Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana: Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, and Implications for Hunter‐Gatherer Complexity

Abstract

Hunter‐gatherer societies are often characterized by limited complexity and social equality. Therefore, the construction of monumental architecture by hunter‐gatherers is seen as the manifestation of social and political inequality. The massive size and rapid construction of Mound A at Poverty Point (ca. 3261 cal. yr B.P.) in northeast Louisiana challenges these notions. Geoarchaeological investigations of stratigraphy at the macro‐ and micro‐levels shows there are no erosion events, natural episodes of soil formation, or cultural stages. We infer from these results that Mound A was constructed by a large labor force over a short period of time. There is no evidence, however, that the mound was constructed under the aegis of a ranked socio‐political system. We argue instead that the mound was constructed as a ritual feature and that leadership required to mobilize labor and resources was situational and emerged through ritual practice that developed because of the need to integrate a large population.

Contemplating the history and future of radiocarbon dating in the American Southeast

“…We encourage southeastern archaeologists and others working in North America to embrace Bayesian chronological applications given its potential for facilitating a greater understanding of southeastern archaeology, as highlighted by the exponentially growing body of scholarship from the last four years (Anderson et al 2013;Barrier 2017;Cobb et al 2015;Halligan et al 2016;Krus 2016;Krus et al 2015;Moore et al 2017;Munoz et al 2015;Ortmann and Kidder 2013;Pluckhahn et al 2015Pluckhahn et al , 2016Randall 2013;Schilling 2013;Thompson et al 2016;Thulman 2017;Turck and Thompson 2016;Wallis et al 2015;Wright 2014). We especially hope that students will understand the long-term potential that these methods have for transforming our current understandings of chronology in the Southeast.…”

Between Surface and Summit: the Process of Mound Construction at Feltus

“…Historically, studies of mounds in the USA have emphasized their post‐construction use (as either activity platforms or burial locations) through analysis of the cultural remains from mound tops and plazas (Sherwood and Kidder, ). Such studies have tended to focus on mounds as static structures rather than mound building as a dynamic process (Pauketat and Alt, ; Sherwood and Kidder, ; Ortmann and Kidder, ). Here we discuss the use of geophysical techniques that explore depths beyond those commonly targeted in shallow geophysics, that is, more than 1 m below surface, to provide a more dynamic view of mound construction and use at the Feltus site in southwestern Mississippi, USA.…”

Geophysical Evaluation of the Richland and Holloway Mounds, Southeastern Louisiana, USA

“…Investigations of Native American mounds in Louisiana and throughout the Mississippi River Valley, USA, have a rich history from purely descriptive analyses (e.g., Ford, ) to the application of geoelectric, magnetic, and carbon isotopic dating techniques (e.g., Saunders et al., ; Ortmann & Kidder, ). Mounds are topographical features, commonly constructed as either domes or platforms by Native Americans through the “excavation, transporting, and redepositing of local sediment, occasionally through the use of baskets” (Henderson, Anderson, & McGimsey, ).…”

“…), based on their distribution, scale, and lack of mixed associated objects, suggest a localized tradition (Saunders et al., ) that later shifted in the Late Archaic due to increased interactions between large numbers of people, as interpreted for Poverty Point (Sassaman, ). Poverty Point is one of the most enigmatic examples of mound complexes, likely constructed by a complex hunter‐gatherer society, and is an intriguing example of Late Archaic earthwork architecture in the Mississippi River Valley (Ortmann & Kidder, ).…”

“…Most of the Pre‐Columbian earthworks recorded in the Mississippi River Valley, particularly in Louisiana, and others in the Americas (e.g., Bevan & Roosevelt, ; Rossetti, Góes, & Toledo, ) have not been extensively examined to determine their cultural association, methods of construction, or their potential for associated artifacts. In the case of the Mississippi River Valley, this leaves significant gaps in our understanding of mound usage in an area where some of the oldest earthworks in North America are preserved (e.g., Ortmann & Kidder, ). The aim of the study presented here was to evaluate the (geo)archaeological significance and methods of construction of the Richland and Holloway Mounds in southeastern Louisiana (Figure ), utilizing minimally invasive geoelectric (e.g., Darwin, Ferring, & Ellwood, ; Ellwood, ; Dalan & Bevan, ; Astin, Eckardt, & Hays, ) and magnetic techniques (e.g., Ellwood et al., ; Dalan, ,b).…”