diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/62948-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62948-0.txt | 1723 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1723 deletions
diff --git a/old/62948-0.txt b/old/62948-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 690418b..0000000 --- a/old/62948-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1723 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Poverty Point, by Jon L. Gibson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Poverty Point - Anthropological Study No. 7 - -Author: Jon L. Gibson - -Release Date: August 16, 2020 [EBook #62948] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK POVERTY POINT *** - - - - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - - Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism - Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission - Anthropological Study No. 7 - - - - - POVERTY POINT - - - [Illustration: Bird design from Poverty Point stone art.] - - Baton Rouge, Louisiana - - STATE OF LOUISIANA - - Edwin W. Edwards - _Governor_ - - DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND TOURISM - - Noelle LeBlanc - _Secretary_ - - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ANTIQUITIES COMMISSION - - _Ex-Officio Members_ - - Dr. Kathleen Byrd _State Archaeologist_ - Mr. Robert B. _Assistant Secretary_, Office of Cultural - DeBlieux Development - Mr. B. Jim Porter _Secretary_, Department of Natural Resources - Mrs. Dorothy M. _Secretary_, Department of Urban and - Taylor Community Affairs - - _Appointed Members_ - - Mrs. Mary L. Christovich - Mr. Brian J. Duhe - Mr. Marc Dupuy, Jr. - Dr. Lorraine Heartfield - Dr. J. Richard Shenkel - Mrs. Lanier Simmons - Dr. Clarence H. Webb - - First Printing April 1983 - Second Printing, with corrections September 1985 - - - - -The second printing of this document was funded by the Louisiana -Research Foundation and the U. S. Department of the Interior, National -Park Service Historic Preservation Fund. This document was published by -Bourque Printing, Inc., P. O. Box 45070, Baton Rouge, LA 70895-4070. - - - - - POVERTY POINT: - A Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley - - - Jon L. Gibson - - - To Carl Alexander, - with gratitude - - - - - Editor’s Note - - -Louisiana’s cultural heritage dates back to approximately 10,000 B.C. -when man first entered this region. Since that time, many other Indian -groups have settled here. All of these groups, as well as the more -recent whites and blacks, have left evidence of their presence in the -archaeological record. The Anthropological Study series published by the -Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, Office of Cultural -Development provides a readable account of various activities of these -cultural groups. - -Jon L. Gibson, a professional archaeologist with a long-standing -interest in the Poverty Point culture, is the author of “Poverty Point: -A Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley,” the seventh in the series. -In this volume, Jon Gibson describes the Poverty Point culture—one of -the most spectacular episodes in Louisiana’s past. Few people realize -that the Poverty Point site, at 1000 B.C., was the commercial and -governmental center of its day. In its time, the Poverty Point site had -the largest, most elaborate earthworks anywhere in the western -hemisphere. No other Louisiana earthen constructions approached the size -of the Poverty Point site until the nineteenth century. - -This volume tries to reconstruct from the archaeological remains the -life of these bygone people. It discusses where these people lived, what -they ate and how they made their tools. It also attempts to reconstruct -their social organization and government. - -We trust the reader will enjoy this introduction to the fascinating -Poverty Point people. - - Kathleen Byrd - _State Archaeologist_ - - - - - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - - -Much of what I know, think, and say about Poverty Point is due to Dr. -Clarence Webb. Our close association and collaboration on Poverty Point -matters go back to 1969 when we cooperated in a study of the large Carl -Alexander collection. The mutual respect and friendship spawned by that -association have grown over the years, even though our views on the -Poverty Point site and culture have not always coincided. We were to -have coauthored this booklet, but circumstances would not permit. I have -forged ahead, under his prodding, and hope the results will be to his -liking. His thoughtful critique of an earlier version of this report has -improved the current one immeasurably. - -Mitchell Hillman, Curator of the Poverty Point Commemorative Area, has -been a constant source of information and new ideas. Walks over the -magnificent Poverty Point site with Hillman are always new experiences. -I have never come away from these get-togethers without being -rededicated to delving into the many mysteries that the awe-inspiring -site has to offer. - -The excellent photographs in this book are the work of Brian Cockerham, -Ranger at the Poverty Point Commemorative Area, and the drawings are my -own. - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - -Until a few years ago, Poverty Point culture was a major archaeological -mystery. The mystery centered around the ruins of a large, prehistoric -Indian settlement, the Poverty Point site in northeastern Louisiana. -Poised on a bluff overlooking Mississippi River swamplands was a group -of massive earthworks. It was not the earthworks themselves that were so -mysterious, although they were unusual. Eastern North America was after -all the acknowledged home of the “Mound Builders,” originally believed -to be an extinct, superior race but now known to have been ancestors of -various Indian tribes. No, the mystery lay in the age and the size of -the earthworks. - -Radiocarbon dates indicated that they were built at least a thousand -years before the birth of Christ. This was a time when Phoenicians were -plying warm Mediterranean waters spreading trade goods and the Ugaritian -alphabet. This was a time when the Hittites were warlords of the Middle -East. It was before the founding of Rome; even the ascendancy of the -Etruscans was still centuries away. Rameses II sat on the throne of -Egypt. Moses had just led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage in -quest of the Promised Land. David and Solomon were kings of Israel. - -In America where written history is lacking, Native Americans of 2000 to -1000 B.C. were thought to have been wandering hunters and gatherers -living in small bands or at best simple tribes. Such unsophisticated -groups were not considered capable of raising earthworks like those at -the Poverty Point site. Archaeologists believed that such massive -construction projects were possible only when large numbers of people -started living together in permanent villages and when political control -over villagers reached the point where labor could be organized and -directed toward building and maintaining community projects, such as -civic or religious centers or monuments. These conditions—large, -permanent villages and effective political power—were normally found -only among peoples whose economy was based on agriculture. In America -that usually meant maize (corn). - -Were we to believe that Poverty Point might have successfully integrated -these factors—large populations, political strength, and maize -agriculture—while everyone else in America north of Mexico was still -adhering to a much simpler existence? If so, it meant that Poverty Point -was one of the first communities, if not _the_ first, to rise above its -contemporaries and start the long journey to becoming a truly advanced -society. - -If Poverty Point did represent the awakening of complex society in the -United States, how and why did it develop? Was its emergence caused by -immigrants, bearing corn and a new religion, from somewhere in Mexico -(Ford 1969:181)? Did it develop locally but under Mexican stimulation -(Webb 1977:60-61)? Did it come about by itself without foreign -influences (Gibson 1974)? - -These were some of the major questions that surrounded Poverty Point. -The lack of agreement on these issues created an aura of mystery and -promoted the idea that Poverty Point was an enigma, or puzzle. When -Poverty Point was not simply being ignored in discussions of -Southeastern prehistory during the 1950s-1960s, it was usually portrayed -as an unusual cultural complex that burst upon the Lower Mississippi -Valley landscape, flourished for a while, and then disappeared leaving -no trace among succeeding cultures. - -Time has begun to change these perceptions. Poverty Point is no longer -regarded as a geographic or developmental irregularity. New research -during the last three decades has shown that the Poverty Point way of -life was not confined to the big town at the main site, but extended -over a large region and encompassed many peoples. Even with increased -knowledge, Poverty Point still remains exceptional; yet it is no longer -regarded as being out of step with Native American cultural evolution or -as a historical flower that blossomed before its time. There are still -many unresolved questions about Poverty Point culture. In the following -pages, we will explore these questions and our current state of -knowledge in order to present a reasonable picture of life in the Lower -Mississippi Valley during Poverty Point times. - - - - - POVERTY POINT CULTURE: A DEFINITION - - -Poverty Point culture was a widespread pattern of life followed by -certain Indian peoples in the Lower Mississippi Valley between 2000 and -700 B.C. This general lifeway stretched roughly from a northerly point -near the junction of the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers, (above the -present-day town of Greenville, Mississippi) down the Mississippi Valley -to the Gulf Coast (Figure 1). It covered parts of Louisiana, Arkansas, -and Mississippi, and its influences reached as far as Florida along the -eastern coast and as far up valley as Tennessee and Missouri. - -One should not get the idea that Poverty Point peoples from one end of -this large region to the other were exactly alike. They did not comprise -a single body of kinfolks or a nation. They almost certainly spoke -different languages. It is likely that Poverty Point peoples were -divided into a number of socially, politically, and ethnically separate -groups. - -What these people did have in common was participation, to varying -degrees, in a far-reaching system of trade and manufacture or use of -certain artifacts. Recognition of these artifacts is how archaeologists -differentiate between Poverty Point sites and sites of different -cultures. Some of these characteristic artifacts include clay cooking -balls, clay figurines, small stone tools called microflints, plummets, -and finely-crafted stone beads and pendants (Figure 2). Several things -distinguish Poverty Point artifacts. One is the decided preference for -materials imported from other regions. The other is the emphasis on -ground and polished stone artifacts, especially ornaments and other -status insignias. - -Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates show that Poverty Point culture -developed over a long period of time. By 3000 B.C., many of the typical -artifacts were already in use. A few items had appeared even earlier. -During the next thousand years, new artifacts and new styles were added, -and by 2000-1800 B.C., an early stage of Poverty Point culture had -evolved in some areas. However, the period between 1500 and 700 B.C. was -the most climactic, because that was the span dominated by the giant -Poverty Point site. - - [Illustration: Figure 1. How the Lower Mississippi Valley Might Have - Looked in 1000 B.C. Shows Courses of Major Rivers and Locations of - Poverty Point Territories.] - - AREAS OF SETTLEMENT - SITES - POVERTY POINT - Jaketown - Cowpen Slough - Claiborne - Ouachita River - Arkansas River - Joe’s Bayou - West Fork Mississippi River - East Fork Mississippi River - Vermilion River - Teche-Red River - Louisiana boundaries and modern Mississippi River shown as dotted - lines - - [Illustration: Figure 2. Artifacts Characteristic of Poverty Point - Culture. a-c, Plummets; d-f, Miniature Stone Carvings; g-j, Poverty - Point Objects; k-l, Human Figurines; m-o, Projectile Points. - Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - - - - - SETTLEMENT - - -A map showing the Lower Mississippi Valley in 1000 B.C., during the -zenith of Poverty Point culture, reveals some very interesting things. -Population was concentrated in certain areas and these areas were -separated from each other, sometimes by scores of miles (Figure 1). -While this pattern of geographic isolation may be due in part to river -erosion and spotty archaeological investigation, it almost surely -reflects preferences for certain kinds of land. There were at least 10 -population clusters in the area. The largest concentration was in the -Yazoo Basin of western Mississippi. Another surrounded the Poverty Point -site itself in the Upper Tensas Basin-Macon Ridge region of northeastern -Louisiana. - -Lying between these various population clusters were stretches of -uninhabited or lightly occupied land. In possibly one or two cases, -intervening areas may have supported populations almost as concentrated -as Poverty Point territories but, for various reasons, these peoples did -not participate regularly or intensively in Poverty Point culture. - -Our map of 1000 B.C. shows another interesting feature. The scattered -Poverty Point population clusters were all linked by waterways. Every -one was tied to the Mississippi River. Even though the Mississippi River -did not run through every concentration, its major tributaries and -distributaries did. These interconnected streams must have been the -highways that carried people, trade goods, and ideas. - -Most of the population lived in permanent villages along these streams. -There were small, medium, and large villages, ranging in size from less -than an acre to over 100 acres. The smallest settlements probably housed -only a few families, while residents at some of the larger ones must -have numbered in the hundreds, possibly even more. One site among them -was a veritable metropolis for the day; the population at the Poverty -Point site itself has been estimated to number several thousands (Ford -and Webb 1956; Gibson 1973). In addition to these stable villages, there -were temporary campsites, where villagers evidently took advantage of -seasonally available foods and other resources. - -Larger villages were often distinguished from smaller ones by more than -population numbers. One or more villages in nearly every Poverty Point -territory were set apart by public construction works, usually mounds -and sometimes embankments. Mounds were made of dirt and were usually -dome-shaped affairs constructed in several stages. Two unique mounds at -the Poverty Point site have been identified as bird effigies (Ford -1955). Typically one mound stood at these villages, but two to eight -mounds were present in some instances (Webb 1977:11-13). - -As a general rule, the number and size of these works varied directly -with village size and population. Even though several of these mounds -have been excavated, their purpose is still unclear. They superficially -resemble mounds used as tombs by later cultures, but no burials have -turned up in the Poverty Point structures. Beneath a mound of this type -at the Poverty Point site was a bed of ashes and a burned human bone, -suggesting that, at least in this example, it covered a cremation (Ford -and Webb 1956:38). Embankments, or artificial ridges, were occasionally -built at these bigger villages. In many cases, embankments seem to have -been raised by a combination of construction and incidental accumulation -of living refuse. Most of the giant ridges at Poverty Point seem to have -grown this way (Ford and Webb 1956; Kuttruff 1975). However, not all of -these ridges positively served as foundations for houses. Some served to -connect mounds, others perhaps to mark alignments of some kind. - -There was evidently no standard architectural arrangement involving -mounds and ridges, but semicircular patterns occurred most often. The -largest example is at the giant Poverty Point town (Figure 3). Linear -plans were also used, and some sites show no recognizable designs. These -various arrangements have been said to reflect everything from -astronomical observatories to possible “fortresses.” - -Of all the similarities and differences among territorial settlement -patterns, several things stand out. Villages in each province ranged -from small to large and from simple to complex, and every province had -one village that stood apart from all the rest. This main village was -probably the regional “capital.” Such an arrangement also seems -applicable to the provinces themselves. They, like the villages within -their bounds, can be ranked in importance according to the intensity of -interaction with the major province. Lest there be any doubt, that -supreme province lay along the Macon Ridge-Upper Tensas lowlands in -extreme northeastern Louisiana. Its “capital” was the great town of -Poverty Point. Because of its dominating influence, this magnificent -town will be described in detail. - - [Illustration: Figure 3. Reconstruction of the Central District of - the Poverty Point Site about 1000 B.C.] - -It was first reported by Samuel Lockett in 1873 and was visited many -times afterwards. However, it was during excavations, sponsored by the -American Museum of Natural History in the early 1950s, that its true -nature came to be realized (Ford and Webb 1956). From aerial photographs -came the startling realization—Poverty Point was a giant earthwork. It -was so large that the bumps and ridges, apparent from a ground-level -view, were once thought to be natural. The symmetrical geometry revealed -on the photographs, however, led everyone to believe that it had been -built from a “blueprint” in a single, all-out construction effort. Its -great size, coupled with the millions of artifacts scattered over and in -the artificial constructions, gave the impression that it was home for -literally thousands and a magnet for multitudes of visitors. Even though -new information has begun to change some of these ideas, it has not -diminished the massiveness of the engineering feat or appreciation for -the collective spirit of those long-ago builders whose vision and toil -is represented there. - -As one can see from the “city map” (Figure 3), the town was divided into -several areas. The main area in the middle of town was dominated by a -semicircular or partially octagonal enclosure. The enclosure was -produced by six artificial, earthen embankments which formed concentric -arcs. Extra ridges were outlined in the western sector, and the outer -ridge terminated before reaching the south sector. The ridges were -between 50 and 150 feet apart and about the same in width. They were 4 -to 6 feet tall. Between them were low areas, or swales, apparently where -much of the construction dirt had been removed. From one end of the -outer arc to the other was 3950 feet, or nearly three-quarters of a -mile. Opposite ends of the interior or smallest embankment were 1950 -feet apart. All of the ridges terminated at the edge of a bluff, which -dropped steeply some 20 feet below to a stream which paralleled the -entire eastern side of the earthwork. - -Formerly, archaeologists suspected that the ridges formed a complete -circle or octagon and that the Arkansas River, which once flowed by the -site, had eaten away the eastern side. Recent geological information and -studies of activity patterns on the site, patterns that include both -occupational and architectural tasks, now show that the enclosure was -always semicircular. The bluff that marks the eastern edge of the site -today and which seems to have cut into the earthwork was formed -thousands of years before building ever started. In fact, the bluff edge -has probably retreated very little since the time of earthwork -construction. - -The ridges were divided into five sectors by four aisles, or corridors. -These openings range from 35 to 160 feet in width. They did not converge -at a single point in the middle of the enclosure; neither did they -divide the encircling embankments into equal-size areas. - -The middle of the enclosure, or plaza, was relatively flat and covered -an area of about 37 acres. At the eastern edge lay an oval mound (Bluff -Mound). Whether it was built during Poverty Point times or during the -Civil War, as claimed by some, is not certain. - -Outside the central area were other earthworks (Figure 4). These -included mounds and other embankments, as well as depressions. -Physically connected to the outermost arc in the western sector was a -huge mound (Mound A). The mound had an unusual shape which reminded some -experts of a bird. It stood over 70 feet high and measured 640 feet -along the “wing” and 710 feet from “head to tail.” The flattened, or -so-called “tail,” section of the monster structure was actually built in -a pit some 12 or more feet deep. Another similar but slightly smaller -mound (Motley Mound) was built 1.5 miles north of the central -embankments. Because it had only a lobe where the “bird’s tail” should -have been, it was believed to be unfinished (Ford and Webb 1956:18). - -Three more structures were positioned along a north-south line that -passed through the central “bird” mound. About 0.4 mile north of the big -mound was a conical construction (Mound B) covering a possible -cremation. Some 600 feet south lay a square, earthen structure with a -depression in the center. The function of this mound, like all the -others, remains uncertain. There are even doubts about its man-made -nature. A curving ridge connected this mound with the aisle separating -the western and southwestern sectors. About 1.6 miles further south -along the same axis was a second dome, the Lower Jackson Mound, the -southernmost structure of the Poverty Point complex. - -Some other earthworks—a comma-shaped ridge and at least one mound on the -Jackson Place immediately south of the central enclosure—were probably -once part of the overall complex. Unfortunately they have been -destroyed. - -Some of the dirt for the earthworks had been dug from borrow pits that -lay outside the embankments. One large one stretched along the entire -periphery of the southwestern sector (Figures 3 & 4). A balk, or -“bridge,” crossed the center of this depression. An even larger pit ran -north from the bird mound to Mound B. Smaller ones dotted the area -around the “tail” of the bird mound and north of Mound B. These would -have formed large ponds, and one cannot help but wonder if we might not -be looking at an ancient, municipal water system or perhaps fish ponds, -where catfish and other species might have been “farmed” or kept until -needed. - - [Illustration: Figure 4. Plan of Earthworks at the Giant Poverty - Point Town.] - - MOTLEY MOUND - Escarpment - Macon - MOUND B - MOUND A - BLUFF MOUND - EMBANKMENTS MOUND - Bayou - Floodplain - Macon Ridge - JACKSON COMPLEX - POVERTY POINT - LOWER JACKSON - Escarpment - -The majority of the population apparently lived on the embankments in -the central area, but appreciable numbers of people lived outside. -Important “suburbs” were scattered along the bluff between the central -district and Motley Mound, to the west of Motley Mound, to the west and -south of the bird mound, on the Jackson Place, and south to Lower -Jackson. Other peripheral neighborhoods will no doubt eventually be -discovered. - -Nothing much is known about Poverty Point houses and furnishings. -Probable house outlines were reported from Jaketown (Ford, Phillips, and -Haag 1955: Figure 10) and Poverty Point (Webb 1977:13). Stains in the -soil, called postmolds, showed these structures to have been circular -and small, around 13 to 15 feet in diameter. One possible burned house -at Poverty Point appears to have been a semi-subterranean structure, -framed with bent poles and covered with cane thatch and daub (dried -mud). Interior furnishings were not recognized. - -Numerous postmolds have been found at many Poverty Point sites, but so -far no other complete patterns have been identified. On the western side -of the plaza at the Poverty Point site, an archaeologist excavated some -unusually large pits. If these were postmolds, they held posts the size -of grown trees! Too big for ordinary or even superordinary residences, -these huge posts are said by some to have been markers for important -days like equinoxes and solstices, an American Stonehenge. - - - - - FOODS - - -When the real size and magnificence of Poverty Point came to be realized -in the 1950s, it was believed that such developments were possible only -when agriculture or a similarly efficient means of food production were -known. In North America this agriculture was assumed to be based on -corn, beans and squash because when Europeans arrived in the New World, -these were the staple crops. But evidence for agriculture involving -these foods has so far not been found in indisputable Poverty Point -contexts. This lack was not altogether due to recovery or identification -problems because plant remains have turned up at several sites, -including Poverty Point itself. - -Poverty Point culture might have developed without agriculture. One idea -was that ordinary hunting, fishing, and collecting in special localities -could have been the basis of Poverty Point livelihoods (Gibson 1973). In -areas with generous expanses of elevated lands and swampy river bottoms, -wild plant and animal foods were not only bountiful, they were present -year-round. By precise timing of food-getting efforts with nature’s -seasonal rhythms, Poverty Point peoples could have gotten all the food -they needed and probably as much extra as they desired. - -Another suggestion was that Poverty Point life might have involved -farming all right, but of a different kind. Mounting evidence showed -that a unique brand of horticulture had developed in eastern North -America before Poverty Point culture ever began. The plants that were -grown included sunflower, sumpweed, probably goosefoot, and possibly -others. Other than sunflower, you would be right in thinking these are -not widely cultivated species today, although they are common garden -plants. They are notorious weeds and modern science has produced a -variety of herbicides to get rid of them. However, they are easy to -propagate. Native cultivation need not have involved anything more than -scattering seeds over open ground. These plants produced enormous -quantities of nutritional seeds. Thus, from the point of view of return -for amount of work invested, this kind of gardening would have been -economically efficient. Unlike other agriculture, this kind of -farming—if it really can be called that—would have fit in quite well -with hunting, fishing and plant collecting. - -We are only starting to find out what kinds of wild foods were eaten, -and of these, animals are better known than plants because their bones -are more resistant to decay and are easier to find. From the Gulf to the -northernmost inland territories, meat sources included fish, reptiles, -small and large mammals, and birds (Smith 1974; Gagliano and Webb 1970; -Byrd 1978; Jackson 1981). Shellfish were collected at coastal sites, -where brackish-water clams were abundant. Oysters were not commonly -eaten. Inland villagers do not seem to have eaten freshwater mussels at -all. Freshwater fish seem to have been the most consistent animal food, -occurring at practically every well-preserved site throughout the Lower -Mississippi Valley. Gar, catfish, buffalo fish, sunfish, and other -species were caught. Various kinds of turtles were also commonly taken. -Alligators and even snakes were sometimes eaten. Deer were important -sources of meat everywhere, probably ranking close to fish in terms of -overall contribution to local diets. Cottontail and swamp rabbits, -opossums, raccoons, squirrels, and other small mammals were hunted, as -were turkeys, sandhill cranes, and other kinds of birds. There seems to -have been considerable region-to-region and perhaps site-to-site -differences in the importance of small mammals and birds. - -Plant foods identified from Poverty Point refuse and cooking pits -include hickory nuts, pecans, acorns, walnuts, persimmons, wild grapes, -wild beans, hackberries, and seeds from honey locust, goosefoot, -knotweed, and doveweed (?) (Shea 1978; Woodiel 1981; Jackson 1981; Byrd -and Neuman 1978). - -These remains are far from a complete list of Poverty Point table fare. -Food residues have only been recovered at a handful of sites, far too -few to make sweeping generalizations about Poverty Point subsistence. -Differences in archaeological collecting methods and in preservation -conditions from site to site inhibit detailed comparison. Present -information will not allow us to say what foods were preferred or to -work out their relative contributions to villagers’ diets. - -Due to these problems, only general conclusions can be drawn. Even -though the quest for food remains has only just begun in earnest, the -failure of corn, beans and squash to turn up anywhere casts considerable -doubt about the traditional view of Poverty Point peoples as farmers. As -a matter of fact, of these three crops important in Southeastern Indian -diets at A. D. 1600, only squash has been found anywhere in the eastern -United States as early as Poverty Point times (Byrd and Neuman 1978). -Since we do not know if the goosefoot and knotweed seeds found at -Poverty Point sites were domesticated or wild varieties, we cannot be -certain whether or not Poverty Point peoples had gardens of these native -plants. All we really know, at present, is that Poverty Point -communities throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley ate wild plants and -animals. In the final analysis, we may anticipate that there was no -single, uniform pattern of obtaining food in the Lower Mississippi -Valley. Geographic and cultural differences were just too great. - - - - - EVERYDAY TOOLS - - -Hunting and collecting were basic to Poverty Point economy everywhere, -and rather specialized equipment was designed to aid in these food -quests. The bow and arrow was unknown. The javelin was the main hunting -device. These throwing spears were tipped with a variety of stone -points. Some points, like the ones illustrated in Figure 5, were -exclusive Poverty Point styles, but many were forms which had been made -for hundreds, even thousands, of years before. - - [Illustration: Figure 5. Javelin Points. a-b, Motley; c-d, f, Epps; - e, Pontchartrain. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -Casting distance and power were increased by the use of atlatls, or -spear-throwers. Shaped like oversized crochet needles, atlatls were held -in the throwing hand with the hooked end inserted into a shallow socket -in the butt of the spear (Figure 6). Hurled with a smooth, gliding -motion, the javelin was released toward the target while the atlatl -remained in the hand. - -Atlatl hooks were sometimes made of carved antler (Webb 1977, Figure -26), and polished stone weights supposedly were attached to the wooden -handles. These atlatl weights came in a variety of sizes and shapes, -including rectangular, diamond, oval, and boat-shaped bars and a host of -unusual forms (Figure 7). Some were quite elaborate with lustrous -finishes and engraved decorations. Repair holes reveal their value to -owners. - - [Illustration: Figure 6. Throwing a Javelin with an Atlatl. Closeup - Shows How Atlatl Hook Is Attached to End of Spear.] - - [Illustration: Figure 7. Atlatl Weights. a-c, e, Gorgets; d, - Triangular Tablet with Cross-Hatched Decoration; f-g, Narrow-Ended, - Rectangular Tablets. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -The hunter also used plummets (Figure 8). These objects were ground from -heavy lumps of magnetite, hematite, limonite, and occasionally other -stones. Shaped like plumb bobs or big teardrops, they often had -encircling grooves or drilled holes in the small end. Several -explanations of their function have been suggested, but the idea that -they were bola weights seems most likely. - - [Illustration: Figure 8. Hematite Plummets. a-d, Perforated Variety; - e-g, Grooved Variety. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -Other kinds of hunting equipment, such as nets, snares, traps, etc., -were probably used by Poverty Point hunters, but because they were made -of materials that decay easily, their use can only be determined because -the bones of nocturnal animals occur among food remains. The presence of -fishbones, ranging from tiny minnows to giant gar, implies that -fishermen used some sort of device or technique for mass catches. None -of the fishing equipment, known from contemporary villages like Bayou -Jasmine near Lake Pontchartrain (Duhe 1976), has been recognized at -Poverty Point villages. - -We know that men and women must have used other tools to obtain food, -but we are unable to say which of the many other chipped and ground -items were used in this way. Gathering plant foods such as nuts, acorns, -seeds, fruits, berries, greens, and “vegetables” probably did not -require implements, other than what may have been handy. Digging tubers -would have required some sort of device, but it need not have been -anything other than a convenient pointed stick. However, hoe-like tools -have been found at several Poverty Point villages and in abundance at -Terral Lewis, a small hamlet about 10 miles southeast of Poverty Point. -Some of these objects have coatings which look like melted glass. The -coatings are fused opal, produced when the “hoes” cut through sod. These -artifacts might have been real hoes used to till gardens, but in view of -the total absence of domesticated plant remains from Poverty Point -sites, this function remains unconfirmed. - -Foods were prepared with a variety of implements. Meat could have been -cut up with the aid of heavy chipped bifaces (“cleavers”) and sharp -flakes or blades (“knives”). Battered rocks, pitted stones, and mortars -might have served to pound nuts, acorns, and seeds into flour and oil -(Figure 9). - - [Illustration: Figure 9. Ground Stone Tools. a-b, Abraders; c, - Pitted Stone; d, Mortar. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -Cooking was done over hearths and in earth ovens. The earth oven was an -ingenious Poverty Point invention. Nothing more than a hole in the -ground to which hot baked clay objects were added, the earth oven was an -efficient heat-regulating and energy-conserving facility. Small objects -of baked clay were used to heat these baking pits (Figure 10). These -little objects were hand molded. Fingers, palms, and sometimes tools -were used to fashion dozens of different styles. These objects are a -distinguishing hallmark of Poverty Point culture. So common are they -that archaeologists refer to them as Poverty Point objects. - - [Illustration: Figure 10. Baked Clay Heating Objects. a, - Cylindrical; b-c, Cross-Grooved; d, Biconical Grooved; e, Biconical - Plain; f, Melon-Shaped. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -Modern experiments in earth oven cooking have been conducted (Hunter -1975; Gibson 1975). It was discovered through these experiments that the -shapes of clay objects used determined the intensity and duration of -temperatures inside the pits. This might have been a way of regulating -cooking conditions, just like setting the time and power level in modern -microwave ovens. Another important aspect of earth oven cooking is that -it would have conserved firewood, which must have been a precious -commodity around long-occupied villages. - -Like modern Americans, Poverty Point peoples had a variety of vessels -and contraptions for cooking, storage, and simple containment. They used -vessels—pots and bowls—made of stone and baked clay. Stone vessels were -chiseled out of soft sandstone and steatite (a dense, soft rock). Most -stone vessels were plain but a few had decorations. Holes drilled near -cracks show that these vessels were often repaired. Steatite was -imported by the tons to the Poverty Point site from quarries in northern -Georgia and Alabama (Webb 1944, 1977). - -The Poverty Point pottery vessels mark the initial appearance of this -kind of container in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Although not -abundant, their presence has been accorded great historical significance -by archaeologists. One archaeologist even argued that the art of making -pottery was learned from Indians in South or Central America or through -intermediaries along the Atlantic and eastern Gulf coasts. This view is -very controversial. Other archaeologists prefer to think that ceramics, -whatever their origin, were made by later people and that their -appearance in Poverty Point garbage deposits was due to subsequent -disturbances which churned and mixed earlier and later remains. And then -there are other archaeologists who contend that Poverty Point people -developed and made pottery largely on their own. - -The extreme differences in pottery throughout the various Poverty Point -territories support the latter view. In order to prevent cracking, some -Poverty Point potters added vegetable fibers to the clay; others put -sand and grit, bone particles, and hard lumps of clay; others added -nothing. Decorations do seem to have followed rather universal styles, -but each group of potters seems to have modified them to suit local -tastes and to have added new features of their own. - -Many other tools were used in everyday tasks of building houses, -butchering animals and making other tools. We know Poverty Point peoples -used stone tools for these jobs and probably also used wood, bone and -antler ones, as well. Most of these were very similar to those used by -earlier people. - -Items such as hammerstones, whetstones, polishers, and others, were used -mainly in a natural condition and required little or no preparation -themselves. The characteristic shapes and signs of alteration that -permit them to be recognized today got there through use and not -intentional design. - -Other tools were carefully shaped. Gouges, adzes, axes, and drills fall -into this category. The objects were chipped from large pieces of gravel -or big flakes into desired shapes. Often polish or tiny grooves appear -on the working edges of these tools, which leads us to suspect that they -were used to chop and carve wood, dig holes, and drill substances. - -Some of these items, especially celts and adzes (cutting tools with the -blades set at right angles to the handles), have counterparts of ground -and polished stone. These smoothed objects were made by chipping, -battering, grinding, and polishing in combination or singly. Whether -these more elaborate forms were used like their chipped varieties is -difficult to say, but they probably were. - -There is another group of chipped stone artifacts which is one of the -most abundant tool classes at the Poverty Point and Jaketown sites and -which occurs in respectable numbers at many Poverty Point villages (Webb -1977:42). These mysterious objects are called microliths. The most -common form has been dubbed a Jaketown perforator (Haag and Webb 1953: -Ford and Webb 1956). Typically, perforators are tiny artifacts, made -from blades and flakes; they have one bulbous end and a narrow point. -They were originally presumed to be drills or punches, but experiments -showed that they could have been worn-out scrapers, resulting from -whittling antler, bone, and perhaps wood (Ford and Webb 1956:77). Their -abundance at Poverty Point and Jaketown suggests a rather commonplace -function, and perhaps the experimental results have been rightly -interpreted. Recently, however, an archaeologist made a revealing -discovery. He noticed an obstruction in the bottom of an unfinished hole -that was drilled in the center of a narrow-ended, rectangular stone -tablet. Using a straight pin, he dislodged a small flint object. It was -the broken end of a Jaketown perforator; so perhaps, they were used as -drills after all! - - - - - SYMBOLIC OBJECTS AND CEREMONIES - - -Poverty Point culture had many unique objects, but perhaps most -important were its artifacts of personal adornment and symbolic meaning. -In no other preceding or contemporary culture were so many ornaments and -status symbols produced. Stone beads, made mostly of red jasper, -predominated, but many other unusual objects were manufactured. Pendants -were made in a multitude of geometric and zoomorphic shapes. Dominant -were birds, bird heads, animal claws, foot effigies, turtles, and open -clam shell replicas (Figure 11). Small, in-the-round carvings of -“locusts” and fat-bellied owls were made and were evidently widely -circulated, even among non-Poverty Point peoples (Webb 1971). One -pendant from Jaketown (Webb 1977:Figure 25) was a polished tablet with a -carved human face. Copper and galena beads and bangles were worn at the -Poverty Point and Claiborne sites. Perforated human and animal teeth, -cut out sections of human jaws, bone tubes, and bird bills (Webb -1977:52-53), dredged from the bottom mucks of the bayou below the -Poverty Point site, reveal that much more ornamentation of perishable -materials has disappeared. - - [Illustration: Figure 11. Stone Ornaments. a, g, Pendants; b, - Hour-Glass Bead; d-f, k, Tubular Beads; c, i-j, Fat Owl Effigy - Pendants; h, Clam Shell Effigy; l-m, Buttons; n, Claw Effigy. - Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -It would hardly be apt to describe the folks at Poverty Point as gaudily -dressed, but by comparison with their country neighbors living in little -villages and with their trade partners in Arkansas, Mississippi, and -other sections of Louisiana, they must have been quite “fancy” and -impressively clothed. Because so much personal ornamentation occurs at -Poverty Point itself, it is conceivable that social distinctions there -were more numerous and more rigid than anywhere else at the time. There -was only one Poverty Point. It must have seemed like New Orleans on -Mardi Gras, Mecca during the pilgrimage, and Mexico City on market -day—all rolled into one. - -Hundreds of solid stone objects, such as cones, cylinders, spheres, -cubes, trapezoids, buttons (Figure 11), and others, were also made by -skilled craftsmen, mainly at the giant Poverty Point site (Webb -1977:48). Since utilitarian functions for these small objects are -difficult to imagine, they too must have had ornamental, symbolic, or, -perhaps, even religious meanings. - -Religious and other symbolic purposes might have been served by stone -pipes. Most were shaped like ice-cream cones or fat cigars. Other -smoking tubes, made of baked clay, may have been the “poor man’s” -versions of sacred pipes in regional communities outside the sphere of -direct Poverty Point control. At the Poverty Point site, tubular clay -pipes may have served more ordinary, nonreligious purposes. The presence -of pipes, however, suggests that they might have been the first calumets -used by Southeastern Indians; calumets being the most sacred symbols of -intertribal relations, used to proclaim war and peace and to honor and -salute important ceremonies and visiting dignitaries. - -Other sacred objects may have included the small, crudely molded, clay -figurines depicting seated women, many of whom appear to be pregnant -(Figure 12). Heads were nearly always missing, although whether or not -they were snapped off deliberately during ceremonies is purely -conjectural. Perhaps, smaller, decorated versions of clay cooking -objects may have had religious or social symbolic value as well. - -It is also suspected that regular everyday artifacts could be turned -into sacred ones under certain circumstances. This probably explains the -200 to 300 steatite vessels that were broken and buried in an oval pit a -little southwest of the biggest mound at the Poverty Point site (Webb -1944). They must have been an offering of some kind. Other deposits of -steatite vessels, both whole and broken, were found at the Claiborne -site on the Gulf Coast (Gagliano and Webb 1970; Bruseth 1980). Religious -and social meaning can be ascribed to virtually anything, and there need -not be any recognizable intrinsic value or unusualness. No doubt -thousands of other artifacts functioned in this nondomestic realm of -behavior, and we just do not know what they are. - - [Illustration: Figure 12. Female Figurines of Baked Clay. a-b, d, - Torsos; c, Head. Photographs courtesy of Brian Cockerham.] - -Religion is one of the most powerful motive forces in culture. So it was -in Poverty Point culture. It provided sanctions, direction, meaning, and -explanation of great mysteries. It was central to group organization and -leadership. It was the single most important source of power and was -probably the underlying motivation for communal building projects and -other group activities. - -But unlike the other early great religions of the New World—Chavin in -South America and Olmec in Lowland Mexico—Poverty Point religion seems -to have lacked a special religious artwork. There are a few symbolic -artifacts, such as fat-bellied owl pendants and locust effigies that -have a widespread distribution (Webb 1971), but these objects often -occur in earlier contexts and in contemporary, non-Poverty Point -cultural situations. The lack of a widespread religious art style argues -against the possibility of a universal state religion and implies that -local populations had independent systems of worship. - -The mounds and the specialized objects that functioned in ceremonial -realms were probably all involved in some way with religion and ritual. -Yet the nature of Poverty Point religion and worship remains unknown. -Ancestor worship has been mentioned as one possibility. Amulets and -charms, if correctly identified, imply beliefs in spirit forces or -perhaps nature spirits. Bird representations in stone and earth suggest -that birds may have been deified. Bird symbolism was an integral part of -Southeastern religions during the Christian Era, and possibly its -beginnings were in Poverty Point beliefs. - -There is little information on Poverty Point burial practices. This is -primarily due to the fact that there have been so few excavations, and -those have been largely confined to residential areas in villages. - -Mound B at Poverty Point covered an ash bed which contained fragments of -burned bone (Ford and Webb 1956:35). Most were tiny and unidentifiable, -but one was the upper end of a burned human femur, proving that at least -one person had been cremated and covered by the earthen tomb. - -Further evidence of cremation, as well as in-flesh burial, derives from -the Cowpen Slough site near Larto Lake in central Louisiana. Although -conceivably later, the burials were completely enveloped by Poverty -Point occupational deposits which seemed to be undisturbed. Since the -burial area was not completely excavated, many question marks still -remain. However, we know that adults and at least one juvenile were -buried. Some were in tightly bent positions, but the positions of others -were not determined (Baker and Webb 1978; Giardino 1981). One small pit -in the burial area contained fragments of an unburned adult in the -bottom and an undisturbed cremation of a juvenile near the top (Giardino -1981). All of the excavated interments were close together, and the -presence of surrounding postmolds (Baker and Webb 1978) may indicate -burial beneath a house floor or some other structure. Except for a set -of deer antlers, placed at the pelvis of one of the individuals, there -were no apparent burial offerings; nearby artifacts seemed to be just -household trash. - -The only other known human remains that apparently date to the Poverty -Point period were some teeth and a lower jaw dredged from the bottom -mucks of Bayou Macon, the small stream that lies at the foot of the -bluff beneath the Poverty Point site. These were not burials, however, -but ornaments! The molars were perforated at crown bases, and the jaw -section may have been cut into shape. These objects were probably more -than just decorations; they may have served as amulets, magical charms, -battle trophies, or religious objects symbolizing revered ancestors. - - - - - SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT - - -Society and government are the most difficult dimensions of prehistoric -cultures for archaeologists to reconstruct. This is because they do not -leave material remains and must be inferred indirectly. Yet social and -political institutions are basic to every culture. They are primary -factors that distinguish one group of people from another. - -Attempts to determine social and political organization have been mainly -limited to the Poverty Point site. It is hard, especially in light of -accomplishments at the magnificent town of Poverty Point, to think of -Poverty Point society as anything other than an advanced culture, -perhaps attaining, if only momentarily, the threshold of civilization -itself. - -Political organization seems to have been as sophisticated. Just to run -a town the size of Poverty Point—the largest in the country in 1000 -B.C.—must have required administration far more complicated than that -normally found in primitive bands or simple tribes. In addition to its -giant size, there was an ambitious civic building program that required -administering, as well as commercial trade enterprises that had to be -overseen. All this pointed to strong, centralized authority and strict -regulation. - -Chiefdoms had these capabilities, and if the Poverty Point community -comprised a chiefdom, it would be the first appearance of this elaborate -socio-political institution in the prehistoric United States (Gibson -1974). The political arm of Poverty Point seems to have reached beyond -the major municipal district. It no doubt embraced those nearby -neighborhoods which stretched for more than three miles above and below -the central enclosure. It probably extended farther to those bluff edge -and lowland Villages within a 20 to 30 mile radius of the “capital.” If -this 400-square-mile territory does represent the sphere of Poverty -Point jurisdiction, it is likely that influence on the outer limits was -restricted to special situations. Everyday life in these outlying -villages must have normally transpired without influence or interference -from the chiefdom center. There may have been yet another jurisdictional -realm. Long-distance management, if not some degree of control, seems -evident in foreign trade relations. - -If indeed Poverty Point did exercise three levels of administration, -over municipality, district, and commercial trade, it would have been -one of the most complex developments in prehistoric America north of -Mexico. This country would not see its like again until after A.D. 1000 -and, even then, only in a few places in the East. There are dissenting -views on the chiefdom hypothesis, and it will not be surprising if -future studies find that different kinds of societies and distinctive -structures, existed throughout the Lower Mississippi culture area. - -Regardless of whether Poverty Point communities were chiefdoms or tribes -or whether organization was complex or simple, there is no doubt that -kinship played a dominant role in holding people together. Communities -were most basically groups of kinfolks, joined by blood and marriage -ties. Social relationships were based on familiarity. Social statuses -were established by personal abilities and by birthright. The simpler -the organization, the more important was personal ability and -achievement; the more complex the society, the more important became -birthright—family standing and inheritance. - -Various studies have revealed that the Poverty Point community was -well-ordered and highly structured. Part of that order and structure was -due to social and political factors which permeated the basic fabric of -Poverty Point society. Perhaps the best example of Poverty Point -political organization is its well-run trading system. - -Long-distance trade was a hallmark of Poverty Point culture. Like most -other aspects of the culture, there is no consensus about the nature of -the trade. Archaeologists argue about identifications and sources of -trade materials, especially various flints, but no one questions that -many materials were moved over long distances. Some materials originated -more than 700 miles from the Poverty Point site, and extreme distances -of more than 1000 miles sometimes separate sources from final -destinations. Trade materials were quite varied and derived from many -areas of the eastern United States, including the Ouachita, Ozark, and -Appalachian mountains and the Upper Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes -(Figure 13). - -Poverty Point trade dealt primarily in rocks and minerals. At least so -it seems. If other things were also circulated, they left no remains. -Rocks do make good sense, however. Indians of the day made most of their -tools out of rocks; they had no metal-working technology. Rocks do occur -in the heartland of Poverty Point culture but mainly as gravels or as -outcrops of crumbly sandstones, ironstones, and other soft materials, -ill-suited for chipping. While local resources could have furnished (and -did furnish for many Lower Mississippi cultures and many periods) all -the essential materials for craft and tool “industries,” most of the -materials imported by Poverty Point groups were better and prettier. -They were obviously highly desired, and the quantities in which they -were circulated shows that consumer demand was high and supply systems -efficient. - - [Illustration: Figure 13. Areas of Poverty Point Trade Materials.] - - POVERTY POINT - A Copper, Banded Slate - B Gray Northern Flint - C Galena, Ozark Chert - D Black Bighorn Chert - E Novaculite, Hematite, Magnetite - F Quartz, Fluorite - G Pebble Chert - H Catahoula Sandstone - I Yellow Pebble Chert - J Brown Sandstone - K Red Jasper, Greenstone, Quartzite, Granite - L Steatite, Schist, Pickwick Chert - -The main question about Poverty Point trade concerns how materials were -moved from one place to another. When this question first arose, one -suggestion was that gathering expeditions were sent out from the big -Poverty Point site itself (Ford and Webb 1956:125-126). Later, other -means were proposed, means ranging from the activities of wandering -merchants to ceremonial exchange systems connected with widespread -festivals or religious proselytizing. - -It seems that several Poverty Point villages, located north of the -Poverty Point site, produced evidence that they were more directly -involved with importation and exportation of certain rocks than was -Poverty Point (Brasher 1973). In other words, these villages—Jaketown in -Mississippi, Deep Bayou in southeastern Arkansas, and others—seemed to -have been important trade outposts, where exotic materials, moving -southward from northern source areas, were amassed and then locally -distributed. The remainder, perhaps the surplus or a quota, was then -sent on to the primary trade “market,” the huge town at Poverty Point. -There, a major share of imported materials was consumed by folks living -in the “city limits” and by their neighbors in little surrounding -hamlets. - -From Poverty Point, significant quantities of exotic raw materials were -shipped further southward all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. At least -some southbound exports were prefabricated before shipment. South -Louisiana “markets” received a variety of raw materials but not a full -array. - -Several considerations are crucial to understanding Poverty Point trade. -First, materials from outside the region, as well as local materials, -were traded. Second, Poverty Point territories, though scattered and -widely separated, lay on or near an interconnected system of waterways -ultimately tied to the Mississippi River. This certainly supports the -belief of the importance of waterborne transport, especially in view of -the bulk of some imported materials. Third, geographic location looms as -a major factor in import-export operations. There can be no question of -the importance of the principal town of Poverty Point in the entire -trade network. This major settlement did not fall at the geographic -center of the exchange area but near the common junction of the major -rivers that served as trade routes. Along these rivers between Poverty -Point and sources of exotic materials were the trade outposts. - -There are several equally plausible ways of looking at Poverty Point -trade based on our presently limited knowledge. There are additionally -many things we will probably never be able to find out, such as the -motivation for trade and the circumstances under which it transpired -among participating communities. For example, were trade relationships -based on common political alliances or allegiances? Were religious ties -paramount? Were purely capitalistic motives involved? Although we do not -understand why it occurred, we are beginning to understand its mechanics -a little better. The following is offered as one plausible -reconstruction of _how_ Poverty Point trade might have operated. - -The capital of Poverty Point trade was the giant town of Poverty Point. -It was the hub—the one place where all trade lines converged. It was the -place where raw material and commodity shipments were destined. Other -villages, located on rivers which joined Poverty Point with source areas -of exotic materials, became important as trade outposts—gateway -communities more directly involved with primary acquisition and initial -relay of materials. It is probable that these outposts, like Jaketown -and Deep Bayou, maintained rather exclusive connections with the peoples -who were directly responsible for quarrying or collecting trade -materials or through whom such materials had to first circulate. After -amassing stocks of raw materials and extracting that portion essential -for local use, these trade outposts then shipped the bulk of the -commodities on to Poverty Point. - -Some materials acquired by these gateway outposts never seem to have -been passed on to the ultimate marketplace and others were sent on in -small quantities compared with amounts actually obtained. It seems that -each outpost had its own preferences for materials and that those -supplies were used first to satisfy local needs before being exported. -Yet some raw materials appear to have passed through these outposts -without major local withdrawals. Perhaps Poverty Point was able to -exercise monopolies on certain materials, though the ultimate source of -power or persuasion used to insure them is unknown. - -Once materials arrived at Poverty Point, several things seem to have -happened. The lion’s share appears to have been consumed locally, mainly -at the Poverty Point site itself but also within its immediately -surrounding communities. The remaining portion seems to have been -earmarked for movement on down river. Some southbound materials were -passed on in rough, or unmodified condition, but some were trimmed and -partially shaped. Some finished goods or artifacts also were distributed -to southern consumers. What might have been given in exchange by these -folks who lived in “rockless” areas of south Louisiana and south -Mississippi is unknown but perishable goods are often mentioned in this -connection. Limited trade in finished goods westward across southern -Arkansas and northern Louisiana has also been documented. - -It should be reemphasized that this reconstruction of Poverty Point -trade is speculative. It is based on current data and current -appreciation of prehistoric trade relationships. Yet there are many -things we do not understand about Poverty Point trade, and the final -word on this subject has not yet been spoken. - - - - - A FINAL APPRAISAL - - -The preceding view of Poverty Point culture has been written much like -an ethnographer might have described it if he had been able to go back -some 3000 years in the past. Unfortunately, time travel and direct -observation of extinct cultures are beyond our capabilities, and that is -why much of the Poverty Point story must be written with such words as: -seems, appears, perhaps, maybe, and other equivocal terms. The Poverty -Point story is a patchwork of facts, hypotheses, guesses, and -speculations. Often there are many different ways to look at the same -set of data. This is why there are so many alternative interpretations -and differences of opinion among archaeologists who study this -fascinating culture. This should not be mistaken for a bad state of -affairs. It is good and healthy. It is a sign to all that much remains -to be done before we can present a detailed picture in which everyone -can be confident. - -But more than agreement or disagreement is the responsibility thrust -upon everyone—archaeologist and public alike—who thirst for -understanding of humankind. Poverty Point represents a charge and a -commitment. The proud people who were carriers of Poverty Point culture -are all dead. But the things they created, their magnificent -achievements, their contributions to the saga of human development on -this planet live on. Theirs is a legacy worth understanding. - - - - - REFERENCES CITED - - -Baker, William S., Jr. and Clarence H. Webb - - 1978 Burials at the Cowpen Slough site (16CT147). _Louisiana - Archaeological Society, Newsletter_ 5(2):16-18. - -Brasher, Ted. J. - - 1973 _An investigation of some central functions of Poverty Point._ - Unpublished M.A. thesis, Northwestern State University, - Natchitoches. - -Bruseth, James E. - - 1980 Intrasite structure at the Claiborne site. In Caddoan and Poverty - Point archaeology: essays in honor of Clarence Hungerford Webb, - edited by Jon L. Gibson. _Louisiana Archaeology_ 6 for - 1979:283-318. - -Byrd, Kathleen M. - - 1978 Zooarchaeological remains. In The peripheries of Poverty Point, - by Prentice M. Thomas, Jr. and L. Janice Campbell. _New World - Research Report of Investigations_ 12:238-244. - -Byrd, Kathleen M. and Robert W. Neuman - - 1978 Archaeological data relative to prehistoric subsistence in the - Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, edited by Sam B. Hilliard. - _Geoscience and Man_ 19:9-21. - -Duhe, Brian - - 1976 Preliminary evidence of a seasonal fishing activity at Bayou - Jasmine. _Louisiana Archaeology_ 3:33-74. - -Ford, James A. - - 1955 The puzzle of Poverty Point. _Natural History_ 64(9):466-472. - -Ford, James A. - - 1969 A comparison of Formative cultures in the Americas, diffusion of - the psychic unity of man. _Smithsonian Contributions to - Anthropology_ 11. - -Ford, James A., Philip Phillips, and William G. Haag - - 1955 The Jaketown site in West-Central Mississippi. _American Museum - of Natural History, Anthropological Papers_ 45(1). - -Ford, James A. and Clarence H. Webb - - 1956 Poverty Point, a Late Archaic site in Louisiana. _American Museum - of Natural History, Anthropological Papers_ 46(1). - -Gagliano, Sherwood M. and Clarence H. Webb - - 1970 Archaic-Poverty Point transition at the Pearl River mouth. In The - Poverty Point Culture, edited by Bettye J. Broyles and Clarence - H. Webb. _Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin_ - 12:47-72. - -Giardino, Marco - - 1981 (Untitled). Unpublished MS, on file with author, Tulane - University, New Orleans, Louisiana. - -Gibson, Jon L. - - 1973 _Social systems at Poverty Point, an analysis of intersite and - intrasite variability._ Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist - University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. - - 1974 Poverty Point, the first North American chiefdom. _Archaeology_ - 27(2):96-105. - - 1975 Fire pits at Mount Bayou (16CT35), Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. - _Louisiana Archaeology_ 2:201-218. - -Haag, William G. and Clarence H. Webb - - 1953 Microblades at Poverty Point sites. _American Antiquity_ - 18(3):245-248. - -Hunter, Donald G. - - 1975 Functional analysis of Poverty Point clay objects. _Florida - Anthropologist_ 28(1):57-71. - -Jackson, H. Edwin - - 1981 Recent research on Poverty Point period subsistence and - settlement systems: test excavations at the J. W. Copes site in - northeast Louisiana. _Louisiana Archaeology_ 8:73-86. - -Kuttruff, Carl - - 1975 The Poverty Point site: north sector test excavation. _Louisiana - Archaeology_ 2:129-151. - -Shea, Andrea B. - - 1978 Botanical remains. In The peripheries of Poverty Point, by - Prentice M. Thomas, Jr. and L. Janice Campbell. _New World - Research Report of Investigations_ 12:245-260. - -Smith, Brent W. - - 1974 A preliminary identification of faunal remains from the Claiborne - site. _Mississippi Archaeology_ 9(5):1-14. - -Webb, Clarence H. - - 1944 Stone vessels from a northeast Louisiana site. _American - Antiquity_ 9(4):386-394. - - 1971 Archaic and Poverty Point zoomorphic locust beads. _American - Antiquity_ 36(1):105-114. - - 1977 The Poverty Point culture. _Geoscience and Man_ 17. - -Woodiel, Deborah K. - - 1981 Survey and excavation at the Poverty Point site, 1978. - _Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin_ 24:9-11. - - - Anthropological Study Series - - No. 1 On the Tunica Trail by Jeffrey P. Brain - No. 2 The Caddo Indians of Louisiana by Clarence H. Webb & Hiram F. - Gregory - No. 3 The Role of Salt in Eastern North American Peoples by Ian Brown - No. 4 El Nuevo Constante by Charles E. Pearson, et al. - No. 5 Preserving Louisiana’s Legacy by Nancy W. Hawkins - No. 6 Louisiana Prehistory by Robert W. Neuman & Nancy W. Hawkins - No. 7 Poverty Point by Jon L. Gibson - - - Publications can be obtained by writing - - Division of Archeology - P.O. Box 44242 - Baton Rouge, LA - - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - -—Silently corrected a few typos. - -—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook - is a government public document, and can be freely copied and - distributed. - -—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by - _underscores_. - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Poverty Point, by Jon L. Gibson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK POVERTY POINT *** - -***** This file should be named 62948-0.txt or 62948-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/9/4/62948/ - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |