Ceremonial Structures - What was the basis for the details in the ceremonial/mound area?

What was the basis for the location, height, and shape of mounds?

The location of the mounds was taken from the Nodena village plan (Morse 1989). Mound A (the larger mound) was described by Dr. Hampson as having the following characteristics in 1900: “40 steps (120 feet) long and from north to south 37 steps (111 feet) wide. It was 15 ½ feet tall. There was an apron or terrace 20 to 30 feet wide extending the length of the mound on the north side. The top of the mound was flat and was 40 feet long by 60 feet wide. To the northeast was a small mound about 2 feet high and 25 steps in diameter. To the northwest was a was a small round mound about 12 to 18 inches high, 15 steps in diameter. To the west and a little south of the large mound was a rather large rectangular flat mound, 42 steps from north to south and 37 steps from east to west and about 4 feet high. To the south and a little west was a small round mound about 3 feet high, 31 steps in diameter.” (1989:9).

Why are there stairs on the mounds?

Reports of “stairs” on mounds come from a number of sources. From the de Soto annals, for example, is a description of “an eight-foot wide ramp of earthen stairs steps secured by squared retaining timbers” (Nabokov and Easton 1989:93). Archaeological investigations at Hiwassee Island recovered stairs on the mound there.

What is the "plaza" and the "chunky playing court" and why did you locate them where you did?

According to Dr. Hampson a “chunkey playing court” at Nodena was south of the largest mound and was 150 feet long by 100 feet wide and had been covered with sand.” (Hampson 1989:9). Chunkey was a sport played by many historic groups that involved rolling a stone wheel-shaped “chunkey stone” and then players threw spears with the one closest to the stopping point of the rolling stone - but not touching – being the winner. In many ways it is quite similar to the Europe game of boccee ball. A description from James Adair (1775):

More details are available at online at Indian Games hosted by Authorama

Morse (1989:99) also locates a of a “large plaza or public square” to the north and between Mounds A and B due to the absence of houses or burials and locates the chunkey field to the south of this area and Mound A. However, there have been some reports of burials being found in these areas - which would suggest that these areas are not plazas and/or chunkey courts. For this visualization we have elected to show both a plaza and chunky field. Large public plazas were common features of villages from this period and are document from many archeological sites and historic reports. Du Pratz, for example, describes a “parade ground” at the Grand Village of the Natchez that was “250 paces wide and 300 paces long” (Nabokov and Easton 1989:97). The specific locations in the visualization are based on the site map.

What is the basis for the size and construction details of the structures on the mounds?

As reported by Dr. Hampson (1989:10) and further discussed in Mainfort (2005:23), three structures were found by Dr. Hampson on Mound A. The upper structure was described as rectangular and roughly 40 feet by 20 feet. In the site plans evaluated by Mainfort (2005:23-24) three rectangular structures are shown.

The largest is 40 east west x 20 north south and two smaller ones, also rectangular, are each roughly 22 x 13. However, Mainfort notes “the basis for Hampson’s drawing of the structure on the upper terrace of Mound A is not clear” (2005:24). Hampson did provide more details on the smaller structures. He describes them (Hampson 1989:13):

Similar structures on mounds have been reported historically, for example, Charlevoix 1761:256 states:

According to du Pratz, in 1718, the Natchez War Chief occupied a structure that was 30 long and 20 feet high. The walls were wattle-and-daub and there were no windows. Beautiful woven mats covered the inside walls. The roof was thatched with grass “clipped uniformly, and in this way, however high the wind may be, it can do nothing against the cabin. The coverings last twenty years without repairing” (quoted in Nabokov and Easton 1989:96).

Again from Charlevoix 1761:256 for the Natchez,

Benjamin Hawkins visiting the area described by Bartram some two decades (1798) later and provided these additional structural details (quoted in Pickett 1853 and accessible at History of Alabama, etc...in Google Books Online:

The rank of the buildings which form the square:

In 1843 the artist John Mix Stanley visited a Creek town and reported the following information on how the community was organized to construct these large ceremonial structures. He (1892:12) describes the town of Tuck-a-back-a-micco:

It is likely that the specifics (especially about the “lengths of logs”) was related to the presence of steel axes and other similar tools. Therefore, the precise details are probably not capable of being extrapolated “back” to the Nodena village but the general way in which a community can be organized may well be.

This material is available in: Portraits of North American Indians in Google Books Online

Why is one of the Mound structures shown as circular?

A round structure was reported by Dr Hampson on Mound B. Only limited excavation was conducted by Dr Hampson, but he believed that he found evidence for a round structure some 60 feet in diameter. Mainfort (2005:25) raises some questions about the strength of the evidence, noting that Hampson only exposed only a small part of the arcs and that the structure, if present, would be the largest structure excavated at Nodena. We have elected to represent this structure in the (re)creation but its presence should be considered tentative.

However, there were indeed round “ceremonial” structures of this size reported at various historic Indian villages. For example, a large circular structure used by the Cherokee was given this extended description from Bartram (1853:366-367) as reported in Bushnell (1919:60). The report also provides a perspective to the complex construction techniques that could be applied to any large structure.

The Cherokee town of Cowe (Kawi'yl, Mooney) stood on the banks of the Little Tennessee, about the mouth of Cowee Creek, in the present Macon County, North Carolina, among the beautiful hills and valleys of the southern Alleghenies (pi. 10, a). When visited by Bartram in the spring of 1776, the town consisted of about 100 dwellings, and here was a town house large enough to allow several hundred persons to gather within. This occupied the summit of an artificial mound some 20 feet in height. The building rose 30 feet higher, making the peak of the roof 50 feet above the surrounding area. Bartram's description of this structure is of much interest (op. cit., pp. 366-367):

Again from Bartram’s Travels (but this time quoted in Pickett 1851:100) and accessible at History of Alabama, etc... in Google Books Online we have this description of a circular “ceremonial” structure from the Creek:

Why is there no wall/palisade on the mound around the buildings?

In many mound sites around the Eastern US there are wooden walls (palisades) that surround the structures on the mound tops. But there are many others that do not have such a palisade. Dr. Hampson’s excavations did not recover any evidence of a palisade and none is shown in the (re)creations.

Houses and Other Structures - What structures are present in the virtual village and why?

What was the basis for the size and shape of houses?

Excavations at Nodena by Morse exposed two square house foundations - one 17 feet (5.2 m) on a side and one-19 ft (5.7 m). Mainfort (2005) described his careful study of the site map prepared by Dr. Hampson. These maps showed detailed floor plans of 54 of the 66 houses. While Mainfort believes these plans to be somewhat “idealized,” they do provide some evidence for the house distributions and sizes. Scaling the house sizes from Mainfort’s published data (this should be seen as only an approximation), we could count 23 houses whose east-west dimension (typically the longest side) was between 10 and 17 feet. Twenty had the east-west dimension between 20 and 25 feet and four were longer than 25 feet on that side. Sixteen of the houses were essentially square with dimensions ranging from 10 x 10 to 13 x 13 feet. The larger houses were more rectangular in size with the longest axis running east to west. The Natchez had, according to Bushnell (1919:67) houses that were perfectly square, none less than 15 feet each way, and some 30 or more feet on a side.

In the visualizations, we have five base "floor plans" that are used throughout the site. The houses average 20X13 feet wide, and 20 feet in height

What was the basis for the appearance of the houses?

There are a number of sources for house construction and appearance. Some of the historic reports include: Charlevoix (1761:256):

What was the basis for your characterization of the wall surfaces and construction details of houses?

There is archeological, historic and traditional information on house construction. Houses at the contemporary Bradley archeological site are described (Morse and Morse 1983:286) as

Wall construction of many square structures in the American Bottoms (earlier than Nodena) used red oak, willow, white oak, ash and hickory (Simon 2002). Most of the hardwoods were available at the American Bottoms bluff bases and would not be as accessible at Nodena where cypress and related species would be much more common. However, even at sites in the floodplain in the American Bottoms builders preferred oak, hickory and similar trees to the local floodplain wood types.

A drawing in Bushnell (1919:64) shows the construction details for a wattle and daub or wattlework wall. The image (and report) is available on the web in Native Villages and Village Sites East of the Mississippi in Google Books Online

Bushnell (1919:64) has this description:

The Natchez had, according to Bushnell (1919:67), houses built in the following manner:

Bushnell (1919:69) also quotes James Adair (1775):

Archeological evidence from a very large sample of excavated structures from the American Bottoms suggest that wall thickness of houses otherwise similar to those at Nodena – which is in the range of 20-30 cm (Hargrave 1991:222).

What was the basis for your (re)creation of the roof shapes and forms?

There is relatively little archeological evidence from the Nodena site for the specifics of roof structures except the note of “roof supports” from the 1973 excavations (Morse 1989:102) but there is a great deal of archeological information from other sites and areas. While from an earlier period there are a number of well documented burned structures from the American Bottoms area (near modern day St Louis). As described in Simon (2002), the construction materials were generally consistent. Burned thatch was found at 11 locations and was commonly longer grass stems, giant cane and small woody and twigs – often willow. Roof shapes were hip or gabled based on the presence of central post or posts. One example of a recreation of a Mississippian house at Toqua TN can be seen a the Archaeology and the Native Peoples of Tennessee site.

What was the basis for the exterior color(s) of the structures?

In our first cycle of visualization we have elected to show the walls of all the structures in various shades of earth tones. These colors would be the result of using a typical clay for the wattle and daub surface. In future examples, however, we plan to offer a wider range of colors and decorations. Historic reports indicate that the use of color and decorations was common. Busnell 1919:80, for example, says:

What are the small house-like structures on "stilts?"

These are “corn cribs” – storage facilities for corn. Across the continent many Indian communities grew and stored substantial amounts of corn. In some areas these were stored in deep pits but in location like eastern Arkansas the soil properties and moisture made this option impossible. As a result, structures were built that protected the corn from both possible flooding as well as destruction from animals. In excavations conducted in 1973 Morse uncovered some 45 cobs of maize in Feature 8. The maize was burned and the cobs were largely intact leading Morse (1973:8) to propose that an above ground corn crib (or granary) was present. Mainfort et al (1997:113) are not as confident that this was a corn crib as no evidence of daub was found. They also suggest that corn was not stored in its cob form but as parched corn. We actually have some early photographs of some example of corn cribs - there are some from Chief Long Hat’s family compound near Binger, OK taken in 1870 by William Soule (see examples a the Texas Beyond History website). Historic reports also describe above ground corn storage. Spanish reports from the immediate area (but some 100-150 years later) describe corn cribs as “houses raised up on four posts, timbered like a loft and the floor of cane” (Elvas 1993:75, quoted in Mainfort et al). A modern recreation from the Etowah Gallery can be seen online in the Georgia Lost Worlds website.

What are the shorter pole structures with objects on them?

These are drying racks. A drying rack was used to dry (or sometimes smoke) both animal and vegetable material to preserve it. They generally consisted of four (or more) uprights and a rectangular grid of poles upon which the material to be dried (or smoked) was placed. Some historical drawings include those of John White and De Bry at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/images/white_debry_html/plate44.html

An example from LeMoyne showing Timucua Indians smoking game on a rack can be seen at: http://pelotes.jea.com/NativeAmerican/LeMoyne/drying%20rack.gif with an accessible and interesting critical discussion on it and other images at http://pelotes.jea.com/leMoyne.htm and in this National Humanities Center Article.

Wissler has a drawing of a Blackfoot drying rack (1920:26) -- available in his book titled North American Indians of the Plains hosted by Google Books Online.

Jenks (1900:1068) illustrates a section of drying rack used for drying wild rice in Plate 75 -- available on line at Tusayan Migration Traditions in Google Books Online

What are the pole structures that are taller and have grass or cane on them?

These are variously referred to as “summer kitchens,” “shade arbors,” “brush arbors” or “ramadas,” and they are simply shaded areas where it is possible to work – typically during the summer heat. They were constructed by setting up a series of vertical poles, taller than a person, attaching cross poles and then covering the framework with branches, grass or other materials that would provide shade. Sometimes the sides had intermediate horizontal poles at roughly waist height that served as storage or work surfaces. The great majority of historic references to these structures come from areas west of the Mississippi Valley (especially the Caddoan area and Great Plains and beyond) but there are also many historic accounts of them in the southeast (Pezzoni 1997). Of particular interest is this reference which links the Indian use of brush arbors to their important role in African American religion during the pre-Civil War period. As described by Minges (2002:462):

Ramadas can been seen prominently in photos from Long Hat’s village (http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/tejas/fundamentals/life.html).

What are the pole structures with hides attached?

These are hide stretchers. They were used to help clean and process deer and other hides. A detailed description on the general process is from the Milwaukee Public Museum (on-line at http://www.mpm.edu/WIRP/ICW-11.html): The hide was then hung on a line, the wrinkles pulled out, and bullet holes sewn up with needle and thread. Along the edge of the hide, holes were cut at intervals of three to four inches and a cord was passed through one hole and out the next all the way around the skin. The holes and the cord allowed easy suspension on the stretching frame. Every tanner had one of these frames set up permanently in a shady spot in her yard. The frame consisted of two posts set into the ground five to six feet apart with horizontal crossposts tied on about three and a half feet apart. A cord was attached to the neck of the hide and fastened to one of the upright posts of the frame. The tail portion was attached to the other upright, and the legs were tied with cords to each of the four corners of the frame. A long cord was passed through the edge lacing and then around the frame and the hide itself could be drawn taut within the rectangle. A stretching tool made of wood with a convex blunt edge was strongly pushed and stroked in a sweeping motion across the hide, causing it to stretch. After a few minutes of this, the suspension cords needed tightening. This process was repeated over and over until the hide had reached its maximum size. During all this time the hide was drying, and it had to be completely dry before it could be removed from the frame. The frame was always set up in the shade so the hide would not dry too rapidly, otherwise it would shrink and stiffen. Depending on the weather, the hide stayed on the frame for about an hour to an hour and a half. When the woman removed it, the hide was pure white and very soft to the touch.

Accessible information on the overall process is at http://mdc.mo.gov/teacher/highered/crafts/craft20.htmIn addition to stretching, hide smoking (or smudging) was probably practiced at Nodena. In later versions we will add some of these features to the images.

Corn Fields and Vegetation- What was the basis for the presence of vegetation in the visualizations?

What was the relationship between the village and the fields around it?

Multiple images show the agricultural fields near the Nodena village and the village in the background. The Nodena people raised a number of crops, principally corn, beans and squash. Though ancestral to the corn of today, the types of corn grown 500 years ago were generally smaller plants - but some grew to as tall as 10 feet. Beans and squash plants were often planted among the corn, though were chosen not to be present the visualizations presented here.

According to Hammett (1997:197):

Note that in the Mississippi Valley, around the Nodena Village, it is likely that frequent flooding may have meant that there was no need to have fallow fields.

What was the basis for the representation of the corn field?

We have both historic and archeological evidence for the layout and character of corn fields. Most of the early European travelers described the extensive corn fields that they encountered as they neared any substantial village but they only provide general descriptions.

One very useful early historic source is the illustrations of John White. White traveled to “Virginia” in 1585 and was there for 13 months. Again, it should be noted that evidence from the east coast of the US and about a 100 years later than Nodena should not be used uncritically, but White’s watercolors and the engravings made from them do provide some useful information. In his “Village of Secoton” watercolor White shows small well delimited fields immediately beside the villages. Images of the watercolors and engravings are available at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/images/white_debry_html/plate35.html

As discussed in Hulton and Quinn (1964) – and available on the web at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/images/white_debry_html/white.html#s38 – White’s watercolor shows:

It has been stated that this scene was probably drawn by White on July 15-16th, 1585. The three stages of maize shown agree well with this date, since, according to Barlowe, the Carolina Algonkians planted three crops per year, in May (harvested in July), June (harvested in August), and July (harvested in September). The ripe maize shown may be the variety which, according to Hariot, was 10 feet high when ripe at fourteen weeks (there were two other varieties which ripened in ten to twelve weeks, when they were 6-7 feet tall).

Another of White’s images, “Village of Pomeiooc,”also shows fields in very close relationship to that village.

The 1917 publication Buffalo Bird Woman’s Garden is from western Minnesota but has early photos and drawings showing many garden/field details. In the sketch maps of the fields they are shown as rather small “plots,” each associated with an individual or family group. The White watercolor appears to show a somewhat similar plot character.

We have shown the fields as “raised” or ridged, with the corn planted in continuous ridges. Raised and ridged fields are found in archeological excavations from Ocmulgee Site (GA) where the ridges were around 20 cm high and 30-50 cm apart (Kelley 1938:10-11). Microtopographic data from the Litka Site (13OB31) where the surface has remained undamaged also clearly shows ridges. (Image courtesy: Office of State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Steve Lensink and Lynn Alex)

Early historic reports of remnant ridged fields in areas such as the Ocmulgee River describe what appear to be more or less continuous fields extending for some two miles from the location of an abandoned village and in other sections of the report fields are described as extending for 15-20 miles up and down the river (Bartram 1928:68). This is also consistent with the early Spanish reports who describe “very large fields among the margins of the rivers and streams” throughout Northeastern Arkansas (Hudson 1997:288).

that there have been changes to the surface over the centuries, the data is still very useful. The soils mapped in the immediate location of the Nodena village, and for some distance to the south-east and north-west are (relatively) well drained soils on what may be a relic levee or point bar [link to soil map image?]. Beyond this to the east the ground slopes off to a slough and to the west was Young’s Lake, which was drained around 1900 (Mainfort 2003). High resolution elevation data that was developed for entire state in 2006 by the Arkansas Geographic Information Office and available at GeoStor shows a pattern that is very similar to the soils data and indicates that the village area is on the highest ground in the area with lower elevations corresponding to the more poorly drained soils.

We have chosen, therefore, to show the fields around the Nodena Village as an extensive series of individual plots to the west of the village in the area covered by the images and covering the entire well drained soil area but not as a single large “field.”

The density and character of corn in the fields is a matter of some discussion. The watercolors of White show tall corn (ca 10ft) in dense fields and it is presumed that this watercolor reflects a July 1585 date (Barlow in Quinn 1955). We have elected to show a somewhat less dense distribution and an earlier date in the year so that the plants are not shown with tassles.

Gartner (2003) in Raised Field Landscapes of Native North America is another very useful source on this topic and has many details and images of these types of fields and their characteristics.

Benjamin Hawkins described a Creek field in late 1796 in Georgia in the following:

This text can be viewed at http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cmamcrk4/crkhk1.html

The specific visual properties of the corn plants in the images are shown in a generic form and do NOT represent specific plant types.

Was there a possible watchers platform in the field and what did it look like?

Field watcher platforms are platforms in or near the fields that are places for individuals (often children or women) to serve as guards for the crops. They would serve to scare off animals and birds and could raise the alarm if unfriendly people appeared. Such watcher platforms are shown in the early water colors of White especially the “Indian Village of Secton” discussed above. A lengthy discussion and a sketch of a watchers platform are also found the Buffalo Bird Woman’s Garden. A similar sketch example of a watchers platform is shown in Plate 5 of Schoolcraft 1851(III) – representing a Mdewakanton platform in eastern Minnesota.

Why have you shown isolated trees in the field and what was your basis for the details of the forest around the site?

The nature of the trees and forest in the area of the Nodena Village was the result of the area’s natural conditions as well as 1,000s of years of “forest management” by the inhabitants of the area. It has become clear in the last decades that the Native Americans actively managed the forest throughout the continent. Selected trees were girdled and left standing and the windfalls served a firewood, nut and fruit bearing trees were left. See Delcourt and Delcourt (2004:70), Munson (1986) and Black and Abrams (2001) for more on managing the forests to improve nut harvest. We have elected to show isolated nut and fruit trees in areas around the fields.

On a regular basis the forest floor was burned (Hammett 1997:199) though such burning in the Mississippi Valley would have been restricted by standing water. Many Indian communities in the southeastern US burned their fields in late winter to clear them of weeds and add nutrients to the soil (Hudson 1997:123), another area that was typically burned were cane brakes.

Spanish explorers in Arkansas in 1543 described many open areas where horses could be ridden at a full gallop. They found large pecan trees, mulberry and persimmon scattered throughout open fields. “In clearing trees from land for farming, the Indians evidently spared nut and fruit trees “(Hudson 1997:288-9). Hudson goes on to say that many areas had trees “as if tended in orchards or gardens.” Other areas around Nodena were swampy and the Spanish reports traveling through many areas in water that was waist deep. In some smaller areas wooden bridges had been built across the swamps or sloughs. There were only capable of being traversed on foot as they consisted of logs lashed form tree to tree and a second as a “hand rail” above.

The soils and elevation data (discussed in more detail in the earlier sections of the FAQ on the fields) has been used to determine where the areas for the agricultural fields and where the swampy area would be located. Lower poorly-drained areas are immediately adjacent to the village boundary to the east and to the northeast. If the vegetation was unaltered these locations would very likely had cypress swamp vegetation. However, it seems likely that the need for fire wood and the potential desire for increased security would have meant that the trees closest to the site would have been girdled and killed. We have elected to show some cypress swamp forest in these areas to provide a visual indication of the presence of that vegetation. In the next phase of the visualization we plan to widen the area that will be considered and plan to show the swamp area nearest the site with girdled trees and those at a greater distance with full vegetation.