Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy

Town Creek Indian Mound

Town Creek Indian Mound

A Native American Legacy

JOFFRE LANNING COE

With contributions by

Thomas D. Burke, S. Homes Hogue, Billy L. Oliver, Stanley South, Michael Trinkley, and Jack H. Wilson, Jr.

Foreword by

Leland G. Ferguson

The University of North Carolina Press

Chapel Hill and London

© 1995 The University of North Carolina Press

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Coe, Joffre Lanning.

Town Creek Indian Mound: a Native American legacy /

Joffre Lanning Coe, with contributions by Thomas D.

Burke ... [et al.]; foreword by Leland Ferguson.

   p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-8078-2176-4 (alk. paper)

ISBN 0-8078-4490-X (pbk.: alk. paper)

   1. Town Creek Site (N.C.) 2. Mississippian culture—North Carolina. 3. Indians of North America—North Carolina—Antiquities. 4. Excavations (Archaeology)—North Carolina. 5. North Carolina—Antiquities. I. Burke, Thomas D. II. Title.

E78.N74C64 1995      94-17931

975-6'74—dc20       CIP

99 98 97 96 95 5 4 3 2 1

Epigraph by Clarence Pickernell reprinted courtesy Sovereign Nations 1, no. 6 (1992):4-5.

The University of North Carolina Press gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History.

To Sally

Town Creek and related sites

In the race of life

We seldom see

The baton that’s handed

To you and me . . .

The meaning and purpose

Of what’s to be,

The reason we’re born,

. . . Our legacy.

—Clarence Pickernell,

    Quinault Tribe

Aerial view of Town Creek. (Photo: Company C, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, U.S. Air Force [Fort Bragg])

Contents

Foreword by Leland G. Ferguson

Preface

Acknowledgments

Some Names and Abbreviations

Part 1 Introduction

1. History

Early Records

Early Explorations

2. A Fifty-Year Program, 1937–1987

The First Year, 1937

The Second Season, 1938–1939

Town Creek Comes of Age, 1939–1942

Postwar Planning and Development, 1949–1954

Restoration and Interpretation, 1955–1969

The Final Phase, 1969–1987

Part 2 Excavations

3. Field Methods

Site Identification

The Grid

The Photographic Mosaic

4. The Mound

Excavations

A Reconstructive Summary

5. The Plaza

Excavations

Major Features of the Plaza Area

Part 3 Natural Resources

6. Stone Available and Used / Billy L. Oliver

Background

Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Samples

Conclusions

7. Plant Resources / Michael Trinkley

Natural Environment

Procedures and Biases

Plant and Plant Food Remains

Summary

8. Animal Remains Jack H. Wilson, Jr., and S. Homes Hogue

Analytical Techniques

Identified Faunal Remains

Discussion

Conclusions

Part 4 Arts, Crafts, Tools, and Weapons

9. Pottery

The Town Creek Pottery

Pee Dee Ware: The Pottery of a Ceremonial Center

10. Chipped and Ground Stone

Chipped Stone Projectile Points

Ceremonial Blades

Drills

Scrapers

Chipped Stone Hoes

Burnishing and Abrading Stones

Polished Stone Celts and Grooved Axes

Discoidals

Stone Palettes

11. Pipes, Ornaments, and Implements

Smoking Pipes

Game Disks

Effigies

Clay Beads and Spoons

Shell and Glass Beads

Shell Gorgets and Shell Ear Pins

Copper and Mica Decorations

Bone Tools

Part 5 Interpretations

12. The People of Town Creek / Thomas D. Burke

Sample Selection

Pee Dee Skeletal Remains

Siouan Skeletal Remains

Stature

Other Anomalies

Paleopathology

Comparative Evaluation

Physiognomy

Conclusions

13. Mortuaries and Burial Practices

Burials

Mortuaries

Pee Dee Burials

Post-Pee Dee Burials

Shaft-and-Chamber Burials

14. Reconstruction of the Town House on the Mound Stanley South

Background (adapted from South 1973)

A Story from the Past (Coe 1937)

Research Notes toward Reconstructing the Temple (from South 1955)

Reconstructing Town House I at Town Creek: A Retrospective Summary (South 1973)

Postscript, October 1994

15. Town Creek, 1937–1987

Appendix 1 Early Records of Excavations

A. Morris R. Mitchell’s Letter to the Bureau of American Ethnology

B. From the Rockingham Post-Dispatch, 10 November 1927

C. Reply to Morris R. Mitchell from the Bureau of American Ethnology

D. To Morris R. Mitchell from His Mother, Alice Broadus Mitchell

E. H. M. Doerschuk’s Report on the Town Creek Mound

F. Douglas L. Rights’s Notes on the Richmond and Anson Sectors, 1935

G. Douglas L. Rights’s Notes on Haywood Mound (revised), 1937

Appendix 2 Analysis of Historic Artifacts and Astronomical Alignment

H. Analysis of Historic Artifacts from the Town Creek Excavations, by John W. Clauser, Jr.

I. Comments on Historical Artifacts from Excavations at Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site, by Stanley South

J. Astronomical Alignment of the Town Creek Indian Mound, Mount Gilead, North Carolina, by Vance Tiede

Bibliography

Index

Contour map of Town Creek Indian Mound Historic Site. (Drawing: Coe, 1937)

Foreword

Town Creek Indian Mound is an unusual phenomenon in the history of North American archaeology. Most archaeological sites are investigated for a few years and then abandoned as archaeologists move on to new locations. Where long-range research has been conducted, it has often been under several directors and different plans of research. Town Creek, situated on Little River (a tributary of the Great Pee Dee in central North Carolina), has been the focus of a consistent program of archaeological research under one director for more than half a century (fig. F.1). This research has contributed to scientific understanding of the original inhabitants of our continent and has provided educational opportunities for many graduate and undergraduate students in anthropology. Moreover, these contributions to science and higher education were made as the site contributed directly to public education. Town Creek is one of the most popular State Historic Sites in North Carolina.

In the heart of the Great Depression of the 1930s, Joffre Coe, then an undergraduate student at the University of North Carolina, visited this site with Harry T. Davis, director of the State Museum. They discussed plans for preservation and investigation with the owner, L. D. Frutchey (fig. F.2). Following their visit, Frutchey agreed to donate the mound and about two acres to the state, rather than follow his earlier plan to level the mound to improve his cotton field. Archaeological excavations began in the spring of 1937 under Coe’s direction (fig. F.3), and this work has continued with a few interruptions—World War II was the greatest—to the present day.

Excavations began at Town Creek as a Works Progress Administration project, and it was within this context of the make work archaeology of the Depression that Town Creek had its beginning as an unusual phenomenon in North American archaeology. Most of the archaeological investigations of the late 1930s were conducted as salvage projects in reservoir basins slated for flooding in the national move toward electrical power. Archaeological sites in reservoir areas were excavated quickly and completely with few supervisors and many untrained laborers. This salvage approach spread to include sites that were not endangered by floodwaters, such as Irene near Savannah, Georgia. Town Creek was an exception to this tendency. Under Coe’s direction, the research plan at Town Creek became long-range, systematic, painstaking, and thoughtful.

By the beginning of 1950, the excavation of the mound (one segment has been left untouched for future archaeologists to investigate) and some of the surrounding area was sufficient to provide a basic understanding of the prehistoric story at Town Creek. In The Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin in 1952, the first comprehensive volume on the prehistory of the East, Coe described Town Creek as part of the Pee Dee Focus. This was a term used to describe the archaeological manifestation—sites and artifacts—of Indian farmers who lived in villages on the floodplains of the Pee Dee river system. These farming people began burying their dead on the bluff on Little River and eventually built a mound upon which they placed a temple. This pattern was clearly similar to the Mississippian mound builders to the west, and Coe saw Town Creek as the eastern frontier of this way of life.

Unlike most sites with Mississippian-type mounds, and unlike most sites destined for designation as historic sites, Town Creek was small—only about five acres. This small size played a role in the success of the archaeological research conducted there, as well as the development of the site for public and higher education. Coe believed that over many years—decades of patient archaeology—a site of only five acres could be completely and carefully excavated. Furthermore, this small size and a program of continuous excavation offered an opportunity to develop an archaeological exhibit where the public could observe both archaeological excavations and the reconstructed results of past investigations. A small, contained archaeological exhibit would facilitate visitors’ comprehension, and the continuous research would offer something new from year to year.

Figure F.1. The Town Creek center, looking south, in 1960, before excavation and restoration of the mortuary. (Photo: Helmuth H. Naumer, 1960)

Figure F.2. Lloyd Daniel Frutchey, 1885–1950. (Photo: Coe, 1937)

Figure F.3. Sunday visitors examining an early stage of excavation. The man standing alone is in the center of Mitchell and Howell’s big ditch, dug in 1927 with the aid of mule teams and drag pans. (Photo: Coe, 1937)

In 1955 Town Creek Indian Mound was transferred from the state park system to the North Carolina Department of Archives and History. It then became a State Historic Site. Plans were made to continue excavations, reconstruct the Indian structures, and build a museum. Site managers with archaeological expertise were hired, and they continued the research program as they developed the site for public visitation. (From 1967 to 1974 the site manager was not an archaeologist; archaeologists came to work in the summer. This plan did not work well, and the site manager/archaeologist system was reinstated.)

Research continued with long-range goals in mind. Excavations of the area surrounding the mound continued, but these were limited. Ten-foot squares were laid out, and the plow zone was excavated and sifted through half-inch screens in shaker boxes on roller-skate wheels and wooden frames. Once the plow zone was removed, the features—the mottled fill of burial pits, the dark stains of rotted posts, stone hearths, and so forth—were photographed and carefully plotted. Usually the photographs were developed by the archaeologists in an on-site darkroom to insure that the square had been accurately recorded. However, once mapped and photographed, most of the squares and the features they contained were carefully covered with dirt without further excavation! To the disappointment of many site manager/archaeologists, those enticing archaeological features were buried immediately, as they proceeded to the arduous task of sifting the plow zone in the next ten-foot square. To any resident archaeologist who questioned the feasibility of trying to uncover and map the entire site, Coe would slowly, confidently, and wryly reply something like, Well, we started doing this in the 1930s for a reason, and I think we ought to continue the plan.

The photographing and plotting were unique field strategies. After experience as an aerial photographic interpreter with the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II, Coe became interested in constructing an aerial mosaic of Town Creek. This plan would ultimately create a composite photograph of all of the features—the outlines of buildings, palisades, burials—at the site (fig. F.4). The photographs and the accompanying drawings would provide a picture of the subsurface. As one archaeologist (Jeff Reid) commented, Coe’s research plans were to create the equivalent of an x-ray picture of Town Creek. Coe was thinking long-range. If he and his staff worked patiently enough for long enough, archaeologists in the future would have the opportunity someday to excavate an archaeological site for which all of the features had been previously located and mapped. They would be able to tackle specific problems—for example, the relationship of people buried in one mortuary house to those in another—and proceed directly to excavate the mortuaries without having to find them. The research plan at Town Creek was ambitious: it was intended to create an archaeological laboratory for the future.

Figure F.4. Tower used in photographing the Town Creek site to create an aerial mosaic. (Photo: Bennie C. Keel, 1963)

Although they were often disappointed as exciting features were covered over again, the archaeologists at Town Creek were constantly engaged in other interesting activities. Some of the earlier archaeologists worked on reconstructing the palisade. Stanley South developed plans and reconstructed the temple on the mound summit. Consistent with plans to prepare one of the mortuaries for exhibit, Bennie Keel first reconstructed a mortuary house and then excavated the burials. David Phelps and Roy Dickens reconstructed the priest’s house across the plaza from the temple, and I excavated burials that were very near the surface of the ground and in a deteriorating state of preservation. Over the years, various archaeologists worked on the museum (fig. F.5), and new exhibits have recently been completed under the direction of Archie Smith and Linda Eure.

No introduction to the excavations at Town Creek would be complete without mentioning the assistance provided by many people over the years. Amateur archaeologists, students, and other interested people worked in various ways to help develop this site. Some were paid, others volunteered. Of these, Edward Gaines is without a doubt the most notable. Ed, as he was known to everyone, spent more time actively excavating at Town Creek than anyone else. He came to the site in 1950 as a temporary laborer and continued as a skilled technician in archaeological excavation and reconstruction until his retirement in 1968 (fig. F.6).

Figure F.5. Museum exhibit illustrating the Busk or New Fire ceremony. (Photo: Bennie C. Keel, 1963)

As a result of Coe’s research plans and the efforts of many, Town Creek Indian Mound is a much more important place now than it was fifty years ago. Whereas most archaeological research takes away from a site, research at Town Creek has contributed to the site’s value. Long-range vision and patience has created an archaeological laboratory at Town Creek. Problems may be solved there and education enhanced through continued study.

Figure F.6. Ed Gaines and the water wagon. All drinking water was hauled to the site until 1960. (Photo: Barton Wright, 1950)

From this discussion of the history of Town Creek, the reader will understand that the present volume is not the definitive study of the prehistory of this site: that study is yet to be researched. The volume is rather Joffre Coe’s thoughts and observations on Town Creek—plans for research, administrative challenges, results of the research, and hypotheses for the future. For the public, this work provides an archaeologist’s view of the research and interpretation of this important archaeological site. For archaeologists, it provides an opportunity to see and evaluate the results and potential of a long-range research project, and it stands as a base for future research.

Leland G. Ferguson

Chair, Department of Anthropology

University of South Carolina

Preface

This publication is not the final report on our work at Town Creek. It is the first effort to summarize what we have done there during the first fifty years, 1937–87. Over the years we have unearthed and studied much evidence left by the aboriginal peoples who lived and died on this site we call Town Creek.

At best, the archaeological record is vague. The way into the past is devious and contains hidden pitfalls to entrap the unwary. The most that can be expected is a glimpse of the major landmarks shrouded in the fog of uncertainty as we pass back through the corridors of time. As people lived on the land, they inevitably altered its appearance. The inhabitants made things and lost them. They collected what they needed, and they discarded their refuse. They dug holes, built mounds, and left a lasting imprint on the land. The task of the archaeologist is to discover and interpret this record.

Unfortunately, this task is not always easy. Natural erosion and the actions of plants and animals, as well as of people who have used and reused the land or even carried out deliberate vandalism, have all resulted in the loss of much evidence. Even the imprints that are found are not always understood. It is important to know when these events occurred and what part they played in the respective cultures that used the site. It was not possible to understand the happenings at Town Creek until the cultures and chronologies of the greater Southeast were discovered and understood more fully. Today, after fifty years of research, the fog has lifted, at least in part, from many of our ancient landmarks, and the activities of those who created Town Creek can now be identified, described, and assigned their rightful place in the long history of this historic site.

I know of no one who would recommend waiting fifty years to write a report on any project, and the Town Creek report was not purposely delayed. That is just the way it happened. Archaeological work is still active there; and, from the beginning, the site has been maintained for the interest and the education of visitors. One thing is certain: almost any interpretations made in 1937 would probably be wrong today.

In 1930 southeastern archaeology stood on the threshold of knowledge. For instance, the Stalling’s Island report was published in 1931. Before that study was disseminated, many archaeologists claimed that there was no preceramic cultural horizon in the East. Then, in 1932, Warren King Moorehead published Etowah Papers and claimed that Etowah had direct contact with Mexico. Much of what scholars knew about southeastern pottery during this period had been summarized by William H. Holmes in his publication of 1903. But by the end of the decade, considerable progress was being made. The Southeastern Archaeological Conference held its first annual meeting in 1938, and James B. Griffin’s study of the Norris Basin pottery, his Ph.D. dissertation, was published in the same year. The first analysis of pottery types to be published by the Southeastern Archaeological Conference appeared in 1939. During the next five years, however, an avalanche of excavations was conducted and numerous reports were published. Scholars are only now fully assimilating the products of this intense activity. But when work at Town Creek began in 1937, on the eve of that boom, archaeologists still had scant data to work with.

Since the mid-1980s I have been working primarily on the materials from Town Creek. During this period I have frequently had occasion to refer to Robert Wauchope’s survey of northern Georgia, which he conducted at about the same time our work at Town Creek began. His was essentially a two-year project, but it was not until 1966 that a report was published. This study proved to be a very honest, personal, and insightful statement of his work. It was enriched by the knowledge and perspective gained during the twenty-eight-year period between field work and publication.

As my work proceeded, I found that Wauchope and I shared many of the same experiences: WPA regulations, untrained help, primitive living conditions, and, perhaps most of all, the frustration of working in a new scholarly field. When Wauchope published his survey results, he benefited from perspectives gained from more than twenty-five years of labor. By 1966 the cultural and ceramic sequences were fairly well known; but he remained totally unable to classify chipped stone and other artifacts: I became unwilling to imply historical or any cultural relationship between our Georgia categories and many of those previously described by giving them identical names (1966, 93). Similarly, at Town Creek we now have the benefit of a fifty-year perspective. Many of the great unknowns we faced in 1937 seem to have commonplace answers today. Wauchope also stated: I did not feel under too great a pressure to rush the final report, and it is a good thing ... (ix). Now that so much time has passed, I too hope to benefit from a wide range of perspectives, and I feel the delay has been profitable. We know more today than we did yesterday, and I hope that this volume will present our knowledge of the peoples’ past to the reader of today and the student of tomorrow.

Acknowledgments

It is a good possibility that these acknowledgments will be among the longest and most heartfelt in history, for there are so many individuals I both need and want to mention who contributed to the archaeology and development of Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site or helped me bring this book to fruition. Probably a lot of what I say here should have been incorporated into the preface, but I have abandoned any attempt to treat these acknowledgments academically or formally and have simply followed my inclination to put it all here.

Looking back over and contemplating the many facets of the Town Creek experience—including the good and the bad, the easy and the hard, the pleasurable and the not-so-pleasurable— I had a strong urge to begin this story with Once upon a time long ago, there was a very young man who wanted so much to be a professional archaeologist. His fairy godmother and guardian angel got together and decided they would challenge this wish by introducing into his life a little piece of land in Montgomery County, North Carolina. At the time of this decision, even they did not foresee that it would take so long.... Now, more than fifty years later, for that young man the story is coming to an end with this publication. To say the least, it was overwhelming to start and very difficult to end, for there has been much to tell. The envisionment, the historical background, the development, and the archaeology of this important site have, in one way or another, impacted the lives of many. To each and every one of them I express my deepest and most sincere appreciation.

Indeed let us always remember that the very reason that there has been a story to tell is centered in and around the Native Americans who lived and were buried at Town Creek. To both those of the past and my Indian friends of the present, so ably represented by A. Bruce Jones, I express my great respect and a wish that those of the past would be pleased if once again they could walk what for them was hallowed ground, and that those of the present also can share in this pleasure.

To the late Mr. and Mrs. L. B. Frutchey and their entire family we all owe a debt of gratitude for their willingness to donate to the State of North Carolina the acreage upon which the Town Creek Mound stands. Without their generosity and understanding, the site would probably now be only a plowed field.

From the beginning, the interest and support of many of the people of Mt. Gilead and surrounding areas has been very helpful. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the Honorable Robert B. Jordan III, who before, during, and after the time he served the State of North Carolina as Lieutenant Governor has been a valuable champion of the development of this historic site. Dr. Pressley Rankin, Jr., worked as a volunteer at Town Creek as a young man and, through the years, has continued his early interest in and support of our work. Also, as founder and benefactor of the Rankin Museum in Ellerbe, North Carolina, he has made his own impressive contribution to the preservation of the history of our great state.

A number of influential people took an interest in the negotiations concerning the disposition of the land that was to become known for a while as Frutchey Mound and later as Town Creek Indian Mound. They invested valuable time and effort in achieving the early goal of securing the safety of this important bit of history. Although they have been mentioned in the text, I would like personally to express my gratitude to the late Herbert M. Doerschuk, to the late Professor Wallace E. Caldwell, and to the late Reverend Douglas L. Rights for taking part in that exciting adventure.

At the time those negotiations were taking place, I was a young man hardly dry behind the ears. Thus I feel very fortunate and proud to single out three other distinguished gentlemen whom I consider my early mentors: the late Harry T. Davis, who was Director of the North Carolina State Museum; the late Dr. James B. Bullitt of the Department of Pathology in the School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and the late Dr. Guy B. Johnson, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology and Research Professor in the Institute for Research in Social Science, also at UNC. I benefited immeasurably from their wisdom, their guidance, their influence, their patience, and, more than once, from their pocket change to help me survive by paying my grocery bills at Frutchey’s store. Just to remind the young archaeologist of today as to how it was back in those days, I did not receive a salary in the beginning years, and my time was counted as the sponsor’s contribution. And, of course, I could never have accomplished my goal without the active support and encouragement of the late Dr. Frank Porter Graham, who at that time in his career was the much beloved and respected President of the University of North Carolina; and of the late Chancellor Robert B. House, of the same institution. Through the years the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has continued to be my home base.

My thanks also go to the people of North Carolina, especially to the school children, their parents, and their teachers who have visited Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site and have taken advantage of all it has to offer, from both a learning and a recreational standpoint.

It has been my intention to acknowledge and include elsewhere in this book the names and contributions of the many people, professional and nonprofessional, who were either hired to work or worked at Town Creek as volunteers during the first fifty years. I express my appreciation to each of them; they were all an important part of this massive project, and it could not have been done without their help. In addition, I would also like to acknowledge the help and courtesy of staff members who kept the operation of the site going on a day-to-day basis and who helped bear the difficult task of handling the busloads of visitors as well as the walk-ins: from the administrative/ interpretive staff, Janet Manuel, Linda Eure, and Robert Allred; from the maintenance staff, Ed Gaines, Walter Gaines, Hoyle Mack (Smokey) Elam, Carl Deaton, and David H. Parson. Thanks also go to the members of the Friends of Town Creek, who have lent their enthusiastic support whenever needed.

Even though the name Archie C. Smith, Jr., appears in this book several times, I would like to express to him again my admiration, respect, and devotion. He and his wife, Emily, and daughter, Mary Campbell, have been invaluable assets to both Town Creek and the town of Mt. Gilead. Archie began work as Site Manager of Town Creek Indian Mound Historic Site in June 1974 and since then has provided much-needed continuity in that position.

It affords me a great deal of pleasure to express my deep appreciation to the contributing authors who willingly gave their valuable time, and who took time away from their own research, to lend me their expertise: Dr. Thomas D. Burke, for his chapter on the physical character of the Town Creek people; Dr. Billy L. Oliver for his chapter on the availability and use of stone; Stanley A. South for his chapter on restoration of the temple on the Town Creek Mound and for his comments on historical artifacts; Dr. Michael Trinkley for his chapter on plant remains and resources; Dr. S. Homes Hogue and Dr. Jack H. Wilson, Jr., for their chapter on animal remains; and Dr. Leland G. Ferguson, who so kindly prepared the foreword. Their contributions allowed me to round out all that I felt should be covered in this publication.

All through the preparation and execution stages of this manuscript, others rendered the kind of assistance so necessary for me to carry through my plans for this book, and to each of them I would like to say thank you for a job well done: to Linda Butler for the many tedious hours of pottery washing, counting, and analysis; to Margo Price Birdsall for the hours she spent analyzing and tabulating the stone artifacts and for using her journalistic skills in writing interesting and informative articles for newspapers and journals as the work at Town Creek progressed; to Linda Eure for her help in compiling the first draft of the bibliography and for her contributions to the effective presentation of the museum exhibits; to David Michael Hill for his skilled artistry and his sensitive and finely detailed interpretive drawings of Town Creek pottery and pottery making; to Jim Hewitt for inking many of the charts and drawings; to Walton Haywood for the hours of painstaking photography and preparation of the plates that are such a basic part of the finished book; to David Latham for expertly photographing the original skulls and the reconstructed busts now dramatically displayed in the Town Creek Museum; to Dr. Thomas Blumer, who kindly acted as my sounding board in reading the manuscript as it was written; to Dr. J. Jefferson Reid, who did the first comprehensive study of Town Creek pottery as a master’s thesis at UNC; to John W. Clauser, Jr., for his analysis of the historic material found at Town Creek; to Vance Tiede for his analysis of the astronomical alignment of the Town Creek mound; to Marguerite van Doorslaer, for the excellent oil paintings she did for exhibits at the Town Creek Museum; to the University of North Carolina Press for its willingness to publish this manuscript and for its patience in doing so; to Laura Oaks for her careful and intelligent editing of a very difficult manuscript and her understanding of the needs of each and every reader; and to the Division of Archives and History of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources for sponsoring this publication.

Through the years the official responsibility for the operation of what began as Frutchey Mound and is now known as Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site has undergone change as the administration of several state departments changed with the political climate. We are now talking in terms of a fifty-year span, and it would be impossible to single out each person by name. Therefore I express my appreciation to them all for their supportive efforts on behalf of the development of this much-visited site. There are always those who go an extra mile in achieving a goal and, in that light, the following come to mind: the late Dr. C. C. Crittenden, the late Thomas W. Morse, the Honorable Patric Dorsey, Thomas C. Ellis, William S. Tarlton, and Richard B. Sawyer.

From the current state offices now so ably administering the work at Town Creek, I would especially like to express my appreciation for their cooperation to Dr. William S. Price, Jr., Director of the Division of Archives and History; Larry G. Misenheimer, Assistant Director of the Division; and James R. McPherson, Administrator, Historic Sites Section.

My thanks go to Carol Fantelli for her interest in and superb forensic reconstruction of the two busts displayed in the Town Creek Museum. These add much beauty and understanding to our knowledge of the physical traits of the Native Americans who inhabited the Town Creek site.

One needs to remember that when work began at Town Creek in 1937 the entire country was still in the throes of recovery from the Great Depression. A volunteer was a godsend, and I frequently think back on how diligently the young Beckwith brothers from Raleigh, Clifton, Bill, and Bos, worked during the summer months of their high school years. Michael Trinkley was also a high-school volunteer. Others that come to mind are the late Ralph Bragdon, a UNC sociology graduate student; the late Walter Carroll from Chapel Hill; and William Scarborough from Mt. Gilead, the latter two both becoming professional journalists in the years that followed.

Certainly one of the greatest satisfactions that has come to me as a college professor has been witnessing my students putting into action knowledge gleaned from the classroom and from field experiences both at Town Creek and at other sites throughout the country. Very humbly and with tremendous pride in their own achievements in the field of archaeology, I nevertheless can make that claim for a very large percentage of the people who have been associated with both the archaeological and the administrative work at Town Creek; they have already been named in the text of the book. I thank each of them for their contributions not only to the work at Town Creek but also for their own individual contributions to archaeology as a profession.

To Professor Emeritus James B. Griffin, whom I consider my revered mentor throughout the years of my archaeological education at the University of Michigan and during my archaeological career in general, I express my deepest respect, admiration, and appreciation for his guidance and friendship. Without question, he is one of the greats.

American archaeology was a relatively new and unexplored field at the time my interest began to surface seriously. I consider myself fortunate to have known and been influenced, both in person and through their writings, by others I consider among the early greats: Fay-Cooper Cole, Glenn A. Black, Carl E. Guthe, Neil M. Judd, Ralph Linton, W. C. McKern, Matthew W. Stirling, and John R. Swanton; and, to name a few of those whose later work was more directly related to Southeastern archaeology, James A. Ford, Jesse D. Jennings, Arthur R. Kelly, Madeline Kneberg, T. M. N. Lewis, Albert C. Spaulding, and Stephen Williams.

Then there were those early friends who have stood by me through the years: Gould and Mary Beech, who fed me many a meal when cash was hard to come by; Ambassador Robert Ayers Stevenson, who started out with me at Brevard College and later joined me as a transfer student at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and his wife, Dorothy. Professor Emeritus Edward M. Lowry is pictured in the book itself.

If I and the work at Town Creek ever had an ardent supporter, it came in the person of the late Joel Denton, who later became my brother-in-law. Joel took many a trip to Town Creek either with me or taking me or coming to get me, stealing time away from his busy schedule as a law student when I needed transportation.

Every now and then there is a person who has been of such invaluable assistance in so many ways that it is impossible to place them in just one category. To me and my family this person is Estella Stansbury. Thank you, Estella, for taking many long hours away from the little free time you have after working full time, to do all the typing for this book. You and George have been wonderfully supportive friends in so many ways, of which typing has been only a part.

How does one ever adequately say thank you to a family who never wavered in their support of and dedication to my archaeological pursuits, particularly those at Town Creek? I do not know, but I will try! I think back on the encouragement of my mother, Lillian Lanning Coe, and my grandfather, John Patrick Lanning, and to the day they drove from Greensboro to Chapel Hill, loaded me and my gear into the car, and headed for that mysterious field in Montgomery County, located in rather undeveloped country outside the town of Mt. Gilead. It was nearing dark when they left me alone to pitch my tent and otherwise set up camp in an overgrown field down by Little River while they made their return trip home to report the venture to my devoted father, Jesse N. Coe, who, though somewhat puzzled by my fascination with a field foreign to the mind of a successful businessman, never questioned its validity—and to my brother, Winfred, twelve years younger than I. My beloved grandmother, Nora Belle Kennerly Lanning, as grandmothers do, added her support and affection by furnishing a much-needed haven and food, particularly cookies and cakes, to a hungry young man returning home from time to time, starved from the meager rations he subsisted on while in the field.

Sally Denton Coe became my wife on 29 June 1940 and has devotedly and steadfastly shared in the Town Creek experience and has aided in the preparation of this manuscript in innumerable ways. In addition she has allowed me the freedom to go and come on field trips and in general lead the life of a professional archaeologist while she stayed behind involved with her own job, willingly carrying much of the responsibility for keeping the home fires burning. Probably some of the very earliest recollections of my two sons, Joffre Lanning Coe II and Damon Denton Coe, center around Town Creek. To these three people I give my abiding love and deep appreciation, which also extends to my three grandchildren, Joffre Lanning Coe III, Damon Denton Coe II, and Jennifer Lyn Coe, and to my daughters-in-law, Joline and Martha.

There were many directions I could have taken to develop the story about to be told. Did I want to write something that could only be understood by the professional archaeologist? something geared to the general public? or a something-for-everyone book? There was a lot of narrowing down and decision making involved in determining which way I could or should go. I had to make a choice, and in making my final choice I found myself looking back over my own involvement with the field of archaeology. Perhaps it rests as a commentary on age, but what kept crowding into my mind were those earliest developmental years, when I was reading anything I could get my hands on that would throw some light on the fascinating things I saw and found as I walked the fields, forests, and shorelines of North Carolina and Florida. Finally my direction became clear, and it became my objective to tell the Town Creek story in such