Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville

2. Ceramic Technology

2 Ceramic Technology Despite the many obligatory references to Anna Shepard in the literature, detailed technological studies of Mississippian pottery have been few and far between. Two people have been mainly responsible for what little recent work on this subject there is. Porter, for one, has published a number of thin-section descriptions of Mississippian pottery from southern Illinois and elsewhere (Bareis and Porter 1965; Porter 1964a, 1964b, 1966, 1971, 1974; Porter and Szuter 1978). Also, Million has been quite active in doing replication experiments and mineralogical studies, particularly with reference to Mississippian pottery from northeast Arkansas (Million 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1978). What follows is by no means a comprehensive treatment of the Mississippian ceramic technology at Moundville. More coverage has been given to some aspects than others, usually reflecting the relative abundance (or lack) of systematic work that has been done. At the very least, the information presented is intended to clarify some of the observed variability in the Moundville assemblage , and also to serve as the basis for future technological comparisons with culturally related assemblages, both across space and through time. Ultimately , such comparisons will not only be fruitful in elucidating patterns of interregional exchange, but also, I suspect, will reveal that a good many of the ceramic changes and distinctions that we have long taken for granted as being stylistic are fundamentally technological in nature. 17 18 CLAYS 2. Ceramic Technology Numerous clay outcrops exist in the vicinity of Moundville. Geologically, most of these outcrops belong to the Tuscaloosa group, an extensive sedimentary deposit late Cretaceous age (Clarke 1964, 1966, 1970). In order to see what sorts of clays would have been most readily available to the Moundville potters, 10 samples were collected from various outcrops within a kilometer of the site (Table 2). The mineralogical composition of these samples was determined by means of x-ray diffraction; the results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. Despite evident differences in color and sometimes in texture, the clays are remarkably uniform in the minerals they TABLE 2 Cloy Samples from Outcrops in the Vicinity of Moundville Sample Location of number Unf i t-'ed color Fired color! outcrop2 C-1 Grey Pinkish white NW1/4, SE1/4, (N5.5) (7.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-2 Light grey Light red NW1/4, SE1/4, (N5.5) (7.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-3 Grey Reddish white NW1/4, SE1/4, (5Y6/1) (2.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-4 Red Red NW1/4, SE1/4, (10R5/6) (10R5/6) Sect~on 36, T24N, R4E C-5 Grey Pinkish white NW1/4, SE1/4, (N4.5) (7.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-6 Light brownish Pinkish white NW1/4, SE1/4, grey (2.5Y6/2) (7.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-7 Whi te Pinkish white NW1/4, SE1/4, (2.5Y8/1) (7.5YR8/2) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-8 Weak red mottled Pale red SE1/4, NE1/4, with yellow (7.5R6/4) Section 36, T24N, R4E (7.5R5/2-2.5Y6/4) C-g Red Red SE1/4, NE1/4, (10R4/6) (10R4/8) Section 36, T24N, R4E C-10 Greyish brown Light reddish NW1/4, NW1/4, (2.5Y5/1) brown (5YR6!4) Sect ion 31, T24N, R5E 1 The samples were fired in air at 650·C for 45 minutes. 2 All samples were collected from the east bank of the Black Warrior River, no more than 2 m above water level (August 23, 1978). Geologically, these deposits belong to the upper portion of the Tuscaloosa Group (see Clarke 1970:10-11). Cloys 19 TABLE 3 Mineralogical Composition of Cloy Samples1 Sample number Mineral phase C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 Quartz X X X X X X X X X X Muscovite/Illite X X X X X X X X X X Feldspar 2 X X X X X X X X X Kaolinite X X X X X X X X X X Hematite X X X X X ? ? X X ? Maghemite X X X Zircon ? ? ? Garnet 3 0 X Unknown (6.6 A) II X X X X X X X X Key: X, definitely present; ?, probably present; absent or not detected. Z Mostly Microcline. j Grossularite. 4 This phase is...