In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 Monumentality beyond Scale The Elaboration of Mounded Architecture at Crystal River Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Victor D. Thompson Monumental is a term that archaeologists often use but often use uncritically. The phrase has been evoked widely in archaeology, from Childe’s (1950) urban revolution in Mesopotamia, to Flannery’s (1976, 58, 66, 159) early Mesoamerican village, to Pauketat’s (1994) “Big Bang” at Cahokia and many points between and beyond. In most of these works, the term is never formally defined, although we suspect that the general understanding of monumental architecture is aptly expressed by Flannery ’s Real Mesoamerican Archaeologist (RMA): “you couldn’t miss it if you tried” (Flannery 1976, 9). (Some might also subscribe to the RMA’s even less formal definition : “those mounds which require four-wheel drive to get over.”) Trigger (1990) is one of the few archaeologists to provide a more explicit definition ; he defines monumental architecture as architecture that exhibits scale or elaboration that exceeds the practical requirements of the intended purpose of its construction. This definition is widely cited (see, for example, the introduction to this volume by Wallis and Randall) but usually only in reference to scale. The second component of monumentality Trigger described—elaboration—is usually neglected (Smith2007;forexamples,seecontributorstoBurger and Rosenwig 2012). There are good reasons for emphasizing scale when discussing the monumental architecture of ancient societies. Size clearly does matter when it comes to monumental architecture. Larger monuments can accommodate more people at political or ceremonial events. Greater size generally indicates a greater investment of labor and greater power in its appropriation. In addition, monuments of greater scale probably communicate these properties more effectively. We suspect that archaeologistsalsoemphasizescaleforpracticalreasons : sizeismoreeasilyquantified than elaboration. Size alone does not equal monumentality, however, as the recent debate about Florida’s shell mounds clearly illustrates. As Marquardt (2010) argues, the combi- The Elaboration of Mounded Architecture at Crystal River 63 nation of the quotidian deposition of shell waste and taphonomic processes may produce archaeological deposits that mimic those of intentional monument construction (see also Thompson and Andrus 2011 and Thompson and Worth 2011; for arguments to the contrary, see Sassaman 2010, Sassaman et al. 2011, and the contributions to this volume by Randall et al. and Sassaman et al.). This argument, while clearly applicable to the more amorphous shell mounds common in Florida, cannot be extended to architectural features that demonstrate greater care in construction and thus are more than simple refuse disposal. In this case, elaboration rather than scale may be the key to differentiating between the incidental accumulation of midden and purposeful monument construction. As Thompson and Andrus (2011, 319) point out, when compared to other architecture, shell monuments are defined as much by their quality of construction as they are by their scale. Furthermore, like size, the degree of elaboration is important to considerations of labor and its appropriation and the understanding of how these are represented symbolically . Indeed, according to Trigger’s definition, monumental architecture entails elaboration that requires an expenditure of labor that is conspicuous in its excess. We assert the need for archaeologists to grant greater consideration to elaboration in their consideration of monumental architecture. First, we discuss what we mean by elaboration. Drawing largely on Michael Smith’s (2007) work on the principles of ancient urban planning, we define attributes that might be used to evaluate greater or lesser elaboration and thus monumentality. The debate is more than semantic ; as Smith and many others note (e.g., Benfer 2012; Haas and Creamer 2012; Pozorski and Pozorski 2012) and as we have alluded to above, monumental architecture has multiple layers of meaning but often serves as an expression of power and authority. Thus, the terms and concepts with which we regard the constitution of monumentality have implications for our understanding of the organization of ancient societies. We use the site of Crystal River (8CI1) as an example of these principles of elaboration .ThissiteislocatedonFlorida’swest-centralGulfcoast(figure3.1)anddates to the Woodland period, around 1000 BC to AD 1050 (Milanich 1999; Pluckhahn et al. 2010; Weisman 1995). Crystal River is famous for two reasons. First, it marks the southernmost major expression of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. Excavations by Moore (1903, 1907, 1918) and Bullen (1951, 1953, 1999 [1965], 1966) recoveredHopewellianartifacts,includingcopperpanpipesandgorgetsandvarious other ornaments of bone, stone, and shell, in greater numbers and diversity than at any other site in Florida (Ruhl 1981; Seeman 1979). Next, Crystal River is famous as one of the largest and most complex of Florida...

Share