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.