PREHISTORIC METAL WORKERS
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
Compiled by E. Raymond Evans
PREHISTORIC METAL WORKERS
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
Compiled by
E. Raymond Evans
July, 2005
River City Research Group
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37415
CONTENTS
Introduction
Tunacunnhee: A Hopewellian Burial Complex In Northwest Georgia
Panpipes, Early Metal Industries, and Cultural Association in Prehistoric North America
INTRODUCTION
The following material is a reprint of the report on excavations of the
Tunacunnhee Mounds at Trenton, Georgia by the University of Georgia in 1973. This is
followed by some analysis concerning panpipes and other early metal artifacts with some
thoughts regarding cultural association. It is hoped that this will serve to stimulate
further research on this topic.
E. Raymond Evans
501 Read’s Lake Road
Chattanooga, TN 37415
Tunacunnhee:
A Hopewellian Burial Complex
In Northwest Georgia
Richard W. Jefferies
Tunacunnhee:
A Hopewellian Burial Complex
In Northwest Georgia
Richard W. Jefferies
Department of Anthropology
University of Georgia
Tennessee Archaeologist
Publication of the Tennessee Archaeological Society
Volume 31, No 1, 1975: 13-32
Reprinted by
River City Research Group
2005
Tunacunnhee:
A Hopewellian Burial Complex
In Northwest Georgia
Richard W. Jefferies
Department of Anthropology
University of Georgia
Preface
A field crew from the University of Georgia under the direction of Dr. Joseph R.
Caldwell and the writer worked for ten weeks in the summer of 1973 excavating a group
of stone mounds and adjacent habitation area in Dade County, Georgia. The excavation
was located near Trenton, Georgia, few hundred yards east of Lookout Creek (Figure 1).
The site is known as Tunacunnhee Mounds (9DD25). “Tunacunnhee,” accprding to local
tradition, is the Cherokee word for Lookout Creek.
Figure 1.
The existence of the mounds has been known for many years, but not until the
winter of 1973 was their significance recognized. The site was brought to the attention of
state archaeologists from Tennessee and Mr. Pat Garrow, an archaeologist from Shorter
College, by members of the Ani-yun-wiya Society, an organization of amateur
archaeologists from northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee. University of Georgia
archaeologists were notified of the potential importance of the site by the aforementioned
people and with excellent support from a large sector of the local, community, they made
plans for the excavation.
Introduction
The Tunacunnhee site may be viewed as having two parts: the mound group,
located on a slightly elevated area between two limestone outcroppings against the
western slope of Lookout Mountain; and the habitation area, situated on a level terrace
between the creek and the mound group. The mound group covers an area of about one
acre and consists of three circular limestone-mantled earth mounds (Mounds C, D, and
E), a larger stone mound (Mound A), and at least two burial pits located outside the
mound structures (Features 1 and 43) (Figure 1). Four additional stone mounds (Mounds
B, F, G, and H), originally thought to be aboriginal, are apparently of modern origin.
Excavation of the habitation area disclosed numerous subsoil features including
pits and postholes. Radiocarbon determinations and artifactual similarities indicate that
the mounds and the habitation area were probably in contemporaneous use.
All of the mounds had been vandalized by pothunters over the last fifty years,
most of the activity having been concentrated in the centers of the mounds. Fortunately,
major damage is restricted to the mound fill and did not reach the mound bases where
most of the burials and features were located. The notable exception to this was the
damage done by pothunters in the winter of 1973. This digging was restricted to the
southern edge of Mound C, but resulted in the destruction of t least six burials.
Description of Site and Excavation Procedure
The University of Georgia excavation concentrated primarily on the mounds, with
the excavation of the habitation area restricted to a small area. Excavation of all four
mounds was started in June of 1973. Due to time restrictions, portions of the mounds
were left unexcavated with the intention of completing this work the following year, but
the untimely death of Dr. Caldwell precluded further investigation of the mounds. It is
hoped that in the future, circumstances will permit completion of mound excavation and a
much more extensive excavation of the habitation area.
The Tunacunnhee site is of extraordinary archaeological importance for several
reasons. First, it is the only well documented Hopewellian site in north Georgia.
Second, the site contains the greatest variety and quantity of Hopewellian artifacts
reported from the interior Southeast. Third, the excavation of the mounds provides data
bearing on the long standing question of the age and cultural affiliation of stone mounds
located throughout much of the Southern Piedmont (Smith 1962). Fourth, the
Tunacunnhee site contains not only the widely known and excessively documented
mortuary remains of a Hopewellian affiliated occupation, but an accompanying
habitation area. It is one of the few examples where both the mortuary and habitation
areas have been located and excavated, and offers the opportunity to examine the cultural
remains of the localized, domestic aspect of a Hopewellian society.
Plate 1. Mounds C (right) and D (left) before excavation.
The three stone covered earthen mounds (C, D, and E) are located in the
southwestern part of the mound group. Mound D is adjacent to the northeast edge of
Mound C, while Mound E is adjacent to the southern edge of Mound C. Mound A is
located approximately 100 feet northeast of the center of Mound C (Figure 1). Mound
dimensions are given in Table 1.
Mound
Horizontal Dimensions
Height
A
C
D
E
37 feet N-S x 50 feet E-W
31 feet N-S x 35 feet E-W
12 feet in diameter
25 feet in diameter
4 feet
5 feet
3 feet
3 feet
Table 1. Mound Dimensions
Mound C
Mound C was the second largest mound of the four on the site (Plate 1) and was
constructed primarily of sterile clay and covered by a one-foot-thick mantle of limestone
rock (Plate II). As noted above, six burials were removed by previous excavators from
the southern edge of Mound C, and two of these had associations of characteristic
Hopewellian material including: a silver covered copper panpipe, four bicymbal copper
ear spools, a copper breast plate, and a flint blade made from Flint Ridge, Ohio material.
(Martha Otte Potter, personal communication).
Plate II. Southern and eastern sides of Mound C
after removal of humus layer, showing limestone mantle.
In view of this information, it was decided to establish an east-west profile
through the center of Mound C. Six 10 foot squares were excavated on the southern side
of the mound to accomplish this goal. Three 10-foot squares were laid out on an eastwest line to incorporate the pothunters’s trench; no additional burials or features were
encountered in this area (Plate III). Excavation of the three squares immediately north of
the initial 10 x 30 foot trench provided more data.
Near the center of the mound, one foot below the surface, a circular stone-lined
pit was disclosed (Plate IV). Measuring 3.0 feet in diameter and 2.0 feet deep, the pit
contained the partially cremated remains of a 2-3 year old child (Burial 23 – Table 2). A
copper panpipe was positioned on the chest area of the burial. A drilled bear canine was
also associated with the burial. The rock that formed the walls of the pit appeared to be
set in a larger pit that had been dug in the top of the mound. Red clay was used to fill
around the rocks and to support them in a vertical position.
Plate III. Excavation of the southern side of Mound C. The 10’x30’ excavation init in
the foreground was laid out over previous excavators’ pit.
Plate IV. Rock lined pit located in the center of Mound C and containing burial 23.
The rock lined pit immediately overlay a rectangular clay platform measuring 5.4
feet x 3.1 feet, and 0.8 feet thick. An extended burial (Burial 8), oriented east-west, was
encountered beneath the clay platform. A curvilinear mica cutout was located on top of
the skull and additional mica was found adjacent to the skull in association with eight
bone pins.
A central sub-mound pit measuring 6.0 feet x 10.0 feet was situated below the
base of Mound C, directly under Burial 8. The pit contained sterile fill, but numerous
artifacts were found on the floor of this feature (Plates V and VI). A concentration of
woven fabric and what appeared to be leather was uncovered near the center of the
bottom of the pit. The material had a rectangular shape and may be the remains of a bag
or pouch. A copper breastplate, two sets of copper ear spools, and a copper rod with a
bone handle were found between layers of the bag (Plate V). The copper had acted as a
preservative, and traces of the weaving and beadwork were clearly evident on the copper
surfaces. A radiocarbon determination of A.D. 150 +/- 95 years. (Uga-ML-8) was
obtained from the organic material near the copper plate. The material was from the
bottom the pit and represents an accurate date for initial mound construction. A
perforated mica disc (Plate VI B), two human mandibles, a string of 37 shark vertebrae, a
chert backed knife, drilled bear canines, and two drilled shark teeth were also recovered
from the pit floor.
Plate V. Copper plate and copper ear spools in place in bottom of central sub mound pit
in Mound C. Organic material removed from the surface of the copper yielded a
radiocarbon determination – A. D. 150 +/- 95.
Plate VI. Copper plate (VI-A) and Mica disc (VI-B) recovered from central sub mound
pit in Mound C.
Other burials were located in the fill of Mound C, as well as in stone lined basins
(Table 2). Burials 14, 15A, 15B, and 15C were located in Feature 32, a stone lined basin
on the northern edge of the mound. Burial 15A contained a copper panpipe, while a
copper panpipe, a bird effigy platform pipe, and shell were found in association with
Burial 15C.
The only ceramics directly associated with burials or mounds at the site came
from the extreme northern edge of Mound C. Two small sand or grit tempered vessels
with tetrapods were recovered at the base of the mound, 1.5 feet below the surface. One
of the vessels was decorated with simple stamping, while the second was undecorated.
These vessels have been tentatively classified as Cartersville Plain and Cartersville
Simple Stamped. They are also very similar to Connestee ceramics found in North
Carolina, with the exception of minor differences in paste. Connestee ceramics from
western North Carolina have been found in association with Hopewellian material at
Garden Creek Mound 2 (Bennie C. Keel, personal communication, 1974).
Mound E
Mound E is adjacent to the southern edge of Mound C, and on the surface the two
appeared to be coalesced. It was determined that Mound C was built prior to Mound E,
in that the rock facing of Mound C underlay the earth fill of Mound E.
A circular ring of red clay was discovered near the base of the mound. This
characteristic was also found in the other three mounds and derives from a pit being dug
in the red clay subsoil, the red clay being placed around the periphery of the pit, and the
pit then being refilled with another type soil leaving the red subsoil clay as a low wall
around the filled pit. A rectangular central burial pit contained an extended adult burial
(Burial 17). Three copper panpipes were located on the chest of the burial (Plate VII A,
B, and E). Two copper ear spools (Plate VII F), a polished stone platform pile and a
large stone celt were also found in the context of Burial 17 (Plate VIII).
Mound E offered the only evidence of logs being used in the construction of a
central burial pit at the site. Dark circular stains in the southern and northern profiles
indicated that the pit had been covered with logs 0.5 – 1.0 foot in diameter. Excavation
of the stains disclosed that the logs projected several inches into the walls of the pit.
Three additional burials lacking artifact associations were located in the mound fill on the
southern side of Mound E. (Table 2).
Mound D
Mound D was located on the northeast side of Mound C. The upper two feet of
the mound was constructed primarily of stone. The central core of the mound was built
of clay and rocks, and measured approximately 6.0 feet in diameter and 1.0 foot high.
The central pit contained at least six burials. Five appeared to have been in a flexed
position, but this determination was complicated by distortion caused by pressure of the
rocks resting on the skeletons. No burial goods were found in direct association with
these burials, but a drilled bear canine was found among the bones.
Plate VII. Copper items found in association with Burial 17 in Mound E. A, B, and E:
top of three copper panpipes in burial; C and D: bottom of panpipes A and B; iron
covered side of ear spools (top), and opposite side (lower).
Plate VIII. Celt and Platform pipe from Burial 17 in Mound E.
An extended burial (Burial 18F) lay in the bottom of the pit with numerous
artifacts placed on and around the skeletal remains. A cache of sandstone pipes,
comprising two zoomorphic platform pipes, one “monitor” platform pipe and one
zoomorphic tubular pipe, was encountered at the northern edge of the pit (Plate IX A-D).
In addition to these items, another sandstone platform pipe (Plate IX E) was found in the
center of the pit.
Plate IX. Pipes found in association with Burial 18F in Mound D.
Other objects found in association with Burial 18F include: a three-tube copper
panpipe; a four-tube silver covered copper panpipe; a copper breastplate; a mica cutout, a
small band of silver; a quartz crystal projectile point; and a two-hole bar gorget.
Mound A
The construction of Mound A, located 100 feet northeast of Mound C, was quite
different from that of the other three mounds. Mound A was built entirely of limestone
rocks and unlike the other mounds, did not have a clay core. The rocks used in the
construction of the mound weighed from a few pounds to well over 100 pounds. Mound
A was excavated by starting a ten-foot-wide trench thirty feet from the southern edge of
the mound and extending it northward through the center of the mound. A second tenfoot-wide trench was excavated on an east-west line so as to intersect the north-south
trench in the center of the mound. A large sheet of uncut mica and a copper object
resembling a small panpipe were found near a human mandible in the mound fill on the
northern side of the mound. The removal of the rocks from the mound base disclosed a
large central sub-mound pit. Excavation of the pit produced little except a copper ear
spool and evidence of some cremated bone, found in the bottom of the pit. Two
additional burials were located in rock-lined basins (Burials 11 and 19) on the northern
edge of Mound A. The two basins were similar to the one containing Burials 15 A-C in
Mound C.
Non-Aboriginal Stone Structures
Four mounds at the Tunacunnhee site (Mounds B, F, G and H) were originally
thought to be aboriginal but later proved to be of recent origin. Construction of these
four mounds was different from mounds of aboriginal origin in that the more recent
mounds lacked dark humus soil on the surface of the limestone rocks and among the
rocks in the interior of the mound core. Two of these mounds contained parts of a
modern farm plow, and another was found to have plow scars in the sub-soil below the
base of the mound. Thus, the site contained eight mounds, with four of the structures
having been built around A.D. 150, and the remainder probably constructed about A.D.
1900. The situation found at the Tunacunnhee site emphasized the danger of trying to
generalize about the age and origin of the numerous stone structures located in the
interior Southeast.
Feature 1
Initially, an exploratory trench 10 feet wide and 100 feet long was opened
between Mounds A and C, to determine whether there had been any structures or other
features in the immediate vicinity of the mound complex. The squares included in the
trench were excavated to the red clay subsoil, approximately one foot below surface. No
structures were encountered, but Feature 1, a stone filled burial pit measuring 9.0 feet x
5.0 feet and 3.0 feet deep, was cleared at the north end of the trench (Plate X).
Plate X. Feature 1 located between Mounds A and C.
The pit contained two flexed burials, five to seven disarticulated burials, and
evidence of several cremations. Grave goods were primarily utilitarian items such as:
turkey bone awls; a cache of chert performs and blades; three small ground stone celts;
and a drilled deer antler socket. A second feature similar to Feature 1 was located several
feet to the north.
Summary of Burial and Mortuary Data
A total of thirty burials were recovered during the excavation of the Tunacunnhee
Mounds by the University of Georgia (Table 2). At least six additional burials were
removed from Mound C by pothunters prior to the 1973 field season. The great variety
in the practices of interring bodies of the deceased was one of the more notable attributes
of the Tunacunnhee site. The sample of 30 Hopewellian burials recovered during the
1973 excavations displayed significant variation in terms of the location and type of
internment, as well as in the number and type of associated grave goods. Burial
orientation, on the other hand, was quite consistent throughout the site. With the
exception of two occurrences of north-south orientation (Burials 18D and E in Mound D),
all burials were oriented east-west with the head to the east.
Burials were placed in central sub-mound pits, specially prepared stone slab lined
pits or basins, the mound fill, and in pits located outside the mound structures. Extended
burials composed 25 percent (n=9) and flexed burials 36 percent (n=14) of the total
(N=36). The remainder of the burials (n=14) formed a residual class made up of
cremations, partial burials, bundle burials, etc. There appears to be a positive correlation
between extended burials located in “specially” prepared tombs and the presence of
exotic Hopewellian burial goods, but this has not yet been analytically tested.
Excavation of the Habitation Area
The habitation area is located 200 yards southwest of the mound complex. The
area has been subject to plowing for many years, and as a consequence the upper portion
of the midden has been severely disturbed. A large number of artifacts including
ceramics and lithics were recovered from the plow zone. Some midden and lower
portions of features are preserved below the plow zone.
Investigation of the habitation area was considered secondary in importance to
excavation of the burial mounds in the 1973 season. The limited excavation conducted
here was designed primarily to determine the existence of a habitation area in the vicinity
of the mounds, and to obtain sufficient data to establish its temporal and cultural
relationship with the mounds. Approximately 2000 square feet of habitation area were
excavated and recorded.
Features disclosed during the excavation included postholes, stone filled pits, and
rounded bottom storage or refuse pits. As previously mentioned, only the lower portions
of these features were intact.
One complete and one partial structure were identified during excavation of the
habitation area. Structure One consisted of a circular pattern of postholes 10 feet in
diameter, surrounding a rock filled pit. The postholes were approximately 0.3 foot in
diameter and 2.0 feet apart. This structure may represent a sweat-house similar to that
described by Wray et al (1961) for the Weaver site in Fulton County, Illinois. The rock
filled pit in the center of Structure One measured approximately 5.0 feet in diameter and
extended 2.5 feet below the present ground surface. The sides of the pit were fire baked
red clay. Pit fill included bone, chert flakes, limestone rocks, and limestone-tempered
(Candy Creek) and sand-tempered (Cartersville) ceramics.
Structure Two consisted of a roughly semicircular pattern of postholes east of
Structure one. The postholes delineating Structure Two were larger in diameter and
extended deeper into the subsoil than those in Structure One, suggesting a substantially
larger building. Due to lack of time, only a small portion of the posthole pattern was
investigated. No interior features wee found in the small area of the structure that was
excavated.
Preliminary analysis of the material recovered tends to support the hypothesis that
the habitation area is roughly contemporary with the mounds. The supporting evidence
including a radiocarbon determination of A. D. 280 +/- 125 years (Uga-ML-10) that was
obtained from charcoal recover ed from the undisturbed lower portion of a refuse pit.
This date and the one obtained from Mound C are compatible at one standard deviation,
sharing a 90 year period (A.D. 125-245) in their total combined range of A.D. 55-405. A
second, apparently less instructive, date of A.D. 440 +/- 395 years (Uga-ML-9) was also
obtained for the habitation area. Ceramic material found in Mound C is very similar in
appearance to some of that recovered in the habitation area. Projectile points found in
association with Burial 15A in Mound C are the same type (Greenville-Nolichucky) as
found in the habitation area. Both copper and mica were recovered from features in the
habitation area.
Intersite Analysis
A number of mounds similar to the Tunacunnhee Mounds have been excavated
in the adjacent areas of Tennessee, Alabama, and North Carolina, as well as in several
locations in the Midwest. Some of these mounds are constructed with stone are
structurally similar to Tunnacunnhee. Others are constructed without the use of stone.
Both types of mounds have been found to contain artifacts that are analogous to those
recovered from the Tunnacunnhee burial mounds.
The Shaw Mound, located near Cartersville, Georgia, contained a number of
artifacts that closely resemble the Tunacunnhee material. Waring (1945) reported that
the Shaw Mound was a stone mound 50 feet in diameter and 10 feet high, with a roughly
horseshoe shape. The mound was demolished in 1940, but the remains of an extended
burial were found lying on the original ground surface. A copper breastplate, two large
stone celts, and a copper celt were associated with the burial. The trapezoidal breastplate
is very similar to the one found in association with Burial 18F in Mound D at
Tunacunnhee.
William Webb, in his report of the survey of the Norris Basin in Tennessee,
discussed several mounds that seem similar to those at the Tunacunnhee site. The Stiner
Stone Mounds, located on the Powell River in Union County, Tennessee, were described
as consisting of four stone mounds ranging between 16-18 feet in diameter and composed
of large slabs of limestone piled directly on the clay soil. One of the mounds contained
an extended adult burial oriented east-west and placed on the original surface of the
ground. Three projectile points, a banded slate gorget, a sandstone pipe, two bear
mandibles and large piece of mica were associated with the burial. No ceramics were
found in any of the mounds (Webb 1936: 59).
A “spool shaped copper object” was recovered from a large mound in Williamson
County, south of Nashville, Tennessee. Thruston (1890: 302) reported that it was found
deeply imbedded in a layer of ashes and burned clay, on the original surface of the
ground. Faulkner (1968) believes that this mound described by Thruston may have been
one of the same mounds reported by Jennings (1946). Jennings reported a mound,
located on Reid Hill, as being built on a flat hill top and measuring 18 feet high and 80
feet in diameter. The mound described by Jennings was built of stone and earth, but was
essentially a stone mound (Jennings 1946: 126). Unfortunately, Thruston does not
adequately describe the Williamson County Mound, so it is difficult to be sure these two
accounts are referring to the same mound.
Stone mounds have been reported from the Midwest that are structurally similar
to the Tunacunnhee Mounds. Keller stated that the C. L. Lewis Mound, located in
Shelby County, Indiana, measured 50 feet x 55 feet, and was 4.0 feet high. The mound
fill was described as being two-thirds limestone and one-third earth. The Lewis mound
contained Adena artifacts such as C-shaped copper bracelets, copper beads, and expanded
center gorgets (Keller 1960: 398).
The Wright Mound Group, located in Franklin County, Ohio, was excavated and
described by Shetrone (1925). The large mound measured 28 feet x 20 feet, and was 3.0
feet high. A stone lined pit and a burial covered with layers of stone were found in the
mound, and it was reported that the entire mound was covered with a layer of earth
(Shetrone 1925: 345-347).
The Copena Complex is found in the Tennessee River Valley of northern
Alabama. Forty-six burial mounds an six caves containing Copena material have been
reported by Walthall and Keel (1974). The mounds were described as being low conical
structures of earth containing from to three to over a hundred internments. The most
common burial position is extended, but cremation is also found. The number of mound
structures in these sites ranges from one to eight. According to radiocarbon
determination from Copena material, Copena predates Tunacunnhee by about 100-200
years. Wathall (1972) recently tested two charcoal samples that were associated with
extended burials and obtained dates of A.D. 320 (1630 +65 B.P.), from the Ross site in
the Guntersville Basin, and A.D. 375 (1575+75 B.P.), from the Leeman Mound, Morgan
County, Alabama.
While Copena and Tunacunnhee are closely associated both temporally and
spatially, each complex has certain attributes that are not shared with the other. The
Tunacunnhee Mounds contained copper panpipes, copper breastplates, and small
zoomorphic platform pipes, none of which has been reported from Copena sites. On the
other hand, copper bracelets, copper reel-shaped gorgets, galena nodules, and large
steatite elbow pipes are common in Copena sites but absent from Tunnacunnhee
(DeJarnett 1952: 278).
Analysis of some of the copper artifacts from Tunacunnhee has been performed to
determine the source of the copper used in the fabrication of artifacts. There is growing
evidence that some of the copper used in manufacturing “Hopewellian” items found in
Southeastern sites came from local sources, and analysis of copper from Tunacunnhee
and other sites has tentatively demonstrated that ore from deposits in North Carolina and
Tennessee was used in manufacturing some artifacts. These results were obtained by
using analytical techniques including optical spectroscopy (Goad 1974: 9) and X-ray
florescence (Schneider 1974).
Panpipes constitute one of the largest classes of artifacts recovered from the
Tunacunnhee Mounds. A total of nine were found in association with six burials, one of
the largest concentration of panpipes in the East. The only other sites with a comparable
number are the Le Vesconte Mound in Ontario, Canada (Ritchie 1965: 219) and the
Hopewell Mound in Ohio (Griffin et. al 1970: 99).
Excavation of the Tunacunnhee Site has significantly increased the amount of
data concerning stone mounds and Hopewell in the Southeast. The importance of the site
is increased by the fact that Tunacunnhee contains not only the well documented
mortuary remains of a Hopewell affiliated occupation, but also a related habitation area.
The site offers the unique opportunity to further examine the cultural remains of the
localized secular aspects of Hopewell.
REFERENCES CITED
DeJarnette, David L.
1952 “Alabama Archaeology: A Summary,” in Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 272-284. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Faulkner, Charles H.
1968 The Old Stone Fort: Exploring an Archaeological Mystery, University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Goad, Sharon I.
1974 “Optical Spectroscopy as a Method of Archaeological Analysis,” Paper
presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Mexico City.
Griffin, James B., Richard E. Flanders, and Paul F. Titterington
1970 “Burial Complexes of the Knight and Norton Mounds in Illinois and
Michigan,” Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, No. 2.
Jennings, James
1946 “Hopewell-Copena sites near Nashville,” American Antiquity, Vol. XII,
No. 2, p. 128.
Kellar, James H.
1960 “The C. L. Lewis Mound and the Stone Mound Problem, Pre-historic
Research Series Vol. III, No. IV.
Ritchie, William A.
1965 The Archaeology of New York State, The Natural History Press, Garden
City.
Schneider, Kent
1974 “Results of Copper Analysis, Tunacunnhee Site, Dade County, Georgia,”
Unpublished research report, Geochronology Laboratory, University of
Georgia.
Shetrone, H. C.
1925 “Exploration of the Wright Group of Prehistoric Earthworks,” Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXXIII, No. 4, pp. 341358.
Thruston, Gates P.
1890 The Antiquities of Tennessee, Robert Clarke Company, Cincinnati.
Walthall, John A.
1972 “The Chronological Position of Copena in Eastern States Archaeology,”
Journal of Alabama Archaeology, Vol. XVII, No. 2, pp. 137-151.
Walthall, John A. and Bennie C. Keel
1974 “Hopewellian Trade and Interaction in the Mid-South,” Paper read at the
39th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC
Waring, Antonio J., Jr.
1945 “Hopewellian Elements in Northern Georgia,” American Antiquity, Vol.
II, No. 2, pp. 119-120.
Webb, William S.
1938 “An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 118.
Wray, Donald and Richard S. MacNeish
1961 “Hopewellian and Weaver Occupations of the Weaver Site, Fulton Co.,
Illinois,” Scientific Papers, Illinois State Museum, Vol. VII, No. 2.
Editors Note:
After this article was typed and sent to the author for proofreading, he suggested that the previous
“Abstract” which appears on the front page of this article should be changed to “Preface” and that the
following “Abstract” be added. It was impossible mechanically to insert the new “Abstract” at the
beginning of the article unless the whole manuscript was retyped, thus we have included the “Abstract”
Abstract
Research carried out in the summer of 1973 disclosed the existence of a major
Hopewellian habitation and mortuary site in Dade County, Georgia. The site consisted of
four stone covered burial mounds, at least two burial pits located outside the mound
structures and an accompanying habitation area. The site, now known as the
Tunacunnhee Site ((9DD25), represents the only well documented Hopewellian site in
North Georgia and contains the greatest variety and quantity of Hopewellian artifacts
reported from the southeast. The site also provides data bearing on the long standing
question of the age and cultural affiliation of stone mounds located throughout much of
the southern piedmont.
Panpipes, Early Metal Industries,
and Cultural Association in
Prehistoric North America
Due largely to the unfortunate death of Dr. Joseph Caldwell, the Tunacunnhee
Mound Site has not received the attention merited by its significance. The quantity and
diversity of Middle Woodland material is immediately obvious to anyone who looks at
the data. In addition, this site had both a mortuary, or ceremonial, and a habitation area
components. The presence of scraps of copper and mica reported in the habitation area
suggests that at least some of the exotic artifacts were manufactured on site.
In the case of panpipes, the excavations carried out by the University of Georgia
resulted in the location of nine of these copper instruments – two of which had silver
plating. Furthermore, relic collectors removed one case before the excavations and at
least two after the work was completed by the University of Georgia. Two of these had
silver plating. This brings the total number of panpipes from the site to thirteen. This
number represents approximately ten percent of all such discoveries in the United States.
This being the case, it is worthwhile to consider some facts concerning this form of
artifact.
Panpipes are a musical wind instrument, consisting of graduated tubes closed at
one end and fastened together. These instruments have had representatives in more nonwestern musical traditions around the world than any other non-percussion instrument.
The player holds the instrument vertically and blows across the open end of the tubes,
rather than using finger holes in a single tube as is the case with most flute like
instruments. Each tube of the panpipes has its own pitch. These instruments occurred
from very early times in the Middle East, Europe, China, Southeast Asia, and in North
and South America.
One of the earliest mentions of such a wind instrument occurs in Gen 4:21, where
we are told that Jubal was the "father of all such as handle the harp and pipe." The
Hebrew word here translated "pipe" is `ughabh. It occurs in 3 other places: Job 21:12;
30:31; Ps 150:4, and in the Hebrew version of Dan 3:5. The `ughabh was probably a
primitive shepherd's pipe or panpipe, though some take it as a general term for
instruments of the flute kind, a meaning that suits all the passages cited.
In Greek and Roman mythology the god Pan was said to have invented the
Panpipes by joining hollow reeds of different lengths together with beeswax and blowing
into them to make music. Most of the stories connected with the origin of this instrument
are connected with the god Pan and the nymph Syrinx who was changed into reeds.
In North America, panpipes were associated with the Middle Woodland
Hopewellian manifestation. The Hopewellian culture, which began in Ohio and Illinois
between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100, perhaps grew out of the earliera Adena culture or
merged with it. Before declining sometime between A.D. 400 and 500, its influence
reached across many thousands of miles, including the Southeast. Earthworks also
marked the Hopewell phenomenon. Followers in the Midwest built ridges, sometimes 12
feet tall, shaped into expansive squares, circles, and octagons that could enclose as much
as 80 acres. The term Hopewell has been used to describe a Middle Woodland phase in
the Ohio Valley, a cultural type, or a burial complex. Stewart Streuver has suggested that
the term could best apply to an interaction sphere. The Hopewellian interaction sphere
involved some form of trade of gift exchange and extended from Ontario south to the
Ohio and Mississippi drainage systems as far west as Arkansas and east to Florida.
Major sites are usually located along rivers and tributary streams. It is considered one
complex because the artifacts found in burials are made in near uniform styles from
exotic raw materials such as copper, silver, obsidian, mica, and marine shells. Their dead
were often accompanied by objects, such as the copper panpipes, that must have held
great value for the people who buried them. (1)
It was once popular to think of “Hopewell” as a cultural manifestation that
developed in the Ohio Valley directly from the earlier Adena culture. Now, however,
there is evidence suggesting that Hopewellian roots may cover a much wider area.
Located in Citrus County on the west coast of Florida, the Crystal River Site is the
southernmost manifestation of the Hopewellian interaction sphere. Artifacts, including
copper panpipes, found at Crystal River suggest that it was part of a major trade route
from the Yucatan in eastern Mexico to the Ohio River Area. Two ceremonial stones
called Stelae, similar to those that occur in the Mayan area of the Yucatan, but not
normally found north of Mexico, are the most enigmatic features of the Crystal River
Site. It is believed that these two limestone rocks were deliberately placed in an upright
position by the Indians around A.D. 440. There has been speculation that the stones are
placed in alignment with the soltice and equinox making it an astronomical site. (2)
In southwest Georgia, such a ceremonial focal point developed at Mandeville near
the Chattahoochee River in Clay County. A flat-topped mound which once held a temple
and a cone-shaped burial mound attest to the strong Hopewell influence at Mandeville.
The mounds, now submerged under the waters of Lake Walter F. George, stood about
900 feet apart, with the village between them. Archeologists uncovered many artifacts in
the mounds, including five panpipes. Made from hollowed river cane, four of the
instruments were coated with copper; one was covered with a mixture of copper and
silver. The Mandeville mounds also contained copper beads, cut mica, prismatic blades,
and many ax-like tools called celts made from lustrous greenstone. (3)
Fourteen copper ear spools, all except one found in a single grave, testified to
what must have been a particularly painful form of adornment. The ear spools, diskshaped and resembling miniature cymbals, were held in place by a thin column or rivet.
The wearer's ear lobe was sliced open with a sharp rock, then the ear spool column was
inserted. As the wound healed, the ear spool was sealed into place. Archeologists
uncovered remnants of several smoking pipes, one with the bowl shaped like a bird. All
of the pipes found at Mandeville were the platform variety, standing upright on squat,
rectangular bases. The bowls are plain or shaped into bird and other animal effigies. (4)
Copper ear spools.
Scientists also found several human figurines at Mandeville, both intact and in
fragments. One clay figurine, about three and a half inches tall and found in the burial
mound, represents a woman bent slightly forward at the waist. She wears a skirt painted
red and is bare breasted. Her feet are also painted red, and she wears red arm bands. Her
hair tapers down her back to the waist, and both her hair and back are painted black.
There is a display in the Columbus Museum of another Mandeville woman figurine with
an elaborate hairdo with two out-swept sides resembling horns. Archeologists speculate
that the figurines may be sculptural portraits of the society's elite. (5)
Further north in a western corner of Georgia near Chattanooga, Tennessee, The
Tunacunnhee Site similarly reflect the same ritualism. Venerated religious leaders or
priests officiated at the intricate burial ceremonies that often involved cremation and
sumptuous feasts and included placing exotic artifacts with the dead. This ceremony, or
religion, appears to be the glue that held the Hopewellian interaction sphere together.
There may have also been a special class of traders who followed a network of trails and
rivers extending hundreds of miles. As the traders sought materials near and far, they
probably imparted their religious and ceremonial ideas to those they met along the way.
(6)
Gloria Young, at the University of Arkansas, became interested in panpipes
through the study of an example from the Helena Crossing site in Arkansas. “To see if
the Helena panpipe was, as the name implies, a musical instrument,” she stated, “I
reconstructed it and found that it would produce musical tones. The two outer tubes of
the reconstructed Helena panpipe produce musical tones one octave apart. They are
plugged with wooden and fiber plugs which determine the length of the air column.
Compared to a strobotuner, the left tube produces an A ten one hundredths of a semi-tone
flat, one and one half octaves above middle C. The right tube produces an A one octave
higher. Recently it occurred to me to stop the middle tube with my thumb while blowing.
So stopped, it produces three tones, all overtones. The tones are approximately an A one
octave below the A of the left tube, an overtone four notes higher (D), and an overtone
six notes higher (B).” (7)
Copper-jacketed panpipes.
A – Back of instrument: note tie marks.
B – Front of panpipes, showing silver plating at upper end.
C – Cut-away view, showing cane tubes and plugs.
[Drawing from Volume 50, Part 1,
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History.]
Panpipe burial sites.
In 1975, Young published A Structural Analysis of Panpipe Burials. In this study
she documented approximately sixty panpipes recovered from twenty-three sites ranging
from the Le Vesconte site in Northumberland County, Ontario to the Crystal River site in
Citrus County, Florida. It should be noted that at the time when she did this study data
from the Tunacunnhee Mounds Site was not available to her. In spite of the wide
distribution of these items, and the fact that the burials had a great diversity in style, she
found that all had “an astonishing similarity of both style and material.” (8)
“All of the casings were of annealed metal,” she stated, “corrugated in front, flat
and lapped in back, covering three or four tubes of cane or bone. All specimens except
that from Baehr were from one and one half to two and one-fifty inches wide. This is
apparently because the wild cane, Arundaria, grows consistently to a diameter of one half
inch in mature stalks. Panpipes with little material between the tubes will be close to one
and one-half inches wide, those with yarn or clay in the interstices will be wider,
especially if they have been crushed somewhat by the weight of the earth. Panpipes
varied more in length, which would have been musically unimportant since the tones
produced depended not on the length of the tubes but that of the inner plugs.” (9)
The similarity of these panpipes have led some to speculate that they were all
manufactured in one place and diffused to various parts of the Hopewellian interaction
sphere. Young, however, has pointed out that: “With the possible exception of the
Turner central altar panpipe (made of meteoric iron) and the Hopewell Mounds 20
panpipe, which has bone tubes, the panpipes could not have been made from purely local
materials in any one place. Several of the casings have been analyzed and show that the
metal from which they are made came from Isle Royale and the Lake Superior region or
from Cobalt, Ontario. The northernmost range of the only North American cane,
Arundaria, may be delimited by a line running from the southwest corner of Missouri
through Cape Girardeau, up the Ohio River valley to just past Cincinnati, then eastward
to Virginia (See figure 2). [Figure 2 is the map shown above.] The panpipes, then, are a
blending of resources from the north and south of the interaction sphere. They, like the
sphere itself, represent the transcending of regional and burial style differences and seem
to have provided a bond between the inhabitants along thousands of miles of inland
waterways. The Hopewell style panpipe of metal and cane, a variation of what is
believed to be a very ancient type of musical instrument, could not have developed before
the rise of the interaction sphere brought the raw materials together. As unique
representatives of that specific interaction sphere, it is not unusual that they disappeared
with its wane.” (10)
Although the manufacture of metal panpipes seems to have ended with the decline
of Middle Woodland, the Native metal industry did not. A small, but significant copper
industry continued in the Southeastern United States up to the time of European contact.
At sites like Etowah in Georgia, sheet copper plates with engraved or embossed designs
are well known from the Mississippian occupation. Similarly, in the Chattanooga area,
elite individuals living on the Dallas/Hixon Sites wore copper ear spools that are virtually
identical to those worn more than a thousand earlier at the Tunacunnhee Site. (11)
The earliest Europeans in North America found that copper ornaments were
highly prized by the Native peoples. Sir Ralph Lane, an English soldier who visited
Native towns in North Carolina in 1584, observed: “The mineral they say is Wassador,
which is copper, but they call by the name Wassador every metal whatsoever: they say it
is of the color of our copper [brass], but our copper is better than theirs: and the reason is
for that it is redder and harder.” (12)
Since copper was the only metal they knew when they came in contact with
Europeans, it is logical that they would use their word for copper to apply to all metals.
Not only did they not differentiate between brass and copper, but, when questioned by the
Spaniards about gold, they assumed copper to be the metal in question. When Hernando
de Soto asked the Koasatis on the French Broad River in 1540 where gold could be
found, he was told that the province to the north, Chisca (now known to be Yuchis) had
much wealth, including gold. The control of large salt springs near the present Saltville,
Virginia and a knowledge of working copper gave the Yuchis in the Chisca area a
tremendous economic advantage in dealing with their neighbors. (13)
The early Europeans found a trail, called the Great Trading Path, that extended
from the mountains of western North Carolina to the present city of Augusta, Georgia.
This trail was known as “The Occaneechi Trading Path.” The primary commodities
traded along this route The English regarded “Occaneeachi” as a ‘tribal’ or ethnic
designation. The word, however, is an Algonquian term meaning simply “a place where
people gather.” (14)
Robert Beverly wrote that there was a “general sort of language,” that he called
“Occaneachi.” This language, “which is understood by the chief men of many nations as
Latin is in most parts of Europe… The general language here used is said to be that of the
Occaneechees, though they have been but a small nation, ever since those parts were
known to the English.” He added that this ‘language’ was used by priests in religious
ceremonies throughout Virginia “as the Catholics of all nations do their mass in Latin.”
Years later, a remnant of this ‘language’ was analyzed and found to contain fragments of
Siouan, Algonquian, and Iroquois words, suggesting a form of trade jargon used in
business transactions among speakers of different languages. (15)
As will be shown below, a highly valued copper artifact from the contact period
was a large copper disc. When polished, it is easy to see that such an item would have
been a symbol for the sun. By extension, it is also reasonable that copper would have
been regarded as the metal of the sun. The Yuchis were known by many different names
given them by other groups. They, however, called themselves Tsoyaha, meaning
“Children of the Sun,” a name that could also imply “Workers in Copper.” (16)
Rene de Laudonniere, the leader of the abortive French colony in Florida during
the early 1560’s, wrote that the leaders of the Timucuan Indians wore large metal discs of
copper around their necks. He added, in explaining the source of the metal, that “in the
Appalachian Mountains there are copper mines.” Le Moyne, the artist who accompanied
the French expedition, produced several illustrations of men wearing such discs around
their neck. (17)
De Bry engrving of Le Moyne de Morgues, showing Timucuans wearing copper discs in
Florida.
In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh sent two English ships to explore the coast of North
Carolina. One of his captains, Arthur Barlowe, later reported: “After two or three days
the king’s brother came aboard the shippes…he himself had upon his head a broad plate
of golde, or copper, for being unpolished we know what metal it should be, neither would
he by any means suffer us to take it off his head… when… the king’s brother none durst
trade but himself: except such as wear red pieces of copper on their heads like himself:
for that is the difference between the noble men, and the governors of the countreys.”
(18)
The English artist John White stated: “they wear a chaine of great pearles, or
copper beades or smoothe bones abowt their necks, and a plate of copper hinge vpon a
stringe.” Two years later, another English captain, Ralph Lane, reported that the natives
obtained the copper ornaments from a powerful people in the interior known as the
Mangoaks [probably Yuchis]. (19)
It would seem that the “Mangoaks,” or Yuchis, later enslaved some of the
abandoned colonists from Raleigh’s so called “Lost Colony.” After the establishment of
Jamestown, William Starchey wrote: “At Ritanoc, the Weroance Eyanoco preserved 7 of
the English alive, four men, two boys, and one young maid (who escaped and fled up the
River of Chaonoke) to beat his copper, of which he hath certain mines at the said
Ritanoc.” (20)
Two men from Jamestown, Nathaniel Powell and Anas Todkill, were sent out to
investigate the Mangoaks. They later reported: “…you shall find four of the English
alive, left by Sir Walter Rawely which escaped from the slaughter. [They] live under the
protection of a wiroane called Gapanocon, enemy to Powhaton, by whose consent you
shall never recover them, [for] one of them is worth much labor.” (21)
In 1602, the Spanish king received numerous complaints against the governor of
Florida from the Franciscans and others, questioning the value of the region. Hoping for
an unbiased report, King Philip III ordered Don Pedro de Valdes, then governor of Cuba,
to take testimony from men who were knowledgeable about the situation in Florida. One
of the most interesting witnesses to testify was Juan Ribas, 60 years old, and a 40-year
army veteran who had served with Pardo and Moyano. Ribas had married a Yuchi
woman who had been captured in southwestern Virginia by Sergeant Moyano. The
woman had the Christian name Luisa Menendez. She often talked, and had even testified
on another occasion, of the beauty and riches of her homeland. Ribas stated that over the
years he and his wife had often informed the Spanish authorities of the great amount of
gold [actually copper], silver, and precious stones that could be found in the interior to
the northwest. (22)
Another witness was Juan Lara, a soldier who was forty-six years old and had
come to Florida as a child thirty-four years earlier with his father. As a youth he enlisted
in the Spanish army in Florida. He stated that years ago he had gone on the expedition to
Ajacan [Chesapeake Bay], 170 leagues north of San Agustin. Lara said that in Ajacan he
had seen Indians with gold collars [actually copper] and that he himself had four of these
valuable collars. (23)
As has been shown, a well-developed prehistoric metal industry, involving
working with both copper and silver, existed in what is now the Southeastern United
States going back at least to the Middle Woodland period. Sixteenth century records left
by Spanish, French, and English sources indicate the primary source of copper items as
being the Appalachian Mountain area. Most of the sites on which metal artifacts have
been found also have stone features, either on the site or nearby.
In 1955 – 56 Philip E. Smith, with the Peabody Museum at Harvard University,
conducted a study of Aboriginal Stone Constructions in the Southern Piedmont. He
documented numerous stone walls, stone mounds, and stone effigies in the southern
Appalachian and Piedmont regions of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and parts of
Kentucky and West Virginia. Some of these are well known sites, such as Fort Mountain
State Park and Old Stone Fort State Park in Tennessee. As the name suggests, these
features were once thought to have had a military use. This, however, is not the case.
(24)
Regarding the walls at Fort Mountain, Smith stated: “It is easier to say what this
wall is not than what it is… It should also be mentioned that the wall at Fort Mountain is
not unique in the South, although it is the largest and most impressive found to date. A
number of other stone walls have been reported and it is possible that they all belong to a
very ancient complex which may have been religious or symbolic connotation… They
bear certain things in common. All are of dry-stone masonry, although the quality varies
greatly: most of them are built on hilltops or ridges, yet without any ostensible defensive
purpose; none of them appears to have any historical background as far as white
settlement is concerned. For example, there are the long Devil’s Half Acre walls in
Putnam County, Georgia, which have well-fitted masonry of un-worked stone; the walls
near Kensington, Georgia, (just south of Chattanooga, Tennessee,) reported by Dr. Joseph
Johnson in 1955; the stone ‘fort’ at Manchester, Tennessee; the parallel walls at DeSoto
Falls, Alabama; the wall on Ladd Mountain near Cartersville, unfortunately demolished
some 20 years ago; the stone wall on Brown’s Mount near Macon, also demolished
recently, but described by A. R. Kelly in 1938. In addition, there are unexplained lines of
stone on Mount Alto, near Rome, Georgia, which seem to resemble the same type.
Finally, there is a number of such structures reported from West Virginia, Kentucky and
Tennessee… The widespread distribution of these phenomena leads to the suspicion that
a common motif, perhaps ceremonial or symbolic, underlies them.” (25)
Considerable effort was required to construct these stone walls, and they
obviously had great significance to the builders. The best hypothesis for these stone
walls is that they were enclosures where different peoples gathered at regular intervals for
the purpose of exchanging exotic raw materials, such as copper, silver, and mica, and
possibly finished artifacts as well. This would make such sites not forts, but rather,
enclosures for a kind of trade fair – something that would have been necessary for the
Hopewellian interaction sphere. (26)
Following European contact, this industry continued, using brass instead of
copper. The new metal was used to make some of the familiar earlier items. Brass discs
were made in the same manner as the earlier copper discs. Brass C shaped bracelets
replaced the earlier ones made from copper. Brass conchos have been found that are very
similar to the earlier copper ear spools.
The Spaniards found the Chisca (now known to be Yuchis), living in the
Appalachian Mountains were the major people working copper in the sixteenth century.
It is logical to assume that their ancestors had the same role during the Middle Woodland.
References
1. Stewart Streuver, “The Hopewellian Interaction Sphere in Riverine – Western Great
Lakes Culture History,” in Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall,
Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Cambridge, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1964: 85-106.
2. Crystal River, Florida State Park website.
3. National Park Service, Fort Benning, Georgia website.
4, Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Gloria A. Young, “Reconstruction of an Arkansas Hopewellian Panpipe,”
Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXIV, No. 28, 1970: 28-32.
8. Gloria A. Young, “A Structural Analysis of Panpipe Burials,” Tennessee
Archaeologist, Vol. 32, No. 1&2, 1976: 1-10.
9. Ibid. 7.
10. Ibid.
11. WPA/TVA Archives, presented courtesy of Frank H. McClung Museum, The
University of Tennessee.
12. David Beers Quinn, Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584-1606,
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1985: 111-112.
13. Charles Hudson, Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun, University of Georgia Press,
Athens, 1997: 203; E. Raymond Evans, Napochin Shadows, Intertribal Sacred Land
Trust, Chattanooga, 2003: 19; 28.
14. Lee Miller, Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony, Penguin Books, New
York: 200: 248-249.
15. Ibid.
16. Evans, op. cit., 19.
17. Rene de Laudonniere, Three Voyages, Translated by Charles E. Bennett, University
of Alabama Press, 2001: 116.
18. Quinn, op. cit., 35-36.
19 Ibid, 111-112.
20. Miller, op. cit., 236
21. Miller, op. cit, 237.
22. Charles W. Arnade, Florida on Trial, 1593-1602, University of Miami Press, Coral
Gables, 1959: 38-41.
23. Ibid.
24. Philip E. Smith, “Aboriginal Stone Constructions in the Southern Piedmont,”
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Paper No. 4, 1962: 1-44.
25. Ibid., 11-12.
26. Charles Faulkner, personal communication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnade, Charles W.
1959 Florida on Trial, 1593-1602, University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Crystal River, Florida State Park website.
Evans, E. Raymond
2003 Napochin Shadows, Intertribal Sacred Land Trust, Chattanooga.
Hudson, Charles
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun, University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Laudonniere, Rene de
2001 Three Voyages, Translated by Charles E. Bennett, University of Alabama
Press.
Miller, Lee
2000 Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony, Penguin Books, New
York.
National Park Service, Fort Benning, Georgia website.
Quinn, David Beers
1985 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584-1606, University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Smith, Philip E.
“Aboriginal Stone Constructions in the Southern Piedmont,” University of
Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Paper No. 4, 1962.
Streuver, Stewart
1964 “The Hopewellian Interaction Sphere in Riverine – Western Great Lakes
Culture History,” in Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R.
L. Hall, Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Cambridge, Vol. 12, No.
3, 1964.
WPA/TVA Archives, presented courtesy of Frank H. McClung Museum, The University
of Tennessee.
Young, Gloria A.
1970 “Reconstruction of an Arkansas Hopewellian Panpipe,” Proceedings of the
Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXIV, No. 28.
1976 “A Structural Analysis of Panpipe Burials,” Tennessee Archaeologist, Vol.
32, No. 1&2, 1976: 1-10.