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

Sequence of Mound Construction During the Kolomoki I phase, small, dome-shaped burial mounds (E and K) were established at opposite ends of the community, separated by more than a kilometer . The two mounds were linked by a huge oval enclosure. Ritual-related activities were probably conducted at a point approximately halfway between these two mounds near the center of the site, as indicated by the midden below Mound D. During the Kolomoki II phase, Mound E was completed with the addition of the secondary and tertiary layers. Mound D was constructed over the presumed ritual space at the center of the site. We can only guess when Mound A was constructed, but my analysis of the ceramic assemblage indicates that it was capped no earlier than the Kolomoki II phase. The placement of the mound along the east-west axis formed by Mounds E, D, and K suggests that it too may have been added during the Kolomoki II phase. I believe that Mounds B and C may have been added to either side of Mound A during the Kolomoki III phase. It is notable that these two mounds are located at opposite ends of Mound A. Mound construction continued into the Kolomoki IV phase with the addition of two small platform mounds (H and K) on the southern end of the site. Mounds as Activity Areas The mounds at Kolomoki could be considered one type of activity area. In reality, however, the situation is more complex, as the mounds involve different types of activities. Mounds D and E, the only two mounds known to have contained burials, were clearly related to mortuary rituals. As was noted above, Mound K was presumed by Fairbanks (1941b:3) to have been a burial mound as well. Sears interpreted Mounds D and E as funerary monuments to higher-status individuals. He felt that both the mounds were erected in relatively short spans of time (as little as two weeks for Mound D) and that many of the burials represent trophies or retainers. As I noted above, I believe the mounds were constructed in stages over the course of a longer interval, perhaps even several generations. More important, I have argued that the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the interpretation that these mounds were meant to honor only one or two individuals. Instead, I believe that they were constructed as corporate facilities meant to reinforce kin or community ties. This is not to say that no status differentiation is evident in the mounds, but that the evidence suggests that such differentiation was both less exclusive and less pronounced than described by Sears (1956). Mounds B and C, which my analysis suggests may have been added during the 86 chapter 3 same interval (Kolomoki III), lie in roughly complementary locations to the north and south of the principal east-west axis of the site formed by Mounds E, D, and K. The activities represented by these earthworks are dif¤cult to interpret. Mound B apparently consisted of nothing more than ¤ll or back dirt associated with a collection of very large posts (Sears 1956:9–10). Sears (1956:94) related these to posts in use during historic times for the busk ceremony and ball game. However, similar large posts (often with insertion and extraction trenches) have been observed on the summits of a number of Middle Woodland platform mounds in the Southeast (Jefferies 1994; Knight 1990:160; Milanich et al. 1997:101). Milanich and colleagues (1997) suggest that features of this type at the McKeithen site might have held totemic ef¤gy poles, such as those found near a charnel facility at the Fort Center site (Sears 1982). Knight (1990, 2001) presents a convincing case that the poles were set and replaced in rituals of renewal, as Buikstra and colleagues (1998) have also argued for similar posts on Hopewell sites in the Midwest . Knight (2001) has also suggested the possibility that posts supported scaffolds on which food was conspicuously displayed prior to feasts. Mound C was apparently constructed of basket-loaded ¤ll, but there is no evidence that it contained burials or platforms or posts (Sears 1956:11). Sears (1956:94) suggested that Mound C may have resulted “from an accumulation of trash from plaza sweepings, or it may simply have served as a foundation for small temporary shelters, litters, or platforms of some type.” Mounds F and H both consisted of low platforms, which presumably served as stages for ceremonies. Unfortunately, Sears provided...

Share