Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2010History, Complex Hunter-Gatherers, and the Mounds...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Thompson, Victor]On: 9 April 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 921131104]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and Coastal ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

History, Complex Hunter-gatherers, and the Mounds and Monuments ofCrystal River, Florida, USA: A Geophysical PerspectiveVictor D. Thompson a;Thomas J. Pluckhahn b

a Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA b Department ofAnthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Online publication date: 09 April 2010

To cite this Article Thompson, Victor D. andPluckhahn, Thomas J.(2010) 'History, Complex Hunter-gatherers, and theMounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida, USA: A Geophysical Perspective', The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, 5: 1, 33 — 51To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15564890903249811URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890903249811

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890903249811

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:33–51, 2010Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564890903249811

History, ComplexHunter-gatherers, and theMounds and Monuments ofCrystal River, Florida, USA:A Geophysical PerspectiveVictor D. Thompson1 and Thomas J. Pluckhahn2

1Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA2Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT

Crystal River (8CI1) is one of Florida’s most famous archaeologicalsites. Yet, after over a century of investigations, its place in the history ofFloridaandthe southeasternUnitedStates isnotwellunderstood.CrystalRiver is an important example, in terms of world archaeology, of amonumental landscape constructed by complex hunter-gatherer-fishersalong the coast of the southeastern United States. Here, we present theresults of our remote sensing program at the site. This research includestopographic mapping, a resistance survey, and ground-penetratingradar transects over various architectural components at the site. Thesedata lend insight into the scale and rapidity of landscape modification atthe site, as well as information on the location of previous archaeologicalexcavations and modern disturbances. Further, the data illustrate thepotential of shallow geophysical survey to the investigations of shellarchitecture.

Keywords ground penetrating radar, resistance survey, shell architecture, SoutheasternUnited States

A central theme in the study of socio-political complexity is the role that mon-umental architecture plays in structuringsocial relations. Recently, archaeologistsworking in coastal and wetland areas aroundthe world note the precocious appearance of

Received 20 Jan 2009; accepted 13 July 2009.Address correspondence to Victor D. Thompson, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University,4048SmithLaboratory,174W.18thAvenue,Columbus,OH43210,USA.E-mail: [email protected]

monument construction by hunter-gatherer-fishers as well as their role and relation-ship to coastal resources (e.g., David andBadulgal 2006; Gaspar et al. 2008; Russo1994, 2008; Sassaman 2004; Thompson andTurck 2009). Thus, to understand how

33

Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn

monuments structure and are structured bysocial relations within and among hunter-gatherer societies, archaeologists must exam-ine the construction histories of individualstructures, as well as their relationship toone another across the landscape (Thomp-son 2009). The southeastern United States,specifically Florida, is one region of theworld where hunter-gatherers constructedmonuments of shell and earth since at leastthe Late Archaic period (ca. 3000 to 1000BC) (Milanich 1994; Russo 1994; Sassaman2004, 2008). While well known in Florida,the scale and type of monument constructionhas not been widely published outside oflocal and regional journals (e.g., FloridaAnthropologist, Southeastern Archaeology,etc.). Since many of the monuments in thisarea are constructed of shell, they should beof interest to archaeologists working in otherregions of the world where shell was used asa construction material.

Based on the above points, this paperhas two specific goals. First, we wish tospotlight the site of Crystal River (8CI1) asone example of a monumental landscape inthe coastal zone of the southeastern UnitedStates. A subsistence base primarily depen-dent upon hunting, gathering, and fishingsupported the labor force that constructedthese monumental works of shell and earth,as well as the concomitant ritual activities.Thus, understanding the role and historyof these monuments will lend insight intothe broader world history of monumentsin coastal areas and socio-political complex-ity in general among hunter-gatherer-fishers.Our second goal is methodologically basedand is to illustrate the potential of shallowgeophysical survey, particularly with regardsto the investigations of shell architecture.

In what follows, we first present a briefdescription of Crystal River and the historyof research at the site. Next, we define ourtheoreticalperspective, researchagenda,andhow they articulate with the methods used inourmost recent researchat thesite.After this,we describe the results of our geophysicalsurvey and topographic mapping of the siteandoffersomepreliminary interpretationsre-garding the construction of the mounds andmonuments. Finally, we put forward some

suggestions for future research at CrystalRiver and the implications and importanceof the site for the study of complex hunter-gatherers in coastal environments.

THE MOUNDS AND MONUMENTS OFCRYSTAL RIVER: A BRIEF HISTORY OF

RESEARCH

The Crystal River site is located in west-central Florida and represents one of themost important Woodland (1000 BC to AD1000) sites in the region (Figure 1). A quickperusal of the artifact plates in the sectionsconcerning Crystal River from C. B. Moore’swork during the early twentieth centuryindicate why this site holds so prominent aplace in Florida archaeology. Elaborately dec-orated painted and incised pottery, workedcopper, plummets, as well as a variety ofshell artifacts, are found on these pages(Mitchem 1999; Moore 1903, 1907, 1918). Inaddition, thesite’shypothesizedconnectionsto Mesoamerica (Bullen 1966; Ford 1966),the speculation that it functioned as a so-lar observatory (Hardman 1971; Williamson1984), and finally its large shell and earthenmonuments and stone stelae make CrystalRiver deserving of the designation a “fa-mous” Florida site (see Bullen 1953; Milanich1999:1).

The site, at a minimum, covers 6.9hectares and comprises numerous architec-tural features. Depending on how you countthem (some of the mounds are actuallycomplexes of architectural features), CrystalRiver contains at least six mounds: two burialmounds (Mound G and the Mound C-F com-plex), and four platforms mounds (Mound A,H, J, and K). The largest of these eminencesis Mound A at over nine meters tall. There isalso a curvilinear shell feature more midden-like than intentional architecture (FeatureB). In addition to the mounds, three stonemonuments are also located at the site.

C. B. Moore (1903, 1907, 1918) con-ducted the earliest archaeological excava-tions at Crystal River. Despite the limitationsin his field methods and reporting, Moore’sexcavations remain the most intensive workever conducted at Crystal River and the

34 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010


Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Crystal River and other important Woodland Period sites inthe southeastern United States. Inset map shows Crystal River and related sites and theirlocation along the Gulf Coast.

baseline for the interpretation of the site(Weisman 1995:12–14). Most importantly,Moore produced the first map of the site,assigning the letter designations that are stillused today for the major features of the site;however, this map does not mention the twoearth/shell works known today as Mounds Jand K, nor the presumed stelae (Moore 1903;Weisman 1995:12–13).

Moore’s 1903 work at Crystal River fo-cused on the main burial mound complex,

which he labeled Mounds C-F. While workwas conducted in all parts of the complex,he concentrated on the central sand mound(Mound F). The excavations here producedmany of the exotic artifacts for which CrystalRiver has become famous. Returning in 1906(Moore 1907; Weisman 1995:13), he con-tinued excavating the main burial complex,focusing his efforts to the “elevation” orplatform (Mound E) surrounding the centralburial mound and to a lesser extent in

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35



the circular embankment (Mound C). Bothlocations contained a number of burials;however, most lacked the exotic artifacts ofcopper and quartz crystal found in Mound F.In 1917, Moore made his final visit (Moore1918; Weisman 1995:13) and continuedworking in the circular embankment (MoundC), where he identified more burials, shell,and limestone rubble.

No archaeologists conducted investiga-tions at Crystal River for more than threedecades following Moore’s work. Neverthe-less, the site was occasionally visited and de-scribed in print (Weisman 1995:25). Duringthe 1930s and 1940s, archaeologists beganassessing the significance of the site throughstudies of its material culture, chronology,andapparentconnectionswith theHopewellphenomenon, an archaeological complexconcentrated in the midwestern states ofOhio and Illinois and renowned for itsgeometric mound centers, burial mounds,and elaborate and exotic artifacts. Greenman(1938) recognized the affinities betweenartifacts from Crystal River (as reported byMoore) and those from Hopewell sites inOhio.

Willey (1948a; Willey and Phillips 1944)eventually would help partially clarify thetemporal assignment of Crystal River potteryand identify it as belonging to the Deptford,Santa-Rosa Swift Creek, and Weeden Islandcomplexes (Willey 1949). Further, he wouldsuggest that Crystal River pottery is ancestralto Mississippian types (ca. AD 1000 to 1500)(Willey 1948b). Despite these revelations,the dating of Mound A was still unresolvedas Willey’s investigations were limited to sur-face collections of Mounds C and F (Weisman1995:28; Willey 1949).

A complicating factor in these earlyattempts to situate Crystal River in the de-velopmental sequence of the southeasternUnited States was the shortened chronologyof the day and the related assumption thatWeeden Island was contemporaneous withfully developed Mississippian (ca. AD 1000to 1500) cultures in the interior. Indeed, asKnight and Schnell (2004:3–4) have pointedout, in the 1940s the Woodland and Mis-sissippian sequence for the Gulf Coast wascompressed into an interval of around 1500

years (ca. AD 500 to 1500), compared tothe 3000 years it is now known to span. Asecond complicating factor in the dating ofCrystal River was the presence of flat-toppedmounds. The perceptions of archaeologistsat this time was that such mounds datedpredominantly or exclusively to the TempleMound, or Mississippian period (Phillips et al.1951). Only within the last twenty yearshas the existence of pre-Mississippian plat-form mound construction become widelyaccepted (e.g., Jefferies 1994; Knight 1990).

To resolve questions about the relativeordering of the pottery series and moundconstruction at Crystal River, Hale Smithconducted limited work at the site in 1951(Smith 1951; Weisman 1995:14, 28–29). Hisinvestigations included excavations in themidden area (Mound B), Mound H, MoundsC and E, and a surface collection of MoundA. Smith’s analysis suggested that at least aportion of the Mound C embankment wasconstructed late in theWeeden Islandperiod,refiningWilley’searlier temporal assignment.

Shortly after this in 1951, Ripley Bulleninitiated the first of several seasons of field-work at Crystal River (Bullen 1953; Weisman1995:28–29). These investigations includedtwo stratigraphic excavations in the midden(Area B) to test his idea that the site (and par-ticularly the burial mound complex) was inuse for more than one period (Bullen 1951).Based on this work, Bullen postulated threeperiods of occupation and mound construc-tion: Santa-Rosa Swift Creek (lower levelsof Mound F), Weeden Island (the Mound Eplatform and Mound C embankment), andlate Weeden Island or Safety Harbor (theupper levels of Mound F).

Bullen completed extensive excava-tions at Crystal River in 1960 (Weisman1995:37–38). Perhaps most significantly,these investigations included topographicmapping that led to the identification oftwo additional mounds and an extension ofthe midden area (Mound B) to the northof Mound A. Bullen described Mound J asan “irregularly shaped imminence of shell”(Weisman 1995:37), while Mound K wasdescribed as a flat-topped deposit resemblinga small temple mound. Tests were excavatedinto these two mounds. Another test was

36 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



excavated into Mound G, where 35 burialswere dandified in a 10 foot by 20 foottrench. Finally, Bullen identified undisturbedburials in the Mound F platform and MoundC embankment. Unfortunately, the 1960investigations by Bullen have never beenthoroughly reported.

In 1964, as the site was being clearedfor the creation of the state park, two lime-stone stelae were discovered south and eastof the main burial complex (Bullen 1966;Weisman 1995:31–32). Bullen excavated thearea around Stelae 1, a 2.15 m long uprightirregular block that contains a pecked andincised representation of a human face. Theidentification of these and a third possible ste-lae (Hardman 1971) have fueled speculationaboutconnectionsbetweenCrystalRiverandMesoamerica(Bullen1966;Ford1966,1969).

Contemporary fieldwork at Crystal Riverhas been limited. In 1985, Brent Weismanand Jeffrey Mitchem excavated core samplesand two 2 × 2 m test units in the middennorth of Mound A, with the goal of obtain-ing samples from the Mississippian (SafetyHarbor) component on the site (Weisman1995:35–36). These excavations have neverbeen thoroughly reported. More recently,Gary Ellis has conducted work at CrystalRiver in response to natural disasters andgeneral park maintenance (Ellis 2004; Elliset al. 2003).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ANDRESEARCH GOALS

As illustrated in the above discussion, despitenumerous minor investigations, the CrystalRiver site remains poorly understood. Thepaucity of systematic, comprehensive inves-tigations, coupled with the lack of adequatereporting, has confounded interpretation ofthe site and diminished the importance ofCrystal River outside of Florida. Our researchwas designed to address these deficienciesand restore Crystal River to its rightfulprominence.

The overarching theoretical frameworkfor this and our ongoing research is amodified form of historical processualism(sensu Pauketat 2001, 2007; Pauketat and

Loren 2005) or what we refer to as syncreticprocessualism. Such a framework seeks tounderstand the historical trajectories andgenealogiesofagiven localareaandarticulatethese local histories with larger regionalones with regards to the actions of bothgroup and individual agents. Critics of stricthistorical processual approaches argue thatsuch inquires are largely unsystematic andinsufficiently generalizing (O’Brien and Ly-man 2004). Indeed, interpreting landscapehistories is not without difficulties, and de-mands more than a superficial acknowledge-ment of the spatial distribution of monu-ments and other features across the land(cf. Tilley 1994). As such, a fine-grainedtemporal understanding of places, includingtheirdevelopmentalandconstructionhistoryis required to fully understand their rolein regional social relationships, as well asgain insight into overarching socio-politicaltrajectories, so that comparisons betweenpast and present societies can contribute toa global understanding of larger processes.Such a perspective differs from more strictversions of historical processualism, as oneof its main goals is comparative. Further,methodologically it requires the formulationand evaluation of explicit research questionsrather than inductive reconstructions of spe-cific histories.

In order to implement our approachfor the Crystal River site, our first researchobjective must be to understand the site’sdevelopmental sequence. Specifically, weneed to understand the construction historyof many of the mounds and monuments atthe site as well as their spatial relationshipsat a given time in the site’s history. Thisresearch goal, however, has one specificmethodological problem. Like many largemounds sites around the southeastern UnitedStates, Crystal River is a state park and large-scale excavations, especially in the mounds,are strongly discouraged.

Increasingly, archaeologists are turningto the use of geophysical methods and high-resolution topographic mapping as a wayto evaluate not only large-scale architecture,but also the space around these structures(e.g., Hargrave et al. 2007; Johnson 2006;Thompson et al. 2004). For example, the




recent mapping work by Kidder (2002) andthe geophysical investigations by Hargraveet al. (2007) at Poverty Point illustrate howsuch research sheds light into the nature ofeven some of the most well-known archaeo-logical sites in the United States. Thus, whilenot an end in and of itself, such surveysprovide a first line of inquiry into the natureof the built environment. We would alsolike to point out that when such techniquesare clearly articulated with a theoreticalperspective and research goals, what weterm inquiry-based archaeogeophysics, thechance of a successful research project isgreatly enhanced. We do not wish to dis-abuse archaeologists of the utility of simplegeophysicalprospection. Instead,wesuggestthat recent advances in software allow us touse such techniques in more sophisticatedand nuanced ways. In other words, wesuggest that the use of this technology shouldbe driven by research questions, not by thetechnology itself.

It is with these ideas in mind that webegan our research at Crystal River. For ourinitial research, we have several major goals.Specifically we wanted to: first, assess theimpact of various recent historic activities(house construction, mining, etc.) at thesite prior to and since its developmentas an archaeological park; next, identify ifthe mounds evidence different constructionstages and/or techniques; third, define spatialrelationships vis-a-vis the mounds and mon-uments; and finally, evaluate the utility ofgeophysical techniques for this area.

Our research questions seek informationthat is vital for any archaeological project.However, our second and third researchquestions specifically provide the prelimi-nary information that is required by ourtheoretical framework. In order to achievethese research goals we surveyed the siteusing a total station instrument, conducteda resistance survey over a large portion ofthe site, and finally, used ground-penetratingradar (GPR) over select areas of the site.

SURVEY METHODS

Descriptions of the geophysical survey meth-ods used in this study can be found in

numerous recent publications (e.g., Gaterand Gaffney 2003; Johnson 2006; Kuvamme2003). While the reader is directed to thesepublications for more in-depth overviews,we provide a brief description of our sur-vey methodology and how each instrumentaids archaeological research in this specificcontext.

The research team conducted the resis-tance mapping portion of the geophysicalsurvey at Crystal River in 20×20 m collectiongrids set in using a total station. Collectiongridsizes for theGPRvaried.Thesegridswereoften located on the tops of mounds that haveirregular shapes. In these cases, rectangularcollection grids of various sizes were shot inusing the total station; however, many werenot oriented along the axis of the site grid.

The use of total station mapping isnow common in archaeology and does notwarrant description here. Resistance surveyand GPR are less well known and necessitatean overview. Both resistance survey and GPRwork to identify local physical differencesin the ground that may or may not indicateburied archaeological deposits, dependingon soil characteristics and the nature ofhuman induced disturbance (e.g., hearth,burned house, buried shell filled pit). Oftenthe detected disturbances in the geophysicaldata are termed anomalies. Usually, archae-ologists are hesitant to make interpretationsbased solely on geophysical data; however, incertain cases when the quality of the data isexemplary, initial interpretations may be putforth (see Thompson et al. 2004).

After the initial establishment of ourbaseline grid, we began topographic map-ping, resistance survey, and the collectionof GPR data. Thompson (Thompson et al.2004) has described both GPR and resistanceelsewhere. What follows is taken, in part,from these overviews.

Our resistance survey used a GeoscanRM-15 Advanced Resistance meter. This ma-chine induces a known electrical current anddetects the ease of flow or resistance. Thesevalues (measured in ohms) are recorded in adata logger along with their spatial location(Somers2006).Human-induceddisturbancessuch as pits, house basins, and shell middens,can either be of higher or lower resistance

38 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



than the surrounding soil matrix. As wewill show at Crystal River, where shell isone of the primary archaeological deposits,higher resistance values indicate, in part,this material. Similar resistance surveys atother sites in the southeastern United Statesand elsewhere, corroborate this observation(Dalan et al. 1992:51; Thompson et al. 2004).

We collected data with the RM-15 usinga twin electrode array, which uses two pairsof current and potential electrodes (Somers2006). One pair of electrodes is mountedto a mobile frame, which the archaeologistsmove along at evenly spaced intervals withinthe collection grid. In our case, data werecollected at 50 cm intervals along transectsspaced 1 m apart. The other pair of probesis inserted in the ground 20 to 30 m awayfrom the grid. The probe spacing on themobile probes is directly related to the depththe machine can detect below the surface.For our survey, we used a spacing of 50 cmfor the mobile probes that allows the record-ing of information up to a depth of approx-imately 50 cm below the surface. In total,we surveyed 25 20 × 20 m collection grids,which resulted in coverage of 1 ha over thesite’s core area.

ArcheoSurveyor was used to processall resistance data following the procedureoutlined in Gater and Gaffney (2003:104, fig.49). The raw resistance data were reviewed,then a high pass filter was applied andthe readings despiked for outliers. Finally,we enhanced the data for presentation bysmoothing and interpolating the values.

The GPR survey at Crystal River wasused to complement the resistance survey.In contrast, to resistance data, GPR providesbothhorizontal aswell asvertical informationregarding the distribution and thickness ofarchaeological features below the surface.Readers are directed to Conyers (2004, 2006)for a detailed explanation of GPR. Briefly, theGPR propagates radar pulse from a surfaceantenna. The waves then travel though theneargroundandarereflectedbackwhentheyencounter physical differences in the earth,which may represent buried archaeologicaldeposits (Conyers 2006).

A Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. SIR-3000 GPR with a 400 MHz antenna was

used to complete the survey. GPR data werecollected in transect lines that were spaced50 cm apart; however, collection grid sizevaried as previously mentioned. Followingcollection, data were processed using GPR-SLICE and GPR Viewer software. Radar dataare presented either as individual profileslices or as a series of plan view slice mapsshowing how anomalies vary according todepth. Amplitude slices, here, are shown asboth profile and plan view images that arebased on the thickness of anomalies andthe wave travel time. As space limitationsrestrict the number of images, in most casesthe authors chose the GPR slice that bestrepresents the phenomena under discussion.

RESULTS

Our fieldwork covered a sufficient portion ofthe Crystal River site to allow for the produc-tion of the first comprehensive topographicmap of the site, showing all the mounds,monuments, and relevant features (Figure 2).This map is based on over 18,000 elevationreadings collected over a two-week periodwith three total stations. There are severaldifferences between the location and therepresentation of certain features betweenour map of the site and previous maps. Wewill not dwell on these differences here,as it is the subject of another publication(Pluckhahn and Thompson 2009); however,we present our topographic map as a wayof orienting the reader in space with regardsto our geophysical survey vis-a-vis the site’sarchitectural features.

Resistance Survey

The resistance survey covered approx-imately one hectare of the site’s core(Figure 3). Our 20 × 20 m survey blocks weregenerally contiguous, allowing for a broadview of distribution of archaeological de-posits at the site. Comparisons between theresistance survey and the topographic mapshow a striking correspondence. Thus, it ap-pears that topographic relief corresponds tothe higher resistance readings (i.e., the darkgrey to black areas) on our resistance map.




Figure 2. Topographic map of the Crystal River site showing all architectural features. The dark greylines and blocks are modern park sidewalks and buildings.

One of the interesting characteristics ofCrystal River is that it lacks a clearly definedcentral plaza, in contrast with many othermajor Woodland ceremonial centers acrossthe southeastern United States (e.g., Milanichet al. 1997; Pluckhahn 2003). Indeed, plaza-oriented sites have considerable time depthin the Southeast, extending as far back as theLate Archaic (e.g., Kidder 2002; Russo 2004;Thompson 2007). Therefore, one of our mainresearch goals was to evaluate if Crystal Riverdid indeed have a plaza.

Plazas are important, as they are notmerely empty spaces, but rather are “one ofthe central design elements of communityplanning and intrasite spatial organization”(Kidder 2004:515). For the southeasternUnitedStates,plazasare identifiedasflat areasthat evidence no domestic occupation andare usually, but not necessarily, flanked bysome form of architecture (e.g., domestic ormonumental) (Kidder 2004:515–516). Thearea southwest of Mound H and flankedby Mound G and the main burial mound

40 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 3. Map showing the location of and correspondence between the resistance survey andtopographic mapping at Crystal River. Darker (black) areas represent high resistance.

complex (Mounds C-F) is suggested by Bullen(1965:225) to be a plaza. In order to test thisidea we completely covered this area in ourresistance survey (Figure 4). The resistancesurvey produced no obvious geophysicalanomalies in this area except for a verysmall anomaly that appears halfway betweenMounds G and C-F. This anomaly could possi-bly represent the large posts that are typicalfeatures in plazas of later time periods in theEastern United States (e.g., Cook 2008:39) orpossibly another buried stelae. However, for

now, this is speculative Further, this doesnot mean that no archaeological depositsare present in the area that comprises therest of the plaza, but rather they are notdetectable by this machine. However, basedon the available data, we suggest that ourwork supports the identification of this areaas a plaza.

If, indeed, the area south of Mound Hrepresents a plaza, it is interesting that it isoffset from some of the other main architec-tural elements at the site, specifically Mound




Figure 4. Resistance map showing the featureless plaza. Dark areas represent high resistance areasassociated with Mound G to the west and Mound C to the south.

A (the largest platform mound at the site).While interesting, an offset plaza such as thisis not out of the ordinary for Woodland sitesin Florida. Fort Center, another Woodlandcenter, also has an offset plaza (see Sears1982). The placement of offset verses centralplaces surely would have implications forstructuring social relations as well as thehistorical trajectory of the site in general. We,however, only have space to note this aspectof the site; further comments and implica-tions must await future investigations.

Throughout the course of our survey, wecovered most of Mound G. This section of thesurvey is important as it reveals the excava-

tions conducted by Bullen in the 1960s, theprecise locations of which were previouslyunknown (see Figure 4). This informationinforms one of our research goals, to definethe impact of past historic activities at the siteand thus provides a context for Pluckhahn’scurrent collections-based research at the site.

We covered a number of other archi-tectural features during our survey. Thesefeatures included Mounds J and K, whichare clearly defined in the resistance data(Figure 5). These features are highly resis-tant and evidence well-defined semi-straightline boundaries from the surrounding ma-trix, suggesting purposeful construction.

42 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 5. Resistance map showing Mound J, Mound K, and the remnant of Feature B.

Weisman (1995:60) notes that there wassome speculation that these features mayhave been bulldozer piles of shell basedon the idea that they were not located onMoore’s earlier maps. Given that these archi-tectural features are so clearly defined and arenot smeared, as one would expect with bull-dozer piles, we argue, following Weisman(1995:60), that these are of Native Americanorigin.

In addition to these mounds, the burialmound complex Mounds C-F was also cov-ered (Figure 6). As this portion of the site washeavily excavated and then reconstructed,we did not cover the entire architecturalcomplex. Our results, however, do show that

perhaps a small portion of the circular moundC remains intact.

The final insight provided by our resis-tance survey is with regards to Feature B (seeFigure 5), a long, curvilinear midden deposit.Modern construction activities prior to theestablishment of Crystal River as an archae-ological park heavily impacted this feature.Our goal was to evaluate the degree to whicharcheological deposits were present in thisarea. Based on our survey, it appears thatthere are several portions of Feature B intact;however, unlike previous descriptions andmaps that show this feature as contiguous,deposits seem to be segmented and discreet.We suggest that this is due, in part, to the




Figure 6. Resistance map of the Mound C-F complex. Topographic inset with lines shows thereconstruction of the mound based on Moore’s 1903 description.

historic construction and modification to thisarea for a trailer park.

GPR Survey

We selected four areas for our GPRsurvey to evaluate if certain architectural fea-tures remained intact, as well as to investigatethe nature of construction activities at thesite. Two of these areas are located alongthe tops of Mounds K and H, another locatedbetween Mound A and K near Feature B, andone more in the vicinity of where the rampfor Mound A should be located.

Mound H is an elongated mound witha ramp leading to the southwest into our

tentative plaza area. This mound, with itslong, narrow summit and extended ramp,is in our opinion virtually unique for itsshape in the southeastern United States.It is reminiscent of Prehispanic structuresfound in parts of Mesoamerica; however, weleave such speculations aside for now as ourGPR survey is intriguing on its own withoutcontact from afar.

We surveyed two collection blockson Mound H, a western and easterngrid. The GPR results of Mound H re-veal differential layering in the mound. Inboth areas surveyed, a highly reflectivehorizon is indicated between 10 and 20nanoseconds (na) (ca. 45–50 cm) below thesurface of the mound (Figure 7). Yet another

44 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 7. GPR sample profiles from Mound H.

highly reflective horizon is indicated in thewestern grid at around 30 ns (ca. 90 cm). Thislayer is also present in the eastern collectiongrid, but is less clear as other highly reflectiveanomalies are noted in some of the GPRprofiles just above this layer. Although wecannot say for sure at this time, we suggestthat theseanomaliespossibly represent struc-tural remains or features, perhaps limestoneblocks, on a previous mound surface. On afinal note, the easternmost portion of theGPR profiles from the western grid indicate astrong anomaly that extents from the surface

of the mound to a depth of over a meter. Wesuggest that this represents one of Bullen’sprevious excavation units as it is in thegeneral vicinity of his test in this mound.

Based on our GPR survey, we suggestthat Mound H was constructed in at leastthree stages. We propose that the highlyreflective layers represented in the GPR datarepresent layers containing higher quantitiesof shell and/or limestone boulders. Thisinterpretation in based on our knowledge ofshell layering at other shell bearing sites (e.g.,Thompson et al. 2004) and photographs of




Bullen’s excavation that clearly show layersof dense shell deposits in this mound. Weargue that the layers that contain less reflec-tive material are areas that contain greateramounts of sand than shell. Furthermore,the indication that these levels are presentin both the west and east collection blockssupport a view that, in terms of the lengthof the platform, Mound H was conceivedas we see it today. Such information isimportant regarding the size and rapidity ofarchitectural construction.

In contrast to Mound H, our GPR surveyof Mound K provides an altogether differentview of architectural construction (Figure 8).The radar profiles of this mound indicate thatit is composed primarily of high reflectors,which we interpret to be high-density shelldeposits. Thus, it seems that this mound was

constructed using a different technique orunder different circumstances than MoundH. If the construction material is indeedmostly shell which was collected during oneseason, then this mound indicates a morerapid construction than Mound H. Futureresearchusing isotopicstudiesof theshellfishshould be conducted to evaluate this hypoth-esis (see Thompson 2006 for methods).

Our GPR survey of Feature B furtherindicates that many of the architectural fea-tures at Crystal River formed as a resultof varying depositional histories (Figure 9).Our survey results suggest that the upperlayers of this feature appear to be similarto what we might expect for a dispersedsheet midden; however, there are anomaliesthat suggest deeper subsurface deposits. Inparticular, we located a large basin-shaped

Figure 8. Sample GPR profile of Mound K. The topographic inset shows the survey block. Note thedifference between the GPR profiles from Mound H and K. Mound K most likely is comprisedof fill that contains more shell than those of Mound H.

46 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 9. GPR results for Feature B vicinity. Topographic inset shows location of the survey block.

feature in the southwest corner of our surveyblock. Regardless, this area stands in markedcontrast to Mounds K and H and thus shouldbe thought of as midden deposits rather thanplanned architecture.

Our final survey area was in the vicinityof the ramp for Mound A (see map inset ofFigure 9). Our purpose here was to identify,if present, the remnants of mound A’s ramp.Nearly one third of the fill that comprisedMound A was removed during the recent

past for various construction projects, an un-fortunately common early practice in Floridaand many other parts of the world (Claassen1998:81). While our GPR survey of this areadid indicate several anomalies in the area,none suggest sufficient structural formalityto indicate that they were part of the ramp.Further,moderndisturbances in this areaalsocomplicated our results. Future geophysicalsurvey and testing in the area may reveal thatsome of the deposits do indeed represent the




basal levelsofMoundA;however, fornowwecan only speculate as to the nature of theseanomalies.

CRYSTAL RIVER, COMPLEXHUNTER-GATHERERS, AND THE

MONUMENTS OF COASTAL RIVER

Returning to some of our earlier statements,we argue that the results of this geophys-ical survey lend insight into the historicaltrajectories of monument construction andlandscape use at the Crystal River site. Basedon our survey we have identified differentialconstruction techniques between some ofthe platform mounds at the site, such asMounds K and H. Furthermore, these resultsindicate that Mound H was constructed instages. We have also identified potentialdifferences in the formation processes ofother features at the site, such as Feature Bwhich appears to be more of an accretionalmiddenrather thanaplannedarchitecturalel-ement. In addition, we have provided addedsupport for the interpretation of the plaza;however, additional coring in the area will benecessary to verify this idea. While we nowhave many more questions than answers, wesuggest that the quality of our data and theinformation gleaned from this work is, inpart, because we began our survey with clearquestions. Thus, our use of these techniqueswas explicit (what we termed “inquiry-basedarchaeogeophysics”). We argue that this isthe most productive way to incorporategeophysics, as well as any other specializedmethod, into archaeological research.

The survey allows us to make somepreliminary statements regarding the natureof ceremonial centers during the Woodlandperiod in Florida and perhaps the south-eastern United States more generally. Asnoted in the introduction to this paper, themound construction at Crystal River mustbe understood in terms of the meaningfulpractice of individuals and groups. Southeast-ern archaeologists often conceive of Wood-land mound sites as ceremonial centers forsingle, autonomous, and rather homogenoussocial groups (typically individual lineages)(Milanich et al. 1997). To the contrary,

we believe that the scale and diversity ofmound constructions at Crystal River arguefor the social practice of multiple and variedsocial groups. As Dillehay (1992) has arguedfor the Mapuche in Chile, we suggest thatthe spatial layout of Crystal River—with itssimilarities to other prominent Woodlandsites—served to facilitate participation inextra-local ceremonies and social networksin Florida and beyond. Indeed, participationin at least extra-local exchange networks isevident in the number and variety of non-local, Hopewellian artifacts recovered fromthe site.

While the overarching similarities ofCrystal River to other sites with offset plazasand platform mounds would have givenit a sense of familiarity to outsiders, thetempo and scale of construction of thesemonuments would have been determinedlargely by the local group. Key architecturaldistinctions between Crystal River and othersimilar Woodland sites, such as the uniqueshape of Mound H and the presence ofstelae, appear to have been intentionallyintegrated into the overall site plan, perhapsto underscore the uniqueness of the com-munity and the ceremonial practices thattook place there. Thus, on the one hand,modification of the landscape by local groupsand individuals provided a familiar setting foroutsiders coming to the site for ceremonies,while on the other hand, it also served todistinguish Crystal River from other regionalcenters and provide a unique experience forvisitors to the site (see Dillehay 2004 forparallels in Formative Peru).

While not an end in itself, our surveyadds to understanding the historicity of thesite and marks a point of departure for futureconsiderations of the place of Crystal River inthe larger region. Thus, we view these dataas the beginning of a long-term research pro-gram aimed at understanding the sociality ofthemonumentsduring theWoodlandperiod.Our future work will include excavations, aswell as radiocarbon dating of the mounds toplace them within their proper sequence atthe site, thus helping to understand the socialhistory of Crystal River.

In terms of sites with monumental worksof shell and earth constructed by complex

48 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



hunter-gatherers, the southeastern UnitedStates, and Florida in particular, has one ofthe highest densities of such structures inthe world. Yet, few archaeologists outside ofFlorida, much less the southeastern UnitedStates, recognize this important aspect ofthe southeast’s archaeological record (seeWeisman 2003). This is changing, partic-ularly with regards to some of the workthat has been done regarding Archaic Pe-riod complexity (e.g., Russo 1994, 2004,2008;Sassaman2004,2008;Thompson2007;Thompson et al. 2008); however, the fullbreadth and diversity of these sites is far fromcomplete. Indeed,whileArchaicperiodmon-uments are gaining more attention, the laterelaboration of such traditions in coastal areasduring the Woodland period remains grosslyunderrepresented in the broader literatureoutside the southeast.

Our survey and description of themounds and monuments of Crystal Rivercould be easily mistaken for a description ofan interior ceremonial complex supportedby intensive agriculture. Perhaps, it is for thisvery reason that southeastern scholars havenot explicitly framed sites like Crystal Riverin terms of hunter-gatherer studies. The keypoint, however, is that Crystal River is theresult and actions of people who supportedtheir labor force, derived their ideology, andemerged from a history that was rooted in thecoastalenvironment.Thus, theprocessesandhistories of the coastal regions of Florida andother areas of the southeast have much toinform the world regarding the emergenceand role of monuments and monumentallandscapes in coastal environments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A number of individuals and institutionsmade this research possible. First, we thankNick Robins (Park Manager, Crystal RiverArchaeological State Park) for his sup-port.For permission to work at the park, wealso thank Parks Small (Chief, Bureau ofNatural and Cultural Resources), Dr. RyanJ. Wheeler (Chief, Bureau of ArchaeologicalResearch and State Archaeologist), andWilliam Stanton (Archaeologist, Bureau

of Natural & Cultural Resources). We areindebted to Chris (Paula) Carpenter, JamieGridwain, Mike Petellat, and Leroy Smith,the staff of Crystal River State Archaeolog-ical Park. Rich Estabrook of the FloridaPublic Archaeology Network provided cru-cial logistical support. The University ofSouth Florida Office of Research throughthe New Researcher Grant Program, inpart, supported this work. Both the Uni-versity of South Florida and Universityof West Florida Departments of Anthro-pology provided additional support. TheBureau of Natural and Cultural Resourcesof the Florida Department of Environmen-tal Protection provided space for us tocamp. Our field crew Amanda Roberts, NickLaracuente, Sarah Mitchell, Adrienne Sams,the USF Field School, and the UWF FieldSchool all, ultimately, made the researchpossible. We thank Dr. Lawrence Conyersand an anonymous reviewer for theirthoughtful comments and critique of thisarticle. As always, the authors are solelyresponsible for all errors, omissions, andmistakes.

REFERENCES

Bullen,R.P.1951.TheenigmaticCrystalRiver site.American Antiquity 17:142–143.

Bullen, R. P. 1953. The famous Crystal River site.The Florida Anthropologist 6:9–37.

Bullen, R. P. 1965. Recent Additional Information[p. 10], in Crystal River Indian Mound Museum.Mimeograph prepared for the opening of theCrystal River State Archaeological site. Onfile, Ford Library, Florida Museum of NaturalHistory.

Bullen, R. P. 1966. Stelae at the Crystal River Site,Florida. American Antiquity 31:861–865.

Claassen, C. 1998. Shells. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Conyers, L. B. 2004. Ground-Penetrating Radarfor Archaeology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Conyers, L. B. 2006. Ground-penetrating radar. InRemote Sensing in Archaeology: An ExplicitlyNorth American Perspective (Jay K. Johnson,ed.):131–160. Tuscaloosa, AL: University ofAlabama Press.

Cook, R. 2008. Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Develop-ment in the Mississippian World. Tuscaloosa,AL: University of Alabama Press.




Dalan, R. A., J. M. Musser, Jr., and J. K. Stein. 1992.Geophysical exploration of a shell midden. InDeciphering a Shell Midden. San Diego (JulieK. Stein, ed.):43–59. Orlando, FL: AcademicPress.

David, B. and M. Badulgal. 2006. What hap-pened in Torres Strait 400 years ago? Ritualtransformations in an island seascape. Journalof Island and Coastal Archaeology 1:123–143.

Dillehay, T. 1992. Keeping outsiders out: Publicceremony, resource rights, and hierarchy inhistoric and contemporary Mapuche society.In Wealth and Hierarchy in the IntermediateArea (F. W. Lange, ed.):379–422. WashingtonDC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Dillehay, T. 2004. Social landscape and ritualpause: Uncertainty and integration in for-mative Peru. Journal of Social Archaeology4:239–268.

Ellis, G. D. 2004. Storm Damage Assessment onMound G, Crystal River State ArchaeologicalPark, Crystal River, Florida. Gulf Archaeolog-ical Research Institute, Crystal River, Florida.Submitted to Crystal River Preserve State Park,Crystal River, Florida.

Ellis, G. D., J. Dean, and R. Martin. 2003. Dis-placed Midden Recovery Project, Crystal RiverMounds State Park. Gulf Archaeological Re-search Institute, Crystal River, Florida. Submit-ted to Crystal River Preserve State Park, CrystalRiver, Florida.

Ford, J.A.1966.Early formativecultures inGeorgiaand Florida. American Antiquity 31:781–99.

Ford, J. A. 1969. A Comparison of FormativeCultures in the Americas. Smithsonian Contri-butions to Anthropology 11. Washington DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gaspar, M. D., P. DeBlasis, S. K. Fish, and P. R.Fish. 2008. Sambaqui (Shell Mound) societiesof coastal Brazil. In The Handbook of SouthAmerican Archaeology (H. Silverman and W.Isbell, eds.):319–335. New York: Springer.

Gater, J. and C. Gaffney. 2003. Revealing theBuried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists.Wiltshire: Tempus.

Greenman, E. F. 1938. Hopewellian traits inFlorida. American Antiquity 3:327–32.

Hardman, C., Jr. 1971. The primitive solar obser-vatory at Crystal River and its implications. TheFlorida Anthropologist 24:135–168.

Hargrave M. L., T. Britt, and M. Reynolds. 2007.Magnetic evidence of ridge construction anduse at Poverty Point. American Antiquity72:757–769.

Jefferies, R. W. 1994. The Swift Creek site andWoodland platform mounds in the Southeast-

ern United States. In Ocmulgee Archaeology1936–1986 (D. J. Hally, ed.):71–83. Athens, GA:University of Georgia Press.

Johnson, J. K. (ed.). 2006. Remote Sensing inArcheology: An Explicitly North American Per-spective. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of AlabamaPress.

Kidder, T. R. 2002. Mapping Poverty Point. Amer-ican Antiquity 67:89–102.

Kidder,T.R.2004.Plazasasarchitecture:Anexam-ple from the Raffman Site, Northeast Louisiana.American Antiquity 69:514–532.

Knight, V. J., Jr. 1990. Excavation of the Trun-cated Mound at the Walling Site: MiddleWoodland Culture and Copena in the Ten-nessee Valley. Report of Investigations 56.DivisionofArchaeology,AlabamaStateMuseumof Natural History, University of Alabama,Tuscaloosa

Knight, V. J., Jr. and F. T. Schnell. 2004. Silenceover Kolomoki: A curious episode in the historyof Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Ar-chaeology 23:1–11.

Kuvamme, K. L. 2003. Geophysical surveys aslandscape archaeology. American Antiquity68:435–457.

Milanich, J. T. 1994. Archaeology of Pre-columbian Florida. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida.

Milanich, J. T. 1999. Famous Florida Sites: CrystalRiver and Mound Royal. Gainesville, FL: Uni-versity Press of Florida.

Milanich, J. T., A. S. Cordell, V. J. Knight, Jr., T. A.Kohler, and B. J. Sigler-Lavelle. 1997. Archaeol-ogy of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900. NewYork: Academic Press (Orig. pub. 1984).

Mitchem, J. M. 1999. The West and CentralFlorida Expeditions of Clarence BloomfieldMoore. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of AlabamaPress.

Moore, C. B. 1903. Certain aboriginal mounds ofthe Central Florida west coast. Journal of heAcademy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia12:440–494.

Moore, C. B. 1907. Crystal River revisited. Journalof theAcademyofNatural SciencesofPhiladel-phia, Second Series 13:406–425.

Moore, C. B. 1918. The northwest Florida coastrevisited. Journal of the Academy of Natu-ral Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series16:514–581.

O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman. 2004. History andexplanation in archaeology. AnthropologicalTheory 4:173–197.

Pauketat,T.R.2001.Practiceandhistory inarchae-ology: An emerging paradigm. AnthropologicalTheory 1:73–98.

50 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Pauketat, T. R. 2007. Chiefdoms and Other Ar-chaeological Delusions. Walnut Canyon, CA:AltaMira Press.

Pauketat, T. R. and D. DiPaolo Loren. 2005.Alternative histories and North American ar-chaeology. In North American Archaeology(T.R.PauketatandD.DiPaoloLoren,eds.):1–29.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Phillips, P., J. A. Ford, and J. B. Griffin. 1951. Ar-chaeological Survey in the Lower MississippiAlluvial ValleyArchaeological Survey in theLower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Cambridge:Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Mu-seum of American Archaeology and Ethnology25.

Pluckhahn, T. J. 2003. Kolomoki: Settlement,Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750. Tuscaloosa, AL: University ofAlabama Press.

Pluckhahn, T. J. and V. D. Thompson. 2009.MappingCrystalRiver:Pastandpresent.FloridaAnthropology 62:3–22.

Russo, M. 1994. A brief introduction to the study ofArchaic mounds in the Southeast. SoutheasternArchaeology 13:89–92.

Russo, M. 2004. Measuring shell rings for social in-equality. In Signs of Power: The Rise of CulturalComplexity in the Southeast (J. Gibson and P.Carr, eds.): 26–70. Tuscaloosa, AL: University ofAlabama Press.

Russo,M.2008.LateArchaicshell ringsandsocietyin the Southeast U.S. The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 8:18–22.

Sassaman, K. E. 2004. Complex hunter-gatherersin evolution and history: A North American per-spective. Journal of Archaeological Research12:227–280.

Sassaman, K. E. 2008. The new Archaic, it ain’twhat it used to be. The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 8:6–9.

Sears, W. 1982. Fort Center: An ArchaeologicalSite in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville,FL: University Press of Florida.

Smith, H. 1951. Crystal River revisited, re-visited, revisited. American Antiquity 17:143–144.

Somers, L. 2006. Resistivity survey. In Re-mote Sensing in Archaeology: An ExplicitlyNorth American Perspective (J. K. Johnson,ed.):109–130. Tuscaloosa, AL: University ofAlabama Press.

Thompson, V. D. 2006. Questioning Complexity:The Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of SapeloIsland, Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Lexington,KY: University of Kentucky.

Thompson, V. D. 2007. Articulating activity areasand formation processes at the Sapelo Islandshell ring complex. Southeastern Archaeology26:91–107.

Thompson, V. D. 2009. The rhythms of space-time and the Making of Monuments and Placesduring the Archaic. In Trend, Tradition, andTurmoil: What Happened to the SoutheasternArchaic? (D. Hurst Thomas and M. Sanger,eds.):in review. New York: AnthropologicalPapers of the American Museum of NaturalHistory.

Thompson, V. D., M. D. Reynolds, B. Haley, R.Jefferies, J. K. Johnson, and L. Humphries. 2004.The Sapelo shell rings: Shallow geophysics on aGeorgia sea island. Southeastern Archaeology23:192–201.

Thompson, V. D., W. D. Stoner, and H. D. Rowe.2008. Early hunter-gatherer pottery along theAtlantic Coast of the Southeastern United States:A ceramic compositional study. Journal ofIsland and Coastal Archaeology 3:191–213.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscapes:Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.

Weisman, B. R. 1995. Crystal River: A CeremonialMound Center on the Florida Gulf Coast.Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of State,DivisionofHistoricalResources,FloridaArchae-ology Series, Number 8.

Weisman, B. R. 2003. Why Florida archae-ology matters. Southeastern Archaeology22:210–226.

Willey, G. R. 1948a. The cultural context of theCrystal River negative-painted style. AmericanAntiquity 13:325–328.

Willey, G. R. 1948b. A prototype for theSouthern Cult. American Antiquity 13:328–30.

Willey, G. R. 1949. Archaeology of the FloridaGulf Coast. Washington DC: Smithsonian Mis-cellaneous Collections 113.

Willey, G. R. and P. Phillips. 1944. Negative-painted pottery from Crystal River. AmericanAntiquity 10:173–185.

Williamson, R. A. 1984. Living the Sky: TheCosmos of the American Indian. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.



Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2010History, Complex Hunter-Gatherers, and the Mounds...

Documents

Transcript of Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2010History, Complex Hunter-Gatherers, and the Mounds...