |
| 4.13 | Plain pan from F341 | 125 |
| 4.14 | Plain pan from F341 | 126 |
| 4.15 | Plain pan from F376 | 126 |
| 4.16 | Graph of the breakage pattern of the
ceramic vessels | 127 |
| 4.17 | Stone pipes and a magnetite ground stone object | 128 |
| 4.18 | Mississippian projectile points | 129 |
| 4.19 | Calculation of pit opening area and volume | 130 |
| 4.20 | Feature 302 - cob pit | 131 |
| 4.21 | Feature 323 - rectangular double-post pit | 131 |
| 4.22 | Feature 393 - townhouse hearth | 132 |
| 4.23 | Large Cherokee refuse-filled pit (F383) | 132 |
| 4.24 | Structure 16 | 133 |
| 4.25 | Structures A) 17 and B) 18 | 134 |
| 4.26 | Structures A) 19 and B) 20 | 135 |
| 4.27 | Structures A) 21 and B) 22 | 136 |
| 4.28 | Structures A) 23 and B) 24 | 137 |
| 4.29 | Structures A) 25 and B) 26 | 138 |
| 4.30 | Structures A) 27 and B) 30 | 139 |
| 4.31 | Structures A) 31 and B) 32 | 140 |
| 4.32 | Structures A) 33 and B) 34 | 141 |
| 4.33 | View looking north at the townhouse (Structure
28) and the pavilion (Structure 29) | 142 |
| 4.34 | Anglo-American postmold 5908 | 143 |
| 5.1 | Townhouse and summer pavilion | 174 |
| 5.2 | Postmolds whose depths, d, are: .1 < d < .3 ft | 175 |
| 5.3 | Postmolds whose depths, d, are: .4 < d < .6 ft | 176 |
| 5.4 | Frequency distribution of provenience units by
percentage composition of ceramics | 177 |
| 5.5 | Frequency distribution of provenience units by
percentage composition of lithics | 178 |
| 5.6 | Frequency distribution of provenience units by
percentage composition of faunal remains | 179 |
| 5.7 | Frequency distribution of provenience units by
percentage composition of Euro-American artifacts | 180 |
| II.1 | Activities Group | 239 |
| II.2 | Activities Group | 240 |
| II.3 | Sleeve from a grinding mill | 241 |
| II.4 | Aboriginally modified trade items | 242 |
| II.5 | Aboriginally modified trade items | 243 |
| II.6 | Architectural Group | 244 |
| II.7 | Arms Group | 245 |
| II.8 | Arms Group | 246 |
| II.9 | Clothing Group | 247 |
| II.10 | Kitchen Group | 248 |
| II.11 | Kitchen Group | 249 |
| II.12 | Personal Group | 250 |
| II.13 | Personal Group | 251 |
| III.1 | Probable cemetery region in Area 5 | 280 |
|
