A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississippi Valley Pottery

In Situ

Issue 1 In Situ 2016 Article 7

5-14-2016

Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississippi Valley Pottery

Zhenia Bemko University of Pennsylvania

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/insitu/vol5/iss1/7 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississippi Valley Pottery

This article is available in In Situ: https://repository.upenn.edu/insitu/vol5/iss1/7 Bemko: Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississi ty of Pennsylvania under the supervision of Dr. Time and Place at Smith Creek: Meg Kassabaum. Due the expert assistance of Sheridan Small, Ashely Terry, Arielle Person, Alex A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississippi King, Zhenia Bemko and Dr. Kassabaum’s Intro Valley Pottery to Archeology classes the lab work was completed in short order. Under the dedicated, careful Zhenia Bemko and watchful eye of Dr. Kassabaum much of the ceramic analysis and rim drawing is currently be- Abstract: ing completed through the assistance of Zhenia The Smith Creek Archeological Project offered Bemko, Alex King and Arielle Person. a perfect opportunity to study prehistoric Native Introduction: Americans. This particular mound site is located in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, and what Site is known from preliminary excavations is that the site was primarily occupied during the Coles The site is located roughly fourteen miles west of Creek period, roughly 700-1200 AD. It is also Woodville, Mississippi, where route 24 runs right known that this was a time of great transforma- through it. Smith Creek (22Wk526), named for tion in the prehistoric American South. According the small river that also runs through the site, is to scholar Ian Brown (1973), it is important to about four miles northeast of the Mississippi Riv- analyze undecorated sherds as well as decorat- er, which acts as one of the borders to Louisiana. ed because, “the combination of the period and The site was chosen because of previous inves- phase marker percentages tells the archeologist tigations led by the University of North Carolina what was occurring in the overall period.” Be- at Chapel Hill, during the Mississippi Mound Trail cause this project endeavors to strengthen and and the need for further information. extend current knowledge regarding this period I hope to add what knowledge and assistance I The site consists of three pre-historic Indian can. As a result, I have spent much time under mounds with a large plaza nestled in the center. the guidance of Dr. Meg Kassabaum, along with Mound A is roughly 10 m tall, located to west, YDULRXV¿QGLQJDLGVDQGSXEOLFDWLRQVDQDO\]LQJ and was damaged by construction of route 24 in the diagnostic or decorated pottery sherds re- 1960. Mound B is located to the north, surround- trieved during Smith Creek Archeological proj- ed by a moat and a stand of trees. It was exca- HFW¶VPRVWUHFHQW¿HOGVHDVRQ$IWHUGHYHORSLQJD vated in the 1960s by Mr. J Ashely Sibley and the VLPSOHDQDO\WLFDOPRGHOP\SUHOLPLQDU\¿QGLQJV Junior Archeological Society. Mound C is located support the prediction that cultural occupation to the East, and partially eroded by Smith Creek. was continuous despite its dynamic variation. The South Plaza located in the South is thought to have the latest occurrence of inhabitance. Preface and Acknowledgements: (Kassabaum 2014)

During the summer of 2015 from late May to late Excavation and Laboratory Methods June I participated in the Smith Creek Archeolog- ical project. Having mainly focused on Historical Excavations took place, between May 25th and Native American ethnographic material from the June 20th 2015, at three separate locations on Northeast I found myself particularly out of my the site while various surface collections and depth during the expedition. However, I coveted 2DN¿HOGFRUHV JHQHUDOO\PDSSLQJRXWWKH1RUWK ¿HOGVFKRROH[SHULHQFHVR,MXPSHGDWWKHRS- 3OD]D ZHUHXVHGWRÀHVKRXWRXUGDWDVHW7KH portunity to unearth prehistoric materials from the mounds were excavated in 1 x 2 m units and the Lower Mississippi Valley. The abbreviated season Plaza in two adjacent 2 x 2 m units. All digging was completed in 4 weeks, and although quite a was conducted by hand using primarily shovels ELWRIZDVKLQJZDVGRQHLQWKH¿HOGWKHPDMRULW\ and trowels in arbitrary 20 cm levels, however, of the lab work was conducted at the Universi- due previous test excavations on Mound C stu- Published by ScholarlyCommons, 2016 35 1 In Situ, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 7 dents were able to follow two mound surfaces. or collapse of the previous culture, however, they Soils on Mound C and the South Plaza were dry DFNQRZOHGJHLQÀXHQFHVIURPUHJLRQDOH[SUHV- screened through half inch mesh where Mound A sion of subsequent cultures. (Jones 1989, Brown was eventually screened with quarter inch mesh. 1973, Ford 1936, Neuman 1984, Toth 1988) For Midden layers, features and surfaces were water example, the Poverty Point culture is said to have screened through sixteen-inch mesh and several degenerated and collapsed yet the introduc- OLWHUÀRWDWLRQVDPSOHVZHUHWDNHQ DOOFRQVLV- WLRQRILQÀXHQFHVIURPERWKWKH7FKHIXQFWHDQG tent with the Mississippi Mound Trail). Hopewellian cultures imply a level of continuity (Brown 1973). Processing and analysis of recovered materials takes place at the University of Pennsylvania. However, as a result of Hopewellian interactions, July to November 2015 was devoted to material which were known for a great deal of mobility processing, while material analysis is currently and trade, artifacts were transported widely. The being conducted. Also, an array of materials were Marksville culture is simply a southern regional recovered, including decorated and non decorat- expression of the Hopewell culture, represented HGFHUDPLFVERQHIUDJPHQWV¿UHGFOD\VWRQH in very distinctive decorative motifs on pottery. tools and lithics, shells, charcoal and various The Marksville culture is known for its complex concretions. However, for the purposes of this type of sites and characteristic conical mounds. GRFXPHQWVHUYLQJDVDSUHOLPLQDU\FRQ¿UPDWLRQ of site inhabitance, it was prudent to focus pri- But, interactions decreased as agriculture and PDULO\RQFHUDPLFV&ODVVL¿FDWLRQVZHUHEDVHG self reliance increased leading to innovation ush- on the nomenclature created by Phillips (1970) ering in what is known to be a transitional period and elaborated by Williams and Brain (1973) to called Troyville or Baytown. Platform mounds are identify ceramic types and varieties. common during this period. In spite of distinctive ceramic motifs Baytown leads to the Coles Creek Background: ÀRUHVFHQFH

Culture Although, it is thought that the Coles Creek culture was agricultural there is no evidence of such )RUFRQWH[WXDOLQIRUPDWLRQLWLVEHQH¿FLDOWRSUR- at Smith Creek. This period is seen through the vide a brief discussion of characteristics of the widespread use of pyramidal mounds. Whose prehistoric cultures existing during Neo-Indian blending with the Plaquemine culture gave way HUD7KLVHUDFDQEHEURNHQLQWRVL[SHULRGV¿YH the Plaquemine culture. Coles Creek culture of which are thought to be represented at Smith eventually gives way to Plaquemine culture. Creek, seen in Figure 1.1. This knowledge is important because the breakdown of cultural The framework used for ceramic chronology of SHULRGVLQIRUPVSRWWHU\FODVVL¿FDWLRQDQGYLFH the Natchez Bluffs Region, shown in Figure 1.1 versa. First among them was Poverty Point was established by Brown (1998) in concert with which was more socio-politically complex than many other scholars. The basic foundation sug- bands of hunter gatherers as represented by their gests that: earthworks and extensive trade networks. These SHRSOHJUHDWO\XWLOL]HGWKHLUÀRUDDQGIDXQDO >F@ODVVL¿FDWLRQWKDWXVHVWKHW\SHYDULHW\FRQFHSW resources, and relied less on stone tools. During involves a taxonomic approach, wherein classes the Poverty point culture bone objects are rare of whole artifacts are hierarchically arranged and which greatly differs from the Tchefuncte culture. GH¿QH«>W@KHIXQGDPHQWDOFULWHULRQLQWKHIRUPD- tion of types is the “decorative idea” (technique Next the Tchefunte culture, although regarded DQGVW\OH «7KLVKHGJLQJLVDPDWWHURISUDFWL- as less complex than Poverty Point, is recogniz- cality, in order to establish parameters for the able by its proliferation and use of pottery. It’s rather limited range of decorative ideas and the interesting that most sources state that cultural reutilization of certain basic ones through time transitions occur due to a degeneration, decline and space. The underlying consideration, then, in https://repository.upenn.edu/insitu/vol5/iss1/7 36 2 Bemko: Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississi the establishment of types is a certain decorative identity that may also be presumed to demon- strate a reasonable degree of spatial-temporal continuity and thus the dimensions of the same LGHD« :LOOLDPV

This method also relies heavily on Philips’ (1970) work.

Figure 1.1 Chronology

Published by ScholarlyCommons, 2016 37 3 In Situ, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 7 Data:

The chart below depicts the number of decorated Note: because many type-varieties span two or VKHUGVFODVVL¿HGLQWRWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHW\SHYDULHW- more phases the author has proportioned the ies based on the location of their recovery. Also, sherds accordingly. For example, Coles Creek, the totals have been placed with respect to which Incised var. Philips exists in the Hamilton Ridge, phase the type-variety is prevalent in. Using Fig- Sundown and Ballina phases, so one sherd is ure 1.1 allows the reader to better understand the divided and a third of a sherd is listed in each of cultures associated with each type-variety and the phases. phase.

Phase/Type-Variety Mound A Mound C South Plaza Panther Lake 3 Alexander Incised, var. Green Point 2 ůĞǆĂŶĚĞƌWŝŶĐŚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ĂƐƟŶĞĂǇŽƵ 1 Issaquena 46 Alligator Incised, var. Alligator 2 ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ 4 Marksville Stamped, var. Mabin 1 DĂƌŬƐǀŝůůĞ^ƚĂŵƉĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĂŶŶǇ 2 DĂƌŬƐǀŝůůĞ^ƚĂŵƉĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘dƌŽǇǀŝůůĞ 1 Hamilton Ridge 38.331 29.082 51.249 Coles Creek Incised, var. Chase 5 2.25 4.75 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘,ƵŶƚ 21.5 2 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘:ƵĚĚĂǇŽƵ 32 2 Coles Creek Incised, var. Phillips 17.331 7.332 22.999 French Fork Incised, var. Wilzone 1.5 >ĂŶĚŽŶZĞĚŽŶƵī͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ;>ĂŶĚŽŶͿ 22 Larto Red Slipped, var. Larto 1.5 4 4.5 DƵůďĞƌƌǇƌĞĞŬŽƌĚŵĂƌŬĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ĚǁĂƌĚƐ 31 5 DƵůďĞƌƌǇƌĞĞŬŽƌĚŵĂƌŬĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 3310 Woodville Zoned Red, var. Woodville 6 Sundown 80.831 38.332 107.249 Chevalier Stamped, var. Chevalier 3.5 3.5 Coles Creek Incised, var. Campbellsville 2 0.5 1.5 Coles Creek Incised, var. Chase 15 6.75 14.25 Coles Creek Incised, var. Coles Creek 3 0.5 7.75 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘,ƵŶƚ 21.5 2 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘:ƵĚĚĂǇŽƵ 32 2 Coles Creek Incised, var. Phillips 17.331 7.332 22.999 Coles Creek Incised, var. Stoner 5.5 1.5 8 French Fork Incised, var. French Fork 0.5 0.5 1 French Fork Incised, var. Laborde 1 0.25 0.75 French Fork Incised, var. Larkin 2.5 0.5 6 &ƌĞŶĐŚ&ŽƌŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 12 6 French Fork Incised, var. Wilzone 0.5 Larto Red Slipped, var. Larto 1.5 4 4.5 https://repository.upenn.edu/insitu/vol5/iss1/7 38 4 Bemko: Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississi DĂǌŝƋƵĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĂǌŝƋƵĞ 4.5 1 4 DƵůďĞƌƌǇƌĞĞŬŽƌĚŵĂƌŬĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘^ŵŝƚŚƌĞĞŬ 15 7 13 DƵůďĞƌƌǇƌĞĞŬŽƌĚŵĂƌŬĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 3310 Ballina 49.831 16.582 80.499 Chevalier Stamped, var. Chevalier 3.5 3.5 Coles Creek Incised, var. Campbellsville 2 0.5 1.5 Coles Creek Incised, var. Coles Creek 9 1.5 23.25 Coles Creek Incised, var. Phillips 17.331 7.332 22.999 Coles Creek Incised, var. Stoner 5.5 1.5 8 French Fork Incised, var. French Fork 1.5 1.5 3 French Fork Incised, var. Laborde 3 0.75 2.25 French Fork Incised, var. Larkin 2.5 0.5 6 &ƌĞŶĐŚ&ŽƌŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 12 6 DĂǌŝƋƵĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĂǌŝƋƵĞ 4.5 1 4 Balmoral 12 1 94.5 ǀŽǇĞůůĞƐWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘<ĞĂƌŶĞǇ 2 ĂƌƚĞƌŶŐƌĂǀĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘^ŚĞůůůƵī 7 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ůĂŬĞůǇ 16 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘'ƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞ 71 8 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DŽƩ 241 ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ZŚŝŶĞŚĂƌƚ 8 &ƌĞŶĐŚ&ŽƌŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĐEƵƩ 22 DĂǌŝƋƵĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘<ŝŶŐƐWŽŝŶƚ 2 Pontchartrain Checked Stamped, var. Pontchartrain 1 8.5 Gordon 9.5 6.5 111.25 ǀŽǇĞůůĞƐWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵƉƌĞĞ 11 ǀŽǇĞůůĞƐWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘dĂƚƵŵ 2 ŚĞǀĂůŝĞƌ^ƚĂŵƉĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘WĞƌƌǇ 11 1 Coleman Incised, var. Coleman 1 1 4 ŽůĞƐƌĞĞŬ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘,ĂƌĚǇ 321 ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞWƵŶĐƚĂƚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘^ŚĂƌŬĞǇ 6 ,ĂƌƌŝƐŽŶĂǇŽƵ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘,ĂƌƌŝƐŽŶĂǇŽƵ 4 DĂǌŝƋƵĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĂŶĐŚĂĐ 1.5 1.5 5.25 WůĂƋƵĞŵŝŶĞƌƵƐŚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘WůĂƋƵŵŝŶĞ 0.25 0.5 45 WůĂƋƵĞŵŝŶĞƌƵƐŚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 1.75 1.5 13.5 Pontchartrain Checked Stamped, var. Pontchartrain 1 8.5 Anna 6.5 6.5 237.25 Anna Incised, var. Anna 26 ŶŶĂ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂ 7 Anna Incised, var. Evangeline 3 ŶŶĂ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 9 Carter Engraved, var. Carter 9 ĂƌƚĞƌŶŐƌĂǀĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 2 >͛ĞĂƵEŽŝƌĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ĂǇŽƵŽƵƌĚĞ 3 >͛ĞĂƵEŽŝƌĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘>͛ĞĂƵEŽŝƌĞ 3

Published by ScholarlyCommons, 2016 39 5 In Situ, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 7 DĂǌŝƋƵĞ/ŶĐŝƐĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘DĂŶĐŚĂĐ 0.5 0.5 1.75 KůĚdŽǁŶZĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĨĞĚ 1 WůĂƋƵĞŵŝŶĞƌƵƐŚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘WůĂƋƵŵŝŶĞ 0.75 1.5 132 WůĂƋƵĞŵŝŶĞƌƵƐŚĞĚ͕ǀĂƌ͘ƵŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĞĚ 5.25 4.5 40.5

Figure 1.2 Analysis: As a result of an exercise conducted during an independent study of the material, the author created an excel database for data regarding decorated pottery. Figure 1.3 is a linear graph that expresses the frequency of sherds found at each location based on the phase or phases that they are attributable to. The exact number of sherds corresponds to the totals found in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.3 earlier. As in the Mound Trail, Mound B was not targeted for this season. Although, surface collec- Interpretation: tions were retrieved from various locales on the site, including Mound B. I acknowledge that there The data conveyed in Figure 1.3 supports the are many problems with the reliability of sur- initial interpretations drawn during The Mound face collection being accurately representative, Trail. (Kassabaum 2014) The site was used heav- so those results maintain a periphery role. The ily both on and off the mounds. We were unable ¿HOGVFKRROPDQDJHGWRKLWWKHERWWRPRI0RXQG to ascertain any distinct “construction episode” C which suggests mound construction began from the Anna Phase on Mound A. This might be during the Panther Lake phase. However, due to due to the location of our unit on that mound. We the small number of examples found there could placed the unit in a step created by the construc- be any number of reasons for their existence at tion of route 24; therefore, digging did not begin the site. For instance, they may be from an heir- from the top of the mound. There seems to be a loom pot. As with Mound A and the South Plaza peak of construction during the Sundown phase. there seems to be a construction peak occurring $OVRRXU¿HOGVFKRROGLGQRWUHDFKWKHERWWRPRI throughout the Sundown phase. Yet, like Mound Mound A, so initial construction may have oc- A as well, the unit location may have curred during the Issaquena phase or perhaps https://repository.upenn.edu/insitu/vol5/iss1/7 40 6 Bemko: Time and Place at Smith Creek: A Brief Analysis of Lower Mississi effected the occurrence of later type-varieties. Phillips, Philip, 1970. Archaeological Survey in 7KH¿HOGVFKRRODOVRKLWWKHERWWRPRIWKH6RXWK the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi 1949-1955. Plaza. Although, accumulation has occurred Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology over a long period of time there appears to be and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol. 60, parts WZRGLVWLQFWHSLVRGHVRI³KLJKWUDI¿F´LQKDELWDQFH 1 & 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts. once during the Sundown phase and another during the Anna phase. The author acknowledg- Toth, Edwin Ala, 1988. Early Marksville Phases in es that more data needs to be collected in order the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Study of Culture WRFRQ¿GHQWO\GUDZWKHVHFRQFOXVLRQV6RDIWHU Contact Dynamics. Archaeological Report No.21. plain sherds are thoroughly analyzed and drawn Mississippi Department of Archives and History. the next eventual step is to combine stratigraphic Jackson, Mississippi. location with type-varieties and phase thereby determining a possible time frame for when each Wilkinson County Mississippi. Wilkinson Coun- layer of the mounds and plaza was in construc- ty Mississippi. Web. 10 Mar. 2016, http://www. tion and/ or in use. wilkinson.co.ms.gov/Pages/default.aspx.

Works Referenced Williams, Stephen and Jeffrey P. Brain, 1973. Ex- cavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo Coun- Brown, Ian W., 1973. Settlement Patterns in the ty, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of Peabody Bluff Area of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Unpub- Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography 74. lished Honors thesis. Harvard University. Cam- Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. bridge, Massachusetts.

Brown, Ian W., 1978. Decorated Pottery of the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Sorting Manual. Avery Island Conference Document. Lower Mississippi Survey, Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ford, James A., 1936. Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Anthropological Study No. 2., Department of Con- servation, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Jones, Dennis et al. 1989, Cultural Resources Survey of Mile 306.3 to 293.4-R on the Missis- sippi River, Concordia, Pointe Coupee, and West Feliciana Parishes, Louisiana: US Army Corps of Engineers, Museum of Geoscience. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Kassabaum, Megan C., Melton, Mallory A. and Steponaitis, 2014. Mississippi Mound Trail, Southern Region: Phase 2 Investigations. Re- search Labratories of Archeology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Neuman, Robert,1984. An Introduction to Lou- isiana Archaeology. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Published by ScholarlyCommons, 2016 41 7