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

In this appendix we present detailed overviews of all archaeological investigations at the multiple-mound sites of Rood’s Landing, Singer-Moye, and Cemochechobee, including previously unpublished excavation results. Our purpose is to supplement the site synopses in Chapter 3 by emphasizing the provenience and context of the mound artifact samples and associated radiocarbon dates that we use to construct the regional chronology presented in Chapter 4. Excavations at Rood’s Landing (9SW1) The impressive mound group known as Rood’s Landing did not go unnoticed by that indefatigable pursuer of ancient southeastern artifacts, C. B. Moore (1907:448), but he was denied permission to excavate. Rood’s Landing reminded Moore of the much larger Moundville site in Alabama, which it super¤cially resembles. In 1958, RBS archaeologists Harold Huscher and David Chase procured surface collections from Mounds E, G, and H, but no excavations took place. Archaeologist Joseph Caldwell (1955) uncovered a large area on the ¤nal stage of Mound A. Additionally, two 3-x-3 m (10-x-10 ft.) units were dug to a depth of 1.2–2.1 m below the Mound A summit. Elsewhere, two 3-x-3 m (10-x-10 ft.) units were placed in Mound B, dug to a depth of 2.3 m, and pro¤les recorded. On Mound D, a 3.6meter -long looter’s trench was cleaned out down to the premound level. Finally , a single 3-x-3 m (10-x-10 ft.) unit was laid out on the Mound F summit and dug to a depth of 60 cm. No substantive investigations at Rood’s Landing have taken place since Caldwell’s research. Caldwell’s 1955 report, Appendix A The Multiple-Mound-Center Excavations besides being a rather obscure publication, does not present all excavation data, nor does it mention all recovered materials. Our interpretation of the site is based on an examination of all artifacts acquired by Caldwell and the RBS effort, aided by ¤eld notes, drawings, and photographs. Mound A Excavations Mound A is the largest mound at Rood’s Landing. Access to the 7.6-meterhigh summit was gained by two ramps, each 15.2 m long, 4.5 m wide at the summit, and 7.6 m wide at the base. One ramp exits northwest to the plaza, where it faces directly opposite the Mound E ramp; the other ramp exits to the southwest. The summit of Mound A forms a 44.2-x-38.1 m platform. Upon removing the uppermost surface of the Mound A summit to a depth of one foot, Caldwell discovered the burned remains of three wattle-anddaub buildings (Structures 1, 2, 3) resting on the ¤nal occupation level, designated occupation level I (Caldwell 1955:26–32). Structures 2, 3, and the partial post mold patterns of two additional structures were arrayed around the rectangular summit, one to each side. The largest building (Structure 1) was positioned at the center of the mound summit. Near Structure 1 was an isolated post mold, 32 cm in diameter, which Caldwell interpreted as analogous to historic period “slave posts.” Similar large, isolated posts are a recurrent feature of Mississippian mound architecture (Lindauer and Blitz 1997:173), and a similar feature was found at the Cemochechobee site (Schnell et al. 1981:57). Portions of occupation level I were surfaced with a “pavement” of prepared yellow clay. This same material formed a “clay parapet” or rampart, 60–90 cm high, around the summit perimeter, with openings at the ramp exits. Along the southwestern parapet segment, a line of post molds revealed that a log fence had backed the clay parapet and enclosed the mound summit. Similar parapet-fence features were uncovered at the Omussee Creek mound and Gary’s Fish Pond mound. Structures 1, 2, and 3 were constructed of wooden timbers, whole cane wattles, clay-and-Spanish-moss-daub plaster, and walls of single-set pine posts 12 cm in diameter. Structure 1, with three straight walls attached to a semicircular wall, “resembled a teardrop” in plan view (Caldwell 1955:28). It was 7.3 m in length along the northern axis. A projecting entranceway was placed at the southwest corner. There were four large interior post molds indicating roof supports and small interior posts for a partition or supports for benches (Figure A.1). No prepared ¤re basin was found, but a central burned area indicated the presence of a hearth. Fired daub with wood and cane impressions, charred timbers...

Share