Figure 3 – uploaded by Chris Rodning

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

Figure 3. Evolution of the settlement plan at the Coweeta Creek site, (a) Early Quaila phase, fifteenth century A.D., (b Middle Qualla phase, seventeenth century A.D., (c) Late Qualla phase, early eighteenth century A.D. (after Rodning 2007:471). the Chattooga site in northwestern South Carolina have unearthed important information about a sequence of townhouses dating from the late 1600s to the early 1700s (Schroed] 2000). The Coweeta Creek site gives us another example of a series of townhouses, built and rebuilt in place, during the protohistoric period. logical Project in the 1960s and early 1970s (Coe 1961; Dickens 1967, 1976, 1978, 1979; Egloff 1967; Egloff 1971; Keel 1976, 2002; Keel et al. 2002; Rodning 2004, 2008; Rodning and VanDer- warker 2002). Excavations unearthed the remnants of a series of townhouses, a town plaza, residential structures, and domestic activity areas around the plaza, and dozens of hearths, pit features, and buri- als (Figure 2). Some structures and features date to the fifteenth century or earlier, while others date to the 1600s, and the last stage of the townhouse was probably abandoned in the very early 1700s (Fig- ure 3). The site is located some 550 meters north of and downstream from the mouth of Coweeta Creek and its confluence with the Little Tennessee The Coweeta Creek site, located within the Mid- dle Cherokee town area in southwestern North Car- olina, was excavated by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology (RLA) at the University of North Carolina (UNC) as part of its Cherokee Archaeo- — Figure 3 Evolution of the settlement plan at the Coweeta Creek site, (a) Early Quaila phase, fifteenth century A.D., (b Middle Qualla phase, seventeenth century A.D., (c) Late Qualla phase, early eighteenth century A.D. (after Rodning 2007:471). the Chattooga site in northwestern South Carolina have unearthed important information about a sequence of townhouses dating from the late 1600s to the early 1700s (Schroed] 2000). The Coweeta Creek site gives us another example of a series of townhouses, built and rebuilt in place, during the protohistoric period. logical Project in the 1960s and early 1970s (Coe 1961; Dickens 1967, 1976, 1978, 1979; Egloff 1967; Egloff 1971; Keel 1976, 2002; Keel et al. 2002; Rodning 2004, 2008; Rodning and VanDer- warker 2002). Excavations unearthed the remnants of a series of townhouses, a town plaza, residential structures, and domestic activity areas around the plaza, and dozens of hearths, pit features, and buri- als (Figure 2). Some structures and features date to the fifteenth century or earlier, while others date to the 1600s, and the last stage of the townhouse was probably abandoned in the very early 1700s (Fig- ure 3). The site is located some 550 meters north of and downstream from the mouth of Coweeta Creek and its confluence with the Little Tennessee The Coweeta Creek site, located within the Mid- dle Cherokee town area in southwestern North Car- olina, was excavated by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology (RLA) at the University of North Carolina (UNC) as part of its Cherokee Archaeo-

Related Figures (13)

Figure 1. Selected archaeological sites and groups of historic Cherokee towns in southern Appalachia (after Dickens 1979; Duncan and Riggs 2003:17; Hally 1994:168; Rodning 2001a:78, 2001b:239, 2002b:156, 2002c:68, 2008:11; Schroedl 2000:205, 2001:279; Smith 1979). Townhouses have been identifjed archaeologically at sites listed in italics, and ethnohistoric evidence suggests that townhouses were present at some other sites noted here, as well (Baden 1983; Chapman 1985; Dickens 1976, 1978; Duncan and Riggs 2003; Goodwin 1977; Hally 1988, 1994, 2008; Hally and Kelly 1998; Keel 1976; Russ and Chapman 1983; Schroed] 2000, 2001; Sullivan 1987, 1995; Ward and Davis 1999; Wynn 1990). Sites shown here include: (1) Ledford Island, (2) Mialoquo, (3) Tomotley, (4) Toqua, (5) Chota-Tanasee, (6) Citico, (7) Chilhowee, (8) Tallassee, (9) Great Tellico/Chatuga, (10) Kituwha, (11) Birdtown, (12) Nununyi, (13) Cowee, (14) Joree, (15) Whatoga, (16) Nequassee, (17) Coweeta Creek, (18) Old Estatoe, (19) Peachtree (Hiwassee), (20) Spike Buck (Quanasee), (21) Nacoochee, (22) Chattooga, (23) Keowee, (24) Chauga, (25) Estatoe, (26) Tugalo, (27) New Echota, and (28) the King site.

Figure 2. Schematic map of the Coweeta Creek site in southwestern North Carolina (after Rodning 2001a:79, 2002a:12). changing cultural landscape, is one of many prac- tices through which native people in the southern Appalachians responded to the destabilizing effects of European contact. I refer to this process as “emplacement.” I define emplacement in this sense as the set of practices by which a community attaches itself to a particular place through formal settlement plans, architecture, burials, and other material additions to the landscape. evidence about public architecture at late prehis- toric and eighteenth-century sites, and I discuss the Coweeta Creek settlement plan and the series of townhouses present at the site. I then consider par- allels between archaeological remnants of public structures at Coweeta Creek and ethnohistoric evi- dence about Cherokee townhouses, and I conclude by relating this form of architecture to native responses to the effects of European contact in the southern Appalachians. The following section of this paper considers archaeological approaches to public architecture, in general, as background to my focus on the ways that townhouses created attachments between Cherokee towns and specific places in the south- ern Appalachian landscape. I then summarize eth- nohistoric evidence and oral traditions about Cherokee townhouses, as well as archaeological The Archaeology of Public Architecture Archaeological interpretations of public architec- ture have taken many different approaches. Some are concerned with identifying the amounts of time and energy invested in the construction and recon-

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from the Coweeta Creek Site

Figure 4. Stratigraphy of the townhouse mound at Coweeta Creek (after Rodning 2002a:12). Note the different vertical and horizontal scales. The locations of the stratigraphic profiles N-S and W-E are marked on Figure 2.

Figure 5. Successive stages of the townhouse at Coweeta Creek, (a) first stage, (b) second stage, (c) third stage, (d) fourth stage, (e) fifth and sixth stages (after Rodning 2007:475).

Figure 6. Burials associated with the Coweeta Creek townhouse (after Rodning 2002a:13). Compare with Figure 5.

Table 3. Frequency of Grave Goods in Burials at the Coweeta Creek Site Gearing (1962:23) has noted that some male elders who were “foremost officials” in Cherokee towns, and who were key participants in townhouse events, lived in houses that were located close to the townhouses themselves. Just north of Structure 2 at Coweeta Creek is a posthole pattern that prob- ably represents the corner of a building (Structure 15). This may have been the house of those involved in tending to the hearth or to the townhouse more generally (Figure 2). Given the limits of excava- tions at the Coweeta Creek site little more can be said about Structure 15 itself, but it is worth not- ing the presence of Burial 6 in the area between it and Structure 2 (Figure 2). The male elder in Bur- ial 6 was buried with a ground stone celt and a pair of busycon columella ear pins (Figure 9). If these grave goods are an indication of his status (in life or in death), and if the placement of his grave near the Coweeta Creek townhouse (between it and his possible residence) is an indication of the close relationship between this individual and the town- house itself, then Burial 6 may represent an indi- vidual comparable to the “foremost officials” noted by Gearing (1962:23), or, perhaps, an individual like the “fire maker” noted by Mooney (1900:396). During the eighteenth century, younger adult males in Cherokee towns, typically, would have partici- pated in warfare, hunting, trade, diplomacy, and other activities that took them away from their Mooney (1900:396) and others have noted the sacred and even symbolic meanings of the fires kept in townhouse hearths. Townhouse hearths themselves must have been periodically renovated, cleaned out, and rekindled, creating the need to dispose of debris from those hearths. There are five pit features (14, 15, 16, 32, and 33) near the town- house, located between nine and 12 m northeast of its entryway, whose contents included concentra- tions of ash and charcoal (Figure 6; Rodning 2004: 128-132). These pits may have been recep- tacles for the disposal of debris from the townhouse hearth. Possible late prehistoric examples of such deposits include the several large pits filled with ash and charcoal that are located near the town- house at the Ledford Island site (Lewis et al. 1995:529--530).

Figure 7. Stratigraphic relationships between selected burials 25 and 32 and the Coweeta Creek townhouse. These buri- als are either associated with the floor of the earliest identified stage of the townhouse, or, perhaps, they even predate the floor itself. In any case, these and other burials inside the townhouse are associated either with the original construction of the townhouse, or they are associated with early stages of this public structure.

Figure 8. Burials in the ramada beside the original entryway into the Coweeta Creek townhouse (Burial 18 predates the hearth and Burial 17, but it is not clear whether the hearth predates or postdates Burial 17).

Figure 9. Burial of a male elder in the area between Structure 2 and Structure 15 at the Coweeta Creek site

Figure 10. Profile views of hearths associated with the first four (Feature 18) and the last two (Feature 9) stages of the hearth in the Coweeta Creek townhouse.