Transcript Archaeological Site Prediction

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 timeconsuming, 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Goldberg, Paul and Richard Macphali. Pracitcal and Theoretical
Geoarchaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Ltd., 2006.
Holliday, Vance. Soils in Archaeological Research. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
White, Max. The Archaeology and History of the Native Georgia
Tribes. Gainesville, Fl: University Press of Florida, 2002.
Hammack, Stephen. Email correspondence. Archaeological Director
at RAFB.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy.
Introduction:
Data Sources
Data Layers:
1.
2.
3.
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.
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
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)
Methodology
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
10.I added all the layer
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.
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
Indians
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 Houston
I discovered from the maps the following soils
exist in Houston County:
Series
Order
Vaucluse
Ultisols
Lakeland
Entisols
Orangeburg
Ultisols
Chewacla
Inceptisols
Riverview
Inceptisols
Chastain
Inceptisols
Faceville
Ultisols
Lucy
Ultisols
Boswell
Alfisols
Greenville
Ultisols
Bibb
Entisols
Tifton
Ultisols
Dothan
Ultisols
Grady
Ultisols
Osier
Entisols
Pelham
Ultisols
Rains
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
Sites
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
Sites
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 Analysis
GA097
FLOOD_DURA
DRAINAGE
ARCHAEOLOGY
Greenvill
None
Well
buried/eroded features, oxidation of organic remains, loss of
stratigraph
Bibb
Long (Dec-May)
Poor
exposed artifacts, loss of stratigraphy, can preserve organic
remains in
Boswell
None
Medium Well
some stability, stratigraphy preserved, habitation sites preserved
All
CROPS
soybeans
oats
bermuda
grass
es
grass hay
corn
peanuts
tobacco
Future use of conclusions
 Look
at the area and determine future
construction and developments, and what is
already there
 Compare
the area with the environmental
conditions of known archaeological sites