Late Period Chronology in the Central Mississippi Valley: a Western Tennessee Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Institutional Database of Staff Publications Tennessee Division of Archaeology Title: Late Period Chronology in the Central Mississippi Valley: A Western Tennessee Perspective. Year: 1996 Name(s): Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. Source: Southeastern Archaeology 15(2):172–181. Division of Archaeology • 1216 Foster Ave. • Cole Bldg #3 • Nashville, TN 37243 Tel: 615-741-1588 • Fax: 615-741-7329 • www.tennessee.gov/environment/section/arch-archaeology REPORTS Late Period Chronology in the Central of variation, particularly in the chronological dimen- Mississippi Valley: A Western Tennessee sion, of our insufficiently specific cultural units such as Nodena" remains largely true today (e.g., O'Brien Perspective 1994, 1995). For example, there is only a single radio- carbon determination for the entire Nodena phase in Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. northeastern Arkansas (Morse 1989; Morse and Morse 1983), five assays for the Kent phase to the south (House 1993), and virtually no radiometrie dates for Abstract. Explaining temporal variation in the late period all of western Tennessee (see below) or northwest (A.D. 1400-1700) archaeological record of the Central Mississippl. Mississippi Valley is a difficult task. Current interpreta- Although a number of specific ceramic vessel forms tions are hampered by a paucity of radiocarbon determi- and decorative motifs, as well as certain lithic arti- nations. Here I present data, both artifactual and radio- facts, are associated consistently with late period oc- metric, from western Tennessee that provide perhaps the cupations in the Central Mississippi Valley (e.g., best currently available contextual and Chronometrie con- Morse 1989; Morse and Morse 1983; Phillips et al. trol for the period of interest in the Central Mississippi 1951; Phillips 1970; Price and Price 1990; Williams Valley. These data, coupled with information published by 1980), more precise dating of sites /components with- other researchers, permit important refinements in late pe- in the Late Mississippian and Protohistoric periods riod temporal segmentation. remains a largely unaccomplished goal. A somewhat arbitrary date of A.D. 1400 is used often to mark the onset of Late Mississippian in the During late prehistoric and protohistoric times Central Mississippi Valley (e.g., Morse 1989). Sites of (A.D. 1400-1700), the Central Mississippi Valley (Fig- this approximate age are identified generally by the ure 1) supported one of the largest concentrations of presence Parkin Punctated and Barton Incised ceram- humans in North America (Morse and Morse 1983; ics, as well as Nodena (willow-leaf) points, although Phillips 1970), and this has attracted intense archae- in the Kent phase area (see Figure 1), Nodena points ological interest in the area since the nineteenth cen- apparently are associated only with post-A.D. 1500 tury (e.g., Holmes 1886; Thomas 1894). In recent contexts (House 1993). In contrast, middle period years, the late period sites of this region have figured Mississippian sites are distinguished by Madison prominently in attempts to reconstruct the route of and /or Scallorn points and a paucity of decorated ce- the de Soto entrada (e.g., Young and Hoffman 1993). ramics (Morse 1993; Morse and Morse 1983; see also Drastic population decline in the wake of de Soto has House 1993). been hypothesized for substantial portions of the Williams (1980) has called attention to a number of study area (e.g., Hoffman 1993; Morse and Morse specific artifact styles and modes that characterize the 1983), although the timing and causes of depopula- latest (protohistoric) aboriginal occupations in the tion remains unclear (e.g., Burnett and Murray 1993). study area (i.e., A.D. 1500-1700), which he refers to Attention has also been devoted to delineating the as the Armorel phase or horizon. These include gad- settlement patterns within several geographically rooned bottles, "teapots," stirrup-necked bottles, ce- separated groups of sites, particularly the Nodena ramic burial urns, compound vessels, vertical appli- and Parkin phases, which are inferred to represent qué fillets (e.g., Campbell Appliqué) and arcaded chiefdoms with hierarchical settlement systems handles on ceramic vessels, Nodena points, small, (Morse 1989; Morse 1981). The ethnic affiliation of snub-nosed endscrapers, and (rarely) European arti- various late period archaeological sites and phases facts. Although Williams's identification of these hall- has also been debated (e.g., Hoffman 1990 and Morse marks represents a major advance in establishing rel- 1990). ative chronology, in the absence of radiometrie dates Unfortunately, broad-scale interpretations of the or stratigraphie evidence, temporal relationships late period archaeological record in the Central Mis- within this complex of artifact types and modes re- sissippi Valley are compromised by the lack of a ro- mains unclear (e.g., Morse 1993), and it seems un- bust chronology. Phillips's (1970:934) statement that likely that all of the Armorel markers appeared at the "we haven't even begun to understand the nuances same time. 172 REPORTS ' r %&% JiOno SharPe V / r '*^ ( 0 1 25 ( ' N* t*$ ' (. 0 1miles ' / 4ca ^%' ' / »40LA7 ♦ J? Sweat JONES JONES ,nNPe ,nNPe 0 ' miles km ca '° / / ' J C¿O^L^'^ / /I J SenPHAcp ♦PHASE J? SenJones Jones Bayou Sweat y KnA2>t Bayou JONES JAVO" KnA2>t I r^ PHAcp PHASE ^ Füllen y [S^ Nodena * ^^ >^V^' V^ Carson Lake • * f&/ ^^/v ' Notqrass • _^ l^Graves Lake x'^/o C /J^^Hatchie _^ V%,, Turnbow«5^ N| Richardson's Landing ^N^ 7« Fortune ß • Wilder TIPTON A PARKIN Neeley'SFerry.V/BartonRanch /fast * PHASE U PHASE Williamson*/ r¿ Parkin Vemon S Paul • ,| * , Jeter ^ LoOsahat^i^>^^^ ^Rose Mound W. rj^ Mound Place f^*? ^Ü^Ü^er ) Young # •J^Vchucalissa S^^-^_-> - v «-.-.i^s "^çs-,1 # •J^Vchucalissa sas ^ v Clay Hill V Davis •. ^ • lrby y^V_ V^ • )ts * Beck u£?r Lake Cormorant ^r^ ^^^ KENT Soudan • .V"5 * A-^Commeroe u£?r ,«^ ^^^ ^ ~^ U PHASE Grant #U r Hollywood ^^ X StarkleO^ r^^-^V J ' 's. #West C V I 1 Sparchman y^y' ^' ' C ^Jr^Salom°n 1 PHASE .vx^>^ ' Figure 1. Late period sites and phases in the Central Mississippi Valley. 173 SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 15(2) Winter 1996 Artifacts that can be associated confidently with of southeast Missouri, much of which lies within the the de Soto entrada are potentially excellent horizon modern Mississippi River meander belt. Major drain- markers, but few Spanish (or French) artifacts have age is provided by the St. Francis River and its trib- been found in the Central Mississippi Valley, preclud- utaries, which roughly parallel the Mississippl. To the ing establishment of a chronology such as that de- east, however, the floodplain is comparatively narrow veloped by Marvin Smith (1987) for the interior and is flanked by an extensive system of loess bluffs, Southeast. This situation is partially reflected in the which provided the setting for several large Missis- somewhat crude chronological scheme used by Ra- sippian towns, although the floodplain was also uti- menofsky (1987) for her Lower Mississippi Valley lized. analysis unit. It goes without saying that Spanish ar- Today the alluvial soils of the Central Mississippi tifacts are not present at all archaeological sites that Valley are highly valued for their agricultural pro- were occupied at the time of de Soto's wanderings, ductivity and archaeological evidence suggests that and while the presence of a Spanish artifact demon- they were also prized by prehistoric farmers. Climate strates post-A.D. 1541 occupation in the study area, within the study area is characterized by hot sum- the lack of recorded Spanish artifacts does not nec- mers and relatively mild winters, with a growing sea- essarily have chronological implications. son of at least 200 days. Prior to clearing and draining Here I present data from western Tennessee that during the last century, the floodplain was covered provide perhaps the best currently available contex- by vast stands of cypress, ash, hackberry, and gum, tual and Chronometrie control for the period of inter- with oak and hickory predominating in the uplands est in the Central Mississippi Valley (Figures 1 and (Fisk 1944; Shelford 1963). 2). Ceramic and lithic artifacts from late period sites in this area are generally quite similar to presumably Sites, Assemblages, and Radiometrie Dates contemporary sites in eastern Arkansas, particularly those assigned to the Nodena phase (Mainfort 1994; Located on the loess bluffs about 10 km south of Morse 1989; Morse and Morse 1983; Williams 1980). downtown Memphis, Tennessee, Chucalissa (a.k.a. Building on the work of the Morses (e.g., Morse and "Fuller" and "Shelby") encompasses a 5-m-tall sub- Morse 1983) and Williams (1980), I use western Ten- structural mound, the remains of a second possible nessee data to develop a refined regional chronology substructural mound /specialized mortuary area, a for the Late Mississippian and Protohistoric periods. well-defined plaza flanked by a ridge of house The discussion that follows relies heavily on artifact mounds, and various residential loci within an area assemblages and radiocarbon determinations from of approximately 6 ha (Figure 2). The site was exca- four sites. Other pertinent sites have not been ig- vated on virtually a yearly basis between 1956 and nored, but as will be seen below, there are few truly 1987, but relatively little has been published on this comparable data sets available in the study area. Im- research (e.g., Nash 1972); a recent monograph by portantly, the key artifact types and vessel forms dis- Lumb and McNutt (1988) and a discussion of the ves- cussed here occur throughout the Central Mississippi sel assemblage by Childress (1992) are welcome con- Valley. tributions. The Tennessee Division of Archaeology The sites illustrated in Figure 2 represent all of the funded a series of radiocarbon determinations that recorded, relatively large Late Mississippian /Proto- provide a much firmer basis for interpreting site chro- historic sites in the Mississippi Delta portion of west- nology than the few dates previously published ern Tennessee.