Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RAISED GROUND, RAZED STRUCTURE: CERAMIC CHRONOLOGY, OCCUPATION AND CHIEFLY AUTHORITY ON MOUND P AT MOUNDVILLE by ERIK STEVEN PORTH JOHN BLITZ, COMMITTEE CHAIR ROBERT CLOUSE JASON DeCARO KATHRYN OTHS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Anthropology in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2011 Copyright Erik Steven Porth 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Mound P is the largest mound on the western plaza periphery at Moundville in west- central Alabama. Excavations on the western mound flank revealed at least two mound construction episodes and a large amount of modern disturbance. Excavations on the mound summit intersected a large burnt daub structure that was previously indicated by a magnetometer survey. Moundville was depopulated around A.D. 1400 and the occupation of mound summits after this time indicates that leadership positions in the region were still important. Mounds were used as symbols of authority that leaders could co-opt to legitimize their position. A ceramic chronology was developed based on the site’s type-variety system for the mound to determine the date of terminal occupation on the summit of the mound. This revealed that the mound was used lightly during the Moundville IV (A.D. 1520-1650) ceramic phase. Other artifacts from the mound suggest that the pigment complex was in use on the summit but a stone manufacturing industry was not. It is suggested that Mound P was occupied late in Moundville’s history but abandoned prior to the Protohistoric period and the Spanish intrusion into the Southeastern United States. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is my honest opinion that I truly would not be in a position to complete this thesis without the support, guidance and help from my advisers, peers, friends and family. This research project would have been impossible without my adviser Dr. John Blitz and the constant advice and input he has had during this process. I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee for the input they have provided to me during this process that only made my thesis stronger: Dr. Robert Clouse, Dr. Jason DeCaro and Dr. Kathryn Oths. In addition to my committee members, I would like to acknowledge and thank other individuals at the University of Alabama, Department of Anthropology that contributed to the completion of this thesis: Dr. Ian Brown, Dr. Keith Jacobi, Dr. Vernon James Knight, Jr., Dr. Lisa LeCount, Dr. Michael Murphy and Dr. Cameron H. Lacquement. I would like to provide a special thank you to Dr. Claire Nanfro Thompson for her guidance and assistance with artifact identification in the laboratory. Also, Dr. Chester Walker provided the magnetometer data for Mound P. I would like to thank Mary Bade, Eugene Futato and Erin Harney of the University of Alabama, Alabama Museum of Natural History for providing access to the Mound P collections and for allowing me to have a space to analyze these materials. The work on Mound P could not have been done without the dedicated work from the staff of OAR and the members of the 2009 fall field school: Jeremy Henning, Robert Kolaczek, Dallas Manning, Tatiana Monroy, Justin Quinley, Jessica Robinson, Joseph Sherrill, Kelley Sommers and Andrew Winston. iii I would like to thank my peers within the Department of Anthropology for their input and constant scholarly deliberation that exercised my cognitive abilities and kept me thinking about the project at hand. Without the advice, support and help from my friends, I could not have gotten by: Jeremy Davis, Daniel LaDu, Paul Eubanks, Andrew Scruggs, Lauren Downs, Francois Dengah and Brooke Persons. Without the mentorship and friendship of other individuals, I would not have set upon this path with the support that only a few people can provide. From this vantage, the following people are as responsible for this project as I am: Dr. Shannon Hodge, Dr. Tanya Peres, Dr. Kevin E. Smith, Dr. Hugh Berryman, Emily Beahm, Jesse Tune, Lynn Funkhouser, Teresa Ingalls, Tom Schegelsberger, John Judkins, and the Schrader family. Finally, I would like to thank my family, Steve, Jan and Ryan Porth. My mother and father’s patient support has provided me with the ability to pursue the career that was right for me. I hope that this project can meet their expectations and make them proud. My brother Ryan helped to keep me in tune to the sports world that we both love dearly, making it possible to have a brief reprieve from work now and again without having to become entirely distracted. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………..………………………..ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………....iii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………….……………………………………….vi LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………iv 1. RAISED GROUND…………………………………………………………………………….1 2. RESEARCH QUESTION, THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND…………………….…………………………………….5 3. MOUND P FLANK AND SUMMIT EXCAVATIONS……………………………………...21 4. ANALYSIS OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS FROM MOUND P………………………….47 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………86 6. RAZED STRUCTURE……………………………………………………………..………..118 REFERENCES CITED………………………………………………………………………....122 APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………………..128 APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………………..149 APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………………………………..159 APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………..161 v LIST OF TABLES 4.1. List of present ceramic types, Mound P……………………………………………………..55 4.2. List of non-vessel ceramic artifacts, Mound P………………………………………………68 4.3. List of projectile points, Mound P………………………………………………….……….74 4.4. List of unmodified stone, Mound P…………………………………………………………79 4.5. List of vertebrates, invertebrate and botanical remains by weight, Mound P…………….…82 4.6. List of modern materials, Mound P…………………………………………………..……..84 5.1. List of ceramic types. Flank Unit 1, Mound P………………………………………...…….88 5.2. List of diagnostic decorative modes and vessel forms. Flank Unit 1, Mound P…………….89 5.3. List of ceramic types. Flank Unit 2, Mound P…………………………………………...….93 5.4. List of diagnostic decorative modes and vessel forms. Flank Unit 2, Mound P…………….93 5.5. List of ceramic types. Summit plowzone, Mound P………………………………….……..94 5.6. List of diagnostic decorative modes and vessel forms. Summit plowzone, Mound P…...….94 5.7. List of flaked lithic. Flank Unit 1, Mound P…………………………………………..…….98 5.8. List of ground lithic. Flank Unit 1, Mound P……………………………………….………98 5.9. List of ground tools. Flank Unit 1, Mound P………………………………………………..98 5.10. List of all modified lithic. Flank Unit 2, Mound P…………………………………...……99 5.11. Summit plowzone and summit feature flaked lithic, Mound P…………………………..100 5.12. List of expedient flaked stone tools. Summit, Mound P……………………………….....101 5.13. Ground stone tools. Summit, Mound P…………………………………...………………101 5.14. List of greenstone, Mound P…………………………………….………………………..104 5.15. Materials recognized as a part of the pigment complex, Mound P………………….……105 vi 5.16. Flank Unit 1, daub by excavation level, Mound P………………………….…………….107 5.17. Flank Unit 2, daub by excavation level, Mound P…………………..……………………107 5.18. Summit, excavated daub, Mound P……………………………………………...……….108 vii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. Map of Moundville in west-central Alabama………………………………………………...2 3.1. Mound P topographic map: (a) 2009 OAR western flank excavations; (b) 2009 summit excavations; (c) 1988 Driskell eastern flank excavations………………...22 3.2. Magnetometer survey data. Summit, Mound P…………………………………………..…26 3.3. Walker’s magnetometer survey interpretation. Summit, Mound P…………………………27 3.4. Natural mound strata. Flank Unit 1, Mound P………………………………………………30 3.5. Flank Unit 1 with excavation levels overlaying natural mound strata, Mound P………...…31 3.6. Natural mound strata. Flank Unit 2, Mound P……………………………………………....36 3.7. Flank Unit 2 with excavation levels overlaying natural mound strata, Mound P…………...37 3.8. Summit Block 1, Mound P……………………………………………………………….…41 4.1. Carthage Incised: (a and d) variety Lupton; (b and e) variety Fosters; (c and f) variety Akron. Multiple proveniences, Mound P…………………………………………....57 4.2. Moundville Engraved; (a-c) variety Hemphill; (d) variety Tuscaloosa. Multiple proveniences, Mound P……………………………………………………………………...59 4.3. Moundville Engraved, variety Jones, short-neck bowl……………………………………..60 4.4. Moundville Engraved, variety Jones…………………………………………………..……61 4.5. Alabama River Appliqué…………………………………………………………………....63 4.6. Decorative ceramic modes: (a, c and e) beaded rim; (b) notched lip; (d) jar handle with nodes; (f) frog effigy feature; (g) scalloped rim; (h and j) white filmed; (i and k) red-on-white filmed. Multiple proveniences, Mound P……………………………………..66 4.7. Ceramic disks: (a-b) burnished; (c, d and f) unburnished; (e) large disk sherd. Multiple proveniences, Mound P…………………………………………………………....69 4.8. Non-vessel ceramic: (a) decorated pendant fragment; (b) burnished pendant fragment; (c) ceramic ornament. Multiple proveniences, Mound P……………………………………69 viii 4.9. Two views of a ceramic pipe bowl fragment: left, exterior view; right, profile and interior view. Mound P………………………………………………………………...……70 4.10. Two views of a cylindrical object: left, exterior with scar on the left; right, interior with scar to the right. Mound P………………………………………………...….70 4.11. Expedient flaked tools, Mound P…………………………………………………..………73 4.12. Projectile points: (a, c, e and g) heat treated Tuscalsoosa gravel chert; (b) quartzite; (d) Bangor chert; (f) blue-grey Fort Payne chert. Multiple proveniences, Mound P………74 4.13. Ground lithic: (a) sandstone