Architectural Variability in the Southeast

11. Conclusions: Taking Architecture Seriously

11 Conclusions Taking Architecture Seriously Vernon J. Knight, Jr. I would like to comment briefly on some of the prospects for the study of indigenous late prehistoric and early historic architecture in the Eastern Woodlands . The chapters in this volume point to several subject areas that beg for further investigation. It is difficult to know how many late-period structure foundations have been excavated archaeologically and are on record for the Eastern Woodlands. A very rough estimate is that the number is above 4,000, perhaps somewhere between that and 5,000. Whatever the actual number, the point is that there is a large available sample, accumulated over more than seven decades. With such a large documented sample and such a long history of investigations of such structures, one might reason: that basic typology and traditions of domestic housing would be well worked out and their geography over time would be a matter of record. that enough would be known of the above-ground correlates of belowground features to understand the distinctive signatures of different types. that this information would be understood at a basic level by those who would convey it to the public via illustrations, dioramas, and living history exhibits. that sharedness of formal designs of domestic housing across geographic space would be a common index of the relatedness and interaction of peoples, in the same manner that pottery is often used. that most excavators would be familiar enough with the applicable range of pole frame architecture to know what to look for and what to record in the field. Conclusions 187 Unfortunately, one could easily argue that none of this is the case. Why is this so? While there are no doubt many reasons, the following come to mind. First, it strikes me that we might be lulled by received terminology into thinking that the main problems already have been solved, or that any empirical differences we might find consist of minor variations on known themes. But as it turns out, some of our common terminology is misleading. For example , it is still routinely taught that Mississippian houses were of “wattleand -daub” construction. This term arbitrarily emphasizes specific aspects of wall construction (as opposed to floor plan,roof form,roof covering,and so on) as the diagnostic feature. Many have learned to envision this “wattle” as smalldiameter , horizontal lathwork woven among closely spaced vertical poles, and to envision the daub as tempered clay packed around this lathwork to form a smooth, bare wall. With this terminology so firmly entrenched, it might come as a big surprise that most of the excavated structures at large Mississippian centers like Cahokia and Moundville never had any daub applied to their walls. It might also be surprising to many to learn that wall daub bearing structural impressions conforming to the imagined stereotype—and here I have in mind Glenn Black’s often reproduced cutaway drawing depicting a wattle-and daub-house (Figure 1.4 this volume)—is extraordinarily rare if it exists at all. The term “wattle” is by itself potentially misleading in its implication of interlacing where there might be none, a situation made worse by the peculiar substitution of that word for daub by some of our best authorities. Another factor perhaps inhibiting our understanding of the subject is that complete excavation of structures has become much less common in recent years than it used to be.Preservation concerns,and the high cost of broad horizontal exposure in excavations, are no doubt responsible for this. As a result, comparative work has come to depend on examination of older, often sketchy excavation records, and fewer archaeologists have much first-hand experience in excavating and interpreting structural remains. Fewer still are called upon to place their finds in a macroregional perspective. Finally, in general, our colleagues have gotten away from broad-scale comparative studies of material culture of the kind that might reveal the geography of housing traditions. This trend, I think, is to our detriment. The negative assessment presented thus far has its silver lining, however, which is that the whole subject seems open for fresh ideas and new initiatives . We seem poised for significant steps forward in how we understand indigenous housing in eastern North America. The chapters in this volume can serve as guideposts in one important respect. They take architecture seriously. These authors want to understand what cultural models governed the design 188 Vernon J...