Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power

5. Cahokian Rural Nodes: The Archaeological Evidence

5 Cahokian Rural Nodes: The Archaeological Evidence I am primarily interested in the definition and explication of rural settlement units that suggest the presence of a politically and/or ideologically based hierarchical system. Such settlements should, consequently, contain indicators of special status, such as having community-centered functions, occupancy by elite, unique architecture, "sacred landscapes," high frequencies of exotic or ritual materials, or other such features normally associated with power in Mississippian lifeways. To accomplish that definition and explication we can examine the archaeological evidence behind an "architecture of power" and artifactual assemblage. Obviously, to clarify the "distinction" ofsuch hierarchical nodes one must have a general perspective on the form of the typical rural settlement unit. A recent typological study by Mark Mehrer (1988, 1995) provides those data. He explored some of the previously identified segments ofAmerican Bottom dispersed rural settlements in terms of spatial patterning of debris deposition and the formal typology and distribution ofarchitecture and pit features. While providing a broad perspective on rural Mississippian housecluster patterning, his details must be viewed with caution. A number of his examples of Stirling phase houseclusters have now been identified as Lohmann phase by myself and others, and further analysis has eliminated some clusters, such as at the Range site, for example.At the Julien site I have argued for the reassignment of a Moorehead phase cluster to the Lohmann phase, and there is the strong possibility that the clusters assigned to Moorehead and Sand Prairie components at Julien and Florence may need reassessment. Chronologically, Mehrer's study covered components from the late Emergent Mississippian Edelhardt phase through the Middle Mississippian Sand Prairie phase. This work included 91 structures and more than 700 features from seven sites (figure 3.1), including Carbon Dioxide (Finney 1985),Range (Mehrer 1982),Julien (Milner withWilliams 1984),Turner-DeMange (Milner with Williams 1983), BBB Motor (Emerson and Jackson 1984), Florence Street (Emerson et al. 1983), and Robert Schneider (Fortier 1985). While the primary focus of the research treated the recognition offormal "types" of feature and structure morphology and the specific dispositional patterns of debris within and between structures and features, Mehrer (1988: 87126 ) also provided researchers with an essential summary ofAmerican Bottom Mississippian rural building styles, household clusters, and feature patterning. However, he relied on extant reports and did not include any detailed discussion orjustification for the specific feature inclusion and composition of each household cluster. I have attempted to include such discussions in the following analysis. The quantification and examination of these defined household cluster patterns support those identified by previous researchers and allow one to see the nature of the chronological changes that characterize the rural settlement milieu. In the following analysis I will use Mehrer's summary information combined with recent excavations and analysis and a reexamination of notes and materials from previously excavated sites to develop and expand my earlier concepts to present a more refined model ofrural Mississippian settlement. One of the most difficult issues in the analysis of such house clusters is assigning specific functions to structures. Rarely do such structures have any functionally diagnostic evidence directly associated with their archaeological remains. In my discussion of these many archaeological features I have generally followed the functional assignment of structures as presented by the original analysts. In cases where my interpretations have differed, I have made this clear and presented evidence to justify my argument. In this chapter I will present a chronologically ordered description ofthe archaeological evidence to define a number ofspecialized settlement forms. These forms include nodal households, civic nodes, and ceremonial nodes. In each instance I have included a detailed description ofthe associated architecture, spatial patterning, artifact assemblage, and ethnobotanical and faunal materials .The data presented will show that each of these settlement forms had a distinct material signature that allows its identification (compare this data with figure 2.2). Nodal households are represented by single-family house clusters that have indications of community food storage, prestige/wealth items, and ceramic inventories suggesting community feasting. Civic nodes 82 Cahokia and the Archaeology oj Power are marked by specialized ritual architecture (e.g., sweat houses), a number of residence and storage structures, and a high density of status goods, including ritual ceramics.The ceremonial nodes are associated with fertility and religious activities and include mortuary features, temples, specialized storage and activity buildings, and many exotic religious artifacts. In the subsequent chapter I present an interpretive discussion of...