History, Monumentality, and Interaction in the Appalachian Summit Middle Woodland

Abstract

The Middle Woodland period in eastern North America witnessed a florescence of monumental architecture and material exchange linked to widespread networks of ritual interaction. Although these networks encompassed large geographic areas and persisted for several centuries, extant archaeological models have tended to characterize Middle Woodland interaction as an historically unitary process. Using new data from the Garden Creek site in North Carolina, I argue that these frameworks obscure important historical shifts in Middle Woodland interaction. Recent collections-based research, geophysical survey, targeted excavation, and14C dating (including Bayesian modeling) of this site reveal two coeval diachronic changes: a shift from geometric earthwork construction to platform mound construction; and a shift from the production of special artifacts {mica, crystal quartz) to the consumption of exotic artifacts in association with platform mound ceremonialism. These data hint at important changes in interregional relationships between the Appalachian Summit, the Hopewellian Midwest, and the greater Southeast during the Middle Woodland period, and provide a springboard for considering how processes of culture contact contributed to precolumbian cultural change.

Prospecting for New Questions: Integrating Geophysics to Define Anthropological Research Objectives and Inform Excavation Strategies at Monumental Sites

“…After four months of excavations, several magnetic anomalies were successfully characterised as representing anthropogenic features dating to the Middle Woodland period. Furthermore, the westernmost geometric anomaly was determined to be due to an enclosure demarcated by a steep sided, flat bottomed ditch that extended 1.0-1.2 m below the ground surface (Wright 2014). These data were used to revise and enhance the interpretations of previously collected magnetometer data.…”

“…Nevertheless, our current knowledge about Garden Creek has allowed us to posit reasonable answers to certain research questions and to develop entirely new research objectives. In addition to attempting to contextualise a local monumental phenomenon (i.e., the platform mound), ongoing research at Garden Creek is now exploring patterns of interaction between the Appalachian Summit, the Ohio Valley, and the Deep South during the Middle Woodland period (Wright 2014). These connections, which are part of a broader anthropological discourse on pre-Columbian interaction and history making (e.g., Kidder 2011;Sassaman 2010), may have gone unappreciated if not for the combination of extensive geophysical survey with traditional excavation and, crucially, a flexible and evolving research design.…”

Private property, public archaeology: resident communities as stakeholders in American archaeology

“…Before fieldwork began, local interest in the site's archaeology was essentially fetishistic, focused on the artefacts themselves as ancient relics rather than as viable indicators of ancient people's occupation of what is now a suburban development. In order to show that these objects were not simply curious in their own right, but also evidence of real, lived experiences in the past, GCAP strove to inform residents about every stage of on-site research, from mapping and surveying using geophysical techniques (Horsley, Wright, and Barrier 2014), to excavating features and making on-site interpretations (Wright 2014). These efforts resulted in the extension of the site's boundaries far beyond what had been previously recognized (see Fig.…”

“…While the former are discussed elsewhere (see Horsley, Wright, and Barrier 2014;Wright 2014;Wright and Loveland 2015), here, I summarize a few of the anticipated challenges of engagement with this resident community and the strategies developed by GCAP to mitigate their negative dimensions and capitalize on their positive potential. Specifically, GCAP's public archaeology efforts sought to expand the terms of public engagement beyond obtaining permission from landowners to conduct archaeological research by taking seriously residents' emotional connections to the landscape and attempting to extend those connections into the past.…”

Contemplating the history and future of radiocarbon dating in the American Southeast

“…We encourage southeastern archaeologists and others working in North America to embrace Bayesian chronological applications given its potential for facilitating a greater understanding of southeastern archaeology, as highlighted by the exponentially growing body of scholarship from the last four years (Anderson et al 2013;Barrier 2017;Cobb et al 2015;Halligan et al 2016;Krus 2016;Krus et al 2015;Moore et al 2017;Munoz et al 2015;Ortmann and Kidder 2013;Pluckhahn et al 2015Pluckhahn et al , 2016Randall 2013;Schilling 2013;Thompson et al 2016;Thulman 2017;Turck and Thompson 2016;Wallis et al 2015;Wright 2014). We especially hope that students will understand the long-term potential that these methods have for transforming our current understandings of chronology in the Southeast.…”