By the time the Spanish explorer De Soto passed nearby in 1540, the great planter cultures of the southeast Indians had already disappeared. In their place smaller tribal units were organized into larger confederations that exercised control over the rich hunting grounds of the forests. Although there is much current debate over original Amerindian populations, most archaeological remains indicate that, place by place, we must speak in terms of thousands not tens of thousands of inhabitants. Their overall effect upon the land was small. While they consumed a steady diet of deer, bear, bison, turkey from the forest and while along the rivers their harvest of shellfish would leave behind great mounds of shells, still these were renewable resources, and the Amerindians originally conducted no practices that threatened the sustainability of any species. Along the Tennessee River from Mussel Shoals in Alabama reaching back upstream to Nickajack and Moccasin Bend and then upstream again toward Knoxville, there were Amerindian villages that sometimes numbered 1500 people, seldom more than 3000. A double supply of harvested food from the river and forest and food grown from some gardening supplied their needs.
Along the Elk and Duck Rivers and along their tributary streams such as Bean Creek or Boiling Fork the villages were smaller, and the emphasis upon forest hunting was greater in the absence of the great shellfish stocks of the Tennessee River. The common animals taken for food were deer, bison, elk, and turkey along with smaller animals such as rabbit, squirrel, waterfowl--and in a few instances the wild cats of the region. Animal products such as hides and skins along with bones and feathers were used for clothing and ornaments, and hides were used in the construction of shelters. The tool technology as represented in their stone points, blades, and scrapers was adequate for hunting and food preparation but not mechanically efficient for large-scale alteration of the forest or land. Although the Amerindians could kill hundreds of trees to open the forest for a food plot, yet it remained very time consuming for them to actually cut down a tree or to dress it for use. The saplings and young trees that grew up around their planting plots were easier to use and of more value on a day to day basis than the large trees of the forest.
An aerial observer here in 1600 would have noticed a nearly unbroken forest covering the valley and the plateau. Only here and there along the larger streams and along the Elk River would the observer see an occasional small clearing containing gardens edged by a few huts. At ground level, the sense of a complete surrounding forest would have been overwhelming. Sightings of game animals would have been frequent, particularly in the relatively open understory of the mature forests. In the absence of logging, the heavy canopy of large trees cast a heavy shade and there was far less underbrush except in the area of the laurel hells along the stream ravines.