Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2018
Observations having some bearing on the archaeology of the Lower Mississippi Valley are to be found in the writings of the early travelers. As the country became settled, accounts of local and regional historical interest often included remarks or occasional papers devoted to the local antiquities. My purpose here is to sketch the conceptualization of prehistory as it was developed through the most significant writings.
A plausible argument may be submitted in support of the contention that Thomas Jefferson was the first scientific archaeologist in the United States. Curiously enough, his archaeological influence extended to the Lower Mississippi Valley. This was through H. M. Brackenridge, who went into the Louisiana Territory soon after it was purchased and wrote a number of descriptive accounts of the country.
page 10 note 1 Ford and Willey called this portion the “Central Mississippi Valley,” a usage which, although followed by several subsequent writers, is not consonant with that of the physiographers. Physiographically, the Lower Mississippi Valley is that portion of the river valley from the head of its embayment at Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico. Archaeologically, it is convenient to divide this long subarea into northern and southern portions, with the line of demarcation near the mouth of the Arkansas River. The Central Mississippi River Valley, properly speaking, is that portion that lies between Cape Girardeau and the confluence of the Missouri River. As an archaeological subarea, the Central Mississippi Valley may, and generally does, take in considerably more territory than this, but in the present study it will not be considered to extend below the confluence of the Ohio River.
page 11 note 2 Some comment may be interjected about the manner of presenting the quantitative data on the sherd collections. In the seriation analysis charts, the quantities are represented by percentage bars for each type at a particular site or particular level in an excavation. The total number of sherds in each lot is given, along with a percentage scale which may be used to measure an individual bar to get an idea of the actual frequencies of each type. In the stratigraphic diagrams of test cuts made at a number of sites, the pottery–type proportions are again represented by bar graphs according to level. In this case only the totals for each level are given, but there is no scale guide to the proportions represented by the individual bars. While the relative proportions are clear from these graphs, there is no way to get at the actual frequencies so that the reader may check the data himself.
page 13 note 3 It is pertinent here to note the survey made by William G. Mclntire (1958) and his associates in the Mississippi delta region. Important new data were accumulated by this project, and that portion bearing directly on the present work will be discussed in appropriate places below.
page 13 note 4 Ford usually refers to this region as “Mouth of the Red River” or some similar expression. It is based mainly on data from the lower Red River Valley and the Tensas Basin and contiguous portions of Mississippi, especially the vicinity of Natchez. The cumbersome term used here is more accurate, but for convenience we shall refer to it hereafter simply as the Tensas Basin region.
