Temporal Trends in Tchula Period Pottery in Louisiana Steven Ray Fullen Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2005 Temporal trends in Tchula period pottery in Louisiana Steven Ray Fullen Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fullen, Steven Ray, "Temporal trends in Tchula period pottery in Louisiana" (2005). LSU Master's Theses. 106. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/106 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEMPORAL TRENDS IN TCHULA PERIOD POTTERY IN LOUISIANA A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Steven R. Fullen B.A., Louisiana State University, 1998 December 2005 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to profoundly thank the numerous people who supported me both physically, mentally, and emotionally during the production of this body of work. To Dr. Saunders, I truly appreciate the patience, editorial support, and guidance you showed me during the trial that was this thesis—as well as the mental challenges you made me rise to. Dr. Paul Farnsworth, Dr. Heather McKillop, and Dr. Rob Mann additionally deserve credit for their input, and editorial support. The Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science supplied needed funding for research aspects of this thesis, without which radiocarbon dating and petrographic analysis could not have been conducted. Additional support was given to me by Museum of Natural Science laboratory assistant Holly Middleton during my material analysis; thanks Holly. Carey Coxe and Stephanie Perrault also deserve my gratitude. Tim Schilling, Erika Roberts, Bryan Tucker, and Marsha Hernandez all played major roles in helping me finish my field work. Special thanks to Ann Cordell of the Florida State Museum of Natural History for the petrograph; she didn’t have to do all she did but because of her efforts my data were more robust. Coastal Environments, Inc. deserves my gratitude as well. Thanks to David Kelley for loan of equipment, Richard Weinstein for answering my questions and giving me permission to reprint material, Doug Wells for your advice, Don Hunter for identification of lithic materials, Thurston and Sarah Hahn for the support, and to all others for their support and advice. Finally, I would like to thank three of the most important people in my life who played large parts in getting me to where I am today. First to my parents Bob and Ellen, thank you for all of the emotional and financial support that you have provided ii throughout the years. Finally, to my wife Jolie, without your physical, emotional, mental, and editorial strength I would have never finished this and the many other projects these last ten years; this thesis is dedicated to you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………...…ii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….....vi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...vii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………1 2 CULTURAL SETTING…...…………………………………………………....8 Paleoindian Period (13,000-10,000 B.P.)....................................................9 Archaic Period (11,000-3,500 B.P.)...........................................................11 Poverty Point Culture (3,600-3,000 B.P.)..................................................14 Tchula Period (3,000-2,000 B.P.)..............................................................20 Marksville Period (2,000-1,600 B.P.)........................................................27 Troyville Culture (1,600-1,300 B.P.).........................................................31 Coles Creek Period (1,300-800 B.P)..........................................................34 Plaquemine/Mississippi (800-400 B.P.).....................................................35 3 GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY.................………...…....40 Pleistocene Terrace....................................................................................40 Backswamps..............................................................................................41 Deltaic Plain...............................................................................................44 4 POTTERY IN THE SOUTHEAST…………………………………………...51 Pottery Analysis.........................................................................................51 Pottery Invention Models...........................................................................52 Early Pottery Traditions.............................................................................56 5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH……………………………………………………..60 Previous Research at Sarah Peralta Site.....................................................60 Chronology at the Bayou Jasmine Site......................................................65 6 EXCAVATION AND ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM 2001-2002 FIELD SEASON AT THE SARAH PERALTA SITE…………………….....72 Field Methods............................................................................................72 Artifact Analysis........................................................................................74 Results of Artifact Analysis.......................................................................75 7 CONTORTION AND LAMINATION STUDY…………………………….100 Hypothesis................................................................................................100 Methodology........................................................................................…101 Results..................................................................................................…102 iv 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS…………………………………….….111 WORKS CITED……................……………………………………………….……….115 APPENDIX A RADICARBON DATA FROM THE SARAH PERALTA SITE...............126 B ORIGINAL BAYOU JASMINE SITE RADIOCARBON DATA...........................................................……..........127 C ARTIFACT CATALOG……………………………………………………128 D LOUISIANA CODING SYTEM……………………………………………147 E CHI-SQUARE TABLES FOR LAMINATION AND CONTORTION STUDY…………………………………………….167 VITA....………………………………………………………………………................170 v LIST OF TABLES 5.1 Radiocarbon and OCR dates from Sarah Peralta site...………….………..............63 5.2 Radiocarbon dates from the Bayou Jasmine site...………………………..............68 6.1 Pottery frequency by zone at the Sarah Peralta site.……………………...............77 6.2 Other artifact types at the Sarah Peralta site...…………………………..........…...81 6.3 Pottery frequency by zone at the Sarah Peralta site.....…………………................89 6.4 Other artifact frequency by zone at the Sarah Peralta site………………......….....90 6.5 Pottery frequency by unit...………………………...……………………..............94 6.6 Other artifacts by unit.................…..………………...………………..............….95 7.1 Contortion frequency by zone at the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67)………………………………………………....................102 7.2 Lamination frequency by zone at the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67)…………….......................................................................103 7.3 Lamination frequency by natural level at the Bayou Jasmine site (16SJB2)……..……….......................................................................106 7.4 Contortion frequency by natural level at the Bayou Jasmine site (16SJB2)……..……….......................................................................107 7.5 Contortion frequency: Bayou Jasmine (16SJB2) vs. the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67), Zone 3……………………………………108 7.6 Lamination frequency: Bayou Jasmine (16SJB2) vs. the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67), Zone 3…………………………………….108 vi LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Location of the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67) …...………………………………..42 3.2 Development of the Louisiana coast between 6,000 and 3,000 B.P.…..............................................................................................48 5.1 Location of Bayou Jasmine and Sarah Peralta sites...……………………...............60 5.2 Topographic map of Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67)………………………..............61 5.3 Stratigraphic profile of the Sarah Peralta site based on auger borings.....…............62 5.4 Stratigraphic profile of Unit N6 at the Bayou Jasmine site (16SJB2)...............…...66 5.5 Bar plot of Bayou Jasmine radiocarbon dates........................……………………..69 6.1 Topographic map of the Sarah Peralta site (16EBR67)…………………................73 6.2 East and West Unit profiles from 2001-2002 excavations…..………….................85 6.3 North and South Unit profiles from 2001-2002 excavations…..………….............86 7.1 Hypothesized chronological progression of paste quality….…………….............100 vii ABSTRACT Tchula period pottery (Tchefuncte culture) in Louisiana is characterized by highly contorted and laminated pastes. These diagnostic traits have led investigators to suggest hypotheses concerning manufacturing techniques, but there has been relatively little focus on temporal trends associated with these characteristics. The first step in redressing this problem was to identify a site likely to contain archaeological assemblages that would span the Tchula period. Excavations began at the Sarah