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
[email protected]. 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
[email protected]
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.
