Poverty Point

Poverty Point State Historic Site
	Mound A, the largest mound in Poverty Point
Location:	Louisiana , United States
Specialty:	Unique earthworks from the end of the Archaic period
Next city:	Ebbs, Louisiana
Surface:	1.6 km²
Visitors:	15,000 (2010)
	i3 i6

Poverty Point is an archaeological site in the northeast of the US state Louisiana near the village of Epps in West Carroll Parish . On an area of around 160 hectares there are earthworks of a pre-Columbian Indian culture that are unique in size and complexity . These are dated between the 18th and 10th centuries BC. Dated, date from the end of the Archaic period . The most conspicuous earthworks are six earthworks in the form of half concentric rings, the ends of which abut the slope leading to a watercourse in the valley of the Mississippi . The complex also includes at least six artificial mounds called mounds, inside and outside the half-rings.

The builders belonged to a hunter, gatherer and fisherman culture in which simple ceramics were already being made. They obtained the material for their stone tools from far away, sometimes more than 2000 km away. Poverty Point is the eponymous center of the Poverty Point Culture , an archaeological culture that is documented in parts of present-day Louisiana and in adjacent areas in Mississippi and Arkansas , and which radiated as far as Florida .

At the Poverty Point site, prehistoric artifacts were found in the late 19th and early 20th centuries . The structure as a facility was only recognized in aerial photographs in the 1950s . Since then, excavations have taken place almost continuously. The facility is designated a State Historic Site and is administered by the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism . The federal government has recognized the site as a National Historic Landmark since 1962 . In 2014, Poverty Point was protected as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO . The motion of the US Department of the Interior was justified by the fact that Poverty Point was an outstanding structure of a hunter-gatherer culture, the largest settlement in North America of its time and possibly "the largest settlement of hunters and gatherers of all time".

The name Poverty Point comes from a plantation of the same name from the 19th century, at the bottom of which the earthworks were found.

The attachment

Plant plan today. Motley Mound is still north of the section shown.

Poverty Point is located on the Marçon Ridge river terrace on the slope of the Bayou Marçon river, which borders it to the east . The Boeuf River is the western boundary of this terrace, which is around 15 km wide at Poverty Point and around 200 km long in north-south direction . Both rivers are oxbow lakes of the Mississippi , which now flows about 25 km east of Poverty Point. The terrace is about 30 m above sea level and about 10 to 12 m above the surrounding alluvial land , so it was permanently protected from flooding even in prehistoric times. While it borders directly on the Bayou Marçon with a slope in the east, it merges flat into the surrounding marshland on the west side. The soil of the terrace consists of clay and alluvial material . On the surface there is a layer of loess several meters thick .

The ramparts

The ramparts of Poverty Point

Aerial view of the site, 2016

The six ramparts in the form of concentric half-rings, together with the slope edge they meet, enclose a closed interior. They were probably around 1.6 to 2 m high (today's height a little over 1 m) and had a lens-shaped cross-section. The radius of the outer wall is about 600 m. The radial distance between the crests of the outer walls is between 45 and 55 m and between those of the two inner walls about 80 m. In the walls there are about 30 m wide gaps for all the same radial beams, which each divide them into six segments. In the south-west, a rubble dam, which is almost radially oriented towards the southernmost outer hill, leads over the ramparts and over a natural hollow outside.

All earthworks consist predominantly of the soil in the area, the material for the ramparts was partly removed directly between them, so that shallow trenches were formed there. The lumpy structure still shows today that the material was transported in baskets . From the different sizes of the lumps between a few kilograms and over 25 kg, it is deduced that men, women and children built the system together.

The mounds

The hills of Poverty Point

Around the ramparts are grouped at least six artificial hills known as mounds , two of which are inside and four outside the ramparts. Another hill about 2 km to the south is now recognized as much older and was probably not directly related, but could have served as a landmark for the alignment of the facility. The largest mound ( Mound A ) is in the west outside the ramparts, almost in line with the central interruption. It consists of a half-height upstream platform in the east, from which a ramp rises to the west on a cone, which reaches a small platform at the top. The overall shape was viewed by early excavators as a bird with its head on top, the ramp as the back, the platform as the tail, and the cone as outspread wings, so Mound A is also known as the Bird Mound . The interpretation is now considered to be purely speculative. The next smaller is Motley Mound , more than 1 km to the north. It could also have been created in the shape of Mound A, but is poorly preserved or was never completed. The two mounds inside the ramparts were roughly oval, Sarah's Mound (Mound D) is lenticular, while Dunbar Mound (Mound C) rises to a circumferential platform with a dome in the middle. Mound B , outside in the northwest, was round, Ballcourt Mound (Mound E), outside in the southwest, had a rectangular basic shape and was flattened at the top. Only in 2014 was another, small, round mound discovered in the northeast and named Mound F. The mounds were originally about 20 m high for the largest mound A, probably 15 m for Motley Mound, 7 m for Mound B and a good man height for Mounds C to E. Mound F reached a maximum of 1.5 m.

The three outer mounds near the ramparts are arranged almost exactly on a north-south axis. Motley Mound is just north of Dunbar Mound. Earlier surveys were based on the assumption that they each form a perfect alignment and the surveying technique used was discussed. In the meantime, the assumptions about the symmetry and accuracy of the system and the level of the surveying technology of its builder have been put into perspective.

The plaza

Marking of ring-shaped structures on the plaza

The inner surface of the rampart, known as the plaza , is about 600 m long in north-south direction and has an area of 14 ha. The natural unevenness of the area was compensated for by embankments, a flat and evenly sloping ramp starting from it is used as access to the Water.

It was assumed early on that only special activities were taking place in the plaza because no artifacts were found there during investigations and superficial excavations. Everyday use always leads to the loss of objects and legacies of worn material. Only with geomagnetic investigations using highly sensitive gradiometry after the year 2000 could deeper-lying structures be found in the floor of the plaza.

These are four round arrangements of post holes , which were examined in more detail in the course of teaching excavations from 2009. The first results show that the holes are not of the type known from the ramparts, they are unusually large and, at almost three meters, also remarkably deep. In addition, large amounts of artifacts with no signs of use were found during the excavations in the plaza.

Dating

Between the 1950s and early 21st centuries, many radiocarbon dates were performed on samples from ramparts and mounds. The results vary considerably, making the plant difficult to date. In the early days of radiocarbon dating, too few samples were taken and these were not adequately protected against contamination. For the mounds, new ¹⁴ C dates were collected between 2001 and 2006 . By excluding samples which , when calibrated, fall out of the other confidence interval for more than 100 years , a rough date from the 18th to the 10th century BC was made in 2006. Made.

Mound B was the first mound to be radiocarbon-dated, but these data were determined early and with unreliable methods; samples collected together and in the immediate vicinity differ by more than 1800 years and are grossly incorrect. More recent studies from 2001 allow the assumption that Mound B in the north is the oldest structure on the site and was built within a very short construction period of weeks or a few months at an unknown time between 1738 and 1522 BC. Was built. Mound E in the south was built almost simultaneously or shortly afterwards. Mound C is difficult to date because the building site was used as a place to live between the removal of the top layer of soil to create a level surface and the start of the embankment. But it probably followed the first two mounds mentioned. Good data have been available since 2007 for Mound A, the largest of the artificial mounds. The confidence intervals indicate that it probably started after Mound C was completed. More recent evaluations date the building between 1311 BC. BC and 1217 BC And assume a very short construction time of 30 to 90 days. Mound D is the youngest part of the complex, it was built at the end of the Archaic period and perhaps not until the Woodland period , because Woodland artifacts were found in the uppermost layers of the mound. This indicates that no mound was originally created there, but that it was only subsequently poured onto and onto the ring structure at the edge of the slope.

The dating of the ramparts is unreliable due to sampling using methods that are now outdated. More recent systematic data are not yet available here. They were probably made in the 18th or 17th century BC. The data are distributed over the walls in such a way that the margin of error does not allow any statements about the order of the buildings.

Overall picture

The six walls (six segments each) and six mounds are considered a model of the world. Six is the number of directions, i.e. the four directions of the sun, plus the top of heaven and the bottom of the earth. The semicircles are aligned with their opening at sunrise in the east. The entire facility exudes harmony. Their task was to create and seal this between their builders and all people and the forces of nature. The symmetry should repel danger. The earthworks were supposed to influence the forces of life and death. The "harmonious proportions" of the entire complex, its alignment to the sun and the ring shape that "takes up the sun's circulation during the day and in the annual cycle" promised "protection from death, suffering, illness and other evils". Also, if you follow Jon Gibson, they created home; the collaboration in production, in his opinion, contributed to community building.

The total volume of the buildings was between 650,000 and over 750,000 m³ of earth or, according to more recent estimates, 750,000–1,000,000 m³. This corresponds to about a quarter to a third of the volume of the Great Pyramid . In terms of human labor, 100 full-time men could have built the facility in 21–24 years. Other calculations based on longer construction periods and / or part-time work result in:
500 men from one generation (in one to two months per year)
100 men from three generations (in six or seven days per month)
100 men in 300 years (a few days per month )
These figures only confirm the statement that the facility could be built in realistic periods of time during the Poverty Point Culture. However, it is not possible to say whether it was worked on over the entire period or perhaps only one generation carried the main achievement. The more recent references to the short construction times of individual mounds suggest that people from a wide area came together for short construction phases of one or a few months to build the earthwork together.

Hundreds of thousands of artifacts are embedded in the building material, mainly in the walls and, to a lesser extent, in the mounds . Most of these are leftovers from food preparation and toolmaking, abandoned and worn stone tools and shards of ceramic vessels. However, a few pieces of jewelry were also found, mainly stone beads and a few pendants made of copper . Therefore, it is believed that the residents lived and worked in huts or tent structures near the ramparts and mounds, although no clear evidence of post holes could be found.

Tradition and forerunner

The Marçon Ridge was settled by Paleo Indians around 11,000 years ago . The earliest finds in the area belong to the Clovis culture and consist of projectile points and hand axes . While the members of the Clovis culture roamed through large areas in small associations as hunters and gatherers, depending on the season, following the food sources, the Marçon Ridge was such an attractive habitat that it was inhabited all year round. The back in the marshland was loosely forested with species of trees that produced acorns , pecans and other fruits. The forests were rich in huntable game, which was concentrated on the back during flood season from all over the region. However, there were no stones on the back made of sediments and loess. The Clovis culture obtained the material for their tools from quarries about 800 km away on the Edwards Plateau in Texas, where chert was found in good quality, which was already known to this first nationwide American culture. Also known sites for flint of the same quality at Fort Payne in Alabama were only about 400 km away, but were on the other bank of the Mississippi. Shortly after the end of the last Ice Age (known as Wisconsin Glaciation in North America ), its lower reaches were so swollen all year round by the Laurentid Ice Sheet, which was slowly melting over many centuries , that it was only passable in hard winters when it was completely frozen.

The Dalton and San Patrice cultures at the beginning of the Archaic Period until about 5500 BC. BC differed in the style of stone tools and new sources for different tool stones were developed. The population increase resulted in groups forming to populate certain areas, so "the biggest change was having neighbors." People watched over the borders of their territories. Obtaining stone for tools became increasingly difficult for the residents of the Marçon Ridge , so they turned to chert gravel, which was found only around 50 to 80 km west between the Ouachita and the Red Rivers . The stones were smaller, but could be worked in the same way.

In the Archaic Period, around 5500 BC. Chr., A climatic change occurred . For several millennia, the southeast of North America became drier. Forests receded somewhat, meadows expanded, the current of the Mississippi decreased, so that it deposited more sediment , whereby the river bed and, as a result, the water level rose and the bed shifted more frequently. The residents of Marçon Ridge developed new techniques to use tree fruits and oil seeds more efficiently, and fishing became more important. The population density continued to rise and people built up a modest exchange of goods. Arkansas stone from the Ouachita Mountains 200 km away and quartz were brought in on a small scale. The quantities were so small that they could be personal gifts or bride prices.

In the north of the southeast, on the Ohio River and its tributaries, such as the Green River , formed around 4000 BC. Large and systematically accumulated structures made of mussel shells, the so-called shell middens . In the Indian Knoll phase , named after the location of Indian Knoll , the residents there built round, semicircular or ring-shaped structures from the remains of the food preparation. It is not yet possible to answer whether this required a well-planned collaboration and management or whether the basic structure arose from use and was then expanded over a long period of time without a plan or guidance.

Also around 4000 BC BC, people began to work together on building projects which, in terms of type, material and scope, can only be accepted as planned. The first mounds emerged on the lower Mississippi. They were small and round; 1.50 m high and no more than 15-20 m in diameter. This resulted in much larger earthworks, including those made up of several elements. The oldest large system was Watson Brake , near today's Monroe in Louisiana, about 95 km from Poverty Point and about 2000 years older. Watson Brake is poorly preserved and consisted of a large mound and nine or ten small ones forming a circle the size of a football field. To the north of Poverty Point, several samples were taken from early excavations in the outermost ring, which have been dated to the Middle Archaic period. They were mostly interpreted as measurement errors due to the still inadequate technology, but could also indicate a small predecessor construction.

There is a multitude of speculations about the motivation of the first mound builders. Accordingly, the buildings were symbols or they changed the appearance of the landscape. They made home, as Gibson suggests. Tales of contemporary and historical Indian cultures bring the mounds into connection with their creation story and their creator. It can be safely assumed that the mounds were magical and that their construction was an honorable act of the community to positively influence the forces of the universe, and ritual acts took place at or on the mounds. The ceremonies are seen as gatherings of dispersed groups, with importance for the exchange of legends, practical knowledge and as a marriage market.

Poverty Point Objects : loess balls.

Unusually lavishly shaped and decorated Poverty Point Objects

Female figures made of loess and clay

Various stone weights, some with engravings

Poverty Point Culture - the builders

At the end of the Archaic Period, two simultaneous changes occurred on the lower Mississippi: The residents obtained enormous amounts of exotic rock from distant sources and they began building the largest known facility of all hunter-gatherer cultures. The introduction of hematite and magnetite from the Boston Mountains on the north bank of the Arkansas River was described as the impetus . Both rocks are iron ores and have a particularly high specific weight. Therefore, they are suitable for stone weights on fishing nets, especially set nets and throwing nets . In waters with a significant current, these have to be weighted down to avoid floating.

The use of small, manageable weights made from the exotic material could have made fishing much more productive. Few specialized fishermen were able to supply a large population with basic food all year round. Since fish cannot be stored, especially in the warm climate of Louisiana, they could not use the yield for individual purposes, but made it available to the general public. This freed up considerable manpower that could be used for community projects to build a facility the size of Poverty Points. The example of the fishermen could also have induced the members of the community who had relationships with other clans in areas with stone deposits not to use their resources individually but to make them accessible to the community. Society must be seen as egalitarian, as there are no signs of social stratification . In Poverty Point and the branch offices of the Poverty Point culture no hoards of exotic rock were found and no indications that individuals appropriated stones beyond their own needs. Instead, the material appears to have been distributed according to the tasks; anyone who needed a tool made of special stone for his job got it.

In addition to fish and game, the diet consisted of nuts such as acorns , hickory and pecans, and fruits such as grapes and American persimmons . Further, bottle gourd detected. With the latter there is the possibility that it was grown in the manner of a garden or that its spread was promoted in some other way. Other foods were found only to a limited extent. Seafood was added on the coast .

Artifacts

The location of Poverty Point on the lower reaches of the Mississippi made it possible to take huge stone masses from the entire river system by boat. Galena came from the upper Mississippi in what is now Missouri , Wisconsin and Iowa , particularly high-quality flint ( gray northern flint ) from the Ohio tributary , individual pieces of chert from its tributary, the Tennessee River . Soapstone was obtained from what is now southern Tennessee , either via the Tennessee River or from the site to the Gulf of Mexico and then on the sea to the mouth of the Mississippi. Bowls and bowls were cut from the soapstone, but they were rare and presumably valuable. Copper was obtained in small quantities from the Great Lakes in what is now Ontario in southern Canada and as far as Nova Scotia in eastern Canada. In addition, the previous sources for more common rocks were used in the vicinity. The total amount of imported rock is estimated at around 70 tons.

Depending on the purpose, various tools were made from the different rocks. Rough grave sticks with stone heads were used to dig up edible roots, hand axes were used for earthworks, projectile points on javelins were the hunting weapon. Polished stone weights were attached to spear throwers known as atlatls , and small shapes were probably attached to fishing nets. Scrapers and various blades made of sharp-edged and flat chipped stone were used to chop up food and work on leather. Typical artifacts for Poverty Point itself, but not for all peripheral locations, are blades called microblades made from very narrow tees . They often only show signs of wear on one side. It is therefore discussed whether they were embedded in wooden or bony handles that have not survived and were used to scrape off tubers and roots such as the water gleditschia . These could have been an important source of carbohydrates for the population.

The drop-shaped stone weights that are often found are traditionally interpreted as weighing down fishing nets. A more recent analysis sees them as evidence of weight looms , as they are being found in increasing numbers in the domestic context. If used for fishing, they would also have been lost and found individually and outside of the living areas.

Vessels are rare finds, they consisted mainly of soapstone, partly of sandstone, and also of ceramic. The pottery was simple, but broken pieces with various lean agents were found. It is controversial whether the ceramics were produced on site or imported. Material analyzes suggest that at most a small part of the few ceramic shards consisted of local material. It is assumed that the production of simple ceramics from local material was first invented in Poverty Point, before ceramic techniques with vegetable fibers as a lean agent were imported. Instead, there is evidence that vessels were mainly made from bottle gourds ; The same material could also have been used to make cups, spoons and floats for nets.

Jewelery was found in the form of chain pendants made of ceramic, stone and copper. Cultic character can be assumed to be small figures that depict animals or androgynous or clearly female people. Small animal figures that are interpreted as owls were made from jasper . They have also been found in other places of the Poverty Point culture and are considered distinctive artifacts even if their specific meaning is unknown. Incisions were found in stones and ceramic vessels. Most depict animals (birds, turtles, and rarely unidentifiable four-footed animals) or are geometrically decorative. Some are made up of intricate glyphs that combine nature's round and curved shapes with geometric figures. The small figurative representations are interpreted as fetishes or talismans that develop their own powers or symbolize them.

The most common found objects and characteristic artefacts for the Poverty Point culture are the so-called Poverty Point Objects , PPO for short , loess-formed and dried balls of 2.5 to 5 cm in size in several typical shapes. They were used for cooking in earth ovens by heating them in a fire and then placing them together with the food in earth pits, some of which were formed with clay. The balls of the earth gave off the heat in a controlled manner and with a little practice it was possible to control the temperature and cooking time.

Cultural space

The actual Poverty Point culture extended over an area of around 1800 km². The Poverty Point complex was the cultural center and was also geographically central. In all directions except in the east, the flood plain, there were several small settlements on the Marçon Ridge within a radius of about four to six kilometers, which formed the core of the culture. Other small settlements and dozens of living spaces can be found at distances of up to about 33 km. They are seen as the periphery that supplied the core with food. Along the Marçon Ridge and occasionally in the swamps to the west of it, further settlements were found that are attributed to the Poverty Point culture. Their distance to the center was several day trips, they were tied to the center to very different degrees. Similarities and differences exist in materials, tool shapes and styles in artistic expression.

The culture radiated far beyond this area: Corresponding discoveries were made at the Yazoo site in the eastern flood plain of the Mississippi as well as in Grand Marais on the middle reaches of the Ouachita River . A mound with a Poverty Point reference, albeit much smaller than in the core area, was recognized in Catahoula on the lower reaches of the Ouachita. The Claiborne site on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico east of present-day New Orleans is well explored . The most distant region with Povery Point influence is the Elliot's Point Complex on the northwest coast of Florida. It consists of more than 90 individual sites in the Florida Panhandle , which are assigned to the Poverty Point cultural area through exotic rock and clay cooking balls as well as characteristic settlement structures. However, the evidence of stone processing is far rarer there than in the core area of the culture and in the coastal areas the sites are on shell middens instead of mounds.

Because the construction of the earthworks required a higher number of employees in the documented short periods of time than could find food with their families in the actual cultural area under the conditions at the time, people from a wide area must have come together for the work, which means the spread of Corresponds to artifacts related to the Poverty Point.

Motivation and exchange of goods

There are various theories as to how the builders of Poverty Point organized and motivated the extraction of rocks from distant sites. Jon Gibson discusses exchanges with commodities that have left no archaeological trace, such as rhino pelican salt and feathers , that may have been used as jewelry and for ceremonial purposes. However, he rejects this and assumes that all residents of southeast North America in the Mississippi catchment area and beyond wanted to support the Poverty Point project . The consideration for the purchase of the stones was the construction of the complex, which should create a global harmony of the world through its shape and orientation. He believes the main motivation behind the deliveries was the “power of kindness”. If the more recent analyzes confirm that a large number of weight looms were operated in Poverty Point, then textiles could also be considered as barter goods. They would not have left any direct traces either.

More general interpretive approaches speak of the fact that Poverty Point's influence was "based on symbolic power, not the expansion of economic or political power." Other approaches see Poverty Point as a community project and a symbol for the clash and interaction of predecessor cultures, i.e. those in the north and the Mississippi upstream cultures with the coastal cultures to the south and southeast. Accordingly, they would have brought their respective skills to the joint project. Analogous to earlier cultures of the Archaic Period, the members of the Poverty Point culture would also have undertaken journeys for initiation into the community. However, they would have significantly increased the distances of these journeys and brought with them materials from the real or mythical places of their origin.

The end of the poverty point culture

The end of the Poverty Point culture also marked the transition from the Archaic Period to the Woodland Period . The causes are unclear. In addition to climatic changes with consequences for the food supply, it is also discussed whether the effort for the construction of Poverty Point with the associated social system and economic forms overwhelmed the possibilities of culture in the medium and long term. It is possible that the social organizations could no longer be maintained, as a result of which trade and national contacts would have collapsed. The cultural and social new beginning in the Poverty Point area is known as the Tchefuncte culture , which is already attributed to the Woodland period. It is not only characterized by the widespread and local production of ceramics, but is also characterized by new social structures that are reflected in the artefacts and forms of settlement. In the course of the Woodland Period, agriculture was introduced on the lower Mississippi. Mounds were also built in the Woodland period, but not complex structures like Poverty Point.

The Koroa and other members of the Tunica language family are considered indirect successors of the Poverty Point culture .

Aerial view of Poverty Point 1938

Orthorectified aerial photo of Poverty Point 1938. In these images, the connections between the earthworks were recognized.

Research history

In 1832, planter Phillip Guier and his wife Sarah moved from Kentucky to northern Louisiana and bought part of the property to build a cotton plantation. From 1851 the name Poverty Point is proven for its plantation. Around this point in time he must have bought additional areas so that the entire site, which had not yet been discovered as such, was in his possession. Despite the naming, poverty means poverty, Guier was economically successful, for 1860 he stated a fortune of 120,000 dollars. His wife Sarah and some later family members were buried on Mound D, which is therefore also known as Sarah's Mound . The Guiers did not notice the flat rings as artificial structures and were slowly removed and partially leveled over decades by tillage with a plow.

In the 1830s, a settler named Jacob Walter noted his observation of the large Mound A and the earth balls found on the surface, now known as the Poverty Point Objects . The first survey of the region took place in 1873 , Poverty Point was not recognized as conspicuous.

In the winter of 1911/12, the archaeologist Clarence B. Moore, who also explored numerous other mounds, discovered the complex and published his report on several mounds, the pebbles and other artifacts. In 1926 the Smithsonian Institution dispatched a worker who found fragments of a soapstone bowl. However, the place was not given special importance, which is why the Louisiana State Route 577 was led through the site.

In 1933 the archaeologist James A. Ford tried to create a chronological table of the cultures on the lower Mississippi. Although he knew Poverty Point, he had even been there, he omitted the location because he could not classify the findings. In 1935, doctor and amateur archaeologist Clarence Webb dug a trench at the foot of a mound containing thousands of fragments of soapstone vessels. His find was published in 1944, Webb remained connected to the site and worked on later excavations. During World War II , the region was explored for oil and gas , an oil contractor collected large quantities of artifacts at Poverty Point, and worked with the archaeologists in the 1950s.

In the excavations of the Works Progress Administration as part of the New Deal of the 1930s and in other extensive publications on the settlement history of the region in the 1940s and early 1950s, Poverty Point was completely ignored. Stylistically, the artifacts did not match any known culture, and the shape and size of the mounds recognized up to that point could not be classified.

In the 1950s, the American Museum of Natural History in New York funded the first large-scale excavation. In preparation, James A. Ford obtained aerial photographs that the United States Army Corps of Engineers had taken in the 1930s for the construction of the dyke. He recognized in the pictures for the first time that the railing ribs, which until then had been considered to be irregular and of natural origin, represented a geometric system and that they, not the mounds, were the real peculiarity of Poverty Points. Ford and his colleague Robert Neitzel discussed whether it was originally a closed, octagonal system that was partially eroded with the terrain, or whether the rings were oriented as semicircles to a slope that already existed when it was built and whether all mounds were belonged to the system with the rings. During the excavations, they found hundreds of thousands of PPOs in fire pits, after which they began what was probably the first attempts at experimental archeology in America and formed balls of loess themselves, experimented with them and thus proved their purpose. In addition, they performed the first ¹⁴ C-dating, still with inadequate methods, which resulted in large confidence intervals.

Until Ford's death in the late 1960s, Ford and Webb worked together, conceptualizing the Poverty Point culture and the facility. They assumed that it must be a settlement that was already farming and assumed that maize had been the people's livelihood. In addition, Ford speculated about influences from Mesoamerica , the chronological context and an invasion of members of the Hopewell culture from the north, which was only later recognized as much younger, which would have given the impetus for the construction of the plant.

Jon Gibson joined Webb's archaeologists in the 1970s and became the most influential expert on Poverty Point culture for the next thirty years. He developed the theory that the first chieftainship on the North American continent would have arisen here. The thesis collapsed in the early 1980s when it became clear that Poverty Point was not an agrarian society and no signs of social classes and a structure with chiefs were found. The expansion of the site into a Louisiana State memorial with a museum enabled new excavations and ¹⁴ C-dates. In the 1980s and 1990s, a large number of peripheral settlements and camps were found on the Marçon Ridge and in the surrounding region, which were in close contact with Poverty Point. The research focused on the relationships between the places of the Poverty Point Culture on the one hand and the exchange, especially of rock, with people outside the culture.

More recent sampling and excavations at the mounds have allowed a review of earlier dates since 2001 and thus largely secured data for the construction of the facility. In addition to ¹⁴ C data, there are also thermoluminescence dating of ceramic objects found in the mounds. In 2001 geomagnetic prospecting was carried out at certain points. It was thus possible to prove that differences in the composition of the built-up soil, accumulations of organic material as municipal waste and cooking pits can also be found non-destructively from the surface. A detailed digital terrain model of the current state of the facility has also been available since 2002 .

Poverty Point today

The visitor center with a small museum

The complex was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1962 on the initiative of archaeologists . The state of Louisiana bought the site in 1972 and dedicated it as a State Historic Site . The facility is visited by around 15,000 people annually. On the open space in the center of the rings there has been a small visitor center with a museum since 1975 , from which guided tours are offered several times a day, including a walkway . A four-kilometer circular path leads through the site, past the best-preserved rings and the large mounds. To the north, across a small watercourse, there are accommodations and workshops for archaeologists of the Poverty Point Station Archeology Program of the University of Louisiana at Monroe .

In 1988, Congress created the conditions for federal takeover as a National Monument . However, the state of Louisiana should have given the land free of charge, which Louisiana rejected. The National Monument is therefore only a formal shell. The Smithsonian Institution added the facility to its research network in 2010. This makes it easier for the State Historic Site to access collectibles for exhibitions, educational events, and collaborate on research and education programs.

In 2011/2012 the trees were felled on the mounds of the facility. Their roots were considered a danger to the earthworks because they could tear up the ground in the event of storm damage. The soil between the rhizomes was collected and has since been examined for artifacts during the winter months. The mounds thus show the appearance they presumably had at the time of use.

In 2008, Poverty Point was added to the tentative list for designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the formal nomination was submitted in January 2013. In June 2014, the World Heritage Committee added Poverty Point to the UNESCO World Heritage List . Since there are no newer dates for Motley Mound in the north of the facility, it was excluded from the world heritage. It should be supplemented when reliable data are available. In its evaluation of Poverty Point, the International Council on Monuments and Sites rated the cultural significance of the facility as extraordinary and worthy of distinction, but expressed criticism of the protection of the facility and its surroundings. It recommended moving Highway 577 out of the area and introducing legal protection of the agricultural land around the plant from development. It should also be considered whether neighboring sites of the settlement core should be included in the protection.

literature

Jon Gibson: The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point . University of Florida Press, Gainesville et al. 2000, ISBN 0-8130-1833-1 .
Kathleen M. Byrd (Ed.): The Poverty Point Culture - Local Manifestations, Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks. (= Geoscience & Man. 29). Geoscience Publications, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 1991, ISBN 0-938909-50-9 .
Jon Gibson: Poverty Point - A Terminal Archaic Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, 1996 (abridged version online: Poverty Point )
James A. Ford, Clarence H. Webb: Poverty Point, a Late Archaic Site in Louisiana . (= Anthropological Papers Vol. 46). Part 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York 1956 (the first description of the excavations from 1953 to 1955, also online, PDF, 55 MB )
George R. Milner: The Moundbuilders - Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America . Thames & Hudson, New York / London 2005, ISBN 0-500-28468-7 .
Kathleen O'Neal Gear, W. Michael Gear: People of the owl - a novel of prehistoric North America . Forge, New York 2003, ISBN 0-312-87741-2 . (historical novel set in the poverty point culture)

Web links

Commons : Poverty Point - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

Louisiana Office of State Parks: Poverty Point State Historic Site (official site )
Louisiana Office of Tourism: Poverty Point World Heritage Site (tourism site with lots of information, English)
National Park Service: Poverty Point National Monument (official site; English) - formal site of the federal administration without its own content, visitors are redirected to the website of the State of Louisiana
Poverty Point Earthworks: Evolutionary Milestones of the Americas , Louisiana Educational Television Authority and Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, 1999 - Video, Windows Media Player or Real Player, running time 22 min
Poverty Point: The First Complex Delta Culture ( Memento December 7, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), Jon Gibson, 2002 - with information on the work of archaeologists
National Geographic: Louisiana's Best-Kept Secret Now a World Heritage Site , June 22, 2014

Individual evidence

^ ^A ^b Louisiana Office of State Parks: Poverty Point State Historic Site

↑ Listing of National Historic Landmarks by State: Louisiana. National Park Service , accessed August 4, 2019.

↑ ^a ^b UNESCO: Poverty Point State Historic Site on the suggested list of world heritage sites

^ Poverty Point in the Geographic Names Information System of the United States Geological Survey

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 67.

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Michael L. Hargrave, Tad Britt, Matthew Rynolds: Magnetic Evidence of Ridge Construction and Use at Poverty Point. In: American Antiquity. Volume 72, No 4 (2007), pp. 757-769.

↑ ^a ^b ^c Unless otherwise stated, the description of the system and all figures are from Gibson 2000, Chapter 5.

↑ ^a ^b ^c Gibson 2000, p. 109 f.

^ ^A ^b Louisiana Division of Archeology: Poverty Point - Mound F

↑ Associated Press: What are subsurface circles at Poverty Point? , June 19, 2009.

^ Mississippi State University: Field School in Archeology

^ Diana M. Greenlee, Fran E. Hamilton: Poverty Point Station Archeology Program Update . In: Newsletter of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Vol. 39, No. 2 (autumn 2011), p. 18 f.

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Anthony L. Ortmann: Placing the Poverty Mounds in their temporal context. In: American Antiquity. Vol 75, No. 3 (2010) ISSN 0002-7316 , pp. 657-678.

↑ Calibrated data from five ¹⁴ C samples from the southern half of Mound B vary between 1733 BC. And 52 AD; Anthony L. Ortmann: Placing the Poverty Mounds in their temporal context. In: American Antiquity , Vol 75, No. 3 (2010), p. 659.

^ ^A ^b Tristam R. Kidder, Anthony L. Ortmann, Lee J. Arco: Poverty Point and the Archeology of Singularity. In: SAA Archaeological Record. Volume 8, Issue 5 (November 2008), p. 10.

^ Anthony L. Ortmann, Tristram R. Kidder: Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana - Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, and Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In: Geoarchaeology. Volume 28, Issue 1 (January / February 2013), pp. 66–86, 75 f.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 185.

^ ^A ^b ^c ^d Kenneth E. Sassaman: Poverty Point as Structure, Event, Process. In: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 12, No 4 (December 2005), pp. 335-364, 337.

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Gibson 2000, Chapter 14

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 96.

^ Anthony L. Ortmann, Tristram R. Kidder: Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana - Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, and Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In: Geoarchaeology. Volume 28, Issue 1 (January / February 2013), pp. 66–86, 76 ff.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 45.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 49.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 58 f.

^ George M. Crothers: The Green River in Comparison to the Lower Mississippi Valley during the Archaic: To Build Mounds or not to Build Mounds? In: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast . University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-1391-5 , pp. 86-96.

↑ ^a ^b Gibson 2000, p. 62 ff.

↑ Gibson 2000, pp. 220ff.

^ Gayle J. Fritz: Keepers of Louisiana's Levees: Early Mound Builders and Forest Managers. In: Tim Denham, Josè Iriarte, Luc Vrydaghs: Rethinking Agriculture: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives . Lest Coast Press, 2007, ISBN 978-1-59874-260-2 , pp. 197 f.

↑ Mark A. Hill, Diana M. Greenlee et al .: Sourcing Poverty Point Copper: Testing the Lake Superior Hypothesis using LA-ICPMS Analysis , April 2010, 75th Anniversary Meeting of the Society for American Archeology in St. Louis, Missouri

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 172 f.

↑ Jon Gibson, Philip Carr: Signs of power - the rise of cultural complexity in the Southeast . University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-5085-3 , p. 130.

↑ Kathleen M. Byrd 1991, p. 5 f.

↑ Carl P. Lipo, Timothy D. Hunt, Robert C. Dunnell : Formal analyzes and functional accounts of groundstone “plummets” from Poverty Point, Louisiana. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 39 (2012), pp. 84-91, 88f.

↑ James B. Stoltman: Did Poverty Pointers make Pots? In: Rebecca Saunders, Christopher Tinsley Hays: Early pottery - technology, function, style, and interaction in the lower Southeast. Society for American Archeology, University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-5127-2 , pp. 210 ff.

^ Gayle J. Fritz: Keepers of Louisiana's Levees: Early Mound Builders and Forest Managers. In: Tim Denham, Josè Iriarte, Luc Vrydaghs: Rethinking Agriculture: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives . Lest Coast Press, 2007, ISBN 978-1-59874-260-2 , p. 198.

↑ Gibson 2000, Chapter 6

↑ Gibson 2000, pp. 189, 192.

↑ James E. Bruseth: Poverty Point Development as Seen at the Cedarland and Claiborne Sites, Southern Mississippi. In: Kathleen M. Byrd 1991, pp. 7-25.

^ Nancy Marie White: Late Archaic Fischer-Foragers in the Apalachicola-Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Northwest Florida-South Georgie / Alabama. In: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-1391-5 , p. 16.

↑ Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., L. Janice Campbell: Elliot's Point Complex: New Data Regarding the Localized Poverty Point Expression on the Northwest Florida Gulf Coast, 2000 BC - 500 BC In: Kathleen M. Byrd 1991, pp. 103– 119.

^ Anthony L. Ortmann, Tristram R. Kidder: Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana - Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, and Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In: Geoarchaeology. Volume 28, Issue 1 (January / February 2013), pp. 66–86, 76.

↑ Carl P. Lipo, Timothy D. Hunt, Robert C. Dunnell: Formal analyzes and functional accounts of groundstone “plummets” from Poverty Point, Louisiana. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 39 (2012), pp. 84-91, 90.

^ Tristam R. Kidder: Climate Change and the Archaic to Woodland Transition (3000-2500 cal BP) in the Mississippi River Basin. In: American Antiquity. Volume 71, No 2 (2006), pp. 195-231, 198.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 273.

^ West Carroll Gazette: The history of Poverty Point now uncovered , October 21, 1992.

↑ The presentation of the research history is based on Gibson 2000, Chapter 2

↑ On Moore's research: Richard A. Weinstein, David B. Kelley, Joe Saunders (eds.): The Louisiana and Arkansas expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. Volume 1, University of Alabama Press 2001.

↑ Gibson 2000, p. 24.

↑ National Park Service: National Historic Landmarks Program - Poverty Point ( Memento from April 29, 2015 in the Internet Archive )

↑ National Park Service: Poverty Point State Historic Site - Prerequisites for US World Heritage Nominations ( Memento of February 6, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) ( MS Word ; 5.6 MB)

↑ ^a ^b Public Law 100-560 from OCT. 31, 1988 (Online: Page 617 f. )

↑ Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism: Poverty Point State Historic Site Designated as an Affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution (PDF; 133 kB) , press release of November 9, 2010.