ABSTRACT This project considers the development of the cultural landscape of Native American chiefdoms in the Yazoo Basin of northwestern Mississippi. Chronicles written by certain members of the Hernando de Soto expedition offer exciting glimpses into the landscape and lifeways of Native American societies in 1541, but they do not shed light on how the landscape of chiefdoms in the Lower Mississippi Valley developed during the period before Spanish contact. This dissertation research focuses on the time period just before Spanish contact, the Mississippi Period (AD 1200-1540), and on Mississippian culture, and it investigates how monuments were built and used in a rapidly changing and dynamic landscape, one in which the meandering and flooding Mississippi river affected the long-term formation of social and political networks. This research relies on environmental, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data to provide a historically contingent description of the processes leading to the development of one of the largest and most important archaeological sites in the region. Sediment cores excavated in mound and off- mound contexts suggest the site was constructed over a crevasse splay, a high-elevation landform. Both coring data and trench excavation demonstrate that Mound D, the largest mound at Carson, was built in four stages and that stages II and III were the largest stages. Excavations on Mound D demonstrate that a moderately large-sized structure was once constructed on the southwest corner of the mound summit and that the structure was used to produce craft goods such as shell beads, shell gorgets, and statuary. Data from mound construction and craft production, as well as ethnohistoric and geomorphic research, are used to describe social organization, hierarchy, and leadership at Carson. © COPYRIGHT BY JAYUR MADHUSUDAN MEHTA, 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I must acknowledge the support and guidance I have received over the years from innumerable friends and colleagues. As archaeologists, we almost never work in isolation, but rather in teams, with groups of students, teachers, friends and mentors. On this brief page, it is nearly impossible to enumerate all of the necessary influences. Know this, for all those who can call me friend, you have been a valuable and unique inspiration in my life. Previous mentors from UNC and Alabama, R.P. Steven Davis and Ian W. Brown deserve special recognition, as both taught me the necessary rigor of the discipline. For that matter, I should acknowledge the many successful graduate students at these respective universities, including Christopher B. Rodning, my current advisor and mentor, who often offered support and guidance when I was much younger. Chris, most memorably, brought a cooler of cold Cokes to the field once, a memory not easily forgotten, and a practice often repeated. Chris has been, in every way possible, an amazing and inspirational leader, a source of confidence and strength during the often murky and challenging waters of graduate school. My achievements, although my own, could never have occurred if not for his unwavering support. Thank you very much Chris! In this same breath, I wish to acknowledge the many Tulane faculty and students who have helped me along the way. My committee, composed of Marcello Canuto, Grant McCall, and Jason Nesbitt, provided insightful comments and strategic advice throughout the research project. With their support, I was able to launch the Carson Mounds Archaeological Project (CMAP) and mount several successful field campaigns into the ii Mississippi Delta. Logistical assistance for this fieldwork was made possible by Dean Rick Marksbury’s support through the Tulane Summer School. I also wish to thank Zhixiong Shen and the Earth and Environmental Sciences department for their valuable guidance and training in optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). The Carson Mounds Archaeological Project was made possible by financial and technical assistance from the following institutions: the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, the Center for the Study of the Gulf South, the Tulane School of Liberal Arts, the Louisiana Board of Regents, and the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia. Two wonderful individuals deserve special recognition: John Connaway and Rachel Stout Evans, the former my teacher in Mississippi archaeology, and the latter in its soils and geomorphology. They are both great mentors and dear friends, and Mississippi archaeology would not be the same without them. John and Rachel have not only made fieldwork in the Delta a true pleasure, but they have also provided me with invaluable skillsets that have contributed to my successes. Thank you! A few select individuals I would like to thank are: David Abbott, Charlotte Pevny, Richard Marksbury and the Tulane Summer School, Jessica Crawford, George Lowery, the Archaeological Conservancy, the Griot Youth Program, Quapaw Canoe Company and John Ruskey, Carnegie Public Library (Clarksdale, MS) and Sarah Ruskey, Ben Davis, Michael Krause, John Marshak, Jordan Krummel, Liz Ellis, Meg Kassabaum, Benny and Gena Roberts, Bobby Rawlinson, Scotty Meredith, Bryan Haley, Pamela Edwards Lieb, and Jay K. Johnson. iii Finally, I want to thank my dear wife, Haley Holt Mehta, and my supportive parents. With a ferocious tenacity I may never know, my parents moved to the United States, amid a foreign culture and language, and forged a new life for themselves and for their children. I have often asked myself if I would be brave enough to do the same thing. Thank you Mom and Dad for your inspiration and guidance! And now, Haley, thank you too! For keeping me going during all of those late nights writing and for all of those days when Excel just didn’t make any sense. You are amazing! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xi Chapter 1 The Study of Monuments 1 Theoretical Problem Orientation 5 Organization of the Dissertation 16 Chapter 2 Ethnohistory of the Lower Mississippi Valley and the Yazoo Basin 17 Quiz Quiz 21 Arkansas: Casqui and Pacaha 24 Quiqualtam 26 Vegetation and Landscapes of the Soto Entrada 30 Historically Documented Cultural Groups 32 Summarizing the Ethnohistoric Literature 39 Chapter 3 Archaeology of the Yazoo Basin and the Mississippian Southeast 44 v Archaeology of the LMV 45 Archaeology of the Northern Yazoo Basin 50 Concluding Thoughts on Monuments in the Yazoo Basin 72 The Carson Site (22CO505) - Previous Research 74 The Carson Site (22CO505) - Recent Investigations 90 Chapter 4 Geoarchaeology and Environmental Setting 94 The Lower Mississippi Valley 99 The Yazoo Basin 108 Carson – local landforms and soils map, coring data. 113 Surface Soils 119 Mounds A, C, and D; Sediment Coring Data and Buried Soils 126 Mound A 128 Mound C 133 Mound D 140 Summary of Geoarchaeology and Soils at Carson 149 Chapter 5 Mound Stratigraphy and Construction History 153 vi Description of Excavation Units 156 Trench 1 158 Trench 2 172 Trench 3 185 Trench Excavation Summary and Interpretations 192 Radiocarbon Dating and Mound Construction 199 Summary and Conclusions 204 Chapter 6 Introduction to the Mound D Summit 207 Excavation Methods 209 Investigations of Deposits on the Mound D Summit 210 Shovel Testing 210 Geophysical Survey 215 GPR Anomaly Unit (TU23) 216 Mound Summit Construction Sequence 224 Test Unit 21 224 Mound Summit Architecture - Structures 1.1 – 1.4 231 Test Units 8-20, 22 234 vii Structure Floor, Postmolds and Wall Trenches 254 Pit 1 Tu22 263 Structure 1.1 Dimensions 272 Structure 1.1 Conclusions 282 Chapter 7 Reconstructing Activities on the Mound D Summit 291 Group-oriented and Individualizing Modes of Power 295 Scales of Craft Production 300 Archaeological Perspectives on Power 312 Mound D Excavations, Stratigraphy and Summit Architecture 315 Crafting on the Mound D Summit 319 Summary 337 Chapter 8 341 Concluding Thoughts Biography of Author 429 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Mound Volume Determinations for the Carson Mound Site Using Blitz and Livingood 2004, Payne 1994 Methods 83 Table 3.2 Mound Volume Determinations for the Carson Mounds Site Using Truncated Cone and Square Formulas 83 Table 3.3 Mound Volume Determinations for the Carson Site Calculated Using ArcGIS 9.2 and 3-D Spatial Analyst 83 Table 3.4. Preliminary Radiocarbon Dates from Mound A Embankment Area 92 Table 4.1 Soil Types at the Carson Site (after USDA NRCS Soil Series). 117 Table 4.2 Soil Cores and Depths of Crevasse or Flood Sands 125 Table 5.1 Sediments in North Profile of Mound D Trench 1 162 Table 5.2 Trench 1 Pottery by Paste Type 170 Table 5.3 Decorated Pottery from Mound D Trench 1 170 Table 5.4 Radiocarbon Dates from Trench 1 170 Table 5.5 Sediments from the East Profile of Mound D Trench 2 176 Table 5.6 Artifacts from Mound D Trench 3 187 Table 5.7 Sediment Types Found in Trench 3 188 Table 5.8 Counts of paste types and lithic artifacts from excavation trenches. 196 Table 5.9 Radiocarbon Dates from Carson 201 ix Table 6.1 Artifacts from Shovel Tests on the Mound D summit 213 Table 6.2 Artifacts from TU 23, GPR Anomaly unit. Sorted by level 220 Table 6.3 Paste Types from Summit Test Units 8-20, 22 235 Table 6.4 Decorated Pottery from Summit Test Units 8-20, 22 238 Table 6.5 Vessel Shapes from Summit Excavation Test Units 241 Table 6.6 Tabulation of Lithic Artifacts 241 Table 6.7 Counts and Weights of Daub from Structure 1.1 – 1.4 245 Table 6.8 Radiocarbon Dates from Carson 265 Table 6.9 Dimensions and Area of Mississippian Structures 276 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Location of the Carson site. 7 Figure 2.1 Mound A enclosure at the Carson site.