Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750

Kolomoki

Publication of this work has been supported in part by the Dan Josselyn Memorial Fund

Kolomoki

Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750

Thomas J. Pluckhahn

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA PRESS

Tuscaloosa

Copyright © 2003

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Typefaces are AGaramond and Triplex

∞

The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Pluckhahn, Thomas J. (Thomas John), 1966–

Kolomoki : settlement, ceremony, and status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750 / Thomas J. Pluckhahn.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-8173-1299-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-8173-5017-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Kolomoki Mounds State Historic Park (Ga.) 2. Woodland culture—Georgia. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—Georgia. I. Title.

E78.G3 .P68 2003

975.8′901—dc21

2003001799

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data available

ISBN-13 978-0-8173-8222-3 (electronic)

Contents

Figures and Tables

Acknowledgments

1. An Introduction to Kolomoki

2. Putting Kolomoki in Its Place: Defining the Temporal, Ecological, and Cultural Contexts

3. Preliminary Definition of Activity Areas at Kolomoki: Summary of Previous Research

4. Defining Activity Areas at Kolomoki: Results of Intensive Sampling

5. Characterizing Activity Areas at Kolomoki: Results of Test Excavations and Geophysical Prospection

6. Examining a Domestic Activity Area at Kolomoki: Results of Small Block Excavations

7. Kolomoki as a Historical Process

Notes

References Cited

Index

Figures and Tables

Figures

1.1 Location of Kolomoki and other sites mentioned in the text

1.2 The Kolomoki site

2.1 Location of Kolomoki with respect to major rivers

2.2 Location of Kolomoki with respect to major physiographic divisions of the Coastal Plain

2.3 Large survey and excavation projects within 200 km of Kolomoki

2.4 Early and middle Middle Woodland components within 200 km of Kolomoki

2.5 Late Middle and early Late Woodland components within 200 km of Kolomoki

2.6 Middle and late Late Woodland components within 200 km of Kolomoki

3.1 Valliant’s 1937 map of Kolomoki

3.2 Locations of confirmed and reported mounds at Kolomoki

3.3 Aerial photograph of Kolomoki, 1948

3.4 Waring and Sears in Mound D

3.5 Excavation of the ceramic cache in Mound D

3.6 Excavation of Mound E

3.7 Excavation of the central burial pit in Mound E

3.8 Topographic map of mounds excavated by Fairbanks

3.9 Fairbanks’s plan and profile maps of Mound K

3.10 Locations of previous studies in off-mound areas at Kolomoki

4.1 Locations of intensive samples

4.2 Density of Woodland ceramics in samples

4.3 Density of Swift Creek ceramics in samples

4.4 Density of Weeden Island Red ceramics in samples

4.5 Density of Carrabelle Incised/Punctate ceramics in samples

4.6 Density of other Weeden Island ceramics in samples

4.7 Density of Napier ceramics in samples

4.8 Density of flaked stone in samples

4.9 Density of Coastal Plain chert in samples

4.10 Density of quartz in samples

4.11 Density of quartzite in samples

4.12 Density of Ridge and Valley chert in samples

4.13 Locations of activity areas

4.14 Ceramic density by activity area

4.15 Ceramic ubiquity by activity area

4.16 Lithic density by activity area

4.17 Lithic ubiquity by activity area

5.1 Locations of test units

5.2 Locations of geophysical prospection grids

6.1 Locations of excavation blocks

6.2 Locations of features in Block A

6.3 Feature 57 during initial stages of excavation

6.4 Feature 57 during final stages of excavation

6.5 Contour map of the structure in Block A

6.6 Densities of ceramics and flaked stone in Block A

6.7 Ground stone pendants from Block A and vicinity

6.8 Locations of features in Block B

6.9 Profile of Block B excavation units

6.10 Densities of ceramics and flaked stone in Block B

6.11 Locations of features in Block C

7.1 Kolomoki I phase settlement and community plan

7.2 Kolomoki II phase settlement and community plan

7.3 Kolomoki III phase settlement and community plan

7.4 Possible higher status ceramics from Kolomoki III and IV phase contexts

7.5 Kolomoki IV phase settlement and community plan

Tables

2.1 Proportions of ceramic types in test units by phase

2.2 Summary of proposed ceramic phases for Kolomoki

2.3 Recent radiocarbon dates from Kolomoki

2.4 Ceramic types represented at Fairchild’s Landing and Hare’s Landing

2.5 Rim treatments represented in a sample of plain sherds from Fairchild’s Landing

2.6 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms represented in test unit assemblages by phase

2.7 Vessel forms represented in a sample of plain sherds with unmodified rims from Fairchild’s Landing

2.8 Summary of PP/K types in test units by phase

3.1 Chronology of events related to the history and archaeology of Kolomoki

3.2 Ceramic totals for mound assemblages

3.3 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms represented in mound assemblages

3.4 Ceramic totals for assemblages from Sears’s excavations in the North Ravines

3.5 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms in assemblages from Sears’s excavations in the North Ravines

3.6 Ceramic totals for assemblages from Sears’s excavations in the Northwest Area and Central Plaza

3.7 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms in assemblages from Sears’s excavations in the Northwest Area and Central Plaza

3.8 Ceramic totals for assemblages from investigations in off-mound areas

4.1 Ceramic totals for the pooled assemblages from samples by activity area

4.2 Ceramic density and ubiquity values for the pooled assemblages from samples by activity area

4.3 Lithic totals for the pooled assemblages from samples by activity area

4.4 Lithic density and ubiquity values for the pooled assemblages from samples by activity area

4.5 Proportion of diagnostic ceramic categories for the pooled assemblages from samples by activity area

5.1 Summary data for features in test units

5.2 Ceramic totals for test units

5.3 Lithic totals for test units

5.4 Miscellaneous artifacts from test units

5.5 Summary of macro-botanical remains from test units

5.6 Summary of faunal remains from test units

5.7 Comparison of artifact density and feature density in test units

6.1 Summary data for features in Block A

6.2 Ceramic totals for Block A

6.3 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms in the assemblage from Block A

6.4 Flaked stone totals for Block A

6.5 Miscellaneous artifacts from Block A

6.6 Summary of faunal remains from Block A

6.7 Summary of macro-botanical remains of edible and medicinal plants from Block A

6.8 Summary data for features in Block B

6.9 Ceramic totals for Block B

6.10 Summary of rim treatments and vessel forms in the assemblage from Block B

6.11 Flaked stone totals for Block B

6.12 Miscellaneous artifacts from Block B

6.13 Summary of macro-botanical remains from Block B

6.14 Summary data for features in Block C

6.15 Ceramic totals for Block C

6.16 Flaked stone totals for Block C

7.1 Summary of macro-botanical remains of edible and medicinal plants from recent work at Kolomoki

7.2 Population estimates for the Kolomoki I and II phases

7.3 Estimated labor requirements for mound construction by phase

7.4 Population estimates for the Kolomoki III and IV phases

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to many people for their contributions to this book. First and foremost, I must thank my major professor, Steve Kowalewski, for his unwavering support and enthusiasm. We never succeeded in getting Steve to set foot in a square hole, but he participated in virtually every other stage of the project, from proposal writing to cutting transit lines and back-filling. It would be difficult to overstate Steve’s contribution to this research or, for that matter, to Georgia archaeology in general.

I also extend my thanks to the other members of my committee, including David Hally, Charles Hudson, Ervan Garrison, and Elizabeth Reitz. Thanks as well to the unofficial sixth member of the committee, Mark Williams, for his continued reassurance that this was a significant and worthy endeavor.

I am grateful to the National Geographic Society for funding my research. Additional support was provided by the LAMAR Institute and by a Joshua Laerm Memorial Award from the Georgia Museum of Natural History. Institutional support was provided by the University of Georgia and the State Parks and Historic Sites Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

It has been many years since academic research was conducted at a Georgia State Park, and I am grateful to a number of individuals at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Kolomoki Mounds State Historic Park for their assistance in bringing the project to fruition. In particular, I thank David Crass, Billy Townsend, and Chip Morgan for supporting my research. At Kolomoki, my work was greatly facilitated by park superintendents Eric Bentley and Larry Blankenship, as well as park personnel Billy Adams, Matt Bruner, Judy Moore, and Sid Sewell. Permission to investigate the privately owned portions of the site was generously granted by Buddy Jenkins and Mike and Meredith Whitehead.

Over the course of three field seasons, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of fine students, and I thank them all for their efforts. The 1998 crew members, each of whom worked at Kolomoki for a week, included Will Chambers, Erica Dougherty, Natalie Faulkner, Heather Hayes, Josuah Hendrick, Donna Howard, Ryan Hurd, Kim Lewis, Carrie McAlister, Katie Price, Ben Richardson, Debbie Rose, Sandy Sekman, Ben Sellers, Chris Swindell, Brian Tibbles, and Caroline Wardlaw.

The 2000 field crew members, who stayed with me the entire summer, deserve special thanks for much of the dirty work of cutting survey lines and excavating shovel tests. This small group included Tiffany Andrews, James Mauldin, Silas Mullis, and Dennis Wardlaw.

In 2001, we ran a short field school in shallow geophysics, followed by a longer session in archaeological field methods. The students for the short session included Laina Davis, Jennifer Hart, and Megan Risse. The 2001 field school participants, who provided exceptional service in the excavation of the house, consisted of Danielle James, David Krizan, Iva Lee Lane, Susannah Lee, Carmen Lovvorn, and Julie Ordelt.

Three of these students—Danielle James, James Mauldin, and Silas Mullis—worked with me as interns after their field school sessions. Their work greatly facilitated artifact analysis and data processing.

Each field season, we extended an invitation to the general public to work with us at Kolomoki. The response was overwhelming, and the volunteers who contributed their time are too numerous to mention. I thank them all for their efforts and enthusiasm.

A number of friends and colleagues lent their assistance to the fieldwork. My deepest thanks go to fellow graduate students Verónica Pérez Rodríguez and Matt Compton for their help in directing the 2000 and 2001 field schools (respectively). I also thank Nina Šerman and Jill Wesselman for their assistance with the 2001 geophysics field school. I am greatly indebted to those colleagues who volunteered their labor, including Nichole Gillis, Bill Jurgelski, Heather Mauldin, Melissa Memory, Betsy Shirk, Keith Stephenson, Victor Thompson, Jamie Waggoner, and Jared Wood.

Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund conducted the analysis of the macro-plant remains from my excavations. Analysis of the faunal assemblage was completed primarily by Matt Compton, with additional assistance from Tiffany Andrews and Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman.

Other colleagues have assisted me by granting access to data. I thank Dennis Blanton, Ken Johnson, Jerald Ledbetter, Frankie Snow, and Karl Steinen for lending me source material that greatly aided my interpretation of the site. I am particularly grateful to Chris Trowell for generously sharing the results of his extensive research on the history of Kolomoki. Thanks also to Richard Vernon and the National Park Service for the loan of collections and documentation relating to Fairbanks’s work at Kolomoki.

My compilation of site files data was abetted by the personnel of the agencies that oversee the data in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. My thanks to Eugene Futato, Michelle Cremer, and Mark Williams for their assistance.

Tom Gresham and Chad Braley offered me gainful employment at crucial points throughout my career as a graduate student. I thank them for their patience and support, as well as for the occasional loan of equipment for my research. I must also thank Charlotte Blume for her assistance in guiding me through the vagaries of academic bureaucracy.

The book benefitted greatly from comments and suggestions of Tim Pauketat and Frank Schnell.

Last, but perhaps most important, I thank my family—especially my parents—for helping me through the occasional hard times.

1

An Introduction to Kolomoki

Not so, however the Mercier Mound. Impelled by some strange impulse, or necessity, its builders have made it a structure destined to stand till the end of time. . . . By whom, when, and for what this massive work was thrown up, are questions never to be answered by vague conjecture or indefinite speculation.

The Indian Mounds in Early County, Early County News, June 27, 1882

Kolomoki—formerly known as the Mercier Mounds—is one of the most impressive archaeological sites in the southeastern United States (Figure 1.1). The site, located in the lower Chattahoochee Valley of southwestern Georgia, includes at least nine mounds (Figure 1.2). The largest of these (Mound A) rises some 56 ft (17 m) from the broad, high terrace on which the site is located. From the rectangular summit of Mound A, one can observe the string of smaller mounds (B, H, G, F, and E) that forms an arc to the south. Mound C, to the north of Mound A, frames the opposite side of this open area. Another mound (D) stands prominently near the center of the site, almost directly west of Mound A. Historical accounts point to the former existence of several other mounds and a large earthen wall or enclosure.

The number and magnitude of its earthworks make Kolomoki impressive, but these have also been a source of confusion. The site was originally thought to date to the Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 1000–1500), when agricultural chiefdoms built tall platform mounds and palisaded villages throughout the Southeast. It is now generally agreed that the primary occupation at Kolomoki dates to the Middle and Late Woodland periods, before the era of the Mississippian chiefdoms.

Kolomoki and a few other Middle and Late Woodland mound sites confound simple categorizations of Woodland and Mississippian, tribe and chiefdom, egalitarian and ranked, and simple and complex societies. This book presents a history of Kolomoki from its founding at roughly A.D. 350 to its eventual abandonment at around A.D. 750, with particular attention to Woodland period economy and settlement. I have contextualized this within broader anthropological concerns regarding the nature of middle-range societies, especially the role of ritual and ceremony in the development of status differentiation among such social formations. However, the most fundamental concern is to illuminate the historical development of an important, but long misunderstood, site for both the archaeological community and the lay public.

Before delving into the research, it is important to provide some context, beginning with a description of what has become known, among some archaeologists, as the Kolomoki problem. I then consider some of the challenges that archaeologists have confronted in attempting to interpret middle-range societies such as Kolomoki. Finally, I detail the theoretical framework and research strategy with which I intend to address some of the research issues that I have raised.

The Kolomoki Problem

Kolomoki was first described in print more than a century ago (Jones 1873; Pickett 1851; White 1854). The site was subsequently investigated by several archaeologists and antiquarians loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (McKinley 1873; Palmer 1884). These early investigations, despite being poorly controlled and inadequately reported, nevertheless described important features that were subsequently lost to agriculture and erosion.

Contemporary archaeological work at Kolomoki began in the late 1930s under the direction of Charles Fairbanks and Robert Wauchope (Fairbanks 1940a, 1940b, 1941a, 1941b, 1946). More intensive excavations were initiated about a decade later by William Sears, who excavated six of the mounds and conducted limited testing in the presumed village area (Sears 1950, 1951a, 1951b, 1953a, 1953b, 1956). Mounds D and E proved to contain elaborate mortuary complexes that included Hopewellian artifacts such as copper ear spools, meteoric iron ornaments, and mica disks. Mounds F and H, on the other hand, each consisted of small platforms later covered by conically shaped capping layers. Sears admitted to some confusion regarding the structure and purpose of Mounds B and C, but the former apparently resulted from the piling of earth (perhaps sweepings from the plaza) around large posts. Owing to its large size, only minimal investigation was conducted on Mound A.

Sears correctly identified the dominant ceramic varieties at Kolomoki as the Swift Creek and Weeden Island types, which had been defined by other researchers working in the region (Jennings and Fairbanks 1939; Kelly and Smith 1975; Milanich 1994; Willey 1945, 1949; Willey and Woodbury 1942). However, Sears declined to accept the growing consensus that these were Woodland pottery types. He instead inverted the ceramic chronology to force the dominant occupation into the Early Mississippian period, around A.D. 1200 (Sears 1956). Sears’s error became known to some archaeologists as the Kolomoki problem (Trowell 1998).

With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult for us to fully comprehend the reasons for Sears’s mistake. However, we must bear in mind that his work at Kolomoki came near the climax of development of the cultural historical paradigm, a time in which Southeastern archaeologists were working to establish macro-regional chronologies based on broad similarities among sites (Ford and Willey 1941; Griffin 1952; Willey and Sabloff 1980). Kolomoki, with its large, flat-topped mound and elaborate mortuary ceramics, clearly did not fit the mold that had been cast for the Woodland period in the Southeast. Constrained by the normative paradigm of his day, Sears found it easier to believe that the recently established ceramic chronology for the area was faulty than to accept the notion that the broad cultural historical sequences for the Southeast could be in error.

The reluctance to attribute Mound A, as well as some of the elaborate ceramics in Mounds D and E, to a Woodland period society was not limited to Sears. Jesse Jennings (1938:1–2), while recognizing the Woodland period occupation of the site as the most substantial, believed that Mound A must have been the product of a Mississippian culture. Ripley Bullen was also reluctant to attribute the site to a Woodland society (letter of Bullen to Joseph Caldwell, April 15, 1954, University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology). James Griffin, Sears’s academic advisor at the University of Michigan, confessed to some confusion regarding the proposed chronology and dismay at the contradiction of established ceramic sequences, but he nevertheless ultimately concurred with Sears (letter of Griffin to Sears, December 15, 1950, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology [UMMA]; Griffin 1984). Charles Fairbanks was receptive to Sears’s conclusions (Fairbanks 1956:11–12), although he was also one of the first to question his interpretations in print (letter of Fairbanks to James Griffin, February 2, 1942, UMMA; Fairbanks 1952, 1955).

Many other prominent archaeologists of the day were unconvinced by Sears’s interpretation of Kolomoki as a Mississippian site. Gordon Willey, Joseph Caldwell, and John Goggin objected early and strongly to Sears’s chronology, albeit primarily in personal correspondence (letter of Griffin to Sears, November 21, 1950, UMMA; letter of Sears to Griffin, December 8, 1950, UMMA; Caldwell 1958).¹ The definitive rebuttal to Sears’s chronology came from Stephen Williams (1958), who reviewed the final report for American Antiquity: The confusion arising from an equation of Temple Mound to Mississippian is obvious. . . . To think of Kolomoki as ‘Mature Mississippi’ because of its temple mound was the false step that led Sears’s chronology astray. Sears himself admitted his error shortly before his death, effectively laying the controversy to rest (Sears 1992).

Over the course of the past 50 years, a great deal of corroborating evidence has firmly established that the dominant ceramic types at Kolomoki date to the Middle and Late Woodland periods (Jenkins 1978; Knight and Mistovich 1984; Milanich 2002; Smith 1977; Stephenson et al. 2002). In addition, Woodland platform mounds, while not common, occur with greater regularity than was previously thought by Southeastern archaeologists (Brose 1988; Jefferies 1994; Knight 1990, 2001; Mainfort 1986, 1988a, 1988b; Pluckhahn 1996). Although the identification of Kolomoki as a Woodland period ceremonial center is today widely accepted, the site has remained enigmatic.² Very basic questions have, until now, gone largely unanswered: How big is the site? What was the economy? How much of the occupation was permanent and domestic in function? What were Swift Creek and Weeden Island houses like? The lack of basic knowledge is due to the limited scope and poor documentation of previous work in off-mound portions of the site, little follow-up research since the 1950s, and until very recently the absence of survey and excavation in the surrounding area.

Kolomoki and the Classification of Middle-Range Societies

Archaeologists in the Midwest and Southeast have long differed in their interpretation of the level of cultural complexity that is apparent in the material remains of the Middle and Late Woodland periods (compare, for example, Anderson 1998; Bender 1985a, 1985b; Braun 1979, 1986; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Milanich et al. 1997; Seeman 1979; Smith 1986, 1992; Tainter 1977, 1983). Most now agree that social ranking existed during the Woodland period, but they disagree widely over whether such differences were achieved or inherited (McElrath et al. 2000:4), and thus they argue about whether Woodland societies should be considered tribes or chiefdoms.

Consistent with his interpretation of the site as a Mississippian period mound center, Sears (1956) borrowed heavily from ethnographic accounts of the late seventeenth-century Natchez to describe the prehistoric inhabitants of Kolomoki as a chiefdom. He envisioned the site as a densely occupied village of around 2,000 people, supported by corn agriculture. In later accounts, Sears (1968) described the site as the administrative center of a state-level society.

Some archaeologists, while rejecting Sears’s chronology, accept his basic interpretation of the site as a chiefdom (Anderson 1998:287; Milanich et al. 1997:21; Steinen 1977) or proto-chiefdom (Steinen 1995, 1998). Still other researchers argue that while status distinctions may have arisen at sites such as Kolomoki, these differences can be accommodated within the prevailing model of Woodland sociopolitical organization as a tribal or segmentary system headed by a big man or big woman (Brose 1979a:143–144; Scarry 1996:233–234).

In the absence of additional research, attempts to classify Kolomoki into one or another category have relied principally on Sears’s work, which was heavily biased toward mounds. Certainly, Sears’s mound excavations provide an intriguing glimpse of one facet