In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Owing to the amount of research on Creek Indian sites over the last few decades , archaeologists are beginning to discern patterns and can measure and characterize variation among the archaeological sites. Now that we have a relatively comprehensive data set, we should reevaluate our archaeological models, our metrics of material culture, by comparing archaeological and historical data. We have accurate and consistent information about migration and population stability throughout the eighteenth century in the form of accurate maps, descriptions, and large-scale archaeological surveys. Chapter 3 synthesized what is known about the location and population movements of each individual town. Consequently, we can begin to compare mother and daughter towns in order to understand migration and ¤ssion of Southeastern Indian towns that may contribute to chiefdom cycling (Anderson 1994; Blitz 1999). A goal of this book was to set a baseline of knowledge about the archaeological remains of the Lower Creek Indians. I used a direct historic and regional approach to de¤ne empirically the archaeological assemblage composition of individual Creek talwas. I used the current archaeological knowledge to de¤ne comprehensively the regional and temporal variation in the “population” of Lower Creek Indian archaeological remains so that smaller assemblages could be evaluated in terms of samples from the larger population in a sort of middlerange theory. Archaeologists and other researchers need to study the Maskókalkî at the level of the talwa or tribal population rather than larger regional units. We have spent a signi¤cant amount of time explaining the archaeological context of the data that have been collected. Since archeological data are samples of some population, archaeologists have to understand what kind of sample that was collected relative to the population. We have to understand the validity of the archaeological data so that we can adequately assess samples of them. We have attempted to clarify the biased nature of the samples and the archaeological perspective put forth here by explicitly describing the context 8 Conclusion from which it came. This is not to say that archaeological data are not useful. As with any sample of data, if you understand the biases, you can control for them. Furthermore, the data give us a unique perspective on the past that cannot be obtained by oral histories, documents, or modern descendants. We feel that our comprehensive approach has been useful at delineating and clarifying the diversity of the Maskókalkî of the Lower Chattahoochee and Flint River watersheds of the eighteenth century. This book has also been a study of archaeological metrics and units of analysis. By isolating the limits of the analysis to a single archaeological phase, we have been able to characterize and quantify the variation within the phase. That monolithic unit has impeded the analyis of talwas at the proper level of analyis. By lumping all Lawson Field sites together, we were unable to distinguish between the unique cultural units. I hope that this study has shown that the Lawson Field phase and the Lower Creek Indians that it represents were composed of a diverse people. There is no reason to believe that this ¤nding is limited to the Historic Period. Archaeologists need to reassess their understanding of the dynamics within prehistoric archaeological phases in order to use them properly. My approach has been to describe fully the archaeological variation in an attempt to create a sort of “population” from which subsets and further samples can be compared. If we know the geographic and temporal variation in the population, then we will be better able to assess samples of that population (Orton 2000:44–57; Orton and Tyers 1990, 1992). For example, by fully describing the population of ceramic vessels and surface types, we can better assess variation between archaeological assemblages as representing change through time versus change over space versus a sampling bias. Certainly , not all of the data sets described here are comprehensive enough to accomplish that, but it is a start. Only by doing this can we begin to measure culture change among these Southeastern Indians. Following, I will summarize the major themes covered. The Lower Maskókî (Creek) Indians were a loose collection of culturally similar but independent talwas or towns. The Maskókalkî settled on the Lower Chattahoochee and Flint River watersheds in various waves of migration throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These Indians were the direct descendants, both biologically and culturally, of Mississippian period Indians of central and northern Alabama and Georgia intermixed with other Indian populations. They were of...

Share