The Archaeology of Town Creek

3. Occupational History of Town Creek

3 Occupational History of Town Creek This chapter presents a brief history of the late Prehistoric through early Historic period community that existed at Town Creek. Although little is known at this time about Town Creek’s Late Woodland and Protohistoric occupations , information on both is included in order to place the Mississippian community within a broader context. The discussion of each phase or period consists of the buildings,burial clusters,and other architectural elements that appear to date to the same time, at least in an archaeological sense. Contemporaneity is determined directly in some cases based on associated ceramics or patterns of overlap and superposition.In other cases,it is inferred based on architectural similarities (e.g., examples of a structure type date to the same phase). Also, spatial relationships among architectural elements and overall site structure are considered. Town Creek provides an opportunity to examine the changes that took place within a Mississippian community over a long period of time. The goal of this book is to explore changes in the nature of leadership during the Mississippian period at Town Creek, especially to contrast it in premound and postmound construction contexts. Because Mississippian leaders were strongly associated with public buildings, making a distinction between public and domestic contexts will be an important part of this discussion. PUBLIC AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN THE SOUTHEAST Mississippian towns generally can be thought of as divided into domestic and public spheres (Hally 1994:233; Holley 1999:28; Lewis et al. 1998; Polhemus 1990:134).The domestic sphere would have included the structures and facilities used and controlled by individual households to perform the production and consumption activities necessary for the household’s maintenance (Wilk and Netting 1984).As the composite product of the entire community’s daily Occupational History of Town Creek / 45 activities,the domestic sphere constitutes the bulk of most archaeological collections . Assuming that domestic structures were built by household or community groups that drew from a long tradition of efficient construction techniques (see McGuire and Schiffer 1983:278),and that these techniques would have been stable and subject to only gradual change, contemporary dwellings in the same community should be similar architecturally. Since each household would have performed its activities largely independently, the domestic structures across a community should be characterized by repetitive facilities and assemblages (Winter 1976:25).In the Southeast,Mississippian houses have been identified based on their similarity in size and style as well as on the presence of artifacts and ecofacts that are consistent with domestic activities (Hally and Kelly 1998:53; Lewis and Kneberg 1970:49). The public sphere crosscut the domestic by drawing from individual families ’ resources and people to fill public roles within the community (Dillehay 1990:230). The activities that took place within the public sphere included the community-level storage of resources, the performance of rituals, and the conduct of political affairs (Hally 1996:93–94). Forms of Mississippian public architecture included special-purpose buildings, delineated open spaces, monuments made from wooden poles, and earthen platform mounds (Knight 1985; Lewis et al. 1998). Public structures, as focal points within the community, are distinct from domestic buildings for functional as well as ideological reasons (Marcus and Flannery 1996:87). Mississippian public buildings were often literally set apart, either vertically or horizontally, from the rest of the community. They were located in prominent places (e.g., mound summits, adjoining the plaza, in a central location, or on a natural elevation) (Holley 1999:30; Kelly 1990; Polhemus 1990:131; Schroedl 1998:78; Sullivan 1987:27).Mississippian public buildings often are distinguished from domestic structures by both external and internal construction characteristics. They are usually larger than contemporaneous houses (Blitz 1993a:84; Hally 1994:241; Hally and Kelly 1998:54; Holley 1999:30; Lewis and Kneberg 1970:49; Polhemus 1990:131; Rudolph 1984:33; Ryba 1997:44; Schnell et al. 1981:137; Schroedl 1998; Sullivan 1995). Unlike domestic buildings, some public structures were paired with smaller buildings (Blitz 1993a:70; Hally 1994:241; Lewis and Kneberg 1970:62; Polhemus 1990:131; Rudolph 1984:33; Schroedl 1998:70). Public buildings sometimes were oriented the same as other nondomestic buildings (Blitz 1993a:84). Some public buildings were constructed differently (e.g., with earth-embanked walls) (Rudolph 1984:33) or rebuilt more frequently (Blitz 1993a:82; Kelly 1990; Pauketat 1992:37) than domestic structures. Interiors of some public structures were distinct because of unique furniture (e.g., prepared clay altars, benches, or hearths) (Kelly 1990...