Stanley South and Leland Ferguson coined the name "Chicora Ware" to serve as an umbrella name for ceramics from a wide geographic area that were very similar (South 2002: 229). South's York Ware group was designed to encompass historic wares, which are included below, but are also discussed further at the link. David Anderson's 1989 paper "The Mississippian in South Carolina" gives a good overview of the period.
Early researchers such as Joseph Caldwell (1952) and Joffrey Coe (1952) noted that Etowah, Pee Dee, Savannah, Irene, Lamar and other late period types shared many traits such as surface treatments and vessel forms. Leland Ferguson's idea of a South Appalachian Mississippian tradition, where related settlements wrapped around the southern end of the mountain chain, is well illustrated in the ceramic record.
In general these wares are sand tempered with complicated stamped and plain surface treatments that often have additional decoration. On Lamar/Irene this often takes the form of incising at the rim or on on the shoulder of cazuela type restricted rim bowls. On Pee Dee wares punctation, followed in time by the addition of appliqued nodes and rim strips are frequently seen. But there are few characteristics on either type that are not shared by other types from Alabama to North Carolina.
This widespread use of virtually the same ceramics does not mean that all of the groups using them were united politically, but more likely shows linkages through kinship, clan association, belief systems and world view.
Adamson Phase (DePratter and Judge 1985 in Williams and Shapiro 1990). This is a Mississippian ware associated with the mounds of the Wateree River. It can be considered "Pee Dee." Surfaces are mostly plain or burnished, with filfot cross and line block complicated stamping also present. It is tempered with “medium sand to medium grit.” When written DePratter and Judge thought the Adamson Phase dated from 1250 to 1300AD, based strictly on seriation. Subsequent work by Cable et al (1998) produced a carbon date of AD1335 (Calib 5.1, median). See Wateree Sequence (link) for further information.
Altamaha (DePratter 2009 in Deagan and Thomas 2009) This is seen by Chester DePratter as the terminal phase of the Irene series. He believes that the roots of Altamaha can be seen in the final years of the 1565-1587 assemblage from Santa Elena. It is associated with the Guale at St. Catherines and the Yemassee in 18th century contexts in the southeastern counties of the state. Surfaces include plain, line block, simple and check stamped and a red filmed variant. Temper apparently varies with decoration, as the red filmed variant is “virtually temperless” while others have “fine” to “heavy grit.” In work at Yemassee sites in Beaufort County Alex Sweeney (2009) differs slightly, and considers his complicated stamped wares Altamaha, where DePratter considers all complicated stamped wares Irene.
Ashley (South 1969, 1976; Lansdell 2009). This ware was first observed at the Charles Towne site (38CH1) in a context that Stanley South believed was associated with the 1670 town. For many years it went undefined, though David Anderson provides a limited discussion (link). Recent work by Brent Lansdell has shed some light on the ware (images at link). He has obtained a series of carbon dates that range from 1460-1667 (calibrated medians). South's 1969 date was 1680. Surfaces are usually complicated stamped, though many variants are noted, including simple stamped, plain, burnished and cob marked. This is distinguished from earlier wares in the quality of the paddle carving and stamp application. Motifs are larger, with wider lands and grooves, and considerable overstamping.
Belmont Neck Phase (DePratter and Judge 1990) see Wateree Sequence. This is thought to be the earliest phase of the Wateree Sequence. The biggest difference among them is the lack of applied rim decorations such as nodes and rim strips. A date of AD1247 was obtained at the site in the 1990s (Calib 5.1, median). This can be considered "Pee Dee." Surfaces tend to be complicated stamped with little additional decoration.
Brunswick (South 1976 link) This is a historic ware that is found on 18th century sites in North Carolina and Virginia. In Virginia it was called Colono-Indian ware by Ivor Noel-Hume (1963). Louis Binford identified a historic wares as Courtland Burnished (link). It is very similar to historic Catawba wares. It has been identified in Horry County, but might easily be mis-identified as Catawba or Colonoware to the south. It is highly burnished, thin and well made, and is usually described as "temperless." Vessels tend to mimic European forms with bowls and cups predominant.
Camden (Stuart 1975 link) The Camden type is based on surface collected material and remains something of an anomaly. Surfaces are check stamped, and simple stamped. Then incising and punctations are somewhat haphazardly applied. Vessel walls are thin, usually 4 to 6mm, with most at the lower end of the range. Sherds as thin as 2.5mm are noted. Temper is “grit” with occasional inclusions up to 3mm. No dates have been obtained, but this ware is thought by Stuart to be pre-Mississippian.
Caraway (Coe 1964, 1995; Ward and Davis 1988). Caraway is the terminal pottery type at the Doerschuck site (link) and Coe (1995: 167) believed it was in use at Town Creek and the Keyauwee Town site when John Lawson visited at the beginning of the 18th century. It was described as having a thin, hard and compact body tempered with very fine sand. Coe said “This pottery had a pronounced ring, even when broken, and clearly was the best of all aboriginal pottery made in this area” (Coe 1964: 34). Surfaces were most often smoothed or roughly burnished, but brushed , cord marked, net impressed, corn cob impressed, incised, simple and complicated stamped variants are also seen. Lamar style rim strips are present, as are Lamar style incised motifs (see Coe 1995: 166). The complicated stamped paddle designs are described as “sharp, deep, and [carved] with little regard for precision in design.” (Coe 1995: 164). It is similar to Ashley, Wachesaw, and Daniel Phase wares in this respect. Earlier designs were mostly concentric circles that were more carefully carved. Ward and Davis pointed out that no trade goods were found at the Keyauwee site, and that the ceramics spanned a longer period than Coe believed with most dating to the beginning of the 16th century. They say that Caraway is the southern Piedmont's manifestation of Lamar (Ward and Davis 1999: 137). Burnished plain pottery fitting this description is seen along the Pee Dee to the coast. This and Trinkley's Kimbel Series are probably the same type. They are what Anderson (et al 1996) would call "Mississippian Plain" (link).
Cashie (Phelps 1983) This is thought to be contemporary with Colington ware. It occurs inland, where Colington is coastal. It is similar in most ways, but has “liberal amounts of sand” (pg 36) and pebble sized temper. Surfaces are fabric impressed, simple stamped.
Catawba (South 2002, Riggs and Davis 2007 (link) A vaguely defined Catawba series name was used for awhile to attempt to describe the wares that Joffrey Coe thought evolved into what the historic Catawba were making, but the type was never clearly defined, and has dropped from use. This is probably what would be called the Daniel or Mulberry phase in the Wateree Sequence. Stanley South says the ware Coe described was "temperless" and he compares it to his Ashley wares. This is a component of his "York" ware group.
The name today refers to historic wares dating past the 1750s which were made by people living on the Catawba reservation area near Rock Hill (Riggs and Davis 2007). It is a thin, well made, usually highly burnished ware often made in European forms for trade. After the late 1750s vessels decorated with paint (possibly sealing wax) are found. This pottery is still being made today. Archaeologists from UNC are working actively on this pottery, but a detailed typology is still being formulated. Although the people making Coe's Catawba ware were probably the core of the 18th century Catawba Nation this group is actually made up of people from all across the South, so applying the Catawba name to earlier groups is, arguably, invalid.
Charles Towne (South 2002: 217-231 link) This was the pottery used at the moundless ceremonial center South excavated at Charles Towne Landing, site of the first English settlement in the colony. He only has two dates for the ware. One ranges from 1276-1387AD (UGA 410) and the other from 1476-1789 (GX2285- Calibrated by South, 1 sigma range, medians 1331, 1632). Recalibrated with Calib 5.1 these have medians of 1511 and 1572. Two types of surface treatment are seen: complicated stamped and burnished/plain (link). Vessels include bowls, jars, and bottles. The pots are well fired, and the paste is compact and hard. It is tempered with sand that makes up 10-50% of the body- usually more at the upper end. Grain size is not specified. Curvilinear and rectilinear motifs are seen, including filfot crosses, scrolls, connected loops and concentric circles. Burnished plain wares are often decorated with Lamar style incising. Rim nodes and rosettes are common, as are reed punctate decorations.
Chicora (South 2002) Stanley South introduced this as a name for an overall container for the different local expressions of the Mississippian Etowah-Savannah-Pee Dee-Lamar continuum. He says there are two basic types: complicated stamped and burnished/plain. Local variants are distinct, and as Leland Ferguson says, the Irene and Pee Dee series (for instance) "have integrity when compared with each other as well as with Lamar" (in South 2002: 267). He feels Chicora is more of an overall style. The different types share many elements in different combinations that are significant. Nodes, punctation and rosettes are more common in South Carolina, for instance, while they are much less common in Georgia. Careful analysis considering many variables can effectively isolate local expressions. Dave Moore's Burke Series, discussed above, is a good example in that it shares many common characteristics, but differs significantly in its soapstone tempering. South splits off the York ware group, which evolves from Chicora, because of the influence of European contact.
Colington (Phelps 1983). Colington is a shell tempered ware (image at link) that is thought to be the equivalent of the Oak Island, White Oak, Townsend and Roanoke series. Joe Herbert (2003) groups them all as his Townsend series. Surfaces are usually fabric impressed, simple stamped and plain, and often feature incised lines and geometric patterns. Vessels include conoidal jars and simple bowls. Rims are often folded or flat and stamped, with stamping on the interior occasionally. It is thought to date between about 800 and 1650AD.
Dan River (Ward and Davis 1999; Coe 1952; Eastman 1996 (link)). Dan River seems to have evolved from Uwharrie, as early examples have a coarse sand and crushed quartz temper. The crushed rock percentage diminishes over time. Most surfaces are net impressed, though cord marked, corncob impressed and plain are also seen. Occasionally vessels are incised below the rim (link). Interiors are both scraped and smoothed. The Dan River phase dates between 1000 and 1450AD.
Etowah (Wauchope 1966; (off site link)) Etowah originates in NW Ga, but is found all over the state, where it is considered a Middle Mississippian ware (1000-1200AD). It evolves from Savannah (link) and into Lamar (link). These are “sand/grit tempered” and the different types are defined by decoration. It has been identified on the Wateree (Caldwell 1952 (in Ferguson 1974); Cable et al 1998) and is doubtlessly closely related to the pottery we do find in South Carolina. But there is probably enough that is different to allow more refined “types” to be defined. A variety of large and small vessels are found. Complicated stamped surfaces are predominant, with nested diamonds, squares, line block and filfot cross motifs being most common. Mark Williams lists 18 Etowah types on the UGA web site (link).
Hillsboro (Ward and Davis 1993 (numerous online resources at UNC RLA, some images at thelink)). This series is found on sites in the Piedmont of North Carolina on sites dating between about 1400 and 1660 (Ward and Davis 1993: 409, their calibration). Plain, simple stamped, check stamped (large checks) and corn cob marked surfaces are common. Incising is frequently seen, especially on carinated bowls. The ware is tempered with fine sand. Rims are often folded and notched.
Irene (DePratter 2009 (link); Kelly 1938). Irene is the coastal manifestation of the Lamar series (link). Although many researchers have spent considerable time considering the ware, opinions vary about where the lines between types and phases should be drawn. Considering the wide area in which Irene/Lamar-oid wares are found and the possibility of differential adaptation local sequences should probably be developed. On the south coast Chester DePratter (2009) has an Irene I, which dates from 1300-1450, followed by Irene II, in which the incised variant is added. This dates from 1450-1575. Chad Braley (1990), on the other hand, has three phases, Irene I, 1300-1350; Irene II or Pipemaker's Creek, 1350-1450; and Irene III, or Pine Harbor, 1450-1575. His Irene II is “characterized by bold incised motifs” (DePratter 2009: 21). The Georgia pottery web site says “This is essentially the same as Lamar Bold Incised ...[which]... is an Early Lamar type 1300-1400AD” (off site link). So there is a 150 year discrepancy. But these are estimated dates, not empirical dates. At St. Catherines calibrated carbon dates on shell range from 1090AD to 1700AD, with outlyers at 1810 and 1950 (link). Thomas, however, accepts DePratter's estimate of 1580 as a terminal date for Irene on St. Catherines over his empirical dates (Thomas 2009: 62). If intensive attribute analysis like that conducted on Cherokee sites by Marcoux (2008) and Rodning (2008) were to be conducted it would probably be possible to bring order from this chaos, but as it stands now most analysis is referential rather than data based. Refer to Lamar (link) for further discussion of surface treatments and other characteristics.
Jeremy (Trinkley 1981 image at link) This is a type name that a local collector used to refer to complicated stamped wares found in the McClellanville area. Trinkley thought it was later than Pee Dee, and had a finer paste “which contains more clay” (pg 4). Less of the sandy "sugary paste" that characterized Pee Dee, in other words. He identifies four main motifs: filfot cross, concentric circles, arc angle and nested squares. He notes that appliques are not present. Pee Dee decorations, in contrast, have narrower grooves, more filfot crosses, appliques, more overstamping and more diverse vessel forms. This is not a type name that is used very often. It is probably the local equivalent of South's Ashley series and can be thought of, broadly, as a representative of his York ware group.
Kimbel (Trinkley et al 1983 link). This type was identified at the Wachesaw Landing site, where it was found in a historic context. It is described as being non-tempered though sand and clay particles up to 1mm across are apparently present (pg 79). It is most commonly burnished plain, though simple and complicated stamped variants are described as well (link). Interiors are well smoothed to burnished. Trinkley describes the ware as being similar to Caraway pottery (Coe 1964). The single tiny sherd in the Charleston Museum's type collection could easily be considered Irene or Lamar. This is what Anderson identified as Mississippian Plain (link) in the SCIAA type collection, and is seen in the Middle and upper Pee Dee drainage as well. Burnished plain wares like this are less common in the Wateree than they are in Georgia, according to Caldwell (1952), so further study might identify valid local variants such as Kimbel. Trinkley considered this a preliminary type, and called for further work, but nothing has been done to clarify or document the type. It is not a name that is commonly used.
Lamar (Williams and Shapiro 1990, UGA web site (off site link)) The subtitle to the Williams and Shapiro edited volume “Lamar Archaeology” sums up the type well: “Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South.” The name was applied early on, before the extent of the Lamar complex was known. In fact, William Henry Holmes' (1899) description of the “South Appalachian Group” or Leland Ferguson's “South Appalachian Mississippian” might be more apropos, because characteristic cazuela bowls with incised decorations, the most readily identifiable Lamar/Irene wares, are found throughout South Carolina, and are well into the North Carolina Mountains and Piedmont. The Lamar phase is seen as a late Mississippian phenomenon, beginning about 1350AD and Lamar-like, "Lamar-oid" or “Lamar derived” wares extend into the historic period. Although there are almost innumerable local "types," the value of “splitting” (as opposed to lumping) is evident here, as local variations reflect cultural differences, and may mark such practices as exogamous marriage and group movement. Where careful analysis is conducted change can be traced on a generational level (See Rodning 2008 (link). Chester DePratter's work on the “Irene” manifestation is the most intensive study of the wares (link) in South Carolina. There is so much variation in what has been called “Lamar” that it is difficult to summarize. In Georgia and Tennessee there is shell tempering, while in Georgia and South Carolina it is mostly “grit” tempered. North Carolina variants, which are given their own names, range from temperless to coarse and granular sand tempered. Common surface treatments include plain and burnished variants, complicated stamped variants, incised and punctated variants, but there are instances with virtually every decoration used by Native Americans in the Southeast. Perhaps the most distinctive Lamar vessel is a burnished cazuela bowl with incised lines below the rim. Large jars with folded and thickened rims, often with appliques and punctates are common as well. It is worth noting that virtually every Pee Dee burial urn has a "Lamar-oid" burnished bowl for a cover, indicating contemporary "types" made for different functions.
McDowell Phase (see the Wateree Sequence) (Depratter and Judge 1990). This is a Pee Dee variant.
Mississippian Burnished/Mississippian Plain (Anderson 1996) This is a group David Anderson set up to contain the numerous variants of Lamar-like plain and burnished wares (images at link).
Mulberry Phase (see the Wateree Sequence) This is a Pee Dee variant, and a component of South's Chicora ware group.
Napier (Jennings and Fairbanks 1940; (link) This is a thin “grit-tempered” ware with complex and detailed complicated stamped designs. It is comparable to Swift Creek in this regard, but the lands and grooves are said to be thinner and narrower. It was named for a site near Macon, and is said to be found in North and Northwestern Georgia.
Oak Island (South 1976: 20 (off site link)) This is a shell tempered ware which frequently has voids rather than the shell itself. South described plain, cord marked, fabric and net impressed variants. This was initially thought to be the south coastal variant of Townsend and Colington ware, and to date between 800 and 1500AD. This may be the same as the White Oak series (Loftfield 1976; Herbert 2003). Joe Herbert re-examined the collection and “determined that most of the pottery upon which this series was based is limestone tempered Hamps Landing” (Herbert and Feathers 2005: 23). This is a type name that has fallen from use (Mathis 1999 link).
Pee Dee (Reid 1967; Coe 1952. 1964, 1995; Oliver 1992; Boudreaux 2005, 2007 ) Pee Dee pottery (Anderson et al 1996) is the ware used by the mound builders at Town Creek. It is a component of the South Appalachian Mississippian complex (Ferguson 1971) and South's (2002) Chicora Ware Group. Anthony Boudreaux identifies three major ware groups that seem to contain the numerous local phases and pottery variants. These are Etowah, Savannah and Lamar (Boudreaux 2008: 4). When defined by Jeff Reid (1967) and Joffrey Coe (1952, 1964, 1995) Pee Dee was characterized by a compact paste with a granular appearance and coarse, sugary texture. Vessels include very large jars that were sometimes used for burials. Surfaces include complicated stamped and plain wares, often decorated with punctation, incising and appliques. Most of the calibrated dates in our sample are from North Carolina sites. These range from 1031-1666AD. Dates from South Carolina sites alone range from 1247-1666AD (Calib 5.1 median)
St. Catherines DePratter 1991; (Thomas et al 2008), Anderson et al 1996. St Catherines is a grog tempered ware that is thought to evolve from Wilmington/Hanover on the Georgia and lower South Carolina coast. The temper is finer, on the whole, but can overlap with Wilmington. The finer temper results in a more compact and even surface. The most common surface treatment is a fine cord marked motif, though net impressed and plain variants are known. The cord marking is often at a 45 degree angle to the rim. The net marks include visible knots and mesh ranging from 9.5-19mm (Thomas et al 2008: 383).
Thomas et al (2008: 425) obtained sixteen carbon dates for St. Catherines wares with a 1 sigma range from about 800- 1270AD, which they round up to 1300AD. Their dates are extensively calibrated (see Thomas et al 2008: 435-474). I forget who coined the phrase, “Happy is the archaeologist with only a single carbon date” but it seems appropriate here. The numerous dates obtained for St Catherines and Savannah at St. Catherines Island produced unexpected results, as the two overlapped in time. Savannah wares produced less dates earlier, but becomes dominant near the end of the St. Catherines ware's existence. Thomas et al (2008: 425-431) were forced to conclude that “we cannot adequately define “Savannah” period components on St Catherines Island, because the overlap essentially lasts for the entire Savannah period." The 800AD date is about 300 years earlier than the previous estimates for the ware.
Dates collected for St. Catherines on the present project range from 902-1494AD (Calib 5.1 medians). However, dates for pottery called Hanover and Wilmington wares (link) also encompass the entire time span of St. Catherines and Savannah suggesting that the idea of St. Catherines "evolving" from Wilmington may be erroneous.
Savannah Caldwell and Waring 1939; DePratter 1991; Anderson et al 1996. This ware group is broad. It should be considered a variant of the South Appalachian Mississippian Etowah-Savannah-Pee Dee-Lamar complex that covers much of the Southeast (Ferguson 1971) and which South (1976) considers the Chicora ware group. So while many of the similar ceramics outside of the mouth of the Savannah area are probably the products of Savannah “people” or their descendants, local phases should be delineated. It appears that there is enough variability within the group to justify a type-variety approach.
Chester DePratter (1991: 11) broke Savannah ware into three phases in the mouth of the Savannah sequence. He has a Savannah I phase that begins in 1200AD and ends in 1300. This includes plain, burnished, and cord marked. The latter is usually called “Savannah Fine Cord Marked” as the cords tend to be small and tightly wound. This is similar to the grog tempered St. Catherines ware and, as discussed above, overlaps in age (Thomas et al 2008). Savannah II includes the above plus check and complicated stamped wares. The checks are usually small (2-5mm) with overstamping common. Although DePratter places this in the 1300-1325 era, Anderson calls it an initial to Middle Mississippian ware and assigns it to the 1200-1300 range.
As mentioned above, at St. Catherines Island wares identified as Savannah overlap with grog tempered St. Catherines but seem to replace St. Catherines after 1250, peaking in the mid-1400s. Thomas considers the early dates problematic, and devotes considerable attention to the question (Thomas et at 2008: 426-433). The later age range is almost exactly the same as Irene wares, which appear around 1300AD and peak a bit later in the 15th century. The question of whether a distinct Savannah Phase on St. Catherines Island is challenged (Thomas et al 2008: 430).
We have 14 dates on ceramics said to be Savannah wares in South Carolina. Dates from the coast range from 1150-1518 (Calib 5.1, median). A second group from an inland site (38AK933) have median dates from 739-1098. The latter agree with Billy Oliver's (1992) "Savannah Creek" ware dates, while the former fit into the Pee Dee ware dates discussed previously.
Temper is usually coarse sand, with very coarse temper sometimes seen. Interiors are well smoothed to burnished. Rims are not folded, and decoration is uncommon, though reed punctate marks are sometimes seen. Numerous complicated stamp motifs (images at link) are discussed in the literature. This is doubtlessly a result of the tendency of Savannah to “be confused with Pee Dee and Ashley, with which the ware tends to intergrade,” as David Anderson put it. Joffre Coe (1995), Jeff Reid (1967), and Billy Oliver all emphasize the similarity of Pee Dee and Savannah and accept an ancestral relationship.
Oliver (1992: 242) even named “Savannah Creek Cordmarked” and simple stamped types that he feels are the first sign of the coming of the Mississippian people who built the Town Creek Mound. He felt that the local type, which was on what he considered a classic Pee Dee paste, was a direct descendant of Savannah Fine Cord Marked. He obtained carbon dates of 950+/-50 and 950+/-55AD (uncorrected) which would be very early for Savannah. Corrected with Calib 5.1 however the median date is AD1068, and 1089 at 1 sigma. This feature contained Savannah Creek and Pee Dee Complicated Stamped, but also contained corn. This the earliest date for corn in North Carolina (Oliver 1992: 204).
While Boudreaux agreed with Oliver's assertion that this was the local variant of Savannah fine cord marked and Santee and Camden simple stamped ware, he did not use Oliver's type name and considered them Pee Dee types. So in summary, broad similarities are seen, but detailed local studies can delineate temporally sensitive variation, and should probably be pursued where possible.
Sleepy Hollow (Brummitt 2007a,b link) Sleepy Hollow phase pottery found at the Savannah River Site (King 2003) looks like Pisgah both in paste and surface treatment, but is earlier. AMS dates on soot range between 800 and 1350AD. Pisgah dates between 1000 and 1550AD, so this may mark a way station on the movement of Mississippian cultures up the Savannah River. Aaron Brummitt completed a Masters Thesis on the work, and a short paper is at the link. The surfaces tend to be complicated stamped and decorated with deep punctations.
Wachesaw (Trinkley et al 1982- link) This is thought to be a product of the historic Waccamaw Indians. Complicated stamped, simple stamped, and plain variants were identified. Vessels are large, averaging 60cm diameter at the rim. Temper is rounded sand grains in large amounts and occasional pebbles, up to 4mm across. Vessel walls are thick, averaging about 10mm. The paste is described as somewhat friable, with a very coarse and granular texture. Interiors are smoothed with a tool, pressing grains into the paste, but not burnished. Exterior designs are bold and sloppy with overstamping evident. Additional decoration is uncommon. Rims are straight to slightly everted, with lips that are beveled and thickened.
Woodstock (Caldwell 1939, Wauchope 1948; (off site link); Anderson et al 1996). This is a north Georgia type that may not be present in SC. Or rather, it may be the same as what is called Pee Dee or Savannah here. Complicated stamped surfaces featuring diamonds, herringbone and line block motifs are most common, though incised, plain and check stamped variants are also seen. It is sand/grit tempered, and dates to the “Late Woodland/Early Mississippian” period, or AD850-1000. The reader is referred to the University of Georgia web site for further information.
Uwharrie (Eastman, in Anderson et al 1996) Coe 1964, 1995; Oliver 1992) Joffrey Coe saw pottery types evolving in place from one type to another over the generations. Uwharrie was thought to have evolved out of Yadkin (Coe 1995: 156). If possible the crushed quartz temper is said to be even larger and denser (40-50%) than it was in Yadkin (30-40%). Surfaces are cord marked or net impressed, with considerable smoothing and overscraping. The cordage is said to be larger, and have a looser twist than in Yadkin. Incised lines are occasionally seen on vessel necks. Interior surfaces were heavily scraped. Coe initially believed that it was a historic ware, but later discovered that it predated the Pee Dee occupation at Town Creek. After its makers were pushed across the Uwharrie Mountains they developed different wares that Coe believes emerged as Dan River, Hillsboro and Caraway. Ward and Davis gave a preliminary age range of 800-1200AD
York (South 1976, 2002 link) Stan South uses the York ware group to contain the various types and series made by contact period groups. He believes that they are related in that they reflect European influences. He includes Lamar, Qualla, Coe's Catawba, Ashley, Courtland, and the later wares of the Wateree Sequence, among others in this group. These are generally characterized by larger, less carefully applied complicated stamped, incising and cob marked surfaces.
The Wateree Sequence This sequence was devised by Chester DePratter and Chris Judge (1990 link). Ages were estimated based on materials from sites in Georgia. Subsequent work by Cable, Wagner and Judge (1999) as well as Thomas et al (2008) suggests the dates could be adjusted, but nonetheless, they are reasonably close. The phases are:
Belmont Neck 1200-1250 simple rims. Thought to be Etowah. A date of AD1247 (Calib 5,1, median) was obtained at the Belmont Neck site in the 1990s (Cable et al 1999).
Adamson 1250-1300 simple rims, with rare rosettes. Thought to be Savannah. A date of AD1335 (Calib 5.1 median) was obtained at the site in the 1990s (Cable et al 1999).
Town Creek 1300-1350 simple rims, with segmented and punctate appliques, rosette, and nodes. Thought to be Lamar.
McDowell 1350-1450 larger, bolder filfot cross motifs. Thought to be Lamar.
Mulberry 1450-1550 Lamar-like incising is present, segmented and punctated rim strips. Thought to be Lamar. A date of AD1546 (Calib 5.1, median) was obtained at the site in the 1990s (Cable et al 1999)
Daniel 1550-1675 “Sloppy, “exploded” stamping” (pg 58). Thick vessel walls. Thought to be Lamar.