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

134 Richard R. Polhemus the Dallas culture. The recognition of this patterning (which includes a site axis linked to the winter solstice-a pattern known only for the Toqua site at the present timel does not suggest that other Dallas sites do not possess similar patterning. More likely, those questions have not been asked of the existing data, or else those sites have been insufficiently investigated. Settlement Patterning The settlement patterning of the Dallas culture is, as yet, not fully understood. However, much has been compiled toward that end, and at least tentative statements may be made concerning the elements of the built environment making up the Dallas settlement system. The Dallas system may be viewed as a succession of five interrelated levels of sociopolitical complexity (Figure 201. The basic unit upon which the succession is constructed is the household (Level II, identified with the archaeological correlate previously described as the MSU. Aggregates of two or more such MSUs, fronting on a common open activity area or courtyard, make up the next unit of sociopolitical complexity (Level Ill. Some processing facilities , such as stone-filled pits or earthen ovens, as well as the outdoor activity area, may be utilized by groups representing more extended kin or lineage units. Not all primary structures are the same size. This may indicate variation in household size or relative status within such extended units. During the Dallas phase, MSUs (Level II and household aggregates (Level III are rarely encountered as isolated or dispersed cultural entities. Villages or towns (Level IIIl are made up of 8 or 10 to perhaps as many as 100 Level II household aggregates. Towns possess a tangible spatial sociopolitical structure encompassing public elements, such as one or more public buildings on a plaza, a surrounding residential zone, and, frequently, a defensive perimeter such as a palisade . Public building locations, given sufficient time and population , frequently became raised platforms or substructure mounds supporting public buildings. In addition to site size, a rough measure of sociopolitical importance frequently utilized in the development of Mississippian settlement hierarchies is the size, number, and form of the mounds at a particular site. Such an approach has served reasonably well, in spite of problems of contemporaneity and rela- Dallas Phase Architecture 135 ,,"-------I -----_ I I --I -----I \ \ \ \ \ MOund A ,~ ........... , .......... ,.... ....... ....... ... ..... ............... .............. 0/ ~ .............................. Q.:!,. 100 Ft .......... Structure ." .......... _'t.....6 " --- -.:::...,J------ ~ t \II GN Selected Etements of Site Structure Orientation. Hiwasse Island and Dallas Structure .....-..... : One Structure ~ : One Buriol Winter Soliice t Dallas Burial Orientation. Figure 19. Dallas Structure and Burial Orientation Site 'ยป Alis 136 Richard R. Polhemus DALLAS PHASE CULTURE AREA (CHIEFDOM "PROVINCE OF COOSA") TOWN AGGREGATES (SECONDARY OR PERIOD CHIEFDOM) TOWNS (MINIMAL POLITICAL UNIT) LEVEL 1Z" LEVEL IlL LEVEL m HOUSEHOLD AGGREGATES LEVEL (KINSHIP OR LINEAGE UNIT) II: HOUSEHOLDS LEVEL (MINIMAL SETTLEMENT I UNIT) Figure 20. Dallas Culture Settlement Model tive use or disuse on sites occupied over a span of 400 years or more. The great majority of Dallas sites possess a single substructure mound bearing a single primary structure upon its summit. A small number of Dallas sites possess more than one substructure mound. The summit of the larger mound on such multiple-mound sites frequently has a pair of primary structures upon it, sometimes on different elevations. Although not formally differentiated in this settlement system model, sites having mounds bearing more than one primary structure likely represent a higher level of sociopolitical organization. The Toqua site (Figure 21), possessing the characteristics of this higher level of organization, represents a relatively large Level m town made up of perhaps forty Level II units. The town is the basic unit in the Dallas spatial settlement hierarchy; rather than farmsteads, as has been proposed for other Mississippian settlement systems (Bruce Smith 1978). The Toqua site appears to have dominated the lower Little Tennessee Valley from the middle of the thirteenth century to the early part of the sixteenth century, when the Citico site (40MR7), situated upstream, superseded it. Town aggregates (Level IV) have yet to be precisely defined archaeologically but may be compared to a district or geographical subarea Dallas Phase Architecture 137 comprised of towns demonstrating a closer linkage to each other than to other Dallas phase sites. Such districts may be indicated by the spatial clustering of sites, localized ceramic traits, or other minor variations in material culture. Level IV units as well as Level III units experience fluctuations in size, population, and political power as a result of interaction with neighboring districts and...

Share