Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T10:07:31.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remote Sensing Data from Etowah's Mound A: Architecture and the Re-Creation of Mississippian Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam King ,
Chester P. Walker ,
Robert V. Sharp ,
F. Kent Reilly  and
Duncan P. McKinnon
Adam King
Affiliation:
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (aking@sc.edu)
Chester P. Walker
Affiliation:
Archaeo-Geophysical Associates, LLC, Austin, TX 78736 (chetwalker@aga-llc.net)
Robert V. Sharp
Affiliation:
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60603 (rsharp@artic.edu)
F. Kent Reilly
Affiliation:
Center for the Arts and Symbolism of Ancient America, Department of Anthropology, Texas State University at San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666 (k.reilly@txstate.edu)
Duncan P. McKinnon
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AK 72701 (duncanm@uark.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a gradiometer survey conducted on the summit of Etowah's largest mound, Mound A, which stands some 19 m tall. Those results are compared to limited excavation data from the summit of Mound A as well as information from the wider region on mound summit architecture. The gradiometer results reveal the presence of as many as four buildings and an open-ended portico that are arranged around an open space and obscured from view below in the plaza. We argue that decisions about the kinds of buildings constructed and their arrangement reveal the interplay between agency and structure at a point of ambiguity in the history of Etowah. The buildings located on the summit of Mound A were built after the site had been abandoned and reoccupied. With that reoccupation, agents and their followers both connected to local traditions and attempted to reformulate them.

Resumen

Resumen

En los últimos cinco años un equipo de investigación, auspiciado por el Etowah Archaeo-Geophysical Survey, ha realizado estudios de teledetección en el sitio Etowah, gran sitio del periodo misisipiano ubicado al norte del estado de Georgia, EEUU. Este estudio presenta resultados de un reconocimiento por gradiómetro de campo magnético llevado a cabo en la cumbre del montículo A, el más grande del sitio, el cual alcanza unos 19 m de altura. Comparamos estos resultados con datos que provienen de una excavación limitada en la cima, así como con información arquitectónica obtenida de una área más extensa de la cumbre. Los resultados del reconocimiento por gradiómetro de campo magnético revelan la presencia de hasta cuatro edifícios y de un pórtico abierto, distribuídos alrededor de un espacio abierto, todos ocultos a la vista desde laplaza al pie del montículo. Utilizando la teoria de acción, proponemos que las decisiones acerca de cuales tipos de edifícios se construyeron revelan una interacción entre agencia y estructura en un punto histórico de ambigüedad en el desarrollo de Étowah. Los edifícios situados en la cumbre del Montículo A se construyeron después del abandono del sitio y durante una repoblación más tardia. Con esta nueva ocupación agentes y sus adhérentes se asociaban con tradiciones locales a la vez que intentaban reformular tales tradiciones. La aparente interacción entre agencia y tradición en la iconografia, discutida por Cobb y King, se revela también a través de la manipulación de la arquitectura de la parte superior del montículo A.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 355 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Anderson, David G. 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Archer, Margaret S. 2003 Structure, Agency, and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Aspinall, Arnold, Gaffney, Chris, and Schmidt, Armin 2008 Magnetometry for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Blitz, John H., and Livingood, Patrick 2004 Sociopolitical Implications of Mississippian Mound Volume. American Antiquity 69:291–301.Google Scholar
Brown, James A. 2004 The Cahokian Expression: Creating Court and Cult. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 105–123. Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Brown, James A. 2007 On the Identity of the Birdman within Mississippian Period Art and Iconography. In Ancient Objects, Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, pp. 56–106. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Brown, James A., and Kelly, John E. 2000 Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, pp. 469–510. Scientific Papers 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Bruseth, James E., and Pierson, Bill 2004 Magnetometer Survey at the George C. Davis Site (41CE19). Current Archeology in Texas 6(1):7–9.Google Scholar
Cobb, Charles, and King, Adam 2005 Re-Inventing Mississippian Tradition at Etowah. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):167–190.Google Scholar
Coe, Joffre L. 1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Creel, Darrell G., Hudler, Dale, Wilson, Samuel M., Clay Schultz, T., and Walker, Chester P. 2005 A Magnetometer Survey of Caddoan Mounds State Historic Site. Technical Report 51. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Dickens, Roy S. Jr. 1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Dye, David H., and King, Adam 2007 Desecrating the Sacred Ancestor Temples: Chiefly Conflict and Violence in the American Southeast. In North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, edited by Richard J. Chacon and Ruben G. Mendoza, pp. 160–181. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Frederick, Charles, and Abbott, James T. 1992 Magnetic Prospection of Prehistoric Sites in an Alluvial Environment: Examples from NW and West-Central Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(2):139–153.Google Scholar
Gosden, Chris, and Lock, Gary 1998 Prehistoric histories. World Archaeology 30:2–12.Google Scholar
Hally, David J. 1996 Platform Mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 92–127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Hally, David J., and Langford, James B. Jr. 1988 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Valley and Ridge Province. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report 25. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
Hally, David J., and Rudolph, James L. 1986 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report 24. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
Howard, James H. 1968 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and its Interpretation. Memoir 6. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.Google Scholar
Kelly, Arthur R. 1972 The 1970–1972 Field Seasons at Bell Field Mound, Carter’s Dam. Report submitted to the USDI National Park Service, Atlanta.Google Scholar
King, Adam 1995 Steps to the Past: 1994 Archaeological Excavations at Mounds A and B, the Etowah Site (9Brl), Bartow County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.Google Scholar
King, Adam 1996 Tracing Organizational Change in Mississippian Chiefdoms of the Etowah River Valley, Georgia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
King, Adam 2001 Excavations at Mound B, Etowah: 1954–1958. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report Number 37. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
King, Adam 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
King, Adam 2004 Power and the Sacred: Mound C and the Etowah Chiefdom. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 151–166. Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
King, Adam 2007 Mound C and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, pp. 107–133. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2006a Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 205–233. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
King, Adam 2006b Data Processing and Presentation. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 235–250. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Larson, Lewis H. Jr. 2004 The Submound and Mound Architecture and Features of Mound C, Etowah, Bartow County, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeology 23(2):127–141.Google Scholar
Lewis, Thomas M. N. 1995 Architectural Industry. In Thomas M. N. Lewis and Madeline D. Kneberg Lewis, The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, compiled and edited by Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 54–78. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Kneberg, Madeline 1946 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Lindauer, Owen, and Blitz, John H. 1997 Higher Ground: The Archaeology of North American Platform Mounds. Journal of Archaeological Research 5(2):169–207.Google Scholar
McKinnon, Duncan P. 2009 Topographic Mapping and Creation of a Digital Elevation Model of the Etowah Indian Mounds Historic Site (9BR1), Georgia. Report submitted to the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Moorehead, Warren K. 1932 Description of Excavations, Mound C, First Season. In Etowah Papers, edited by W. K. Moorehead, pp. 68–87. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001 A New Tradition in Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agence and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 1–16. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Polhemus, Richard R. 1987 The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town. 2 vols. Report of Investigations, no. 41, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, and Publications in Anthropology, no. 44, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Rudolph, James L., and Hally, David J. 1985 Archaeological Investigations at the Beaverdam Creek Site (9EB85), Elbert County, Georgia. Russell Papers. Interagency Archeological Service, U.S. National Park Service, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Schambach, Frank F. 2001 A Preliminary Report on the 2001 Investigations by the Arkansas Archeological Survey and the Arkansas Archeological Society at the Grandview Prairie Wildlife Management Area, Hempstead County, Southwest Arkansas. Field Notes 301:5–11. Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society.Google Scholar
Schambach, Frank F. 2002 The Grandview Archeological Project: The Arkansas Archeological Survey/Arkansas Archeological Society’s 2002 Field Season at the Grandview Prairie Wildlife Management Area, Columbus, Arkansas. Field Notes 308:3–8. Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society.Google Scholar
Schambach, Frank F, and Lockhart, Jami J. 2003 The 2001–2002 Investigations by the Arkansas Archeological Survey and the Arkansas Archeological Society at the Tom Jones Site (3HE40), a Late 14th-Early 15th Century Caddo Mound Group in Southwest Arkansas. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Caddo Conference, Arkadelphia, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Schroedl, Gerald F. 1998 Mississippian Towns in the Eastern Tennessee Valley. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for an Architectural Grammar, edited by R. Barry Lewis and Charles B. Stout, pp. 64–92. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Sharp, Robert V., King, Adam, Walker, Chester P., Kent Reilly, F. III, Clay Schultz, T., and Thompson, Tim 2006 A Sacred Precinct on the Summit of Etowah’s Mound A. Paper presented at the 63rd Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Swanton, John R. 1912 The Creek Indians as Moundbuilders. American Anthropologist 14:320–324.Google Scholar
Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Walker, Chester P., King, Adam, Sharp, Robert, and Kent Reilly, F. 2007 Geophysical Survey at the Etowah Site (9BR1), Bartow County, Georgia. Collaborative Report—AGA Report Number 2007-7, CASAA Report Number 2-A, SRARP Research Series number 27. Submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2 MLK Jr. Dr., Suite 1325 East Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Walker, Chester P., and Perttula, Timothy K. 2007 Remote Sensing at the Horace Cabe Site (41BW14). Caddo Archaeology Journal 16.Google Scholar
Walker, Chester P., and Clay Schultz, T. 2006 Magnetometer Survey and Results. In An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey and Remote Sensing and Geomorphological Investigations for the Bowie County Levee Realignment Project, Bowie County, Texas, and Little River County, Arkansas, by Scott A. Sundermeyer, John T. Penman, and Timothy K. Perttula, with contributions by Timothy G. Baugh, Margaret J. Guccione, Michael Grealy, Lawrence B. Conyers, Dayna B. Lee, Robert Cast, Sherry N. DeFreece Emery, Phillip Hays, Charles A. Steger, Charles D. Neel, Chester P. Walker, T. Clay Schultz, and Myra L. McMinn, pp. 158–168. Miscellaneous Reports, Report of Investigations No. 29. LopezGarcia Group, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
Walker, Chester P., Clay Schultz, T., Creel, Darrell G., Hudler, Dale, and Wilson, Samuel M. 2003 Magnetometer Survey and Intrasite Structure of the George C. Davis Site in Northeast Texas. Paper presented at the 11th East Texas Archeological Conference, Texarkana, Texas.Google Scholar