Page 88 - 名媛直播 - Knighted 2019

chevrons.13 The stamping technique is the most popular in the Lamar phases and is continued

into the other phases as well. Karen Smith and Michael O鈥橞rien, when speaking about the trend

of Swift Creek stamping, note that stamping techniques have a general trend over time 鈥渇rom

moderate stamping from the earliest vessels to clearly stamped to heavily stamped in the latest
vessel.鈥�14 When looking at ceramic designs, then, it is suggested to look carefully at the

frequency of the style, whether or not it is clear, and applied with meaning. By using this method

of tracing style by examining the design method, tracking cultural influences is possible.

Looking at the similarities of the designs through the phases throughout the Creek Nation, it is

assumed that the tradition of origin can be Lamar based. Yet, there are some scholars who stress

the differences between Creek pottery types and Lamar pottery types stating that 鈥淐reek pottery
probably developed from the Coosa-Tallapoosa area.鈥�15

The argument following the differences of Creek and Lamar pottery designs observes the

development of the brushing technique as well as some of the most notable designs. Brushing in

the Creek fashion usually involved brushing the outside of the pot with dry grass or reeds in
order to get a rough texture and was considered a 鈥減henomenon post-1690.鈥�16 On the

Chattahoochee River many recognizable brushed Creek pottery types can be seen like the

Walnut Roughened at the 鈥淏ig Tallassee site on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama鈥� and then can
be traced to even later phases like the Atasi phase 1550鈥�1700.17 This persistence proves a type of

exchange or influence of some sort on early Creeks that surpassed the Lamar phase and

13. Chad O. Braley, 鈥淗istoric Indian Period Archeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain,鈥� 38.
14. Karen Y. Smith and Michael J. O鈥橞rien, 鈥淪wift Creek Complicated Stamped Pottery &
Issues of Archaeological Classification,鈥� The Missouri Archaeologist, Vol. 63 (2002). 63.
15. Marvin T. Smith, 鈥淗istoric Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia,鈥� University
of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 30 Georgia Archaeological Research
Design Paper No. 7 (1992), 63.
16. Ibid, 64.
17. Ibid.

87