NCPI Workmark
Articles in regional publications that pertain to a wide range of North Carolina-related topics.

Search Results


8 results for North Carolina Archaeology Vol. 48 Issue , Oct 1999
Currently viewing results 1 - 8
PAGE OF 1
Record #:
18591
Abstract:
Site 31CB114 is a prehistoric site located on the broad ridgetop south of the Cape Fear River in Columbus County. The ceramics at the site represent a mixture of decorative and technological attributes typically found within the North and South Carolina Coastal Plain. Radiocarbon dating concludes that the production of ceramics at this site occurred as much as 1500 years earlier than previously expected for the southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
18592
Abstract:
In the Sandhills and southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, a sand burial mound traditional emerged in the Woodland period. These mounds and the collective mortuary practice they represent are not well understood in North Carolina. This article discusses work at Fort Bragg and the social context for this tradition.
Source:
North Carolina Archaeology (NoCar E 78 S55 S6), Vol. 48 Issue , Oct 1999, p59-86, map, bibl, f Periodical Website
Full Text:
Record #:
35197
Author(s):
Abstract:
As an introduction to this periodical series of articles, Herbert discussed William Haag, an archaeologist who completed an excavation series of coastal sites between 1954-1955. His endeavor paved the road for several future archaeological related activities in Coastal NC. Highlighted was his descriptions of testing and surveying sites along the northern coast of North Carolina. His work laid a foundation for the prehistoric ceramic sequence still in use at the time of this journal’s publication. Also noted among his contributions to the field was a symposium organized for the fifty fifth annual Southern Archaeological Conference. This Conference yielded six of the articles published in this volume.
Record #:
35198
Author(s):
Abstract:
This article chronicled Stanley South’s excavation at Oak Island in 1960, with comparisons made between South’s excavation and others done in Northeastern NC (notably by Haag, Phelps, Loftfield, and Hargrove). These comparisons collectively chronicled the differences in ceramics, pottery, and stone weaponry for excavations sites such as Oak Island, White Island, and Hamp’s Landings. From this, Mathis surmised that the established Oak Island nomenclature system be substituted by the newly defined Hamp’s Landing series.
Subject(s):
Record #:
35199
Author(s):
Abstract:
The author deliberated the proper taxonomic sequence of ceramic series such as Oak Island, White Oak, Cape Creek, Thom’s Creek, Cape Fear, Hanover, and Papanow. Factors considered in the determination of actual dates that these ceramic series appeared included temper and surface. Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating methods determined which Woodland period these ceramic series appeared. Several figures identified the NC coastal counties containing these sites or featured images of ceramic sherds.
Subject(s):
Record #:
35200
Author(s):
Abstract:
Adam Marshall discussed newly discovered types of interior impressions for ceramics, distinct and uninform interval fabric impressed. Based on the collected data, the author concluded that previously undetected typological relationships between the White Oak and Colington ceramic series could be determined.
Subject(s):
Record #:
35201
Author(s):
Abstract:
John Byrd’s examination of ceramic assemblage from the Davenport site, located in Bertie County along the Pamlico River, proposed possible similarities between those ceramics and three others gathered in Northeastern NC. Temporal patterns in paste temper and surface were used to determine similarities. From his assessment of the Davenport data, which uncovered a ceramic series deposited earlier than expected, Byrd proposed that the cultural-historical framework standard for these ceramic series needed to be refined.
Subject(s):
Record #:
35202
Author(s):
Abstract:
Though Dane Magoon’s article discussed six types of pipes—English, Native American, “Chesapeake,” Jordan’s Landing, Croatan, and Neoheroka Fort—emphasis was placed on “Chesapeake.” Noted about the “Chesapeake,” primarily produced by Native Americans: theoretical interpretations for their West African affiliation, distinguishing features and artistic decorations; recovery locations; and an explanation for enclosing the name in quotation marks. Included were seven figures, with five of these figures showing photos of the pipes, one displaying the three excavation sites, and one containing drawings of Jordan’s Landing pipes.
Subject(s):