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.