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

For a number of reasons, pottery has become the most studied Indian artifact type, and the pottery of the Lower Creek Indians is no exception. Pottery is related to and re®ects the subsistence economy, which is an important cultural analytical unit. In addition, it is usually well preserved and is assumed to be time sensitive, two practical characteristics that are signi¤cant reasons it is one of the most studied of all the artifact classes found at archaeological sites. Eighteenth-century historic visitors of Southeastern Indian towns often talked about seeing pottery sherds and pieces in old mounds, middens, and accumulations around houses (Waselkov and Braund 1995:34, 45, 46, 96, 153, 211), and that artifact class is still used to identify sites. Pottery variation has been used and abused more than any other artifact class because it is assumed to be re®ective of ethnicity, demography, migration, trade,and interaction and to be a tool for temporally dating artifact assemblages (Orton et al. 1993; Rice 1984; Sinopoli 1991). Creek Indian pottery has been studied for over 100 years (Brose and White 1999; Speck 2004:25–28). The Creek Indians used pottery primarily for cooking subsistence foods but also for heating and roasting plant materials (Speck 2004:25–28; Swanton 1979:550–552). Stews and meats were boiled in large pots (Swanton 1979:551). Pottery served special functions and was renewed in religious ceremonies such as the Boosketuh (Foster 2003a:24, 77s), a ceremony of renewal and thanksgiving. In preparation, new pots were made to replace the old ones (Waselkov and Braund 1995:125). Creek Indian women and girls made the pottery (Foster 2003a:22; Waselkov and Braund 1995:127, 152–153). They collected clay from pits near their houses inside the villages. Over time, the clay extraction pits became large and ¤lled with rainwater, forming small ponds (Swanton 1912:¤g. 43; Waselkov and Braund 1995:106). Speci¤c clay sources were also known by the Indians and were perhaps used for specialized pottery such as the painted wares, which are 4 Pottery often characterized as temperless and of ¤ner clay. Benjamin Hawkins observed one such clay extraction area in the late eighteenth century on the Uchee Creek near the town of Yuchi (Foster 2003a:42j). Caleb Swan was a U.S. of¤cial who observed and wrote about the Creek Indians of the late eighteenth century. He recorded “earthen pots and pans of various sizes, from one pint up to six gallons. But in these, they betray a great want of taste and invention, they have no variety of fashion; these vessels are all without handles, and are drawn so nearly to a point at the bottom, that they will not stand alone. Therefore, whenever they are set for use, they have to be propped upon three sides with sticks or stones” (Swan quoted in Swanton 1979:551). Swan’s description tells us about the form of the vessels. The form of southeastern Indian vessels has been demonstrated to be related to the function of those vessels (Hally 1986). Frank Speck recorded the function of Yuchi pottery vessels around the turn of the twentieth century. He recorded seven forms that were in use or at least constructed by the Yuchi at that time. Owing to a variety of context, dating, and sampling problems, I don’t include Yuchi vessels in my analysis of Lower Creek pottery below. I want to identify ceramic variation between the ethnic and linguistic towns that constituted the Lower Creek Indians , and I don’t feel con¤dent in doing that yet. For example, Chad Braley identi ¤ed an unusually low frequency of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery, which is the normal indicator of Lawson Field phase components (1998:102). So I don’t feel that we can adequately distinguish between seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury phases at Yuchi town. However, this discussion of Yuchi pottery vessels is informative about functions. In addition, there are some interesting differences between the Yuchi forms and the forms de¤ned in my analysis, which is probably mostly from Maskókî towns. These vessel forms were used for a variety of functions. A “low ®at form,” identi¤ed below as a constricted rim bowl, was used for food dishes or “receptacles for boiled beans and corn”; it was about eight inches in diameter and about three inches in height and was decorated with incised lines (Speck 2004:26). According to Speck, the incising had no meaning or name (2004:27). A large...

Share