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

Gerald F. Schroedl, C. Clifford Boyd, Jr., and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Chapter 8 Explaining Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee INTRODUCTION T. M. N. Lewis and Madeline Kneberg (1946) made the first formal attempt to describe and explain the origins and development of Mississippian cultures in east 'Iennessee. Population migration was the basis for their explanation. Lewis and Kneberg's work was consistent with Webb's (1938) general approach to archaeological interpretation and his analyses of archaeological data from the Norris Basin, which included associating archaeological remains with specific ethnic groups. Earlier researchers, such as Cyrus Thomas (1894), C. B. Moore (1915), and M. R. Harrington (1922), had shared this interest, but Lewis and Kneberg concluded, as had Webb, that Muskogean rather than Cherokee people were responsible for the Mississippian cultures of east Tennessee (see Smith 1984). The Midwestern Thxonornic System was used to organize the east Tennessee archaeological record into a chronological sequence of cultural foci and aspects characteristic of the Woodland and Middle Mississippi patterns in the area (Kneberg 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1946). In constructing this sequence, Lewis and Kneberg included comparative data from Webb's work in the Norris Basin and from the investigations of Cyrus Thomas, M. R. Harrington, and others. Archaeological excavations conducted in the Chickamauga Basin, most importantly at Hiwassee Island (40MG31), but also at the Hixon (40HA3), Dallas (40HA1), Sale Creek (40HAI0), and Davis (40HA2) sites as well as other sites (see Fig. 67) provided the essential elements for the Lewis and Kneberg culture-historical scheme (Lewis and Kneberg n.d., 1941, 1946; also see Kneberg 1952; Rowe 1952; Whiteford 1952). Through the 1950s and 1960s, the culture history ofeast Tennessee was embellished with greater descriptive detail, but neither its structure nor its explanatory framework was challenged by researchers. In the late 1960s the first signs of dissatisfaction and need for fundamental revision began to appear (Faulkner 1972; Salo 1969). Contributing to this situation was evidence that Middle Woodland period cultures in east 1ennessee shared previously unrecognized affinities with contemporary cultures in western North Carolina (Chapman 1973; Gleeson 1970). Furthermore, it became increasingly difficult to fit the growing radiocarbon chronology with the existing culture-historical sequence for the Late Woodland and Early Mississippian periods. Too many radiocarbon dates from Late Woodland period burial mounds indicated Early Mississippian period burial mound use (Schroedl 1973, 1978a). Artifacts found with mound interments, furthermore, were comparable to Early Mississippian styles. At the same time, excavations of sealed stratigraphic contexts at the Martin Farm site (40MR20) produced sherd assemblages that were difficult to accommodate within the existing culture chronology and accepted explanation for change in the archaeological record (Faulkner 1972; Salo ]969). Accompanying the difficulties in accounting for geographical, temporal, and material content variability were fundamental changes in archaeo175 176 Schroedl. Boyd, and Davis Tennessee • ctt.u....... .-~.--.--. 40NIII Alabama \ \ Fig. 67. Archaeological sites in east 7ennessee discussed in the text. logical methods and attempts to develop alternative theoretical approaches for archaeological explanation (e.g., Binford and Binford 1968; Clarke 1968; Flannery 1968). Concepts of ethnic and culture material uniformity with migration responsible for culture change in the archaeological record were replaced by concepts of culture adaptation and evolutionary change. While the Chickamauga Basin project of the 1930s was the source of archaeological data for the interpretations of Lewis and Kneberg, the 1ellico Archaeological Project, conducted in the lower Little 1ennessee River valley between 1967 and 1982, has provided most of the data used to reevaluate and revise the definitions of Woodland and Mississippian period culture-historic units in east 1ennessee (Kimball 1985; Kimball and Baden 1985; Schroedl et al. 1985). The development of alternative models for interpreting the transition between these cultures has been inspired by excavations and detailed analyses of the Martin Farm site (Schroedl et al. 1985). A revised perspective on the chronology of burial mound use has come from the series of radio- ! North Carolina _.-.-.-. Carolina Miles 25 50 i I i 25 50 100 Kilometers carbon dates obtained at the McDonald site (40RH7) on the Tennessee River and at 40RE124 on the lower Clinch River (Schroedl 1973, 1978a). The orientation presented here is decidedly biased toward analyses and interpretations generated by the 1ellico Archaeological Project. Geographically, comparative data is largely restricted to the Tennessee River valley between Knoxville and Chattanooga and the lower reaches of three of its major tributaries, the Little Tennessee, Hiwassee, and Clinch rivers. Thus included are sites in the Chickamauga, Watts Bar, and 1ellico Reservoirs. The upper...

Share