AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF LATE MISSISSIPPIAN TOWNS IN THE ALABAMA RIVER VALLEY THROUGH CERAMIC STYLES by AMANDA LEIGH REGNIER A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2006 Submitted by Amanda Leigh Regnier in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy specializing in Anthropology. Accepted on behalf of the Faculty of the Graduate School by the dissertation committee: _____________________ Ian W. Brown, Ph.D. _____________________ William W. Dressler, Ph.D. _____________________ Keith Jacobi, Ph.D. _____________________ Douglas Jones, Ph.D. _____________________ Vernon James Knight, Jr., Ph.D. Chairperson ____________________ Michael D. Murphy, Ph.D. Department Chairperson _________________________ Date ___________________ David A. Francko, Ph.D. _________________________ Dean of the Graduate School Date ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS After numerous years of research, the list of individuals to whom I am indebted is expansive. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Jim Knight, for support and guidance during all phases of the project, and for his help securing funding and steering me back in the right direction when I went astray. I would also like to thank my committee members, Ian Brown, Bill Dressler, Doug Jones, and Keith Jacobi, for providing advice about statistical techniques,culture theory, ceramic classification, and any other questions I may have had. This dissertation would have never been completed without the help of the faculty and staff of the Department of Anthropology, especially Pam Chesnutt and Michelle Wrenn. During two summers, Pam was integral to my field research by managing all the financial aspects of my grant for field work. I definitely would not be able to graduate without Michelle turning in all of the forms I needed, even when I didn’t know they were due. The fieldwork phase of this research would not have been possible without the permission landowners Herbert and Marian Furman who have demonstrated excellent site stewardship in preserving the Matthew’s Landing site. Bo Phillipi, who leases the land for hunting, also came through by allowing use of his hunting lodge and allowing access to the Dale site. Fu nding for the field project was provided by the Alabama Historical Commission and a University Graduate Student Travel and Research Grant. I was aided in my efforts by a great crew of graduate student assistants, including Alice Ivas, Cameron Lacquement, Bob Scott, and Duane Strelow(and his alter ego Friedrich Wilhelm). Undergraduate field school students who worked hard while facing the quadruple threat of heat, mosquitoes, muddy pasture roads, and wild hogs include Kelli Hamm, Brady Jackson, Mike Steiber, and Karen Walker. Field volunteers who gave their time in return only for ham sandwiches from the Pig include Duke Beasley, John Blitz, Ashley Dumas, Ramie Gougeon, Tom Lewis, and Charles Redwine. The iii undergraduate laboratory assistants, including Mandy Edwards and Susan Olin, scrubbed hundreds of pounds of daub and a few other artifacts with a toothbrush and then analzed most of it in laboratory. Susan also took many of the photographs of the sherds that appear in this dissertation. Finally, Matthew Mirarchi attended the field school, served as a field assistant, worked on all phases of laboratory analysis, and became one of my closest friends in the process. Matt’s help has been invaluable to the project, and he was always willing to do what no one else wanted to do, whether it was picking up dead lizards, birds, and mice, shopping for field supplies and t-shirts at Fred’s, or stopping to drag furniture out of a garbage heap. The analysis of ceramics from other sites would not have been possible without the help of numerous collections managers, including Mary Bade and Eugene Futato of the University of Alabama Office of Archaeological Research, Ksenjia Borojevic of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Nicholas Holmes, Jr. of Mobile, Pat Nietfeld of the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of the American Indian, and Craig Sheldon of Auburn University at Montgomery. Dr. Sheldon also deserves thanks for all the advice he has provided concerning his excavations at Late Mississippian sites. Although we may not always see eye to eye on pottery and peoples, Ned Jenkins also has been an essential resource concerning the ceramic sequence of the Alabama River Valley. I could never have made it to this point without the support of my family and friends. My parents have always supported my studies, even as they wondered if I would ever be done with school. My friends, especially Ashley and Steven, provided support when thinking just got to be too much, and were always willing to escape to the middle of nowhere, whether that was in the Black Belt or Wales. I would like to thank Tom for periodically wandering into my office and listening to me complain. Finally, LB, no matter what happened, I am grateful for your support in the field and at home, and for the many lunches and dinners. iv CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………iii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………...viii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………ix ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………xvii 1. INTRODUCTION..…………………………………………………………………….1 a. Study Design and Theoretical Orientation…………………………………………….11 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND…………………………………………………..16 a. A Summary of Cognitive Anthropology……………………….……………………..18 b. The Background of Cognitive Anthropology……………….………………………..19 c. Cognitive Anthropology and Ceramic Analysis……………………………………...41 3. CULTURE HISTORY OF THE ALABAMA RIVER VALLEY……………………50 a. Late Woodland and Early Mississippian Chronology in the Alabama River Valley...52 b. The Lamar Tradition in the Alabama River Valley……………………………..……60 c. Moundville Occupations in the Alabama River Valley ………………………….…..68 d. The Pensacola Tradition in the Alabama River Valley…………………….………...74 e. Trends in the Prehistory of the Alabama River Valley………………………………80 f. The Hernando de Soto Expedition……………….…………………………………..82 g. The Tristan de Luna Expedition………………….…….……………………………94 4. EXCAVATIONS AT THE MATTHEW’S LANDING SITE……………………...101 a. Site Setting………………..…………………………………………………………102 v b. Matthew’s Landing and the Conquistadors…………………..………….………….104 c. Prior Excavations at Matthew’s Landing..........................…………...……………...105 d. Results from Shovel Testing…………...………..…………………………………..109 e. Test Unit Excavation, 2003 Season……..…………………………………………..114 f. Structure Excavation, 2004 Season………………………………………..………...125 g. Excavation Unit Artifacts…………………………………………………………...129 h. Positioning Matthew’s Landing in Time and Space………………..……………….133 i. Evidence of Spanish Contact………………………………………………………...140 j. Matthew’s Landing: A New Description……………………………………………141 5. SUMMARY OF LATE MISSISSIPPIAN SITES IN THE ALABAMA RIVER VALLEY………..................................................................................................143 a. Bear Creek (1Au7)….……………………………………………………………….143 b. Old Cahawba (1Ds32)………………………………………………………………148 c. Durant Bend (1Ds1)..………………………………………………………………..156 d. Charlotte Thompson Place (1Mt51)…………………………………………………163 e. Thirty Acre Field (1Mt7)..…………..………………………………………………171 f. Big Eddy Field (1Mt5)………………………………………………………………175 g. Kulumi (1Mt3)………………………………………………………………………176 h. Jackson’s Lake (1Ee82)……………………………………………………………..181 i. Summary of Sites…………………………………………………………………….182 6. METHODS AND RESULTS OF CERAMIC ATTRIBUTE STUDY……………..183 a. Attributes Observed on Globular Jar Sherds………………………………………...184 b. Attributes Observed on Bowl Sherds…………...…………………………………...187 vi c. Cluster Analysis………..……………………………………………………………194 d. Correspondence Analysis…………….…………..……………………………….…223 e. Discussion of Cluster Analysis and Correspondence Analysis Results…………..…234 7. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………..…..244 a. Cultural Models of Ceramic Production and the Social Makeup of Towns………...246 b. A Theory of Cultural Models and the Archaeological Record……………………...254 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………257 vii LIST OF TABLES 1. Moundville Political Development and Ceramic Phases……………………………..64 2. Bowl Decoration Cluster Membership by Site…………………………………..….201 3. Bowl Rim Cluster Membership by Site……………………………………………..209 4. Jar Cluster Membership by Site……………………………………………………..217 5. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Bowl Paste………………………………...226 6. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Bowl Incising Motifs……………………...227 7. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Skull Execution Style……………………..230 8. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Bowl Rim Data……………………………231 9. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Jar Paste Data……………………………..233 10. Results of Correspondence Analysis of Jar Rim Data……………………………..234 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Distribution of Misssissippian polities in Alabama during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries AD………………………………………………….2 2. Distribution of major Mississippian cultural traditions discussed in the present study……………………………………..………………………………………..3 3. Location of Etowah-related sites located in the vicinity of present-day Troy…………5 4. Distribution of major Mississippian pottery traditions on sites in the Alabama and Lower Tallapoosa River valleys……………………………………………....6 5. Motifs found on Moundville pottery classified as Carthage Incised…………………..7 6. Example of diverse motifs incised on