Hunters and Gatherersof the Green River Valley

ByA. Gwynn Henderson and Rick Burdin

Kentucky Archaeological Survey(jointly administered by theKentucky Heritage Council

and the University of KentuckyDepartment of Anthropology)

Education Series Number Seven Lexington, Kentucky

2006

Copyright 2006 Kentucky Heritage CouncilFor Aunt Margie

Few places in the world provide as detailed a picture of prehistoric huntersand gatherers as Kentucky’s Green River valley. Deep shell heaps along the

river have preserved evidence of this culture, which flourished between4,000 and 1,000 B.C. This booklet describes what archaeologists currentlyknow about these people’s way of life, drawing on decades of research byscores of scientists, supported by the good will of local landowners who

continue to protect these signficant sites.The authors would like to thank Kary Stackelbeck for her assistance inpreparing the draft and George Crothers and David Pollack for their

opinions, insights, and editorial comments. David Pollack designed andlaid-out this booklet. For their helpful comments and editorial suggestions,

thanks also goes to our outside reviewers: Kevin Baughan, Danielle Cole,Amanda Dickerson, Larry Gray, Brandt House, Hugo Lang, Theresa Lang,

Vicky Middleswarth, Danielle Mink, Jenny Sewell, and the 2006 LivingstonCentral High School Multimedia Class.

The following resources provided much of the content for this booklet:Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region, Kentucky, edited by

William H. Marquardt and Patty Jo Watson. Institute of Archaeology andPaleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 5, Florida Museum of Natural

History, University of Florida, Gainesville (2005); Indian Knoll (newedition), by William S. Webb. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville

(1974); and Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology of Domestic Dogs fromPrehistoric Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee, by Diane M. Warren.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington (2004) .

David McBride took the photographs on pages 12-14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25,and 28-30; all other photographs used courtesy of the William S. WebbMuseum of Anthropology. Map on page 2 by William H. Marquardt.

Drawing on page 11 by Jimmy A. Railey; on page 15 by William M. Melvin.Drawing on page 18 is taken from William S. Webb’s 1957 Development ofthe Spearthrower. Burial line drawings by Patrick Wallace on pages 12 and

25 used with permission from Richard W. Jefferies. Artist reconstructions onpages 6 and 17 by Sarah Jane Gray.

This booklet is designed to be used along with lessons developed by JudySizemore (Kentucky Archaeological Survey, Educational Resources Series,No. 13) and a webpage about Green River Archaic archaeology maintained

by the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology. A grant from theInstitute of Museum and Library Services, Museums for America program,

funded this publication.On the Cover: Detail of Archaic women and their children collecting

mussels.

1

Many Kentuckians arefamiliar with John Prine’s popu-lar song of west-central Ken-tucky. In it, a boy wants hisdaddy to take him back toMuhlenberg County, the GreenRiver, and the town of Paradise.Fewer Kentuckians know about

the prehistoric people, who, likethe citizens of Paradise, alsoonce lived along the GreenRiver.

In the song, “Mr. Peabody’scoal train” hauled Paradiseaway. But many of the placesthese ancient people lived stillremain, protected by landown-ers who take their role as stew-ards of Kentucky’s past seri-ously.

In a state rich with prehis-toric mounds and earthworks,villages and camps, rocksheltersand rock art, archaeologistshave recorded more than 1,700prehistoric sites in Butler, Ohio,Henderson, McLean, andMuhlenberg counties. There are

undoubtedly hundreds ofothers that have yet to be re-corded.

Fifty of these prehistoricGreen River sites are trulyexceptional. Some of the largerexamples cover more than fouracres, and some contain morethan six feet of deposits. Othersmeasure less than half an acreand are barely visible on thelandscape.

“DOWN BY THE GREEN RIVER . . .”

Excavating a Green River shell midden site in Butler County during the Depression.

2

Many, but not all thesesites, contain enormousamounts of freshwatermussel shell. Over centu-ries, the day-to-day activi-ties of prehistoric huntersand gatherers built up theseshell heaps or shell middens(deposits of organic debrisand other materials).

Archaeologists refer tothe people who lived atthese sites as the GreenRiver Archaic Culture. Theirway of life flourished from 6,000to 3,000 years ago. This bookletpresents a snapshot of whatarchaeologists currently knowabout the Green River Archaicpeople from around 5,000 yearsago.

**********

People have studied theGreen River Archaic Culture for

nearly a century. Clarence B.Moore, an independentlywealthy man, was the first.From 1915 to 1916, Mooretraveled up the Green River in astern-wheel boat, interviewinglocal farmers about shellmidden sites. He spent nineweeks studying ten sites and

focused most of hisefforts on Indian Knoll,one of the largest.

Scientific researchtargeted the GreenRiver’s shell midden sitesfrom 1937 until the Sec-ond World War began in

Depression-era WorksProgress Administration(WPA) crews found a way toshade themselves from the hotsummer sun at this McLeanCounty site.

The Green River Archaic region in west-central Kentucky.

3

1941. Hundreds of local men,as part of the Depression era’smake-work projects, excavatedportions of seven shell middensites and three non-shellmidden sites. University ofKentucky professor William S.Webb and his young supervi-sors fresh from the nation’s fewarchaeology graduate pro-grams, directed the crews.

These men moved enor-mous amounts of earth. Theyrecovered tens of thousands ofartifacts and more than threethousand burials of both hu-mans and dogs. The informa-tion they recorded laid thefoundation for all later Archaicresearch in the region. Archae-ologists in the 1940s and 1950salso used information fromKentucky’s Green River sites tohelp define Archaic lifeways for

the entire Southeastern US.In the 1970s, archaeologists

William H. Marquardt andPatty Jo Watson from Washing-ton University at St. Louisreturned to investigate certainGreen River shell midden sites.They wanted to know whenprehistoric agriculture began inthe Eastern US. Their work, andthat of their students and col-leagues in the late 1980s and1990s, has revealed much aboutthe Green River Archaic sitesand their prehistoric inhabit-ants.

**********

Indian Knoll, the bestknown and most extensivelystudied Kentucky shell middensite, was made a National His-toric Landmark in 1964.Twenty-two years later, 23 other

One of more than fifteen dog burials excavated at Indian Knoll in the 1930s.

4

shell midden sites received asimilar designation. Archaeo-logical sites become landmarksif they have made nationallysignificant contributions to ourunderstanding of prehistory.

Because of its size andexcellent state of preservation,no other collection in the worldprovides as rich an opportunityto learn about the health andlives of ancient hunters andgatherers as does that of IndianKnoll and the other Green Rivershell midden sites. Today,researchers from all over theworld visit the William S. WebbMuseum of Anthropology at theUniversity of Kentucky to studythe materials from these impor-tant sites.

Time periods in Kentucky history,showing when the Green River

Archaic Culture flourished.

Archaeologist Patty JoWatson processes a soil

sample in search ofprehistoric plant food

remains.

5

Before the Green RiverArchaic Culture began,Paleoindian and earlier Archaicperiod hunters and gatherershad inhabited the Green Rivervalley for thousands of years.

These people lived in verysmall families. They movedwidely and often across a GreenRiver valley that looked likeCanada’s does today. So, whydid the Green River ArchaicCulture occur when it did?

Around 8,500 years ago,the climate began to change allacross the Midwestern US,including the Green Rivervalley. Temperatures rose. Itrained and snowed less in thewinter, and each year the valleyexperienced long,dry spells. Scientistscall this period theHypsithermal. It wasin full swing be-tween 7,000 and5,500 years ago.

Plant communi-ties, the river, andpeople adapted tothese climaticchanges. Stands ofdryness-lovingdeciduous trees

expanded at the expense ofevergreens and trees that pre-ferred a wetter climate. TheGreen River became shallower.Less snow meant fewer spring-time floods. People began tomove less often and withinsmaller areas. Thus, a newhunting and gathering way oflife developed in the GreenRiver valley: the Green RiverArchaic Culture.

The climate began tochange again about 3,000 yearsago. Rainfall became moreevenly distributed throughoutthe year. Temperatures becameslightly cooler and more liketoday’s. People developed newways to live.

WHY THEN? WHY THERE?WHY SO IMPORTANT?

At this Butler County site, WPA crews use wheelbarrows,shovels, and “elbow grease” to recover information.

Descendants of the GreenRiver Archaic people, theWoodland period gardeners,came to camp on the shellmidden sites. Later, their de-scendants, the Mississippianperiod farmers, built villages inthe region. Now we are thepeople who live in the GreenRiver valley.

**********

Why did this distinctivehunting, gathering, and shellfishing way of life develop inthe Green River valley?

Five thousand years ago,meeting basic needs was not aparticularly difficult task forpeople. They were surrounded

by abundant and reliable natu-ral resources.

Research at the shellmidden sites gives us some ideaabout what the valley mighthave looked like back then.Cottonwood, sycamore, riverbirch, and willow lined thelower riverbanks. In somebottoms, cane grew in largestands. Grapes and other vineyplants created a tangle of veg-etation. The slopes leading fromthe bottoms to the uplands wereforested with beech, sugarmaple, chestnut, and severalspecies of oak. An oak-hickory-tulip tree forest covered theuplands.

6

Green River Archaic women and their children collect freshwater mussels in one of theriver’s many shoals.

7

In the middle Green Rivervalley, the river flowed acrossancient lake deposits. At certainspots, it flowed across sand-stone bedrock. In these loca-tions, before modern damsdisrupted its natural flow, theriver formed shallow, fast-flowing riffles or shoals.Deeper pools of water, slowedby rocks and logs, occurredalongside the riffles. Along themudbanks, smaller rocks andriverside plants created a quietriverine environment. All thesefactors created good conditionsfor thriving communities ofdiverse freshwater musselspecies.

The mussel beds were animportant natural resource (see

Focus on Shell Fishing), but notthe only one that made theseplaces attractive campsites.Fish, deer, and nuts also werereadily available there.

The shoals also providedperfect river crossings. Peoplecould move easily across theriver, and therefore movewithin the valley more freelythan had their ancestors. For allthese reasons, the Green RiverArchaic people returned tothese places year after year afteryear, for 3,000 years.

**********

One final question needs tobe answered before we turn to adescription of the Green RiverArchaic way of life. What makes

The men carefully excavate in a trench at Indian Knoll.

the shell midden sites so impor-tant?

It’s not because they areshell middens. Hunting andgathering peoples left behindlarge heaps of freshwater mus-sel shell and debris in otherregions of Eastern NorthAmerica. The Green River shell

8

midden sites are not the biggestexamples, or the only examplesfound in Kentucky. However,nowhere else are shell middensites as densely concentrated asin Kentucky’s Green Rivervalley.

It is possible that, prehis-torically, the Green River had a

We can offer educated guesses about how the Green River Ar-chaic people collected and processed freshwater mussels. This isbased on studies of hunters and gatherers whose lives have not beengreatly affected by modern technology.

Women and older children mainly waded in the riffles, collectingthe mussels by hand. Men more often collected mussels by divingunder water. Everyone used baskets made of cane or bark, or bagsmade from some type of plant fiber.

They prepared the mussels immediately after collecting them.They could have eaten the mussels on the spot, cooked or raw. Mostlikely, though, they steamed them. They could have done this byarranging them on the ground and building a fire around them.Another way would have been to put them into boiling hot watermade by heating stones in a fire.

The mussels also could have been smoked or dried for eatinglater. For this, the cooks would have put the mussels briefly on hotcoals to open the shell, making it easier to remove the animal. Thenthey would have scraped it out of the shell with a stone knife. Finally,they would have hung the meat over a fire to smoke it or dried it inthe sun. Once dried, the meat would have been skewered like shishkabobs or strung on strings.

What did they do with all the mussel shells? Sometimes theyused them to prop-up cooking, drying, or smoking racks. They madeornaments, such as beads, from fragments of shell. But usually, thepeople just threw the shells away in natural depressions near theircamps. Little did they know that, thousands of years later, these shellswould help tell the stories of their daily life.

Focus on Shell Fishing

9

greater density of stable, pro-ductive mussel shoals thanother rivers. This could accountfor the large number of shellmidden sites located along itsbanks.

Perhaps their importancehas something to do with sitepreservation. The Green Riverhas flowed in its present posi-tion for thousands of years.Therefore, many of the placesthese prehistoric people livedhave not been destroyed byflooding and erosion. Thisstability may have helpedpreserve the shell middencampsites.

Clearly, part of their impor-tance stems from the rich inven-

Excavation at the shell middensites went on year-round: notethe oil drum “heater” in thetrench at this McLean Countysite.

tory of artifacts andhuman and animalremains they contain.The shells the Archaicpeople threw away insuch great numbersmade the soils at thesesites less acidic. There-fore, bone and shellobjects, which otherwisewould have decayed,

are preserved. This has givenus a much wider window onthe Archaic past than is oftenpossible at other kinds of sites.

Finally, these sites areimportant because research atthem has contributed enor-mously to our understandingof hunter and gathererlifeways. The Green RiverArchaic sites were the firstexamples in Kentucky (and infact, among the first in theentire Southeastern US) wherearchaeologists focused theirwork on hunting and gatheringcultures. Even today, these sitesrepresent some of Kentucky’smost thoroughly studiedarchaeological sites.

10

Describing prehistoric lifein the Green River valley wouldbe easier to do if these Archaichunters and gatherers had keptwritten records. People livingin Egypt at the same time werewriting about their lives onstone tomb walls that we canread today.

If people still told theGreen River Archaic people’sstories, we’d know about impor-tant events in their history andaspects of their daily lives. We’dknow the names of their impor-tant leaders and their gods.

But they did not write, andno one tells their stories any

longer. We must learn aboutthem indirectly.

Archaeologists do this bypiecing together the fragmentsof these people’s past from theplaces they lived, the objectsthey left behind, and the pat-terns of those objects. They alsodo this by studying the lives ofmodern and prehistoric huntersand gatherers in other places inthe world. So despite theseproblems, we do know or caninfer much about the daily livesof the Green River Archaicpeople.

HUNTERS AND GATHERERS OF THEGREEN RIVER VALLEY

It’s all in a day’s work at this Muhlenberg County site: digging out thedirt and cleaning up the trench walls.

11

SOCIETY

Life 5,000 years ago in theGreen River valley would haverevolved around the family.Between 15 and 20 peopleprobably made up a family.This would have consisted of aman and a woman and theirunmarried children; their mar-ried children, their spouses andchildren; and perhaps a fewother close kin.

Membership in familieswas flexible. Families couldadopt outsiders as members.People chose their spouses fromfamilies other than their own.Archaeologists think that, oncemarried, a woman may have lefther own family to live with herhusband and his family.

Leaders could have beenmen who were the most suc-cessful hunters or whom othersrespected for their commonsense or intelligence. Thesemen did not hold their leader-ship positions permanently,however. They led when theneed arose, like when severalfamilies came together at certaintimes of the year and ceremo-nies had to be organized.

Sharing would have been abasic rule of Green River Ar-chaic life. Everything belongedto the family. No single personowned food or natural re-sources or land. This way,everyone had equal access to allthe necessities of life.

Differences in age andgender also created rules bywhich families lived. It is likelythat men were the hunters,

Shell midden sites are known for theirartifact caches, like this one of chippedstone knives from Indian Knoll.

Women wove plants, like cane theycollected near their camps, into baskets.

12

while women collectedplants and mussels andtook care of children.Older men and womenprobably served asreligious leaders.

Personal accom-plishments set somepeople or families apart.Archaeologists base thissuggestion on the factthat Archaic peopleburied a few men,women, and childrenwith rare and valuableobjects. These includedengraved marine shellpendants, marine shellbead and stone beadnecklaces, copper pinsand beads, and deco-rated bone pins (see Focus onBone Pins).

These objects werevaluable because it tooka long time to makethem and because somewere manufacturedfrom non-local materi-als. Their value also mayhave stemmed fromimportant symbolic orritual meanings theyheld.

By identifying thesources of the non-localmaterials, archaeologistscan trace the generalroutes by which theymade their way into the

Green River valley. The coppercame from the Great Lakes, and

Sometimes they engraved theirbone pins with geometricdesigns.

The flexedburial of aneighteen-yearold womanrecorded inButler Countyshows thekinds of itemsher familyplaced in hergrave.

The Green River Archaic people made bone pins from the longbones of white-tailed deer. They split the bone lengthwise into thinpieces and ground down each oneuntil it was smooth.

The styles of Green RiverArchaic bone pins were differentfrom those made by Archaic peoplesliving in other regions. These bonepin makers let the bone’s naturalcontours guide them in shaping thepin’s final form.

They did not commonly carvethe pin tops into different shapes.Instead, like the example on the farright, the makers might attach piecesof shell to the top of the pin withasphaltum, a natural, asphalt-likesubstance found at oil seeps.

Bone pins may have held aperson’s hair in place. Pins withdrilled holes, like the engravedexample on page 12, may have beenstrung on a cord and worn as pen-dants around the neck. They alsocould have used these pins to fastenclothing together, like a button or asafety pin.

A bone pin’s shape, style, anddecoration also may have beenlinked to family membership orancestry. Bone pins may have hadimportant symbolic or ritual mean-ing. Since Green River Archaicpeople did not bury everyone withdecorated bone pins, perhaps onlythe most important people in theirsociety could own them.

Focus on Bone Pins

13

Green River Archaic-style bone pins.

14

the stone came from the Appa-lachian Mountains. These mate-rials most likely moved thou-sands of miles from theirsources by being passed be-tween many individualsthrough face-to-face exchanges.

Families followed sharing,age, gender, and personalaccomplishment rules wheninteracting with other families.Perhaps as many as six to ten

different families might regu-larly interact with each otherduring a year.

Because they were relatedby birth or through marriage,these groups of families couldask each other for help, likewhen food was scarce. In thisway, kinship ties knitted fami-lies together into larger groups.

SETTLEMENTS

The Green RiverArchaic people weremobile hunters andgatherers. This meansthey did not live in asingle spot all year.Instead, they movedwith the seasonsacross the Green Rivervalley and into itssurrounding uplands.

Marine shell from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts furnished the raw materialsfor ornaments like these pendants.

The Green River valley in the 1930s, showing a shellmidden site (the gentle rise in the background) inMcLean County.

Their life was not one ofaimless wandering, though.Families planned their movescarefully. They drew on theirdeep knowledge of the lifecycles of the local plants andanimals, and on where theycould find certain resources.Moving most often as families,they might travel perhaps as faras 50 miles in a year. However,hunters could have traveledover a hundred miles fromcamp before returning.

Families lived in the opennear streams. They also livedwithin upland rockshelters inthe sandstone bluffs away fromthe Green River. Most of theircamps were small.

Families might stay ata camp for as long as amonth or two beforemoving on. This mayhave been particularlytrue during the coldwinter months and in latesummer and early fall,when many plant foodswould have been ready tocollect. They did notnecessarily return to thesame campsite every year.

Sometimes they campedbriefly in certain spots for veryspecific reasons. These mayhave been places where theycollected nuts or chert (a stonelike flint used to make tools).

Even with their mobilelifestyle, though, families would

15

A family’s hypothetical yearlymovements within a fifty-mile

section of the Green River valley.

The men of onefamily go aboutthe chores ofeveryday life.

16

return year after year to certainplaces. These larger campsitesoften were located near particu-larly rich natural resources.Many camps overlooked theGreen River’s rich mussel beds.They stayed at these riversidecamps mainly in the summerand fall.

Archaeologists don’t knowmuch about what Archaichouses looked like or howpeople arranged them at any oftheir camps. They could havelived in hide or mat-coveredtents, or brush-covered lean-tos.Information also is lacking

about the kinds of activities theycarried out at the smaller campsand short-term campsites.

The amount and identity ofdiscarded materials at theirriverside camps, however,clearly show the kinds of do-mestic activities these prehis-toric people carried out at theseplaces. They discarded fire-cracked sandstone rocks theycould no longer use for hot-rockcooking. They also threw awaythe animal bones and charredfragments of nuts that were theleftovers from their meals.Women cleaned out ash andburned wood from fire hearths,and threw away mussel shellsonce they had scraped out theanimals from inside. Aftermaking and resharpening stonetools, men tossed away the

broken fragments. If abone or antler tool brokeduring use, or if a childlost or misplaced hisfather’s spearpoint ordrill, it became a part ofthe midden.

Excavating an Archaicrockshelter campsite inButler County duringthe 1930s.

Chipped stone drills could punchholes in wood and shell.

17

A Green River Archaic man and his dog prepare to leave on a hunting trip. In his lefthand, he holds his atlatl and spear. His squirrel-skin medicine bag hangs from his sash,which is decorated with tiny shell beads. A rigid deerskin container filled with spearforeshafts is tied to his sash, too.

18

Certain riverside campsitesalso served as burial grounds.At some, the graves are concen-trated in one spot, and at others,the graves are widely distrib-uted. The larger riverside sitescan contain hundreds of burials.Rare and valuable objects madefrom non-local materials areburied with the dead at onlysome of these larger sites.

It appears, then, that not allthe large riverside camps werethe same. Archaeologists candocument differences in sitesize, and differences in theintensity and diversity of activi-ties Archaic peoples carried outat these sites. Perhaps thelarger riverside camps were thespots where several familiesgathered seasonally. Maybethey carried out more intensiveceremonies and rituals at thesecamps.

FOOD

Archaic peoples of theGreen River valley huntedmany different kinds of ani-mals. Based on analyses of theirfood remains, archaeologistsknow that these people de-pended most on white-taileddeer, grey squirrel, rabbit, andraccoon. Green River Archaichunters used the atlatl, orspearthrower, to hunt the largeranimals. To capture the smallerones, they may have usedsnares, traps, and possiblyhunting dogs.

They probably hunted wildturkey only during times whenfood was scarce. Because tur-keys are fast runners, theseArchaic hunters would havespeared, trapped, or nettedthem using ambush tactics orturkey calls.

We know that river re-sources played animportant role intheir diet. That’sbecause archae-ologists haverecovered largequantities offreshwater mus-

The atlatl extendedthe range andaccuracy of thehuman arm.

19

sel shells, as well as fish bonesand aquatic turtle shells andbones, from the midden depos-its at the riverside sites.

Collecting shellfish in largequantities set the Green RiverArchaic people apart from theircontemporaries in other parts ofKentucky. Five thousand yearsago, many different kinds offreshwater mussels lived in theshallow shoals and riffle areasof the Green River. The musselswere a good, predictable, pro-tein-rich source of food. Theywere abundant, easily gathered,and easy to prepare. Unlikemany other foods, they couldhave harvested mussels in anyseason. Mussels also were astorable and portable food, onceseparated from their shells, andthen smoked or dried.

The fish these peoplecaught most commonly werefreshwater drumfish and cat-fish. They also ate snappingturtles, mud turtles, andsoftshell turtles. Hunters wouldhave netted or trapped the

snapping and mud turtles.However, they likely caughtdrumfish, catfish, and softshellturtles with a bone fishhook andplant-fiber line.

Besides gathering mussels,these Archaic people also col-lected a variety of plant foods.Acorns and hickory nuts weretheir favorites. They also atemany different wild fruits, suchas blackberry, grape, strawberry,and persimmon; and the seedsof weedy plants like knotweedand goosefoot. They undoubt-edly stored nuts and seeds foruse in the winter, when suchfoods would not have beenavailable.

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT

The Green River Archaicpeople used plants and animalsin more ways than just assources of food. They workedthem into a host of items theyneeded for their hunting andgathering way of life. Woodand stone also were necessaryraw materials.

These people used plantfibers and animal sinew to maketwine or cord. In turn, theywould have made fishing nets,

Archaeologists have found many bonefishhooks, like these examples, at shellmidden sites.

net bags, clothing, and foot gear.Animal skins and furs served asthe raw material for clothingand bags.

Dyes from plants couldhave been used to decoratebaskets and nets. Plants withmedicinal properties wouldhave eased a variety of aliments,such as stomach ache, fever, andtoothache.

The Green River Archaicpeople did not make ceramicjars and bowls. Women cookedfood using hot rocks in animalskin-lined pits they dug into theground. For food storage orserving, they likely used skin or

net bags, gourds, or turtleshells. Wooden containers alsomay have been used for some ofthese tasks. Gourds may haveprovided floats for their nets.

Flutes or whistles werefashioned from animal longbones. Box turtle shells andgourds filled with small pebblesmade excellent rattles. Theyprobably also had drums madefrom skin and wood.

Animal bone, animal teeth,and antler provided the rawmaterials for ornaments likebone pins and beads. Beads andpendants also were made fromfreshwater and marine shell.

Bone and antler servedmore functional purposes, too.Many flat, needle-like bonetools have been found at GreenRiver Archaic sites. Stone toolmakers used deer antler to formor resharpen spearpoints andscrapers. Sometimes huntersused drilled antler tips asspearpoints.

Stemmed and notched Green River Archaic spearpoints weremade in many different styles.

20

They usedsharp bone

instruments,called awls,for a variety

of piercingtasks.

21

The atlatl was the Archaichunter’s weapon of choice. Itrequired skill to make and touse. A two-part tool, it con-sisted of a wooden spear fittedwith a spearpoint of antler orchert, and the atlatl itself: ahandle and a hook made ofwood, bone, or antler, and oftena drilled counterweight orbannerstone (see Focus onBannerstones).

These people used locallyavailable stone as the raw mate-rial for a variety of tools andornaments. Making chippedstone tools required collectingchert from sources in the GreenRiver valley. Using a hard rockcalled a hammerstone, the tool-maker would roughly chip outthe tool. Then he would use apiece of antler to carefully shapeand finish it.

Scrapers and haftedendscrapers were used to pro-

cess meat and hides. Largespearpoints also could haveserved as knives, but smallblade tools would have workedjust as well.

Pitted stones, sometimescalled nutting stones, were usedto process nuts. Bell-shaped,conical, and cylindrical sand-stone pestles and grindingstones also were used to pre-pare plant foods and dyes.

Among the stone tools usedto work wood were groovedaxes and adzes. Toolmakersformed these “pecked stone”tools by pecking or tapping alarger rock with a smaller oneuntil the former was the desiredshape.

Adzes are smaller thanaxes. Craftspeople probablyused these tools for detailedwoodworking tasks, like shap-ing wood for bowls orcradleboards.

The diversity of styles in atlatl hooks and bannerstones is illustrated inthis drawing from William S. Webb’s 1957 study of the spearthrower.

Archaic hunters usually made their bannerstones from bone,antler, or local stone. Sometimes they used banded slate and marineshell. These raw materials did not occur in the Green River valley.Archaic hunters would have traded for them, gotten them as gifts fromvisiting kin, or traveled to distant places to get them.

They made their bannerstones in a variety of sizes, shapes, andstyles. In most cases, a simple rock attached to the atlatl functionedwell as a counterweight.

But Archaic hunters also spent a great deal of time and effortmaking some very decorative bannerstones. Around 5,000 years ago,the most common decorative types of bannerstones were humped anddouble-notched butterfly.

The shape and style of a hunter’s bannerstone apparently re-flected where he came from. For example, hunters living in the GreenRiver valley used humped bannerstones of marine shell. Men living insouth-central Indiana along the Ohio River, however, were partial tothe double-notched butterfly type made of banded slate.

Not every hunter owned a bannerstone. Even fewer ownedhighly decorative ones made from non-local materials. Decorativebannerstones would have worked just as well as the simpler ones, butthey may have held some symbolic meaning. Perhaps having a decora-tive bannerstone recognized a hunter’s skills or his leadership withinhis kin group.

Focus on Bannerstones

22

Three styles of bannerstones: left, composite (made of marine shell and

23

The prehistoric hunters andgatherers of the Green Rivervalley experienced the sameimportant life events as allhumans - birth, coming of age,marriage, children, maturity,and death. Without the benefitsof modern medicine, though,they experienced all theseevents during much shorterlives. Archaeologists whospecialize in the study of humanbones have given us valuableinsights into their lives.

Those fortunate enough toreach the age of 15 could expectto live into their mid-30s. Only afew people lived past 65. Infantmortality was very high: twentypercent of infants died beforereaching their first birthday.

These statistics are compa-rable to those for groups stillpursuing a hunting and gather-ing way of life. They are verydifferent from those of twenty-first century Americans. We canexpect to live to be about 78years old, and less than onepercent of infants die beforethey are one-year old.

Broken bones were a stan-dard event: nearly one out ofevery two people broke at leastone bone sometime during their

life. Apparently, these mainlyoccurred due to accidents.

Because most fractureshealed (broken bones did notoften result in death), injuredpeople clearly were well takencare of. However, these Archaichunters and gatherers appar-ently did not set broken bones.Many people’s bones healed incrooked ways.

Dental problems wereanother issue altogether. Theseproblems were not due tocavities. They resulted fromworn-down teeth. In fact, poordental health likely contributedto some people’s deaths.

Tooth wear is a naturalprocess. Eating nuts and certainkinds of plants may havehelped wear down their teeth.But the small angular grit par-ticles in the foods they ate weremore likely the culprits. Thisgrit could have come from thetools they used to process andprepare their food, like sand-stone pestles and nutting stones.Or it could have come from theflesh of freshwater mussels,which also contains grit.

Grit is extremely destruc-tive to teeth. It wears down thetooth enamel and exposes the

HEALTH, DISEASE, AND DEATH

brought on by disease, or acci-dents caused by a careless stepthat leads to a severe fall.People also can be the cause ofdeath. This was just as true inthe Archaic world of the GreenRiver valley as it is in our own.Between five and 11 percent ofadults died violently due toritualized warfare.

When someone died, theirfamily buried them in a simplepit dug into the ground, or theylaid them on the ground surfaceand then covered the body withsoil. Sometimes they dug pitsinto the shell midden; at othertimes, they dug pits into the soilbelow the midden.

Most people were buriedseparately in a flexed or fetalposition. Sometimes, theirloved ones buried them withobjects that held some personal,

pulp. Over time, this leads toinfection and inflammation ofthe bone, bone marrow, and softtissues of the mouth and face.Everyone older than 35 had atleast one active tooth abscesswhen they died. If someonesurvived to be 35-40 years old,they usually had only theirfront teeth. In time, they wouldhave lost these, too.

Many diseases leave behindtraces on bones, and so weknow that the Green RiverArchaic people suffered fromboth osteoarthritis and rheuma-toid arthritis. An aliment morecommon for men than womenwas a chronic, localized inflam-mation of the ear. It resulted insmooth, rounded, boneygrowths in the ear canal, andled to deafness in varyingdegrees. It was caused byputting one’s head completelyunder the surface of cold water.

Death can occur due tomany things: natural events

24

Marginella (marine) shell beads, part of anecklace (?) from a site in Butler County.

Drilled animal canine teeth, part of anecklace from an Ohio County site.

religious, or social meaning forthe deceased, or for their familyand kin. These included spears,atlatls, stone or bone tools,animal tooth ornaments, turtleshell rattles, and lumps of redochre. A few people were bur-ied with their dogs (see Focus onDog Burials) or with rare andvery valuable items made frommarine shell or non-local stone.

It is very difficult to iden-tify today exactly what theseitems symbolized to thesepeople and how they used themin their rituals and ceremonies.The placement of these objectsin their graves, however, clearlyshows that the Green River

25

Archaic people believed in anafterlife. Because of the simi-larities of burial practicesthroughout the Green Rivervalley, archaeologists infer thateveryone had the same beliefsystem. This system may havebeen related to worshiping theirancestors.

Flexed burial of athree-year old boyin Ohio County,showing the manydifferent kinds ofitems his familyplaced in hisgrave.

Barrel-shaped marine shell beadsfound at a Butler County site.

Archaeologists have found a total of 182 dog burials at the GreenRiver Archaic shell midden sites. This is one of the largest samples ofdog burials in the Southeastern and Midwestern US for any time inprehistory. What was it about dogs that led people to bury them onpurpose?

Archaic dogs were medium-sized and stood about 14-18 inchestall at the shoulder. Archaeologists think they may have been long-haired and may have looked a little like their cousin, the wolf. Re-search shows that at least a part of a dog’s diet was the same as that ofhumans. This may mean that people fed dogs. It also could meanthat dogs scavenged the food remains people threw away.

People buried both male and female dogs on purpose: in pits,alone, usually lying on their sides. At several shell midden sites,however, they buried adult male dogs with men, women, or children.Clearly, these dogs were particularly important in some way to thesepeople.

We may never know exactly what kind of relationship existedbetween humans and dogs in the Green River valley. However, dogsclearly were special. Archaic people did not treat any other animalthe way they treated dogs. They may have thought of dogs as justtrainable beasts of burden that made hunting and movement fromcamp to camp easier. Or, they could have been pets, companions, andprotectors. Apparently, even 5,000 years ago, dogs were “a man’s bestfriend.”

Focus on Dog Burials

26

Dogs were animportant part oflife in the GreenRiver valley 5,000years ago.

27

The larger shell middensites next to the Green Rivermay have served as the focalpoints for gatherings of severalfamilies. These likely hap-pened more commonly be-tween spring and late fall,before each family moved to itswinter locations.

When these families metup with each other, it was likefamily reunions are today.People visited with old friendsand made new ones. Theytalked about what had hap-pened since their last meeting:babies that had been born, howmuch the children had grown,and who had died. As theyshared these and other stories,they passed to the next genera-tion family histories of whothey were and how they be-lieved they should live.

RELATIONS WITHIN THE VALLEY

This visiting and socializingapparently included huge feasts.Archaeologists have foundlarge, bathtub-sized pits filledwith debris at some of theselarge riverside camps. Theyhave documented distinct areaswhere people cooked massivequantities of mussel and dis-carded the shells, dense concen-trations of deer bone, and largenumbers of food processingtools.

Along with the feasting,they may have held ceremonies,singing and dancing to celebratethe passing of the seasons. Afterperforming the appropriaterituals, these families may haveworshipped their ancestors andburied their dead at these largeriverside camps.

Also during these visits,some couples might have mar-ried. Studies suggest that hunt-

ing and gathering familiesfrom different areas withinthe Green River valley did,in fact, intermarry.

Before the familiesparted, they likely ex-changed information withtheir closest friends andrelatives. Topics could haveincluded where to find the

Green River Archaic people wore shell necklaces,like this one made from hundreds of round, flatbeads.

28

best raw materials for stonetools and the most suitablecampsites. They might haveshared information about thelocations of good hunting orfishing places, and where tofind certain plants. Like huntersand gatherers today, they prob-ably exchanged gifts such asspearpoints, food, and clothingas symbols of sharing and oftheir relationships.

Over time, these large,riverside shell midden sitesbecame places steeped in his-tory. They became fixed inpeople’s memories and de-scribed in stories much likethose told about family farmstoday. In these ways, kin rela-tionships became stronger andfamily ties expanded.

**********

The Green River valley washome to many groups of fami-lies, and so the valley was apatchwork of different home-

lands. As familiesmoved within the richGreen River valley,they would haveencountered familiesfrom their own group and thosefrom neighboring groups.

Ceremonies and ritualshelped maintain good relation-ships among families and be-tween neighboring groups. Butsometimes, peaceful relationsbroke down and conflicts re-sulted.

A personal misunderstand-ing may have started someconflicts. Evidence for this kindof conflict may come in the formof shallow, round to ellipticaldepressions on the skulls ofsome Green River people.These skull depressions occurtwice as frequently on men’sskulls than on women’s. Mostdid not lead to the person’sdeath.

These depressions werecaused by a blow to the headwith a blunt object. Individualscould have suffered these inju-ries during a fight, or, alterna-tively, during violent socialgames and contests, in much the

An engraved bonependant.

Double-notched butterflybannerstone of banded slate.

29

same way football orice hockey playerssustain injuries today.

Other, more serious con-flicts probably turned intofeuds. A feud usually startswith a serious grudge thatinvolves members of two differ-ent groups.

Feuding groups usuallyraid each other. A raiding partyconsists of a small group ofrelated men. During a raid, themen from one group approachunnoticed, ambush and kill atleast one member of the othergroup, and then leave as

quickly as possible. The goal isnot to engage the enemy inbattle. A counter raid eventu-ally takes place. In this way, afeud can go on for years.

Sometimes, the conflictsbetween neighboring GreenRiver Archaic groups got worse.Archaeologists know this be-cause people in some graves aremissing body parts, and othergraves contain extra body parts.They infer from these burialsthat these people raided eachother as part of ritualized war-fare. During a raid, victoriouswarriors cut off parts of theirenemy’s body and broughtthem back to their camp. Thisproved how brave the warriorwas and increased his socialstanding. Burying someonewith trophies probably showedthat the person was a warrior ofsome note.

**********

This large, completemarine shell conch

was found at site inOhio County.

They likely used heavy groovedaxes, like these, to cut firewood.

30

Thanks to the work ofcountless individuals overmany decades, we have learnedmuch about how prehistoricpeoples lived in the Green Rivervalley 5,000 years ago. Weknow something about theirtools and settlements, and theirhealth and diet.

There is still much we donot know, though, and manyquestions remain unanswered.What did their houses look like?Where were the best places tocollect stone for spearpoints?What kinds of ceremonies didthey hold? The list goes on andon.

Paradise, Kentucky is gone,but a song helps keep it alive inour memories. Gone, too, arethe people of the Green RiverArchaic Culture who once livedaround “Muhlenberg County,

down bythe GreenRiverwhereParadiselay.” Theplaces theylived andthe objectsthey leftbehind celebrate their way oflife and keep it alive in ourmemories.

People were hunters andgatherers throughout much ofhuman history. By learningabout how the Green RiverArchaic people may have mettheir everyday challenges andarranged their lives, we learnmore about ourselves.

Marine shellearrings.

Collecting invaluable information about the past at an Ohio County site.

31

The people of the GreenRiver Archaic Culture did notwrite down their history. Theypurposefully or coincidentallyleft it behind in the places theyonce lived. They actively sharedit through stories.

Their stories have not beenpassed down to us. The pat-terns of objects that remain inthe ground at their campsitesare the only record of theirculture.

Their campsites, then, aretheir legacy. Because we live intheir homeland, we have aresponsibility to preserve andprotect that legacy. We are thestewards of their heritage.

Their campsites are fragileplaces, unique and irreplace-able. The growth of towns andcities threatens these sites. So,too, does the construction ofroads and bridges, and farming.These disturbances will con-tinue to take place as modernpeople follow their own lives.

The willful actions of loot-ers, however, also threaten theircampsites. These people minethe shell middens for the arti-facts and human bones theycontain. Then they sell them.

These people can destroy sev-eral hundred years of prehistoryin one afternoon.

Many Green River Archaicsites have been owned by thesame families for several gen-erations. They renew theirstewardship responsibilities asthe land passes from parent tochild.

But, is there something youcan do?

There is. Start by decidingthat these sites are important.Then put that decision to work.

If you discover a prehis-toric campsite or village, don’tdisturb the ground. Recordwhat kinds of artifacts you see.Then report your findings to theKentucky Heritage Council, theKentucky Archaeological Sur-vey, or the Office of State Ar-chaeology at the University ofKentucky. To protect the sites,these organizations keep infor-mation on site location confi-dential.

If someone asks to dig forartifacts on your land, makesure he or she is a professionalarchaeologist. Ask them whythey want to dig and what theyhope to discover. Ask for their

YOUR ROLE IN PRESERVINGAND PROTECTING THEIR LEGACY

32

business card and check onthem. Insist they give you acopy of the report they writeonce they have finished theirresearch.

Discourage looting byreporting instances that youknow of to the state police or toan organization listed on theinside back cover of this book-let. Speak out against the buy-ing and selling of artifacts.Encourage lawmakers to passstiffer penalties. The market inprehistoric artifacts encourageslooting and leads to the destruc-tion of archaeological sites.

Once these sites are de-stroyed, they can never bereplaced. Then the history ofthese people’s ancient ways oflife is gone forever. Each of ushas a responsibility to makesure that these long-ago camp-sites and the history they con-tain endure for another 3,000years. You can make a differ-ence.

IF YOU WANT TO LEARNMORE

If you are interested inlearning more about the GreenRiver Archaic sites and Archaiclifeways in Kentucky, go to theWilliam S. Webb Museum ofAnthropology’s website:

www.as.uky.edu/Anthropol-ogy/museum of anthropology.htm. There you’ll find an entiresection devoted to the GreenRiver Archaic, with photos ofthe WPA excavations and theartifacts collected as a result.

A companion guide forteachers, with lessons referenc-ing this booklet and theMuseum’s website, also is avail-able through the Museum or theKentucky Archaeological Sur-vey (www.heritage.ky.gov/kas.htm). So, too, is a unit formiddle school students thattargets Archaic lifeways insouth-central Kentucky.

You also may wish to readKentucky Archaeology, editedby R. Barry Lewis and pub-lished in 1996 by The UniversityPress of Kentucky. It discussesKentucky’s Green River Archaicsites, the Archaic period, andother topics.

During the Depression, men from allwalks of life found work at the Green RiverArchaic sites.

The Kentucky Heritage CouncilThe mandate of the Kentucky Heritage Council is to identify, preserve, andprotect the cultural resources of Kentucky. The Council also maintains continu-ally-updated inventories of historic structures and archaeological sites andnominates properties to the National Register of Historic Places. By workingwith other state and federal agencies, local communities, and interested citizens,the Council seeks to build a greater awareness of Kentucky’s past and to encour-age the long-term preservation of Kentucky’s significant cultural resources.Through its various programs (e.g., Main Street, Grants, Publications, RuralPreservation, Civil War Initiative, and Conferences), the Council strives to showhow historic resources contribute to the heritage, economy, and quality of life ofall Kentuckians. For more information write: Kentucky Heritage Council, 300Washington Street, Frankfort, KY 40601; or go to www.heritage.ky.gov

Kentucky Archaeological SurveyThe Kentucky Archaeological Survey is jointly administered by the KentuckyHeritage Council (State Historic Preservation Office) and the University ofKentucky Department of Anthropology. Its mission is to provide a service toother state agencies, to work with private landowners to protect archaeologicalsites, and to educate the public about Kentucky’s rich archaeological heritage.For more information write: Kentucky Archaeological Survey, 1020-A ExportStreet, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-9854; or go towww.heritage.ky.gov/kas.htm

University of Kentucky Department of AnthropologyWilliam S. Webb Museum of AnthropologyThe University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology has a mission toeducate students and promote scholarly research in the field of archaeology.The Department also is charged by state law with enforcing and administeringthe State Antiquities Act, which prohibits the destruction of archaeological siteson state and municipal lands. It maintains comprehensive inventory files andrecords on archaeological sites in the Commonwealth through the Office of StateArchaeology, and supports the major state curation repository for archeologicalcollections, the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology. For more informa-tion write: Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, 211 LaffertyHall, Lexington, KY 40506-0024 or go to www.as.uky.edu/Anthropology/museum of anthropology.htm

Other Booklets in This SeriesSlack Farm and the Caborn-Welborn PeopleDavid Pollack, Cheryl Ann Munson, and A. Gwynn Henderson(1996). Summarizes what has been learned about this Mississip-pian farming society (A.D. 1400-1700) based on the research thatfollowed the looting of the Slack Farm Site. $5.00.

Mute Stones Speak: Archaic Lifeways of the EscarpmentRegion in Jackson County, KentuckyWilliam E. Sharp and A. Gwynn Henderson (1997). Describes thelifeways of hunter and gatherers who lived in Eastern Kentucky8,000 years ago. $3.00.

Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers: Kentucky’s FirstPioneersLeon Lane, Eric J. Schlarb, and A. Gwynn Henderson (1998).Describes how the first people colonized and settled Kentuckybetween 11,500 and 8,000 years ago. $3.00.

Forests, Forest Fires, & Their Makers: The Story of CliffPalace Pond, Jackson County, KentuckyPaul A. Delcourt, Hazel R. Delcourt, Cecil R. Ison, William E.Sharp, and A. Gwynn Henderson (1999). Tells the 10,000-yearlong environmental and human history of Keener Point Knob.$5.00.

Taming Yellow Creek: Alexander Arthur, the Yellow CreekCanal & Middlesborough, KentuckyMaria Campbell Brent (2002). Presents the history of AlexanderArthur’s attempts to build a modern city in the mountains of BellCounty in the late 1800s. $5.00.

Bringing the Past Into the Future: The Reconstruction of theDetached Kitchen at RiversidePatti Linn and M. Jay Stottman (2003). Describes the discovery,reconstruction, and interpretation of this Louisville farm’s first(around the late 1830s) detached kitchen. $5.00.

To purchase a booklet, contact the Kentucky ArchaeologicalSurvey. Discounts are available to teachers on orders of 20 or

more.