Lab Methods

All artifacts were processed in the archaeology lab at Georgia State University. Both historic and prehistoric artifacts were washed, cleaned, and placed on drying racks. Despite warning against washing metal due to further corrosion, I washed them to remove all dirt to better identify the artifacts in the analysis process.

5.4.1 Lithic Terminology

In the lab, lithics were divided up by type: flake, thinning flake, blade flakes, reduction flakes, utilized flakes, debitage and shatter. The lithics were analyzed with Andrefsky’s (2005) definitions and illustrations by Inizan, et al. (1999). I consulted with Lori Thompson, former lab manager at Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. to verify my work.

There are a number of terms that one should be aware of when discussing lithics. To aid anyone who is reading this, I have included a definition of each. Chert is the rock material that is used to make stone tools. Cores, also known as an objective piece, are the stone rocks that have been flaked or modified in some way. A striking platform refers to the prepared area where the hammerstone hits the core. The detached piece that is removed is a flake. Flakes differentiate from reduction flakes due to the striking platform that remains on reduction flakes. Reduction flakes also have cortex, the weathered, exterior surface of the core (Andrefsky 2005).

A flake fragment is a small portion of rock removed from the core. Flake

fragments generally do not have striking platforms but do have the shape and similarity of the flake they came off of. Thinning flakes are slightly curvy with an angled bulb of percussion. The bulb of percussion is a cone-shaped bump, most visible on the fractured

surface of a flake, that is made by the blow applied by the hammerstone. Debitage is the discarded by-product of stone tool production. Debitage is characterized by tinier pieces of chert. Shatter was the unintentional detachment of lithic material.

Figure 5.3: Lithic terminology as defined by Inizan et al. (Inizan 1999).

5.4.2 Ceramic Identification

I identified historic artifacts recovered based on books, articles, credible internet websites, and academic journals/volumes. Ceramic artifacts were divided into categories

dependent on the material type they were made from. I used the definitions created by the Florida Museum of Natural History to differentiate between the material types. They were analyzed according to the information below and divided in Earthenwares, Refined Earthenwares, Stonewares, and Porcelain.

Earthenwares are fired at temperatures of 1650-2200° Fahrenheit. Colors range from cream to dark red (Florida Museum of Natural History 2015) and have a variety of surface treatments. Refined earthenwares, most commonly known as “china” or “semi- porcelain,” are fired at a higher temperature than regular earthenwares (2000-2200 °F).

Ceramics of this type tend to be thin and either cream or white in color (Florida

Museum of Natural History 2015). Stonewares are made primarily from stoneware clay. Stonewares are more typical in rural settings. They are frequently used for utilitarian purposes. They have a granite-like texture and are most commonly glazed. Colors range from gray to tan or brown (Florida Museum of Natural History 2015). Porcelain, the most refined of all ceramics, is fired at temperatures of 2300-2600° F. Porcelain is frequently thin and most commonly associated with fancy tableware (Horn 2005). Colors vary from white to bluish-white (Florida Museum of Natural History 2015). 5.4.3 Glass Identification

Because a majority of the glass was not diagnostic, I instead chose to analyze them based on their color. Archaeologists have often used the color of an artifact to determine their time period of use. To better define the colors and the time period associated with the glass artifacts found on Cypress Pond, I used the Society for Historical Archaeology’s bottle website.

Clear and Lavender:

Clear glass is achieved by using “decolorizing agents” such as manganese dioxide, selenium dioxide and arsenious oxide (Scholes 1952, Trowbridge 1871). The most

successful with dating techniques is manganese dioxide. The use of manganese became common in 1885, lasting until the early 1920’s (Horn 2005). When exposed to sunlight, the glass will turn a slight pink or lavender to a dark amethyst or purple depending on the amount of manganese and the amount of ultraviolet light (Lindsey 2015). It is most commonly referred to as “sun-purpled” or “sun colored amethyst.”

Aqua:

This color has multiple variations and shades, ranging from green aqua to pale blue aqua. Aqua bottles were a very popular color prior to and during the 1920’s (Lindsey 2015f). With the exception of soda bottles, bottles of this color began to fade around the 1930’s when colorless (clear) glass became more popular (Lindsey 2015b).

Olive Greens:

Olive green was used in a diverse range of bottles. They were uncommon after 1900 except for liquor, wine and champagne bottles. Bottles made after the 1920’s had a brighter olive color (Lindsey 2015).

Amber and Yellow:

Amber colors were used for an extensive period of time so dating them to a specific time period is challenging. Various shades of amber were common during the ninetieth and the mid-twentieth centuries (Lindsey 2015). Amber colored bottles

became a standard color with the popularity of machine-made bottles in the 1920’s (Lindsey 2015). Yellow bottles may be considered a variation of amber ones.

Blues:

Blues are usually produced by adding cobalt oxide to a glass batch (Lindsey 2015). Cobalt and sapphire blues can be found in a variety of bottle types, making it difficult to solidify a date. They were mostly used for ink bottles, broma-seltzer bottles, poison bottles, medicinal bottles and occasionally, food bottles. The date range is 1840’s to at least the 1930’s (Lindsey 2015).

5.5 Conclusion

A variety of methods were employed for conducting my fieldwork at Cypress Pond, including shovel testing, metal detecting, and minimal excavating. The survey conducted was a smaller scale cultural resource management (CRM) project. CRM has three phases: phase I, a preliminary survey, mostly done through shovel tests, to determine if any archaeological sites are present. Phase II is done to determine

eligibility of a site for the National Register of Historic Places. Additional shovel tests or a unit may be opened up to determine eligibility. Phase III excavations are performed if a site cannot be avoided or if excavation is considered to be the most appropriate way to adverse effects of a project.

My fieldwork began with background research at the Georgia Archives to look at tax digests and census records pertaining to Albany, and Baker and Dougherty counties. Areas targeted for surveying were defined by either former structures being located within the survey area or by New Communities, who had their own suggestions for

potential survey areas. Phase I surveying was completed with shovel tests or metal detecting. Only two sections had shovel testing conducted, the area of prehistoric activity and Survey Area 4. Metal detecting was utilized in Survey Areas 1 through 4. Phase II surveying was applied only to the area of prehistoric activity. Three units were opened up but due to limited time in the field, only Unit 3 was excavated until the unit was culturally sterile. Phase III surveying did not occur on Cypress Pond.