Cahokia in Context: Hegemony and Diaspora 9781683400820

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction
PART I. HEARTLAND: THE AMERICAN BOTTOM AND LOWER OHIO VALLEY
1. In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence
2. The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia
3. Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture
4. Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline
PART II. THE NORTH: THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY
5. Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland
6. Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter
PART III. THE WEST: THE MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY
7. Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas
8. Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas
9. Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions
10. Cahokian Exports to Spiro
11. The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee
12. Carson and Cahokia
PART IV. THE SOUTH: THE SOUTHEASTERN INTERIOR
13. Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group, Western Tennessee
14. Cahokia-Moundville Interaction: An Update
15. Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region
16. The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian
PART V. THE COAST: THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY AND GULF
17. Vestiges of the Brayden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson
18. The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana
19. Conclusion
References
List of Contributors
Index

Citation preview

Cahokia in Context Florida Museum of Natural History: Ripley P. Bullen Series

CAHOKIA IN CONTEXT Hegemony and Diaspora

Edited by Charles H. McNutt and Ryan M. Parish

University of Florida Press Gainesville

Copyright 2020 by Charles H. McNutt and Ryan M. Parish All rights reserved Published in the United States of America 25 24 23 22 21 20

6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: McNutt, Charles H., editor. | Parish, Ryan M., editor. Title: Cahokia in context : hegemony and diaspora / edited by Charles H. McNutt and Ryan M. Parish. Other titles: Ripley P. Bullen series. Description: Gainesville : University of Florida Press, 2020. | Series: Florida Museum of Natural History: Ripley P. Bullen series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018054088 | ISBN 9781683400820 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Cahokia (Ill.)—History. | Mississippian culture—Illinois—Cahokia. | Mississippian culture—Illinois—Cahokia Mounds State Historic Park. Classification: LCC E99.M6815 C357 2019 | DDC 977.3/89—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018054088

University of Florida Press 2046 NE Waldo Road Suite 2100 Gainesville, FL 32609 http://upress.ufl.edu

Dedicated to Charles H. McNutt Charles McNutt passed away December 9, 2017, two days before his 89th birthday. He died with his boots on as an archaeologist, since this book was still being readied for publication. Charley’s contributions to archaeology were many and significant, from his early work in the Southwest to his longtime affair with the Southeast. His love of music and expertise with the banjo are legendary. Charley also was a superb human being, always ready with a joke, a smile, a good story, and a round of drinks at conferences. Being old-school, Charley closed his emails and letters to female colleagues with a cute “xxx” before his name. We will miss you, Charley. xxx —Lynne Sullivan

Contents

ist of Figures ix L List of Tables xiii Introduction 1 Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

Part I. Heartland: The American Bottom and Lower Ohio Valley 1. In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence 11 John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

2. The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia 32 Susan M. Alt

3. Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture 49 Steven L. Boles

4. Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline 87 Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Part II. The North: The Upper Mississippi River Valley 5. Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland 107 John D. Richards

6. Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter 128 Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Part III. The West: The Middle Mississippi River Valley 7. Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas 163 C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

8. Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas 185 Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

9. Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions 205 Jeffrey S. Girard

10. Cahokian Exports to Spiro 216 David H. Dye

11. The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee 243 Andrew M. Mickelson

12. Carson and Cahokia 276 Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

Part IV. The South: The Southeastern Interior 13. Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group, Western Tennessee 303 David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

14. Cahokia-Moundville Interaction: An Update 314 Vernon James Knight

15. Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region 319 Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

16. The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian 352 Adam King

Part V. The Coast: The Lower Mississippi River Valley and Gulf 17. Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson 369 J. Grant Stauffer

18. The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana 391 Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

19. Conclusion 409 Charles H. McNutt

eferences 413 R List of Contributors 491 Index 497

Figures

1.1. Extent of Mississippian culture and Middle Mississippian Ceramic Province 12 1.2. American Bottom precontact sequence 14 1.3. Northern American Bottom sites 17 1.4. Early Cahokia distribution of Emergent Mississippian occupation 21 1.5. Early Cahokia’s epicenter 23 1.6. Fall equinox sunrise over Monks Mound 27 1.7. Cultural horizons 29 2.1. Map of the Cahokia region 33 2.2. Map of the Emerald shrine 37 2.3. Map of excavated features 40 2.4. Shrine burned deposits 41 3.1. Distribution map of flint clay figures 67 3.2. Snarling wolf 71 3.3. WPA Rattler flint clay figure 71 3.4. Otter eating fish 72 3.5. Otter 72 3.6. WPA Conquering Warrior flint clay figure 72 3.7. WPA Conquering Warrior flint clay figure 72 4.1. Location of Kincaid Mounds in relation to Cahokia 88 4.2. Map of Kincaid Mounds 89 4.3. Microtools from the Fluorite Workshop 102 5.1. Northern hinterland site locations 108 5.2. Aztalan site layout 109

x · Figures

5.3. Major conical and platform mounds at the Aztalan site 113 5.4. Selected artifacts from the Aztalan site 117 5.5. Map of the Aztalan and the Fox River–Wisconsin River portage area 122 6.1. Map of Northwest Quarter and locations discussed 130 6.2. Pottery from Steed-Kisker sites 133 6.3. Map, Mill Creek Wittrock (13OB4) village site 135 6.4. Characteristic Mill Creek ceramic wares 136 6.5. “Exotic” pottery from Mill Creek sites 137 6.6. Long-Nosed god masks from Mill Creek sites 138 6.7. Cambria phase pottery from the Cambria site 141 6.8. Red Wing region 143 6.9. Major Red Wing villages 145 6.10. Long-Nosed god mask from the Mero 1 village 146 6.11. Typical Late Woodland sherds from Red Wing 149 6.12. Large, pure Late Woodland sites in Red Wing 150 6.13. Large, pure Oneota villages in Red Wing 152 6.14. Representative Bartron phase and Spring Creek phase pottery 153 6.15. Silvernale village Silvernale type pottery 154 6.16. Silvernale village Link type pottery 155 6.17. Silvernale village Bartron type pottery 155 7.1. Regional map showing sites discussed in the text 164 7.2. Cahokia-related artifacts 166 8.1. Base map of eastern and southeastern Arkansas and adjacent regions 187 8.2. Finds of Missouri flint clay figurines 190 8.3. Finds of Cahokia “triple-notched” triangular arrow points 192 8.4. Finds of Mill Creek chert hoes or hoe fragments 194 8.5. Finds of Mill Creek chert debitage 195 9.1. Major Early Caddo period mound centers in the southern Caddo Area 206 10.1. Copper repoussé plate 227 10.2. Copper plume 227 10.3. Copper-clad wooden knife 227

Figures · xi

1 0.4. Effigy pipe of a seated male figure 229 10.5. Marine shell maskette 230 10.6. Woodpecker ax 232 11.1. Location of the study area with key sites plotted 244 11.2. Radiocarbon ranges for sites in the study region 248 11.3. Key phases and sites within time frame discussed 248 11.4. Plan of the De Soto Mounds site 253 11.5. Plan of the Obion site 255 11.6. Plan of the Kenton site 260 11.7. Plan of the Denmark site 262 11.8. Plan of the Ames site 265 11.9. Layout of Ames compared to Cahokia Mound 72 area layout 269 11.10. Composite map of five town and mound centers 271 12.1. The 1894 Bureau of American Ethnography map of Carson 277 12.2. Feature orientation at Carson 280 12.3. Carson-Montgomery site, feature map 283 12.4. Carson radiocarbon date locations, AD intercept data 287 12.5. Structure 22 planview with orientation angle 292 12.6. Structure 23 planview with orientation angle 294 12.7. Suggested form of bent-pole structures 294 12.8. Structure 24 planview with orientation angle 295 12.9. Structure 25 planview with orientation angle 296 12.10. Structure 26 planview with orientation angle 297 12.11. Structure 31 planview with orientation angle 299 13.1. Contour map of Shiloh Indian Mound Group 304 13.2. Calibrated and modeled Mound A radiocarbon sequence from Shiloh Mound A 305 13.3. Modeled, summed probability distributions for 14C dates by mound construction episode 306 13.4. Artifacts found at Shiloh that appear to have come from appreciable distances 309 14.1. Structure 3, Mound E, Moundville 317 15.1. Engraved figures from fragments of a shell cup from the Craig Mound 328

xii · Figures

15.2. Female effigy bottle with negative-painted ornamentation 329 15.3. Seated male effigy figurine with incised design 332 15.4. Rendering of incising on the Hutcherson Tablet 337 15.5. Incised design on the Douglass Gorget 343 16.1. Distribution of gorgets in Mound C 354 16.2. Human figure with raptor characteristics 357 16.3. Early Wilbanks anthromorphic theme 358 16.4. Distribution of Birdman imagery in early Wilbanks stages, Mound C 359 16.5. Location of Late Wilbanks burial events 360 16.6. Items from Larson type headdresses 362 17.1. Major Mississippian period mound centers in eastern North America 372 17.2. Mississippian period mound sites within the American Bottom region 372 17.3. Illustration of Melvin Fowler’s Cahokia map 374 17.4. LiDAR map of Lake Jackson site 379 17.5. Copper repoussé plates 382 17.6. Assorted funerary objects 382 17.7. Illustrated representations of the Lake Jackson and Rogan plates 383 18.1. Hypothesized sequence of site development at the Lake Providence Mounds 392 18.2. Tchula and Marksville period ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds 393 18.3. Preston phase ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds 394 18.4. Ceramics of the “Preston Fineware Complex” from the Lake Providence Mounds 395 18.5. Additional ceramics of the “Preston Fineware Complex” from the Lake Providence Mounds 396 18.6. American Bottom ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds 398 18.7. Sherds from the Lake Providence Mounds that are indicative of some of the locally made copies of American Bottom ceramics 400 18.8. Other potentially exotic ceramics uncovered at the Lake Providence Mounds 401

Tables

3.1a. Flint clay objects sorted by sex 53 3.1b. Flint clay objects sorted by interpretation 58 3.1c. Flint clay objects sorted by reference number 61 4.1. Items that may indicate an American Bottom source 98 4.2. Items almost certainly from an American Bottom source 99 7.1. Summary of findings 181 12.1. Features recorded in the Carson set-aside 279 12.2. Feature orientation at Carson, east of north 281 12.3. Sequence of intersections within the set-aside 282 12.4. Radiocarbon dates from Carson 284 12.5. Cahokia points and variants from Carson 290

Introduction Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

Cahokia’s role in “Mississippianization”—or the rapid advent of monumental architecture; maize-based subsistence practices; a rich iconography; and social, political, and economic complexity—and its spread or adoption throughout the Midwest and Southeast is intriguing. The question of whether what we see in the archaeological record can be described as an “event” or a “process” drives research into examining cultural change and forces us to critically evaluate what exactly is Mississippian. Recent studies are first recognizing that what we call Mississippian culture is incredibly complex, from individual communities to broad regions whose localized development cannot be overshadowed. Second, researchers acknowledge that change is marked by historic figures, events, places, objects, landscapes, memories, traditions, beliefs, and people. The tangled web of change observed in the archaeological record is further obscured by the temporal and spatial scales of the data. However, creative models and collaborative research are elucidating the variability of Mississippianization from inception, spread, and adoption. The Cahokia site, its rise and fall as an early regional influencer of people both locally and abroad, is an important framework within which to study the development of place, memory, events, cultural traditions, and the last millennia of precontact North America. In order to address the influence of Cahokia as a catalyst for social, political, economic, and ideological change and Mississippianization as an event and as a process, a number of scholars met in the summer of 2016 at the Mid-South Archaeological Conference in Memphis, Tennessee. The emailed discussion threads leading up to the conference, research presented during the conference, and informal debates throughout the conference

2 · Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

provided an intellectual melting pot of regional experts whose collaborative efforts resulted in this publication. Specifically, the focus of this volume is to provide a compilation of recent research regarding the hegemony and diaspora of Cahokia at a spatial scale not yet attempted. Hegemony is defined throughout as the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group. The hegemony of Cahokia at AD 1050–1275 in the American Bottom is well documented (Kelly 1991a; Pauketat 2004, 2009a; Brown and Kelly 2014; Anderson 2017). Of equal interest is the resulting “collapse” or reorganization of the resident population center when the site was vacated after just over two centuries of intensive use. The resulting diaspora—the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland—and this event’s impact on regional communities are important to document as an explanatory tool for change. The two-pronged objectives of hegemony and diaspora make up the thematic framework of the volume and provide evidence tracking Cahokia’s influence on contemporaneous communities across the midwestern and southeastern United States. The following chapters may surprise some as the presentation of negative data highlights regional cultural developments and the variability during the Mississippian period, which is the hallmark of recent research. In other words, the presentation of archaeological data signifying the lack of Cahokian influence is crucial to understanding local regional development and these communities’ relationship with that of the American Bottom metropolis. Variability and complexity are two recurring themes throughout that stand in marked contrast to the neoevolutionary frameworks of the last century (Anderson 2017). The volume is organized into five sections, roughly by geographic regions. Preliminary contextual chapters in the opening section provide a necessary framework for understanding Cahokia within its heartland, the American Bottom. Brennan and Pursell’s contribution highlights the fact that Cahokia’s hegemony, even here and in close proximity, should not be assumed, as the community at the Kincaid site in the lower Ohio River valley almost appears in opposition to its northerly neighbors. The Schild site in the lower Illinois River valley, with its female flint clay figurine and Mississippian-influenced ceramics (Boles, this volume; Reynolds et al. 2014), may well represent Cahokian hegemony. Aztalan, far to the north in southeastern Wisconsin, is another possible exception. The connection with Cahokia is undoubted, but the relationship is open to question (Richards, this volume).

Introduction · 3

The growth of Cahokia is marked by the influx of a tremendous number of people and their subsequent return to their home communities. Some of these came from the north, in the vicinity of the lower Illinois River valley, giving rise to the Late Bluff or Edelhardt phase. Stronger influences can be seen from the southern regions of the Ohio confluence and southeastern Missouri during the late tenth century with the appearance of Varney Red, shell tempering, and Mill Creek hoes (Kelly and Brown, this volume). These attributes are to become increasingly popular in the Cahokia region. Southeastern Missouri and the Ohio confluence are ideal regions to provide the tremendous population influx seen at Cahokia prior to and during the Edelhardt and Lohmann phases. Pottery from these regions in the early Loyd phase at Cahokia (Kelly 1991a:71a) suggests that this may well have been the case. Perhaps these were Woodland peoples who had been experimenting with the Eastern Agricultural Complex, attracted to the fertile soils of the American Bottom. These immigrants would have joined the people already occupying small settlements in the region, forming Kelly and Brown’s (this volume) aggregated villages. Thus, developmental Cahokia would seem to be largely a child of the south. Alt (this volume) has emphasized the importance of religion in the nascent stages of Cahokia, based on her work at the Emerald site in the Richland highland region above the American Bottom. Apparently, shared religious beliefs of the Late Woodland immigrants to the American Bottom were intensified in that area, serving to acculturate the new arrivals in a fairly peaceful manner as pilgrims attending significant solar or lunar events. By the end of the Edelhardt phase the main plazas at Cahokia were being constructed, signaling major changes in the settlement system. Some Terminal Late Woodland communities were ready for what some call the “Big Bang” or others the “Mississippian Event of AD 1050” (Kelly and Brown, this volume). Subsequent developments at Cahokia during the Lohmann and Stirling phases appear to have been the result of internal dynamics. Cahokia developed into a major political and religious center—some say a city—a focus for craft production, and a place of pilgrimage. Volumes have extolled this period of Cahokia’s ascendancy. Following the Stirling phase, the Moorehead phase (AD 1200–1275) marks the rather sudden decline of Cahokia. There is a major decline in population, and many have speculated on the impact and nature of this diaspora. Chapters by Richards and by Henning and Schirmer make it clear that

4 · Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

this exodus was not to the north or northwest. Aztalan, the most likely candidate, was established during the late Lohmann and Stirling phases, during Cahokia’s heyday, and shows no indication of interactions during the subsequent Moorehead phase. This timing lends support to Richards’s suggestion (this volume) that Aztalan was founded by dissidents from Cahokia, joining an established Woodland community. Kelly (2007b:162) suggests that the post-Moorehead inhabitants of the American Bottom are identified archaeologically as Oneota, but there is little evidence that Moorehead phase occupants from Cahokia dispersed into the greater Oneota area to the northwest (Henning and Schirmer, this volume). The diaspora, then, was largely to the south. There is much to be said for Boles’s claim (this volume) that flint clay items, definitely made in the Cahokia region and probably during the first half of the Stirling phase, are the ideal items to track the Cahokian exodus. However, the question remains as to the nature of the exodus. Was it a dispersed population or an exodus of ideas via a dynamic population of migrant Cahokian visitors? The authors tackle this question and the implications of it throughout. The Mississippi River provides the most obvious route south from Cahokia. In view of the trail of flint clay objects extending from New Madrid County, Missouri (Boles, this volume), south through eastern and southeastern Arkansas (Boles, this volume; Jeter et al., this volume), it seems likely that this was one route followed. Boles suggests (this volume) that the Cahokia diaspora may have partly involved priests leaving Cahokia with their religious sacra. Carson Mounds (Johnson and Connaway, this volume) on the east side of the Mississippi River in the state of the same name also has connections to Cahokia. Given the complete absence of Ramey Incised at Carson (although a few Powell Plain sherds exist), the best evidence for contact with Cahokia would seem to be with the Lohmann phase. The problem is, as noted by Johnson and Connaway, the earliest dates at Carson are concentrated in the beginning of the thirteenth century, at the end of the Stirling climax in Cahokia. It may be that this situation is similar to that posited by Richards (this volume) for the founding of Aztalan by a group of dissidents from Cahokia during the late Lohmann and early Stirling phases. A similar group may have migrated southward along the Mississippi at about the same time, finally arriving at Carson at the beginning of the thirteenth century. If this is the case, it seems intervening sites dating to the twelfth century must exist.

Introduction · 5

Other sites on the east side of the Mississippi—for example, in Tennessee—show relationships to Cahokia but no intimate connections. Although Baldwin thought that “connectedness” existed between Obion and Cahokia, Mickelson (this volume) observes that no undisputed object from Cahokia has been recovered at Obion and that relationships of that site to the east should not be overlooked. Similar indications of Cahokian “influences” exist at other sites in west Tennessee, but there is no indication that this region received any significant portion of the Cahokia exodus. Weinstein and Wells (this volume) suspect that the Cahokia presence at the Lake Providence site in northeastern Louisiana may have been mediated through the Carson site. This does not seem likely, given the Lohmann cast of the Cahokia-like complex at Carson and the Stirling phase traits (including Ramey Incised) at Lake Providence. It seems most reasonable to regard this influence as a continuation of the Cahokian impact exerted southward through eastern and southeastern Arkansas. There is also evidence of Cahokia contact in the Caddo area, in particular at the Gahagan site in northwest Louisiana and somewhat later at the Spiro site in eastern Oklahoma. The early contact at Gahagan, with its shaft graves and flint clay objects comparable to the previously discussed example from the Richland site in Arkansas, seems to have been a result of Caddo visits or pilgrimages to early Cahokia, given the presence of Caddoan ceramics in relatively early deposits at that site (Kelly 1991a) and the absence of reciprocal exchange from Cahokia (Girard, this volume). These visits persisted throughout the Lohmann phase and into the Stirling phase. The visitors were apparently influenced by religious developments at Cahokia and, upon returning home, incorporated them into existing local beliefs. An alternative suggestion involves the arrival of “cult-bringers” to the Caddo (see Boles, this volume). Could Gahagan be a precontact Prophets Town (Alt, this volume)? The resulting religion, with its ideology and shaft graves, spread throughout the Caddo region of northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, and east Texas (see Girard, this volume). It seems quite probable that this new Caddo religion spread north to Spiro on the Arkansas River in eastern Oklahoma. Spiro was soon to become a major religious center for the surrounding area. It is not unreasonable to regard the famous “Great Mortuary” in the Craig Mound (Dye, this volume) as a grandiose shaft grave. As Spiro grew it began importing large numbers of ceremonial items from a wide area (Brown 1983), but particularly from Cahokia (Dye, this volume). The Spiro-Cahokia exchange may well have involved the Southwest Trail, described by Buchner

6 · Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

and Albertson (this volume). There is no reason to believe that the Caddo area received any large number of individuals resulting from the Cahokian diaspora. A second, major route for the Cahokian exodus appears to have been down the Mississippi River to the mouth of the Ohio, upstream to its confluence with the Tennessee River. It did not continue up the Ohio to any extent, although a small settlement at Kincaid during the Late period may attest to a small group that did (Brennan and Pursell, this volume). During the century following the demise of Cahokia, Kincaid was to become the dominant polity in the Midsouth (Brennan and Pursell, this volume). Some emigrants from Cahokia apparently moved up the Tennessee to the Shiloh area, where they encountered and mixed with local Woodland cultures. They may have even formed a “founding dynasty” at Shiloh and have been responsible for the famous Crouching Man flint clay pipe from Mound C (see Anderson, this volume). Other emigrants, apparently in greater numbers, moved to the Cumberland River and into the Nashville Basin. There is considerable evidence for earlier contact between Cahokia and the Middle Cumberland region—certainly raw materials and perhaps hypertrophic objects (spuds, Dover chert swords) were traded from the latter area to the former. Evidence for early Cahokian contact and the Braden art style in the Nashville Basin is also well documented (Sharp et al., this volume). The association of the Braden art style with the female hunchbacks in the Nashville Basin suggests a two-way interaction between that area and Cahokia. The female hunchbacks may well derive from an earlier local fertility cult in the Nashville Basin. If so, this region may have provided the genesis of Cahokia’s fertility cult, rather than the distant Caddo region as suggested by Boles (this volume). Moore et al. (2016:133) observe that “the chiefdom eventually resulting in the massive mound centers at Mound Bottom and Pack [in the Nashville Basin] was created by non-local immigrants from the north and west [perhaps Cahokia].” They also note (Moore et al. 2016:134) that the entire Nashville Basin experienced a significant population increase between AD 1200 and 1325. Cahokian emigrants to the Nashville Basin apparently continued eastward into northern Georgia, occupying the Etowah site during the Early Wilbanks phase (King, this volume). Various items, including the famous Classic Braden–style Rogan Plates from Mound C, attest to their presence.

Introduction · 7

With this impetus, Etowah soon became the largest Mississippian center in the South Appalachian region. The impact of the eastern diaspora from the Nashville Basin can also be seen at Nacoochee in northern Georgia and at the Hollywood site in east Georgia, as well as at the Bennett Place in east Tennessee. All three of these sites produced copper plates (King, this volume). Whether the diaspora continued southward into the Lake Jackson area is open to question. Braden-style copper plates, chunkey stones, hypertrophic implements, and spaghetti gorgets have all been recovered from Mound 3 at this site (Stauffer, this volume). It is unclear, however, whether Mound 3 and its elaborate burials represent arrivals from the Etowah area or whether they represent, to use Claudine Payne’s words, “a memorial to a paradigm past” (quoted in Stauffer, this volume). Regardless of the significance of the burial disposition in Mound 3, it seems apparent that some people at Lake Jackson had close contacts with Etowah—either with its occupants or their progenitors. This would be consistent with accepting Lake Jackson as a continuation of the exodus from Cahokia through the Nashville Basin and into Georgia. It is interesting to note that, although evidence for movement from Cahokia into and through the Nashville Basin is quite pronounced, there is minimal representation of flint clay objects in this region. Boles (this volume) lists two that are probably from the Nashville Basin (Twenklemeier and Gallatin) and one from east Tennessee (Townsend). He shows none from Georgia or from the Lake Jackson area, and it is rare in Alabama. (The famous Crouching Man pipe from Moundville postdates AD 1300, and the manner in which it finally reached Moundville is unknown [Knight, this volume].) Although the flint clay material does seem useful in tracing movement down the west side of the Mississippi River, and in tracing influences into the Caddo region, it appears less reliable in the cases of the Nashville Basin and Etowah. Although there is considerable evidence that the founding of Cahokia involved immigration and pilgrimage of peoples from the lower Illinois River valley, southeast Missouri, and the lower Ohio River valley, the exodus from Cahokia does not appear to have retraced those paths to any extent (contra Boles, this volume). Rather, it followed the Mississippi River southward into eastern Arkansas and up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers into the Nashville Basin and beyond. Though an argument is made here for the migration of dispersed Cahokians, an equal one could be made

8 · Ryan M. Parish and Charles H. McNutt

that short- or long-term resident participants in episodic rituals returned as proselytizers who influenced the material culture of their home communities. Future collaborative efforts are likely to continue in threshing out the complexity and variability of these processes. As the chapters in this volume attest, the cultural developments at Cahokia during its relatively brief heyday, as well as the impact of its demise, produced profound and lasting impressions on the precontact eastern United States.

I HEARTLAND The American Bottom and Lower Ohio Valley

1 In the Beginning Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

The emergence of the place we call Cahokia Mounds is integrated into a large and extended set of processes that can be traced back several centuries to indigenous Late Woodland societies in the site’s larger region. As part of the Mississippian tradition within the Eastern Woodlands, which dates from AD 1000 up to the point of historic contact in the early sixteenth century AD, Cahokia is certainly one of the earliest Mississippian mound centers. As a culture-historical construct, Mississippian culture has its roots in Holmes’s (1903) early twentieth-century study of ceramic vessels accumulated in the Smithsonian and numerous other museums. These “excavated” assemblages formed a corpus of data Holmes divided into a number of distinct ceramic provinces. One such geographic ensemble became known as the Middle Mississippi ceramic province, which comprised that portion of the Mississippi River valley between St. Louis and Memphis, including the Nashville Basin and the lower Ohio River valley to the east (Griffin 1967). Griffin’s 1967 summary article on eastern North America archaeology articulated the variation geographically and temporally in Mississippian Culture (Figure 1.1). It is important to note that prior to the radiocarbondating revolution of the mid-twentieth century, Griffin (Wright 2007:3–4), supported by the Ceramic Repository at the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology and the pharmaceutical magnate Eli Lilly, had the opportunity to visit various institutions with ceramic collections. By the end of his sojourn he fully understood the regional differences in the ceramic sequences of the eastern Woodlands. As a tribute to his mentor at the University of Chicago, Fay-Cooper Cole, working with his colleagues who were graduates of that institution, composed regional articles establishing

12 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

Figure 1.1. Extent of Mississippian culture and Middle Mississippian Ceramic Province (shaded area).

the culture-historical sequence for eastern North America, which Griffin (1952a) edited as a massive volume known as the “Green Bible.” Our understanding of Mississippian and Cahokia has evolved exponentially in the last half century since Griffin’s seminal article. While we have moved beyond culture-history in the way it was practiced and envisioned from the 1930s through the 1960s, these terms are still important in our communication on the placement of material culture in time and space. How we interpret what we recover has resulted in multiple perspectives. What is being presented in this chapter is one such perspective, and, like Griffin’s, the framework is based primarily on ceramics from excavated

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 13

contexts at Cahokia and the surrounding region that have been accumulated by numerous individuals and institutions. For the American Bottom, researchers have developed a relatively robust sequence (Bareis and Porter 1984; Fowler and Hall 1975). To a large extent this can be attributed to the monetary support derived from federal legislation, especially those laws related to highway transportation funding and, to a lesser extent, state laws that have augmented the federal legislation. For purposes here we focus on the Late Woodland, the Emergent Mississippian, and the Mississippian portion of the FAI-270 sequence (Figure 1.2). The breakdown of the aforementioned sequence into taxonomic units such as phases and traditions is linked to changes in ceramic modes of production and decoration. Especially important is the extensive nature of the various excavations that provide the overall context for the sequence. The Cahokia chronology and the FAI-270 project sequence (Bareis and Porter 1984) built on the earlier highway work at Cahokia and elsewhere provided data that allowed the modification and amplification of the earlier sequences beyond Cahokia. Critical to this work was the introduction of a taxonomic unit, Emergent Mississippian, which represented the transition from Late Woodland to the Mississippian. In many respects this taxonomic construct paralleled the lower valley unit of Coles Creek that was “transitional” between Baytown and Plaquemine (Kelly 2012). And as Emergent Mississippian was part of the Late Woodland, Coles Creek complexes were at one time the late part of the Baytown period. In 2001, Fortier and McElrath (2002) attempted to disencumber the Emergent Mississippian concept for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say many of us still regard the Emergent Mississippian as a viable taxonomic unit. While we might agree that the use of “Emergent Mississippian” is teleological (see Muller 1997), replacing it with “terminal” Late Woodland is to use an unfortunate term that has a slippery timespan depending on the location of interest. The terminal Late Woodland is burdened with a critique of cultural evolution and cultural ecology. One of its ironies is that it ignores the appearance in Emergent Mississippian of certain hallmarks of Mississippian culture—its distinctive traditions of image-making and the instruments of the chunkey game (Brown and Muller 2015). Although Cahokia may have appeared rather suddenly, new cultural features appeared throughout the Emergent Mississippian period (Beck et al. 2007). We will continue to use “Emergent Mississippian” in the rest of this discussion as a way to understand that Cahokia’s origins as an urban society are firmly embedded in what was occurring among the agents of change across the

14 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

Figure 1.2. American Bottom precontact sequence.

region and beyond prior to Mississippian. Suffice it to say we have a very fluid cultural landscape that cannot be adequately captured with the existing taxonomy (Barrier 2017). This is not meant to disavow the utility of taxonomy but to acknowledge its shortcomings and the fact that it is simply for reference and not a substitute for explanation. In the 1930s and 1940s, collectors (Titterington 1935, 1938) conducting excavations into burial mounds on the bluffs in the lower Illinois River valley and nearby village sites coined the term “Jersey Bluff.” Collectors and later researchers involved at Cahokia and nearby sites in the northern American Bottom recognized the ubiquity of Late Woodland materials similar to the Jersey Bluff ceramics to the north and began referring to

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 15

these ceramics as Bluff culture. Excavations by collectors and later professional excavations at Cahokia between 1940 and the highway salvage excavations (Fowler 1962, 1963, 1964) and surveys (Harn 1971; Munson 1971) of the early 1960s documented the extensive nature of these Bluff materials. At the time when Bluff culture was simply seen as Late Woodland, the struggle was how to rectify and relate this occupation to the subsequent Mississippian presence at the site. This relationship, especially with regard to the origins of Mississippian, was a much larger problem that had been under investigation by archaeologists in the lower Mississippi valley since the 1930s (Phillips et al. 1951). By the 1960s at Cahokia, with the recognition of extensive residential areas of Bluff occupations on Tracts 15-A and 15-B (Wittry and Vogel 1962) and to a certain extent the Powell Tract (O’Brien 1972), individuals such as Vogel and Hall began to realize and articulate new perspectives on the historic connections between the two taxonomic units, Late Woodland and Mississippian. For example, Vogel (1975:70), who studied the ceramics from Tracts 15-A and 15-B, “postulated that Mississippian culture entered the American Bottom in a [sic] incipient form as part of an interaction situation no later than the A.D. 900s. The Mississippian phenomena at the Cahokia site were the product of the successful integration of many modes from a variety of sources, spread over as much as two centuries of Late Woodland–Mississippian interaction, as well as the interaction to be expected between early Mississippian centers. The fathers of the ‘Old Village’ were many and included local antecedents.” Hall (1966:6), who examined some of the ceramics from Tract 15-A, exhibited views that were somewhat similar to Vogel’s. “Mississippian culture may well have initially appeared at Cahokia with the baggage of some group that could be called original Mississippian, but if so these Mississippians need not have traveled from very far and it would be a mistake to think of Mississippian culture spreading only by the displacement of Woodland peoples.” Later he noted that “rooting the Cahokia Mississippian tradition exclusively within what we can see of the Patrick Phase at Cahokia is about as reasonable as generating Metropolitan Chicago from the Fort Dearborn community of 1812 without considering the contribution made by later arrivals” (Hall 1975:18). He considered the Mississippian emergence to have probably begun locally with “organization changes within a society which was Woodland” (Hall 1975:23). A major accomplishment of the 1972 Cahokia Conference (Fowler and Hall 1975) was the development of a new chronology for Cahokia and the

16 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

surrounding region, beginning with the Early Bluff Patrick phase and ending with the late Mississippian Sand Prairie phase. For the earlier Mississippian sequence of Old Village and Trappist (Griffin 1949), the Stirling phase replaced the former taxonomic unit, and the Sand Prairie phase, the latter. The transition between Old Village and Trappist was designated the Moorehead phase. In order to address that portion of the chronology between the Patrick and the Stirling phases, participants suggested that the early part after Patrick remain “Unnamed” and that the unit covering the Late Bluff materials with a preponderance of red-filmed ceramics and the earliest shell-tempered ceramics be designated the Fairmount phase. In Vogel’s (1964, 1975) earlier analysis in the 1960s, he referred to what was later termed the “Unnamed” materials as the Loyd phase and the later materials with red-filming as the Merrell phase. The Loyd phase was named for the Late Bluff component of the excavated materials from the Loyd site, north of Cahokia (Hall 1963; Vermilion 2005) (Figure 1.3). The senior author suggested as part of his dissertation research (Kelly 1980) that the Loyd phase represented the earliest Late Bluff materials and that the Merrell phase be used for those assemblages with the appearance of red-filming and notched bluff jar rims, and occasional shell-tempering. Kelly recommended that the Fairmount phase be split into an Early Fairmont for the end of the Late Bluff occupation with a more diverse ceramic assemblage and a marked increase in red-filming and shell-tempering. The Late Fairmount was reserved for those assemblages with a predominance of shell-tempering and thus the earliest Mississippian assemblage at the site. The FAI-270 project eliminated the Early Fairmount phase, replacing it with the Edelhardt phase for the Late Bluff (Kelly et al. 1984) and defining the Lohmann phase for the earliest Mississippian materials replacing the Late Fairmount (Milner et al. 1993). Whereas the Fairmount phase served to bridge the Late Woodland– Mississippian dichotomy, the aforementioned changes resulted in a return to the abrupt disjuncture between the pre-Mississippian, Emergent Mississippian, and Mississippian. In the end the creation of the Emergent Mississippian taxon served as a broader taxonomic transition. Pauketat took this one step further, characterizing this disjuncture as the “Big Bang,” a focal point of his research that we refer to here as the Mississippian Event of 1050. Several decades after the 1972 Cahokia Conference and the new dates from the FAI-270 project, Hall’s earlier perception had evolved a bit when he stated that “there are some things that can be learned of Mississippian customs and beliefs directly from archaeology. There are other things that may be inferred from ethnographic knowledge of historic societies whose

Figure 1.3. Northern American Bottom sites.

18 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

ancestors lived within the orbit of influence of Mississippian level cultures or were actually Mississippian town dwellers themselves. For an example of a tribe descended from Cahokia I would first look to the Siouan-speaking Osage” (Hall 2006:192). “If there is a role for Mesoamerican contacts in accounting for the Big Bang at Cahokia it minimally involved the receipt of new ritual practices that added a Mexican flavor to a down-home menu of fertility, adoption, and world renewal rites. To some extent it may also have involved new ways to personify aspects of nature that provided mantles of authority for religious and political leaders. In any case, the first evidence of suspected Mesoamerican contacts within the Cahokia Mississippian tradition coincides with the Big Bang itself, around AD 1050, although by that time there had already been two thousand years of interaction with tropical America whose effects were less dramatic and more unexpected” (Hall 2006:196). Although Hall’s perspective eventually acknowledged a Mexican “flavor” with new ritual practices and its coincidence with the “Big Bang,” we would argue that we first must understand the role that indigenous practice and agency played in this rapid transformation of Cahokian society. Others such as Pauketat have consistently focused on the “Big Bang” as the moment when Cahokian hegemony emerged de novo at the head of Mississippian culture (Carneiro 2010). His and Emerson’s (1997a) earlier works were centered on a highly centralized entity that in some instances they alluded to as a state and were totally dismissive of any form of evolutionary taxonomy such as the concept of chiefdom. In examining Cahokia’s emergence they turned their attention to outside stimuli. While Pauketat (2009a:150) often sought stimulus from Mexican high civilization, he and his students (e.g., Betzenhauser 2017) did acknowledge a pre-Mississippian presence in the local Emergent Mississippian inhabitants, “Old Cahokia.” In many respects the paradigm they have been pursuing has the unfortunate feature of resembling a twenty-first-century version of the mound-builder myth. The new America of the late eighteenth century was expansive, and while many European emigrants and their descendants of the past three centuries fully understood the role of indigenous peoples in the construction of the numerous earthworks, there were others who could not fathom that the “savage” residents of the Eastern Woodlands could have constructed them. These earthen monuments were seen as the product of a mysterious race of “mound-builders” that had been ironically wiped out by American Indians who were seen as emigrants from northeast Asia.

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 19

Thus, much like the mound-builder myth of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in which American Indians were incapable of designing and building the various earthworks, the Emergent Mississippian inhabitants of the American Bottom were in some paradigms seen as incapable of creating an urban polity such as Cahokia. Why not! Clearly we still need to understand the role that outside forces and agency played in Cahokia’s emergence as an urban center, and that it did not occur in a vacuum and was part of a larger and more dynamic arena of interaction. Becoming a City

For nearly five decades there have been discussions of Cahokia being a city. More recently, the authors attempted to provide a basis for examining Cahokia and the Mississippian tradition as an independent example of urbanization (Kelly and Brown 2014). The processes leading to urbanization have a long history in the American Bottom that extend back into the Late Woodland period nearly five centuries before Cahokia’s emergence as an urban center. These processes entail demographic, settlement, and subsistence changes, especially increases in population and initially the aggregation of population into small villages, eventually resulting in the nucleation of populations into larger communities. These processes were at a scale that provides the historical context in which agency played out in shaping the broader changes. Late Woodland societies of the middle of the first millennium AD underwent increases in population resulting in what the senior author (Kelly 1992, 2019) characterized initially as settlement aggregation and later, following Holley (2000), the creation of aggregated clusters. What they represent are locations where small (ca. 50–100 people) settlements remained within the area for a number of generations—and even longer in the case of sites such as Range or George Reeves that continue into the Emergent Mississippian. These aggregated clusters occur at specific locations throughout the American Bottom and may cover as much as a square kilometer or more. The small villages within the aggregate clusters exist for a short (5–10 years) period of time and, as noted above, often shift their location within the overall area of the aggregated cluster. In those instances where occupations persist into the early Emergent Mississippian, the overall configuration of these small villages represents cosmograms that accentuate specific elements and principles of their cosmology (Kelly 1996) still

20 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

extant in Native societies today. What takes place next toward the end of the tenth century entails the populations from smaller aggregated villages throughout the American Bottom nucleating into much larger villages that embody the three primary elements (central pole, quadripartite arrangement of pits around a pole, and a large central structure) of each smaller village’s cosmogram (Kelly 1996). The overall cosmogram consists of a central plaza(s) surrounded by courtyard groups. These courtyard groups as corporate groups maintain specific symbolic elements of their antecedent communities that are integrated into the overall design of each village. This has been described and discussed for the last three decades (see Kelly 1988, 1990a, 1990b, 2000), and while important to this narrative, we would like to focus on the nucleation that occurs at Cahokia by the beginning of the eleventh century. Prior to the initial nucleation at Cahokia, the area that encompasses what we define as Cahokia had been intermittently occupied since the Middle Archaic (Iseminger 2010). By the Late Woodland at least two aggregate clusters are evident at Cahokia. One, characterized by Patrick phase ceramics, is in the northern area of the Powell Tract (O’Brien 1972). The other area lies beneath Monks Mound (Williams 1975) and based on recent excavations extends into the adjacent area of what becomes the East Plaza. Some of the ceramics are indicative of Patrick and Sponemann phase occupations, with a subsequent early Emergent Mississippian occupation as well. Our understanding of the degree of continuity with the later Emergent Mississippian nucleation of the site is masked by the overall intense nature of subsequent occupations at Cahokia. Regardless of the connection and the evidence of continuity with the earlier landscape, it is the extensive nature of the late Emergent Mississippian occupation extending from Mound 34 on the east to the area of the Woodhenge on the west that demarcates the extensive (35–70 ha) nature of this nucleated community. This expansion begins toward the end of the tenth century and appears to extend from the Merrell tract west of Monks Mound as far as the Ramey Tract east of Monks Mound. What begins to take place afterward in the initial half of the eleventh century is the creation of the site’s epicenter focusing initially on creating the four large plazas. The evidence for this process is at this time by no means conclusive, but there is sufficient evidence that this process of creating large open public spaces is under way. One celestial event that occurs shortly after the onset of the site’s nucleation is the AD 1006 supernova. Observed in other parts of the globe (Stephenson 2002), it appears at the beginning of May in the southern sky just above the horizon. As the brightest object in the sky outside the sun and moon,

Figure 1.4. Early Cahokia distribution of Emergent Mississippian occupation.

22 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

it may have had an impact on what was taking place. As yet this cannot be readily verified independently. Also of interest are the recent dates obtained from the beaded burial at Cahokia’s Mound 72 (Emerson et al. 2016) that indicate it dates to the beginning of the eleventh century. This mortuary activity located at the southeast end of Mound 72 could very well initiate and commemorate this celestial event and the beginning or birth of Mound 72. The large pole inserted 3 m into the earth just east of the beaded burial may have served to visually establish the north–south axis, as initially proscribed by Fowler and Hall (1975), of the site’s epicenter as it was being planned and laid out. The symbolic significance of the pole as a sacred monumental icon has been discussed at length by Hall (1997, 2005) and others (Kelly 2003; Skousen 2012). Earlier we discussed the significance of the smaller posts as equally important elements as axes mundi within the earlier Emergent Mississippian communities. With an estimated height of approximately 2 m, they would have been visible within the much smaller communities. The erection of large posts with heights estimated at 12–16 m and present throughout Cahokia may have been in part dependent on their being visible from some distance, in a sense of being ancient stadia rods. Sherrod and Rolingson (1987; Rolingson 1996) had earlier discussed the layout of Cahokia using mounds and the Woodhenge (Wittry 1964, 1996). However, they were looking at the site from a single location and in terms of its end product. The Mound 72 marker post also dates to the same time as the northernmost midden area (Fowler et al. 1999; Watson 2005). This post pit figured into Fowler’s early model of Cahokia involving a north–south line from this point north through the southwest corner of Monks Mound to the east end of the Kunnemann mound. Most recently, Romain (2015b) has integrated the role of the moon in the layout of Cahokia and its epicenter in part based on the 5 degree offset of Fowler’s north–south axis. In defining a plaza we rely on an open nonresidential use of space that is bounded either by mounds or by other forms of structural architecture (Kelly 1996; Cobb and Butler 2017). At Cahokia, the Grand, West, and North Plazas have over the years been defined by various researchers by the large mounds that bound their margins. The East Plaza is not as well framed and is based on the lack of early Mississippian residential occupation from excavations within the area (Iseminger et al. 1990). The dating of the North Plaza is unclear. Ceramic materials collected by University of Michigan archaeologists in the 1950s from the surface of

Figure 1.5. Early Cahokia’s epicenter.

24 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

the mounds that comprise the plaza complex were either Emergent Mississippian (i.e., Late Bluff) or late Mississippian. It is possible that the earlier sherds are derived from fills such as the natural levee slope of the East plaza, where there is evidence of borrowing during the late Emergent Mississippian Edelhardt phase. As the largest (ca. 16 ha) ceremonial space, the Grand Plaza is a constructed landscape, involving processes of leveling and filling the uneven natural landscape (Alt et al. 2010; Holley et al. 1993). It is portrayed as a depressed or sunken area by the creation of elevated platforms on three sides (Kelly and Brown 2014). For the beginnings of the Grand Plaza, Holley et al. (1993:314) suggested that “ceramics recovered from the plaza-fill deposits appear to date at the transition between the Emergent Mississippian periods. The presence of large rims and sherds that we date from the Edelhardt phase within the lower (primary) fill deposits suggests that the borrowed areas within the plaza were open late during the Emergent Mississippian period. We believe that subsequent filling episodes in the plaza date early within the Lohmann phase, as we would expect a stronger presence of Lohmann ceramics if reclamation occurred later in time. Therefore we hypothesize that the stripping of the plaza area occurred near the end of the Emergent Mississippian period (ca. AD 1025) and that the reclamation process lasted into the beginnings of the Mississippian period, Lohamnn phase.” Evidence for the creation of the East Plaza during the late Emergent Mississippian is based on the removal of a portion of the front face of the Edelhardt meander natural levee and the creation of a terrace at the base of the natural levee that had an Edelhardt phase house basin excavated into the newly constructed terrace. This removal of the natural levee face appears to be linked with the removal of the natural levee crest as well. Excavations in this area indicated that the upper 40–50 cm of the natural levee were removed, thus truncating the A and B soil horizons and exposing the underlying C soil horizon of natural levee deposits. Presumably this may be related to actually leveling the plaza from its higher elevation at the north end of the plaza area to lower elevations to the south. A low-lying platform mound is constructed at the north end of the plaza and also appears to have been initially begun during the Edelhardt phase based on ceramic materials recovered from the mound fill and at the base of the mound. This, along with the Grand Plaza activity, is the first clear evidence of landscape modification during the Emergent Mississippian. Additional modification of the natural levee was initially identified by Bareis in 1969, and more

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 25

recent geophysical survey (Hargrave 2011), in conjunction with some coring (Schilling 2012) and excavation (Williams and Kelly 2013), has identified a large (30 × 70 m) rectilinear feature, Feature X, with a ramp excavated into the face of the natural levee slope. With the exception of Mound 36, which appears to mark the center of the plaza, the other mounds are relatively small, at least in elevation. The West Plaza’s creation at the end of the Emergent Mississippian is based on what appears to be the termination of the Late Emergent Mississippian Edelhardt phase occupation of this area before the onset of the early Mississippian Lohmann phase (Valese 2012, 2017). The Edelhardt ceramics appear to date to the early part of the phase. No later ceramic forms—that is, Late Bluff jars transformed into shell-tempered forms—have been documented on Tract 15-A, and outside Cahokia at least two other sites, BBB Motors (Emerson and Jackson 1984) and Mees Nochta (Kelly 1998), exhibit this transformation. The residents in the area of the West Plaza area may have moved to the area of Tract 15-A some 500 m to the west. This latter area persists into the latter half of the eleventh century, and, while shifts in ceramics were occurring that have been identified as Mississippian, another major and more abrupt shift was the adoption of a new construction technique of using wall trenches. This is one of the most notable changes that has been used to emphasize the importance of the “Big Bang.” Wall trench structural foundations have been identified by Pauketat and others as a novel cultural feature. However, they are not as novel as portrayed. The Hopewellian Stubbs earthwork has most of its housing in wall trenches (Cowan 2006). Moreover, this technique is quite likely an expression of an emphasis on quick and coordinated preparation for new housing, precisely the needed response when massive numbers of pilgrims show up (Brown and Kelly 2019). What is not clear is whether there is actual continuity in the occupation of the Tract 15-A area or whether there is a brief hiatus with abandonment and reoccupation. Our understanding of the architecture associated with each plaza is at this time relatively limited. Perhaps the clearest insight into the plaza edge architecture were the excavations conducted by Harriet Smith (1973a) on the eve of Pearl Harbor and the Second World War. Her excavations with Works Progress Administration (WPA) labor were focused on salvaging one of the mounds, Mound 55, at the south end of the eastern row of mounds bordering the Grand Plaza. Before the mound’s construction, a late Emergent Mississippian single post house basin was constructed followed by small, unique buildings. These were constructed in the area

26 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

that plausibly accentuated aspects of their cosmology (Brown 2011). These buildings were capped by thin layers of fill that served to symbolically bury the buildings. Thus the initial mound was a relatively low platform, similar to what was being constructed at the north end of the East Plaza. We suspect that, given the same character of the mounds in the East and Grand Plazas, the construction of small, low platforms was the case throughout the site. We would also argue that before mounds were built a special building or buildings existed that related to the rituals of specific corporate groups. Their position within the site was dictated by their position in the cosmogram that was being created (Brown 2011; Dowd 2015). As Bailey (1995) notes for the Osage, their society was a reflection of the cosmos. The clan priests were responsible for specific rituals and the creation of ritual objects. Each clan and its various ritual specialists were responsible for the knowledge associated with these religious events. They would cooperate with other clans, create ritual objects, and lead the specific ritual event. The very finely crafted items that appear during the early years of Cahokia are probably to varying degrees linked to specific locations associated with the mounds that were constructed along the plaza margins. The types of items we have in mind include the working of marine shell into shell beads; finely crafted engraved ceramics; red fireclay figurines; large basalt ax heads; earspools manufactured from fine-grained limestone and Baraboo pipestone in Wisconsin; and possibly copper. Some of this crafting is already under way during the late Emergent Mississippian, but clearly the Mississippian Event of circa AD 1050 marks an important disjuncture that solidifies such activity within the site’s epicenter. The derivation of the different crafts will be discussed shortly. This perspective of large plazas flanked by small mounds capping earlier buildings is also reinforced when one examines the coterminous construction of Monks Mound and the Woodhenge and their symbolic relationship. The dating of these two major monuments at the beginning of the twelfth century and their relationship augment our argument that Cahokia’s epicenter of four large plazas was framed by religious buildings subsequently capped by thin fill deposits that serve to symbolically bury their ancestral beginnings. Monks Mound and the Woodhenge bear an interesting relationship to each other. When one views the equinox sunrise today from the west, the sun appears to emerge from Monks Mound’s south face. If we assume that the three mounds (41, 42, and 44) aligned with Monks Mound and the

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 27

Figure 1.6. Fall equinox sunrise over the south face of Monks Mound, viewed from the west.

Woodhenge were not present in their current form and that the event commemorating the construction of Monks Mound and the first Woodhenge provides a symbolical marriage of the rectilinear mound on the east with the circle of posts on the west, then we may have had the “marriage” of these two primary and geometric elements of their cosmology coming together with the spring equinox and the birth of a new year. This geometric relationship of the square on the east or south and the circle on the west (also replicated in south–north arrangements) is a part of the site’s architectural grammar (Kelly et al. 2014). Clearly, the above is a hypothetical perspective that makes sense for the first two centuries of this urban center. The large mounds that serve to delineate and dominate the epicenter at the end of the site’s occupation are earthen monuments hypothetically constructed or more accurately capped later in the twelfth century and into the thirteenth (Trubitt 2000; Pauketat

28 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

1993b). The massive borrow pits in the vicinity of the large mounds were never filled, in part because the population had been reduced in size with the onset of the “Moorehead Moment,” and the focus was on constructing and maintaining the central palisade and the construction of the Ramey Plaza, a new plaza created to the east of the palisade. Contextualizing Cahokia’s Urbanization

While the aforementioned has examined the processes of aggregation and nucleation within the American Bottom, we want to understand the onset of Cahokia’s urbanization from a broader geographical and historical context beginning with the latter half of the tenth century. Especially important to this discussion are the roots of the cosmology that eventually is established at Cahokia and then the interaction with other extraregional societies, not as much in an economic sense but with regard to the role they may have played in the emergence of Cahokia’s ritual economy. The animistic nature of Cahokia’s cosmology has ancestry reaching deep in time and extending over much of the Midwest. What eventually emerges are various mythic characters that dominate Mississippian cosmology and that of their indigenous descendants today. Two of the more interesting and significant developments occurring in the dark recesses of the earth were away from the main areas of settlement within the American Bottom. These sacred loci were “Picture Cave” on the northern margins of the Ozark highlands north of the Missouri River (Diaz-Granados et al. 2015) and Gottschall, a small, isolated rock shelter at the head of a small coulee in the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin (Salzer and Rajnovich 2000). Here ritual specialists at the end of the tenth century composed a series of mythic tableaus related to the important Morning Star theme of the Birdman, known to the Ho-Chunk as Red Horn. The art style portrayed is the forerunner of the Eddyville version of the Braden style evident on the engraved marine shell cups and copper plates at the Spiro site four centuries later (Brown and Muller 2015; Phillips and Brown 1978). This cult hero appears in the oral traditions of the central Siouan speakers of the western Midwest prairies, which extend from southern Wisconsin to northern Arkansas. Other harbingers of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex are to be found farther afield in places like northeast Florida (Ashley 2012), with mortuary activity centered on Mount Royal and the nearby Mill Cove complex near the mouth of the St. John’s River. This complex appears to have

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 29

Figure 1.7. Cultural horizons.

its roots in the pre-Mississippian southeast and persists for at least two centuries, with elements of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex integral to Red Horn’s identity, such as the copper “Long-Nosed god masks,” an important horizon marker of the early Mississippian. Other items include large rectangular repoussé copper plates that have identical mates in the Spiro Hollow Chamber (Griffin 1952b). Also recovered was a smaller square repoussé plate similar to those found in early Emergent Mississippian contexts in the American Bottom and its Jersey Bluff cognates in the lower Illinois River valley (Sampson and Esarey 1993). What is of interest regarding these small plates is the way in which they echo the basic symbols in repoussé or punctates of a circle within the square. These may represent an important horizon marker that the senior author (Kelly 2012) refers to as the “formative horizon” prior to the proliferation of the Mississippian cultural tradition. In early Cahokian society a symbolic counterpart to these occasional copper plates are the objects of marine shell. Although an occasional marine shell bead such as Olivella or Marginella appears in pre-Mississippian

30 · John E. Kelly and James A. Brown

contexts in the American Bottom, the only significant deposit (approximately 20,000 marine shell disc beads) occurs with the beaded burial at Mound 72 at the beginning of the eleventh century (Emerson et al. 2016). In the past we have not seen evidence of massive bead production until the beginning of the Mississippian (Yerkes 1983, 1989, 1991). The microlithic industry that is so prevalent at Cahokia and the surrounding region emerged after AD 1050 with a suite of other new crafts. However, this microlithic industry is already present in Emergent Mississippian Big Lake phase contexts in northeastern Arkansas during the tenth century (Morse and Morse 1980). Both the adoption of shell-tempering and the microlithic industry used in the production of marine shell disc beads enter the American Bottom beginning with the presence of Varney Red Filmed vessels in the late tenth century, and within a few decades the adoption of shell-tempering is incorporated into the production of Late Bluff jars. By the end of the Edlehardt phase (Kelly 1998) these new “Mississippian” vessels are identical morphologically to their ancestral counterparts, differing primarily in the use of shell but also in the increased presence of red-filmed and plain surfaces at the expense of cordmarking below the shoulder. The appearance of shell-tempering within the body of ceramic vessels may be important symbolically to life at a number of different levels within the domestic sphere. Shell is associated with the underworld and the source of life, whether from freshwater species or marine species (Baires 2016). In addition to the presence of Varney Red and Mississippi Plain vessels from the confluence area of the Ohio River with the Mississippi River, other ceramic types also appear from this same area and include ceramic vessels such as Larto Red-filmed, Kersey Incised, Yankeetown Incised, and Mulberry Creek Cordmarked (Kelly 1980, 1991a). Some unusually finely tempered vessels with engraved and incised motifs similar to Coles Creek and other types are derived from potters of the trans-Mississippi south. The appearance of these initial fine wares sets the stage for actual ceramic artisans being adopted into Cahokian society shortly after the “Big Bang.” The final item of significance is the large ovate stone hoe. While occasionally hoes are produced from the local Burlington chert, a significant number of these items are manufactured from Mill Creek chert derived from locations in the Shawnee Hills of southern Illinois (Brown et al. 1990; Cobb 2000; Keegan 2003). These hoes begin to show up in the early Emergent Mississippian throughout the American Bottom. Initially these large (ca. 700 g) ovate spades were manufactured from a gray variety of Mill Creek (Gordon 1999). While the ovate hoe persisted into the early decades

In the Beginning: Contextualizing Cahokia’s Emergence · 31

of the Mississippian, there is a shift to a diversity of hoe forms with broad bits and lighter in weight (ca. 400 g) that are of a brown or tan variety of Mill Creek common to the various quarries that most archaeologists have investigated. The above highlights the contacts and interaction taking place between the Cahokia area and its neighbors farther south. Rarely are materials from the Cahokia area found in coeval contexts to the south (Brown and Kelly 2019). The reverse is less true. However, foreign-looking ceramics include— and even are dominated by—locally produced objects of foreign design (Trubitt et al. 2016). This influx of exotic designs highlights the role of pilgrimage in the emergence of Cahokia. Eventually these visitors are adopted into Cahokian society and thereby formed a more pluralistic society. Food surpluses were necessary to host large feasts for guests participating in community-wide rituals (Brown and Kelly 2015). Cahokia was notable in the American Bottom in having an abundance of high-quality arable soils that could have produced the food for those feasts (Mt. Pleasant 2015; Woods 2004:258). In sum, the requisite agricultural production factor was in place when the population indigenous to the Cahokian neighborhood embarked on an enormously expanded and elaborated plan for communal space that was foreshadowed in plans established during Emergent Mississippian time. As both Hall and Vogel noted nearly 50 years ago, Cahokia’s emergence involved both indigenous peoples and populations from farther afield. Many of these new immigrants brought with them new skills, which became part of multiple crafting traditions. Recent work along the Mississippi River at Trempealeau, Wisconsin, has documented late Emergent Mississippian occupations along with landscape modification, including mound building by subsequent Cahokians we call Mississippian (Stoltman et al. 2008; Pauketat et al. 2015b). Other interactions by the mid-eleventh century are occurring along the Missouri River and its tributaries with Mill Creek populations in northwest Iowa. However, the main area of interaction appears to be to the south around the confluence of the Ohio with the Mississippi. By the end of the eleventh century the culture of urban Cahokia was in place as the product of not only the indigenous “woodland” culture but also the incorporation of new cultural elements along with new migrants. The result was the construction of an episode of humanity unique to the Eastern Woodlands that we call urbanism.

2 The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia Susan M. Alt

As this volume and other studies demonstrate, evidence for contact with Cahokia (Figure 2.1) has been recovered at locations in both the greater Midwest and the Southeast (Emerson and Lewis 1991; Pauketat, Boszhardt, and Benden 2015; Stoltman 1991b). Given that Cahokia could be argued to be the place of origin for Mississippian culture and that multiple lines of evidence (from material remains to isotopic studies) have demonstrated that Cahokia was home to large numbers of nonlocal people, perhaps distant Cahokian contacts should not be surprising (Alt 2006a, 2008, 2018; Pauketat 2003; Slater et al. 2014; Thompson, et al. 2015). A study by Phil Slater and colleagues (2014) confirms that at least 30 percent of the Cahokian population were people who were not born at Cahokia (see also Alt 2002, 2006a, 2008, 2010, 2018). This resonates well with materials recovered from Emerald (as of yet, tabulations are not complete) that include many nonlocal pottery styles and chert types. Also suggestive of immigrants are the ancient roadways between Cahokia and Emerald and places south. In this chapter, I suggest reasons why nonlocal people may have come to Cahokia and why some Cahokians may have sought contact with distant peoples. My arguments are based on evidence from excavations in the greater Cahokia region, especially those at the Emerald shrine center east of Cahokia (Alt and Pauketat 2018; Pauketat and Alt 2018). As I describe, new evidence from the Emerald shrine center leads me to suggest that religion was fundamental, if not causal, for the rise of Cahokia as North America’s only pre-Columbian city. Thus, I suggest that religion is what mattered in Cahokian development and in the spread of Mississippian culture.

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 33

Illinois

Mi

so

s

ur

i R ive

r

N

Cahokia Copper L

E

X

E.St. Louis

A

N

D

i R ive r

H

Silver Creek

L

ipp

30

Richland Creek

R

IC

Mississ

0

Pfeffer

C

O

M

P

St. Louis

Emerald

kilometers

Figure 2.1. Map of the Cahokia region showing major sites mentioned in the text.

Why Religion?

The argument made here is different from simply noting that religion was an important aspect of Mississippian culture (Brown 1997; Emerson 2007; Emerson et al. 2008; Knight 1986; Pauketat 2012; Waring and Holder 1945). Simply categorizing some aspects of Mississippian culture as religion, or recognizing that some things were sacred or “ritual,” does not quite capture the ways that religion was fundamental to identity and being for Native Americans, nor does it adequately indicate the linkage between Mississippian beginnings and religion. Simply identifying rituals or religious materials removes religion from day-to-day living and being and suggests that it was distinct from other aspects of daily life (Baires et al. 2014; Pauketat

34 · Susan M. Alt

2008, 2012). Religion was everything: politics, foodways, economy, and identity (Deloria 1973, 1995, 2006; Waters 2004). It was and is inseparable from everyday “doings” (Fowles 2013). What Mississippian people did and how they did it were imbued with their sense of “how to be” in the world, and that being-in-the-world (sensu Heidegger 1972, 1996) encompassed their sense of the numinous. Thus, it logically follows that when people became Mississippian, they necessarily did more than adopt a new identity; people accepted a new relationship with the numinous—a new way of being religious in the world. I argue that instead, a new religious way of being-in-the-world came first, and becoming Mississippian, at Cahokia and elsewhere, is how we read what followed the new religious program. It is the case that at AD 1050 Cahokia ceased to be simply another farming village and became what many are now comfortable calling a city (Kelly and Brown 2014; Pauketat 2007, 2009a; Pauketat, Alt, and Kruchten 2015). When that happened, its population grew quickly and exponentially because of an influx of immigrants (Alt 2001, 2002, 2006a, 2008, 2018; Slater et al. 2014; Thompson et al. 2015). These people, I argue, were attracted to the Cahokia region because of its already religious qualities. Historically, we know that religious movements have had a great impact in Native North America. Most are familiar with peyote cults and revival movements such as the Wovoka and the Ghost Dance movement. I come back to more specifics of these cases later, but for now it is adequate to note there were many prophets such as the Delaware prophet Neolin, or Handsome Lake of the Seneca, or the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa (brother of Tecumseh) who had great historic effect (Cave 2006; Howard 1981; Irwin 2008; Mooney 1896; Wallace 2003). Going farther back in time, what was Hopewell if not a religious movement (Beck and Brown 2011; Carr and Case 2005; Romain 2009)? It is possible that Cahokia developed in a similar way. The mound building at Cahokia has long been connected to religious motivations, as have been certain events, types of vessels, iconography, carved figurines, feasts, mortuary configurations, and more (Alt 2017b; Baires 2014; Baltus and Baires 2012; Brown 2003, 2004a; Emerson 1989, 1995, 1997b, 2003; Emerson et al. 2008; Emerson and Pauketat 2007; Fowler et al. 1999; Hall 1997; Kelly et al. 2008; Pauketat 2012). We have always connected religion to Cahokia, and how its people lived, and why they did what they did in the ways that they did them. But what if religion is why it

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 35

all started, instead of simply something that legitimized the new Cahokian order, after the facts of AD 1050? Cahokia Questions

The reasons how and why Cahokia grew from a large village into a city over 10 times larger than any other Mississippian town continues to motivate researchers (Dalan et al. 2003; Emerson 1997a; Milner 1998; Pauketat 1994, 2009a; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). Over the years, these researchers have explored and rejected several arguments (see, e.g., Kelly 1991a; Mehrer 1995; Milner 1998; Muller and Stephens 1991; O’Brien 1989). Today, most would agree: Cahokia was not a trading center; most raw materials and goods were locally derived (Emerson 2002; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). Cahokians did not possess undue material wealth or have a monopoly on some desired product (unless that product was religion); Cahokia was also not a military center; evidence of significant violence before and during its primary growth period is lacking (Emerson 2007; Milner 1998, 1999; Pauketat 2009b; Pauketat et al. 2013); Cahokia did not arise owing to standard top-down explanations about chiefdoms or states. It has not been possible to disprove suppositions of a dynamic leader, but then part of an extraordinary leader’s appeal might have been tied to the inception of a new religion (Bareis and Porter 1984; Milner 1998; Muller 1997; Pauketat 1994, 2009a; Pauketat and Alt 2014; Pauketat and Emerson 1997); Cahokia was not a “site-unit intrusion.” All of the changes that came with the expansion from town to city have been demonstrated to have been locally derived (Bareis and Porter 1984; Pauketat 1994; Milner 1998); and Major innovations in agriculture and technology are not in evidence. It has been equally difficult to explain many other Cahokian facts. Why were there so many immigrants? Why were there so many densely built, monumental places? Why was there so much earth moving in those places? Why did all local technologies and styles change as part of a “Big Bang” around AD 1050 (Pauketat 1997a) if it was a local phenomenon? And why did all of the changes come about so quickly?

36 · Susan M. Alt

The Emerald Shrine Center

I turn to a specific case study near Cahokia to propose a possible answer to these questions. The Emerald shrine center (11S1) (Figure 2.2), not to be confused with the Emerald site in Mississippi, covered about 63 ha and sat upon a relatively high ridge in the uplands in what is otherwise the generally flat landscape of the Looking Glass Prairie (Pauketat et al. 2017). Emerald was located 24 km east of downtown Cahokia on the eastern edge of the Richland complex (see Figure 2.1). a farming district populated by immigrant farmers (Alt 2002, 2006a, 2018; Pauketat 2003). For six years (2012–2017), teams from the University of Illinois and Indiana University crew members and students excavated 5,100 m2 in seven excavation blocks. We have recovered deposits that include over 150 buildings and detailed evidence of massive earth moving and terraforming projects on and around the Emerald ridge (Pauketat et al. 2017). The ridge upon which Emerald sits aligns with the axes of what are called “lunar standstills.” Standstills are yearlong events observable as extreme rising and setting positions of the moon in its 18.6-year orbit (Pauketat 2012). There is no reason to believe that the lunar alignment of Emerald is accidental. In fact, Cahokians terraformed the ridge to make certain it (and a few other high spots or ridges visible from Emerald) would align precisely with the lunar standstill positions. Also aligned, in a sense as part of this landscape, was water. A natural spring sat just to the north of the ridge, which, in turn, sat upon a perched water table (Alt 2017b; Pauketat et al. 2017). The unique geology of the ridge itself caused water to discharge out of its sides, particularly after large rainstorms. Those same storms could be seen approaching from miles away, and as our experiences during excavation can attest, Emerald would have provided interesting rain and wind effects for those who were on top of the ridge. Thus, the ridge not only provided a perfect place to honor the movements of the moon but was also a place of water and wind. Other human activities implicate the importance of fire and smoke to go along with the already mentioned natural forces. These features—human-made, altered, and natural—all equipped the ridge to be the perfect spot for the construction of a shrine center that was used to honor the spirits and forces of the moon and water, as well as wind and fire (Alt 2015a, 2016b, 2017b, 2019; Alt and Pauketat 2018; Pauketat 2012; Skousen 2016). The terraforming of the ridge was not the only earth-moving use engaged in by Cahokians at Emerald. Twelve mounds, built in rows that referenced

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 37

Figure 2.2. Contour map of the Emerald shrine derived from LiDAR showing the ridge that the ancient Cahokians reconfigured for the shrine center to sit on and the location of excavation blocks. The largest mounds are evident, and smaller mounds can be seen on the edges of the ridgetop. The linear ridges are due to modern terracing.

lunar standstill positions, were constructed on the ridge top. The largest mound, simply called the “Great Mound,” built with two terraces achieving a height of 7 m, was of a size comparable to that of the larger mounds in downtown Cahokia. Besides the mounds, Emerald residents and visitors covered the ridge surfaces with pole-and-thatch buildings representing nearly all of the varieties found at Cahokia and its “nodal” outliers (following Emerson 1997b), as well as a new type I term a “shrine house” (Alt 2016b, 2017b). Construction became so dense on the southern side of the ridge that at some point the buildings there were all decommissioned and their semisubterranean basins were in-filled. After this decommissioning, the in-filled building basins and the entire section of the ridge south of the Great Mound were covered over by a layer of construction fill at least 30 cm (and as much

38 · Susan M. Alt

as 1 m) deep. New building basins, posts, and wall trenches were subsequently dug through that construction fill and into the old in-filled basins. Certain buildings, the shrine houses in particular, mimicked the old in types and uses, and like the buried shrines were built with lunar alignments that paralleled the angles of the ridge and the rows of mounds (Alt 2017b; Pauketat et al. 2017). Among the 153 buildings or their reconstructions we have excavated to date (and excluding 13 buildings excavated by the Illinois Transportation archaeologists in 1998 and 2011; see Skousen 2016) few, if any, contained an assemblage of materials that would be considered consistent with evidence for long-term occupation. Instead, there are sweat lodges, circular temples, meetinghouses, medicine lodges, and temporary housing for pilgrims. Many were rebuilt repeatedly, which seems to have more to do with episodic renewal and revisiting of the site rather than an intense permanently settled occupation (Alt 2016b, 2017b; Pauketat et al. 2017). These buildings span the period before, during, and after the beginning of the Mississippian era, dated to about AD 1050. The use of Emerald as a shrine center before the Mississippianization of Cahokia is evidenced by the early constructions of at least three shrine houses, aligned to lunar positions and not appearing to be domestic, and these implicate preMississippian religion as a potential reason that Cahokia drew in so many immigrants and visitors. If the nonlocal pottery at Emerald corresponds to the locations from which visitors originated, as seems likely, then people came to Emerald from many different places. We have identified Varney, Coles Creek, Madison County Shales, Yankeetown, Dillinger, and Lower Mississippi Valley varieties in the shrine house deposits and elsewhere at Emerald. Skousen (2016) has argued that ancient trails, which are visible in old aerial photos, date to the time of Cahokia. These trails led to Emerald from places south, and away from Emerald toward Cahokia via other mound centers. Our most recent excavations (summer 2016) may have uncovered a section of this roadway, which appeared in a backhoe-cleared test unit as a several meter–wide strip of water-washed silts overlying the subsoil (notes on file, University of Illinois). The test unit was in a field just northwest of Emerald Ridge, in a location corresponding to a portion of the trail visible in the aerial photos. The earliest of shrines predates AD 1050 and contains a preponderance of pre-Mississippian (Edelhardt phase) materials. One shrine, F157, has both earlier Edelhardt phase deposits and later Lohmann phase materials,

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 39

representing reuse episodes in the same basin. Later shrines contain Lohmann phase and even early Stirling phase deposits. Thus, the shrine houses were continuously built, rebuilt, and utilized in much the same way up to the Stirling phase, for as much as 100 years (Figure 2.3). What matters here is that all of our evidence suggests that the shrines, and the Emerald shrine center, were built and were in fact very busy places, drawing in pilgrims from afar, before the urbanization of downtown Cahokia. It is also of interest that the shrines with the very earliest deposits seem to contain the most nonlocal pottery (this is based on field impressions as tabulations are ongoing) (Alt 2016b, 2017b; notes on file, University of Illinois; Pauketat et al. 2017). In total, and including all major reconstructions, there are at least 30 shrine houses. The shrines provide some of the most telling evidence of religious doings at Emerald. I call the buildings I have been describing “shrine houses” because one of the most significant aspects of their life histories is that they were locations for the placement and enactments of offerings. The offerings were usually recovered in the form of burned materials—fabrics, baskets, tools, and agricultural products. Some offerings were found burned on floors and in hearths, but others were incinerated in reexcavated pockets in the building’s fill. That is to say that the shrine houses were still being utilized after decommissioning. Cahokians, or their visitors, would dig into the fills of a decommissioned shrine house basin and would make new offerings in the reexcavated hole. This reexcavation spot would then be water washed and refilled. In one case, that of shrine house F 157, a large portion of the original basin was reexcavated; a large, deep-walled, yellow clay hearth was constructed; and then baskets full of corncobs, seeds, and nuts, as well as some unknown materials, were placed in the hearth and incinerated. A similar depositional sequence was discovered in shrine F 329, but in this case two large clay hearths had been created, although the area between the hearths was also densely packed with burned nuts, corncobs, and seeds, and the charred fibers from rope, bags, and baskets (Figure 2.4). Most of the burned offerings in the shrine houses contained evidence that fabric bags or baskets had been burned. What the shrines and the burned offerings did not contain was evidence of feasting such as large pots, serving wares, or pieces of bone. The small amount of bone that has been recovered at Emerald does not correlate to the meaty portions of animals that one might expect if these burned materials were the remains of a feast. Neither were there serving wares—greater numbers of bowls and plates or large cooking jars that might suggest that any of

Figure 2.3. Map of excavated features in Excavation Block 2, including two yellow-floored shrines. The single post shrine with multiple rebuilds is F 157, which was built during the Late Edelhardt phase but was reused during the Lohmann phase. The stacked wall trench buildings were pilgrimage housing.

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 41

Figure 2.4. Burned corncobs (left) and charred textile (right) in offering excavated in Shrine F 317.

these shrine house deposits were the remains of feasts. Instead, the corn kernels are still clinging to the cobb, and the nuts and seeds were incinerated in bags or baskets (Alt 2016a, 2016b, 2017b; notes on file, University of Illinois). The details of these buildings have been published elsewhere (Alt 2016a, 2016b, 2017b; Pauketat et al. 2017), but I summarize some of the shrine details here. Shrines houses were buildings that were semisubterranean, like most pre-Mississippian Cahokia region buildings, with basins dug deeply into the earth. Most shrines, even those built after Cahokia’s mid-eleventhcentury conversion into a city (when most other buildings were being built with wall trenches), were constructed with single post construction. In single post buildings, individual posts holes were dug and then walls were constructed, as opposed to digging trenches to place structure walls in. These two construction methods produce buildings with different appearances—arbor roofs in post buildings and hipped frame roofs in wall trench buildings. This determination of building form is based on measuring the slant visible in post mold profiles, which indicated in-slanting walls for single post buildings and a lack of slant in wall trench profiles (Alt and Pauketat 2011). As I have argued elsewhere (Alt 2016a), this retention of

42 · Susan M. Alt

single post construction in buildings that postdate the “Big Bang” seems an intentional appeal to what people knew and were comfortable with by preserving a “traditional” appearance for the shrine houses. This kind of appeal was likely of great import at this particular time, when all other aspects of daily life were undergoing drastic change. By appealing to a sense of the traditional in architecture, a new religion could be engaged in an old package (Alt 2016a). The particulars of shrine construction are unique to these buildings and indicate a pattern of usage and decommissioning that, while not exactly the same in every detail, is strikingly similar across all shrine buildings. When greater differences exist between shrines, most of those differences seem attributable to the passage of time. For example, three of the shrines did have wall trench construction, but these particular shrines date to a later occupation period at Emerald, being built up to 75 years later during the late Lohmann or early Stirling phase (Pauketat et al. 2017). Most important, shrines had floors that were covered over with yellow clayey silt mixed with water to form something like a clay plaster. This particular yellow clayey silt has not been found in the subsoil on the ridge and appears only as an applied surface in shrines and some special pits at Emerald. (Yellow clay plasters have also been identified at a few other locations in the Richland complex, most notably lining pits and floors of similar shrines at the nearby Pfeffer mound center.) Other telling architectural details of shrine houses include odd features on some shrine floors, such as lumps of the yellow clay used to plaster the floors. Some of the smaller lumps of clay capped post holes that were decommissioned, but others were simply placed over indistinguishable spots on floors. A few of the lumps were larger and shaped to be square or oval and had small hearths or burned spots on top of them, suggesting something like a formalized altar. Some shrines had multiple pits, and a few contained the only larger pits found on site. All of the shrine house pits had sides and floors covered in the yellow clay plaster, as did some of the post molds. Some of these internal pits were also renewed. Renewal was determined by pits having been partially refilled, and then this new fill and the pit sides were again plastered with the yellow clay (Alt 2016a, 2016b, 2017b; notes on file, University of Illinois; Pauketat et al. 2017). Moreover, most of the Emerald shrines were renewed and rebuilt multiple times. Each reuse prompted the application of a new yellow clay plaster floor to renew the old floor and, seemingly in some cases, a new hearth. Each hearth was well used, as indicated by the heat alterations in

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 43

the surrounding earth. Most shrines also had burned fabric or hide on their yellow plaster floors, seemingly placed and incinerated as part of their closing rituals. These same closing ritual deposits often included the heat-exploded remains of stone hoes and/or other stone tools as well as the carbonized remains of bags of burned agricultural products such as corncobs, seeds, and nuts (Alt 2016a, 2016b, 2017b; notes on file, University of Illinois; Pauketat et al. 2017). Subsequently, all shrine houses were decommissioned by having their floors covered with water-washed silts. In three of the shrines, we have identified ancient footprints in the water-washed silts, suggesting that human agency was part of this closure by water. The importance of water as part of shrine closing was echoed in the burial of a human sacrifice in a large marker post pit in the center of one of Emerald’s larger public buildings (Alt 2015b). The body was placed in the center of the hole created by the removal of a large marker post. The post pit was partially refilled with soil, and then the body was placed and entirely encased in water-washed silts. Afterward, she and her watery grave were finally covered over with earth. This application of water at a mounded complex that was, in so many other ways, marked by water (i.e., its natural spring, the perched water table, and the enhanced visibility of distant rainstorms) likely speaks to what both pre-Mississippians and later Cahokians viewed as necessary interactions with the otherworldly spirits and forces tied to water (Alt 2015b, 2019). Religion and Household Change at Cahokia

We know that Cahokia grew exponentially in a very short period of time (Pauketat 2003; Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). We know that this period of growth was accompanied by myriad changes in the day-to-day lives of the residents of Cahokia, many of whom did not originate in the American Bottom (Alt 2008, 2018; Pauketat 2003; Slater et al. 2014; Thompson et al. 2015). Buildings that were once constructed in deeply dug-out basins with walls built by placing posts in individual postholes were rebuilt, seemingly overnight, with wall trench construction such that buildings now had straight walls and hipped roofs (Alt and Pauketat 2011). These new buildings were placed in much more shallowly dug basins, which were only onehalf to one-third as deeply set into the ground as their predecessors. At the same time, around AD 1050 pre-Mississippian settlements were depopulated, as people moved to Cahokia or one of its subsidiary mound and plaza settlements (Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). In these newly formed

44 · Susan M. Alt

communities the old spatial organization of buildings set in courtyard groups was altered to create places with rows or clusters of houses set around public and communal plazas (Mehrer and Collins 1995; Pauketat 1994). Monumental constructions, such as mounds, became the norm in a place where no mounds had been constructed since the Middle Woodland period, nearly 800 years earlier. New building types appeared, some of great size and others with more complicated shapes. Medicine lodges, sweat lodges, circular temples, public buildings, and temples of great size all were new, having originated during this period (Alt 2017b). Meetinghouses and marker posts had been seen before, but not of the sizes that Cahokians built. Simultaneously, the technologies associated with daily living all markedly changed in the mid-eleventh century (Bareis and Porter 1984). Earlier, pottery had been tempered with grit or grog. Later, pots were shell tempered and very often covered in red, brown, or black slips. At the same time, shapes of vessels changed from vessels that generally had long, gently sloped necks and shoulders to jars with shortened necks and more angular shoulders. Additionally, new kinds of vessels became popular: seed jars, hooded bottles, and funnels; other forms, such as stump ware, went out of style. Cherts used for common tools became more restricted. Nearly all were devised from Burlington cherts, except for hoes that most often were chipped out of Mill Creek chert. The previously common and more colorful Ste. Genevieve chert tools became rare (Bareis and Porter 1984; Pauketat 1994). People built mounds, plazas, and other monumental constructions. Ritual and ceremony became more public, communal, and firmly entrenched in day-to-day living. New kinds of ritual items and iconography appeared, such as carved stone figurines and pipes, Ramey knives, and gem points. A focus on ritual was evident in the spaces built as well as in special-purpose buildings such as sweat lodges, temples, shrines, and charnel houses. Some of the mounds were used for mortuary events, which became public and theatrical (Brown 2003; Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler et al. 1999; Kehoe 2002; Porubcan 2000). All of these things happened, however, after Emerald was built and was drawing in distant religious pilgrims who engaged in newly devised rituals while at Emerald. The sum of these changes was profoundly different kinds of communities than the ones that preceded them. It has been argued that Cahokia became a place where political authority replaced familial authority—that the economy became a chiefdom-driven “political economy” with the new

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 45

forms of authority delineating what people did and how they did it (Alt 2002; Emerson 1997a, 2002; Kelly 1996; Pauketat 1994; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). But I have always wondered what a chief had to do with shell temper, wall trench construction, or even Burlington chert, particularly when most analysts argued against a central or controlled distribution of such things. I have previously argued that the Cahokian changes were likely the outcome of an influx of immigrants and their interactions with Cahokians. These interactions and the concomitant negotiations they entailed would have created an environment ripe for innovation and change—following much the same reasoning why we call New York City a melting pot. My argument for immigrants was based in part on evidence of the sudden and extreme growth of Cahokia, and in part on the ubiquity of nonlocal materials in some communities whose residents also had different habits and patterns of daily living than those in older Cahokian communities. A study by Slater et al. (2014) found another line of evidence for immigrants by examining the isotopic signatures of Cahokian burials. Based on their study data, they argue that at least 30 percent of the Cahokian burial population had a nonlocal origin. With that many people from multiple locations, and with habits and traditions interacting, the American Bottom was the perfect storm of interactions to form the third spaces of innovation that might result in something new: Mississippian culture. However, none of that explained why all of those people came to the American Bottom and stayed, or why they engaged in community building; why they constructed monumental buildings, mounds, and plazas; or why the other changes took the form that they did. I believe that a religious movement might be that missing piece of the explanation. Given the Emerald evidence of religious practices that drew in pilgrims that predated the “Big Bang,” we have a potential answer for why Cahokians changed in the ways that they did about AD 1050. It also provides a reason why there is evidence of Cahokians living in distant places, and even why Mississippian culture spread in the way that it did. I turn back to the historically known Native American prophets and religious movements mentioned earlier to explain how this might be so, because the Cahokian/Emerald religious movement may have been similar in its effects to those known historically. While the reasons for the ancient and modern religious movements differed, it is very important to consider the ways that historically known people went about living a new religion.

46 · Susan M. Alt

Religion, Household Change, and Historic Native American Prophets

Tenskwatawa, the Shawnee prophet (and brother of Tecumseh), had a series of religious visions that ultimately led him to initiate a religious movement. His prophecies gained authority and more followers when he correctly predicted a solar eclipse in 1806. This new Shawnee religion, which required adherents to return to traditional ways of living, drew in people from tribes across the United States and Canada, and prompted some followers to carry the new religious tenets back to their hometowns. Tenskwatawa’s beliefs required adherence to a particular materiality—followers could not use European clothing, tools, or other goods, nor could they eat European foods. Instead, followers must keep sacred fires burning, create new medicine bundles, and use the prayer sticks he devised (Cave 2006; Howard 1981; Pauketat 2012). There were new rituals, dances, songs, and medicines that helped express and enact the new beliefs. The movement was tied to specific places (as well as a particular materiality), such as Greenville, Ohio, and Prophets Town, Indiana. Prophets Town “contained over 200 houses . . . and a large guest lodge called ‘The house of the Stranger,’ a substantial council hall and medicine lodge” (Cave 2006:105). Pilgrims flocked to Prophets Town, with visitors to the town at times reportedly numbering over 3,000. While Tenswatawa’s religious movement was tied to political goals and sovereignty, what matters is that to be part of the religion required a particular way of being in the world that was expressed materially as well as in action and in prayer. This makes sense because things can cite or possess specific powers that are often enchained with the spirit world. To be aligned with the right sacred powers one must become intimate with their material manifestations. The Ghost Dance movement (1890) similarly began with visions, particularly one during a solar eclipse, given to a Northern Paiute man named Wovoka (aka Jack Wilson), who then founded the movement (Mooney 1896). Magpie feathers, pine nuts, red ochre, and robes woven of strips of rabbit skin became materials associated with Wovoka’s sacred powers. Similar to the Shawnee movement, new dances, prayers, and rituals spread with the new religion across the western United States (Mooney 1896), as well as prescriptions for how to live a sacred life. Handsome Lake, of the Seneca, was another prophet who initiated a new religion, again based on sacred visions. His religious code similarly required lifestyle changes, along with new ceremonies and songs (Wallace

The Implications of the Religious Foundations at Cahokia · 47

1972). Neolin, of the Delaware, who notably influenced Chief Pontiac, was yet another prophet who had visions that led to a religion that proscribed European ways and materials (Mooney 1896). In all cases the adherents of the new religions devised by the aforementioned prophets would have been materially identifiable due to a specific material expression of what and how they believed—belief was not just in their heads and hearts but in how they lived and the materials they touched, ate, and wore. The historically reported Native American religious movements all called upon ceremonies, songs, and dances to instill new values and different ways of living, thus creating a very different materiality. Visions and dreams, still an important part of traditional Native American religions today, were implicated in the initiation of the religious movements associated with each aforementioned prophet. But also of interest, adherents often traveled across great distances, and from very different ethnic or political groups, to become initiated in a new religion. Many of these followers would carry the religion’s message if not also material correlates of the new religion back home with them (see, e.g., Mooney 1896). Some of these pilgrims then became active proselytizers for the prophet they followed. Places like Prophets Town or Greenville were specifically configured with visitor’s houses and camping areas to house and host the pilgrims that flocked to hear the new religious message. The descriptions of Prophets Town, and the people who came there and then disavowed any materiality that aligned with Europeans and who instead only used more traditional materials and foods, resonate well with what we found at Emerald and what we know of the sudden Cahokian changes. A meshing of lifestyle and the materiality of the day-to-day living with religious principles is an important aspect of many religious beliefs, even today; it was not just a habit of people who followed Native American prophets. People will wear prescribed clothing, eat some foods but not others, and use items that align with their view of the numinous because those things bring them closer to their gods or to their view of the sacred. These could be the kinds of reasons we see the varied and crosscutting Mississippian changes in material culture that happened around AD 1050. It has long been noted that the Mississippian changes included new rituals and ways of being religious. As the Emerald evidence suggests, water was of primary ritual significance. Emerald was a place of water with a natural spring and a perched water table that cause water to be discharged from the ridge sides. Shrines were closed with water, as were other important buildings and a human sacrifice burial. Even the shell for temper

48 · Susan M. Alt

comes from mussels that live in water, and shell as a temper in pottery would reference water and cite all that water meant to people in Cahokian communities. Making a pot with shell temper might have meant that a person was aligning himself or herself with the appropriate forces and spirits and living a more appropriate and sacred life (Pauketat and Alt 2018). It has been argued that shell temper was simply a technological improvement. Porter (1964), however, demonstrated that not all clays worked well with shell temper, but people used it anyway. In addition, the change to shell temper went along with so many other simultaneous alterations in day-today living. What is undeniable is that with the onset of the Mississippian period, people in the American Bottom radically changed all that they did and how they did it. For the most part, these changes do not make sense from a technological, political, or economic standpoint. Instead, we do know very well that Native American people have always associated some of the specific materials that they used in daily life with sacred and other forces (see, e.g., Bailey 1995; Dorsey 1888; La Flesche 1914, 1930). The Mississippian changes might therefore be better understood as rooted in religious motivations, much like we know people changed their habits when they followed the historic prophets. Given what we know ethnohistorically about Native American societies, their ontologies, and their ways of being in the world, the importance of living a life that is compatible with religious principles cannot be understated. The examples of Native American religious movements and their prophets emphasize this fact. The changes in the American Bottom that altered dayto-day living would therefore have had an effect on the religious underpinnings of people’s lives—but maybe it was the establishment of new religious practices that instigated these changes. The evidence from Emerald that demonstrates new religious practices were being enacted before the “Big Bang” and before immigrants from afar were coming to participate in those rituals suggests not only that religion mattered at Cahokia but also that religion may have been the force that precipitated and underwrote all of the changes that we now call Mississippian.

3 Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture Steven L. Boles

The movement of material culture, especially exotic goods and elite paraphernalia, has garnered archaeological interest for decades. For the American Bottom, several theories concerning the movement of prestige items from Cahokia have been proposed over the years, with some researchers favoring economic interactions involving trade, gift giving, or some form of a prestige-goods network (Brown et al. 1990; Gibbon 1974; Kelly 1991a, 1991b; O’Brien 1991; Pauketat 1992; Peregrine 1991, 1992, 1996a, 1996b; Porter 1969). Other scholars have refuted these economic models with alternative explanations, some of which are summarized later in this chapter and are associated with the movement of religious objects (Emerson 1991b, 1999; Emerson and Hughes 2000, 2001; Finney 2000; Griffin 1993; Jeske 1999; Milner 1990, 1998; Muller 1997; Pauketat 1998a; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). The movement of such items is the focus of this chapter, as these items were most likely to have been in the possession of priests and seemingly offer the best opportunity to track migration. Attempting to track migration through both mundane and elite-status items would likely provide marginal results, as discussed below. Obviously, tracking material culture requires a known place of origin for the item in question. As for Cahokia, although there are a number of artifact types that are associated with the site, such as Cahokia-style arrow points, discoidals, spuds, Ramey knives, Long-Nosed god masks, embossed copper plates, and Cahokian pottery, each type has drawbacks for use in tracking migration. In general, the problem with using any of these as an indication of interaction with Cahokia or emigration from Cahokia is that all of these were produced from a myriad of raw materials, the sources of which were either accessible to a wide range of groups, or the finished goods were produced

50 · Steven L. Boles

by quarry-attached specialists and were routinely exchanged, such as Ramey knives and Cahokia-style spuds (Cobb 2000; Koldehoff 1990; Winters 1981). The latter two items were typically made from Kaolin and Mill Creek; both are Union County cherts located roughly 150 km south of Cahokia. Although investigation in this area has been limited, a review of material culture from sites in this region suggests affinities with groups in southeast Missouri and western Kentucky rather than Cahokia (Cobb 2000:105–106). Groups outside the American Bottom region, such as those up the Illinois River valley, also produced Cahokia points (Perino 1985:60). Additionally, similar or identical point types were made in the Caddo region and parts of Texas. Points from these regions include Harrell, Huffaker, Reed, and Washita (Baerreis 1954; Brown 1976; Suhm et al. 1954). Without proper chert identification, which can sometimes be difficult for small points, especially if burned or if both regions in question have similarly colored cherts, the use of Cahokia points as an indicator of interaction is marginal. However, if exotic points are identified, points associated with trade, exchange, or tribute should be pristine and exhibit better-thanaverage workmanship (i.e., Cahokia’s Mound 72 caches; see Ahler 1999); those that are heavily sharpened or damaged would imply exhausted and discarded points more aptly associated with immigrants. It has been proposed that Cahokia-style discoidals were distributed only from Cahokia and basically served as missionizing paraphernalia (Alt and Pauketat 2007:243; Pauketat 2004, 2005). While discoidals do not appear to be exchange items, at least at Cahokia, as “nonlocal” discoidal styles have not been recovered there, further research is needed to confirm that Cahokia-style discoidals were only produced at Cahokia or by Cahokians. Additionally, Cahokia-style discoidals are made from a wide variety of raw materials, with none of the materials exclusive to the Cahokia region. God maskettes and Braden-style embossed copper plates have strong associations with Cahokia, although confirmation of Cahokia workshops is still tentative. Since marine shell and copper were nonlocal raw materials and thus access was not controllable by Cahokians, raw material accessibility to artisans from other areas limits these items for assessing interaction. And lastly, while using pottery for tracking migration or interaction has merit, confirmation that the vessel in question is made from a nonlocal paste requires petrographic analysis. While the reliability of this technique is sound, inadequate databases of clay samples generally limit analytic conclusions to either local or nonlocal rather than identifying specific sources.

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 51

The most iconic of Cahokian artifacts with a local yet restricted raw material source are flint clay figurines. Through the work of Thomas Emerson and colleagues, it has been demonstrated that these figurines were produced at Cahokia exclusively during the Stirling phase ca. AD 1100–1200 and were likely limited to the first half of this phase (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Emerson et al. 2003:303). These figurines have been recovered at various sites within the Greater Cahokia region as well as at sites scattered throughout the Eastern Woodlands. Numerous theories have been proposed for the movement of these objects, and although none entail migration as a possibility, it is argued herein to be a viable option. While earlier researchers essentially viewed the flint clay corpus as works of art and thus associated their movement within prestige-good networks, it has only been in the last two decades that these figurines have finally been viewed in a rationalistic framework. Instrumental in bringing about this new perspective were additional discoveries of flint clay figurines from ritual deposits and the efforts of various researchers in unraveling the source of raw material for these figurines and delineating their role in Cahokian ideology (Boles 2014, 2017, 2018; Boles et al. 2018; Brown 1996, 2011; Emerson 1982, 1983, 1989, 1997a, 1997b; Emerson and Boles 2010, 2011; Emerson and Girard 2004; Emerson and Hughes 2000; Emerson et al. 2000; Emerson et al. 2002, 2003; Hall 1997; Reilly 2004; Pauketat 2004, 2012; Prentice 1986; Sharp 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012, 2014). Associated with Cahokian ideology and central to my argument is the assumption that the flint clay figurines represent religious and symbolic objects—the type of objects not produced for some form of exchange in spite of the high level of artistry, and the type of religious objects that would not be allowed to fall into the hands of the irreverent. The religious aspects of the flint clay figurines have been written about extensively, and data presented here support this view. Before delving into theories associated with the distribution of Cahokian religious objects, a general discussion on the use of flint clay is presented. This is followed by a synopsis of the suite of flint clay figurines with details concerning representations and interpretations, distribution, and depositional contexts. Previous theories concerning the movement of these objects are reviewed, followed by a discussion of various lines of data that support emigration as a means for the movement of these objects.

52 · Steven L. Boles

Flint Clay

Flint clay from the eastern Missouri Ozarks was used to carve figurines and figurine pipes (Table 3.1). Cahokia-style figurines were carved in realistic fashion, while anatomical detail was altered for the figurine pipes to accommodate the pipe stem and bowl (Emerson 1983:258–259). Some figurines appear to have been converted to pipes sometime after their initial creation, as conversion cut through design elements (Brown 1985:102; Emerson 1982:2; Emerson and Hughes 2000:82; Emerson et al. 2002:315). Three types of effigies were produced: human males, human females, and animal figurines. Broad patterns concerning distributional variances have been noted, with females most often recovered in the Cahokia region while most male figurines were recovered outside the region (Emerson et al. 2003:302–305). Distributional discrepancies between male and female figurines may, however, be the result of sampling bias rather than a cultural manifestation. Due to the urban sprawl of St. Louis, the Greater Cahokia region has undoubtedly received more professional investigation than any other Mississippian mound center. Even so, aside from only portions of Rattlesnake and Junkyard, both Stirling phase ridgetop burial mounds, few elite Stirling phase cemeteries have been professionally excavated at Cahokia, and none in their entirety. Unfortunately, several Stirling phase burial mounds at Cahokia, Mitchell, East St. Louis, and St. Louis were completely destroyed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with only scattered bits of information published concerning the grave goods. Given that most of the flint clay males have come from mortuary contexts, it is certainly possible that these mounds contained male figurines or that some remain in uninvestigated mounds at Cahokia. In support of this notion, a male figurine was reportedly found in a mound at Cahokia by railroad workers (Emerson 1982). Additionally, the lack of wide-scale investigations outside of Cahokia has also undoubtedly affected flint clay discoveries. Large portions of southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas, for instance, have received relatively limited archaeological investigation, and adding to this is the destruction of numerous mounds and village sites by area farmers through extensive land-leveling practices. As a case in point, the newest figurine discovery came from this region in 2014, and a large portion of the find site was land-leveled in 2016 (Boles 2017). In terms of production, stylistically it appears that a limited number of carvers were involved, and the number and types of figurines produced were also limited (Brown 1985:102; Brown personal communication in

Sex

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

Frog Smoker

Man w/fish

Guy Smith

Macoupin

McGehee/ Westbrook New Madrid

Schild

Exchange

West

Willoughby

Sponemann

Keller

Birger

Name

Spiro, OK

Alton, IL

Guy Smith, IL

Macoupin, IL

New Madrid, MO

Desha Co., AR

Schild, IL

East St. Louis, IL

Sponemann, IL

Sponemann, IL

Sponemann, IL

BBB Motor, IL

BBB Motor, IL

Provenience

Table 3.1a. Flint clay objects sorted by sex

Burial mound #99

Mound

Stone-box burial

Stone-box burial

Surface find

Burial mound

Burial mound

Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Temple

Isolated pit

Context

P

P

P

P

F

P

P

F

F

F

F

F

F

Type

W

W

W

W

Fr

F/W

W

W

Fr

Fr

Fr

F/W

W

20.5

?

9.5

20.3

12.5

14

11.4

7.5

10

10.5

15

13

20

Portion Height

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

600+

ND.

ND.

143

442

316

323

472

2,709

.

ND

ND

Y

ND

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Burned

Y

ND

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

(continued)

Brown 1996

McAdams 1882

West 1934

McAdams 1882

Boles 2014, 2017

Perino 1971

Emerson & Boles 2010 Perino 1971

Jackson et al. 1992

Jackson et al. 1992

Emerson & Jackson 1984 Emerson & Jackson 1984 Jackson et al. 1992

Broken Reference

Sex

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

#

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Keesee

Mace Head

NMAI Warrior

Abel Head

B&0

Townsend

Squatting Man

Chaplain Man

Gahagan Man

WPA Rattler, Lucifer Chunkey Player

WPA Warrior

Resting Warrior

The Thinker

Bostrom

Ballard

Name

Table 3.1a—Continued

Phillips, AR

Spiro, OK

Spiro, OK

Cahokia, IL

Cahokia, IL

Kingston, TN

Moundville, AL

Champlain, MS

Gahagan, LA

Hughes, OK

Spiro, OK

Spiro, OK

Spiro, OK

Shiloh, TN

AG Church, IL

Twin Mounds, KY

Provenience

Surface find?

Burial mound

Burial mound

Surface find

Mound

Unknown

Burial mound “O”

Mound (cached)

Burial mound

Burial mound

Burial mound #99

Burial mound #99

Burial mound

Burial mound

Burial

Burial

Context

F

I

P

I

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Type

W

Fr

W

Fr

Fr

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

17.3

3.8

24.8

na

22.4

15.2

20

10.5

9.8

21.5

23.4

27.2

26

24.5

10.4

17.8

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

5000

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

5200

ND.

ND.

ND.

Portion Height Weight

Y

ND

ND

ND

ND

Y

Y

N

ND

Y

ND

ND

Y

ND

N

Y

Burned

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ND

ND

ND

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Sharp 2012

Brown 1996

Bill Iseminger pc 2012 Townsend 2004

McAdams 1882

Townsend 2004

Webb & Dodd 1939 Emerson et al. 2003 Moore 1905

Bell 1974

Brown 1996

Brown 1996

Hamilton 1952

Cadle 1902

Emerson 1983

Perino 2004

Broken Reference

A

IHA CW Cooper Frog/ Fulton Co., IL Human

9

4

IH

8

A

IH

7

3

IH

6

A

IH

5

2

IH

4

A

IH

3

1

IH

Spiro, OK

Falcon Frog

Rattler Frog

Davis Frog

Watts Frog

Gallatin Head

Davis Head

Twenklemier

Morris Head

Gehring Human

Near East St. Louis, IL Cahokia, IL

St. Louis Co., MO

Jefferson Co., MO

? Co., TN

Spiro, OK

? Co., TN

St. Clair Co., IL

Gehring, IL

Parallel lines head Spiro, OK

Gilcrease Rattler

East St. Louis, IL

2

Grinning Head

IH

Greene Co., IL

1

Audrey Human

M

21

Surface find

Burial

Surface find

Burned house basin

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Mound/habitation

Surface find

Burial mound

Burial mound

House basin

House basin

I

P

P

P

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

I

P

Fr

W

F/W

W

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

W

Fr

Fr

4.5

13

na

9.5

6

na

na

na

na

1.7

3.2

18.5

56.7

7

139

ND.

ND.

ND.

240

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

268

ND

Y

Y

Y

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Y

ND

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ND

Y

Y

(continued)

Perino 1971

Emerson et al. 2002 McAdams 1882

Banks 1987

Perino 1971

M. Lewis pc 2012

M. Lewis pc 2012

M. Lewis pc 2012

Emerson & Hughes 2000 Perino 1971

Brown 1996

Emerson et al 2002 Emerson & Boles 2010 Brown 1996

Sex

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

#

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1

2

Bushnell frags.

Mound 34 Block

Miller Owl

Bird

Owl/Raptor

Zimmerman Owl

Walta Wing

Davis Squirrel

Crayfish

Spiro Frog

ESTL Frog

Mississippi Frog

Gahagan Frog

Name

Table 3.1a—Continued

Greene Co., IL

Cahokia, IL

Green Lake, WI

? Co., MO

Grossmann, IL

Chapman, MO

Cahokia, IL

St. Louis Co., MO

Dauphin Is., AL

Spiro, OK

East St. Louis, IL

? Co., MS

Gahagan, LA

Provenience

Unknown

Mound

Surface find

Unknown

Temple

Habitation/burial

Surface find

Surface find

Mound/habitation

Craig Mound

Pit

Unknown

Burial mound

Context

I

P

P

I

I

F

I

P

P

P

P

P

P

Type

Fr

W

W

Fr

Fr

F/W

Fr

W

W

W

Fr

?

W

na

4.5

16.5

na

na

8

na

11.4

11.2

9

8.6

8.5

16.5

ND.

275

ND.

ND.

ND.

138

ND.

ND.

1588

ND.

142+

ND.

3,402

Portion Height Weight

ND

N

Y

ND

Y

Y

ND

Y

Y

Y

Y

ND

ND

Burned

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

ND

ND

Emerson & Boles 2011 Pauketat and Alt 2004 T. Emerson pc 2015 Emerson et al. 2003 Emerson et al. 2003 Emerson et al. 2002

Perino 1971

Banks 1987

Webb & Dodd 1939 Emerson et al. 2003 Boles et al. 2018a, b Daily Oklahoman, June 7, 1936 Boles 2014

Broken Reference

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

4

6

10

11

12

14

57

58

59

pipe

2 figurine frags.,

43 Figurine frags.

2 pipe frags.

1 pipe frag.

Pipe frag.

ICT-II 4 frags

Julien 2+ frag.

Ranken Basket

Fred Edwards

Kane, IL

R. Schneider, IL

East St. Louis, IL

East St. Louis, IL

East St. Louis, IL

Taylor, AR

Cahokia, IL

St. Clair, IL

St. Louis Co., MO

Grant Co., WI

Burial mound

Habitation

Habitation

Habitation

Habitation

Mound/habitation

Habitation

Habitation

Mound/habitation

Habitation

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

I

P

I

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

I

Fr

Fr

Fr

Fr

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

6.2

na

ND.

0.3

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

ND.

300

ND.

ND

ND

N

N

Y

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Melbye 1963

Fortier 1985

Boles et al. 2018

Boles et al. 2018

Marvin Jeter pc 2016 Boles et al. 2018

Gums 1993

Emerson et al. 2002 Lynn Boldt pc 2016 Milner 1984

Notes: Data in burning and breakage are tenuous, as not all pieces were examined firsthand, nor were specific details available on the condition of figures from excavated contexts, as many were recovered by nonprofessionals. In other words, some of those that appear in pictures as being in pristine condition may in fact have been restored or burned. M = human male, F = human female, IH = indeterminate human sex, IHA = characteristics of both human and animal, A = animal, I = indeterminate, F = figurine, P = pipe, Fr = fragment, W = whole, F/W = broken but nearly complete, ND = data not recorded or available.

I

3

Sex

A

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

#

8

16

5

12

13

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

9

9

8

18

New Madrid, MO

Sponemann, IL

Sponemann, IL

Sponemann, IL

BBB Motor, IL

BBB Motor, IL

Desha Co., AR

Shiloh, TN

Champlain, MS

Gahagan, LA

Twin Mounds, KY

Cahokia, IL

Dauphin Is., AL

Provenience

Red Horn–Otter Spiro, OK

Old Woman

Old Woman

Old Woman

Old Woman

Old Woman

Old Woman

Old Woman

nude

nude

nude

nude

nude

Earth Diver

Interpretation

Resting Warrior Red Horn–Red Spiro, OK Horn NMAI Warrior Red Horn–Turtle Spiro, OK

WPA Warrior

New Madrid

West

Willoughby

Sponemann

Keller

Birger

McGehee

The Thinker

Chaplain Man

Gahagan Man

Barlow

B&0

Crayfish

Name

Table 3.1b. Flint clay objects sorted by interpretation

Burial mound

Burial mound

Burial mound

Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Isolated pit and temple Unknown

isolated pit

Burial mound

Burial mound

Mound (cached)

Burial mound

Burial

Mound

Unknown

Context

P

P

P

F

F

F

F

F

F

P

P

P

P

P

F

P

Type

W

W

W

F

F

F

F

F/W

W

F/W

W

W

W

W

F

W

I

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

I

N

Portion Burned

Townsend 2004

Hamilton 1952

Brown 1996

Boles 2014a

Jackson et al. 1992

Jackson et al. 1992

Jackson et al. 1992

Emerson & Jackson 1984

Emerson & Jackson 1984

Perino 1971

Cadle 1902

Emerson et al. 2003

Webb & Dodd 1939

Perino 2004

McAdams 1882

Boles 2014

Reference

M

M

A

A

A

A

A

M

M

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

10

11

10

12

11

13

14

15

14

2

3

4

7

5

1

2

6

Red Horn–Wolf

Kingston, TN

Green Lake, WI

? Co., MO

Chapman, MO

Grossmann, IL

Cahokia, IL

Hughes, OK

Spiro, OK

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

? Co., MS

St. Louis Co., MO

Jefferson Co., MO

Gahagan, LA

East St. Louis, IL

Near East St. Louis, IL Cahokia, IL

Red Horn? Turtle Guy Smith, IL

Red Horn? Turtle Moundville, AL

Red Horn? Storms Red Horn? Storms Red Horn? Storms Red Horn? Storms Red Horn? Storms Red Horn? Turtle

Mississippi Frog Shaman

Davis Frog

Watts Frog

Gahagan Frog

ESTL Frog

Falcon Frog

Rattler Frog

Guy Smith

Squatting Man

Townsend

Miller Owl

Zimmerman Owl Bird

Owl/Raptor

Walta Wing

Chunkey Player Red Horn?

WPA Rattler

Unknown

Burned house basin Unknown

Burial mound

Pit

Unknown

Mound

Stone-box burial

Burial mound

Mound

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Temple

Unknown

Burial mound

Burial mound

P

P

P

P

P

I

P

P

P

P

P

I

F

I

I

P

P

I

F/W

W

W

F

F

W

W

W

W

W

F

F/W

F

F

W

W

I

Y

Y

N

N

I

N

N

Y

Y

N

I

N

Y

N

N

N

(continued)

Emerson et al. 2003

Emerson et al. 2002

Banks 1987

Webb & Dodd 1939

Boles et al. 2016

Perino 1971

McAdams 1882

West 1934

Moore 1905

Townsend 2004

Emerson et al. 2003

T. Emerson pc 2015

Emerson & Boles 2011

Pauketat and Alt 2004

Perino 1971

Bell 1974

Brown 1996

Sex

F

IH

IHA

M

M

M

M

M

A

F

IH

IH

IH

IH

IH

IH

IH

M

M

#

7

2

9

1

6

4

20

3

9

6

1

3

4

5

7

6

8

17

19

Shaman

Interpretation

Mace Head

Abel Head

Gallatin Head

Twenklemier

Davis Head

Audrey Human

Morris Head

Gehring Human

Grinning Head

Exchange

Davis Squirrel

Man with fish

Keezee

Frog Smoker

Bostrom

Piasa

Frog/Human

With bundle

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

Shaman

Gilcrease Rattler Shaman

Schild

Name

Table 3.1b—Continued

Spiro, OK

Cahokia, IL

? Co., TN

? Co., TN

Spiro, OK

Greene Co., IL

St. Clair Co., IL

Gehring, IL

East St. Louis, IL

East St. Louis, IL

St. Louis Co., MO

Alton, IL

Phillips Co., AR

Spiro, OK

AG Church, IL

Macoupin, IL

Fulton Co., IL

Spiro, OK

Schild, IL

Provenience

I

I

F

P

P

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

Type

Burial mound

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

House basin

I

I

I

I

I

P

Mound/habitation I

Habitation site

House basin

Temple

Unknown

Mound

Unknown

Burial mound

Burial

Mound

Unknown

Burial mound

Burial mound

Context

F

F

F

F

F

F

R

F

F

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

F

W

W

I

I

I

I

I

N

I

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Portion Burned

Brown 1996

Bill Iseminger pc 2012

M. Lewis pc 2012

M. Lewis pc 2012

M. Lewis pc 2012

Emerson et al. 2002

Perino 1971

Emerson & Hughes 2000

Emerson & Boles 2010

Emerson & Boles 2010

Banks 1987

McAdams 1882

Sharp 2012

Brown 1996

Emerson 1983

McAdams 1882

Perino 1971

Brown 1996

Perino 1971

Reference

Sex

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Resting Warrior

The Thinker

Bostrom

Barlow

Frog Smoker

Man w/fish

Guy Smith

Macoupin

New Madrid

McGehee

Schild

Exchange

West

Willoughby

Sponemann

Keller

Birger

Name

Spiro

Shiloh

AG Church

Twin Mounds

Spiro

Alton

Guy Smith

Macoupin

New Madrid

Desha Co.

Schild

East St. Louis

Sponemann

Sponemann

Sponemann

BBB Motor

BBB Motor

Provenience

Table 3.1c. Flint clay objects sorted by reference number

OK

TN

IL

KY

OK

IL

IL

IL

MO

AR

IL

IL

IL

IL

IL

IL

IL

St.

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

F

P

P

F

F

F

F

F

F

Type

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

F

F/W

W

W

F

F

F

F/W

W

Portion

26

24.5

10.4

17.8

20.5

9.5

20.3

12.5

14

11.4

7.5

10

10.5

15

13

20

Height

(continued)

5,200

600+

442.3

315.9

323.4

472

2,709

Weight

Sex

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

IH

IH

IH

#

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1

2

3

Parallel lines head

Gilcrease Rattler

Grinning Head

Audrey Human

Keezee

Mace Head

NMAI Warrior

Abel Head

B&0

Townsend

Squatting Man

Chaplain Man

Gahagan Man

Chunkey Player

WPA Rattler, Lucifer

WPA Warrior

Name

Table 3.1c—Continued

Spiro

Spiro

ESTL

Greene Co.

? Co.

Spiro

Spiro

Cahokia

Cahokia

Kingston

Moundville

Champlain

Gahagan

Hughes

Spiro

Spiro

Provenience

OK

OK

IL

IL

AR

OK

OK

IL

IL

TN

AL

MS

LA

OK

OK

OK

St.

I

P

I

P

F

I

P

I

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Type

F

W

F

F

W

F

W

F

F

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

Portion

3.2

18.5

7

17.3

3.8

24.8

na

22.4

15.2

20

10.5

9.8

21.5

23.4

27.2

Height

268

5,000

Weight

IH

IH

IH

IH

IH

IHA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Bird

Owl/Raptor

Zimmerman Owl

Walta Wing

Davis Squirrel

Crayfish

ESTL Frog

Mississippi Frog

Gahagan Frog

Falcon Frog

Rattler Frog

Davis Frog

CW Cooper Frog/ Human Watts Frog

Gallatin Head

Davis Head

Twenklemier

Morris Head

Gehring Human

? Co.

Grossmann

Chapman

Cahokia

St. Louis Co.

Dauphin Is.

ESTL

? Co. (MS)

Gahagan

Cahokia

Near ESTL

St. Louis Co.

Jefferson Co.

Fulton Co.

? Co.

Spiro

? Co.

St. Clair Co.

Gehring

MO

IL

MO

IL

MO

AL

IL

MS

LA

IL

IL

MO

MO

IL

TN

OK

TN

IL

IL

I

I

F

I

P

P

P

P

P

I

P

P

P

P

I

I

I

I

I

F

F

F/W

F

W

W

F

I

W

F

W

F/W

W

F

F

F

F

R

F

8 na

na

na

11.4

11.2

8.5

16.5

4.5

13

na

9.5

6

na

na

na

na

1.7

(continued)

138.1

1,588

3,402

138.6

240

Sex

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

#

14

1

2

3

4

6

10

11

12

14

38

40

41

pipe

2 figurine frags.

24 figurine frags.

2 pipe frags.

1 pipe frag.

Pipe frag.

ICT-II 4 frags

Julien 2+ frag.

Ranken Basket

Fred Edwards

Bushnell frags.

Mound 34 Block

Miller Owl

Name

Table 3.1c—Continued

Kane

R. Schneider

ESTL

ESTL

ESTL

Taylor

Cahokia

St. Clair

St. Louis Co.

Grant Co.

Greene Co.

Cahokia

Green Lake

Provenience

IL

IL

IL

IL

IL

AR

IL

IL

MO

WS

IL

IL

WS

St.

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

I

P

I

I

P

P

Type

F

F

F

F

F

I

F

F

F

F

F

W

W

Portion

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

6.2

na

na

4.5

16.5

Height

0.3

300

275

Weight

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 65

Emerson 1982:8). In addition to the symbolic nature of the depicted motifs and figurine stances, the material chosen to depict these figurines is not without symbolism in and of itself. Flint clay was extracted from a karst area in the eastern Missouri Ozarks, with surface exposures reported in sinkholes (Keller 1944:380–381; McQueen 1943:139–145). Sinkholes and caves, at least during the historic period, were symbolic of the underworld (Emerson and Hughes 2000:93). If such a belief existed at Cahokia, it would not be a coincidence that this material would have been chosen to carve religious figurines, especially those associated with underworld motifs such as snakes, plants, and water associations or animal figurines such as frogs, crayfish, and even owls, the last of which many American Indian groups associated with the night or underworld (Aftandilian 2007:433–453; Hall 1997:133–134). While the use of flint clay was limited almost exclusively to figurines, a few elite earspools were also carved from it beginning in the Lohmann phase, ca. AD 1050–1100 (Emerson et al. 2002:315, 319). Such limited use implies that the source was controlled, as common people were not allowed to carve trinkets, fetishes, or personal adornments from this material. Controlling the raw material source for religious items would have been requisite to preventing its use for the profane and also for continued production of sacred objects (Boles 2012:103–104; Emerson and Hughes 2000:91). While it is of interest that the use of flint clay is barely perceptible prior to the Stirling phase, the fact that it was not used after the Stirling phase would suggest that extremely explicit taboos were instilled during its use and that these were retained in social memory until the area was abandoned some 150 to 200 years later. Given the sanctity Cahokians afforded this source long after it was used for the production of religious objects, it comes as no surprise that neither unworked nor worked flint clay has yet to be reported outside of the Greater Cahokia region. At present, flint clay working has only been reported from East St. Louis (Boles 2018; Boles et al. 2018). Flint Clay Figurine Corpus

Over 100 flint clay figurines are known, with depictions identifiable for 54 (Table 3.1). These range from roughly 7 cm to 27 cm in height; the variability in height may be related to the importance of the persona depicted or whether the ritual use was public, involving large audiences, or more private in nature (Boles 2018; Boles et al. 2018; Brown 1996; Emerson 1982,

66 · Steven L. Boles

1983; Emerson and Boles 2010, 2011; Emerson et al. 2000; Emerson et al. 2002, 2003; Perino 1971, 2004; Sharp 2012). The group of 54 contains mostly complete or nearly complete figurines but also includes some fragments that can at least be identified as parts of either human or animal effigies. Additionally, there are 50-plus figurine fragments from 12 sites that because of their small size cannot be identified to specific effigy type and are not discussed further. The flint clay corpus is broken down into subsets based on thematic analysis and includes those associated with a female fertility cult (Emerson 1997a:195–223, 2015:55–60; Emerson et al. 2000:511–522), shamanism (Emerson 2003:135–154), deity representations such as First Man and others associated with the Winnebago Red Horn mythology (Boles 2014, 2018; Brown 2011:50–58; Hall 1997:148–151; Reilly 2004:132–136), and animals, some of which are associated with shamanism while others are suggested here as avatars of the supernaturals. Of the flint clay corpus, 39 are human, 21 are males, 9 are females, and 9 are unidentifiable as to sex. Of the 15 animal effigies, 8 are frogs, 5 are avian, 1 is a squirrel, and 1 is a crayfish. While over half of the flint clay figurines have been recovered in Illinois (n = 23) and the eastern Missouri Ozarks (n = 5), the other half of the assemblage is of particular interest in exploring the Cahokian diaspora (Figure 3.1). Even so, the subsets and deposition of each, both inside and outside of Cahokia, are relevant to the argument for flint clay movement through emigration from the Cahokian region. The first subset is the female group that consists of nine figurines, six of which were recovered from the Greater Cahokia region. Five of the six were recovered from temple and mortuary ceremonial nodal sites in the American Bottom, with the sixth from the East St. Louis Mound Complex (Boles 2018; Boles et al. 2018; Emerson 1997b:179; Emerson and Boles 2010). Four of the six, possibly five, were intentionally broken, with most burned as well. The one from East St. Louis was recovered from a burned temple and miraculously survived the event intact, although this may not have been the intent of those setting the fire. The two nearly complete figurines from the BBB Motor site both sustained some damage, though it is not clear if the Birger figurine was damaged prehistorically. Three reconstructed upper halves of female figurines were recovered from the Sponemann site. A figurine base was also reconstructed from numerous fragments but could not be attached to any of the upper figurine sections (Jackson et al. 1992). Three female flint clay figurines have been recovered outside the Cahokia region and challenge the previous pattern noted for the retention of

Figure 3.1. Map showing distribution of flint clay figures to the south of Cahokia.

68 · Steven L. Boles

the female figurines at Cahokia (Emerson et al. 2003:302–305). Two were recovered from burials, the Schild pipe in Green County roughly 60 km north of Cahokia in the Illinois River valley (Goldstein 1980; Perino 1971) and the Westbrook pipe from the Lower Mississippi River Valley (LMRV) in a Caddoan shaft burial in Desha County, Arkansas (Boles 2014, 2018; Perino 1971). The Schild figurine is the only female designed as a pipe; it was burned and broken when placed with the burial. The Westbrook pipe appears to have been converted to a pipe, as the bowl and stem holes cut through design elements; it also appears to have been deliberately broken in the grave. The third female was recovered in Missouri from New Madrid County (Boles 2014, 2017, 2018). Over 30 pieces have been found on the surface of a plowed field. Examination of the pieces suggests intentional breakage rather than farm implement damage, as plow or disc marks are visible on only one of the pieces. The upper half of the New Madrid figurine is still missing but the lower half is similar to the Westbrook figurine. The New Madrid figurine was not converted to a pipe and is the first female figurine found outside Cahokia that remained unaltered. While details of the specific context are currently unknown, it seems likely to have been deposited in a structure or domestic feature(s) similar to the decommissioning contexts for females in the Cahokia region; if from mortuary context, it certainly did not come from a deep Caddo shaft burial. Regardless, it is noteworthy that it exhibits some signs of burning and was also broken. This treatment conforms to the overall decommissioning pattern for female figurines and reveals that a seemingly identical practice took place outside of Cahokia. This is a key point that will be addressed further in the discussion section. The entire female suite has been interpreted as representing a Cahokian fertility cult based on the symbolic elements depicted on the figurines and supported by archaeological contexts suggestive of a Busk-like ritual (Fortier 1992a:339–348). While each figurine is unique, the range of motifs includes various vegetative images, snakes or underworld creatures, a marine shell cup, a hoe, and baskets and pouches, both interpreted as representations of sacred bundles (Brown 2007b:55–56). These figurines are undoubtedly representations of an ancestral being such as Corn Mother, Old-WomanWho-Never-Dies, Snake Woman, and Grandmother, all tribal variants of a generalized Earth Mother persona (Dorsey 1905:18, 1906:58–61; Emerson 1997b:198–209; Mueller and Fritz 2016; Prentice 1986:239–266; Voegelin 1936; Witthoft 1949).

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 69

The male figurines are divided into two subsets, both containing representations of ancestral or supernatural figurines (Table 3.1). The first group contains those broadly associated with a warrior cult (Spinden 1931; Waring and Holder 1945; Brown 1975) and more specifically with the Red Horn mythology recorded from the Siouan-speaking Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) in the early 1900s (Radin 1948b). Adding further credence to this interpretation and the longevity of the Red Horn mythology, or some recognizable version of it, is that many of the same figurines were depicted in the Gottschall rockshelter in Wisconsin (Salzer and Rajnovich 2000) and in Picture Cave not far from the flint clay source area in the Missouri Ozarks (DiazGranados et al. 2015), both actually predating the Mississippian period. Robert Hall was the first to make the connection of the Resting Warrior pipe from Spiro as being a representation of Red Horn, also known as He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings or Morning Star, among other names (Hall 1997; Radin 1948b; Reilly 2004; Pauketat 2004:115–118). The Resting Warrior is wearing god maskettes (human heads) and also has a long braid (horn). Additionally, red-colored pipestone may have been intentionally chosen for the representation of Red Horn and associated personas (Boles 2011; Emerson and Boles 2011). Also of interest, the Red Horn figurine was reportedly coated in red ochre (Brown 1996:523). This may also have signified his identity, as the others buried at Spiro were not given the same treatment. A second flint clay pipe from Spiro known as the Conquering Warrior was identified as Turtle, one of Red Horn’s five main companions (Boles 2014, 2018; Brown 2011:56). Turtle was also depicted in his animal form at Gottschall (Salzer and Rajnovich 2000:31). While the identification of a mythological persona based on motifs, stance, and possible material choice can be subjective, the motifs on the above-mentioned figurines are very convincing. The god maskettes, which look like human heads on the ears of the Resting Warrior, seem undeniable in identifying this figurine as He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings, or at least some version of this historically recorded persona. As for Turtle, in addition to the turban headgear, body armor, back shield, and clawlike knife in the hand of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Conquering Warrior, elements that Brown (2011) used in identifying this figurine, the presence of a carved turtle atop the headgear leaves little doubt of his identity (Boles 2014, 2018). While the carver of these two figurines was rather heavy-handed in depicting their identity, the identities of other figurines, perhaps carved by other artisans, were subtler and more nuanced. But, as Emerson has

70 · Steven L. Boles

pointed out, details are depicted for a reason and, when missing, are a purposeful omission (Emerson 1989:52). In other words, we know that these figurines were of great importance, and the depictions are representative of beliefs, mythologies, and the supernatural associated with their existence. Given the importance of these figurines, the time depth to the Red Horn mythology, and the reasonable identification of two of Red Horn’s war party, it is plausible that others can be associated with this group (Boles 2011, 2014, 2018; Brown 2011:56–57; Reilly 2004:132–133). Additional flint clay figurines have been suggested as representations of Turtle based on similar accoutrements (shield), headgear, and turtlelike stance. Tentatively, these include the Guy Smith pipe-figurine with shield from Jackson County, Illinois; the Moundville man in turtlelike stance; and the Kingston male with the same headgear as the NMAI Conquering Warrior (Boles 2014, 2018). Brown suggests that the Gilcrease Rattler and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Conquering Warrior from Spiro are also representations of Turtle (Brown 2011:56). It has also been suggested that the Chunkey Player from Muskogee, Oklahoma, is associated with the Red Horn mythology based on the mythological gaming exploits by Red Horn’s group, while the WPA Rattler figurine has been suggested as the leader of the Giants (Reilly 2004:133). It is proposed here, however, that the WPA Rattler and the WPA Conquering Warrior are instead representations of Red Horn’s companions, Wolf and Otter, respectively. Wolflike characteristics (Figure 3.2) depicted in the WPA Rattler pipe include a snarling facial expression with an open mouth displaying a nonhuman teeth arrangement (Figure 3.3). Only four lower teeth are depicted, with two looking like worn-down animal canines. Other wolflike characteristics include a similar hairline, protruding lower lip, narrow jaw, flared nostrils, squinted eyes, and the jowl folds around the mouth. His earrings are also unusual and claw-shaped. He is clutching a deer’s head in his left hand and either a rattle or scalp in his right. The WPA Warrior shares many anatomical and behavioral characteristics with the otter (Figures 3.4, 3.5) and include a flattened nose with nostrils facing forward, a flattened crown, ears flat against the head, widely spaced eyes, a wide mouth with no discernable lips, and a neck roll (Figures 3.6, 3.7). The flattened nose and lack of lips appear intentional rather than from excessive handling, as other details on the head and body are clearly delineated. This figurine is also clutching its prey’s head with both hands in a crouching position, just as otters do (Figures 3.4, 3.6). While this figurine has restoration on the base, the victim’s left leg is visible under

Above: Figure 3.2. Snarling wolf. (Photo copyright Bill Frische/ Shutterstock) Right: Figure 3.3. WPA Rattler flint clay figure. (Photo courtesy of Sam Noble, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History)

Top left: Figure 3.4. Otter eating fish. (Photo copyright Elizaveta Kirina/Shutterstock) Top right: Figure 3.5. Otter. (Photo copyright Jerry Sharp/Shutterstock) Bottom left: Figure 3.6. WPA Conquering Warrior flint clay figure, frontal view. Bottom right: Figure 3.7. WPA Conquering Warrior flint clay figure, profile view.

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 73

the dominant figurine and extends back to the cape. Additionally, what has been interpreted as a shield on his back appears more as an exceptionally long cape instead, as it conforms to his body contour; as a shield, it would be cumbersome at that length. The cape has parallel lines, as does his torso on at least the left side, and perpendicular lines are present on both his arms and face, possibly an artistic device to denote fur or furlike tattoos (Figures 3.5, 3.7). It is unlikely to be a coincidence that these four Spiro figurines were among the largest of the flint clay suite, all being within just a few centimeters of each other in height, central in the Red Horn mythology, and deposited in the same mound, with two of the four in the same burial. If the proposed identifications are correct, these circumstances would suggest that this set was kept together perhaps for continued ritual use after their departure from Cahokia. The second male subset includes a number of male figurines that are nude and without accoutrements. Those in this group include the Shiloh, Barlow, Gahagan, and Champlain pipes (Table 3.1). The hairstyles or headgear vary within this group, as do postures. The general lack of accoutrements was undoubtedly intentional; thus the identity of these figurines either is denoted by the hairstyle/headgear, as suggested for those as possible Turtle representations, or the lack of accoutrements in some way denotes identity. Similarly, unadorned statuary primarily from the Tennessee-Cumberland region also depict nude males (and females) and have been interpreted as representations of ancestral couples or, if found singularly, as First Man or First Woman (Smith and Miller 2009). The same interpretation is plausible for the nude flint clay males, although some unknown deity may be represented as well. Members of this group have also been thought to represent Red Horn (aka Morning Star) unrevealed (Reilly 2004:133) or shamans or priests with facial expressions suggestive of a narcotic stupor or trance (Brown 1997:473–474; Emerson 2003:148). The Gahagan and Champlain nude male figurines are unusual in style and representative of non-Cahokian figurines. Both also appear to be recarved figurines or newly carved prior to deposition based on the lack of polish (Emerson et al. 2003:299–300). Because flint clay polishes within seconds of being rubbed, it is doubtful that these pipes could have been transported from Cahokia without obtaining some degree of polish, especially on the high spots. Given the symbolic nature and the power that these figurines were undoubtedly imbued with (as will be discussed in more

74 · Steven L. Boles

detail later), new carvings are suggested rather than the complete obliteration of the original power-laden images. In concert with the idea presented in this chapter, it is perhaps more plausible that Cahokian flint clay artisans emigrating from Cahokia took raw material with them to carve local deities at their chosen relocation sites in order to gain favor with new benefactors. Obviously, showing up at the doorstep of a foreign leader and proclaiming to be a stone-carving artist would require some proof of on-site sculpting. It would have been prudent to take along material that one was familiar with rather than chance being able to work whatever local raw materials were available. The fourth subset contains both male and female figurines as well as frogs and contains some figurines overlapping with previous subsets. These figurines have been associated with shamanism and include those depicted with rattles, involved in a shamanistic act, represented by shape-shifter animal forms such as the frogs holding rattles, and figurines depicted with ambiguous gender (Emerson 2003:141). This subset includes the Rattler Frog, Gahagan Frog, Frog Smoker, Macoupin Creek, Gilcrease Rattler, WPA Rattler, Bostrom, and Schild figurines (Table 3.1). Five of these, including the two frogs, hold rattles. One figurine is smoking a pipe, the Bostrom figurine is holding a small figurine in front and interpreted as possibly associated with soul release, and the Schild female was buried with other grave goods suggestive of shamanism. The identification of five figurines within this group as shamans was based on the presence of rattles. The use of rattles by shamans and shamans having the ability to shape shift are widely cited throughout the ethnographic record (for a synthesis on this topic, see Emerson 2003). However, also frequently noted in the ethnographic record is the use of gourd rattles by tribal priests who also had the ability to summon animal assistance (Bailey 1995:46–47; Bowers 1965; Dorsey 1904b:329, 334; Fletcher and La Flesche 1970:357–358, 372; Radin 1990:149–150). While the flint clay figurines with rattles were originally viewed as shamanlike figurines, this notion has been reevaluated, with the concept of priestly personas perhaps more appropriate (Emerson 2015:59–60). As mentioned earlier, the animal group contains 15 figurines, 2 of which are frogs with rattles associated with the shaman/priest group discussed above. Of the other 13 animal figurines, only 6 are complete enough to discern that they were carved without rattles or other accoutrements. They include two frogs, a crayfish, a squirrel, an owl, and a nondescript raptor

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 75

that may also be an owl. Fragmented figurines include four additional frogs and three birds, one of which is clearly a raptor. Given the limited set of animals portrayed, it is clear that Cahokian artisans were depicting specific animals rather than willy-nilly carving animals of all kinds for artistic indulgence. As for the frog figurines without accoutrements, they may have been representations of the shaman/priest in their natural state or simply depictions of an animal with strong associations with the underworld, fertility, healing, and general spiritual power (Aftandilian 2007:135–152). The owls and other birds/raptors may have represented thunderbirds, or more specifically avatars of Storms-As-HeWalks, a thunderbird deity and one of the central personas in the Red Horn mythology (Radin 1948b). Other renditions of this persona have been suggested for a fluorite statue from the lower Ohio region and the bird images located on the rock art panel at Gottschall (Boles 2011; Salzer and Rajnovich 2000:31–32). Like the frog, the crayfish was another creature associated with water, fertility, and the underworld. The crayfish figurine may also be a representation of a creation supernatural related to the Earth Diver mythology, one of the oldest mythologies worldwide (Aftandilian 2007:233–237; Boles 2014, 2017, 2018; Kongas 1960:152). Various animals from waterfowl to water creatures and insects were designated the Earth Diver role by differing groups. Of interest, mound construction has also been linked to this creation mythology (Hall 1997:18–22). Of the animals, the squirrel is the most difficult to directly correlate to any of the other subsets or mythologies. However, according to a Ho-Chunk narrative, “Brown Squirrel,” the red or fox squirrel, is viewed as an avatar of man who obtains a protruding red horn (arrow) to defeat his antagonist (Radin n.d.). In the Red Horn mythology, Red Horn is able to transform into an arrow and shoot past his opponents. One possibility then in light of these narratives would have the squirrel as an avatar for Red Horn. Of course, there are any number of possibilities, with the above offered as one prospect. Movement Theories for Flint Clay

Vital to understanding the distribution of flint clay items is temporally defining their manufacture and dating their deposition. Given Cahokia’s proximity to the raw material source and datable contexts for flint clay

76 · Steven L. Boles

figurines, it appears that the figurines were only made in the Cahokia region and primarily during the Stirling phase. Most of the figurines found outside of Cahokia with datable proveniences appear to have been distributed after AD 1200 (Emerson and Hughes 2000). Based on the information available in 2003, the timing of Cahokia’s decline suggested that the flint clay figurines recovered elsewhere were not part of a prestige-goods network, in part because Cahokia had no peers during its twelfth-century climax (Emerson et al. 2003:305; contra Kelly 1991a, 1991b). The distribution of flint clay figurines was proposed to have occurred in the mid-to-late 1200s (Emerson et al. 2002:325) and had more to do with a shift in the Cahokian symbolic system wherein the figurines became devalued and were thus viewed as commodities. It is assumed that these were highly sought after by outsiders for their exotic and power-imbued qualities, and male figurines were sought over female ones, which accounts for the distributional discrepancies (Alt and Pauketat 2007:243–244; Emerson et al. 2003:305–306). Another theory suggested for the movement of the flint clay figurines is related to their association with Long-Nosed god masks. The latter have been strongly correlated to adoption ceremonies by Hall (1991:31–33, 1997:151–153), and Emerson et al. (2003:307) suggest that the figurines could also have been connected to adoption rituals, thus accounting for their distribution (Emerson et al. 2002:328). Slightly later work on the chronology for the Gahagan figurines revealed that the mortuary events occurred between AD 1021 and 1160 according to calibrated AMS dates (Emerson and Girard 2004:62). With this information, it was surmised that Cahokian elites had direct contact with the Red River Caddo during the Stirling phase when the flint clay figurines were being crafted. Thus, it was inferred that the movement of flint clay figurines to the Caddo demonstrated Cahokia’s spiritual and ritual influence in the trans-Mississippi South, a condition that was thought to be immediate and widespread during Cahokia’s ascendancy in the Lohmann and Stirling phases (AD 1050–1200). Similar in concept was the interpretation of movement of flint clay sacra and other items into the Deep South during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries via cult-bringers, assumed to be arriving for purposes of indoctrination (Brown 2004a:119–121; Waring 1968:93). Later research, however, revealed that droughts were frequent beginning in the early Stirling phase in the Cahokia region and dominated the late Stirling phase. Population decline probably began after the end of

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 77

the Lohmann phase as people began migrating elsewhere (Benson et al. 2009:467–483; Pauketat and Emerson 1997:21). Thus, the above proselytizing theories, while possible for Gahagan, seem less likely for the other flint clay figurines suspected of departing after AD 1200, as Cahokia’s power was greatly diminished by that date. Of course, the timing of the non-Cahokian contexts is based on the time of deposition rather than evidence of departure from Cahokia. However, flint clay figurines have not been recovered thus far from post-Stirling contexts at Cahokia. One could infer from this that those in possession of flint clay figurines had departed Cahokia before AD 1200. Additionally, the disappearance of graphic fertility symbolism in general coincides with the prolonged droughts during the Stirling phase, suggesting that such imagery no longer held sway. And, while flint clay was no longer used, mythic warrior imagery was still produced from other media such as copper and marine shell. This adjusted focus correlates with other post-Stirling phase manifestations of increased warfare or the threat of warfare. The last theory regarding the movement of flint clay figurines was proposed for two unique figurines, an avian effigy from St. Francois County, Missouri, and a crayfish pipe from Dauphin Island, Alabama. Both pieces were recovered in areas that contained valuable resources for Cahokia: igneous rock for celts from the St. Francois Mountains and marine shell from the Gulf of Mexico. Given the strategic locations of these sites, it was proposed that these artifacts were given to local rulers to access or ensure the movement of raw materials to Cahokia (Boles 2014, 2017; Emerson and Boles 2011). Discussion

Recent Immigration Theories Before discussing diaspora, it is important to first discuss the original immigration to Cahokia, as it appears to have had an impact on the subsequent emigration from the site and is also relevant to the possible introduction of a female deity. Researchers have long recognized the presence of Caddo and LMRV material at Cahokia (Kelly 1991a; Perino 1957, 1959; Porter 1969), and conversely Cahokian material has been noted on scattered sites in all directions (Emerson and Lewis 1991; Griffin 1993; Perino 1971). To account for this

78 · Steven L. Boles

exotic material, many early scholars basically viewed the rise and fall of Cahokia as linked to the development and collapse of a prestige exchange network, a notion that has largely fallen out of favor over the years. Population studies have demonstrated that there was anywhere from roughly a 450 to 630 percent increase in population between the end of the Terminal Late Woodland (TLW) period and the subsequent Lohmann phase (Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). While the relocation of local TLW groups would account for some of this increase, migration of nonlocal groups to the area would have been necessary for such a spike in population (Alt 2006a:290; Pauketat and Alt 2003; Pauketat and Emerson 1997:27). Corresponding with the abandonment of the Arkansas valley ca. AD 1000, Plum Bayou and Coles Creek elites and possibly elites from the LMRV are now suggested to be instrumental in the founding of Cahokia (Pauketat and Alt 2003, 2015c:4–5; Steponaitis et al. 2015). The presence of both domestic and elite exotic material suggests that people immigrated to the Cahokia region from multiple directions and that this migration began in the late TLW period (Boles 2018; Boles et al. 2018; Pauketat 2003:54–55, 2015:14; Pauketat and Alt 2015a:1–11). Limited data for the Cahokian diaspora suggests migration in all directions, though it is unlikely that many Cahokians migrated north (Pauketat and Emerson 1997:18, 24). Given that many of the initial immigrants came from southern areas and contacts to the south remained strong through the Stirling phase, it seems more likely that emigrating Cahokians would have traveled to ancestral homelands or areas in which beneficial interactions had been maintained. An example of data supporting this notion can be seen with Caddoan and LMRV arrow points made from nonlocal cherts. These are most common at East St. Louis during the Stirling phase, demonstrating maintained connections or possible pilgrimages to Cahokia from those regions (Boles 2018; Boles et al. 2018; Skousen 2016; Slater et al. 2014:117–127). As mentioned in the introduction to this section, it was imperative to first discuss immigration to Cahokia not only because of maintained connections and the return to ancestral homelands but also for the introduction of a female deity. Prior to the Stirling phase, female deity figurine representations are nonexistent, although some village layouts and ritual deposits have been linked to the development of a fertility cult beginning in the TLW period (Emerson 1997b:218). The Caddo, on the other hand, revered a female deity associated with corn and historically referred to as the Corn Mother (Alexander 1916:91–92, 107–108; Witthoft 1949). Assuming

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 79

proper time depth to a Corn Mother persona and that elites, priests, and artisans from the Caddo region relocated to Cahokia, this group may have introduced the Corn Mother persona to the Cahokia region. Cahokians may have readily embraced this persona, especially if the roots of a fertility cult were already in place and given the growing dietary importance of maize and other crops. A local deity can be seen in the depiction of mythic warrior personas associated with the Red Horn mythology in Picture Cave. Some of these predate the Mississippian period and demonstrate time depth to a local mythology before the Mississippian “Big Bang” (Pauketat 1993a) and later flint clay depictions. Perhaps the two main groups of flint clay deities, Earth (Corn) Mother and Red Horn’s (mythic warrior) group, were carved to supplicate the beliefs of locals as well as nonlocal groups.
 Additionally, while the flint clay suite can be separated into various thematic subsets, in a broader sense they represent the pervasive dualism between male/female, warfare-death/fertility-renewal, day/night, underworld/aboveworld that exemplifies native cosmology. In a deeper sense, the warrior males associated with the Red Horn mythology and animal avatars are really just as much about renewal, albeit from a male perspective, as the female fertility figurines. For a brief recap of the narrative, within the mythology, Red Horn and his companions are eventually defeated and killed. Red Horn’s twin sons rescue the remains of Red Horn’s war party, which are then magically resurrected. With this in mind, these subsets can be viewed as male and female versions of a regeneration concept in contrast to an oppositional relationship of warfare and fertility (contrast Brown 1985; Emerson 1997a:242; Knight 1986). And, although the flint clay figurines are without precedent in terms of stone or even well-defined clay figurines at Cahokia, a recent reanalysis of Cahokia’s Mound 72 elite Lohmann phase burials revealed that the famous beaded burial was not comprised of two chiefly males representing a warrior cult but was actually a male and female. This symbolic pairing and others in the central feature of the mound are viewed as demonstrations of the importance of females and fertility in early Cahokia and more suggestive of equality as an ancestral pair (Emerson et al. 2016). As suggested above, this general equality theme is represented in the Stirling phase flint clay figurines. Now that immigration to and emigration from Cahokia have been briefly discussed, and given the religious and ritual nature of the flint clay figurines, would these sacra be given away, exchanged, produced for, or even sought by outsiders?

80 · Steven L. Boles

Data in Support of Cahokian Emigration If from the earlier discussion it can be assumed that elite or priestly artisans produced the flint clay figurines to serve as cult sacra, it is suggested here that these sacred objects were kept in some type of ritual bundle or container just as similar items were curated during the historic period. And, as with historic bundles, it is likely that certain restrictions and taboos were in place during the Mississippian period as to how the sacred objects within these bundles were used, how they were cared for, how they were transferred to the next bundle keeper or owner, and how they were disposed of in the event that no one was worthy and available for the bundle transfer. In support of this notion, archaeological evidence is reviewed, as are various ethnohistoric accounts. Most of these accounts were recorded in the late 1800s and early 1900s before tribal religions were abandoned or replaced with new religions. Ethnohistoric accounts used in this discussion are taken from a variety of historic tribes with varied languages. Given the multiethnic population at Cahokia and the multidirectional emigration from the site, any number of historic tribes likely had ancestral ties to some extent with Cahokia. Parallels drawn in the following discussion are not intended to represent one-to-one correlates but rather to explore the realm of possibilities for the archaeological material. Before examining the archaeological record for evidence of bundles, it is imperative to know what bundles looked like and the types of items they contained. A review of Plains tribes’ ethnohistoric reports reveals that each tribe had numerous bundles for a variety of religious, social, and personal concerns and that the contents of these bundles were highly variable. Broad categories included personal bundles, clan bundles, and tribal or village bundles. While there are far too many bundle types within each category to review here, a few examples are provided from various tribes to present a general view of bundle types and their contents (for a recent detailed synthesis on bundles, see Pauketat 2012:43–58). According to Dorsey (1904b:xx–xxii), each village of the Skidi Pawnee (Caddoan language) was given a bundle directly from its god (celestial star or constellation). When the villages congregated for great ceremonies, each village was required to assemble according to the celestial alignments with each group’s god/star-constellation mirrored on earth. While the contents varied, each bundle contained at least one pipe, tobacco, paints, certain birds, and Corn Mother, with items encased in a rolled-up buffalo hide. Certain taboos were associated with each bundle and were rigidly enforced.

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 81

When not in use, bundles were hung in a special place within a lodge. Bundles were considered dormant until opened; then they were thought of as alive, awake, and powerful (Chamberlain 1982:45). The opening of a bundle required the priests to gather in the appropriate lodge where the ritual of the bundle was sung and various offerings of smoke or food were made, the type of offering depending upon the nature of the bundle itself (Dorsey 1904b:xx–xxii). The Morning Star bundle, for instance, required a sacrifice of a maiden, while the Evening Star bundle required the heart and tongue of a buffalo and tobacco. Although ownership of the bundles was hereditary, ritual knowledge associated with a bundle had to be purchased by the apprentice. The Skidi Pawnee war bundle also contained a pipe, tobacco, paints, various bird elements, and corn representative of Corn Mother. These were wrapped in various bird skins, including the skin of a hawk, and then the skin of an otter (Dorsey 1904b). The Winnebago (Siouan language) war bundle contained the body of an eagle, hawk, pigeon hawk, and unidentified bird, as well as a deer-tail headdress, medicines, a flute, and a war club; these were encased in a rolled deer hide (Radin 1990:394). These were also passed father to son within a clan, and although they were primarily a personal possession of the family, they were to a certain extent considered a clan possession (Radin 1915:34). For the Hidatsa (Siouan language), a man’s personal sacred or medicine bundles were buried with him, while any tribal bundles in his possession were passed on to the next of kin (Bowers 1965:171). The Mandan (Siouan language) had two categories of sacred bundles: those that originated with the culture hero, Good-Furred-Robe, and those that originated with the Old-Woman-Who-Never-Dies. The contents for the Old-Woman-Who-Never-Dies bundle included a corn basket (representing the Old-Woman) covered with an antelope hide, sacred arrows, a human scalp, a wooden pipe, two clay pots, a snakeskin, a fox skin, white sage, a gourd rattle, elk skin, a deer skull and horns, a piece of bearskin, blackbird heads, corn, beans, pumpkins, and sunflowers. The two pots referenced the sacred pots, which upon stirring could not be emptied, that the Snake people used to feed visitors (Bowers 1965:345). These were passed on through clan inheritance (Bowers 1965:201). Contents of the Good-FurredRobe Skull bundle contained the skulls of Good-Furred-Robe and his two brothers, white sage, a fox skin headdress, and a wooden pipe (Bowers 1965:342). The Pawnee also had a skull bundle containing the skull of First Man (Dorsey 1904b:55–56).

82 · Steven L. Boles

The objects within these bundles were considered sacred and possessed power for good and evil; only priests had the knowledge to control and use the power (Bailey 1995:18, 62). Adair (2009), in discussing the war bundles of southeastern tribes, reported that the contents were viewed as sacred and dangerous, and that no one, including the enemy, dared touch these bundles on any account (in Dye 2007:160). The ritual knowledge concerning bundles was guarded and only given to initiates; to give this information to the uninitiated would bring about supernatural punishment to the priest (Bailey 1995:18, 62; Hall 1997:69). The Osage (Siouan language) priests also realized that not all people were equally respectful of sacred knowledge. Saucy Calf, an informant to La Flesche, stated the concern of Osage priests: “There are some things that are not spoken by priests in the rituals they made, things that are not confided to the thoughtless and irreverent, but are discussed only by men who are serious minded and who treasure the thoughts that are sacred and mysterious” (Bailey 1995:21). Saucy Calf died shortly after providing ritual knowledge to La Flesche; the Osage were of the opinion that he brought about his own death as a result. Saucy Calf had decided to give his ritual knowledge to La Flesche for the sake of posterity. Many native groups near the turn of the twentieth century had turned to peyote religion; this religion demanded complete abandonment of old religious ways. When La Flesche was working with the Osage, many of the bundles had already been burned or buried: an example he provided was of a great bundle buried with a father because his son had rejected the old religion (Bailey 1995:23). A similar abandonment of tribal religion was noted for the Ojibwas (Algonquian language) when they converted to the teachings of the Shawnee Prophet Tenskwatawa in 1807. It was said that the shore of Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior was strewn with sacred medicine bags or bundles that had been thrown into the lake by the new converts (Hall 1997:69). This brief review of the ethnohistoric record of tribes, some likely to be descendants of the Cahokians, has established that there was a variety of bundles, that these bundles contained sacred and dangerous objects, that many contained pipes and often other items that would not be present archaeologically, and that restrictions were commonly in place on who could receive ritual knowledge associated with a bundle and how it was to be transferred or disposed of if it could not be passed on. As for archaeological evidence, several of the Cahokian flint clay figurines are depicted with various ritual containers that include bundles, packs, and baskets. The Keesee male figurine has a flattened cylindrical

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 83

object in his right hand that resembles historic bundles. He is kneeling with a small pot in front of him that is mounded over. This over-full pot is reminiscent of the sacred pots in the Old-Woman-Who-Never-Dies bundle that could never be emptied, and thus the Keesee pot could be an avatar of the Old-Woman or some facet of this persona (Sharp 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012, 2014). Both female figurines from the BBB Motor site have ritual containers, one represented in the pack on the Birger figurine and the other with the basket in front of the Keller figurine. Both the Arkansas female figurine and the Missouri female figurine are associated with ritual baskets; the Missouri female is actually surrounded by five baskets and also has a pouch or pack (Boles 2014, 2017, 2018). The only previously identified male wearing a pouch is the Bostrom figurine (Emerson 1983). Given the strong correlation between the Corn Mother and the Snake Woman with the pack containing seeds (Dorsey 1905:18), and the fact that the pack was depicted primarily with females, it seems quite possible that the Bostrom figurine is either a female figurine or gender-shifter (Emerson 2003:144–146). The Stockyard Head from East St. Louis may also represent such an individual. Additionally, archaeological evidence of bundles has been recorded at Cahokia and elsewhere. For instance, during the destruction of a mound at the Mitchell site north of Cahokia in the 1800s, various copper, wooden, and bone artifacts wrapped in layers of woven matting and furs were recovered (Pauketat 2012:166). The tight grouping of various artifact types in numerous Caddo shaft tombs and the Craig Mound at Spiro, which also contained woven baskets with elite objects, is also suggestive of bundled objects (Boles 2014, 2018; Brown 1996; Emerson and Girard 2004). Other archaeological evidence associated with sacred objects and bundles can be suggested from the ritual nature of the deposits containing flint clay figurines and standardized decommissioning methods that involved breakage and fire. The female group has been most often recovered from temples or nearby associated features within the Cahokia region. If these are associated with some type of annual renewal ritual as has been suggested (Fortier 1992a:339–348), then these figurines may have only been carved shortly before they were needed and then ritually destroyed. This seems plausible, as the only female exhibiting extensive handling is the Schild figurine. This may also explain why so few have been recovered outside of Cahokia, as these figurines may not have been produced to remain in circulation for extended periods of time. In contrast to the female figurines, most of the male figurines were

84 · Steven L. Boles

placed in burials, including the only male figurine (Bostrom) recovered through excavation at Cahokia (15 of 18 with such information). Shared depositional traits, however, are that many males were also burned and broken. The decommissioning of the animal figurines also often entailed breakage. Of the 14 animal figurines, data were available for 11 and show that only 2 of these, the Crayfish and the Gahagan Frog, were deposited intact. The patterned deposition and ritual practices associated with each subset demonstrate a fairly standardized decommissioning practice regardless of whether the event took place at Cahokia or in some distant locale at a much later date. It could be inferred from this that decommissioned Cahokia sacra from outside of Cahokia were at the very least done by nonlocal apprentices trained in associated ritual aspects or perhaps by relocated Cahokians. Such a standardized decommissioning ritual is reminiscent of the burning and burying of decommissioned historic bundles. In terms of function, regardless of subset, some human male, female, and animal effigies were carved to serve as figurines; others served as pipes; and some figurines of all three groups were converted to pipes. The conversion of figurine to pipe has been viewed as a Caddoan practice wherein the original ritual use of the object was altered (Emerson et al. 2003:305). However, given that many of the male and animal figurines, as well as one of the females, were designed specifically as pipes by Cahokian artisans, it is clear that many of these supernatural figurines were intended to serve in this capacity at Cahokia, and thus smoking supernatural sacra was not strictly a Caddoan custom. Given the roughly 50-year time estimate for the production of these figurines, it is impossible to say that the figurines and figurine pipes were produced at the same time. It is certainly possible that the original function required figurines, as all three subsets contain just figurines. The switch in ritual function to include smoking from the figurine after the initial carving could account for all three groups containing pieces that were designed specifically for pipe use and the conversion of figurines to pipe use for those still in circulation. Additionally, the conversion of the figurines to pipes could have occurred at Cahokia long before they were deposited elsewhere. This is supported by the fact that many of the figurines were produced as pipes by Cahokian artisans. This scenario is certainly plausible, especially if these converted figurine-pipes were leaving with Cahokian priests rather than gifted or exchanged with nonlocal elites. If similar beliefs were

Tracking Cahokians through Material Culture · 85

associated with these ritual objects, as with their historic period counterparts, it seems unlikely that Cahokian priests would part with these objects to nonlocals, nor would nonlocals want power-laden ritual objects to which they were not privy and then intentionally mar them by conversion for smoking. Of all the prestige items produced and suspected of being produced at Cahokia, flint clay figurines seem the least likely to leave in the hands of an outsider or to be given away for political or material gain. Conclusion

Discussion of tracking Cahokian diaspora through material culture was limited to the use of flint clay figurines, as they are the most visible and easily identifiable artifact type with an unquestionable tie to Cahokia. The argument presented here suggests that these flint clay figurines are cult sacra and are associated with some form of sacred bundle. The apparent standardized decommissioning rituals, regardless of figurine type, locale, or time of deposition, also suggest that these sacred objects likely remained in the hands of emigrating Cahokian priests and were either buried with them or passed down to other clan members before being decommissioned. Without flint clay figurines, tracking groups of emigrants from Cahokia would be difficult. Many lithic tool kits from Cahokia would be indistinguishable from other nonlocal assemblages, that is, triangular arrow points, celts, and expedient tools. Items leaving with most people would have been utilitarian in nature, highly portable, and not unlike the tools of other groups. Additionally, utilitarian items were used and discarded with retooling, requiring the use of newly available resources. Religious items, such as flint clay figurines, might easily appear as exchange items without supporting Cahokian artifacts. However, at least some of the burials from outside of Cahokia that contained flint clay figurines also contained other Cahokian items, including common Cahokia arrow points at Spiro and fragments of Cahokia points at Gahagan. Again, common arrow points, especially those showing use or damage, are more likely to be associated with migration rather than exchange. God maskettes, Cahokia discoidals, and Cahokia-style pipes made from other raw materials were also recovered at both Gahagan and Spiro, and while it cannot be ascertained that these objects were only produced at Cahokia, they have been strongly associated with the site and region (Diaz-Granados et al. 2015; Hall 1997:147–148). These additional Cahokian artifacts that include

86 · Steven L. Boles

a mix of common and religious items suggest possessions rather than exchange objects and given the contextual groupings are likely associated with bundles as well. In closing, the use of flint clay religious objects provides an unexplored approach for discussing emigration from Cahokia. It is imperative to view Cahokia’s Stirling phase flint clay figurines within the context in which they were created and what they represented to those who created them and to those who sought power from them. Doing so takes these sacred objects out of the realm of an elite commodity and places them in the hands of those who created and revered them.

4 Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Greater Cahokia’s entanglements with the broader Mississippian world were clearly far-reaching, yet at most sites outside of the American Bottom region, Cahokian hegemony is weak or absent, resulting in less obvious manifestations of Cahokian events and history. How do we recognize its influence in places that were largely autonomous of Greater Cahokia? Here we consider this question from the perspective of Kincaid Mounds, a major contemporaneous center located along the lower Ohio River 220 km straight-line distance southeast of Cahokia (Figure 4.1). We think it no coincidence that as Greater Cahokia witnessed major social and spatial reorganization, associated material changes, and population dispersal and decline ca. AD 1200, Kincaid grew briefly in size and persistently in complexity as the most powerful surviving polity in the Middle Mississippian region. Shortly thereafter, the lower Ohio Valley experienced political fragmentation and, by the late thirteenth century, population movement away from Kincaid into upland areas (Cobb and Butler 2002, 2006). These local events began in conjunction with regional ones. We argue that events taking place at and around AD 1200 within Greater Cahokia reverberated throughout the Mississippian world in ways that affected the historical trajectories of its communities at both large and small scales, and which had lasting effects. These effects occur at Kincaid even though there is no evidence of Cahokian hegemony there, or even indications of regular or sustained contact and exchange with Cahokia. Instead, Kincaid appears relatively autonomous, though not unaware of activities in the American Bottom. Yet one Cahokian event, or more likely a series of events, changed the relationship between these regions: the mass movement of people within and outside of the American Bottom and its uplands during the thirteenth century. Specifically, this period of fragmentation created

88 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Figure 4.1. Location of Kincaid Mounds in relation to Cahokia.

a new political landscape with which the people of Kincaid could engage in a way that Cahokia’s previous dominance had apparently subdued. Little attempt has been made to track the tempo or scale of the Cahokian diaspora (but see Kelly 2008), and indeed the typical indicators of a diaspora community, such as lack of full integration into the host community and strong ties to the “homeland” (Owen 2005; Cohen 1997), may not be evident in the places that Cahokians ultimately settled. We therefore consider here how a diaspora from the largest and most influential Mississippian polity might affect communities within its far-reaching network, using Kincaid and its upland communities as an example. Background

We hereafter refer to the Mississippian phases by the site-local sequence of Early (AD 1050–1150), Middle (AD 1150–1300), and Late Kincaid (AD 1300–1450). Their true regional phase names are, respectively, Jonathan Creek, Angelly, and Tinsley Hill (as defined by Clay [1963, 1997] and Riordan [1975] and revised in Butler [1991]). In reference to Cahokia, the Jonathan Creek phase is a rough correlate to the late Lohmann and first half of

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 89

Figure 4.2. Map of Kincaid Mounds with locations discussed in text identified (after Brennan 2014).

the Stirling phases, although we will discuss further how Kincaid during the Early phase is likely not much more than a large village with limited mound building. Middle Kincaid encompasses the latter half of the Stirling and the entirety of the Moorehead phases, while Late Kincaid includes Sand Prairie up to approximately AD 1450, when all of southern Illinois is abandoned (see Cobb and Butler 2002). Kincaid Mounds is a 70 ha site stretching along the banks of Avery Lake, a remnant channel of the Ohio River approximately three-quarters of a mile from the river’s modern-day banks (Figure 4.2). It includes 31 known mounds arranged in multiple mound groups and at least one formal plaza, with smaller monuments dispersed on the site’s natural ridges. The larger of the two mound groups is in Massac County and includes 9–11 platform mounds around and within a 20,000–25,000 m2 plaza. The smaller Pope County mound group is approximately 300 m to the east, and less is known about it. It contains at least 10 mounds, possible plazas, and a modestly sized burial mound that was constructed in four episodes. Only the final layer of this mound is associated with the Late phase. A bastioned palisade encompassed the entire site during the Middle phase and was later retracted to exclude the westernmost portion of the site following that area’s apparent abandonment by the Late phase (Butler et al. 2011; Pursell and Butler 2008; Welch 2007).

90 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Magnetometry survey (Butler et al. 2011) and subsequent auger testing (Brennan 2011) reveal that the site’s ridges hosted the bulk of the occupation during the Middle and Late phases. Special architecture, including several examples of oversized wall trench and single-set post buildings and a 380 m2 rotunda atop of Mound 8, were largely restricted to mound summits. Single examples of smaller nondomestic buildings have also been located within the western plaza (Welch 2013a, 2013b), adjacent to the banks of Avery Lake (Weigand and Muller 1967), and atop the more modest accretional mounds that sit atop the site’s natural ridges (University of Chicago notes on file, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale). Architecture is otherwise typically square, with rigid wall trench construction and heavily daubed walls averaging 25–40 m2 in floor area (Brennan 2014:Tables 3.2, 7.2, 7.5). Early Kincaid architecture may differ, the few examples known being smaller and rectangular. Notably few subterranean pits have been uncovered in any phase, and most storage likely took place in house rafters or aboveground facilities. The University of Chicago, supported by Works Progress Administration (WPA) labor, conducted extensive research at the site in the 1930s and 1940s as part of its North American archaeology training program, producing some of the nation’s foremost archaeologists and developing field methods that are common practice at many excavations today. Research focused primarily on the larger western mound group and within the mounds themselves. The resulting report (Cole et al. 1951) provides an essential but biased glimpse of the site. Jon Muller’s (1978, 1986, 1997) more recent Black Bottom research in the 1970s better elucidated the prehistory of the region and was followed by a multitude of dissertations and theses on its peoples (Butler 1977; Davy 1982; Lafferty 1973, 1977; Martin 1991; Riordan 1975; Rudolph 1981). Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s archaeological field schools have completed the most recent and ongoing work at the site proper, guided by the large-scale magnetometry survey reported in Butler et al. (2011). From these and broader-reaching regional studies, we see evidence of a modest Late Archaic habitation (Butler and Crow 2013), a substantial Early to Middle Woodland occupation (Butler 2006a, 2006b), and a sparse Late Woodland presence (Brennan 2010; MacNeish 1944). The last of these, the Lewis phase, is surprisingly scant not only here but across the Black Bottom (Rudolph 1981) and throughout southern Illinois. The sparse archaeological evidence dating to this phase leaves its exact chronology and its people’s role in the subsequent Mississippian communities poorly understood (see also

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 91

Butler and Wagner 2012). It is possible that the first Mississippian inhabitants of Kincaid came upon a nearly vacant landscape when they arrived. The little material from this very late Woodland period closely resembles the Dillinger culture, best documented 100 km northwest of Kincaid. Mississippian Chronology

Early Kincaid Evidence of Early Mississippian activity at Kincaid is scarce. Few of the excavated mounds appear to have an Early component, and few excavated structures definitively date to the beginning of the Mississippian sequence. Clear early ceramics recovered from UC excavations (Orr 1951) led Butler (1991:271) to posit that Kincaid emerged as a major site during this time. The scale of that emergence is now in question, yet it is possible that excavation bias may be to blame. Little of the privately owned eastern third of the site has been explored, and the near-complete overprinting of early Mississippian habitation by a large Middle and Late Kincaid presence is probable (see Brennan 2011; Cole et al. 1951; Pursell and Butler 2012). Regardless of timing and scale, the earliest Mississippian mound-building community at Kincaid had much in common with its near neighbors at Cahokia, potentially in conjunction with indirect influence. Possible Cahokian influence may be seen in shell-tempered ceramics, wall trench and single-set post structures, platform mounds, and extensive and intensive maize agriculture paired with reliance on the Eastern Agricultural Complex crops (but see Sullivan 2009 and consider the early advent of shell-tempered pottery in the Ozarks as reported by Hilliard and Mainfort 2007, Sabo and Hilliard 2008, and others). The religions and political tenets of Mississippian society came with these influences. Middle Kincaid Kincaid reaches its maximum physical extent during the Middle phase, accompanied by a peak in the number of surrounding farmstead and hamlet clusters (Butler 1977; Davy 1982), most of which do not persist into the fourteenth century (Butler 1991). It is difficult to say whether secondary mound centers are associated with Kincaid, as the best evidence for one (Rowlandtown Mound) lies across the river and was essentially destroyed by the construction of modern-day Paducah, Kentucky. Proximate mound

92 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

centers on the Illinois side are few: the only other noted sites of respectable size (Tolu and Orr-Herl) are approximately 60 km upriver. This suggests that despite its size, Kincaid may not have operated politically like complex Mississippian chiefdoms farther southeast, which have multitiered settlement hierarchies. Although a substantial bastioned palisade was erected to encompass Kincaid, heterogeneity in the ceramic, landscape, and architectural aspects of the site suggests that subcommunities existed that were not yet fully integrated with one another (Brennan 2014). Some of these differences are related to status or kinship roles within a community that developed in situ from the Early phase. The subtle ways in which Kincaid’s residents made and lived in the world around them resulted in heterogeneous communities of practice. Differences between the core neighborhoods and a physically isolated mound and habitation area at the western edge of the site, however, may be related to a “joiner” community making its short-lived debut in the Middle phase (sensu Blitz 1999). This area is referred to as West Mound. The West Mound settlement appears in many ways to differ from the contemporaneous neighborhoods adjacent to the Massac County mound group. These differences include lithic resources, the way houses are built, and the chaîne opératoire of ceramic manufacture. Physically, this community is distant as well, which is emphasized by the slough that separates West Mound from the main mound group. This slough holds standing water for parts of the year, creating a significant visual and physical divide. These data and the near absence of Early phase habitation indicate that Middle Kincaid was a period of great growth in the site’s history—a time of coming together and making Mississippian that many sites experienced earlier in the timeline of the region. Late Kincaid Not enough is known about the West Mound community to postulate whether its people were later integrated into the main mound communities or whether its members made an unsuccessful bid at maintaining their distinct community and went elsewhere. By ca. AD 1300, however, no trace of them remains. During the Late Kincaid or Tinsley Hill phase, we see greater similarities between ceramics throughout the site and more uniform architectural styles between neighborhoods. This homogeneity supports the notion of more unified social identities and the coalescence of various practices. The site itself becomes more compact as the palisade

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 93

constricts, leaving few houses outside of it. The contraction of the palisade has previously been considered a sign of decline in the site’s history (Cobb and Butler 2002), although the high density of structures within the Late Kincaid palisaded area may instead indicate a restructuring of the center to best address outside threats or shifts in power. Both may be the case, as many of the smaller outlying sites surrounding Kincaid cease to exist by the 1300s, while more specialized sites are founded in the uplands north of Kincaid (Butler 1991; Cobb and Butler 2006). Changes very late in the sequence may be tied to that regional exodus. What appear to be successful sociopolitical bids for power or status at Kincaid proper include the subsuming of multiple monuments into one, a fission from the long-established site grid by one neighborhood, and possible elite co-option of an egalitarian burial pattern. The shift in burial pattern includes the first appearance of inequality, as evidenced by grave goods. Dramatic increases in the size and scale of the central mounds with large special-use architecture suggest attempts by elites for much greater influence. It seems that these claims for power may in part be a reaction to the dissolution of Cahokia and the implications of that protracted event, although the results are distinctly local. Kincaid is not affected directly by the Cahokia diaspora. We have no evidence for diaspora populations from Cahokia appearing on site, even though as a historical event, the decline of Cahokia surely affected regional sociopolitics. The Late Kincaid construction boom, then, is likely a reaction to the fragmentation of Cahokia and the diaspora of its population, even if few of those people actually made Kincaid their new home. The nature and scale of Late Kincaid happenings may also have been an attempt to take advantage of the fractured social state, as some of the Black Bottom’s population were voting with their feet (sensu Sahlins 1972). The Transformation of Late Kincaid

Size and Scale of Late Monuments While Middle Kincaid represents the broadest areal extent of the site, it is in Late Kincaid that a reorganization of the central space creates a dramatic new claim to power. At present, the chronology indicates that around or beyond the beginning of the fourteenth century, Kincaid’s largest monuments increase immensely in size. Mound 10 started as two or more small

94 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

mounds that were fused into a low truncate platform later in the Middle phase. In the Late phase this low truncate is raised substantially into the 40,000 m3 edifice we know today. An elevated offset conical mound atop it, with a structure that appears residential in scale and assemblage, represents the largest monumentalized residence in the community throughout time. From the building atop this mound, the entire community is visible, and the expanding monument helps to effectively shrink and constrain the Late plaza from its maximum size of the Middle phase. As Mound 10 is built up along the northern plaza boundary, Mound 8 reaches nearly the same height in the southwestern corner of the plaza. The circular building atop Mound 8 is the single largest structure at Kincaid; at full capacity this structure could have held up to 850 people and towered as much as 16 m above the floodplain (Welch et al. 2008; Pursell 2016:203– 205, 245–253). This novel public building and a presumptive chief ’s house atop the conical projection of Mound 10 represent a startling shift in the organization of Kincaid’s core. They have a far greater visual impact and impact on movement during day-to-day life, as their construction (along with the addition of Mound 9 between them) also constrains the possible entrances into the public plaza. These changes to the site leave us with a more compact and formal plaza space, although one still large enough to house the entire proposed population (Muller 1978) of the surrounding Black Bottom. In the same period as this most dramatic mound building, a distinct increase in the complexity and number of grave goods occurs within the burial mound outside of the Pope County mound group. The previous burial pattern was egalitarian and was characterized by an emphasis on aquatic symbolism (Pursell 2009, 2016). The Late phase mound reveals co-option of the ancient Kincaid burial program by social elites making their new claims to power. They do so by adding more elaborations to the previously egalitarian program as a way to perform the growing hierarchy among the groups burying the dead. These latest burials at the site are the richest in grave goods and the richest in Cahokian goods as well, although the latter are still scant. Few Early burials have more than a single item (15 percent, or 7/84), and most are buried without any items at all. This is in stark contrast to the final Late burial phase, where 28 percent (17/60) of known burials have grave goods, and 5 of the 17 have multiple goods.

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 95

Site Layout and Terminal Kincaid

The Massac County plaza and platform mounds are clearly arranged along a grid, or “Kincaid Cross” (Pursell 2016:259–260), that includes a major and minor site axis oriented approximately 18 degrees west of north and 74 degrees east of north, respectively. Many structures apparent in magnetometry images of the plaza follow this orientation as well. This is a site structure that was presumably laid out early in the Mississippian period and observed throughout most of its history. Near the end of the Mississippian sequence, however, a single but sizable mound diverges from that pattern. The Douglas Mound is situated outside of but less than 50 m to the northwest of the Massac County mound and plaza group. It is oval, and its long axis is oriented approximately 50 degrees east of north. This is strikingly similar to the orientation of the North Ridge, a natural rise upon which many Late Kincaid houses and at least one supradomestic building were erected (Cole et al. 1951). Magnetometry survey reveals that those houses also follow the ridge orientation. The fact that houses are not aligned to the natural landscape at the earlier neighborhood atop the South Ridge suggests that the North Ridge community may be referencing the Douglas Mound itself in its arrangement. Regardless of the cause for this break from the grid, it is significant that the centuries-lived and agreed-upon orientation of Kincaid’s monuments was not honored near its final days. We know that construction of the Douglas Mound begins around the turn of the fourteenth century, hosting a rectangular structure on a low mound just outside of the plaza core (Campbell 2013; Welch 2013a, 2013b). A second mound phase is added early in the fifteenth century incorporating at least one Caborn-Welborn sherd, likely indicating this location (and the adjacent Mound 9, where Caborn-Welborn ceramics were also identified [Pursell 2016]) is either one of the last utilized areas of the Kincaid community before abandonment or that people briefly returned to Kincaid at some point after abandonment. With no clear evidence as to why, Kincaid is abandoned at or before AD 1450. The scarcity of Caborn-Welborn materials indicates that the site’s final population was minimal, but there are too few absolute dates to suggest when or how quickly was its final decline. Contemporaneously, a broad region referred to by Williams (1990) as the Vacant Quarter was abandoned, emptying an area from just north of the American Bottom, south to the Missouri Bootheel, and east to the confluence of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers.

96 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Meanwhile, in the Uplands

Concurrent with the height of Kincaid’s complexity (the 1300s), the lower Ohio Valley generally underwent a slow depopulation. Evidence for the movement of those peoples is limited but provides important clues to understanding how events at both Kincaid and Cahokia affected the decisions and demographics of the region. The work of Cobb (2000) and Cobb and Butler (2002, 2006) shows that at least some of the valley’s population moved into the nearby uplands north of Kincaid for the 50–150 years at the end of the regional sequence. At the same time, the bottomlands immediately adjacent to Kincaid were also vacated of their small hamlets and farmsteads. People either moved into or decidedly away from the region’s major polity in what these and more recently available data are proving was a tumultuous time in far southern Illinois. Research that postdates Cobb and Butler’s uplands work indicates that mound construction certainly continues beyond AD 1300 at Kincaid (contra Cobb and Butler 2002:627). This means that Kincaid’s apparent peak of population and sociopolitical aggrandizing is contemporaneous with the Dogtooth Bend, Twin Mounds, and Late Wickliffe settlements farther downstream. Thus, these communities and other single mound centers nearby do not “postdate the zenith of Kincaid’s complexity and presumed authority” (Cobb and Butler 2002:628), but instead, Kincaid’s zenith and the creation or continuance of other regional centers occur in tandem. We would not argue for Kincaid exerting direct control over any of these, nor would we necessarily call them “secondary centers,” as the nature and extent of Kincaid’s influence have not been demonstrated. However, these data indicate that substantive shuffling of populations and mound construction both occur along the lower Ohio River and nearby during the reorganization, depopulation, and decline of Cahokia. Similarly, our perspective that major expansion and construction are Middle and Late phase phenomena mean that Kincaid’s growth lags behind that of the upstream Angel Mounds site rather than preceding it, as previously thought. This is supported by recent research at Angel that indicates some of the major construction there substantively predates the major construction at Kincaid (Krus et al. 2013; Monaghan and Peebles 2010; Monaghan et al. 2013). Following a regional reorganization in the 1200s and early 1300s, depopulation of the lower Ohio alluvial zone begins while new sites are established in the nearby uplands. Dillow’s Ridge, Hayes Creek, and Millstone Bluff are very clearly dated to the later portions of the Kincaid sequence and

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 97

continue post-1400 (Cobb 2000; Cobb and Butler 2002; Kruchten 2004), while occupation at Kincaid post-1400 has been documented in very limited locales. In other words, recent work that shifts the dating of “big Kincaid” to later in the sequence has implications for the cause (and effect) of the foundation of upland communities during and beyond Kincaid’s period of dominance. Cahokian Influence?

The timing of these changes follows the Moorehead phase decline and dispersal that took place in the American Bottom, but apparently not very closely, based on the limited dates for the Late phase at Kincaid. Cahokia may have something to do with the apparent sociopolitical changes at Kincaid, but there is not enough evidence to posit causation; rather, the timing suggests influence and opportunity. It is clear that the social climate and material associations during Late Kincaid change in a way that parallels the earlier Stirling phase developments at Cahokia—namely in that material culture reaches its peak homogeneity, and mound building is ever increasingly a focal activity—yet this coalescent stage could easily be a development tied to the local history of the Black Bottom. In relative terms, Kincaid is not terribly far from Cahokia and much closer than many of the far-flung destinations with which Cahokia established and maintained contact and exchange networks. Yet there is surprisingly little evidence for direct or continued contact between the two centers. The quantity of Cahokian trade goods identified at Kincaid is negligible (less than 0.0003 percent of ceramics, for example). Tables 4.1 and 4.2 include a list of all presently recorded trade goods that may possibly originate at Cahokia or in the American Bottom, although many of these items also occur elsewhere and are not firm indicators of Cahokian contact. Original chronological claims about the trade goods by the University of Chicago, advised by James Griffin, have proven unreliable. Powell Plain and Monks Mound Red are not useful chronological markers within the Mississippian period for Kincaid, given that those wares or very similar ceramics occur throughout the sequence. Ramey Incised is a more useful guide. The original Kincaid report (Cole et al. 1951:150–151) states that Ramey was found in Early Kincaid contexts, but reexamination of these contexts finds them to be ambiguous or Middle and Late contexts. These could either be contemporaneous with Cahokia’s Ramey production during the Stirling and very early Moorehead phases or, more likely, indicative of curated Ramey goods

98 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Table 4.1. Items that may indicate an American Bottom source Number of Items

Possible Trade / Prestige Good

Provenience

Kincaid Phase

Tennessee Cumberland Phase

178

microblade industry Burlington chert

Fluorite Workshop JM-10

Middle or Late Kincaid Late Kincaid

Angelly to Tinsley Hill Tinsley Hill

Unclear

Ramey knife

Mxf36A

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

Unclear

1

St. Francois basalt celt “seed jar”

Mx08

Mxv1D East

Early to Middle Kincaid Middle or Late Kincaid

Jonathan Creek to Angelly Angelly to Tinsley Hill

2

Burlington chert

Mxv1E

Any

Any

likely Lohmann to Stirling Terminal Late Woodland to Stirling Any

3

Ramey knives

Pp02, top

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

Unclear

2

beakers

Pp02,

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

1

beaker

Ppv1A

Unknown

Unknown

3

Burlington chert

West Mound

Middle Kincaid Angelly

Lohmann to Moorehead Lohmann to Moorehead Any

1 1 1

base

top

Cahokia Phase

Any

during the Late Kincaid phase. No matter how one evaluates this data, Cahokian imports were few and far between at Kincaid. Evidence for trade from Kincaid to Cahokia is similarly sparse. Kincaid sits near both a major source of fluorite, a gemlike mineral that was locally prized for its appearance, workability, and ritual associations (see Boles 2012; Wolforth and Wolforth 2000), and to cannel coal, which is similarly a favored crafting material in the Black Bottom that is easily carved and can be polished to a lustrous finish. The fluorite recorded at Cahokia likely originates from lower Ohio River sources, but only 38 pieces from a total of seven sites have been recorded in the American Bottom region (Boles 2012:87), despite the fact that Cahokia clearly has access to other exotic crafting materials from a wide array of foreign places. The low quantity of fluorite may indicate that it is not commonly part of the elite prestige goods exchange of Cahokia, or that Kincaid was exerting control of fluorite resources (Boles 2012:100; see also Brown et al. 1990:255–256). The former is supported by the fact that fluorite has only been recorded at post-AD 1150 sites and primarily in Moorehead phase contexts near Cahokia (see Boles 2012:Table 1).

Table 4.2. Items almost certainly from an American Bottom source

Provenience Kincaid Phase

Tennessee Cumberland Phase

beaker, var. Tippets Incised Ramey Incised sherd

Mxf36

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

Mxf36D

Late Kincaid

1

Ramey Incised sherd

Mx04

Any

5

Cahokia Cord Marked vessel beaker, var. Tippets Incised Ramey Incised sherd

Mx04

Any

Mx04

Any

Mx07

Any

Number of Items 1 1

2 1 1 1 4 3 1 ? 1 3 1 1

Possible Trade / Prestige Good

Cahokia Phase

Cahokia tri-notch Mx09 made of Burlington Ramey Incised Mxv1A sherd

Late Kincaid

Stirling or Moorehead Tinsley Hill Stirling or Moorehead pre-1250 Angelly to Tins- Stirling or ley Hill Moorehead pre-1250 Any Moorehead / Sand Prairie Any Stirling or Moorehead Any Stirling or Moorehead pre-1250 Tinsley Hill Any

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

Mxv1A

Late Kincaid

Mxv1C

Late Kincaid

Mxv1C

Late Kincaid

beaker sherds, var. Tippets Incised Cahokia Cord Marked vessel beaker, var. Tippets Incised beaker, var. Tippets Incised Ramey Incised sherd

Late Kincaid

Tinsley Hill

Unknown

Unknown

Mxv1D

Middle or Late Kincaid Mxv1D East Middle to Late Kincaid

Cahokia tri-notch Plaza made of Burlington Ramey Incised Pp02, top sherd beaker, var. Tippets Incised

Any

Stirling or Moorehead pre-1250 Tinsley Hill Stirling or Moorehead Tinsley Hill Moorehead / Sand Prairie Tinsley Hill Stirling or Moorehead Angelly to Tins- Stirling or ley Hill Moorehead Angelly to Tins- Stirling or ley Hill Moorehead pre-1250 Any Any

Ppv1A

Stirling or Moorehead pre-1250 Stirling or Moorehead

100 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

In sum, Kincaid appears resistant to the changes promoted from Cahokia, showing little evidence of trade and less evidence of the Cahokian ideological package. Local iconography emphasizes a distinct body of symbolism and even culture-heroes distinct from those honored in Cahokian artwork (Boles 2011, 2012). Vernacular architecture (Brennan 2007), community organization (Pursell 2016), burial practices (Pursell 2009, 2016), and the site hierarchy (Butler 1977, 1991; Muller 1976) are all either distinctly local or show ties to regions east and west of Kincaid, rather than to Cahokia. Given the timing of Mississippianization throughout the region and the site’s geographical proximity to Cahokia, this is surely an active decision; not only does Kincaid develop independently, Kincaid is actively resistant to Cahokia’s power (sensu Gramsci 1971; Emerson 1997a). Kincaid is defiantly not part of the Cahokian hegemony, and during Cahokia’s later Stirling and early Moorehead phases, Kincaid is the most powerful rival to Cahokia’s influence in the Middle Mississippian region. This does not mean they were adversaries, although palisade construction does occur at both polities at the same time, only that Kincaid is resolutely independent and distinct, its people partially defining themselves and their identities in contrast to Cahokia (sensu Barth 1969; Meskell 2002). Instead of looking to the northwest, we find closer connections between Kincaid and other sites to the east and south. As noted by the original Chicago researchers (Cole et al. 1951:299) and by Jon Muller (1986:179), Kincaid’s ceramics are most like wares at Angel Mounds, especially in their plainness (compare Brennan 2014 to McGill 2013). However, recent research at these two sites shows that the ceramics and site histories are very different, despite their original moniker of “sister sites.” There are also clear stylistic ties between Kincaid’s ceramics and those of the Central Mississippi River Valley and Tennessee Cumberland regions, especially toward the end of Kincaid’s sequence (Clay 1979; Riordan 1975; Muller 1986:180–185). Instead of items and esoterica from Greater Cahokia, it was events occurring there that affected the historical trajectory and subsequent political climate at Kincaid. One of these events was the diaspora following the “Moorehead Moment” (Brown 2001b) ca. AD 1200, which ultimately leaves a very small population in Greater Cahokia by the Sand Prairie phase ca. AD 1400 (although other population pressures should be considered when discussing that region’s final population). Archaeologists have some guesses about where this population went but no final answers, and it is likely that the fragmentation of Cahokia and the beginnings of the development of the Vacant Quarter led to people scattering to many and distant places.

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 101

Whether the process counts as a “diaspora” depends on how one defines the term and on which interpretation of Cahokia’s decline one favors. “Diaspora” traditionally refers to the outmigration of specifically ethnic Jewish populations, maintaining at least a symbolic link to a real or mythic homeland. Some variant on this definition stretches back into antiquity (Baumann 2000). The term was substantively redefined in the context of African studies to conceptualize the results of the African slave trade within the context of (primarily) European colonialism (Shepperson 1966). With this enforced expatriation and a longing for a real or mythic homeland being the common link, “diaspora” became a popular framework for discussions of displaced or migrant communities. In the latter twentieth century and more recently the term has come to be so broadly applied that it is used synonymously with any process of population dispersion and/or any dislocated or resettled community (Baumann 2000; Tölölyan 1996). The original connotations are no longer requirements for use of the word, now used in common parlance to refer to any expatriate national, ethnic, or religious group. This semantic broadening makes the term difficult to utilize archaeologically, particularly given the challenges of detecting identity archaeologically (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Here we follow the definitions and characteristics of archaeologically documented diasporas described by Owen (2005) (victim/refugee; imperial/colonial; labor/service; trade/business/professional), building on the work of Cohen (1997). Depending on one’s view of the decline of Cahokia, one could describe this as a “victim” or “refugee” diaspora (Owen 2005), as the Cahokians are fragmented and exiled by circumstance, maintaining a memory of their homeland. If this is the case, we see no evidence of any such refugees at Kincaid, and Cahokia’s disintegration diaspora does not in any visible or direct way show up at Kincaid. It is entirely possible that a few Cahokian migrants do arrive in the Black Bottom, but fully assimilate into the extant Mississippian populations. During the Lohmann and Stirling phases, Cahokia likely shows evidence of a “colonizing” diaspora (Owen 2005). The terminology could be disputed in the sense that Cahokia is not analogous to the imperialistic colonial European states typically described, and it is not clear that Cahokia is subduing or conquering and exploiting indigenous populations in the same way that these powers did. However, we do not have a better term for this apparent process, in which intrusive settlements of Cahokians with clear Cahokian material culture show up amid indigenous populations in the far north and perhaps in the south and northwest as well. There is similarly

102 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Figure 4.3. Microtools from the Fluorite Workshop. (Photo courtesy of Michael L. Walker)

no evidence for something like this at Kincaid, which is unaffected by (and presumably resistant to) major intrusions. At least two subcommunities of practice within Kincaid’s borders may, however, be the result of a general population shuffle affected by a Cahokian diaspora, one of which is West Mound. This is not to say that populations throughout southern Illinois began to move because droves of Cahokian migrants were hitting the path. In fact, data indicate that the exodus from Cahokia was modest and gradual (Milner 1986), yet the fact that people chose to leave as drastic changes occurred in the sociopolitical structure of society there certainly weighed on the decisions of settlers farther afield. Another recently documented subcommunity includes a Late Kincaid group of people tucked along the northernmost boundary of the site (Welch et al. 2015), which provides more direct evidence of Cahokian contact if not eventual immigration to Kincaid. Magnetometry survey reveals that the

Kincaid Mounds and the Cahokian Decline · 103

houses in this area were isolated from the bulk of Kincaid’s domestic occupation. A microtool industry with blade and core technology was practiced in the workshop area there and used for production of fluorite ornaments and artwork, as well as for the working of cannel coal. While the chert tools used for the production of these objects are made of a distinct local (nonCahokian) chert type and the fluorite is also sourced locally to the Ohio River Valley, the technology is identical to core and blade technologies seen at Cahokia (Ramsey and Butler 2015) (Figure 4.3). “This small and marginalized subcommunity with a distinct material culture and possessing an apparent economic focus” (Cohen 1997:26) fits the description of a trade diaspora (Owen 2005). In their artistic creativity we see “the possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism” (Cohen 1997:26). In their marginal location adjacent to the palisade we may see “a troubled relationship with host societies” (Cohen 1997:26), although it is also possible that fluorite working possessed uniquely threatening properties and had to be marginalized for that reason (see Wolforth and Wolforth 2000). In their distinct identity and economic activity we may see “the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions” (Cohen 1997:26). However, the knowledge of fluorite sources and its properties as crafting material had been established at Kincaid well prior to the advent of this workshop. Until we know more, we are left with a puzzle: Is this an economic diaspora community from Cahokia that adapted their knowledge to locally available symbols and materials? Is this an independent development, coincidentally like Cahokian technologies because of the physical limitations of the chert materials themselves? Or is this a skilled group of craftspeople/ritualists from Kincaid who had sought out training from Cahokian specialists? If it is the first of these, here we have our only passable evidence for the impact of the “Cahokia hegemony” on Kincaid, expressed in terms of economic and symbolic capital. If this is the case, new questions are raised. Such trade diasporas are more typical in the context of market economies and are a distinct consequence of market and capitalist production. Mississippian economic models do not lend themselves to this sort of practice. As our grasp of Cahokia’s complexity grows, its divergence from these models should not shock us, but we must consider the possibility of a Cahokian trade diaspora (or analogous process) into polities too powerful, influential, or distant to be colonized.

104 · Tamira K. Brennan and Corin C. O. Pursell

Conclusion

Kincaid Mounds, like all Mississippian centers, was intimately tied to a network of other sites throughout its history. As the sixth largest Mississippian mound center, it was a primary referent for many of these, yet Kincaid was not premiere in and of itself. Its rise, decline, and everything in between were tied to happenings in the broader Mississippian world and perhaps indirectly to events at Cahokia, as we have argued here. As Cahokia loses its place as the dominant polity of the Midwest or Middle Mississippian region ca. AD 1200, Kincaid grows to its fullest extent. Its boundaries later retract, and a clear distancing of populations occurs as the Black Bottom is otherwise vacated while substantial sites are founded in the uplands, ca. AD 1300. As this shuffle occurs, increasing claims for political power are evident at Kincaid in its architecture and burial program. Cahokian referents are invoked in the use of American Bottom items in Black Bottom graves and perhaps in some mound-building activities, although the results are distinctly local. It is even more likely that the sociopolitical happenings during the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries are aftereffects of Cahokia’s reorganization, collapse, and dispersal (some variant of a “refugee diaspora”). Specifically, this politically unstable period of fragmentation created a new political landscape with which the people of Kincaid could engage in a way that Cahokia’s previous dominance had apparently precluded. Kincaid is a less powerful polity and does not exert influence at a great distance, unlike Cahokia. Despite that difference, it is clear that Kincaid defines itself in opposition to Cahokian Mississippian and is persistent in the face of Cahokia’s failure. Although Kincaid’s persistence and influence do not save it from the same fate that all Vacant Quarter sites meet by the late fifteenth century, it is, for a century or more, the most powerful center in the Midsouth.

II THE NORTH The Upper Mississippi River Valley

5 Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland John D. Richards

Cahokia’s Northern Hinterland

Major concentrations of Cahokian-related material can be found east of the Mississippi River between the central Illinois River valley on the south and the confluence of the Mississippi and Trempealeau Rivers on the north. This region is here referred to as Cahokia’s “Northern Hinterlands.” The northern tier of these hinterlands can be thought of as that portion between Apple River and Trempeauleau, extending eastward to the western shores of Lake Michigan. Although scattered occurrences of Cahokian Mississippian material culture occur throughout central and northern Wisconsin (Finney 2013:131–147; Green 1997; Hall 1962; Overstreet 2000), as far east as the Straits of Mackinac (McPherron 1967), and as far north as Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula on the south shore of Lake Superior (Cremin 1980; Dorothy 1980), major Mississippian presence seems limited to areas of the Upper Mississippi River Valley (UMRV) south of the confluence with the Trempealeau River. Moreover, with the exception of Cambria, located on the Minnesota River, and perhaps the least Mississippianized of the northern sites (Mollerud 2016), major sites are located on or within close proximity to the main trench of the Mississippi River. The conspicuous exception is Aztalan, situated on the west bank of the Crawfish River in southeast Wisconsin some 215 river miles (344 km) from the Mississippi (Figure 5.1). Within the northern hinterland a number of archaeological sites appear directly related to the eleventh-century emergence of the Cahokia polity but exhibit diversity in temporal range of occupation, landscape setting,

108 · John D. Richards

Figure 5.1. Selected northern hinterland site locations.

and suggested relationship to Cahokia. The following comparison focuses on three of the more well known Wisconsin sites/complexes and includes brief descriptions of the Trempealeau locale and the Fred Edwards site, followed by a more detailed account of the Aztalan site. Trempealeau Area

The Trempealeau area includes the Trempealeau Site Complex and the Fisher Mounds Site Complex. The Trempealeau complex includes the Little Bluff platform mounds (47TR32) as well as the Pelkey (47TR415), Uhl 47TR159), and Squier Garden (47TR156) sites. The Little Bluff mounds are situated on a regionally unique landmark elevated more than 50 m above the main channel of the Mississippi River. The Trempealeau location may

Figure 5.2. Aztalan site layout. (LiDAR data courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

110 · John D. Richards

have been chosen to exploit the unique viewscape associated with the Trempealeau Mountain/Little Bluff locale (Pauketat et al. 2015a). Work by the Mississippian Initiative Project determined that the previously reported three bluff-top mounds are actually “a central platform (Mound 1) flanked by opposing terraces from which extend short causeways leading to the northwest and southeast” (Pauketat et al. 2015a:274). Wall trench structures similar to Lohmann phase buildings in the American Bottom were present at Squier Garden and Uhl, and at least three building episodes were documented. Similarities to structures considered to represent shrines in the Cahokia area suggested to Pauketat et al. (2015a) that the Trempealeau complex represents a Cahokian shrine and/or mission site. The excavators suggest that the low frequency of storage pits, lack of substantial midden debris, and characteristics of the ceramic and lithic assemblage are evidence for the nondomestic nature of the buildings. The Fisher Mounds Site Complex (47VE825), located 45 km south of Little Bluff, is situated on the Stoddard Terrace near the mouth of Coon Creek, a location that would have been on a side channel of the Mississippi River prior to modern lock-and-dam construction (Arzigian 2015). The location is also coincident with what Boszhardt and Goetz (2000) have labeled a “no-man’s-land” between two Late Woodland Effigy Mound phases situated north and south of the Coon Creek drainage. The Fisher Mounds Site Complex harbors Early, Middle, and Late Woodland components as well as Mississippian and Oneota occupations. According to Benden (2004), the site was occupied early in Cahokia’s development and may have been a series of short-term warm-weather habitations geared toward construction and support of the Trempealeau complex. Fisher also appears to be the earliest Cahokian presence yet identified in the UMRV and suggests a late Edelhardt phase pre-Mississippian entrada into the area followed by continued episodic occupations throughout the Lohmann phase (see Hall 1991 for a discussion of calibrated Cahokia phases). Neither the Trempealeau nor Fisher locale has produced evidence of use during Stirling times, and the occupations in both locales appear to have ended prior to AD 1100. Neither Fisher nor Trempealeau has produced evidence of a defensive palisade. Both the Trempealeau and Fisher Mounds occupations are notable for very limited evidence of local Late Woodland and Mississippian interaction. Toolstone and pottery seem to have been imported along with the Cahokians, and little use was made of locally available resources.

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 111

Fred Edwards

In sharp contrast to the Trempealeau/Fisher Mounds case, the Fred Edwards site (47GR377) is located in Grant County some 200 km south of the Trempealeau area and 13 km inland from the main stem of the Mississippi River in the unglaciated Driftless Area of Wisconsin. The site’s location on a terrace of the Grant River has been described as isolated (Finney and Stoltman 1991) but may have been selected partly due to its location within Wisconsin’s portion of the Lead District, a galena-rich area extending into Illinois and Iowa (Schafer 1932). The site location was likely covered by deciduous forest at the time of occupation, but Finney (2013) suggests that a range of productive environments were likely present within a 1 km catchment of the site. Finney and Stoltman (1991) have characterized Fred Edwards as a Late Woodland site unit intrusion possibly from the Hartley Fort area of Iowa or the central Illinois River valley. Fred Edwards lacks mounds but is palisaded with single post structures set over semisubterranean basins arranged around a central courtyard. The Cahokian connection is via Stirling phase Cahokian pottery types, including Powell Plain, Ramey Incised, and Cahokia Red-filmed pots, which account for about 25 percent of the ceramic assemblage. However, almost half of the Fred Edwards vessels are attributable to a grit-tempered cord-impressed Late Woodland tradition, and the remaining pots are either types exotic to the area or a hybrid blend of Woodland and Mississippian vogues. The nonceramic material culture assemblage is likewise a mix of local and exotic items, including galena, copper, Hixton silicified sandstone, catlinite, and southern toolstones such as Burlington, Dongola, Kaolin, and Mill Creek cherts (Finney and Stoltman 1991:248). Based on high numbers of arrow points and endscrapers exhibiting dry hide polish, the Fred Edwards inhabitants are seen as suppliers of a Cahokia-driven demand for hides and galena. Aztalan

The Aztalan site (47JE1) is a palisaded mound and village complex (Barrett 1933; Birmingham and Goldstein 2005; Goldstein and Freeman 1997; Richards 1992) situated on the west bank of the Crawfish River in southeastern Wisconsin (Figure 5.2), a location that, though even more isolated than

112 · John D. Richards

Fred Edwards, could be reached from Cahokia via a 300 river mile (483 km) journey on the Mississippi and Rock Rivers. From this point, Aztalan’s location is an additional 215 river miles (344 km) up the Rock River. Aztalan’s landscape setting is marked by a prominent glacial ice channel ridge that forms the western border of the site and overlooks a sloping basin elevated above the steeply sloping riverbank on the site’s eastern border (Kolb 2015). The palisaded portion of the site is contained within this landform. Prehistorically, Aztalan’s location was situated within an extensive span of oak savanna, while land east of the river supported a mixed broadleaf deciduous forest (Goldstein and Kind 1987; Richards and Jeske 2002) that would be a ready source of the more than 7,000 telephone pole–size posts needed to construct the palisade (Richards 1992). A rich local biota would have provided a wide range of plant and animal resources. In addition to its natural features, Aztalan’s pre-Mississippian setting was already a cultural landscape marked by episodic but persistent use for almost 10,000 years and transformed by the construction of Middle Woodland burial mounds and Late Woodland effigy mounds. A smaller earthwork and mound complex is located on the east bank of the Crawfish River opposite the southern limits of the west bank site and has produced Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Mississippian materials (Goldstein and Gaff 2002). Thomas Zych and I have characterized Aztalan’s site setting as within a landscape of mounds that once included effigy, conical, and platform types (Richards and Zych 2018). However, Aztalan’s site structure is dominated by flat-topped pyramidal mounds arranged in all four corners of a roughly rectangular 9 ha (22 acre) area surrounded by wooden palisades (Richards 2007a). A 2.5 ha (6 acre) domestic compound is located adjacent to the west bank of the Crawfish River, while the central portion of the site appears to have been an open, plazalike area. It remains unclear if the multiple palisade lines were contemporary or sequent constructions (Pfaffenroth 2018; Richards 1992; Schroeder and Goldstein 2015). A linear alignment of conical mounds elevated 15–20 m above the central portion of the site follows the trend of the ice channel ridge northwest of the palisade (Figure 5.3a). Although this alignment once stretched north for almost one-quarter mile (Lapham 1855), only 10 mounds remain. One of the northern-most mounds in the group, located about one-quarter mile north of the Aztalan site, contained the famous “Princess Burial” (Barrett 1933). The burial was the inhumation of a young woman, 25–30 years of

Figure 5.3. Major conical and platform mounds at the Aztalan site: a, ridgeline conical mounds; b, southwest platform; c, northwest platform; d, northeast platform; e, southwest mound.

114 · John D. Richards

age (Rudolph 2009; Zejdlik 2014). Over 1,700 shell beads, presumably sewn into three beltlike garments, were recovered from the burial. Beads were made of both freshwater mussel shell and marginella from marine waters. Similar beads were manufactured at Cahokia (Trubitt 2000) and have been recovered also from the Aztalan site (Richards 1992), but this appears to be the only link between Mississippian Aztalan and the Princess Burial. The remaining 10 mounds closer to the site also were excavated by Barrett (1933:227–240) but contained no burials. Barrett (1933:229–237) did find evidence of large posts in five mounds (XX-4, XX-5, XX-6, XX-8, and XXI2). Two mounds (XX-3 and XXI-2) contained large “boulders,” and dug pits were observed in mounds XX-3 and XXI-4. A fireplace or hearth was present in mound XX-3, and a possible structure basin lined with birch bark and containing a “spirit stone” was encountered in mound XXI-7 (Barrett 1933:240) (Figure 5.3a). Recent radiocarbon dating of the ridgetop mounds suggests that their construction aligns with the Mississippian occupation of the site (Richards 2007a). The Southwest Mound is a 5 m high, terraced, three-stage construction sited to take advantage of a terrace spur extending east from the lip of the basin that harbors the site (Maher 1958). The landscape situation thus makes the mound appear much more massive than it actually is. Single post structures were erected on the summit of each construction stage. Excavated portions of the mound did not contain human burials except for an interment that was intrusive from the mound’s summit (Figure 5.3b). The Northwest platform is a simple 3 m high truncated pyramid constructed in three stages. The summit of the second stage supported a semisubterranean mortuary facility or charnel house that contained the extended skeletons of 10 individuals and the bundled bones of an 11th (Rowe 1958). The bodies were arranged on mats woven of bulrush and shrouded with bast textiles (Johnsen 2003). Grave goods included a copper bead, a chert biface, a bag of hickory nuts, and a shell-tempered Mississippian seed jar (Richards 2007b; Rowe 1958). The structure was burned and capped with the final stage of mound construction. Cranial vault release suggests that the extended burials were in flesh at the time of the conflagration (Rudolph 2009:107). Recent strontium isotope analysis of these burials suggests ratios typical of the local area, the American Bottom, and an unknown region. Directly south of the Northwest Mound, Goldstein has identified an area she describes as a sculpted surface pocked with pit features containing refuse as well as human remains. This “sculptuary” appears to be associated

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 115

with use of the Northwest Mound as a mortuary facility (Goldstein and Gaff 2002) (Figure 5.3c). The Northeast Mound is a low (ca. 2 m high) truncated platform located in the northern extreme of the domestic area. Like the other two platforms at the site, the Northeast Mound was built into the surrounding landscape. Based on Zych’s (2013, 2015a) reconstruction of the unpublished 1960s-era Wisconsin Historical Society excavations, the mound was constructed over a large (ca. 300 m2) structure built using both single-post and wall trench construction techniques. Ceramics from submound features are almost entirely Late Woodland uncollared and collared varieties. Prior to the construction of the mound over a prepared base, a pit was dug, into which was placed a large Late Woodland Starved Rock Collared pot in an inverted position. Initial mound construction involved the building up of a series of horizontal layers consisting of alternating bands of light and dark sediments deposited to a height of about 1 m, then capped with basketloads of earth. Prior to leveling and capping of the summit, five vessels were placed in the mound fill oriented in a line extending along the east–west axis of the platform. These deposits contained Late Woodland, Cahokian/ Mississippian, and hybrid pots. The summit of the northeast platform supported a large rectangular structure oriented to the long axis of the mound. Zych’s analysis of the Northeast Mound ceramics suggests a typologically and compositionally diverse assemblage composed of local vessels and foreign imports (Zych 2013, 2015a). The University of Wisconsin–Madison’s 2013 excavations into the mound recovered submound radiocarbon samples that date the beginning of mound construction to 880±30 BP (BETA 360270) and 890±30 BP (Beta 360268). Taken together these dates suggest a 2-sigma cal. range of AD 1040 to 1220 (Picard and Richards 2014) (Figure 5.3d). The fourth mound in Aztalan’s site structure is actually a small glacial kame located due east of the southwest platform (Figure 5.3e). Recent work by Lynne Goldstein (2015) and Michael Kolb (2015) has demonstrated that the slopes and summit of the natural feature were modified to resemble a truncated platform. In addition, a number of large pit features on the summit of the mound contained what may be the residue of feasting and ritual practices, including the deposition of copper items and other exotica. Aztalan’s material culture contains a mix of Late Woodland and Mississippian artifacts. Mississippian pottery accounts for about half of the

116 · John D. Richards

vessels in the Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) collection of materials excavated by Barrett (Richards 1992, 2003). Types and vessel forms include most of the Late Lohmann and Stirling phase types known from Cahokia and American Bottom sites. To date I have seen no pottery easily assignable to Moorehead, Sand Prairie, or Oneota times, although Brown (Brown et al. 1967) has noted the presence of a Langford Ware sherd in the MPM collection. Paste analysis by James Stoltman (1991a) has demonstrated that some of the Mississippian vessels were manufactured from American Bottom pastes, while others are local copies of Ramey Incised, Powell Plain, and Cahokia Red-filmed jars, bowls, and seed jars. Ramey Incised motifs on the Aztalan pots are a subset of Cahokian motifs (Richards 2003), although Mollerud (2005) has noted a similarity to Apple River Ramey Incised variants as well. The MPM collection, as well as collections housed at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, also contains a series of red-and-white-zoned seed jars similar to examples thus far found only in sub–Mound 51 borrow pit contexts at the Cahokia site (Pauketat et al. 2002; Richards 2007b; Richards et al. 2010). Grit-tempered cord-roughened ceramics are dominated by collared ware vessels of the types Aztalan Collared and Starved Rock Collared. Hybrid vessels of the type Hyer Plain, smoothsurfaced versions of Mississippian jar forms rendered in grit-tempered pastes, are common also. A small set of rims suggestive of Maples Mills pottery and/or examples similar to French Creek Cord Impressed is present in the MPM collection, and additional examples have been recovered by later excavations as well (Richards 2003). The lithic assemblage is dominated by small triangular points, some with basal notching in the Cahokia style, as well as isosceles forms. Raw material is predominantly local varieties of cherts (Oneota, Platteville, and Prairie du Chien), with minor amounts of Burlington, Mill Creek, and Cochrane varieties (Maher and Baerreis 1958; Sampson 2008). Mill Creek hoes and hoe chips have been recovered from the site as well as various groundstone hammers, axes, and celts. The material culture inventory also includes earspools of Baraboo pipestone and catlinite as well as copper foil–covered ceramic examples (Barrett 1933; Maxwell 1952; Richards et al. 2008), chunkey stones—some in the Cahokia style (Zych 2015b)—shell beads cut from freshwater mussels as well as marine shell (Barrett 1933; Richards 1992), the base of a Cahokian-style figurine (Birmingham and Emerson 2011), and two copper god maskettes (Williams and Goggin 1956). In sum, the material culture suggests derivation from Cahokia (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Selected artifacts from the Aztalan site. (All courtesy of Milwaukee Public Museum except chipped stone points, UWM Archaeological Research Laboratory [J. D. Richards photos])

118 · John D. Richards

The current radiocarbon record from the Aztalan site consists of 71 assays submitted over a period of 55 years to eight different labs. A suite of 23 assays that should reliably date the Mississippian occupation has a 2-sigma pooled range of cal. AD 1040–1160 and thus spans the Lohmann and Stirling phases in the American Bottom (Richards and Jeske 2002). However, earlier radiocarbon dates as well as stratigraphic evidence suggest a late tenth-century, pre-Mississippian occupation by Late Woodland collared ware producers. Excavations conducted by Lynne Goldstein and myself into stratified midden deposits (Richards 1985, 1992) demonstrated that pure Late Woodland collared ware deposits (Stratum 11) formed the initial depositional unit in the midden. Stratum 11 was stratigraphically inferior to deposits containing a mix of Late Woodland and Mississippian ceramics; corn from a feature within Stratum 11 has been dated to 910±30 BP (BETA 318431) or 2-sigma cal. AD 1030–1200 (Picard 2013). Krus’s recent analysis of Mississippian palisade constructions suggests that Aztalan’s palisade was constructed between cal. AD 1080 and 1160 with a use life of cal. AD 1120–1230 (Krus 2016). If Krus is right, the Aztalan palisade predates that of Cahokia and would be the earliest example of a bastioned palisade known (Krus 2016:381). Unpublished data suggest that the palisade was burned and rebuilt at least once. A date of 740±30 BP (BETA 360269) from the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s 2013 excavations of a riverbank bastion suggests a burning episode at 2-sigma cal. AD 1220–1290 and may mark the abandonment of the palisaded site (Picard and Richards 2014). Thus, the current date set suggests an initial late tenth-century occupation by Late Woodland collared ware producers followed by a post-AD 1050 arrival of Mississippians. The major Cahokia-related Mississippian occupation occurred during the twelfth century and likely ended in the early to mid-thirteenth century. Although this date range spans Moorehead times (cal. AD 1200–1275) in the American Bottom, Aztalan’s material culture inventory offers no evidence of interaction with Cahokia or other Mississippian groups following the end of the Stirling phase in the American Bottom. Cahokia’s “Big Bang” in the Northern Hinterland

The substantial differences between the four sites discussed above are likely a result of timing relative to Cahokia’s emergence as well as purpose. A Mississippian presence in the Fisher Mounds area appears to slightly predate

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 119

Cahokia’s “Big Bang” (Pauketat et al. 2015a:269) and continues through the early Mississippian Lohmann phase. The Trempealeau Mounds area seems to be a primarily Lohman phase occupation as well. Evidence for later Stirling phase connections at either Fisher Mounds or Trempealeau is lacking. This supports Pauketat et al.’s (2015a) claim that the Trempealeau area occupation was in some way a part of the emergence of Cahokia as a major center. In any case, the Fisher Mounds and Trempealeau area sites appear to represent the earliest and perhaps the most short-lived Cahokian presence in the Northern Tier. Based on radiocarbon dates and material culture, the Fred Edwards site appears to have been primarily occupied during Stirling times, with some occupation likely well into the thirteenth century (Finney 1993:348). As is the case with Aztalan, Fred Edwards contexts include mixed Late Woodland/Mississippian deposits that make it difficult to assign specific features solely to Late Woodland or Mississippian authorship. Unpublished and published dates for Aztalan (Goldstein and Gaff 2002; Harrison and Goldstein 2015; Picard and Richards 2014; Richards and Jeske 2002) suggest that Mississippian Aztalan was founded on an existing Late Woodland occupation that may have been in place during the mid to late tenth century AD. While some radiocarbon dates overlap pre-Mississippian times, material culture suggests Mississippian interaction and possibly presence, no earlier than mid-to-late Lohmann times. Radiocarbon dates suggest continuing occupation into the mid-to-late thirteenth century, but ceramic type frequencies suggest that the major occupation occurred during Cahokia’s Stirling phase, with no evidence of Moorehead phase interaction. Consequently, an approximate temporal seriation of these sites would place Fisher Mounds earliest, followed by the Trempealeau locale, followed by Aztalan, and ending with Fred Edwards. If correct, this suggests that Fisher Mounds and Trempealeau are implicated in Cahokia’s rise, while both Fred Edwards and Aztalan may be seen as a result of Cahokia’s emergence. Cahokian Interactions with Northern Tier Groups

Interesting differences exist with regard to Mississippian interaction with local Late Woodland populations as well. If Pauketat et al. (2015a) are correct about the use of Trempealeau as a shrine, then it would seem to be a

120 · John D. Richards

shrine built by Cahokians for Cahokians. The lack of evidence of significant interaction with local Late Woodland groups and the siting of the Stoddard Terrace support community in an otherwise unoccupied no-man’s-land suggest deliberate avoidance of contact with locals. Fred Edwards, on the other hand, appears to have been located where it was for more prosaic reasons that may reflect Late Woodland preferences rather than Mississippian prerogatives. The lack of platform mounds and relative paucity of Cahokian material culture suggest that the site represents a primarily Late Woodland occupation that includes a minority Mississippian population. In fact, Finney (1993) and Finney and Stoltman (1991) suggest the site represents a site unit intrusion of Late Woodland Indians from northwest Illinois or northeast Iowa. Based on artifact diversity, Finney and Stoltman (1991) posit that site occupants interacted with other Late Woodland groups north and west of the site’s southwest Wisconsin location. I have previously suggested (Richards 1992) that, like Fred Edwards, Aztalan’s location may have been chosen by a Late Woodland group prior to the Mississippian entrada. In any case, the archaeological record at the site suggests an integrated Late Woodland–Mississippian population. As the late Warren Wittry once told me, “Those folks were sleeping together.” Moreover, unlike either Fred Edwards or the Mississippi River sites, Aztalan’s population may have been relatively balanced between Late Woodland and Mississippian inhabitants. While I do not suggest that simple ceramic frequencies are an adequate proxy for population parameters (that is, pots do not equal people), the approximate 50/50 split between Late Woodland and Mississippian wares documented in the MPM collections from the site is radically different from either the Trempealeau or Fred Edwards case. Northern Tier Site Locations

Pauketat et al. (2015a) suggest that the Trempealeau Mounds Complex was located to take advantage of a spectacular natural setting, while the Stoddard terrace support communities were situated to provide ease of access to the Trempealeau area from a resource-rich location. Likewise, the relatively isolated back-country location of the Fred Edwards site is well suited to resource exploitation. Finney (1993) considered the Fred Edwards site location to be optimized for collection of galena as well as procuring and processing white-tailed deer. Finney and Stoltman (1991) suggest that these

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 121

commodities may have been exchanged with Middle Mississippian groups in the central Illinois River valley and possibly the American Bottom as well. Aztalan’s location has been discussed previously by Lynne Goldstein and myself (Goldstein 1991; Goldstein and Richards 1991). In short, the location is reasonable for either a Late Woodland or Mississippian horticultural village with a mixed hunting-and-gathering economy. Like the Fred Edwards case, it is likely that the specific location was chosen by the initial Late Woodland occupants of the site and thus may reflect Late Woodland prerogatives rather than Mississippian sensibilities. A Cahokian presence at Aztalan has been variously explained as a trading post or commodity distribution center, military outpost, mission, or refugee settlement. Over the years, trade-related models appear to have claimed the most legitimacy (Kelly 1991b), but the lack of Cahokian commodities (other than pots) at Aztalan provides little evidence for reciprocal trade with American Bottom communities. However, Aztalan’s location on the Crawfish-RockMississippi route may have facilitated transport of several materials with northern hinterland sources that appear in both Cahokian and Aztalan material culture inventories. These include native copper (Barrett 1933; Hill and Jeske 2011), Baraboo pipestone (Richards et al. 2008), and Hixton or other silicified sandstones (Carr and Boszhardt 2014; Maher 1958; Sampson 2008), and all are present at Aztalan in the form of raw materials and finished artifacts. Travel northward beyond Aztalan’s location via the Crawfish River would have ended at the river’s source in what is now southern Columbia County. From this point, a 25–30–mile overland journey could reach either the Wisconsin River at what is now Portage, Wisconsin, or the Fox River only 2 miles to the east. This relatively short portage between the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers was a historically important route south from the upper Great Lakes (Tanner 1987). From Portage, a Wisconsin River route would allow travel west to the Baraboo River and the pipestone quarries of Sauk County, north to the lakes country of northern Wisconsin and the copper deposits of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, or south to the Mississippi River at modern-day Prairie du Chien. The Fox River passage would have provided access to Lake Michigan via Green Bay and points north, south, and east through the Straits of Mackinac. All of these routes were well known by historic period Great Lakes groups and likely were used prehistorically as well. Nonetheless, the low frequencies of hinterland resources at Aztalan seem

122 · John D. Richards

Figure 5.5. Map of Fox River–Wisconsin River portage area in relation to Aztalan’s location.

insufficient to justify Aztalan’s presence on the basis of resource acquisition alone. Moreover, the virtual lack of American Bottom materials (other than pottery) in the Aztalan material culture inventory provides little support for the idea of Cahokia and Aztalan as trading partners. The notion that Aztalan functioned as a military garrison is problematic as it requires a view of Cahokia or other Mississippian centers as militarily expansionist polities intervening in foreign affairs. On the other hand, one cannot deny the strongly defensive aspect of Aztalan’s site structure or the evidence of conflict represented by cut and broken human remains in middens and refuse pits (Rudolph 2009). Moreover, the site is located on the boundary separating the emerging Oneota lifeway centered around Lake Koshkonong (Jeske 2001; Schneider 2015) 15 river miles southwest of Aztalan and the Late Woodland groups east of the Rock River (Richards 1992; Rodell 1984). That this boundary is real has been borne out by extensive survey of the Crawfish–Rock River and Fox River valleys (Brazeau et al. 1980; Brazeau and Overstreet 1979; Goldstein 1991; Stuebe 1976). To date, no Oneota sites are known in southern Wisconsin east of the Rock River save for scattered occurrences on the Milwaukee River near the Lake Michigan coast (Richards and Jeske 2002) (Figure 5.5).

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 123

It is also difficult to envision Aztalan as a shrine or pilgrimage center in the Trempealeau mold. Unlike Trempealeau, or any of the American Bottom shrine sites (Pauketat 2012:131–147), there is nothing particularly unique or visually arresting about Aztalan’s setting or immediate environment (but see Romain’s [2015a] interesting preliminary analysis of Aztalan’s site structure in relation to various astronomical phenomena). The Little Bluff platform and its unique and highly visible landscape placement would have at once reflected the emerging Cahokian gestalt while directing a visitor’s gaze downriver toward the Cahokia site itself. On the other hand, Aztalan’s sheltered and somewhat concealed location seems to direct the gaze inward rather than outward. Still, significant shrines needn’t be grand in scale or associated with major landmarks, so the notion of Aztalan as a destination for pilgrims, be they Mississippian or Late Woodland, cannot be discounted. I have long favored the notion that Aztalan was settled by a dissident or disenfranchised group of Cahokians seeking to reestablish themselves well out of reach of American Bottom sociopolitical systems (Emerson 1991b; Richards 1992; Richards and Jeske 2002). I was drawn to this idea as an explanation for the peculiarities of Aztalan’s location, site structure, material culture, and demographic diversity. However, this scenario lacked a specific mechanism capable of driving such an out-movement of Cahokians. Tim Pauketat’s (2012) compelling account of a Cahokian religion spread by proselytizers provides a mechanism for how this might have occurred while obviating the necessity to appeal to unspecified sociopolitical causes. Pauketat invokes the case of Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa, the Shawnee Prophet, as historically documented examples for Native American proselytizing behavior (see Brennan and Pursell, this volume). The Shawnee brothers offer an interesting case of early nineteenth-century Native American religion-building in the context of revitalization and resistance. By 1806, Tenskwatawa, aided by Tecumseh, was leading a separatist movement informed by a new, syncretic religion and dedicated to creating a pan-Indian alliance capable of resisting further white advances onto Indian lands (Cave 2002). Following a failed coup attempt at the Shawnee village of Wapakoneta, Ohio, the brothers moved with a group of dissident Shawnees to the town of Greenville, Ohio. According to Cave (2002:644), the new settlement soon became “crowded with visiting Kickapoos, Potawatomis, Ottawas, Chippewas, Sacs, Wyandots, Delawares, and Miamis,

124 · John D. Richards

as well as Shawnees disaffected with the accommodationist policies at Wapakoneta.” Faced with mounting pressure from the territorial government to disband, the brothers moved in 1808 to a new location in southern Indiana near the confluence of the Wabash and Tippecanoe Rivers. The new settlement became known as Prophetstown, and Tenskwatawa’s preaching soon attracted a similarly diverse population of Indians to the new religion. While Tenskwatawa stayed at Prophetstown preaching, Tecumseh traveled widely in an attempt to build the kind of strong alliance the brothers believed necessary to combat white inroads. During one such trip, Prophetstown was attacked and burned by American forces under the direction of William Henry Harrison. Following a temporary retreat, Prophetstown was rebuilt and housed a large polyglot population following the Prophet’s teachings until the unsuccessful counterattack against Fort Harrison in the fall of 1812. After this defeat, the Prophetstown populace dispersed, and following Tecumseh’s death in 1813, the movement came to an end. A similar though less violent attempt to utilize religion to create a new Indian community took place in Wisconsin in 1823. The following summary follows Hall’s (2002) account. Eleazer Williams, a Mohawk Indian whose great-grandmother (Eunice) had been captured in a 1704 raid on the Massachusetts town of Deerfield and who chose to remain with her Indian captors, was born about 1787 and was raised on the Caughnawaga Reserve in Canada. In 1800, Eleazer traveled to Massachusetts for schooling at the urging of Eunice Williams’s descendants. Although raised as a Catholic, Williams converted to the Congregational faith of the Williams clan and planned a life of preaching in New England. However, his expectation of a divinity degree from Harvard or Yale was dashed when he was sent instead to Moor’s Charity School for Indians. Williams’s disappointment led him to leave Moor’s in 1811 and return to Caughnawaga, where he remained during the War of 1812 in the role of undercover informer for the Americans. Following the war, Williams spent time among the Oneida in New York State and became a fluent Oneida speaker. In 1815, he converted to the Episcopalian faith and was ordained a minister. Williams returned to the Oneida in 1816 and began preaching and converting with great success. The situation of the Oneida and their neighbors, the Stockbridge (Mohican) Indians, was deteriorating due to continued white encroachment on Native lands. Williams preached a dream of a new multiethnic community of Indian nations to be created near Green Bay, Wisconsin, and worked

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 125

assiduously to acquire the needed land. In 1823, he succeeded in convincing some 300 Oneida and Stockbridge to migrate west to Wisconsin and settle along Duck Creek. In that same year, Williams married Madelaine Jourdain, the daughter of a prominent settler. Madelaine, only 14 at the time, came to the marriage with 4,800 acres of land and provided Williams entry into the upper echelons of Green Bay society. Williams was a tireless self-promoter, but his dream of an Indian Christian nation was never fully realized. Less than 10 years after they moved to Green Bay the Oneida severed ties with Williams due to his abandonment of his pastoral obligations. Although Williams’s attempt to create an “Indian nation” did not succeed, many Oneida remained in Wisconsin and were granted a reservation in 1838. Williams was barred from the Episcopal church in 1842, and he spent the remainder of his life developing his claim that he was Louis-Charles, the “Lost Dauphin” and heir to the French throne. Although not cogent to the present discussion except as a comment on Williams’s character, the story of the Williams-Dauphin connection is detailed in Buerger (1988, 1989), Hall (2002), and Hanson (1854). I do not want to suggest that either of these examples represents a perfect model for the development of a mixed Late Woodland–Mississippian settlement like Aztalan. I do think it important to note that although religion and proselytizing behavior figure prominently in both cases, the Shawnee brothers Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh appear to have acted from a deepseated set of beliefs entangled with notions of Indian sovereignty and cultural revival. On the other hand, Eleazer Williams’s episodic acceptance of religions as varied as French Catholicism and Episcopalian teaching suggests his own beliefs were more situational. Unlike the Shawnee brothers, Williams appears to have been a classic self-aggrandizer and something of a charlatan. Nonetheless, both cases resulted in the mass movement of people and the creation of new communities incorporating ethnically and culturally mixed populations held together by a complex mix of religious and sociopolitical interactions. My point here is to simply emphasize the range of variation possible in terms of historical process and eventual results produced by the complex entanglements of religion, politics, ethnicity, and charismatic personalities. If Aztalan’s settlement is modeled as the result of dissident or sectarian Cahokian proselytizers, it is possible to suggest (to co-opt one of Bob Hall’s favorite phrases) that a resident Late Woodland population at Aztalan, one already engaged in some degree of corn horticulture and thus at least

126 · John D. Richards

partially acculturated to a Mississippian lifeway, was visited by a group of Cahokian proselytizers who were successful in imparting their vision of a Cahokian belief system. That vision could easily be slightly different from that prevailing in the Greater Cahokia area but would in any case have been “bundled,” to use Pauketat’s (2012) term, with essential ideological, spiritual, material, and social information. The material manifestation of this would likely have been affected also by syncretic processes combining elements of both Woodland and Mississippian spirituality. The hybridity produced by such a situation may help explain some of the oddities of Aztalan’s archaeological record, including elements of site structure, Ramey motif symbolism, mound-building practices, and mortuary treatments, as well as the lack of evidence of continuing postsettlement interaction with Cahokia. Moreover, this may have precipitated a process of community building at Aztalan by a diverse population of residents and migrants analogous to that suggested as central to the rise of Cahokia (Alt 2012). Evidence for such a process at Aztalan exists in the form of ceramic and other material culture diversity (Mollerud 2005; Picard 2013; Richards 2003; Zych 2013), stable isotope data (Price et al. 2007; Slater et al. 2014), and hybridized mound-building practices as observed in the construction and use of the Northwest and Northeast Mounds (Richards 2007a, 2007b; Richards and Zych 2018; Rowe 1958; Zych 2015a). Years of intensive survey in the Crawfish and Rock River Valleys have failed to identify outlying settlements that could be considered part of an Aztalan-centered settlement system (Goldstein 1991). However, there are other Late Woodland/Mississippian sites in the region that could be argued to constitute Aztalan’s own “hinterland” that may have contributed emigrants to the nascent community at Aztalan. These include the Late Woodland–Mississippian Telfer site 3 miles north of Aztalan (Holliday 1999) and the Late Woodland–Mississippian Bethesda Lutheran Home site located approximately 12 miles (19.3 km) northeast of Aztalan on the east branch of the Rock River (Hendrickson 1996), as well as the poorly known Hamilton-Brooks site in Green Lake County (Green 1978; Hall 1962). Over the years I have occasionally heard Aztalan referred to as a “little Cahokia,” and I have usually been at pains to disabuse the speaker of this notion. But there may be some truth in such a gloss. If, for instance, Trempealeau can be thought of as a model for Cahokia as spiritual center of the world, Aztalan seems more a model of Cahokia. What I mean by this is that the Trempealeau complex may be thought of as embodying the very

Aztalan and the Northern Tier of a Cahokia Hinterland · 127

idea of Cahokia; it is, in a sense, “Cahokianess” made manifest. Aztalan, on the other hand, replicates Cahokia’s materiality but does so in a vernacular, even idiosyncratic manner, suggesting not so much a flawed or incomplete model but rather a model reflecting the specific vision of a particular group of people and mediated by both Late Woodland and Mississippian memory, agency, and hybridity inherent in the creation of a new community.

6 Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Thousands of people lived and prospered here, but evidence of Cahokian exchange is positively identified primarily among the Mill Creek villagers of northwestern Iowa and eastern South Dakota. The data and hypotheses offered by generations of archaeologists considering Mississippian relevance to villagers residing north and west of Cahokia are summarized and evaluated. Some Background

Cahokia’s “Big Bang” (ca. AD 1000–1250) mattered little to most groups living in the area extending north and west from Cahokia onto the prairie and plains, our “Northwest Quarter” (NWQ). Several “hot spots” have been identified as places where Cahokian influence was important during the period AD 1000–1250. We describe and evaluate these places, then discuss the quality of Cahokian influence suggested by archaeological investigations and how that influence may have affected the occupants. Henning’s experience with Cahokia has been with nearby investigations conducted in the lower Big River valley (Henning and Collins 2009) and in western St. Louis County (Hunt 1974). Familiarity with Mill Creek culture began at the Phipps site in 1956 through a field school directed by Reynold J. Ruppé. The students learned Mill Creek ceramics by analyzing, sorting, typing, and counting Phipps pottery fragments. Ruppé (1956, 1957), following Griffin (1949), taught that Mill Creek culture was founded by Cahokians. Griffin clung to this hypothesis through his long career (Griffin 1964, 1967, 1993), but the Phipps remains did not support it.

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 129

In 1963, Henning led excavations of five Mill Creek sites for research conducted by the University of Wisconsin–Madison, testing the stratified Wittrock (13OB4), Phipps (13CK21), and Kimball (13PM4) sites. The ceramics—33,898 bodysherds, 1,675 rimsherds, and 50 ceramic objects— spoons, gaming pieces, beads, and spindle whorls were analyzed (Henning 1969). None of the deep, stratified sites tested offered evidence for Cahokian origins. Henning worked with Carl Chapman for seven years (1958–1962, 1965– 1968) at the University of Missouri. Chapman was certain of Cahokian influence, travel, and importance along the lower Missouri mainstem from St. Louis to Kansas City, citing private collections from that region. Collections review was not convincing. Heated discussions left both convinced of the other’s deeply flawed arguments. Confusion about Cahokia and midwestern-plains archaeology prevailed in the mid-1900s, primarily due to lack of information. In the 1950s, we had Griffin’s (1949) discussion of Cahokia ceramics and Barrett’s (1933) Ancient Aztalan, which offered descriptions of “Old Village” material culture. Fortunately, much information about Cahokia is readily available today. The Northwest Quarter

Our arbitrary NWQ begins near Cahokia and parallels the Mississippi River valley to its confluence with the Minnesota River, then angles northwesterly to the confluence of the Knife and Missouri Rivers, then due south to the Republican River drainage system, finally east to Cahokia (Figure 6.1). It includes portions of the Middle Missouri Trench, the Northeast Plains Periphery, the Central Plains, and the western Prairie Peninsula, a vast territory where little evidence for Cahokia hegemony is documented and no indication of a Cahokian diaspora is identified. Why discuss this area at all? Sometimes what we do not find, especially where “it should be,” can be very important. And there are some locations in the NWQ where evidence for Cahokian contact is found. James Stoltman (1986) defined five possible Cahokian periphery contact situations, then challenged some regional scholars to evaluate them (Stoltman 1991a). Stoltman (2000) also tested the five contact situations himself, demonstrating their utility and offering his interpretations. Several of Stoltman’s contact situations addressed site complexes we discuss. Stoltman’s culture contact situations depend upon the presence of Cahokia-related artifacts (Powell Plain and/or Ramey Incised pottery or

130 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Figure 6.1. Map of Northwest Quarter and locations discussed in the text.

facsimiles thereof, marine shell beads, Long-Nosed god masks, pulleyshaped earspools, copper objects, tri-notched projectile points) in different cultural contexts. We also consider the presence of bowls, bottles, effigy handles, tabs, and other “foreign” exotics. In addition, we review settlement pattern, presence or absence of flat-topped pyramidal and circular mounds, and other nonartifactual factors. We discuss the lower valley of the Missouri River between St. Louis and Kansas City, Steed-Kisker villages and mounds around Kansas City, Mill Creek sites in northwest Iowa, Cambria villages in southern Minnesota, and the Red Wing region sites, all identified with some input from Cahokia. The hypotheses employed in measuring Cahokian influence on these communities are also evaluated.

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 131

The NWQ offers no sites equivalent to Aztalan (Barrett 1933; Goldstein and Richards 1991; Richards 2003; Richards and Jeske 2002), the sites around the mouth of the Apple River (Emerson 1991a, 1991b; Millhouse 2012), the Fisher mounds (Benden 2004; Benden et al. 2010), Fred Edwards (Finney and Stoltman 1991), or Trempealau (Pauketat et al. 2015a). Granted, there has been much more directed archaeological activity in Wisconsin and Illinois, but the database west of the Mississippi is solid. The Salt River’s Cannon Reservoir has been intensively surveyed, locating more than 1,500 prehistoric sites across ca. 1,149 km2 (O’Brien et al. 1982; O’Brien and Wood 1998), but no Mississippian sites are reported. Late Woodland contemporaries lived there unaffected by the “Big Bang” in the American Bottom. Professional archaeologists and hosts of collectors have investigated the drainage systems emptying into the Mississippi from the mouth of the Missouri to the Minnesota River. No significant evidence of Cahokian activity is reported. Nonetheless, past researchers have identified sites in the NWQ that they identify with Cahokian founding, exchange, influence, and intrusions. In the following, these locations are discussed, the author’s hypotheses and evidence are evaluated, and our conclusions are offered. Lower Missouri Valley Sites

The Missouri River was a likely riverine route for exchange between Plains villagers and Cahokia (Tiffany 1991; Wood 2013), but no Mississippian settlement has been reported beyond 15 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi. Chapman (1980) and O’Brien (1993:70) cite Broadhead (1880) and discuss three large upriver mounds destroyed by railroad construction. Two mounds, each about 400 by 200 feet and 12 feet high, were located on the south side of the Missouri just east of the mouth of the Gasconade. Another large mound discussed by Broadhead was flat-topped and located opposite the mouth of the Osage River. The morphology and size of these mounds suggest relationship with Cahokia, perhaps support for the OsageCahokia cultural link posited by Yelton (1998:277). Steed-Kisker Among those who espoused Mississippian importance to Steed-Kisker residents are W. D. Strong (1935), Waldo Wedel (1959), and James B. Griffin (1952a, 1964, 1967, 1993), persons one hesitated to disagree with.

132 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

The Steed-Kisker complex comprises small hamlets and individual farmsteads found between Kansas City and St. Joseph, Missouri. Interpretations vary widely about the “Mississippianess” of the Steed-Kisker sites and what they mean (Chapman 1947, 1952, 1980; O’Brien 1978, 1993; O’Brien and Wood 1998; Shippee 1972; Strong 1935; Wedel 1943). Corn, squash, sunflower, and beans gardening supplemented hunting and fishing (O’Brien 1978:69, 1993:72; Wood 1968). Cemeteries and mounds were located on high hilltops (O’Brien 1993:67; Chapman 1980; Shippee 1972). Pottery from Steed-Kisker sites is usually cited as the Mississippian identifier; it is predominantly plain surfaced, and about 90 percent is shell tempered (O’Brien 1978:76). The jars, bowls, and a few bottles that O’Brien (1993:78) suggests came to Steed-Kisker from Cahokia bear some motifs reminiscent of pottery from Cahokia but are usually rectilinear rather than curvilinear and are generally poor copies. It is not likely that any vessels came from the American Bottom. Shippee (1972) illustrates two shell-tempered pottery trowels from a Steed-Kisker house (23CL113); these are rarely found on Cahokia sites (Holley 1989; Tim Pauketat, personal communication, 2016) (Figure 6.2). Recovery of exotics, especially marine shell, with burials suggests that Steed-Kisker people participated in an active pancontinental trade network (Wood 1980). But participation in that exchange did not necessarily allow “Cahokia-linked populations to control the movement of goods and people on the Missouri River” (O’Brien 1988:31). Steed-Kisker farmsteads, generally located in minor drainage systems well away from the Missouri floodplain, could control few activities on the Missouri River. Stoltman (2000:445) places Steed-Kisker in his Culture Contact Situation IV, sites characterized by predominantly Middle Mississippian cultural assemblages that seem to appear suddenly in locations previously occupied by Late Woodland groups. We obviously disagree. Compare the Steed-Kisker complex with Aztalan, Trempealeau, and Fred Edwards, all identified with Cahokia. On those sites, some materials came directly from Cahokia, either for trade or as raw materials brought for use by the residents. Cahokia-made pottery vessels, galena, and copper are absent in Steed-Kisker sites, as are flat-topped pyramidal mounds and other earthworks, fortified villages, and any suggestion of an “advanced” hierarchical society. For decades, suggestions that Steed-Kisker sites represented continuous interaction with Cahokians have seemed unlikely (Henning 1967) and are equally unlikely today. Too many elements suggestive of Cahokian interaction are simply missing here.

Figure 6.2. Pottery from Steed-Kisker sites (from Chapman 1980; used with permission).

134 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

The Nebraska Phase Nebraska phase (Central Plains Tradition) people lived in small nucleated villages and single houses generally located in narrow valleys on both sides of the Missouri River from about St. Joseph, Missouri, to just south of Omaha, Nebraska (Gradwohl 1969). Michael McNerney (1987) tackled the possibilities for Mississippian relationships with Nebraska phase people through comparison of Nebraska phase artifact-effigies such as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic smoking pipes and vessel appendages, figurines, and the forked-eye motif, with the Spiro-Southeastern Ceremonial complex and associated vessels. He concluded that Mississippian-CaddoanNebraska phase interaction probably occurred, but neither Cahokians nor Caddoans gained hegemony there. The “Mississippian” elements listed by McNerney suggest Nebraska phase contacts with post-Cahokia Late Mississippian groups located south of the American Bottom and their Caddoan contemporaries. Recent reports on Nebraska phase sites generally refer to Steed-Kisker or Oneota influence when discussing characteristics formerly identified as Mississippian (Greatorex 1997; Tiffany 2010). Mill Creek in Northwest Iowa and Eastern South Dakota The most intensive Cahokian exchange in the NWQ was with Mill Creek villagers. Exotic pottery, marine shell beads and ornaments, and discoidals from these sites suggested that Cahokian interaction with local Woodland people resulted in the development of Mill Creek (Fugle 1962; Griffin 1949, 1960, 1964, 1967, 1993; Ives 1962; Ruppé 1956, 1957). This hypothesis, promoted by Griffin, has since been disproved through analysis of ceramics from five deep Mill Creek middens: Brewster (13CK15), Chan-ya-ta (13BV1), Phipps (13CK21), Wittrock (13OB4), and Kimball (13PM4). The basal levels of these sites produced neither Cahokia-derived ceramics nor significant quantities of Late Woodland sherds (Anderson 1981; Henning, ed., 1968, 1969; Tiffany 1982; Tiffany and Adams 1998). Mill Creek (ca. AD 950–1300) appears to have developed regionally in some measure out of Great Oasis. Great Oasis is a “transitional” culture rooted in the regional late Late Woodland and is part of the Initial Middle Missouri Tradition (IMMT), including the Mill Creek villagers. Johnson (2007:93) suggests a span of AD 950–1200 for Great Oasis, which allows for temporal overlap with both late

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 135

Figure 6.3. Map, Mill Creek Wittrock (13OB4) village site. (Used with permission of the Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa)

Late Woodland and the Mill Creek villagers, with whom they apparently shared some Cahokia contacts (Henning 1996, 2005a, 2007; Stoltman and Tiffany 2016). Mill Creek villages are uniformly small, rarely exceeding 2 acres, and are often fortified. Some sites are stratified middens with superimposed occupational levels and house floors (Figure 6.3). Houses are long, rectangular, semisubterranean structures ca. 20–30 feet long and 15–20 feet wide, some with an extended doorway 6–8 feet long (see Orr 1963). The house floors are riddled with large storage/refuse pits. Bone refuse suggests that Mill Creek people hunted bison seasonally, leaving their villages to access the herds. They also took quantities of locally available mammals, birds, fish, and mollusks. Their gardens produced maize, beans, pumpkin, squash, and sunflowers; they collected local seeds, nuts, and berries (Alex 2000; Dallman 1983). Mill Creek people buried their dead in low mounds and cemeteries. Occasional burials and pieces of human bone are recovered in their village middens.

Figure 6.4. Characteristic Mill Creek ceramic wares. A, Chamberlain ware; B, Sanford ware (a, b, type Mitchell Modified Lip, c, type Kimball Modified Lip); C, Foreman ware. All from Larson village (13PM61).

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 137

Figure 6.5. “Exotic” pottery from Mill Creek sites: a, shallow shell-tempered effigy bowl, Broken Kettle village (13PM1); b, shell-tempered “Ramey Incised” jar, probably a local copy, from Chan-ya-ta village (13BV1) (used with permission of the Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa); c, seed jars from Kimball village (13PM4).

Ceramic remains offer additional proof of the importance of CahokiaIMMT exchange (Tiffany 1991). The Mill Creek pottery assemblage includes three traditional ware groupings: Sanford, Chamberlain, and Foreman; but we also find a host of exotic vessels, “Mill Creek ware” (Ives 1962), that suggest Mississippian exchange or influence. Mill Creek and Spoon River (Illinois) Mississippian people closely tied to Cahokia obviously exchanged ceramics based on four thin-sectioned vessels from Mill Creek sites and one vessel from the Eveland site (Stoltman and Tiffany 2016) (Figures 6.4, 6.5). Mill Creek ware (Ives 1962) is a “catch-all” category that includes shell, limestone, and grog-tempered effigy bowls; effigies on vessel handles; black polished jars; Ramey “knockoffs”; and high percentages of seed jars. Mill Creek seed jars compare morphologically to those from Cahokia (Holley 1989) but without Cahokia’s characteristic punctated decorative motifs on the upper body. Seed jars may be shell, grit, or grit/grog tempered, often well-finished, even burnished, on both surfaces. Some bear red paint around the orifice.

Figure 6.6. Long-Nosed god masks from Mill Creek sites: a, ca. half of a “slotted” mask (the nose was separate and fitted into the slot), Siouxland Sand and Gravel cemetery (13WD402); b, fragmentary mask, Jones village (13CK1). (Used with permission of the Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa)

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 139

The effigies found on Mill Creek vessel handles and on the edges of bowls have been identified as Mississippian inspired. They include tiny human heads and hands, birds, and small mammals (see Ives 1962:Figure 13). Many Mill Creek effigies resemble Central Plains Nebraska phase examples (Ives 1962; McNerney 1987). Effigy lugs on bowls and effigies on vessel handles are rarely found at Cahokia or Aztalan; higher percentages are encountered on Mill Creek and Nebraska culture sites. Marine shell is often found on Mill Creek sites; beads, columella pendants, and three fragmentary Long-Nosed god masks are reported (Alex 2000; Anderson 1975a, 1975b; Titcomb 2012) (Figure 6.6). Freshwater Leptoxis praerosa beads are commonly recovered (Henning 2005b). A few biconcave discoidals, often attributed to Mississippian authorship, have been reported (Alex 2000; Anderson 1975b; Tiffany 1991). Exchange with Cahokia was important to both parties (Henning 1967, 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Tiffany 1991). Evidence from Mill Creek sites supports this hypothesis, and a few typical Mill Creek rimsherds have been located in Stirling phase contexts at Cahokia (John Kelly, Robert Hall, personal communication). No evidence suggesting either Cahokian ancestry or hegemony has been reported despite decades of excavation into the deep Mill Creek midden sites. Mill Creek fits Stoltman’s “Culture Contact Situation I . . . Cahokiaderived or inspired, portable artifacts . . . within the context of an otherwise local cultural assemblage” (2000:441–442) very well. Mill Creek trade was not exclusively with Cahokia; evidence for Caddoan, Nebraska phase, Cambria, and Red Wing interaction is identified (Anderson 1981; Anderson et al. 1979; Henning, ed., 1969; Ives 1962). Cambria Sites, Southern Minnesota Villages near the Cambria site have also been identified with ties to Cahokia (Knudson 1967; Scullin 2007; Wilford 1945). Mollerud (2016) lists Cambria “core” sites: Cambria (21BE2), the type site; Price (21BE36); and Jones (21BE5), all located near the Minnesota River. Mollerud lists 17 radiocarbon dates from Cambria, Price, and Jones and posits occupation from sometime after AD 1150 to approximately AD 1300. She suggests that Price and Jones were occupied twice: AD 1150–1220 and AD 1220–1300. Four AMS dates from Price and Jones bolster Mollerud’s temporal assessments (Aulwes 2016).

140 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Why were the Cambria sites identified with the Mississippian cultural tradition? A small percentage of the pottery does have great similarity in vessel morphology and decorative motifs applied to a flattened upper body. Also, a few mounds located near the “core” villages are flat-topped, a characteristic of some mounds found on the Cahokia site. Mollerud (2016) discusses the interpretations that led to assumptions of linkage between Cahokia and the Cambria phase, among them Griffin’s (1960, 1964, 1967, 1993) migration hypothesis that visualized Cahokia-derived groups mixed with local Woodland people settling in various western locales, including Cambria. Mollerud (2016) identifies a Cambria phase and includes the Gillingham site (21YM3), located ca. 70 miles upstream from Cambria. Now almost completely destroyed, it had a defensive feature (see Anfinson 1997:103, Figure 50) and was associated with nine conical mounds. We draw heavily upon Cambria, the type site, for background. It is located on a broad terrace overlooking the Minnesota River and at 3.5 acres is the largest Cambria phase village (Gibbon 2012:166). The site is protected by steep banks on three sides and may have had a ditch or palisade along its western margin. A possible long, rectangular house floor of packed dirt was noted by Nickerson at the type site (Knudson 1967:250). Storage pits, fireplaces, and food refuse were commonly encountered by excavators (Knudson 1967; Mollerud 2016; Watrall 1967; Wilford 1941, 1945, 1955). Riverine resources were important; beaver, fish, turtles, and river mussels were taken, but bison, dog, deer, and smaller mammals were also hunted (Aulwes 2016; Mollerud 2016). Domesticated plant foods, maize, cucurbits, sunflower, and chenopodium were supplemented with nuts, fruits, smooth sumac, and polygonum (Scullin 2007). Cambria sites offer little ceramic evidence of contact with Cahokians. By far, the greatest percentage of vessels found suggest strong Plains orientation (Mollerud 2016). A few rolled-rim, grit-tempered vessels have shoulder motifs that have been compared to Ramey Incised (Figure 6.7). These few jars may suggest indirect Cahokia influence. While commonly found on Steed-Kisker and Mill Creek sites, marine shell objects are virtually absent on Cambria sites; one notched Prunum apicinum shell has been found at the Price site (Anfinson 1997). And, while both Steed-Kisker and Mill Creek sites have beads made of freshwater Leptoxis praerosa shells, often presumed to be a part of early Cahokian exchange, they are not found on Cambria sites. The Cambria villagers were simply not favored with exotic shell objects.

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 141

Figure 6.7. Cambria phase pottery from the Cambria site (21BE2). Percentages indicated in parentheses, total of 1,128 rimsherds. a, Rolled Rim (14.5 percent)—illustrated is Rolled Rim subvariety Ramey Broad Trailed (7.4 percent); b, Linden Everted Rim (60.5 percent); c, Mankato Incised (13.1 percent); d, S-Rims (Judson Composite). (Illustrations from Knudson 1967; used with permission)

We know little about Cambria burial patterns, but the regional flat-topped mounds are interesting. Lewis mapped approximately 80 flat-topped circular mounds in southern Minnesota that may have been Cambria burial mounds (Johnson 1961, 1986, 1991), but proof is lacking. Flat-topped circular mounds are also found at Cahokia (Tim Pauketat, personal communication, 2016). Arzigian and Stevenson (2003) review discussions about mounds assigned to the Cambria phase, but found no unanimity among Minnesota archaeologists.

142 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Stoltman (2000:443) includes Cambria in his Culture Contact Situation I, where Cahokia-derived portable artifacts are found in a local cultural assemblage. But Cambria sites have produced only a few ceramic imitations, one marine shell object, a few doubtful Cahokia points, no discoidals, no Long-Nosed god masks, no copper objects, and no effigy handles or “lugs.” Faced with a paucity of such portable artifacts, he suggests that distance is a factor here. There is not sufficient evidence to justify a Situation I classification. Cambria ceramics, the bone and stone tool complex, and dependence on bison are Plains-influenced characteristics. Were there contact with Cahokians, one would find more direct evidence of Mississippian influence. Cambria sites have recently been assigned to a Prairie Village Tradition (Holley and Michlovic 2013). Red Wing The Red Wing Silvernale phase sites offer characteristics and items identified as Mississippian-related, and Red Wing has been mentioned in many discussions of Cahokian influence in the northern Mississippi Valley. However, details of Red Wing sites are not widely known and interpretive opinions vary widely, creating much confusion that should be dispelled by the following discussion. The Red Wing region is immense, ca. 100 square miles in Minnesota and Wisconsin where the Cannon, Vermillion, and Trimbelle Rivers join the Mississippi (Figure 6.8). More than 2,000 mounds and earthworks built on nearly every blufftop and terrace edge in the Mississippi Valley attest to a vibrant cultural scene from Late Woodland through Oneota occupations. Numerous large villages and dozens of smaller sites span both sides of the Mississippi, through several sequential and overlapping phases. The Red Wing region includes culturally comparable Late Prehistoric sites on both sides of a major river, a pattern rarely followed in the Midwest and Plains. Similar examples are the sites on the American Bottom, the downtown St. Louis site across the Mississippi River, and Blood Run with Oneota village units and mounds extending ca. 5 miles on both sides of the Big Sioux River near Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Red Wing earthworks, habitations, and contents of the hundreds of excavated storage features suggest an excellent environment fully exploited

Figure 6.8. Red Wing region.

144 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

for generations. This is a major site complex—one that has perplexed archaeologists for decades (Figure 6.9). Assessments of Cahokian influence on Red Wing residents began with Wilford (1955:140). Following excavations at Silvernale (21GD3), Bartron (21GD2), and Bryan (21GD4), Wilford classified those sites as the Silvernale focus, suggesting a clear ceramic relationship to Aztalan, to the Apple River, and to the Monks Mound “aspect.” However, he included his Silvernale focus in his Upper Mississippi phase “due to a fusion of Middle Mississippi elements with older Woodland elements” (Wilford 1955:141). At that time, Oneota was tied to the Upper Mississippi phase. Nearly 20 years later, Gibbon (1974) suggested that Wilford was following the traditional model that a Mississippian site-unit intrusion was responsible for Oneota development. Moreau Maxwell’s work on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi at the Mero (47PI2), or Diamond Bluff, site (see Rodell 1991 for discussion; “Mero” is preferable) complemented Wilford’s interpretations for the Minnesota side. Rodell noted that in 1887 Lewis mapped 396 mounds, conical and circular, and some effigies at Mero, suggesting that ca. 150 had already been destroyed. A second large Silvernale phase village on the terrace (47PI132) (see Dobbs and Christiansen 1991) has not yet been investigated. Stoltman (1986) placed three important Red Wing sites in his Culture Contact Situation III, later moving all Red Wing sites to Culture Contact Situation IV (Stoltman 1991a, 2000). Rodell (1991:276–277) offers contrary conclusions about Red Wing and Cahokia interactions with the Red Wing region, focusing on the Mero site. At this time it was generally agreed that Red Wing groups participated in an extensive trade network dominated by Cahokia (see Kelly 1991a, 1991b; Gibbon 1974; Stoltman 1986). Rodell (1991), concerned for whether the Red Wing participants were Late Woodland or Oneota, noted the discontinuous scatters of Effigy Mound and Clam River ceramics across Mero, concluding that the principal occupants were Silvernale phase Oneota trading with Mississippians. Evidence supportive of a Cahokian presence on Mero is minimal. The presence of Ramey motifs on local vessels is often cited, suggesting a Cahokian presence, yet these motifs are found throughout the region and are variable in application and execution, distancing them from their putative cultural source (see Holley n.d.). Beyond ceramic similarities, there are few items from Mero that suggest Cahokian presence or influence: a marine shell Long-Nosed god mask, a copper pendant, and discoidals were all surface finds, thus lacking context. The shell mask is modified and has a

Figure 6.9. Major Red Wing villages.

146 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Figure 6.10. Long-Nosed god mask from the Mero 1 village. (Photo courtesy of the Science Museum of Minnesota)

“dubbed-off ” nose, probably broken and repaired. Rodell (1991), in his concluding remarks, asserts that through the Silvernale phase “the indigenous Red Wing population preserved much of its local autonomy,” and we agree (Figure 6.10). Following Wilford’s four seasons of work at the Bryan site in the 1950s, Dobbs’s extensive work offers a Minnesota-side bookend to the Mero excavations (Dobbs 1985, 1987, 1991). In addition to hundreds of storage/refuse pits, a massive inventory of stone and bone tools, Mississippian-like and Oneota pottery, and at least seven domestic structures of varying types, the site yielded the only unambiguous evidence of a Red Wing palisade. Mississippian-related items include a single pulley-type earspool and a small number of possibly red-slipped sherds. Gibbon (1974) reported a copper mace pendant from a private collection; galena cubes have also been recovered here (Dobbs 1991; Fleming 2009). Gibbon and Dobbs, summarizing Red Wing data in response to Stoltman’s (1986) four hypothetical contact situations, suggest: First, the Red Wing area was inhabited by Oneota people before the appearance of the Mississippian-related Silvernale cultural complex. This pre-Silvernale Oneota occupation began ca. AD 1000 and is

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 147

represented by Bartron, possibly the Adams and Double sites, and possibly the Oneota component in the northwest corner of Bryan. Second, the Silvernale cultural complex emerged in the late eleventh or twelfth century as an amalgam of Oneota and Mississippian traits. Dobbs would bracket the presence of this complex in the Red Wing area between ca. AD 1175 and AD 1300, while Gibbon prefers a shorter occupation period beginning ca. AD 1100. Within this time span, changes occurred in the Silvernale settlement-subsistence system and its artifactual assemblage, but the cultural complex always differed in certain important respects from both pure Cahokia-centered and Oneota complexes. Third, the Silvernale cultural complex functioned as a prairie-oriented northern node in a Mississippian-centered extraction and magico-religious network (e.g., Gibbon 1974). Fourth, the complex ceased to exist sometime in the thirteenth century, if not earlier, probably in response to the demise of Cahokia as a major center and the collapse of its far-flung economic-religious network. (Gibbon and Dobbs 1991:301, emphasis added) Gibbon and Dobbs’s evidence for contact includes many other, clearly locally made vessels that imitate Middle Mississippian forms, a few discoidals or chunkey stones, and a few tri-notched points. Rodell (1991) added the marine shell mask and copper mace pendants. It is important to note that copper mace pendants and chunkey stones are not restricted to Mississippian contexts; they are also found in Oneota contexts, and there are many discoidals from Oneota sites. The tri-notched arrow points can be traced to Plains rather than to Middle Mississippian influences. The point illustrated by Gibbon and Dobbs (1991:Figure 13.15) is not similar to the Cahokia points originally described by Perino (1968:12, Plate 6) and illustrated by Justice (1987:Figure 51). That tri-notched point and the others from Red Wing sites closely resemble several named Plains triangular tri-notched types (i.e., Harrell, Washta, and more), not the classic Cahokia points. Further Plains influences can be seen in the bone tool assemblages and many of the nonlocal pottery rims (Schirmer and Henning 2013). Other oft-cited traits used to argue for Cahokian input at Red Wing include a wall trench structure at Bartron (Gibbon 1979) and a flat-topped pyramidal mound at Energy Park (Dobbs 1993a). Research at Bartron (Hildebrant Iffert 2010; Schirmer 2008) conclusively demonstrates that the report of a wall trench structure there is erroneous. Also, the pyramidal mound at Energy Park is surrounded by conical and linear mounds in the

148 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

middle of a mound group stretching behind the village; its location and placement do not conform to Mississippian patterns (see Gibbon 1991:210). Research conducted in the Red Wing region between 2003 and 2016 clarifies some aspects of Mississippian influences and the complex issue of local culture change. Three efforts have dominated this work: elucidating the nature of local Late Woodland sites to define the “starting conditions” against which to assess assertions of Mississippian influences, documenting the regional Oneota presence separate from sites where Mississippianrelated artifacts are found in order to gain a clearer sense of Oneota separate from the clouding influence of the major villages, and more closely examining the relationships between contexts bearing Mississippian-like Silvernale phase materials and deposits of Oneota materials at the same site. Each research effort bears on the central issue of how to understand Mississippian influences in the Red Wing region. There are more small pre-Silvernale Late Woodland sites on the Wisconsin side than on the Minnesota side of the Mississippi: they are usually back in tributary valleys and generally produce only one pottery type (Wendt n.d.). There are fewer but larger Late Woodland sites on the Minnesota side with adjacent mounds on broad, low terraces near extensive floodplains. These sites offer multiple pottery types primarily related to Angelo Punctated and Bremer Triangular Punctated (Kelly 2009; Nowak 2014; Schirmer n.d.; Skinner 2016). Vessels are typically tempered with finely crushed granite, have a globular body and a constricted neck, and have low to high outflaring rims with combinations of horizontal and diagonal cord impressions, diagonal incised lines, horizontal and diagonal lines of punctates, and tool impressions on the lip. In some ways these characteristics foreshadow later Oneota styles (Figure 6.11). Large Late Woodland sites—for example, Nauer (21GD1), Sergeant (21GD116), Cooling Tower (21GD148), Mosquito Terrace (21GD260), and Diamond Bluff (47PI92)—have yielded some evidence of permanent structures (postmolds and burned daub) and some shadowy remnants of features after minimal investigation. Unfortunately, none of the features were intact hearths or large storage pits, so there are currently no botanical analyses or radiocarbon dates. Some large Late Woodland components (e.g., the eastern end of the Silvernale terrace) were reoccupied during the Silvernale phase, but these components are not yet explored (Figure 6.12). Cumulatively, this means that building mounds adjacent to large, permanent habitation sites near extensive floodplains was an established pattern in the Late Woodland, not a specific behavior adopted as a consequence of

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 149

Figure 6.11. Typical Late Woodland sherds from Red Wing.

Mississippian influence. Population growth and nucleation, village reorganization, and some degree of aggregation preceded the Silvernale phase; Late Woodland peoples were changing rapidly before we see any evidence of Mississippian contact. Relevant to the second research effort, we now know that the Oneota occupation of Red Wing is more complicated than widely believed. Previously

Figure 6.12. Large, pure Late Woodland sites in Red Wing.

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 151

known large Oneota components were either coincident with sites that also had Late Woodland and/or Silvernale components (e.g., Bartron, Bryan, Mero, and Silvernale) or were single component (e.g., Adams–47PI12); all are near the Mississippi on large terraces. Further field research and reanalysis of older collections have revealed Oneota sites away from the Mississippi, concentrated in two clusters in the valleys of Spring and Hay Creeks (e.g., Sell–21GD96, Burnside School–21GD159, Horse–21GD204, and McClelland–21GD258), and in the Cannon Valley upstream from Bryan (Belle Creek Junction 1–21GD130, Bell Creek Junction 2–21GD132, Belle Creek Village–21GD200, and Area 51–21GD290) (Figure 6.13). Burnside School, Sell, Horse, McClelland, and Area 51 have yielded large pits, many with abundant evidence of intensive crop production (maize, chenopodium, little barley, beans, sunflower, cucurbits, marsh elder, and so forth) and wild resource gathering (wild rice, fruits, and small quantities of nuts) (Fleming and Koncur 2016; Koncur 2017). House forms are not yet documented, but postmolds and daub have been found at every site. Lithics are primarily local, with strong emphases on Prairie du Chien and Grand Meadow cherts. The pottery is very consistent among the sites (Figure 6.14). Site characteristics and recent AMS dates support dividing Red Wing Oneota sites into two sequential phases: Bartron (AD 1150–1300) and Spring Creek (AD 1300–1400) (Schirmer 2016). This sequence reflects a move away from the Mississippi trench after the end of the Silvernale phase and establishes a cultural continuity from the earliest evidence of Oneota through the latest. It also indicates that the Red Wing region was not abandoned after AD 1250, contra Boszhardt’s (2012) assertion. The third avenue of recent Red Wing research also offers significant alterations to the often-suggested nature of local Mississippian influence. Fleming (2009), using data from Dobbs’s early 1990s excavations at Mero and from Dobbs’s early 1980s and Schirmer’s late 1990s excavations at Bryan, clearly established the Red Wing region as a center with multiple aggregation sites, and documented different but related artifact assemblages at the sites. This contextualizes earlier work (Dobbs 1991; Schirmer 2002) that indicates the presence of multiple related and unrelated groups occupying the region contemporaneously and engaging in trade, feasting, and mound building (Dobbs 2009; Schirmer 2002). Red Wing was not culturally homogenous and was the scene of intense and complex interactions among people from across the region. Given the archaeological and cultural complexity of the aggregation

Figure 6.13. Large, pure Oneota villages in Red Wing.

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 153

Figure 6.14. Representative Bartron phase and Spring Creek phase pottery.

villages and their importance in resolving the issue of Mississippian influence on local cultural development, dating the respective components is of major importance. Most existing dates for the major villages were either vague (e.g., Johnson 1964; Shane 1981) or are relevant only to the Silvernale phase (e.g., Dobbs 1985). The few assays relevant to Oneota contexts came from features that also contained Silvernale pottery (e.g., Dobbs 1993b), hence limiting their utility in resolving this important issue. Newly acquired AMS dates on single component features (Schirmer 2016) are shedding light on life in the villages. Prior to receipt of these new dates, the working ceramic sequence for the Red Wing region identified

154 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

Figure 6.15. Silvernale village Silvernale type pottery dated in study.

sequential pottery “phases” (not to be confused with cultural phases): early rolled rim, Silvernale-type pottery dating AD 1150–1175, Link-type pottery dating ca. AD 1175–1200, and Bartron-type (Oneota) pottery dating AD 1200–1275 (Holley n.d.) (Figures 6.15, 6.16, 6.17). The new dating information necessitates revision. The results from the Silvernale site place Bartron type pottery at ca. AD 1170–1280 and both the Link and Silvernale pottery at AD 1190–1240. This reinforces earlier work showing contemporaneity between Bartron and Link pottery at the Bartron site at ca. AD 1250 (Hildebrant Iffert 2010) and confirms data from stratified deposits in a house basin at the Mero site where rolled-rim and flared-rim pottery were in use throughout the occupation there, with rolled-rim pottery tapering off in popularity (Fleming 2009). As summarized elsewhere, simple transformational models of Oneota ethnogenesis based on assumed changes in pottery types over a defined period do not fully comport with the archeological record. Multiple pottery types (Bartron, Silvernale and Link) appear to have been in production and use at the same time over a period of 100 years. . . . As a corollary, most pottery types seem to have longer timespans than previously expected. (Schirmer 2016:12, emphasis added) Collectively, the new data support a model largely consistent with Gibbon and Dobbs (1991), where Oneota cultural development (now the Bartron and Spring Creek phases) was conceived as a process separate from Mississippian-related activities (the Silvernale phase), now understood as

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 155

Figure 6.16. Silvernale village Link type pottery.

a manifestation of regional aggregation practices. This offers greater complexity, perhaps, but a more realistic cultural process has now been laid out for future analysis. Further clarity is offered by the contemporaneity of Spring Creek phase and Blue Earth phase Oneota occupations, and the presence of Link type pottery at the Vosburg site (21FA2) ca. AD 1350

Figure 6.17. Silvernale village Bartron type pottery.

156 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

(Schirmer 2016:6–7). Thus, it is apparent that Link type pottery transcends phases and regions and needs to be given separate consideration. Given the time frame for when ceramics of the Silvernale, Link, and Bartron types can be identified on Red Wing sites, we are still confounded by the lack of clarity in cultural identifications for the previous years, AD 1000–1150, but sufficient data exist to substantiate pre-Mississippian culture change and complexity here. The sites are now known and simply require investigation. Nonetheless, and pertinent to this study, no evidence of Cahokian entradas comparable to what has been identified at Trempealeau (Pauketat et al. 2015a), Fisher Mounds (Benden 2004; Benden et al. 2010), and Collins, all dated at ca. AD 1050 (Pauketat 2016), has been discerned here. In fact, other than one flat-topped mound and one palisaded village (neither of which conforms to Mississippian standards), clearly local Ramey-like pottery, and a small handful of other artifacts, we find very little evidence for direct contact with Cahokians in the Red Wing region. It is far more likely that Red Wing’s primary contact with the Mississippian world was through the Fred Edwards Late Woodland and Apple River Mississippian complexes, and was thus second-order at best. This undermines Stoltman’s (2000:445) placement of Red Wing within the Culture Contact Situation IV. In contrast, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the post–Late Woodland occupants who developed the complex of sites in the Red Wing region maintained consistent contact with the eastern Plains communities, including the core Cambria villages, Mill Creek (IMMTe), and the Initial Middle Missouri villagers in the lower middle Missouri trench (IMMTw) ca. AD 1150–1300. Pottery characteristic of Cambria and Mill Creek is often found on Red Wing sites, but Red Wing shell-tempered wares are not found on the core Cambria sites. Was exchange with Cambria a one-way matter with respect to pottery vessels? In any regard, Red Wing is less Mississippian and more unique than ever. Summary

On the preceding pages we investigated and evaluated the sources that suggest interaction with Cahokia by groups living in our hypothetical NWQ ca. AD 1000–1250. In addition to identifying portable objects that suggest Cahokia exchange, we have compared the locations in the NWQ with sites east of the Mississippi where such interactions obviously took place. The evidence available in the NWQ lacks the quality, quantity, and intensity of Cahokian interaction that we see at, for instance, Aztalan, Fisher Mounds,

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 157

or Trempealeau. All locations in our NWQ that have been identified previously as “Mississippian” and recipients in one way or another of Cahokian influence have been discussed. Part of our charge was to seek evidence for both Cahokian hegemony and diaspora in the NWQ. Here we see no evidence for dominance by Cahokians, especially immediately west of the Mississippi River. Even directly across the Mississippi from the Apple River, Fisher Mounds, and Trempealeau, we find no evidence for Mississippian occupation or exchange aside from a few shell-tempered Ramey and Powell rimsherds found in Late Woodland contexts in a few rockshelters in Iowa. Why are there no Mississippian entradas up the Des Moines, Iowa, Upper Iowa, and Minnesota River valleys? Moving upstream ca. 15 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi, the Missouri River valley offers a picture very similar to what we find in, for instance, the Des Moines River valley, until we reach the mouths of the Osage and Gasconade Rivers. Here, three large flat-topped pyramidal mounds are reported; all were destroyed in the 1880s. Could these mounds have been built as part of later Osage movements (a diaspora) out of the Mississippi Valley and into the upper Osage drainage where the Osage were found in the early 1700s? The Steed-Kisker complex of sites located between the present cities of Kansas City and St. Joseph, Missouri, have been identified as Mississippian and Mississippian-related primarily because shell-tempered pottery predominates on the small farmstead sites. That pottery is reminiscent of Cahokia ceramics with some bowls, bottles, and Ramey-like jars, but most appear to be knockoffs, often crudely produced. Other than a few pieces, there seems little possibility that there was a direct ceramic relationship between florescent Cahokia and Steed-Kisker. The few rather exotic vessels could have come via Caddoan exchange as well. Evidence supporting Cahokian hegemony, or even culturally significant interaction, is lacking. The Steed-Kisker sites are often single farmsteads, suggesting a strongly egalitarian society, quite in contrast to the implied hierarchical socioreligious system found at Cahokia at the same time. Also, there are no platform mounds and no fortified villages. These people were gardeners, hunters, fishers, and gatherers who lived in small or extended family units, very different from the people located a few hundred miles downstream. Brief mention has been made of the possibilities for Mississippian interactions with Central Plains Tradition, Nebraska phase villagers, focusing on the presence of small effigies on pipes and vessels. Shell temper occurs

158 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

in Nebraska phase contexts in low percentages; some Oneota influences are evident (Tiffany 2010). The conclusion offered by McNerney (1987) was that Mississippian interactions probably occurred, but that Caddoan exchange was also a factor. We suggest that the effigies found on Nebraska phase sites reflect interaction with late Mississippian groups located south of Cahokia as well as exchange with contemporaneous Caddoan groups in the southeastern Plains. Mill Creek villagers obviously dominated Mississippian exchange in the NWQ. Cahokian exchange into the NWQ probably began with the introduction of marine shell items and Leptoxis praerosa beads to Great Oasis villagers (King 1996). Contacts expanded with the descendant Mill Creek villagers. Quantities of exotic, often shell-tempered pottery, marine shell beads and ornaments, and discoidals reminiscent of those produced during Cahokia’s fluorescent period have been found on Mill Creek sites. Mill Creek trade was not exclusively with Cahokia; there is good evidence for Mill Creek exchange with Spoon River Mississippians; with Caddoan, Nebraska phase, and other Initial Middle Missouri Tradition villagers; and with Cambria and Red Wing as well. Mill Creek villagers obviously maintained an enviable position in the intense exchange network that prevailed AD 1000–1250. Mill Creek villages are very small; many consist of deep middens with stratified living surfaces. Construction of ditches and palisades around some, if not all, of the villages suggests that defense was a high priority. It seems only logical that itinerant Cahokian traders would see that the Mill Creek lifestyle and social system compared favorably with their own, but of course on a far lesser scale. Lesser scale or not, these were obviously people Cahokians “could do business with,” and they did so until things back on the American Bottom began to deteriorate. As Cahokian florescence declined, the Mill Creek villagers apparently departed and moved farther west, probably joining other IMMT villagers. Simultaneously, Oneota entradas into the region probably exerted added pressure on the Mill Creek villagers; large, unfortified Oneota settlements were established along the lower Little Sioux River by AD 1300. The Cambria phase (Mollerud 2016) consists of at least three core villages and some mounds along the Minnesota River. These sites and a number of others have been identified with the Mississippian cultural tradition for decades, but all are more closely associated with the Plains Village Tradition. Almost 75 percent of the pottery from the Cambria type site appears to have ancestral roots in the Plains. Fragments of Cambria pottery are

Cahokia and the Northwest Quarter · 159

identified on many sites across western Minnesota (Holley and Michlovic 2013). We expect marine shell and Leptoxis beads as indicators of Cahokian exchange, but only one marine shell and no Leptoxis beads are reported from the Cambria core sites. Discoidals, Long-Nosed god masks, copper objects, effigy handles, and pulley-shaped earspools are also absent. Core village ceramics offer little evidence for direct exchange with Mill Creek. Then, some confusing revelations: many examples of typical Cambria wares appear in Red Wing collections, but no Silvernale or Bartron phase rimsherds are reported from Cambria sites. Since they are shell tempered, they should stand out. The ceramics suggest a one-way exchange relationship: from Cambria to Red Wing, not the reverse. Another complicating factor: a number of IMMT grit-tempered Mitchell Modified Lip (Sanford ware) rimsherds appear on Red Wing village sites, but they are rarely found on Cambria sites. There are a number of similar complications but for purposes of this chapter, concerns set aside for now. The Red Wing region offers much new and vital data. Recent AMS dates offer corroboration of some past interpretations that suggest early evolution here from Late Woodland to Oneota (Bartron phase, AD 1150–1300, which evolved into the Spring Creek phase, AD 1300–1400). Within this Oneota sequence, we find evidence for only indirect Mississippian influence on the ceramics: the Link and Silvernale types appear in Bartron contexts for a half century (AD 1190–1240). Mill Creek and Cambria villagers were apparently welcomed by the indigenous Bartron phase people. We believe that Cahokian hegemony did not include the Red Wing complex of villages. Direct and important contact appears to go only as far north as the Apple River confluence, Trempealeau, and of course Aztalan, but not to Red Wing. The locations we have investigated—the mounds at the confluences of the Osage and Gasconade with the Missouri River, Steed-Kisker, the Nebraska phase, the Mill Creek villagers, the Cambria phase, and the villages and mounds at Red Wing—differ significantly from each other. But most were linked to one another and through participation in the Plains Village Tradition. Conclusion

Cahokia within the Middle Mississippian world was enormously influential throughout the Midwest and adjacent areas. The magnitude of culture change emanating from Cahokia is truly impressive, but our contemporary review of sites and areas in the NWQ concludes that many

160 · Dale R. Henning and Ronald C. Schirmer

past interpretations of Cahokian hegemony here are exaggerated at best. Only Mill Creek was strongly linked to the Cahokian polity; but it was not founded by Cahokians. Currently available information suggests that the lower Missouri, Steed-Kisker, Cambria, and Red Wing do not meet the expectations set in Stoltman’s (2000) models. Some of the problems we exposed very likely proceed from undertheorized ideas about what “influence” means, and an accompanying underemphasis on local autonomy in the face of what has too often been considered a cultural behemoth. To a degree this can be understood as an artifact of history. Because of Cahokia’s comparatively major and relatively early place in midwestern archaeology, it was natural to see links to this great center when even the slightest local hint was found. And once an idea is in the literature, it assumes a life of its own. Reexamining the data and reconsidering the interpretations here help us refocus on the unique processes that define all local cultures regardless of the degree to which they may appear similar or different to their contemporaries.

III THE WEST The Middle Mississippi River Valley

7 Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

Twenty years ago Panamerican Consultants, Inc., (Panamerican) discovered a Ramey Incised vessel thought to be from Cahokia during a multisite data recovery project in northeastern Arkansas based on a 1997 contract excavation sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)–Memphis District (Buchner et al. 1999, 2003). This led to our initial exploration of Cahokia’s influence in the region, a topic that we had not revisited seriously until the 2016 Mid-South Archaeological Conference. Previously, Morse and Morse (1983, 2000:347) addressed the subject of Cahokia–northeastern Arkansas connections and concluded that evidence for “direct social interaction between the two regions seems to have been minimal.” In looking for Cahokian influence, the focus was on identifying the distribution of certain key artifact types, which were reduced to three ceramic, four shell, and four lithic artifact categories. The recovered data are sparse, as artifactual evidence was identified at only 25 sites: 17 from northeastern Arkansas and 8 in adjacent regions (Figure 7.1). At nearly all of these sites the Cahokian material is limited to a single specimen. Other evidence for Cahokia’s influence, such as mound alignments and archaeobotanical remains, which could potentially contribute to a study of this topic, are not assessed in this chapter. Ceramics

Ramey Incised Three sites in northeastern Arkansas have reportedly produced examples of Ramey Incised pottery: Banks Mound 3 (3CT16), Knappenberger (3MS53), and Perry Dixon (3MS600).

164 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

Figure 7.1. Regional map showing the location of sites discussed in the text.

Banks Mound 3 is located on the southeastern bank of Wapanocca Lake, an abandoned channel of the Mississippi River located 20 km northwest of Memphis, Tennessee. The associated Banks Village (3CT13) and two earlier (Baytown) mounds—Banks Mound 1 (3CT14) and Banks Mound 2 (3CT15)—are also found along the bank of Wapanocca Lake, but are from 1.5 to 3.0 km west of Banks Mound 3. The Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art (GIAHA) sponsored excavations at Banks Mound 3 in 1960 that are documented in the Central States Archaeological Societies Memoir

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 165

1 (Perino 1967). Perino (1967:72) generally characterized Banks Mound 3 as “a conical structure built during the early Mississippi[an] times over a smaller Baytown burial mound,” and described it has having four components or stages: a Baytown burial mound with 28 burials; a Mississippian structure with two bundle burials; an extensively used crematory feature with an earthen stairway or ramp; and the Final Cap. An uncorrected radiocarbon date of AD 1075±75 (M-1162) was obtained from a postmold on the outer edge of the crematory feature (Perino 1967:77). Perino (1967:80) acknowledged “the presence of a slight [emphasis added] Old Village [Stirling phase] influence emanating from Cahokia to the north” at Banks Mound 3 based on the presence of large, angular-shouldered jars with a black-slip finish found on Powell Plain and Ramey Incised in the Cahokia area. Importantly, Perino (1967:80) specifically mentions “a single sherd of a Ramey Incised vessel having vertical sides” that was recovered from the mound fill. This context is presumed to reference stage 4, the Final Cap. McNutt (1996:235) indicates that J. B. Griffin interpreted the Banks Mound 3 Ramey Incised sherd as being a locally made copy. It would be three decades before another Ramey Incised find was made in northeastern Arkansas. During 1997, a Panamerican crew recovered a section of an angular-shouldered Ramey Incised jar with a “forked-eye” motif at the Perry Dixon site (Buchner 1998) (Figure 7.2a). The Perry Dixon site is one of three buried Mississippian sites without mounds located along Kochtitzky Ditch No. 1 that were the subject of data recovery investigations sponsored by the USACE–Memphis District (Buchner et al. 1999, 2003). These villages are distributed along the bank of John’s Lake, an abandoned channel of the Left Hand Chute of Little River, located 16 km west–northwest of Osceola, Arkansas. At Perry Dixon, the cultural deposit was a darkcolored silty clay that ranged from 5 to 25 cm thick, which was buried 1.6 m under a combination of 1811–1812 earthquake sand, river overbank deposits, and ca. 1915 ditch spoil. The Ramey Incised vessel section—and a Bell Plain jar with a “Cahokiastyle” rim profile—was recovered from the site 3MS600 Unit M2, 10–20 cm level (Buchner et al. 2003:48). Block M was the richest deposit investigated at site 3MS600 and contained a burial (Feature 66) approximately 7 m west of the Ramey Incised find. The vessel section consists of four conjoining sherds that represent a highly distinctive angle-shouldered jar decorated with an incised forked-eye motif and two short line segments. When whole, the site 3MS600 Ramey Incised vessel likely had two forkedeye surround motifs on opposite shoulders of the vessel. Shortly after its

Figure 7.2. Cahokia-related artifacts: a, Ramey Incised jar (3MS600) (courtesy of C. Andrew Buchner/Panamerican Consultants, Inc.); b, Ramey Incised rim (3MS53) (courtesy of Marion Haynes); c, Old Town Ridge “birdman” shell gorget (3CG41) (used with permission from John Bigelow Taylor); d, quartzite perforated discoidal (3GC427) (courtesy of the Arkansas Archaeological Society); e, Eddyville-style chunky player “Snell” gorget (3CG21); f, Young shell gorget (3BE20); g, Long-Nosed god mask (3BA7) (7.2e, f, and g are used with the permission of the University of Arkansas Museum Collections); h, Walls Engraved var. Belle Meade motif showing a panel of severed warrior heads (3CT10) (courtesy of H. Terry Childs).

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 167

discovery, John Kelly examined the specimen at the Southeastern Archaeology Conference meeting in November 1997. He noted that the jar has traces of the burnished black finish typical of the American Bottom and suggested the specimen was evidence of direct contact with the Cahokia polity (Kelly 1990b). The presence of the Ramey Incised trade jar at the Perry Dixon site is significant, as it is the only ceramic evidence known that suggests the local (John’s Lake) Mississippian population was in direct contact with Cahokia. Ramey Incised jar fragments are consistently recovered from rural homestead sites (similar to site 3MS600) dating to AD 1000–1200 in the American Bottom (Pauketat and Emerson 1991:924). More specifically, at the American Bottom Range site, Ramey Incised jars are considered “distinctive and diagnostic” for Stirling phase (AD 1050–1150) contexts (Kelly 1990b:77). Additionally, the presence of the “forked-eye surround” motif on the site 3MS600 Ramey Incised specimen can be interpreted as evidence that an elite faction had developed within the local community (i.e., the John’s Lake Mississippian community). Ramey Incised jars with what were formerly known as Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) motifs were traditionally interpreted in terms of being visual markers—symbols of rank status—and are associated with the rise of chiefdoms and the development of an elite ideology. An alternative interpretation, posited by Pauketat and Emerson (1991:935), is that Ramey Incised jars were involved in centralized rites of intensification, such as the Green Corn Ceremony. From this perspective, the vessels are viewed both as “vehicles” for redistribution and the diffusion of elite ideas. Our best chronometric estimate for utilization of the Ramey Incised vessel and the Mississippian occupation of the Block M area is based on two Organic Carbon Residue (OCR) dates (AD 1041 and 1162) obtained from the buried cultural deposit at site 3MS600. It is comforting to note the OCR dates average to nearly exactly the midpoint of the Stirling phase date range. The Kunnemann Mound report indicates that the rim profile exhibited in the site 3MS600 Ramey Incised jar is “late Stirling phase” (Pauketat 1993b:Figure 4.16). This conforms nicely with the OCR date of AD 1162 obtained from a sample taken from Trench XXIII, only 11 m from site 3MS600 Unit M2. In 2009, Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) Blytheville station archaeologist Claudine Payne (2009) reported the recovery of a Ramey Incised specimen from the Knappenberger site in a paper given at the Kincaid

168 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

Conference. The Knappenberger site is a 2.8 ha village with a flat-topped mound located on a natural levee adjacent to an abandoned channel of the Mississippi River near Armorel, Arkansas. The site was pot hunted for many years, and in 1974 the AAS excavated a 2 × 2 m test unit in the village area (Klinger 1974). Klinger’s (1974) unit revealed intact, stratified deposits to a depth of 1.7 m, as well as a post and carbonized beams suggestive of three wattle-and-daub structures. Late Mississippian artifacts dominated the recovery; thus Klinger (1974:71) interpreted the Knappenberger site as a Nodena phase component. Ramey Incised is not listed in Klinger’s (1974) recovery tables; therefore it appears that the Ramey Incised specimen referenced by Payne (2009) is from a later undocumented and/or unpublished collection from Knappenberger. Its recovery is somewhat surprising given Klinger’s findings; however, given that only one 2 × 2 m unit was dug, the site could easily harbor an earlier Middle Mississippian component. Payne (2009) characterized the Knappenberger Ramey Incised sherd as having a “ladder design,” and late in the preparation of this volume former AAS archaeologist Marion Haynes provided us with a photo of this specimen that appears to be a rim from a burnished Cahokia-style rim sherd (Figure 7.2b). Given the rarity of Ramey Incised in the region, a possible specimen from Crosno (23MI1) in the Missouri Bootheel should also be mentioned. Crosno is a large palisaded Mississippian center with a 5.5 m high main mound, three smaller mounds, and a cemetery located on a natural levee adjacent to an abandoned channel of the Mississippi River 19 km south of Cairo, Illinois. Stephen Williams (1954:105) tentatively identified a single Ramey Incised sherd in Analysis Unit 20 with a “curvilinear design on the shoulder” and profile akin to the “Cahokia tradition and unlike other large jars at Crosno.” McNutt (1996:232) notes that, as a result of this possible specimen’s “loose” association with O’Byam Incised, the early occupation of Crosno is “probably contemporaneous with the late Stirling or early Moorehead phase” of the American Bottom. Walls Engraved

The Memphis area has produced a number of Walls Engraved vessels, two of which exhibit Late Braden–style imagery and “testify to an extension of the primary locus of Braden style engraving to the Memphis area by the time of the Late Braden phase” (Brown 2007b:235). Brown (2007b), however, cautioned that the small sample size makes this assessment provisional.

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 169

Chronologically, Late Braden equates with the fourteenth century (Brown 2007b:242). More generally, Childs (1993) described eight varieties of Walls Engraved and listed 23 sites in northeastern Arkansas that have yielded such material, which he broadly considered “late Mississippian and possibly Protohistoric” (Childs 1993:141). Brown (2007b:235, Figure 9.7d and e) highlighted two Walls Engraved var. Belle Meade vessels with a panel of “severed warrior heads” motif as examples of the Late Braden style in eastern Arkansas. An important Late Braden–style element found on both engravings is the presence of the “scalloped-line facial treatment” (Brown 2007b:235). One is from an unknown site in St. Francis County, Arkansas (Phillips and Brown 1978:201, Figure 263; Roberts 1969). The other example is from the Young site (3CT10) (Brown 2007b:235; Childs 1993:Figure 5a) (Figure 7.2h). This Young site (3CT10) is a mound and village located near Lost Bayou, in the modern meander belt of the Mississippi River, 2 km southwest of Edmondson, Arkansas (it is distinct from another Young site [3BA20], discussed below). The Young site (3CT10), once owned by Sam Meadows, has not been professionally excavated but has been extensively pot hunted. Plain Cahokia-Style Jars Two sites in northeastern Arkansas have produced examples of distinctive Cahokia-style jars: Pirani (3CT324) and Perry Dixon (3MS600). The Pirani site is a small Mississippian farmstead located on a natural levee west of a relic channel of the Mississippi River (the Hopefield Chute) in West Memphis, Arkansas. Garrow & Associates, Inc. conducted Phase II investigations of the site during 1994 in advance of a development that was never built (Childress et al. 1995). Work included a 25 percent controlled surface collection and the formal excavation of 4 m2 within a restricted area of high surface artifact density. The excavations revealed well-preserved remains of a partly burned Mississippian structure—consisting of charred beams, wall poles, fused cane with wattle and daub, and split cane matting—immediately below the plowzone. The recovered prehistoric ceramics (n=179) were all plain and “conformed very closely with the types and varieties found at the Chucalissa site (40SY1),” located 11 km due south of site 3CT324 (Childress et al. 1995:74). A radiocarbon date was obtained from sections of a burned hickory pole (Feature 27) within the site 3CT324 structure; it yielded an uncalibrated date of AD 1310±50 (Beta-7624) (Childress et al. 1995:86), which correlates with the late Moorehead phase at Cahokia and the Boxtown phase at Chucalissa.

170 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

Importantly, a small Bell Plain var. Nickel constricted jar was recovered from site 3CT324 that was noted “as very similar to Middle Mississippian vessels from the American Bottom,” although it lacked the typical shoulder inflection of “Cahokia-style” jars. This, coupled with the paste type, led Childress et al. (1995:83) to interpret it as a local copy of an American Bottom jar form. More convincing than the Pirani vessel, at the Perry Dixon site a Bell Plain jar with the distinctive shoulder inflection typical of Cahokia was recovered from the same unit-level context (Unit M2, 10–20 cm level) as the Ramey Incised vessel section (Buchner et al. 2003:48, 84); however, it does not exhibit the burnished black finish typical of the American Bottom, such as was observed on the Ramey Incised vessel, and, as a result, the plain specimen is interpreted as a local copy. During the vessel form analysis, this rim profile was considered “jar type 3,” and the only two examples of this type were recovered together in unit M2 (Buchner et al. 2003:94). Again, the best chronometric estimate for the utilization of this unique vessel form is based on the two OCR dates (AD 1041 and 1162) obtained from the buried cultural deposit at site 3MS600. Given the low frequency of plain Cahokia-like jars in the region, an example from the Effigy Rabbit site (40OB6) in western Tennessee bears mention (Mainfort 1996:85). Effigy Rabbit is a multimound group in northwestern Tennessee (100 km northeast of site 3MS600). Three mounds are located atop loess bluffs overlooking Reelfoot Lake (a relic channel of the Mississippi River), and one and possibly other smaller mounds are located on lower erosional spurs. In 1985, Schock (1986) excavated Mounds 1, 2, and 4 and prepared a report for the Tennessee Division of Archaeology (TDOA). Per Mainfort (1996:85), “one earthwork [Mound 1] proved to be a low, accretional burial mound” with 60 graves, most of which were extended, fleshed burials. Importantly, ceramics from these graves included “angular shouldered bowls at least one of which could be classified as Powell Plain [emphasis added]” and hooded water bottles (Mainfort 1996:Figure 3.2) (Figure 7.2b). Also recovered from this mound was a rabbit-shaped sandstone pipe and a stone discoidal. Eight radiocarbon dates were obtained from bone samples from the Mound 1 burials; the uncorrected dates range from AD 855±50 to 1115±50 (Mainfort 1996:Table 3.1). Three dates were also obtained from a burned post or log at the base of Mound 2, and their average calibrated date of AD 990 “seems reasonable for both mounds” (Mainfort 1996:86).

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 171

Shell

Eddyville Shell Gorgets The McDuffee site (3CG21) has yielded two chunkey player marine shell gorgets that are suggestive of Cahokia contact or influence. Brain and Phillips (1996:52) place human figural-style shell gorgets within the Eddyville style. The McDuffee site, also known as MacDuffie Place or Lunsford, was a large (10–15 acres) Mississippian village with two mounds located 8 km west of the St. Francis River in Craighead County, Arkansas (David Dye, personal communications, 2016). Unfortunately, this impressive site has been extensively damaged through organized commercial pot hunting, as well as by land leveling (site 3CG21 site file). Perino (1963) visited amateurs digging at the McDuffee site in December 1962 and described several burials. Frank Soday excavated at least 80 burials at McDuffee from 1964 to 1968 and noted the site was “similar in many respects to the Banks site” (Soday 1966:4). In 1982, Soday donated over 9,000 artifacts from the McDuffee site to the GIAHA, and its 2006 Native American Graves Protection and Reparation Act report characterized the site as Middle Mississippian (AD 1170–1300) (Hutt 2006). McGimsey (1964) reported the first McDuffee shell gorget; it was recovered by Charlie Snell from the chest of a child that was buried next to an adult, with two plain shell-tempered bottles placed between their heads (McGimsey 1964:Figures 1 and 2). This gorget, designated “Ark-Cg-MD1” by Brain and Phillips (1996:54) and the “Snell gorget” by Morse and Morse (1983:247–248), exhibits two chunkey players in “court-card” symmetry (Figure 7.2f). It is a solid (i.e., nonfenestrated) gorget with other design elements and/or ceremonial attire on the figures, including a talonlike hand grasping a chunkey ball, leg and arm bands, an apron, a necklace with a pendant or gorget, and forelock beads. Additionally, woodpecker heads are found near the edge, on opposite poles. The second shell gorget from the McDuffee site is fenestrated and exhibits a single chunkey player in ceremonial attire. Westbrook (2014) reports that this gorget was recovered from the left shoulder of an adult male burial that also included a plain bottle and a bowl. Designated “Ark-Cg-MD2” by Brain and Phillips (1996:52), this gorget exhibits the player in a kneeling position, with a discoidal in the talonlike right hand, a broken “striped

172 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

staff ” in the left hand, and regalia around the midsection known as the “Mangum flounce” (Brain and Phillips 1996:52). Other iconographic features include the forked-eye motif, earrings, and winged headgear. Brain and Phillips (1996:52) note that the style and craftsmanship of the second McDuffee specimen are so similar to two gorgets from Spiro (Okla-Lf-S44 and Okla-Lf-S215) and one from the Saint Mary locality in Perry County, Missouri (Mo-Py-SM1), that they all must have been manufactured in the Eddyville workshop by the same master craftsperson. Indeed, Brain and Phillips’s (1996:53) Eddyville specimen MO-Py-SM1 from Saint Mary is characterized as a “marvelous example of the chunkey player theme,” and it is “essentially identical” to the McDuffee fenestrated, single chunkey player gorget. More generally, the Saint Mary locality, which is 240 km north of the McDuffee site, produced eight shell gorgets that were purchased by Yale University in 1871 (Buchanan 2015:96; MacCurdy 1913). Brain and Phillips (1996:438–439) cataloged nine shell gorgets from Saint Mary, including two in the Eddyville style, three in the McAdams (spider) style, and single examples of Big Toco (human figural), Russell, Cruciform, and Bird styles. Buchanan (2015:97) suggests these gorgets were “likely recovered from burial mounds constructed atop the bluff edge overlooking the Mississippi River” at the Kaskaskia River confluence. Two additional Eddyville-style gorgets recovered from unspecified sites within New Madrid County, Missouri, also bear mentioning because they occur in the Cairo Lowland roughly halfway between the Saint Mary locality and the McDuffee site. Holmes (1883:Pl. 73) initially reported the “Potter” gorget, which features a warrior figure in ceremonial regalia carrying a severed head and a staff (Morse and Morse 1983:248–249; Phillips and Brown 1978:176–177). Brain and Phillips (1996:54) noted the basic structure of the Potter gorget is the Saint Andrew’s cross; thus it is similar to the Snell gorget from McDuffee (Figure 7.2e). The “Douglass” gorget was recovered from an unidentified mound in New Madrid County (Morse and Morse 1983:249; Phillips and Brown 1978:177; Thruston 1890:Pl. 17). Brain and Phillips (1996:53) characterized the “Douglass” gorget as an “unusually accurate drawing” in the Braden A style showing a Long-Nosed warrior figure with an ax in one hand and a severed head in the other, as well as a mace in the belt, an apron, a bilobed hair ornament, and long braids.

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 173

Birdman Gorget A shell gorget with a “birdman” image was reportedly recovered from the Old Town Ridge (3CG41) site northeast of Jonesboro, Arkansas (Lockhart et al. 2011:51–52; Morrow et al. 2013:4–5). Brain and Phillips (1996:415) referred to this gorget as “Ark-Ge-X1,” indicating it was from an unknown site in Greene County, Arkansas. It is unclear how Lockhart et al. (2011) and Morrow et al. (2013) established this gorget’s site context as Old Town Ridge. Old Town Ridge is a 7 ha, fortified, Middle Mississippian (AD 1250– 1350) town located adjacent to a relic stream channel between the St. Francis and Little Rivers (Lockhart et al. 2011; Morrow et al. 2013). Similar to the McDuffee site, which is located 26 km to the southwest, Old Town Ridge is well known to collectors and has suffered extensive damage from years of pot hunting as well as land leveling. Relatively recent geophysical investigations by the AAS revealed the site contains numerous cultural features—including palisade posts, a possible ditch/moat, structures, and hearth—as well as earthquake liquefaction features. Analysis of surface collections and auger tests confirmed the site is an important Middle Mississippian settlement, and a radiocarbon date supported this assessment: cal. AD 1290–1420 (610±40 cal. years before present) (Lockhart et al. 2011:51). The Old Town Ridge birdman gorget contains a complex set of stylistic elements, including a cross-in-circle design with sprouting bird wings, a severed head above, a falcon tail, and talons holding severed heads (Figure 7.2c). Lockhart et al. (2011:51) suggested it was made in the style of Craig. Brain and Phillips (1996:415) considered it unclassified; however, as noted above, Brown (2007b:235) equated the severed warrior heads motif as an example of the Late Braden style in eastern Arkansas. Regardless of style placement, from a chronological standpoint the Old Town Ridge birdman gorget is firmly dated to the fourteenth century given the radiocarbon date. Akron Cup A critical piece of evidence suggestive of Cahokian influence in northeast Arkansas, and within the White River basin, is the Akron Cup (Brown 2007b; Thomas 1894:224; Ann M. Early, personal communications, 2016). The “Akron Grid,” which is a “pattern of closely spaced parallel lines with distinctive terminations,” derives its name from this specimen (Brown 2007b:221). The engraved design on the Akron Cup strongly resembles designs on shell cup fragments from Cahokia Mound 34 that are considered

174 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

“Classic Braden” and “belong to a Moorehead phase context that spans the period between 1200 and 1275” (Brown 2007b:223). The Akron Cup is believed to be from the Akron Mound (3IN3), located on Big Bottom Slough, a tributary of the White River 11 km west of the confluence of the Black and White Rivers. This location is strategic, as the White River leaves the Ozark uplift and enters the Mississippi alluvial valley here, and it is near an ancient trail network, known as the “Southwest Trail,” which connected the St. Louis–St. Genevieve area of Missouri to the Red River valley (Akridge 2016). Thomas (1894:225) characterized the Akron Mound as “300 feet in diameter, 7 feet high, and circular in outline . . . covered over with the graves of the townspeople.” Today, however, the “mound” appears to be a series of three small conical mounds on a 180 × 50 m low ridge. Little professional modern work has been conducted at the site, but the 1980s site form updates suggest it is a dense Mississippian scatter that has been targeted by looters. The historic cemetery on the mound dates from 1829 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2002. The Akron Cup was reportedly found while digging a historic grave at the base of the mound (Thomas 1894:225). Edward Palmer’s October 1882 letter to Cyrus Thomas indicated the Akron Cup was acquired from M. A. Mull of Jacksonport, Arkansas, and that “a number of circular shell beads” and an “idol” were recovered from the same context (Jeter 1990:176). Greenbrier Shell Gorget Slightly upstream from the Akron Mound lies the Greenbrier phase, a cluster of 16 sites in the Batesville area (Morrow 2000; Sabo et al. 2018). The paramount site of this phase, Greenbrier (3IN1), has produced four shell gorgets, including one with two anthropomorphic figures holding ceremonial staffs, facing in opposite directions that Sabo et al. (2018:Figures 4.13, 4.14) suggest has affinities to Craig A examples from Spiro. Designated “Ark-In-G4” by Brain and Phillips (1996:415), other design elements found on this gorget include a bellows-shaped apron, kilts with crosses, stylized raccoon hindquarter headgear, beaded forelocks, earspools, and triangularshaped eyes. The recovery context is unknown. Long-Nosed God Masks Long-Nosed god masks, which are earrings shaped like human heads with long noses, have been interpreted as evidence of influence from Cahokia (Brown 2007b; Pauketat 2004). Williams and Goggin (1956) proposed an

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 175

early Mississippian Long-Nosed god horizon based on the distribution of these rare shell and copper artifacts. Muller (1989:14) considered these items part of the “Developmental Cult” period of AD 900–1150. More recently, Brown (2007b:224–225) proposed that Long-Nosed god ear ornaments are Classic Braden and date to the thirteenth century. There is no reported example of Long-Nosed god masks from northeastern Arkansas. Given their rarity, two specimens reported from the Shipps Ferry site (3BA7) in the Arkansas Ozarks (Figure 7.3d) brought “forth interesting speculations” as to the White River basin Mississippian population’s “relationships with Spiro and with Cahokia” (Davis 1969:63). Shipps Ferry is an extensive multicomponent prehistoric site situated on a terrace of the White River that was excavated by the AAS in 1964 (House et al. 1969:65). The Mississippian component at the Shipps Ferry site is characterized by plain shell-tempered pottery and small arrow points (House et al. 1969:80). The two Long-Nosed god masks were apparently plowed up in 1958 (House et al. 1969:65). The Shipps Ferry site specimens are manufactured of shell, but interestingly lacked noses, possibly as a result of plow damage, because slits were present for the nosepieces. Young Shell Gorget Only 10 km northeast of the Shipps Ferry site, the Young site (3BA20; not the previously discussed Young site [3BA10]) produced a fenestrated shell gorget that is highly similar to the Finklestein-style gorgets from Spiro (34LF40) (Davis 1964:Figure 9; John House, personal communications, 2016). Young (3BA20) is located on a terrace of the Norfolk River, a tributary of the White River, near the Norfolk Dam. The University of Arkansas Museum and the AAS Twin Lakes Chapter conducted a salvage excavation at the Young site in February 1964 and excavated nine features exposed in a bulldozer cut (Davis 1964). While the Young site is multicomponent, the Mississippian period occupation was the most intensive and is characterized by shell-tempered pottery, various arrow points, cache pits, and extended burials. At the Young site, a fenestrated shell gorget was recovered from the throat of “Skeleton 3,” an adult (probable male) extended burial (Davis 1964:87, Figure 9). Other associated artifacts included a stemmed projectile point, two bone pins, and 55 small shell beads (Davis 1964:87, Figure 8). In a photograph, Davis (1964:Figure 9) compared the Young Skeleton 3 gorget to a highly similar example from Spiro that is Brain and Phillips’s

176 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

(1996) specimen Okla-Lf-S953. The Young gorget exhibits eight semicircular fenestrations arranged in a ring, yielding a rayed or star effect, and has a small central perforation (Figure 7.2f). Designated “Ark-Ba-Y1” by Brain and Phillips (1996:42), the Young gorget is characterized as “similar to the Finklestein style,” one of the geometric styles, but its narrow border lacks engraved rings. All six known Finklestein shell gorgets are from the Great Mortuary at Spiro. Lithics

Cahokia-Type Discoidals Two, possibly four, Cahokia-type stone discoidals are reported from northeastern Arkansas: one from Cherry Valley Mound 2 (3CS40), an isolated one from near site 3CG427, and two poorly documented examples from unidentified sites. All these finds are located within a 35 km radius of the Cherry Valley Mound Group. The Cherry Valley Mound Group consists of five conical mounds located on a terrace at the foot of the western escarpment of Crowley’s Ridge, approximately 15 km south of Harrisburg, Arkansas. There is no associated village, thus Morse and Morse (1996:128) interpreted the complex as a “nonresidential burial center” associated with a dispersed population. The Morses (1983:242) made it the type-site for the Cherry Valley phase, dated AD 1050–1150. Phase traits include burial mounds built over circular charnel houses and a shell-tempered ceramic complex that, when “first recognized, appeared unique to this part of the Central Valley, the beakers in particular, and suggested an intrusion from the north, probably Cahokia” (McNutt 1996:234). This idea, “reasonable at the time, posed certain problems” (McNutt 1996:234), and the “Beaker Horizon” is now known to be more widespread (Morse and Morse 1990:155–158). During 1958, the GIAHA sponsored salvage excavations at Cherry Valley Mounds 1, 2 and 3, which were previously heavily damaged by looters (Perino 1967). A perforated diorite “Cahokia”-type discoidal reportedly recovered from Mound 2 was documented in the Abner Clements Collection (Perino 1967:66, Figure 42). Perino (1967:66) described the diorite discoidal and a similar clay discoidal, also from Mound 2, as “of the Cahokia sharp-rimmed variety with broad shallow concavities and . . . thin.” Mound 2, the central mound of the group, covered a 10 m diameter circular “temple” with a 6 m long entranceway. Three radiocarbon dates were

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 177

obtained at the Cherry Valley Mound Group, including two from charred posts associated with the Mound 2 entranceway that Perino (1967:67) reports as AD 710±150 and AD 1100±110, and Morse and Morse (1983:242) report as AD 722±137 and AD 1102±120 (M-917 and M-1486). Perino (1967) also mentioned two other possible Cahokia-type stone discoidals in his discussion of the Cherry Valley Mound 2 find. An “unperforated” specimen was recovered “from a field near a Cherry Valley Complex mound located northwest of Bay Village, Arkansas,” and a fragment of another one was found along Bayou De View to the west of Cherry Valley (Perino 1967:66). Smith (1973b:20) reported the discovery of an isolated, pinkish quartzite perforated discoidal “from the surface 300 ft. north of site 3CG427.” It was suggested that this discoidal may have been redeposited as a result of historic period collecting. Smith (1973b:20) provides the metric attributes of the specimen and comments on its similarity to the Cherry Valley Mound 2 specimen. Cahokia Notched Points Cahokia Notched points are not well represented in the northeastern Arkansas literature: a single well-documented specimen is described from the Kochtitzky Ditch site (3MS599) (Buchner et al. 2003:112, Figure 4.2n). This is not to say they do not exist, as Justice’s (1987:232) distribution map for the “Cahokia Cluster” extends across most of northeastern Arkansas and beyond to Oklahoma. Morse and Morse (2000:355) mention a Cahokia triple-notched point from the Bradley site (3CT7) that is knapped from Burlington chert. Additionally, the McDuffee site reportedly produced a number of Cahokia Notched points knapped on exotic white chert that have not made it into the literature (David Dye, personal communication, 2016). Morphological correlates of Cahokia Notched points, such as Schugtown and others, are more common in northeastern Arkansas (see Buchner et al. 2003:111). Scully (1951) originally proposed four variations of the Cahokia point, and the site 3MS599 specimen is considered a “Cahokia double.” In general, Cahokia points are considered diagnostic for Early Mississippian components, are strongly associated with the American Bottoms Fairmount phase, and are probably best known from caches recovered from mortuary contexts at Cahokia Mound 72. The Kochtitzky Ditch site (3MS599) is located on the shoreline of John’s Lake, a relic channel of the Left Hand Chute of Little River, a few hundred

178 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

meters to the north of the Ramey Incised find at the Perry Dixon site. At site 3MS599, a Cahokia Notched point was recovered from the Block D, Unit 1, 40–50 cm level. This provenience is a buried Middle Mississippian deposit stratigraphically sandwiched between Feature 78—which is associated with a lower occupation surface, a Matthews Incised jar, and an OCR date of AD 1162±23—and two dated features of the early Late Mississippian Nodena phase Structure 2 (Feature 39 [OCR date AD 1382±17] and a burned western wall timber [Beta-112437] with a calibrated 14C intercept value of AD 1421 [2 sigma range AD 1399–1442]). Thus, the site 3MS599 Cahokia point is clearly from a Middle Mississippian context and likely dates to the interval ca. AD 1150–1400. Importantly, the 3MS599 Cahokia Notched point is knapped from an exotic white chert that is similar to Crescent Quarry chert, but which, out of an abundance of caution, was typed as “undifferentiated Osagean chert” (Buchner et al. 2003:132). This raw material is well represented in the site 3MS599 lithic assemblage, as over 17 percent of the chipped-stone tools and one-third of the debitage are composed of it. The geologic sources of undifferentiated Osagean chert include several Mississippian-age Osagean series formations in the Ozarks of northeastern Arkansas and Missouri (Ray 2007). Near the mouth of the White River north of Batesville, Arkansas, Osagean chert outcrops from the Elsey (“Boone”) formation. Similar chert is associated with the Burlington-Keokuk and Fern Glen formations from southeastern Missouri up to St. Louis and the Crescent Quarry chert locality (St. Louis/Jefferson County). The cortex on the site 3MS599 specimens suggests they were procured from secondary (streambed) sources rather than primary outcrops. In general, the use of Osagean chert at the Kochtitzky Ditch site (3MS599) suggests it was of a utilitarian value second only to Crowley’s Ridge chert (Buchner et al. 2003:132). We presume the chert was imported to the site in the form of medium-size, partly reduced nodular cobbles similar to one recovered nearby from site 3MS610 as a type specimen. The exact source of this raw material is uncertain (i.e., is it Boone, Burlington, or Crescent?), but a minimum import distance of 110 km is required from the mouth of the White River. Accessing the sources at the mouth of the White River would have required traversing the western lowlands and/or possibly interacting with late Cherry Valley phase populations. Given the limited occurrences of Cahokia Notched points in northeastern Arkansas, Mainfort’s (1996:85) report of local collectors recovering

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 179

Cahokia Notched points made of Burlington chert at the Samburg site (40OB1) in northwest Tennessee is significant. The Samburg site was a major Mississippian political center containing two platform mounds and an associated village and is located on Reelfoot Lake below the bluffs where the Effigy Rabbit site (40OB6) is located. In addition to the Cahokia Notched points, a “substantial” amount of Burlington chert debitage is present at Samburg. Mill Creek Chert Items A Mill Creek chert mace is reported from the Old Town Ridge (3CG41) (Morrow et al. 2013:4). The context of the find is not known. It was no doubt dug by an amateur or looter, and then sold to Harry Lemley, who subsequently donated it to the GIAHA museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The form of the Old Town Ridge mace is similar to a Mill Creek chert mace from burial 28-71 (“The Man with the Mace”) at the Lilburn site (23NM38) that is dated ca. AD 1100 (Chapman and Evans 1977:112–117). Other reported Mill Creek chert mace finds in eastern Arkansas include one from “near Forrest City” and four from an unknown site in Mississippi County (Morse and Morse 1983:249). Another significant Mill Creek chert artifact from northeast Arkansas is the Duck River–style “ceremonial sword” recovered from inside a wall trench house at the Hazel site (3PO6) (Morse and Morse 1983:Figure 10.4, 247). Importantly, the basal deposit at the Hazel site is Middle Mississippian and is dated ca. AD 1150–1250 (Morse and Morse 1983:247). Statues No flint clay statue that is characteristic of Cahokia-style statuary from the American Bottoms is known from northeastern Arkansas (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Emerson et al. 2003); however, an example is reported from southeastern Arkansas (see Jeter et al.’s chapter in this volume). Given the absence of flint clay statues, the reported recovery of an “Idol” with the Akron Cup (Jeter 1990:176) is significant, as is a stone human figurine from the Schugtown site (3GE2) in what was formerly referred to as “SECC style” (Morse and Morse 1983:248–250). Unfortunately, Palmer did not describe the “idol” from the Akron Mound in his letters, but it is likely some type of human figurine related to Cahokia-style statuary. Importantly, it was recovered with the Akron Cup and some circular beads. The only additional information regarding the

180 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

Akron Idol is that during 1882 it was in the possession of Dodd, Brown, and Co. at the corner of 5th Avenue and St. Charles Street in St. Louis (Jeter 1990:176). This clue could lead to the idol’s eventual identification. The Schugtown Mounds (3GE2) are located west of the St. Francis River, approximately 7 km southeast of Paragould and Crowley’s Ridge. Initially reported by the Smithsonian (Thomas 1894:199–200), this site originally included a large 25-foot-high mound with 1811 earthquake damage, three other mounds, and a plaza. The Morses (1983:25) indicated that the deposits are shallow and that artifact density is “sparse” at the Schugtown Mounds. Importantly, the ceramic assemblage at the Schugtown site is characterized as mainly plain and similar to that of the basal (Middle Mississippian) deposit at the Hazel site. The Schugtown statue was reportedly found in 1933. Smith and Miller (2009:152–153) described the Schugtown statue as made of sandstone, 12 inches tall, and depicting a male with a hair coil and small occipital knot. They noted it “displays several features that are foreign to the Tennessee-Cumberland style” statues and considered it an outlier to the core distribution. Conclusions

Arguably, the “best” evidence for Cahokia influence in northeastern Arkansas is the presence of shell artifacts at four sites: two Eddyville-style gorgets from the McDuffee site; the birdman gorget from Old Town Ridge in the St. Francis River basin; and the Akron Cup from the Akron Mound and the Greenbrier gorget from near the edge of the Mississippi Embayment. The Eddyville-style gorgets from the McDuffee site exhibit chunkey player themes, and one of these is essentially identical to one of the two Eddyville-style gorgets from the St. Mary locality. The presence of two additional Eddyville-style gorgets in Cairo Lowland, roughly halfway between the Saint Mary locality and the McDuffee site, places six of the nine known examples of this style within the central Mississippi River valley; the outliers of this style are to the west at Spiro and to the east at two sites in the Cumberland River basin of the interior low plateau province. The engraved design on the Akron Cup is considered Classic Braden and dated to between AD 1200 and 1275. Given the Akron Mound’s strategic location, on or near the Southwest Trail where the White River leaves the Ozarks, it is tempting to suggest that the cup reached the Akron site via an

Table 7.1. Summary of findings Site

Evidence

Context

3BA7 Shipps Ferry 3BA20 Young

Two shell Long-Nosed god masks Fenestrated geometric shell gorget, similar to the Finklestein style Cahokia Triple Notched PP/K knapped on Burlington chert Late Braden Walls Engraved var. Belle Meade vessel Two Eddyville-style shell gorgets: (1) double chunkey player (Snell gorget); (2) single chunkey player “Cahokia type” discoidal; diorite

Plowzone Village; adult burial

3CT7 Bradley 3CT10 Young 3CG21 McDuffee 3CS40 Cherry Valley Mound 2 3GE2 Schugtown 3CG41 Old Town Ridge 3CG427 3CT16 Banks Mound 3 3CT324 Pirani 3IN3 Akron Mound 3MS53 Knappenburger 3MS599 Kochtitzky 3MS600 Perry Dixon St. Francis Co., AR 23MI1 Crosno Saint Mary, MO New Madrid Co., MO New Madrid Co., MO 40OB1 Samburg 40OB6 Effigy Rabbit

Sandstone human statue Birdman shell gorget; and “Duck River”–style Mill Creek chert mace “Cahokia type” discoidal; pinkish quartzite Ramey Incised sherd with vertical sides Bell Plain var. Nickel jar rim with “Cahokia-style” profile Akron Cup, and possible “Idol” Ramey Incised sherd with ladder design Cahokia Notched point; undifferentiated Oseagean chert, also 27 Cahokia Cord Marked sherds Ramey Incised rim with forked eye motif, and Bell Plain var. Bell jar rim with “Cahokia-style” profile Late Braden Walls Engraved var. Belle Meade vessel Tentative Ramey Incised Two Eddyville-style shell gorgets; including one “identical” to McDuffee Eddyville-style “Potter” shell gorget Eddyville-style “Douglas” shell gorget Cahokia Side Notched points; Burlington chert Powell Plain angular shoulder bowl

Unknown; mound and village Unknown; mound and village Village with two mounds; (1) child burial, with adult; (2) adult burial Burial mound Unknown; mound and village Unknown; mound and village Isolated find Burial mound fill Farmstead structure Mound Unknown Village midden Village midden Unknown Village midden at fortified site with mounds Likely mounds Unknown Mound Unknown Burial mound

182 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

overland route on the Southwest Trail, which connects the St. Louis–St. Genevieve (and the St. Mary locality) to the Red River valley. Farther up the White River from the Akron Mound, the presence of the Long-Nosed god masks at the Shipps Ferry site and a Finklestein-like gorget 10 km away at the Young site may reflect a Cahokia shell exchange corridor in the mountains. Note that the Shipps Ferry/Young locality in Baxter County (straight line) is roughly 240 km from Spiro and 270 km from St. Mary; thus, these sites may represent a colonized node on an overland trade route between Cahokia and Spiro. From the viewpoint of these Baxter County sites, there is a mixing of northern and Spiroan influences during the Classic Braden times (i.e., thirteenth century): the Long-Nosed god masks and the only Finkelstein-like gorget recovered outside of the Great Mortuary. Beyond the Eddyville-style and birdman gorgets, evidence for Cahokia influence flowing directly down the Mississippi River principally consists of ceramic artifacts, namely Ramey Incised and plain Cahokia-style jars, although two Late Braden Walls Engraved var. Belle Meade vessels with severed head motifs are also notable. The Ramey Incised and plain Cahokia-style jar ceramics are identified, or tentatively identified, at six sites distributed along and near the Mississippi River from the Cairo Lowland (Crosno) to Reelfoot Lake (Effigy Rabbit), and finally into the lower St. Francis basin in northeastern Arkansas (four sites). Most of these ceramics are interpreted as locally produced copies of Cahokia-style vessels. The only ceramic evidence for direct contact with Cahokia is the Ramey Incised forked-eye vessel section with an eroded burnished black finish typical of the American Bottom from Perry Dixon, a nonmound village located 16 km west of the Mississippi River. The lithic artifact categories examined exhibit different distribution patterns. Cahokia-style perforated discoidals are reported from two, possibly four, sites on and west of Crowley’s Ridge in the Cherry Valley phase vicinity. Not far to the northeast, the Schugtown site in the lower St. Francis basin produced a sandstone human statue, while the only other probable statue, the Akron Idol, was found much farther west, on the edge of the Mississippi embayment. Mill Creek chert mace distributions are poorly understood because only one specimen can definitively be attributed to a site (Old Town Ridge); however, maces seem to be restricted to the eastern lowlands (St. Francis River basin). Cahokia Notched points made of distinctive white Burlington or Crescent Quarry–like chert are reported from only two sites: Kochtitzky and Bradley in the lower St. Francis Basin; however,

Cahokia Connections in Northeastern Arkansas · 183

Cahokia Notched points are probably underrepresented in the regional record (e.g., many undocumented specimens were reportedly recovered from the McDuffee site). Because antiquarians or relic collectors recovered most of the artifacts discussed, reliable intrasite contextual data and absolute dates are available for only a few of the specimens. The Snell gorget from the McDuffee site was associated with a child in a double burial, while the other McDuffee site gorget was from an adult burial. The Finkelstein-like gorget from the Young site (3BA20) was from an adult burial in a village. Dated contexts include the Cahokia Notched point find at the Kochtitzky Ditch site (ca. AD 1150–1400) and the Ramey Incised vessel with forked-eye motif from the Perry Dixon site (AD 1041–1162); both of these represent midden contexts. The Bank Mound 3 fill, from which a Ramey Incised sherd was recovered, was not directly dated but is thought to be associated with an uncorrected radiocarbon date of AD 1075±75 from a postmold on the outer edge of the crematory feature. The site 3CT324 Bell Plain var. Nickel constricted jar with a similar rim profile to Middle Mississippian vessels from the American Bottom is from a burned structure that yielded an uncalibrated date of AD 1310±50. The Old Town Ridge site produced a date of cal. AD 1290– 1420 from a probable hearth, but this date is not associated with either of the key Cahokian artifacts from the site (i.e., birdman gorget and mace). Regarding mounds, the 25 Cahokia-related artifacts in this sample include 15 from 12 sites that contain mounds, although only 8 of the items are actually thought or known to be derived from mound contexts within these sites. The six sites that produced these eight artifacts (Cherry Valley Mound 2, Banks Mound 3, Akron Mound, Effigy Rabbit, an unknown New Madrid County mound, and the St. Mary bluff mounds) are widely distributed, with three being along or near the Mississippi River, one on Crowley’s Ridge, and one where the White River leaves the Ozark uplift. Possible Cahokia-related mound alignments at these sites were not assessed in our analysis of these sites. In contrast, the distribution of villages or farmstead sites without mounds that yielded Cahokia-related material exhibits two clusters: three sites within the Mississippi River meander belt (3CT324, 3MS599, and 3MS600) and two sites clustered in the Ozarks (3BA7 and 3BA20). Because the recovery context data at several sites are unknown, any of these correlations could be fictional. To conclude, the archaeological evidence for Cahokia influence or trade at its climax within northeastern Arkansas is present, but limited. As

184 · C. Andrew Buchner and Eric S. Albertson

McNutt (1996:230) penned 20 years ago, “one would think that Cahokia’s impact on the Central Valley would have been pervasive and obvious, but such does not seem to have been the case.” However, if we invert this study and look for evidence of northeast Arkansas at Cahokia, there is the “Richland Complex” and its high frequency of exotic Varney Red-filmed pottery (Pauketat 2003:53–54). This site complex is interpreted as an immigrant farmer population from northeast Arkansas and southeast Missouri, and perhaps because the population was moving north, the evidence for Cahokia in the area they left is limited.

8 Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

Focused interest in specific kinds of artifacts as indicators of the influence of Cahokia on Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) cultures began in the 1960s–1980s with research by Jeffrey P. Brain. He discussed such finds, and sometimes schematically mapped “Cahokia contacts,” in his dissertation on the Winterville site (Brain 1969), an overview of LMV prehistory (Brain 1971:75–77), a study of eastern LMV settlement patterns (Brain 1978:344– 350), the Lake George site report (Williams and Brain 1983:375–376, 409– 413, Figures 11.16, 12.14, 12.15), and the published revision of the Winterville report (Brain 1989:117–122, 131–132, Figure 81, Table 11). In those works, Brain suggested that these contacts had a significant effect on the southerly groups, most notably inspiring the change from Coles Creek to Plaquemine culture, accompanied by an increase in sociopolitical complexity and a florescence of mound building. But others (e.g., Griffin 1986, 1993:5; Kidder 2007:199–205) have been dubious, giving more credit to regional dynamics within the LMV and noting possible southerly influences on Cahokia. Except for brief references to findings by others farther north, Brain understandably concentrated almost exclusively on sites east of the Mississippi River, especially the major mound centers of Winterville and Lake George, where he had worked, plus others in the Lower Yazoo Basin that he mentioned in passing. More recently, in a west-side breakthrough, a contract project found larger numbers of Cahokia-related materials at the Lake Providence mound site in northeast Louisiana (Weinstein, ed. 2005a; Wells 2005; Wells and Weinstein 2007; Weinstein and Wells, this volume). However, there has been no systematic, comprehensive review of possible Cahokia-contact materials found in Arkansas, although the Morses

186 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

(2000) published a general summary for northeast Arkansas. In this volume, Buchner and Albertson provide more details for that macroregion, and the present chapter is mainly focused on our Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) Research Station territories in the eastern and southeastern portions of the state. We are working mainly with surface-collected items or others with only minimal control of contexts; yet some intriguing patterns are already apparent. Maps and Key Sites

Our base map (Figure 8.1) uses the familiar Harvard Lower Mississippi Survey grid of 15-minute quadrangles. Several cities are shown here as landmarks, but their names are omitted in our later maps of the same territory. We also show some relevant prehistoric sites, including Winterville and Lake George, plus Carson (Johnson and Connaway, this volume) on the east side of the Mississippi, along with Lake Providence and several Arkansas sites on the west side. The sites’ names are included on this map, but only their triangular locational symbols are shown on our later maps. Of particular interest in eastern Arkansas is the Barrett mound site (3LE3), where House directed salvage excavations in 1983 (House and House 1987). It is in the northeast corner of Lee County, just below the St. Francis County line, and near the important juncture of the St. Francis and Mississippi Rivers. To the west, near Little Rock, is the major Toltec ceremonial center (Rolingson 2012), but it is slightly too early for our subject matter, having declined shortly after 1000 (all dates in this chapter are AD) just as Cahokia was beginning to flourish. In southeast Arkansas, we will discuss the Richland site (3DE24; not to be confused with Pauketat’s [2003] “Richland complex” of sites in the uplands just east of Cahokia), on a small bayou near the Mississippi River in southeastern Desha County. House has done follow-up work on some remarkable finds made by pot-hunters at Richland in the 1960s. We also emphasize the Taylor mound site (3DR2), near the northeast corner of Drew County. It is west of Richland and inland about 35 km (over 20 miles) from the Mississippi, on the region’s major inland stream, Bayou Bartholomew, as are several other small to medium-sized late prehistoric mound sites, mainly to the south, that are not known to have produced any likely Cahokia-related artifacts (House and Jeter 1994; Kidder 1994; Rolingson 1976,

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 187

Figure 8.1. Base map of eastern and southeastern Arkansas and portions of adjacent regions, showing locations of selected cities (black squares) and prehistoric mound sites (open triangles).

1993). At Taylor, Jeter directed extensive AAS–Arkansas Archeological Society “summer digs” in 1991 and 1992. Despite possible biases in the collections from these and many other sites in eastern and southeastern Arkansas, there are probably some reflections of reality in the spatial clusters of find-sites that we will illustrate and discuss. We have collections from sites all over these multicounty station territories, but not many probable—or possible—Cahokian items have shown up away from these clusters.

188 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

Archaeological Cultures, Phases, and Chronologies

Regional Sequences The cultural situations in these latitudes were in flux during late prehistoric times (Jeter et al. 1989:156–183, Figures 15–19). For the period between about 700 and the middle 1000s, most of eastern Arkansas and at least the northern part of southeastern Arkansas have been regarded as in the orbit of the Plum Bayou culture, with Toltec as its major site (Rolingson 2012). However, for a brief span around the 800s, a relatively small region on both sides of the Mississippi River just south of Memphis has been assigned to the somewhat anomalous Walnut Bend phase of an undefined culture (Phillips 1970:914–916, Figure 446). With the demise of Toltec and the Plum Bayou culture, and the slow southward spread of “Mississippianization,” eastern Arkansas became difficult to define archaeologically for the period between about 1000 and the 1300s. It was characterized by small sites with overwhelmingly plain, increasingly shell-tempered pottery, known only from surface collections, so chronological controls were insufficient for phase definitions (House 1982:42–45; Jeter et al. 1989:Table 7). The Barrett site was the scene of the region’s first controlled excavations relating to this time span (House and House 1987; see below). Between about 700 and the middle 1200s, northeast Louisiana and at least the southern portion of southeast Arkansas have been regarded as within the Coles Creek culture area (Jeter et al. 1989:165–170, Figures 15–17; see Phillips 1970:Figure 446). A study of artifact distributions suggested that there was an extensive zone of cultural interaction between the Coles Creek and Plum Bayou cultures in the southern to central parts of southeast Arkansas (Jeter and Scott 2008). After about 1200, most of southeast Arkansas is regarded as within the northern limits of the Plaquemine culture, much of it assigned to Rolingson’s (1976, 1993) Bartholomew phase, but with gradually increasing amounts of shell-tempered pottery, so that site components dating after about 1400 have been called Mississippian (Rolingson 1976:116–117; see Jeter 2007:191–192; Jeter et al. 1989:171ff, Figures 17–22). Cahokia-Contact Chronologies Brain (1969, 1971:76, 1978:Table 12.1, 1989:117–122, Figure 81) consistently suggested that the major “Cahokia horizon” contacts in the Yazoo Basin

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 189

had taken place around 1200 (or between 1150 and 1250) (Williams and Brain 1983:410, n13), despite suggestions of earlier datings (1050–1150, or even “around 1050”) by Griffin (1973:378, 1986:72, 1990:70–71) based on the Cahokia chronology of that time. Since then, the Cahokia situation has been significantly revised, based on many more radiocarbon dates and recalibration of their calendrical equivalents, and the relevant phases (especially Stirling) have been moved to about 50 years later (Fortier et al. 2006:Figures 3 and 4; see Figure 1.2 in the present volume), so Brain’s estimates have stood the test of time, as it were. At Barrett, House and House (1987:122, 133) first estimated the dating of the Cahokia-related finds at around 1100, but this “Barrett complex” was later placed at 1100–1200 if not later (House 1993:21–22, Figure 4). However, these were just estimates based on comparisons with other regions’ chronologies. Recently, a relevant radiocarbon date, in the 1020–1165 range, has been obtained from Barrett Mound A, and is discussed below, as are slightly later dates from Taylor. At Lake Providence, the researchers assigned certain finds, including Cahokian exotics, to a “Preston fineware complex,” dated by a number of radiocarbon determinations to the terminal Coles Creek culture’s Preston phase (Wells 2005:335–336, 360–362, 386, Table 9.6), more precisely to “probably between . . . 1200 and 1220” (Weinstein 2005b:516) for the main context, or more inclusively to “the middle to late Preston phase, [around] 1150–1260” (Wells and Weinstein 2007:45). The dates and estimates just reviewed might suggest progressively later contacts with increasing distance from Cahokia. However, many more chronometric determinations from good contexts would be needed to test such a scenario. With this big-picture background in mind, we now turn to specific finds of probable and possible Cahokia-connected items in and near our regions. After discussing them, we present some details of the excavated contexts at our three key sites. Artifacts and Materials

Missouri Flint Clay Figurines and Pipes These remarkable artifacts were made from a special kind of reddish clayey stone that has been chemically and mineralogically sourced to deposits on the southern outskirts of St. Louis. They were probably fabricated at

190 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

Figure 8.2. Finds of Missouri flint clay figurines in eastern and southeastern Arkansas. Find-site locations are indicated by small, solid-black circles here and in the following figures.

or near Cahokia, mainly during the 1100s (Emerson et al. 2002:311–313; Reilly 2004:132). Some remained in the American Bottom region, but others wound up in distant sites, although there may have been a delay in their southerly distribution (especially southwesterly, to Caddoan sites) until Cahokia’s decline in the 1200s (Emerson et al. 2002:325). Also, they could have been “curated” or kept as heirlooms for decades before being buried (Emerson et al. 2002:328). Complicating matters further, there are provenience and context problems with all three items described here. Their putative find-sites are indicated on the Figure 8.2 map.

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 191

Our first example is the so-called Corn Mother or Corn Maiden figurine-pipe (discussed and illustrated by Reilly [2004:133–134, Figure 1]; however, some, e.g., Fritz and Kelly [2004], do not think the plants shown at the front of it are depictions of corn). It was reportedly found by a relic collector in a low mound at the Richland site, accompanying a burial along with a number of other probably Cahokia-related items (discussed below). Like the specimen nicknamed “Big Boy” from Spiro, this one started out as a figurine and was later modified into a pipe. It was said to have been broken when found and may have been purposely “killed” before burial. Another pot-hunter told Jeter in 1982, and reasserted in 1991, that he had found a small fragment of a pipe, possibly depicting a kneeling figure, in a disturbed spot on Mound 2 at Taylor. Jeter borrowed it in 1982 and sent it to the Smithsonian Institution, where it was tested, along with other artifacts and raw materials, including Arkansas bauxite from southwest of Little Rock in Saline County, then believed to have been a likely source of raw material for such figurines (see Milner et al. 1993:170, Plate 31). The result (Bruce Smith, personal communication, 1983) was the first mention that Jeter had ever heard of what was then called “Missouri fire clay.” The finder has since died, and his collection has been sold or given away; the specimen’s present location is unknown. Also, reportedly in the 1930s a farmhand found a polished, mostly complete flint clay figurine (not a pipe) at a site near Helena in Phillips County (probably the one now designated as 3PH133; records and photos on file at the AAS’s University of Arkansas Pine Bluff Research Station). It depicts a sitting man with a small, more or less typically shaped jar in front of him. The left arm and leg, and parts of the left and rear portions of the head, are missing. So far, such finds have been very scarce in and near Arkansas. None are mentioned in the Morses’ (1983, 2000) summaries, and they also seem to be rare farther down the LMV (Emerson et al. 2002:Figure 2). Cahokia Notched Triangular Arrow Points A damaged (broken and burned, material uncertain) Cahokia triplenotched triangular arrow point was found in a shallow test unit on the summit of Mound A at Barrett (House and House 1987:131, Figure 2). Its depth was consistent with the mound’s Stage 3 (of four), but there had been some disturbance, so the context is uncertain. We do not know of any such finds elsewhere in eastern or southeastern

192 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

Figure 8.3. Finds of Cahokia “triple-notched” triangular arrow points in eastern Arkansas and adjacent regions in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Arkansas. However, a “typical Cahokia triple-notched point made of Burlington chert” (see below) was found at the extensive Bradley site (Morse and Morse 2000:355) in northeast Arkansas a short distance north of Memphis. Bradley is best known for its late prehistoric and protohistoric components but was also occupied earlier, during “a long period of Mississippian development and habitation” (Morse and Morse 1983:285). A few Cahokia points have also been found at Carson (Johnson and Connaway, this volume). Just to the south of Arkansas, one was found at

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 193

Lake Providence. The material was identified as Illinois Kaolin chert, which is associated with Cahokia points in the homeland (Wells and Weinstein 2007:52, Figure 3.13b). As shown by our map (Figure 8.3), like the figurines these points are very few and very far between, from Bradley (just beyond the northern edge of the map) to Barrett (the only find actually in our station territories) to Carson and Lake Providence. All of these sites are mound centers, and all are very close to the Mississippi River. Mill Creek Chert Hoes, Fragments, and Debitage Although the source of slabs of distinctive Mill Creek chert is near the southern tip of Illinois and does not seem to have been controlled by Cahokians, there is a strong connection with Cahokia; the farmers of the American Bottom and adjacent uplands were major consumers (Brian Butler, 2016 preconference comments; Cobb 1989:87). Also, Mississippian forms of these implements were made well before, during, and well after the flourishing of Cahokia (Cobb 1989:84–85), and they are common throughout the Mississippi period in northeastern Arkansas (Morse and Morse 1983:205, 207, 2000) and northwestern Mississippi (Samuel O. Brookes and John Connaway, personal communications, 2016). Some of our more southerly Arkansas finds are arguably associated with our 1100s– 1200s period of interest, but most are uncertain. Our map (Figure 8.4) suggests definite clusters of sites with Mill Creek hoe fragments. They have been found at Barrett and seven sites very near it, although House’s surface surveys around there may have biased our sample, and they might be just as common in unsurveyed lands to the north. There is also a fragment from another site to the south, still in Arkansas but just above Carson. Finally, fragments of hoes were found at Taylor and four nearby sites, plus another site farther south on the same bayou. There is an apparent fall-off from the source zone, as noted previously on a larger scale by Muller (1997:368, Figure 8.2). We also have flakes with polish, or “sheen,” from Mill Creek chert hoes and other Mill Creek flakes without polish that might also be from hoes. As seen in our map (Figure 8.5), they have virtually the same patterns of clustering as the hoe fragments. We have them from Barrett and eight sites very near it; again from a site to the south, closer to Carson; and also from five sites immediately south of Taylor and two others a little farther south,

194 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

Figure 8.4. Finds of Mill Creek chert hoes or hoe fragments in eastern and southeastern Arkansas. Finds in western Mississippi and Tennessee, and northeast Arkansas, are not mapped here; see discussion in the text.

again on the same bayou. Several of the latter surface-collected sites have Bartholomew phase components. Probable and Possible Burlington Chert(s) “Burlington chert” is a rather nebulous category. Like Mill Creek chert, it is associated with the entire Mississippi period, and earlier ones. Its bedrock outcrops, which include the famous Crescent Quarry south of St. Louis

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 195

Figure 8.5. Finds of Mill Creek chert debitage from hoes or other implements in eastern and southeastern Arkansas. Finds in other regions are not mapped here; see discussion in the text.

(Morse and Morse 1983:205, Figures 10.2 and 10.3), extend from eastern Oklahoma across northwest Arkansas, southwestern to central and eastern Missouri, and into southwestern Illinois. They are a long way from our parts of Arkansas, but similar material is also found in the Lafayette gravels around Crowley’s Ridge in northeast Arkansas. Ryan Parish (personal communication, 2016) and others have attempted to find chemical differences between sources, and Parish is working on

196 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

some new techniques, but we are not aware of any published breakthroughs as yet. At any rate, in our Delta lowlands, whitish chert without pebble cortex is rare and stands out when seen in collections. We prepared a map of the distribution of possible and probable Burlington finds but have not included it here due to space constraints. The “possible” category is vague, and there are only a few scattered finds, perhaps not really Burlington. Even so, there is still apparent clustering, mainly at Barrett and six sites near it (in and near northern Lee County), including a small and possibly related mound site called Greer. Some 80 pieces of Burlington-like chert were recovered in the brief salvage efforts at Barrett, but only one was from an in situ context (see the site discussion below). There are also unchecked reports of “Burlington” finds in Phillips County, which is immediately south of Lee County (and across the Mississippi River from the Carson site, where a number of Burlington items have been found; see Johnson and Connaway, this volume), but we have not mapped these. There is a less definite hint of a cluster in southeast Arkansas, at Taylor and two sites very near it, and an isolated find of “possible Burlington” at a site far off to the southwest in the Ouachita Valley. At Taylor Mound 3, four Burlington-like flakes were found in a mound stage’s top-occupation context, dated ca. 1200 (see discussion of the site, below); a fifth flake was found in fill of the next stage, and three more pieces came from disturbed deposits that could have been derived from those stages. Other Items We have not mapped a few rare artifact or material classes, including flaring-bitted celts or “spuds,” of which we have three specimens from two sites in St. Francis County and one northeast of Little Rock in Pulaski County; probable Dover chert (which is also associated with the much earlier Poverty Point exchange system) from two sites in Lee County and possibly one in Drew County; Kaolin chert from a site in Lee County; one Cahokia-style discoidal or chunkey stone from a site in Lee County; and galena, including a large block said to have been found at Richland and a small piece from Taylor (see below), plus a site in Chicot County. Cahokia was apparently involved in the exchange of galena from source localities including southeast Missouri and northwest Illinois, although it was also widely circulated in earlier periods (Walthall 1981). The main finding here is that overall, these items also tended to be found at or near Barrett, Richland, and Taylor.

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 197

Possibly Cahokia-Connected Mound Sites

We now turn to summaries of the findings at three mound sites. Two of them, Barrett and Taylor, were subjected to limited excavations under professional direction, yielding stratigraphic and some chronometric data for possibly Cahokia-connected finds. Barrett In 1983, House directed emergency salvage work on Mound A, the largest of four mounds at Barrett, including three shallow 2 × 2 m mound-summit units and two backhoe trenches, meeting at a right angle, that revealed the stratigraphic sequence. Apparently, considerable time elapsed between deposition of the last submound midden (probably dating around the 800s and attributed to the Walnut Bend phase) and the mound construction. The mound was built in at least four stages, all assignable to the Mississippi period, and its summit was more than 3 m above the premound surface (House and House 1987:125–127, Figures 1–3). Immediately after the salvage work, the mound was leveled for farming. The mound-associated Mississippian “Barrett complex” included the Cahokia point and 80 items of white, nongravel chert, comparable to Burlington or Crescent Quarry specimens. More than half of them were found on or within Mound A and especially (36 pieces) from the surface immediately east of it (House and House 1987:131; records on file at the AAS’s University of Arkansas Pine Bluff Research Station). There were no obvious indications of the microlith industry, associated with Burlington materials at sites like Cahokia, Zebree (Morse and Morse 1983:222–224, Figure 10.8a–g), and Carson (Johnson and Connaway, this volume). The Barrett complex also included apparently local lithics and ceramics. Among the latter were generally coarse Mississippi Plain shell-tempered ware, some of it relatively thin; untyped coarse mixed shell-and-grogtempered plainware; and coarse Baytown Plain grog-tempered ware, some sherds of which resembled Mississippian modes of form. Rare decorated ceramics included sherds of shell-tempered, interior-slipped Old Town Red, cf. var. St. Francis, an exterior-slipped rim from a possible funnel; a shell-tempered jar rim fragment with applique nodes; and a surface find of the (possibly coeval) southerly type L’Eau Noire Incised; but no “Cahokian” types were noted (House and House 1987:129, 131, Table 1). Charred material from a water-laid lens adjoining the first construction stage of the mound (and below the second stage) produced a radiocarbon

198 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

date (Beta 457187) with a radiocarbon age of 940 ± 30 BP (d13C = -26.3), which yields a 2-sigma date range of cal. AD 1020–1165. The single piece of “Burlington-like” chert that was found in situ came from this same context. Richland The Richland site (also known as DeSoto Plantation) is apparently one that was briefly visited by Clarence B. Moore during his 1910–1911 expedition (Jackson 1987) but has not been professionally excavated since. Moore (1911:391) described it as “a low, much-spread mound” and did not excavate in its central portions because of the presence at that time of a house and outbuildings. Instead, he dug a number of “trial-holes” in the mound’s outer portions and found a total of 18 relatively shallow burials, “some extended on the back, some flexed,” but none “bunched” or bundled with bones of others. They were mainly of adults, except for one adolescent and one child, whose burial positions were not specified. Artifacts were sparse but did include “an undecorated vessel of moderate size, cylindrical,” with the temper not stated, found near the feet of an extended burial, plus a few small shell beads near the legs of another, and powdered hematite near the skull of another. If those burials represented a relatively brief period of time, in comparative perspective they would appear to be late within, and/or somewhat later than, the Coles Creek culture period (now seen as lasting to around 1200 or 1250), which is characterized by burial groups (rather than individuals) with no artifacts, or very few, and with extended positions generally reserved for adults, who may have achieved status (Kassabaum 2011). In the succeeding portion of the Mississippi period (Plaquemine culture in the southern LMV; Jeter 2007), the numbers of artifacts with burials tended to increase, and some (elite?) subadults were given extended burials (Jeter et al. 2014:213–216). Around 1966 or 1967, before it was included in land purchased for construction of a large industrial complex, the mound was “potted” by several regional collectors. In 2005, House obtained permission to visit the site remnant briefly and drew a sketch map. In 2006, he interviewed one of the collectors who had dug at the site (not the one who found the “Corn Mother” pipe and kept it until his death) and who said he had been present when the pipe was found. At that time, House photographed and otherwise recorded data on many objects in the collection. According to the informant, the figurine pipe and other artifacts (sum-

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 199

marized below) accompanied a burial in a “shaft grave” that had been dug nearly 2 m (over 6 feet; cf. the shaft graves discussed in Chapter 9) deep, through the center of a low mound, and into the underlying natural soil, disturbing earlier burials in the process. Assuming that this was indeed the same low mound that Moore had visited, the house and outbuildings must have long since been removed from its central portion. The central skeleton was said to have been an extended-supine individual, relatively small and gracile, possibly female, with the (missing) head to the north. There had apparently been some kind of wooden cover, perhaps part of an old log canoe, over it, but only blackened vestiges of charred wood remained. The skull reportedly had been replaced by a large (about 40 cm, or 16 inches, long), inverted “conch” (whelk?) shell, which was in the informant’s possession. Its columella and other interior portions had been removed to make it into a cup or bowl. It was broken, and may have been “killed” before burial. There had been a small, finely woven twilled (cane?) mat under the shell (only in its vicinity, not under the rest of the burial), and there was a small impression or stain from the mat on part of the shell’s interior. The broken (ceremonially “killed”?) “Corn Mother” pipe was reportedly near one shoulder, possibly the left. Other items said to have come from this grave that were recorded by House included a large chunk of galena, about 25 cm high, with some rounded and abraded facets on one end; it weighed almost 40 pounds. On the individual’s arm was a long (about 35 cm, or 14 inches) “rat-tailed awl,” with one end shaped into a rounded tang, which had been cut from a sheet of copper and had straight, uniform edges, but had been found bent into a triangular shape. There were also two copper-covered wooden “bear canine effigy” rattles. The one observed by House was about 8 cm long, and hollow; it rattled when shaken. Most of the copper was eroded away, though there was a vestige of some kind of embossed motif on one side; the informant said it had resembled an ogee. More than 200 shell beads had apparently been wrapped around one of the buried individual’s arms, but the string had rotted away. Those observed by House were mainly small perforated discs about 5 mm in diameter, but there were also four spherical beads about 16 mm across. They may have been made from whelk shell columellas, and some had green copper stains. Also, two “Cahokia blades” (not seen by House), each about 10 cm long, were said to have been on the other arm of the skeleton. One was reportedly

200 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

pale in color, and the other, mottled gray and brownish. A Cahokia-style discoidal or chunkey stone was reportedly lying on the waist area of the skeleton. It was recorded by House as biconcave and made of a greenishgray granite or other igneous rock. The informant said that there had not been any pottery vessels with the burial. It was the informant’s impression that in the rest of the mound there had been three “layers” of burials that had been laid “like cordwood,” extended on their backs, with their heads probably to the east. Sometimes the bones of different individuals were mingled, as if they had been reduced to skeletons before being buried here, but some were still articulated. This description resembles the probable charnel house situation at nearby Tillar, where in 1882 Edward Palmer found mixed articulated and disarticulated skeletal elements, whole pots, and a nearly complete Mill Creek chert hoe (possibly an heirloom); the ceramics suggest a late prehistoric to protohistoric dating (Jeter 1990:204, 211–217, Figures 7.15–7.20). According to House’s informant, several of the other burials at Richland were accompanied by artifacts, including at least four effigy pipes made of sandstone or limestone, representing a frog, a bear, and a “bound prisoner” with his tongue sticking out, kneeling with his arms tied behind his back to a stump (the pipe bowl). The “bound prisoner” pipe had been sold to a collector. Other items said to have been found with peripheral burials included perforated bear canines and a serrated, side-notched, concavebased (but not basally notched, as in the classic “triple-notched” Cahokia type) arrow point, allegedly embedded in a skull. The informant had at least three pots that were also found with those burials, though apparently not clearly associated with any individuals. Two were said to be square-based, “grit” (grog?) tempered, and crude (Baytown Plain?). Another vessel, recorded and photographed by House, was a shelltempered deep bowl that had an incised guilloche design encircling the rim, but did not closely resemble previously defined types. Taylor The Taylor site (Jeter 1990:203–210, Figures 7.9–7.14) had four small to medium-size mounds around a plaza. Mounds 1 and 2 were heavily wooded and surrounded by agricultural fields and have not been professionally tested. Mound 1, the largest, was at the northwest end of the site, and its eroded summit was about 3.6 m higher than the adjacent field, according to total-station mapping in 2011. Its original maximum height may have

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 201

been closer to 4 m above the now-buried premound surface. The 2011 contour map suggested that it was rectanguloid (with rounded corners) in plan view, and therefore probably a flat-topped substructure mound, in its final configuration, and quite possibly in earlier stages (see Mound 3, below). Mound 2 was more than 230 m to the southeast. The 2011 contour mapping showed that its eroded summit was about 3.2 m higher than the adjacent field, with an ovoid plan-view shape, or at least no hints of a rectanguloid shape. The Missouri flint clay pipe fragment allegedly came from its upper part, which was said to have been slightly disturbed by power equipment, perhaps around the 1970s. Mound 3 was on the site’s southwest margin, in woods along Bayou Bartholomew. In 1991–1992, its remnant was cleared of brush and weeds, and contour-mapped as rising about 2.8 m higher than the adjacent field; excavations showed that its present eroded summit was about 3 m above the premound surface. Across the plaza, about 140 m to the northeast, the small Mound 4 had still been visible during Palmer’s 1882 visit, when it was estimated as only about “5 feet” (ca. 1.5 m) high. It had long since been leveled before the 1991–1992 excavations, which were able to document its first-stage remnant, still as much as 40 cm thick, immediately below the plow zone. However, no “Cahokian” materials were recognized from Mound 4, and we will concentrate here on Mound 3. Its southwest portion, on the bayou-bank slope, was relatively well preserved, and the contour map of that “back” side suggested a rectanguloid shape in its final configuration. On the mound’s northeast, or plaza-facing, side, perhaps 25 percent of its final prehistoric volume had been removed decades earlier by field-road construction, but this permitted easier access to the mound’s earliest stages, and extensive 1991–1992 hand-dug trench excavations revealed a clear sequence of late prehistoric episodes of construction and use. There was a rich, mainly late Baytown period, submound midden, covered over around the 700s by the first two stages of mound construction. It remained as a low, domed-over, two-stage mound for several centuries. Then, a fairly massive third stage was added, using multicolored loads, to bring it up to a flat occupation surface. At least two other major construction stages followed; the upper surface of Stage 4 was quite flat, but that of Stage 5 (and all of any hypothetical later construction) had been eroded away. The context of interest here, though, is the occupation zone atop Stage 3, which produced the following items and features:

202 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

• a Mill Creek chert bifacial edge fragment with polish or “sheen” suggestive of use as a hoe; • a lump of galena; • three tertiary flakes and one flake fragment of nonlocal whitish chert (these were taken by Jeter to the 2001 Mid-South Conference, where John Kelly and Neil Lopinot agreed that they looked like Burlington or Crescent Quarry chert); • local-regional pottery and several sherds of Holly Fine Engraved, one of them verified as from the Caddoan regions to the west by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (Neff 2008:233–234); • separate postholes (not a wall-trench) from a segment of a straight structural wall, a small flat burned zone, and a small pit that contained 57 charred maize cobs (Jeter and Langlie 2012). The burned zone atop Stage 3 yielded an archaeomagnetic date range (2-sigma or 95 percent confidence) of 1170–1210, reported by (the late) Daniel Wolfman (October 1, 1993, letter to Jeter, also reporting a 2-sigma range of 1190–1225 for a sample from a larger burned zone on the flat occupation surface atop Stage 4). However, that dating was based on correlations with the radiocarbon-calendrical calibration of those years (Wolfman 1982:289–293), so the dates might now be recalibrated several decades later (cf. Fortier et al. 2006:Figure 3; Steponaitis and Scarry 2016:6–9, Figure 1.5, Table 1.1). One of the corncobs produced an AMS radiocarbon date (Beta-285964; Jeter 2012) of 850 ± 40 BP (C13/C12=-9). This yields a central intercept at cal. 1210, a 1-sigma range of cal. 1160–1230, and 2-sigma ranges of cal. 1050– 1090 (an unlikely outlier, due to an irregularity in the calibration curve), 1130–1140 (a rounded-off minor outlier), and 1140–1260. The ceramics are consistent with a date in the latter range, and quite plausibly within the 1-sigma range. These dates are close to those that have been suggested for major “Cahokia contacts” affecting the LMV. Also intriguing is the association with (or just after) a major construction event that changed Mound 3 from a low domed-over configuration that had persisted for several centuries to a flat-topped, probably rectanguloid if not squarish “substructure” (if not “temple”) mound. Although we had previously interpreted the small pit that contained the charred corncobs as a utilitarian “smudge pit,” perhaps used for smokeprocessing deer hides (Binford 1967) if not simply driving mosquitoes

Possible Cahokian Contacts in Eastern and Southeastern Arkansas · 203

away, another function might be considered. Alt (this volume) has suggested that non-mound “shrine houses” at the Emerald site near Cahokia might have been “closed” by ceremonies involving fire, including burning maize cobs, before they were covered over. Summary and Speculations

A “Conclusions” section is hardly warranted, but a summary and a few conjectures may be in order. Our evidence mainly consists of finds of single (or small numbers of) surface-collected lithic items from a fairly respectable total of 41 sites (25 in the eastern Arkansas counties, closer to Cahokia, and 16 from the southeastern counties). No Ramey Incised or other Cahokian ceramics have been recognized yet at any of our sites. However, we do have apparent clusters of several different material and artifact classes that are possibly Cahokia-related, repeatedly around the same moderatesize mound sites with components dating around 1100–1200. In setting up this study, Jeter had expected a general, though haphazardly scattered, fall-off with distance from the Mississippi River, thinking of a previous venture into mapping an interaction zone wherein Coles Creek artifacts had fallen off irregularly to the north and Plum Bayou items to the south (Jeter and Scott 2008:50ff). But in the present case, although distance from the Mississippi was clearly important, the obvious clustering shown in the maps was a surprise. Even more remarkably, the clusters were near two excavated mound sites, Barrett and Taylor, that had been suggested years ago, on their own, as probably having Cahokian connections (House and House 1987; Jeter 2007:174). And, like Winterville, Lake George, and Lake Providence, both Barrett and Taylor had major mound buildups around the time of possible Cahokia-related contacts. On a small scale elsewhere, “bundles” of exotic and presumably sacred artifacts have been found (Pauketat 2012:43ff); on a larger scale here, we have “clusters” of sites with exotic, though generally more utilitarian, items. Interestingly, different recipient archaeological cultures are involved. The Barrett locality had been in or near the Walnut Bend and Plum Bayou cultural zones before about 1000, but after that the (descendant?) inhabitants may have been phasing into early Mississippians artifactually. But around Taylor, the locality was in the Plum Bayou–Coles Creek interaction zone, phasing into Plaquemine culture around the time(s) of contact(s). These recipient societies did not have nucleated villages, let alone fortifications, but a dispersed, or “rural,” settlement pattern, with most of the people living in

204 · Marvin D. Jeter, Robert J. Scott Jr., and John H. House

small hamlets or farmsteads, and apparently only a few residing at mound centers that were scenes of periodic ceremonies (House 1993:28; Jeter et al. 1989:162–163, 169, 214–215). Perhaps at least utilitarian exotic goods “trickled down” to the small-site occupants during such events. How was this distribution of such items accomplished? The concepts of centralized chiefly redistribution, and indeed of chiefdom societies, as applied to Mississippian cultures by mid–late twentieth-century archaeologists, have been questioned recently (Muller 1997:359; Pauketat 2007). Possibly these modest local central places were the sites of periodic “trade fairs” where artifacts were recirculated among more or less equal participants rather than redistributed by chiefs (Jackson 1991; Jeter and Jackson 1994:182–190), maintaining alliances at various spatial and temporal scales, including at least occasionally renewed ties to the distant Cahokians. Two sites very near the Mississippi River, Barrett and Richland, may have been ports of entry, as it were, and Taylor, not far west of Richland, was at least locally a central place. But perhaps these gateways to our “rural” cultures or subcultures did not offer as much to trading or missionizing (or expatriated) Cahokians as places like Carson (a gateway to the Upper Yazoo Basin), Winterville and Lake George (gateways to the riverine and inland Lower Yazoo Basin), and Lake Providence (a gateway to the Tensas Basin heartlands of the Terminal Coles Creek–Plaquemine cultures). Griffin (1990:72) suggested that any southward-venturing Cahokians were attracted to “already established centers,” but as summarized above, it appears that Barrett Mound A and Taylor Mound 3 were either nonexistent or unimpressive before the exotic lithics arrived in some quantities, and Richland was only a local, low-mound cemetery. But possibly, local “recipient” or consumer cultures of the LMV had about as much say in the matter as far-ranging Cahokian missionaries, traders, or “elite” expatriates (or refugees?) did. Similar claims have been made for Upper Mississippi Valley peoples vis-à-vis Cahokia (Emerson et al. 2002:324–329). And as Griffin (1990:72) suggested, “it may be doubted that . . . any large number of Cahokians [merged] into the southern societies, or that the appearance of Cahokian material was the result of an organized plan.” Also, perhaps the southward-retreating Plaquemine peoples had some resistance to the “Mississippian religion,” as evidenced slightly later by the long-noted scarcity of “Southern Cult” items in the southern LMV (Phillips and Brown 1978:204–206 and map, x–xi).

9 Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions Jeffrey S. Girard

Although material evidence of contact between the southern Caddo Area and Cahokia is meager, during the late eleventh and twelfth centuries finely crafted items were placed in mortuary contexts within or beneath mounds at a small number of Caddo Area ceremonial centers (Figure 9.1). Securely sourced to the Cahokia region are flint clay figures (made from Missouri flint clay) interred in shaft graves in a mound at the Gahagan site in northwest Louisiana. A broad range of copper items, including cut sheet copper hand symbols and Long-Nosed god masks, also likely arrived at Gahagan via Cahokia by the early twelfth century. The movement of these and other goods does not appear to have been through an enduring exchange system, as they are few in number and widely dispersed. Sporadic contacts, perhaps visitations or pilgrimages involving gifts, might account for their presence. In contrast to a few places in the Lower Mississippi Valley, Cahokia pottery has not been found in the southern Caddo Area. However, fine ware engraved pottery of diverse forms from the Caddo Area, or engraved pottery with stylistic influences from the Caddo Area, is present in the Cahokia region. The existence of these fine wares may or may not indicate Caddo Area immigrants or visitors at Cahokia—but it does point to contacts between the regions that occurred after the tenth century. Although there is no evidence of the formation of wide-ranging trade connections, the timing suggests that Caddo cultural practices, including religious concepts and the use of prestige goods to create and reproduce leadership positions, were greatly influenced by contemporary events at Cahokia. In this chapter I examine changes in mortuary ritual that occurred in the southern Caddo Area during the eleventh century and offer ideas that

206 · Jeffrey S. Girard

Figure 9.1. Major Early Caddo period mound centers in the southern Caddo Area.

may help to illuminate how these changes were connected to contemporary events in the Cahokia region. Rather than viewing interactions as trade between peoples of differing “cultures” or “ethnicities” that were firmly established and clearly differentiated by the middle eleventh century, I take the perspective that this was a time of widespread cultural flux throughout the incipient Mississippian world, where social configurations, and even cultural identities, were being formed and altered partly as a result of Cahokia’s momentous events and their effects in surrounding areas.

Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions · 207

Pre-Cahokia Mortuary Ritual

During the tenth century, people and ideas spread from highly dynamic Coles Creek societies in the Lower Mississippi Valley into the Red River drainage in northwestern Louisiana, southwestern Arkansas, northeastern Texas, and southeastern Oklahoma—a vast region of woodlands west of the Mississippi Valley that archaeologists refer to as the Caddo Area (Girard et al. 2014). Coles Creek connections can be seen in decorated pottery assemblages that are dominated by varieties of Coles Creek Incised, particularly vars. Greenhouse and Coles Creek. Perhaps of greater significance is the appearance of ritual spaces (with evidence of feasting and disposal of human skeletal remains) within sites that, at a slightly later time (by the middle eleventh century), became ceremonial centers with multiple mound/plaza configurations. Precedents for both the mortuary ritual and extensive mound construction are present at Troyville and Coles Creek sites in the lower Ouachita and Red River regions in east-central Louisiana—for example, Troyville, Greenhouse, Wiley, and Prichard’s Landing, and nearby centers in the Natchez Bluffs region such as Feltus and Smith Creek. To the north, at approximately the same time, similar cultural influences were carried from the elaborate Toltec site up the Arkansas River as far as the Harlan and Spiro sites in eastern Oklahoma. In the Lower Mississippi Valley, Troyville–Coles Creek mortuary ritual carried out at ceremonial centers resulted in mass burials consisting of both articulated and disarticulated human skeletons, as well as isolated skeletal elements, particularly skulls (e.g., Ford 1951; Belmont 1984; McGimsey 2004). Similar mortuary practices appear to be represented at the Crenshaw site in southwest Arkansas (Durham and Davis 1975; Schambach 1997). By AD 1000, Crenshaw was a large village at which rituals involving feasting, human interment, and mound construction took place in multiple locations. At least six mounds eventually were constructed at Crenshaw. Mound D consisted of sandy strata separated by thin layers of clay that contained human remains (mostly skulls and teeth) and artifacts. Represented pottery types include Coles Creek Incised vars. Hunt, Stoner, and Campbellsville; French Fork Incised; and Williams Plain, along with a syenite boatstone. Another mass burial was present beneath Mound F, where a partially excavated shallow pit approximately 50 feet in diameter contained the remains of at least 60 individuals, both articulated and disarticulated. Accompanying the human remains were a few grave goods,

208 · Jeffrey S. Girard

including ceramic vessels of the types Williams Plain and Coles Creek Incised var. Chase, and approximately 50 Agee arrow points. Bone in the mass grave was radiocarbon dated to 1100 ± 40 BP (cal AD 895–987), and dates from the midden were 1110 ± 40 BP (cal AD 894–979) and 1050 ± 40 BP (cal AD 904–1023) (Samuelsen 2013). Changes in mortuary programs are evident from explorations into Mound C at Crenshaw. In 1912, C. B. Moore encountered three burial pits in the mound, one of which contained a human skull with nearby fragments of sheet copper and a small copper object “elliptical in outline and concavo-convex.” Skeletal material was badly decayed in the other two burials; one pit contained a “coarse cooking-pot” (Moore 1912:623–624). Most of Mound C was dug in 1961 and 1962 by Glen L. Kizzia and Joe N. Shurtleff of Texarkana (Durham and Davis 1975). Following their work, a crew from the University of Arkansas Museum under the direction of W. Raymond Wood excavated a small remnant of the center of the mound in 1962 (Wood 1963). Mound C initially consisted of at least two earthen platforms upon which disarticulated skulls and other human bones and artifacts were placed, then covered by layers of sand. Associated offerings include a large stone “Gahagan” biface, Homan arrow points, and copper beads. The platforms overlay an extensive midden that might have resulted from feasting. Before the platforms were covered by a thick layer of clay and sand, three rows of extended, supine skeletons were either laid out on the early platform of the mound or were placed in shallow pits dug from the upper platform (the excavators were not sure). Burial A at the south edge of the mound contained 27 individuals; 43 were in Burial H at the western edge; and 10 were in Burial S at the northern edge. Grave goods include Gahagan bifaces, celts, a plummet, Homan points, and long-stem pipes, with ceramic vessels of the types Coles Creek Incised vars. Greenhouse, Chase or Hunt, Blakely. A possible portion of a similar burial (Burial 42) found by Wood (1963) included at least eight individuals interred in a 55 cm deep pit. Age and sex characteristics of the represented individuals are not known. These burials are unique in the Caddo Area, but obviously represent a very different mortuary program than the earlier mass burials. The linear layout of numerous extended individuals is reminiscent of some of the burial pits in Mound 72 at Cahokia. Although no radiocarbon dates are available, the pottery suggests late tenth- or early eleventh-century burial events, seemingly contemporary with those in Mound 72 (Emerson et al. 2016).

Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions · 209

Shaft Graves

The platforms were later capped by a mantle of clay and sand through which numerous deep burial pits (often referred to as “shaft” graves) were placed. The date when this change in practices took place is not known, but with respect to current understandings or regional ceramic chronologies, it likely occurred by the middle eleventh century. The earliest shaft graves in Mound C (Pits C, G, and T) were badly disturbed by later burials. It was difficult to determine the number of interred individuals per grave, and only a few offerings remained, but these included bowls and jars of Coles Creek Incised and French Fork Incised as well as Homan and Agee arrow points, suggesting an early eleventh-century age. Fourteen other deep burial pits were excavated in Mound C; all contained engraved fine wares and other pottery considered to be Caddo rather than Coles Creek. The graves resemble those at other Early Caddo ceremonial centers (Figure 9.1), particularly Mound 5 at Mounds Plantation (15 burial pits), and Mound A at Gahagan (3 burial pits) in northwest Louisiana, and Mound C at the George C. Davis site (11 burial pits) in east Texas (Webb and McKinney 1975; Webb and Dodd 1939; Story 1997). These mounds lack evidence of structures and appear to have been used exclusively for burials. Not all of the shaft graves are especially deep, but many are—at Crenshaw they range from 1.2 to 5.2 m; at Gahagan, from 2.4 to 3.3 m; and at Davis, from 2.0 to 7.0 m. The Mounds Plantation burials appeared to be only about 2 m deep, but disturbances to the upper portion of the mound made this difficult to measure. Both solitary and multiple interments are represented, with a maximum number of 21 individuals in Burial Pit 5 at Mounds Plantation. Some of the burial pits are only slightly larger than the single individuals placed in them, but Burial Pits 3 and 6 at Mounds Plantation were 21 m2, Burial Pit 2 at Gahagan was over 27 m2, and Feature 134 at Davis was 38.5 m2. Males, females, adolescents, and babies all were identified among the deceased in the shaft graves. No obvious signs of trauma were recorded (with one possible exception at Crenshaw), but bone preservation was poor in many cases. Skeletons in the shaft graves were articulated, most supine, but a few were laid out on their sides. In multiple burials, individuals were placed in rows, often with additional individuals at right angles to the primary row. Grave offerings ranged from absent to numerous. Most items were placed in clusters in the corners or along one or two sides of the burial pits. However, in several cases artifacts that may have been part of apparel or personal ornaments occur with individuals.

210 · Jeffrey S. Girard

Within the period from about AD 1050 to 1250, widespread general similarities are evident, although details of graves between sites, and among individual graves within sites, exhibit considerable diversity. Orientations of skeletons differ at the site level—the majority of skeletons at Crenshaw had heads to the southeast; at Mounds Plantation, they were placed on a southwest–northeast axis with heads in either direction; most heads were to the northwest at Gahagan, but with some individuals at right angles; at Davis, heads tended to be oriented north. The Crenshaw site burials differ markedly from the other three sites with regard to the use of pottery as grave offerings. In terms of sheer quantity, 110 vessels were placed in 14 Crenshaw shaft graves (including 25 in one burial pit), whereas there were only 4 vessels from the 15 graves at Mounds Plantation, 5 vessels in 3 graves at Gahagan, and 12 vessels in 11 graves at Davis. Engraved fine wares make up 20 of the 21 vessels from Mounds Plantation, Gahagan, and Davis, but less than half from Crenshaw. Undecorated and other utilitarian jar forms often were placed in the Crenshaw burials but are absent from the other sites. Many other kinds of offerings, however, occur in multiple graves at all four sites, and, at least on a general level, an overall pattern appears to be represented. Stone tools are present in most graves. Included are clusters of arrow points (typed as Alba, Homan, Hayes, and Agee); large bifaces, generally referred to as Gahagan bifaces, that were made of cherts acquired from Central Texas (Edwards Plateau); polished stone celts (most commonly petaloid in form, but a few spatulate examples); chunks of sandstone, some of which might have been used as hones; galena chunks; and quartz crystals (found only at Gahagan and Crenshaw). Copper-covered earspools of stone, bone, wood, or shell were found at all sites, often adjacent to the skulls of particular individuals. Copper adhered to deteriorated items of wood, leather, bone, and shell, and fragments of strips or sheets of copper were present at all sites. Also common were artifacts made from animal parts, most commonly bone, shell, and teeth. Conch shell spoons or dippers were in graves at Crenshaw, Davis, and Gahagan, but none were engraved, as often is the case in later periods. Present in multiple graves were tubular shell beads, apparently forming necklaces, bracelets, or a belt in one case at the Davis site. Freshwater mussel shell, not obviously modified, was placed in many graves. Also present were perforated animal teeth (bear or other large mammal canines), polished bone pins and awls, beads, and earspools. It was evident that several burials at Mounds Plantation and

Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions · 211

Davis were laid out on, or covered by, split cane mats, and log roofing apparently covered a few tombs at both of these sites. Pigments were found in many graves at the Davis site, with green glauconite and yellowish clay particularly prevalent. Mortuary Ritual and Social Contexts

The changes in grave characteristics in Mound C at Crenshaw, and the unprecedented appearance of shaft graves at the other sites, constitute a clear-cut disjunction in mortuary ritual and likely signify crucial changes in social and political configurations in the southern Caddo Area. The preeleventh-century mortuary programs that took place in the Lower Mississippi Valley and the early burials in Mound C at Crenshaw do not appear to commemorate or celebrate lives of individuals of high status. Masses of secondary burials characterized by disarticulation and differential use of skeletal elements appear to mask rather than symbolize status hierarchies, if such existed. Mortuary rituals were not “funerals” conducted upon the deaths of individuals; rather, bones were used in ceremonies, perhaps to establish and maintain links between ancestors and cosmological concepts, but not necessarily in terms of hierarchy (see Brown 2010). Schambach (1997:62) noted that the numbers of individuals represented in the mass burials at Crenshaw were more limited than those in Lower Mississippi Valley traditions, and he suggests that mound burial at Crenshaw was limited to persons of high status. However, if social status was represented by burial in mound contexts, this status appears to have been consigned to corporate groups, not specific individuals and their immediate families or retainers. Mortuary ritual obliterated the connection between bones and the deceased as individuals. It seems reasonable to assume that, during the tenth century, the growth of aggregated settlements in major floodplains, intensifying connections with other societies, internal social and economic differentiation within communities, and perhaps increasing reliance on cultigens posed new challenges that favored development of leadership positions and/or institutions at places such as Crenshaw and Mounds Plantation in the Red River floodplain. Leaders could make community-wide decisions, accumulate and redistribute food and other goods, maintain peaceful relationships between social groups, and facilitate alliances and exchanges of material goods with neighboring societies. However, the formation of rigidly hierarchical social

212 · Jeffrey S. Girard

orders was not a necessary or inevitable result, and different communities addressed these challenges in different ways, at least partly, perhaps, due to dissimilarities in their relationships to ongoing events at Cahokia. The nature and timing of the changes in mortuary practices (ca. the middle eleventh century) suggest that emerging leaders from the Caddo Area established relationships with people directly responsible for the ongoing events that resulted in the largest and most complex ceremonial and population center in prehistoric North America. Connections may have involved visitations, pilgrimages, and perhaps limited population movement and establishment of kinship ties. It is possible that prestige was established by participation in these distant events, interaction with culturally different people, and acquisition of exotic well-crafted goods. Cahokia and Cahokiainspired items transported to the Caddo Area did not necessarily serve as wealth for individuals, but they likely were embedded with sanctity and power, displayed in ritual events, and curated in sacred places. Use and control of such items may have been limited to those with proper knowledge and authority. That these items wound up in mortuary contexts is not surprising. Emerging social hierarchies lacked long-standing traditions of succession; deaths of those in leadership positions may have triggered uncertainty and competition. The changing roles and responsibilities of individuals or groups in positions of authority had to be made clear and established as conventional. Ritual links social to cosmic order, produces and maintains power relationships, and promotes social solidarity in contexts where centrifugal tendencies are ongoing. When items were stored in sacred settings, or displayed in ritual, they had living value and power. Burial resulted in the removal of unreplaceable items from public efficacy. Grave offerings, and the deceased, were transported from the earthly to the cosmic realm, creating special relationships of certain (probably kinrelated) groups to the supernatural. Brown (2007b:63), for example, argues that “petty rights and authorities coming under constant challenge and subject to ever-present renegotiation typically make use of cosmically ordained order to place the political and economic benefits of a privileged group beyond the reach of ordinary challenge.” Material goods transported from Cahokia to the southern Caddo Area were not easily acquired or, like Ramey Incised pottery, formerly of widespread use in Cahokian society. They consist of highly crafted items of rare minerals—figure pipes of flint clay, sheet copper cutouts, and Long-Nosed god masks. Items from the Gahagan site in Red River Parish, Louisiana, appear to be especially numerous and of exceptionally high quality. All

Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions · 213

were recovered in shaft graves sunk into a single burial mound (designated Mound A) that was destroyed during the 1940s by a shift in the Red River. The Gahagan site was first described by C. B. Moore in 1912, who excavated Burial Pit 1 in the center of the mound. In 1938, Webb and Dodd excavated two more burial pits in Mound A before its destruction by the river. The largest was Burial Pit No. 2, which extended down ca. 2.4 m from the summit and contained a row of six individuals, with a seventh skeleton laying perpendicular to the row. The central figure in the main row appeared to have been interred later than the others and was placed in a distinctive bow-legged position. Artifacts associated with the individuals were sparse, consisting only of copper-covered stone or wood ear ornaments and two caches of arrow points. The northwest edge of the pit contained multiple clusters of items, including many of the distinctive stone bifaces now known as Gahagan bifaces. Among the burial goods were a human effigy pipe carved from distinctive cookeite-boehmite phosphate (CBP) Missouri flint clay, two human hand effigies of sheet copper, and two copper Long-Nosed god masks (Girard 2018:Figure 34). Burial Pit No. 3 contained a row of three individuals. Although most artifacts were placed along the northwest margin of the pit, found on the south side were a large Gahagan biface and a stone effigy pipe (a frog holding a rattle) also made of CBP Missouri flint clay (Girard 2018:Figure 35), a likely import from the Cahokia region (Emerson et al. 2003). The eastern portion of the grave was empty, apparently intended for persons not yet deceased who never were placed there. Although excavations at Gahagan were conducted prior to the development of radiocarbon analyses, Emerson and Girard (2004) submitted for radiocarbon analysis small pieces of charred wood and leather that had become detached from three specimens recovered from Burial Pit No. 2. The results indicate that the items date to the late eleventh or early twelfth century AD, suggesting direct contact between the southern Caddo and American Bottom populations during the Lohman or Stirling phases, when Missouri flint clay figures were manufactured and in use at Cahokia. Early Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) elements and themes are represented in a few items, both of exotic and of local origin, recovered from Early Caddo period shaft graves. Muller (1989:13–18) designated the Developmental Cult (ca. AD 900–1150) as a time when themes such as Long-Nosed god images and circle-in-cross elements are found in other portions of the Midwest and Southeast. Centering themes may be represented by repetitive use of concentric circles and other elements on Holly and Spiro Fine Engraved vessels. At all four sites discussed in this chapter,

214 · Jeffrey S. Girard

a small number of individuals (two at Crenshaw, one at Mounds Plantation, one or two at Gahagan, and three at Davis) were laid out in distinctive positions, with legs splayed outward and, in some cases, arms slightly raised with elbows bent. It has been noted that this position is similar to the dancing Birdman theme depicted on carved marine shell and copper repoussé items found in slightly later contexts at Spiro and other sites (see Texas Beyond History 2003). In all but one of these distinctive burials, earspools were found next to the skulls, and associated offerings are numerous. An apparent marine shell bead belt was laid across the midsection of one such individual at the Davis site, and another at Mounds Plantation was accompanied by a long wooden bow. Other SECC themes might be represented by birdlike eye elements and a cross-in-circle motif on a large carinated bowl that had been placed over the face of an individual in a burial at Mounds Plantation (Girard 2018:Figure 28), and forked-eye symbols may be represented on painted split cane matting, also from Mounds Plantation. Early Caddo period shaft graves lack marine shell or copper with birdman representations, but Brown (2004a:119) notes that the birdman theme was evoked without figural representation in many early Mississippian contexts. However, it is how items were used, not their specific meanings (which may have been multifaceted and fluid), that is important for understanding Caddo-Cahokia contacts. There is no reason to believe that the Cahokia connections resulted in importation of Cahokia religion or ideology into the Caddo Area. It probably is not necessary or accurate to interpret symbolic items in terms of an established and unified SECC (see Knight 2006a). Only bits and pieces of SECC themes are present. The power of imported objects was linked to their place of origin, to their exotic materials, and to their high craftsmanship and difficulty of replication. These were items never seen before in the Caddo Area, but likely were given distinctive meanings in line with long-standing local traditions. Final Thoughts

There is no reason to believe that all connections between groups in the Caddo Area and Cahokia were the same or had identical local consequences. However, at least with our current chronological knowledge, social differentiation (perhaps not rigidly hierarchical in all places) sanctioned by ritual involving display and burial of exotic items in distinct shaft tombs was ongoing in multiple communities in the eleventh century. More

Interactions between the Caddo and Cahokia Regions · 215

important than the transfer of a small number of ritual items from Cahokia was the spread of an ideology that modified religious ideas, legitimized social divisions, and institutionalized positions of authority. The movement of people, information, and goods between the southern Caddo and Cahokia areas facilitated the establishment of new cultural traditions at local levels and connected people in the Caddo Area to the increasingly integrated “Mississippian” world in eastern North America.

10 Cahokian Exports to Spiro David H. Dye

Archaeological studies of exchange, goods circulation, and trade have matured to the point where there is less concern with taxonomic issues and a greater emphasis placed on political, religious, and social dimensions of connections and entanglements among objects, people, places, and polities. If we accept the thesis that the movement of Mississippian inalienable goods aids in building a foundation for establishing bonds among exclusive, regional communities of allied, competitive, privileged, and wealthy power-holders, then the role of corporate institutions, especially religious sodalities and social houses, moves to the forefront of political and ritual economy models that incorporate aggrandizer strategies in the circulation of performance props, ritual regalia, and valued accoutrements. In this chapter, I outline the ritual and social contexts for Cahokian ritual goods circulation to Spiro and argue for an aggrandizing and deposit-oriented approach to understanding the value of inalienable goods and their social milieu within ritual facilities and performances. I suggest house society and religious sodality models provide an apt way to explore Cahokian and Spiroan political, religious, and social relationships. In this sense, acquisition of Cahokian sacra results from a regional community of interacting aristocracies whose political efficiency is sedimented in the circulation and gifting of inalienable goods. Religious Sodalities, Ritual Networks, and Sacred Goods

Inalienable goods, as seen from the perspective of materiality and memory, generally circulate under special circumstances within socially restricted networks, thus constructing identities and reinforcing corporate entities (Weiner 1992). Useful statements may be generated about the role of

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 217

cosmology and ideology in understanding the broad spectrum of socially valued goods that move over great distances, possess condensed meaning and worth, and serve as ritual paraphernalia, not as exchange commodities, but rather to bestow membership upon, and confer identity within, restricted corporate structures. Finally, conversion of surplus into inalienable wealth in Mississippian polities would provide mechanisms for aggrandizers to create and manipulate social relationships through alliances, death or injury compensations, marriage payments, society memberships, and other social transactions such as ritual sodality purchases. Debt payments, gift exchanges, and ritual goods circulation also further the interests of an aristocratic estate and provide the basis for its legitimacy, sustainability, and viability. An emphasis on materiality provides insights into how “objects come to convey and condense value and, in so doing, are used to construct social identities and communicate cultural differences between individuals and groups” (Myers 2001:3). Thus, chains or connective links among a coterie of ritual institutions may be authenticated and legitimized through inalienable and prestigious possessions that are highly valued and often bundled, exhibited, wielded, and worn during ritual performances and social displays. Sacred valuables at the corporate level in Mississippian societies may have reinforced individual aggrandizement and personal gain by authenticating ritual authority, constructing social heterarchies and hierarchies, and restricting membership within competitive houses and sodalities. Brian Hayden (1998:11) notes, “the purpose of creating prestige artifacts is not to perform a practical task, but to display wealth, success, and power.” Individuals may thus create, claim, and validate social heterarchies and hierarchies through networks comprised of asymmetrical marriages and exchanges of inalienable ritual possessions that circulate among polity aristocracy or nobility. Multiple lines of archaeological and iconographic evidence and sources suggest sustained ritual networks revealed by the movement of goods from Cahokia to Spiro (Brown 1985, 1996, 2004a; Emerson and Lewis 1991). Close and long-lasting affiliations between Cahokia and Spiro suggest both intrinsic connections and early interactions based on shared cosmologies, identities, and privileges (Emerson and Girard 2004). The mass of largely inalienable, highly crafted goods attributed to a Cahokian source include, among a mélange of other material items, copper plates and regalia, flint clay sculptures, marine shell goods (beads, cups, gorgets, and maskettes),

218 · David H. Dye

and symbolic weaponry (arrow points, axes, celts, clubs, and knives) (Brown 1989; Brown and Kelly 2000; Emerson et al. 2003; Pauketat 1993b, 1994; Yerkes 1983, 1989). These valued objects share a long history of use and reuse, and eventual discard or interment in restricted and sanctified space within the ritual community (Brown 2012). Sustained cosmological beliefs between the Cahokia and Spiro polities were predicated on a common embrace of a shared appreciation and understanding of ritual performance and practice. The thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Spiroan Great Mortuary and the succeeding early fifteenthcentury Spirit Lodge directs our attention to the prominent presence of Cahokian-derived goods incorporated in northern Caddoan political, religious, and social institutions. Although a significant number of ritual items found at Spiro are derived from Cahokian area sources, affiliations and relations are evident with numerous polities throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and trans-Mississippi West. However, Cahokia has a clearly established precedence and preeminence with Spiro throughout much of the Great Mortuary’s multicentury use (Brown 2004a; Brown and Kelly 2000). Mississippian religious sodalities and social houses, inspired by or derived from Cahokia, among other polities in eastern North America, appear to have become an important component of Spiroan society, providing an undercarriage for political aggrandizement and socioeconomic agency in the northern Caddoan world. The ossuaries at Spiro’s Great Mortuary served as collective repositories of honored dead for several centuries, while the Spirit Lodge was constructed as a short-duration event around AD 1400 (Brown 2017b, 2017c). While embracing fundamentally different ritual architectures and mortuary practices, the Great Mortuary and Spirit Lodge point to exclusive and privileged ownership of inalienable goods and restricted ritual facility use. Such long-term continuities in cosmological themes alert us to the potential for aristocratic control over or manipulation of privileges, resources, rights, and titles for aggrandizing ends. The longevity of key ritual themes points to the durability and duration of local institutions and structures in the form of ritual sodalities and social houses, legitimized and rationalized through shared, though contested, cosmological and mythic charters among a cohort of regional Caddoan and Mississippian social house estates linked among multiple polities through marriage and other social ties. Spiroan ritual life is expressed and materialized through an institutionalized and structured set of religious beliefs that promoted the interests of a ruling collective founded on principles of inheritance, marriage, and

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 219

wealth. Northern Caddoan aristocracies embraced communities of ritual practice that articulated and intersected with economic and political institutions (Lave and Wenger 1991). Thus, processes of political aggrandizement, resource manipulation, and ritual performance would be linked by different spheres of action, including economic and social practice (Bell 1992; Hayden 2001a, 2011). Social houses compete and cooperate with both distant and neighboring polities, sharing communities of ritual practice, connections to inalienable goods, networks of intermarriage, and notions of identity. Imported agentive and inalienable sacred goods would play key roles in the development and maintenance of Spiro’s foreign relations, intrapolity alignments, and ritual institutions. The historical impacts of Cahokian goods on trans–Mississippi Valley polities, especially contacts with distant places and remote lands, were complex, early, and wide-ranging (Alt 2006b; Brown 2004a, 2007a; Emerson 1997a; Emerson and Lewis 1991; Hall 2004; Pauketat and Emerson 1997; Pauketat 2004; Pauketat et al. 2015a; Slater et al. 2014; Stoltman 1991b). Assessing the origins and sources of goods at Spiro has been the focus of research for several decades (Brooks 2006; Brown 1983, 1996, 2004b; Carney 1993; Emerson and Girard 2004; Schambach 1990, 1993). The ritual demands for sacra by Spiroan ritualists has been well-established through analyses of early looted items, as well as studies of large-scale federal work relief excavations of the 1930s and early 1940s (Brown 2004a, 2010, 2012, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c; Brown and Kelly 2000; Brown and Rogers 1989; Hamilton 1952; Phillips and Brown 1978, 1984; Sievert 2011). Spiro’s Great Mortuary and Spirit Lodge

Recent interpretations of Spiro’s Craig Mound focus on the Great Mortuary as a series of ritual tableaux in which consecrated space, employed over several centuries, held human remains and recycled sacra, and whose political, ritual, and social functions transcended the immediate community, serving the needs of an interconnected constituency (Brown 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Such tableaux represent an example of instrumental uses of the dead (Brown 2010, 2012). In this sense the “graveyard” becomes a “staged display that has as its main feature the geometric placement of large stone pipe figures and strategically placed sacred bundles” (Brown 2013:364). The Spirit Lodge, on the other hand, was a set-scene for a specific ritual event, imbued with regional importance. While a basic continuity in mortuary function is recognized for the two architectural forms, the Craig

220 · David H. Dye

Mound Great Mortuary and the Spirit Lodge, each exhibits different ritual contexts and forms. However, cosmological themes point to shared ritual institutions and structures, albeit with stylistic changes over time (Brown and Kelly 2012). The Great Mortuary and Spirit Lodge, as high-level, ritually specialized facilities, served an apical, aristocratic group or interacting groups that comprised an overtly extrapolity, heterarchical or hierarchical coterie (Brown 2017b). These Craig Mound ritual facilities suggest the formation of religious sodalities and social houses integral to the emergence of political and religious institutions linking Cahokia and Spiro through membership in shared sodalities and asymmetrical marriage arrangements formed through house estate bonds, with hierarchies or heterarchies intersecting with communities of practice, political structures, and ritual economies. Power in this sense is vested in an overarching cosmology and ideology expressed in religious beliefs and ritual practices that find structure in religious sodalities and economic, political, and other social actions (Mills 2015). The value of inalienable goods placed in Spiro’s Great Mortuary and Spirit Lodge draws our attention to aggrandizer, religious sodality, and social house models based on the placement and presence of inalienable goods. In this section, I discuss Spiro’s Great Mortuary and Spirit Lodge as depositional contexts for ritual sacra. The social logics of depositional practice provide an important avenue for evaluating an object’s value and for ascertaining the ways in which goods are authenticated, curated, deposited, discarded, materialized, remembered, and treated within ritual contexts. A deposit-oriented approach places emphasis on the value of inalienable goods and their context within ritual facilities (Hollenback 2010; McAnany and Hodder 2009; Mills 2004; Walker 1999). The logics of placement in sacred structures, such as the Great Mortuary and the Spirit Lodge, signal their importance to aggrandizing households and thus their ties to ancestors, culture heroes, and deities. These associations of ritual items with components of a shared cosmology suggest the existence of coupled multiple communities of practice in which ritual knowledge is appropriated, created, shared, and transmitted through social networks delineated by formally and functionally cohesive sets, repeatedly and routinely associated in ritual conjunction. The materiality of ritual practice defines “how people and things interact within sets or fields of social action” (Mills 2004:253). In this sense, Mississippian sociality, constituted through aristocratic social houses, is reinforced, restricted, and

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 221

supported by a web of memberships among sodalities created and maintained by aggrandizing power holders. Mortuary practices and ritual termination events are evidenced by depositional sequences within the Great Mortuary. In addition to the participant’s social identities, these events help identify the connectedness of people and corporate groups, including religious sodalities and social houses, as communities of ritual practice. Sets of inalienable goods stemming from religious sodality activities share high performance values and identify specific networks in which relationships among ritual practitioners and subalterns are constructed, contested, and memorialized. Ritual sodality and social house models bridge economic, political, and ritual dimensions, and thus link multiple webs of communities of practice. The Great Mortuary and the Spirit Lodge, however, represent fundamentally different approaches to ritual architecture. The Great Mortuary embodies a periodic, long-standing ossuary of curated human remains, while the Spirit Lodge—constructed as a brief event subsequent to the abandonment of the Great Mortuary—is the creation of a new structure associated with the termination of traditional uses of powerful sacra within the context of the ritual community (Brown 2012, 2017c). The transformation between the Great Mortuary and the Spirit Lodge was a dramatic conclusion to long-standing communities of ritual practice and linkages of great houses connected through religious belief, ritual traditions, and social memory. The Great Mortuary Spiro became a carefully planned 33 ha settlement overlooking the Arkansas Valley in eastern Oklahoma, focusing on mortuary mound and ritual structure construction (Brown and Kelly 2000:478). Plum Bayou ceramics associated with Spiro burials between AD 900 and 1050/1100 suggest an early engagement with regional exchange networks among Lower Arkansas River ritual centers (Sievert 2011:2). Around AD 1100, a substantial flattopped platform mound, extending about 9 m in height and 23 m on a side, was constructed over the dismantled remains of earlier specialized structures and a portion of a Fourche Maline cemetery (Brown 1996:137). As the site’s role as a residential and ritual center began to expand, a tripartite spatial arrangement formed from east to west, creating areas of daily activities and mortuary rituals, including disposal of the dead. The community layout would be employed for the remainder of the site’s history, although

222 · David H. Dye

most of the population would vacate the administrative and ritual center in the mid-thirteenth century (Sievert 2011:4–7). Some 3 m of the platform mound’s interior was excavated around AD 1200 to form a large, rectangular basin, 15 × 21 m, which reached to the mound’s base; the Great Mortuary’s initial ossuary was probably sheltered by a roof (Brown 1996:94). The ossuary floor is defined by areas into which impressions of closely laid split canes have been pressed into the underlying clay. A tableau of cedar pole litter burials form a gridded layout of the mortuary space as a collective repository that served numerous honored dead (Brown 2012), with fragmentary and often-cremated remains being reposed on log crib structures. The terminal mortuary display of human remains and sacra was the culmination of long-term ossuary use (Brown 1975, 1981, 1996, 2010), which witnessed some 200 to 300 years of repeated cycles of clearing, discard, reuse, filling and reexcavation (Brown 2017b). Around AD 1250, the site was given over entirely to ritual use, with the resident population relocating to the rich farming soils in the Spiro hinterlands (Rohrbaugh 1982, 1985). The Great Mortuary constitutes multiple sets of reoccurring tableaux created for the ritual purposes at hand, comprising human remains and sacred objects, including baskets, copper repoussé plates, marine shell (beads, cups, gorgets, and pendants), pipes, pottery, flint clay statuary, symbolic weaponry (arrow points, axes, celts, and knives), wooden masks, and woven fabrics and textiles. Each tableau was dismantled in accordance with the demands of the specific ritual and social situation, sacra being recycled in adjacent consecrated spaces. Continued use and deployment of fundamentally similar sacred objects point to continuity in mythic charters and ritual themes over time (Brown 2017c). The Great Mortuary program was guided and shaped by traditional numinous principles throughout its history, reflecting conformity to ritual protocols as well as adherence to socioeconomic stability undergirding the Spiroan people’s religious and ritual life. While copper, flint clay, marine shell, rare stones, and other sacred objects were treated in a consistent manner, their materialization underwent stylistic changes over time (Brown 2017c). After repeated multicentury reuse, the ossuary was closed, dismantled, and replaced in the early fifteenth century by a new ritual architectural form, the Spirit Lodge. The Spirit Lodge Transformative changes swept across the northern Caddoan world in the late thirteenth century in the use of mounds; the circulation of exotic

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 223

materials, especially copper and marine shell; and the organization of political and religious practice (Brown 1971, 2017b; Rogers 1983, 1995, 2006). Construction of the Spirit Lodge was a terminal event for the Spiroan community. The base of the new building, a circular area of 16.6 m2, was formed by removing 38 cm of the most recent Great Mortuary floor; the contents of the rectangular basin encountered during the Spirit Lodge excavation were removed and scattered beyond the lodge’s perimeter. The beehive-shaped structure, a popular and traditional Caddoan ritual architectural form (Gilmore 1931), rose 4.6 m above the floor, replete with a retaining wall 6.4 m in diameter and 1.5 m in height, built from cedar posts and stacked sod blocks; a temporary door allowed access on the eastern side (Brown 2017c). Sacred objects were arranged within the Spirit Lodge, which served as a mortuary for a single individual. Placed within the structure were anthropomorphic statuary and figurines. Numerous petaca—regalia containers— were placed opposite a mass of marine shell cups. The burial was placed to the south, accompanied by 7.9 kg of galena, 32 smashed sword-form bifaces, and nine red-filmed bowls (Brown 1996, 2017c; Hamilton 1952; Merriam and Merriam 2004; Sievert 2011). The lodge was ritually closed soon after its furnishings and sacra were in place and then capped with clay, into which were inserted numerous cedar posts (Brown 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Based on a cross-cultural sample of social integrating facilities, ritual structures such as the Great Mortuary and the Spirit Lodge typically reflect clan and dance houses, medicine lodges, mortuary shrines, or sudatories, “restricted to small, exclusive groups of sanctioned individuals” (Adler and Wilshusen 1990:143). Ritual practices associated with such integrative facilities center on intra- and interpolity activities, especially meetings for religious sodalities and social houses. Religious sodality facilities, often the locus for crafting inalienable, sacred goods, authenticate collective as well as individual identities through shared communities of practice. Annette Weiner (1992:99–100) observes, “inalienable possessions are the hub around which social identities are displayed, fabricated, exaggerated, modified, or diminished.” Communities of practice emerging at Spiro may have been inspired through prior or contemporary tallers, or workshops, that crafted sacra at Cahokia through the agency of religious sodalities and social houses, and the demands of ritual performance protocols and practice. Spirit Lodge construction took place in the early fifteenth century at a time of political, religious, and social transformations throughout the Midwest and Southeast, which witnessed in some cases the demise or

224 · David H. Dye

out-migration of populations from established Caddoan and Mississippian polities, including Cahokia and Spiro. Numerous explanations for Cahokia’s demise have been forwarded, including internal factionalization and political change (Emerson and Hedman 2016; Kelly 2008), stoked perhaps by climate change (Benson et al. 2009; Burnette et al. 2017; Cobb and Butler 2002; Krus and Cobb 2018; Meeks and Anderson 2013). While climate change, especially droughts, has been implicated as instrumental in Spiro’s early fifteenth-century “collapse” (Perttula 2012), what led to its final dissolution may have been the disruption and fraying of political, religious, and social bonds upon which aristocratic social houses and competitive religious sodalities were constructed, legitimized, and maintained. Arrival of Cahokian Sacra at Spiro

Great interest has been expressed over the years in the reception of sacred goods at Spiro (Barker et al. 2002; Bell 1947; Brown 1983, 1996, 2004b; Brown and Rogers 1989; Brown et al. 1990; Emerson et al. 2003; Girard et al. 2014; Brown and Kelly 2000; Kozuch 2002). The Great Mortuary received inalienable goods not only from Cahokia but also from much of North America (Barker et al. 2002; Bell 1947; Brown 1983, 1996, 2004b; Brown and Rogers 1989; Carney 1993; Emerson and Girard 2004); however, Cahokia was a major source of sacra, which began to appear in the Caddoan area in the late eleventh century (Emerson et al. 2003; Girard et al. 2014:59–61) as components of ritual assemblages, including performance regalia, sacred bundles, and symbolic weaponry. James Brown (2012:134–135) makes a strong case for the extraordinary transport of goods to Spiro from a variety of sources throughout the Eastern Woodlands (see also Bell 1947). Ritual items were placed into the Craig Mound during numerous events, but, as mentioned above, two primary contexts are evident: the Great Mortuary (ca. AD 1200–1400) and the Spirit Lodge (ca. AD 1400). The Great Mortuary’s lower deposits began to accumulate in the twelfth century, as sacred goods were placed in the initial ossuaries among cedar pole litters and human remains. The early phase of the ritual program corresponds to the Long-Nosed god horizon (AD 1050–1200), when distinctive ensembles of inalienable goods, especially specific marine shell artifacts and symbolic weaponry, circulated throughout the Eastern Woodlands. Marine shell sacra in particular are conspicuous in mortuary contexts that comprise ritual paraphernalia for the living and mark distinctions among the dead (Brown 1996:163; Brown and Kelly 2000; Brown et al. 1990; Fairbanks

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 225

1956; Marquardt and Kozuch 2016; Prentice 1987; Steponaitis 1991; Trubitt 2005; Welch 1990). New uses for whelk shell in the twelfth century reflect the central importance of ritual equipment and personal regalia such as marine shell beads, cups, gorgets, maskettes, and pendants for corporate and individual aggrandizement opportunities. Two ritual themes are materialized during the Long-Nosed god horizon reflected in iconographic and mortuary uses of sacred goods: Birdman and Chunkey Player (Brown and Kelly 2000). I suggest both themes embrace aspects of the Hero Twins, represent enduring and strong connections between Cahokian and northern Caddoan polities, and reinforce the idea that Cahokia exported not only sacred goods but also a belief system and social logic that facilitated an aggrandizing ethos for an incipient aristocracy. While Cahokian ritual emphasized these eleventh-century artistic themes, inalienable goods did not circulate to Spiro until early in the next century. Support for the Birdman and Chunkey Player themes is represented in Cahokia-style chunkey stones and Long- (and Short-) Nosed god maskettes found at Spiro. The Twins exemplify transcendental beings engaged in skilled gaming with deadly antagonists, in which mortal matches resulted in the death of the losing contestants. The chunkey game in particular, played by the Hero Twins who fought cannibalistic giants, linked aggrandizing elites with the activities of the deities, thus empowering ritual practitioners through heterarchical and hierarchical structures, especially ritual sodalities and social houses. Widespread mythic charters, which linked elites and their ancestors with the Hero Twins and other culture heroes, deities, and guardian spirits, bestowed access to resources and titles. After AD 1200, Mississippian iconography at Cahokia is dominated by the “Birdman”/ Hero Twins culture heroes and their cosmological adversary, the various iterations of water spirits expressed in canine, feline, and serpentine simulacrums (Brown 2004a:123n28). During the “Copper-Dominated horizon” in the Spiro area, figurative artwork continued the “Birdman”/Hero Twins veneration in the chunkey player theme (Brown and Kelly 2000), reflecting close ties between Cahokia and the Arkansas River Caddoan polities during the twelfth to mid-thirteenth centuries (Brown 1983, 1996; Emerson and Girard 2004; Fowler et al. 1999; Hall 1967). Numerous inalienable goods made their way to Spiro from a variety of North American locales. While a small number of items circulated to Spiro from the Great Plains (Brooks 2006), Mexico (Barker et al. 2002), and the Pacific Coast (Kozuch 1998, 2002), most arrived from the Eastern Woodlands. Many of these regalia and sacra appear to have been crafted in

226 · David H. Dye

the Cahokia area, or manufactured in other areas and circulated through Cahokia to distant realms such as Spiro. Charles Cobb (1996) argues that while regional specialization occurs in the American Bottom, it was not under the control of elites living at Cahokia, given the great variability in the organization of Mississippian craft production. A heterarchical basis for workshop production may be seen in the numerous social houses that would have organized and promoted gifting and prestation of sacra through feasting and marriages. In fact, specific forms of copper and marine shell Long-Nosed god masks, copper repoussé plates, shell gorgets, engraved shell cups, and symbolic weaponry have all been found at Spiro and have historical antecedents in the Cahokia area (Brown 2004a, 2004b; Brown and Kelly 2000: Brown and Rogers 1999; Emerson and Lewis 1991; Emerson et al. 2003; Pauketat 1994, 2004). LongNosed god masks and long-handled spatulate celts, for example, date to the eleventh century in the Cahokia area as evidenced by their visualization in Picture Cave (Diaz-Granados et al. 2001, 2015), but only later circulated to Spiro in the twelfth century. Both Cahokia and Spiro share the symbolism of the Long-Nosed god masks (Hall 1991; Kelly 1991b) and presumably the belief system that comprised the communities of practice that crafted both copper and marine shell maskette sacra associated with the Hero Twins (Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000). Inalienable Goods from Cahokia

In this section I discuss the history of inputs for four suites of raw materials manufactured into inalienable goods that are found at Spiro but are thought to have been crafted at Cahokia: copper, flint clay, marine shell, and durable lithics. These items circulated into the Spiro community over a long period of mortuary and ritual activity (Brown 1996, 2017b, 2017c). Such episodic acquisition events to Spiro of goods derived from the “Inner Sphere” of Greater Cahokia (Pauketat 1997a, 1997b, 1998a; Pauketat and Emerson 1997) may be explained as a process of focused local acquisition at Cahokia (Emerson and Hughes 2000), which extracted ritually charged materials from a sacred landscape (Emerson et al. 2019; Kelly and Brown 2012) and then circulated them to distant and neighboring polities. Copper Goods In general, many of the copper goods found at Mississippian administrative centers were likely tooled by Cahokian craftspeople, though repairing

Above: Figure 10.1. Copper repoussé plate; Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the Ohio History Connection [A1393.1A]) Left: Figure 10.2. Copper plume; Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the Ohio History Connection [1393.1/E]) Below: Figure 10.3. Copper-clad wooden knife; Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the Ohio History Connection [3490.253])

228 · David H. Dye

and reworking took place at polities far removed from Cahokia (Figures 10.1–10.3). For example, the Rogan plates from the Etowah site are thought to have come from Cahokia in the mid-thirteenth century (Brown and Kelly 2000; King 2004:160). Cahokia is also the likely manufacturing locus for copper items found at Spiro: ax heads, Long-Nosed god masks, and repoussé plates (Brown 1989, 2012:134). Two copper workshops have been found north of Cahokia’s Mound 34, a small platform mound some 400 m east of Monks Mound (Kelly et al. 2009). The placement of highly valued copper goods in the Great Mortuary dates to the “Copper-Dominated horizon” (Brown and Kelly 2000), although copper Long-Nosed god masks and unembossed plates arrived at Spiro at a slightly earlier time, perhaps in the early thirteenth century. Copper items taper off in intensity during the late fourteenth century and early fifteenth century when Mississippian politics underwent major political and social transformations. Copper goods found in the Spirit Lodge were apparently extracted from the Great Mortuary tableaux and recycled, especially copper repoussé plates, which were attached to the lids of cane baskets or petaca, receptacles for ceremonial regalia and ritual accoutrements (Brown 2012:126; Horton and Sabo 2011). Flint Clay Figurines Missouri flint clay was locally available to Cahokians, and it was in the American Bottom that these objects were crafted (Emerson et al. 2019; Koldehoff and Pauketat 2018). The flint clay figures saw ritual use in the American Bottom, being carved in the image of powerful culture heroes, deities, and transcendental beings. From Cahokia, they circulated throughout the Caddoan and Mississippian worlds. Figurines manufactured at Cahokia from locally derived flint clay sources in eastern Missouri circulated into the northern Caddoan area in the early twelfth century (Brown 2004b; Emerson et al. 2002; Emerson and Girard 2004) (Figure 10.5). The known distribution of Cahokia-style flint clay effigies is centered in the American Bottom (Emerson 1983), with production sources located in the adjacent northeast margin of the Ozark Highlands, southwest of Cahokia (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Koldehoff and Pauketat 2018). Long-distance movement of flint clay objects out of Cahokia follows a general pattern of Cahokian product dissemination (see Boles, this volume; Brown 2007b). Based on flint clay pipes found at Spiro, close ties are evident between the northern Caddoan region and Cahokia (Brown 1983, 1996; Emerson and Girard 2004; Fowler et al. 1999; Hall 1967). Thomas

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 229

Figure 10.4. Effigy pipe of a seated male figure; Spiro site, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the University of Arkansas Museum Collections)

Emerson and Jeffrey Girard (2004:61) note that flint clay pipes manufactured at Cahokia in the twelfth century imply that “Cahokia’s spiritual and ritual influence throughout the Trans-Mississippi South was immediate and widespread during the site’s ascendancy in the Lohmann and Stirling phases (i.e., AD 1050–1200).” The flint clay pipes at Spiro were curated for a lengthy period before being interred (Brown 1996:161–163). When Cahokia began to decline in the thirteenth century, the figurines were either destroyed or decommissioned along with the temples in which they resided, or, in some instances, they may have made their way throughout the transMississippi South (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Emerson et al. 2003). Marine Shell Marine shell has been postulated as an important exchange item from Cahokia to Spiro (Yerkes 1983:511–512, 1989:94–98, 1991:52–55) (Figure 10.5). Whelks (Busycon sinistrum) were harvested from prime collecting sources along the west coast of Florida and transported inland along the Braden Style Corridor (Brown 2012:134; Brown and Kelly 2015:235; Brown et al. 1990; Kozuch 1998; Reilly et al. 2011:Map 1). Marine shell production is

230 · David H. Dye

Figure 10.5. Marine shell maskette; Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the Museum of Native American History)

well documented for Cahokia, especially shell beads (Baires 2014; Kozuch and Baires 2015; Marquardt and Kozuch 2016; Yerkes 1983, 1989). Timothy Pauketat (1993b, 1994) suggests that concentrations of shell refuse and microdrills around the Kunnemann mound at Cahokia provide crucial evidence for elite-sponsored activities in shell crafting. Confirmation of production activities in the form of shell bead blanks, microdrills, and shell polish microwear on tool bits is found at small farmsteads dotting the Cahokia area during the height of its dominance from AD 1050 to 1200. Shell artifacts begin to appear at Spiro in the twelfth century during the Long-Nosed god horizon as columella pendants, Long(and Short-) Nosed god maskettes, masses of shell beads, and undecorated shell cups, which were manufactured at and dispersed from Cahokia to the Caddoan area (Farnsworth et al. 2006; Hall 1991; Kelly 1991b:75). Shell cups and gorgets in particular are attributed to a Cahokia origin (Brown 2007b). Long-Nosed god masks, associated with Cahokia’s belief systems and cosmologies, were acquired by Spiroans at a time of increased interaction with Cahokia in the twelfth century (Emerson and Girard 2004:62), as part of a general pattern of early Mississippian goods circulation (Emerson et al. 2003:306).

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 231

During the course of the Great Mortuary, individual cups—mostly unengraved—and gorgets are represented by approximately 1,300 shell fragments and objects (Sievert 2011; Phillips and Brown 1978, 1984). While over 60,631 shell beads have been found at Spiro, marine shell workshops have yet to be located at the site (Kozuch 1998). Around AD 1200, engraved shell cups increase in popularity, after a long period of unengraved cup use. Of the two engraved shell cup schools found in the Great Mortuary, Braden and Craig, the Braden style has been posited as deriving from the Cahokia area (Brown 1989, 2007a; Brown and Kelly 2000; Brown and Rogers 1989; Girard et al. 2014:96; Phillips and Brown 1984), inspiring Spiroan communities of practice, which resulted in the Caddoan Craig style. Symbolic Weaponry Exaggerated, exotic, and stylized arrow points, axes, bifaces, clubs, and maces circulated throughout the Eastern Woodlands during the Mississippian period (Figure 10.6). Symbolic weaponry documented in the Cahokia area include a variety of distinctive arrow points, Cahokia-type petaloid/ spatulate celts; maces; and long-handle, spatulate celts (Brown and Kelly 2000). Spatulate celts, for example, circulated early into the Caddoan area (Griffin 1952b). Cahokia appears to be the origin of crafting and the source for redistribution of a significant number of symbolic weaponry items. The production of axes may have taken place in numerous areas where the raw materials could be extracted. Ax production is documented in the St. Francois Mountains (Emerson et al. 2019), with ax blank shaping carried out at temporary seasonal camps by people from the American Bottom and then finished in the Cahokia area, with some degree of control, oversight, or supervision. The final completion of axes took place at local centers and farmsteads within Cahokia’s hinterlands (Crow 2011:112). A South Appalachian origin has been postulated for early celts (Pauketat 1983:8), but Cahokia may have been involved in their redistribution as early as AD 1100 (Emerson and Girard 2004:63). During the Copper-Dominated horizon (AD 1250–1350), copper-headed axes, “Duck River” sword-form bifaces, monolithic axes, and early forms of short-handled, spatulate celts were placed in the Great Mortuary, some of which were later extracted and incorporated in the Spirit Lodge (Brown and Kelly 2000). These later objects would have been crafted and disseminated from polities well south of Cahokia, especially the Middle Cumberland Region during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The exotic nature, high level of crafting,

232 · David H. Dye

Figure 10.6. Woodpecker ax; Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. (Photograph by David H. Dye. Courtesy of the Museum of Native American History)

hypertrophic dimensions, and iconographic representations of symbolic weaponry point to their use as key ritual items, which I suggest served as props in legerdemain performances. Mississippian Social Houses

In this section I suggest social houses resident at Cahokia and Spiro were affiliated to such a degree that they provided the social mechanisms for goods circulation and perhaps facilitated religious pilgrimages. Recent studies have identified the social house as a source of power and prestige among Mississippian and descendent societies. The social house concept has been proposed as an apt model for the Chickasaw (Knight 1990; Speck 1907; Swanton 1928), Cherokee (Rodning 2007), Choctaw (Swanton 1931; Urban 1994:177), and Timucua (Knight 1990), as well as Mississippian polities in the South Appalachians (Brown 2007c) and the Lower Mississippi Valley (James 2015). The social house may have constituted the top social tier of Mississippian society, representing a multiplicity of rival yet interrelated families connected through asymmetrical marriage ties and various social affiliations. These heterarchical relationships, comprised of aristocratic and privileged groups, represent a farrago of interconnected corporate estates or institutions that competed but yet supported one another to maintain political and social dominance and prominence.

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 233

Mississippian elites are increasingly being recognized as political and social aristocracies based on heterarchical relationships (Brown 2007a; Knight 1990). James Brown (2007c:241) argues that Etowah Mound C burials constitute a set of social houses “in which the top tier was composed of a multiplicity of rival, yet interrelated families.” These aristocratic corporate groups held estates of extant privileges, inalienable rights, and inherited wealth established through strategic marriages and other social ties. As such, Mississippian social houses would have comprised a plurality of intermarrying families, forming an interconnected matrix of aggrandizers who manipulated the political and ritual economy (Brown 2007a:228). Mississippian social houses promoted the interests of their members by controlling the political economy and managing the ritual agenda through communities of practice, religious sodalities, and sacra circulation (Brown 2004a; Lankford 2016; Lankford and Dye 2014). In this sense, privileged and well-positioned people would have forged links with similar houses throughout a regional bloc of asymmetrical marriages, ritual institutions, and social alliances. Jane Collier (1988) observes that social houses in general are promoted by marriage patterns among wife-givers and wife-takers; the rights and privileges of these corporate groups being based on hereditary titles and inalienable goods. Legitimate claims to privileges, rights, and titles by aristocratic families would thus result from the circulation and possession of inalienable objects, which authenticate, memorialize, and reinforce social house identities, while differentiating and materializing their histories, memories, and prerogatives. Social houses consolidate and maintain authority and power through growth in the economic strength of aristocratic families, especially intermarriage among similarly positioned families by appropriating surplus, creating and acquiring inalienable goods, and managing hereditary lines, titles, and various forms of accrued wealth. Sustaining access to and control of wealth is dependent upon strong corporate networks and marriage arrangements; wealth is retained within the house estate and handed down from generation to generation. A lineage producing significant surplus can attract and feast inter- and intrapolity communities, thus demonstrating the social house’s efficacy, influence, and viability, reflecting the beneficence of the ancestors, who enjoy privileges bestowed by culture heroes, deities, transcendental spirits, and tutelaries. In this sense, “surplus is represented not as the product of surplus labor, but as the ‘work of the gods’” (Friedman 1975:172–173). Mary Helms (1979:101) observes that “subsistence activities, reproduction, artistry, trade,

234 · David H. Dye

and warfare are all ultimately accorded political-ideological significance because abundance, fertility, creativity, acquisition, and victory all signify the presence and support of the supernatural in the life of the house and polity.” Among historic Great Lakes polities, access and connections to the estate’s ancestors proclaimed the house’s authenticity and efficacy (Gillespie 2000:214n3; Mauss 1985:8). Descent groups structured as social houses typically possess inalienable wealth in the form of regalia and sacra; thus membership in the social house institution would be controlled, manipulated, and restricted through the ancestor/mortuary shrine and the circulation of inalienable goods (Brown 2001a; Worth 2002:60). Caddoan Religious Sodalities and Social Houses

Caddoan speakers, generally credited as descendants of Arkansas Basin Spiroans, with the Wichita (Wyckoff 1980:534) or Kichai (Rohrbaugh 1982:238–239) being likely candidates (contra Schambach 1990, 1993, 2002), provide appropriate analogs as potential sources of insights into Spiroan political, ritual, and social institutions. Preston Holder (1958a, 1958b, 1970), among others, suggests Plains Caddoan polities possessed political hierarchies and social aristocracies, perhaps reminiscent of, or similar to, Arkansas Valley Caddoans. In this section, I investigate two Caddoan ritual and social themes: legerdemain as a function of religious sodalities, and heterarchy/hierarchy as the undercarriage of social houses. Ritual paraphernalia circulating into Spiro from the Cahokia polities would have been part and parcel to the functioning of religious sodalities and social houses. Demonstrating that sodalities and the durable social house were embedded and widespread among Caddoan speakers is crucial to claims for the centuries of “foreign” sacra inputs. Caddoan ritual practice, embedded in the house society and ritual sodality, would have established claims to property and social labor, and materialized sacred mythic charters through legerdemain performances and ritual accouterments, props, and regalia. Caddoan Religious Sodalities and Legerdemain Caddoan polities in general possessed animal lodges, cultic institutions, medicine societies, or some version of religious sodality, all of which were expensive to join, expressly secretive, highly exclusive, and socially restrictive. Through dramatic legerdemain or ritual “magic” shows, lodge members convinced the uninitiated of their control over esoteric knowledge, connections with transcendental beings, and possession of supernatural

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 235

powers. These stage-magic sleight-of-hand demonstrations instilled awe, fear, and terror for unenlightened, nonmember spectators. Various forms of weaponry, including arrows, axes, clubs, and knives, were crucial to these prestidigitation performances. Wissler (1916a, 1916b) refers to Plains ritual societies in general as “shamanistic organizations,” from which the “lower ranks” were excluded, typically being governed by “councils” that, as gatekeepers, controlled esoteric knowledge and restricted membership. Shamanistic performances featured yearly renewal rituals and acts of legerdemain, which demonstrated the ability of “doctors” to defeat death and heal the injured. Shamanistic power typically derived from animals, celestial bodies, or weather phenomena, especially lightning, thunder, and tornadoes. Animal abilities, power, and strength in particular could be appropriated through prayer, supplication, and visions (Harrod 2000). Plains ritual sodalities owned distinctive bundles, ceremonial accoutrements, dances, origin myths, regalia, and songs. An aura of secrecy permeated these societies, augmenting their ability to maintain inclusiveness and to project a heightened sense of dangerous powers exhibited through sleight of hand performances. Secrecy was crucial for controlling esoteric knowledge and the skill sets required to accrue, legitimize, and wield power (Bellman 1984), in addition to the intricacies of legerdemain performances. The transmission of esoteric knowledge associated with shamanistic curing and healing required fees or payments, not only for membership but also for services performed by society “doctors.” Ritual practitioners expected gifts from spectators, and feasts often required provisions from those seeking aid or help from society members. Reo Fortune (1932:113) observed from his Omaha fieldwork that it was standard practice for society members to present a public persona of friendship and community goodwill, but in private he found their arrogance unabashedly appalling. Fortune’s fieldwork reversed the perception among anthropologists that Plains agricultural societies were democratic and egalitarian, but rather they were strongly aristocratic with hereditary privileges (Holder 1958a, 1958b, 1970). Plains religious sodalities crosscut kinship affiliations, including house estates and other social-based institutions; with their controlled and restrictive membership, such ritual organizations were powerful means of creating and maintaining economic, political, and social control. In theory, doctors were expected to be circumspect and quiet in public life, using their curative powers for the polity’s benefit and welfare. As was the case with Fortune’s Omaha research, descriptions of the behavior

236 · David H. Dye

of Caddoan doctors indicate a divergence between purported theory and observed practice (Holder 1970). Not only did they resort to intimidation and threats to bolster their position, but they also wielded “sorcery” as their most powerful weapon. As part of sleight-of-hand demonstrations, “sorcerers” highlighted their power over death by restoring people back to life, a religious theme embodied in numerous Hero Twins charter myths (Radin 1950); various forms of symbolic weaponry became critical props in such demonstrations. In this section I discuss three Caddoan-speaking groups—Arikara, Caddo, and Pawnee—who retained religious sodalities and social houses well into the historic period and provide insights into social institutions that furthered the circulation of sacra. Arikara religious ritual, comprised of doctors and priests who formed the single most powerful element in the polity, represented a symbolic union in the medicine lodge (Curtis 1909; Dorsey 1904a; Gilmore 1931, 1932; Holder 1958a, 1958b, 1970; Howard 1974; Lowie 1915; Meyer 1977; Parks 1991, 1996, 2001a). The Arikara women’s Goose Society promoted maize fertility, blessed the fields, and proclaimed their legerdemain powers by magically materializing “maize stalks from their mouth and kernels from their eyes” (Lowie 1915:677–678). George Will (1928:52) notes that Arikara priests “formed a close corporation, having a complex and powerful organization of their own within the tribe.” Each society had its own bundles, legerdemain skills, rituals, and regalia. Sleight-of-hand performances demonstrated a doctor’s deadly powers. For example, Bear’s Belly would “mount to the top of the lodge, face the people, beat his breast and throw out his abdomen, sitting with his arms spread out and abdomen protruding. A fellow member would ascend, bearing with him a war axe or tomahawk. With this he would strike Bear’s Belly a heavy blow on the protruding abdomen and then retire, leaving the axe sticking in the wound. Bear’s Belly would groan and cry for a time, then descend from the roof still carrying the axe in the wound. A group of medicine men would surround him, withdraw the axe, and he would appear uninjured, and unscarred” (Will 1928:64). When it was announced that such tests of powers were about to begin, the people were warned to keep their distance from the lodge lest they should be injured from the emanating power. The Caddo proper had a “complex theocracy of hereditary leaders” whose legitimacy and powers were drawn from primordial-age transcendental beings (Miller 1996:251). Caddo doctors could “bring back the dead” (Parsons 1941:39). They held medicine dances, during which they would “shoot another doctor through the heart so that he bled from the mouth.

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 237

They would find the bullet and give it to the doctor who would then revive the one he had shot” (Parsons 1941:34). Ritual sodality lodges were sponsored by an animal spirit doctor from whom Caddo doctors communicated and derived their power. Jay Miller (1996:255) notes that “so-called Caddo ‘clans’ were never corporated unilineal units, but instead were animal lodges, such as those found among other Caddoans.” Caddo doctors conducted their ceremonies in a large, permanent grass house from which they would send their “supernatural partners after the deceased and bring him back to the body providing he had not passed beyond certain clouds in the sky” (Parsons 1941:39). The tutelaries include animals as well as deified weather powers: Cyclone, Lightning, and Sun. The Pawnee, possessing secretive medicine societies (Chamberlain 1982; Golla 1975; Murie 1914; Parks 2001b; Parks and Wedel 1985; Weltfish 1977), had the power to kill people and then bring them back to life, a standard legerdemain demonstration found throughout eastern North America. For example, Pawnee sorcery duels, a type of legerdemain performed during the great Twenty Day ceremony, “demonstrated to the people that these men dealt with death as well as curing, that they would dramatically cure the very disorders which they themselves could inflict” (Holder 1970:50–51). They could also instantaneously grow plants, and they were imperviousness to fire (Murie 1914:603). Pawnee bundle societies held annual public performances, during which they would go about the village “dancing before the lodges of prominent persons to receive presents” (Murie 1914:558–559). Pawnee animal “societies” and their associated bundles had a three-way division, “pervading all of Pawnee society, into offices of the priest whose powers came from the sky, the chief who amassed a variety of powers, and the shaman doctor whose powers came from the earth” (Golla 1975). Legerdemain was found among all Pawnee divisions, in which various medicine people demonstrated their animal powers. Remarkable feats of “juggling” or sleight of hand were performed. Medicine people made stalks of corn grow and mature in a moment; they could stand on hot stones and place burning coals in their mouths. Bear medicine men would tear out a man’s liver, eat it, and restore it; afterward the man would rise unharmed (Murie 1914:603). Caddoan Social Houses The Spiro community may have possessed what appears to have been a hereditary chiefly elite (Girard et al. 2014:81–83; Sievert 2011:181), articulated with social houses resembling, to some degree, Plains aristocratic ritual

238 · David H. Dye

institutions. Holder (1970:57) describes the Caddoan earth lodge in a way that suggests the formation of interconnected and ranked social houses. Though kin-nuclei were the basic building blocks of the social house, additional occupants might include affinal relatives, age mates, distant kin, and multiple generations. The basic social unit for Plains Caddoan groups was a “type” of expanded family, which did not form clans but rather placed the earth lodge as its focal point, with lodges ranked or sorted based on a family’s social status, the leading lodges being placed near the center of the settlement (Holder 1970). The ideal lodge was comprised of a middle-age woman who controlled the lodge’s destiny and organization. Three generations of inhabitants were connected by descent, friendship, or marriage. The senior generation consisted of the woman who owned the lodge, along with her spouse, while a second generation comprised a group of daughters and their families. In some instances, the lodge matron’s sons and their spouses might be residents, in addition to more distant kin and their occasional age mates. The third generation encompassed the second generation’s children who might also reside in the lodge, along with any adoptees, affines, captives, consanguines, friends, fictive kin, or members of the same society. The various ranked lodges would funnel goods toward those lodges that occupied the top of the social echelon: the head chief ’s, the doctor’s, and the head priest’s residences (Holder 1970:62). Mutual interdependence among social houses comprised asymmetrical intermarriages with rights and ritual obligations parceled among individual social houses. Robert Hall (2006:194) notes a similar function for Omaha clans and subclans that had indispensable roles that only they could perform for the benefit of the entire town. The social house, in general, as well as the clan, is based on collective rituals that feature feasting events (Hayden 2001b, 2014) that aid the articulation of clans, religious sodalities, and social houses, creating a fabric of privileges and obligations that bind aristocratic cohorts together. For example, the Arikara (Holder 1958b:213) exhibit a “strong tendency to form a group of high-ranking families differentiated from the rest of the community based on their quasi-hereditary positions to the religious cycle.” The statuses of the highest order within the Arikara village tended to be frozen along lines determined by hereditary access to religious knowledge and power. Arikara “social-climbers” almost never achieved high status, and the few who did were still excluded from the highest positions in the hereditary, high-ranking families, which formed a heterarchy of social

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 239

houses. Elite families restricted membership to such house estates through the establishment and maintenance of strict regulations and rules for membership, often through arranged marriages among elite families. Mills (2015:265) observes that the crucible for southwestern house societies was the tension generated between cooperation and conflict on intravillage and intervillage scales, in which such houses created, maintained, and perpetuated claims to land and organized labor through a system intermeshed with multiple sources of power, including political, economic, and ritual. In this sense, the coupling of Spiroan aristocratic social houses and religious sodalities would have promoted interwoven communities of practice that crafted and circulated inalienable sacra, employed ceremonial regalia, memorialized ancestors, and recited mythic charters. The Cahokia-to-Spiro Movement of Inalienable Goods

One of the outcomes of recent research at Cahokia and Spiro is the recognition of a shared cosmology and ritual tradition that involved crafting inalienable goods in the context of multiple communities of practice and their circulation throughout much of the Eastern Woodlands, including the Spiro polity. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting early and direct interaction between the American Bottom Cahokian polities and the Arkansas Valley Caddoan polities (Emerson and Girard 2004). Based on research in the last two decades, a variety of goods appear to have been crafted in the Cahokia communities, including copper (maskettes and plates), flint clay (effigy figurines), marine shell (beads, cups, gorgets, and pendants), and symbolic weaponry (axes, bifaces, and clubs). The ritual use of these goods begins earlier in the Cahokia area than in Spiro’s Great Mortuary. As early as the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, there was direct interaction established between American Bottom and Caddoan polities (Emerson and Girard 2004:63). The Harlan phase (AD 1000–1200) is marked by evidence for Caddoan interaction with the American Bottom: the Braden art style expressed in copper, flint clay, and marine shell, as well as Cahokia points, ceramic vessels, and southern Illinois cherts (Brown 1996:199). Inalienable goods, especially shell gorgets and symbolic weaponry, also begin circulating into Spiro around AD 1200 from the Middle Cumberland and Upper Tennessee Valleys (Brown 2004b:681). James Griffin (1952b) was one of the first archaeologists to argue for the early circulation of ritual goods from Cahokia to the Caddo polities:

240 · David H. Dye

Cahokia tri-notched points, copper-covered biconical ear regalia, copper plates with forked-eye motifs, Long-Nosed god masks, and long polled spatulate celts. Researchers have added additional items to Griffin’s list of Cahokia-related items found at Spiro. Some 225 kg of worked galena have been reported from Spiro that moved through the Cahokian sphere of influence on its way to Spiro (Brown 1996; Hamilton 1952; Sievert 2011; Walthall 1981). Projectile points found in the Caddoan and Cahokian areas bear close similarities to one another. For example, Caddoan-related Alba and Scallorn projectile points from the eastern edge of the Ouachita Mountains appear in Cahokia’s Mound 72 (Brown 2004b; Fowler and Hall 1975:4–5; Fowler et al. 1999), while Washita points similar to Cahokia sidenotched points were cached in some Spiro II contexts (AD 1000–1200) and more commonly in Spiro III grave lots (AD 1200–1300) (Brown 1996:445; Sievert 2011:87). There is also the presence of exchanged ceramics and/or ceramic traditions in both areas (Brown and Kelly 2000; Griffin 1971; Hall 1991; Kelly 1980, 1991b). As mentioned earlier, the Cahokia Braden style is thought to have inspired the Spiro Craig style (Brown 2004a, 2004b, 2007a), with Cahokia as the source for the underlying cosmology that prompted the artistic flowering. The close congruity in artisanship between Cahokia and Spiro of inalienable goods prompted Brown (1985:102) to propose a community of artists at Cahokia supported by elite sponsors who patronized artists through a reliable surplus. Craft specialization at Cahokia in this sense would be the “product of many years of sustained practice by a small, intimate group of craft workers who acquired their skills through lengthy apprenticeship starting at a young age” (Brown 2004a:117). Thus, the inner sphere of Greater Cahokia, as proposed by Thomas Emerson and Timothy Pauketat (1997a, 1997b, 1998a; Pauketat and Emerson 1997), was focused on the “extraction and distribution of local rather than distant materials” (Emerson and Hughes 2000:91). Thomas Emerson and Randall Hughes (2000) note differences in context for Cahokian and Spiroan goods, observing that changes in the structure of social relations in the late eleventh century at Spiro resided in social surpluses that played a key part in connecting people through ritual means. Cahokia’s ritual and spiritual influence into the Caddoan world took place during its ascendancy in the mid-eleventh century (Emerson and Hughes 2000). Spiro was important as the “center of religious allurement,” a hierophantic place where the sacred made itself accessible (Jones 2000:75).

Cahokian Exports to Spiro · 241

As was the case with the Spiro site itself, the Great Mortuary was a sacred place designed to attract and integrate a scattered population through ritual performance (Brown 2012:121). Spiro’s cone-shaped and truncated mounds, some of the most prominent features on the landscape, mimic the site’s surrounding natural features, creating a sacred landscape around the Spiro complex, visible to a large audience. The nature of the view-shed from Spiro’s constructed landscape along the Arkansas River acted as a gateway community into a sacred world (Morrow 2004; Vogel 2005, 2012), one that would have attracted goods and people from distant realms. Spiritual journeys to sacred landscapes often involved quests for esoteric knowledge and sacred objects. Kelly and Brown (2012) discuss trips by Cahokians to the sacred landscape of the St. Francois Mountains, but pilgrimages to the northern Caddoan world also may have held great attraction. Conclusion

Inalienable goods may have circulated from Cahokia to Spiro through a matrix of relationships, especially asymmetrical marriages, contextualized through a regional network of social houses supported by religious sodalities. Heterarchy and hierarchy are documented for historic Caddoanspeakers, as well as archaeological examples for northern Caddoan polities. Social house leaders would have restricted membership to an entrenched aristocracy, while religious sodalities provided the revenue stream through which wealth could be funneled into powerful corporate associations in the form of fees, gifts, and payments. Legerdemain utilizing symbolic weaponry would have constituted an awe-inspiring and powerful performative demonstration of life-and-death powers wielded by an aggrandizing, restrictive, and secretive corporate group. Religious sodalities functioned as social cliques, embracing hereditary lines of succession, thus binding religious sodalities and social houses into powerful institutional organizations. With the appearance at Cahokia of large-scale aggregations of population by the mid-eleventh century, changes arose in the structure of social relations as well as in new ways of connecting landscapes, objects, and people through ritual practice. Communal feasting sets up conditions for social stratification and the rise of power-holding social groups. Novel forms of social labor resulted in structural changes or transformations at Cahokia, which set in motion the accumulation of surplus and created various dimensions of ritual indebtedness of less economically viable constituent

242 · David H. Dye

groups. Ritual in this context promotes persuasive politics through the institution of the social house and religious sodality by an aggrandizing matrix of ritual corporate institutions. Elite-dominated political modes thus reside in esoteric and secretive knowledge and skills shared among aggrandizers who control ritual events and protocols through clans, religious sodalities, and social houses dependent upon the crafting and circulation of inalienable goods.

11 The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee Andrew M. Mickelson

From an environmental standpoint, the West Tennessee study area comprises two distinct geophysical regions: the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and adjacent bluffs along the extreme western edge of the study area (the western “valley”), and the Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, which runs from northwestern Mississippi into extreme southwestern Kentucky (the western “uplands”). Although most of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley in this area is located to the west of the Mississippi River, fertile floodplain soils can be found in ever-increasing acreage upstream from Memphis, with their greatest extent in the Reelfoot Lake area. Soils in the uplands consist predominantly of late Pleistocene loess sediments that support a diversity of Eastern Woodlands flora and fauna and that would have been suitable for agricultural purposes during Mississippian times (Griffith et al. 1998). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley within the study area is limited to no more than 5–10 miles east of the river channel and comprises less than 8 percent of the study area. The majority of the alluvial valley in the study area is north of the confluence of the Mississippi and Hatchie Rivers, upstream from the Reelfoot Lake locale. Most archaeological research in the alluvial valley has occurred in the vicinity of Reelfoot Lake, with nearly 100 Mississippian period sites, including around 50 Emergent Mississippian sites having been recorded (Mainfort 1996). Presently, Emergent Mississippian sites have only been found within the alluvial valley portion of the study area. Most of the Early and Middle Mississippian sites discussed below are in the uplands. In general, the known upland Mississippian sites within the uplands region are mainly located in the upstream reaches of rivers draining into the Mississippi River. Obion is located close to the upstream terminus of the North Fork of the Obion River; Denmark is located on a small tributary of

244 · Andrew M. Mickelson

Figure 11.1. Location of the study area with key sites plotted.

the Hatchie River; and Ames is similarly situated at the head of the North Fork of the Wolf River. Two other poorly documented sites include Kenton (40OB4), located off of the South Fork of the Obion River, and the Bolivar or Pleasant Run site (40HM2), situated on Pleasant Run, a small tributary of the Hatchie River in Hardeman County (Figure 11.1). Background

During the twentieth century, there was very little research on Mississippian communities in western Tennessee, with the exceptions of the Late Mississippian Chucalissa site (Hartman 2010; Lumb and McNutt 1988; McNutt et al. 2012; Nash 1972) and Obion (Garland 1992; Mainfort 1992; Williams 1992). As a result, questions regarding extraregional contact with American Bottom communities or other groups such as those in the Cairo Lowlands have received little attention. Research by the University of Memphis over

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 245

the last several years has sought to rectify the lack of data on Mississippian settlements for the region. Early antiquarian interest in the area’s archaeology begins with the first descriptions of Pinson, Denmark, and the Bolivar sites by Haywood (1823). Jones (1876:130) first documented the Obion site and published an illustration of the remains of a “fluorite statue” in a crouching position. Cyrus Thomas dispatched researchers to western Tennessee for the Bureau of American Ethnology’s mound exploration project in the late 1880s, but little was noted for the region, and no discussion of the region’s archaeology ended up in the final report, with the exception of some mound excavations near Reelfoot Lake (Thomas 1894:279). Myer conducted site visits and limited documentation at Denmark, completed the first maps of Pinson and the Johnston site, and produced a map charting “old Indian trails,” which also had the known archaeological sites plotted on it (Kwas and Mainfort 1986; Myer 1922, 1928b). The first major research in the region was conducted by the Peabody Museum in 1913 at the Obion site. The Peabody expedition produced the earliest known map of Obion and also conducted the first excavations there. It was not until the Works Progress Administration (WPA) era that major excavations were conducted in the region at Obion and Chucalissa by the University of Tennessee in the 1940s (Garland 1992:3). In the 1960s, Gerald Smith, while director of the C. H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa, initiated wide-ranging surveys throughout the study area (Smith 1996). In the 1970s, Drexel Peterson from Memphis State University (now the University of Memphis) conducted field surveys along the Wolf and Loosahatchie Rivers, as well as limited testing at Ames (Peterson 1979). In the 1980s, Robert Mainfort visited Ames and Denmark, where he conducted surface collections. He also conducted salvage excavations at the Denmark site on Mound B, a large truncated pyramid mound that had been partially looted (Mainfort 1992:203–205). Mainfort and others also did considerable work in the Reelfoot Lake area of northwestern Tennessee beginning in the 1980s (Mainfort 1996). He also produced the first synthesis of Mississippian archaeology for the region (Mainfort 1992). Other important related research in the broader region has taken place in southwestern Kentucky at the Jonathan Creek site to the north and at the Owl Creek site in northern Mississippi to the south. Research at Jonathan Creek sponsored by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was summarized in a report by Webb (1952), and significant reevaluation of the site

246 · Andrew M. Mickelson

has been extensively reported by Schroeder (e.g., 2005, 2006, 2011). Nearly half the site was excavated by the CCC project by 1942, when the project was prematurely ended due to the start of World War II (Schroeder 2005). The Jonathan Creek site lies approximately 48 km (30 miles) to the north of the Obion site along what is now Kentucky Lake. Jonathan Creek was occupied throughout the Mississippian period from AD 1000 to 1500 and consisted of at least six mounds, several dozen houses and structures, and a series of palisades that were moved and reconstructed over the life of the site (Schroeder 2006:117–118). Modern investigations at the Owl Creek site south of Tupelo, Mississippi, were completed by Janet Rafferty in 1992 (Rafferty 1995). Owl Creek consisted of at least five mounds dating to the Early–Middle Mississippian period, and shovel testing failed to locate any evidence of a residential area, which resulted in Rafferty (1995) hypothesizing that it was a “vacant center.” The significance of Owl Creek is that it resembles several small mound complexes in western Tennessee (i.e., Denmark and Ames) that were once also thought to be vacant centers until magnetometry surveys revealed the presence of small towns, which included resident populations. Recent Investigations

Recent research in western Tennessee has primarily focused on the upland region east of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and west of the interfluve between the Mississippi River and Tennessee River watersheds. In 2008, my students and I started on what would later become the West Tennessee Archaeological Project (Goddard 2011; Guidry 2013; Hadley 2013; Cross 2016; Mickelson and Goddard 2011; Roesler 2016). Research has focused on examining Mississippian community organization and settlement patterns primarily at the Ames site (4FY7) in Fayette County and at the Denmark site (40MD85) in Madison County, involving large-scale magnetometry surveys and excavations. The results of these excavations and geophysical surveys, as well as previous investigations at Obion (40HY14), demonstrate that Mississippian communities were scattered throughout the region in the uplands outside of the large riverine floodplains. Additionally, limited geophysical research and excavation at the Haynes site (40LK1) in Lake County have demonstrated that there were contemporaneous large-scale Mississippian settlements situated on the Mississippi River floodplain and bluffs overlooking the river in the Reelfoot Lake area.

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 247

Review of the previously published literature for the region, along with archival research and the examination of aerial photographs and LiDAR data, provides completely new or updated information on several sites, including Obion, Kenton, Bolivar, and De Soto. Other sites examined include those in the Reelfoot Lake area that were studied in the 1980s and 1990s by Tennessee Division of Archaeology archaeologists and a few others. Finally, recent research has also focused on reexamining museum collections made by Memphis State University archaeologists in the 1970s at several sites, including Obion, Kenton, Bolivar, and De Soto Mounds. Material Evidence for Extraregional Interaction in Western Tennessee

This section examines the evidence for what Garland (1992) called “connectedness” between sites in western Tennessee and the American Bottom and elsewhere. Where possible, the following three facets of evidence for each site will be discussed: similarities in community plans and architectural remains, including mound construction and building styles; ceramic and lithic assemblages; and the presence of exotic materials. From the chronological perspective, the Mississippian sites in this study currently all fall into the same time frame, from about AD 1050 to 1300, based on nearly 20 radiocarbon dates from several Reelfoot Lake sites, a couple of sites in the Memphis vicinity, and five sites in the interior uplands (Figure 11.2). At present, there is little evidence for Emergent Mississippian sites in the upland portion of the area, except for possible traces at Obion (Garland 1992). In the uplands, there is only evidence for fully fledged Early Mississippian towns bearing all of the hallmarks of that period appearing around AD 1100 and persisting until about AD 1300, when all of the towns are abandoned. From a transregional perspective, the sites correlate temporally with Stirling phase sites in the American Bottom and Early Wickcliff and Jonathan Creek phases in western Kentucky (McNutt 1996:252–253). Chronologically, the western Tennessee sites are contemporaneous with Cahokia and the American Bottom (Figure 11.3). Reelfoot Lake Area of Northwestern Tennessee

Located in extreme southwestern Kentucky and northwestern Tennessee, the Reelfoot basin has the best evidence for Late Woodland/Emergent and Early Mississippian societies within the study area, with over 50

b. a. Figure 11.2. a, Radiocarbon ranges for sites in the study region, early half; b, radiocarbon ranges for sites in the study region, late half.

Figure 11.3. Key phases and sites within the time frame discussed in the text.

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 249

components dating from AD 850 to 950 documented (Mainfort 1996:83). Archaeological research in the Reelfoot basin primarily took place during the 1970s and 1980s and is succinctly summarized by Mainfort (1996), upon whom I have largely relied on for writing this section. Based on this research, Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian sites in the Reelfoot area tend to be rather small in size, averaging under 1 ha, and share a common artifact assemblage (Mainfort 1996:83–84) that includes Baytown Plain with interior red filming, Kimmswick Fabric Impressed, Larto Red, Wheeler Check Stamped, Wickliffe Thick and Kersey Incised ceramics, the occasional artifact manufactured from Burlington chert, and polished hoe flakes of Mill Creek chert. The key sites include Samburg (40OB1), Kirby (40OB123/127), Foxhole (40LK10), 40OB6, Kirby Pocket (40OB122), and 40LK1. Samburg (40OB1)

A clear Red Filmed horizon dating from AD 950 to 1050 is found in the Reelfoot basin, and one of the most significant sites in this respect is the Samburg site. Samburg covers an area of about 8 ha, contains the remains of a large residential area, and once had two large platform mounds. A “substantial” number of artifacts manufactured from Burlington chert were found there, along with side-notched Cahokia points. The predominant ceramic types present include Baytown Plain, Mississippi Plain, Bell Plain, Varney Red (on shell-tempered paste and on grog-tempered paste), and Wickliffe Thick. Mainfort (1996:85) states that the importance of Samburg lies in the fact that it “was the major seat of political authority in the eastern portion” of the Reelfoot basin. 40OB6 and Kirby Pocket (40OB122)

In 1986, Jack Schock excavated three of the mounds comprising part of 40OB6, situated on a bluff near Reelfoot Lake in Obion County. One low “accretional” burial mound was excavated, revealing over 60 interred individuals, predominantly extended fleshed burials (Mainfort 1996:85). Materials associated with the burials included a number of hooded water bottles “and angular shouldered bowls (at least one of which could be classified as Powell Plain), a stone discoidal, and a sandstone rabbit effigy pipe” (Mainfort 1996:86). A second large mound covered a burned structure, and within the building “a miniature red-filmed seed jar was recovered from

250 · Andrew M. Mickelson

a feature at the base.” Three radiocarbon dates from the burned structure place the site at about AD 990 (Mainfort 1996:86). Kirby Pocket is located near Samburg on a high bluff to the east of Reelfoot Lake and comprises a thick sheet of midden and six or seven mounds. The midden contained shell-tempered red-filmed pottery (Mainfort 1996:86). Given the early time frame for Samburg, along with red-filmed ceramics and, at Kirby Pocket, a discoidal and probable Powell Plain ware found there, a degree of relations between the Reelfoot Lake area and the American Bottom seems reasonable. The magnitude of contacts, however, is uncertain. Foxhole (40LK10)

Foxhole is another large site (ca. 6 ha) that contains the largely looted remains of a significant town with at least one low mound and a large residential component (Mainfort 1996:91). Foxhole is unique in that it has a high proportion of Wheeler Check-stamped within its ceramics assemblage, which also contains Mulberry Creek Cord Marked, Baytown Plain, Varney Red, and Kersey Incised types. The site also produced a very large number of bone artifacts; this unfortunately led to the extensive looting that gives the site its name. Side- and corner-notched points “similar to Emergent Mississippian forms from the American Bottom are also present at Foxhole” (Mainfort 1996:86). Referring to the high amount of Wheeler Check-stamped ceramics found at Foxhole, Mainfort (1996:89) states that “the extant data from the Foxhole site presents compelling evidence for the migration of nonindigenous people into the Reelfoot lake basin.” Haynes (40LK1)

The Haynes site is located west of Reelfoot Lake on an alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River that flows approximately 3.2 km to the west. The site was initially recorded in 1946 by R. C. Donaldson, a local historian, who described the site has having a single large square mound measuring 150 × 150 feet and around 12 feet tall, with burned clay observed on the surface (Lawrence and Mainfort 1993:19). In 1990, it was also noted that a substantial habitation zone existed surrounding the mound and included a 0.3 m thick midden buried by alluvium (Lawrence and Mainfort 1993). In 2013– 2014, the University of Memphis conducted a magnetometry survey over 3.5 ha of the site, which probably covered about 60–70 percent of the site.

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 251

The geophysical survey revealed that the platform mound was surrounded by a town consisting of at least 30 square wall-trench houses; based on their strong magnetic signatures, these buildings had been burned. Additionally, no evidence for a palisade was seen in the magnetometry data even though the survey covered a substantial area to the south of the mound beyond where the building zone had terminated (Hadley 2014). Salvage operations were conducted in 1990 by the Tennessee Division of Archaeology because plowing associated with agriculture land use was slowly destroying the mound. A single wall-trench structure with closed corners was encountered on the summit, which, given decades of plowing, was thought to be the third from the last stage of construction. The mound had been reduced in height by about half since Donaldson’s observations in 1946 (Lawrence and Mainfort 1993). Two radiocarbon dates from charred posts within the building’s wall trenches dated the structure to AD 1280. Excavations recovered several “restorable” jars, vessels, and fragments of saltpans. A small Mississippi Plain var. Mississippi jar similar to materials from the Chambers site to the north in Kentucky was found. An O’Byam Incised var. Matthews vessel and a Matthews var. Manly jar shoulder were also found (Lawrence and Mainfort 1993:24). In addition to the ceramics, several fragments of mica were also recovered. The Matthews Incised sherds probably point to interactions with groups in southeastern Missouri. The ceramics share considerable continuity with the Lower Mississippi Valley assemblages for the late thirteenth century, including wares found from southern Mississippi through the Cairo Lowlands to western Kentucky at the Jonathan Creek site (Garland 1992:67). The mica indicates that the site was connected to the greater trans-Mississippian trade network, albeit there is no evidence for direct links to the American Bottom. Central Mississippi River Valley

The Shelby Forest House Site (40SY488) and the Shelby Forest Site (40SY489) The Shelby Forest House site and the Shelby Forest site are two separate Mississippian deposits located about 9 km (5.6 miles) apart within the Meeman-Shelby State Forest in northwestern Shelby County. Barker (2005) reported that the Shelby Forest House site was excavated over a six-week period in 1994, resulting in the complete exposure of a Mississippian period structure dating to AD 1224–1257 based on a radiocarbon assay from

252 · Andrew M. Mickelson

wall post charcoal. The ceramic assemblage from the site contained a few Woodland sherds and 160 Mississippian sherds, 85 percent being Mississippi Plain and 15 percent consisting of Bell Plain materials. Of note is the fact that both Mississippian pottery types were tempered with both shell and clay (Barker 2005:12–13). Although no exotic or early period materials were found at the Shelby Forest House site, it is of relevance here in that it represents one of only four sites in the region containing evidence for nonmound structures for the period, providing evidence for farmsteadscale communities along with town and mound center occupations in the region. The Shelby Forest site is located within the Meeman-Shelby Forest along the cut bank of the Mississippi River about 24 miles north of Memphis and was first excavated by Memphis State University graduate student Eda Fain in 1987, and then again in 1989 by the Tennessee Division of Archaeology (McNutt 2015:136). The site is significant in that it predominantly contained a great deal of Varney Red Filmed var. Shelby ceramics, along with some earlier material, as well as a well-preserved midden deposit buried about 1.35–1.75 m below the surface (McNutt 2015:136–139). Ceramics recovered from the site include Mississippi Plain, Varney Red Filmed, and a clay-tempered ware all within the same deposit. The Red Filmed material comprised 62 percent of the 1,684 total sherds. Also significant is the fact that the site contains some of the earliest dated material in the region under discussion. A series of four radiocarbon assays indicate that the median probability (p = .05) for its age is AD 1093 (McNutt 2015:139–140). De Soto Park (40SY5)

Site 40SY5 is located within Chickasaw Heritage Park along the southernmost portion of the fourth Chickasaw Bluff in Memphis, Tennessee, and is known in the archaeological literature as the De Soto Park site (Figure 11.4). There has been virtually no work conducted at this once large, sevento-eight-mound center (Weaver and Bowman 1982), and only a small set of artifacts from the site could be located in the repository of the C. H. Nash Museum. Fortunately, though, the layout of the mound complex is known because U.S. Navy surveyors mapped the site for the possibility of acquiring the land for a naval facility (Figure 11.4). Ultimately, the navy chose to build at the location of the present-day Pyramid in downtown Memphis. Initially the site had been proposed as the Jackson Monument Park, which would have fully preserved the site (Baumganter 1843). However, the site

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 253

Figure 11.4. Plan of the De Soto Mounds site (40SY5).

has suffered through the encroachment of urban development, construction of the Civil War–era Fort Pickering, and later construction of a naval hospital in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Presently the site is characterized by two remaining large truncated pyramidal mounds separated by a well-defined plaza. Casual visits to the site indicate that intact deposits in erosional areas and artifacts such as daub, pottery, and lithics are readily visible in exposed surface areas. A donated collection of artifacts at the C. H. Nash Museum, along with materials reported by Weaver and Bowman (1982), indicates a long span of occupation as well as extralocal connectivity during the Mississippian period. A small box of donated materials includes an unfinished discoidal blank and a celt produced from nonlocal igneous rock, which at least macroscopically resembles material from the St. Francois area in southwest Missouri. The ceramic chronology at the site extends from the terminal Late Woodland to the Late Mississippian period (Koldehoff and Wilson 2010). Weaver and Bowman (1982:Table 1) report that in a single 0.7 × 1.0 m and 0.6 m deep test unit, they encountered clay-lined pit features and other

254 · Andrew M. Mickelson

intact archaeological deposits that yielded a variety of prehistoric materials, including what may be a sherd of Early Mississippian period Old Town Red. Interior of Western Tennessee

Obion (40HY14) As previously mentioned, the Obion site is located in Henry County on the upper reaches of the North Fork of the Obion River, situated on a slight bluff (Figure 11.5). Obion once consisted of as many as 10 mounds, but since the site was first reported, several of the mounds have been destroyed due to agricultural plowing. According to Garland (1992:1–3), early reports indicate that a “wall” or berm enclosed the entire site, suggesting that it may have contained the remains of a palisade that surrounded the mounds and residential area(s). The 1913 work by Bishop of the Peabody Museum and that of subsequent 1940 WPA research by T. N. M. Lewis for the University of Tennessee concentrated on the seven mounds then extant during the first half of the twentieth century. Both the 1913 and 1940 projects neglected to excavate off-mound residential areas, although the University of Tennessee fieldwork did include nearly 20 5-×-5-foot test units dispersed across the site, and these tests revealed substantial residential debris, including structural remains. The excavation data for Obion then is skewed toward structural remnants and artifacts from mound contexts; the Peabody and University of Tennessee excavations combined examined all or portions of Mounds 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 (Garland 1992:Figure 1). However, the 5-×-5-foot test units excavated by Tennessee indicate substantial off-mound midden areas in excess of 30 cm thick below the plowzone in some cases. Additionally, the test units also revealed structural elements such as posts and building wall trenches (Garland 1992:11). As far as can be ascertained, no additional excavations have taken place since, but a significant surface collection conducted by Memphis State in 1970 was recently rediscovered at the C. H. Nash Museum. This surface collection, probably best described as employing a quasi-systematic sampling strategy, covered nearly the entire site and was divided into 14 discrete collection zones that included mounds as well as “village areas.” Its importance lies in the fact that a large sample of an artifact assemblage from Obion covered both mound and off-mound areas in the same fashion and that substantial off-mound residential use of the site took place.

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 255

Figure 11.5. Plan of the Obion site (40HY14).

From a landscape perspective, Obion is perched on a defensible bluff in an extreme headwaters location along the North Fork of the Obion River, only 9 km (5 miles) from the interfluve between the Tennessee and Mississippi River valleys—clearly a strategic setting. Obion’s layout, as can best be ascertained from the maps of 1913 and 1940 and the map completed by the Memphis State surface collection fieldwork, generally follows a standard architectural grammar for Mississippian towns (e.g., Lewis and Stout 1998). A central plaza approximately 200 m long east–west and 60 m wide north–south is flanked by the remaining mounds on all four sides. Mound 6, the main mound, is situated to the north of the plaza, which is a common feature of Mississippian town construction and is repeated at other sites in the region. Obion also has solar alignments present, another common feature of such sites. The main residential areas are situated around the mounds, based on the surface collection map generated by the Memphis State fieldwork. Obion’s site layout is very similar to the contemporaneous Jonathan Creek site located approximately 48 km (30 miles) to the north in the Lower Tennessee Valley (Garland 1992; Webb 1952). The ceramic assemblage from the Obion site obtained from mound contexts as well as from the Memphis State surface collection has been well described by Garland (1992:63–90). The 1940 University of Tennessee excavations recovered a total of 8,656 sherds, while the Memphis State

256 · Andrew M. Mickelson

fieldwork yielded an additional 2,077 sherds, clearly enough material to make definitive statements regarding ceramics present at Obion. Early on, Mississippian researchers took great interest in the Obion site in part due to two “unique” characteristics of its ceramic assemblage. According to Stephen Williams (1992:193–195), Philip Phillips was probably the first to recognize possible Cahokia “ties” when he visited the Peabody Museum in 1940 as part of his dissertation research to examine the Obion collections. Phillips observed that the four black polished jars from the basal level of Mound 3, with their interiors encrusted in red ochre, were “Powell-like,” referring to the distinctive Powell Plain vessels found in the American Bottom. According to Garland (1992:67), these jars from Mound 3 also had a distinctive thickening of the lip that was characteristic of Stirling phase vessels. However, petrographic analysis of the pottery by Stoltman (1992) demonstrated that the jars were of local manufacture and did not originate in the American Bottom. Rather, the skill and knowledge of how to craft Powell Plain pottery were transferred to the Obion site. A second reason for the interest in the Obion ceramic assemblage was that, early on, it was recognized that the predominant pottery paste was a distinctive white to buff-colored kaolinite clay tempered with clay grog that was a form of fired clay and not from crushed pottery. Garland (1992:64) later formally classified this pottery as Obion Plain var. Obion. Obion Plain forms include jars, bottles, and, to a lesser extent, bowls. Of particular note is the reported geographical distribution of Obion Plain. According to Garland (1992:65), it was reportedly found at Kincaid, at Tennessee River valley sites, and at southwestern Tennessee sites, including the Denmark site (40MD85), which will be discussed later. Additionally, “Obion-like” sherds have also been found by the University of Michigan in the course of surface collections at Cahokia (Garland 1992:65). Other minor pottery types within the 1913 and 1940 materials from Obion include Mathews Incised, O’Byam Incised, and Nashville Negative Painted. The first two types, Matthews Incised (n = 6) and O’Byam Incised (n = 4), indicate probable thirteenth-century interactions with communities in southeast Missouri, western Kentucky, and southern Illinois and the Cairo Lowlands. Nashville Negative Painted ceramics (n = 1) indicate lesser contact with groups in the Tennessee and Cumberland River valleys. Given the location of the Obion site at the interfluve between the Mississippi and Tennessee drainages, this should be unsurprising. In my reevaluation of the 1970 Memphis State surface collections from Obion, similarly low-level representations of nonlocal ceramics are also

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 257

documented. Some of the types recovered included Matthews Incised var. Beckwith (n = 1), Old Town Red (n = 4), and Interior Red Filmed (n = 6). In total, nonlocal materials represent less than 1 percent of the ceramic assemblage, with Obion Plain var. Obion and Kimmswick Fabric Impressed var. Kimmswick dominating the collection at 85 percent and 10 percent, respectively, within the Memphis State collection. Clearly the ceramic evidence points to a degree of interaction between Obion and its neighbors in the surrounding regions, while at the same time it demonstrates that Obion was not a Cahokian- or American Bottom–spawned colonization event such as the Aztalan site in Wisconsin. Effigy vessels are at a rather conspicuous level of visibility within the Obion ceramics assemblage (Garland 1992:78–80). The so-called effigy complex at Obion was represented by 108 specimens found on beakers, bottles, and bowls, constructed predominantly with grog paste (92 percent). The dominant forms were hooded bottles (n = 44), zoomorphic representations on bowl rims (n = 20), and incised bowl rims (n = 12). These three classes of ceramic forms account for 61 percent of the effigy vessels (Garland 1992:Table 5). An additional 22 effigy forms are present in the Memphis State surface collections. The majority of effigies include “blank” face forms and zoomorphic forms, mainly representations of owls and birds (Garland 1992:78–80), from excavated and surface collections contexts alike. Effigy bowls are found at Cahokia, southern Missouri, and elsewhere in the Mississippi Valley. At Cahokia, the dominant effigy forms were birds, mainly ducks and owls, usually found on bowl rims, generally within the context of lower-class burials and in domestic contexts (Milner 1998:88). Lithic materials from Obion include side-notched triangular points, “digging” implements, zoomorphic forms carved from chert, groundstone objects, and finally a single human effigy statue carved from fluorspar. Five side-notched triangular forms similar to Cahokia forms, but without the hyperserrated edges, were found in early strata within Mounds 3 and 6. An additional specimen was recovered on the surface by Memphis State. So-called digging implements are represented by seven “hoes” and three “spades” found in a cache in Feature 4 on the summit of Mound 6, the large platform mound (Garland 1992:93); nearly all of the implements in the cache were made from Dover chert. Memphis State recovered 18 hoe fragments and “hoe re-sharpening flakes”; 10 of the hoe fragments were produced from Mill Creek chert from southwestern Illinois (Charles Cobb, personal communication, 2016). A turtle effigy chipped from Dover chert

258 · Andrew M. Mickelson

was found at Obion as well. The effigy resembles the two found in the Link Farm cache (Garland 1992:95; Guthe 1939). Groundstone and chipped adzes, one of which was produced from Dover chert, were also recovered. Additionally, a greenstone ax head fragment, probably from material available in southeastern Missouri, was found during the 1970 surface collections. The more exotic items include greenstone biconcave discoidal stones, one from Mound 6 and one found in the later Memphis State surface collections. Finally, the most eye-catching artifact from the Obion site is the fluorspar human effigy first documented by Jones (1876:130). All that remains of the figurine is the head, which is now housed in the Smithsonian collections, as the statue was nearly completely destroyed in a house fire in the 1800s. The statue was 18–20 inches high, and when complete, it depicted a seated male with “the right knee drawn up and the right hand grasping the knee” (Garland 1992:96). According to Smith and Miller (2009:144– 146), the source for the statue was most likely a fluorspar deposit located in western Kentucky about 35 km to the north of the Obion site. They also note that the statue bears a strong resemblance to one found at the Angel site in southern Indiana. From a stylistic standpoint, similar statues from within the broader region, such as the one found at Obion, match statues ascribed to the Cumberland–Tennessee River valley forms (Smith and Miller 2009:144). Given the present data from the Obion site, it should be clear from the above discussion that equal levels of continuity exist between Mississippian manifestations to the west and to the east. Along the Mississippi River Valley, perhaps as far north as Cahokia, influences in ceramic styles can be seen from southeastern Missouri and the Ohio-Mississippi confluence area near Cairo, Illinois, as well as the broader Middle Mississippi Valley. However, not a single bona fide artifact at the Obion site can be traced directly to the American Bottom. The black polished Powell Plain–like jars found in Mound 3 have been demonstrated to be local copies of American Bottom wares. Obion is at the southern boundary of the region where southern Cahokia-like triangular points are found (Justice 1987:233–235). Chipped and lithic raw materials generally come from nearby sources or mainly from the east in the Tennessee-Cumberland area, such as the numerous artifacts described above as being manufactured from Dover chert. It is Garland’s opinion (1992:121) that there was a direct influence from Cahokia around the Stirling phase in the emergence of Obion as a planned center about AD 1050. Further, Garland (1992:122) argues that there was a “connectedness

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 259

with the American Bottom sphere of influence ca. A.D. 1000–1200.” This may have indeed been true, but interactions with the Tennessee and Cumberland Valley groups to the east, though perhaps not as strong as Obion’s contacts to the west, also cannot be overlooked. Kenton (40OB4)

Kenton is located in Obion County at the confluence at the Rutherford and South Fork of the Obion River and was first visited by Osborne and Lidberg after working at the Obion site in 1940 (Mainfort 1992:205). Kenton is situated on a steep bluff overlooking the South Fork of the Obion River. They described the site as having four truncated pyramid-shaped mounds and three smaller mounds, several of which have been destroyed. In 1970, John Hesse and Ron Brister of the C. H. Nash Museum visited the site briefly, made a small surface collection, and produced a sketch map on the Rives 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle map. Analysis of LiDAR data indicates that at least four mounds remain at the site in a fairly good state of preservation. Based on a 1951 aerial photograph, the 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, and LiDAR data, as many as seven mounds may have once existed, which would be consistent with the Bolivar site to the south (Figure 11.6). The current dimensions, as measured from LiDAR data, of the three mounds that form the northern part of the site from east to west are as follows: Mound A is 3 m high and is 26 × 25 m at its base; Mound B is 3 m high and is 45 × 37 m at its base; Mound C is 2 m high and measures 30 × 17 m at its base. Mound D is located some 440 m to the south of Mound B and is presently 3 m high and measures 20 × 21 m at its base. In a 1951 aerial image of the site, a large platform mound (labeled Mound E here) to the northwest of Mound B can be seen. According to Mainfort (1992:205), Mound E was “completely” destroyed in the 1970s; however, traces of it can still be observed in the LiDAR data. Comparing Figures 11.5 and 11.6, one cannot help but note how similar Kenton’s layout is to Obion’s. A paltry collection of materials from Kenton is housed at the C. H. Nash Museum and consists mainly of Mississippi Plain and Red Filmed ceramics that were presumably collected where Mound E once stood (Mainfort 1992:205). Red Filmed materials again point to early connections with other groups in the Mississippi Valley. The original site form prepared by Osborne and Lidberg (Mainfort 1992:205) states that there was no “village” component associated with the Kenton mound complex; however, given our experience at relocating residential components at Denmark and Ames

260 · Andrew M. Mickelson

Figure 11.6. Plan of the Kenton site (40OB4).

with magnetometry surveys, it is most likely the case that the town has yet to be discovered. Bolivar (40HM2)

The Bolivar site is located on a bluff overlooking Pleasant Run, a tributary of the Hatchie River near the town of Bolivar, Tennessee. Haywood (1823:146) was probably the first person to describe Bolivar and mentions that there were seven mounds. Bolivar covers an area of ca. 18 ha, making it the largest Mississippian site in the western Tennessee interior. Five mounds currently remain, with one of these slowly being plowed away. At least three of the mounds are of the rectangular platform type. The largest mound is still in an excellent state of preservation and is 40 × 40 m at the base and rises some 6 m to the platform’s summit, which is at least 15 × 20 m in area. According to local informants, burials were removed from one of the mounds when a trench was cut into it. This conical mound is currently 20 × 30 m at the base and about 3 m tall (Mainfort 1992:205). An additional informed person noted that an erosion cut in the agricultural field once exposed a midden deposit, perhaps as deep as 0.3 m, exposing artifacts and animal bones. Mainfort (1992:205) analyzed a surface collection that

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 261

had been donated to the C. H. Nash Museum. The collection contained 72 Mississippi Plain sherds including 10 rims, one Bell Plain, one Kimmswick Fabric Impressed, and one Old Town Red sherd. Bolivar probably represents another Early–Middle Mississippian site located in interior western Tennessee. Pinson (40MD1)

Although Pinson is primarily known as the preeminent Middle Woodland ceremonial center in the Midsouth, it also has an Early Mississippian component (Fischer and McNutt 1962; Morse 1986:109–112). In 1961, Fischer and McNutt excavated a portion of a rectangular wall-trench structure that was subsequently more thoroughly excavated by Dan Morse (1986). Charcoal from posts within the wall trenches were radiocarbon-dated, returning uncorrected dates of AD 850 ± 120 and AD 1130 ± 110, placing the building within the late eleventh or early twelfth century AD. A mix of Woodland and Mississippian ceramics, as well as Mississippian triangular points, was found during both excavations. The Mississippian ceramic material included a small amount of shell-tempered and Red Filmed ceramics. Along with the Shelby Forest House site, the Pinson structure excavations contribute evidence for the existence of Mississippian farmsteads scattered throughout the region. Denmark (40MD85)

Denmark is located off of Big Black Creek, a tributary of the Hatchie River, in Madison County (Figure 11.7). Denmark was probably first described by Haywood (1823) as a three-mound site with an “intrenchment” or ditch surrounding the site. The main platform mound (Mound B) is about 3 m high and is 25 × 25 m at the base. William Myer (1971) visited the site and photographed the main mound, which at the time had a hunting cabin on the summit. This cabin is now in ruins, with only the brick chimney and brick foundation piers remaining. Mainfort conducted salvage work on Mound B, the main platform, while he was station archaeologist at Pinson. In 1990, vandals cut a large trench into the sides of the mound. Since the trenches had been cut into the sides of the mound, no evidence of “construction summits” was identified (Mainfort 1992:204). Mound A is located to the southwest of Mound B and is a small ridge mound that is 42 m long by 32 m wide and is 2.5 m tall. The western side of Mound A retains the

262 · Andrew M. Mickelson

Figure 11.7. Plan of the Denmark site (40MD85).

remains of a 16 m long ramp similar in form to that of Obion Mound 6 (see Figure 11.5). Mound C, a small, heavily looted conical mound, is located almost due north of Mound B and measures 2.5 m high and approximately 20 m in diameter. The University of Memphis initiated research at the Denmark site in 2011 by conducting a magnetometry survey and producing a topographic map. Hadley (2013:19) completed a 4 ha magnetometry survey at Denmark, which revealed dozens of houses across the site. Many of the houses appeared to be clustered around an open area, not unlike terminal Late Woodland–Early Mississippian sites such as the Range site (Kelly 1990a) in the American Bottom. Based on interpretation of the magnetometry data and excavations of a single house at Denmark, it is estimated that there may have been as many as 70 houses constructed throughout the occupational history of the site (Hadley 2013; Roesler 2016). Of particular note is that this large-scale survey failed to locate any defensive structures such as a palisade or ditch surrounding the site, as was intimated by Haywood. In order to ground-truth the magnetometry data and to get a better understanding of household archaeology, an excavation block was opened

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 263

over an area where magnetometry indicated a probable Mississippian rectangular building. The plowzone was removed, revealing a mottled brown stain roughly 4 × 6 m in area (Roesler 2016:Figure 10). Structure 1 was semisubterranean in nature, with about 5–10 cm of the basin walls having survived within the subsoil beneath the plowzone. An AMS assay from the central hearth dates the building to AD 1290. The walls of Structure 1, excepting about a 1 m length of ephemeral wall trench on the northeastern wall, were predominantly constructed of single lines of posts sunk directly into the subsoil. The floor plan of the building resembles structures dating to the Merrell phase in the American Bottom (Milner 1998:Figure 5.6). A second building (Structure 2) only received limited testing for dating purposes and also was constructed around 1290 AD. Based on its magnetic signature, Structure 2 was most likely built using the wall-trench technique. Limited test excavations on the large central platform mound (Mound B) were initiated to attempt to date its terminal construction episode. A single 1 × 1 m test excavation was placed in the southwestern corner of the flat summit. After removing a narrow lens of historic material related to the early twentieth-century hunting cabin, a zone of sterile buff-colored clay loam was encountered, extending about another 40 cm below the surface. This zone was apparently a “decommissioning” event in which the final occupational summit was capped. An AMS assay from wood charcoal from the last active surface on Mound B returned a date of about AD 1150. It appears the mound construction ceased at least 100 years before Structures 1 and 2 existed. Material culture from Denmark was obtained through excavations as well as surface collections made by the landowner. Artifacts include triangular-style points, ceramics, and groundstone objects. Over the last several years in which the University of Memphis has worked at the site, the landscape has been subject to no-till farming, making the possibility of controlled surface collections infeasible. However, over the years the landowner has conducted limited surface collections, and other individuals have made some rather fortuitous finds as well. The surface-collected ceramics by the landowner were examined by Shawn Chapman (personal communication 2011). The small sample consisted of 198 sherds weighing about 1.1 kg. A few Late Woodland sherds, a white paste sherd (probably Obion Plain), and a single Red Filmed (probably Old Town Red) sherd were identified within the collection dominated by two types of plain wares (50 percent of collection, n = 99). The first type is a white kaolinite clay paste with eroded shell tempering, and the second is an iron-bearing clay

264 · Andrew M. Mickelson

also with shell tempering. These two types of plain wares dominate the ceramic assemblages from Mississippian sites in the interior region of western Tennessee. Other than the one example of a Red Filmed sherd, no other exotic ceramics have been collected at Denmark. Nonlocal groundstone materials include a single celt fragment and a complete discoidal. Both objects likely derive from igneous sources located in southwestern Missouri; however, testing has not been conducted to confirm or refute this supposition. The ax head was manufactured from a greenstone igneous material, as was the discoidal. The biconcave discoidal measures 10 cm in diameter and 4 cm thick, with about 1 cm deep concavities on each side. The artifact is a Cahokia-style discoidal and likely dates to the Early–Middle Mississippian affiliation. The groundstone artifacts indicate connections with midwestern and perhaps even American Bottom communities to the north; however, the evidence is tenuous. Ames (40FY7)

Ames Plantation, most famous for being the perennial host for the National Bird Dog Trials on a portion of its 18,000-acre land base, is also home to a small Early–Middle Mississippian town site with four mounds. Ames is located at the headwaters of the North Fork of the Wolf River in eastern Fayette County, Tennessee (Figure 11.8). Ames has received the most research attention of any of the sites within the region, as it has been the locus of the University of Memphis’s primary field school location for the last several years (Cross 2016; Goddard 2011; Guidry 2013; Mickelson 2008; Mickelson and Goddard 2011). Early research from 2007 to 2009 focused on answering two main questions: site function and chronology. Previous researchers had thought that Ames was a vacant center (Mainfort 1992; Peterson 1979); however, a large-scale magnetometry survey revealed a substantial residential area south of the mounds and plaza area as well as the remains of a palisade that surrounded the town. Additionally, it was first thought that Ames was a Middle Woodland complex or possibly an Early Mississippian site (Mainfort 1992:204). By 2011, research had demonstrated that Ames was an Early–Middle Mississippian small palisaded town with a resident population occupying a couple dozen houses located between the palisade and a plaza, which in turn separated the residential area from the mounds. Research at Ames has consisted of several dimensions, including ascertaining mound construction events, delineating the extent and architectural composition of the town, examining household-scale activities, and

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 265

Figure 11.8. Plan of the Ames site (40FY7).

conducting a large controlled surface collection project across the plantation to locate and excavate farmsteads scattered across the countryside contemporaneous with the main town. In the course of these investigations, several lines of evidence suggest that there may have been broad extralocal contacts between Ames and other communities. This evidence includes the community plan at Ames, architectural styles, pottery types, and a sheen of exotic materials. These four facets of the research program will be discussed sequentially below. Ames Mound Excavations Ames has at least four mounds (probably five), three of which are platform or truncated pyramidal mounds, and the fourth is a ridge mound. Mounds B and D have received limited test excavations. The goals of the test excavations were to first obtain an understanding of the mounds’ construction sequences through exposing stratigraphic profiles, and secondly to obtain samples for radiocarbon dating (Mickelson 2008).

266 · Andrew M. Mickelson

Mound B, the largest platform at the site, measures 25 m2 and is 4 m tall. A sample of a “burned log” collected from a small looter’s pit was conventionally dated by Mainfort (1992:206) to AD 1020 ± 70. Test excavations by the University of Memphis in 2010 included cleaning up the profile of a second looter’s trench on the south side of Mound B near its base, exposing a 3.5 m stratigraphic profile that extended into a truncated B horizon. The excavation revealed that the fill consisted of alternating zones of buff and yellowish-brown fill, extending to its base. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from this excavation, and an AMS assay from the middle of Mound B returned a calibrated date of AD 1020 ± 40, about the same age as was obtained for the top of Mound B by Mainfort. A second date taken from Stratum XI, the earliest cultural zone perched on top of the B horizon, returned a calibrated age of AD 620 ± 40, indicating that the earliest occupations at Ames began during the early Late Woodland period. Additionally, Stratum XI may be the remnants of a Late Woodland mound that was later buried by Mississippian builders (Mickelson 2008:205). Finally, in 2015 a 2 × 2 m test excavation on top of Mound B, again in the location of a former looter’s pit, was conducted. This excavation revealed that a “decommissioning” event took place in which a 30 cm thick “cap” consisting of clean lightgray clay-loam was placed over the last occupational stage on the summit, exactly like the final cap on Mound B at Denmark. Mound D is also a platform mound, measuring 20 m on a side and 3 m tall. In the mid-1980s, illicit excavations (possibly employing a backhoe) cut a 2 m wide trench into the middle of the mound. Beginning in 2007, the University of Memphis cleaned and extended the looter’s trench to obtain a cross-section profile of Mound D. As with Mound B, the general stratigraphic profile of Mound D consisted of alternating bands of buff and yellowish-brown fill extending below a clay-loam “decommissioning” cap at the surface to approximately 2.5 m below the summit to the top of a prepared clay surface upon which rested the burned remains of a building (Stratum X). The burned remains of the split-cane thatched roof of the building, along with one wall trench, were excavated. An AMS assay from burned cane from the roof returned a calibrated date of around AD 1210 (Mickelson 2008:Table 1). About 1 m below Stratum X, Stratum XIII was exposed, revealing an earlier prepared surface and portions of the wall trenches of a building. Several pieces of Red Filmed ware (probably Old Town Red) were recovered from this zone. No radiocarbon date has been run for this zone; however, Stratum XIII, which is below the natural A horizon, may date to at least AD 1100, if contemporaneous with Mound B. At

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 267

the very least, the recovery of Red Filmed ceramics at the base of Mound D is in line with finding the same materials at other sites such as Obion, where red-filmed materials were found within the earliest levels of mounds excavated there as well (Garland 1992). Research on the Ames Residential Area Research in the residential portion of Ames has consisted of controlled surface collections, an extensive magnetometry survey, test excavations, and large-scale block excavations (Cross 2016; Goddard 2011; Guidry 2013; Mickelson 2008; Mickelson and Goddard 2011). Three controlled surface collections across the site have revealed a fairly well delineated circular scatter of artifacts measuring about 100 m in diameter. This scatter falls within the limits of the palisade walls of the town that were discovered through a magnetometry survey and subsequent ground-truth test excavations in 2009 (Goddard 2011). The magnetometry survey also revealed at least 20 house locations with buildings and large storage pits (Cross 2016; Guidry 2013), which has been observed at several other sites throughout the Mississippi Valley and beyond (Milner 1998:95). Radiocarbon dates for the buildings span the period of about AD 1100–1300. Given the sequence of radiocarbon dates for Ames, it appears that people were living at Ames following the decommissioning of the mounds for several decades; the same seems also to hold true at Denmark. Household information comes not only from the houses but also from associated features interior and immediately exterior to the buildings. Houses at Ames range in size from 4 × 4 m to 7 × 7 m, with house size increasing through time (Guidry 2013:42). The building floor plans generally correspond to an open-corner wall-trench style with pits in the interior of the house, similar to Stirling phase structures in the American Bottom (Milner 1998:42). The material recovered from excavations of at least six structures at Ames, ranging from the earliest to the latest occupations, consists primarily of plain-ware pottery vessels, a variety of local and nonlocal chert, ferruginous sandstone, and a paltry amount of mica and galena. The ceramics fall into two main categories of paste types—either a white to buff kaolinite clay somewhat similar to Obion Plain or an orange-brown paste with discernable, high levels of hematite or other iron-bearing minerals being present. Tempering agents include “grog” or fired clay such as at Obion (Garland) as well as sand, shell, and mica. Loop-handled vessels resemble the styles found at Obion and other sites in southeastern Missouri and may be a variant of Mississippi Plain. Unlike Obion, Ames has no evidence for

268 · Andrew M. Mickelson

effigy vessels (except for the possibility of a few very fragmented pieces), Mill Creek hoes, or other materials that would link Ames to the American Bottom. Ames Site Layout As previously mentioned, Ames consists of a palisaded town with four mounds located along the bluff of the North Fork of the Wolf River (see Figure 11.8). The mounds themselves are located along the bluff, followed by a plaza area to the south that separates the residential area from the mounds. The mounds are spaced roughly 60 m apart from each other and are oriented along a line bearing 61 degrees from True North, which is the summer solstice sunrise/winter solstice sunset alignment (Mickelson 2008). Ames follows a typical Mississippian “architectural grammar” as discussed by Lewis and Stout (1998). One peculiar aspect of the mound configuration is that Ames closely corresponds to the same general plan as the Mound 72 Area at Cahokia as reported by Fowler et al. (1999). Fowler observed that Cahokia Mounds 96 and 72 were in alignment with the azimuth correlating to the summer solstice sunrise/winter solstice sunset, and he hypothesized that the Cahokia Mound 72 Area was part of what he termed Woodhenge 72 (Fowler et al. 1999:Figure 11.1). Figure 11.9 presents a diagram, to scale, comparing the mound complex at Ames with the Mound 72 Area at Cahokia. Subsequent testing of the select locations of predicted post pits was conducted by Fowler, and three such pits were found outside and to the south of Mound 72; during the excavation of Mound 72, three additional post pits were documented, confirming Fowler’s woodhenge hypothesis. Although the presence of a woodhenge cannot be confirmed at Ames at this time, the layouts of Mounds A, B, C, and D suggest that Ames was laid out in a similar manner adhering to the same “rules” of architectural design. Mound B, the largest platform mound, serves as the central focal point of the mound complex, with Mounds A and D lining up to the summer solstice sunrise/winter solstice sunset alignment similar to the Cahokia Mound 72 Area mound layout. Additionally, a substantial post pit in the predicted alignment was documented during excavations of Ames Mound D. Ames Mound C is a ridge mound nearly identical in size and orientation to Mound 72 at Cahokia. Ames Mound C is about 40 m long, 28 m wide, and 2.5 m tall, while Mound 72 is approximately 42 m long, 25 m wide, and 2.4 m tall. The only difference is that Ames Mound C is oriented so that its west edge is aligned to Celestial North, while Mound 72 has its west

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 269

Figure 11.9. The layout of Ames compared to Cahokia Mound 72 area layout.

edge in alignment with the solstice azimuth. A tree fall on the eastern side of Mound C revealed a white clay cap that is suggestive of a similar ridge mound at Shiloh. The last several years’ worth of research at Ames and other sites has demonstrated that there was a substantial Early–Middle Mississippian imprint stretching into the interior of western Tennessee. Work at Obion, Denmark, and Ames indicates that all of the Mississippian mound groups within the region were small to medium-size towns that also had satellite farmsteads, while the material culture also suggests panregional similarities with local variants, as one would suspect. Discussion

In the preceding, a total of 14 Early–Middle Mississippian sites within the western Tennessee Mississippi River watershed were examined for any evidence indicating extralocal interaction with other Mississippian populations in general, and specifically with those in the vicinity of the American Bottom and Cairo Lowlands. Radiocarbon dates place the first appearance of Mississippian sites in the region around AD 1050–1100. The Samburg site in the Reelfoot basin, followed by the Shelby Forest site on the banks of the

270 · Andrew M. Mickelson

Mississippi, are the two earliest Emergent Mississippian sites known for the region and are contemporary with the terminal Lohman–initial Stirling phases in the American Bottom. This initial timing of the appearance of sites in the region fits well with the appearance of Red Filmed pottery throughout the region as well, where the earliest appearance of this material first occurs in southwestern Missouri and then in eastern Arkansas and western Tennessee roughly from AD 900 to 1100 (McNutt 2015:142). Given the present evidence, it is safe to say that within western Tennessee, the only evidence of an “emergent” Mississippian development is found in the floodplains and adjacent bluffs; there is no such evidence in the uplands. The question, which will be addressed below, then, turns to why we see the characteristic Mississippian hallmarks appearing rather suddenly in the upland interior, which seems to have followed a completely different trajectory. Several trends emerge from examining the material evidence that indicates considerable continuity in timing, architecture, community plan, and material culture during the Mississippian period in the interior. At the general level, it is clear from the Shelby Farms House site and the structure excavated at Pinson that small, isolated farmsteads scattered across the countryside existed alongside the small mound centers appearing no earlier than AD 1050–1125. The town and mound centers of Obion, Kenton, Denmark, Bolivar, and Ames, based on ceramics and radiocarbon dating, all appear in the region at about that time and are contemporaneous with one another, and share strikingly common aspects in terms of architecture and community plans (Figure 11.10). The appearance of western Tennessee sites correlates with or is slightly later than the Stirling phase, the time of Mississippian florescence in the American Bottom. The western Tennessee centers all share with their counterparts upstream the characteristic walltrench houses, truncated pyramid mounds, and community layouts that are common throughout the Mississippian world. Archaeologists have termed American Bottom–style artifacts found at Mississippian sites outside of the American Bottom “calling cards” due to the low level of occurrence of such materials. The term “calling card” is perhaps a misnomer, as it implies a directionality to the regional interaction network, perhaps even implying “emissaries” traveling out of Cahokia. The interaction network was more complex and nuanced than the archaeological record reveals, as artifacts survive, but the information and knowledge also passed along the same channels do not. Artifacts that fall into the “calling card” realm include Mill Creek chert hoes, discoidal stones, Ramey

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 271

Figure 11.10. Composite map of five town and mound centers.

Incised and Powell Plain pottery, and minerals such as copper, galena, and mica. In many cases (e.g., at the Obion site) pottery vessels found at sites outside the American Bottom are stylistically indistinguishable from Cahokia wares, yet were manufactured of local clays. Attention should not be directed toward the small quantity of such materials at Mississippian sites throughout the Midwest and Southeast, but rather the ubiquity of Cahokia or Cahokia-like materials that speaks to widespread influence within the study region. This influence extended to other aspects such as farming practices, ideology, and community plans. For an area such as western Tennessee, the evidence for Cahokian stimulus is less direct and is inferred through phenomena such as observing similarities in redundant site layouts across the region. Visibility of such direct evidence is also lacking for the region, given the fact that so little archaeological work has taken place there compared to other regions. Mississippian research within the western Tennessee interior (other than at Obion) had received only cursory interest throughout the twentieth

272 · Andrew M. Mickelson

century, resulting in a lack of information for the region. The low-level nature of evidence for American Bottom influence within western Tennessee is to be expected, as it is a result of a small sample size. However, the frequency at which nonlocal materials occur at sites is not necessarily a direct indicator of the level of magnitude of interregional interactions. That such materials are present in the region is consistent with both direct and indirect evidence for Cahokian–American Bottom influence in the study area. However, the degree of intensity of such interactions is presently unclear. One thing that is abundantly clear is the sudden appearance of strategically located Early Mississippian town and mound centers along the Mississippi River itself and especially along its tributaries in the uplands. The upland sites all appear about AD 1050–1100 and seem to be well-planned settlements, with all of the Mississippian hallmarks, located purposefully at key points along the river systems. For instance, Obion and Ames are two striking examples of headwater-situated sites. Obion is located at the headwaters of the North Fork of the Obion River, while Ames is located at the headwaters of the Wolf River, both seemingly in a frontier type of position. Kenton and Bolivar, on the other hand, are located at the midpoints of the Obion and Hatchie Rivers, respectively, and their locations suggested that they were strategically located as control points. Similarly, the only major town and mound center in the region located on the Mississippi River proper (AD 1100–1300) is 40SY5, the De Soto Park site (also the location of Civil War–era Fort Pickering). De Soto Park is perched on the last section of the Chickasaw Bluffs abutting the Mississippi before the bluffline retreats southeastward away from the river, snaking along the eastern edge of the Yazoo Basin only to reconnect along the river downstream at Vicksburg, some 200 miles to the south. The positioning of these sites on the landscape in such a manner indicates that they were important “nodes” within a larger network of sites. The seemingly optimal or strategic positioning of Early Mississippian sites suggests that the western Tennessee uplands were colonized by Mississippian populations from the Mississippi Valley to the north, probably the Cairo Lowlands area. Evidence suggestive of these northern colonizers includes the presence of Red Filmed ceramics, American Bottom and southeastern Missouri materials such as Mill Creek hoes, igneousorigin discoidals and ax heads, and exotic minerals such as galena, at ca. AD 1100. The aforementioned lack of evidence for emergent traits in the region’s Mississippian settlements also indicates that a slow process of

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 273

“Mississippianization” from around AD 850 to 1000, as seen in southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas, did not take place in the uplands of western Tennessee and only occurred in the western valley. Rather, Mississippian settlements in the uplands appear abruptly about AD 1100. Nearly as abruptly, the upland centers are abandoned 200 years later, just before AD 1300. Finally, understanding the demise of Early Mississippian small towns and mound centers in the uplands also deserves consideration. Given the sequence of radiocarbon assays for several sites, populations were established in the region by AD 1100, as several dates demonstrate that domestic structures and earthworks were built then. Mound construction at the upland sites continues until AD 1250 at the latest (see Figure 11.2), as indicated by dates from the terminal levels of Mounds B and D at Ames and Mound B at Denmark. During the last half of the thirteenth century, mound construction ceases, while off-mound dwellings along with defensive palisades (at least at Ames) continue to be built. Domestic structures persist until about AD 1290, after which the upland town and mound sites were completely abandoned. In looking for related events in surrounding regions to the north, one does not have to go far to see similar trajectories in the appearance, fluorescence, and abandonment of Early–Middle Mississippian centers. The abandonment of upland centers coincides with similar processes documented for the American Bottom and confluence areas. A reorientation of the settlement system in those regions apparently takes place toward the end of the Stirling phase and continues into the Moorehead phase at the same time that interior western Tennessee centers are also abandoned. Additionally, the timing for upland abandonment is consistent with the very beginning of the depopulation of the confluence region in what has been termed “the Vacant Quarter” phenomenon (Cobb and Butler 2002; Meeks and Anderson 2013; Williams 1990). For example, mound construction ceases at the Kincaid site by AD 1300, and after this period residential activity “contracts” apparently cease. In the interior of western Kentucky, many sites are “deserted by 1350 A.D. [sic]” (Cobb and Butler 2002:627). Meeks and Anderson (2013) observe that, within the Vacant Quarter, the timing of abandonment is not a synchronic event; rather, it is diachronic in nature, with subregions being abandoned at different times. Regional-scale social, economic, and political processes in play from AD 1100 to about AD 1300 break down in the town, and mound centers are abandoned one

274 · Andrew M. Mickelson

after another, with the process of abandonment continuing over the next 150 years until the Vacant Quarter becomes archaeologically conspicuous at AD 1450–1550 (Williams 1990). In the western Tennessee interior, mound excavations at a number of sites (Obion, Denmark, and Ames) indicate that several mound profiles were capped with clean fill at their summits to terminate or “decommission” their use, and that people continue to live at these sites for several decades even after mound construction ceases. The regional settlement pattern seems to have reverted to a “lower state” of social integration. Populations were no longer participating in a network of long-distance social relationships in the uplands. Residential activity continued for at time at the upland centers, but eventually the region was either completely abandoned or populations reverted back to a smaller farmstead-scale residential settlement pattern. At present, there is no evidence of isolated farmsteads dating after AD 1300 in the western interior of Tennessee, and future research should attempt to address the nature of the Late Mississippian landscape within the region. Conclusion

Unlike the uplands, occupation of the Mississippi Valley portion of the study area persists into the protohistoric period. Mainfort (1996:95) notes that the post–AD 1300 settlement pattern in the Reelfoot area “suggests a reorganization of bottomland populations into more nucleated settlements.” The same is probably true for greater southwestern Tennessee; as the interior is abandoned, populations probably consolidated into the Mississippi Valley. Given the present evidence, western Tennessee Mississippian populations were clearly influenced by the events and processes that unfolded throughout the broader region, including the American Bottom ca. AD 1100–1300. Garland (1992:121) proposed a number of models regarding the Mississippian “origin” of the Obion site, a research issue that can be expanded to encompass all of western Tennessee. In one scenario, Garland proposed that expanding populations in the Central Valley, the Cairo Lowlands specifically, resulted in groups intruding into western Tennessee. Furthermore, Garland proposes that there was also a Cahokian “catalyst for the emergence of Obion as a planned mound center.” Whatever this catalyst was remains a bit unclear, but she points to the striking similarities in site layout, including mound and plaza configurations and astronomical alignments, as well

The Mississippian Period in Western Tennessee · 275

as similarities in ceramic and other assemblages in asserting that contacts between western Tennessee and Cahokia spanned the Stirling phase into the Moorehead phase in the American Bottom (Garland 1992:122). Given the sudden appearance of planned centers throughout all of western Tennessee ca. AD 1050–1100, the above model retains merit and is still the most plausible explanation following the review of current data at hand. Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Charles McNutt for forcefully suggesting that I write something on the Obion site. I would also like to thank Robert Mainfort, my predecessor and mentor in western Tennessee archaeology. Some of the field research was generously funded by a grant from the National Geographic Society (Grant No. 8977-11) and by the University of Memphis through a Faculty Research Grant. Harbert Alexander facilitated our work at the Denmark site. Jamie Evans, Rick Carlisle, Allan Houston, and Ryan Braddock have graciously supported our research at Ames Plantation for the last decade. Bill Lawrence provided assistance through his knowledge of the Reelfoot Lake area and helped us get access to the Haynes site. I would especially like to thank my graduate students Ben Cross, Eric Goddard, Hannah Guidry, Scott Hadley, and Christian Roesler, who all contributed to this chapter by completing their master’s theses. Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to the dozens of undergraduate students who participated in the field school at Ames Plantation. Finally, I would like to thank Katherine Mickelson for her help and encouragement.

12 Carson and Cahokia Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

Archaeological research at the Carson Mound group got off to a remarkable start in the nineteenth century when Cyrus Thomas (1894) included a description of the site in the monumental 12th annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnography. Not only did he describe the major mounds at the site in some detail, but he also published a map (Figure 12.1) based on a survey done by none other than W. H. Holmes. The map is important for several reasons. In the first place, it is remarkably accurate. All that needs to be done to add it as a layer to a GIS is to use the center points of two mounds—A and D work well—as ground control points, and all of the major features of the site line up with their current location, including all of the lettered mounds excepting E. Moreover, although the map shows 89 mound locations, all but the 7 larger, lettered mounds were obliterated by twentieth-century agricultural activity. The map provides a much more informative view of the site than is currently available using modern maps. This early view includes a rectangular berm that enclosed a large area to the north, east, and south of Mound A, the westernmost mound in the group. Finally, the map provides a first statement of how large the site is, stretching for more than a mile along the natural levee of a long-abandoned channel of the Mississippi River. Recent Research

The site received relatively little professional attention during the twentieth century, meriting only a listing and a brief consideration of the possibility that it was the contact era village of Quizqui in Phillips, Ford, and Griffin’s (1951:372, Table 1) baseline survey of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Although we are getting radiocarbon date ranges into the 1600s, to date there

Figure 12.1. The 1894 Bureau of American Ethnography map of Carson (Thomas 1894:Plate XI).

278 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

has been no artifactual evidence for historic contact there. They did divide the mound group into three different sites: Montgomery, which includes Mound A; Stovall, which includes Mound B; and Carson, which includes the rest of the mounds. Ian Brown (1978) conducted a surface collection of the entire mound group, delineated the small number of places on the site where surface material was evident, and tabulated the material he found. Jay Johnson (1987) used Brown’s results to target those areas where blades and cores were found. Expecting to find Poverty Point period artifacts, he discovered a microlith industry made on what appears to be Burlington chert and technologically identical to stone tools that are common at Cahokia. In anticipation of a planned University of Mississippi (UM) field school at Carson, Brent Lansdell (2009) began a program of surface collection and test excavation at the site in the fall of 2007. During that same time, the field immediately to the east and northeast of Mound A was land-leveled, exposing wall-trench houses, thousands of postholes, pits, and burials. John Connaway (2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016) began recording and excavating features at the site almost as soon as the heavy machinery left and has focused his fieldwork activity on the site for the past nine years, occasionally aided by other Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) staff and often helped by volunteers, but mostly by himself. The work at Carson has been substantially enabled by the Archaeological Conservancy, which secured an easement for the 3 acres northeast of Mound A (hereafter referred to as the “set-aside”) that contained the majority of the features exposed by the land leveling in 2008; it also purchased Mounds B, C, D, and F in 2009. Johnson and the UM field school joined Connaway in July 2008 and every following July up to and including the summer of 2014. Five UM master’s theses have focused on various aspects of the site (Butz 2015; Carpenter 2013; James 2010; Lansdell 2009; McLeod 2015). Jayur Mehta from Tulane University and Rachel Stout Evans from the Natural Resources Conservation Service have taken numerous solid cores from the site using a truckmounted drilling rig (Mehta et al. 2012), and Mehta worked on Mound D as a dissertation project with the help of student volunteers from 2010 to 2013 and taught the Tulane field school at Carson in 2014 and 2015. The resulting dissertation (Mehta 2015) details a construction sequence at the mound that began around AD 1200 and ended as late as AD 1600. The wear pattern analysis of a small sample of microliths, combined with the documentation of chert microflakes within thin sections of the burned floor of

Carson and Cahokia · 279

Table 12.1. Features recorded in the Carson set-aside Feature

Count

Postholes Pits Structures Semisubterranean Rectangular single set post Circular single set post Wall trench Raised platform Palisades Burial Pits Bundle Burials

7,349 560 6 5 24 20 2 3 79 ca. 250

Structure 1 located on the summit of Mound D, suggests to Mehta and his coauthors the possibility that attached specialists occupied this structure (Mehta et al. 2016). Jenna James (2015) also wrote a dissertation on Carson that explored the distribution of dental traits in the burials from the site. Connaway (2016) is currently writing and updating a comprehensive overview of past and recent research at the Carson Mound group. As a result of this work, we now know a good deal about Carson and are able to place the strong evidence for contact with Cahokia into a developing model of the structure and chronology of the site. In the first place, excavations in Mounds B, C, D, and E have demonstrated these mounds to be Mississippian (Butz 2015; Carpenter 2013; Lansdell 2009; Mehta 2015). This puts to rest the speculation that, because they appear to be twin conical mounds, Mounds B and E date to the Woodland period. Immediately following the land leveling in 2007, the Archaeological Conservancy negotiated an arrangement in which the portion of the field to the northeast of Mound A was taken out of cultivation to be set aside for archaeological data recovery. This 1.2 ha area has been the focus of Connaway’s work at Carson. Because the plowzone had been removed during the land leveling, it has been possible to shovel shave the set-aside, a 5 m block at a time, and record the burials, postholes, wall trenches, stockades, and pits. Connaway was aided in this work by gradiometer imagery collected and processed by Bryan Haley during the early stages of work at the site. Connaway has recorded many Mississippian structures, including typical Mississippian wall-trench houses, three palisades, both rectangular and circular single set post structures, and, most recently, semisubterranean structures (Table 12.1). He, Jenna James, and Amanda Hoogestraat,

Figure 12.2. Feature orientation at Carson.

Carson and Cahokia · 281

Table 12.2. Feature orientation at Carson, east of north Feature Semisubterranean structures Single set post square and rectangular structures Berm Mounds Wall trench structures Raised platform structures Burial pits

Count

Mean

S.D.

6 5 1 4* 20 2 59

20.71 29.91 22.61 24.67 22.93 24.61 174.99

12.65 8.66 na 4.33 10.52 1.95 137.41

Note: Because of twentieth-century disturbance, bearings could not be measured for Mounds A and F.

with volunteers and students (2009–2016), also excavated and recorded numerous burial pits that generally included multiple bundle burials and relatively few grave goods. One of the distinctive characteristics of the organization of architecture at Carson is the fact that all but one of the wall-trench structures, all but one of the single set post structures, all of the palisades, the berm on the 1894 map, and the mounds are aligned in a similar direction, what we came to call the Carson grid. Using the mapped structures in the set-aside, the 1894 map for the berm orientation, and LiDAR imagery for mound orientation, the bearing distributions were recorded using ArcGIS (Figure 12.2, Table 12.2). As can be seen, some classes of structures show a strong central tendency, with an average orientation of between 22 and 24 degrees east of north, while others do not. While it is possible that the Carson grid is oriented to align with some celestial event, the fact that it coincides with the long axis of the natural levee of an abandoned channel suggests that it reflects the general contour of the landscape. The fact that all of the lettered mounds except A and F, which are too disturbed to measure their orientation, are aligned with the Carson grid suggests that the entire Carson Mound group was built by the same community. It is one site rather than three. The Carson grid also has chronological implications that are directly relevant to understanding the nature and timing of Cahokian contact at Carson. Beginning with a GIS-generated map of the features recorded in the setaside (Figure 12.3), which was created by Benny Roberts in collaboration with Connaway, Todd McLeod (2015) used feature intersections to develop an outline of the chronology of the prehistoric use of that portion of the site (Table 12.3). A growing suite of radiocarbon dates (Table 12.4, Figure 12.4)

282 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

Table 12.3. Sequence of intersections within the set-aside Type

Intersect With

Sunken Floor None Structure Single-Set Structure Wall Trench Large Rectangular Structure Wall-Trench Structure Platform Structure Palisades

Burial Pits

None Sunken Floor and Large Rectangular None Single-Set

Palisades, Wall Trench, and Platform

Intersected By Carson Grid C14 Dates Wall Trench

No

Wall Trench and Palisades Wall Trench

Yes and No

Cal AD 1220 and Cal AD 1230 None

Yes

None

Single-Set

Yes

None

Burial Pits Burial Pits

Yes Yes

None

No

Cal AD 1410 Cal AD 1420, Cal AD 1450, Cal AD 1460, and Cal AD 1640 Cal AD 1520 and 1640

After McLeod 2015:Table 5.

corroborates and provides a chronological framework for this sequence. The occupation of the set-aside began shortly after AD 1200 with the construction of six semisubterranean structures, all but one of which are located along the west edge of the set-aside. These structures were not aligned with the Carson grid. The several single set post structures are difficult to place in the sequence in terms of intersections and orientation. Some intersect wall-trench structures, and some are intersected by wall-trench structures. Some are aligned with the Carson grid; some are not. There are no radiocarbon dates associated with these structures. This ambiguity suggests midrange placement in the sequence. Wall trenches and what appear to have been raised platform structures come next in the sequence. The position of both (structures 8 and 17) is clear in terms of intersections and orientation. The single date associated with one of the raised platform structures falls just after AD 1400. A similar set of intersections and radiocarbon dates suggests that the palisades were roughly coincident with the wall-trench structures. Finally, the burial pits are intersected by no other class of features and intersect most classes of features. This, along with a couple of late radiocarbon dates, indicates that the burial pits represent the last activity at the site, and some were clearly dug after the palisade was down.

Figure 12.3. Carson-Montgomery site, feature map.

Sample #/Feature

C0518Hs8 F677 Pit 51 Sample 1

C0518B13 F163 Pit 25 Sample 2

C0518PM1314 F1444 Sample 3

C0518PM3635 F3981 DR#1 Sample 26

C0518Pit207 F2725 Pit 207 Sample 24

Lab #

Beta-260025

Beta-260026

Beta-260027

Beta-370515

Beta-370516

270±30 BP

810±30 BP

-23.6 o/oo

-24.3 o/oo

-24.9 o/oo

-25.9 o/oo

340±50 BP

420±50 BP

-25.1 o/oo

13C/12C

840±60 BP

Measured Age

Table 12.4. Radiocarbon dates from Carson

290±30 BP Cal AD 1520–1560 Cal AD 1640 (Cal BP 310) (Cal BP420–390) Cal AD 1630–1650 (Cal BP 320–300)

820±30 BP Cal AD 1210–1260 Cal AD 1220 (Cal BP 730) (Cal BP 740–690)

420±50 BP Cal AD 1440–1480 Cal AD 1450 (Cal BP 500) (Cal BP 510–470)

Burned SE corner post in DR#1/Structure 22/ Pit 13,8 × 8 cm post in 17 × 17 cm post hole Charred wood timbers in Burial 60 pit bottom Cal AD 1500–1500 (Cal BP 450–450) Cal AD 1510–1600 (Cal BP 440–350) Cal AD 1620–1660 (Cal BP 330–290)

Large burned N outer stockade post, trench 3, level 7, feature 1, 60–70 cm b.s., FS106

Unburned cypress bark covering on Burial 13

Hs-8 platform, centerpost fill, charcoal depth 12 cm b.pz.

Data

Cal AD 1160–1270 (Cal BP 790–680)

Cal AD 1420–1530 (Cal BP 530–420)) Cal AD 1560–1630 (Cal BP 390–320)

Cal AD 1450–1660 (Cal BP 500–290)

Cal AD 1470–1640 330±50 BP Cal AD 1520 (Cal BP 430) (Cal BP 480–310) Cal AD 1580 (Cal BP 370) Cal AD 1630 (Cal BP 320)

2-Sigma range (95% probability) Cal AD 1040–1280 (Cal BP 920–670)

1-Sigma range (68% probability)

840±60 BP Cal AD 1160–1260 Cal AD 1210 (Cal BP 740) (Cal BP 790–690)

Conventional Age/ Intercept Age

C0518PM379 F438 Sample 22

C0518PM2133 F2332 Sample 17

C0518PM2523 F2755 Sample 4

C0518PM2665 F2911 Sample 20

C0518PM3218 F3515 Sample 5

Beta-370517

Beta-370518

Beta-370519

Beta-370520

Beta-370521

350±30 BP

350±30 BP

510±30 BP

260±30 BP

330±30 BP

-24.2 o/oo

-22.8 o/oo

-23.4 o/oo

-22.4 o/oo

-23.8 o/oo

Cal AD 1470–1520 (Cal BP 480–420) Cal AD 1560–1630 (Cal BP 390–320)

Charred post in Hs-12 floor, inside off N inner trench Hs-12A, 6 cm diameter

Cal AD 1450–1640 (Cal BP 500–310) Cal AD 1460–1520 (Cal BP 490–430) Cal AD 1570–1590 (Cal BP 280–360) Cal AD 1590–1630 (Cal BP 360–320)

360±30 BP Cal AD 1490 (Cal BP 460) Cal AD 1600 (Cal BP 350) Cal AD 1610 (Cal BP 340)

(continued)

Charred post in E inner stockade trench, N end; 9 × 8 cm post in 18 × 18 cm post hole, 3 cm deep Cal AD 1440–1520 (Cal BP 510–430) Cal AD 1570–1590 (Cal BP 380–360) Cal AD 1590–1630 (Cal BP 360–320)

540±30 BP Cal AD 1400–1420 Cal AD 1410 (Cal BP 540) (Cal BP 550–530)

390±30 BP Cal AD 1450–1490 Cal AD 1460 (Cal BP 490) (Cal BP 500–460) Cal AD 1600–1610 (Cal BP 350–340)

Charred post in N central stockade row, W end, ca. 8 × 12 cm post

Cal AD 1490–1600 (Cal BP 460–350) Cal AD 1610–1650 (Cal BP 340–300)

Charred in situ centerpost, intact remnant, Hs-17 platform

Charred post in Hs-8; 11 × 14 cm postmold

Cal AD 1450–1640 (Cal BP 500–310)

Cal AD 1320–1350 (Cal BP 630–600) Cal AD 1390–1430 (Cal BP 560–520)

300±30 BP Cal AD 1520–1570 Cal AD 1640 (Cal BP 310) (Cal BP 430–380) Cal AD 1590–1590 (Cal BP 360–360) Cal AD 1630–1650 (Cal BP 320–300)

350±30 BP Cal AD 1500 (Cal BP 450) Cal AD 1500 (Cal BP 450) Cal AD 1510 (Cal BP 440) Cal AD 1600 (Cal BP 350) Cal AD 1620 (Cal BP 330)

Sample #/Feature

C0518PM4013 F4369 Sample 30

C0518PM4213 F4569 Sample 36

22C0518B-66 F-5722 Pit 397 Sample 44

22C0518B-76 F-7683 Pit 539 Sample 45

Lab #

Beta-370522

Beta-370523

439639

439871

Table 12.4—Continued

-27.4 o/oo 410±30 BP Cal AD 1445–1470 Cal AD 1450 (Cal BP 500) (Cal BP 505–480)

Cal AD 1435–1510 (Cal BP 515–440) Cal AD 1600–1615 (Cal BP 350–335)

Pottery residue, Vessel 1, B-76; standard AMS

B-66; bone collagen from two fragments of right femur; standard AMS Cal AD 1300–1370 (Cal BP 650–580) Cal AD 1380–1415 (Cal BP 570–535)

Cal AD 1315–1355 (Cal BP 635–595) Cal AD 1390–1410 (Cal BP 560–540)

-9.9 o/oo 580±30 BP D15N= Cal AD 1330 (Cal BP 620) +8.4 o/oo Cal AD 1340 (Cal BP 610) Cal AD 1395 (Cal BP 555)

Charred post, in N inner stockade trench under Burial 50 bundles

Charred post fragment in sunken floor fill, inside DR#5, off S edge center pit, 16 × 16 cm

Data

Cal AD 1410–1450 (Cal BP 540–500)

Cal AD 1500–1500 (Cal BP 450–450) Cal AD 1510–1600 (Cal BP 440–350) Cal AD 1620–1660 (Cal BP 330–290)

2-Sigma range (95% probability)

480±30 BP Cal AD 1420–1440 Cal AD 1420 (Cal BP 520) (Cal BP 530–510)

330±30 BP

450±30 BP

1-Sigma range (68% probability)

290±30 BP Cal AD 1520–1560 Cal AD 1640 (Cal BP 310) (Cal BP 420–390) Cal AD 1630–1650 (Cal BP 320–300)

Conventional Age/ Intercept Age

-21.4 o/oo

-26.9 o/oo

13C/12C

420±30 BP

320±30 BP

Measured Age

Carson and Cahokia · 287

Figure 12.4. Carson radiocarbon date locations, AD intercept data.

Contact with Cahokia

The first evidence for contact between Cahokia and Carson to be recognized was the microliths (Johnson 1987). These are also the most pervasive artifactual evidence of northern contact. On a site where surface artifacts are hard to find, you can almost always find microliths in the fields adjacent to Mound F and, to a lesser extent, Mound B, and most recently large quantities in the set-aside. Johnson’s 1987 article was based exclusively on surface material, most of which was in the Jaeger collection, donated to the MDAH by Burt Jaeger but collected by Dabney Pelegrin, who lived in a house on Mound C for much of the twentieth century. Two aspects of these

288 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

microliths point toward Cahokia. The blades and cores are technologically identical to the microlith industry that is common at Cahokia, and these artifacts are from a tabular white chert that is macroscopically identical to Burlington chert, the same chert that was used by Cahokians to make their microliths. Recent trace element analysis of the Carson microliths suggests that some of them may have been made on chert from the Ozarks (Mehta et al. 2015). However, the sample is small and inconclusive for chert acquisition sources for Carson, suggesting a number of sources outside the Cahokian sphere of influence might be involved and indicating further research is required. One final aspect of the distribution of Burlington chert at Carson may be important in understanding the nature of the relationship to Cahokia. Although Burlington chert is found in nearly all excavated contexts at Carson, a detailed technological analysis of these artifacts has only been conducted on the contents of two pits. The first, Feature 1, was analyzed by Lansdell (2009) as part of his thesis research. This feature is located near the western edge of the set-aside in an area that has produced some of the earliest radiocarbon dates on the site. Burlington chert was the predominant lithic raw material in this feature, and most of the microliths were made on blades similar to those from Cahokia. The pit contained none of the late ceramic markers found at Carson. The other pit containing microliths that have been analyzed is Feature 210, located on the eastern edge of the set-aside in an area dominated by wall-trench structures that appear to be relatively late in the Carson sequence (Johnson and Connaway 2011). The pit was intersected by one of the two platform structures (#17) at Carson, which in turn was intersected by a burial pit. While the pit is certainly earlier than these structures, because of the general absence of early material in this area, it is probably a late feature. The pit fill contained thousands of flakes, 41 of which were retouched into perforators. Three points are of interest. First, none of the perforators were made on blades. Second, none of the cores were blade cores. Finally, for cores, flakes, and tools, Burlington chert makes up less than 10 percent of the assemblage. The rest is the locally available gravel chert. If this is a late feature at Carson, although Burlington chert continued to be used, it was in reduced numbers, and the Cahokialike blade core technology had been abandoned late in the sequence at the site. Two other kinds of lithic artifacts suggest possible ties to Cahokia. Four typical Cahokia Tri-notched points have been recovered from Carson,

Carson and Cahokia · 289

three from the excavation in the set-aside and one from surface collections (Table 12.5). Three are made on white Burlington chert, the fourth on what might be a Burlington variant or on local Citronelle gravel. Eighteen hoes or hoe fragments have been recorded for the northern Yazoo Basin, 15 of which are made from Mill Creek chert. Two of these 15 hoes are from Carson. In the case of the hoes, the connection to Cahokia is unlikely to have been direct. Although Mill Creek hoes are found in large numbers in the region, it does not appear that Cahokia either produced or controlled the distribution of these tools (Cobb 2000). Some of the ceramic ties to the Midwest have been recognized for years. The online archives of the Lower Mississippi Survey include photographs of what are labeled Cahokia Cordmarked and Kimmswick Fabric Impressed sherds in the file on Carson. These are presumably from the Jaeger collection, which Lansdell (2009:Table 2) restudied for his thesis, in which he reports 12 Cahokia Cordmarked sherds and one example of Kimmswick Fabric Impressed. This is from a collection of several hundred sherds. More recently, a collection of what Tim Pauketat (personal communication, 2016) recognized as a “seemingly late-Lohmann assemblage” has been recovered from semisubterranean structures and from Pit 434 located adjacent to semisubterranean structure 24 near the western edge of the setaside. These ceramics include several examples of Powell Plain sherds and a red-filmed rim treatment on jars. Perhaps the most significant ties to Cahokia can be seen in the architecture at Carson. Sam Butz (2015) directed test excavations at Mound B with the goal of determining whether it relates in some way to the distinctive ridge mounds at Cahokia. Mound B, like Mound E, has been considered a twin mound and thought to be a Woodland period structure. However, both mounds were found to contain small numbers of shell-tempered sherds in their fill. While Mound E appears to be two conjoined conical mounds, the swale between the two peaks of Mound B is much higher, less than 1 m below the peaks at the two ends of the mound. It could be the result of erosion. Test pits in the swale failed to detect the converging slopes that would characterize a twin mound. Instead, the strata were horizontal bands running from peak to peak. These bands were made of alternating layers of dark gray clays and tan silt loams, a construction technique that is common at Cahokia but unknown elsewhere in the northern Yazoo Basin. Like the ridge mounds at Cahokia, Mound B was built on a broad, low platform. In these several traits, Mound B resembles a ridge mound. However,

Table 12.5. Cahokia points and variants from Carson Type

Provenience

Description

Cahokia point

Pit 24; Feature 162; Semisubterranean House 24, N. end

White Burlington chert; sides and base notched; reworked base; misplaced; no measurements available

Cahokia point

Backdirt pile, N. side of excavation area ca. 5065N/5055–5060E

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), could be Generic Burlington (occasional grays) or Keokuk Burlington (grays predominate over white) varieties; sides and base notched; doesn’t appear heat-treated, no luster; L. 29.5 mm, W. 19.5 mm, max. Thick. 4.2 mm

C. Cahokia point Carson/Pelegrin collec- White (2.5Y 8/0), white Burlington chert; tion—library exhibit small; sides and base notched; blade with 6 notches above side notch; slight luster, no pinkish tint, may be heat-treated; L. 22.2 mm; W. 10.2 mm at shoulder; Thick. 2.6 mm D. Cahokia point Carson/Pelegrin collec- Mixed gray (2.5Y 5/0) on light gray (2.5Y variant tion—library exhibit 7/0); Burlington chert?; sides notched; base incurved, expanded, no notch; blade with 6 notches above side notch, tip broken; discolor and luster, heat-treated; L. 26.3+ mm, tip broken; W. ca. 13.4, one ear broken; Thick. 4.2 mm E. Cahokia point Carson/Pelegrin collec- Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2); Burlvariant tion—library exhibit ington chert?; sides and blade notched, tip broken, 4 or more notches above side notch; base straight, expanded, no notch; not heat-treated; L. 28.9+ mm, tip broken; W. 20.6 mm base; Thick. 6.0 mm F. Cahokia point variant

Carson/Pelegrin collec- Very pale brown (10YR 7/3) to light yeltion—library exhibit lowish brown (10YR 6/4); Citronelle chert; side notched; blade straight, no notches; base straight, expanded, no notch; not heat-treated; L. 35.7 mm; W. 20.4 mm; Thick. 4.3 mm

G. Cahokia point Between N. stockades in plowzone at 5072.06N/5035.92E, 23 cm b.s.

White (2.5Y 8/0), white Burlington chert; small; sides and base notched; tip reworked into perforator; no pinkish tint; L. 12.4 mm; W. 13.8 mm; max. Thick. 3.3 mm on blade

Carson and Cahokia · 291

the long axis of Mound B aligns with the Carson grid, which, as discussed above, was probably not established at the site until the early fifteenth century, approximately 200 years after the ridge mounds at Cahokia had been built and abandoned. There is one type of structure at Carson that shows unequivocal ties to Cahokia. Six semisubterranean structures have been excavated in the setaside (Figure 12.3), all but one located along the western edge, in association with concentrations of Burlington chert and Cahokia ceramics. Such structures, or “pit” or “basin” houses as they are sometimes called, have so far only been found within the state of Mississippi at Carson. All but one are rectangular (#22, 23, 24, 25, and 26), while the other is square (#31). All except Structure 22 contain wall trenches with postmolds around the periphery of the floor. Depths of the floors below surface vary due to land leveling and removal of much of the original surface; the cluster of five on the western side of the site are around 20 cm below the plowzone, or approximately 40 cm below the surface. Structure 25, closer to the central part of the excavated area, is 52 cm below the plowzone, or approximately 72–82 cm below the surface, plus whatever was removed by the levelers, perhaps around a meter total floor depth. The latter suggests that the others may have been as deep but were on higher ground originally. This depth also is comparable to many floors in the Cahokia area, which were around a meter deep (Tim Pauketat, personal communication, 2016). Structure 22 (Figure 12.5) (Pit 13, Feature 78), near the western edge of the excavated area, was rectangular with vertical sides oriented along the long axis at a slight angle of 10.60 NNE–SSW, and measured 3.70 m NNE– SSW × 2.13 m ESE–WNW, with an interior area of 7.9 m2. Depth after land leveling varied from 26 to 30 cm below the plowzone in two initial crosssection test trenches, while three cores taken before excavation of the fill showed 20 cm depths. The bottom of the pit, presumably the house floor, was uniformly flat, with little variation and very few artifacts on it. The few artifacts that turned up in the fill or on the floor included Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry sherds, an Indian Bay Stamped var. Indian Bay sherd, white Burlington chert flakes, shatter, and two perforators, along with a few local chert flakes and shatter. Concentrations of burned clay and charcoal in the fill suggested the structure burned. There were four distinct burned clay and charcoal stains in the fill in the upper 8 cm, possibly indicating the house burned while the pit was being filled, although there was also a concentration of such on the floor about 14 cm thick, suggesting burning before pit filling. Also, there was an in situ burned post remnant in the

292 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

Figure 12.5. Structure 22 planview with orientation angle.

southeast corner floor (#3635, Feature 3981) that was vertical, the containing posthole measuring 17 × 17 cm and the post measuring 8 × 8 cm; the posthole was 16 cm deep below the floor, and the charred post extended 4 cm deep. A radiocarbon sample was removed from this post, yielding a date of AD 1220 (820±30 BP; 2-sigma cal AD 1160–1270; Beta 370515). Other posts in the floor include three or four on the sides (a couple that may be intrusive), a center post, one in each corner, and one on the north side, all presumably support posts for a roof. There were no wall trenches or postmolds suggesting a walled structure, so it might be that this structure

Carson and Cahokia · 293

was open-sided. There were no apparent step posts for a side entry. The south end had no posts, so it might have had an entryway of some kind. Pit 11 in the center of the floor was a large pit, 170 × 160 cm in diameter and extending to 24 cm below the plowzone, barely extending below the house floor, with an intrusive house center post (#3648) near the center. It contained small sherds of possibly (these are being further checked for identification) Powell Plain, Monks Mound Red or Cahokia Red Filmed or Old Town Red, as well as Coles Creek Incised var. Hardy, Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry, and a partial rim fragment of a very small untempered cup; burned clay fragments; charcoal; white Burlington chert flakes, blades, 17 perforators or microliths, and shatter; one local tan chert perforator; local chert flakes and shatter; small pieces of sandstone; bones of deer, small fish, and birds; and a fragment of dirt dauber nest. This pit and contents may be associated with the house since it contained Cahokian-related items, but if it was related to the house floor, it was very shallow. Structure 23 (Figure 12.6) (Pit 21, Feature 139), near the western edge and just south of Structure 22, was rectangular, oriented along the long axis at a very slight angle of 1.70 WNW–ESE, and measured 2.14 m N–S × 3.76 m E–W, with an interior area of 8 m2. Depth after land leveling was 45 cm below surface in a core at the center, taken prior to excavation: a small test unit inside showed the floor at 29 cm below the plowzone. The original surface elevation at this point, prior to leveling, is not known. The structure had wall trenches on all four sides around the floor periphery, with small postmolds therein. Postmolds ranged from 7 to 12 cm in diameter, with an average of about 9 cm, suggesting poles rather than sturdy posts in the walls, which in turn suggests a rounded roof of bent poles, perhaps in a Quonset hut–style shape (Figure 12.7). There was a portion of Structure 2’s wall trench, a much later house, not semisubterranean, intrusive into the east part of the floor, on its south edge. Pit 334, just west of the center of the floor, measured 116 × 78 cm and was shallow, extending only a few centimeters into the floor. There was a small extension off the northwest side that was also shallow and apparently part of the pit. An entryway with a step post may have been on the south side, with the large posthole #3746 serving as the step post, a common occurrence in Cahokian pit houses. The intact rim of a large jar was found inverted on the floor above Pit 334. Body and basal sherds were found scattered in the fill above the floor. The rim of the jar was red slipped, everted, and flat on top, and is around 22–24 cm in diameter, expanding below into

Figure 12.6. Structure 23 planview with orientation angle.

Figure 12.7. Suggested form of bent-pole structures.

Carson and Cahokia · 295

Figure 12.8. Structure 24 planview with orientation angle.

a large, rounded jar shape. This is a red rim treatment found in the Lohmann phase at Cahokia (Tim Pauketat, personal communication, 2016). Other sherds found in the house included Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry, Old Town Red var. Old Town, Powell Plain, and Coles Creek Incised var. Hardy. Lithics on or just above the floor in the fill included white Burlington chert flakes, shatter, and one microlith concentrated in the western end of the floor, along with a wedge, a broken biface, and 13 cobbles in the eastern part of the floor, including sandstone and local Citronelle chert, some worked, some not, and some burned. One elongated chert cobble is of interest, having one side grooved, three sides pitted, and the ends battered; apparently it was a multipurpose tool. Also recovered were eight local chert perforators, a small piece of polished granite celt, fragments of sandstone, fire-cracked rocks, and broken cobbles. Structure 24 (Figure 12.8) (pit indistinct, Feature 162), just south of Structure 23, was rectangular, oriented with its long axis at an angle of 14.40 ENE–WSW, and measured 3.75 m ENE–WSW × 2.36 m WNW–ESE, and had an interior area of 8.8 m2. Depth after land leveling was very shallow, only 4–6 cm below the plowzone in an initial core, with features disappearing quickly below that in subsoil. This one had almost disappeared,

296 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

Figure 12.9. Structure 25 planview with orientation angle.

and portions were difficult to discern. No artifacts were recovered on the floor, which was indistinct. This house was about 1.5 m due east of Pit 343, which contained considerable Cahokia-related pottery and lithics. It was also just north of Burial 13 pit, and when the area between them was shovel scraped, abundant Burlington chert flakes, blades, and perforators, along with a white Burlington Cahokia point, were recovered. A sample of the house fill was water-screened, and more Burlington chert was found. Structure 25 (Figure 12.9) (Pit 245, Feature 3132), near the western side of the excavation area and just east of Structures 22 and 23, was rectangular, oriented with its long axis at an angle of 19.20 WNW–ESE, and measured 5.29 m WNW–ESE × 2.25 m NNE–SSW, with an interior area of 11.9 m2. Depth of the floor after land leveling was 16–20 cm below the plowzone. This structure had wall trenches in the floor around all four sides, with postmolds discernable mostly along the south wall trench. Wall-trench posts ranged from 6 to 11 cm in diameter, with an average of about 7.3 cm. Like Structure 23, the small size of these posts suggests poles for curving walls rather than vertical posts. Most of the interior postholes recorded were intrusive, but some were no doubt roof supports. This structure is the closest of the six to aligning with the “site grid,” although it is not thought to be on purpose. The three pits shown in the planview may be intrusive, but this has not yet been determined. Artifacts recovered from the fill and floor included Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry, a possible Bell Plain sherd, Baytown Plain, Indian Bay Stamped var. Indian Bay, Old Town Red var. Old

Carson and Cahokia · 297

Figure 12.10. Structure 26 planview with orientation angle.

Town (or other red-filmed?) sherds; white Burlington flakes, shatter, and three perforators; local tan chert flakes, shatter; a small fire-cracked rock; a large quartzite hammerstone; a large sandstone hammerstone; burned clay fragments; a small daub fragment; quartzite flakes; and unworked quartzite and siltstone pebbles. Structure 26 (Figure 12.10) (Pit 337, Feature 4164), near the central part of the excavation area and east of the cluster, was rectangular, oriented with its long axis at an angle of 19.50 WNW–ESE, and measured 3.62 m WNW– ESE × 2.13 m NNE–SSW, with an interior area of 7.7 m2. Depth after land leveling was 52 cm below the plowzone (approximately 72–82 cm below surface). This depth suggests that it could have been close to a meter originally, depending on how much was removed by the levelers, and appears to be the closest of the six pit houses to indicating its original depth. Pit 336, near the center of the house fill, was intrusive and not associated with the floor. Some of the larger posts near the south side may have been step posts for an entryway, but they are being checked for depth before confirming that. Artifacts recovered from the lower fill, from about 20 cm above the floor to the floor level, included Barton Incised var. Barton, Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry, Baytown Plain, and one Powell Plain sherd; a large amount of white Burlington small and large flakes, shatter, a few blades, and no microliths; local chert flakes; a grooved sandstone sharpener in the

298 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

northwest corner; two small daub fragments; a small piece of sandstone; an unworked tan chert pebble; and small burned clay fragments. Structure 31 (Figure 12.11) (Pit 399, Feature 5724), near the western side, south of the cluster, was square, oriented along a NE–SW axis at an angle of 43 degrees NE–SW, and measured 5.83 m NE–SW × 5.19 m NW–SE, with an interior area of 30.3 m2. Depth after land leveling was about 20 cm below the plowzone, with an unknown amount of overburden removed by leveling. Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from inside the house (Mehta 2015:201). No AD intercepts were given, but the 2-sigma date ranges are as follows: Sample #13 (UGa#18360-r), organic residue from inside a potsherd in the central portion of the house, uncalibrated years 820±22 BP, cal AD 1170–1263; Sample #12 (UGa18360), wood charcoal from a burned post, uncalibrated years 720±20 BP, cal AD 1263–1292. A third date apparently came from an intrusive post, yielding a range of cal AD 1412–1444, much too late for this structure. This was the only semisubterranean structure with a fire pit inside; Pit 426 was near the center of the floor, extended 26 cm below the floor surface, and had a 2 cm thick orange burn ring, 29 cm in diameter, inside a 55 cm diameter pit. The bottom narrowed to 23 cm in diameter. The bottom 11 cm were filled with ash. Its location in the floor and depth below the floor suggest it was associated with the house; it had more of a fire pit than a hearth shape. There were wall trenches in the floor on all four sides, with small postholes in them, again suggesting poles rather than posts in the walls, and a possibly rounded bent-pole roof. There were numerous postholes throughout the interior, both intrusive (ending above the floor) and possibly associated (ending below the floor). An overhead view of all of them suggests a possible circular pattern, perhaps a later circular structure that is presently not numbered. An overhead view of just the deeper posts suggests numerous interior support posts for the roof, another possible circular or squarish pattern, supports for interior divisions or furniture, or a combination of the above. There is only one large posthole near the southwest side suggesting a possible step post, but there is also an indention in the edge of the pit on the southeast side that may have been some kind of entryway. Entry remains undetermined at present. Posthole 4822, which extends below the floor surface, contained a Madison point. Other artifacts recovered from the fill and floor include Mississippi Plain var. Neeley’s Ferry and Parkin Punctated var. Parkin (or bottom portion of Barton Incised var. Togo?) sherds; the distal end of a small biface made of white Burlington chert; local tan chert flakes, shatter, heat-treated core; and small bone fragments of fish, bird, mammal, and turtle shell (Figure 12.11).

Carson and Cahokia · 299

Figure 12.11. Structure 31 planview with orientation angle.

Discussion and Conclusion

Some of the northern traits appear to occur exclusively early in the sequence at Carson. The Powell Plain and interior red-slipped jars have only been found in the semisubterranean structures or the associated Pit 434, located primarily along the west side of the set-aside. The semisubterranean structures have produced two of the earliest dates at Carson and appear to predate the Carson grid. The three excavated examples of Cahokia Tri-notched points came from the edge of Structure 24 (one of the semisubterranean structures), a backdirt pile, and the plowzone on the north side of the setaside area, and a fourth one came from the surface (Table 12.5). As we now understand their chronological placement, core and blade tools identical to the Cahokia microlith industry appear to date to the early occupation at Carson. On the other hand, the Burlington chert from which these blade cores were made continued to be used throughout the sequence, but in lower frequencies late in the site’s occupation. All of these traits are found exclusively or primarily at Carson in the northern Yazoo Basin. Mill Creek hoes are found at several sites in the region and appear to occur throughout the Mississippian occupation of the northern Yazoo Basin and are not necessarily associated with the Cahokian presence at Carson.

300 · Jay K. Johnson and John M. Connaway

It is important to distinguish between two kinds of traits. Single artifacts like Mill Creek hoes and Cahokia points could have been imported directly from the Midwest. The ceramics, particularly Powell Plain, which many of the conference attendees identified with little hesitation, could also have been imported. However, if technological study of the Powell Plain sherds from Carson show them to have been made using either local clays or local temper, then they fall into a second category of traits, those like the blade core industry and the semisubterranean structures made at Carson using complex technologies that are identical or remarkably similar to the technologies that produced these artifacts at Cahokia. These traits are completely without antecedent in the northern Yazoo Basin, lasted for a very short time, and occurred only at Carson. This second group of traits implies a different kind of contact between the two areas, and the technologies involved are intricate enough to suggest the possibility that a small number of people from Cahokia moved to Carson at what appears to have been the interface between Woodland and Mississippian in the northern Yazoo Basin. The only problem with this migration scenario is that the midwestern traits that mark that contact are found in the Lohmann phase (ceramics) or the Lohmann and Stirling phases (blade core technology) or the Lohmann through Moorehead phases (semisubterranean structures) at Cahokia (Milner et al. 1993). Given the fact that we have not recovered any Ramey Incised sherds, the broadly distributed marker for the Early Stirling phase, it seems likely that the Lohmann phase was the source for the Cahokian traits at Carson. The Lohmann phase terminates at AD 1100, and the earliest dates at Carson, two of which are directly associated with semisubterranean structures, fall into the first quarter of the thirteenth century, although the ranges begin in the late twelfth century. It may be that this problem will be resolved with additional radiocarbon dates. However, few of the Mississippian radiocarbon dates for the northern Yazoo Basin are earlier than AD 1200, the end of the Stirling phase at Cahokia, which marked the collapse of Cahokia as a regional power (Pauketat 2004).

IV THE SOUTH The Southeastern Interior

13 Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group, Western Tennessee David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

The Shiloh Indian Mound Group on the Tennessee River in southwestern Tennessee, with seven major mounds and encompassing ca. 24.6 ha, was subject to excavations on a number of occasions from the late nineteenth through the early twenty-first centuries (Figure 13.1). Paul Welch (2006) produced a detailed analysis and synthesis of the work conducted at the site from 1899 to 1999 that is an indispensable reference for early investigations at the site. A monograph documenting new work at Mound A and several other areas of the site between 1999 and 2004 that included an updated overview of the site’s occupational history was released in 2013 (Anderson et al., eds. 2013; this report is available online together with some 15gb of supporting data). This most recent work was undertaken because the river was undercutting the bluff, eroding the site and Mound A in particular, mandating a mitigation program that was only partially completed before work ceased for lack of funds. The evidence from diagnostic artifacts and 50 radiocarbon determinations indicates the Shiloh center was occupied from the eleventh through the late thirteenth centuries AD. Thirty-six radiocarbon and 17 TL determinations were obtained from Mound A that date the construction history quite closely and complement the artifactual evidence. A Bayesian analysis of the AMS dates indicates when individual construction episodes occurred and how reliable the various dating efforts proved to be (Anderson, Cornelison, and Bissett 2013; the current analysis is based on a newer calibration giving slightly different results from the earlier study) (Figures 13.2, 13.3). Mound-building activity at the site, at least at Mound A, occurred between approximately AD 1100 and 1300, with major construction

304 · David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

Figure 13.1. Contour map of the Shiloh Indian Mound Group produced with data collected during the Mound A mitigation program and 10 m USGS DEM data, with the major Mounds A–G labeled by letter (adopted from Welch et al. 2013:194). (Used courtesy of the National Park Service)

episodes during the early and mid-thirteenth century, between ca. AD 1200 and 1260. Stage III from the top, for example, was built using elaborately processed and unusually colored fills, with small wall-trench structures with carefully prepared floors rebuilt on the upper surface at least twice. These structures were examined using 1 × 1 m units, with all fill floated and samples subject to specialized palynological and chemical analyses. At one standard deviation, the calibrated range for the 13 modeled dates from this stage was AD 1227–1251, a period of 24 years. A large post was one of the

Figure 13.2. Calibrated and modeled Mound A radiocarbon sequence from Shiloh Mound A. Grayed probability distributions indicate outlier samples that were excluded from the model at A < 60 percent. All calibrations and Bayesian modeling were done using OxCal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) based on the IntCal 2013 (Reimer et al. 2013) calibration curve. (Used courtesy of the National Park Service)

306 · David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

Figure 13.3. Modeled, summed probability distributions for 14C dates by mound construction episode. All calibrations and modeling done in OxCal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) using the IntCal 2013 (Reimer et al. 2013) curve. (Used courtesy of the National Park Service)

first things erected on Stage III, with a small insertion trench and preserved wood. This post may have had religious/ceremonial significance, perhaps as a marker for the layout of the center, or of cosmologically significant astronomical alignments, or both, as has been documented in the greater Cahokia area (Alt 2016a; Pauketat 2012; Pauketat and Alt 2015a, 2015b). Wellpreserved textiles were found in a hearth in the final structure on the Stage III surface (Adovasio et al. 2013), which may reflect a termination ritual of some kind, something clearly indicated by the presence of mantles or thin veneers of colored sediments that in some cases were placed over structures or stages during construction or upon abandonment, as has been noted at the Emerald site in Illinois (Pauketat and Alt 2015a, 2015b) and at many other sites in the region in recent years (Pursell 2004, 2012). The location of Shiloh, atop a high loess bluff overlooking the Tennessee River, does not appear to have been densely occupied prior to the Mississippian era, or at least the widespread use locally of shell-tempered pottery is not evident. Dense ceramic assemblages characterized by grogtempered pottery, traditionally assumed to date to the Woodland period in the Midsouth (Phillips 1970; Welch 2006), are present at the site, however, but no isolated features, structures, or deposits have been associated solely with them (see also Welch 2006:48–52, 258–259). Both shell- and grogtempered pottery were found from the top to the very bottom submound deposits, with grog-tempered wares becoming slightly more common only near the bottom of the mound. Use of both shell- and grog-tempered ceramics thus appears to have occurred over much of the time the center was occupied, at least during the construction of Mound A.

Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group · 307

If Mound A is representative, the Shiloh ceremonial center was being built during Cahokia’s Stirling phase, from ca. AD 1100 to 1200, and reached its peak during the subsequent Morehead phase, from AD 1200 to 1300. Like Cahokia itself, Shiloh was abandoned sometime around AD 1300 (Anderson, Cornelison, and Bissett 2013; Pauketat 2009a). A pollen record obtained from a pond just off the main plaza at Shiloh documents both increased fire frequency and vegetation clearing as the center formed, followed by a decrease in charcoal particulates and succession to a climax forest, indicating that the area was not reoccupied until historic settlement began in the nineteenth century (Meeks 2013). Interestingly, sunflower is present in the pollen records, but not maize, suggesting that sunflower was grown inside the palisade, with maize grown outside. The trajectories of Cahokia and Shiloh centers are similar. The Shiloh center apparently emerged amid local Late Woodland peoples who apparently made little prior use of the location. The construction of the center co-occurs with the widespread appearance of shell-tempered pottery, albeit with grog-tempered pottery continuing in common usage, possibly suggesting an amalgamation of differing populations or social groups, much as Cahokia itself is thought to have formed (Alt 2006b, 2010; Pauketat 2009a; Pauketat et al. 2012, 2015a). The grog-tempered assemblage at Shiloh is overwhelmingly dominated by plain and cord-marked finishes, with minimal evidence for wares coming from long distances (Welch 2006, 2013c). The material culture recovered during the century of archaeological fieldwork conducted at Shiloh has received careful attention. Important for analytical consistency, all of the ceramics and many of the lithics recovered from the major excavations at the site have been examined by a single investigator, Paul D. Welch, who prepared detailed descriptions of the materials recovered (2006, 2013c). Amid a vast number of locally produced artifacts, a number have been recovered that appear to derive from other parts of the region (Figure 13.4). A red “Missouri flint clay” effigy pipe as well as four sherds of probable Powell Plain and three of Ramey Incised pottery, as well as some lithics, likely came from the northwest, while several Etowah Plain and Complicated stamped sherds and tiny pieces of copper may derive from the southeast (Welch 2006:48, 2013c:585) (Figure 13.4). One of the three Ramey-like sherds was found during the Mound A fieldwork and was interpreted as likely a local copy based on petrographic work conducted by James B. Stoltman (2013:602–606), who compared the paste of the Shiloh specimen with that in 25 sherds of Ramey Incised from six sites in the American Bottom. A total of 25 complicated stamped and

308 · David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

46 plain sherds with grit tempering were described as Etowah Plain and Etowah Complicated Stamped by Welch (2013c:585); classic ladder-based diamonds were present on two of the sherds. Petrographic analyses by Stoltman (2013:609) on these two sherds and on one of the plain sherds indicated an origin in the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains to the east. Small amounts of Moundville Engraved and Moundville Incised were also found (Welch 2006:54–62, 2013c:583–584), leading Welch (2013c:595) to conclude that “Shiloh had closer connections with societies in northwest Mississippi and north and central Alabama, than with societies in the Memphis area. There is also little evidence for stylistic ties to the Nashville area.” Welch (2013c:597) also noted that, with regard to possible ties between Cahokia and Etowah, Shiloh was located “along the obvious travel route—the Tennessee River—between those two centers” and that the presence of tiny pieces of worked copper on the Stage IIb-1 fill in Mound A (McNeil 2013:574–575) might indicate that the people at Shiloh “may have been directly involved in the Etowah-Cahokia contacts.” The absence of ceramics from other major Mississippian centers farther to the north—at Kincaid, for example—was noted, but not thought particularly significant because chert from southern Illinois was present in small numbers in the assemblage, including a number of Mill Creek hoe fragments (Welch 2006:86, 2013c:597). Other artifacts suggesting possible Cahokian contacts included several discoidals of stone, including two chunkey stone fragments that Perino (1971:112–116, cited in Welch 2006:90) called the “Cahokia” style. An elaborate discoidal was found atop the Stage IIb summit in Mound A, indicating use of this object in the mid-thirteenth century. A knife blade of white chert, possibly a fragment of a “Ramey knife,” was also found during the 1930s fieldwork west of Mound A (Welch 2006:127–128). A number of microdrills were found at the site, almost all near a house mound on the western side of the center, near Mound G, suggesting a specialized crafting area. The material is local Tuscaloosa gravel; no evidence for blade cores or the use of Crescent Quarry chert in the production of these tools was observed at Shiloh (McNeil 2013; Welch 2006), such as is common in the Cahokia microlith industry and at the Zebree site in northeast Arkansas (Morse and Morse 1983:205). While many triangular arrow points have been found during the excavations, none resemble classic Cahokian sidenotched forms or were made on other than local materials. The smoking gun for probable direct contact with the American Bottom is the Shiloh “Crouching Man” red flint clay effigy pipe. It was found

Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group · 309

Figure 13.4. Artifacts found at Shiloh that appear to have come from appreciable distances. A, Missouri flint clay effigy pipe; B, C, Moundville incised pottery; D, Etowah complicated stamped pottery; E, H, I, Ramey Incised pottery; F, G, Jersey Bluff chunkey stones; J, possible Ramey knife of white chert; K, chert microdrills; L, Cahokia-style chunkey stone fragment. All artifacts to a common scale save for the effigy pipe, which is 20.3 cm tall (Images courtesy Paul D. Welch and the Southeastern Archeological Center, National Park Service)

during excavations in 1899 in Mound C, in a centrally placed log-covered tomb yielding three complete individuals placed around the pipe (Welch 2006:10–15). The tomb was reportedly carefully excavated, but no evidence for an associated bundle that it might have been wrapped in was found. Interestingly, Mound C was oval in shape, measuring 86 × 56 × 10 ft, and resembles a ridgetop mound like those found at Cahokia (see also Mickelson 2016, this volume). During Roberts’s excavations at the site in 1933–1934, much of the remainder of Mound C and the rest of the tomb, not fully examined in 1899, were excavated. The “long bones of a number of individuals [some 19 or 20 in total were found] in the south end of the tomb” (Chambers field notes, cited in Welch 2006:14). These remains, which were clearly bundled and secondary, arguably could be from a founding lineage using the crypt, perhaps even people from Cahokia itself. Other artifacts

310 · David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

found with the burials included possible copper-covered earspools and fragments of what were described as coal and lead, possibly galena, materials since lost; the galena might have come from sources in the upper Midwest, including from near Cahokia (Welch 2006:13–14, 170). The Shiloh “Crouching Man” effigy pipe is similar to figures found in Stirling phase contexts in the American Bottom, ca. AD 1100–1200, dating the burials to that time or perhaps somewhat later (Emerson 2003; Emerson et al. 2003; Pauketat 2009a, 2012). One of ca. 50 red flint clay pipes found across the region (Boles 2016, this volume), it closely resembles one found at Moundville (Knight 2016, this volume). Both are nude males in submissive or supplicant positions, perhaps reflecting rebirth following training in the Cahokian mysteries, or perhaps a statement about the relative subordinate position of elites at Shiloh compared to Cahokia. It is possible that the pipe was placed in the tomb either when a Cahokian founder died or when the center itself was being abandoned, but that is purely speculative. The remote sensing conducted during the recent mitigation program indicates some parts of Mound C appear to remain in undisturbed condition, meaning it might be possible to address these questions in future fieldwork (Lydick et al. 2013:209). The overall arrangement of the Shiloh mounds indicates one major and two or more small, possible secondary plazas were present, something similar to the multiple plazas observed at Cahokia (Figure 13.1). The layout of the center may thus owe something to people who visited or came from the American Bottom area. The construction of the plaza at Shiloh may have parallels as well. As summarized in the 2013 report: [In the 1970s,] Gerald Smith (1977; see Welch 2006:23–28) of Memphis State University conducted archeological excavations at the site, in the plaza and along the palisade. Smith excavated two areas in the plaza and found disturbances near Mound B that he thought were caused by Roberts’ excavation trenches. He also found evidence that the plaza area was filled and leveled in prehistoric times. Coring conducted by Glen Doran during the intensive testing program in 2001 at five locations between mounds A and B confirmed that up to 60cm of fill had been added to level the plaza. (Anderson, Cornelison, and Welch 2013:35) Remote sensing conducted during the mitigation showed a lot of activity, including several structures, occurred in the plaza area between Mounds A, B, D, and E, and now lies buried from view (Lydick et al. 2013). Recent

Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group · 311

work at Moundville, summarized by Davis et al. (2015) and Knight (2016, this volume), has shown that the central plaza covers a substantial earlier occupation with numerous structures and other features. So too may be the case at Shiloh, and the plaza is another area where extensive remote sensing and ground truthing may yield valuable information about the site’s earlier occupations. As at Cahokia, Etowah, and many Mississippian sites large and small, fortifications were discovered at Shiloh, and excavations were conducted in small areas along them in the 1930s by Roberts and again in the mid-1970s by Gerald Smith. A bastioned palisade surrounded much of the western portion of the site, but how substantial it was is unknown (Figure 13.1). Evidence for only one building episode has been found, with no evidence for a substantial ditch like that seen at Etowah. The palisade may have never been completed or may not have been very effective given the large area encompassed and the numerous ravines around the center core, which would have been difficult to fortify. As summarized in the 2013 report: Smith placed two excavations on the western portion of the palisade line, which is characterized by a low rise ca. 30cm high by 2 to 3m wide at the base that extended, with some breaks and much less distinct sections, for several hundred meters on the southwestern and western side of the mound group. Smith was able to locate closely spaced postmolds from a single palisade line (no evidence for rebuilding was observed), and excavated what he interpreted to be a bastion measuring ca. 3.2 × 3.0m (Welch 2006:25–26). (Anderson, Cornelison, and Welch 2013:35) The recent mitigation work had as one of many goals the detailed mapping of the site, including the palisade line. As can be seen from the results of the mapping, the palisade is only clearly visible in some areas, primarily on the western side of the site. LiDAR imagery flown in 2015 and currently undergoing analysis brought portions of the palisade into clearer view but did not add substantially to our understanding of how thoroughly the site was fortified. The center at Shiloh was thus not static, but a rapidly changing physical and social arena, where extensive excavation and dating permit the microhistorical reconstruction of activities associated with its construction and use, particularly the Mound A area. Local peoples apparently interacted with outsiders, generating a local variant of what we call Mississippian. The emphasis for future work at the site should continue to explore how

312 · David G. Anderson, Thaddeus G. Bissett, and John E. Cornelison Jr.

this played out, by documenting individual historical events and broader trajectories. Was Shiloh tributary to Cahokia, a trading partner, a serious rival, or autonomous from or oblivious to developments there? We don’t think any of these categories apply. The movement of objects was clearly occurring, mostly seemingly one way, from Cahokia to Shiloh, but the quantities were small, and contact was likely intermittent and perhaps even indirect, and probably of greater religious or ceremonial importance than economic. Given the red flint clay “Crouching Man” effigy pipe found in Mound C, and the few scattered Cahokian ceramics, possible chunkey stone and Ramey knife fragments, and microdrills, albeit of local stone, that have been found in different parts of the site, it is possible that the rapid growth of the Shiloh center after AD 1100 could have been spurred by ideas or even people originating from the American Bottom (Anderson 2017). The large quantities of grog- and shell-tempered pottery and knappable stone of probable local origin in the fill of Mound A and across the site, however, when coupled with the comparatively small number of extralocal artifacts, suggest the construction of the mound and indeed the entire Shiloh center was largely or entirely the work of local populations. Whether the people interred in Mound C were members of a founding Cahokian lineage or people who visited Cahokia, or exchanged goods with people who did, may no longer be demonstrable but remains a possibility. Fortunately, a vast portion of the site remains to be examined, much of it preserved and protected given its location on the Shiloh battlefield, so there will be opportunities to explore this question further in the future. Unfortunately, Mound A is still actively eroding into the Tennessee River, and the National Park Service has a mitigation to complete (Anderson et al., eds. 2013:i–iv; Anderson, Cornelison, and Bissett 2013:714). The fieldwork conducted from 1999 to 2004 had encompassed less than half the time and funds originally budgeted when the project ceased and had focused primarily on the upper stages of the mound, with only tiny samples obtained from the lower strata. The work to date demonstrated, however, that the lower portions of Mound A contained numerous ceramic and lithic artifacts, architectural features like posts and wall lines, as well as carbonized textiles and paleosubsistence remains in a remarkable state of preservation (e.g., Adovasio et al. 2013; Hollenbach et al. 2013; Sichler 2013). If adequately mitigated before it is lost, Mound A will undoubtedly give us answers to many important questions related to Mississippian origins in this part of the Midsouth,

Mississippian Origins as Viewed from the Shiloh Indian Mound Group · 313

including possible Cahokian contacts, as well as about the history of the Shiloh center itself and the lifeways of its people. Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Charles McNutt and Ryan Parish for their careful editing and helpful comments. Charles was a good friend and colleague, and will be deeply missed. The personnel at the Shiloh National Military Park and the Southeastern Archeological Center of the National Park Service are to be given thanks for their ongoing support of the project. Then Shiloh superintendent Haywood “Woody” Harrell, historian Stacy Allen, and Paul D. Welch of Southern Illinois University supported and helped guide the Shiloh mitigation, and deserve our special thanks.

14 Cahokia-Moundville Interaction An Update Vernon James Knight

I am on record as saying that evidence of Cahokian interaction with Moundville was negligible. I stated that “from among Moundville’s artifact collections, which number in seven figures, not so much as a single potsherd of Ramey Incised, nor a single notched triangular point of Burlington chert has so far been identified” (Knight 1997:234). But there have been many new discoveries at Moundville and in its hinterlands in the two decades since that was written, and in view of those more recent discoveries, the situation may be reassessed. To be clear, I am speaking here only of those things that might indicate either direct, or perhaps somewhat indirect, interaction. I am aware, of course, that Cahokia and Moundville are historically linked at another, more fundamental level, in that both were participants in the Mississippian phenomenon. I made note of that deeper historical linkage—which is hardly a trivial matter—in the 1997 paper cited above. But here I confine myself to evidence that might indicate close interaction of some kind. The earliest Mississippian ideas and artifacts at Moundville date to AD 1120–1200 (for the most recent Moundville chronology and estimated phase boundaries, see Steponaitis and Scarry 2016). That period was more polyethnic than we used to think, featuring a mix of ceramic and architectural styles (Briggs 2017). Rectangular basin-floor houses are found in the mix (e.g., Davis 2014:103–105; Ensor 1993:32–36; Kelly 2013:17–18; Knight 2010:Figure 5.8; Scarry 1981:87; Scarry and Scarry 1995:Figure 51; Welch 2007:144–145), generally comparable to Lohman phase structures at Cahokia (Pauketat 1998b:88) but having wall trenches only on the longer

Cahokia-Moundville Interaction: An Update · 315

sides. The artifact assemblages associated with these Moundville basinfloor structures are not Cahokian in any way. Our former narrative regarding the period AD 1120–1200 (early Moundville I) stands to be revised in view of recent research, especially the documentation through magnetometry of an entire landscape of preplaza architecture, all previously unknown (Davis 2014). While we formerly believed that the early Moundville I phase community at Moundville was confined to areas near the bank of the Black Warrior River and the confluence of Carthage Branch (Knight and Steponaitis 1998:Figure 1.3A), the new data suggest that there was a large preplaza community that covered essentially the whole site. Although it must be cautioned that few of the magnetometry signatures indicating rectangular houses of this community have been ground-truthed to date, the veracity of the apparent pattern is enhanced by a study of the wall alignments of these signatures. They form a coherent distribution with structure walls oriented to a northeast–southwest axis, in stark contrast to postplaza structures, which are oriented rigidly to the cardinal directions (Davis 2014:Figure 6.7). Among the exotics dating to this period are two fragments of large Mill Creek chert bifaces, apparently comparable to Ramey knives, from an outlying mound site (Steponaitis 1992:7). Two other fragments of the same kind have been found at Moundville itself, but in later contexts, in Mound M and Mound Q (Astin 1996:76; Knight 2010:144). A distinct Moundville identity had formed by about AD 1200 (the beginning of the late Moundville I phase) with the construction of the central plaza and the earliest version of the palisade. At this time, we see a decrease in the diversity of locally made Moundville pottery. Platform mound building around the plaza periphery did not begin in earnest until about AD 1250 (Knight 2010:361). For the entire Moundville I phase, AD 1120–1250, it remains true that no diagnostic Cahokian sherds, Cahokia points, or Burlington chert artifacts have yet been identified, either from Moundville or from any of the hinterland sites. Judging from nonlocal pottery, early Moundville’s foreign policy was rather firmly fixed on the late Coles Creek and early Plaquemine peoples of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Beginning about AD 1300, Moundville was basically emptied of its populace and entered its necropolis stage (Knight and Steponaitis 1998:19). Of the exotics of this period, there are a handful of artifacts from Moundville that may have originated at Cahokia. These include a few embossed copper artifacts, perhaps socketed headdress elements with bone pins, of which

316 · Vernon James Knight

there are at least three known: a bilobed arrow, a key-sided mace, and a notched plume (Knight and Steponaitis 2011:227–228). An argument that these are Cahokian would reference the fact that similar items are portrayed in Classic Braden art, believed to be centered at Cahokia (Brown 2007a:219). I am not prepared to make any such argument here. Another candidate artifact is a copper-clad wooden rattle from Mound C in the form of an agnathous head with a terraced crown (Steponaitis et al. 2011:Figure 9.24b), a form again depicted in Classic Braden art as a headdress element. But much of Moundville copper, perhaps the majority of it, is fashioned in the local Hemphill style. Contributing sources to the early Hemphill style have little to do directly with Cahokia but include the Holly Bluff style (Knight et al. 2017) and early Walls of the Central Mississippi Valley, as well as early Pensacola from the northern Gulf Coast (Phillips 2012). There is a well-known “crouching man” pipe of red Missouri flint clay illustrated by Moore (1905:214–217) from a burial in Mound O (see also Emerson et al. 2003:300–301). This pipe does indicate some historical connection, if only indirect, between Moundville and the general Cahokia area. But pipes of this material are, in my opinion, fashioned in a variety of styles, and where the Mound O pipe fits within that range is not particularly clear at this time. If there is a “Cahokia style” of flint clay figures (Emerson 1983; Emerson et al. 2003:302) or alternatively a Braden sculptural style (Brown 2011:Figure 3.4), then we still await an explicit definition of the formal qualities of that style sufficient to differentiate it from other Mississippian sculptural styles. Moreover, the context of the pipe in Mound O postdates AD 1300, more than a century later than the current dating of comparable pipes from the American Bottom. As Emerson et al. (2003:302) note, its whereabouts in the interim and the mechanism of its transmission cannot be assumed. To round out a discussion of exotic artifacts from the lower Black Warrior Valley that hint at Cahokia connections, I should mention sporadic occurrences of hoe chips of Mill Creek chert from southern Illinois—with the strong caveat that the distribution of hoes from this source does not necessarily implicate Cahokian control or interaction (Brown et al. 1990:268; Muller 1997:370). Such hoe chips, with silica polish, have been identified from Mounds R1 and Q at Moundville (Kelly 2013:50; Knight 2010:146), as well as from six of the single-mound hinterland sites and three of the farmsteads (Welch 1991:Table 5.11). Chronologically, these contexts span the full range of the Mississippian sequence in the lower Black Warrior Valley. I

Cahokia-Moundville Interaction: An Update · 317

Figure 14.1.  Structure 3, Mound E, Moundville, a Cahokian-style Greathouse on the Northeast Summit of Mound E.

must stress that these hoe chips are rare; generally speaking, Moundville farmers did not use stone hoes. An exception does exist, which at this point must be regarded as an anomaly—a single pit feature at a farmstead called the Gerald Wiggins site yielded a large number of hoe chips and other debitage of Mill Creek and Dover chert (Scarry and Scarry 1997:18). During the 1990s, a large structure was exposed on the northeast summit of Mound E (Figure 14.1). I have referred to it as a Cahokian-style greathouse, based on comparisons with Stirling phase structures at Cahokia on Murdock Mound, on the fourth terrace of Monks Mound, and in Tract 15A (Knight 2010:190–194). The Mound E structure has a floor area of some 14 × 16 m, bounded by relatively wide wall trenches with closed corners. The center of the structure is dominated by a row of three very large post pits with insertion and extraction ramps. The trouble with this architectural comparison is that, despite the similarities, the Moundville example cannot predate ca. AD 1300. This puts it, at minimum, over a century later than any possible Cahokia prototype. For the comparison to work, we have to envision that the architectural style was carried on, over the interim, at some locale unknown to us, and was transferred from there to Moundville. Thus, the connection would be indirect.

318 · Vernon James Knight

To sum things up, at this point it does not appear that Cahokia had much, if anything, to do either with the appearance of Moundville or its rise to prominence. Once established, Moundville’s external interactions were largely to the west and south, extending northward only to the Tennessee Valley, where blue-gray Fort Payne chert was acquired (Knight 2010:145–146). Signs of Cahokian connections with Moundville continue to be sparse, nebulous, or indirect. This observation puts Moundville somewhat at odds with other Mississippian period centers in the Deep South for which Cahokian interaction does seem to have played some larger role in their emergence. As reported in this volume, that list would appear to minimally include Etowah and Lake Jackson in the east, Carson in the northern Yazoo Basin, and Spiro in the trans-Mississippi South. But it seems to me that in contrast, the large Plaquemine-area centers in the Lower Mississippi Valley, such as Lake George, Winterville, and Anna, belong in the same category as Moundville in that they were largely immune to any direct effects that might be attached to Cahokia. So I do not think it is accidental that Moundville during its early period had its own connections with the Plaquemine area, including a sharing of artistic and perhaps also religious visions (see Knight and Steponaitis 2011). Although unfortunately we can only talk about it impressionistically, it appears to me that this Moundville-Plaquemine axis of interaction may have been a separate nexus from those perhaps operative to the east and north along the so-called Braden corridor and the similar axis that connected Cahokia to the Caddo area in the west.

15 Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

Over the past two decades, the study of Mississippian ritual has gone from a discredited paradigm of the late nineteenth century to a major research theme of central importance. Archaeologists have made significant progress in understanding ritual as deeply embedded in the lives of the people who embraced, experienced, and lived it on a daily basis, as well as how adherents to ritual practices related to and made sense of their world and how they sought and found answers to their concerns, desires, and problems (Fogelin 2008; Insoll 2011; Rowan 2012). The material correlates of ritual practice and the supplication and veneration of transcendental beings are verifiable in the archaeological record. Although ritual studies have been productive overall, scholars have tended to focus on in situ developments and considerations of nondescript and vague “influences” from distant realms, with less attention to the agency and movement of people; the exchange of ritual goods across environmental, political, and social boundaries; and the role of kinship and sodalities in ritual practice. In this chapter we identify the early movement of Mississippian people into the Middle Cumberland Region (MCR) (Smith and Moore 2018) from the American Bottom and their continued and sustained contact, not only with the parent set of American Bottom polities but also with surrounding regional societies, as ritual goods circulated among a matrix of interpolity aristocratic aggrandizers who created scion ritual institutions. We begin by evaluating current archaeological approaches to migration and the circulation of ritual goods. While scholars have focused on the development and growth of local traditions, these processes are often divorced from linkages to regional agents. We emphasize human migration as resulting from several types of movements, but regardless of group composition

320 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

or models of migration, social negotiations and power dynamics surround the entry of people into new territories and their continued interaction and involvement with ancestral homelands. We demonstrate the value of this broader approach to the study of migration and ritual practice with a case study from the MCR, where Mississippian culture and ritual goods have been well documented (Beahm 2013; Moore and Smith 2009; Sharp et al. 2011; Smith 1992; Smith and Moore 2010; Steponaitis et al. 2011). We use examples from the MCR to suggest that a consideration of migration and sustained ritual interaction can change our interpretations, perceptions, and understanding of the past. When Mississippians moved into the MCR in the late tenth century—in the early decades of Cahokian polities—they brought with them belief systems, religious conventions, and their ritual institutions and practices. We investigate these religious structures through four artifact classes: ceramics, shell cups and gorgets, stone tablets, and symbolic weaponry. We conclude that charter narratives and specific ritual paraphernalia changed over time, but overall conservativism marked the same basic iconographic and mythic themes that centered upon ancestors, culture heroes, deities, and guardian spirits. While archaeologists working in the Midwest and Midsouth have written extensively about Mississippian ritual, they have paid less attention to the actions of individuals who relocated their political, social, and religious institutions to distant realms, with subsequent stylistic changes and ritual transformations evidenced in aristocratic sacra that reflect identifiable deities. The earliest evidence for Mississippian mound and plaza towns is found on the western edge of the MCR, with mound construction dating to the late tenth century (Moore et al. 2016; Moore and Smith 2009:207; Smith and Moore 2010). The site layout and artifact assemblages from Mound Bottom (40CH8), for example, suggest that centralized authority structures oversaw the deployment of social labor and the organization of resources (Smith 1992:455). Mound Bottom lies at the western edge of the MCR in a horseshoe bend of the Harpeth River in Cheatham County, Tennessee (Moore et al. 2016). The approximately 100-acre site includes some 11 or more mounds, a 2.8 ha central plaza, and a convincing suite of artifacts that appear early in the Mississippian period. Such new administrative/ritual centers represent people moving into the region from the north and west, migrating either directly from the American Bottom or as descendants of immigrants from the American Bottom perhaps via southeast Missouri or the Lower Ohio Valley.

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 321

Archaeological evidence for Late Woodland occupants in the MCR is sparse, reflecting low population densities regionally (Smith 1992:58–59). Architectural and ceramic analyses suggest the gradual acculturation of the few Late Woodland people who became more Mississippian-like over time (Beahm 2013:45–46). As Mississippian populations expanded up the Cumberland Valley, mound centers appeared at the eastern side of the MCR around AD 1100 (Moore and Smith 2009:207). By AD 1200, Mississippian settlements were numerous throughout the MCR, including farmsteads, hamlets, villages, and towns, the last continuing mound-and-plaza configurations. People began to nucleate into large, palisaded towns after AD 1350, as mound construction became less frequent and political organization resembled confederated polities rather than regional chiefdoms (Smith 1992). Over the course of the fifteenth century, as part of the Vacant Quarter phenomenon, polities migrated out of the MCR and into adjacent regions, apparently triggered by megadroughts (Anderson 2001; Beahm 2013:46; Burnette et al. 2018; Cobb and Butler 2002; Krus and Cobb 2018; Meeks and Anderson 2013; Williams 1990). Small populations returned to the MCR in the early seventeenth century in response to the early fur trade. We envision migrations into and out of the MCR as long-term political and social processes with populations establishing and reestablishing homeland communities and towns and continuing linkages with neighboring Mississippian polities. Mississippian Migrations and Ritual Goods Circulation

Archaeologists have made great strides in assessing population movements and in studying the circulation of exotic goods, but rarely have migration and sacra been linked in terms of negotiation, power, and ritual processes, especially continued connections between homeland and migrant communities. Push-pull models have been especially influential in archaeology (Anthony 1990), as scholars study migration from the perspective of long-distance, intermediate, or intraregional movements with a focus on dynamic, multilayered connections between homeland and migrant communities (Cabana and Clark 2011; Clark and Laumbach 2011; Mills 2011; Ortman and Cameron 2011). Push factors in the migrant’s home territory may stem from a variety of internal processes: blood revenge, economic management, factional conflicts, new religious ideas, political intrigue, succession struggles, and witchcraft accusations. Push factors may also result from external forces, such as climate change, environmental downturns,

322 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

famine, overpopulation, raids, resource stress, and warfare. Pull factors might attract migrants into a frontier zone and may include access to exchange nodes, improved economic conditions, increased agricultural productivity, political expansion, resource availability, and social advantages. Push-pull models typically embrace voluntary migration, and, as rational choice models, they assume that agents entertain careful and deliberate decisions about whether to migrate, where to migrate, when to migrate, and even who should migrate. Movements from a homeland into a distant realm may never be the result of only one factor but probably resulted from multiple events, processes, and reasons.
 We suggest that the migration of Mississippian people into the MCR was well considered, evaluated, and planned, with both push and pull factors entering into the rational, decision-making process of political, religious, and social leaders. The circulation of sacra among a network of regional polities, including those in the American Bottom, alerts us to the fluid social boundaries and networks that characterize connections among aristocratic agents. Here, we employ alienable and inalienable goods, coupled with stylistic analysis, to identify regional linkages among an aristocratic cohort. Archaeologists recognize Mississippian social identity as operating at multiple, overlapping scales (Blitz 2010; Cobb 2003; Waselkov and Smith 2017), and they acknowledge that those identities were interwoven, linking frontier polities with administrative/ritual centers integrated as a web of military, political, ritual, and social interactions. Migration into frontier regions, such as the MCR, by sustainable and viable populations depended upon continued connections with regional population centers for their success and viability, as homelands were the sites of ancestral shrines, ritual precincts, and temple complexes. Igor Kopytoff (1987) describes the process of “internal frontier” migration in historical Sub-Saharan Africa, with migrants moving into “frontier” areas between major population centers, in which kin-based groups frequently split from larger political, ritual, and social formations. In such cases, exiting leaders gather as large a group of dependents and supporters as possible before migrating to frontiers, where they establish institutions and settlements that replicate those from which they departed. For regional polities, avenues to power for aggrandizing and ambitious individuals often involved drawing large numbers of people into their constituent groups and political orbit. Relocating to distant, productive lands and flourishing there would be predicated on appropriating regional social labor, corralling tributary clients, establishing new exchange nodes, garnering surplus

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 323

through access to productive environments, harnessing the circulation of valuable resources, increasing potentials for higher fertility rates, and laying claims to resources. In addition, as Mississippian social groups left the American Bottom, migrants would have negotiated multiscalar relationships with resident Late Woodland populations in the MCR, resulting in varying political and social dimensions of accommodation, coalescence, and resistance. For movements in which populations removed themselves from the parent polity and migrated to distant realms, such as the MCR, the scion polity would continue to maintain strong ties with the ancestral homeland. The dominant character of such “symbiotic” relationships is the establishment of a chain or network of connections among a matrix of social units. Cemented through the production, circulation, curation, and disposal of specialized ritual goods, such well-established relationships would be constituted through interpolity political and social ties. Migrant communities into the MCR would have maintained institutionalized spheres of relationships with their neighbors, as well as with polities from which they immigrated. Patricia Albers (1993) notes that historic Plains interdependent relationships were based on competition, cooperation, and complementarity, in which polities were linked to one or more of their neighbors through various symbiotic bonds. Plains exchange nodes and ritual networks were constituted as a complex and far-ranging traffic in durable ritual goods, including feathers, medicinal herbs, shells, and stones, cemented through kin, ritual, and social linkages (Wood 1972, 1973). Specialized goods circulated through “ceremonial” and “individual” patterns. The ceremonial pattern was highly ritualized, with collectively negotiated exchanges accompanied by dancing, feasting, gifting, ritual smoking, and speeches, in which reciprocity was expected at the time of exchange (Bowers 1950:329–331; Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:378–388; Springer 1981; Weltfish 1965:211–212). Individual exchange strategies—often referred to as “suing for peace”—were more altruistic, involving elaborate gift giving for which there was no immediate expectation of return. These individual exchanges usually followed ceremonial presentations and were generally less ritualized, being conducted on a one-to-one basis. Interdependency between individuals and polities had to be constantly reaffirmed, generally at each exchange encounter, even between well-established partners (Klein 1977:235). New exchange connections might be initiated with individuals who have access to better and/or more reliable commodities, goods, and resources (Klein 1977:233–237). These exchange relations, based on balanced

324 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

reciprocity, were typically fragile, being especially vulnerable to disruption under unstable political and social conditions. Political, ritual, and social mechanisms had to be established in order for symbiotic relationships to be viable over extended periods of time. Crucial to such mechanisms was the ability to simultaneously join and separate populations by creating structures in which parties could be integrated but yet separated at the same time (Ekeh 1974:49–56). Plains groups, in loosely bound symbiotic relationships, typically exchanged specialized goods through established ritual and social channels that were bound and created by marriage relationships and sodality memberships. Strategic marriages, in particular, committed both parties to long-term cycles of reciprocal obligations (Albers and Kay 1987; Bruner 1961:201; Jablow 1951:49; Sharrock 1974:105–111; Springer 1981; Wood 1972:162–163). Exchange partnerships and ritual sodality memberships were based on two types of ceremonial adoptions: “sons” by “fathers” and “siblings” by “siblings.” Adoptions of ceremonial “sons” by ceremonial “fathers” were a major channel through which leaders achieved esteemed political and ritual positions (Bowers 1965:91; Hanson 1986:40, 51). Ceremonial “father-son” adoptions placed both parties in symmetrically defined social roles, which contributed to the elasticity of exchange partnerships, thus ensuring that bonds of short-term indebtedness were possible, with proprietary rights being relinquished and separately held by the two parties (Albers 1993:111). On the other hand, the sibling model, known as “taking in friends,” was based on the adoption of ritual “siblings,” who became joint owners in a sodality and its ritual goods. Importantly, the rights to the ritual sodality purchased by an adopted member could be later sold to another adopted member, even though that member might reside in a separate polity. The transfer of rights in a sodality, created through “sibling” adoption, stressed friendship relations as permanent, with those who became ritual siblings frequently invited to participate in each other’s ceremonies. Multiethnic cooperation based on migration, military, pilgrimage, ritual, and subsistence ventures rested on joint participatory rights among ritual “friends,” constituted as fictive kin members of the same sodality. These ritual adoptions forged and strengthened interconnected linkages based on the concept of social pooling, in which parties cooperated because of jointly held rights in ceremonial and political institutions, and sacred and/or secular resources. Individuals in one polity, to support a variety of different activities, could recruit the labor of friends in other

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 325

polities. These combinations of closely related sodality members comprised formalized governing structures, such as leadership councils and ritual sodalities, which were empowered with broad lines of authority to ensure group welfare and to curb the various tendencies of participating groups to splinter. Members of the same sodalities might coordinate hunts, monitor ritual collaborations, organize war parties, police encampments, and regulate redistributions (Klein 1977:299–324). By cutting across lines of consanguinity and affinity, sodalities could recruit large multigroup gatherings and monitor their activities (Oliver 1962:52–57). Recruitment could occur across ethnic boundaries, with ritual sibling relationships in sodalities promoting regional interpolity collaborations and connections (Albers 1993:121). Similar cooperative alliances may have been institutionalized in the MCR, creating cohesive structures that integrated American Bottom migrants through indebtedness, joint property and ritual rights, mutual alienation of property along kin and fictive kin lines, and ritual obligations that continued well after Mississippian settlements were established in the MCR. Ritual Goods and the Middle Cumberland Region

The MCR’s location made the area well suited for access to and circulation of highly crafted, nonlocal ritual goods. MCR ritual agents and institutional structures would have facilitated the flow of ideas, objects, and people throughout the region. Migrants into the MCR would have required a critical mass of ordained ritualists required to fulfill the various ceremonial functions necessary for continued exchange of ritual goods. In this section, we examine four basic categories of sacra that originated in the American Bottom and continued throughout the history of the MCR: ceramics, shell gorgets and cups, stone tablets, and symbolic weaponry. We examine these items from the perspective of alienable and inalienable objects that cycled through interregional linkages across the Mississippian world. Such highly crafted exotic goods reflect an aristocratic or ranked social segment—based on mortuary contexts (Smith 1992)—of individuals who controlled and negotiated linkages through various connections or nodes, including ritual sodalities—for example, ceramic exchange stems from religious motivation and the need for purifying medicines that were consumed in various ritual acts (Dye 2007). Local production and use, along with long-distance circulation of ritually charged wares, may reveal

326 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

the exchange of ritual institutions and practices, as well as associated accoutrements, props, and regalia. Ceramics Ceramic forms and motifs frequently circulated and were duplicated throughout the Mississippian world. For example, Ramey Incised ceramics, produced in the American Bottom during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, were crafted as ritual wares for elite-sponsored events and were circulated through widespread regional exchange networks (Azar 2018; Emerson 1989, 1997b; Friberg 2018; Pauketat and Emerson 1991). A Ramey Incised jar from Williamson County, Tennessee, dating to the twelfth century, represents an important connection between the MCR and the American Bottom, perhaps further confirming the arrival of a community or the continued connections of a migrant community with the parent American Bottom polities. In addition, a large portion of a Cahokia Cordmarked jar, likely dating between AD 1200 and 1275, was recovered at Mound Bottom (Moore et al. 2016:133). The presence of negative-painted ceramics and their manufacture, use, circulation, curation, and deposition in the MCR between AD 1250 and 1400 represent an adoption of ceramic motifs earlier in use at Cahokia (see below), suggesting sustained interaction among a host of polities, including those in the American Bottom. The importance of negative-painted ceramics is evident at the DeGraffenreid site (40WM4), a fortified multimound town on the Harpeth River in Williamson County (Moore and Smith 2008). A pair of side-by-side stone-box graves were found in a burial mound, perhaps dedicated to an elite lineage or social house. The graves produced two negative-painted vessels that bore rayed-circle designs surrounding an equal-arm cross (Jones 1901:3). Artifacts recovered from the central mortuary precinct represent presumed “high status markers of elite exchange networks” (Smith 1994:109). Designs similar to the DeGraffenreid negative-painted vessels are widespread: rayed circle/equal-arm crosses have been found on negativepainted ritual vessels at the Castalian Springs and Rutherford-Kizer sites in Sumner County (40SU14 and 40SU15, respectively). Rayed circle/equalarm crosses, as ritual ceramics and as a motif, circulated among polities over eastern North America: to the east (Toqua in Monroe County, Tennessee), to the south (Etowah in Bartow County, Georgia, and Hollywood in Richmond County, Georgia), to the west (Crosno in Mississippi County,

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 327

Missouri, and Haley Place in Miller County, Arkansas), and, indeed, to the north, as a recently discovered negative-painted fragment of a bottle from Mound 34 at Cahokia appears to confirm (John Kelly, personal communication, 2009). As compelling as these ceramics are, one of the most pervasive aspects of Cahokian connections to the MCR is a dominant mode of embellishing ceramics manifested in dozens of negative-painted (or resist-painted) female effigy bottles found in stone-box graves across the region. By way of introduction to this ceramic material, let us look briefly at one of the auxiliary graves that surrounded the octagonal stone-lined burial of a “seated warrior” in one of the four mortuary mounds at DeGraffenreid, about which more will be said later. From this mound comes evidence of “one of the rare documented occurrences of engraved shell cups from sites other than Spiro” (Phillips and Brown 1978:182). The DeGraffenreid engraved cup is one of four large shell cups found by Joseph Jones in the stone-box grave of a child, this grave being one of nine stone-box burials that encompassed the octagonal grave. Jones had the incising traced, and he published a line drawing of it, along with a sketch of the shell (Jones 1876:Figures 29–30). Phillips and Brown (1978:182) describe its style of decoration as “similar to that of Braden C,” while Jones (1876:60–61) perceived “triangles, parallel straight lines, curved lines, and the human figure.” Long thought to have been destroyed in a fire, the marine shell cup is curated in the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI, cat. no. 007973). Placed over the face of the child, this cup, along with the three presumably unworked shell cups, was found by Jones with an effigy bottle of a kneeling, pregnant female. These ceramic associations are the first, but not the only, direct connections between Braden-style shell carving (see below) and the corpus of female effigy bottles in the MCR. Their co-occurrence at DeGraffenreid establishes an explicit and important link between the presence of Braden imagery disseminated through carved marine shell and the role of ceramic female effigy vessels in an MCR mortuary practice centered on the graves of children (Sharp 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011b, 2016, 2018, 2019; Sharp et al. 2011; Smith and Sharp 2014). Indeed, dozens of female effigy vessels and figurines from the MCR exhibit direct links to the iconography of the Braden style vis-à-vis the unequivocal adoption of a signal motif recorded on a marine shell cup from Spiro (Figure 15.1) (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 2). This figure, with arms aloft and knee kicked up, wears shell beads, earspools, and a crested headdress with an agnathous head attached

328 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

Figure 15.1. Engraved figures from fragments of a shell cup from the Craig Mound, Spiro, Oklahoma. (Drawing from Phillips and Brown 1978:Pl. 2. Reprinted by permission from Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Vol. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University)

as a headdress element; he is one of few Braden-style figures to have such a headdress as part of his regalia (Brown and Dye 2007). We identify this individual as one of the Hero Twins. The agnathous head regalia is an iconic detail that connotes the intimate involvement of the Hero Twins with renewal and reincarnation, and it highlights the avenging role of the twins in the recovery of their father’s severed head and the ultimate triumph of life over death (Brown and Dye 2007; Dye 2016). The figure on the shell cup from Spiro is lavishly beaded, kilted, and heavily tattooed with groups of parallel lines and small-scale

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 329

forked-eye surrounds. The figure is also adorned with one large-scale motif—probably realized in body paint—that begins at the twin’s waist band and arcs up and over his chest before it crosses his right arm just below his shoulder. Within that expanse created by sets of parallel lines lies a much smaller broad oval that extends from the middle of his stomach to the edge of his torso, where presumably it continues onto his back. In this case that supposition is confirmed by the replication of this precise pattern—this very same large-scale emblem—on dozens of negative-painted ceramic effigy vessels from across the MCR (Sharp 2019; Sharp et al. 2011). The female effigy bottle that retains perhaps the best-preserved negativepainted patterned wrap-around shawl motif (Figure 15.2a, b) comes from an unknown site on the Cumberland River in Smith County. The adoption

Figure 15.2. Female effigy bottle with negative-painted ornamentation from a rockshelter on the Cumberland River near Beasley’s Bend, near Rome, Smith County, Tennessee; ceramic, height 22.9 cm. (Dr. Arthur Cushman Collection, Old Hickory, Tennessee); a, back view; b, front view. (Photographs by David H. Dye)

330 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

of this large-scale motif brings with it a fundamental adaptation of medium, as what had been perhaps body painting on the Hero Twins figure is rendered on this female figure now as a garment that drapes around her neck and over her shoulders, and also over her arms. Both the large oval and the smaller oval within it wrap over the right arm. Only her gathered and folded bun of hair overlaps her garment in the back. Numerous other examples show attempts by various artists to render this same pattern. Another upright, straight-backed kneeling female from an unknown site in the MCR was collected by Joseph Jones (1876:76–77, Figures 44–45) (NMAI, cat. no. 007391). Like the previous example, her legs are tucked under her, and her hands are placed against her abdomen. Although the negative-painted design that was originally present on the front of this effigy bottle has been almost entirely lost, the preservation of the design on the back shows that the pattern is essentially identical to, and replicates remarkably well, the original motif on the Braden-style shell cup from Spiro (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 2). More examples could be cited on female effigy bottles currently held in various collections (see Sharp 2019). Spanning the MCR more than 200 miles by river from Smith County in the east to Stewart County in the west, this same single pattern—graphically depicted on the Moorehead phase (AD 1200–1275) Braden-style engraved shell discussed above—was rendered by women artists in many different communities. They all span from perhaps AD 1250 to 1400 or 1450. The indisputable connection between the MCR and Cahokia has been given further weight by another recent discovery at Mound 34: a small fragment of what is almost certainly a negative-painted female effigy bottle from Nashville (John Kelly, personal communication, 2009). One conjectural model (Sharp 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011b, 2019) suggests that the design of this motif on the Braden-style shell cup (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 2) was presumably of Cahokian origin and that it appeared at Cahokia during the Moorehead phase before being adopted in the MCR and crafted on dozens of female effigy bottles found at numerous sites north and south of the Cumberland River and along its tributaries, including one of its principal ones, the Harpeth River. An alternative proposition—that the pattern itself originated in the MCR early in the thirteenth century and only then was incorporated into the Braden style and transferred to the medium of engraved shell—is certainly conceivable and will require further consideration. This second hypothesis would be bolstered considerably if present efforts to locate a shell cup–carving workshop at Cahokia are unsuccessful. But regardless of the

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 331

differences between these two interpretive possibilities, the deposition of these female effigy bottles and figurines remains the same: where provenience records have been preserved, these females are associated with the graves of children or subadults (Sharp 2007; Sharp et al. 2011; Smith 1992; Smith and Sharp 2014). In this regard, two further objects from Castalian Springs warrant consideration: the first is a ceramic female effigy figurine— not a vessel but a rattle figurine—that William E. Myer discovered and published (1928a). The figurine has unfortunately disappeared since the time of Myer’s death in 1923, but his ingenious photograph of it set before a mirror records the complete pattern and other primary aspects: perforated hair bun, pierced ears, hands upon her abdomen, and the figure’s tight, wraparound skirt. An upright, straight-backed figurine, she is remarkably similar to the female effigy bottles already mentioned. The use of this figurine as a rattle, before its inclusion in a mortuary context, could hint at other ritual sodality practices connecting this effigy of a female deity to the Beneath World realm of serpents and other preternaturals (Brown 1991; Emerson 2003; Sharp 2011b). Furthermore, Myer also had in his possession a small sandstone figurine of a seated male (Figure 15.3) that, as he confirmed in his unpublished writings, bears the same pattern, though in this case incised. The figurine was found in a stone-box grave at Castalian Springs in 1896, clasped in the right hand of the interred. The simplicity of the incising, which passes beneath the figure’s right arm and lies beneath his shank of hair, makes it clear that the pattern—whether tattooing or body paint—is the barred oval, which is the nucleus of, and a pars pro toto representation for, the ogee, an acknowledged serpent marker and a symbolic portal between realms (Sharp 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). The figurine was found with a cruciform gorget (Brain and Phillips 1996:28–30), perhaps a signifier of its possessor’s religious sodality or social house affiliation. More important for our present purposes, the Myer figurine offers the transitional “missing link” between the Classic Braden–style shell cup from Cahokia (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 2), rendered as a male warrior (i.e., one of the Hero Twins), and its ultimate transference to the female who is replicated repeatedly in the MCR in the form of ceramic effigies. The same emblem or symbol—moving from the American Bottom shell work, through the crafting of a small-scale stone figurine, to the ceramics of the MCR—crosses gender and media, bringing the potency of renewal and reincarnation originally associated with a male culture hero/deity—the Hero Twins—to a consistent, widespread MCR mortuary practice. Associated

332 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

Figure 15.3. Seated male effigy figurine with incised design from the Castalian Springs site (40SU14), Sumner County, Tennessee; stone, height approximately 10 cm. (Formerly in the collection of William E. Myer. Tommy Beutell Collection, Tuckasegee, North Carolina. Photo courtesy of John T. Pafford)

with the Earth Mother deity, such ritual practices may be directly attributable to a growing concern with the recycling of children’s souls and their return to life. The shift from male to female domains may represent changes in male versus female ritual sodalities and changes in emphasis from mortal combat to rebirth as ritual practices continued to change in the MCR. A number of anthropomorphic adorno-rim bowls and hooded bottle effigies from the Central Mississippi Valley (CMV) and MCR possess vertical appliqué strips—notched in the CMV—on a cone-shaped head. These anthropomorphic heads have been identified as the Hero Twins (Lankford and Dye 2014), although the figure is often referred to as “corn boy” or “corn god” (Hathcock 1983, 1988). While a male “corn god” is virtually unknown in the Mississippian world, that role more generally resides with the Earth Mother. The form appears to represent a common and widely known character in the eastern North American mythic corpus. The various forms and iterations of these “coneheads” seem to represent a widespread mythic narrative that charters ritual institutions supplicating and venerating the Hero Twins, known by many names, including Lodge-Boy and ThrownAway (LBTA).

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 333

The conehead motif is evident as early as AD 950–1000 in Picture Cave, Warren County, Missouri (Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2000:Figure 5.48; Diaz-Granados et al. 2015:Figure 17.11), and becomes widespread in the CMV and MRC in the thirteenth century and continues into the seventeenth century in the CMV. While the anthropomorphic figure’s head treatment is key, an additional feature is the construction of an adorno head that is hollow and filled with pebbles, so the head will rattle when shaken. In one of the opening episodes in the LBTA oicotype for the Caddoan/Siouan myth cluster, a small plot element describes how Thrown-Away emerges from the water and plays with his brother but flees when their father appears. When Lodge-Boy tells their father about his twin, the father tells Lodge-Boy to either seize Thrown-Away (the wild twin) by the hair or tie an inflated animal bladder to his head. In one Pawnee episode, the father “returns with two bladders blown up and containing rattles, one of which he directs his son [Lodge-Boy] to tie to the hair of his younger brother” (Dorsey 1906:494–495). The bladder prevents Thrown-Away from escaping into the water. The conehead adorno-rim bowls sometimes have an accompanying rimrider in the form of a turtle, one of Thrown-Away’s powerful watery-realm companions. Being raised by Beneath World water spirits exemplifies his possession of extraordinary powers that the denizens of the watery realm bestowed upon him. In particular, his hair possesses great importance, and it is through his hair that he is controlled. Thus, the long braids shown iconographically in anthropomorphic adorno-rim bowls and marine shell cup and gorget imagery may be key identifiers for Thrown-Away. Likewise, the many examples of ceramic conehead rattles also alerts us to the identity of the wild twin. We suggest that the Caddoan/Siouan oicotype provides an important mythic charter for religious sodalities in which the Hero Twins are objects of supplication for personal power. George Lankford (2007c, 2007d), for example, points out the charter myth for the Sun Dance in which Long Arm, chief of the celestial powers, seized Spring-Boy (Thrown-Away) and tortured him until Lodge-Boy rescued him. In the course of rescuing Spring-Boy, Lodge-Boy severed the hand of Long Arm, the hand that is seen today as the Hand constellation and that was known to and represented by Mississippians as the hand (or hand-and-eye) motif. In the Hidatsa Naxpike ritual, the men who were to undergo torture were awakened by 12 young men painted red and white, wearing bladders on their heads (Lowie 1919:429). The Menomini also have a charter myth involving the

334 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

Hero Twins, wherein they sing Medicine Lodge songs and at the same time rattle the tiny stones in their heads, thus connecting the rattle-head motif in myth and ceramics, and a ritual sodality, and perhaps with an eastern version of the Sun Dance (Lankford and Dye 2014:46–48; Skinner and Satterlee 1915:341). Shell Cups and Gorgets The most common nonlocal material at MCR sites is marine shell, fashioned into beads, cups, gorgets, and other paraphernalia and regalia. While the shell was imported from the western Gulf Coast (Marquardt and Kozuch 2016), judging from local MCR styles much of the processing and engraving took place in the MCR. Six conch shell cups were recovered from Castalian Springs (Myer 1928b), and four cups were found at the DeGraffenreid site (Smith and Moore 1999). As noted above, only one of the DeGraffenreid cups was engraved. The Lightner Cup (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 20), although found at the Spiro site, has strong connections to the MCR and may have been crafted at an MCR workshop. Carved in the Classic Braden style, the cup may have been created by the artist who carved the Myer Gorget from Castalian Springs (Dye 2004:Figure 1). Shell cups manufactured in the Classic Braden style were crafted as early as AD 1050 but became more common by AD 1150 to 1200 (Brown 2011:38; Pauketat 2004). Steponaitis et al. (2011) consider the Lightner Cup an important connection to the Thruston Tablet; both exhibit the theme of the Hero Twins (see below). Marine shell gorgets in the MCR represent both local and nonlocal styles. Locally crafted gorgets are expressed in three styles: Cox Mound, Eddyville, and Nashville (Beahm 2013; Smith and Beahm 2010a, 2010b, 2011), though it should probably be acknowledged that Muller (1966:174) considers the Cox Mound style a “possible regional variant of Eddyville.” Artisans crafting Cox Mound–style gorgets created the design of four crested bird heads, equally spaced around a looped square that surrounds an equal-arm cross-in-circle within a rayed circle (Lankford 2004). As noted above, the latter motif is also found on negative-painted ceramics. Cox Mound gorgets have been found at the Castalian Springs and Rutherford-Kizer sites in Sumner County, the Travellers Rest site (40DV11) in Davidson County, the Gray Farm site (40WM11) in Williamson County, and the Williams Farm site (40SW40) in Stewart County (Brain and Phillips 1996:9–12). Grave 34 at Castalian Springs, located at the base of Mound 1, contained

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 335

two Cox Mound–style gorgets and two Nashville-style triskele gorgets. Five Cox Mound–style gorgets recovered from Castalian Springs were located in Mound 1, constructed between AD 1250 and 1325 (Smith and Beahm 2010a, 2010b). Two of these gorgets were in association with Nashville-style triskeles. A Cox Mound–style gorget from Rutherford-Kizer was found in a burial mound with two Nashville-style triskele gorgets. Eddyville-style human figural gorgets have been found at Castalian Springs and Rutherford-Kizer. The Myer “Dancing Warrior” gorget, also found in Grave 34 at Castalian Springs, is executed in the Classic Braden A style (Dye 2004:Figure 1). The “Dancing Warrior” figure resembles the Lightner Cup to such an extent that both could be assigned to the Eddyville style. The Castalian Springs mortuary assemblage shows remarkable similarity to a bundle found with Burial 122 from the Craig Mound at Spiro (Beahm 2013:251; Brown and Rogers 1999), which had two copper gorgets with four crested birds and a copper plate depicting a human head with Long-Nosed god mask ear ornaments in Classic Braden style. Lankford (2008:155) has argued that the Hero Twins, as transcendental weather beings, could shape-shift, taking on the form of crested birds as well as cardinal directions spirits. Long-Nosed god masks reference one of the Hero Twins, either Lodge-Boy (aka Thunder Boy) or Thrown-Away (aka Lightning Boy). Nashville-style triskele gorgets have a central whorl motif with either a three- or four-part swirl (Beahm 2013:248; Smith and Beahm 2010a). The classic form is characterized by a center dot within a rotational motif (triskele), nested within a plain band that is surrounded by a pitted band containing a series of interspersed circles (this latter band is often called the “ophidian band”). The gorget has a scalloped edge. In one of the burials of the group—“resembling the radii of a circle” (Jones 1876:42)—that surrounded a large ceremonial hearth or altar in a mound on the east bank of the Cumberland opposite Nashville, Jones found a female with a triskele gorget upon her chest. She was also accompanied by numerous shells at her neck, arms, waist, and ankles, and placed in a stone-box grave that Jones (1876:43) noted “had been constructed with such care that little or no earth had fallen in, and the skeleton rested as [though] it were in a perfect vault.” The treatment of this individual may bear comparison to the female recorded by Myer at Castalian Springs in Burial 34, which yielded five gorgets in three distinct styles, demonstrating that several gorget styles were contemporary in terms of overall use, notwithstanding issues of curation.

336 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

Overall, several sites in the MCR possess burial assemblages that include various combinations of Cox Mound–style crested birds, Eddyville-style human figures, and Nashville-style triskeles. Two other types of gorgets in the MCR suggest stronger connections to areas farther east and south, rather than to the American Bottom in the late thirteenth century and throughout the fourteenth century. A Late Braden human figural Cartersville-style gorget from Rutherford-Kizer dates between ca. AD 1300 and 1375. Two of these Cartersville-style gorgets were also found at Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:50). The dual anthropomorphic figures may depict the Hero Twins. A second, largely nonlocal genre of gorgets in the Crib theme (Brain and Phillips 1996:21–24) is represented in the MCR, but the two examples, both found in Mound 1 at Castalian Springs and deposited between AD 1250 and 1325, are distinctly local in style of execution. Middle Cumberland Region Stone Slabs

The Braden style is evident on three incised stone slabs or tablets: Hutcherson, Myer, and Thruston. The Hutcherson Tablet was found in a rockshelter on a bluff overlooking the narrows of the Harpeth River, about a mile downstream from Mound Bottom (Ferguson 1968). The Hutcherson Tablet is a diamond-shaped limestone slab, approximately 51 cm in height, badly worn, with considerable loss of incising on the lower half. Robert Ferguson studied the Hutcherson Tablet at some length in 1968 and produced the most complete rendering to date (Figure 15.4). Although we have some reservations about its accuracy in every detail, we do accept that, given Ferguson’s opportunity to examine the stone with some care, his line drawing based on his own tracings remains the best-available guide. With the face in profile, the vigorous and expressive incising exhibits the sharp angularity seen on some of the heads on the Late Braden–style shell cups from Spiro. Balancing the substantial hair roach that descends along the back of the head and springing from the pair of beads at the top of the head, the broad forelock arcs out and extends beneath the point of the chin. The forelock treatment is a radical departure from the long, slender ones that Phillips and Brown (1978) described as a standard Braden A feature, but a common element in Braden B examples. Nothing exists in Braden that is quite like the Hutcherson Tablet forelock in width and scale, except for a strange hooded figure in Braden C, if indeed this is still a forelock (see Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 113). Yet as Phillips and Brown (1978:85,

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 337

Figure 15.4. Rendering of the incising on the Hutcherson Tablet, by Robert B. Ferguson, 1968 (from Ferguson 1968:1). The Hutcherson Tablet itself, found in a rockshelter on the Harpeth River in Cheatham County, Tennessee, not far from the Mound Bottom site, is in the collection of the Tennessee State Museum, Nashville. (Used courtesy of the Middle Cumberland Archaeological Society)

1984:Plates 128, 157, 187, 192, 280, and 309) noted, there are massive beaded forelocks in the Craig style. Although there is no forked-eye-surround, the diamond-shaped eye, on the other hand, is ever present in Braden A and frequent in Braden B; an open mouth and well-defined, protruding lips are hallmarks of the Late Braden style, though the forward position of the mouth and chin are un-Braden-like. While there does appear to be an earspool, we cannot identify a necklace or any evidence of a bilobedarrow—essential elements of the Braden style. In correspondence with Ferguson in the mid-1980s, James A. Brown indicated that the Braden B–style Plate 61 was closest to the style of engraving

338 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

on the Hutcherson stone—a shell cup noted for its “boldness of execution” and its intermediate position between Braden B and C (Brown, personal communication, 2010; Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 61). Brown also referenced Braden C (Plates 102–104) for the hair and headdress style. Two remaining features to consider are the lines on the face and the posture of the body, with the right arm angled 90 degrees at the elbow and extending straight across the body. The lines above and below the figure’s mouth replicate none of the Spiro shell cups, though they capture the essence of several lined faces, among them ones with the T-bar element of the Akron Grid, as seen on the Stovall Cup (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 6). If we are searching for patterns of ritual and social linkages with Cahokia, then evidence of modification from a preexisting element seems to be the case. The Late Braden–style Hutcherson Tablet is clearly, we suggest, a local product, an expression of known content in a homegrown idiom, but with an ultimate derivation from the American Bottom Classic Braden style. Finally, and indeed curiously, the handling of the warrior’s overall posture on the Hutcherson Tablet will take further study, because there remains some uncertainty about what is actually depicted below the head—perhaps an arm holding a severed head, though Ferguson clearly did not perceive such an element. That component alone would bring the subject matter of the Hutcherson Tablet in line with the Classic Braden–style depictions on the two repoussé copper plates excavated by John Rogan from Mound C at Etowah (King 2004:Figures 1, 11). But we would still have to resolve the fact that only in Craig-style cups (see Phillips and Brown 1984:Plate 192), and other notable objects such as the Potter Gorget, do figures reach across the body with their right arm as the Hutcherson figure does. Apropos the stance depicted on some gorgets—for example, the Douglass Gorget and the Myer Gorget from Castalian Springs, where, with arms widespread, the figure moves in one direction while looking in another—this Hutcherson body stance reflects independent thought and could have helped to shape the Craig style, whose place of origin is still unknown. The Myer Tablet bears an incised image of a winged anthropomorph— frequently identified as a “birdman”—that we believe represents a Hero Twin. Found by Myer at Castalian Springs, this tablet relies upon a different set of Braden hallmarks than does the Hutcherson slab, just as it seems to draw upon characteristic elements of works outside the Spiro corpus. The limestone slab, roughly 23 × 30 cm, was reported by Myer to be a surface find, and he published two line drawings (Myer 1917, 1928a; Thruston 1897:Figure 249). Unfortunately, the whereabouts of the Myer Tablet is

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 339

unknown. The design across the lower half of the face resembles a single Classic Braden face (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 11). Other appearances of this design can be found on the faces of Hightower-style gorgets from Etowah, Hixon, Toqua, and Humphreys County, Tennessee (see Brain and Phillips 1996:Ga-Brt-E8, Ga-Brt-E10, and Ga-Brt-E11); on the two Rogan plates from Etowah; and on the repoussé copper plate from Burial 7, Mound 3, at Lake Jackson, Florida (Jones 1982). Myer compared his “birdman” figure to the copper plate found by John Wesley Powell near Peoria, Illinois (Thomas 1894:308, Figure 192). The serpentine arms with oval or ovoid markings and the semicircular wing feathers compare favorably with those on Braden-style shell-cup fragments (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 35B, see also Plates 112 and 123G). They appear more frequently on various Craig-style shell-cup “birdmen,” including the well-known NMAI cup and others (see Phillips and Brown 1984:Plates 203, 205, 299). The semicircular coverts also appear on a number of High­ tower gorgets, on the Rogan plates, and on one of the repoussé copper plates from Burial 10, Mound 3, Lake Jackson. The plume may owe its ultimate source to Picture Cave (Diaz-Granados et al. 2015), but other applications of this piece of regalia are also present on copper plates from Spiro, such as the Wehrle Collection human-head cutout (Brose et al. 1985:142, Plate 101). Finally, the three-fingers motif is a classic Hemphill-style design element for ceramics from Moundville (see Moore 1905:212, Figure 126, 1907:349, Figure 6; Steponaitis and Knight 2004:170–171, Figure 6d; Knight and Steponaitis 2011:208; Phillips 2012). The concentric circles on the figure’s chest, or at least as Myer depicts them, are not motifs in the Braden style (Phillips and Brown 1978:149), though they appear on the Douglass Gorget (see Figure 15.5) and three times on one of the Hero Twins on the Thruston Tablet (Steponaitis et al. 2011). We interpret these circles as chunkey stones, reflecting the Hero Twins’ connection with the chunkey game. The figure on the Myer Tablet is certainly a “birdman,” who we suggest is a Hero Twin. The variety of iconographic features shared with other objects suggests that the artist drew upon a broad range of iconographical source elements and motifs. The third limestone slab, the Thruston Tablet, was found near Castalian Springs and is executed in what can only be seen as a local (Eddyville?) style dating between AD 1250 and 1350. The tablet is a multilayered collection of episodes—a palimpsest and a storyboard—that are part of a mythic narrative whose subject matter is the Hero Twins (Steponaitis et al. 2011). Such myths often charter ritual institutions, especially religious sodalities.

340 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

The tablet shows strong stylistic and thematic connections to Mississippian imagery over a wide area. In particular, the tablet bears close similarities to the Castalian Springs Myer Gorget (Myer 1917:Plate 7; Brain and Phillips 1996:53; Dye 2004:Figure 1) and the Lightner Cup from Spiro (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 20), both of which we place in the Eddyville style, an eastern branch of the Late Braden style (Brown 2004a:108–109). While the Hutcherson, Myer, and Thruston Tablets pose interesting iconographical puzzles, they remain essentially fragments: figural representations that are not in themselves complete and that are divorced from the context of their use and associated artifacts. Stylistically, the Hutcherson stone reveals the hand of an energetic and expressive artist, but one who fails to maintain the compositional balance that the Classic Braden style exemplifies. Nonetheless, the Hutcherson Tablet warrants further examination to identify any additional details that might bring us closer to its entire narrative. The Myer Tablet communicates an amalgam of contemporary Mississippian iconographic markers or motifs, without becoming a convincing artistic whole. Some of this may be due to Myer’s rendering of this missing piece. The Thruston Tablet clearly depicts the mythic episodes of the Hero Twins and draws our attention to several figural representations that find their home in the MCR. It is important to note that all three tablets may visualize culture heroes we now recognize as the Hero Twins. Cahokian Expansion and Symbolic Weaponry

In this section, we briefly discuss seven types of symbolic weaponry: Cahokia-type ground chert spatulate celts, crown-form maces, long-pole spatulate celts, Ramey knives, sword-form bifaces, monolithic axes, and talon-effigy bifaces. The MCR offers evidence of early Cahokian symbolic weaponry dating to the late tenth through the twelfth centuries. A developmental continuum includes a variety of symbolic weaponry well represented in the MCR, which circulated throughout the Mississippian world. The earliest evidence for symbolic weaponry in the MCR has been found at Mound Bottom, including long-pole spatulate celts (AD 950–1150) and crown-form maces (AD 900–1250). Ground and polished long-pole spatulate celts, the symbolic weapon type most frequently found in the American Bottom, are commonly manufactured from “greenstone” (Pauketat 1983). Gregory Perino (1964) reported the discovery of the 47 cm “Grove Spud” in St. Clair County, Illinois, and Timothy Pauketat (1983) has documented the recovery of other long-pole spatulate celts in the Greater Cahokia/

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 341

American Bottom region, while, more recently, Emerson (1996) describes a long-pole spatulate celt from the collection of John Sutter of Edwardsville, Illinois, and quite possibly recovered from Cahokia itself. Long-pole spatulate celts (aka long-handled “spuds”) were circulated throughout the Mississippian world between AD 950 and 1150. Edwin Curtiss recovered a 29 cm long-pole spatulate celt during his work in 1878 at Mound Bottom, excavating on behalf of Frederic Ward Putnam of the Peabody Museum at Harvard (Moore and Smith 2009:92); he also found two Cahokia-style chunkey stones (see items 78-6-10/14128, 14123, and 14073, respectively, Peabody Museum website), which date from about AD 850 to 1200. Another long-pole spatulate celt (nearly 46 cm in length) was found at the Old Town site (40WM2), a fortified mound center on the Harpeth River in Williamson County (Jones 1876:87, Figure 54). At the Byser Farm site in Davidson County, a celt was found with an overall length of 28 cm (Cox 1985:36, 84; Thruston 1890:295, Plate 15). The Byser Farm site has recently been identified as a peripheral component of the better-known Brick Church Pike Mounds (40DV39), a Mississippian center with dated mound construction in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries (Barker and Kuttruff 2010; Smith 2011). Thruston reported and illustrated two additional long-pole spatulate celts found near Brentwood in Williamson County (Thruston 1890:295, Figure 208). The bit or blade portion of another presumably long-pole greenstone spatulate celt was found during a salvage operation in 1969 at the DeGraffenreid site. Outside their concentration in the American Bottom, long-pole spatulate celts have been found throughout the Mississippian world (Pauketat 1983). Emerson (1996:127) endorsed Pauketat’s (1983:7) and Perino’s (1964:4) suggestion that the Tennessee–Cumberland region “played a significant role in long-stemmed spud manufacture and distribution and may have been a main supplier of spuds to the American Bottom elite.” Crown-form maces are often visualized in Late Braden–style shell carvings, but they were in circulation and ritual use in the MCR between approximately AD 1150 and 1250. The raw material for many of these hypertrophic weapons was quarried in Stewart and surrounding counties to the west of the MCR. The result of skilled crafting, these immensely impressive items symbolized authority and power and were used for ritual performances. A petroglyph illustrating a crown-form mace—displaying two attached forelocks—is located on a bluff above Mound Bottom. The mace was first recorded in 1923 by noted Tennessee ornithologist Albert F. Ganier, who brought it to the attention of Myer (Ganier 1948). One of the

342 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

most notable examples—crafted of Dover flint and almost 39 cm long—was found in a stone-box grave in southern Kentucky just north of Sumner County, Tennessee (Thruston 1897:252b, Plate 14b, no. 3). Slightly smaller, at 33.6 cm, another Dover flint mace was discovered in Sumner County on property adjacent to the Rutherford-Kizer site (Thruston 1890:243–244, Figure 151, 1897:Plate 14b, no. 1). Crown-form maces are prominently represented on one of the late thirteenth-century Rogan plates from Etowah (King 2004:Figure 1) and on one of the copper plates from Mound 3 at Lake Jackson (Jones 1982). Although they are illustrated on Late Braden–style engraved shell cups (Brown 1996:2:474–476; Phillips and Brown 1978:153), they are not found on other Classic Braden material, except for two Eddyville-style figural gorgets that date to around AD 1250: the Myer Gorget from Castalian Springs (Smith and Beahm 2010b) and the Douglass Gorget from New Madrid County, Missouri (Figure 15.5). The Castalian Springs and Douglass gorgets illustrate anthropomorphic subjects, each adorned with a copper bilobed arrow, shell beads, and a bellows-shaped apron; each figure is armed with a mace, and each carries a severed head. As Brown and Dye (2007) note, these depictions are part of a central mythic narrative that communicates a cosmological allegory of the instauration and transfer of sacred powers, as well as resurrection of the dead. Symbolic weaponry proved to be crucial ritual gear for tribute performances conjuring, honoring, and supplicating the Hero Twins. Polished Cahokia-type ground chert spatulate celts were prominent in the Midwest from AD 1150 to 1250 (Brown and Kelly 2000:479; Cobb 2000:50; Titterington 1938:6). Curtiss found near Mound Bottom one of these bell-shaped or flared-bit celts (PM 78-6–10/14125; Moore and Smith 2009:92, Figure 97). Gates P. Thruston (1890:230, Figure 137) illustrates two unpolished, knapped spatulate celts of this type from Mississippian cemeteries in the MCR (Phillips 1939:1:253). Ramey knives date between AD 1050 and 1300 and are the most common Mill Creek chert “display” lithic. In the American Bottom they occur singly and in caches in domestic structures and with burials (Cobb 2000:70–71; Milner 1984:92; Pauketat 1983). Outside the American Bottom they tend to be associated with mortuary goods (Conrad 1991; Santeford 1982:254–258). Vermilion et al. (2003) note that Ramey knives from the American Bottom region and its hinterlands are typically placed in burials, in caches, or in wall trenches. As most are found around the American Bottom or to the north, the ones from the MCR would be rare items (Thruston 1897:Plate 12; Vermilion et al.

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 343

Figure 15.5. Rendering of the incised design on the Douglass Gorget, New Madrid County, Missouri; marine shell, diameter 10.5 cm. (American Museum of Natural History, New York. From Thruston 1890:Pl. 17)

2003:Figure 5). Ramey knives probably morphed over time into the larger sword-form bifaces in the late thirteenth century. The production locale shifted from Mill Creek chert (Ramey knives) in the Midwest to Fort Payne chert and other cherts in the Midsouth for the larger sword-form bifaces (Cobb 2000:67, 205; Winters 1981). Sword-form bifaces (aka Duck River swords) are well known from the MCR (Cox 1985:76; Parish 2013; Thruston 1890:238, Figure 149), while shorter examples (aka Duck River knives) are even more common and identical in size and form to Ramey knives, except that they are made from local cherts (Moore and Smith 2009:222). Perhaps one of the best examples of the swords is from the DeGraffenreid site, and it offers a revealing look at

344 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

the mortuary deposition of ceremonial regalia. In the burial mound nearest to the main platform, Joseph Jones (1876) discovered an octagonal stonewalled burial encircled by nine other stone-box graves. The hierarchical layout of these interments suggests the high status of this burial mound and the lineage or social house represented by it. The principal burial, presumably male, was seated upright with legs crossed in front, and accompanied, most notably, by a 56 cm long “stone sword” clenched in the right hand. A ceramic vessel had been placed on the left side of the figure, and two large marine shells coated on the interior with red ochre lay on the right; the grave also contained flakes of mica (Jones 1876:58–59, 62; Smith 1994). One of the nine auxiliary graves that surrounded this main burial contained four small repoussé copper plates—symbol badges that were most likely part of a headdress—each stamped with a cross and placed on the head of the interred. (Three of these symbol badges or headdress ornaments have been lost; the remaining one is in the NMAI, cat. no. 07956.) This same burial held a shell-tempered hooded bottle, negative-painted with a crossin-circle design inside a rayed circle. A 1969 archaeological salvage project at this site revealed copper staining on a deer ilium, further evidence of copper and/or copper artifacts (Smith 1994:107). Talon effigy bifaces are virtually restricted to the Middle and Lower reaches of the Cumberland and the Lower Duck Rivers. Numerous examples have been reported (Dye 2004:Figures 17, 18); they are most prominently contextualized and rendered as symbolic weaponry held in the hands of the Hero Twins in Hightower-style shell gorgets (Dye 2004: Figure 6). Monolithic axes date within the fourteenth century. Joseph Jones found one such ax, the first recorded, in a mound opposite the mouth of Lick Branch, on the eastern bank of the Cumberland River opposite Nashville (Jones 1876:41–46, Figure 11). Several other monolithic axes have been found in Middle Tennessee (Brehm and Smotherman 1989; Waring 1968; Webb and DeJarnette 1942), including the Weatherly ax, which was found in 1968 on the chest of an adult burial in a stone-box grave in DeKalb County (Carter 2018). But Jones’s discovery nearly 100 years earlier at the East Nashville Mounds (40DV4) is especially notable for its context: in a burial mound of elaborate arrangement—with lavishly beaded interments of uncertain number encircling an “altar or fire vessel” (Jones 1876:42)— Jones documented a Nashville-style triskele gorget on the breast of a female (NMAI, cat. no. 007844), a child accompanied by a female effigy bottle (NMAI, cat. no. 007412), other individuals interred with large shell cups,

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 345

copper-covered wooden ear ornaments, and what was evidently the corroded remains of a copper plate, in addition to a male and female placed together near the “altar,” the latter with a negative-painted lobed bottle, while beneath the head of the male lay the monolithic ax. The entire assemblage within this mound constitutes another example of the kind of lineage or social house entombment also seen at DeGraffenreid. Nonlocal goods found in the MCR—especially Castalian Springs, DeGraffenreid, East Nashville Mounds, Mound Bottom, Rutherford-Kizer, and Sellars (40WI1)—include marine shell (beads, cups, and gorgets), copper, greenstone, and mica (Beahm 2013:43; Moore and Smith 2009; Smith and Moore 1999). Copper is usually found in burial contexts as sheet copper formed as arrow-shaped “badges” or as a cladding or veneer for artifacts, especially beads and earspools (Jones 1876; Moore and Smith 2009:13; Smith 1992:184). Most of the Mississippian copper is from the Appalachian Mountains (Ehrhardt 2009; Goad 1980). Exotic greenstone (chlorite schist) was shaped into symbolic weaponry discussed above; known sources are located in the southern Appalachians in east-central Alabama (Gall 1995; Wilson 2001). Mica is usually crafted from thin sheets and has been found in the MCR at Castalian Springs, DeGraffenreid, Rutherford-Kizer, and Sellars (Moore and Smith 2009:46). The main source of mica available to Mississippian people would have been the Blue Ridge and Piedmont regions of North Carolina and South Carolina (Benbow et al. 2000; Walthall 1981). Representations of symbolic weaponry associated with anthropomorphic imagery engraved on cups, gorgets, and stone tablets served as signs of power, status, and wealth, being retained as heirlooms, perhaps of specific lineages or social houses. Exotic goods were also interred for their use in the afterlife, where such ceremonial paraphernalia and regalia might have been employed in combative engagements necessary for the passage of the soul to the realm of the dead (Dye 2004; Marceaux and Dye 2007). Earth Mother and Hero Twins imagery is deeply rooted in the MCR, providing a process of divergence from Classic Braden and American Bottom ritual institutions that are also seen at Etowah (Hightower), Moundville (Hemphill), the Lower Mississippi Valley (Holly Bluff), and Spiro (Craig). Earth Mother and the Hero Twins

Religion and ritual shaped a vital aspect of Mississippian identity. Based on a set of core values, religious beliefs may have been manipulated and

346 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

reinterpreted by power-holders to exclude and marginalize those lacking status and wealth. In this sense, religion and power were interwoven, legitimizing some members while isolating others. Thus, religious power in Mississippian communities would have provided a platform for an aristocratic coterie to maintain hold over power, resources, and social institutions, while promoting a shared worldview based on charter narratives and rituals that confirmed elite sources of divine power as both bona fide and legitimate. As religion shaped human responses to the world around them, it also structured their pursuit of power and wealth through political maneuvering, ritual practice, and social action. When people moved out of the American Bottom in the late tenth or early eleventh century, they carried with them institutions such as ritual sodalities and social houses. Veneration of widely shared Mississippian culture heroes and deities were crucial for health, longevity, power, and wealth. The Earth Mother and the Hero Twins are the most prominent and visible transcendental beings in the MCR, materialized in various media and forms of representative imagery. While these deities may have been emphasized as independent transcendental beings, we suggest that they were linked as two articulated structural and balanced oppositions in religious thought. Brown (2007b:102–103) notes the necessity of having “logically consistent narratives and enduring cosmological identifications” to secure “mythically chartered statuses and ceremonies,” and he points to the way that “cross-cutting iconic details . . . and different recombinations [of such elements] make possible the construction of a plausible narrative.” He (Brown 2007b:103) reminds us, “These images are about supernaturals, and their portrayal is not about how power was achieved in reality, but how it was represented allegorically.” In the end, the birdman figure—our Hero Twins—“in antiquity has to represent a metaphor of social continuity through the regeneration of human life” (Brown 2007b:103). Earth Mother The supernatural figure known as the Old Woman Who Never Dies, revered as the ancestor of all the Mandan and Hidatsa people (Bowers 1950/2004:197–205), and more broadly acknowledged as a Dhegihan Sioux deity (Diaz-Granados 2004:142–144; Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2004; Mueller and Fritz 2016), maintains an influence over life itself, just as she exercises power over agriculture. Her supreme authority in such matters is recognized in the seasonal arrival and departure of migrating species—with

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 347

which she is deeply associated—and celebrated in the sheer number of her progeny, whose lives and souls she monitors and shepherds. She is a pivotal figure intimately connected with both This World and the Beneath World, and it is in the latter capacity that she is directly associated with fertility, vegetation, water, and, most definitely, serpents. In many respects, then, the Old Woman Who Never Dies is a local manifestation of the Native American Earth Mother, just as the “Woman in the Patterned Shawl” (Sharp et al. 2011)—who has also been called the “Middle Cumberland Changing Woman” (Smith and Sharp 2014) in recognition of her constancy throughout change—fills that role for the Native communities of the MCR. As local iconographical manifestations of the Earth Mother, these supernatural personages are responsible for life and death: they serve both as the guardians of children during their lives and as the keepers of their souls at the time of the children’s deaths. In the American Bottom region, as in the MCR, these Earth Mother figures bear the singularly important responsibility for the health, vitality, and continuance of the communities that venerate her, make effigy rattles and effigy vessels of her, conduct the essential rituals and sacred rites to communicate with her, and entreat her for life’s necessities and blessings: among which we can certainly name food, health, offspring, and a future beyond and despite death (Mills 1994; Mills and Slobodin 1994). Several scholars have noted the full-blown symbolic potency of the Stirling phase (AD 1100–1200) female flint-clay sculptures of the Cahokian region known as the Birger figurine and the West figurine, each exhibiting a primary concern with snakes, through close physical association and intimacy with them (Colvin 2012; Emerson 1982, 1989, 2015; Fortier 1992b; Mueller and Fritz 2016; Prentice 1986). The Birger figurine, encircled by an immense feline-headed serpent, controls it with her hoe; the West figurine, with her coiled snake turban, has rattles at the side of her head, while her left hand controls a serpent at its head. Nothing quite this explicit, perhaps, has yet been found in the MCR, but much else is in evidence that may demonstrate Cahokian connections or show how local mortuary and ritual practices may have received a major iconographical and symbolic boost from the spread of such knowledge and realized a concomitant explosion of artistic expression along comparable paths. If we accept the close association between the Braden-style warrior and the falcon-based “birdman,” then we might acknowledge that this association is of enormous importance in understanding the most highly

348 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

developed ceramic tradition of the MCR: the dozens of female effigies in the MCR marked with a large-scale, wrap-around barred oval, an acknowledged serpent sign (Phillips and Brown 1978:147, Plate 2) whose replication time and again on these negative-painted female effigies confirms an intimate and explicit connection between the beliefs and iconography of the Cahokian polity and those of the numerous sites in the MCR where these female figures have been found (Sharp 2019). Whether this symbol carried the same or any similar meaning on the Cahokian shell cups ultimately deposited at Spiro is beyond the scope of this chapter. Perhaps it did. Perhaps with this design upon him the Braden-style dancing figure—whom we believe to be one of the Hero Twins—is, in this manifestation, just as much a “birdman” of the Above World as he is, let us say, when covered with ogees on his arm and torso (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plate 19), a “snakeman” of the Beneath World, an avatar of the Great Serpent that is the master of the Beneath World (Emerson 1989; Lankford 2007b; Sharp 2019). However we choose to describe this barred-oval motif now—as we work to understand its full significance—what is certainly clear is that a Braden-style figure wore this design into the MCR. There it remained, flourished, and multiplied on numerous local representations of a female deity or Earth Mother figure whose own primary association is with the graves of infants, children, and subadults. The Earth Mother was supplicated to ensure their safe passage to the Path of Souls, the reincarnation and regeneration of their souls, and their return—through rebirth—to the women, families, and communities that lost these children (Sharp 2018, 2019). Hero Twins Paul Radin (1950) regarded the numerous Hero Twins’ narratives as the basic myth of North America. As the subjects of these popular charter myths, the Hero Twins, while recognized as two individuals, may also be depicted as one individual in Mississippian iconography, typically the wild twin. In addition to their rich suite of ritual regalia, they are often shown holding symbolic weaponry: a crown-form mace, spatulate celts, hypertrophic bifaces, or raptor talon hooks (Marceaux and Dye 2007), in addition to anthropomorphic heads, chunkey stones, giant moths, and serpents. In their most explicit paired form, the Hero Twins are portrayed in Hightower-style gorgets as “Thunder” beings with wings, tail feathers, and talon feet. As “birdmen” they are illustrated in ritual movement, perhaps dancing in the dawn time or traveling to the celestial realm.

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 349

The mythic corpus details numerous activities of the Hero Twins, especially scenes of combat against formidable, cannibalistic giants who are ultimately defeated and decapitated, but not before the Hero Twins are captured, and often tortured and dismembered. Despite whatever suffering they endure, their supernatural powers always enable one twin to revivify the other twin. Their close association with the Earth Mother, often as an “old woman” in mythic charters, links two of the most fundamental Mississippian religious sodalities. While the Earth Mother is supplicated for longevity and reincarnation, Mississippian people venerated the Hero Twins for success in interpolity conflict and the amelioration of weather events, perhaps two of the most crucial phenomena for surviving in the quotidian precontact world. The Hero Twins as chunkey players are associated with crested birds, which are sometimes attached to ritual staffs. Lankford (2004, 2007a, 2008) links crested birds as weather powers with the Hero Twins ability to shape-shift and transform themselves. Chunkey games—based on widely accepted and known protocols that included artistic representations, ceremonial regalia, charter myths, a gambling ethos, regulations and rules, and ritual practices—were important bouts of mortal game playing. Primordial contests, in which deities, such as the Hero Twins, challenged cannibalistic giants to deadly contests, often ended with unfortunate outcomes. The Hero Twins mythic narratives have a well-documented presence in eastern North America (Hall 1989, 1997; Hultkrantz 1967; Lankford 1998; Myers 2002; Radin 1948b; Sumner 1951). Such archetypal and etiological explanations usually focus on connections of the dawn time with the contemporary world, justifying and legitimizing elite claims, offices, regalia, and titles. Primordial games were typically predicated on the players potentially forfeiting their lives. A recurring mythic motif finds the losers often being decapitated (Lankford 2008:163–190). These inalienable objects, being gifted within the context of ritual sodalities and social houses, thus venerated the Hero Twins, who played the chunkey game, among a suite of games, as a deadly contest of life and death. Life and death were also demonstrated through legerdemain in which a ritual sodality or medicine society member is decapitated and then restored to life. The Hightowerstyle gorgets that illustrate the Hero Twins as facing one another clearly reveal agnathous decapitation by severing the head from the body with a talon effigy biface (Dye 2004:Figure 6). In the mythic charters the Hero Twins come into the world to defeat evil giants who are destroying humans.

350 · Robert V. Sharp, Kevin E. Smith, and David H. Dye

In their adventures, they pursue their father’s killers and engage them in mortal combat with their superhero weapons: lightning (bifacial knives) and thunder (war clubs). The Hero Twins’ accoutrements are the ceremonial property of aristocratic ritual sodalities and social houses, and as iconographic themes their central importance in Mississippian society serves as powerful forces of nature that are anthropomorphized as war and weather beings. As mortal game players, especially chunkey players, they defeat the forces of danger and evil in the world, providing models for ritual instauration and resurrection. While the Earth Mother was responsible for rebirth and reincarnation, the Hero Twins possessed the complementary powers of resurrecting the dead. Conclusion

Mississippian religion shaped beliefs and worldviews according to its practitioners’ conception of the sacred. The belief system influenced cultural identity, economics, human relations, and politics. We suggest a mythic narrative connection between the female effigies and Hero Twins iconography that reflects religious narratives employed as charters for ritual sodalities and social houses. While these charters extend back to the early populations that migrated into the MCR, they are also depicted in the American Bottom hinterland as cave art (Diaz-Granados et al. 2015) and flint-clay statuary (Prentice 1986). Ceramics, marine shell cups and gorgets, symbolic weaponry, and stone slab imagery all point to linkages between the Earth Mother and the Hero Twins as central and dominant culture heroes and deities in the MCR that have their origins in the American Bottom. Mississippians appear suddenly on the archaeological horizon in the MCR of central Tennessee in the twelfth century. When Mississippian towns are evident, their presence arrives with many of the cultural hallmarks of contemporary American Bottom communities to the north: cosmologically potent sacra, monumental earthwork constructions, mounds and open plazas, and hierarchical ritual institutions that served to honor, supplicate, and venerate well-established and well-known midwestern culture heroes. These institutions undergird an entrenched aristocracy through mythic charters and ritual regalia. Centrally positioned in the Midsouth, the MCR is an important locale to evaluate evidence for the dispersal of the Braden style from its Midwest homeland at Cahokia and the American Bottom, to interior administrative and ritual centers. A suite

Cahokians and the Circulation of Ritual Goods in the Middle Cumberland Region · 351

of objects in Classic Braden style (Brown 2011) is clearly present in the MCR by the first half of the thirteenth century, if not much earlier. Over time, the Braden style transformed, but with continued social articulation with Cahokia, until the collapse of the American Bottom communities in the thirteenth century (Emerson 2015; Kelly 2008). Interactions between the American Bottom and the MCR gave rise to novel cosmology, iconographic themes and styles, and ritual structures. Although Braden-style objects are documented in the MCR, our examination of available evidence suggests migration and then transformation of the Cahokian worldview by these Mississippian communities.

16 The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian Adam King

The Cahokia site has long been considered the birthplace of Mississippian. After all, there is good evidence that the package of material practices and beliefs that became the core of Mississippian over a wide area was assembled there first (Pauketat 1994). There is enough evidence to argue, however, that aspects of those traditions and practices were in use elsewhere in the Midwest and Southeast before and during Cahokia’s “Big Bang.” Cahokia was part of a wider landscape of changes, but it was the first to pull things together in a big and successful way. As a result, Mississippian archaeologists have spent a great deal of ink exploring the Mississippian emergence in the wider Southeast and Midwest, and Cahokia’s part in it. As we understand the site now, Cahokia remained an enormous and influential place from its inception at AD 1050 into the twelfth century. However, by the end of the twelfth century its importance began to wane, and there is evidence that people once drawn to the city returned home (Boles, this volume). This Cahokian diaspora is a continuation of the historical stream started by the “Big Bang” at Cahokia, and the impacts on the wider North American continent are no less important or long-lasting than the Mississippian emergence itself. In the South Appalachian region, Mississippian societies emerged on the heels of Cahokia’s “Big Bang” and seem to have been influenced, at least in part, by events in the American Bottom (Pauketat 2007). While there surely was some level of sustained interaction between the Cahokian sphere and places in the East, something with more profound implications happened with Cahokia’s decline. As I discuss below, starting before the middle of the thirteenth century, contemporary and ancient objects from the Central Mississippi Valley began to appear in archaeological contexts at sites

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 353

like Etowah and Hollywood in northern Georgia and Hixon and Citico in eastern Tennessee. In this chapter, I explore how the Cahokian diaspora impacted the history of Etowah and the development of Mississippian in the South Appalachian region. Etowah and the Cahokian Diaspora

Like Cahokia, the Etowah site had a long history (1000–1550 CE) that was punctuated by some dramatic changes driven by major social transformations (King 2003). One of those transformations came in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries during the Early and Late Wilbanks phases (AD 1250–1375). Our current understanding of the site indicates that Etowah was initially occupied somewhere after 1000 CE and grew to be a modest town with two small mounds by the close of the twelfth century. However, sometime around 1200 CE that town was abandoned, and so too were other important places in the Etowah River valley. The abandonment did not last long, as people returned to Etowah by 1250 CE, and the site and its environs experienced a population and construction explosion. During the Wilbanks phase, Etowah grew to become a formalized central space with three large mounds; a large, clay-lined plaza; smaller plazas; and palisaded precincts, all encircled within a ditch and palisade complex. As monumentality took off at Etowah, five single mound towns appeared within a day’s walk of Etowah, and still others were established farther up and down the Etowah River valley. At this time, Etowah was the largest, and probably most influential, center in the South Appalachian Mississippian region. One of Etowah’s most famous features was built at this time: its burial mound (Mound C) (King 2007a). Mound C has been completely excavated through efforts spanning almost 80 years. Over the course of those investigations, some 366 human graves were excavated within and beneath the seven stages of the mound. In many of those graves were found elaborately decorated objects made from rare and nonlocal materials such as marine shell, nonlocal stone, and native copper. These objects have played an important part in our understanding of Mississippian crafting, imagery, and beliefs. In the initial stages of Mound C (Early Wilbanks phase, 1250–1325 CE) there is information providing clues as to who returned to Etowah to reestablish it after its late twelfth-century abandonment (King 2010). Many people in these early stages were buried with shell gorgets—in fact, more than

354 · Adam King

Figure 16.1. Distribution of gorgets in Mound C, reflecting geographic styles and themes.

are often found at entire sites elsewhere. The distribution of these gorgets in the mound reflects their geographic styles and themes (Figure 16.1). In the northwestern quadrant of the early mound summits were people buried with Hightower-style gorgets depicting the Turkey Cock theme. This style and theme predate the 1250 CE establishment of Etowah and were likely made at important sites in eastern Tennessee. In the southwestern quadrant of the mound were people buried with a series of gorget themes commonly found in the Central Mississippi Valley, including the annular, cruciform, and fylfot themes. I have argued elsewhere (King 2010) that these gorgets represent not just traded items but people and social groups from two different regions, each buried in distinct portions of Mound C. This suggests that Etowah was reoccupied by people not just from the local region but also by people from the Central Mississippi Valley. The Cahokian Diaspora in the East

Gorgets are not the only evidence of connections between Etowah and people in the Central Mississippi Valley. In fact, the most famous objects

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 355

found in Etowah—the Rogan copper plates—also came from the Mississippi. As Brown (2006) has argued, those plates are decorated in the Classic Braden style, whose likely place of origin was the American Bottom and the Cahokian sphere (Brown and Kelly 2000). These two plates are not the only Classic Braden objects found in Mound C. Three other human figural plates, two raptor plates, and three bilobed arrow headdress pieces also were buried with Early Wilbanks graves in Mound C. Beyond copper and shell, there also are eight whole pottery vessels whose decoration and form indicate they were made in the Central Mississippi Valley. In fact, outside of these Central Mississippi Valley materials, the only other nonlocal objects found in these Early Wilbanks graves appear to have come from the Nashville area. These include a triskele gorget and a Nashville Negative Painted pottery vessel. The places of origin and timing of creation of these different Mississippi Valley objects also show a revealing pattern. In the case of the pottery vessels, their form and decoration suggest that they were made between 1200 and 1400 CE in a region that stretches from the Missouri Bootheel to northeastern Arkansas and the Memphis area (Hathcock 1976). The gorget themes present were popular at about the same time and largely in the Ohio Confluence Region of the Mississippi Valley (Brain and Phillips 1996:30, 33, 125). In contrast, the Classic Braden copper objects found in Mound C were made at or around Cahokia a century or more earlier (Brown 2007a). The patterns in the dating and geographic origins of the Central Mississippi Valley objects found in Mound C reveal some of the ways people and objects moved during the Cahokian diaspora. By the end of the twelfth century, important families began leaving Cahokia as its decline began. They left with important ritual objects and regalia, including Classic Braden– decorated copper objects. Some portion of those families went to communities in the Ohio Confluence Region and points southward. Alt (2001, 2006b) has argued that people from these same regions had immigrated to Cahokia as it emerged a century earlier, so some elements of the diaspora were a return. The evidence from Etowah suggests that, after a generation or two, some members of those original families continued their search for new communities, and it led them eastward through the Nashville Basin into northern Georgia. They brought with them their ancient Classic Braden regalia as well as more recently acquired ritual objects like shell gorgets and elaborate bottles. While this particular series of events is not the only one set into motion by the decline of Cahokia, it captures the part of that historical trajectory

356 · Adam King

that brought new people and ideas to the South Appalachian Mississippian region. At Etowah, these events fundamentally altered the history of the site and the wider landscape of the South Appalachian region. The Birdman Lineage at Etowah

The arrival of people and objects from the Central Mississippi Valley brought new ideas, material traditions, and belief practices to Etowah. This is most visibly captured in the impact of the Classic Braden copper objects on local imagery, crafting, and mortuary practices. The key theme depicted on the Classic Braden imagery found at Etowah is known as the Birdman theme. This theme focuses on a human figure with raptor characteristics who is sometimes depicted as a full-formed raptor (Figure 16.2). In addition to the raptor associations, this figure is intimately tied to three key motifs: the bilobed arrow, the mace, and the trophy head. Hall (1997), Diaz-Granados and Duncan (2000), and Brown (2007b) have all shown that this imagery can be connected thematically to a key protagonist in a set of epic narratives still alive among Siouan speakers of the Prairie Plains and Upper Midwest. The figure goes by many names, and specific details of the narratives vary among ethnic groups. Rather than attempt to connect the Mississippian period Birdman imagery to one of these specifically named beings, it is best to consider the Mississippian Birdman as a cognate of those later figures. As such, it is historically and thematically related but, given disjunctures caused by the workings of history, cannot be equated one-to-one with any historically described figure. Despite the varying names and storylines, the Birdman and later cognates all appear to share a set of important themes. It also is important to understand that the Mississippian Birdman imagery likely captures more than one member of a family line, all of whom share these same thematic associations. That line is descended from the sun and is portrayed as a figure that daily rescues day from night, put creation into motion, can represent the axis of the cosmos, and brought the ability to bring souls back from the realm of the dead to humans. He is a great warrior, a raptor, and a being of the Above World. Birdman imagery is absent from the South Appalachian region until Etowah is reoccupied after 1250 CE by people bearing Classic Braden imagery. Not long after Etowah was again occupied, crafters in the region began making a new gorget theme. It was executed in the Hightower style, whose initial Turkey Cock theme was first made somewhere at the beginning of

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 357

Figure 16.2. Rogan plates showing human figure with raptor characteristics.

the thirteenth century (see Sullivan 2007). That new theme, which appears most abundantly in the Early Wilbanks stages of Mound C, is the anthropomorphic theme (Figure 16.3). The anthropomorphic theme depicts a local version of the Birdman. This local version of the Birdman is clearly a blend of local and nonlocal traditions. The theme itself is directly connected to traditions of the American Bottom, but it is executed in the local Hightower style. The figure maintains some of the key associations, including raptor elements and the bilobed arrow. Instead of the mace, the Hightower Birdman wields a stone blade. In addition, the Hightower Birdman appears in a set of subthemes not depicted in the Classic Braden imagery. In each of these subthemes, a single birdman figure is paired with a second. In one subtheme, they appear together, but in all others two birdman figures are shown, each with distinctive facial markings, doing the same things (King 2011). This pairing is unique to Hightower and has many similarities to the Hero Twins

358 · Adam King

Figure 16.3. Early Wilbanks anthromorphic theme, a local version of the Birdman.

narratives later collected by anthropologists and still told by Native Americans across the Southeast (Lankford 1998). The distribution of Birdman imagery in the Early Wilbanks stages of Mound C is revealing (Figure 16.4). First, Birdman imagery generally does not cluster in one area of the mound, but instead is spread across all four quadrants. This suggests that this imagery marks a different kind of role or status than that indicated by the gorgets concentrated on the western side. One possibility is that these images mark a category of people connected to the Birdman. As I will discuss, many people appear to be buried in Mound C with motifs and regalia associated with the Birdman. At the same time, the Hightower version of the Birdman is never found in the same grave with a Classic Braden Birdman image. This further suggests that a distinction was made between local people belonging to a Birdman category and foreign people belonging to that same category. I suspect what is being

Figure 16.4. Distribution of Birdman imagery in early Wilbanks stages, Mound C.

360 · Adam King

Figure 16.5. Location of Late Wilbanks burial events.

symbolized by the Birdman imagery are local and foreign branches of a group of people descended from the Birdman. I have argued elsewhere (King 2011) that the burial sequence in Mound C is a set of rituals designed to do more than simply inter the dead. It was a sequence of events intended to relive the creation of the world. As such, Mound C is a tableau that can be read like a story. I do not claim to understand all of its parts yet, but the Birdman imagery plays an integral part. We can view the Early Wilbanks stages as establishing the founding social groups and recognizing local and nonlocal elements of a Birdmanrelated social category. Through the mortuary activities of the Late Wilbanks stages, those local and nonlocal branches are united. The Late Wilbanks mortuary set encompasses three burial events and four mound construction episodes (Figure 16.5). The first Late Wilbanks

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 361

grave is Larson’s Burial 57. In this grave was buried a single adult male with the regalia of the Birdman. He was placed on a cape of feathers and wore a massive beaded necklace and a headdress containing a Classic Braden birdman copper plate. He had copper celts on either side and a second Classic Braden Birdman plate at his waist, and he was surrounded by shell cups. His grave form was unique. His body and accompaniments were arranged on a surface excavated a few inches below the ground surface and covered by a small single-set post building. Over this was built a small mound that was appended to the northern side of Mound C, which subsequently was incorporated into a mantle of earth that covered all of Mound C. Unlike any other person buried in Mound C, in addition to his Classic Braden Birdman regalia, this man also had a Hightower shell gorget depicting one of the anthropomorphic subthemes. In Larson’s (1971) understanding of the archaeological record, after a relatively short period of time a second large grave was placed to the north of Burial 57. This burial (Burial 38) contained the remains of five women— at least some of whom were accompanied by curated and reburied remains (Goldstein 2014). Each woman was found with remnants of a form of headdress described by Larson (1959) that contained small copper ornaments as well as copper celts. This grave also was covered by a single-set post building that was in turn covered by a small mound. Shortly after Burial 38 was completed, the entire periphery of Mound C was encircled in a ring of graves. These graves are placed end-to-end around the base of the mound, with gaps defining four clusters. Each cluster centered on one of the four corners of the mound. In his discussion of these graves, Larson (1971) states explicitly that they all were interred within a span of weeks rather than years. In addition, the demographic composition of those groups is very consistent. Each included between 11 and 13 graves, with all but one containing the remains of an adult male. Each burial cluster had a single adult female grave. As outlined elsewhere (King 2010), each cluster contained at least one grave with the same style headdress found first in Burial 38. Consistencies in grave goods across clusters and differences among them suggest that they represent four similarly constituted but distinct social groups. After the placement of Burial 57, both the local and nonlocal Birdman imagery effectively disappear. There are two exceptions to this. Larson’s Burial 27 contained a Hightower anthropomorphic gorget, while Burial 67 included a bilobed arrow hair ornament. In the place of the Hightower and Classic Braden Birdman images, membership in the Birdman social

362 · Adam King

Figure 16.6. Items from Larson type headdresses.

category appears to be symbolized by a new set of motifs and regalia. Key among them is the Larson-type headdress (Larson 1959). Those headdresses contain small copper decorations taking three forms: the mace, the feather, and the arrow point. In each case, these three motifs can be connected directly to the original Classic Braden Birdman imagery (Figure 16.6). The mace directly references the raised mace held by the figure in the Rogan plates. It is the weapon used to return order to the cosmos and capture the ability to recycle souls. The feathers represent the wings that mark the Birdman as a raptor and a being of the sky. The arrow point connects to the bilobed arrow, which represents the Birdman’s ability to bring souls back from the realm of the dead (Brown 2007b; Hall 1997). In that final ring of burials were found other distinctly Etowah creations designed to connect the buried individuals to the Birdman. Among those are the copper celt and the stone blade, both weaponry analogous to the mace. The former also appears in the hands of the Birdman in some Classic Braden imagery, while the latter is brandished by the Hightower Birdman. Also appearing in Late Wilbanks graves is a copper-covered wooden hair bun as an element of hair decoration. The Classic Braden Birdman often

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 363

appears with his hair in such a bun at the back of his head. Two Late Wilbanks graves contained the severed head found in the hand of the figures on the Rogan plates. In Larson’s Burial 79, it appears as a mask on the interred individual, while a copper-covered wooden rattle in the form of the agnathic head was found in Burial 67. Mound C and the Remaking of Etowah

If the premise that the Hightower and Classic Braden imagery mark local and nonlocal branches of a Birdman lineage, then the Late Wilbanks mortuary sequence unites them into a single line and places them at the center of Etowah. I have argued elsewhere (King 2010) that the Late Wilbanks mortuary sequence is a set of ritual events that reenacted the creation of the cosmos. The end result was the making of Mound C into a cosmogram, or at least a map of the earthly realm of the Mississippian cosmos. As Etowah’s world was re-created, foreign and local people and symbols were united to create a single ruling line descended from the Birdman and the founders of the new social order at Etowah. The Cahokian Diaspora and the South Appalachian Region

While I think I can see pretty clearly how the Cahokian diaspora affected Etowah, parallel processes appear to have played out at other sites in the South Appalachian region. Another well-studied example is found in eastern Georgia where the Savannah River crosses the Fall Line. At the Hollywood site (9Ri1), Henry Reynolds recovered an array of local and nonlocal materials in the site’s Mound B during his investigations sponsored by Cyrus Thomas (King et al. 2016; King and Stephenson 2012; Thomas 1894; Thornock 2016). In Mound B at Hollywood, Reynolds excavated two burial layers, each consisting of sets of people and objects laid out on a prepared surface and arranged around a large fire pit. The lower burial layer was dominated by nonlocal objects and an uncommon extended grave form. Among the nonlocal objects were Central Mississippi Valley bottles and engraved ceramic cups (King and Stephenson 2012). While some objects were placed next to people, many were placed in small, discrete piles not associated with a person. The upper burial surface was dominated by local objects and the local burial urn grave form. The only foreign object in the upper burial layer was what appears to have been a copper plate depicting a raptor like

364 · Adam King

those executed in the Classic Braden style (King and Stephenson 2012; King et al. 2016; Thornock 2016). Stratigraphic details and complementarities between the two deposits in grave form and location have led to the interpretation that both burial deposits in Hollywood’s Mound B were part of a single set of ritual events. Those mortuary rituals were intended to meld the nonlocal and local in a way similar to the events forming Etowah’s Mound C. Current dating of Hollywood indicates it was established before the four other Mississippian mound towns built in the Middle Savannah River valley (Stephenson et al. 2015). This has led King et al. (2016) to argue that the coming of people and objects from the Central Mississippi Valley—part of the Cahokian diaspora—inspired a unique version of Mississippian political and ritual culture on the Middle Savannah. The number and diversity of Central Mississippi Valley objects, including the ancient Classic Braden imagery at Hollywood and Etowah, make a reasonable case for the relocation of people. Similar processes may have been responsible for smaller numbers of Central Mississippi Valley objects at other sites in the South Appalachian region. For example, in one grave near the base of the Nacoochee mound in northern Georgia excavators found two embossed copper plates, one human figural and the other a raptor (Brain and Phillips 1996; Heye et al. 1918), which may represent the same ancient Classic Braden imagery found in Mound C. The fact that these plates were found in a stone-box form grave suggests that they were interred between AD 1250 and 1325. Similarly, a grave near the base of Mound A at Bennett Place in eastern Tennessee was found to contain a raptor-embossed copper plate executed with Braden-style school imagery (Brain and Phillips 1996; Moore 1915). Also in the mound excavators found a cruciform gorget, another gorget theme commonly found in the Central Mississippi Valley. If I am correct, the arrival of people and new traditions in the South Appalachian region directly impacted the histories of sites like Etowah and Hollywood. The material practices and ritual traditions carried by the Cahokian diaspora reverberated throughout the region impacting people, places, histories, and identities. King and Sawyer (2016) note the appearance of new gorget themes in eastern Tennessee and northern Georgia at roughly the same time people from the Central Mississippi Valley arrived at places like Etowah and Hollywood. Those themes include the spider, the cruciform, and the anthropomorphic. These same themes co-occur in the Central Mississippi Valley and predate their appearance at sites in

The Cahokian Diaspora, Etowah, and South Appalachian Mississippian · 365

the East. Those found in eastern Tennessee are stylistically distinct from those made in the Central Mississippi Valley. These new themes appear at sites like Hixon, Citico, and Toqua, where evidence for the same kind of Central Mississippi Valley presence at Etowah is lacking. Further, in most cases those new themes are often found in the same grave with locally made Hightower-style gorgets depicting the original theme of that style, the Turkey Cock. King and Sawyer (2016) argue that the appearance of these nonlocal themes is a result of movement of Central Mississippi Valley people into the region—the Cahokian diaspora. Further, they argue that pairing these new and foreign themes with a local gorget symbolizes the creation of new identities that drew upon existing traditions and new ones. Conclusion

As Mississippian archaeologists, we are so focused on Cahokia’s role in the emergence of Mississippian that we sometimes lose sight of the historical trajectory its emergence spawned. That trajectory did not end when the great center went into decline. The people drawn to Cahokia as it rose appear to have gone home as it declined. In between, those families drawn to it were changed. They became part of the new ideas and practices that emerged at Cahokia, and their identities and histories became entwined with its history and power. When they left, they took with them some of that power and legitimacy, as well as sacred objects, ritual practices, and material traditions. They may have been important families in their own communities before they arrived at Cahokia, but their association with Cahokia made them important in new ways and to a much broader region. Based on the artifacts found in Etowah’s Mound C, it appears that some Cahokian families returned to their homelands to the south of the site, from the Ohio Confluence Region to the Memphis region. However, members of those families did not remain there but instead traveled eastward through the Nashville Basin and into the South Appalachian region. At sites like Etowah and Hollywood, the number and diversity of Central Mississippi Valley objects found argue for the arrival of people with those objects. At both sites, Central Mississippi Valley objects and practices were integrated into local traditions, resulting in fundamental social change. At other sites, like Hixon or Citico, the changes may have been caused indirectly by the arrival of Central Mississippi Valley ideas and images resulting in the incorporation of new ideas into local conceptions of identity.

V THE COAST The Lower Mississippi River Valley and Gulf

17 Vestiges of the Braden Corridor From Cahokia to Lake Jackson J. Grant Stauffer

The construction of mortuary mounds containing elaborate burials encased in earth is a global phenomenon of great antiquity (Hall 1994; Leary et al. 2010; Lesure 1997; Lindauer and Blitz 1997; Liu 1996; Milner 2004). At their most fundamental level, mound-building activities result in the creation of monuments that constitute accretions of collective memory on specifically selected landscapes (Kelly 1994; Helms 1979; Liu 1996; Milner 2004; Stauffer and Nowak 2014; Stauffer and Reilly 2013). Wherever mound building is examined the behaviors that produced the mounds are frequently revealed as attempts to encapsulate episodes of history that are recorded in the arrangement of their material components (Androshchuk 2016; Freidel et al. 1993; Liu 1996; Milner 2004; Randsborg 2008; Reilly 1994). Because history is fraught with encounters between peoples of diverse ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, it should come as no surprise that the mounds contain objects that originated in equally diverse locations and bear their signatures, both artificial and natural. As a cross-cultural example, consider the recent investigations of a burial mound in Old Uppsala, Sweden, containing imported items that signified a relationship between Byzantine and the Svear people. The individuals interred here between AD 800 and 1000 have been described as local members of the elite, but bore objects that “underline[d] the importance of Constantinople as both a core centre of power and a place of accumulation of social and economic capital” (Androshchuk 2016:91–93). These objects included various forms of gold currency, amethyst beads, silk, and other luxury items (Androshchuk 2016:91). Despite the clear-cut differences with Native North America in general, it is apparent that the procedures involved in creating this monument attempted to reference both

370 · J. Grant Stauffer

an important place—capitulated in the accumulation of goods that evoked Constantinople’s genus loci—and a historic event that marked a transition in the political life of the Svear. When examined through a cross-cultural lens, commonalities between this case and that of the Lake Jackson site in the Mississippian Southeast become clear. In particular, symbols on mortuary paraphernalia are used to cross language barriers and legitimize novel community interactions. In the case of the Svear, Androshchuk (2016:93) phrases it aptly: The relationship between centre [Constantinople] and periphery [Old Uppsala] was established with the help of intermediaries or “translators” of Byzantine culture, who helped explain the social world of the centre to the “periphery” in a comprehensible language of symbols. (emphasis added) In order to examine the possibility of a relationship between Cahokia and Lake Jackson, it is necessary to identify the set of symbols that were used to maintain communications between these two locales, as well as its corresponding cosmological grammar. Like the Svear and the Byzantines, Cahokians and Lake Jacksonites employed a set of symbols that made their messages mutually comprehensible and evoked memories of both locales, especially when exhibited on objects that accompanied the dead in mortuary monuments (Brown 1975, 2001a; Jones 1982, 1991, 1994; Kelly 2012). Moreover, objects bearing “Cahokian signatures” were transported to Lake Jackson through regions where intermediaries could translate their meaning to new audiences (Brown 2007b, 2007c, 2011:38; Brown and Kelly 2000; Phillips and Brown 1978). Conversely, objects that were transported from the Gulf Coast to Cahokia undoubtedly bore a significance that had to be demonstrated (see Helms 1979; Marquardt and Kozuch 2016). The objects of focus for this investigation are repoussé copper plates composed in the Braden Style—an artistic tradition whose origins arguably lie in Cahokia— along with a variety of marine shell objects and shark teeth from the Gulf Coast. The symbols employed for communications between the multiethnic communities that comprised the Mississippian Southeast were remarkably adaptable yet corresponded to a shared “cosmovision” through which these people viewed their natural and preternatural existence (Brown 2011; Lankford 2007a, 2008; Reilly 2004). Central to my identification of exchanged ideas between the American Bottom and the Gulf Coast Plain is the Braden Style, “the form of image-making that has come to be identified

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 371

with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, although we now realize that it is only one of several distinct styles composing this complex” (Brown 2004a, 2007c, 2011:37). The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), or “Southern Cult,” in turn, is a highly debated concept that was initially defined by Antonio Waring and Preston Holder (1945, 1965). It is their attempt to argue for an institutionalized exchange system that circulated a variety of diagnostic prestige goods in late prehistory, roughly between AD 1200 and 1500 (King 2007a, 2007c; Reilly and Garber 2007; Waring and Holder 1945, 1965). However, not all southeastern archaeologists are satisfied with the concept (King 2007c; Knight 2006a). In this chapter, the SECC label is employed to generally reference the distribution of objects that bear widespread iconographic motifs from the Mississippian period and relate to fundamental ethnographic folklore. Along with Braden Style examples, the SECC involved the circulation of iconography that follow a common symbolic grammar (Muller 1989; Reilly 2004; Reilly and Garber 2007). Essentially, Mississippian period iconography exhibits visual references to narratives that take place within a threetiered cosmos composed of Upper, Middle, and Beneath realms (Lankford 2007a; Reilly 2004:127). “The Mississippian cosmic model encompassed real, knowable locations, whether in this physical realm or in the extraphysical reality of the Otherworld” (Reilly 2004:127). It is in this sense that these iconographic messages were fluid records of events in both myth and reality, in which the former acted as mnemonic references to ritualistically and serendipitously repeated occurrences over time. After all, reenacting the past achievements of Native American gods and ancestors of the mythic past perpetuated their social influence, blurring the lines between past and present (Aveni 2002:56; Eliade 1987; Stauffer and Reilly 2015). Moreover, prominent symbols, such as visualized folkloric characters or motifs denoting specific locations (referred to here as “locatives”), were often attached to political offices as a means of legitimizing those who publicly displayed them (Blitz 1993; Brown 2007b; Earle 1990; King 2007a, 2011; Reilly 2004; Stauffer and Reilly 2015). The Braden Corridor: Cahokia and Lake Jackson

The Lake Jackson site, a Mississippian Fort Walton ceremonial mound center along the banks of a sinkhole-rich lake in northwest Florida, provides merely one example of how mound building constitutes the material record of collective memories (Figure 17.1). In this analysis, the site’s most popular

372 · J. Grant Stauffer

Above: Figure 17.1. Major Mississippian period mound centers in eastern North America. (Map shapefiles and data provided by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in Montreal, the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2009) Left: Figure 17.2. Mississippian period mound sites within the American Bottom region. (Courtesy of Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, adapted from map by Michael T. Skele)

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 373

research subject, Mound 3, is placed within a broader landscape that bears the signature of an even larger mound center: the Cahokia site in Illinois (Figure 17.2). Lying at the periphery of Cahokia’s influence, Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 is examined to identify Braden Style signatures within its mortuary assemblage. Additionally, the Etowah site in Georgia is examined as another Braden Style locale, in light of recent studies about the ties it shares with Lake Jackson (Scarry 1996, 2007). Although Cahokia is far and away the largest mound site north of Mexico, no current evidence suggests that a relationship between Cahokia and Lake Jackson was one of superior and subordinate. The material evidence does suggest that shared symbol sets, ideological narratives, and architectural concepts existed because of communication between these two regions. Cahokian Contexts of Production and Memorialization

Cahokia bears many distinct qualities that are well documented in the archaeological literature, but the most relevant ones include certain classes of artifacts, architecture, and archaeologically inferable behaviors that are considered widespread during the Mississippian chronological period in the Eastern Woodlands (AD 1000–1500). Its existence as an early urban environment with extensive cross-regional ties is a well-discussed perspective (Brown 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Brown and Kelly 2000, 2014; Kelly 2012; Milner 1996). Namely, its cosmologically conceptualized layout, organized with four cardinally oriented plazas around the centrally located Monks Mound, is one of the most prominent architectural features of prehistoric North America (Figure 17.3) (Fowler 1989; Kelly 1994:5–14, Figure 2, 2007b). While this aspect of Cahokia may elude some definitions of Mississippian behavior, I find it essential to this discussion because it reveals the structure of a widely held “cosmic vision” among the multiethnic communities that comprised the Mississippian landscape. Moreover, the objects employed for communicating messages about this shared perspective of the cosmos relate closely to historic narratives documented among DigheanSiouan- and Muskogean-speaking communities, offering ample opportunity to establish worthwhile ethnographic analogies and connect existing hypotheses derived from them (Brown and Kelly 2000; Hann 1988a, 1988b, 1994; Lankford 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c; Lévi-Strauss 1960; Townsend 2004, 2015; Waring and Holder 1945, 1965). Several of these cosmologically oriented behaviors, identified most frequently through the analysis of artworks recovered archaeologically, retain

374 · J. Grant Stauffer

Figure 17.3. Illustration of Melvin Fowler’s Cahokia map. (Image courtesy of the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Courtesy of Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site)

a consistency attributed to the SECC. The Braden Style, a hallmark artistic tradition in the SECC, has been used as a label for several objects that exhibit common elements, motifs, and themes in their diverse renderings (Brown 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2011; Waring and Holder 1945, 1965). Additionally, a set of archaeological features, such as the copper workshop near Mound 34, has been perceived as one location where several Braden Style objects originated (Brown 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Brown and Kelly 2000; Kelly 2010). However, proposed origin locations for the Braden Style also heavily rely on findings from Picture Cave and the Gottschall Rock Shelter, where the earliest forms of Braden Style iconography have been identified (Diaz-Granados 2011; Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2015; Duncan 2013; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000; Diaz-Granados et al. 2015; Salzer 2005; Townsend 2015). Archaeological byproducts of foreign relationships are clearly recognized at Cahokia, particularly in the elaborate Mound 72 burial complex

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 375

(Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler 1989; Fowler et al. 1999; Milner 1996, 2004, 2006). Although archaeologists have yet to recover intact Braden Style copper plates from Cahokia, examples of production and destination contexts for nonlocal artifacts as prestige goods exist. Perhaps the most remarkable on-site destination for objects that originated from the Gulf Coast, Mound 72 is best understood as a monumental mortuary performance (Brown 2003, 2004a, 2006:205; Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler et al. 1999; Milner 1996). Several interpretations of this context include arguments for a highly stratified social hierarchy at Cahokia, but their assessment has been a subject of recent debates (Brown 2006:204–205; Emerson 1997a, 1997b; Milner 2006; Pauketat 1994, 1997b, 2004:87–93). Whatever the political logistics behind Cahokia’s monumental constructions may have been, the notion that Mound 72 consisted of mortuary tableaux emphasizing cosmological themes is widely accepted (Alt and Pauketat 2007; Brown 2003, 2004a, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler et al. 1999; Hall 1997, 2000). The famous “beaded burial” (Feature 101) in Submound 1 is arguably a significant inspiration for subsequent (post–AD 1200) copper craftworks in the region (Sampson and Esarey 1993; Brown 2003, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Fowler et al. 1999:3, 7–11, Figures 1.6, 1.8). Along with James Brown (2003), I suspect that this burial and the long-lived Red Horn Myth Cycle recorded by Paul Radin (1948a, 1948b) contributed to the inspiration for Braden Style and LongNosed god horizon objects found as far away as Mound 3 at Lake Jackson, particularly those made from copper and shell. This is not to say that only the Red Horn warrior-hero is depicted in the Mound 72 assemblage. More recently, Emerson et al. (2016) have reexamined the Submound 1 context in Mound 72, providing new bioarchaeological and chronometric information. Based on the new age and sex identifications of known individuals (particularly Burial 14) and previously undocumented ones, they claim that the assemblage emphasizes themes other than the Red Horn warrior-hero (Emerson et al. 2016:420). Emerson et al. (2016:420) provided the following alternative: In fact, we suspect that, specifically regarding early Cahokia, the recent emphasis on the historically recorded Red Horn/Birdman male warrior-hero aspect as a leitmotif in late Mississippian culture has obscured what may be the symbolic dominance of the Earth-MotherGrandmother figure and world renewal and fertility representations in early Cahokia.

376 · J. Grant Stauffer

While the study has provided crucial information that will aid in clarifying interpretations of this mortuary tableau, I contend that discarding the “Birdman” warrior-hero theme in favor of an “Earth Mother” fertility theme succumbs to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, the crux of the Red Horn myth narrative is, in essence, an apotheosis event that reestablishes the balance of cosmic realms, their respective actors, and the diverse forces they control (Brown 2003, 2004a, 2007a, 2007b; Brown and Dye 2007; Hall 1997, 2000; Radin 1948a). Considered in its entirety, the Red Horn myth cycle employs both fertility- and warfare-related tropes to emphasize the dualistic structure of the cosmos (Radin 1948b). Moreover, Braden Style pictographs in caves have been argued to depict events from the Red Horn myth that take place in a cosmogonic Beneath World, despite the character’s identity as a “Thunderer” associated with the Above World (Blakeslee 2012; Diaz-Granados 2004:142–143; Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2015; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2015:215–217; Townsend 2004, 2015). Other cave sites in the Great Plains clearly exhibit scenes that occur in the sky, some of which are intended to be mirror-reflections of events happening above (Blakeslee 2012:358). Therefore, it is not unusual to encounter images of “Birdmen” and “Earth Women” in the same context, especially at rock art sites in Missouri and presumably at Cahokia (Diaz-Granados 2004:142–143). Siouan theologies that are fundamentally undergirded by the concept of duality would require references to both “Birdman” and “Earth Mother” themes. Considering the principles behind Cahokia’s architectural layout (sensu Kelly 1994), this idea of dualistic balance seems to be of primary concern to the site’s occupants. For the series of funeral events on the scale that Mound 72 achieved—requiring over 200 human bodies (Brown 2003; Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler et al. 1999)—it seems unlikely that the cosmologically oriented Cahokian architects would favor one theme over the other, especially if they complemented each other in such a critical way ethnohistorically. Assuming that the culmination of Mound 72’s burial rites was intended to restore a sense of stability on a communal scale, interpretations of this context must not exclusively favor one theme without offering considerations of others. The emphasis on “cosmic balance” is also inferred from the Lake Jackson Mound 3 assemblage. Another context that provides evidence of foreign relations is Mound 34, a well-recognized production area (Kelly et al. 2007). Excavations at Mound 34 have been ongoing under the supervision of Washington University since 1998 (Kelly 2010; Kelly et al. 2007:62–63, 67–68). The mound

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 377

remains today having withstood multiple excavations, in addition to natural and human-induced erosion. Of note are field seasons that occurred during the 1950s under the direction of James B. Griffin and Albert C. Spaulding from the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology and Gregory Perino from the Gilcrease Institute (Kelly 2010:5, Figure 3; Kelly et al. 2007:62–63). Features within and around Mound 34 provided a production context where exotic and domestic raw materials were transformed into a variety of craftworks (Kelly 2010:4–6). Some of these transformations produced Braden Style objects in shell and ceramic media, but copper debris has also been recovered from the Mound 34 context (Brown 2011; Brown and Kelly 2000; Kelly 2010:5, Figure 4; Kelly et al. 2007). Additionally, lithic materials in the form of micro blades and drills have been identified in the area by Perino (1960) and Yerkes (1983), both of whom associate such tools with the shell disc bead industry on site (Kelly et al. 2007). Mound 34 is a platform mound built atop several structures that include a copper workshop, identified by its copper-rich wall trench features (Kelly and Brown 2010:4–6; Kelly et al. 2007). From the mound itself, a decorated ceramic sherd and engraved shell fragments were found that exhibit the “Davis Rectangle” and “Akron Grid” motifs, respectively, designs attributed to the Braden Style from analyses of engraved shells found in Spiro’s Craig Mound (Brown 2007c; Phillips and Brown 1978:146, 150). The same motifs have been identified in Picture Cave and Gottschall rockshelter rock art, as well as “mace motifs” that are geographically widespread within the Southeast (Diaz-Granados 2011; Diaz-Granados et al. 2015; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000; Hall 1997; Kelly et al. 2007). Chronologically speaking, the most recently recovered radiocarbon samples from the mound’s contents place its construction in the Moorehead phase (after AD 1200), significantly later than both Feature 101 at Mound 72 and Braden Style pictographs (Brown 2011:38; Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2015; Emerson et al. 2016; Fowler et al. 1999; Kelly and Brown 2010:6–7; Salzer 2005; Salzer and Rajnovich 2000:4, 40–41). Nevertheless, copper artworks from Illinois and Missouri also portray Braden Style “Birdman.” The Edwards, Peoria, and Upper Bluff Lake plates exhibit raptor themes and compare with plates recovered from Mound 3 at Lake Jackson, Florida, and Mound C at Etowah, Georgia (Sampson and Esarey 1993:455–456, 465, Table 1). Additionally, the Malden plates from Missouri have been dated between AD 1200 and 1400 and attributed to a late expression of the Braden Style (Brown 2007a, 2007b:237).

378 · J. Grant Stauffer

Some exotic objects recovered from Mound 34 and its immediate vicinity include shark teeth, the possible remains of a shark-toothed blade with additional imitation shark teeth rendered from chert, and fragments of shell from engraved cups (Kelly 2010; Kelly et al. 2007). Whole whelk shells and shark teeth were also recovered in caches at the Janey B. Goode site, located just north of East St. Louis (Galloy 2010). Relevant to this study as well is a Spaghetti Style gorget found in Gallatin County, Illinois, which is the northernmost of its kind (cat. number Ill-Ga-X1 in Brain and Phillips 1996:64). This gorget is believed to have been deposited in the fourteenth century AD, based on the contexts of other Spaghetti Style gorgets that include examples found in Mound 3 at Lake Jackson (Jones 1982:18). Examined by the author with permission from Jobey Kidd, it was clear that these were indeed similar to “Birdman” types found at Moundville and exhibit “chunkey player” postures (Jones 1982:18–19; Phillips and Brown 1978:110–111, 197, Figure 258). Lake Jackson’s Context of Collective Memory

Along the banks of a sinkhole-rich lake, the Lake Jackson site exists as a Fort Walton ceremonial mound center in the Tallahassee Red Hills region of Florida (Figure 17.4) (Marrinan and White 2012; Payne 1994; Scarry 1990, 2007; Seinfeld et al. 2015; Stauffer 2015; Tesar 1980, 2012; Willey 1949). Salvage excavations in the 1970s by Jones have revealed significant insights into the mortuary protocols of the site’s inhabitants. His results included extensive evidence of interregional contact, an alignment of mortuary protocols with other archaeological cultures in the Southeast, and a destination for exotic materials, possibly at the end of the Lake Jackson II phase (AD 1150–1400) (Jones 1982, 1991, 1994; Payne 1994:261, Figure 5.9, 2010; Stauffer 2015). While these investigations comprise the bulk of reference material for this study, several others have contributed to our current understanding of the Lake Jackson site (Payne 1994; Seinfeld et al. 2015; Tesar 1980, 2012; Willey 1949; Willey and Woodbury 1942). Lake Jackson consists of seven mounds, six of which are aggregated within a central precinct (see Jones 1982:24, Figure 1; Payne 1994:108, Figure 2). Based on her extensive coring west of Mound 2 and north of Mound 4, Payne (1994:256) proposed that a plaza once occupied the space, largely agreeing with Griffin’s (1950:103) excavation results (Seinfeld et al. 2015; Stauffer 2015). Moreover, Jones (1982:4) observed that Mounds 2–7 appear to be loosely paired in two rows oriented east–west, one existing

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 379

Figure 17.4. LiDAR map of the Lake Jackson site. (Image courtesy of Daniel Seinfeld. Used with permission)

to the south of the other. Villages, he postulated, occupied areas immediately north and south of the precinct (Jones 1982:4). The mounds were reported as “pyramidal, flat-topped, typical Mississippian truncated temple mounds” by Willey and Woodbury (1942:247–248, Map 8), and were first mapped on their survey of the Florida Gulf Coast. Mound 3, situated immediately south of Mound 2, existed as a truncated pyramidal mound rising 5 m high, not unlike the nearby Block-Sterns site that witnessed Deptford (500 BC–AD 200) and Early Swift Creek (AD 150–350) period occupations in the region (Jones 1982:4, 1994; Jones et al. 1998:226–227; Milanich 1994:114, 144; Seinfeld et al. 2015:224). However, the internal architecture of Mound 3 at Lake Jackson and the arrangement of the burials it contained most strongly resemble Mississippian period (AD 1000–1500) mortuary mounds at Moundville, Alabama, and Etowah, Georgia (Scarry 1990; Seinfeld et al. 2015:231). Characteristic of its time, Mound 3 was a continuous use mound constructed in 12 stages or platforms that supported charnel houses (Jones 1982:9, 1994:122–125, 128; Seinfeld et al. 2015:230–231). Radiocarbon and AMS dates for the structure indicate that its use primarily occurred at the height of the SECC (AD 1250–1500), but the earliest of these is an upright post that dates to cal AD 992±91 (Jones 1982; Marrinan and White 2007:307, Table 4; Seinfeld et al. 2015; Stauffer 2015:107, Figure 4.3). Additional features include a domesticated

380 · J. Grant Stauffer

dog (Canis familiaris) burial beneath the earliest mound stage (Floor 12) and a massive charred maize (Zea mays) deposit on top of it (Jones 1982:9, 1994:125; Seinfeld et al. 2015:231). The cal AD 992±91 date derived from the lowest stage of Mound 3’s construction does indicate a potential overlap with the preceding Weeden Island period (AD 250–900) mortuary practices in the site’s early existence; particularly, the dog burial appears to be characteristic of Weeden Island mortuary protocols (Lazarus 1979; Milanich 2002:163–164; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Milanich et al. 1997; Sears 1958; Willey 1949; Willey and Woodbury 1942). Nevertheless, the contents of the mound were all attributed to the Fort Walton archaeological culture (AD 1000–1500) by B. Calvin Jones (1982:9, 1994). At other Fort Walton sites along the northwest Florida Gulf Coast, charnel house structures and log-lined pit burials like those identified in Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 are not unusual, but the amount of exotic material in Mound 3 is (Jones 1982, 1991, 1994; Lazarus and Fornaro 1975; Marrinan and White 2012; Milanich 1994:370; Tesar 1980, 2012; Tesar and Jones 2009). Additionally, specific motifs executed in the Braden Style on copper plates from Burials 7, 10, and 16 have been identified by Brown (2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Dye 2007) as chronologically sensitive artistic devices within the corpus of SECC iconography, dating no earlier than AD 1250 (Jones 1982:15–18). The burials themselves were arranged in a predetermined manner that required construction episodes to be carried out by multiple generations of architects at Lake Jackson (Jones 1982, 1991, 1994). Intriguingly, Jones (1982:10–15, 1994) found both the orientation of graves across vertically arranged stratigraphic layers and the individual arrangement of burials to be the most significant parts of this planning process. Stauffer and Nowak (2014) proposed that the vertical arrangement and orientation of these burials simulate a swirling or cyclical motion that is both fundamental to Muskogean dance patterns and symbolism tied to conch shells of the Busycon variety (see Knight 1986, 2006b; Lankford 2007a, 2011b, 2011c; Marquardt and Kozuch 2016). Although several of the burials exhibit characteristics that are worthy of further investigation noteworthy for this study, Burials 7, 10, and 16 all contained copper plates that have been characterized by Brown (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) and other as Braden Style creations (Scarry 2007). Interestingly, Burials 7 and 16 were identified as mature females during Storey’s (1993:7, 16) forensic analysis. Although identified as being in the range of a “gracile male,” there is reason to believe that Burial 10 contained an additional female (Storey 1993:10). As with Feature 101 of Mound 72, the sexing of

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 381

buried individuals has posed a perplexing point of discussion (Emerson et al. 2016; Storey 1993). The juxtapositioning of mature females with raptorial bird imagery raises intriguing questions about both the meaning inferred from Braden Style representations of “Birdman” and the role of women as ritual participants in mortuary events at both locales. However, the fact that these representations are juxtaposed does demand a more inclusive perspective of fertility and warfare symbolism. When other objects within Burials 7, 10, and 16 are considered, such as crafted copper, shell adornments, wooden structures, and stone pipes, a more complete understanding of burial tableaux at Mound 3 can be achieved (Figures 17.5, 17.6) (Jones 1982). Of particular importance is the fact that the copper plates housed in the R. A. Gray Building in Tallahassee have organic material adhering to them. Still preserved in the plaster coating administered by Jones (1982, 1991, 1994), the plates’ adherents appear to include cedar and other organic material, although further lab analysis is required to confirm these observations (Jones 1982:17). If considered accurate, these observations indicate that the Braden Style copper plates were components of sacred bundles, not unlike the Tukabahchee plates identified by John Swanton (2000:503–505) among the historic Muskogee Creek. Among the Mandan, Bowers (1950:31) notes several different varieties of sacred bundles that were considered clan property. Considering that both the Creek and the Mandan were matrilineal societies in which women had generous property rights dictated by kinship ties, encountering the remains of sacred bundles in graves containing females should not be surprising (Bowers 1950:31, 37; Lankford 2008:74). Common to all three burials are shell and pearl beads, as well as fragments of cloth and wood (Jones 1982:37, 39, Table 2). The beads were strung around the neck and ankles of these individuals, but also occur in caches. They were crafted in the forms of barrel, tubular, and spherical shapes that are typical of other Mississippian period assemblages (Jones 1982:14, 29, 30, Figure 5a, 5b). These preciosities adorned the deceased in a manner similar to the way they are depicted on the copper plates. Additionally, the fragments of cloth also suggest perishable adornments that possibly conformed to “hawk dancer” costumes, although they may have taken additional forms identified by John Swanton (1911, 1922, 1946), as Jones (1982:14) claims. Not unlike those identified by Fowler et al. (1999) in Mound 72, Mound 3 did contain litters, but Burials 7 and 10 provide critical examples (Jones 1982:37, Table 2). In contrast with Etowah’s Mound C burials, the Mound 3 examples

Figure 17.5. The copper repoussé plates recovered from Burials 7, 10, and 16 in Mound 3 at Lake Jackson. (Image courtesy of the Bureau of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State)

Figure 17.6. Assorted funerary objects recovered from Burials 7, 10, and 16 in Mound 3 at Lake Jackson. (Image courtesy of the Bureau of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State)

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 383

Figure 17.7. Illustrated representations of the Lake Jackson and Rogan plates from Lake Jackson and Etowah. (Image courtesy of the Bureau of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State)

containing Braden Style copper plates did not provide examples of hypertrophic weapons. However, other Mound 3 burials did provide examples of these objects, categorized by Jones (1982:38, Table 2) as flat flared copper axes, spatulate-form stone axes, perforated flat flared copper axes, stone celts, and wooden ax handles. Adam King (2004, 2007b) has conflated such objects with the Red Horn myth cycle, among others (Figure 17.7) (Brown 2007b; Brown and Dye 2007). Additionally, discoidals, panregionally circulated gaming accoutrements tied to one of the oldest myth narratives in documented North American history, have also been recovered from Mound 3 (DeBoer 1993; Jones 1982:40, Table 2). John Hann’s (1988b:328– 350) translation of Friar Juan Paiva’s retelling of the ballgame describes a culture hero (Nikoguadca) who overcomes a rival from a different matrilineage (Ytonanslaq) by overcoming three pregame trials and three gaming competitions. In a competition held on a plaza that “all these nations play,” the two rivals each employed “a stone and two poles,” presumably for the purpose of rolling the stone as a moving target for spearlike poles (Hann 1988b:336–337). Intriguingly, this story was recorded among the historic Apalachee at Mission San Luis in modern-day Tallahassee by Father Juan Paiva (Hann 1988a, 1988b). It has been proposed that, both among the Apalachee and throughout the Greater Southeast, the game of chunkey not only permitted status acquisitions but was also an effective means of circulating material wealth throughout participating communities (DeBoer 1993; Hann 1988b).

384 · J. Grant Stauffer

Key-sided maces crafted in copper have also been recovered; they resemble examples recovered from Etowah’s Mound C and the Cemochechobee site along the Chattahoochee River (Jones 1982:38, Table 2; Scarry 2007; Schnell et al. 1981). Although distinct from the crown-shaped maces depicted in Picture Cave, these objects indicate interactions among these three sites, as well as transmitted motifs that appeared earlier in the Midwest (Diaz-Granados 2011; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2015; Scarry 2007). A remarkably preserved wooden crown-shaped mace recovered from Florida’s Key Marco site demonstrates its depiction on multiple media (Gilliland 1989; Milanich 1994). As symbols, mace motifs of the Mississippian period are perceived as both indicators of status and objects meant for defense against preternatural forces on the Path of Souls (Brown and Dye 2007; Diaz-Granados 2011; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2015; Lankford 2007c; Scarry 2007). Like the exotic finds from Cahokia’s Mound 34 and the Ramey Field, Burials 2 and 9K in Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 included shark teeth that were possibly comprising a “shark-jaw knife” (Galloy 2010; Jones 1982:38, Table 2; Kelly 2010; Kelly et al. 2007). Jones (1982:14) also notes that “shark-teeth covered clothing” is also present. As with the Spaghetti Style gorget found in Gallatin County, Missouri, Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 contained examples in Burials BK2, BK4, and BK5 (Jones 1982; Jobey Kidd, personal communication, 2015). These were deposited in burials associated with upper floors that correspond chronologically with other thirteenth-century examples (Jones 1982:18–19). Braden Style “Birdmen” on the Copper Plates from Lake Jackson

Although Brown (2007b) characterizes Lake Jackson Burial 7’s copper plates as belonging to the Late Braden expression, Jones (1982:16) and Scarry (2007) both consider them expressions of “Classic Braden” imagery and compare them to the Rogan plates (Figure 17.7) uncovered in Etowah’s Mound C with reference to the original style designations laid out by Phillips and Brown (1978:189). Based on the tableaux I have already described, Jones (1982:15) considers the burial arrangements that included the copper plates as “representative of a truly developed warrior class with lateral class status rather than vertical ranking within the Lake Jackson social organization.” In light of Storey’s (1993) forensic analysis of the Mound 3 burials, it seems that this claim does not fully capture the mortuary’s intended

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 385

meaning. Nevertheless, the fact that hypertrophic weapons, discoidals, costumery, and “hawkman dancer plates” in the Braden Style were recovered from the mound indicates the presence of themes that involve a kind of warfare trope. These iconographic motifs and themes that convey visual narratives do appear to be chronologically and typologically sensitive. Placing Braden Style copper plates into a typology, Brown (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) also identifies chronologically sensitive characteristics. While the earliest “proto-Braden” images have been documented at Picture Cave and roughly date to AD 1000 (Diaz-Granados 2011; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2015), the earliest copper plates rendered in the Braden Style have been dated to the thirteenth century AD and identified by their “canonical” conformity to an artistic tradition that arguably developed at Cahokia (Brown 2007c:219; Brown and Kelly 2000). Braden Style copper plates that were subsequently created out of that tradition—but without the rigid conformity to technicalities initially established for earlier renderings—are labeled “Non-canonical” or “Generalized Braden” objects (Brown 2007c:215–216). A great deal of emphasis is placed on naturalistic depictions of the human figure in active, “dancing” postures, complete with correct anatomical proportioning (Phillips and Brown 1975:x). Moreover, these representations detailed visualizations of other-than-human-persons wearing regalia that closely resemble adornments among the deceased (Brown 2007c:216; Phillips and Brown 1978). It must be remembered that Brown’s (2007c:217) dating of the style includes compositions in both two and three dimensions, such as the flintclay statues, copper plates, pictographs, decorated ceramics, and shell engravings. If these media are included, evidence suggests that the Braden Style at Cahokia began during the Late Lohmann phase or earlier (Brown 2007c:219; Brown and Rogers 1999). In the case of the copper plates, those conforming to the “Classic Braden” type roughly appear around AD 1200, while those conforming to the “Late Braden” type flourished in the fourteenth century AD (Brown 2007c:225). Later derivations of the Braden Style are evident in a localized Hightower Style, centered around the Etowah site in Georgia (Brown 2007c:218), that “encompass[es] the ‘Stack’ style of copper work . . . placed in the early fifteenth-century Great Mortuary of Spiro” (Brown 2007c:218; Hamilton et al. 1974). Examples of all four types of Braden Style copper works are present in Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 assemblage (Figure 17.5). Within Braden Style designations, several associations exist among motifs that occur on compositions from Lake Jackson and Cahokia’s sur-

386 · J. Grant Stauffer

rounding regions. Brown (2007a) has identified the “Bellows-Shaped Apron” motif as a chronologically sensitive component of Braden Style renditions of these “dancing Birdmen.” Additional motifs that appear along the Gulf Coast of Florida during the existence of the SECC include the “scroll motif,” a highly conventionalized wavelike image (Brown 2007c:218, 224). The scroll motif is most prominently depicted on Fort Walton and Tippets Incised vessels from Lake Jackson and Cahokia, respectively (Brown 2007c:224; Crown et al. 2012; Stauffer 2015; Stauffer and Nowak 2014; Tesar 1980, 2012). Burial 7 in Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 does bear widespread motifs. Perhaps the most striking feature of the “hawk dancer” is the character’s long nose, which leads Brown (2007b:77, 79, 81, Figures 4.2, 4.4) to compare it with the Douglas Gorget from Perry County, Missouri. He also points out the possibility that warrior, dancer, and chunkey player action poses “are plausibly linked because many of the details of dress are present throughout the series” (Brown 2007b:77). Although its deteriorating condition makes certain features hard to discern, the character depicted on the plate from Burial 7 could be holding a discoidal in the left hand. Both the Douglas Gorget and the Lake Jackson plate bear images of maces. The Douglas Gorget also exhibits a flared ax (see Brown 2007b:79, 81, Figure 4.2a, 4.2c). This conflation of warrior, dancer, and chunkey player themes in compositions with long-nosed preternatural beings may also be an alternative means of referencing the “Long-Nosed god” horizon, examined by Duncan and Diaz-Granados (2000). Their research clearly demonstrates that LongNosed god masks are depicted in early Braden Style pictographs and represent artifactual Long-Nosed god masks that include examples from the Mount Royal and Grant sites in Florida (Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000; Moore 1901). Moreover, these objects reference beliefs and practices shared by warrior and fertility cults, based on their Siouan-based ethnographic analogies emphasizing adoption and achievement-oriented warriors concerned with the embodiment of ancestral souls (Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000; Hall 1997:42–43). Although arguably not depictions of the Braden Style “Birdman” that Brown (2007b) describes, the Spaghetti Style shell gorgets have been tied to Hero-Twin folklore, ball game players among Muskogeans (Phillips and Brown 1978:110–111; Lankford 2008; Stauffer and Reilly 2015). Spaghetti Style shell gorgets illustrate the Apalachee ball game myth documented by Father Juan Paiva at Mission San Luis in modern-day Tallahassee, Florida. Part of this study noted how the juxtapositioning of gorgets Fla-Le-LJ6,

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 387

SE-X1, and Als-Tu-M143 (using Brain and Phillips’s [1996:63–66] cataloging system) illustrates the funerary rites of the character Nicoguadca, who is ceremoniously boiled in a pot after defeating a rival in a series of games (Hann 1988b:343; Stauffer and Reilly 2015). Discussion and Conclusion: Mound 3 as a Memorial to Relationships Past

At a Society for American Archaeology conference in St. Louis, Payne (2010) provided a compelling discussion about the societal impetus for Mound 3’s construction. According to her, an equally plausible explanation of Mound 3’s construction can be attributed to a collective “act of forgetting.” Noting the observation that Braden Style copper plates recovered from the lower burials in the mound were long-lived heirlooms, her paper describes Mound 3 as a memorial to a paradigm past. Much like ceramics that have been ceremoniously “killed” or retired from use along the Gulf Coast, she proposed that the mound and its contents were interred to mark the end of closely related traditions. It is with certainty that Lake Jackson’s Mound 3 served as a monument that memorialized people, places, and events, but, like the effort of the Svear to reference connections to Constantinople in their mortuary practices, the site’s inhabitants likely constructed these mortuary tableaux to memorialize connections to a site that impacted numerous lifeways across the Greater Southeast, Cahokia. Cahokia’s influence was pivotal to the prehistory of the Eastern Woodlands, marked by a meteoric rise in population, reliance on intensive agricultural practices, establishment of a new architectural grammar, and long-distance exchange (Brown and Kelly 2000, 2014; Kelly 1994, 2007a, 2007b; Milner 1996, 2006). Undoubtedly, this also involved the institutionalization of ideology, complete with its own set of distinct cults (Alt and Pauketat 2007; Brown and Kelly 2000, 2014; Pauketat 1994). Outside of the American Bottom, concepts that include the SECC attempt to recognize the effervescence of cults and associated practices, some of which may have developed from Cahokia’s prominence (King 2007a, 2007c). Among them are “Birdman” warrior and female fertility cults, both of which are well documented across the Greater Southeast historically (Alt and Pauketat 2007; Brown 2007b; Dye 2011, 2015a, 2015b; Emerson et al. 2016; Hultkrantz 1967; Kehoe 2007; Radin 1948a, 1948b). Aside from site-specific details regarding singular contexts with contested interpretations, the general deposition of their material debris suggests significant coexistence of these

388 · J. Grant Stauffer

ritual organizations. Consequently, relevant ethnographic resources for both cults are considered here. Not only does the density of their corresponding imagery cluster around regions that suggest long-distance ties, but the imagery itself evokes images described in regionally appropriate, Native American folkloric traditions. A case in point involves the Spaghetti Style gorgets that illustrate the funerary rites of Nicoguadca, whose name has been given to historically documented Apalachee chiefs as a title of office (Hann 1988b:343). Among the Tocobaga, John Swanton (1946:722) observed the following spectacle: When one of the principal caciques dies, they cut him to pieces and cook him in large pots during two days, when the flesh has entirely separated from the bones, and adjust one to another until they have formed the skeleton of the man, as he was in life. Hann (1988b:343) notes that in addition to being a competitive ballplayer, the new Apalachee usinolo (war officer) “must kill seven warriors and three hitas tascaias” in order to receive the name Nicoguadca as a political title. If these historical portraits provide an accurate perspective of the iconographic matter recorded on Spaghetti Style gorgets, then Brown’s (2007b:77) association of “warrior” and “chunkey player” is quite justifiable, as well as the possibility that they are representative of political offices within indigenous hierarchies. The Braden Style copper works of both the Mound 3 burials at Lake Jackson and the regions surrounding Cahokia also have strong affinities with folklore that conflates ball game and warrior sodality themes. Brown (2007b:74–75) offers Osage and Winnebago (Ho-Chunk) folkloric accounts as appropriate lenses for viewing Braden Style “Birdman” iconography. From the Osage, he identifies affiliations with warrior sodalities that “declare . . . ways in which the falcon exerts its power to win on the battlefield” (Brown 2007b:74; La Flesche 1939:10–11). The selected myth about a hunter’s encounter with a falcon and an owl is almost identical to a Muskogean account recorded by Swanton (1995:152–153) among the Alabama. In both stories, the hawk decapitates the owl and gives the hunter one of his own feathers, which materializes a power through which the “day overcomes the power of night” (Brown 2007b:74; La Flesche 1939:10–11; Swanton 1995:152–153). From the Winnebago version of the Red Horn myth, Brown (2007b:75) notes that “the underlying message is encapsulated by the deadly gaming of the heroes against representations of the life-taking forces.” In this myth, a pair of hero twins defeat stone giants in another

Vestiges of the Braden Corridor: From Cahokia to Lake Jackson · 389

cosmic realm to recover the head of their father and bring him back to life (Brown 2007b:75; Hultkrantz 1967; Radin 1948a, 1948b). Both study regions deliver relevant folkloric narratives for the iconographic objects investigated in this study that associate warrior sodalities with ball gaming cults, but the underlying theme of reincarnation is shared with a variety of Siouan and Muskogean fertility cults. Among Muskogean speakers encountered by John Swanton (1995:9–10), a woman from the Talmalgi clan lives in a house where she creates corn that falls from scratches in her skin and orchestrates the construction of a corn crib that she continually fills with staple crops (Lankford 2011a:147; Swanton 1995:9–10, 168). She is also buried in a mound that covers her old house and provides a continuous source of corn (Swanton 1995:168). Employing Hidatsa accounts, Colvin (2012) has presented a strong case for perceiving the female flint-clay statues, including those in the American Bottom region, as representations of a similar character called Old Woman Who Never Dies (Emerson et al. 2003). Moreover, Prentice (1986) includes this character among a variety of “Earth Mother” personages associated with fertility, crops, and the afterlife, using the same artifact examples (Colvin 2012; Emerson et al. 2003). An association among warrior sodalities, female fertility cults, and ball gaming cults can be recognized in some ethnographic accounts. Among the historic Apalachee and contemporary Muskogee Creek, women can participate in ball games where several rules of conduct are established in their favor (Hann 1988b:338–339). Today, the Muskogee Creek at the Ekvnv Hvtke Square Grounds use these coed ball games as opportunities to teach young men to respect women in their community. Historically and in contemporary times, other ritual practices among Muskogean speakers affiliate war-related symbols with female activities, too. As a prominently documented practice in the ethnographic record, the scalp dance among several language groups provides a provocative ritual context to consider in this discussion about the conflation of fertility and warfare-related symbolism (Benedict 1932; Swanton 1995). Benedict (1932:15) broadly examines the scalp dance among Plains cultures as a community-wide celebration of victorious exploits in raiding expeditions. Particularly among Muskogean communities, scalp and war dances were held during the annual busk, a cosmic renewal ceremony conducted at the height of the growing season (Swanton 1995:529, 546). Even today, Muskogee Creek women at the Ekvnv Hvtke Square Grounds wear ribbons on their dancing gowns as substitutes for scalps, which were once acceptable to display.

390 · J. Grant Stauffer

When these ethnohistoric perspectives are connected with the archaeological evidence affiliated with Cahokia and Lake Jackson, it is plausible to envision Mound 3 as a memorial to their prehistoric relationships, perpetuated by ball gaming, participation in warrior sodalities, and female fertility rites. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to view these, too, as the vestiges of relationships past. Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Bureau of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee and the Ekvnv Hvtke Muskogee Creek square town in Blountstown, Florida, for their ongoing efforts to recover, preserve, and apply our knowledge of the ancient past in the American Southeast. I would also like to thank the researchers and staff at the Bureau of Archaeological Research, the Bureau of Historical Preservation, and the Division of Historical Resources in Tallahassee, Florida. Finally, I would like to thank Charles McNutt and Ryan Parish for organizing the many collaborative efforts that have led to this publication.

18 The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

The Lake Providence Mounds (16EC6) are situated in East Carroll Parish within the upper Tensas Basin of Louisiana, a few miles west of the current Mississippi River and about 9 miles south of the Arkansas border. The site was tested for National Register eligibility in 1996 and subsequently subjected to data-recovery investigations in 1998–1999. Discussions on both phases of research appeared in detail in the final report on the project (Weinstein, ed. 2005a) and to a lesser extent in chapters in several edited volumes (Weinstein and Wells 2005; Wells and Weinstein 2007). Research at the site also was included in papers presented at archaeological conferences and meetings (Perrault et al. 1997; Weinstein 2000, 2002; Weinstein and Wells 2003, 2004a, 2004b; Weinstein et al. 1997; Wells and Weinstein 2003) and in a brief note published in the newsletter of the Louisiana Archaeological Society (Weinstein 1999). Thus, the basic information on the site is readily available and does not need to be repeated at this point. Accordingly, much of the remainder of this chapter focuses on the various artifacts that represent a connection with the American Bottom at Lake Providence. That review will be followed by a discussion that presents ideas that potentially explain how and why the connection occurred. Occupation Sequence and Local Ceramics

The initial occupation at the Lake Providence Mounds took place during the late Tchula period (ca. 200 BC–AD 1) (Figure 18.1) and is represented by a few sherds of Tchefuncte pottery (Figure 18.2a). This was followed by a similarly minor occupation dating to the Marksville period (ca. AD 1–400) (see Figure 18.2b–e). After a hiatus in occupation of several hundred

Figure 18.1. Hypothesized sequence of site development at the Lake Providence Mounds (after Weinstein 2005b:Figure 14.1). It is estimated that the site reached its zenith during Occupations V through VII.

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 393

Figure 18.2. Tchula and Marksville period ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds. A, Tchefuncte Stamped var. unspecified; B, Marksville Incised var. Marksville, crosshatched rim; C–D, Marksville Incised var. Vick; E, Marksville Stamped var. Manny.

years, during which the site area apparently was void of human activity, the site became the locus of a small hamlet or village of the late Balmoral phase of the late Coles Creek period (ca. AD 1065–1080). During that time, the first low mound (or mounds) may have been constructed (Weinstein 2005b:515). Between ca. AD 1150 and 1260 Lake Providence witnessed a major increase in occupation and mound-building activity. This occurred during the middle to late portions of the Preston phase at the end of the Coles Creek period. Ceramics during that time consisted of typical late Coles Creek types and varieties, particularly those varieties that occur on a paste recognized as Baytown Plain var. Little Tiger (Ryan 2004:96). Little Tiger paste is a temporally intermediate ware created between earlier Baytown Plain wares, such as vars. Percy Creek and Valley Park (Phillips 1970:51–52, 55–56), and a later ware equivalent to Baytown Plain var. Addis (Phillips 1970:48–49). This later Addis ware is typically associated with ceramics of the succeeding Plaquemine culture (Brain 1989:70–72, 81–82; Williams and Brain 1983:92, 318–319). Figure 18.3 illustrates some of the typical Preston phase ceramics that occur on Little Tiger paste at Lake Providence.

394 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

Figure 18.3. Preston phase ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds. A, Baytown Plain var. Little Tiger, carinated bowl; B–C, Avoyelles Punctated var. Stack Island; D–E, Coles Creek Incised var. Hilly Grove; F, Harrison Bayou Incised var. Bunkie; G–H, Hollyknowe Pinched var. Rose Hill; I–J, Mazique Incised var. Preston; K, Medora Incised var. unspecified; L–M, Plaquemine Brushed var. Blackwater.

To determine if the vessels created with Little Tiger paste were locally made, as suspected, three sherds of Baytown Plain var. Little Tiger were subjected to a petrographic thin-section study by James B. Stoltman (2005:Table A-1) of the University of Wisconsin and subsequent Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) by researchers at the University of Missouri (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1; Wells 2005:Table 9.1). In addition, an unclassified black-painted sherd with Little Tiger paste was examined in the same manner. The former method indicated that all four

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 395

sherds were of local manufacture, while the latter technique suggested that two of the plain sherds were made locally but that the other plain sherd plus the black-painted sherd could not be assigned to a known chemical group from a specific region in the Midwest or Southeast (Wells 2005:Table 9.1). In addition to the types and varieties associated with Little Tiger paste, the authors identified several contemporaneous sherds as elements of a “Preston Fineware Complex” (Wells 2005:360–362). The complex consisted of vessels with thinner and finer pastes than those made with Little Tiger paste. These mainly included sherds with pastes equivalent to Baytown Plain var. Vicksburg (Phillips 1970:56–57) and Bell Plain var. Greenville (Williams and Brain 1983:105). Many of the sherds with Vicksburg paste exhibited the tapered “Vicksburg rim” and very fine and elaborate exterior decoration (Figure 18.4). Principal among the Preston Fineware Complex were Carter Engraved var. Mud Lake (Williams and Brain 1983:138), Coles Creek Incised var. Greenhouse (Phillips 1970:72–73), and Mazique Incised

Figure 18.4. Ceramics of the “Preston Fineware Complex” from the Lake Providence Mounds. A, Carter Engraved var. Mud Lake; B–D, Coles Creek Incised var. Greenhouse; E–G, Coles Creek Incised var. Mott; H–I, Mazique Incised var. Kings Point.

Figure 18.5. Additional ceramics of the “Preston Fineware Complex” from the Lake Providence Mounds. A–L, Carter Engraved var. Shell Bluff; M, Fish-effigy bowl of Carter Engraved var. Carter. The latter vessel shows hints of having once been red filmed.

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 397

var. Kings Point (Phillips 1970:129). Sherds with Greenville paste included numerous examples of Carter Engraved var. Shell Bluff (Phillips 1970:103– 104; Williams and Brain 1983:139–140), a partial fish-effigy bowl of var. Carter (Phillips 1970:110; Williams and Brain 1983:136), a sherd of Carter Engraved var. Sara (Williams and Brain 1983:138, 139), several sherds of Carter Engraved var. unspecified, and a few examples of Chicot Red var. unspecified (Brain 1989:143; Williams and Brain 1983:169) (Figure 18.5). Two sherds of var. Vicksburg and three sherds of Carter Engraved (two var. Shell Bluff and one var. Carter) were submitted for petrographic analysis and INAA (Wells 2005:Table 9.1). The former sourcing technique classified the two Vicksburg sherds as local and the three Carter Engraved sherds as likely local (Stoltman 2005:Table A-1). INAA assigned all five sherds to local groups (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1). Evidence of an American Bottom Connection at Lake Providence

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Lake Providence artifact collection was the identification of many of the ceramic sherds as potential imports from the American Bottom region or as local copies of American Bottom vessels (often referred to as local “knock-offs”). Both sets of ceramics are key elements in establishing the so-called Cahokia or American Bottom connection at Lake Providence. Each group will be reviewed below, along with another set of potentially exotic ceramic specimens. American Bottom Ceramics

Sherds classified as Powell Plain var. Powell (n = 278) (Griffin 1949; Brain 1989:159; Williams and Brain 1983:200, 202), Ramey Incised var. unspecified (n = 2) (Barrett 1933; Brain 1989:159; Griffin 1949; Moorehead 1929; Titterington 1938; Williams and Brain 1983:202–203); and Old Town Red var. Cahokia (n = 70) (Brain 1989:155; Williams and Brain 1983:192) offered the greatest possibility of representing vessels that had originated either at Cahokia (11S34/11Ms2) or other contemporaneous sites in the American Bottom (Figure 18.6). The Powell sherds almost all exhibited the typical thinness of the variety, along with the diagnostic gray interior and brown to dark gray exterior slip, while the sherd of Ramey also had a very pronounced dark gray slip. Tim Pauketat personally examined many of the Powell sherds and noted that they could not be distinguished from typical

398 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

Figure 18.6. American Bottom ceramics from the Lake Providence Mounds. A–D, Powell Plain var. Powell; E, Ramey Incised var. unspecified; F–M, Old Town Red var. Cahokia.

Cahokian wares of the Stirling phase (Wells 2005:354). Likewise, the sherds of Cahokia matched the original description of the variety (Williams and Brain 1983:192), that is, a red-filmed ware with paste and vessel thinness equivalent to Powell Plain var. Powell. In order to confirm the nonlocal origin of the potential American Bottom ceramics, five sherds of Powell, four sherds of Cahokia, and one of the Ramey Incised sherds were submitted for petrographic analysis and INAA (Wells 2005:Table 9.1). The two sourcing techniques offered somewhat contradictory results. The petrographic analysis indicated that all 10

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 399

sherds either were from the American Bottom or were likely to have come from that general region (Stoltman 2005:Table A-1). INAA, on the other hand, placed four of the five Powell sherds in local chemical groups and the other Powell sherd in the unassigned category (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1). INAA identified two of the Cahokia sherds as members of one of the local chemical groups, another Cahokia sherd as unassigned, and the final Cahokia sherd as potentially a member of the “Cahokia/Halliday” group indicative of the American Bottom region (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1; Wells 2005:Table 9.1). Lastly, INAA statistically identified the sherd of Ramey Incised as unassigned, but subsequently recognized that it had a “Best Group” association with Cahokia/Halliday (RodríguezAlegría et al. 2005:Table B-4). Local “Knock-Off” Ceramics

The idea that potters in the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) were creating local versions of American Bottom vessels is not a new concept, as Phillips (1970), Brain (1969, 1989), and Williams and Brain (1983) all discussed that likelihood and, in fact, devised certain ceramic varieties of local types to represent the copies. Of special note are Mississippi Plain var. Coker (Phillips 1970:132) and Old Town Red var. Sharbrough (Phillips 1970:147), both of which were found in modest numbers at Lake Providence (n = 34 and n = 27, respectively) (Figure 18.7). These varieties have pastes that are not as fine as their American Bottom antecedents and contain shell particles that are somewhat coarser than those present in American Bottom ceramics. In addition to the sherds of Coker and Sharbrough, a partial vessel of Coleman Incised, possibly var. Bass (Brain 1988:345; Phillips 1970:69), exhibited form and decoration reminiscent of certain Ramey Incised vessels from the American Bottom and can be considered a locally made replica of that type (see Figure 18.7j). In form, the vessel is like Stirling phase (ca. AD 1100–1200) jars from Cahokia, although Pauketat noted that its decoration approached motifs found on typical Moorehead phase (ca. AD 1200–1300) vessels (Wells 2005:338). Given that the estimated date range for the occurrence of the Cahokia and Cahokia-like ceramics at Lake Providence falls within a 50-year period between ca. AD 1170 and 1220 (Weinstein 2005b:515–516), it seems reasonable that a vessel exhibiting characteristics of both the Stirling and Moorehead phases would be present. Two sherds of Coker, a sherd of Sharbrough, and one of the Coleman

400 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

Figure 18.7. Sherds from the Lake Providence Mounds that are indicative of some of the locally made copies (or “knock-offs”) of American Bottom ceramics. A–I, Old Town Red var. Sharbrough; J, Partial vessel of Coleman Incised var. Bass; an excellent example of a knock-off of Ramey Incised.

Incised sherds comprising the Ramey Incised knock-off vessel were submitted for petrographic thin-section analysis and INAA. As with the sherds of Powell, the petrographic analysis suggested that the Coker sherds were potentially from the American Bottom, while INAA placed them in local chemical groups (Stoltman 2005:Table A-1; Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1; Wells 2005:Table 9.1). The same was true of the Sharbrough

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 401

sherd (i.e., petrography indicated it could be from the American Bottom, while INAA classed it as local), while the Coleman Incised sherd was identified as local by both techniques (Wells 2005:Table 9.1). Other Potentially Exotic Ceramics

The Lake Providence Mounds also produced other sherds that potentially derived from locations outside the Tensas Basin. Some with either coarse or moderate shell temper were thought to be from locations in the Yazoo Basin of northwest Mississippi, or from farther up the Mississippi Valley in eastern Arkansas and/or Missouri. Included were sherds classified as Mississippi Plain var. unspecified (n = 278) and St. Genevieve Plain var. unspecified (n = 2) (Figure 18.8). Also present were sherds of Barton Incised var. unspecified (n = 3), Bell Plain vars. Holly Bluff (n = 3) and unspecified (n = 1), Old Town Red var. unspecified (n = 17); and Parkin Punctated var. unspecified (n = 6). Two of the Mississippi Plain sherds and one of the St. Genevieve Plain

Figure 18.8. Some of the other potentially exotic ceramics uncovered at the Lake Providence Mounds. A–B, St. Genevieve Plain var. unspecified; C, Barton Incised var. unspecified; D, Parkin Punctated var. unspecified.

402 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

sherds were subjected to petrographic analysis and INAA. Petrography identified all three as potentially coming from the American Bottom (Stoltman 2005:Table A-1), while INAA indicated that one of the Mississippi Plain sherds had a local chemical signature and the other probably fit into the Cahokia-Halliday group (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2005:Table B-1; Wells 2005:Table 9.1). INAA also put the sherd of St. Genevieve Plain into its unassigned group. Importantly, Stoltman (2005:558) noted the possibility of a common, nonlocal origin for all shell-tempered sherds at Lake Providence, indicating that all might have come from the American Bottom. As pointed out by Wells (2005:349), it is possible that many of these sherds represented eroded and slightly thicker examples of Powell Plain or perhaps the type St. Clair Plain; the latter is an unslipped, shell-tempered ware common to the Stirling and Moorehead phases at Cahokia (Milner 1984:136). If all shell-tempered ceramics found at Lake Providence are deemed exotic, as suggested by the petrographic analysis and some of the INAA results, then a total of 625 sherds, or about 3.1 percent of the recovered ceramic assemblage, can be considered foreign to the region. These artifacts were found in what appear to have been high-status contexts, including ridge-top activities and trash pits adjacent to mounds. As of this writing, Lake Providence has produced the largest collection of Cahokian ceramics in the entire LMV. Thus, it must figure prominently in any discussion of Cahokian influence in the LMV. Parenthetically, Marvin Jeter (personal communication, 2017) recently informed the authors that a review of ceramics from the Greenhouse site (16AV2) in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, by John Belmont, revealed the presence of a sherd of var. Coker. As such, Greenhouse becomes the second site in Louisiana to produce potential evidence of a Cahokia connection, albeit based on only one local knock-off sherd. Nature of the Cahokia Connection

Previous Considerations As cited in Williams and Brain (1983:410), several earlier archaeologists (Brain 1969; Fowler 1969; Gibson 1974; Griffin 1967; Hall 1962; Larson 1972; Porter 1969; Willey 1953) had offered hypotheses to explain long-distance prehistoric contacts across extensive areas of the eastern United States. However, none of those ideas were “adequately substantiated” (Williams and Brain 1983:410), and only a few dealt with Cahokia contact in the LMV.

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 403

In fact, Williams and Brain (1983:410) went on to quote Griffin (1973:378): “there is not very much that can be said with certainty except that the contact with Cahokia was definite and that someone carried the Ramey style pottery to the southern Delta area during the Stirling phase (AD 1050–1150) at Cahokia.” Although we now have more sites with more examples of definite Cahokia contact, including Lake Providence, we are still faced with a lot of unsubstantiated ideas and guesswork to explain the reason for such contact. Nevertheless, we feel it is worth briefly reviewing some of those theories and ideas, several of which were expressed and/or elaborated at the 2016 Mid-South Archaeological Conference. Jeffrey Brain (1969:308–310, 1989:117–122) initially suggested that the small numbers of Cahokia-related ceramics (both direct imports and local knock-offs) found at the Winterville (22WS500) and Lake George (22YZ557) sites, plus a few other locales in the Yazoo Basin (Brain 1989:120, Figure 81), were the result of “deliberate contact” by small groups of people from Cahokia who descended the Mississippi River around AD 1200 and settled among the resident late Coles Creek populations. Since most of these sites were situated in strategic locations at the confluences of major rivers and distributary systems, Brain (1988:120) theorized that Cahokian settlement in the basin was “specifically directed toward control of the region,” most likely for economic and religious reasons. To quote Brain (1989:121): “it may be suggested that the Cahokia interaction with the Lower Mississippi Valley was economically motivated but was carried out under religious auspices—much in the manner of European discovery of the New World centuries later.” It remains to be determined whether this hypothesis is correct. However, Brain (1989:122, 132, Table 11) argued that Cahokia contact had far-reaching consequences in the LMV that resulted in Coles Creek culture evolving into Plaquemine culture, the latter interpreted as an amalgamation (or hybridization) of local Coles Creek culture and foreign Mississippian culture, the latter brought to the region by Cahokia settlers. In their 1983 report on the Lake George site, Stephen Williams and Jeffrey Brain basically followed the lead of Brain (1969, 1989) in suggesting that Cahokia-related ceramics found at sites within the Yazoo Basin were the result of settlers from the American Bottom. Again, the Mississippi River was the hypothesized route that the settlers followed southward from Cahokia, although a small number of sites with Cahokia-related ceramics along the Yazoo River prompted Williams and Brain (1983:376, Figure 11.16) to suggest that the Yazoo system was accessed via Winterville and Deer Creek. Williams and Brain (1983:376, 410–414) also reiterated Brain’s

404 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

earlier theory that the Cahokia connection had a dramatic and profound effect on resident Coles Creek groups in the Yazoo Basin, ultimately creating a culture represented by a mixture of Mississippian and Coles Creek features that today is known as Plaquemine. In 1996, Charles McNutt (1996:237–238) suggested that sites such as Lake George and Winterville probably acted as major trading centers during the rise of Cahokia, so it was only natural that they continued in that role following Cahokia’s growth. Under that scenario, Coles Creek traders ventured north to the American Bottom and brought back ideas and tangible items (such as ceramic vessels) during their return home. Importantly, McNutt noted that only 11 sherds of potentially imported Cahokia vessels were uncovered at Winterville, while a modest 86 similar sherds were found at Lake George. With such relatively small numbers of sherds, McNutt thought that it was hard to argue for settlement at the two sites by settlers from the American Bottom. Near the end of the main Lake Providence report, Wells and Weinstein (2005:510–511) provided some ideas that could explain the presence of so many probable American Bottom vessels, plus their locally made knockoffs, at Lake Providence. Two hypotheses were presented: the first was based entirely on trade, particularly with regions to the north and the American Bottom especially. It basically followed the ideas put forth by McNutt (1996), as discussed above. The second involved a combination of trade for finished goods and the physical presence of Mississippian potters. As stated by Wells and Weinstein (2005:511): A certain number of these shell-tempered pots were probably imported into the site, particularly the examples of Ramey Incised, Powell Plain, and var. Cahokia. However, many of the sherds of shelltempered pottery may not be imported, as suggested by INAA. These sherds are very clearly not within the tradition of Coles Creek pottery. There are, however, both plain and decorated sherds with pastes equivalent to Bell Plain var. Greenville, such as Carter Engraved var. Carter, that exhibit both shell and grog tempering. This combination suggests that local potters were being influenced in their manufacturing techniques by Mississippian methods of pot construction, adding small amounts of shell to their grog-tempered repertoire. A likely explanation for this is the actual presence of a few Mississippian potters, who were producing vessels in their own tradition. This would

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 405

probably involve the exchange of women (the most likely candidates for prehistoric native American potters), or perhaps the presence of “war brides” or slaves taken in raids. Although Lake Providence has one of the largest samples of shell-tempered pottery from terminal Coles Creek contexts in the Lower Mississippi Valley, it is not likely that the current data can be used convincingly to support either hypothesis. The limited presence of these shell-tempered sherds (3.1 percent of the Lake Providence total, which may actually reflect a limited number of vessels) certainly does not suggest a “site-unit intrusion” of Mississippian peoples, and it cannot be said to support heavy contact between the cultures. Simple exchange could certainly be enough to account for these numbers, although the presence of shell-and-grogtempered pottery in the terminal Coles Creek time levels at Lake Providence and in the lower Yazoo Basin certainly suggests more sustained communication between potters. Ceramic data alone are probably not adequate to evaluate these hypotheses; other lines of evidence, particularly mortuary data, would be needed to suggest the presence or absence of Mississippian peoples from areas farther up the Mississippi Valley. Additional Considerations

Several of the papers presented at the 2016 Mid-South Archaeological Conference provided theories related to the spread of American Bottom material culture into the LMV. These are generally based upon new data coming out of both the American Bottom region and the LMV within the past decade or so. In addition, a collection of potential LMV ceramics from the East St. Louis Mounds (11S706) was present at the conference, and these further stimulated discussions related to contact between the American Bottom and the LMV. Again, a short summary of the ideas expressed at the conference are offered below. John Connaway’s recent work at the Carson site (22C0505) is extremely interesting, given the potential for a strong Cahokian presence there, particularly as it relates to some of the site’s architectural features (Johnson and Connaway 2016). We had suggested in our original report on Lake Providence that contact with the American Bottom could well have been through people residing in a geographically intervening area (Wells and Weinstein 2005:510). The somewhat earlier presence at Carson of Cahokia

406 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

artifacts and Cahokia-like structures suggests that Carson may have been one of the sites (if not the site) situated within that intervening area. This also might explain some of the shell-tempered ceramics found at Lake Providence that were sourced as “foreign” but do not appear to have come from the American Bottom itself. Steve Boles (2016) suggested that people from certain sites across the Southeast moved to Cahokia and lived there for several years. Descendants of these folks, having retained knowledge of their ancestral homelands, then returned to their original sites and family groups decades later. Certainly, these “returnees” would have brought Cahokian goods and materials back with them, as well as some stylistic tendencies. As mentioned above, we had initially suggested that many of the local knock-offs could have been produced, in part, by Cahokian potters, perhaps wives or slaves taken in raids. Interactions between tribal entities of these sorts in historic times have been well documented (Hudson 1976:213, 254–255; La Harpe 1971:53; McWilliams 1988:159; Swanton 1970:193, 252–256, 280–281, 289, 291). However, it is uncertain how much of this was due to the breakdown of native societies in the contact period; equally unclear are any consequences related to material culture. Boles’s ideas, which are closely related to the concept of Cahokia as a major trading center (McNutt 1996:238) or pilgrimage center (Alt 2002; Alt and Pauketat 2018; Alt and Watts 2017; Pauketat 2012; Skousen 2016; Slater et al. 2014), present an explanation that seems both more elegant and plausible than ours. Pottery displayed at the 2016 Mid-South Archaeological Conference by Tamira Brennan of the American Bottom Field Station included examples of ceramics from the East St. Louis Mounds that seemed very familiar to Lower Valley archaeologists. Among these were sherds that we would have classified as Carter Engraved var. Shell Bluff, and that Jeff Girard of Northwestern State University of Louisiana recognized as Holly Fine Engraved, a Caddo area type dating between AD 1000 and 1300. Carter Engraved, a type first established by Phillips (1970:103–104) as a variety of L’eau Noire Incised, is a prominent member of the “Preston Fineware Complex” (Wells 2005:360–362) and has maintained an enigmatic role in the Coles Creek– to–Plaquemine/Mississippian transition in the LMV. This is particularly true of the Shell Bluff variety, which Phillips more than 60 years ago singled out as a possible import to the LMV (although at that time it was recognized as a type and not a specific variety) (Phillips et al. 1951:283). In fact, Phillips (1970:260) noted that it bore a “rather remote resemblance” to Holly Fine

The Cahokia Connection at the Lake Providence Mounds, Louisiana · 407

Engraved from the Caddo area. He placed the variety in his “Shell Bluff Complex,” which included such familiar members as the Powell-like Mississippi Plain var. Coker, Old Town Red var. Sharbrough, and “Ramey-like” incised sherds. Stephen Williams and Jeffrey Brain (1983:139–140) raised the Carter concept to type status in their report on the Lake George site, subsuming var. Shell Bluff under that umbrella. They noted the presence of engraved and incised versions of var. Shell Bluff at Lake George that were “strikingly similar” to pottery found at the Gahagan site (16RR1) in the Caddo area of northwest Louisiana. However, they relegated the variety to the late Coles Creek period (during the Kings Crossing phase in the Lower Yazoo Basin) and did not associate the type with their “Cahokia Horizon” (Williams and Brain 1983:375–376). Carter Engraved has been identified in the Natchez Bluffs region as a late Coles Creek period (Balmoral phase) category (Brown 1985:Table 2), and in the Lower Red River region as a terminal Coles Creek (Spring Bayou phase) type (Belmont 1989). It has also been found in terminal Coles Creek (Preston phase) contexts at Hedgeland (16CT19) in the southern Tensas Basin (Ryan 2004), and at Raffman (16MA20), located fewer than 37 km south of Lake Providence (Roe 2007:33). We have suggested that, as a constituent of the “Preston Fineware Complex,” the presence of Carter Engraved var. Shell Bluff and/or Holly Fine Engraved may be a significant marker of changing social relationships within the LMV (Wells 2005:360–362; Wells and Weinstein 2007:46–49), although perhaps not necessarily indicative of direct contact. It may also suggest that this contact and change came into the region from more than one direction. Despite the evidence for direct contact with their flamboyant neighbors to the north, one should not ignore potential influences from chiefdoms developing in the Caddo region to the west during the transition to Plaquemine culture. (Similarly, the potential roots of Carter Engraved in indigenous ceramic traditions, such as French Fork Incised, should be acknowledged.) With all that said, it should be noted that Lake Providence is primarily a Preston phase site and is typical of how we expect a local, terminal Coles Creek site and ceramic assemblage to look. It is unclear how much Cahokian contact really influenced the development of an elite class within Coles Creek and early Plaquemine societies, particularly in the Tensas Basin. While Brain (1989:132) and Williams and Brain (1983:375–376) cited Cahokian contact as one of the primary drivers of Coles Creek “Mississippianization,” the overall arc of Coles Creek cultural evolution from AD 700

408 · Richard A. Weinstein and Douglas C. Wells

onward seems to be heading in the direction of increasing social differentiation, and it may well be that contact with Cahokia or the Caddo region was more of a symptom of a Coles Creek elite beginning to flex their social muscles than a cause of any sudden Plaquemine social revolution. For now, however, it can only be noted that Lake Providence produced more evidence of American Bottom materials than any other site in the LMV, including Winterville and Lake George combined (Weinstein 2005b:517).

19 Conclusion Charles H. McNutt

The region discussed in this volume covers most of the midwestern and southeastern United States between AD 900 and 1400—truly a comprehensive undertaking. While the chapters deal knowledgably with the material relevant to their topics, the reader will hardly be surprised that much yet remains to be discussed. If this were not the case, there would be little left to deal with in much of eastern North American archaeology. One thing seems apparent. There are many types of “diasporas,” and there is much discussion of the term in the literature. But the Cahokia diaspora per se deserves its own detailed examination. It does not do to say simply that Cahokia reached its peak during the Stirling phase and was virtually abandoned in the Moorehead phase. While this statement may be essentially true, it is also probably true (and more accurate) to say that Cahokia’s abandonment began during the late Stirling phase and was completed by the early Moorehead phase. It is here suggested that this “late Stirling–early Moorehead” interval requires greater attention, particularly as it relates to the impacts of the “Cahokia diaspora.” Two comments about this diaspora are in order: it may have involved individuals taking objects with them from Cahokia, and it must have involved a large number of individuals. Boles has provided excellent information regarding the former in his chapter on flint clay objects originating in Cahokia. As noted in the introduction, the best evidence of this movement seems to be down the west side of the Mississippi River, perhaps as far south as Louisiana, but involving relatively few people—perhaps Boles’s priests or cult bringers. On the other hand, the best evidence for movement of large numbers of peoples appears to be into the Ohio confluence, the Nashville Basin, and regions to the south and east.

410 · Charles H. McNutt

A general question regarding the diaspora has to do with the overall Middle Mississippian period (ca. AD 1150–1400). Many sites in the Cairo Lowland, Ohio confluence, and northeast Arkansas regions show fortifications and bastions during this period. But many of these sites appear to have been occupied prior to any major exodus of peoples from Cahokia. To what extent, if any, do these fortifications represent defense against groups leaving Cahokia? As appropriate to the concern of this volume, the relationships of Cahokia to many, if not most, of the major civic centers in the Midwest and Southeast are discussed. Surely these centers, as well as those not discussed, formed a network of sort—they did not exist in isolation or solely in connection to Cahokia. These relationships will provide fodder for many future forays into prehistory. Two that this author finds particularly intriguing are those between the Caddo and Cahokia regions and between the Nashville Basin and Spiro. Finally, a comment about Cahokia and Spiro. Dye’s chapter makes it abundantly clear that there was considerable exchange between these centers, with Spiro largely on the receiving end. It seems that two questions regarding Cahokia and Spiro remain. The first is: How did material from Cahokia reach Spiro? Did it come up the Arkansas River? Buchner and Albertson have suggested an overland route, crossing the Ozark Plateau. This seems the most reasonable answer, but it should be investigated further. The second inquiry involves a number of distinctive items found at both Cahokia and Spiro. However, the items are often found at other sites. This is particularly true of the hypertrophic implements, such as the long-handled spuds and chert “swords” found in the Tennessee region. It is frequently assumed that these objects found their way to Spiro by way of Cahokia, rather than from the other regions in which they occur. This, I feel, remains to be demonstrated. Cahokia was truly an incredible phenomenon—a settlement extending over 16 km2, containing some 120 mounds, and crowned by Monks Mound, the largest man-made structure north of Mexico. But it was also a relatively short-lived phenomenon, extending less than three centuries, between AD 1000 and 1275. As the chapters in this volume attest, the cultural developments at Cahokia during its relatively brief heyday, as well as the impact of its demise, significantly influenced prehistoric people, communities, and local traditions. Researchers must continue to evaluate the role that Cahokia had as an influencer both in its heyday and after its decline. As a number of chapters in this volume attest, the presentation of

Conclusion · 411

negative data is just as important as evidence for a Cahokian connection. We must continue to evaluate where Cahokia was not in the same manner as to demonstrate where Cahokia was. New research examining hegemony and diaspora will build upon what is presented here, but it will be critical to look at Cahokian impact in the metaphysical realm in addition to the physical. It is clear from the contributions in this volume that Cahokia’s influence was greater in some places relative to others, and the complexity of these relationships warrants much future research.

References

Adair, James 2009 The History of the American Indians. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Adler, Michael A., and Richard A. Wilshusen 1990 Large-Scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies: Cross-Cultural and Southwestern US Examples. World Archaeology 22:133–146. Adovasio James M., Jeff S. Illingworth, Allison N. Rexroth, Erica J. Cleghorn, and Anne E. Marjenin 2013 Conservation and Analysis of Perishable Material from Mound A. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 664–682. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Aftandilian, David 2007 Animals, Agriculture, and Religion among Native Americans in Precontact Illinois: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Perception and Representation. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Ahler, Steven R. 1999 Projectile Point Caches. In The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia, 101–116. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Akridge, Scott 2016 Southwest Trail: Entry in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture, Central Arkansas Library System. http//www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-deetail.aspx?entryID=2305. Albers, Patricia C. 1993 Symbiosis, Merger, and War: Contrasting Forms of Intertribal Relationship among Historic Plains Indians. In The Political Economy of North American Indians, edited by John H. Moore, 94–132. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Albers, Patricia, and Jeanne Kay 1987 Sharing the Land: A Study of American Indian Territoriality. In A Cultural Geography of North American Indians, edited by Thomas E. Ross and Tyrel G. Moore, 47–91. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Alex, Lynn M. 2000 Iowa’s Archaeological Past. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

414 · References

Alexander, H. B. 1916 North American Mythology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Alt, Susan M. 2001 Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, 141–156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2002 Identities, Traditions, and Diversity in Cahokia’s Uplands. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:217–236. 2006a The Power of Diversity: Settlement in the Cahokian Uplands. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by B. M. Butler and P. D. Welch, 289–308. Occasional Paper No. 33. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2006b Cultural Pluralism and Complexity: Analyzing a Cahokian Ritual Outpost. PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 2008 Unwilling Immigrants: Culture, Change, and the “Other” in Mississippian Societies. In Invisible Citizens: Captives and Their Consequences, edited by C. M. Cameron. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2012 Making Mississippian at Cahokia. In Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited by T. R. Pauketat, 497–508. Oxford University Press, New York. 2015a The Significance of Religious and Domestic Architecture at a Cahokian Shrine Complex. 2015b Death, Sacrifice and Religion at Cahokia. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. 2016a Building Cahokia: Transformation through Tradition. In Vernacular Architecture in the Pre-Columbian Americas, edited by C. T. Halperin and L. Schwartz, 141–157. Routledge, New York. 2016b The Emerald Acropolis and the Creative Force of Religion. Paper presented at the 37th Mid-South Archaeological Conference, July 16–17, Memphis, TN. 2017b Putting Religion Ahead of Politics: Cahokia Origins Viewed through Emerald Shrines. In New Perspectives on Science, Religion and Archaeology, edited by B. Koldehoff and T. R. Pauketat. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2018 Cahokia’s Complexities: Ceremonies and Politics of the First Mississippian Farmers. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2019 From Weeping Hills to Lost Caves: A Search for Vibrant Matter in Greater Cahokia. In New Materialisms Ancient Urbanisms, edited by Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat, 19–39. Routledge, London Alt, Susan M., ed. 2010 Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Pre-Columbian North America. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Alt, Susan M., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2007 Sex and the Southern Cult. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 232–250. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2011 Why Wall Trenches? Southeastern Archaeology 30(1): 108–122.

References · 415

2018

The Elements of Cahokian Shrine Complexes and the Basis of Mississippian Religion. In Religion and Politics in the Ancient Americas, edited by S. Barber and A. Joyce, 51-74. Routledge, New York. Alt, Susan M., and Elizabeth L. Watts 2017 Enchained, Entangled, Engaged: Building Mississippian Society. In Mississippian Beginnings: Variability, Inequality, and Interaction in the Southeast and Midwest, edited by G. D. Wilson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Alt, Susan M., Jeffrey Kruchten, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2010 The Construction and Use of Cahokia’s Grand Plaza. Journal of Field Archaeology 35(2): 131–146. Anderson, David G. 2001 Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:143–186. 2017 Mississippian Beginnings: Multiple Perspectives on Migration, Monumentality, and Religion in the Prehistoric Eastern United States. In Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory Wilson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Anderson, David G., John E. Cornelison Jr., and Thaddeus G. Bissett 2013 Shiloh Mound A: Conclusions and Recommendations. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 689–714. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Anderson, David G., John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, eds. 2013 Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Anderson, David G., John E. Cornelison Jr., and Paul D. Welch 2013 Previous Archaeological Research. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 23–44. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Anderson, Duane C. 1975a A Long-Nosed God Mask from Northwest Iowa. American Antiquity 40:326–329. 1975b Western Iowa Prehistory. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 1981 Mill Creek Ceramics: The Complex from the Brewster Site. Report 14. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Anderson, Duane C., Joseph A. Tiffany, Michael Fokken, and Patricia M. Williams 1979 The Siouxland Sand and Gravel Site (13WD402): New Data and the Application of Iowa’s New State Law Protecting Ancient Cemeteries. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 26:119–145. Androshchuk, Fedir 2016 What Does Material Evidence Tell Us about Contacts between Byzantium and the Viking World c. 800–1000? In Byzantium and the Viking World, edited by Fedir Androshchuk, Jonathan Shepard, and Monica White, 91–116. Uppsala Universitet, Sweden.

416 · References

Anfinson, Scott F. 1997 Southwestern Minnesota Archaeology: 12,000 Years in the Prairie Lake Region. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Anthony, David W. 1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:895–914. Arzigian, Constance M. 2015 Fisher Mounds Complex (47VE825): 2001–2006 Investigations in Stoddard, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archeologist 96(2): 119–213. Arzigian, Constance M., and Katherine P. Stevenson 2003 Minnesota’s Indian Mounds and Burial Sites: A Synthesis of Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeological Data. Publication 1. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, St. Paul. Ashley, Keith 2012 Early St. Johns II Interaction, Exchange, and Politics: A View from Northeastern Florida. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White, 100–125. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Astin, Robyn 1996 Mound M: Chronology and Function at Moundville. Master’s thesis, University of Alabama. Aulwes, Gina M. 2016 Analysis of Cambria Phase Animal Use Patterns at Varying Site Types near the Minnesota River Valley. MS thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato. Aveni, Anthony 2002 Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Azar, Madelaine C. 2018 Varied Visions: An Iconographic Reevaluation of Ramey Incised Production and Distribution in the American Bottom, Illinois. Southeastern Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2018.1530009 Baerreis, D. A. 1954 The Huffaker Site, Delaware County, Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 2. Bailey, Garrick A., ed. 1995 The Osage and the Invisible World: From the Works of Francis La Flesche. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Baires, Sarah E. 2014 Cahokia’s Origins: Religion, Complexity and Ridge-Top Mortuaries in the Mississippi River Valley. PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 2016 A Microhistory of Human and Gastropod Bodies and Souls during Cahokia’s Emergence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25. Baires, Sarah E., Amanda J. Butler, B. J. Skousen, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2014 Fields of Movement in the Ancient Woodlands of North America. In Archaeology

References · 417

After Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory, edited by A. Jones, B. Alberti, and J. Pollard, 197–218. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Baltus, Melissa R., and Sarah E. Baires 2012 Elements of Ancient Power in the Cahokian World. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(2): 167–192. Banks, Alan 1987 The Davis Pipe. Central States Archaeological Journal 34:59. Bareis, Charles J., and James W. Porter, eds. 1984 American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi Valley. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Barker, Alex W., Craig E. Skinner, M. Steven Shackley, Michael D. Glascock, and J. Daniel Rogers 2002 Mesoamerican Origin for an Obsidian Scraper from the Precolumbian Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 67:103–108. Barker, Gary 2005 Archaeological Investigation of a Mississippian Period Structure in the Loess Hill Bluffs of Shelby County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 2(1): 3–18. Barker, Gary, and Karl Kuttruff 2010 A Summary of Exploratory and Salvage Archaeological Investigations at the Brick Church Pike Mound Site (40DV39), Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(1): 5–30. Barrett, Samuel A. 1933 Ancient Aztalan. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. 13. Barrier, Casey R. 2017 Town Aggregation and Abandonment during the Era of Urban Transformation in the Cahokia Region: Bayesian Modeling of the Washausen Mound-town. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:523–535. Barth, Fredrik 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Johansen and Neilsen Boktrykkeri, Oslo. Baumann, Martin 2000 Diaspora: Genealogies of Semantics and Transcultural Comparison. Numen 47(3) (Religions in the Disenchanted World): 313–337. Baumganter, C. 1843 Plat of a Part of the Town of Port Pickering. Map on file at the Special Collections Room, McWherter Library, University of Memphis. Beahm, Emily L. 2013 Mississippian Polities in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. PhD diss., University of Georgia. Beck, Robin A., and James A. Brown 2011 Political Economy and the Routinization of Religious Movements: A View from the Eastern Woodlands. In Beyond Belief: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual, edited by Y. M. Rowman. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association.

418 · References

Beck, Robin A., Douglas J. Bollander, James A. Brown, and Timothy K. Earle 2007 Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Structural Transformation. Current Anthropology 48:833–860. Bell, Catherine M. 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bell, Robert E. 1947 Trade Materials at Spiro Mound as Indicated by Artifacts. American Antiquity 12:181–184. 1974 Mounds and Fieldwork Near Muskogee, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 22(8): 8. Bellman, Beryl 1984 The Language of Secrecy: Symbols and Metaphors in Poro Ritual. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Belmont, John S. 1984 The Troyville Concept and the Gold Mine Site. Louisiana Archaeology 9:65–98. 1989 Untitled Series of Notes Concerning Lower Mississippi Valley Ceramic Typology, Compiled Between 1964 and 1983. Manuscript on file, Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Benbow, Richard J., Bernard H. W. S. De Jong, and Jane W. Adams 2000 Mica. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Doi.org/10.1002/14356007. a16_551. Benden, Danielle M. 2004 The Fisher Mounds Site Complex: Early Middle Mississippian Exploration in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Archaeologist 63:7–24. Benden, Danielle M., Timothy R. Pauketat, and Robert Boszhardt 2010 Early Mississippian Colonists in the Upper Mississippi Valley: 2009 Investigations at the Fisher Mounds Site Complex. Wisconsin Archeologist 91(1): 131–132. Benedict, Ruth 1932 Configurations of Culture in North America. American Anthropology 34(1): 1–27. Benson, Larry V., Timothy R. Pauketat, and Edward R. Cook 2009 Cahokia’s Boom or Bust in the Context of Climate Change. American Antiquity 74:467–483. Betzenhauser, Alleen 2017 Cahokia’s Beginnings: Mobility, Urbanization, and the Cahokian Political Landscape. In Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson, 71–96. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Binford, Lewis R. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1–12. Birmingham, Robert A., and Thomas E. Emerson 2011 A Ceramic “Red Goddess” Figurine from Aztalan. Wisconsin Archeologist 91(1): 37–44. Birmingham, Robert A., and Lynne G. Goldstein 2005 Aztalan: Mysteries of an Ancient Indian Town. Wisconsin Historical Society Press, Madison.

References · 419

Blakeslee, Donald J. 2012 Caves and Related Sites in the Great Plains of North America. In Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, edited by Holley Moyes, 353–362. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Blitz, John H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80–96. 1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process. American Antiquity 64:577–592. 2010 New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18:1–39. Boles, Steven L. 2011 Thunder on the Ohio: Introducing Storms-as-he-walks, Red Horn’s Companion. Central States Archaeological Journal 58:237–244. 2012 Fluorite: A Mineral of Importance in Midcontinental Prehistory. MA thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2014 Supernaturals in the Confluence Region. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Greenville, SC. 2016 Cahokian Diaspora: Tracking Migration through Material Culture. Paper presented at the Mid-South Archaeological Conference, July 16–17, Memphis, TN. 2017 Earth Diver and Earth Mother: Ancestral Flint Clay Figures from Cahokia. Illinois Archaeology 28. 2018 Supernaturals in the Confluence Region. In Ancestors, Creation, and the Cosmos: Iconographic Studies of the Founding Ideologies of Mississippian Belief Systems, edited by Adam King and Steven L. Boles. In press. Boles, Steven L., Jenna M. Ely, Anna I. Poling, Matthew S. Holschen, and Craig A. Kitchen 2018a Lithics at the East St. Louis Mound Complex: A 9-Ton Sample. In Revealing Greater Cahokia, North America’s First Native City: Rediscovery and Large-Scale Excavations of the East St. Louis Precinct, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Brad Koldehoff, and Tamira K. Brennan, 333–385. Studies in Archaeology No. 12, Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Boles, Steven L., Matthew S. Holschen, Craig H. Kitchen, and Anna I. Poling 2018b East St. Louis Precinct (11S706) Terminal Late Woodland and Mississippian Lithics: Data Summary and Interpretation, edited by Steven L. Boles, New Mississippi River Bridge Research Report 41. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Boszhardt, Robert F. 2012 The Effigy Mound to Oneota Revolution in the Upper Mississippi Valley. In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited by T. R. Pauketat, 410– 421. Oxford University Press, New York. Boszhardt, Robert F., and Natalie Goetz 2000 An Apparent Late Woodland Boundary in Western Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25(2): 269–287.

420 · References

Bowers, Alfred W. 1950 Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Reprint, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2004. 1965 Hidatsa Social and Ceremonial Organization. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Brain, Jeffrey P. 1969 Winterville: A Case Study of Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley. PhD diss., Yale University. 1971 The Lower Mississippi Valley in North American Prehistory. Report submitted to the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, and the National Park Service, Southeast Region, Tallahassee, FL, by the Lower Mississippi Survey, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1978 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterning in the Yazoo Basin and Natchez Bluffs Regions of the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 331–368. Academic Press, New York. 1988 Tunica Archaeology. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 78. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1989 Winterville: Late Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Department of Archives and History Archaeological Reports No. 23. Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Brazeau, Linda A., and David F. Overstreet 1979 Archaeological Survey and Limited Test Excavations in the Fox River Drainage: Waukesha, Racine, and Kenosha Counties. Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Reports of Investigations No. 67. Milwaukee, WI. Brazeau, Linda A., Patricia A. Bruhy, and David F. Overstreet 1980 Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Fox River Drainage: Waukesha, Racine, and Walworth Counties; Survey Results 1. Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Reports of Investigations No. 90. Milwaukee, WI. Brehm, H. C., and Travis Smotherman 1989 Tennessee’s Aboriginal Art: The Monolithic Axe. Mini-Histories, Nashville, TN. Brennan, Tamira K. 2007 In-Ground Evidence of Above-Ground Architecture at Kincaid Mounds. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Lacquement, 74– 100. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2010 Preliminary Report of 2009 Fieldwork at Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Department of Anthropology and Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2011 Preliminary Report of 2010 Fieldwork at Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Department of Anthropology and Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

References · 421

2014

Mississippian Community-Making through Everyday Items at Kincaid Mounds. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University. Briggs, Rachel V. 2017 From Bitter Seeds: A Historical Anthropological Approach to Moundville’s Origins. PhD diss., University of Alabama. Broadhead, G. C. 1880 Prehistoric Evidences in Missouri. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 350–358. Washington, DC. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360. Brooks, Robert L. 2006 From Mounds to Monasteries: A Look at Spiro and Other Centers through the Use of Metaphor. Caddoan Archeology Journal 15:41–58. Brose, David S., James A. Brown, and David W. Penney 1985 Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians. Detroit Institute of Arts and Harry N. Abrams, New York. Brown, Ian W. 1978 An Archaeological Survey of Mississippi Period Sites in Coahoma County, Mississippi. Manuscript on file, Museum of the Mississippi Delta (formerly Cottonlandia Museum), Greenwood, MS. Brown, James A. 1971 The Dimensions of Status in the Burials at Spiro. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James A. Brown, 92–112. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. 1975 Spiro Art and Its Mortuary Contexts. In Death and the Afterlife in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1–32. Dumbarton Oaks Library and Collection, Washington, DC. 1976 Spiro Studies, Vol. 4, The Artifacts. Second Part of the Third Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology. Spiro Focus Research. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1981 The Potential of Systematic Collections for Archaeological Research. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Anne-Marie E. Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 376:65–76. 1983 Spiro Exchange Connections Revealed by Sources of Imported Raw Materials. In Southeastern Natives and Their Pasts: A Collection of Papers Honoring Dr. Robert E. Bell, edited by Don G. Wyckoff and Jack L. Hofman, 129–162. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past No. 11. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman. 1985 The Mississippian Period. In Ancient Arts of the American Woodland Indians, edited by David A. Penny, 93–146. Henry N. Abrams, New York. 1989 On Style Divisions of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: A Revisionist Perspective. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia K. Galloway, 183–204. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991 The Falcon and the Serpent: Life in the Southeastern United States at the Time of Columbus. In Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration, edited by Jay A. Levenson,

422 · References

1996

1997 2001a

2001b

2003 2004a

2004b

2006

2007a

2007b

2007c

2010

2011

529–534. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma. 2 vols. Memoir No. 29. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465–485. Human Figures and the Southeastern Ancestor Shrine. In Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, 76–93. Occasional Paper No. 28. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. The Invention of an Art Style as an Instrument of Elite Control in the Mississippian Southeast. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 16, Chattanooga, TN. The Cahokia Mound 72-Sub1 Burials as Collective Representation. Wisconsin Archeologist 84:81–97. The Cahokian Expression: Creating Court and Cult. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 105–123. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Exchange and Interaction until 1500. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, 677–685. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Where’s the Power in Mound Building? An Eastern Woodlands Perspective. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, 197–213. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Sequencing the Braden Style within Mississippian-Period Art and Iconography. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, 213–245. University of Texas Press, Austin. On the Identity of the Birdman within Mississippian Period Art and Iconography. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, 56–106. University of Texas Press, Austin. The Social House in Southeastern Archaeology. In The Durable House: House Models in Archaeology, edited by Robin A. Beck Jr., 227–247. Occasional Paper No. 35. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Cosmological Layouts of Secondary Burials as Political Instruments. In Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationalist Perspective, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., 30–53. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. The Regional Culture Signature of the Braden Art Style. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by F.

References · 423

Kent Reilly III, George E. Lankford, and James F. Garber, 37–63. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2012 Spiro Reconsidered: Sacred Economy at the Western Frontier of the Eastern Woodlands. In The Archaeology of the Caddo, edited by Timothy K. Perttula and Chester P. Walker, 117–138. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2013 Archaeological Study of Mortuary Practices in the Eastern United States. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial, edited by Sarah Tarlow and Liv N. Stutz, 359–373. Oxford University Press, New York. 2017a The Craig Art Style at Spiro. Rebuilding the Spiro Cosmos: Craig Style Imagery. In The Mississippian and Caddoan World, by James A. Brown, Alex Barker, George Sabo III, Elizabeth Horton, and F. Kent Reilly III. Manuscript in preparation. 2017b Change and Continuity from Great Mortuary to Spirit Lodge. In Rebuilding the Spiro Cosmos: Craig Style Imagery in the Mississippian and Caddoan World, by James A. Brown, Alex Barker, George Sabo III, Elizabeth Horton, and F. Kent Reilly III. Manuscript in preparation. 2017c Ideological Referents of the Spirit Lodge Tomb at the Spiro Site. In Rebuilding the Spiro Cosmos: Craig Style Imagery in the Mississippian and Caddoan World, by James A. Brown, Alex Barker, George Sabo III, Elizabeth Horton, and F. Kent Reilly III. Manuscript in preparation. Brown, James A., and David H. Dye 2007 Severed Heads and Sacred Scalplocks: Mississippian Iconographic Trophies. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Robert J. Chacon and David H. Dye, 278–298. Springer, New York. Brown, James A., and John E. Kelly 2000 Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 469–510. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 2012 The Importance of Being Specific: Theme and Trajectory in Mississippian Iconography. In Enduring Motives: Religious Traditions of the Americas, edited by Linea Sundstrom and Warren DeBoer, 210–234. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2014 Cahokia: The Processes and Principles of the Creation of an Early Mississippian City. In Making Ancient Cities, edited by Andrew T. Creekmore III and Kevin D. Fisher. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2015 Surplus Labor, Ceremonial Feasting, and Social Inequality at Cahokia: A Study in Social Process. In Surplus: The Politics of Production and the Strategies of Everyday Life, edited by Christopher T. Morehart and Kristin De Lucia, 221–244. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2019 Cahokia and its Connection to the Spirit World as a Place of Pilgrimage. In Shaman, Priest, Practice, Belief: Materials of Ritual and Religion in Eastern North America, edited by Stephen B. Carmody and Casey R. Barrier, 178–207. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Brown, James A., and Jon Muller 2015 Tradition and Horizons in Southeastern Representation: Lessons from the Picture Cave. In Picture Cave: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Mississippian Cosmos,

424 · References

edited by Carol Diaz-Granados, James R. Duncan, and F. Kent Reilly III, 113–124. University of Texas Press, Austin. Brown, James A., and J. Daniel Rogers 1989 Linking Spiro’s Artistic Styles: The Copper Connection. Southeastern Archaeology 8:1–8. 1999 AMS Dates on Artifacts of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex at Spiro. Southeastern Archaeology 18:134–141. Brown, James A., Richard A. Kerber, and Howard D. Winters 1990 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the Beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 251–280. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Brown, James A., Roger Willis, Mary A. Barth, and George K. Newmann 1967 The Gentleman Farm Site, La Salle County, Illinois. Report of Investigations 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Bruner, Edward 1961 Mandan. In Perspectives in American Indian Culture, edited by Edward H. Spicer, 187–278. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Buchanan, Megan Elizabeth 2015 Warfare and the Materialization of Daily Life at the Mississippian Common Field. PhD diss., Indiana University. Buchner, C. Andrew 1998 A Forked Eye Ramey Incised Jar from Mississippi County, Arkansas. Field Notes 283:8–9. Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society. Buchner, C. A., E. S. Albertson, N. H. Lopinot, L. A. Thomas, E. Breitburg, and J. V. Ward 1999 Three Buried Mississippian Sites on Kochtitzky Ditch No. 1: Data Recovery Excavations at the Kochtitzky Ditch (3MS599), Perry Dixon (3MS600) and John’s Lake (3MS601) Sites in Mississippi County, Arkansas. Panamerican Consultants, submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. 2003 Mississippian Transitions at John’s Lake. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 60. Buerger, Geoffrey E. 1988 Parson, Pretender, Pauper: Eleazer Williams Reconsidered. Voyageur 5(2): 4–18. 1989 Eleazer Williams: Elitism and Multiple Identity on Two Frontiers. In Being and Becoming: Indian Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers, edited by J. A. Clifton, 112–136. Dorsey Press, Chicago. Burnette, Dorian, David H. Dye, and Arleen A. Hill 2017 Climate Change, Ritual, and Environmental Impacts at Spiro. Paper presented at the 74th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tulsa, OK. 2018 Drought, Disruption, and Deities: Late Prehistoric Environmental Change in Tennessee. Paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of Current Research in Tennessee Archaeology, Burns, TN. Butler, Brian M. 1977 Mississippian Settlement in the Black Bottom, Pope and Massac Counties, Illinois. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University.

References · 425

Kincaid Revisited: The Mississippian Sequence in the Lower Ohio Valley. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures in the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, 264–273. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 2006a Before the Mounds: The Baumer Occupation at the Kincaid Site. Illinois Antiquity 41(2): 3–6. 2006b Summary Report of Recent SIUC-CAI Field Investigations for the Observation Platform Area at the Kincaid Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Butler, Brian M., and Rosanna Crow 2013 Archaic Period Occupations at Kincaid Mounds. Illinois Archaeology 25:106–140. Butler, Brian M., and Mark J. Wagner 2012 Cypress Citadel (11JS76), a Lewis Phase Village Complex in the Cache River Valley of Southern Illinois. Technical Report 12-1. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL. Butler, Brian M., R. Berle Clay, Michael L. Hargrave, Steffan D. Peterson, John A. Schwegman, John E. Schwegman, and Paul D. Welch 2011 A New Look at Kincaid: Magnetic Survey of a Large Mississippian Town. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1): 20–37. Butler, Brian M., Paul D. Welch, Tamira K. Brennan, and Corin C. O. Pursell n.d. Kincaid in the New Century: Recent Investigations of a Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis. In A View from Upstream: Late Pre-Columbian Research in the Ohio Valley, edited by Jeremy J. Wilson and Anthony M. Krus. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. In press. Butz, Samuel 2015 Excavations of Mound B, a Ridge-Top Mound at the Carson Site, a Mississippian Mound Center in the Northern Yazoo Basin. MA thesis, University of Mississippi. Cabana, Graciela S., and Jeffrey L. Clark, eds. 2011 Rethinking Perspectives on Migration. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cadle, Cornelius 1902 A Remarkable Prehistoric Ceremonial Pipe. Records of the Past 1:218–220. Campbell, Meadow 2013 Report of Excavations on Douglas Mound Kincaid Site 2013. Manuscript submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Carneiro, Robert L. 2010 Pauketat’s Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions: A Challenge to Social Evolution. Social Evolution and History 9:135–165. Carney, Gary 1993 The Evidence and Character of Exchange Between Arkansas Basin Caddoan and Plains Villagers: A.D. 900–1450. Master’s thesis, University of Oklahoma. Carpenter, Erika 2013 Examination of Architectural Features on Mound C of the Carson Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. MA thesis, University of Mississippi.

1991

426 · References

Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case, eds. 2005 Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum, New York. Carr, Dillon H., and Robert F Boszhardt 2014 Silver Mound, Wisconsin: Source of Hixton Silicified Sandstone. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 35(1): 5–36. Carter, Sandy B., Jr. 2018 The Weatherly Monolithic Axe. Central States Archaeological Journal 65:234–241. Cave, Alfred A. 2002 The Shawnee Prophet, Tecumseh, and Tippecanoe: A Case Study of Historical Myth Making. Journal of the Early Republic 22(4): 637–673. 2006 Prophets of the Great Spirit: Native American Revitalization Movements in Eastern North American. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Chamberlain, Von Del 1982 When Stars Came Down to Earth: Cosmology of the Skidi Pawnee Indians of North America. Publication 21. Ballena Press, Los Altos, CA. Chapman, Carl H. 1947 A Preliminary Survey of Missouri Archaeology, Part II: Middle Mississippi and Hopewell Cultures. Missouri Archaeologist 10(2): 74–77. 1952 Culture Sequence in the Lower Missouri Valley. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J. B. Griffin, 139–151. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1980 The Archaeology of Missouri, II. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. Chapman, Carl, and David R. Evans 1977 Investigations at the Lilbourn site, 1970–1971. Missouri Archaeologist 38:70–104. Childress, M. R., G. G. Weaver, J. L. Hopkins, and M. Oats 1995 Cultural Resources Investigations at Mound City Plantation, Crittenden County, Arkansas. Garrow and Associates, Submitted to Promus Companies, Memphis, TN. Childs, Terry 1993 Variations of Walls Engraved and Rhodes Incised Pottery. Arkansas Archaeologist 32:139–152. Clark, Jeffrey L., and Karl W. Laumbach 2011 Ancestral Puebloan Migrations in the Southern Southwest: Perspectives from Arizona and New Mexico. In Movement, Connectivity, and Landscape Change in the Ancient Southwest, edited by Margaret C. Nelson and Colleen Strawhacker, 297–320. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Clay, R. Berle 1963 Ceramic Complexes of the Tennessee-Cumberland Region in Western Kentucky. Master’s thesis, University of Kentucky. 1979 A Mississippian ceramic sequence from Western Kentucky. Tennessee Anthropologist 4(2):111–113. 1997 The Mississippian Succession on the Lower Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 16:16–32.

References · 427

Cobb, Charles R. 1989 An Appraisal of the Role of Mill Creek Chert Hoes in Mississippian Exchange Systems. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2): 79–92. 1996 Specialization, Exchange, and Power in Small-Scale Societies and Chiefdoms. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:251–294. 2000 From Quarry to Cornfield: The Political Economy of Mississippian Hoe Production. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32:63– 84. Cobb, Charles R., and Brian M. Butler 2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian Abandonment of the Ohio River Valley. American Antiquity 67:625–642. 2006 Mississippian Migration and Emplacement in the Ohio River Valley. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, 328–347. Occasional Paper 33. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2017 Mississippian Plazas, Performances, and Portable Histories. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24(3): 676–702. Cohen, Robin 1997 Global Diasporas, an Introduction. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Cole, Fay-Cooper, Robert Bell, John Bennett, Joseph Caldwell, Norman Emerson, Richard MacNeish, Kenneth Orr, and Roger Willis 1951 Kincaid: A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Collier, Jane F. 1988 Marriage and Inequality in Classless Societies. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Colvin, Matthew H. 2012 Old Woman Who Never Dies: A Mississippian Survival in the Hidatsa World. Master’s thesis, Texas State University. Connaway, John M. 2008 Salvage Excavations at Carson Mounds, Coahoma County. Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 43(2): 10–11. 2009 Carson Site Project in Coahoma County Continues. Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 44(3): 5–6. 2011 Carson Mounds Progress Report. Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 46(1): 9. 2013 Update on MDAH Work at Carson Mounds. Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 48(2): 10–12. 2014 Carson Mounds–Excavation Update, December 2013. Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 49(1): 6–7. 2016 In the Shadow of Mound A: A Summary of 126 Years of Archaeological Research at Carson Mounds, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Manuscript on file, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Clarksdale Field Office. Conrad, Lawrence 1991 The Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Central Illinois Valley. In Cahokia and

428 · References

the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, 119–163. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Cowan, Frank L. 2006 A Mobile Hopewell? Questioning Assumptions of Hopewell Sedentism. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Doulas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, 26–49. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cox, Stephen D. 1985 Catalogue of the Gates P. Thruston Collection. In Art and Artisans of Prehistoric Middle Tennessee: The Gates P. Thruston Collection of Vanderbilt University Held in Trust by the Tennessee State Museum, edited by Stephen D. Cox, 65–163. Tennessee State Museum, Nashville. Cremin, William M. 1980 Sand Point (20BG14), a Lakes Phase Site on the Keweenaw Peninsula, Baraga County, Michigan. Michigan Archaeologist 26(3–4): 7–16. Cross, Benjamin J. 2016 Analyzing the Use of Intra- and Inter-Structure Space at Ames, a Mississippian Town in Fayette County, Tennessee. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Crow, Rosanna 2011 Axe-Heads and Mississippian Political Economy: A St. Francois Provenance Study. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Crown, Patricia L., Thomas E. Emerson, Jiyan Gu, W. Jeffrey Hurst, Timothy R. Pauketat, and Timothy Ward 2012 Ritual Black Drink Consumption at Cahokia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(35): 13944–13949. Curtis, Edward S. 1909 The Arikara. North American Indian 5:59–100. Dalan, Rinita A., George R. Holley, William I. Woods, Harold W. Watters Jr., and John A. Koepke 2003 Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb. Dallman, John E. 1983 A Choice of Diet: Response to Climatic Change. Report 16. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Davis, Hester A. 1964 The Young Site (3BA20). Arkansas Archeological Society Bulletin 5(5–6): 81–108. 1969 The “Non-Nosed” God Mask. Arkansas Archeologist 10:63–64. Davis, Jera R. 2014 On Common Ground: Social Memory and the Plaza at Early Moundville. PhD diss., University of Alabama. Davis, Jera R., Chester A. White, and John H. Blitz 2015 Remote Sensing as Community Settlement Analysis at Moundville. American Antiquity 80:161–169. Davy, Douglas M. 1982 Proximity and Human Behavior: Settlement Locational Pattern Change in Prehistoric Illinois. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University.

References · 429

DeBoer, Warren R. 1993 Like a Rolling Stone: The Chunkey Game and Political Organization in Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 12(2): 83–92. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1973 [2003] God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. 1995 Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americas and the Myth of Scientific Fact. Scribner, New York. 2006 The World We Used to Live In: Remembering the Powers of the Medicine Men. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. Diaz-Granados, Carol 2004 Marking Stone, Land, Body, and Spirit: Rock Art and Mississippian Iconography. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 138–149. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2011 Early Manifestations of Mississippian Iconography in Middle Mississippi Valley Rock Art. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly, and James F. Garber, 64–98. University of Texas Press, Austin. Diaz-Granados, Carol, and James R. Duncan 2000 The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2004 Reflections of Power, Wealth, and Sex in Missouri Rock Art Motifs. In The RockArt of Eastern North America, edited by C. Diaz-Granados and J. R. Duncan, 145–158. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2015 Transmogrification, Healing, and Resurrection: Extraordinary Themes in Picture Cave. In Picture Cave: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Mississippian Cosmos, edited by Carol Diaz-Granados, James R. Duncan, and F. Kent Reilly III, 181–188. University of Texas Press, Austin. Diaz-Granados, Carol, James R. Duncan, and F. Kent Reilly III, eds. 2015 Picture Cave: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Mississippian Cosmos. University of Texas Press, Austin. Diaz-Granados, Carol, Marvin W. Rowe, Marian Hyman, James R. Duncan, and John R. Southon 2001 AMS Dates for Charcoal from Three Missouri Pictographs and Their Associated Iconography. American Antiquity 66:481–492. Dobbs, Clark A. 1985 Excavations at the Bryan Site: 1983–1984. Minnesota Archaeologist 43(2): 49–58. 1987 Archaeological Investigations at the Bryan Site (21GD4), Goodhue County, Minnesota: 1983–1984. Reports of Investigations No. 8. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. 1991 Cataloging and Preliminary Analysis of Archaeological Materials Obtained from the Bryan Site (21GD4), Goodhue County, Minnesota. Reports of Investigations No. 63. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. 1993a The Archaeology of 21GD158: A Thirteenth Century Native American Village at

430 · References

the Red Wing Locality. Reports of Investigations No. 250. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. 1993b A Pilot Study of High Precision Radiocarbon Dating at the Red Wing Locality. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. 2009 Red Wing Area Oneota Sites. In Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Midwest and Great Plains/Rocky Mountains, 176–179. Francis P. McManamon, general editor. Greenwood Press, Santa Barbara, CA. Dobbs, Clark A., and George W. Christiansen III 1991 Draft Summary of Research at the Mero Complex (47PI02) Prepared for the Archaeological Conservancy. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. Dorothy, Lawrence G. 1980 The Ceramics of the Sand Point Site (20BG14), Baraga County, Michigan: A Preliminary Description. Michigan Archaeologist 26:39–70. Dorsey, George A. 1904a Traditions of the Arikara. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 17. Washington, DC. 1904b Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston. 1905 Traditions of the Caddo. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. 1906 The Pawnee: Mythology Part 1. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 59. Washington, DC. Dorsey, James Owen 1888 Osage Traditions. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 6. Dowd, Anne S. 2015 Cosmovision in New World Ritual Landscapes: An Introduction. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25:211–218. Duncan, James R. 2013 Dhegian Tattoos: Markings That Consecrate, Empower, and Designate Lineage. In Drawing with Great Needles: Ancient Tattoo Traditions of North America, edited by Aaron Deter-Wolf and Carol Diaz-Granados, 195–214. University of Texas Press, Austin. Duncan, James R., and Carol Diaz-Granados 2000 Of Masks and Men. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25:1–26. 2015 Identifying the Characters on the Walls of Picture Cave. In Picture Cave: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Mississippian Cosmos, edited by Carol Diaz-Granados, James R. Duncan, and F. Kent Reilly III, 209–240. University of Texas Press, Austin. Durham, James H., and M. K. Davis 1975 Report on the Burials Found at Crenshaw Mound C, Miller County, Arkansas. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 23:1–90. Dye, David H. 2004 Art, Ritual, and Chiefly Warfare in the Mississippian World. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by

References · 431

Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 191–205. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2007 Ritual, Medicine, and the War Trophy Iconographic Theme in the Mississippian Southeast. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, 152–173. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2011 Mississippian Ceramic Art in the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Thematic Overview. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly, and James F. Garber, 99–117. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2015a Earth Mother Cult Ceramic Statuary in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, TN. 2015b Identifying Lower Mississippi Valley Protohistoric Water Spirit Cults. In Pre-Columbian Ceramics: A Thematic Approach to New World Ceramics, edited by Yumi Park, Johanna Minich, and Dean Arnold. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2016 Ancient Mississippian Trophy-Taking. Oxford Handbooks Online. DOI: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199935420.013.30. Earle, Timothy 1990 Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastrof, 73–81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ehrhardt, Kathleen L. 2009 Copper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use, and Social Complexity in the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America. Journal of World Prehistory 22:213– 235. Ekeh, Peter P. 1974 Social Exchange Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Eliade, Mircea 1987 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Harcourt, New York. Emerson, Thomas E. 1982 Mississippian Stone Images in Illinois. Circular 6. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1983 The Bostrom Figure Pipe and the Cahokian Effigy Style in the American Bottom. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 8:257–267. 1989 Water, Serpents, and the Underworld: An Exploration into Cahokian Symbolism. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, 45–92. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991a The Apple River Mississippian Culture of Northwestern Illinois. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, 164–182. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1991b Some Perspectives on Cahokia and the Northern Mississippian Expansion. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited

432 · References

by Thomas E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, 221–236. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1995 Settlement, Symbolism, and Hegemony in the Cahokian Countryside. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. 1996 The Svehla Effigy Elbow Pipe and Spud: Mississippian Sacra from the Sutter Collection. Tennessee Anthropologist 21(3): 124–131. 1997a Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1997b Cahokian Elite Ideology and the Mississippian Cosmos. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 190–228. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3–56. 2002 An Introduction to Cahokia: Diversity, Complexity, and History. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(2): 127–148. 2003 Materializing Cahokia Shamans. Southeastern Archaeology 22(2): 135–154. 2007 Cahokia and the Evidence for Late Pre-Columbian War in the North American Midcontinent. In North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, edited by R. J. Chacon and R. G. Mendoza, 129–148. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2015 Goddesses, Priests, and Ancestors: The Earth Goddess Cult at Cahokia. In Medieval Life in America’s Heartland, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt, 54–60. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. Emerson, Thomas E., and Steven L. Boles 2010 Contextualizing Flint Clay Cahokia Figures at the East St. Louis Mound Center. Illinois Archaeology 22:473–490. 2011 Sourcing and Interpreting the St. Francois Raptor Figurine. Illinois Archaeology 23:158–172. Emerson, Thomas E., and Jeffery S. Girard 2004 Dating Gahagan and Its Implications for Understanding Cahokia-Caddo Interactions. Southeastern Archaeology 23:57–64. Emerson, Thomas E., and Kristin M. Hedman 2016 The Dangers of Diversity: The Consolidation and Dissolution of Cahokia, Native North America’s First Urban Polity. In Beyond Collapse: Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience, Revitalization, and Transformation in Complex Societies, edited by Ronald K. Faulseit, 147–175. Occasional Paper No. 42. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Emerson, Thomas E., and Randall E. Hughes 2000 Figurines, Flint Clay Sourcing, the Ozark Highlands, and Cahokian Acquisition. American Antiquity 65:79–101. 2001 De-Mything the Cahokia Catlinite Trade. Plains Anthropologist 46:149–161. Emerson, Thomas E., and Douglas K. Jackson 1984 The BBB Motor Site. American Bottom Archaeology, FAI 270 Site Reports, Vol. 6. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Emerson, Thomas E., and R. Barry Lewis, eds. 1991 Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

References · 433

Emerson, Thomas E., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2007 Unpacking the Southern Cult and Mississippian Religion. In Belief in the Past: Theorizing an Archaeology of Religion, edited by D. S. Whitley and K. Hays-Gilpin. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Emerson, Thomas E., Susan M. Alt, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2008 Locating American Indian Religion at Cahokia and Beyond. In Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by L. Fogelin, 216–236. Occasional Paper No. 36. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Emerson, Thomas E., Kristin M. Hedman, Eve A. Hargrave, Dawn E. Cobb, and Andrew R. Thompson 2016 Paradigms Lost: Reconfiguring Cahokia’s Mound 72 Beaded Burial. American Antiquity 81:405–425. Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Kenneth B. Farnsworth, and Sarah U. Wisseman 2019 Sourcing Animate Stones and Sacred Landscapes: Understanding Native Pipestone Quarries Research in the American Midcontinent. Southeastern Archaeology. In press. Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Mary R. Hynes, and Sarah U. Wisseman 2002 Implications of Sourcing Cahokia-Style Flint Clay Figurines in the American Bottom and the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(2): 309–338. 2003 The Sourcing and Interpretation of Cahokia-Style Figurines in the Trans-Mississippi South and Southeast. American Antiquity 68:287–313. Emerson, Thomas E., Brad Koldehoff, and Tamira K. Brennan, eds. n.d. Creating Greater Cahokia: Rediscovery and Large-Scale Excavations of the East St. Louis Precinct. Emerson, Thomas E., Brad Koldehoff, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2000 Serpents, Female Deities, and Fertility Symbolism in the Early Cahokian Countryside. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 511–519. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Ensor, H. Blaine 1993 Big Sandy Farms: A Prehistoric Community near Moundville, Black Warrior River Floodplain, Tuscaloosa, County, Alabama. Report of Investigations 68. Division of Archaeology, Alabama Museum of Natural History, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1956 Archeology of the Funeral Mound, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia. Archeological Research Series No. 3. National Park Service, Washington, DC. Farnsworth, Kenneth B., Kristin Hedman, and Thomas E. Emerson 2006 Two Short-Nosed-God Maskettes Found with Burial #7 in Hacker Mound #3, Jersey County, Illinois. In Illinois Hopewell and Late Woodland Mounds: The Excavations of Gregory Perino 1950–1975, edited by Kenneth B. Farnsworth, 652–670. Studies in Archaeology No. 4. Illinois Transportation Archaeology Research Program, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

434 · References

Ferguson, Robert B. 1968 Mound Bottom Area Yields Engraved Stone: A Preliminary Pictorial Report on an Engraved Stone Found near Nashville, Tenn. Chahta Anumpa (Choctaw Times) 1(5): 1, 8. Finney, Fred A. 1993 Cahokia’s Northern Hinterlands as Viewed from the Fred Edwards Site in Southwest Wisconsin: Intrasite and Regional Evidence for Production, Consumption, and Exchange. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. 2000 Exchange and Risk Management in the Upper Mississippi River Calley, A.D. 1000–1200. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25(2): 353–376. 2013 Intrasite and Regional Perspectives on the Fred Edwards Site and the Stirling Horizon in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Wisconsin Archeologist 94(1–2): 3–248. Finney, Fred A., and James B. Stoltman 1991 The Fred Edwards Site: A Case of Stirling Phase Culture Contact in Southwestern Wisconsin. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 229–252. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Fischer, Fred W., and Charles H. McNutt 1962 Test Excavations at Pinson Mounds, 1961. Tennessee Archaeologist 18(1): 1–13. Fleming, Edward P. 2009 Community and Aggregation in the Upper Mississippi River Valley: The Red Wing Locality. PhD diss., University of Minnesota. Fleming, Edward P., and Jasmine C. Koncur 2016 Burnside School Site (21GD159): Plant-Use and Chronology of an Oneota Village near Red Wing, Minnesota. Department of Anthropology, Science Museum of Minnesota. Report submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Fletcher, Alice C., and Francis La Flesche 1911 The Omaha Tribe. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 27, Washington, DC. 1970 The Omaha Tribe. Johnson Reprint, New York. Fogelin, Lars, ed. 2008 Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 36. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Ford, James A. 1951 Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Papers No. 44(1). American Museum of Natural History, New York. Fortier, Andrew C. 1985 The Robert Schneider Site (11-Ms-1177). American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 11. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1992a Interpretation. In The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports, Vol. 24, edited by Douglas K. Jackson, Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce A. Williams, 339–348. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1992b Stone Figurines. In The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations (11-Ms-517), edited by Douglas K. Jackson, Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce

References · 435

A. Williams, 277–303. University of Illinois Press for the Illinois Department of Transportation, Urbana. Fortier, Andrew C., Thomas E. Emerson, and Dale L. McElrath 2006 Calibrating and Reassessing American Bottom Culture History. Southeastern Archaeology 25(2): 170–211. Fortier, Andrew C., and Dale L. McElrath 2002 Deconstructing the Emergent Mississippian Concept: The Case for the Terminal Late Woodland in the American Bottom. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(2): 171–215. Fortune, Reo 1932 Omaha Secret Societies. Columbia University Press, New York. Fowler, Melvin L. 1969 The Cahokia Site. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology, edited by M. L. Fowler, 1–30. Bulletin No. 7. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1989 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 6. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Fowler, Melvin L., ed. 1962 First Annual Report: American Bottoms Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 1963 Second Annual Report: American Bottoms Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 1964 Third Annual Report: American Bottoms Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana. Fowler, Melvin L., and Robert Hall 1975 Archaeological Phases at Cahokia. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, 1–14. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 10. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Fowler, Melvin L., Jerome Rose, Barbara Vander Leest, and Steven R. Ahler 1999 The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia. Reports of Investigations No. 54. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Fowles, Severin M. 2013 An Archaeology of Doings: Secularism and the Study of Pueblo Religion. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. William Morrow, New York. Friberg, Christina M. 2018 Cosmic Negotiations: Cahokian Religion and Ramey Incised Pottery in the Northern Hinterland. Southeastern Archaeology 37:39–57. Friedman, Jonathan 1975 Tribes, States, and Transformations. In Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology, edited by Maurice Bloch, 161–202. Tavistock, New York. Fritz, Gayle J., and John E. Kelly 2004 Maize Symbolism in Context: Plants on Mississippian Figurines and Pipes. Paper

436 · References

presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal. Fugle, Eugene M. 1962 Mill Creek Culture and Technology. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 11(4): 3–126. Gall, Daniel G. 1995 Petrography and Provenance of Mississippian Greenstone Artifacts from the Moundville Site, Alabama. PhD diss., University of North Carolina. Galloy, Joseph M. 2010 The Janey B. Goode Site (11S1232): Highlights of Investigations at a Massive Late Prehistoric Site in the American Bottom. Illinois Archaeology 22(2): 529–552. Ganier, Albert F. 1948 The “Baton” or “Mace” Design among Aboriginal Artifacts. Tennessee Archaeologist 4(1–2): 1–13. Garland, Elizabeth Baldwin 1992 The Obion Site: An Early Mississippian Center in Western Tennessee. Report of Investigations 7. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. Gibbon, Guy E. 1974 A Model of Mississippian Development and Its Implications for the Red Wing Area. In Aspects of Upper Great Lakes Anthropology: Papers in Honor of Lloyd A. Wilford, edited by Elden Johnson, 129–137. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series No. 11E. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. 1979 The Mississippian Occupation of the Red Wing Area. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series No. 13. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. 1991 The Middle Mississippian Presence in Minnesota. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, 207–220. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 2012 Archaeology of Minnesota: The Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Gibbon, Guy E., and Clark A. Dobbs 1991 The Mississippian Presence in the Red Wing Area, Minnesota. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 281–305. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Gibson, Jon L. 1974 Poverty Point: The First American Chiefdom. Archaeology 27(2): 96–105. Gillespie, Susan D. 2000 Beyond Kinship: An Introduction. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, 1–21. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gilliland, Marion S. 1989 The Material Culture of the Key Marco Site. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno. Gilmore, Melvin R. 1931 The Arikara Tribal Temple. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 14:47–70.

References · 437

The Sacred Bundles of the Arikara. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 16:32–50. Girard, Jeffrey S. 2018 The Caddos and Their Ancestors: Archaeology and the Native People of Northwest Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Girard, Jeffrey S., Timothy K. Perttula, and Mary Beth Trubitt 2014 Caddo Connections, Cultural Interactions within and beyond the Caddo World. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Goad, Sharon I. 1980 Chemical Analysis of Native Copper Artifacts from the Southeastern United States. Current Anthropology 21:270–271. Goddard, Eric 2011 Investigating Early Mississippian Community Patterning in the Mid-South through Multiple-Method Survey of the Ames Site (40FY7) in Fayette County, Tennessee. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Goldstein, Amy 2014 Embodying Ritual Performance: An Iconographic Analysis of Burial 38 at the Etowah Site. Master’s thesis, University of South Carolina. Goldstein, Lynne G. 1980 Mississippian Mortuary Practices: A Case Study of Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illinois Valley. Scientific Papers Series No. 4. Center for American Archaeology Press, Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Evanston, IL. 1991 The Implications of Aztalan’s Location. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 209–228. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 2015 2013 Aztalan Excavations: Work on the Gravel Knoll and West of the Palisade. Consortium for Archaeological Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Goldstein, Lynne G., and Joan Freeman 1997 Aztalan: A Middle Mississippian Village. Wisconsin Archeologist 78(2): 223–248. Goldstein, Lynne G., and Donald H. Gaff 2002 Recasting the Past: Examining Assumptions About Aztalan. Wisconsin Archeologist 83(2): 98–110. Goldstein, Lynne G., and Robert Kind 1987 Early Vegetation of the Region. In The Southeast Wisconsin Archaeology Project: 1986–87 and Project Summary, edited by L. Goldstein, 18–37. Report of Investigations No. 88. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory. Goldstein, Lynne G., and John D. Richards 1991 Ancient Aztalan: The Cultural and Ecological Context of a Late Prehistoric Site in the Midwest. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and Barry L. Lewis, 193–206. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Golla, Susan M. J. 1975 Skidi Pawnee Religion: A Structural Analysis. Master’s thesis, George Washington University.

1932

438 · References

Gordon, Angela 1999 Metric Analysis of Hoes from the Missouri Historical Society Collections. Paper on file at the Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Gradwohl, David M. 1969 Prehistoric Villages in Eastern Nebraska. Publications in Anthropology No. 4. Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln. Gramsci, Antonio 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited and translated by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. International Publishers, New York. Greatorex, Linda J. 1997 Steed-Kisker and Nebraska Ceramics: A New Interpretation. MA thesis, University of Kansas. Green, William 1978 Hamilton-Brooks National Register of Historic Places Nomination. Copy on file at Division of Historic Preservation, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison. 1997 Middle Mississippian Peoples. Wisconsin Archeologist 78(2): 203–222. Griffin, James B. 1949 The Cahokia Ceramic Complexes. In Proceedings of the Fifth Plains Conference for Archaeology, assembled by J. Champ, 44–58. Laboratory of Anthropology, Notebook No. 1. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 1952a Archeology of Eastern United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1952b An Interpretation of the Place of Spiro in Southeastern Archaeology. Missouri Archaeologist 14:89–106. 1960 A Hypothesis for the Prehistory of the Winnebago. In Culture History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, 809–865. Columbia University Press, New York. 1964 The Northeast Woodlands Area. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, 223–258. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772): 175–191. 1971 Transcribed Discussion. In Proceedings of the Eighth Caddo Conference, edited by Hester A. Davis, Don G. Wyckoff, and Mary A. Holmes. Occasional Publication No. 2. Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. 1973 Review of Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949–1955, by Philip Phillips. American Antiquity 28:374–380. 1986 Review of Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958– 1960, by Stephen Williams and Jeffrey P. Brain. Southeastern Archaeology 5(1): 71–73. 1990 Review of Winterville: Late Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley, by Jeffrey P. Brain. Mississippi Archaeology 25(1): 64–73. 1993 Cahokia Interaction with Contemporary Southeastern and Eastern Societies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 18(1): 3–17. Griffin, John W. 1950 Test Excavations at the Lake Jackson Site. American Antiquity 16:99–112.

References · 439

Griffith, Glenn, James Omernik, and Sandra Azevedo 1998 Ecoregions of Tennessee. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. ftp://ftp.epa.gov/ wed/ecoregions/tn/tn_front.pdf. Guidry, Hannah 2013 Mississippi Architecture and Community Development at the Ames Site (40FY7), Fayette County, Tennessee. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Gums, Bonnie L. 1993 Groundstone Tools, Modified Rocks, and Exotic Materials from the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II. In The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Testing and Lithics, 1–101. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 9. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Guthe, Carl E. 1939 Notes and News: Obituary [Warren King Moorehead]. American Antiquity 5(1):65–66. Hadley, Scott P. 2013 Multi-staged Research at the Denmark Site, a Small Mississippian Town. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. 2014 Multi-Staged Research at the Denmark Site (40MD85). Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Current Research in Tennessee Archaeology, January 24–25. Nashville, TN. Hall, Barbara Ann 1994 Formation Processes of Large Earthen Residential Mounds in la Mixtequilla, Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 5:31–50. Hall, Robert L. 1962 The Archaeology of Carcajou Point. 2 vols. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1963 Report of General Activities. In Second Annual Report: American Bottoms Archaeology, 24–27. Illinois Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign. 1966 Cahokia Chronology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Anthropological Society, Washington University, April 28–30, St. Louis. 1967 The Mississippian Heartland and Its Plains Relationship. Plains Anthropologist 12:175–183. 1975 Chronology and Phases at Cahokia. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, 15–31. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 10. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1989 The Cultural Background of Mississippian Symbolism. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, 239–278. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991 Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokian Mississippian. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, 3–34. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

440 · References

Sacrificed Foursomes and Green Corn Ceremonialism. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 245–253. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 2002 Eleazer Williams: Mohawk Between Two Worlds. Voyageur 19(1): 10–20. 2004 The Cahokia Site and Its People. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 93–103. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2005 Contradictions as a Source of Historical Perspective: Examples from the Symbolism of Camp Circle and Sacred Poles. In Native Symbolic Expression around the Great Lakes and Beyond, edited by William A. Fox and Robert J. Pearce. Ontario Archaeology 79–80:115–126. 2006 Exploring the Big Bang at Cahokia. In A Precolumbian World, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Mary Miller, 187–229. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Hamilton, Henry W. 1952 The Spiro Mound. Missouri Archaeologist 14:17–106. Hamilton, H. W., J. T. Hamilton, and E. F. Chapman 1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Missouri Archaeological Society, Memoir 11. Hann, John H. 1988a Florida’s Terra Incognita: West Florida’s Natives in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. Florida Anthropologist 41(1): 61–107. 1988b Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers. In Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History, (Book 7). University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Leadership Nomenclature among Spanish Florida Natives and Its Linguistic and Associational Implications. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, edited by Patricia B. Kwachka. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings 27:94–105. Hanson, Jeffrey R. 1986 Hidatsa Culture Change, 1780–1845: A Cultural Ecological Approach. In The Origins of the Hidatsa Indians: A Review of Ethnohistorical and Traditional Data, by W. Raymond Wood, 216–226. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Hanson, John Halloway 1854 The Lost Prince: Facts Tending to Prove the Identity of Louis the Seventeenth, of France, and the Rev. Eleazar Williams, Missionary among the Indians of North America. New York: Putnam. Hargrave, Michael L. 2011 Geophysical Survey of Complex Deposits at Ramey Field, Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1): 1–19. Harn, Alan 1971 An Archaeological Survey of the American Bottoms in Madison and St. Clair Counties, Illinois. In Archaeological Surveys of the American Bottoms and Adjacent Bluffs, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations 21:19–39. Harrison, Ian, and Lynne G. Goldstein 2015 Radiocarbon Dating. In 2013 Aztalan Excavations: Work on the Gravel Knoll and 2000

References · 441

West of the Palisade, edited by L. Goldstein, 51–54. Consortium for Archaeological Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Harrod, Howard I. 2000 The Animals Came Dancing: Native American Sacred Ecology and Animal Kinship. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hartman, Christopher J. 2010 An Assessment of the Mound Summit Investigations at Mound A (Unit 5), Chucalissa (40SY1), Shelby County, Tennessee. Friends of Chucalissa Special Report No. 1. Hathcock, Roy 1976 Ancient Indian Pottery of the Mississippi Valley. Hurley Press, Camden, AR. 1983 The Quapaw and Their Pottery: A Pictorial Study of the Ceramic Arts of the Quapaw Indians, 1650–1750. Hurley Press, Camden, AR. 1988 Ancient Indian Pottery of the Mississippi River Valley. 2nd ed. Walsworth Publishing, Marceline, MO. Hayden, Brian 1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:1–55. 2001a Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggerman, Chief: The Dynamics of Social Inequality. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, 231–272. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York. 2001b Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, 3–64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2011 Big Man, Big Heart? The Political Role of Aggrandizers in Egalitarian and Transegalitarian Societies. In For the Greater Good of All: Perspectives on Individualism, Society and Leadership, edited by Donald Forsyth and Crystal Hoyt, 101–118. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. 2014 The Power of Feasts: From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge University Press, New York. Haywood, John 1823 The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee. G. Wilson Printing, Nashville, TN. Heidegger, Martin 1972 Building, Dwelling, Thinking. In Basic Writings, edited by D. Krell, 343–364. Routledge, London. 1996 Being and Time. Translated by J. Stambaugh. State University of New York Press, Albany. Helms, Mary 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hendrickson, Carl F. 1996 Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian Interaction at the Bethesda Lutheran Home Site (47-Je-201), Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archeologist 77(1– 2): 11–35.

442 · References

Henning, Dale R. 1967 Mississippian Influences on the Eastern Plains Border: An Evaluation. Plains Anthropologist 12:184–194. 1969 Ceramics from Mill Creek Sites. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society Part II, edited by Dale R. Henning, 16:192–280. 1996 The Archeology of Two Great Oasis Sites in the Perry Creek Valley, Northwest Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 43:7–118. 2005a The Evolution of the Plains Village Tradition. In Studies in Global Archaeology: North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, 161–186, Blackwell, Malden, MA. 2005b Whence Leptoxis? A Study of Beads Fashioned from Small Gastropods. Illinois Archaeology 17:1–42. 2007 Continuity and Change in the Eastern Plains, A.D. 800–1700: An Examination of Exchange Patterns. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains, edited by Stanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay, 67–82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Henning, Dale R., ed. 1968 Climatic Change and the Mill Creek Culture of Iowa, Part I. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 15. 1969 Climatic Change and the Mill Creek Culture of Iowa, Part II. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 16. Henning, Dale R., and James M. Collins 2009 The Big River Phase of the Eastern Ozark Highland: Reanalysis and Evaluation. Missouri Archaeologist 70:5–88. Heye, George C., F. P. Hodge, and George H. Pepper 1918 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation 4(3). New York. Hildebrant Iffert, Emily 2010 Villagers and Archaeologists: An Examination of Past Behaviors at the Bartron Site (21GD02). MS thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato. Hill, Mark A., and Robert J. Jeske 2011 Laser Sourcing of Copper from Late Archaic and Late Prehistoric Sites near Lake Koshkonong, Southeastern Wisconsin. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, October 15, LaCrosse, WI. Hilliard, Jerry E., and Robert C Mainfort Jr. 2007 The Ira Spradley Field Site: A Late Woodland Cemetery in the Arkansas Ozarks. Southeastern Archaeology 26:269–291. Holder, Preston 1958a The Role of Caddoan Horticulturalists in Culture History on the Great Plains. PhD diss., Columbia University. 1958b Social Stratification among the Arikara. Ethnohistory 5:210–218. 1970 The Hoe and the Horse on the Plains: A Study of Cultural Development among North American Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

References · 443

Hollenback, Kacy L. 2010 Ritual and Religion. In Behavioral Archaeology: Principles and Practice, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 156–163. Equinox, London. Hollenbach, Kandace D,. Amanda Tickner, and Kimberly A. Schaefer 2013 Plant Remains from Shiloh Mound A. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 612–634. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Holley, George R. 1989 The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Ceramics. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 11. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. 2000 Late Woodland on the Edge of the Looking Glass Prairie: A Scott Joint-Use Archaeological Perspective. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, 149–162. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. n.d. The Red Wing Locality Late Prehistoric Ceramic Sequence. In Mounds, Villages, and Feasts: The Archaeology of Red Wing, edited by Ronald C. Schirmer. Occasional Publications in Minnesota Archaeology, Minnesota Archaeological Society. Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN. Holley, George R., and Michael G. Michlovic 2013 The Prehistoric Village Cultures of Southern Minnesota. Department of Anthropology and Earth Science, Minnesota State University, Moorhead. Holley, George R., Rinita A. Dalan, and Philip A. Smith 1993 Investigations in the Cahokia Site Grand Plaza. American Antiquity 58:306–319. Holliday, Diane 1999 Telfer Site National Register of Historic Places Nomination. Copy on file at Division of Historic Preservation, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison. Holmes, William H. 1883 Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1880–1881, 185–305. Washington, DC. 1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Twentieth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1–201. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Horton, Elizabeth, and George Sabo 2011 Spiro Perishable Project Makes Exciting Discovery. Arkansas Archeological Society, Field Notes 358:9–13. House, John H. 1982 Evolution of Complex Societies in East-Central Arkansas: An Overview of Environments and Regional Data Bases. In Arkansas Archeology in Review, edited by Neal L. Trubowitz and Marvin D. Jeter, 37–47. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 15. 1993 Dating the Kent Phase. Southeastern Archaeology 12(1): 21–32. House, John H., and Rebecca B. House 1987 Investigating Early Mississippi Period Occupation in the Lower St. Francis Basin, Eastern Arkansas. In The Emergent Mississippian: Proceedings of the Sixth MidSouth Archaeological Conference June 6–9, 1985, edited by Richard A. Marshall,

444 · References

122–136. Occasional Papers of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology 87(1). Mississippi State University, Starkville. House, John H., and Marvin D. Jeter 1994 Excavations at Boydell Mound A (3AS58), Southeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 33:1–82. House, John H., Pete Shiras, and Howard M. Knight 1969 The Shipps Ferry Site, 3BA7, Baxter Ferry, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 10:65– 80. Howard, James H. 1974 The Arikara Buffalo Society Medicine Bundle. Plains Anthropologist 19:241–271. 1981 Shawnee! The Ceremonialism of a Native Indian Tribe and Its Cultural Background. Ohio University Press, Athens. Hudson, Charles M. 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Hultkrantz, Åke 1967 The Religions of the American Indians. Translated by Monica Setterwall. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hunt, William J. 1974 Late Woodland–Mississippian Relationship at the River Mound East Site, St. Louis County, Missouri. MA thesis, University of Nebraska. Hutt, Sherry 2006 Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Gilcrease Museum. Federal Register 71(49): 13165–13166. Insoll, Timothy, ed. 2011 The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual & Religion. Oxford University Press, New York. Irwin, Lee 2008 Coming Down from Above: Prophecy, Resistance and Renewal in Native American Religions. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Iseminger, William R. 2010 Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. History Press, Charleston, SC. Iseminger, William R., Timothy R. Pauketat, Brad Koldehoff, Lucretia S. Kelly, and Leonard Blake 1990 The Archaeology of the Cahokia Palisade: East Palisade Investigations. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 14. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Ives, John C. 1962 Mill Creek Pottery. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 11(3): 1–57. Jablow, Joseph 1951 The Cheyenne in Plains Indian Trade Relations, 1795–1840. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society 19. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Jackson, Douglas K., Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce A. Williams, eds. 1992 The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports 24:xix, 587. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

References · 445

Jackson, H. Edwin 1987 The DeSoto Plantation Site (3DE24), Desha County, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Society Field Notes 218:3–8. 1991 The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Inter-Societal Trade in the Evolution of Poverty Point Culture. In Between Bands and States: Sedentism, Subsistence and Interaction in Small-Scale Societies, edited by Susan A. Gregg, 265–286. Occasional Papers No. 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. James, Jenna 2010 Modeling Mortuary Behavior Based on Secondary Burial Data from Carson Mound Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. MA thesis, University of Mississippi. 2015 Social Houses at Carson Mounds, 22-Co-518, as Evidenced by Dental Morphological Analysis. PhD diss., University of Alabama. Jeske, Robert J. 1999 World Systems Theory, Core Periphery Interaction and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies. In Leadership, Production, and Exchange: World Systems Theory in Practice, edited by P. Nick Kardulias, 221–240. Rowman and Littlefield, Boulder, CO. 2001 Crescent Bay Hunt Club: Radiocarbon Dates and Research Summary. In Program in Midwestern Archaeology (Southeastern Wisconsin Archaeology Program): 2000–2001, edited by R. J. Jeske, 4–12. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory Reports of Investigations No. 148. Jeter, Marvin D. 2007 The Outer Limits of Plaquemine Culture: A View from the Northerly Borderlands. In Plaquemine Archaeology, edited by Mark A. Rees and Patrick C. Livingood, 161–195. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2012 ARF Grant Funds Date on Taylor Mound 3 Corncobs. Arkansas Archeological Survey Field Notes 369 (November–December): 3–5. Jeter, Marvin D., ed. 1990 Edward Palmer’s Arkansaw Mounds. Arkansas and Regional Studies Series 5. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Jeter, Marvin D., and H. Edwin Jackson 1994 Poverty Point Extraction and Exchange: The Arkansas Lithic Connections. Louisiana Archaeology 17:133–206. Jeter, Marvin D., and BrieAnna Langlie 2012 57 Cobs, But Not 57 Varieties: Maize from Taylor Mound 3, Southeast Arkansas. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 9, Baton Rouge, LA. Jeter, Marvin D., and Robert J. Scott Jr. 2008 Keo, Quartz Crystals, Carets, Et Cetera: Southerly Plum Bayou vs. Northerly Coles Creek Cultural Elements. Arkansas Archeologist 47:43–82. Jeter, Marvin D., Samuel O. Brookes, Ian W. Brown, and Marie Elaine Danforth 2014 Summary, Comparisons, Conclusions, and Conjectures. In The Mangum Site: A Late Prehistoric Cemetery in Southwestern Mississippi with “Southern Cult” Con-

446 · References

nections to Plaquemine Culture, edited by Marvin D. Jeter. Mississippi Archaeology 44(1–2): 201–242. Jeter, Marvin D., Jerome C. Rose, G. Ishmael Williams Jr., and Anna M. Harmon 1989 Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 37. Johnsen, Teresa Marie 2003 Description and Analysis of Preserved Fabrics from the Northwest Mound at Aztalan: A Late Prehistoric Site in Southeastern Wisconsin. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Johnson, Craig M. 2007 A Chronology of Middle Missouri Plains Village Sites. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC. Johnson, Elden 1961 Cambria Burial Mounds in Big Stone County. Minnesota Archaeologist 23(3): 53–81. 1964 Unpublished Radiocarbon Dates. Office of the State Archaeologist of Minnesota, St. Paul. 1986 Cambria and Cahokia’s Northwestern Periphery. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. 1991 Cambria and Cahokia’s Northwestern Periphery. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 307–317. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Johnson, Jay K. 1987 Cahokia Core Technology in Mississippi: The View from the South. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, 187–205. West View Press, Boulder, CO. Johnson, Jay K., and John M. Connaway 2011 Ceremonial Knapping? Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jacksonville, FL. 2016 Carson and Cahokia, Evidence for Contact Between the American Bottoms and the Northern Yazoo Basin during the Beginnings of the Mississippian Period in the Delta. Paper presented at the Mid-South Archaeological Conference, July 16–17, Memphis, TN. Jones, B. Calvin 1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of Mound 3. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:3–44. 1991 High Status Burials in Mound 3 at Florida’s Lake Jackson Complex: Stability and Change in Fort Walton Culture. Paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jackson, MS. 1994 The Lake Jackson Mound Complex (8LE1): Stability and Change in Fort Walton Culture. Florida Anthropologist 47(2): 120–146. Jones, B. Calvin, Daniel T. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar 1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Sterns Site in Leon County, Florida. In A

References · 447

World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, 222–246. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jones, Joseph P. 1876 Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 259. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1901 An Abstract of the Catalogue of the Archaeological Collection of Joseph Jones, M.D., LL.D. Searcy and Pfaff, New Orleans. Jones, Lindsay 2000 The Hermeneutics of Sacred Architecture: Experience, Interpretation, Comparison. In Monumental Occasions, Reflections on the Eventfulness of Religious Architecture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Justice, N. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kassabaum, Megan C. 2011 Looking Beyond the Obvious: Identifying Patterns in Coles Creek Mortuary Data. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2): 215–225. Keegan, William F. 2003 Review of From Quarry to Cornfield: The Political Economy of Mississippian Hoe Production, by Charles R. Cobb. American Antiquity 68:190-191. Kehoe, Alice B. 2002 Theaters of Power. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by M. O’Donovan, 259–272. Occasional Paper No. 30. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2007 Osage Texts and Cahokia Data. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly and James F. Garber, 213–245. University of Texas Press, Austin. Keller, W. D. 1944 The Clays of Missouri. Geology of Missouri 14(8): 376–384. Kelly, John E. 1980 Formative Developments at Cahokia and the Adjacent American Bottom: A Merrell Tract Perspective. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. 1988 Emergent Mississippian and the Transition from Late Woodland to Mississippian: The American Bottom Case for a New Concept. In The Emergent Mississippian, edited by Richard A. Marshall, 212–226. Proceedings of the Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Starkville, MS. 1990a The Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippian Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 67–112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1990b The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom Region. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 113–152. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1991a The Evidence for Prehistoric Exchange and Its Implications for the Development of Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 65–92. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

448 · References

1991b Cahokia and Its Role as a Gateway Center in Interregional Exchange. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, 61–80. University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1992 The Impact of Maize on the Development of Nucleated Settlements: An American Bottom Example. In Late Prehistoric Agriculture: Observations from the Midwest, edited by W. I. Woods, 167–197. Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 8. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. 1994 Redefining Cahokia: Principles and Elements of Community Organization. Paper presented at The Ancient Skies and Sky Watchers of Cahokia: Woodhenges, Eclipses, and Cahokian Cosmology Conference, Collinsville, IL. 1996 Redefining Cahokia: Principles and Elements of Community Organization. In The Ancient Skies and Sky Watchers of Cahokia: Woodhenges, Eclipses, and Cahokian Cosmology, edited by M. L. Fowler. Wisconsin Archeologist 77(3–4): 97–119. 1998 A Summary of the Archaeological Mitigation of the Mees-Nochta Site (11S1198), St. Clair County, Illinois. Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Research Institute, Columbia, IL. 2000 The Nature and Context of Emergent Mississippian Cultural Dynamics in the Greater American Bottom. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, 163–178. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2003 The Context of the Post Pit and Meaning of the Sacred Pole at the East St. Louis Mound Group. In A Deep-Time Perspective: Studies in Symbols, Meaning, and the Archaeological Record, Papers in Honor of Robert L. Hall, edited by John D. Richards and Melvin L. Fowler. Wisconsin Archeologist 84:107–125. 2007a Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippian Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 67–112. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007b The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom Region. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 113–152. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 Contemplating Cahokia’s Collapse. In Global Perspectives on the Collapse of Complex Systems, edited by Jim A. Railey and Richard M. Reycraft, 147–168. Anthropological Papers No. 8. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM. 2010 Just in Time: Dating Mound 34 at Cahokia. Illinois Antiquity 45(1): 3–7. 2012 The Mississippian Period in Florida: A View from the Mississippian World of Cahokia. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White, 296–310. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2019 Contextualizing Aggregation and Nucleation as Demographic Processes leading to Cahokia’s Emergence as an Incipient Urban Center. In Coming Together: Comparative Approaches to Population Aggregation and Early Urbanization, edited by Attila Gyucha, IEMA Proceedings, 8:105-134. State University of New York Press, Albany.

References · 449

Kelly, John E., and James A. Brown 2010 Just in Time: Dating Mound 34 at Cahokia. Illinois Antiquity 45(1):3-8. 2012 In Search of Cosmic Power: Contextualizing Spiritual Journeys between Cahokia and the St. Francois Mountains. In Archaeology of Spiritualties, edited by Kathryn Rountree, Christine Morris, and Alan A. D. Peatfield, 107–129. Springer, New York. 2014 Cahokia: The Processes and Principles of the Creation of an Early Mississippian City. In Making Ancient Cities: Space and Place in Early Urban Societies, edited by A. T. Creekmore and K. D. Fisher, 292–336. Cambridge University Press, New York. Kelly, John E., James A. Brown, and Lucretia S. Kelly 2008 The Context of Religion at Cahokia: The Mound 34 Case. In Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by L. Fogelin, 297–318. Occasional Paper No. 36. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Kelly, John, James A. Brown, Jenna M. Hamlin, Lucretia S. Kelly, Laura Kozuch, Kathryn Parker, and Julieann Van Nest 2007 The Context for the Early Evidence of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex at Cahokia. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 57–87. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Kelly, John E., Davide Domenic, Imma Valese, and James A. Brown 2014 The Embedded Nature and Context of Symbols in the Cahokia Cosmogram. Paper presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 26, Austin, TX. Kelly, John E., Lucretia S. Kelly, and James A. Brown 2009 Summary of 2008 Field Excavations to Locate the Copper Workshop in the Mound 34 Area. Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Research Institute, Columbia, IL. Kelly, John E., Steven J. Ozuk, Douglas K. Jackson, Dale L. McElrath, Fred A. Finney, and Duane Esarey 1984 Emergent Mississippian. In Summary of American Bottom Archaeology, edited by Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter, 128–157. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Kelly, Petrina 2013 Mound R1 and the Problem of the Minor Mounds at Moundville. Master’s thesis, University of Alabama. Kelly, Stephen M. 2009 Late Woodland Cultures of the Red Wing Area. MS thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato. Kidder, Tristram R. 1994 Matheny: A Multicomponent Site on Bayou Bartholomew, Northeast Louisiana. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 19(2): 137–169. 2007 Contemplating Plaquemine Culture. In Plaquemine Archaeology, edited by Mark A. Rees and Patrick C. Livingood, 196–205. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

450 · References

King, Adam 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2004 Power and the Sacred: Mound C and the Etowah Chiefdom. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 151–165. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2007a The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 1–14. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007b Mound C and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 107–133. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007c Whither the SECC? In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 251–258. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2010 Multiple Groups, Overlapping Symbols and the Creation of a Sacred Space at Etowah’s Mound C. In Mississippian Mortuary Studies: Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationist Perspective, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., 54–73. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2011 Iconography of the Hightower Region of Eastern Tennessee and Northern Georgia. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 279–293. University of Texas Press, Austin. King, Adam, and Johann A. Sawyer 2016 Shell Gorgets, Hybridity, and Identity Creation in the Hightower Region. In Forging Southeastern Identities: Social Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Mississippian to Early Historic South, edited by Gregory A. Waselkov and Marvin T. Smith, 15–41. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. King, Adam, and Keith Stephenson 2012 Archival Research of the Hollywood Mound Site. Early Georgia 40(1): 87–101. King, Adam, Christopher L. Thornock, and Keith Stephenson 2016 The Hollywood Site (9RI1) and the Foundations of Mississippian in the Middle Savannah River Valley. In Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. King, N. Steven 1996 Exotic (Non-Local) Shell Artifacts. In The Archeology of Two Great Oasis Sites in the Perry Creek Valley, Northwest Iowa, edited by Dale R. Henning. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 43:64–84. Klein, Alan M. 1977 Adaptive Strategies and Process on the Plains: The 19th Century Cultural Sink. PhD diss., State University of New York, Buffalo. Klinger Timothy C. 1974 Report on the 1974 Test Excavations at the Knappenberger Site, Mississippi County, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 15:45–75.

References · 451

Knight, J. Vernon, Jr. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51:675–687. 1990 Social Organization and the Evolution of Hierarchy in Southeastern Chiefdoms. Journal of Anthropological Research 46:1–23. 1997 Some Developmental Parallels between Cahokia and Moundville. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 229–247. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2006a Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1): 1–5. 2006b Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds. In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and Tom Hatley, 421–434. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2010 Mound Excavations at Moundville: Architecture, Elites, and Social Order. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2016 Cahokia-Moundville Interaction: An Update. Paper presented at the 37th MidSouth Archaeological Conference, July 16–17, Memphis, TN. Knight, Vernon James, and Vincas P. Steponaitis 1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by V. J. Knight and V. P. Steponaitis, 1–25. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2011 A Redefinition of the Hemphill Style in Mississippian Art. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 201–239. University of Texas Press, Austin. Knight, Vernon James, George E. Lankford, Erin Phillips, David H. Dye, and Mitchell Childress 2017 The Holly Bluff Style. Southeastern Archaeology. http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/0734578X.2017.1286569. Knudson, Ruthann 1967 Cambria Village Ceramics. Plains Anthropologist 12:247–299. Kolb, Michael F. 2015 Geomorphological Investigations at Aztalan State Park during 2013 and 2014. Strata Morph Geoexploration, Sun Prairie, WI. Koldehoff, Brad 1990 Household Specialization: The Organization of Mississippian Chipped-StoneTool Production. MA thesis, Southern Illinois University. Koldehoff, Brad H., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2018 From Tubes to Platforms: Transformations in Early Smoking Pipes and Ancient Rituals. In Archaeology and Ancient Religions in the American Midcontinent, edited by Brad H. Koldehoff and Timothy R. Pauketat, 29–80. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Koldehoff, Brad, and Gregory D. Wilson 2010 Mississippian Celt Production and Resource Extraction in the Upper Big River Valley of St. Francois County, Missouri. Missouri Archaeologist 71:217–248.

452 · References

Koncur, Jasmine C. 2017 New Approaches from Old Data: Using GIS to Understand the Maurer (21GD96) Site. Poster presented at the 58th Annual Midwest Archaeology Conference, October 18–20, East Lansing, MI. Kongas, Elli K. 1960 The Earth-Diver. Ethnohistory 7:151–180. Kopytoff, Igor 1987 The Internal African Frontier: The Making of African Political Culture. In The African Frontier: The Reproduction of Traditional African Societies, edited by Igor Kopytoff, 3–84. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kozuch, Laura 1998 The Significance of Sinistral Whelks from Mississippian Archaeological Sites. PhD diss., University of Florida. 2002 Olivella Beads from Spiro and the Plains. American Antiquity 67:697–709. Kozuch, Laura, and Sarah Baires 2015 Manufacturing Shell Beads from the East St. Louis Site and Wilson Mound, Cahokia. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, TN. Kruchten, Jeffery D. 2004 Mississippian Ceramic Assemblages from the Eastern Shawnee Hills of Southern Illinois: The Millstone Bluff and Hayes Creek Sites. Paper in lieu of MA thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Krus, Anthony M. 2016 The Timing of Precolumbian Militarization in the US Midwest and Southeast. American Antiquity 81:375–388. Krus, Anthony M., and Charles R. Cobb 2018 The Mississippian Fin de Siècle in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. American Antiquity 83:302–319. Krus, Anthony M., Timothy Schilling, and G. William Monaghan 2013 The Timing of Angel Mounds Palisade Construction: A Search for the Best Chronological Model. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 38:171–182. Kwas, Mary L., and Robert C. Mainfort Jr. 1986 The Johnston Site: Precursor to Pinson Mounds? Tennessee Anthropologist 11:30– 41. Lafferty, Robert H. 1973 Analysis of Prehistoric Southeastern Fortifications. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University. 1977 The Evolution of the Mississippian Settlement Pattern and Exploitative Technology in the Black Bottom of Southern Illinois. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. La Flesche, Fletcher 1939 War Ceremony and Peace Ceremony of the Osage Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 101. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

References · 453

La Flesche, Francis 1914 Ceremonies and Rituals of the Osage. In Explorations and Field-Work of the Smithsonian Institution SI-MC 63, no. 68:66–69. Washington, DC. 1930 The Osage Tribe: Rite of the Wa-Xo’-Be. Extract from the Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. La Harpe, Jean-Baptiste Bénard de 1971 [1831] The Historical Journal of the Establishment of the French in Louisiana. Translated by Joan Cain and Virginia Koenig, edited and annotated by Glenn R. Conrad. Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Lankford, George E. 1998 Native American Legends: Southeastern Legends—Tales from the Natchez, Caddo, Biloxi, Chickasaw, and Other Nations. August House, Atlanta. 2004 World on a String: Some Cosmological Components of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 207–217. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2007a Some Cosmological Motifs in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly and James F. Garber, 8–38. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007b The Great Serpent in Eastern North America. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly and James F. Garber, 107–135. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007c The “Path of Souls”: Some Death Imagery in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly and James F. Garber, 174–212. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007d The Starry Hand. In Reachable Stars: Patterns in the Ethnohistory of Eastern North America, 226–239. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 Looking for Lost Lore: Studies in Folklore, Ethnology, and Iconography. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2011a Native American Legends of the Southeast: Tales from the Natchez, Caddo, Biloxi, Chickasaw, and Other Nations. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2011b Regional Approaches to Iconographic Art. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 3–17. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2011c The Swirl Cross and the Center. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 251–278. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2016 Was There a Moundville Medicine Society? In Rethinking Moundville and Its Hinterland, edited by Vincas P. Steponaitis and C. Margaret Scarry, 74–98. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

454 · References

Lankford, George E., and David H. Dye 2014 Conehead Effigies: A Distinctive Art Form of the Mississippi Valley. Arkansas Archeologist 53:37–50. Lansdell, Brent 2009 A Chronological Assessment of the Carson Mound Group, Stovall, Mississippi. MA thesis, University of Mississippi. Lapham, Increase A. 1855 The Antiquities of Wisconsin. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Larson, L. H., Jr. 1959 A Mississippian Headdress from Etowah, Georgia. American Antiquity 25:109– 112. 1971 Archaeological Implications of Social Stratification at the Etowah Site, Georgia. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James A. Brown, 58–67. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. 1972 Functional Consideration of Warfare in the Southeast during the Mississippi Period. American Antiquity 37:383–392. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. University of Cambridge Press, New York. Lawrence, William L., and Robert C. Mainfort Jr. 1993 Excavations at 40LK1, a Mississippian Substructural Mound in the Reelfoot Basin, Lake County, Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 18:8–27. Lazarus, Yulee 1979 The Buck Burial Mound. Manuscript on file at the Temple Mound Museum, Fort Walton Beach, FL. Lazarus, Yulee, and Robert J. Fornaro 1975 Fort Walton Temple Mound (80K6M): Further Test Excavations, DePauw 1973. Florida Anthropologist 28(4): 159–177. Leary, Jim, Timothy Darville, and David Field, eds. 2010 Round Mounds and Monumentality. In The British Neolithic and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Lesure, Richard G. 1997 Early Formative Platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 8:217–235. Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1960 Four Winnebago Myths: A Structural Sketch. In Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 5th ed., edited by R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, 322–329. McGraw Hill, New York. Lewis, R. Barry, and Charles Stout 1998 Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Lindauer, Owen, and John H. Blitz 1997 Higher Ground: The Archaeology of North American Platform Mounds. Journal of Archaeological Research 5(2): 169–207.

References · 455

Liu, Li 1996 Mortuary Ritual and Social Hierarchy in Longshan Culture. Early China 21:1–46. Lockhart, Jami, Julie E. Morrow, and Shaun McGaha 2011 A Town at the Crossroads: Site-Wide Gradiometry Surveying and Mapping at Old Town Ridge (3CG41) in Northeastern Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1): 51–63. Lowie, Robert H. 1915 Societies of the Arikara Indians. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 11(8): 645–678. 1919 The Hidatsa Sun Dance. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 16, pt. 5, 411–431. Lumb, Lisa Cutts, and Charles McNutt 1988 Chucalissa: Excavations in Units 2 and 6; 1959–67. Occasional Papers No. 15. Anthropological Research Center, Memphis State University. Lydick, Christopher M., David G. Anderson, and John E. Cornelison Jr. 2013 Integrated Remote Sensing Surveys. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 196–288. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. MacCurdy, George Grant 1913 Shell Gorgets from Missouri. American Anthropologist 15:395–414. MacNeish, Richard S. 1944 The Establishment of the Lewis Focus. Master’s thesis, University of Chicago. Maher, Robert F. 1958 The Excavation and Reconstruction of the Southwest Pyramidal Mound at Aztalan. Wisconsin Archeologist 39(1): 77–101. Maher, Robert F., and David A. Baerreis 1958 Aztalan Lithic Complex. Wisconsin Archeologist 39(1): 5–26. Mainfort, Robert C. 1992 The Mississippian Period in the Western Interior. In The Obion Site: A Mississippian Center in Western Tennessee, edited by Robert Mainfort, 203–208. Report of Investigations 7. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. 1996 The Reelfoot Lake Basin, Kentucky and Tennessee. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles H. McNutt, 77–96. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Marceaux, Shawn, and David H. Dye 2007 Hightower Anthropomorphic Marine Shell Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Flint Bifaces: Middle Mississippian Ritual Regalia in the Southern Appalachians. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 165–184. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Marquardt, William H., and Laura Kozuch 2016 The Lightning Whelk: An Enduring Icon of Southeastern North American Spirituality. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42:1–26.

456 · References

Marrinan, Rochelle A., and Nancy Marie White 2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2): 292–318. 2012 Fort Walton Culture in the Tallahassee Hills. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley and Nancie Marie White, 186–230. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Martin, William W. 1991 Functional Analysis and Comparison of Three Mississippian-Period Ceramic Assemblages from the Black Bottom of Southern Illinois Pope and Massac Counties. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University. Mauss, Marcel 1985 A Category of the Human Mind: The Notion of Person; The Notion of Self. In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, edited by Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, 1–25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Maxwell, Moreau S. 1952 Clay Ear Spools from the Aztalan Site, Wisconsin. American Antiquity 18:61–63. McAdams, William 1882 Antiquities. In History of Madison County, Illinois, 58–64. W. R. Brink, Edwardsville, IL. McAnany, Patricia A., and Ian Hodder 2009 Thinking About Stratigraphic Sequence in Social Terms. Archaeological Dialogues 16:31–38. McGill, Dru Evan 2013 Questioning Craft Production at Angel Mounds: Analysis of the 2006–2009 Angel Mounds Field-Schools. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 38(2): 205–218. McGimsey, Charles 2004 The Gold Mine Site (16RI13): An AD 825 Ossuary in Northeast Louisiana, Regional Archaeology Program, Management Unit III, 2003/2004. Report on file with the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Baton Rouge. McGimsey, Charles R., III 1964 An Engraved Shell Gorget from the McDuffee Site. Arkansas Archeological Society Bulletin 5(7): 128–129. McLeod, Todd 2015 Developing an Architectural Sequence for a Portion of the Mound A Enclosure at the Carson Mound Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. MA thesis, University of Mississippi. McNeil, Jessica 2013 Laboratory Analysis Procedures and Non Ceramic Artifacts. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 551–580. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL.

References · 457

McNerney, Michael J. 1987 The Effigy Complex of the Nebraska Phase and the Problem of Nebraska Phase– Mississippian Relationships. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 34:23–50. McNutt, Charles H. 1996 Summary. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles H. McNutt, 187–258. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2015 The Shelby Forest Site in Southwest Tennessee and Early Mississippian RedFilmed Pottery in the Central Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 34(2): 136–148. McNutt, Charles H., Jay D. Franklin, and Edward R. Henry 2012 New Perspectives on Mississippian Occupations in Western Tennessee and Northwestern Mississippi: Recent Chronological and Geophysical Investigations at Chucalissa (40SY1), Shelby County, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 31:231–250. McPherron, Alan 1967 The Juntunen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers No. 30. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. McQueen, H. S. 1943 Geology of the Fire Clay Districts of East Central Missouri. Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report, Second Series, Vol. 28. Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources, Rolla. McWilliams, Richebourg Gaillard, trans. and ed. 1988 Fleur de Lys and Calumet: Being the Penicaut Narrative of French Adventure in Louisiana. Reprint, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Originally published 1953, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Meeks, Scott C. 2013 Paleoecological Analysis of Sediments from Mound G Pond. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 153–166. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Meeks, Scott C., and David G. Anderson 2013 Drought, Subsistence Stress, and Population Dynamics: Assessing Mississippian Abandonment of the Vacant Quarter. In Soils, Climate and Society: Archaeological Investigations in Ancient America, edited by John D. Windgard and Sue Ellen Hayes, 61–84. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Mehrer, Mark W. 1995 Cahokia’s Countryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns and Social Power. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb. Mehrer, Mark W., and James M. Collins 1995 Household Archaeology at Cahokia and in Its Hinterlands. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith, 32–57. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

458 · References

Mehta, Jayur M. 2015 Native American Monuments and Landscape in the Lower Mississippi Valley. PhD diss., Tulane University. Mehta, Jayur M., David Abbott, and Charlotte D. Pevny 2016 Mississippian Craft Production in the Yazoo Basin: Thin-section Analysis of a Mississippian Structure Floor on the Summit of Mound D at the Carson Site. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:471–484. Mehta, Jayur M., Kelsey M. Lowe, Rachel Stout-Evans, and John Connaway 2012 Moving Earth and Building Monuments at the Carson Mounds Site, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Journal of Anthropology 2012:1–21. Mehta, Jayur, Grant McCall, Theodore Marks, and James Enloe. 2015 Source Evaluation of Archaeological Chert from the Carson Site in North Mississippi Using Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF). Paper presented at the 72nd annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, TN. Melbye, F. Jerome 1963 The Kane Burial Mounds. Archaeological Salvage Report No. 15. Southern Illinois University Museum, Carbondale. Merriam, Larry, and Christopher Merriam 2004 The Spiro Mound: A Photo Essay; Photographs from the Collection of Dr. Robert E. Bell. Merriam Station Books, Oklahoma City, OK. Meskell, Lynn 2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279–301. Meyer, Roy W. 1977 The Village Indians of the Upper Missouri: The Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Mickelson, Andrew M. 2008 Recent Research at the Ames Mound Complex: An Early Mississippian Site in Southwest Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 3(2): 201–218. 2016 Mississippian Settlements in Western Tennessee and Evidence for Wider Cultural Contacts and Influence from Beyond. Paper presented at the 37th Mid-South Archaeological Conference, July 16–17, Memphis, TN. Mickelson, Andrew M., and Eric Goddard 2011 The Ames Site (40FY7): A Very Unobtrusive Mississippian Settlement Located in Southwestern Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeologist 5:157–172. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2002 Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., 352–372. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, and Timothy A. Kohler 1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900: The McKeithen Weeden Island Culture. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

References · 459

Miller, Jay 1996 Changing Moons: A History of Caddo Religion. Plains Anthropologist 41:243–259. Millhouse, Phillip G. 2012 The John Chapman Site and Creolization on the Northern Frontier of the Mississippian World. PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Mills, Antonia 1994 Reincarnation Belief among North American Indians and Inuit: Context, Distribution, and Variation. In Amerindian Rebirth: Reincarnation Belief among North American Indians and Inuit, edited by Antonia Mills and Richard Slobodin, 15–37. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Mills, Antonia, and Richard Slobodin, eds. 1994 Amerindian Rebirth: Reincarnation Belief among North American Indians and Inuit. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Mills, Barbara J. 2004 The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Puebloan Southwest. American Anthropologist 106:238–252. 2011 Themes and Models for Understanding Migration in the Southwest. In Movement, Connectivity, and Landscape Change in the Ancient Southwest, edited by Margaret C. Nelson and Colleen Strawhacker, 345–359. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2015 Unpacking the House: Ritual Practice and Social Networks at Chaco. In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, edited by Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog, 249–271. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Milner, George R. 1984 The Julien Site (11-S-63). American Bottom Archaeology, FAI 270 Site Reports 7. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1986 Mississippian Period Population Density in a Segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity 51:468–488. 1990 The Late Prehistoric Cahokia Cultural System of the Mississippi River Valley: Foundations, Florescence, and Fragmentation. Journal of World Prehistory 4:1–43. 1996 The Development and Dissolution of a Mississippian Society in the American Bottom, Illinois. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, 27–52. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1999 Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2): 105–151. 2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames and Hudson, London. 2006 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

460 · References

Milner, George R., Thomas E. Emerson, Mark W. Mehrer, Joyce A. Williams, and Duane Esarey 1993 Mississippian and Oneota Periods. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter, 158–186. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Mollerud, Katy J. 2005 Messages, Meanings, and Motifs: An Analysis of Ramey Incised Ceramics at the Aztalan Site. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. 2016 The Cambria Connection: Identifying Ceramic Production and Community Interaction in Late Prehistoric Minnesota, AD 1050–1300. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Monaghan, G. William, and Christopher S. Peebles 2010 The Construction, Use, and Abandonment of Angel Site Mound A: Tracing the History of a Middle Mississippian Town through Its Earthworks. American Antiquity 75:935–953. Monaghan, G. William, Timothy Schilling, Anthony M. Krus, and Christopher S. Peebles 2013 Mound Construction and Chronology at Angel Mounds: Episodic Mound Construction and Ceremonial Events. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 38:155– 170. Mooney, James 1896 The Ghost Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Pt. 1, 653–1136. Washington, DC. Moore, Clarence B. 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:421–497. 1905 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior River. Reprinted from the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13:125–244. 1911 Some Aboriginal Sites on the Mississippi River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 14:365–480. Reprinted in The Lower Mississippi Valley Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore, edited by Dan F. Morse and Phyllis A. Morse, 25–244. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1998. 1912 Some Aboriginal Sites on Red River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 14:483–638. 1915 Some Aboriginal Sites on the Tennessee River. Journal of the National Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia 16:170–428. Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith 2008 Editors Corner. Tennessee Archaeology 3(2): 104. http://frank.mtsu.edu/~kesmith/ TNARCH/tennesseearchaeology.html. 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Peabody Museum in Middle Tennessee, 1877– 1884. Report of Investigations No. 16. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville. Moore, Michael C., David H. Dye, and Kevin E. Smith 2016 WPA Excavations at the Mound Bottom and Pack Sites in Middle Tennessee, 1936–1940. In New Deal Archaeology in Tennessee: Intellectual, Methodological,

References · 461

and Theoretical Contributions, edited by David H. Dye, 116–137. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Moorehead, Warren K. 1929 The Cahokia Mounds. University of Illinois Bulletin 26(4). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Morrow, Julie, Robert A. Taylor, Jami Lockhart, and Shaun McGaha 2013 Old Town Ridge (3CG41): A Palisaded Middle Mississippi Period Village in the Land of Milk and Honey. Arkansas Archeologist 51:1–24. Morrow, Juliet E. 2000 A Dig Well Done and Fieldwork Plans for the June Society Training Program at the Greenbrier Site, Independence County. Fieldnotes 293:5. Arkansas Archeological Society, Fayetteville. 2004 The Sacred Spiro Landscape, Cahokia Connections, and Flat Top Mounds. Central States Archaeological Journal 51:112–114. Morse, Dan F. 1986 Preliminary Investigations of the Pinson Mounds Site: 1963 Field Season. In Pinson Mounds, a Middle Woodland Ceremonial Center, edited by Robert Mainfort, 96–119. Tennessee Department of Conservation Division of Archaeology Research Series No. 7. Nashville, TN. Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York. 1990 Emergent Mississippian in the Central Mississippi Valley. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 153–174. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1996 Northeast Arkansas. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, edited by C. H. McNutt, 119–136. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2000 Social Interaction Between the American Bottom of Cahokia and the Crowley’s Ridge Lowlands Division of the Lower Mississippi River A.D. 800–1200. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 347–360. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse, eds. 1980 Zebree Archaeological Project. Report submitted to Memphis District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey. Mt. Pleasant, Jane 2015 A New Paradigm for Pre-Columbian Agriculture in North America. Early American Studies 13(2):374–412. Mueller, Natalie G., and Gayle J. Fritz 2016 Women as Symbols and Actors in the Mississippi Valley. In Native American Landscapes: An Engendered Perspective, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 109–148. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Muller, Jon 1966 An Experimental Theory of Stylistic Analysis. PhD diss., Harvard University. 1976 Mississippian population and organization: Kincaid locality research, 1970–75. Manuscript on file, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

462 · References

1978

The Kincaid System: Mississippian Settlement in the Environs of a Large Site. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 269–295. Academic Press, New York. 1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 1989 The Southern Cult. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, 11–26. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum, New York. Muller, Jon, and J. E. Stephens 1991 Mississippian Sociocultural Adaptation. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Munson, Patrick 1971 An Archaeological Survey of the American Bottoms and Wood River Terrace. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 21, Pt. 2. Springfield, IL. Murie, James 1914 Pawnee Indian Societies. Anthropological Papers 11:543–644. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Myer, William E. 1917 The Remains of Primitive Man in Cumberland Valley, Tennessee. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Americanists (1915), 96–102. Washington, DC. 1922 Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Tennessee. Art and Archaeology 14:140–150. 1928a Pictograph Slabs of America. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Americanists (1922), 97–105. Rio de Janeiro. 1928b Indian Trails of the Southeast. In Forty-Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1924–1925, 727–857. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1971 Indian Trails of the Southeast. Reprinted. Blue & Gray Press, Nashville. Originally published 1925, Forty-Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 727–857. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Myers, Bethany J. 2002 Hero Twins: Explorations of Mythic and Historical Dichotomies. Honors thesis, Southern Illinois University. Myers, Fred R. 2001 Introduction. In The Empire of Things: Regimes of Value and Material Culture, edited by Fred R. Myers, 3–61. School for American Research, Santa Fe, NM. Nash, Charles H. 1972 Chucalissa: Excavations and Burials Through 1963. Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center, Occasional Papers No. 6. Memphis. Neff, Hector 2008 Review of Ceramic Compositional Studies from in and around the Mississippi Valley. In Time’s River: Archaeological Syntheses from the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Janet Rafferty and Evan Peacock, 223–242. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

References · 463

Nowak, Cory P. 2014 Analysis of Archaeological Site 21GD260: Mosquito Terrace. Senior thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato. O’Brien, Michael J., and W. Raymond Wood 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. O’Brien, Michael J., Robert E. Warren, and Dennis E. Lewarch, eds. 1982 The Cannon Reservoir Human Ecology Project: An Archaeological Study of Cultural Adaptations in the Southern Prairie Peninsula. Academic Press, New York. O’Brien, Patricia J. 1972 A Formal Analysis of Cahokia Ceramics from the Powell Tract. Illinois Archaeological Survey Monograph 3. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1978 Steed-Kisker and Mississippian Influences on the Central Plains. In The Central Plains Tradition: Internal Development and External Relationships, edited by Donald J. Blakeslee, 67–80. Report 11. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 1988 Ancient Kansas City Area Borders and Trails. Missouri Archaeologist 49:27–39. 1989 Cahokia: The Political Capitol of the Ramey State? North American Archaeologist 10(4): 275–292. 1991 Early State Economics: Cahokia, Capital of the Ramey State. In Early State Economies, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, 143–175. Transaction Publishers, London. 1993 Steed-Kisker: The Western Periphery of the Mississippian Tradition. MidContinental Journal of Archaeology 18(1): 61–96. Oliver, Symmes C. 1962 Ecology and Cultural Continuity as Contributing Factors in the Social Organization of the Plains Indian. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:1–90. University of California Press, Berkeley. Orr, Ellison J. 1963 Iowa Archaeological Reports 1934–1939. Ten vols., with an evaluation and index by Marshall McKusick, editor. Archives of Archaeology 20. Orr, Kenneth G. 1951 Change at Kincaid: A Study of Cultural Dynamics. In Kincaid: A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis, by Fay-Cooper Cole, Robert Bell, John Bennett, Joseph Caldwell, Norman Emerson, Richard MacNeish, Kenneth Orr, and Roger Willis, 293–259. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ortman, Scott G., and Catherine M. Cameron 2011 A Framework for Controlled Comparisons of Ancient Southwestern Movement. In Movement, Connectivity, and Landscape Change in the Ancient Southwest, edited by Margaret C. Nelson and Colleen Strawhacker, 233–252. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Overstreet, David F. 2000 Cultural Dynamics of the Late Prehistoric Period in Southern Wisconsin. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 405–438. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

464 · References

Owen, Bruce D. 2005 Distant Colonies and Explosive Collapse: The Two Stages of the Tiwanaku Diaspora in the Osmore Drainage. Latin American Antiquity 16(1): 45–80. Parish, Ryan M. 2013 The Application of Reflectance Spectroscopy to Chert Provenance of Mississippian Symbolic Weaponry. PhD diss., University of Memphis. Parks, Douglas R. 1991 Traditional Narratives of the Arikara Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1996 Myths and Traditions of the Arikara Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2001a Arikara. In Handbook of the North American Indians, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie and William C. Sturtevant, 365–398. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC. 2001b Pawnee. In Handbook of the North American Indians, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie and William C. Sturtevant, 515–566. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC. Parks, Douglas R., and Waldo R. Wedel 1985 Pawnee Geography, Historical and Sacred. Great Plains Quarterly 5:143–176. Parsons, Elsie C. 1941 Notes on the Caddo. Memoir 57. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, WI. Pauketat, Timothy R. 1983 A Long-stemmed Spud from the American Bottom. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8:1–15. 1992 The Reign and Ruin of the Lords of Cahokia: A Dialectic of Dominance. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat, 31–51. Archaeological Papers No. 3. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 1993a Big Bang in the Bottom: Political Consolidation and Mississippianism at Cahokia. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. 1993b Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955–1956 Excavations of Kunnemann Mound. Memoir No. 26. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1997a Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 30–51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997b Specialization, Political Symbols, and the Crafty Elite of Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 16:1–15. 1998a Refiguring the Archaeology of Greater Cahokia. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:45–89. 1998b The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Ex-

References · 465

cavations. Studies in Archaeology No. 1. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 2003 Resettled Farmers and the Making of a Mississippian Polity. American Antiquity 68:39–66. 2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2005 The Forgotten History of the Mississippians. In North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and D. Loren, 187–211. Blackwell, Oxford. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. 2008 Founders’ Cults and the Archaeology of Wa-kan-da. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, edited by B. Mills and W. H. Walker, 61–79. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. 2009a Cahokia: Ancient America’s Great City on the Mississippi. Viking-Penguin Press, New York. 2009b Wars, Rumors of Wars, and the Production of Violence. In Warfare in Cultural Context: Practice, Agency, and the Archaeology of Violence, edited by A. E. Nielsen and W. H. Walker, 244–261. University of Arizona Press, Tucson 2012 An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America. Routledge, London. 2016 Cahokians in Foreign Lands: What Happened in the 11th Century Mississippi Valley and Why. Mid-South Archaeological Conference email discussions, June 4. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan Alt 2003 Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History. In Archaeology of Memory, edited by R. Van Dyke and S. Alcock, 151–179. Blackwell, Oxford. 2004 The Making and Meaning of a Mississippian Axe Head Cache. Antiquity 78:779– 797. 2015a The Elements of Cahokian Shrine Complexes and the Basis of Mississippian Religion. In Religion and Politics in the Ancient Americas, edited by S. Barber and A. Joyce. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. 2015b Religious Innovation at the Emerald Acropolis: Something New under the Moon. In Religion and Innovation: Antagonists or Partners?, edited by Donald A. Yerxa, 43–57. Bloomsbury Academic Press, London. 2015c Medieval Life in America’s Heartland. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt, 1–12. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. 2018 Water and Shells in Bodies and Pots: Mississippian Rhizome, Cahokian Poiesis. In Relational Identities Other Than Human Agency and Personhood in Archaeology, edited by E. Harrison-Buck and J. A. Hendon. University Press of Colorado, Denver. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt, eds. 2014 The Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokia World. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Thomas E. Emerson 1991 The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93(4):919–941. 1997 Introduction: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World. In Cahokia:

466 · References

Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 1–29. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Pauketat, T. R., and N. H. Lopinot 1997 Cahokian Population Dynamics. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 103–123. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Pauketat, Timothy R., Susan M. Alt, and Jeffery D. Kruchten 2015a City of Earth and Wood: Cahokia and Its Material Historical Implications. In Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 BCE–1200, edited by N. Yoffee, 437–454. Cambridge History of the World, Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2017 The Emerald Acropolis: Elevating the Moon and Water in the Rise of Cahokia. Antiquity 91(355): 207–222. Pauketat, Timothy R., Arleen Betzenhauser, and William Romain 2012 Redesigned Communities of the Early Mississippian World: From Toltec and Washausen to Obion and Cahokia. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Baton Rouge, LA. Pauketat, Timothy R., Robert F. Boszhardt, and Danielle M. Benden 2015b Trempealeau Entanglements: An Ancient Colony’s Causes and Effects. American Antiquity 80:260–289. Pauketat, Timothy R., Andrew C. Fortier, Susan M. Alt, and Thomas E. Emerson 2013 A Mississippian Conflagration at East St Louis and Its Political-Historical Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology 38(3): 210–226. Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67:257–280. Payne, Claudine 1994 Mississippian Capitals: An Archaeological Investigation of Precolumbian Political Structure. PhD diss., University of Florida. 2009 The St. Francis Basin and Its Northern Ties. Paper presented at the Kincaid Conference, Metropolis, IL. 2010 Disposal of Heirlooms and the End of Memory at Lake Jackson. Paper presented 75th at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. Peregrine, Peter N. 1991 A Graph-Theoretic Approach to the Evolution of Cahokia. American Antiquity 56:66–75. 1992 Mississippian Evolution: A World System Perspective. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 1996a Introduction: World-Systems Theory and Archaeology. In Precolumbian WorldSystems, edited by Peter Peregrine and Gary Feinman, 1–10. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 1996b Hyperopia or Hyperbole? The Mississippian World-Systems. In Precolumbian World-Systems, edited by Peter Peregrine and Gary Feinman, 39–49. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

References · 467

Perino, G. 1957 Cahokia. Central States Archaeological Journal 3:84–88. 1959 Recent Information from Cahokia and Its Satellites. Central States Archaeological Journal 6(4): 130–138. 1960 The Micro-Drill Industry at Cahokia. Central States Archaeological Journal 7(3): 116–120. 1963 The Discovery and Preservation of an Unusual Archaeological Feature in Eastern Arkansas. Central States Archaeological Journal 10(2): 61–68. 1964 The Grove Spud. Central States Archaeological Journal 11(1): 4–6. 1967 The Cherry Valley Mounds and Banks Mound 3. Central States Archaeological Societies, Memoir 1. 1968 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin No. 3. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman. 1971 The Mississippian Component at the Schild Site (No. 4), Greene County, Illinois. In Mississippian Site Archaeology in Illinois I: Site Reports from the St. Louis and Chicago Areas, edited by James A. Brown, 1–148. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 8, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 1985 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians. Points and Barbs Press, Idabel, OK. 2004 The Ballard County, Kentucky, Human Effigy Pipe. Central States Archaeological Journal 51:24–25. Perrault, Stephanie L., Richard A. Weinstein, and Roger T. Saucier 1997 Preliminary Archaeological Research at the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Paper presented at the 54th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Baton Rouge, LA. Perttula, Timothy K. 2012 Watershed Times for the Caddo People of the Far Southeast. Caddo Archaeology Journal 22:97–114. Peterson, Drexel A. 1979 An Archaeological Assessment of the Wolf River Watershed. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Contract No. 53-4741-928. Copy on file at the C. H. Nash Museum Library, Memphis, TN. Pfaffenroth, Jake F. 2018 Ancient Architecture at Aztalan, Wisconsin: Implications for Multi-Ethnic Community Formation and Migrant/Local Interaction. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. Phillips, Erin 2012 Social Contexts of Production and Use of Pottery Engraved in the Hemphill Style at Moundville. PhD diss., University of Alabama. Phillips, Philip 1939 Introduction to the Archaeology of the Mississippi Valley. PhD diss., Harvard University. 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949–1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 60. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

468 · References

Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown 1975 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Vols. 1, 2, and 3. Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. Part 1. Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1984 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. Part 2. Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Valley, 1940–1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Picard, Jennifer L. 2013 Northern Flint, Southern Roots: A Diachronic Analysis of Paleoethnobotanical Remains and Maize Race at the Aztalan Site (47-JE-0001). Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Picard, Jennifer L., and John D. Richards 2014 Archaeology Around Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee: Investigations at Aztalan by the 2013 Advanced Archaeological Field School. Wisconsin Archeologist 95(1): 138–142. Porter, James W. 1964 Thin Section Descriptions of Some Shell Tempered Prehistoric Ceramics from the American Bottoms. Southern Illinois University Lithic Laboratory. Copies available from Research Report 7. 1969 The Mitchell Site and Prehistoric Exchange Systems at Cahokia: A.D. 1000 ± 300. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology, edited by M. L. Fowler, 137–164. Bulletin No. 7. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Porubcan, Paula J. 2000 Human and Nonhuman Surplus Display at Mound 72, Cahokia. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 207–225. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Prentice, Guy 1986 An Analysis of the Symbolism Expressed by the Birger Figurine. American Antiquity 51:239–266. 1987 Marine Shells as Wealth Items in Mississippian Societies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:193–223. Price, T. D., J. H. Burton, and J. B. Stoltman 2007 Place of Origin of Prehistoric Inhabitants of Aztalan, Jefferson Co., Wisconsin. American Antiquity 72:524–538. Pursell, Corin C. O. 2004 Geographic Distribution and Symbolism of Colored Mound Architecture in the Mississippian Southeast. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University. 2009 A Reconsideration of the Kincaid Burial Mound. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 4–7, Mobile, AL. 2012 Colored Monuments and Sensory Theater among the Mississippians. In Making

References · 469

Senses of the Past: Toward a Sensory Archaeology, edited by Jo Day, 69–89. Occasional Paper No. 40. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2016 Afterimages of Kincaid Mounds. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University. Pursell, Corin C. O., and Brian M. Butler 2008 Report of 2008 Fieldwork at Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2012 Report of 2011 Fieldwork at Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Radin, Paul 1915 The Social Organization of the Winnebago Indians: An Interpretation. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa. 1948a Winnebago Hero Cycles: A Study in Aboriginal Literature. International Journal of American Linguistics 14(3): 1–168. 1948b Winnebago Hero Cycles: A Study in Aboriginal Literature. Memoir 1. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Bloomington. 1950 The Basic Myth of the North American Indians. Eranos-Jarhbuch 17:359–419. 1990 The Winnebago Tribe. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. n.d. The Squirrel. Winnebago Notebooks 22:1–85. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Rafferty, Janet 1995 Owl Creek Mounds: Test Excavations at a Vacant Mississippian Mound Center. Report of Investigations 7. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. Ramsey, Darwin-Tamar, and Brian M. Butler 2015 The Microlithic Industry at Kincaid Mounds. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, TN. Randsborg, Klavs 2008 Kings’ Jelling: Gorm and Thyra’s Palace, Harald’s Monument and Grave-Svend’s Cathedral. Acta Archaeologica 79:1–23. Ray, Jack H. 2007 Ozarks Chipped-Stone Resources: A Guide to the Identification of, Distribution of, and Prehistoric Use of Cherts and Other Siliceous Raw Materials. Missouri Archaeological Society, Special Publication No. 8. Reilly, F. Kent 1994 Enclosed Ritual Spaces and the Watery Underworld in Formative Period Architecture: New Observations on the Function of La Venta Complex A. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fields. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 2004 People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacred in Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend, and Robert V.

470 · References

Sharp, 125–137. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Reilly, F. Kent, III, and James F. Garber 2007 Introduction. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, 1–7. University of Texas Press, Austin. Reilly, F. Kent, III, James F. Garber, and George E. Lankford 2011 Introduction. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, xi–xviii. University of Texas Press, Austin. Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hattž, T. J. Heaton, D. L. Hoffmann, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff, C. S. M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4). Reynolds, Austin W., Jennifer A. Raff, Deborah A. Bolnick, Della C. Cook, and Frederika A. Kaestle 2014 Ancient DNA from the Schild Site in Illinois: Implications for the Mississippian Transition in the Lower Illinois River Valley. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156(3): 434–448. Richards, John D. 1985 Aztalan Compilation, Mapping and Excavations. In Southeastern Wisconsin Archaeology Project: 1984–85, edited by L. Goldstein, 63–109. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory Reports of Investigations No. 81. 1992 Ceramics and Culture at Aztalan, a Late Prehistoric Village in Southeast Wisconsin. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. 2003 Collars, Castellations, and Cahokia: A Regional Perspective on the Aztalan Ceramic Assemblage. Wisconsin Archeologist 84(1–2): 139–154. 2007a Viewing the Ruins: The Early Documentary History of the Aztalan Site. Wisconsin Magazine of History 91(2): 28–39. 2007b Context and Process: Red-Slipped Pottery in Cahokia’s Northern Hinterlands. Illinois Archaeology 19:1–26. Richards, John D., and Robert J. Jeske 2002 Location, Location, Location: The Temporal and Cultural Context of Late Prehistoric Settlement in Southeast Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archeologist 83(2): 32–54. Richards, John D., and Thomas J. Zych 2018 A Landscape of Mounds: Community Ethnogenesis at Aztalan. In Archaeology and Ancient Religion in the American Midcontinent, edited by B. H. Koldehoff and T. R. Pauketat, 234–268. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Richards, John D., Thomas E. Emerson, and Randall Hughes 2008 Identifying the Quarry Sources for Aztalan’s Pipestone Earspools Using PIMA Analysis, Paper presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, October 15–18, South Bend, IN.

References · 471

Richards, John D., Seth A. Schneider, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2010 Comparative Compositional Analysis of Red-and-White Pottery from Cahokia and Aztalan. Proceedings of the 75th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 14–18, St. Louis. Riordan, Robert V. 1975 Ceramics and Chronology: Mississippian Settlement in the Black Bottom, Southern Illinois. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University. Roberts, J. C. 1969 An Unusual Engraved Pottery Vessel. Redskin 4:60–66. Rodell, Roland L. 1984 A Survey of Oneota Sites in the Lake Koshkonong Area. In The Southeastern Wisconsin Archaeology Project: 1983–1984, edited by L. Goldstein, 144–167. Report to the Historic Preservation Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Archaeological Research Laboratory Report of Investigations No. 77. 1991 The Diamond Bluff Site Complex and Cahokia Influence in the Red Wing Locality. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 253–280. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Rodning, Christopher B. 2007 Building and Rebuilding Cherokee Houses and Townhouses in Southwestern North Carolina. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology, edited by Robin A. Beck Jr., 464–484. Occasional Paper No. 35. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique, Robert J. Speakman, and Michael D. Glascock 2005 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Coles Creek/Early Mississippian Ceramics from the Tensas Basin, Louisiana. In Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, edited by Richard A. Weinstein, 566–578. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Roe, Lori 2007 Coles Creek Antecedents of Plaquemine Mound Construction: Evidence from the Raffman Site. In Plaquemine Archaeology, edited by Mark A. Rees and Patrick C. Livingood, 20–37. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Roesler, Christian 2016 Analysis of a Middle Mississippian Structure at the Denmark Site (40MD85). Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Rogers, J. Daniel 1983 Social Ranking and Change in the Harlan and Spiro Phases of Eastern Oklahoma. In Southeastern Natives and Their Pasts: A Collection of Papers Honoring Dr. Robert E. Bell, edited by Don G. Wyckoff and Jack L. Hofman, 17–128. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past No. 11. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman. 1995 Dispersed Communities and Integrated Households: A Perspective from Spiro and the Arkansas Basin. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, 81–98. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

472 · References

2006

Chronology and the Demise of Chiefdoms: Eastern Oklahoma in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Southeastern Archaeology 25:20–28. Rohrbaugh, Charles L. 1982 Spiro and Fort Coffee Phases: Changing Cultural Complexes of the Caddoan Area. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. 1985 The Subdivision of Spiro Phase. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10(2): 155–170. Rolingson, Martha Ann 1976 The Bartholomew Phase: A Plaquemine Adaptation in the Mississippi Valley. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, 99–119. Academic Press, New York. 1993 Archeology along Bayou Bartholomew, Southeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 32:1–138. 1996 Elements of Community Design at Cahokia. In The Ancient Skies and Sky Watchers of Cahokia: Woodhenges, Eclipses, and Cahokian Cosmology, edited by M. L. Fowler. Wisconsin Archeologist 77(3–4): 84–96. 2012 Toltec Mounds: Archeology of the Mound-and-Plaza Complex. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 65. Romain, William F. 2009 Shamans of the Lost World: A Cognitive Approach to the Prehistoric Religion. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. 2015a Astronomic Alignments at Aztalan. http://ancientearthworksproject.org/blog. html. 2015b Moonwatchers of Cahokia. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt, 33–41. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. Rowan, Yorke M., ed. 2012 Beyond Belief: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21. Washington, DC. Rowe, Chandler W. 1958 A Crematorium at Aztalan. Wisconsin Archeologist 39(1): 101–110. Rudolph, Katy Z. 2009 A Taphonomic Analysis of Human Skeletal Material from Aztalan: Cannibalism, Hostility, and Mortuary Variability. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Rudolph, Teresa Perry 1981 Distribution of Late Woodland Sites on the Black Bottom Area, Pope and Massac Counties. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University. Ruppé, Reynold J. 1956 Archaeological Investigations of the Mill Creek Culture of Northwestern Iowa. Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society 1955:335–339. 1957 Iowa Archeology. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 5(2): 2–32. Ryan, Joanne 2004 Data-Recovery Excavations at the Hedgeland Site (16CT19), Catahoula Parish,

References · 473

Louisiana. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Sabo, George, III, and Jerry E. Hilliard 2008 Woodland Period Shell-Tempered Pottery in the Central Arkansas Ozarks. Southeastern Archaeology 27:164–171. Sabo, George, III, Jerry E. Hillard, Jami J. Lockhart, and Leslie C. Walker 2018 Arkansas: Ozark Escarpment West of the Mississippi River. In Transforming the Landscape: Rock Art and the Mississippian Cosmos, edited by Carol Diaz-Granados, Jan Simek, George Sabo III, and Mark Wagner, 76–99. Oxbow Books, Barnsley. Sahlins, Marshall 1972 Stone Age Economics. De Gruyter, New York. Salzer, Robert J. 2005 The Gottschall Site: 3,500 Years of Ideological Continuity and Change. Ontario Archaeology 79–80:109–114. Salzer, Robert J., and Grace Rajnovich 2000 The Gottschall Rockshelter: An Archaeological Mystery. Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN. Sampson, Kelvin W., and Duane Esarey 1993 A Survey of Elaborate Mississippian Copper Artifacts from Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 5(1): 452–480. Sampson, Kurt A. 2008 Getting to the Point: Typology, Morphology, and Lithic Material Variation in the Milwaukee Public Museum Projectile Point Collection from the Aztalan Site. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Samuelsen, John R. 2013 AMS and Radiocarbon Dating of the Crenshaw Site (3MI6). Manuscript in author’s possession. Santeford, Lawrence G. 1982 Mississippian Political Organization and Chipped Stone Artifacts: A Typological Model for the Study of a Prehistoric Society in Southern Illinois. PhD diss., Southern Illinois University. Scarry, C. Margaret 1981 The University of Michigan Moundville Excavations: 1978–1979. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:87–90. Scarry, C. Margaret, and John F. Scarry 1995 Artifact Analysis. In Excavations on the Northwest Riverbank at Moundville: Investigations of a Moundville I Residential Area, by C. Margaret Scarry, 17–90. Report of Investigations No. 72, Office of Archaeological Services, University of Alabama Museums, Moundville. 1997 West Jefferson Community Organization in the Black Warrior Valley, Alabama. Report of investigations prepared for the National Geographic Society, Grant 5278–94. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Scarry, John F. 1990 Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area: The Evolution of the Cayson

474 · References

and Lake Jackson Phases. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 227–250. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1996 Stability and Change in the Apalachee Chiefdom. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, 195–228. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2007 Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms: Patterns in the Iconographic and Material Evidence. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 134–150. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Schafer, Joseph 1932 The Wisconsin Lead Region. Wisconsin Domesday Book, General Studies Vol. 3. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Schambach, Frank F. 1990 The Place of Spiro in Southeastern Prehistory: Is It Caddoan or Mississippian? Southeastern Archaeology 9:67–68. 1993 Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, 187–230. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 1997 The Development of the Burial Mound Tradition in the Caddo Area. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 9:53–72. 2002 Fourche Maline: A Woodland Period Culture of the Trans-Mississippi South. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., 91–112. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Schilling, Timothy 2012 Soil Coring in the North Ramey Field. Report submitted to the Powell Archaeological Research Center, Fairmont City, IL. Schirmer, Ronald C. 2002 Plant-use Systems and Late Prehistoric Culture Change in the Red Wing Locality. PhD diss., University of Minnesota. 2008 Considering Mississippianism in Red Wing: New Data from Bartron (21GD02). Paper presented at the 54th annual Midwest Archaeology Conference, Milwaukee, WI. 2016 Radiocarbon Dating Early Oneota Sites in Southern Minnesota. Research Report, Department of Anthropology, Minnesota State University, Mankato. n.d. Late Woodland and Oneota Sites on the Minnesota Side of the Red Wing Region. In Mounds, Villages, and Feasts: The Archaeology of Red Wing, edited by Ronald C. Schirmer. Occasional Publications in Minnesota Archaeology, Minnesota Archaeological Society. Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN. Schirmer, Ronald C., and Dale R. Henning 2013 Go East Young Man: The Initial Middle Missouri Tradition and Red Wing’s Silvernale Phase. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Plains Anthropological Conference, October 3, Loveland, CO. Schneider, Seth A. 2015 Oneota Ceramic Production and Exchange: Social, Economic, and Political In-

References · 475

teractions in Eastern Wisconsin between AD 1050–1400. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, and Gail S. Schnell 1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Schock, Jack M. 1986 An Archaeological Excavation of Mounds 1, 2, and 4 at 40-OB-6 (The Effigy Rabbit Site) in Obion County, Tennessee. Draft report submitted to the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville. Schroeder, Sissel 2005 Reclaiming New Deal Era Civic Archaeology: Exploring the Legacy of William S. Webb and the Jonathan Creek Site. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 2:53–71. 2006 Walls as Symbols of Economic, Political, and Military Might. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, 115–141. Center for Archaeological Investigations, University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale. 2011 An Investigation of the Origins of Variation in Perishable Architecture at Jonathan Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2): 311–326. Schroeder, Sissel, and Lynne G. Goldstein 2015 Timelessness and the Legacy of Archaeological Cartography. In 2013 Aztalan Excavations: Work on the Gravel Knoll and West of the Palisade, edited by L. Goldstein, 65–75. Consortium for Archaeological Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Scullin, Michael 2007 Cambria Focus Subsistence: The View from the Price Site. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains, edited by Stanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay, 83–95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Scully, Edward G. 1951 Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Sears, William H. 1958 Burial Mounds on the Gulf Coastal Plain. American Antiquity 23:274–284. Seinfeld, Daniel M., Daniel P. Bigman, J. Grant Stauffer, and Jesse Nowak 2015 Mound Building at Lake Jackson (8LE1), Tallahassee, Florida: New Insights from GPR. Southeastern Archaeology 34(3): 220–236. Shane, Orrin 1981 Unpublished Radiocarbon Dates. Office of the State Archaeologist of Minnesota, St. Paul. Sharp, Robert V. 2007 Iconographical Investigation of a Female Mortuary Cult Figure in the Ceramics of the Cumberland Basin. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, TN. 2008 Mississippian Regalia: From the Natural World to the Beneath World. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC.

476 · References

2009

Clothed in the Serpent Robe: Mississippian Female Effigies and the Lords of the Beneath World. Paper presented at Texas State University, San Marcos. 2011a Our Lady of the Cumberland and the Portal to the Beneath World. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Current Research in Tennessee Archaeology, Nashville. 2011b Middle Cumberland Female Effigies and the Portal to the Beneath World. Manuscript in author’s possession. 2011c What New Additions to the Flint Clay Corpus Can Tell Us About Mississippian Sculpture. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jacksonville, FL. 2012 Mythic Figures or Shamanic Practitioners: What New Additions to the Flint-Clay Corpus Suggest. Paper presented at the 77th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, TN. 2014 Sacred Narratives of Cosmic Significance: The Place of the Keesee Figurine in the Mississippian Mythos. Paper presented at the 79th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX. 2016 Our Lady of the Cumberland: Styles, Distribution, and Community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Athens, GA. 2018 Early Female Effigies of the Middle Cumberland Region. Central States Archaeological Journal 65:281–294. 2019 Our Lady of the Cumberland: Styles, Distribution, and Community. Tennessee Archaeology 10(1): 7–37. Sharp, Robert V., Vernon James Knight Jr., and George E. Lankford 2011 Woman in the Patterned Shawl: Female Effigy Vessels and Figurines from the Middle Cumberland River Basin. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 177–198. University of Texas Press, Austin. Sharrock, Susan 1974 Crees, Cree-Assiniboin, and Assiniboines: Interethnic Social Organization on the Far Northern Plains. Ethnohistory 2:95–122. Shepperson, George 1966 The African Abroad or the African Diaspora. African Forum: A Quarterly Journal of Contemporary Affairs 2:76–93. Reprinted in Emerging Themes of African History, edited by T. O. Ranger, 152–176. Heinemann, London, 1968. Sherrod, P. Clay, and Martha Ann Rolingson 1987 Surveyors of the Ancient Mississippi Valley. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 28. Shippee, J. M. 1972 Archeological Remains in the Kansas City Area: The Mississippian Occupation. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series 9. Sichler, Judith A. 2013 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Shiloh Mound. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark (40hr7) 1999–2004, Shiloh National Military Park Hardin County, Tennessee, Volume 1 of 2, edited by David

References · 477

G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 635–659. Southeast Archaeology Center, Tallahassee. Sievert, April K. 2011 Artifacts from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 49. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Skinner, Alanson, and John V. Satterlee 1915 Folklore of the Menomini Indians. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 13, pt. 2. Skinner, Jaclyn A. 2016 Understanding Complex Late and Terminal Woodland Sites in the Red Wing Area. MS thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato. Skousen, B. Jacob 2012 Posts, Places, Ancestors, and Worlds: Dividual Personhood in the American Bottom. Southeastern Archaeology 31(1): 57–69. 2016 Movement, Pilgrimage, and the Construction of Cahokia: A View from the Emerald Site. PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Slater, Philip A., Kristin M. Hedman, and Thomas E. Emerson 2014 Immigrants at the Mississippian Polity of Cahokia: Strontium Isotope Evidence for Population Movement. Journal of Archaeological Science 44:117–127. Smith, Gerald P. 1977 Archaeological Investigations of the Indian Mounds Area, Shiloh National Military Park. Manuscript on file, Southeaster Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. 1996 Western Tennessee. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles H. McNutt, 97–118. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Smith, Harriet 1973a The Murdock Mound, Cahokia Site. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology, edited by M. L. Fowler, 49–99. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 7. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Smith, Kevin E. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee. PhD diss., Vanderbilt University. 1994 Potash from Pyramids: Reconstructing DeGraffenreid (40Wm4): A Mississippian Mound Complex in Williamson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 19(2): 91–113. 2011 Notes on the Identity of Mississippian Stone Box Cemeteries on Whites Creek, Davidson County, Tennessee, in Antiquarian Literature. Manuscript on file, Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey Project, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro. Smith, Kevin E., and Emily Beahm 2010a Triskeles, Ophidian Bands, and Swirl Crosses: Chronology, Distribution and Interpretations. Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington, KY. 2010b Reconciling the Puzzle of Castalian Springs Grave 34: Scalloped Triskeles, Crested

478 · References

Birds, and the Braden A/Eddyville Gorget. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. 2011 Through the Looking Glass: Mississippian Iconography through the Lens of the Castalian Springs Mounds, Sumner County, Tennessee. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jacksonville, FL. Smith, Kevin E., and James V. Miller 2009 Speaking with the Ancestors: Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Tennessee-Cumberland Region. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore 1999 Through Many Mississippian Hands: A Preliminary View of Mississippian Exchange Networks in the Cumberland Valley of Tennessee. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Mid-South Archaeological Conference, edited by Evan Peacock and Sam Brookes, 95–115. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 2010 Early Mississippian in Prehistoric Nashville: Migration, Diffusion, and Innovation. Paper presented at the Early Mississippian Archaeology Summit, Murfreesboro, TN. 2018 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Tennessee Archaeology 9(2): 170–200. Smith, Kevin E., and Robert V. Sharp 2014 The Middle Cumberland “Changing Woman” and the Path of Souls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Greenville, SC. Smith, Samuel D. 1973b A Stone Discoidal from Craighead County. Arkansas Archeologist 14:19–20. Soday, Frank 1966 Excavation of the MacDuffie Site, Craighead County, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Society Field Notes 15:4–5. Speck, Frank G. 1907 Notes on Chickasaw Ethnology and Folk-Lore. Journal of American Folk-Lore 20:50–58. Spinden, H. J. 1931 Indian Symbolism. In Introduction to American Indian Art 2:1–18. Expositions of Indian Tribal Art, New York. Springer, James W. 1981 An Ethnohistoric Study of the Smoking Complex in Eastern North America. Ethnohistory 28:217–235. Stauffer, J. Grant 2015 Elucidating the Mysteries of Prehistoric Northwest Florida: A Re-examination of Ceramic Chronology and Mound Construction at the Lake Jackson Site. Master’s thesis, Texas State University. Stauffer, J. Grant, and Jesse Nowak 2014 The House Between Life and Death: Female Sepultures in Mississippian North Florida. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeology Conference, Greenville, SC.

References · 479

Stauffer, J. Grant, and F. Kent Reilly 2013 Symbolic Keys to Symbolic Locations. Paper presented at the 70th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, FL. 2015 In the Fields of the Thunder God, Playing the Apalachee Ball Game: Archaeological and Ideological Evidence for Its Antiquity. Paper presented at the 80th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco. Stephenson, F. Richard 2002 Historical Supernovae and Their Remnants. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stephenson, Keith, Adam King, and Karen Y. Smith 2015 Space and Time: The Culture Historical Setting for the Hollywood Phase of the Middle Savannah River Valley. In Archaeological Perspectives on the Southern Appalachians: A Multiscalar Approach, edited by Ramie A. Gougeon and Maureen S. Meyers, 171–198. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Development. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by Timothy Earle, 193–228. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992 Excavations at 1Tu50, an Early Mississippian Center near Moundville. Southeastern Archaeology 11:1–13. Steponaitis, Vincas P., and Vernon J. Knight Jr. 2004 Moundville Art in Historical and Social Context. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 166–181. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Steponaitis, Vincas P., and C. Margaret Scarry 2016 New Directions in Moundville Research. In Rethinking Moundville and Its Hinterland, edited by Vincas P. Steponaitis and C. Margaret Scarry, 1–22. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Steponaitis, Vincas P., Megan C. Kassabaum, and John W. O’Hear 2015 Cahokia’s Coles Creek Predecessors. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt, 13–20. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM. Steponaitis, Vincas P., Vernon James Knight Jr., George E. Lankford, Robert V. Sharp, and David H. Dye 2011 Iconography of the Thruston Tablet. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, 137–176. University of Texas Press, Austin. Stoltman, James B. 1986 The Appearance of the Mississippian Cultural Tradition in the Upper Mississippi Valley. In Prehistoric Mound Builders of the Mississippi Valley, edited by James B. Stoltman, 26–34. Putnam Museum, Davenport, IA. 1991a Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: An Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 56:103–120. 1991b Cahokia as Seen from the Peripheries. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views

480 · References

from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 349–354. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 1992 Petrographic Observations on Six Ceramics Vessels Bearing on the Issue of External Cultural Influences at Obion. In The Obion Site: An Early Mississippian Center in Western Tennessee, edited by Robert Mainfort, 209–214. Report of Investigations 7. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. 2000 A Reconsideration of the Cultural Processes Linking Cahokia to Its Northern Hinterlands during the Period A.D. 1000–1200. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 439–467. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 2005 Report on Petrographic Observations of Ceramic Thin Sections from Lake Providence, Louisiana. In Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, edited by Richard A. Weinstein, 545–563. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 2013 Petrographic Observations on Selected Pottery Sherds. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 598–611. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Stoltman, James B., and Joseph A. Tiffany 2016 Using Ceramic Petrography to Evaluate the Nature of Cultural Interaction Between the Spoon River Culture of the Central Illinois Valley and the Mill Creek Culture of Northwest Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 63:21–43. Stoltman, James B., Danielle M. Bendon, and Robert F. Boszhardt 2008 New Evidence in the Upper Mississippi Valley for Pre-Mississippian Cultural Interaction with the American Bottom. American Antiquity 73:317–336. Storey, Rebecca 1993 Catalog of the Lake Jackson Mound 3 Skeletons. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, FL. Story, Dee Ann 1997 1968–1970 Archeological Investigations at the George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 68:1–113. Strong, William D. 1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 93(10). Stuebe, Fred K. 1976 Site Survey and Test Excavations in the Aztalan Area. Wisconsin Archeologist 57(4): 198–259. Suhm, D. A., Alex Krieger, and Edward B. Jelks 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 25:1–562. Sullivan, Lynne P. 2007 Shell Gorgets, Time, and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in Southeastern Tennessee. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, 38–56. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

References · 481

2009

Archaeological Time Constructs and the Construction of the Hiwassee Island Mound. In TVA Archaeology: Seventy-five years of Prehistoric Site Research, edited by Erin Pritchard, 181–209. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Sumner, Margaret L. 1951 Lodge-Boy and Thrown-Away: An Analytic Study of an American Indian Folktale. Master’s thesis, Stanford University. Swanton, John R. 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and the Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 43. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1928 Social and Religious Usages of the Chickasaw Indians. Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1926–1927, 169–273. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1931 Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1946 Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 129. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 1970 Social Condition, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationships of the Tlingit Indians. U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington DC. 1995 [1929] Myths and Tales of the Southeastern Indians. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 2000 [1928] Creek Religion and Medicine. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Tesar, Louis D. 1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 49. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. 2012 Apalachee Fort Walton: The Lake Jackson Mounds Site Complex (8LE1) and Beyond. Manuscript on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones 2009 Waddells Mill Pond Site (8JA65): 1973–1974 Test Excavation. Manuscript on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Texas Beyond History 2003 Caddo Ancestors: Uncovering Early Caddo History. https://texasbeyondhistory. net/tejas/ancestors/index.html. Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Thompson, Andrew R., Kristin M. Hedman, and Philip A. Slater 2015 New Dental and Isotope Evidence of Biological Distance and Place of Origin for

482 · References

Mass Burial Groups at Cahokia’s Mound 72. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 158:341–357. Thornock, Christopher L. 2016 The Hollywood Site (9RI1): Meaningful Archaeological Analysis through Complementary Interpretive Frameworks. PhD diss., University of South Carolina. Thruston, Gates P. 1890 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the Adjacent States. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati. 1897 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the Adjacent States. 2nd ed. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati. Tiffany, Joseph A. 1982 Chan-ya-ta: A Mill Creek Village. Report 15. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 1991 Modeling Mill Creek-Mississippian Interaction. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 319–347. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 2010 New Perspectives on Prehistoric Ceramics from the Glenwood Culture of the Loess Hills of Southwest Iowa. In Cultural Resources of the Loess Hills, edited by Melody K. Pope, Joseph A. Tiffany, Angela R. Collins, and Michael J. Perry, 8-1–8-49. Contract Completion Report 1700. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Tiffany, Joseph A., and Kimberly J. Adams 1998 Ceramics from the Phipps Site (13CK21): A Mill Creek Culture Site in Northwest Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 45:19–47. Titcomb, Jason, ed. 2012 Long-Nosed God Mask Discovered. Northwest Iowa Archeological Society Newsletter 60(1): 5. Titterington, Paul F. 1935 Certain Bluff Mounds of Western Jersey County, Illinois. American Antiquity 1:6–46. 1938 The Cahokia Mound Group and Its Village Site Materials. Privately published. Reprinted by Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, 1977. Tölölyan, Khachig 1996 Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment. Diaspora 5(1): 3–36. Townsend, Richard F. 2004 American Landscapes, Seen and Unseen. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, 19–35. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, and Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2015 The Cave, Cahokia, and the Omaha Tribe. In Picture Cave: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Mississippian Cosmos, edited by Carol Diaz-Granados, James R. Duncan, and F. Kent Reilly III, 145–165. University of Texas Press, Austin. Trubitt, Mary B. 2000 Mound Building and Prestige Goods Exchange: Changing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. American Antiquity 65:669–690.

References · 483

Crafting Marine Shell Prestige Goods at Cahokia. North American Archaeologist 26:249–266. Trubitt, Mary Beth, Timothy K. Perttula, and Robert Z. Selden Jr. 2016 Identifying Ceramic Exchange and Interaction between Cahokia and the Caddoan Area. In Research, Preservation, Communication: Honoring Thomas J. Green on His Retirement from the Arkansas Archeological Survey, edited by Mary Beth Trubitt, 87–102. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 67. University of Chicago 1934–1944 Field notes on file, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL. Urban, Greg 1994 The Social Organization of the Southeast. In North American Indian Anthropology: Essays on Society and Culture, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie and Alfonso Ortiz, 172–194. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Valese, Imma 2012 Settlement Dynamics and Use of Space in the Mississippian World: An Analysis of Cahokia’s Tract 15b and West Plaza (Illinois, USA). Master’s thesis, University of Bologna. 2017 The Archaeology of Cahokia’s West Plaza: Excavations in the Merrell Tract. Dr. Sc. diss., University of Bologna. Vermilion, Mary R. 2005 The Loyd Site (11 MS 74): A Prehistoric Moorehead Phase Nodal Site. PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago. Vermilion, Mary R., Mark P. S. Krekeler, and Lawrence H. Keeley 2003 Pigment Identification on Two Moorehead Phase Ramey Knives from the Loyd Site, A Prehistoric Mississippian Homestead. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1459–1467. Voegelin, C. F. 1936 The Shawnee Female Deity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Vogel, Gregory 2005 A View from the Bottomlands: Physical and Social Landscapes and Late Prehistoric Mound Centers in the Northern Caddo Area. PhD diss., University of Arkansas. 2012 Viewshed Characteristics of Caddo Mounds in the Arkansas Basin. In The Archaeology of the Caddo, edited by Timothy K. Perttula and Chester P. Walker, 139–176. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Vogel, Joseph O. 1964 A Preliminary Report on the Analysis of Ceramics from the Cahokia Area. Manuscript on file, Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 1975 Trends in Cahokia Ceramics: Preliminary Study of the Collections from Tracts 15A and 15B. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, 32– 125. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Walker, Willard H. 1999 Ritual, Life Histories, and the Afterlives of People and Things. Journal of the Southwest 41:383–405. 2005

484 · References

Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1972 The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca. Vintage Books, New York. 2003 Revitalizations and Mazeways. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Walthall, John 1981 Galena and Aboriginal Trade in Eastern North America. Scientific Papers 17. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Waring, Antonio J. 1968 The Southern Cult and Muskogean Ceremonial. In The Waring Papers, edited by Stephen Williams, 30–69. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Waring, Antonio J., and Preston Holder 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist 47:1–34. 1965 The Southern Cult and Muskogean Ceremonial. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Waselkov, Gregory A., and Marvin T. Smith, eds. 2017 Forging Southeastern Identities: Social Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Folklore of the Mississippian to Early Historic South. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Waters, Anne 2004 American Indian Thought. Blackwell, Oxford. Watrall, Charles R. 1967 An Analysis of the Bone, Stone and Shell Materials from the Cambria Focus. MA thesis, University of Minnesota. Watson, Robert Joseph 2005 The Creation of Space and Place at Cahokia: Mound 72, Mound 96, and the Mound 72 Precinct. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Weaver, Guy, and David Bowman 1982 De Soto Park Site Preliminary Investigation. Manuscript on file, C. H. Nash Museum, Memphis, TN. Webb, Clarence H., and Monroe Dodd 1939 Further Excavations of the Gahagan Mound: Connections with a Florida Culture. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 11:92–126. Webb, Clarence H., and Ralph R. McKinney 1975 Mounds Plantation (16CD12), Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 2:39–127. Webb, William S. 1952 The Jonathan Creek Village. Reports on Anthropology 8(1). University of Kentucky Press, Lexington. Webb, William S., and David L. DeJarnette 1942 An Archeological Survey of the Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 129. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Wedel, Waldo R. 1943 Archaeological Investigations in Platte and Clay Counties, Missouri. Bulletin 183. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC.

References · 485

An Introduction to Kansas Archeology. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 174. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Weigand, Phil C., and Jon Muller 1967 Preliminary Report of Investigations at the Kincaid Site. Manuscript on file, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Weiner, Annette B. 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. University of California Press, Berkeley. Weinstein, Richard A. 1999 Lake Providence, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeological Society Newsletter 26(2): 15–16. 2000 Preliminary Review of Recent Data-Recovery Investigations at the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, New Orleans. 2002 Data-Recovery Investigations at the Lake Providence Mounds: An Update of the 1998–99 Research. Paper presented at the 2002 William G. Haag Symposium, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 2005b Some Final Thoughts and Conclusions. In Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, edited by Richard A. Weinstein, 513–519. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Weinstein, Richard A., ed. 2005a Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Weinstein, Richard A., and Douglas C. Wells 2003 Extra-Regional Contact and Cultural Interaction at the Origins of Plaquemine: Recent Data from the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Paper presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC. 2004a Extra-Regional Contact and Cultural Interaction during Late Coles Creek Times: Recent Data from the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Alexandria. 2004b Terminal Coles Creek Ceramics at the Lake Providence Mounds: Local Evolution and Extra-Regional Contacts. Paper presented at the 46th annual Caddo Conference, Natchitoches, LA. 2005 Archaeological Investigations at the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana: An Update of the 1996 and 1997–1998 Research. In The William G. (Bill) Haag Honorary Symposium, March 7–March 9, 2002, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, edited by Paul Farnsworth, Charles H. McNutt, and Stephen Williams, 97–132. Occasional Paper No. 26. Anthropological Research Center, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Weinstein, Richard A., Stephanie L. Perrault, and Roger T. Saucier 1997 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at the Lake Providence Mounds, East 1959

486 · References

Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Paper presented at the 23rd annual meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Alexandria. Welch, Paul D. 1990 Mississippian Emergence in West-Central Alabama. In Mississippian Emergence: The Evolution of Ranked Agricultural Societies in Eastern North America, edited by Bruce D. Smith, 197–225. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1991 Moundville’s Economy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2006 Archaeology at Shiloh Indian Mounds 1889–1999. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007 Summary Report on 2006 SIUC Investigations at the Kincaid Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Department of Anthropology and Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2013a Preliminary Report of 2012 Investigations at Kincaid Mounds Historic Site. Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Department of Anthropology and Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2013b Excavations at Kincaid, 2013. Paper presented at the 2013 Mississippian Conference, Crisp Museum, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau. 2013c Pottery from Mound A Excavations. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 581–597. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Welch, Paul D., Brian M. Butler, and Corin C. O. Pursell 2008 Report of 2007 Fieldwork at Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site. Report submitted to Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Welch, Paul D., Nicholas P. Hermann, and John E. Cornelison Jr. 2013 Mapping Procedures. In Archeological Investigations at Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, 40HR7, 1999–2004, edited by David G. Anderson, John E. Cornelison Jr., and Sarah C. Sherwood, 181–195. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL. Welch, Paul D., Corin C. O. Pursell, and Darwin-Tamar Ramsey 2015 Excavations at the Fluorite Workshop Area at Kincaid. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 18–21, Nashville, TN. Wells, Douglas C. 2005 Aboriginal Ceramics. In Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, edited by Richard A. Weinstein, 311–390. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Wells, Douglas C., and Richard A. Weinstein 2003 Terminal Coles Creek Ceramics at the Lake Providence Mounds: Local Evolution and Exotic Contacts. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Baton Rouge.

References · 487

The Preston Phase in Regional Context. In Lake Providence: A Terminal Coles Creek Culture Mound Center, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, edited by Richard A. Weinstein, 491–511. 2 vols. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA. Submitted to Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 2007 Extraregional Contact and Cultural Interaction at the Coles Creek–Plaquemine Transition: Recent Data from the Lake Providence Mounds, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. In Plaquemine Archaeology, edited by Mark A. Rees and Patrick C. Livingood, 38–65. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Weltfish, Gene 1965 The Lost Universe: The Way of Life of the Pawnee. Basic Books, New York. 1977 Lost Universe: Pawnee Life and Culture. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Wendt, Dan n.d. Woodland to Oneota Settlement Pattern Changes: Surface Survey Results in the Wisconsin Portion of the Red Wing Region. In Mounds, Villages, and Feasts: The Archaeology of Red Wing, edited by Ronald C. Schirmer (in preparation). Occasional Publications in Minnesota Archaeology, Minnesota Archaeological Society. Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN. West, George A. 1934 Tobacco, Pipes, and Smoking Customs of the American Indians. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. 17. Westbrook, Kent C. 2014 Plummets, Gorgets, and Pendants. Arrowheads.com Chunkee Player Shell Gorget entry. http://www.arrowheads.com/index.php/plummets-gorgets-andpendants/462-chunkee-player-shell-gorgets. Wilford, Lloyd A. 1941 A Tentative Classification of the Prehistoric Cultures of Minnesota. American Antiquity 6:231–249. 1945 Three Village Sites of the Mississippi Pattern in Minnesota. American Antiquity 11:32–40. 1955 A Revised Classification of the Prehistoric Cultures of Minnesota. American Antiquity 21:120–142. Will, George F. 1928 Magical and Sleight of Hand Performances by the Arikara. North Dakota History 3:50–65. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 The Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 1953 A Pattern of Diffusion-Acculturation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:369–384. Willey, Gordon R., and Richard B. Woodbury 1942 A Chronological Outline of the Northwest Florida Coast. American Antiquity 7:232–254. Williams, Kenneth R. 1975 Preliminary Summation of Excavations at the East Lobes of Monks Mound. In 2005

488 · References

Cahokia Archaeology: Field Reports, edited by M. L. Fowler, 21–24. Research Series, Papers in Anthropology No. 3. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Williams, Kenneth R., and John E. Kelly 2013 Contextualizing Cahokia’s Feature “X”: Initial Archaeological Investigations of a Major Remote Sensing Anomaly at Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Manuscript on file at Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Williams, Stephen 1954 An Archeological Study of the Mississippian Culture in Southeast Missouri. PhD diss., Yale University. University Microfilm, Ann Arbor. 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Events in the Lower Ohio Valley. In Towns and Temples along the Mississippi, edited by David H. Dye and Cheryl Anne Cox, 170–180. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1992 Obion Site Report Final Statement. In The Obion Site: An Early Mississippian Center in Western Tennessee, edited by Robert Mainfort, 193–201. Report of Investigations 7. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958–1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Williams, Stephen, and John M. Goggin 1956 The Long Nosed God Mask in the Eastern United States. Missouri Archaeologist 18(3): 1–72. Wilson, Gregory D. 2001 Crafting Control and the Control of Crafts: Rethinking the Moundville Greenstone Industry. Southeastern Archaeology 20:118–128. Winters, Howard D. 1981 Excavating in Museums: Notes on Mississippian Hoes and Middle Woodland Copper Gouges and Celts. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by A. E. Cantwell, J. B. Griffin, and N. A. Rothschild, 17–34. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376. Wissler, Clark 1916a General Discussion of Shamanistic and Dancing Societies. In Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History: Societies of the Plains Indians, Vol. 11, edited by Clark Wissler, 853–876. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1916b General Introduction. In Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History: Societies of the Plains Indians, Vol. 11, edited by Clark Wissler, v–xxi. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Witthoft, J. 1949 Green Corn Ceremonialism in the Eastern Woodlands. University of Michigan Museum Occasional Publications No. 13. Ann Arbor. Wittry, Warren L. 1964 An American Woodhenge. Cranbrook Institute of Science Newsletter 33(9): 102– 107, Bloomfield Hills, MI.

References · 489

Discovering and Interpreting the Cahokia Woodhenges. Wisconsin Archeologist 77(3–4): 26–35. Wittry, Warren, and Joseph O. Vogel 1962 First Annual Report: American Bottoms Archaeology, Illinois State Museum Projects, edited by M. L. Fowler, 15–30. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Wolfman, Daniel 1982 Archeomagnetic Dating in Arkansas and the Border Areas of Adjacent States. In Arkansas Archeology in Review, edited by Neal L. Trubowitz and Marvin D. Jeter, 277–300. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 15. Wolforth, Thomas R., and Lynne Mackin Wolforth 2000 Fluorite Figurines from the Midcontinent. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin R. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, 455–468. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Wood, Peter H. 2013 Missing the Boat: Dugout Canoes in the Mississippi-Missouri Watershed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Ethnohistory, September 12, New Orleans. Wood, W. Raymond 1963 A Preliminary Report on the 1962 Excavations at the Crenshaw Site-3M16. In Arkansas Archeology, 1962, edited by Charles R. McGimsey III, 1–14. Arkansas Archeological Society, Fayetteville. 1968 Mississippian Hunting and Butchering Patterns: Bone from the Vista Shelter, 23SR-20, Missouri. American Antiquity 33:170–179. 1972 Contrastive Features of Native American Trade Systems. In For the Chief: Essays in Honor of Luther S. Cressman, edited by Fred W. Voget and Robert L. Stephenson, 153–169. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 4. 1973 Northern Plains Village Cultures: Internal Stability and External Relationships. Journal of Anthropological Research 30:1–16. 1980 Plains Trade in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Intertribal Relations. In Anthropology on the Great Plains, edited by W. R. Wood and Margot Liberty, 89–109. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Woods, William I. 2004 Population Nucleation, Intensive Agriculture, and Environmental Degradation: The Cahokia Example. Agriculture and Human Values 21:255–261. Worth, John E. 2002 Spanish Missions and the Persistence of Chiefly Power. In The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, 1540–1760, edited by Robbie F. Ethridge and Charles M. Hudson, 39–64. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson. Wright, Henry T. 2007 James Bennett Griffin 1905–1997: A Biographical Memoir. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Wyckoff, Don G. 1980 Caddoan Adaptive Strategies in the Arkansas Basin, Eastern Oklahoma. PhD diss., Washington State University. 1996

490 · References

Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, 1–15. Routledge, New York. Yelton, Jeffrey K. 1998 A Different View of Oneota Taxonomy and Origins in the Lower Missouri Valley. Wisconsin Archeologist 79(2): 268–283. Yerkes, Richard W. 1983 Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48:499–518. 1989 Mississippian Craft Specialization on the American Bottom. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2): 93–106. 1991 Specialization in Shell Artifact Production at Cahokia. In Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, 49–64. Monographs in World Archaeology 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Zejdlik, Katie J. 2014 Unmingling Commingled Museum Collections: A Photographic Method. In Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains: Working toward Improved Theory, Method, and Data, edited by A. J. Osterholtz, K. M. Baustian, and D. L. Martin, 173–192. Springer, New York. Zych, Thomas J. 2013 The Construction of a Mound and a New Community: An Analysis of the Ceramic and Feature Assemblages from the Northeast Mound at the Aztalan Site. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. 2015a Aztalan’s Northeast Mound: The Construction of Community. Wisconsin Archeologist 96(2): 53–118. 2015b The Game of Chunkey. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt, 71–73. SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Contributors

Eric S. Albertson has 20 years experience as a cultural resources management (CRM) archeologist and has prior experience at the C. H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa Indian Village. Albertson’s research interests are prehistoric lithics and complex societies. Susan M. Alt is associate professor of anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her interests/expertise include Midwest archaeology, Cahokia, religion, migration, and geophysics. David G. Anderson is professor of anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He has written over 50 books and monographs and over 150 papers encompassing Paleoindian through recent historic tenant farmstead assemblages. Thaddeus G. Bissett is assistant professor of anthropology at Northern Kentucky University. His research focuses on the Early and Middle Holocene hunter-gatherer societies of the southeastern United States. Steven L. Boles is a research archaeologist with the Illinois State Archaeological Survey. His area of expertise is lithic technologies and iconographic studies. Tamira K. Brennan, PhD, is curator for the Center of Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her research interests include the archaeology of communities, pre-Columbian architecture, and ceramic analysis.

492 · Contributors

James A. Brown is professor emeritus of anthropology at Northwestern University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He centers his research on the archaeology of small-scale societies. C. Andrew Buchner has 28 years of experience as a cultural resources management (CRM) archaeologist and is an owner/partner in Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Buchner’s research interest is late Prehistoric societies in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. John M. Connaway is currently a historic resource specialist III (archaeologist) at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. His interests are southeastern United States prehistory, with an emphasis on Mississippi. John E. Cornelison Jr. has been an archaeologist for the National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, for over 27 years. He has directed 106 projects, including codirecting the Shiloh Mound A excavations. David H. Dye is professor of archaeology in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Memphis. Major research interests include the protohistoric period in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, with emphasis on the materiality of belief systems and cosmology. Jeffrey S. Girard formerly was regional archaeologist for the Louisiana Division of Archaeology and on the faculty at Northwestern State University of Louisiana. He is the coauthor of Caddo Connections, Cultural Interactions within and beyond the Caddo World, by Jeffrey S. Girard, Timothy K. Perttula, and Mary Beth Trubitt. Dale R. Henning, PhD, is retired. He continues archaeological research and holds research associate positions at the Illinois State Museum and Smithsonian Institution. His teaching/research experience includes University of Missouri–Columbia, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. John H. House is station archaeologist of the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff. Since 1997 his principal area of research has been the Menard locality in southeastern Arkansas, which is believed to have been the location of the Quapaw village of Osotouy and the French Arkansas Post.

Contributors · 493

Marvin D. Jeter, PhD, was the Southeast Arkansas Research Station archaeologist for the Arkansas Archeological Survey from 1978 until he retired in 2012. His research emphasized late prehistoric and protohistoric cultures in the Southeast, Southwest, and Lower Mississippi Valley regions, and the history of archaeology. Jay K. Johnson was a faculty member of the University of Mississippi from 1976 until 2015, when he retired as emeritus professor in anthropology and as director of the Center for Archaeological Research. His research interests include lithic technology, remote sensing, southeastern archaeology, and ethnohistory. John E. Kelly, PhD, is senior lecturer in archaeology at Washington University in St. Louis. His expertise is in eastern North American archaeology with a focus on the central Mississippi River Valley and the cultural developments related to Mississippian culture, especially the Cahokia site. Adam King serves as research associate professor in the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina. His research interests focus on the early history of Native Americans, particularly during the Mississippian period (AD 1000–1600). Vernon James Knight is professor emeritus of anthropology and curator emeritus of American archaeology at the University of Alabama. His research centers on the late prehistoric and early historic societies of the American South and the Caribbean. Charles H. McNutt was professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Memphis. He worked in the southwestern United States, in the northern Plains, and in the Southeast for 30 years. His interests were in regional prehistoric cultural periods and mathematical applications. Andrew M. Mickelson is associate professor of archaeology in the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Memphis. Related publications include Recent Research at the Ames Mound Complex: An Early Mississippian Site in Southwest Tennessee and Recent Research at the Ames Mound Complex: An Early Mississippian Site in Southwest Tennessee.

494 · Contributors

Ryan M. Parish is associate archaeology professor in the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Memphis. His interests include hunter-gatherer societies, geoarchaeology material sciences, chert provenance, lithic analysis, and reflectance spectroscopy. Corin C. O. Pursell is a stay-at-home parent and gardener in Memphis, Tennessee, with occasional employment commitments with Washington University in St. Louis and Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research. He is primarily interested in the relationship of monumental architecture to religion and politics at the major Mississippian centers of Cahokia, Kincaid, and Winterville Mounds. John D. Richards is senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM), Department of Anthropology and director, UWM Cultural Resource Management. His interests include late prehistory of the Great Lakes region, archaeological ceramic analysis, compositional analysis, and historic preservation. Ronald C. Schirmer is professor of anthropology at Minnesota State University, Mankato. He is codirector of the AGES Research Laboratory in the Department of Anthropology. His interests focus on the Upper Midwestern Late Precontact, Oneota, and Paleoethnobotany. Robert J. Scott Jr. is research assistant at the Arkansas Archeological Survey. His research interests include Late Prehistoric and Contact Period archaeology of the Central and Lower Mississippi Valley. Robert V. Sharp received his BA and MA in English literature from Saint Louis University and Vanderbilt University, respectively. He recently retired from the Art Institute of Chicago after more than 30 years as editor and publisher of exhibition catalogs and books on the permanent collections for all of the museum’s departments. Kevin E. Smith is professor of anthropology at Middle Tennessee State University. His main interest is archaeology of the southeastern United States with focuses on Middle Tennessee prehistory and other historical periods of the region.

Contributors · 495

J. Grant Stauffer is a graduate student in anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. His areas of interest are the Eastern Woodlands of North America, Mississippian and Woodland periods, Gulf Coast of Florida, American Bottom, Cahokia, and Lake Jackson. Richard A. Weinstein is senior vice president and principal investigator at Coastal Environments, Inc., in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He has investigated both prehistoric and historic sites across much of the U.S. Southeast, including Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. Douglas C. Wells received his PhD from Tulane University. He is a principal investigator for Coastal Environments, Inc., in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He has worked throughout the U.S. Southeast, but his primary research focus has been the archaeology of the Late Woodland period in the Lower Mississippi River Valley.

Index

Page numbers followed by i and t indicate illustrations and tables. Akron: Cup, 173, 174, 179–191; Grid, 173, 338, 377; Idol, 180–182; Mound, 174, 179–183 American Bottom, 2–4, 13, 14i, 15, 17i, 19, 20, 28–31, 43, 45, 48–50, 66, 87, 95, 97, 98t, 99t, 103, 110, 115–119, 121–123, 131–134, 142, 158, 167–170, 177, 179, 182, 183, 190, 193, 213, 226, 231, 239, 244, 247, 250, 251, 256–259, 262–264, 267–275, 307–312, 316, 319–326, 331, 336, 338, 340–342, 345–347, 350–352, 355, 357, 370, 372i, 387, 389, 391, 396–404 Ames site, 246, 265, 268, 269i Angel Mounds, 96, 100, 258 Apalachee, 383, 386, 388, 389 Arikira, 236, 238 Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS), 166i, 167–168, 173, 175, 186, 187, 191, 197 Arkansas River, 5, 207, 221, 225, 241, 410 Axes mundi, 22 Aztalan, 2, 4, 107–127, 129, 131, 132, 139, 144, 156, 159, 257 Banks Mound, 163–165, 171, 181t, 183 Baraboo pipestone, 26, 116, 121 Barlow site, 58t, 61t, 73 Barrett mound site, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 196, 197, 203, 204 Barton ceramic type, 297, 298, 401i Bauxite, 191 Bayesian modeling, 303, 305i Baytown period, 13, 164, 165, 201; ceramic type, 197, 200, 249, 250, 296, 297, 393–395

Beaker ceramic, 98t, 99t, 176, 257; Horizon, 176 Bell Plain ceramic, 165, 170, 181, 183, 249, 252, 261, 296, 395, 401, 404 Bennett Place site, 7, 364 Birdman figure, 28, 173, 214, 225, 338, 339, 346–348, 356–363, 375–378, 384, 381, 386, 388 Black Bottom area, 90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, 104 Bolivar site, 244, 245, 247, 259–261, 270, 272 Boxtown phase, 169 Bradley site, 177, 181t, 182, 192, 193 Braden style, 6, 7, 28, 50, 168, 169, 174, 175, 180–182, 229, 231, 239, 240, 327, 328, 330, 331, 334–342, 345, 347, 348, 350, 355, 356, 363, 369–377, 380, 381, 383–388; corridor, 318, 369, 371, 377, 381; phase, 168, 169 Bundles, 46, 60t, 68, 80–86, 126, 203, 217, 219, 224, 235–237, 335 Burlington chert, 30, 44, 45, 98, 99, 111, 116, 177–179, 181t, 182, 192, 194, 196–198, 202, 249, 278, 288–291, 293, 295–299, 314 Caddo: ceramics, 5; culture, 5–7, 50, 68, 76–80, 83, 84, 134, 139, 157, 158, 190, 202, 205–215, 218, 219, 222–225, 228–231, 234, 236–241, 318, 333, 406–408, 410 Cahokia Notched Points, 177–179, 181–183, 191 Cambria Phase, 107, 130, 139–142, 156, 158–160 Carson Mounds site, 4, 186, 192, 193, 196, 197, 204, 276–284, 287–291, 299, 300, 318, 405; grid, 281, 299

498 · Index

Castalian Springs site, 326, 331, 332i, 334–336, 338–340, 342, 345 Central Mississippi Valley (CMV), 332, 333 Champlain site, 54, 58, 62, 73 Cherry Valley, 176–178, 181–183 Chickasaw, 232 Choctaw, 232 Chucalissa site, 169, 244, 245, 491 Chunkey stone, 7, 118i, 147, 196, 200, 225, 309i, 312, 339, 341, 348, 383 Citico site, 353, 365 Citronelle gravel, 289, 290, 295 Coles Creek period, 13, 393, 405–408; ceramic type, 30, 38, 393–395; culture, 78, 403, 404 Columella pendant, 139, 199, 230 Corn Mother, 68, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 191, 198, 199 Craig Mound, 5, 56t, 83, 219, 220, 224, 328i, 335, 377; Spirit Lodge, 218–224, 228, 231 Crenshaw site, 207–211, 214 Crescent Quarry, 178, 182, 194, 197, 202, 308 Crosno site, 168, 181, 182, 326 Crowley’s Ridge, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183, 195 Cumberland River, 6, 7, 180, 256, 329, 330, 344 DeGraffenreid site, 326, 327, 334, 340, 341, 343, 345 Denmark site, 243, 245, 246, 256, 259, 261–264, 266, 269–275 De Soto site, 247, 252, 253i, 272 Diaspora, defined, 2, 3–7, 66, 77, 78, 85, 88, 93, 100–104, 129, 157, 352–355, 363–365, 409–411 Dillinger culture, 91; ceramic type, 38 Discoidal, 49, 134, 139, 142, 144, 147, 158, 159, 166i, 170, 171, 249, 250, 253, 258, 264, 270, 272, 308, 383, 385, 386; Cahokia type, 50, 85, 176, 177, 181t, 182, 196, 200 Dover chert, 6, 196, 257, 258, 317 Earth Mother, 68, 332, 345–350, 375, 376, 389 Eastern Agricultural Complex, 3, 91 Eddyville style, 28, 166, 171, 172, 180, 181, 182, 334–336, 339, 340, 342 Edelhardt phase, 3, 16, 24, 25, 38, 40i, 110

Effigy Rabbit site, 170, 179, 181t, 182–183 Emerald site, 3, 32, 36, 38, 39, 42–45, 47, 48, 203, 306 Etowah site, 6, 7, 233, 308, 311, 318, 326, 345, 352–356, 362–365, 373, 377, 379, 381; artifacts 228, 336, 338, 339, 342, 377, 383–385; ceramic style, 307–309, 309i Fisher Mounds, 108, 110, 118, 119, 131, 156, 157 Flint clay figurine, 2, 51, 65–67, 70, 74, 76–86, 189–191, 228; Crouching Man figurine, 6, 7, 308, 310, 312, 316; source, 52, 65 Fluorite, 75, 98, 102i, 103, 245 Forked-eye surround motif, 134, 165, 167, 172, 182, 183, 214, 240, 329, 337 Fort Payne chert, 318, 343 Foxhole site, 249, 250 Fred Edwards site, 57t, 64t, 108, 111, 119–121, 131, 132, 156 Gahagan site, 5, 205, 209, 210, 212, 213, 403; bifaces, 208, 210, 213; figurines, 54t, 56t, 58t, 59t, 62t, 63t, 73, 74, 76, 84, 85 Gorget, 166i, 171–176, 181, 182, 217, 222, 225, 226, 230, 231, 239, 320, 325, 331, 333–335, 343i, 345, 350, 353, 354–356, 358, 364, 338, 340; Cartersville style, 336; Cox style, 335; Eddyville style, 180, 181t; Hightower style, 344, 348, 349, 339, 361, 365; Nashville style, 344, 335; Spaghetti style, 7, 378, 384, 386, 388 Gottschall rock shelter, 28, 69, 75 Great Oasis, 134, 158 Greenbrier site, 174; gorget, 174, 180 Green Corn Ceremony, 167 Greenstone, 258, 264, 340, 341, 345 Haley Place site, 327 Harlan phase, 239; site, 207 Harrison, William Henry, 124 Haynes site, 246, 250, 275 Hazel site, 179, 180 Hegemony, defined, 2, 18, 87, 100, 103, 129, 134, 139, 157, 159, 160, 411 Hemphill style, 316, 339, 345 Hero Twins, 225, 226, 236, 328, 330–336, 339, 340, 342, 344–346, 348–350, 357, 388

Index · 499

He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-AsEarrings, 69 Hidatsa, 81, 333, 346, 389 Hightower style, 357, 385 Hixon site, 339, 353, 365 Ho-Chunk, 28, 69, 75, 388 Hollywood site, 7, 326, 353, 363–365 Hutcherson Tablet, 336–338 Illinois River, 2, 3, 7, 14, 29, 50, 68, 107, 111, 121 Jersey Bluff ceramic type, 14; chunkey stones, 309; culture, 29; site, 14 Jonathan Creek phase, 88, 98t; site, 245, 246, 247, 251, 255 Kaolin chert, 111, 193, 196 Kenton site, 244, 247, 259, 260i, 270, 272 Key Marco site, 384 Kichai, 234 Kincaid site, 2, 6, 87–104, 167, 256, 273, 308; “Kincaid Cross,” 95 Kirby Pocket site, 249, 250 Knappenberger site, 163, 167, 168 Kochtitzky Ditch site, 165, 177, 178, 181t, 182–183 Lake George site, 185, 186, 203, 318, 403, 404, 407, 408 Lake Jackson site, 7, 318, 369–373, 376–380, 387, 390; artifacts, 339, 343, 375, 378, 382i-386, 388 Lake Providence site, 5, 185, 186, 189, 193, 203, 204, 391–408 Late Bluff phase, 3, 16, 24, 25, 30 Leptoxis praerosa shell beads, 139, 140, 158, 159 Lightner Cup, 334, 335, 340 Link ceramic type, 154, 155i, 156, 159 Link Farm site, 258 Lohmann phase, 3–5, 16, 24, 25, 38, 39, 40, 42, 65, 76–79, 88, 98t, 110, 117, 119, 120, 229, 289, 295, 300, 385; ceramics, 24 Long-Nosed god masks, 29, 49, 76, 130, 138i, 139, 142, 144, 146i, 159, 166i, 174,

175, 181t, 182, 205, 212, 213, 224–226, 228, 230, 240, 335 Loyd phase, 3, 16 Maces, 54t, 60t, 62t, 146, 147, 172, 179, 181t, 182–183, 231, 316, 340–342, 348, 356, 357, 362, 377, 384 Mandan, 81, 346, 381 Marginella shell, 29, 114 McDuffee site, 171–173, 177, 180, 181t, 183 Microlithic industry, 30, 197, 278, 287, 95, 297, 299, 308 Middle Cumberland Region (MCR), 319– 323, 325–327, 329–332, 334, 336, 340–343, 345, 347–351 Mill Creek: ceramic, 136–139; chert, 30, 31, 44, 50, 111, 117, 179, 193–195, 315, 317, 342, 343; hoes, 3, 117, 193, 194, 200, 202, 249, 257, 268, 270, 272, 289, 299, 300, 308, 316; mace, 181t, 182; phase, 31, 129, 134–140, 156, 158–160; culture, 128, 134–135, 139, 158–159 Mississippianization, 1, 38, 100, 188, 273, 407 Missouri river, 28, 31129–134, 157, 159 Monks Mound, 20, 228 Monolithic axes, 231, 340, 344, 345 Moorehead phase, 3, 4, 16, 89, 97–100, 120, 168, 169, 174, 273, 275, 300, 330, 377, 398, 399, 402, 409; “Moment,” 28, 100 Morning Star, 28, 69, 73, 81 Mound 34, 377 Mound 72, 22, 208, 374 Mound Bottom site, 6, 320, 326, 336, 337i, 340–342, 345 Mounds Plantation site, 209–211, 214 Moundville site, 7, 311, 314–318, 345, 379; artifacts, 54t, 59t, 62t, 70, 310, 378; ceramics, 308, 309, 339 Muskogee Creek, 70, 381, 390 Myer gorget, 334, 338, 340, 342 Myer tablet, 338–340 Nacoochee site, 7, 364 Nashville Basin, 6, 7, 11, 355, 365, 409, 410 Nebraska Phase, 134, 139, 157–159 Nicoguadca, 387, 388 Nodena, 168, 178

500 · Index

Northwest Quarter (NWQ), 128, 129, 131, 134, 156–159 Obion, 5, 243–249; river, 243, 254–259, 262, 263, 267, 269–272, 274, 275 Ohio River, 7, 11, 30, 87, 89, 96, 98, 103 Ojibwas, 82 Old Town Ridge site, 166i, 173, 179–183 Old Woman Who Never Dies, 68, 81, 83, 346, 347, 389 Olivella shell, 29 Omaha, 134, 235, 238 Oneota, 4, 110, 116, 117, 122, 123, 134, 142, 144, 146–155, 158, 159 Osage, 18, 26, 82, 131, 157, 388; river, 131, 157, 159 Osagean chert, 178 Owl Creek site, 245, 246 Pawnee, 80, 81, 95, 236, 237, 333 Perry Dixon site, 163, 165, 167, 169, 170, 178, 181t-183 Petaca, 223, 228 Picture Cave, 28, 333 Pinson site, 245, 261, 270 Pirani site, 169, 170, 181t Plaquemine culture, 13, 185, 188, 198, 203, 204, 315, 318, 393, 394i, 403, 404, 406–408 Plum Bayou culture, 78, 188, 203, 221 Political economy, 44, 233 Powell plain, 4, 97, 116, 129, 165, 170, 181t, 249, 250, 256, 258, 271, 289, 293, 295, 297, 299, 300, 307, 397, 398, 402, 404 Powell Tract, 15, 20 Preston phase, 189, 393, 407; ceramics, 189, 393–395, 393i, 394i, 395i, 396i, 406, 407 Princess Burial, 112, 114 Prophetstown, 124 Quizqui, 276 Ramey ceramic type, 4, 5, 97, 99t, 111, 118, 129, 137i, 140, 163, 165–168, 170, 178, 181–183, 203, 212, 300, 307, 309i, 314, 326, 397–400, 398i, 400i, 404; knives, 44, 308 Red-filmed ceramic, 16, 30, 111, 398

Red horn, 28, 29, 58t, 59t, 66, 69, 70, 73, 75, 79, 375, 376, 383, 388 Red Wing region, 130, 139, 142–153, 156, 158–160 Reelfoot Lake, 170, 179, 182, 243, 245–247, 249, 250, 275 Repoussé copper plates, 29, 338, 339, 344, 370 Richland site, 5, 186, 191, 198; complex, 33i, 36, 184, 186 Rogan Plates, 6, 228, 339, 342, 357i, 362, 363, 383i, 384 Rolandtown Mounds, 91 Rutherford-Kizer site, 326, 334–336, 342, 345 Samburg site, 179, 181t, 249, 250, 269 Sand Prairie phase, 16, 89, 99t, 100, 116 Schild site, 53t, 60t, 61t, 68, 74, 83 Schugtown site, 177, 179–182 Shaft graves, 5, 205, 209–214 Shawnee, 34, 46, 82, 123–125 Shelby Forest House site, 251, 252, 261 Shelby Forest site, 251, 252, 261, 269 Shiloh site, 6, 269, 303–313; artifacts, 54t, 58t, 61t, 73 Shipps Ferry site, 175, 181t, 182 Silvernale phase, 142, 144, 146–149, 154; ceramics, 153–159; site, 144 Sodalities, 216–218, 220, 221, 223–225, 233–239, 241, 242, 319, 325, 332–334, 339, 346, 349, 350, 388–390 Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), 167, 179, 213, 214, 371, 374, 379, 380, 386, 387 Spiro site, 5, 28, 69, 83, 134, 175, 180, 182, 207, 214, 216–220, 222, 232, 234, 237, 239–241, 318, 327, 410; artifacts, 53–56t, 57t–62t, 69, 70, 73, 85, 172, 174, 175, 176, 191, 213, 224–232, 327, 328i, 330, 334–340, 345, 348, 377; Great Mortuary, 182, 218–221, 239, 241, 385; hollow chamber, 29 Spuds, 6, 49, 50, 196, 341, 410 Standstills, 36 Steed-Kisker, 130–134, 140, 157, 159, 160 Ste. Genevieve chert, 44

Index · 501

Stirling phase, 3–5, 16, 39, 42, 51, 52, 65, 76–78, 86, 89, 97–101, 110, 111, 116–120, 139, 165, 167, 169, 189, 213, 229, 247, 256, 258, 267, 270, 273, 275, 300, 307, 310, 317, 347, 397–403, 409 Taylor site, 57t, 64t, 186, 187, 189, 191, 193, 196, 200–201, 203, 204 Tecumseh, 34, 46, 123–125 Tennessee River, 6, 246, 256, 258, 303, 306, 308, 312 Tenskwatawa, 34, 46, 82, 123–125 Thruston tablet, 334, 339, 340 Timucua, 232 Toltec site, 186, 188, 207 Toqua site, 326, 339, 365 Trempealeau site, 31; river, 107

Walls Engraved, 166i, 168, 169, 189t, 182 West Mound community, 92, 102 Wichita, 234 Wickliffe site, 96; ceramic type, 249 Wilbanks phase, 6, 353, 355, 357–359i, 360, 362, 363 Winnebago, 66, 69, 81, 388 Winterville site, 185, 186, 203, 204, 318, 403, 404, 408 Woodhenge, 20, 22, 26, 27, 268 Works Progress Administration (WPA), 25, 54, 245 Yazoo Basin, 185, 188, 204, 272, 289, 299, 300, 318, 401, 403–405, 407 Young site, 169, 175, 182, 183 Zebree site, 197, 308

Urbanism, 31 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 163 Vacant Quarter, 95, 273 Varney red, 3, 30, 184, 249–252

Ripley P. Bullen Series Florida Museum of Natural History Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor (1978) Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period, by Lewis H. Larson (1980) Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River, by Frank T. Schnell, Vernon J. Knight Jr., and Gail S. Schnell (1981) Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, by William H. Sears, with contributions by Elsie O’R. Sears and Karl T. Steinen (1982) Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis (1984) Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation during the Early Historic Period, by Marvin T. Smith (1987) Apalachee: The Land between the Rivers, by John H. Hann (1988) Key Marco’s Buried Treasure: Archaeology and Adventure in the Nineteenth Century, by Marion Spjut Gilliland (1989) First Encounters: Spanish Explorations in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492–1570, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Susan Milbrath (1989) Missions to the Calusa, edited and translated by John H. Hann, with an introduction by William H. Marquardt (1991) Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission, by Brent Richards Weisman (1992) The People Who Discovered Columbus: The Prehistory of the Bahamas, by William F. Keegan (1992) Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida, by Jerald T. Milanich and Charles Hudson (1992) Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry (1993) Puerto Real: The Archaeology of a Sixteenth-Century Spanish Town in Hispaniola, edited by Kathleen Deagan (1995) Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry (1996) Bioarchaeology of Native American Adaptation in the Spanish Borderlands, edited by Brenda J. Baker and Lisa Kealhofer (1996) A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions, by John H. Hann (1996) Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (1996) The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by Samuel M. Wilson (1997; first paperback edition, 1999) Hernando de Soto among the Apalachee: The Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment, by Charles R. Ewen and John H. Hann (1998) The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, by John E. Worth: vol. 1, Assimilation; vol. 2, Resistance and Destruction (1998) Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C. Mainfort Jr. and Lynne P. Sullivan (1998) An Environmental History of Northeast Florida, by James J. Miller (1998) Precolumbian Architecture in Eastern North America, by William N. Morgan (1999) Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense (1999) Grit-Tempered: Early Women Archaeologists in the Southeastern United States, edited by Nancy Marie White, Lynne P. Sullivan, and Rochelle A. Marrinan (1999; first paperback edition, 2001) Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom, by Marvin T. Smith (2000) Religion, Power, and Politics in Colonial St. Augustine, by Robert L. Kapitzke (2001) Bioarchaeology of Spanish Florida: The Impact of Colonialism, edited by Clark Spencer Larsen (2001)

Archaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United States, edited by Jane M. Eastman and Christopher B. Rodning (2001) The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat (2001) Foraging, Farming, and Coastal Biocultural Adaptation in Late Prehistoric North Carolina, by Dale L. Hutchinson (2002) Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by Glen H. Doran (2002) Archaeology of the Everglades, by John W. Griffin (2002; first paperback edition, 2017) Pioneer in Space and Time: John Mann Goggin and the Development of Florida Archaeology, by Brent Richards Weisman (2002) Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513–1763, by John H. Hann (2003) Presidio Santa María de Galve: A Struggle for Survival in Colonial Spanish Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense (2003) Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change, by Dale L. Hutchinson (2004; first paperback edition, 2020) The Myth of Syphilis: The Natural History of Treponematosis in North America, edited by Mary Lucas Powell and Della Collins Cook (2005) The Florida Journals of Frank Hamilton Cushing, edited by Phyllis E. Kolianos and Brent R. Weisman (2005) The Lost Florida Manuscript of Frank Hamilton Cushing, edited by Phyllis E. Kolianos and Brent R. Weisman (2005) The Native American World Beyond Apalachee: West Florida and the Chattahoochee Valley, by John H. Hann (2006) Tatham Mound and the Bioarchaeology of European Contact: Disease and Depopulation in Central Gulf Coast Florida, by Dale L. Hutchinson (2007) Taíno Indian Myth and Practice: The Arrival of the Stranger King, by William F. Keegan (2007) An Archaeology of Black Markets: Local Ceramics and Economies in Eighteenth-Century Jamaica, by Mark W. Hauser (2008; first paperback edition, 2013) Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationist Perspective, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort Jr. (2010; first paperback edition, 2012) Bioarchaeology of Ethnogenesis in the Colonial Southeast, by Christopher M. Stojanowski (2010; first paperback edition, 2013) French Colonial Archaeology in the Southeast and Caribbean, edited by Kenneth G. Kelly and Meredith D. Hardy (2011; first paperback edition, 2015) Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White (2012; first paperback edition, 2015) Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry (2013; first paperback edition, 2019) Trends and Traditions in Southeastern Zooarchaeology, edited by Tanya M. Peres (2014) New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida, edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall (2014; first paperback edition, 2016) Discovering Florida: First-Contact Narratives from Spanish Expeditions along the Lower Gulf Coast, edited and translated by John E. Worth (2014; first paperback edition, 2016) Constructing Histories: Archaic Freshwater Shell Mounds and Social Landscapes of the St. Johns River, Florida, by Asa R. Randall (2015) Archaeology of Early Colonial Interaction at El Chorro de Maíta, Cuba, by Roberto Valcárcel Rojas (2016) Fort San Juan and the Limits of Empire: Colonialism and Household Practice at the Berry Site, edited by Robin A. Beck, Christopher B. Rodning, and David G. Moore (2016)

Rethinking Moundville and Its Hinterland, edited by Vincas P. Steponaitis and C. Margaret Scarry (2016; first paperback edition, 2019) Gathering at Silver Glen: Community and History in Late Archaic Florida, by Zackary I. Gilmore (2016) Paleoindian Societies of the Coastal Southeast, by James S. Dunbar (2016; first paperback edition, 2019) Cuban Archaeology in the Caribbean, edited by Ivan Roksandic (2016) Handbook of Ceramic Animal Symbols in the Ancient Lesser Antilles, by Lawrence Waldron (2016) Archaeologies of Slavery and Freedom in the Caribbean: Exploring the Spaces in Between, edited by Lynsey A. Bates, John M. Chenoweth, and James A. Delle (2016; first paperback edition, 2018) Setting the Table: Ceramics, Dining, and Cultural Exchange in Andalucía and La Florida, by Kathryn L. Ness (2017) Simplicity, Equality, and Slavery: An Archaeology of Quakerism in the British Virgin Islands, 1740–1780, by John M. Chenoweth (2017) Fit for War: Sustenance and Order in the Mid-Eighteenth-Century Catawba Nation, by Mary Elizabeth Fitts (2017) Water from Stone: Archaeology and Conservation at Florida’s Springs, by Jason O’Donoughue (2017) Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson (2017; first paperback edition, 2019) Harney Flats: A Florida Paleoindian Site, by I. Randolph Daniel Jr. and Michael Wisenbaker (2017) Honoring Ancestors in Sacred Space: The Archaeology of an Eighteenth-Century African-Bahamian Cemetery, by Grace Turner (2017) Investigating the Ordinary: Everyday Matters in Southeast Archaeology, edited by Sarah E. Price and Philip J. Carr (2018) New Histories of Village Life at Crystal River, by Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Victor D. Thompson (2018) Early Human Life on the Southeastern Coastal Plain, edited by Albert C. Goodyear and Christopher R. Moore (2018) The Archaeology of Villages in Eastern North America, edited by Jennifer Birch and Victor D. Thompson (2018) The Cumberland River Archaic of Middle Tennessee, edited by Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf (2019) Pre-Columbian Art of the Caribbean, by Lawrence Waldron (2019) Iconography and Wetsite Archaeology of Florida’s Watery Realms, edited by Ryan Wheeler and Joanna Ostapkowicz (2019) New Directions in the Search for the First Floridians, edited by David K. Thulman and Ervan G. Garrison (2019) Archaeology of Domestic Landscapes of the Enslaved in the Caribbean, edited by James A. Delle and Elizabeth C. Clay (2019) Cahokia in Context: Hegemony and Diaspora, edited by Charles H. McNutt and Ryan M. Parish (2020)