REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH
BENJAMIN A. STEERE Department of Anthropology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
This article describes the development and initial results of the Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project, a collaborative endeavor initiated by the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research Program at the University of Georgia. The goal of this project is to generate new information about the distribution of late prehistoric mounds and historic period townhouses in western North Carolina. This ongoing research has produced updated location and chronological data for Mis- sissippian period mounds and historic Cherokee townhouses, and led to the discovery of a possible location for the Jasper Allen mound. Using these new data, I suggest that David Hally’s model for the territorial size of Mississip- pian polities provides a useful framework for generating new research questions about social and political change in western North Carolina. I also posit that the cultural practice of rebuilding townhouses in place and on top of Mis- sissippian period platform mounds, a process that Christopher Rodning describes as “emplacement,” was common across western North Carolina. In terms of broader impacts, this project contributes positively to the development of indigenous archaeology in the Cherokee heartland.
KEYWORDS: Cherokee Archaeology, Regional Analysis, Indigenous Archaeology, Townhouses, Mounds
Prior to the late nineteenth century, the mountain is not incorporated into broader research frame- valleys of western North Carolina were marked by works (e.g., Riggs and Shumate [] on the dozens of platform mounds and townhouses built Kituwah Mound and Benyshek et al. []ona by Cherokee and their ancestors (Dickens ; possible ceremonial Woodland period ditch on Keel ; Kimball et al. ; Rodning , the Qualla Boundary). As a result, basic questions ; Ward and Davis ). These monumental about the history of human settlement and the structures are important places on the Cherokee built environment that are fairly well understood cultural landscape, but most have been damaged in adjacent regions, such as eastern Tennessee by looting, development, and modern agriculture. and northwest Georgia, remain to be answered Additionally, while there has been excellent for western North Carolina (see Hally ; research on individual late prehistoric sites in the King ; Schroedl :–; Sullivan Cherokee heartland, such as the Coweeta Creek , ). site (Rodning , ), the Warren Wilson Archaeologists working in western North Caro- site (Dickens , ; Moore ), the Bilt- lina and the Eastern Band of Cherokee share a more Mound (Kimball et al. , ), and common concern about the need for an improved the Garden Creek sites (Dickens ; Keel and expanded understanding of the archaeology ; Wright , ), there have been of the Cherokee heartland. In recent years, the fewer attempts to understand changes in monu- Eastern Band of Cherokee has collaborated with mental architecture and settlement patterns at archaeologists to develop projects aimed at under- broader spatial and temporal scales (although standing and preserving archaeological sites in the readers should see Dickens [], Moore Appalachian Summit region (Carroll ; [], and Rudolph [] for early regional Cooper ; Riggs ). This collaboration is syntheses and Ward and Davis [] for an over- representative of a broader movement referred to view). Important archaeological research has been as indigenous archaeology, which is perhaps carried out in western North Carolina through most concisely defined as archaeology done with, cultural resource management projects, but this by, for, and about indigenous communities (see work is often overlooked as gray literature, and Cowell-Chapthaphonh et al. ; Croes ;
© Southeastern Archaeological Conference DOI: ./Y. Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Riggs ; Watkins ; Wilcox , ). Georgia. As a result, Hally’s(, ) model Working with archaeologists, the Eastern Band for the territorial size of Mississippian polities of Cherokee has taken an active role in developing may be a useful tool for generating new research cultural resource management projects and aca- questions about Mississippian period settlement demic research programs. Such projects make in the region. broad contributions to archaeological knowledge Second, I suggest that the cultural practice of while also respecting traditional Cherokee beliefs rebuilding townhouses in place and on top of Mis- about the treatment of sacred places, graves, and sissippian period platform mounds, a process that ceremonial objects, and contributing to the preser- Rodning (:, –) describes as vation of Cherokee culture. “emplacement,” may have been common across The Western North Carolina Mounds and southwestern North Carolina. Using the new evi- Towns Project, a collaborative archaeological dence marshaled for this project, I argue that research project initiated by the Tribal Historic each of the three groups of eighteenth-century Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Chero- Cherokee towns in southwestern North Carolina, kee (EBCI THPO) and the Coweeta Long Term the Middle, Out, and Valley towns, may have been Ecological Research Program (LTER) at the Uni- “anchored” by at least one townhouse constructed versity of Georgia, is one such effort. The on top of a Mississippian period platform mound. primary goal of this ongoing project is to create From this birds-eye view, it seems the process of a GIS map and database documenting all the late emplacement occurred not only at the scale of prehistoric mound and townhouse sites in the the individual settlement, but at a broader, westernmost counties of North Carolina. This regional scale. research is one of only a few attempts to systema- tically map the location of all the archaeologically MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE identified late prehistoric mounds and Cherokee HEARTLAND towns in the Cherokee heartland (see Dickens ; Gragson and Bolstad ). Western North Carolina is the ancestral homeland This project uses a combination of archival of the Cherokee people. Today, about percent research, archaeological survey, and community of the , enrolled members of the Eastern outreach to generate new information about Band of Cherokee live on the Qualla Boundary, poorly understood mound and town sites in an approximately , ha holding adjacent to western North Carolina. Important new findings the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, from this project include the identification of a which includes the town of Cherokee, North Car- possible location for the Jasper Allen Mound, sup- olina (North Carolina Department of Adminis- porting evidence for the relocation of the Watauga tration ). This roughly km area Mound described by Bartram (), and refined represents a small fraction of the approximately dates of occupation for the Notley Mound and , km territory the Cherokees may have village site (CE). A database and GIS layer controlled in the early s, based on archaeolo- containing spatial and chronological information gical evidence, early written accounts, and Chero- for confirmed and possible Woodland and kee oral history (Duncan and Riggs :; Mississippian period mounds and Cherokee town- Finger :; Gragson and Bolstad :). houses was constructed, and has been used to yield Population estimates for the size of the Cherokee new insight on regional-scale research questions. nation in the mid-to-late eighteenth century fall This article describes the development and initial around , people living in approximately results of the Western North Carolina Mounds towns in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina and Towns Project, focusing on the new infor- and Tennessee (Duncan and Riggs :; mation generated for understanding the nature of Gragson and Bolstad ; Smith ). The Mississippian period platform mounds and his- members of today’s Eastern Band are descendants toric period Cherokee townhouses in the study of a group of approximately , Cherokees who area. I make two observations about the nature survived late eighteenth-century wars with Euro- of the built environment in the Cherokee heart- pean and American forces and multiple smallpox land. First, I suggest that the distribution of Missis- epidemics, and then resisted removal in .By sippian period platform mounds in southwestern the early twentieth century, these survivors had North Carolina is broadly similar to the pattern established the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of platform mound spacing recorded in northern as a federally recognized tribe and sovereign
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE nation, with their lands held in trust by the federal transition, and mounds appear to become political government (Duncan and Riggs :–; and economic centers (Hally and Mainfort Finger ). :; Schroedl :–; Schroedl et al. The study area for this project (Figure ) :–; Sullivan , a; Sullivan includes the westernmost counties of North and Koerner ). Carolina, which were home to the Valley, In western North Carolina, Mississippian period Middle, and Out Towns of the Cherokee in the villages with platform mounds appear to have eighteenth century (Boulware :–; Smith been central places on the political, economic, ). The counties fall within the Southern and cultural landscape, but they were not as Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Moun- large or elaborate as mound sites in neighboring tains (Fenneman :), and the terrain is regions (Hudson :–; Rodning and dominated by steep mountains, sharp ridge tops, Moore :–; Sullivan b). Large Mis- and narrow valleys. The major river drainages in sissippian period communities like Etowah, the study area, from east to west, are the French Moundville, and Cahokia contained multiple plat- Broad, Pigeon, Tuckasegee, Little Tennessee, and form mounds, and these sites appear to have been Hiwassee rivers. This area is generally considered the administrative center of settlement systems to be the center of the Cherokee “heartland” (see with two or more hierarchical levels of political Gragson and Bolstad :), and it includes organization (Beck ; Hally ; King the mother town of Kituwah, which, according ; Knight ; Pauketat ). In contrast, to oral tradition, is the Cherokee place of origin Mississippian period central places in western (Mooney :). North Carolina contained single platform mound Table provides a general chronology for the sites that appear to have served as political late prehistoric and historic periods in the region. centers for several surrounding communities. In western North Carolina and the surrounding Similar Mississippian polities are well documented Southern Appalachian region, mound building in nearby northern Georgia (Anderson ; began during the Middle Woodland period, Hally , ). around A.D. (Keel ; Kimball et al. By approximately A.D. and into the late ). The best-documented Woodland period eighteenth century in western North Carolina, mound sites in the Cherokee heartland include townhouses replaced mounds as the primary the Connestee phase Mound No. (HW)at form of public architecture (Rodning , the Garden Creek site (Keel ) and the Bilt- ). Townhouses, large public buildings more Mound (BN), located on the measuring between and m in diameter, grounds of the Biltmore Estate (Kimball et al. were often rebuilt in place over time. This , ). Both of these mounds apparently process gradually formed a low mound and served as low platforms for ceremonial activities created an elevated base for new townhouse con- and contain artifacts typically associated with struction. In some cases, Cherokee communities Middle Woodland period ceremonial and constructed townhouses on top of existing plat- exchange systems (Keel ; Kimball et al. form mounds built centuries earlier. , ; Wright , ). The Cherokee townhouse at the Coweeta Creek During the Mississippian period (A.D. – site (MA) is one of the best preserved and ), indigenous people in western North Caro- archaeologically understood examples of these lina, following broader cultural and demographic structures (Rodning , , ). This trends in the Southeast, began practicing intensive large public building had at least six successive maize agriculture and living throughout the year in stages and was used from the s to the late permanent, nucleated villages (Dickens ; s (Rodning :). In contrast to platform Rodning and Moore ; Smith ). These mounds, which literally and metaphorically elev- practices are seen at sites associated with Pisgah ated the chief above other community members, phase ceramics, like Warren Wilson and Garden townhouses were public structures which likely Creek, and Qualla phase ceramics, such as the functioned as architectural symbols of the Chero- Nununyi Mound and village site (Greene ; kee town, emphasizing the importance of commu- Rodning and Moore ). In nearby eastern Ten- nity identity over individual leadership (Rodning nessee, platform mounds replace burial mounds as , ). the principal form of monumental architecture During the historic period, a sacred fire was kept during the Late Woodland to Early Mississippian burning in Cherokee townhouses, and once a year,
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
FIGURE . Study Area, the Eleven Westernmost Counties of North Carolina. all the hearths in the village were extinguished and like Kituwah (Duncan and Riggs :–; then ceremonially rekindled from this sacred fire Mooney :). Cherokee legends also (Mooney :). Based on traditional Chero- suggest that mounds were the home of the kee beliefs, sacred fires continue to burn at places Nunnehi, immortal spirit buildings, and that
TABLE .CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,ADAPTED FROM RODNING (). Period Phase Start End Hiwassee Little Tuckasegee Pigeon French date date Tennessee Broad Historic Late Qualla A.D. A.D. XX X X Protohistoric Middle Qualla A.D. A.D. XX X X Mississippian Early Qualla A.D. A.D. XX X Undefined A.D. A.D. XX X ceramic series Late Pisgah A.D. A.D. XXX Early Pisgah A.D. A.D. XXX
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE mounds and townhouses are symbolically associ- While Mooney is most famous for his role as an ated with mountains (Mooney :–; ethnographer, Thomas () credits him with Rodning , ). Thus, in addition to recording over two-thirds of the mounds in serving as hubs for social and political activities, western North Carolina. In addition to providing townhouses created a link between the built written descriptions of mound locations, environment and sacred aspects of the natural Mooney mapped the locations of mounds and landscape. other important Cherokee sites on a series of anno- Despite the obvious importance of these sites, tated U.S.G.S. ′ series quad maps. These and despite a rich history of archaeological maps have been stabilized, scanned, and made research in the area, we still know relatively little available online through the Smithsonian Insti- about many of the mounds and townhouses in tution’s website (http://siris-archives.si.edu, western North Carolina. As in other parts of the keyword NAA MS ). In some cases Southeast, this is primarily the result of antiquar- Mooney’s annotations include additional infor- ian excavations in the late nineteenth century mation about mound locations, such as the and site destruction in the nineteenth and twenti- names of property owners. I georeferenced eth centuries. A brief review of archaeological Mooney’s maps in ArcGIS to create a data layer research in the region illuminates this history, that helps clarify some of Thomas’s vague location and also points to several important and underuti- descriptions. lized documentary sources. In May of , Robert Dewar Wainwright, a retired captain of the United States Marine Corps and amateur archaeologist, carried out PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN surface collections and excavations at several WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA mound and village sites in western North Caro- The earliest archaeological investigations in lina, including the Donnaha site (YD), the Cul- western North Carolina were carried out in the lowhee Mound, the Andrews Mound, and the late s and early s to collect artifacts for Kituwah Mound (Wainwright , a, the Valentine Museum in Richmond, Virginia. b). Wainwright published a written account Mann S. Valentine and his sons, E. E. and of his travels, “A Summer’s Archaeological B. B. Valentine, directed expeditions in Research,” in an obscure journal, The Archaeolo- Haywood, Jackson, Cherokee, and Swain coun- gical Bulletin. Wainwright’s account has only ties, sometimes with the help of local residents recently received scholarly attention, and it pro- (Ward and Davis :–). The Valentines and vides useful details about the Cullowhee, their associates “opened” the Peachtree Mound Andrews, and Kituwah mounds (see Steere et al. (CE), the Garden Creek Mound No. ). (HW), the Wells Mound (possibly HW), The next excavations in western North Carolina the Jasper Allen Mound, the Kituwah Mound were carried out in Haywood County by the (SW), the Nununyi Mound (SW), the Bird- Museum of the American Indian/Heye Foundation town Mound (SW), and the Cullowhee (Heye ). In , George Heye directed exca- Mound (JK). These activities were highly vations at the Garden Creek sites (HW, , , destructive. and ) near Canton, North Carolina, and also In the s the Smithsonian Institution excavated a probable Woodland period mound “moundbuilder expedition” identified approxi- on the Singleton property (HW) near Bethel, mately mounds in western North Carolina North Carolina (Heye ). (Thomas , ). The results of this work In , Charles O. Turbyfill, a Waynesville, were published in the annual reports of the North Carolina native who assisted George Heye Bureau of American Ethnology (Thomas , with logistics in western North Carolina, comple- ) and also are mentioned in at least one tely excavated the Notley Mound (CE) (see Peabody Museum report (Putnam ). These Wallace [:–] for a colorful and reports were adequate for their time, but provide candid interview with Turbyfill in the little more than an approximate location for each New Yorker magazine). According to United recorded mound and a brief description of the stra- States Army surveyors who mapped the Notla tigraphy and contents of excavated mounds. River valley just prior to Cherokee removal in Many of the mounds recorded in the Smithso- , the mound once stood approximately m nian reports were submitted by James Mooney. tall (United States Army ). Unfortunately,
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Turbyfill devotes only one paragraph to the exca- analyses of materials and records from the vation of the Notley Mound in a short paper on Coweeta Creek site have improved our under- file at the National Museum of the American standing of Cherokee townhouses and domestic Indian (Turbyfill ). architecture (, ), and his analyses of In and , the Smithsonian Institution, pottery from Coweeta Creek have refined the in conjunction with the Civil Works Adminis- chronology for the Qualla ceramic series (). tration, carried out extensive excavations at the Ongoing research at the Spikebuck Mound and Peachtree Mound (CE) near Murphy, North town site by Western Carolina University promises Carolina. The Peachtree Mound was completely to shed new light on the ceramic chronology in the excavated, and Setzler and Jennings (:), Hiwassee river drainage (Eastman ; Stout using the culture history terminology of the day, ). Research programs at the Biltmore concluded that the site “is a component in which Mound (Kimball et al. , ) and the both Woodland and Mississippi traits occur Garden Creek site (Wright , ) are gener- simultaneously.” ating new data for understanding western North In the late s, Hiram S. Wilburn, a surveyor Carolina’s place in the broader Hopewell Inter- and historian for the National Park Service, action Sphere during the Middle Woodland mapped and photographed the Cullowhee period (ca. A.D. –). Mound (JK), the Garden Creek site (HW), the Kituwah Mound (SW and ), METHODS AND INITIAL RESULTS the Nikwasi Mound (MA), the Nununyi Mound (SW), and the Watauga Mound In addition to the historical problems of site (MA) (archives on file at the University of destruction, a major barrier to understanding the North Carolina Research Laboratories of Archae- prehistoric cultural landscape of western North ology and the Great Smoky Mountains National Carolina is the lack of a concerted effort to Park Visitors Center). Wilburn’s photographs, compile all existing information about mound maps, and notes provide a valuable snapshot of and townhouse sites in a single location. This is a these mound sites decades before they received general problem in archaeological research, and attention from professional archaeologists. is hardly unique to western North Carolina (see In the early s the University of North Car- Anderson and Sassaman :). While the olina carried out extensive pedestrian surveys in state site file contains an excellent database of western North Carolina under the umbrella of archaeological sites and current site reports for the Cherokee Project. The goal of the Cherokee the state, older records and finer scale data are Project was to understand the development of harder to find. Archival data and archaeological Cherokee culture through a study of the archaeo- records and collections are scattered across univer- logical record in western North Carolina sities, state offices, and museums, and possible (Dickens ; Keel , ). By the s, mounds identified decades ago have not been these surveys and other fieldwork resulted in the revisited. Many historical references to Cherokee documentation over , archaeological sites in townhouses have not been cross-checked and western North Carolina (Keel :; Ward confirmed with archaeological evidence. and Davis :). The results of the Cherokee The first step in this project was to examine all Project were published in theses, dissertations, available archival sources for information about books, and articles that became standard reference mounds and town sites in western North Carolina texts and created the framework for our current compile this information into a single database understanding of the archaeology of western containing accurate location data, archaeological North Carolina (see Dickens ; Egloff ; and historical documentation, and preservation Holden ; Keel ). status for all the prehistoric and historic Cherokee More recent research on mounds in western mound and town sites in western North Carolina. North Carolina has yielded new insight on individ- This was completed in the summer of , with ual sites and improved our understanding of the the aid of archaeologists and historians from archaeology of the region. Survey and testing at across the state. The database and GIS from this the Nununyi, Birdtown, and Kituwah mounds project are on file with the EBCI THPO and the on the Qualla boundary suggest that the mound Coweeta LTER. sites were occupied during the Early to Middle Archival research suggested that while there Qualla phases (Greene , ) Rodning’s were only known archaeological sites
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE containing mounds or townhouses officially discussed here. Interested readers can refer to a recorded on state site forms, there may have technical report (Steere ) and a forthcoming been as many as mound and townhouse sites book chapter (Steere ) for details on the in the study area (Steere ). This finding con- other confirmed and possible mound sites ident- trasts with the prevailing notion that there were ified by this project. relatively few mound sites in the region, and that fewer still could be identified archaeologically. Following this archival research, archaeological MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD MOUNDS AND CHEROKEE fieldwork was carried out in the winter of TOWNHOUSES IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA and spring of . Initial reconnaissance The archaeological and historical data gathered surveys were completed at of the sites to for this study suggest that at least seven mounds determine which of the newly identified possible in the study area are Mississippian period platform mound sites contained archaeological evidence mounds. These platforms mounds include: the for mound construction (the remaining sites were Peachtree (CE) and Notley (CE) mounds inaccessible; most were on private property, and in the Hiwassee River drainage, the Nikwasi a few were inundated by lakes). Mapping and Mound (MA) on the Little Tennessee River, shovel test surveys were completed at of the the Jasper Allen Mound (in the vicinity of JK locations with the goal of defining unknown ), Kituwah Mound (SW), and the or poorly understood site boundaries and generat- Nununyi Mound (SW) in the Oconaluftee ing ceramic samples for dating. and Tuckasegee drainages, Garden Creek During the reconnaissance survey, our research Mound (HW) in the Pigeon River drainage, team visited possible mound sites, often and the Swannanoa Mound (no site designation) accompanied by local residents, archaeologists, in the French Broad River drainage near Asheville. and historians. Site boundaries were defined by Historic records suggest that there are dozens of the presence of artifacts, either recovered from archaeologically unrecorded Cherokee town- the surface in areas appropriate for pedestrian houses in western North Carolina, each one survey, or from subsurface contexts in shovel marking the location of the many named Middle, tests. In accordance with the research design Valley, and Out Towns (Duncan and Riggs developed with the EBCI THPO, no invasive ). At present, there are archaeologically subsurface testing took place directly on known documented Cherokee townhouses in the study or possible mounds. Older ceramic collections area. These include four townhouses that appear and new, systematic artifact collections were to have been constructed on top of earlier, Missis- analyzed to assign approximate dates of occu- sippian period platform mounds: the Peachtree pation to sites. Mound, the Nikwasi Mound, the Kituwah The archaeological survey completed for this Mound, and the Nununyi Mound. Based on our project revealed that of the archaeological current understanding of available archaeological sites identified through archival research lacked evidence, the remaining seven townhouses reliable archaeological or historical evidence for appear to have been constructed during the six- Woodland or Mississippian period mounds or teenth century or later, and do not have clear evi- Cherokee townhouses. Of the remaining sites, dence of an underlying platform mound. can be identified conclusively as containing However, it should be noted that additional Woodland or Mississippian period mounds or archaeological research may reveal evidence for Cherokee townhouses. An additional sites rep- earlier construction stages at some of these sites. resent possible mound and/or townhouse This group includes the Andrews Mound locations, but further archival and archaeological (CE) on the Valley River, the Spikebuck research will be necessary to verify their status. Mound (CY) on the Hiwassee River, the Cul- The discussion that follows provides a brief lowhee Mound (JK) in the Tuckasegee River description of archaeologically confirmed drainage, the Cowee (MA), Watauga Mississippian period platform mound and Cher- (MA), and Coweeta Creek (MA) okee townhouse locations in the study area. mounds along the Little Tennessee River, and the Table provides summary information for Birdtown Mound (SW) on the Oconaluftee these sites. The project also produced new infor- River. Archaeological and historical evidence for mation about archaeologically confirmed each of the mounds and townhouses is summar- Woodland period mounds, but they are not ized below.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
TABLE .SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR SITES DISCUSSED IN TEXT. Name State site Artifacts and L (m) W (m) H (m) Ceramic References number architectural features phases Andrews CE Large mound ... Qualla Coe (), Mound generally considered Wainwright to have represented a (a:) Cherokee townhouse. Qualla ceramics and glass trade beads found near mound Birdtown SW Recovered artifacts ... Qualla Greene include glass beads, (:), Qualla and Pisgah Thomas phase ceramics (:), (mostly Qualla), and a Ward (:) razor. This is likely a Cherokee townhouse Cowee MA Historically recorded ... Qualla Bartram () Cherokee townhouse Coweeta MA At least six stages of ... Qualla Rodning () Creek Cherokee townhouse construction. Early, Middle, and Late Qualla ceramics Cullowhee JK Probable townhouse Qualla Keel () mound leveled in . Artifacts recovered during destruction include Qualla phase ceramics Garden HW Stone mantle at base ... Pisgah, Dickens Creek of mound. Likely some (:–), Mound represents an Qualla Keel (:– earthlodge replaced ) by platform mound Jasper Allen JK Multiple fill zones and ... Pisgah, Osborne (), layers of “burned some Thomas clay,” pottery, Qualla (:) charcoal, ash, burial with conch shell and human head effigy bottle Kituwah SW Cherokee townhouse ... Qualla, Riggs and identified with Pisgah Shumate geophysical survey; (:–), cedar posts, beads, Thomas pottery, and Qualla (:) phase ceramics recovered by Valentines
Continued
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE
TABLE .CONTINUED. Name State site Artifacts and L (m) W (m) H (m) Ceramic References number architectural features phases Nikwasi MA Historically recorded ... Qualla, Tormey () Cherokee townhouse Pisgah built atop Mississippian period platform mound Notley CE Large stone structure ... Qualla, Steere in center of mound, Pisgah, (:–), overlain by Lamar, Turbyfill () subsequent Etowah construction stage. Pisgah and Qualla phase ceramics recovered from mound fill. Turbyfill records burials, complete ceramic vessels, pipes, copper ear ornaments, and a conch shell containing the remains of an infant Nununyi SW Mostly Qualla and ... Qualla, Dickens some Pisgah phase Pisgah (:), ceramics recovered by Greene Valentines. Stone (:–), mantle at base of Thomas mound. Burned (:) structure and burials in mound Peachtree CE Three mound stages: a ... Qualla, Setzler and primary stage Pisgah Jennings including a stone and (:) wood structure (possibly an earth lodge), overlain with two subsequent construction stages. Pisgah and Qualla phase ceramics in mound fill Spikebuck CY Qualla phase ceramics ... Qualla Eastman (), and European trade Stout (), goods recovered in Thomas excavations near (:) mound Swanannoa Unassigned Piled stone core or ... Unknown Thomas mantle covered in (:) charcoal and dark will. Projectile points near base
Continued
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
TABLE .CONTINUED. Name State site Artifacts and L (m) W (m) H (m) Ceramic References number architectural features phases Watauga MA Historically recorded ... Qualla Bartram (), Cherokee townhouse. Benyshek Qualla phase ceramics (), Steere (:–)
THE PEACHTREE MOUND (CE) In , our survey team carried out topo- According to Setzler and Jennings (:– graphic mapping and a limited shovel test survey ), the Peachtree Mound contained a primary in the habitation area surrounding the Notley mound with a rectangular structure made of Mound. A low mound remnant measuring stones covered by at least two later construction -×- m at the base and approximately m episodes. The mound measured . m( ft) high is still present at CE, despite the long high and -×- m(-×- ft) at its base history of excavation and landscape modification when it was excavated in the early s (Setzler at the site. Landowners indicate that Turbyfill and Jennings :). Dickens (:–) and his crew piled the mound fill from their exca- suggests that the stone structure at Peachtree was vation back in the original location of the mound, similar to the stone mantle found in the Pisgah and that this new “mound” was leveled with a bull- phase Garden Creek Mound , and may have rep- dozer in the s. Shovel tests excavated near the resented the remains of an earthlodge. Dickens mound remnant reveal a complex stratigraphy also notes that while only a few Pisgah phase that appears to include mound fill and midden sherds can be identified in the plates of Setzler which have been excavated, redeposited, and and Jennings report, most of the ceramic collec- plowed. This fill is underlain by more uniform tions associated with the mound excavations can strata which may contain intact cultural features be assigned to the Dallas and Pisgah phases. (Steere :–). A preliminary analysis of The Peachtree Mound served as a platform for the ceramics recovered from the shovel the townhouse at Hiwassee, one of the most tests suggests that CE contains Late Wood- important eighteenth-century Cherokee Valley land, Early Mississippian, Middle Mississippian, Towns (Duncan and Riggs :; Riggs and Late Mississippian occupations represented :). While the Smithsonian excavation at by Napier, Etowah, Pisgah, Savannah, Lamar, Peachtree did not produce a clear map of the his- and Qualla phase ceramics. toric Cherokee townhouse, a profile drawing of the mound showing several distinct floors above “ ” THE NIKWASI MOUND ( MA ) the primary mound and the quantity of Euro- The Nikwasi Mound, located in downtown pean trade goods discovered in the mound Franklin, North Carolina, on the west side of the suggests the presence of a Cherokee townhouse Little Tennessee River, marks the site of the (Setzler and Jennings : , plates and ). eighteenth-century Cherokee town of Nikwasi (Dickens ; McRae ). The townhouse on top of the mound was used by Col. James THE NOTLEY MOUND (CE) Grant as a field hospital during his campaign According the Turbyfill’s() account, the against the Middle Towns (McRae :). Notley Mound was . m( ft) high and In the late nineteenth century, Thomas measured -×- m(-×- ft) at the base (:) described the Nikwasi Mound as when he and a small crew completely excavated “one of the largest and best preserved in the State it. Like the Peachtree and Garden Creek mounds, and on the site of the Old Nikwasi (Nequassee) the Notley Mound contained a square structure settlement.” In , Mooney sought permission made of stones, as well as artifact and burial to excavate the mound but was denied access, associations consistent with Mississippian period and the mound was not excavated by the Smithso- construction and use, including Pisgah phase jars nian (McRae :). Thus, unlike most of the which were eventually curated at the Heye large mounds in western North Carolina, Museum (Keel ). Nikwasi has never been the subject of antiquarian
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE or professional excavations. There is no indication found in association with Level H burials in that representatives of the Valentine Museum dug Mound A at Toqua and with burials in the into the mound. The only professional excavation Dallas Mound (Koerner et al. :–; known to have taken place at Nikwasi is a single Lewis et al. ). Koerner et al. extrapolate the -×- ft test pit excavated by UNC archaeologists use dates for Level H of the Toqua Mound as A. in to investigate damage caused by the place- D. – (:), and AMS dates for ment of a drainage ditch north of the mound the Dallas phase in eastern Tennessee fall in the (Davis et al. :). late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries (Sulli- A ground penetrating radar survey of the mound van ). summit by Western Carolina University geologist A human effigy head bottle from the Bell Field Blair Tormey suggests that the lower portion of site (MU) on the Coosawattee River in north- the mound is buried in – moffloodplain sedi- west Georgia is also nearly identical to the vessel ment and fill (Tormey ). Tormey’s study from the Jasper Allen Mound and the Dallas also revealed evidence for multiple construction phase effigy vessel illustrated in Polhemus’s stages and a dense cluster of objects near the report (:, figure .). Hally () surface of the mound that may represent a town- dates the pottery collection from the mound at house (Tormey :–). These findings Bell Field to the late fourteenth- and early fifteenth- support the interpretation of Nikwasi as a century Savannah phase. In sum, the effigy bottle mound originally constructed during the Missis- and other ceramic artifacts in the Jasper Allen col- sippian period, and then used as the base for an lection suggest a Pisgah or Qualla phase occu- historic Cherokee townhouse. pation, perhaps dating to the late fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries (see Davis et al. :, THE JASPER ALLEN MOUND ). Osborne completely excavated the Jasper Allen Records of land sales on file at the Jackson Mound for the Valentine Museum in December, County register of deeds indicate that between , and until now, its location has not been and ,D.J.(“Jasper”) Allen bought known. In a letter to B. B. Valentine describing and sold hundreds of acres of land on Scott’s the mound exploration, Osborne writes that the Creek. Most of his holdings appear to have been mound is located on “Scots Creek miles north situated north and east of Sylva and west and of Webster,” on the farm of Jasper Allen. south of the confluence of Scott’s Creek and Thomas (:) places the mound “on Carson’s Branch. The descriptions provided by Scott’s Creek, between the railroad and the Osborne and Mooney and the available land creek, about miles north of Sylva.” records indicate that Jasper Allen’s farm was Osborne’s narrative includes general infor- located on the north side of Scott’s Creek near mation about the characteristics and contents of the confluence with Allen’s Branch. Descendants the mound. He states that he and a crew of five of Jasper Allen interviewed by the principal inves- workers excavated a trench ft (. m) long tigator confirmed this location. Archaeological and – ft (.– m) deep, ft (. m) from the survey on the north bank of Scott’s Creek revealed center of the mound, probably on the southeast that most of the terrain in the probable location of side of the mound. They encountered “different the mound has been cut, filled, and graded for layers of earth and clays, and some burnt clay as commercial development. A very small (ca. we found in the McCombs Mound,” and also -×- m) site with Qualla phase and other uni- pottery, charcoal, ash, and decayed bone dentified grit-tempered ceramics (JK)was (Osborne ). Several days into their exca- identified in this location during the survey vation, Osborne and his crew encountered a (Steere :). Site JK may represent a burial containing a conch shell and a painted portion of a much larger occupation late prehisto- effigy bottle with images of four human heads. ric occupation area associated with the Jasper The human head effigy bottle recovered from the Allen Mound. mound (curated at the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina) THE KITUWAH MOUND bears a strong resemblance to similar bottles The Kituwah Mound is located on the west side recovered from Dallas phase contexts in eastern of the Tuckasegee River, approximately . km Tennessee (e.g., Polhemus :, figure west of the confluence with the Oconaluftee .). It is nearly identical to similar vessels River. According to Cherokee oral tradition, the
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND mound marks the center of the first Cherokee town was largely abandoned after (Greene village, and the ancestral home of the Cherokee :). people (Duncan and Riggs :–). Decades Edward Valentine dug three trenches into the of plowing have reduced the mound’s height to Nununyi Mound in , and discovered the approximately . m (Riggs and Shumate burned floor of a structure covering graves :). Records from the Valentine excavations (Greene :). In their usual fashion, the indicate the mound was . m tall in the s. Valentines damaged the mound, but seem to Hiram Wilburn mapped and photographed the have left the village area intact. Dickens Kituwah Mound in , and at that time the (:) examined the field records and artifacts mound was . m high, with a diameter of from the Valentine expedition at the Nununyi approximately m. Mound, and suggested that at least one stage of According to Thomas (:), representa- the mound was built during the Mississippian tives of the Valentine Museum dug into Kituwah period. According to Dickens (:), the in the s. A series of letters written in Valentines encountered a pile of stones at the base between historian Barbara Creel of Bryson City of the mound (superficially similar to the one at and Virginia Gee of the Valentine Museum indi- the Peachtree Mound). Dickens also notes that cates that the Valentine excavation uncovered a of the ceramic sherds collected by red cedar post and four graves, interred with Edward Valentine from the Nununyi Mound their heads pointed toward the post. The Valen- may date to the Pisgah phase (Dickens :). tines removed these burials, along with beads, This figure is noteworthy, although it should be pottery, pipes, and other materials (Valentine remembered that the Valentines’ collections were et al. ). not systematic, and the high percentage of Pisgah Archaeological survey and testing conducted at phase sherds may represent collector bias. The Kituwah Mound and the surrounding village presence of Pisgah phase ceramics and the stone make it one of the better understood mounds in core suggest that mound was first constructed western North Carolina (Riggs and Shumate during the Mississippian period. ). In , a shovel test survey defined the Wilburn mapped and photographed the limits of the site and identified archaeological com- Nununyi Mound in . He indicates that the ponents, and a geophysical survey refined mound was ft (. m) in diameter and – our understanding of the site structure and the ft (.–. m) tall at the time. In , when nature of the mound (Riggs and Shumate ). construction began for the “Cherokee Wonder- There is evidence for Early Archaic through his- land” amusement park, the village area east of toric period occupation at the site. The geophysi- the mound was badly damaged by grading and cal survey reveals that despite decades of the excavation of a canal. In , a drainage plowing, there is still evidence for a ca. m diam- ditch was dug just east of the mound. Archaeolo- eter townhouse with an intact central hearth at the gists from the University of North Carolina col- base of the mound, and a fourteenth- to lected artifacts from this ditch and recorded the eighteenth-century Qualla phase plaza and stratigraphy (Ward :). village near the mound (Riggs and Shumate In , Lance Greene carried out archaeologi- :–). According to Riggs and Shumate cal testing on the . acre Crowe property south (:), “the townhouse stage or stages indi- and east of the mound. Greene (:–) col- cated by gradiometry likely represents a temple lected artifacts from a garden plot just south of the destroyed at the midpoint of the uselife of the base of the mound, dug shovel tests at m inter- mound, probably in the fifteenth or sixteenth vals over the entire property, except the mound, century.” and excavated several -×- m square test units. He concluded that the heaviest occupation of the THE NUNUNYI MOUND Crowe property dated to what he defined at the This mound is located on the east bank of the time as the “early Qualla phase (A.D. – Oconaluftee River, just below its confluence with ).” the Raven Fork River. Bartram (:) referred to the site as Nuanha during his GARDEN CREEK MOUND visit to the region. The site appears on the The Mississippian period mound at the Garden Hunter map and the Kitchin map as Newni Creek site is perhaps the best-documented (Ward :). Historical documents suggest the example of a Pisgah phase mound in western
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE
North Carolina. The mound measured approxi- early twentieth-century records from the Bureau mately m east-west and m north-south, of American Ethnology provide the only historical with a height of m when it was excavated in and archaeological documentation for this the s (Dickens :). In his reconstruction mound. of the mound construction sequence, Dickens (:–) argues that the mound began as THE ANDREWS MOUND two earth lodges placed side-by-side and con- This large mound was located on the east bank nected by entry trenches, with an adjacent rec- of the Valley River in Andrews, North Carolina. tangular structure. After the earth lodges began A National Historic Landmark application to deteriorate, they were surrounded by a layer authored by Joffre Coe, on file at the North Caro- of boulders. The boulders were then covered lina Office of State Archaeology, indicates that the with midden soil from the village, almost to the mound was mostly intact in . An inn was con- tops of the earth lodges. It appears that construc- structed on top of the mound in the first half of the tion of a building began on this surface but col- nineteenth century. This construction damaged the lapsed, and more fill was brought in to create a mound but probably prevented it from being com- level platform. Two structures, a palisade, and pletely demolished. Coe () suggested that the burials were placed on this surface. Qualla cer- mound represented a Cherokee townhouse con- amics were found around the mound during exca- structed and used from approximately A.D. vations. Dickens (:) suggests that a Qualla –. During a visit to the site in , phase townhouse, destroyed by plowing, may R. D. Wainwright reported finding glass trade have been built above this Pisgah phase surface, beads, lithics, and pottery in a field near the but this speculation has never been confirmed. mound (Steere et al. :). He estimated that the mound measured . ft (. m) long by THE SWANNANOA MOUND . ft (. m) wide and ft (. m) high, The Swannanoa Mound was recorded and exca- and suggested that the mound was . m taller vated in the late s by archaeologist J.W. before it was leveled for the construction of the Emmert (Thomas :), but the site has inn (Steere et al. :). The site was listed on never been relocated. James Mooney places this the National Register of Historic Places in , mound on the north bank of the Swannanoa but the mound was bulldozed by the landowner River, approximately . km southeast of Ashe- in to build a shopping center. ville on the U.S.G.S. ’ series Asheville quad map. This area has been heavily modified THE SPIKEBUCK MOUND by grading for residential and commercial Located in Hayesville, near the confluence of development. Town Creek and the Hiwassee River, this mound Thomas (:) indicates that the mound is thought to represent the remains of the town- measured ft (. m) in diameter and ft house for the eighteenth-century Cherokee Valley (. m) high, and was located less than m town of Quanassee, a prominent settlement with from the river. Emmert apparently excavated a a British factorage (Duncan and Riggs trench into the mound, revealing a core of piled :–). Thomas (:) recorded stone, about ft (. m) in diameter and ft the site as, “a large mound on McClure farm, (. m) high. The stone pile was covered in char- near Hayesville, on southwest bank of Hiwassee coal and charred wood and then covered in dark River,” but it was not excavated by the Smithso- fill. There is no other discussion of stratigraphy, nian. Today the mound measures approximately suggesting the dark fill represents a single building m in diameter and . m in height. episode. Thomas claims the piled stone was not The Spikebuck Mound and the associated Cher- placed in any particular order. No graves were okee town have been the focus of professional reported, and a few projectile points were collected archaeological research since the s. Western from the trench. Carolina University conducted small-scale exca- Based on Thomas’s description of a piled stone vations at the site from to , and again core at the base of the mound, Dickens under the direction of Anne Rogers, Jane Brown, (:–) suggested that the Swannanoa and Jane Eastman (Eastman ; Ward and Mound may have been constructed during the Davis :). The village site appears to have Mississippian period. The Swannanoa Mound been occupied from the sixteenth to the eighteenth has never been relocated; the late nineteenth- and century, based on the appearance of Middle to
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Late Qualla ceramics and European trade goods ground.” The Cowee Mound is located on top of (Stout ). a prominent hill overlooking the Little Tennessee River, which helps account for Bartram’s descrip- THE CULLOWHEE OR ROGERS MOUND tion of the townhouse’s height. This mound was located on the west side of the Hiram Wilburn visited the Cowee Mound in Tuckasegee River, on the campus of Western Car- and produced a map and two photographs olina University. Thomas (:), citing of the site. He indicates that the mound measured Mooney as the reporter, describes JK as a ft (. m) in diameter and ft (. m) high “mound on the east side of Cullowhee River, just at the time. Based on Bartram’s description and above its junction with the Tuckasegee,” and indi- Wilburn’s measurements, it seems likely that the cates that the mound was excavated by the Valen- mound at Cowee represents a Cherokee town- tines. Mooney accurately places the mound in its house with several construction stages, and known location on his annotated U.S.G.S. perhaps also the remains of a Mississippian ′ series Cowee quad map. In an “account of period platform mound. the opening of the Jasper Allen Mound,” addressed to B. B. Valentine and dated December THE WATAUGA MOUND , , A. J. Osborne provides a brief descrip- A low townhouse mound marks the site of the tion of the exploration of Cullowhee Mound, Cherokee town of Watauga, a settlement visited and indicates that he and his crew found “two or by Bartram during his travels through western three pots” in the mound. North Carolina in (Bartram :– A few photographs and maps were made of ). For decades, MA was considered to be JK prior to its destruction in . Wilburn the location of the Watauga Mound. According mapped and photographed the mound in , to a North Carolina Archaeological Survey Form and indicated that it was only “ foot high.” In a dated to , MA, located on the west side one-page report entitled, “Destruction of the of the Little Tennessee River south of Porter’s Mound at Cullowhee, N.C.,” on file at Western Dam, was reported by a local resident to have Carolina University, Keel () indicates that been excavated by the Smithsonian “forty or the mound was destroyed to build recreational more years ago.” The site form places the grounds south of the mound. Features containing Watauga Mound on a low ridge overlooking the pottery and bone were exposed as the mound river and characterizes the mound as “well was leveled. The Research Laboratories of Archae- flattened,” and “ feet in diameter.” ology of the University of North Carolina main- Cultural resource management surveys suggest tain ceramics from the Valentine excavation and that MA is a more likely location for the a small surface collection that Keel salvaged from Watauga Mound. This site is also located on a a pit at the bottom of the mound during a site hill on the west side of the Little Tennessee visit after the mound was destroyed. These collec- River, but lies north and west of MA. Like tions primarily contain Qualla phase ceramics the Cowee Mound, which is located on a natural (Davis et al. :). The low height of the topographic rise, the townhouse at Watauga mound and presence of Qualla ceramics suggest would have been elevated well above the sur- it was a Cherokee townhouse. rounding floodplain. In a survey of a possible site for a new THE COWEE MOUND school in the Iotla community, Joy (:) Cowee was a Cherokee town famously docu- noted that local residents have long known of a mented by William Bartram during his visit to mound at MA, and that the location of the North Carolina in . According to Bartram, site more closely matches descriptions in historic an artificial mound at Cowee served as a platform maps. Joy and her crew identified a possible town- for a townhouse. Bartram (:) writes, “the house mound at MA and performed shovel council or town-house is a large rotunda, capable testing at m intervals over the . ha project of accommodating several hundred people; it area north and west of MA. According to stands on the top of an ancient artificial mount Joy (:), “of these shovel tests, (. of earth, of about twenty feet perpendicular, and percent) yielded prehistoric ceramics and lithics the rotunda on the top of it being above thirty that are indicative of an historic (A.D. – feet more, gives the whole fabric an elevation of ) Cherokee village. Artifacts are predomi- about sixty feet from the common surface of the nately Qualla ceramics.” Such an assemblage
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE would be consistent with a village area associated and graves (Rodning and Moore ) from the with the mound. site, making it one of the best understood and pub- While surveying a nearby property in , licized sites in western North Carolina. archaeologist Tasha Benyshek also identified the possible mound at MA (Benyshek ). In THE BIRDTOWN MOUND , Benyshek and a team of volunteers made a This mound (SW) and its associated village topographic map of the mound and carried out area (SW) are located on the north side of a limited program of systematic shovel testing on the Oconaluftee River near the confluence with a m grid around the mound. A total of Goose Creek, in the Nick Bottom floodplain. The shovel tests were excavated. Benyshek’s map indi- site was excavated by the Valentines, who noted cates that the mound is currently . m in height that the mound was -×- ft (.-×-. m) and m in diameter. Her initial survey efforts in diameter and ft (. m) high at the time of produced positive shovel tests in a roughly their dig (Greene :). Thomas (:) m radius around the north, east, and west notes that the mound was “nearly obliterated” by sides of the mound. the Valentines. The Valentine excavation pro- Benyshek’s fieldwork revealed that the area in duced glass beads, a razor, stone and clay artifacts, the immediate vicinity of the mound has been and five graves (Ward :). This supports the deeply plowed. Ceramics recovered near the interpretation of the mound as a Cherokee mound were primarily very small body sherds, townhouse. and in one shovel test the plow zone was cm In , Lance Greene carried out a systematic deep (Tasha Benyshek, personal communication surface collection and excavated three -×- m ). The only clearly diagnostic sherds recov- square test units just south of the Birdtown ered included one Pisgah style rim sherd and a Mound. The surface collections primarily pro- few complicated stamped body sherds that likely duced Qualla series ceramics (Greene ). date to the Qualla period. While Pisgah and Connestee series ceramics have In , our research team re-established Beny- been found at the site, it appears that the Qualla shek’s grid. We excavated additional shovel occupation was the most substantial (Greene tests on a systematic m grid east and west of :; Ward :). Despite the history of the mound. Forty-one of shovel tests excavated previous excavations and landscape modification in the site area during the survey produced prehis- at Birdtown Mound, investigations indicate that toric artifacts. As in the case of Benyshek’s survey, much of the mound and village site are still the density of artifacts recovered from shovel tests intact (Epenshade ; Green ). around the mound was low but consistent. Small Four additional locations in western North Car- Qualla phase body sherds were the most olina contain possible archaeological evidence for common artifact type recovered, consistent with townhouses. There are unconfirmed accounts of a the pattern observed by Benyshek during her looted mound at the site of the Western North survey (Steere :–). Carolina Regional Airport in Andrews, North Carolina (Steere et al. :). James Mooney THE COWEETA CREEK MOUND reported possible mound sites on Sweetwater The Coweeta Creek site is located on the west Creek, in Robbinsville, North Carolina, and near bank of the Little Tennessee River, south of a train depot in Bryson City, North Carolina, Hickory Knoll Creek. The mound at the both of which may have represented townhouses Coweeta Creek site represents at least six succes- (Thomas :, ). Finally, a cursory refer- sive stages of a large Cherokee townhouse dating ence in a Valentine Museum artifact catalogue from the s to the early s (Rodning suggests that agents of the museum may have :). The site was extensively excavated by excavated a mound or townhouse in the general the University of North Carolina from to vicinity of the eighteenth-century Cherokee town as part of the Cherokee Project (Rodning of Stecoe (JK) near Whittier, North Carolina :). The low mound was the focal point of (Valentine et al. ). a townhouse and plaza complex surrounded by domestic structures (Rodning , ). DISCUSSION Rodning has analyzed and interpreted the cer- amics (), architecture and community plan Given the preliminary nature of this study and the (, ; Sullivan and Rodning , ), lack of good chronological information for many
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND of the mound sites, few archaeological interpret- – km, that towns making up a chiefdom ations will be offered here. The primary aim of were generally situated along a river floodplain this study is to organize, synthesize, and report for a distance up to km from the mound old and new information and lay the groundwork center, and that polities were separated by an for future research. Archaeological components unpopulated buffer zone measuring between have only been assigned to the confirmed and km (Hally :–). In a follow-up mounds and townhouses, and in some cases study using least-cost-pathways in place of these designations are tentative and based on straight-line distances, Livingood (:) limited data (e.g., reports from antiquarian exca- found that most contemporary mound centers vations). However, a few key points merit discus- within the same polity in northern Georgia were sion, even at this early stage of the project. separated by no more than four hours in travel As Figure shows, platform mounds that time, and that competing centers were located appear to date to the Mississippian period were more than a hour walk away from one another. evenly distributed across the study area in four At the moment, the lack of accurate dating pre- spatial groupings, with one or two mound sites cludes identifying the platform mound sites within each in the Pigeon, Tuckaseegee, Little Tennessee, each of the four spatial groupings as contemporary and Hiwassee River drainages. One mound group or not contemporary. For example, it is unclear to may be represented by the Pisgah phase mound at what extent, if at all, the Mississippian period con- Garden Creek (and perhaps the poorly understood struction and occupation of the mounds at Swannanoa Mound). A second may be rep- Kituwah, Nununyi, and Jasper Allen overlap. resented by the Nununyi, Kituwah, and Jasper Nor do we know if there were contemporary poli- Allen mounds in the Oconluftee and Tuckaseegee ties centered on the Notley and Nikwasi mounds. drainages. The Nikwasi Mound and the Dillard As a result, it is not currently possible to use geo- Mound in Dillard, Georgia (see Elliot ), graphic or travel time distances separating located on the Little Tennessee River, are km mound sites to identify polities. However, apart, and may represent a third group. Finally, Hally’s() model can be used to develop the Peachtree and Notley mounds, located on future research. tributaries of the Hiwassee River, are located Do any of the individual Mississippian period km apart and could represent a fourth group. platform mound sites in western North Carolina This distribution is consistent with very general represent primary and secondary centers in a hier- expectations for Mississippian period settlement archical, politically centralized polity, or do indi- patterns and is broadly similar to the pattern of vidual mounds represent individual polities? mound placement in nearby northern Georgia Given the lack of multiple mound sites, the rela- (see Anderson ; Hally , ; Smith tively great distances separating mound sites in , ). Given this pattern of distribution, each of the four groupings (as much as – Hally’s(, ) model for territorial size of km), and the mountainous terrain, which would Mississippian polities may serve as a useful frame- increase the travel time between mound centers, work for understanding political and social organ- the latter scenario seems more plausible. These ization in the region. This model, developed in alternative models can be tested as we gain a northern Georgia, has been applied fruitfully else- better understanding of the timing of occupation where to improve our understanding of the Missis- at each of these sites through additional analyses sippian world (e.g., Meyers [] on nearby of available ceramic collections from mound sites. towns in eastern Tennessee). Even if Hally’s While we lack a fine-scale understanding of the model is not a perfect fit for western North Caro- occupation of the Mississippian period platform lina, it serves as a useful tool for analyzing settle- mounds in the region, there is a clear shift in settle- ment patterns at a regional scale. ment pattern associated with the transition from Hally (:) used ceramic dating and mound platform mounds to townhouses. Figure shows stratigraphy to reconstruct the geography and the distribution of confirmed and possible Chero- timing of mound construction and occupation in kee townhouses. Based on historic records, we northern Georgia during the Mississippian know that the current archaeological sample of period. Based on the assumption that Mississip- eighteenth-century Cherokee townhouses is pian platform mound sites serve as the capitals incomplete. However, even this fragmentary of polities, Hally found that the minimum distance dataset suggests that townhouses were much separating neighboring, competing centers was more closely spaced than Mississippian period
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE
FIGURE . Confirmed and Probable Mississippian Period Platform Mounds. platform mounds, and that there were many more century Cherokee. The Peachtree and Notley of them. We know from historic records that in mounds are located in the territory that would many cases townhouses less than km apart become the Valley Towns, the Nunuyi, Kituwah, served as centers for contemporary Cherokee and Jasper Allen mounds are located in the Out towns (Boulware ; Gragson and Bolstad Towns territory, and the Nikwasi and Dillard ). This general change in the spacing of mounds roughly mark the northern and southern central places may represent archaeological evi- boundaries of the Middle Towns territory. If dence for a shift away from more hierarchical, pol- these platform mounds represent the presence of itically centralized, multi-community polities in earlier, Mississippian period polities, then from a the sixteenth century and the rise of more auton- regional, long-term perspective, it would appear omous, independent, and egalitarian communities that the eighteenth-century Cherokee Valley, by the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centu- Middle, and Out towns are built “on top” of ries. Gaining a better understanding of the Late former Mississippian period polities, much in the Mississippian period chronology for the region same way that Cherokee townhouses are thought will help us gain a more nuanced understanding to have been constructed on the summits of Missis- of this shift. sippian period platform mounds at the Peachtree, Another pattern that merits further exploration Nikwasi, Dillard, and Nununyi mounds. The pat- emerges when the locations of Mississippian terns observed here may provide regional-scale period platform mounds and Cherokee town- archaeological support for the construction of houses are compared. Three of the spatial group- Cherokee identity as a process of “emplacement,” ings of Mississippian period platform mounds by which “a community attaches itself to a particu- are located in the territories that would become lar place through formal settlement plans, archi- the well-defined town groups of the eighteenth- tecture, burials, and other material additions to
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
FIGURE . Archaeologically Identified Cherokee Townhouses in the Study Area. the landscape” (Rodning :). For historic something done to, not with, or for, indigenous period Cherokee societies, locations marked by groups (Watkins :–). This project is Mississippian platform mounds may have been designed to use the tools of archaeology to give an important part of the cultural landscape, and something back to the Cherokee community, and may have served as anchors for their groups of to serve as a catalyst for an increasingly collabora- towns. It is also noteworthy that two historically tive and engaged archaeology in the Cherokee recorded eighteenth-century Cherokee town- heartland. houses, those at Cowee and Watauga, were built The database from this project will serve as a on natural elevations high above the floodplain. monitoring tool for the Cherokee THPO. Mound This may represent an attempt to use natural fea- and town sites, even those that have been badly tures to recreate the process of building town- disturbed, have a high probability of containing houses on top of platform mounds. graves. With updated status and location infor- In addition to providing important new archae- mation for these sites, many of which are currently ological information about the Cherokee heart- “lost,” the THPO staff will be better equipped to land, this project can serve as an example for carry out their stewardship responsibility. positive collaborative research between archaeolo- Furthermore, the results of this project expand gists and indigenous communities in the service of our understanding of the historical geography of native interests (sensu Riggs ). A major cri- the Cherokee landscape. In presentations to Cher- tique of archaeological research, and one that okee audiences at public events, the staff of the still applies today, even after the passage of the Cherokee THPO and I have observed that most Native American Graves Protection and Repatria- members of the Cherokee community are inti- tion Act (NAGPRA) is that archaeology is mately familiar with the location and the
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE meaning of important sites on the Qualla Bound- and traditions. Some mounds and townhouses ary; sites like Kituwah, Nununyi, and Birdtown that were damaged by plowing, development, mounds. However, members of the Eastern Band and antiquarian explorations may still be partially are probably not as familiar with the names, intact, and are still important places on the land- locations, and histories of important mound and scape. For archaeologists and stewards of Chero- town sites outside the Qualla Boundary, especially kee heritage alike, putting these places back on those mounds that were leveled by late nineteenth- the map is important work. century expeditions. This narrower view of Cher- okee historical geography is at once the result of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the violence and land cessions of centuries past and of the destruction of important places by This research was supported by a National Science Foun- development. dation award DEB- from the Long Term Ecological Research Program to the Coweeta LTER Program at the Uni- We have already begun to use the information fi generated by this project for public outreach versity of Georgia. Any opinions, ndings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the efforts in the Cherokee community. In addition authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the to presenting the findings of this project in scho- National Science Foundation or the University of Georgia. larly publications and professional conferences, This research was also supported by grants and in-kind the staff of the THPO and I have presented the support from the Cherokee Preservation Foundation, the results of our work at a community club meetings Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of in Cherokee and in other public venues, such as Cherokee Indians, the Duke Energy Foundation, TRC libraries and community centers in neighboring Environmental Corporation, and the University of West Georgia. This project was developed in close cooperation counties. We have shared the initial results of with the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern our work with member of the Eastern Band at Band of Cherokee Indians, and I would like to thank the newly organized Cherokee Archaeology Sym- Russell Townsend, Brian Burgess, Tyler Howe, Yolanda Sau- posium in , , and . This public nooke, Miranda Panther, Beau Carroll, and Johi Griffin for archaeology event, organized by the THPO and their role in designing and supporting the research, public out- held annually on the Qualla Boundary, provides reach, and preservation efforts of the Western North Carolina ’ an opportunity for archaeologists working in Mounds and Towns Project. Russell Townsend s support and guidance were especially important. I also thank John Cham- western North Carolina to share their work with blee and Ted Gragson at the Coweeta Long Term Ecological members of the Cherokee community. Research Program at the University of Georgia and Tasha At these public events, members of the Cherokee Benyshek and Paul Webb of TRC for their support of this community provide us with informal feedback and research. John Kesler of TRC helped direct and complete suggestions for future research in question and the fieldwork in western North Carolina and, as always, his answer sessions after our presentations. Themes skill and good humor made even the wettest, coldest days in the field productive. The following individuals helped with that emerge in these discussions with Cherokee fi community members include a concern with pre- the archival and eld research for this project, and provided fi useful leads and insight: Linda Hall, Susan Myers, John serving mound and town sites (and speci cally, Mintz, Steve Claggett, and Dolores Hall of the North Caro- the graves they contain), and a desire to use lina Office of State Archaeology, John McDade and Erik archaeology as a tool for understanding Cherokee Kreusch of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, culture and identity. These discussions will inform T. J. Holland, Cultural Resources Manager for the EBCI, future investigations of mounds and townhouses Rodney Snedeker and Scott Ashcraft of the U. S. Forest in western North Carolina, and are laying the Service, Lorie Hansen of the Western North Carolina Rock groundwork for more formal community engage- Art Project, Heather Olson, Mandy Terkhorn, Michael Nelson, and Erin Grantham of TRC, Chris Rodning of ment and collaborative research in the years to Tulane, Steve Davis, Vin Steponaitis, and Brett Riggs of the come. Research Laboratories of Archaeology of the University of North Carolina, Jason Love and Carol Harper of the CWT LTER, David Hally and Mark Williams of the University of CONCLUSION Georgia, David Moore of Warren Wilson College, and Jane By relocating and studying poorly understood Eastman, Anne Rogers, and Tom Belt of Western Carolina mound and town sites, we can create a broader University. Joelle Freeman, a graduate assistant for the Coweeta LTER, helped me build the GIS layers for this reconstruction of the Cherokee world before project and was instrumental in the project to georeference contact and removal. Mounds are a physical con- the James Mooney maps. David Hally helped analyze the cer- nection to Cherokee cultural identity, material amics from the survey of CE. Jon Marcoux generously reminders of past and present Cherokee lifeways provided artifact photographs and documents related to the
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Notley Mound. Tasha Benyshek, Chris Rodning, Paul Webb, Beck, Robin A., Jr. David Hally, Maureen Meyers, and one anonymous reviewer Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Variability read and commented on earlier versions of this paper; their in the Mississippian Southeast. American Antiquity insightful feedback greatly improved this article. Any errors ():–. herein are the responsibility of the author. Benyshek, Tasha Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for Bridge No. on SR Over Rocky Branch, NOTES Macon County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to the North Between June and August , , the project director Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. traveled to the following locations to carry out archival Benyshek, Tasha, Paul A. Webb, Mandy Terkhorn, and research and interviews: the Tribal Historic Preservation Amanda Tickner Office (THPO) in Cherokee, the North Carolina Office of Archaeological Investigations at SWS on the State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh and the western EBCI Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Tract, branch of the OSA in Asheville, the North Carolina State Swain County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. Archives in Raleigh, the Research Laboratories of Archae- TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. ology at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC Submitted to the North Carolina Office of State RLA), Western Carolina University (WCU) in Cullowhee, Archaeology, Raleigh. the archives of the National Park Service at the Great Boulware, Tyler Smoky Mountains National Park visitors center in Gatlin- Deconstructing the Cherokee Nation: Town, Region, burg, Tennessee, the Franklin Press in Franklin, the North and Nation among Eighteenth-Century Cherokees. Carolina Rooms of the Buncombe, Henderson, and University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Haywood County libraries, the office of the register of Carroll, Beau Duke deeds in Buncombe, Henderson, and Jackson County, Indigenous Archaeology Practice in the Eastern Band and the Main Library and the Map Library at the Univer- of Cherokee Indians. Horizon and Tradition: The sity of Georgia. The results from the archival research for Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeology Society this project are discussed in detail in reports of preliminary ():–. research for the Western North Carolina Mound and Coe, Joffre Towns Project (Steere , ). Background research National Register of Historic Places Nomination also was conducted using Geographic Information Form for the Andrews Mound (CE). Form on file, Systems (GIS) available publically through county land Research Laboratories at the University of North record websites and other sources, such as the North Car- Carolina, Chapel Hill. olina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) website Cooper, Andrea and the North Carolina State University GIS clearinghouse. Embracing Archaeology. American Archaeology LIDAR data available through the NCDOT website were :–. especially useful for identifying and assessing possible Cowell-Chapthaphonh, Chip, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy mound locations. Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. Nicholas, Joe E. Surface collections of ceramics and other artifacts from sites Watkins, and Larry J. Zimmerman BN, CE, CE, CE, CE, CY, The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology. GH, HW, JK, MA, MA, MA, American Antiquity ():–. SW, SW, and SW were examined at the Croes, Dale R. Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University Courage and Thoughtful Scholarship = Indigenous of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. At the time of writing, all Archaeology Partnerships. American Antiquity artifacts collected during fieldwork for the Western North ():–. Carolina Mounds and Towns Projects are curated at the Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., Patricia M. Lambert, Vincas P. Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Laboratory of Archaeology at the Steponaitis, Clark Spencer Larsen, and H. Traywick Ward University of West Georgia. An Abbreviated NAGPRA Inventory of the North Carolina Archaeological Collection. Report on file, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, The University REFERENCES CITED of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dickens, Roy S., Jr. Anderson, David G. The Route of Rutherford’s Expedition against the The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in North Carolina Cherokees. Southern Indian Studies the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama :–. Press, Tuscaloosa. Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman Appalachian Summit Region. The University of Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: Tennessee Press, Knoxville. From Colonization to Complexity. The SAA Press, The Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Appalachian Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Summit Area: The Pisgah and Qualla Phases. In Bartram, William Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. The Travels of William Bartram. Dover, New York. Smith, pp. –. Academic Press, New York.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE
An Evolutionary-Ecological Interpretation of Hally, David J., and Robert C. Mainfort Cherokee Cultural Development. In The Conference on Prehistory of the Eastern Interior After B.C. In Cherokee Prehistory, assembled by David G. Moore, Southeast, edited by R. D. Fogelson, pp. –. pp. –. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. , Carolina. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Duncan, Barbara R., and Brett H. Riggs Institution, Washington, D.C. Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. The University Heye, George C. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Eastman, Jane Carolina. Contributions from the Museum of the Of Pots and Pits: Exploring Cherokee Foodways. American Indian, Heye Foundation ():–. Paper presented at the th Annual Meeting of the Holden, Patricia P. Southeastern Archaeology Conference, Baton Rouge, An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, Louisiana. North Carolina. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Egloff, Brian J. Department of Anthropology, University of North An Analysis of Ceramics from Historic Cherokee Carolina, Chapel Hill. Towns. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Hudson, Charles M. Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Elliot, Daniel T. Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms. University of Colburn’s Excavation of the Dillard Mound (a.k. Georgia Press, Athens. a. J. J. Greenwood Mound), Rabun County, Georgia. Joy, Deborah LAMAR Institute Research Publication . LAMAR Letter Report of Archaeological Investigations on the Institute, Athens, Georgia. Gibson and Roper Tracts in Macon County, NC. Report Epenshade, Christopher on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Intensive Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Raleigh. Proposed Birdtown Recreation Facilities Qualla Keel, Bennie C. Boundary, Swain County, North Carolina. Report sub- Destruction of the Mound at Cullowhee, NC. mitted to the North Carolina Office of State Manuscript on file, Research Laboratories at the Archaeology, Raleigh. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Fenneman, Nevin M. Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Physiography of Eastern United States. Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. McGraw-Hill, New York. North Carolina Archaeology in Historical Finger, John R. Perspective. In Histories of Southeastern Archaeology, The Eastern Band of Cherokee, –. edited by Shannon Tushingham, Jane Hill, and Charles University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. H. McNutt, pp. –. The University of Alabama Gragson, Ted L., and Paul V. Bolstad Press, Tuscaloosa. A Local Analysis of Early-Eighteenth-Century Kimball, Larry R., Thomas R. Whyte, and Gary D. Crites. Cherokee Settlement. Social Science History ():– The Biltmore Mound and Hopewellian Mound Use in . the Southern Appalachians. Southeastern Archaeology Greene, Lance K. :–. An Archaeological Survey of the Qualla Boundary in Biltmore Mound and the Appalachian Summit Swain and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Museum Hopewell. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Cherokee Indian, Cherokee. Report submitted to of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward The Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. R. Henry, pp. –. University of Florida Press, The Archaeology and History of the Cherokee Out Gainesville. Towns. University of South Carolina, South Carolina King, Adam Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Volumes in Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. Historical Archaeology , Columbia. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Hally, David J. Knight, Vernon James, Jr. Platform-Mound Construction and the Instability of Mound Excavations at Moundville: Architecture, Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Elites and Social Order. University of Alabama Press, Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, Tuscaloosa. edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. –. University of Florida Koerner, Shannon D., Lynne P. Sullivan, and Bob R. Braly Press, Gainesville. A Reassessment of the Chronology of Mound A at The Nature of Mississippian Regional Systems. In Toqua. Southeastern Archaeology ():–. Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of Lewis, Madeline D. Kneberg, Alice S. Hendrick, and Lynne P. the Southeastern Indians, edited by Thomas J. Sullivan Pluckhahn and Robbie Ethridge, pp. –. University Pottery Industry. In The Prehistory of the of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, edited by Thomas King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian M. N. Lewis and Madeline D. Kneberg Lewis, compiled Town in Northwestern Georgia. University of Alabama and edited by Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. – ( vols.). Press, Tuscaloosa. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Livingood, Patrick Sw, Sw, Sw, and Sw. Report No Crows Made Mounds: Do Cost-Distance prepared for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Calculations of Travel Time Improve Our Cultural Resources Program. Manuscript on file, North Understanding of Southern Appalachian Polity Size? In Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Rodning, Christopher B. Archaeological Case Studies, edited by Devin White The Townhouse at Coweeta Creek. Southeastern and Sarah-Surface Evans, pp. –. University of Archaeology ():–. Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Temporal Variation in Qualla Pottery at Coweeta McRae, Barbara Creek. North Carolina Archaeology :–. Franklin’s Ancient Mound: Myth & History of Old Mounds, Myths, and Cherokee Townhouses in Nikwasi, Franklin, North Carolina. Terestia Press, Southwestern North Carolina. American Antiquity Franklin, North Carolina. ():–. Meyers, Maureen Architectural Symbolism and Cherokee Townhouses. Leadership at the Edge. In Leadership and Polity in Southeastern Archaeology ():–. Mississippian Society. In Leadership and Polity in the Rodning, Christopher B., and David G. Moore Mississippian World, edited by Brian M. Butler and South Appalachian Mississippian and Protohistoric Paul D. Welch, pp. –. CAI Occasional Paper. Mortuary Practices in Southwestern North Carolina. No. , Carbondale, Illinois. Southeastern Archaeology ():–. Mooney, James Rudolph, James L. Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of Earthlodges and Platforms: Changing Public the Bureau of American Ethnology, –, Pt. . Architecture in the Southeastern U.S. Southeastern Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Archaeology :–. Moore, David G. Schroedl, Gerald F. The Pisgah Phase: Cultural Continuity in the Mississippian Towns in the Eastern Tennessee Valley. Appalachian Summit? In The Conference on Cherokee In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for Prehistory, assembled by David G. Moore, pp. –. an Architectural Grammar, edited by R. Barry Lewis and Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina. Charles Stout, pp. –. University of Alabama Press, North Carolina Department of Administration Tuscaloosa. Eastern Band of Cherokee. Electronic document. http Cherokee Archaeology since the s. In ://www.doa.nc.gov/cia/tribes.aspx#C. Accessed June , Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited by . Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. Prezzano, pp. –. Osborne, A. J. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Letter to B. B. Valentine regarding the Cullowhee and Schroedl, Gerald F., C. Clifford Boyd, Jr., and R. P. Stephen Jasper Allen mounds. Letter on file, Research Laboratories Davis at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Explaining Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee. Pauketat, Timothy R. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge Smith, pp. –. University of Alabama Press, University Press, Cambridge. Tuscaloosa. Putnam, F. W. Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings Seventeenth Report. Reports of the Peabody Museum Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, of American Archaeology and Ethnology :–. North Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Polhemus, Richard R. . Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Smith, Betty Anderson Town. University of Tennessee Department of Distribution of Eighteenth-Century Cherokee Anthropology Report of Investigations No. , Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. – Anthropology No. . Tennessee Valley Authority, . University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Knoxville. Smith, Bruce D. (editor) Riggs, Brett Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, Removal Period Cherokee Households in New York. Southwestern North Carolina (–). Report on Smith, Bruce D. (editor) file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Raleigh. Eastern North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, In the Service of Native Interests: Archaeology for, of, Washington, D.C. and by Cherokee People. In Southern Indians and Steere, Benjamin A. Anthropologists: Culture, Politics, and Identity, edited Preliminary Results of Archival Research for the by Lisa J. Lefler and Frederic W. Gleach, pp. –. Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project: University of Georgia Press, Athens. Documentary Evidence for Known and Potential Riggs, Brett H., and M. Scott Shumate Mound Sites in Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Archaeological Testing at Kituwah. Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Investigations at Sites Sw, Sw, Sw, Swain, and Transylvania Counties, North Carolina.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – STEERE
Report on file, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal American Anthropological Association, Washington, Historic Preservation Office, Cherokee. D.C. The Western North Carolina Mounds and Thomas, Cyrus Towns Project: Results of – Archival Catalogue of Prehistoric Works East of the Rocky Research and Field Investigations in Buncombe, Mountains. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin . Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Jackson, Macon, Madison, Swain, and Transylvania Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Counties, North Carolina. Report on file, Eastern Band American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Bureau of Ethnology, –. Smithsonian Office, Cherokee. Institution, Washington, D.C. Collaborative Archaeology as a Tool for Preserving Tormey, Blair Sacred Sites in the Cherokee Heartland. In Indigenous Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey of Nikwasi Revival and Sacred Sites Conservation, edited by Mound, Franklin, NC. Report on file, Western Carolina Fausto Sarmiento and Sarah Hitchner. Berghahn Book, University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. New York (in press). Turbyfill, Charles O. Steere, Benjamin A., Paul A. Webb, and Bruce S. Idol Work Done in Western North Carolina During the A ‘New’ Account of Mound and Village Sites in Summer of . Manuscript on file, Archives of the Western North Carolina: The Travels of Captain National Museum of the American Indian, R. D. Wainwright. North Carolina Archaeology :– Washington, D.C. . United States Army Stout, Andy – Notebooks of Reconnaissances and Surveys in A Piece of Cherokee History: The Conservancy Signs the Cherokee Nation, –. U.S. Corps of an Option for a Significant Cherokee Town Site. Topographical Engineers, Cartographic Records, U.S. American Archaeology ():–. National Archives, College Park, Maryland. Sullivan, Lynne P. Valentine, G. G., B. B. Valentine, and E. P. Valentine The Mouse Creek Phase Household. Southeastern Catalogue of Objects. In The Valentine Museum Archaeology ():–. [Museum handbook]. Richmond, Virginia. Manuscript Mississippian Household and Community on file, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, The Organization in Eastern Tennessee. In Mississippian University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Wainwright, Robert D. Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. –. University of A Summer’s Archaeological Research. The Archaeological Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Bulletin ():–. Dating the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in a A Summer’s Archaeological Research. The Eastern Tennessee. In Southeastern Ceremonial Archaeological Bulletin ():–. Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by b A Summer’s Archaeological Research. The Adam King, pp. –. University of Alabama Press, Archaeological Bulletin ():–. Tuscaloosa. Wallace, Kevin a Archaeological Time Constructs and the Slim-Shin’s Monument. The New Yorker November Construction of the Hiwassee Island Mound. In TVA , :–. Archaeology: Seventy-five Years of Prehistoric Site Ward, H. Trawick Research, edited by Erin Pritchard, pp. –. Archaeological Remains on the Qualla Boundary. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Report on file, The Research Laboratories of b Deposing the Chiefdom Model “Monster-God”. Archaeology, The University of North Carolina, Native South :–. Chapel Hill. Sullivan, Lynne P., and Shannon D. Koerner Ward, H. Traywick, and R. P. Stephen Davis New Perspectives on Late Woodland Architecture Time Before History: The Archaeology of North and Settlement in Eastern Tennessee: Evidence from the Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel DeArmond Site (RE). Tennessee Archaeology Hill. ():–. Watkins, Joe Sullivan, Lynne P., and Christopher B. Rodning Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values Gender, Tradition, and Social Negotiation in and Scientific Practice. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Southern Appalachian Chiefdoms. In The Archaeology Wilcox, Michael of Historical Processes: Agency and Tradition The Pueblo Revolt and the Mythology of Conquest: Before and After Columbus, edited by Timothy R. An Indigenous Archaeology of Contact. University of Pauketat, pp. –. University Press of Florida, California Press, Berkeley. Gainesville. Saving Indigenous Peoples from Ourselves: Separate Residential Burial, Gender Roles, and Political but Equal Archaeology is Not Scientific Archaeology. Development in Late Prehistoric and Early Cherokee American Antiquity ():–. Cultures of the Southern Appalachians. In Residential Wright, Alice P. Burial: A Multi-Regional Exploration, edited by Ron Under the Mound: The Early Life History of the Adams and Stacie King, pp. –.APA Series, Garden Creek Mound No. Site. In Early and Middle
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND
Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice History, Monumentality, and Interaction in the P. Wright and Edward R. Henry, pp. –. Appalachian Summit Middle Woodland. American University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Antiquity ():–.
NOTE ON CONTRIBUTOR
Correspondence to: Benjamin A. Steere, Department of Anthropology, GA McKee, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC , USA. Email: [email protected].
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –