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

With analysis of mound excavations and construction of a cultural chronology , we are now in a position to identify variation in Mississippian polity forms and measure political integration in the lower Chattahoochee River valley over the course of six centuries. In order to do so, we use a moundcenter chronology, the distances between contemporary centers, and the number of mounds found at centers. With this evidence we measure the spatial extent of polity territories and determine if centers formed a political hierarchy. These data are then compared to the political models of Mississippian polities presented in Chapter 2. The possible political signi¤cance of two intriguing cultural patterns, paired mound centers and mound reuse, are also discussed. Previous Interpretations of Mound-Center Settlement Patterns Before we examine the settlement data in more detail and identify polity forms, we must consider two interpretations of regional Mississippian political organization proposed by previous researchers based on analysis of mound-center settlement patterns. Each interpretation makes a speci¤c claim about the relationship between the size and location of Mississippian mound centers and forms of political organization. Both interpretations are based on the simple-complex chiefdom model. Gail Schnell (1981) was the ¤rst to comment on the sociopolitical implications of the apparent regional settlement hierarchy during the Rood phase, which was then dated A.D. 1000–1400. Two factors were emphasized in her study: a settlement pattern of multiple-mound centers and single-mound 5 Archaeological Measures of Political Integration centers, and burials with a cache of ritually “killed” ¤ne-ware beakers in Cemochechobee Mound A. Citing the works of Peebles (1971, 1978) and Service (1962), Schnell argued that the apparent settlement hierarchy and status distinctions of the Rood phase matched the expectations for a prehistoric chiefdom. She concluded that the Rood phase mound centers were an example of a complex chiefdom, in which Cool Branch, Mandeville, Omussee Creek, and Cemochechobee were “subsidiary centers, more or less equally spaced apart at any given time, which owed allegiance to one of the two major Rood phase centers” (Schnell 1981:24) (i.e., Rood’s Landing or Singer-Moye). Schnell did not attempt to de¤ne speci¤c polity boundaries. John Scarry and Claudine Payne (1986) constructed a spatial model to identify Mississippian chiefdom territories and applied their model to the “Fort Walton area,” which included the lower Chattahoochee River valley. They analyzed the size and distribution of Mississippian mound centers with the XTENT algorithm (Renfrew and Level 1979). The XTENT method is based on the assumption that the spatial extent of a center’s political control is directly proportional to the size of the center. Scarry and Payne devised a measure of center size based on a cumulative mound volume index for the total number of mounds at each center. To apply the XTENT method, Scarry and Payne had to assume that the centers in their regional sample were contemporaneous and that the relative size of the centers did not change through time (assumptions that they admitted were idealized for the purpose of model construction). The results of their spatial analysis produced a regional map composed of hypothetical large and small polities, expressed as circular territories, which they subsequently modi¤ed to conform to the con¤guration of linear river valleys. Scarry and Payne concluded that there were two independent Mississippian polities in the lower Chattahoochee River valley: a large polity composed of Rood’s Landing, Singer-Moye, and af¤liated smaller centers, and a smaller polity centered on the Omussee Creek center that conformed to Steponaitis’s de¤nition of simple chiefdom. Although Scarry and Payne proposed that the large polity was a complex chiefdom, neither they nor Schnell adequately addressed the obvious problem presented by the close proximity of the roughly equivalent centers of Rood’s Landing and Singer-Moye, a situation that does not conform to Steponaitis’s de¤nition of complex chiefdom . Also left unexplained was the curious pattern presented by closely spaced pairs of centers. Mound-Center Chronology and Distribution To understand the settlement pattern, we needed something unavailable to earlier researchers: an accurate mound-center chronology. The duration and number of platform mounds in use at each of the 12 Mississippian mound archaeological measures of political integration / 75 centers in the lower Chattahoochee River valley is summarized in Table 5.1. We assigned mound sites to seven time periods based on the estimated time spans of the associated mound ceramic assemblages de¤ned as ceramic phases. In evaluating the...

Share