The Remains of the Fray: Nascent Colonialism and Heterogeneous Hybridity

Charles R. Cobb , James B. Legg, Steven D. Smith, Chester B. DePratter, Brad R. Lieb, and Edmond A. Boudreaux III

Investigations at the Native American site complex of Stark Farms in Mississippi, USA, have yielded numerous examples of metal artifacts of European origin. Our study suggests that they derive from contact between the AD 1540–1541 winter encampment of the Spanish Hernando de Soto expedition and the local Indigenous polity. The artifacts display a wide range of modifications, uses, and depositional contexts congruent with hybrid practices. We argue that the early colonial set- ting of Stark Farms requires a different perspective on cultural mixing than is often applied in studies of European colonialism. This is highlighted by the strongly improvisational nature of the modification of the metal objects, embodying a political climate in which European incursions were precarious and in which hybridity and power were heterogeneous and fluid.

Keywords: hybridity, colonial encounters, Chikasha, Hernando de Soto, conflict

Las investigaciones en el complejo arqueológico nativo norteamericano de Stark Farms en Mississippi (EE. UU) han brindado una amplia colección de artefactos metálicos de origen europeo. Nuestro estudio sugiere que provienen del contacto que ocur- rió en 1540–1541 dC entre el campamento de invierno de la expedición española de Hernando de Soto y la comunidad indí- gena local. Los artefactos demuestran una gran variedad de modificaciones, usos y contextos deposicionales congruentes con prácticas híbridas. Argumentamos que el contexto colonial temprano de Stark Farms requiere una perspectiva diferente sobre las mezclas culturales a la que se aplica a menudo a los estudios sobre el colonialismo europeo. Esto se observa particular- mente por el carácter muy improvisado de las modificaciones hechas en los objetos, que ilustran un clima político donde las incursiones europeas eran precarias, mientras hibridad y poder eran heterogéneos y fluidos.

Palabras clave: hibridación, encuentros coloniales, Chikasha, Hernando de Soto, conflicto

ur research on a cluster of sites in Missis- conceptualize and interpret these objects, many sippi, USA, known collectively as Stark of which were modified by Native Americans. Farms, has yielded a distinctive assem- Given the swirling debates over hybridity and O 1 blage of metal artifacts likely linked to Her- related concepts, how do we best fill in the nando de Soto’s sixteenth-century expedition blank for the process by which horseshoe frag- (1539–1543) in southeastern North America ments became scrapers, barrel bands became (hereafter, Southeast; Figure 1). In our studies, celts, and copper-alloy fragments became tubu- we have faced a conundrum of how best to lar beads? Was it hybridity? Creolization?

Charles R. Cobb (ccobb@flmnh.ufl.edu, corresponding author) ▪ Florida Museum of Natural History, 1659 Museum Road, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA James B. Legg, Steven D. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter ▪ South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1321 Pendleton Street, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA Brad R. Lieb ▪ Heritage Preservation Division, Department of Culture and Humanities, Chickasaw Nation, PO Box 1548, Ada, OK 74821, USA Edmond A. Boudreaux III ▪ Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 615 Grove Loop, 565 Lamar Hall, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA American Antiquity 86(3), 2021, pp. 569–592 Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.17

569 570 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Figure 1. Stark Farms vicinity (inset) and projected route of Soto, 1540–1541 (prepared by Timothy D. Pieper, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology).

Entanglement? Does it matter what we call it? By as putative hybrids (Palmié 2013; Stockhammer adopting a specific term for the material melding 2013:13; VanValkenburgh 2013:306). Following of different cultural traditions, have we taken a this critique, cultures are always engaged in a stake in a theoretical perspective, opening dynamic churn of borrowing and innovation; by some avenues for interpretation while closing definition they are hybrid (Bakhtin 1981; Bhaba others? 1994;Latour1991;Palmié2013:468). Conse- The assessments of hybridity and related con- quently, to define something as hybrid because it cepts are varied, and there are several useful seems to embody two or more distinct traditions reviews in the literature (e.g., Card 2013; Lieb- is to create boundary conditions that are just as mann 2015; Palmié 2013; Silliman 2013, 2015; likely to be a function of observer bias as they VanValkenburgh 2013; Werbner 1997). Although are a classification imposed by those who created the caveats are wide ranging, in condensed form, or used the hybrid. As Palmié (2013)asks, three interrelated strands have emerged that seem where(andwhy)dowemakethecut? to be of particular significance to our study: ontol- Second, these points are interwoven with ogy, epistemology, and history. First, the onto- debates over the relative theoretical merits and logical inquiry reflects a concern with a priori drawbacks of hybridity versus alternative con- assumptions about the purity of objects, assem- cepts. “Entanglement” has gained favor in recent blages, or social entities before they came together years because its advocates argue that it is less Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 571 prone to the failings of essentialism and bio- commonplace and pervasive” (Werbner logical metaphors (cf. Jordan 2014; Silliman 1997:1). The conditions of early-European colo- 2016; Stockhammer 2013). Some proponents nialism, however, often run counter to these two of hybridity have found “entanglement” unsatis- themes: it is a time when structures and institu- factory because, they argue, the term is denatured tions of domination were still embryonic, when of a connection to the relations of inequality that relations of power were highly heterogeneous, frame colonialism (Liebmann 2013; Silliman when the geopolitical status of European incur- 2015). A similar charge has been leveled against sions was precarious, and when material forms creolization (Mullins and Paynter 2000). These of cultural mixing may have been relatively debates raise a fundamental issue: what do we novel. As ethnohistorians have demonstrated really want to know when we highlight the (e.g., DuVal 2006; White 1991), a number of hybrid characteristics of an object or an assem- Native American peoples in eastern North Amer- blage? The most consistent—and in our opinion, ica exercised a considerable degree of autonomy valid—support for addressing hybridity in colo- and territorial control for centuries after the nial contexts is its linkage with relations of power arrival of the first Europeans. The shifting (Liebmann 2015:322; Loren 2013; Silliman power interactions between and among these 2015:282). In other words, it seems to be a par- groups confound generalizations about the nature ticularly compelling concept when it evokes of hybrid practices. “competing visions of reality and political strug- Our ensuing study emphasizes how historical gles” between aspiring colonizers and those context complicates the ontology and epistemol- whom they aspire to colonize (VanValkenburgh ogy of cultural mixing and the methods 2013:312). employed to address it. Even if the concept of Our third point follows directly from the hybridity is narrowed down to an examination second. The larger spatiotemporal context of of relations of power, “colonial” is far too hybridity in the era of European colonialism broad of a notion—socially, culturally, and tem- mediates the ways in which belonging and porally—for outlining a study. We must ask not power are phrased. Many of the seminal theoret- only what a hybrid is but when a hybrid is: ical works on hybridity have been situated within “Under what socially and historically specifiable an arena of advanced colonialism. This is a conditions do any of them [hybrids] emerge, period when major cultural, political, and eco- become ratified or contested, eventually normal- nomic transformations had already been under- ized, suppressed, or transformed, with all the way for at least one to two centuries and when potential violence any of these options may colonial regimes were often well established, imply?” (Palmié 2013:472). As we will argue, even if their dominance was problematic. But the acquisition, transformation, and use of this interval represents only a slice of the colonial objects of European origin in the 1500s to early experience. The postcolonial engagement with 1600s in the interior American Southeast seem the power subtleties of earlier forms of European to have followed a distinct cultural trajectory of expansion has been slight in comparison to the hybrid practices before European imperial proj- latter age of empires (Ehrhardt 2013:370; Voss ects began to make significant inroads in the 2011:15). Moreover, because the oft-cited lumi- region. naries of hybridity (e.g., Bakhtin 1981; Bhabha We note that we first published a descriptive 1994; Latour 1991) largely draw their observa- analysis of a portion of the metal artifact assem- tions from contexts of late-European colonialism blage (Legg et al. 2019) in a comparative study or globalization, the forms of hybridity they with the contemporary Glass site (Georgia) to address are typically ubiquitous due to a long- demonstrate that mechanisms in addition to gift- established, widespread circulation of goods, ing may have been an important factor in the media, peoples, and ideas. As a result, they occurrence of metal objects on sixteenth-century emphasize the theoretical dilemma of under- Indigenous sites. In a more recent study (Legg standing how “[h]ybridity is celebrated as power- et al. 2020), we provided a more thorough fully interruptive and yet theorized as descriptive analysis of the assemblage and its 572 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021 context to make the argument that it was prob- from settler colonialism, which is where colo- ably linked to the Hernando do Soto entrada. In nials have occupied Indigenous landscapes and this article, we provide our first theoretical and are actively working to remove both the presence methodological assessment of the hybrid dimen- and memory of their original inhabitants. But he sions of the metal tools, alongside our argument recognizes that both can co-occur in the same for the necessity of situating the spatiotemporal region and even be articulated with one another. context of hybrid practices. For his part, Gerald Vizenor (1999:109) relies on “paracolonialism” to characterize what is com- Situating Sixteenth-Century Colonialism in monly referred to as advanced or settler colonial- “ ” the American Southeast ism. In contrast, the notion of pericolonial has been employed for an even more advanced and European colonialism was an ensemble of highly pervasive settler colonialism that, for Indigenous heterogenous projects and agendas. It changed peoples, “must be “gotten around, under, or dramatically over the course of time as evolving through” (Weaver et al. 2006:39). This kind of attitudes toward the Other, shifting geopolitical thinking has been condensing for some time fortunes, ongoing philosophical changes (Renais- among a number of archaeologists. They have sance to Enlightenment to post-Enlightenment), called for demarcating settings where the ripples economic transformations (mercantilism to of European colonialism may have been present industrialism), and other trends all transformed but where colonization had yet to be achieved the contours of colonial aspirations. In turn, the either because it was in its formative stages or responses of Indigenous peoples to European because Indigenous societies were successful at encroachments, coupled with their own ambi- fending off European incursions (e.g., Bayman tions, profoundly shaped and reshaped the colo- 2009;Cobb2003;Ehrhardt2013; Gosden 2004; nial terrain over the centuries. Furthermore, the Hauser et al. 2019; Jordan and Gerard-Little 2019; variable spatial encroachments of colonialism Silliman 2005). led to a complicated mix of European and Indi- Stephen Acabado (2017) addresses these cir- genous peoples that was distinctive to any cumstances within the Ifugao highlands at the given locale, thereby making it difficult to onset of Spanish penetration in the northern Phil- extrapolate conditions from one region to another ippines in the eighteenth and early nineteenth except in a very general way. Consequently, out- centuries. He rephrases the notion of pericolo- lining a study in the context of European colo- nialism somewhat to describe regions such as nialism requires a number of qualifiers denoting this that may have been impacted by advanced time, region, and relevant peoples because these colonial interactions or incursions in adjoining all factor into the calculus of the logic and effects areas yet still remained relatively unfettered from of hybridity (Thomas 1994:48). the military and administrative dominance of a Debates in Native American literary criticism European colony. Whereas the adjoining coastal and cultural studies have taken up this issue, lowland region came under Spanish control, the faulting postcolonial scholarship for failing to archaeological record is suggestive of important parse colonial histories more finely (Carpenter transformations in the highlands in the absence 2008; Rifkin 2017; Sexton 2016; Vizenor of direct Spanish presence. These include the 1999; Weaver et al. 2006). This line of research appearance of porcelain and stoneware ceramics, has attempted to model the progression of Euro- an increased abundance of pig and water buffalo, pean colonialism in two crosscutting ways: to and the adoption of intensive rice-farming emphasize that it qualitatively changed through field techniques to produce larger surpluses. Aca- time (even if in a time-transgressive manner glo- bado attributes these changes largely to trade bally) while at the same time recognizing that it opportunities introduced by Spanish enclaves in was never a strictly linear nor totalizing enter- bordering areas, although the Spanish crown prise. Mark Rifkin (2017), for example, distin- exerted minimal influence in the highlands. guishes colonialism—the early stages of Sarah Trabert (2018) sees similar processes at attempting to dominate Indigenous peoples— work in the migration of a Puebloan group from Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 573 northern New Mexico to western Kansas in Prior to the founding of St. Augustine, Her- the mid-1600s. Although Spanish encroachments nando de Soto’s 1539–1543 Southeast entrada in the Southwest propelled this move, the stands as one of the most well-known Spanish Puebloan peoples—once established in their forays in North America, one that has widely new territory—appear to have been peacefully sparked popular imagination and drawn consid- accommodated by the local Ndee peoples. erable scholarly interest. Archaeologists and his- Patterns of material hybridity are expressed in sev- torians have found the first- and secondhand eral ways, including the mingling of Pueblo and accounts (Clayton et al. 1993)—despite the Ndee pottery technology and style traditions. usual panoply of embellishments and biases— For both cases, cultural mixing was prompted to be particularly important for depicting an by relatively indirect forces of colonialism. Span- impressive variety of Native American societies ish activities may have influenced trade networks at “first contact.” Soto and his entourage never in the upland Philippines and propelled popula- established any permanent settlements, and tions into western Kansas, but in neither case their length of stay with Indigenous communities were Spaniards living within the respective local- varied from brief overnight stops to winter ities and attempting to bend Indigenous peoples to encampments of several months’ duration. Des- their will. pite landing in the Tampa, Florida, region with At a time when colonization efforts in nearby a sizable (if steadily dwindling) force of over Mexico and portions of the Caribbean were rap- 600 individuals that eventually traveled west of idly intensifying—that is, the AD sixteenth and the Mississippi River, secure archaeological sig- seventeenth centuries—the American Southeast natures of any of their layovers have been frus- witnessed a highly uneven history of nascent tratingly elusive. The first winter encampment and settler colonialism. The interior region in (1539–1540) in present-day Tallahassee, Flor- particular was only sporadically visited by Span- ida, represents the only site location that most ish explorers and hopeful colonizers in the archaeologists seem to agree can be attributed 1500s. Then, it became relatively isolated again to Soto’s party (Ewen and Hann 1998). following European withdrawal from intensive Our investigations over the past five years in efforts at settlement until the late 1600s. Rather northeastern Mississippi at several archaeo- than a steady arc of increasing colonial control, logical loci known collectively as Stark Farms the first centuries of European forays were char- have recovered a sizable assemblage of metal acterized by numerous advances and retreats as artifacts that we believe can be attributed in well as oscillating interactions between Indigen- part to a violent encounter between the Soto ous groups and colonials. This checkered history expedition and a town referred to in the Spanish under Spain began with the initial expedition of accounts as Chikasha (Legg et al. 2019).2 Chika- Ponce de León in 1513, followed by a 50-year sha was the location of the second winter interval during which exploratory expeditions encampment, which is where Soto had received followed by settlement efforts large and small permission from the leader of the surrounding failed—sometimes disastrously—to build a per- polity to keep his troops in the eponymous pri- manent presence in the region. Two colonizing mary town (December 1540–March 1541). He efforts by the French crown in the 1560s also and his men soon fell into their predictable pat- miscarried. The establishment of St. Augustine tern of alienating their hosts through violence in 1565 in peninsular Florida by Pedro Menén- and constant demands for resources, precipitat- dez de Avilés represented the first successful ing a surprise attack by the Chikasha following effort to maintain a settlement. In sum, the colo- Spanish demands for hundreds of burden bearers nial Southeast in the sixteenth century comprised just before the expedition was due to depart in the a narrative of disentanglements (see Semerari spring. Soto’s forces escaped, but only after a 2017) as well as entanglements, nonlinearity as brief yet violent skirmish that left at least a well as linearity (see Howey 2011). Histories of dozen Europeans dead, a significant store of sup- southeastern hybridity must be viewed in this plies captured or burned after the Chikashans set flickering light. the town on fire, and scores of horses and pigs 574 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021 lost in the conflagration (Robertson 1993:107; ancestral sites in their traditional territory in Worth 1993a:297, 1993b:237). northern Mississippi and providing Chickasaw Following the establishment of St. Augustine, college students an opportunity to reconnect with much of the Spanish crown’s efforts went into their cultural heritage through collaborative ar- establishing an extensive mission system in the chaeological fieldwork experiences in the Chicka- Florida peninsula and southeastern Georgia saw Explorers Program (Thomas 2017).3 The (McEwan 1993; Milanich 1999). Although Stark Farms cluster (Figure 2), documented in a there were occasional explorations into the inte- cultural resource management shovel-test survey rior in the 1600s, they were of greatly limited in 2014, seemed particularly promising because scope. This retrenchment led to a period of it had yielded ceramic types broadly dating to almost 150 years of relative documentary silence the European contact era—or AD 1400s–1600s that has been referred to as “the forgotten centu- —although no metal artifacts had been recovered ries” (Hudson and Tesser 1994). Although (RabbySmith et al. 2015). Archaeological inves- Jamestown, Virginia, was settled by England in tigations suggest that Stark Farms represents a 1607, the few expeditions undertaken from dispersed town or loosely aggregated house there halted at the Appalachian Mountains. groups spread across a substantial upland prairie Renewed European interactions with the interior ridge system. With the onset of our metal only surged when England founded Carolina in detector survey in 2015 at the largest of the 1670 and France founded Louisiana in 1699, Stark Farms sites, 22OK778, we almost immedi- igniting a three-way competition to gain the ately discovered iron celts, reworked Biscayan- favor of powerful Native American polities style axes, rolled sheet copper-alloy beads, and throughout the Southeast. other metal artifacts (Legg et al. 2019). These Prior to the renewed burst of colonizing finds instigated five seasons (2015–2019) of enthusiasm in the late 1600s, Native American fieldwork at Stark Farms, with the Chickasaw communities in the Southeast interior enjoyed a Nation leading a consortium consisting of the distant colonial relationship with European Universities of Mississippi, South Carolina, and powers, primarily the Spanish colony of La Flor- Florida. Block excavations in feature-rich loca- ida. Under these circumstances, there were a vari- tions were complemented by 100% metal- ety of ways by which Indigenous groups may detector survey coverage in core site areas of have acquired objects of European origin. Smith Stark Farms (Figure 3). The survey consisted of and Hally (2020) postulate six such mechanisms: archaeologists detecting in marked blocks formal gifts from European explorers, barter, along overlapping transects, approximately 1.5 trophy-taking through battle, theft, scavenging, m wide. Over repeated seasons, many blocks and shipwreck salvage. No matter how acquired, were resurveyed multiple times, especially the however, in sixteenth-century contexts, Euro- heart of 22OK778. Point proveniences were pean objects often seem to have been highly recorded for all premodern metal objects. In ad- valued: they usually occur in modest numbers dition, we conducted reconnaissance metal at a site, display little to no modification, and detector surveys on surrounding landforms and are frequently interred in burials (Atkinson at previously recorded, outlying sites suspected 1979; Hally 2008; Little 2008:44, 73; Mitchem to date to the same time period. Except for the 1989; Smith 1987:26–27). With only a few pos- Ramsey site, located just to the west of the sible exceptions (e.g., Blanton 2020), not until Stark Farms complex (Figure 3), these forays well into the 1600s did such objects begin to did not recover any early-European metal find a place in the communities of Native Amer- objects. icans on a regular basis. Our research has revealed that, in many respects, Stark Farms sites are typical of late Archaeology at Stark Farms pre-European-contact to contact period sites located in the Blackland Prairie—an arc of agri- In 2015, the Chickasaw Nation conceived a long- culturally rich, upland prairie running across term project with the dual goals of identifying Mississippi and Alabama. These sites were Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 575

Figure 2. Stark Farms complex, showing sites positive for metal artifacts and quantities by site (U.S. Geological Survey, USGS quadrangle 7.5-minute map for Starkville, MS 2018). dispersed hamlets and towns strongly reliant on would be hard put to identify political entities maize agriculture, where residents inhabited such as Chikasha based on traditional material round-to-apsidal single-set-post structures. Sig- correlates. An unusually dense cluster of fifteenth- natures of social hierarchy through mortuary to seventeenth-century sites (including Stark Farms) interments are slight. Although these settlements known as the Starkville Archaeological Complex seem to be related to the Mississippian phenom- (SAC) is found in the locality of the modern city enon, with the exception of the Lyons Bluff site of Starkville (Clark 2017). There have been docu- about 15 km east of Stark Farms, there is no evi- mented cases of early-European materials recov- dence of the aggregated towns with earthen plat- ered in mortuary contexts in sites in the Rolling form mounds that are typical of contemporary Hills vicinity of the SAC (see Figure 3), but sites in the nearby Tombigbee River Valley these are very rare (Atkinson 1979). Very few about 40 km to the east (Blitz 1993). If not for SAC sites have been excavated and reported in the Soto accounts describing a number of sizable detail (e.g., Hogue and Peacock 1995; Peacock polities in the prairie region, archaeologists 1995;Rafferty2001; Rafferty and Hogue 1999). 576 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Figure 3. Metal detector coverage at Stark Farms and outlying sites (prepared by Tamara S. Wilson, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology; U.S. Geological Survey, USGS quadrangle 7.5-minute map for Starkville, MS 2018).

As a result, the notion of a “complex” is still a this was a central public building. Several daub pits poorly understood catchall for Mississippian on the site—large borrow pits where clay was through contact period sites in the area, and it is removed for building construction—contained difficult to place Stark Farms within a local or rich assemblages of flora, fauna, ceramics, and regional comparative framework. lithics. The AMS dates for Starks Farms, along Nevertheless, site 22OK778 does bear a dis- with the ceramic types, support an occupation tinctive imprint for the region (Boudreaux et al. from the 1300s to mid-1600s (Boudreaux et al. 2020). It is larger than most contemporary sites 2020;Clark2017; Johnson 1996). Unfortunately, in the area, and it contains the bulk of the recov- the radiocarbon curve for the sixteenth century ered metal artifacts. Furthermore, the ridgetop has multiple intercepts, so it is not possible to that is the core of the site has an unusually confirm mid-sixteenth-century contexts via dense welter of posts that speaks to considerable chronometric methods. building activity. Within one large, single-set- Systematic metal detector coverage across the post structure, we have identified a prepared, Stark Farms sites has yielded at least 83 metal cross-shaped clay hearth embodying four-corner, artifacts that seem to be of sixteenth-century sacred fire symbolism, leading us to suspect that European vintage (Table 1).4 It should be Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 577

Table 1. Objects of European Origin from the Stark Farms Site.

Raw Category Identification Comments Material Provenience Unmodified Lead shot 0.575′′ caliber, fired lead 22OK777-3 Lead shot 0.577′′ caliber (est.), melted lead 22OK777-8 Lead shot 0.550′′ caliber lead 22OK1172-2 Nail wrought iron, broken tip iron 22OK778-25 Nail wrought iron, broken tip iron 22OK850-1 Nail wrought iron iron 22OK1170-7 Nail shaft wrought iron iron 22OK-112 Mouth harp consistent with both sixteenth- and iron 22OK778-39 eighteenth-century types Barrel band unmodified iron 22OK778-54 fragment Harness ring (?) crudely forged; possibly replacement harness ring iron 22OK778-15 Harness ring (?) flattened wrought-iron rod stock iron IF001, 2-2019 Harness ring (?) wrought-iron round stock iron IF002, 2-2019 Ramrod tip interior wood intact copper alloy 22OK778-84 Iron shot 32 mm diameter, faint mold seam cast iron 22OK778-99 Hook iron 22OK778-111 Unidentified wrought and sheet-metal fragments, attached with iron 22OK778-86 vessel rivets Boss/escutcheon brass plate with lead fill; gold leaf cross brass/lead IF003, 10-2019

Modified Cutting tool flat fragment: one bifacially ground edge; the other iron 22OK778-80 Utilitarian edge ground flat Cutting tool auger bit with tip reduced to a point iron 22OK778-106 Cutting tool axe head, nearly exhausted from resharpening iron 22OK850-2 Scraping tool (?) sheet metal: sharply ground edge copper alloy 22OK778-28 Celt horseshoe fragment iron 22OK778-19 Celt axe fragment iron 22OK778-20 Celt axe fragment iron 22OK778-26 Celt axe fragment iron 22OK1172-4 Celt axe fragment iron 22OK778-30 Celt possible axe-blade fragment iron 22OK778-94 Celt possible sword fragment iron 22OK778-114 Celt or adze unidentified stock iron 22OK777-9 Celt or scraper unidentified stock iron 22OK778-59 Chisel upper portion of wrought nail flattened to bifacial bit iron 22OK778-90 Knife blade broken end of blade neatly ground iron 22OK778-51 (partial) Knife blade (?) bifacially sharpened edges iron 22OK778-53

Cutting tool/blade flat metal: ground edges iron 22OK778-18 Cutting tool/blade flat metal: ground and sharpened edges iron 22OK778-24 Cutting tool/blade possible blade fragment iron 22OK778-43 Cutting tool/blade flat metal: bifacially sharpened iron 22OK778-44 Cutting tool/blade flat metal: bifacially sharpened iron 22OK778-45 Awl (?) sheet iron hammered to a point iron 22OK778-108 Awl (?) rod stock hammered to point on each end iron 22OK850-6

Skeuomorph Celt ground rod or bar stock iron 22OK850-8 Celt ground rod or bar stock iron 22OK778-5 Iberian Hybrids Celt barrel band iron 22OK777-6 Celt barrel band (but possible horseshoe fragment) iron 22OK778-27 Celt barrel band (or axe or horseshoe fragment) iron 22OK778-41 Celt barrel band (or horseshoe fragment) iron 22OK778-77 578 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Table 1. Continued.

Raw Category Identification Comments Material Provenience Celt barrel band (or sword or horseshoe fragment) iron 22OK778 TU2 Cutting tool (?) barrel band stock; grinding on one edge iron Cutting tool (?) barrel band stock; two sharpened edges iron 22OK778-22 Uncertain barrel band stock: one end cut or bend break; the iron 22OK778-69 other end chopped

Ornaments Pendant rectangular with hole copper alloy 22OK778-10 Pendant rectangular with hole copper alloy 22OK778-14 Pendant triangular with hole copper alloy 22OK778-17 Pendant trapezoid with hole copper alloy 22OK778-31 Pendant folded with hole copper alloy 22OK778-33 Pendant trapezoid with hole copper alloy 22OK778-50 Pendant trapezoid with hole copper alloy 22OK778-60 Pendant oval with hole copper alloy 22OK778-64 Pendant trapezoid with folded corners copper alloy 22OK778-96 Pendant trapezoid with hole copper alloy 22OK932-1 Pendant (?) irregular with small hole iron 22OK778-76 Pendant (?) trapezoid shape iron 22OK778-113 Tinkler cone copper alloy 22OK778-52 Tinkler cone copper alloy 22OK778-56 Tinkler cone copper alloy 22OK778-58 Tinkler cone copper alloy 22OK778-65 Tinkler cone copper alloy 22OK1172-6 Uncertain crushed hollow hemisphere with hole; possible bell copper alloy 22OK778-92

Other Sheet metal cut and broken edges copper alloy 22OK778-6 Sheet metal folded and flattened edge copper alloy 22OK778-36 Sheet metal smoothed edges copper alloy 22OK778-70 Sheet metal cut and broken lead 22OK778-7 Sheet metal cut and broken lead 22OK778-11 Sheet metal cut lead 22OK778-49 Sheet metal rectangular sheet metal, cut and ground copper alloy 22OK778-29 Sheet metal lozenge-shaped sheet metal, cut and ground copper alloy 22OK778-32 Sheet metal strip copper alloy 22OK778-115 Rectangular flattened and apparently chewed lead 22OK778-87 fragment Wrought iron tip of object with battering iron 22OK778-95 Wrought iron flat stock with bend breaks iron 22OK778-97 Wrought iron flattened rod stock, cut on both ends iron 22OK1170-2 Wrought iron band fragment; one end has portion of forged cutout iron 22OK1172-1

emphasized that archaeologists recognize only a 2016), suggest to us that certain metal artifacts few metal artifact types with a narrow, sixteenth- are likely sixteenth-century diagnostics, particu- century association in the Southeast (crossbow larly when they co-occur with other likely bolt tips being one example). However, members sixteenth-century types. At Stark Farms, these of our research team’s (Legg and DePratter) items include expedient celts probably made long-term involvement with archaeological from barrel bands, rolled copper-alloy beads, investigations at the major sixteenth-century and Biscayan-style axes—the last having been Spanish settlement of Santa Elena in South Caro- common to the sixteenth century, if not limited lina, combined with comparative reviews of to it. The horseshoe fragments recovered at other sites in this time horizon in the Southeast Stark Farms are typical of late Medieval forms. (e.g., Blanton 2013; Little 2008; Rodning et al. Finally, the Stark Farms assemblage is distinctive Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 579 from late seventeenth-century and later assem- established by Europeans in the 1500s, the quan- blages in the Southeast—when objects of Euro- tity of metal artifacts is unusually high compared pean origin were far more common—by the to contemporary sites in the Southeast. Second, complete lack of domestic types of artifacts, this abundance seems to be limited to the Stark such as scissors, kettles, thimbles, and buckles. Farms complex. We have conducted metal That said, we do not believe that Stark Farms detecting at numerous recorded sites and open is Chikasha itself. Because the descriptions of lots in the region without success in finding addi- local river crossings and the general terrain in tional metal artifacts (Smith and Legg 2020; the region seem to correspond with the Soto Figure 3). Third, most metal artifacts have been accounts, archaeologists and historians have discovered from plow zone contexts by metal agreed for some time that Chikasha was likely detecting, although we have recovered two iron in the larger area where Stark Farms is located objects in excavations: one iron celt associated (Atkinson 1987:63–68; Ethridge 2010:11; John- with a posthole feature and an unusual tiny, per- son and Sparks 1986; Marshall 1986:84–87). forated iron sphere—perhaps a bead—from a Nevertheless, our investigations have not daub pit. Of course, we wish we had tight con- revealed any signs of the widespread burning texts for all of these objects. At the very least, reported for the town. Nor have our substantial however, given that no graves have been encoun- faunal collections provided any of the horse or tered in our work at Stark Farms, we believe that pig elements one might anticipate with the loss the metal artifacts derived mainly from domestic of so many of these animals. Furthermore, our or mundane contexts spread throughout the investigations have yet to yield any European dispersed settlement; they were not restricted to ceramics, which might be anticipated with a higher-status individuals as was so often the Spanish encampment. Instead, we believe Stark case elsewhere. Fourth, it is widely believed Farms represents part of the dispersed settlement that most European metal artifacts occurring at of the Chikasha province at some distance from Indigenous sixteenth-century sites in the Ameri- the Spanish encampment, which took advantage cas were deposited as relatively intact goods that of Soto’s catastrophe to gather exotic goods fol- were only rarely subjected to any significant lowing the hasty departure of his retinue. Conse- modification (Berman and Gnivecki 2019:33; quently, we hypothesize that the metal objects Cipolla 2017:18; Mathers 2019). In contrast, derived from a combination of small-scale trade many of the Stark Farms artifacts display evi- with the overwintering Spaniards along with dence for light to heavy reworking in the hands mining of the battle site for objects of value. In of Native Americans (Legg et al. 2019, 2020, light of the Smith and Hally (2020) taxonomy, as summarized below). the context and content of the assemblage seem Overall, the metal artifacts fall into several to reflect a mixture of objects taken in battle arbitrary categories of hybridity: Unmodified and through barter and scavenging. Assemblage Inclusions, Modified Utilitarian, Skeuomorphs, Ornaments, and Iberian hybridity. The Stark Farms Metal Artifact Assemblage One of the challenges of research on hybridity is moving away from traditional classifications that To date, we have recovered 83 objects of iron, may create the false illusion of ontological differ- copper or copper alloy, and lead that we believe ence and subsequent melding. We do not claim are likely candidates for a sixteenth-century ori- to have overcome this difficulty in our system, gin (Table 1). Although the majority have been and we will concede that it is polythetic rather recovered at 22OK778, they are distributed than uniform. But, rather than defining groups across several of the Stark Farms sites (see simply in terms of traditional attributes of raw Figure 2). There are several attributes of this material (e.g., iron, lead) or European form/func- assemblage that make it stand out from contem- tion (e.g., reworked axes, modified horseshoes), porary sites in the Southeast that have yielded our classification relies on dimensions that we similar items. First is the sheer abundance. propose are useful for highlighting various Except for communities or outposts actually aspects of function, manufacture, and use that 580 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021 are relatively—if not completely—consistent Modified Utilitarian within categories. A number of metal artifacts were recycled from their original (European) use into functional fi Unmodi ed Assemblage Inclusions implements analogous to Native American There is some question as to whether the simple tools. In many cases, the artifacts were so modi- inclusion of a “foreign” object into a traditional fied that it was not possible to ascertain the ori- assemblage constitutes hybridity (Deagan ginal source object or stock. We have assigned 2013:262; Liebmann 2015:325). Yet, to limit functional categories to them where possible the boundaries of hybrid practices to the object based on general shape and working-edge char- itself would seem to elide arbitrarily the possibil- acteristics, although it is conceivable that they ity of networked relations between objects had multiple practical applications. We place of different origin as a form of “relational these in a utilitarian category, but we readily rec- entanglement” (Stockhammer 2013:16–17). In ognize that this is not the only meaning that may the sixteenth-century Southeast, this is most have been attributed to what surely were viewed clearly manifested in the interment of European as unusual and exotic raw materials and forms. objects with Indigenous burials in the South Generic cutting and scraping tools are the Appalachian and Florida regions. These objects most common type in this category. With the perhaps were analogous to the indexical items exception of one piece of sharply ground copper- found in sacred bundles, which may serve to alloy sheet metal, all of these items were iron. endow an associated assemblage with enhanced Two of these were likely knife blades, displaying spiritual power (Zedeño 2009). additional evidence for grinding or resharpening Given the variety of unmodified objects that of the edge. The others were largely expedient— derive from plow-zone contexts at Stark Farms, mainly fragments of iron sheet metal with a we posit that many were somehow incorporated ground edge. Some objects showed evidence of into households (Figure 4). These include several what appeared to be preparation for further modi- lead shot in the caliber range of an arquebus; a fication into some kind of cutting tool, but with- cast-iron ball (122.5 g), perhaps a small cannon out being completed. For instance, one horseshoe (verso) shot (such artillery pieces are reported fragment exhibits a broken edge initiated by for the Soto expedition [Shelby 1993:264–265, metal fatigue from repeated bending. This was 373; Worth 1993a:257]); a copper-alloy ramrod surely a laborious process and one reflecting a tip; wrought-iron nails consistent with those lack of access to metal-cutting tools. But no fur- recovered at Spanish Santa Elena (1566–1587) ther modification or use was evident. in South Carolina (South et al. 1988:33–57); a Iron celts (or possibly adzes) are another com- mouth harp; and a perforated medallion display- mon recycled type (Figure 6). They were often ing a gold-gilt cross that is probably a bridle-bit manufactured from axes. The so-called Biscayan boss (Figure 5). The diversity of items in this cat- axe type has been identified at other sixteenth- egory and the occurrence of unusual military century Southeast sites (Blanton 2013:21–22; items not normally found as trade objects (e.g., Linden 2013:33, 35), although it is found in the cannon shot and ramrod tip) are two of the later contexts as well. Axe blades, minus the haft- reasons we believe that the assemblage results ing eye, generally have a shape that would in part from mining a battle site that was also a encourage celt manufacture. In some cases, the winter encampment. hafting-eye portion was formed into a celt by flat- Finally, there are some artifacts that may tening into a rectangular panel. Two axes exhibit reflect the compromises of the Soto expedition. evidence that the hafting eyes were removed with Notably, we recovered what appear to be three bend breaks, whereas the blade itself notably harness rings manufactured by very crude forg- shows no additional alteration or recycling. ing and flattening. It is likely that this kind of Some axe sections had grinding of broken expedient retooling became increasingly com- edges, battering and flattening of thick blade por- mon through the course of the entrada’s passage tions to turn them into serviceable edges, and bat- across the Southeast. tering on polls in a matter analogous to hammers Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 581

Figure 4. Nonmodified metal artifacts: (A) wrought-iron nails, (B) ramrod tip, (C) cast-iron shot, (D) lead shot, (E) crudely forged harness ring, (F) barrel band section (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology).

(Figure 7). Celts also were manufactured from imported material to replicate an Indigenous horseshoe fragments, sections of what appear form. The first is virtually a replica of a traditional to be rapier blades, and other thin pieces of modi- hardstone celt, smooth and symmetrically ground fied stock (Figure 6). over the entire surface (Figure 8a). The second is Finally, the assemblage contained a number somewhat unusual in that it has a narrowing or of recycled objects that are unique or do not waist in plan view (perhaps for hafting), but in easily conform to standard taxonomies. As one side view, it has the classic celt shape example, a piece of iron wire stock—likely (Figure 8b). These objects would have required a chain link—had one end battered into an awl-like large source piece of iron stock, and by all appear- tip. In another case, portions of the edge of an ances, their manufacture was labor intensive. iron knife blade were deliberately blunted by bat- tering, whereas the rest of the edge was carefully Iberian Hybridity thinned and bifacially sharpened. One horseshoe Silliman (2015) suggests that there needs to be fragment had grinding on two margins, but it was more emphasis on European contributions to not an obvious tool. hybrid forms and practices in colonial settings. Heather Trigg (2020) has made this case in her Skeuomorphs study of seventeenth-century Spanish house- There are two examples, both ground iron celts, holds in northern New Mexico, where hybrid of skeuomorphs (see Card 2013:8; Howey 2011), forms of architecture, pottery, and culinary which are intentional hybrids created from an regimes speak to the intermingling of Indigenous 582 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Figure 5. Possible bridle boss (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology). and European peoples sharing the same spaces smaller than those reported in contemporary on Spanish ranches and farms. The assemblage sites to the east. This may indicate that the Soto from Stark Farms emphasizes that even this cat- expedition was attempting to conserve a dimin- egory of hybridity is characterized by important ishing store of such supplies. variation in that Soto expedition members may have been purposefully making metal forms Ornaments shaped to Indigenous tastes rather than for their Given a deep history of copper use in the South- own consumption. east, copper or copper alloy is the one raw mate- Specifically, iron barrel bands were used to rial carried by the Soto expedition with which manufacture flat, rectangular iron celts or adzes Native Americans would have had some famil- (Figures 6f and 6h). As implied by the name, iarity. What is unusual is that the colonial influx these were fragments cut from the iron bands nor- of copper alloy into the Southeast appears to have mally used to hold barrel staves in place. Barrel initiated a new repertoire of forms and uses. Our bands of the early colonial era were heavy, preliminary pXRF analysis of the Stark Farms wrought-iron pieces rather than sheet metal, copper-base ornaments indicates that most are representing a particularly flexible source of brass. Many are either trapezoidal pendants or raw stock for tool manufacture. Typically, barrel “tinkler cones”—items likely attached to cloth- band celts have bifacially ground bits. Their ing (Figure 9). This supposition is supported by occurrence at other sixteenth-century Southeast the occurrence of a possible silk fragment sites (e.g., Blanton 2013:22–23; DePratter and under the folded ears of one of the pendants Smith 1980:74–76) suggests that they may have and cordage in two of the cones. Tinkler cones been made specifically for gifting and trade are widespread on later sites throughout eastern with Native Americans. In particular, the consis- North America, but they have been documented tent size of examples from some of these sites is in sixteenth-century contexts at the Berry site in suggestive of mass production by Spanish black- western North Carolina (Rodning et al. smiths (Legg et al. 2020:53). It is interesting that 2016:330). Rolled copper-alloy beads were also the examples from Stark Farms are generally a common ornament type. Data supporting the Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 583

Figure 6. Celt forms: (A, B) axe eye sections, (C, D) horseshoe fragments, (E, I) possible rapier blade fragments, (F, H) likely barrel bands, (G) possible axe blade (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology).

Indigenous manufacture of copper-base objects modify pieces, (2) the frequent occurrence of siz- at later-period sites (Bradley 1987; Ehrhardt able untrimmed irregularities, and (3) laborious 2013) suggest that the specimens at Stark grinding and smoothing of the edges. Farms likewise were made by local inhabitants. On Southeastern sites dating to the 1600s and This inference is buttressed by a vernacular later, these kinds of copper-alloy artifacts were manufacturing technology that did not rely on a frequently made from thin brass kettles and forge, but that was characterized by (1) bend- pots (Brain 1979:164–185). The Stark Farms breaking and folding rather than cutting to assemblage lacks diagnostic elements of metal 584 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Figure 7. Axes in varying states of modification (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology).

vessels, such as bail attachments and rolled rim fragments. Copper pitchers and cauldrons have been recovered from the Luna expedition ship- wrecks dating only 20 years later (Bratten 2018). Consequently, even lacking the character- istic elements, it is possible that remnants of similar containers were used to produce the orna- ments at Stark Farms.

Unknown/Other There are a number of metal artifacts from Stark Farms that do not readily fit into traditional ar- chaeological categories. These are not distinct- ively sixteenth century, but they often occurred in or near clusters of our more recognizable metal objects on the site. Many are modified, irregular pieces of unknown function. In addition to pieces of worked sheet-metal copper alloy described in our discussion on ornaments, there are also several fragments of cut and broken sheet lead. One rectangular lead fragment was apparently flattened and chewed. Some of the generic objects reflect initial or experimental working before loss or discard. For example, one wrought-iron chain link was opened by flat- Figure 8. Skeuomorph celts (South Carolina Institute of tening the forge-welded join, a tactic likely to be Archaeology and Anthropology). (Color online) employed if one did not have any metal-working Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 585

Figure 9. Copper base objects: (A–H) ornaments perforated for suspension, (I) loosely rolled tube, (J–L) tinkler cones, (M–O) folded strips, (P, Q) rolled tube beads (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology). (Color online) 586 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021 tools available. Interestingly, the modest chain recognize the entire Mississippian period (ca. links in the assemblage are particularly emblem- AD 1000–1600) as a dynamic time of population atic of the antagonisms between Spaniards and movement, social churn, and cultural mixture in Native Americans. The Soto expedition carried which material practices have been characterized a large amount of iron chain for various pur- as hybrid and coalescent (e.g., Alt 2006; Blitz poses, including shackling Native Americans as 1999; Cable 2020). Wall-trench architecture, captives and porters (e.g., Robertson 1993:68). which seems to have its origins in the Cahokia Before his departure from Chikasha, Soto had region of west-central Illinois (Pauketat 2007), demanded that the chief surrender a large number appears on some sites in eastern Mississippi of people as porters, likely setting into motion the early in the Mississippian period, where it com- events that led to the battle (Robertson mingled with the dominant single-set-post style 1993:107). of houses (Boudreaux et al. 2018;O’Hear et al. 1981). A small percentage of the ceramics at A Deeper History of Heterogeneous Hybridity Stark Farms exhibit decorative treatments asso- ciated with the Lower Mississippi Valley (Phil- Rather than arguing that the assemblage of Stark lips 1970:83, 151) and western Alabama Farms metal artifacts manifests a stage within a (Knight 2010:20, 39–40), but they rely on local predictable historical sequencing of hybridity pastes and tempers (Boudreaux et al. 2020: (nascent colonialism to mature colonialism, if Table 3.4; Smith 2017). Furthermore, this was you will), we believe that our study suggests a time of local migration and endemic ceramic two things. First, hybridity can be a dialectical hybridity. In the AD 1300s and 1400s, there meshing of interruption and novelty on the one was a population flow from the Upper Tombig- hand and continuity on the other. We have segre- bee Valley and associated drainages onto the gated the Stark Farms metal artifacts into various Black Prairie 40 km to the west, accompanied arbitrary categories of hybridity that emphasize by a shift from freshwater mussel shell temper stylistic and technological idiosyncrasies employed to fossil shell temper (Johnson 1996). At sites in introduced raw materials. Yet, it is also useful occupied before this technological transition to step back and contemplate the gestalt of the was largely complete in the 1600s, it is common corpus of objects, predicated on the notion that to find pottery with mixtures of both at Stark the emergent property of an assemblage may Farms and other sites in the Black Prairie (Sor- strike a different register in the materiality of resso and Quinn 2020). Well before the arrival hybridity than revealed by solely focusing on of the Spaniards, there was an established arc constituent elements (for various perspectives of social, material, and biological fluidity, and on addressing copresencing of traits, see Hauser it was common to incorporate new peoples and 2017; Sheptak and Joyce 2019; Stahl 2010). synthesize material traditions from near and far. From this perspective, the metal artifacts confer The Stark Farms metal artifacts are just as a collective sense of improvisation weighted much a product of that history as they are of toward “staying the same”—a dimension of European incursions. hybridity and entanglement in colonial situations This brings us to our second point. Even if that bears more attention (Silliman 2013:492). hybrid practices are multithreaded and deeply They highlight Marshall Sahlins’s(1993:17) dic- rooted, the relations of power that they embody tum that “the first commercial impulse of the can be qualitatively different. It is this dimension people is not to become just like us, but more that underscores the colonial encounter and its like themselves.” aftermath. Much of the anxiety over concepts In this sense, although many of the hybrid such as hybridity and creolization seems to be aspects of the Stark Farms metal artifacts may ontology centric, largely focused on identity have been new, the practices were time honored. and origins. This rightfully draws attention to Liebmann (2015:322) asks, “Why do we label who may have produced or consumed the object. some objects hybrid, yet ignore the complex But hybrid entities as agents or media of con- multicultural biographies of others?” We now testations over authority and power are as much Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 587 a matter of externalities as they are internalities. violent outcome, where significant amounts of In other words, the ways in which colonial period European material were released in a manner metal artifacts were modified and became ele- that seems to have been structured only by very ments of assemblages were also wedded to the localized networks. This brief spell of abundance multiscalar networks that delivered the original appears to have fostered a highly improvisational objects to various parts of the globe (see Hofman climate of working and reworking novel materi- et al. 2014; Knappett 2013). By networks, we do als and forms. The kind of event-like scenario as not necessarily mean formal lattices that in some an impulse to hybrid practices may not have been circumstances can be highly useful for modeling so rare. Months before their arrival at Chikasha, the flow of peoples, things, and ideas. Instead, we Soto’s forces had suffered an even larger loss refer to more nebulous webs of regional and pan- of matériel in a pitched battle at the town of regional relations constituted within historical Mabila, located in western Alabama (Knight settings. The emergent Atlantic World of the 2009; Robertson 1993:105). On the same time 1500s and 1600s was one such system (Armit- horizon in the American Southwest, the rage and Braddick 2009; Benjamin 2009; Orser Francisco Vázquez de Coronado expedition 2018), eventually developing the institutions engaged in a major conflict with Indigenous that would tether Indigenous peoples to colonial communities in the Middle Rio Grande drainage, powers and spur the kinds of routinized circula- leaving an abundance of military artifacts at tion of objects and entrenched hybrid practices Pueblo sites in the Tiguex War of 1540–1542 that have drawn so much attention from post- (Mathers 2020; Schmader 2016). Furthermore, colonial scholarship. the scattered remains of failed colonial settle- From what we know of the history of the inte- ments and entradas in the 1500s throughout the rior Southeast following the immediate arrival of Southeast provided yet another potentially rich Europeans, these globalized networks had yet to source of providential European material. In sediment fully, and institutions of colonial man- short, the sixteenth century in southeastern agement and control were still taking shape. The North America was a period when considerable attenuated nature of colonial encroachments is latitude in the exercise of hybrid practices rela- emphasized by the frequent occurrence of Euro- tively unencumbered from consistent European pean metal objects in mortuary assemblages of influence or intervention was possible. the era, the outcome of a tradition of gifting whereby European parties consistently needed Conclusion to seek the favor of local polities to acquire food and other resources as well as to ensure Meghan Howey observes that safe passage (Smith and Hally 2020). Inventories thresholds of colonial encounter are critical for the Juan Pardo expeditions (1566–1568) into liminal times where “Other,”“Self,” and the interior Southeast on behalf of the Spanish “West” are not fully defined but emergent, crown specifically refer to objects earmarked as yet details on the happenings of these thresh- gifts (DePratter and Smith 1980). The occurrence olds are often swamped by data on the events of metal artifacts at sixteenth-century sites that before and after which are more abundant likely did not have direct contact with European archaeologically and historically [2011:333]. expeditions suggests that Indigenous elites often disbursed their gifts to satellite communities in a There are such instances, however—Stark Farms system of patronage and debt obligations (Smith being one—where the data on hybrid practices and Hally 2020). These endemic regional net- are not so impacted by the swamping effect. works of factions and asymmetry that privileged With the departure of Soto from northern Missis- some individuals and groups above others were sippi in 1541, there is no evidence for any kind of only loosely coupled to the emerging Atlantic significant European presence—or notable accu- World. mulations of metal artifacts—in this region for Stark Farms appears to be an example of when another 150 years. As a result, the hybrid charac- these kinds of directed transactions collapsed in a teristics of the metal assemblage at Stark Farms 588 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021 have a wide-ranging and experimental sensibil- subscribe to Diana Loren’s admonition: “The ity, seemingly shaped by Indigenous conven- more productive theories of hybridity are those tions rather than by, or against, European that problematize the term and seek to investigate norms. Ironically, the various categories that the nuances and details in the entanglement of have been proposed to distinguish cultural mix- people and objects in specific historical con- ing—organic hybridity and intentional hybridity texts” (2013:152–153). (Bakhtin 1981), relational entanglement and material entanglement (Stockhammer 2013), Acknowledgments. We are deeply grateful to the Chickasaw — Nation and their Chickasaw Explorers Program for initiating and the like themselves become blurred as and funding much of this research. Portions of our fieldwork hybrid taxonomic conventions in many ways, were also made possible by a grant (#9831-16) from the as manifested in the Stark Farms assemblage. National Geographic Society. Mark Hauser and Diana Given the complexities of cultural mixing Loren provided insightful commentaries on an earlier draft enveloped in just one case study, it is understand- of this work. Three anonymous reviewers as well as Lynn Gamble provided highly useful constructive criticisms and able why there is so much caution among archae- suggestions as part of the formal review process. We greatly ologists in committing to hybridity, creolization, appreciate their insights. Finally, we extend our gratitude entanglement, or some other alternative. Still, to the many gracious landowners who made this work even in a remote setting where Native American possible. interests held sway, the initial, unsettling tem- Data Availability Statement. The materials discussed in this blors of colonial incursions were likely having article are currently curated at the South Carolina Institute of an impact on communities and their material cul- Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina. tures. In many localities in the sixteenth-century Southeast, hybrid mortuary assemblages speak to the first attempts by Europeans to finesse Notes local networks of power through selective 1. Indigenous metal objects (mainly copper) that predate patronage. Their gifts entered into established the arrival of Europeans are also found in the American Indigenous traditions of factions and status that Southeast. Here, the term “metal artifacts” is reserved for objects hypothesized to derive from an encounter with the seem to have always been precarious. In addition, Soto expedition. they were the first instances of Europeans 2. Also known as Chicasa. Here, we use the Chickasaw attempting to cultivate the standing of individ- rendering of the name. — 3. As sponsors of much of our research, the Chickasaw uals who could help their cause a practice Nation reviews our publications for consistency with its his- that later would add to the destabilization of Indi- tories. Furthermore, the Chickasaw Nation actively provides genous polities throughout the Southeast. As a information on the Chickasaw Explorers program and its collaboration with universities (https://www.chickasaw.net/ variation on these themes, Stark Farms seems Services/Culture/Chickasaw-Explorers-Program.aspx), in ad- to represent an instance of the failure of colonial dition to its perspectives on important aspects of its history tactics and the unintentional release of an abun- through popular media portals (e.g., for the Soto expedition: https://www.chickasaw.tv/profiles/hernando-de-soto-profile). dance of European material accompanied by a 4. As with most metal-detecting projects, ours recovered fleeting moment of widespread access to other- scores of modern objects in addition to those of uncertain pro- wise rare and unusual objects. venience and age. Our sorting system involved a four-part tri- age: (1) modern, (2) premodern but likely postdating the As is evident from this study, major chal- 1600s (e.g., lead shot of a caliber common to the 1700s and lenges remain in reaching any kind of consensus 1800s), (3) potential sixteenth century (e.g., lead shot of a on how to conceptualize research on cultural caliber common to arquebuses, copper-alloy ornaments fi such as tinkler cones), and (4) likely sixteenth century (e.g., mixing in colonial settings. A singular dif culty diagnostic celt forms and Medieval horse shoes). Our analysis is that debates over hybridity and related terms focuses on the last two categories. have been theoretically sophisticated, but it seems that far more detailed case studies—rather References Cited than cursory vignettes or brief illustrations that serve to prop up a given theoretical angle—will Acabado, Stephen be required to achieve greater resolution over 2017 The Archaeology of Pericolonialism: Responses of the “Unconquered” to Spanish Conquest and Colonial- the expression and framing of hybridity, ism in Ifugao, Philippines. International Journal of His- entanglement, and the like. In this respect, we torical Archaeology 21:1–26. Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 589

Alt, Susan M. Brain, Jeffrey P. 2006 The Power of Diversity: The Roles of Migration and 1979 Tunica Treasure. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Hybridity in Culture Change. In Leadership and Polity Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 71. Harvard Univer- in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts. and Paul D. Welch, pp. 289–308. Center for Archaeo- Bratten, John R. logical Investigations Occasional Paper No. 33. South- 2018 What They Left Behind: The Artifact Assemblage. ern Illinois University, Carbondale. In Florida’s Lost Galleon: The Emanuel Point Ship- Armitrage, David, and Michael J. Braddick (editors) wreck, edited by Roger C. Smith, pp. 122–206. Univer- 2009 The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800. 2nd ed. Pal- sity Press of Florida, Gainesville. grave Macmillan, New York. Cable, John S. Atkinson, James R. 2020 Megadrought in the Carolinas: The Archaeology of 1979 A Historic Indian Settlement in Oktibbeha County, Mississippian Collapse, Abandonment and Coales- Mississippi. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 25:61–82. cence. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1987 The De Soto Expedition through North Mississippi Card, Jeb J. in 1540–1541. Mississippi Archaeology 22(1):61–74. 2013 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Mate- Bakhtin, Mikhail rial Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 1–21. Center 1981 The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Caryl Emerson for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper and Michael Hosquist. University of Texas Press, Austin. No. 39. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Bayman, James M. Carpenter, Cari M. 2009 Technological Change and the Archaeology of Emer- 2008 Seeing Red: Anger, Sentimentality, and American gent Colonialism in the Kingdom of Hawai’i. Inter- Indians. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. national Journal of Historical Archaeology 13:127–157. Cipolla, Craig N. Benjamin, Thomas 2017 Indigenous People and Foreign Objects: Rethinking 2009 The Atlantic World: Europeans, Africans, Indians Consumption in American Archaeology. In Foreign and Their Shared History, 1400–1900. Cambridge Uni- Objects: Rethinking Indigenous Consumption in Ameri- versity Press, Cambridge. can Archaeology, edited by Craig N. Cipolla, pp. 3–28. Berman, Mary Jane, and Perry L. Gnivecki University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2019 Colonial Encounters in Lucayan Contexts. In Mate- Clark, Emily C. rial Encounters and Indigenous Transformations in the 2017 The Analysis of Contact-Era Settlements in Clay, Early Colonial Americas: Archaeological Case Studies, Lowndes, and Oktibbeha Counties in Northeast Missis- edited by Corinne L. Hofman and Floris W. M. Keeh- sippi. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and nen, pp. 32–57. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford. Bhabha, Homi Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward 1994 The Location of Culture. Routledge, London. C. Moore (editors) Blanton, Dennis B. 1993 The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Her- 2013 Point of Contact: Archaeological Evaluation of a nando de Soto to North America in 1539–1543.2 Potential De Soto Encampment in Georgia. Fernbank vols. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Museum of Natural History, Atlanta, Georgia. Cobb, Charles R. 2020 Conquistador’s Wake: Tracking the Legacy of Her- 2003 Introduction: Framing Stone Tool Traditions after nando de Soto in the Indigenous Southeast. University Contact. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era, of Georgia Press, Athens. edited by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 1–12. University of Ala- Blitz, John H. bama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Deagan, Kathleen Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2013 Hybridity, Identity, and Archaeological Practice. In 1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited Process. American Antiquity 64:577–592. by Jeb J. Card, pp. 260–276. Center for Archaeological Boudreaux, Edmond A., III, Charles R. Cobb, Emily Clark, Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 39. Southern Illi- Chester B. DePratter, James B. Legg, Brad R. Lieb, Alli- nois University, Carbondale. son M. Smith, and Steven D. Smith DePratter, Chester B., and Marvin T. Smith 2020 The Early Contact Period in the Black Prairie of 1980 Sixteenth Century European Trade in the South- Northeast Mississippi. In Contact, Colonialism, and eastern United States: Evidence from the Juan Pardo Native Communities in the Southeastern United States, Expeditions (1566–1568). In Spanish Colonial Frontier edited by Edmond A. Boudreaux III, Maureen Meyers, Research, edited by Henry F. Dobyns, pp. 67–77. Center and Jay K. Johnson, pp. 35–56. University of Florida for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque, New Press, Gainesville. Mexico. Boudreaux, Edmond A., III, Brad R. Lieb, Allison M. Smith, DuVal, Kathleen Stephen G. Harris, and Charles R. Cobb 2006 The Native Ground: Indians and Colonists in the 2018 Investigations at the Butler Mound Site in Northeast Heart of the Continent. University of Pennsylvania Mississippi. Submitted to Chickasaw Nation Depart- Press, Philadelphia. ment of Culture and Humanities. Copies available Ehrhardt, Kathleen L. from University of Mississippi Center for Archaeo- 2013 “Style” in Crafting Hybrid Material Culture on the logical Research, University, Mississippi. Fringes of Empire: An Example from the Native North Bradley, James W. American Midcontinent. In The Archaeology of Hybrid 1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Material Culture,editedbyJebJ.Card,pp.364–396. Cen- Change, 1500–1655. Syracuse University Press, Syra- ter for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. cuse, New York. 39. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 590 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

Ethridge, Robbie Jordan, Kurt A., and Peregrine A. Gerard-Little 2010 From Chicaza to Chickasaw: The European Inva- 2019 Neither Contact nor Colonial: Seneca Iroquois Local sion and the Transformation of the Mississippian Political Economies, 1650–1754. In Indigenous Persis- World, 1540–1715. University of North Carolina tence in the Colonized Americas: Material and Docu- Press, Chapel Hill. mentary Perspectives on Entanglement, edited by Ewen, Charles, and John H. Hann Heather Law Pezzarossi and Russell N. Sheptak, pp. 1998 Hernando de Soto among the Apalachee: The 39–56. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment. Univer- Knappett, Carl (editor) sity Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2013 Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches. Gosden, Chris Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact Knight, Vernon James, Jr. (editor) from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University 2009 The Search for Mabila: The Decisive Battle between Press, Cambridge. Hernando de Soto and Chief Tuscalusa. University of Hally, David J. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississip- Knight, Vernon James, Jr. pian Town in Northwestern Georgia. University of Ala- 2010 Mound Excavations at Moundville: Architecture, bama Press, Tuscaloosa. Elites, and Social Order. University of Alabama Press, Hauser, Mark William Tuscaloosa. 2017 A Political Ecology of Water and Enslavement: Latour, Bruno Water Ways in Eighteenth-Century Caribbean Planta- 1991 We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Cather- tions. Current Anthropology 58:227–256. ine Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Hauser, Mark W., Douglas V. Armstrong, Diane Wallman, Massachusetts. Kenneth G. Kelly, and Lennox Honychurch Legg, James B., Dennis B. Blanton, Charles R. Cobb, Steven 2019 Where Strangers Met: Evidence for Early Com- D. Smith, Brad R. Lieb, and Edmund A. Boudreaux III merce at LaSoye Point, Dominica. Antiquity 93:1–8. 2019 An Appraisal of the Indigenous Acquisition of Con- Hofman, Corinne, Angus Mol, Menno Hoogland, and Rob- tact Era European Metal Objects in Southeastern North erto Valcárcel Rojas America. International Journal of Historical Archae- 2014 Stages of Encounters: Migration, Mobility and Inter- ology 23:81–102. action in the Pre-Colonial and Early Colonial Caribbean. Legg, James B., Charles R. Cobb, Edmund A. Boudreaux III, World Archaeology 46:590–609. Brad R. Lieb, Chester B. DePratter, and Steven D. Smith Hogue, S. Homes, and Evan Peacock 2020 The Stark Farm Enigma: Evidence of the Chicasa 1995 Environmental and Osteological Analysis at the (Chikasha)-Soto Encounter in Mississippi? In Modeling South Farm Site (22OK535), A Mississippian Farm- Entradas: Sixteenth-Century Assemblages in North stead in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern America, edited by Clay Mathers, pp. 43–67. University Archaeology 14:31–45. of Florida Press, Gainesville. Howey, Meghan C. L. Liebmann, Matthew 2011 Colonial Encounters, European Kettles, and the 2013 Parsing Hybridity: Archaeologies of Amalgamation Magic of Mimesis in the Late Sixteenth and Early in Seventeenth-Century New Mexico. In The Archae- Seventeenth Century Indigenous Northeast and Great ology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb Lakes. International Journal of Historical Archaeology J. Card, pp. 25–49. Center for Archaeological Investiga- 15:329–357. tions Occasional Paper No. 39. Southern Illinois Univer- Hudson, Charles, and Carmen Chaves Tesser sity Press, Carbondale. 1994 Introduction. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians 2015 The Micky Mouse Kachina and Other “Double and Europeans in the American South, 1521–1704, ed- Objects”: Hybridity in the Material Culture of Colonial ited by Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser, pp. Encounters. Journal of Social Archaeology 15:319– 1–14. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 341. Johnson, Jay K. Linden, Sarah Elizabeth 1996 The Nature and Timing of the Late Prehistoric 2013 Metals of Conquest: A Study Using Portable X-Ray Settlement of the Black Prairie in Northeast Mississippi: Fluorescence Spectrometry in the Metallurgical Ana- A Reply to Hogue, Peacock, and Rafferty. Southeastern lysis of Two Sixteenth-Century Spanish Expeditions. Archaeology 15:244–249. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Univer- Johnson, Jay K., and John T. Sparks sity of West Florida, Pensacola. 1986 Protohistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeast Mis- Little, Keith J. sissippi. In The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South: 2008 European Artifact Chronology and Impacts of Span- 1500–1700, edited by David H. Dye and Ronald ish Contact in the Sixteenth-Century Coosa Valley. PhD C. Brister, pp. 64–81. Archaeological Report No. 18. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jack- Alabama, Tuscaloosa. son, Mississippi. Loren, Diana D. Jordan, Kurt A. 2013 Considering Mimicry and Hybridity in Early Colo- 2014 Pruning Colonialism: Vantage Point, Local Polit- nial New England: Health, Sin and the Body “Behung ical Economy, and Cultural Entanglement in the with Beades.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge Archaeology of Post-1415 Indigenous Peoples. In 28(1):151–168. Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology, Marshall, Richard A. edited by Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael 1986 The Protohistoric Component at the Lyon’s Bluff Wilcox, pp. 103–120. Oxford University Press, Site Complex, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. In The Oxford. Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South, 1500–1700: Cobb et al. THE REMAINS OF THE FRAY 591

Proceedings of the 1983 Mid-South Archaeological Term Sedentary Settlement at Josey Farm, NE Missis- Conference, edited by David Dye and Ronald Brister, sippi. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:347–366. pp. 82–88. Archaeological Report No. 18. Mississippi Rafferty, Janet E., and S. Homes Hogue Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 1999 Test Excavations at Six Sites in Oktibbeha County, Mathers, Clay Mississippi. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi 2019 War and Peace in the Sixteenth-Century Southwest: State University, Starkville. Report submitted to the Object-Oriented Approaches to Native-European Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jacksonville. Encounters and Trajectories. In Material Encounters Rifkin, Mark and Indigenous Transformations in the Early Colonial 2017 Beyond Settler Time: Temporal Sovereignty and Americas: Archaeological Case Studies, edited by Cor- Indigenous Self-Determination. Duke University Press, inne L. Hofman and Floris W. M. Keehnen, pp. 308– Durham, North Carolina. 332. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Robertson, James Alexander 2020 The Grammar and Syntax of Battle: Kuaua Pueblo, 1993 The Account by a Gentleman from Elvas. In The De the Pueblo de la Cruz, and Constructing Analytical Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to Frameworks for the Tiguex War (1540–1542). In A Life- North America, 1539–1543, Vol. I, edited by Lawrence long Journey: Papers in Honor of Michael P. Marshall, A. Clayton, and Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward edited by Emily J. Brown, Matthew J. Barbour, and C. Moore, pp. 19–219. University of Alabama Press, Genevieve N. Head, pp. 175–187. Papers Vol. 46. Ar- Tuscaloosa. chaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Rodning, Christopher B., Robin A. Beck, David G. Moore, McEwan, Bonnie (editor) and James B. Legg 1993 The Spanish Missions of La Florida. University 2016 Spanish Material Culture from the Berry Site. In Fort Press of Florida, Gainesville. San Juan and the Limits of Empire: Colonialism and Milanich, Jerald T. Household Practice at the Berry Site, edited by Robin 1999 Laboring in the Fields of the Lord: Spanish Mis- A. Beck, Christopher B. Rodning, and David G. Moore, sions and Southeastern Indians. Smithsonian Institu- pp. 303–340. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. tion, Washington, DC. Sahlins, Marshall Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1993 Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Ethnography in the Con- 1989 The Ruth Smith, Weeki Wachee, and Tatham text of World History. Journal of Modern History 65:1– Mounds: Archaeological Evidence of Early Spanish 25 Contact. Florida Anthropologist 42:317–339. Schmader, Matthew Mullins, Paul R., and Robert Paynter 2016 How Tribal Consultation and Non-Invasive Tech- 2000 Representing Colonizers: An Archaeology of Creol- niques Led to a Better Understanding of Vázquez de ization, Ethnogenesis, and Indigenous Material Culture Coronado’s Expedition of 1540–1542. Advances in among the Haida. Historical Archaeology 34(3):73–84. Archaeological Practice 4:1–16. O’Hear, John W., Clark Larsen, Marge M. Scarry, John Semerari, Giulia Saltini C. Phillips, and Erica Simons 2017 Towards an Archaeology of Disentanglement. Jour- 1981 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at the Tibbee nal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24:542–578. Creek Site (22Lo600), Lowndes County, Mississippi. Sexton, Jared Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile 2016 The Vel of Slavery: Tracking the Figure of the Unso- District. Copies available from Mississippi State Univer- vereign. Critical Sociology 42:583–497. sity, Department of Anthropology, Starkville. Shelby, Charmion Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1993 La Florida, by Garcilaso de la Vega, the Inca. In The 2018 An Archaeology of the English Atlantic World, De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de 1600–1700. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Soto to North America, 1539–1543, Vol. II, edited by Palmié, Stephan Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James Knight Jr., and 2013 Mixed Blessings and Sorrowful Mysteries. Current Edward C. Moore, pp. 25–559. University of Alabama Anthropology 54:463–482. Press, Tuscaloosa. Pauketat, Timothy R. Sheptak, Russell N., and Rosemary A. Joyce 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. 2019 Hybrid Cultures: The Visibility of the European AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Invasion of Caribbean Honduras in the Sixteenth Cen- Peacock, Evan tury. In Material Encounters and Indigenous Transfor- 1995 Test Excavations at an Upland Mississippian Site in mations in the Early Colonial Americas, edited by Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archae- Corinne L. Hofman, and Floris W. M. Keehnen, pp. ology 30(2):1–20. 221–237. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Phillips, Philip Silliman, Stephen W. 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Mississippi, 1949–1955. Papers Vol. 60. Peabody Archaeology of Native North America. American Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Antiquity 70:55–74. Massachusetts. 2013 What, Where, and When Is Hybridity? In The RabbySmith, Steve, Michael Creswell, and James C. Pritchard Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by 2015 Archaeological Survey of the Starkville Development Jeb J. Card, pp. 466–500. Center for Archaeological Site, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Submitted to Head- Investigations Occasional Paper No. 39. Southern Illi- waters Natural Resources Consulting. Copies available nois University Press, Carbondale. from Brockington and Associates, Atlanta, Georgia. 2015 A Requiem for Hybridity? The Problem with Fran- Rafferty, Janet kensteins, Purées, and Mules. Journal of Social Archae- 2001 Determining Duration at Prehistoric Sites: Short- ology 15:277–298. 592 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021

2016 Disentangling the Archaeology of Colonialism and Colonial Process for the North American Central Plains. Indigeneity. In Archaeology of Entanglement, edited World Archaeology 50:820–834. by Lindsay Der and Francesca Fernandini, pp. 31–48. Trigg, Heather Routledge, New York. 2020 Spanish-Pueblo Interactions in New Mexico’s Smith, Allison M. Seventeenth-Century Spanish Households: Negotia- 2017 Sherds with Style: A Ceramic Analysis from a Proto- tions of Knowledge and Power in Practice. International historic Site in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Master’s Journal of Historical Archaeology 24:618–641. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, VanValkenburgh, Parker University of Mississippi, Oxford. 2013 Hybridity, Creolization, Mestizaje: A Comment. Smith, Marvin T. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28(1):300–322. 1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Vizenor, Gerald Interior Southeast. University Press of Florida, 1999 Manifest Manners: Narratives on Postindian Survi- Gainesville. vance. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Smith, Marvin T., and David J. Hally Voss, Barbara L. 2020 The Acquisition of Sixteenth-Century European 2011 Postcolonial and Queer Perspectives on the Archae- Objects by Native Americans in the Southeastern United ology of Sexuality and Empire. In The Archaeology of States. In Modeling Entradas: Sixteenth-Century Colonialism: Intimate Encounters and Sexual Effects, Assemblages in North America, edited by edited by Barbara L. Voss and Elenor Conlin Casella, Clay Mathers, pp. 203–246. University of Florida pp. 11–28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Press, Gainesville. Weaver, Jace, Craic S. Womack, and Robert Warrior Smith, Steven D., and James B. Legg 2006 American Indian Literary Nationalism. University 2020 Metal Detecting Surveys at Stark Farms and Envir- of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. ons: Seasons 2018 and 2019. Submitted to Department Werbner, Pnina of Heritage Preservation, Chickasaw Nation. Copies 1997 Introduction: The Dialectics of Cultural Hybridity. available from University of South Carolina, South In Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Iden- Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, tities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, edited by Columbia. Pnina Werbner and Tariq Modood, pp. 1–26. Zed Sorresso, Domenique C., and Patrick S. Quinn Books, London. 2020 Re-examining Shell-Tempered Chickasaw Pottery White, Richard in Post-Contact Mississippi, USA. Journal of Archaeo- 1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Repub- logical Science: Reports 32. DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep. lics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge 2020.102415. University Press, Cambridge. South, Stanley A., Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard Worth, John A. E. Johnson 1993a Account of the Northern Conquest and Discovery 1988 Santa Elena. Archaeology Series 7. South Carolina of Hernando de Soto by Rodrigo Rangel. In The De Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto Stahl, Ann Brower to North America, 1539–1543, Vol. 1, edited by Law- 2010 Material Histories. In The Oxford Handbook of rence A. Clayton, Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward Material Culture Studies, edited by Dan Hicks and C. Moore, pp. 247–306. University of Alabama Press, Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 148–170. Oxford University Tuscaloosa. Press, Oxford. 1993b Relation of the Island of Florida by Luys Hernán- Stockhammer, Philipp W. dez de Biedma. In The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedi- 2013 From Hybridity to Entanglement, From Essential- tion of Hernando de Soto to North America, 1539–1543, ism to Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge Vol. 1, edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon J. 28(1):11–28. Knight Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp. 221–246. Univer- Thomas, Joe sity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2017 Chickasaw Explorers: Linking the Past to Your Pres- Zedeño, Maria N. ent. Istunowa: The Journal of Chickasaw History and 2009 Animating by Association: Index Objects and Rela- Culture 19(1):28–33. tional Taxonomies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal Thomas, Nicholas 19:407–417. 1994 Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel and Government. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Trabert, Sarah Submitted September 15, 2020; Revised December 11, 2020; 2018 Reframing the Protohistoric Period and the (Peri) Accepted December 11, 2020