THE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MISSISSIPPIAN FINEWARE IN THE Author(s): Gregory D. Wilson Reviewed work(s): Source: Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 1999), pp. 98-109 Published by: Allen Press on behalf of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40713161 . Accessed: 27/02/2013 15:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Allen Press and Southeastern Archaeological Conference are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southeastern Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MISSISSIPPIAN FINEWARE IN THE AMERICAN BOTTOM

GregoryD. Wilson politicaleconomic changes in Mississippian . Specifically,I examine Mississippian fineware ceram- ics fromthe American Bottom region of southwestern (Figure 1). Thispaper focuses on theissues of craft, style, and exchange Forthe purpose of this study the term fineware is re- as theyrelate to political-economicchange in middle-range strictedto a suiteof American Bottom vessels that share societies.Specifically, I offer a functional analysis ofMissis- affinitieswith Caddoan and Coles Creekwares such as sippianfineware from the American Bottom. Archaeological CarterEngraved, French Fork Incised, Crockett Curvi- evidencesuggests that these eating and servingwares were linearIncised, and Holly Fine Engraved(Bareis and usedprimarily within public ceremonies at regionalpolitical centers.In additionto other craft goods, fineware vessels were componentsof a structuredceremonial context in whichideas and relationshipswere negotiated and definedin theMissis- sippianworld. Diachronie changes in theproduction, distri- bution,and use of thesewares correspondwith broader political-economicchanges in theAmerican Bottom.

Thestudy of prestige goods has contributedmuch to archaeologicalknowledge about nonstate political dy- namics(Brown et al. 1990;Dye 1995;Frankenstein and Rowlands1978; Steponaitis 1991; Welch 1991). As ref- erentsof status and corporategroup identity, prestige goods and othermaterial symbols provide unique in- sightinto the manner in which labor was appropriated and identitieswere constructed(Brown et al. 1990; Brumfieland Earle 1987; Earle 1990; Hayden 1998; Rees 1997;Sackett 1990). Understanding the politicaland ideologicaldimensions of these elaborately crafted ar- tifactsrequires investigating the contexts of production andthe processes of distribution (Helms 1979; Pauketat and Emerson1991; Steponaitis 1991). Indeed, several scholarsrecently have questioneda prioriassumptions thatall craftitems were prestige goods, the production and distributionof which were directly controlled by a politicalelite (Müller 1997; Saitta 1994). Archaeologists mustdiscern from where or from whom such craft items originated,whose interests they served, and whatkind ofsocioeconomic information they referenced. In thecase of the late prehistoric Southeast, it appears thatsuccess in chieflypolitical arenas was contingent upon theproduction, acquisition, and circulationof politicallycharged objects (Brown et al. 1990;Kelly 1980; Steponaitis1991; Welch 1991). These itemsplayed an importantrole in theexpression of chiefly sanctity and thelegitimation ofsocial inequality (Knight 1997; Welch 1991).The focus here is howchanges in the production, distribution,and use ofprestige goods relate to broader Figure1. The northernAmerican Bottom. 98

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTIONOF MISSISSIPPIANFINEWARE

Porter1965; Holley 1989; Kelly 1980; O'Brien 1972; Incised,and Yankeetown Incised are excluded from this Pauketat1998)1. These vessels have thin walls and com- finewareclassification. pactpastes tempered with finely crushed grog and /or Based on theirquality of manufacture and elaborate- shell(Holley 1989). Vessel surfaces are slippedor bur- nessof decoration, fineware pots have been interpreted nishedand oftendecorated with curvilinear, incised as prestigegoods, the circulation of which was directly linesseparated by zoned areas of excision(Figures 2, controlledby the Cahokian elite (Kelly 1991a; Pauketat 3). In an additionalproduction step, incised and excised 1994,1998). There has been somedebate regarding the areas sometimesare embellishedwith a red or white local or nonlocalorigin of finewarevessels recovered slip (Holley 1989; Kelly 1991a:80).Other decorated fromthe AmericanBottom (Bareis and Porter1965; waresfound in theAmerican Bottom such as Ramey Emersonand Jackson1984; Kelly 1980, 1991a; Pauketat Incised, Place Incised,Wells Engraved, Kersey 1990).Bareis and Porter's(1965) thinsection analysis

y g I 1 Ay h '

~ o io ' ^ ~y ^^r cm ^^

Figure2. Cahokianfineware vessels with Caddoan-like incised and exciseddesign fields, (a) incisedand excisedbeaker (adapted from Pauketat 1998:Figure 7.29); (b) incisedand excised constrictedbowl (adaptedfrom Holley 1989:Figure 24a).

Figure3. Coles Creek-likevessel from the High Prairiesite in theimmediate uplands of the AmericanBottom (adapted from Koldehoff 1982). 99

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHEASTERNARCHAEOLOGY 18(2) WINTER1999 of an elaboratelyincised and excisedbeaker from the The Lohmannphase marksthe establishment of the Cahokiasite suggests that some fineware vessels were Cahokiachiefdom as a regionally-consolidatedMissis- acquired fromoutside the AmericanBottom, and sippianpolity (Pauketat 1994, 1997). This periodwas O'Brien(1972) classified examples of Cahokian fineware characterizedby theappearance of a hierarchicallyor- fromthe Powell tractas nonlocaltrade wares. Later ganized politicallandscape centeredon the site of studies,however, have generated evidence for localized (Milner1990; Pauketat 1994). Pauketatand productionof finewarein the American Bottom. Lopinot(1997) report well-demarcated patterns of de- Holley's(1989:424) study of fine grog-tempered wares mographicnucleation at theCahokia site during this fromthe InterpretiveCenter Tract II revealed that time.There is also evidenceof increased craft produc- Cahokianfineware vessels have thinnerwalls and ex- tionand theconstruction of monumentalarchitecture hibita greateruse ofslipping than stylistically similar at administrativecenters (Dalan 1997;Pauketat 1997). vesselsfrom the Lower Valley and eastern The subsequentStirling phase representsCahokia's .Based on thisevidence, Holley (1989) and peak ofpolitical-economic complexity (Emerson 1991; others(Pauketet 1998) have argued that most fineware Fowler1978; Kelly 1991a; Milner 1986, 1990). This pe- vesselsin theAmerican Bottom were produced locally. riodis characterizedby theestablishment of Cahokia Ongoing neutronactivation analysis of Cahokian as a sacred or divine chiefship(Knight 1997:238; finewarevessels by the author may resolve this issue in Pauketat1992:323). Archaeologists also have recognized thenear future (see Steponaitiset al. 1996). Stirling-phasetrends of decentralization in theAmeri- Archaeologistshave yet to examine systematically the canBottom (Emerson 1991; Knight 1997; Pauketat 1992; roleof Cahokian fineware pots in ceremonial foodways. Pauketatand Lopinot1997). The increasedsacraliza- To understandbetter how Mississippianfineware was tionof theCahokian elite apparently involved a dis- usedwithin Cahokian society, I offer a functional analy- tancing of the elite from the everyday lives of sis ofvessel shapes and sizes and examinediachronic commoners(Knight 1997:238; Pauketat 1992:40). Activi- changesin the productionand distributionof these tiessuch as elaboratemortuary ritual and sweatlodge waresfor three periods of political-economic develop- ceremonialism,previously restricted toLohmann-phase mentin theAmerican Bottom - the Lohmannphase politicalcenters, began taking place in therural coun- (A.D. 1050-1100),the Stirling phase (A.D. 1100-1200), trysideof the Stirling-phase American Bottom (Emerson and theMoorehead phase (A.D. 1200-1275)(Figure 4)2. 1997a,1997b, 1997c; Emerson and Jackson1984; Kelly 1990; Pauketat 1994). The Stirlingphase also was Archaeological Developmental markedby an outmigrationof inhabitantsfrom the Phase Characteristics Cahokiasite into the rural countryside and perhaps also AD 1275 1 out of theAmerican Bottom region entirely (Emerson | 1 1991;Milner 1986; Pauketat and Lopinot1997). the late to Moorehead IntensifiedRegional Fact- During Stirlingphase early . . , , ionalism.Fortification of phase,these decentralizing trends began to be played MOOrehead MoundCenters. De- outon a muchbroader scale. Fortifications were erected crease inLong-Distance aroundthe perimeters of regional political centers, and Exchange. therewas a decreasein long-distance exchange (Ander- son and Milner AD 1200 1997;Iseminger Kelly1995; Knight 1997; 1990; Pauketat 1992, 1994). In political terms,the Mooreheadphase is thoughtto representa periodof intensified factionalism to an overall Developmentof Divine regional leading Chiefship.Wider Region- decline in Cahokian political-economiccomplexity AuAH ìibu1 1RO Qtirlinn al Circulationof Ceremon- (Emersonet al. 1996;Pauketat and Emerson1997a). In òiiriing jalArtjfacts Beginning less thana century,factional politics resulted in the Out-MigrationofPopulace fromCenter. politicaldecentralization of the Cahokia polity and the large-scaleabandonment of much of the American Bot- tomregion (Milner 1986; Pauketat and Emerson1997b; AD 1100 Pauketatand Lopinot1997). Havingreviewed Cahokia's historical trajectory, I now RegionalPolitical Consol- returnto a discussionof Cahokian fineware. I begin with LOhmann ¡dation.In-Migrationto a functional ofvessel surfacetreatments, Center. analysis pastes, shapes,and sizes.Next, I examinediachronic changes AD1050 I I inthe regional distribution of fineware vessels from the tothe of Figure4. Calibratedchronology of the American Bottom (sources: Lohmann-phase Moorehead-phaseoccupation Hall 1991;Kelly 1990; Knight 1997; Pauketat and Emerson1997a). theAmerican Bottom. 100

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTIONOF MISSISSIPPIANFINEWARE

VesselFunction kers,and jars. In termsof constricted bowls, round-sided bowls,and jars, the large size modeconsists of the larg- Pastecomposition and surfacetreatment are charac- est16 percent of these vessel classes. The large size mode teristicsthat can be relateddirectly to vesselfunction forbeakers and straight-walledbowls, on the other (Shepard1971:131). Technological studies of archaeo- hand,is madeup ofthe largest 11 percent, which corre- logicalceramics have demonstrated that fine paste ves- spondswith a naturalbreak in thedistribution of ori- sels exhibita higherresistance to mechanicalstress, ficediameters for these vessel classes. whileexhibiting a lower resistance to thermal stress than coarser paste vessels (Rice 1987; Shepard 1971; Steponaitis1984). Mississippian potters typically used Constrictedand Round-SidedBowls fineclay pastes to manufacture serving vessels, such as bowls,bottles, and beakers,that were exposed repeat- Constrictedbowls and round-sidedbowls have ori- edly to mechanicalstress (Million 1975; Steponaitis ficediameters that range from 5 cm to 52 cm and 8 cm 1984).Coarser pastes typically were selected to manu- to 46 cm, respectively(Figures 6, 7). The largestex- facturecooking vessels such as jars and pans (Million amplesof thesetwo finewarebowl classes are repre- 1975;Steponaitis 1984). sentedby vessels that have broad bases relative to orifice The compactpastes of Cahokianfineware vessels diameters(Figure 5a, 5f,5h). Thiswide, shallow shape suggesta non-cookingfunction. There is littledirect would have maximizedthe visibility of a vessel'scon- physicalevidence (i.e., soot, oxidation, thermal spalling) tents,and theiconographie designs often found on the of a cookingfunction for these vessels. Indeed, many upperportions of thesevessels would have been vis- thin-walledvessels were slippedand decoratedwith ible at a distance(Welch and Scarry1995:412)4. Given fine-lineincised and engraveddesign fields that would theirgeneral stability and overallsuitability for comes- nothave stoodup to a cookingfire (Holley 1989:411)3. tible display,these vessels probablyfunctioned as Shape and size are also importantconsiderations in group-servingplatters (Braun 1980:183; Hally 1986:278; understandingvessel function. Archaeological and eth- Shepard1971:238). nographicstudies have demonstratedthat vessel mor- Thelow volumecapacities of the smallest constricted phologycan be directlylinked to primaryuse (Blitz and round-sidedbowls suggest their use as individual- 1993;Braun 1980; DeBoer and Lathrap1979; Hally 1984, servingcontainers (Figure 5b, 5g, 5i; Braun1980:172; 1986;Pauketat 1987; Turner and Lofgren1966; Welch Henrickson and McDonald 1983:632; Shepard and Scarry1995). Table 1 presentsfineware vessel rims 1971:238).There is, however, a distinctsubclass of con- by shape and orificediameter from 15 Mississippian strictedbowls thatapproaches seed jars,or tecomates, sitesin theAmerican Bottom. Six generalmorphologi- in shape (Figure5c; Griffin1949; Taft 1996). The deep cal classes- constrictedbowls, round-sided bowls, bea- bodyand restrictedorifice of this vessel type indicates kers,straight-walled bowls, jars, and bottles- are thatcontainment security was a priority(Braun 1980; apparent(Figure 5). In addition,compound bowls and Shepard1971). The smallsize of thisvessel class does square-rimmedbowls are tentativelyclassified as notsuggest a processingfunction, as smallvolume ca- finewaremorphological classes based on minorsimi- pacitywould have limited the amount of food that could laritieswith other fineware forms. have been processed.Based on thesecharacteristics, I definedlarge and smallsize modesfor constricted thesetaller constricted bowls may have been serving bowls,round-sided bowls, straight-walled bowls, bea- and eatingcontainers for liquid foods.

Table1. Sourcesof Data forFunctional Analysis.

SiteName SiteType References

Cahokia RegionalCenter Holly 1989;O'Brien 1972; Pauketat 1987, 1993, 1998 Lohmann Local Center Esareyand Pauketat1992 EastSt. Louis Local Center Kelly1994 BBBMotor Nodal Emerson1997c; Emerson and Jackson1984 Sponemann Nodal Jacksonet al. 1992 Julien Nodal Emerson1997c; Milner 1984 LabrasLake Nodal Emerson1997c; Yerkes 1980 KarolRekas Farmstead Hanenberger1990 Fingers Farmstead Kelly1995 SandyRidge Farm Farmstead Jackson1990a RobertSchneider Farmstead Finney1985 Lab Woofie Farmstead Prenticeand Mehrer1981 HighPrairie UplandVillage Koldehoff1982 McCain Unknown Pauketat1986 Rapps Lizard Unknown Pauketat1984 101

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHEASTERNARCHAEOLOGY 18(2) WINTER1999

Figure5. Majorfineware vessel classed in theAmerican Bottom (sources: Holley 1989;Koldehoff 1982; O'Brien 1972; Pauketat 1998).

Figure6. Finewareconstricted bowls. Figure7. Finewareround-sided bowls.

Beakersand Straight-WalledBowls diameterratios. Beakers found in AmericanBottom assemblages,commonly referred to as Tippetsbean-pots It is oftendifficult to differentiatebetween beakers (e.g.,Griffin 1949), have thin,straight walls with flat or and straight-walledbowls due to similaritiesin their nearlyflat bases (Figure5e; Bareisand Porter1965; upperrim shapes. Consequently, I combined these ves- Emerson1984; Hall 1980;Jackson et al. 1992).Beakers sel classesfor purposes of size comparison.Following oftenhave lug handles, some in the form of arms Esareyand Pauketat (1992:23), beakers are "unrestricted (Figure5e; Griffin1949:58). Given their high height-to- orsimple restricted vessels" with high height-to-orifice orifice-diameterratios, beakers probably served as con- 102

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTIONOF MISSISSIPPIANFINEWARE tainersfor liquid foods or medicines. Most beakers have OtherVessel Shapes relativelysmall volume capacities and would have been used as individual-servingvessels, but certain large or OtherCahokian finewareshapes include square- oversizedbeakers may have functioned as group-serv- rimmedbowls and compoundbowls. Based on their ingvessels for drinking (Figure 8). rarityand unique style,these vessel typesare classi- As a vessel class,straight-walled bowls have com- fiedonly tentatively as fineware.O'Brien (1972:Figure positecontours with unrestricted orifices and relatively 60a) noted the presenceof a square-rimmed"peak flat,rounded bases (Holley 1989;Shepard 1971:231). bowl" in thePowell Tract assemblage. The rimof this Thesevessels generally are deeper than other fineware vessel "is foldedoutward and has a groovedown the bowl formsand mayactually grade into beakers (Fig- lip" (O'Brien1972:76). The interior surface has an elabo- ure5j, 5k). The high height-to-orifice diameter ratios of ratelyincised and excised"Caddoan-like" design. Con- somestraight-walled bowls suggests the need forcon- sideringits large shallow shape, this vessel likely was a tainmentsecurity. Based on thesecharacteristics, these servingplatter. A similarsquare-rimmed vessel from vesselsprobably were serving and eatingcontainers for theTurner site is redslipped and temperedwith crushed liquidfoods. grogand shell(Milner 1983:135-36). The compoundbowl is anotherunique vesselclass withinMississippian ceramic assemblages from the Jars AmericanBottom (Finney 1985:225; Holley 1989:Figure 15A;Pauketat 1987:9). These vessels have flatbottoms Finewarejars have orificediameters that range from with castellatedrims that are sometimes 3 cm to 24 cm fineware are mor- scalloped (Figure9). Many jars 15A;Pauketat 11).Con- similarto talland shortconstricted bowl (Holley1989:Figure 1987:Figure phologically sideringtheir small volume capacity (ca. 0.6-1.5liters), forms,but have short,vertical necks that would have these bowls functionedas indi- increasedcontainment Braun compound probably security(Figure 5d; vidualand containers(see Pauketat O'Brien 1971:229- small-groupserving 1980:175;Holley 1989; 1972;Shepard 1987). 30)5.Based on thesecharacteristics, these vessels, like thetall constricted bowl forms, may have been used as The Distributionof Fineware servingand eatingcontainers for liquid foods. Regional I have identifieddiachronic changes in theregional Bottles distributionof finewarevessels throughan examina- tionof the ceramicassemblages from 16 sitesin the Finewarebottles are rare in American Bottom ceramic AmericanBottom (Tables 2-5). These sites were selected assemblages.Both hooded and long-necked bottle forms based on thelevel of chronological control of the exca- havebeen identified and probably served as liquid-serv- vations,as well as the qualityand availabilityof ce- ingcontainers (Figure 51; Holley 1989; Milner 1984). The ramicdata fromsite reportsand otherpublications. smallsize ofmany fineware bottles suggests they were Notethat the sites selected for regional spatial analysis forindividual use, but the rarity of these vessels limits differsfrom those used forthe functional analysis pre- furtherfunctional inferences. sentedearlier in thetext.

Figure8. Finewarebeakers and straight-walledbowls. Figure9. Finewarejars. 103

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHEASTERNARCHAEOLOGY 18(2) WINTER1999

Clear-cutspatial differences are apparent in fineware Table3. DiachronieChanges in theRegional vessel frequenciesfrom Lohmann-phase (A.D. 1050- Distributionof Fineware3. 1100)sites in theAmerican Bottom. Lohmann-phase finewarevessel classes include beakers, straight-walled Lohmann% Stirling% Moorehead% bowls,constricted bowls, round-sided bowls, and com- Regional Centerb 2.4 6.6 4.3 poundbowls (Figure 10). Of the 8 Lohmann-phasesites Local Center0 1.0 2.0 No Data examined,fineware vessels were presentonly at the Civic-Ceremonial Nodesd 0 10.2 4.2 paramountcenter of Cahokia and a secondarypolitical Farmsteads6 0 6.0 No Data a center theLohmann site (Table 2). Fur- Fineware values representthe percentageof all vessels. representedby b ther,while Lohmann-phase fineware assemblages from Based on combined assemblages fromthe Cahokia site (Holly 1989; Pauketat 1987, 1993, 1998). Cahokiainclude round-sided bowls, constricted bowls, c Based on assemblages fromthe Lohmann site (Esarey and and beakers,the finewarevessel class recovered Pauketat 1992). only d fromthe Lohmann site was beakers,which suggests a Based on combined assemblages fromthe BBB Motor (Emerson more or restricteduse of finewareat sec- 1997c; Emerson and Jackson1984), Julien(Emerson 1997c; specialized Milner 1984), Range (Emerson 1997c); Sponemann (Jacksonet al. centers and Pauketat1992). 1992), and Labras Lake (Emerson 1997c; Yerkes 1980) sites. ondarypolitical (Esarey e Based on combined assemblages fromthe Carbon Dioxide (Finney 1985), Esterlein(Jackson 1990b), Karol Rekas (Hanenberger 1990), Hytla (Kelly 1997), Lab Woofie (Prentice and Mehrer 1981), Lily Lake (Norris 1978), Sandy Ridge Farm 60^ (Jackson1990a), Fingers (Kelly 1995), and Curtiss Steinberg Road (Kelly 1995) sites. 50 ^

30 § ^ ^

£ 20 ^ ^

10 ^ ^ o -I- 1^ - i- Bi^ - i- H^H^^HI - i Beakers/ Bowls Compound S.W. Bowls Bowls

Beakers/ Bowls Jars Compound Bottles 10. finewarevessel classes in the American S.W. Bowls Figure Lohmann-phase Bowls Bottom.

Figure11. Stirling-phasefineware vessel classes in theAmerican Table2. CeramicData fromLohmann-phase Sites in Bottom. theAmerican Bottom.

Site Total Vessels Total Fineware finewareforms include beakers, straight-walled bowls, B No are jars, bottles,and compound bowls. longer Cahokia 1453 35 finewarevessels restrictedto mound centers;rather, Lohmann 413 6 theyare widelydistributed among the rural populace BBB Motor 100 0 Fortier Julien 24 0 (Table4; 1985;Hanenberger 1990; Jackson 1990b; Range 35 0 Kelly1995; Prentice and Mehrer1981). Despite wider Carbon Dioxide 18 0 circulation,there are important differences between the George Reeves 19 0 fineware recoveredfrom Cahokia and the Hytla 10 0 assemblages restof thenorthern American Bottom. A greatersize Sources: Emerson 1997c:Tables5.1, 5.2, 5.4; Emerson and Jack- offineware bowls and beakers is foundat Cahokia son 1984; Esarey and Pauketat 1992:101; Finney 1985, 1987; range Holley 1989:403-425;Kelly 1997; Pauketat 1993, 1998. thanat all othersites in thenorthern American Bottom combined.Specifically, there is a markedabsence of largefineware bowls and beakersin theStirling-phase In the subsequentStirling phase (A.D. 1100-1200), countrysideof theAmerican Bottom (Figure 12). Al- thereis a substantialincrease in the frequencyand thoughsample size maybe an issue,this pattern sug- morphologicaldiversity of finewarevessels at the geststhat Stirling-phase ceremonial foodways in the Cahokiasite (2.4 percentin theLohmann phase to 6.6 vicinityof theCahokia site involved larger groups of percentin the Stirlingphase) and throughoutthe people thanthose in therural countryside (Blitz 1993; AmericanBottom (Table 3; Figure11). Stirling-phase Turnerand Lofgren1966). 104

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTIONOF MISSISSIPPIANFINEWARE

Table4. CeramicData from Sitesin the Stirling-phase 80 AmericanBottom. ^^^^^^h 70 ^^^^^H Site Total Vessels Total Fineware 60 ^^^^^^H Cahokia 1506 99 ^ 50 ^^^^^H Lohmann 155 3 BBB Motor 52 3 | 40 ^^^^^^H Julien 60 1 £ 30 Sponemann 173 19 ^^^^^H Labras Lake 28 6 20 Karol Rekas 5 1 ^^^^^^J 1 10 Sandy Ridge Farm 5 ^^^^^^1 ^^^^^^| RobertSchneider 13 2 Fingers 29 1 Esterlein 8 0 Beakers/ S.W. Bowls Bowls Bottles Curtiss Steinberg 1 0 Lily Lake 192 10 Figure13. Moorehead-phase finewarevessel classes in the Sources: Emerson 1997c:Tables5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9; Emerson and AmericanBottom. Jackson1984; Esarey and Pauketat 1992:101; Fortier1985; Holley 1989:403-425;Jackson and Hanenberger 1990; Kelly 1995; Norris 1978; Pauketat 1993, 1998; Yerkes 1980. Table5. CeramicData fromMoorehead-phase Sites in theAmerican Bottom.

Site Total Vessels Total Fineware

Cahokia 444 19 Julien 24 1

Sources: Emerson 1997c:Table 5.10; Holley 1989:403-425; Milner 1984; Pauketat 1998.

Discussion

I haveidentified six fineware vessel classes in Ameri- can Bottomceramic assemblages - beakers,straight- walled bowls,constricted bowls, round-sided bowls, jars,and bottles. Based on theirphysical properties and morphologicalcharacteristics, these vessels were used primarilyfor food serving and eating.Both small group andindividual serving vessels appear to be represented. Diachroniechanges in theregional distribution and ceremonialuses offineware pots correspond to broader political economic changes in the Cahokia polity (Emerson1997c; Kelly 1991b; Knight 1997; Milner 1986; Pauketat1992, 1994). The Lohmannphase (A.D.1050- 1100)was a timewhen finewarevessels and thecer- emonial activitiesin which they were used were Figure12. Large-to-smallfineware vessel ratiosfor the Stirling-phase restrictedprimarily to AmericanBottom political cen- American Bottom. ters(Table 3; Esareyand Pauketat1992; Holley 1989; Kelly 1980; Pauketat 1994). Moreover,the use of Withthe Moorehead phase (A.D. 1200-1275),fineware finewarevessels appears to have been morerestricted frequenciesdecreased to 4.3 percent at theCahokia site and/or specialized at political centersoutside of (Table3). Thisregional decline in finewarefrequencies Cahokia.This suggests that in thedecades bracketing mayrelate to theintroduction and use ofother variet- theregional consolidation of the Cahokia polity, it was ies of servingware such as Mound Place Incisedand necessaryfor the chiefly elite to regulate closely certain WellsBroad Trailed (Holley 1989:236-39; Kelly 1991b:7; ritualactivities to producethe new Mississippianpo- Vogel1975). Moorehead-phase fineware vessel classes litical order and to integratea greatlyexpanded includebeakers, straight-walled bowls, jars, and bottles Cahokian community(Pauketat 1994; Pauketatand (Figure13). A lackof excavated Moorehead-phase sites Lopinot1997). in therural countryside limits attempts to identifypat- It is worthnoting that this centralized distribution of ternsof regional distribution. decoratedserving wares parallels patterns of ceramic 105

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHEASTERNARCHAEOLOGY 18(2) WINTER1999 productionand consumptionduring the early Missis- ideas aboutcosmological order and balance(Pauketat sippianoccupation of the Moundville in the and Emerson1991). BlackWarrior Valley (Blitz 1993; Knight 1997; Knight Itis noteworthythat some of the more common icono- and Steponaitis1998; Welch and Scarry1995). This evi- graphiedesigns on Ramey pots also are found on dencefor the elite control of ceremonial wares contrasts Cahokianfineware, including variants of the spiral and withtrends in otherportions of the early Mississippian volutemotif and othercurvilinear designs (Emerson Southeast.Blitz (1993:168) has identifieda non-central- 1989;Pauketat and Emerson1991). Like Ramey Incised ized distributionof Mississippian serving ware among pots,Stirling-phase fineware vessels may have served thesimple chiefdoms of the Tombigbee Valley of west- bothas mediato conveyideas aboutthe sanctification ernAlabama. This interregional variation illustrates the ofchiefly authority and as a meansto counter"the in- differencesin politicalcomplexity between simple and creasingpractical alienation of the commonersfrom complexMississippian chiefdoms (Steponaitis 1991). theirleaders" (Knight 1997:240). Considering the shal- Finewarevessels had a widerregional circulation in low shapesand lowvolume capacities of most fineware thesubsequent Stirling phase (A.D. 1100-1200)(Table vessels,however, it is unlikelythat they were contain- 3). Ruralceremonial nodes with ritual architecture and ers forthe centralizedredistribution of comestibles. elaboratemagico-ritual items also appearat thistime, Rather,fineware pots may have been material symbols suggestingthat Mississippian ceremonial activities were distributedout to loyalfollowers for use in ruralcer- less centralizedor restrictedin theStirling phase than emonialism.Such activities would have playedan im- in the precedingLohmann phase (Emerson1997b; portantrole in integratingdispersed agricultural Emersonand Jackson 1984; Knight 1997; Pauketat 1992). communities(Emerson 1997c; Mehrer 1988; Milner Emerson(1991) has arguedthat the Stirling phase rep- 1990). resentsboth the peak ofCahokia's sociopolitical com- Duringthe Moorehead phase (A.D. 1200-1275),there plexity,as wellas thebeginnings of its decline. He sees is a declinein the frequency of fineware vessels through- an outmigrationof the region's inhabitants in reaction out the AmericanBottom (Table 3). At this time, topolitical-economic domination by the Cahokian elite finewareserving vessels likely were replaced by Mound (Emerson1991:235). Moreover, Pauketat (1992) argues PlaceIncised and WellsIncised bowls and plates(Kelly thatthe increased sacralization of the Stirling-phase 1991b).These Moorehead-phase patterns represent sig- Cahokianelite, combined with the increased autonomy nificantchanges in thenature of Cahokian ceremonial ofrural districts, may have led to intensifiedfactional- practices,as well as broaderchanges in Cahokianpo- ismin theAmerican Bottom. liticalculture. Kelly (1991b) has notedthe widespread Thereare manypossible explanations for the wide distributionof Wells Incised-like plates throughout the circulationof finewarevessels in the Stirling-phase Middle MississippianSoutheast. The appearanceof countrysideof the American Bottom. Considering the theseceremonial wares suggests that Moorehead-phase Stirling-phasetrends of decentralizationproposed by changes in the American Bottomwere related to Emerson(1991) and Pauketat(1992), it is possiblethat panregionalchanges in Mississippianpolitical symbol- lesserelites capitalized on thegrowing social gulf be- ismand ceremonialpractices (Anderson 1997). tweenelite and commonerclasses (see also Knight The resultsof thisstudy reveal that changes in the 1997).By usurpingvarious religious and ceremonial production,exchange, and use ofprestige goods corre- responsibilities,politically marginalized elites may have spondwith changes in thedevelopmental trajectories creatednew positionswithin the regionalsettlement of Mississippianchiefdoms like Cahokia (Pauketat hierarchyto bettercompete for social status.Accord- 1992).To reproducetheir political and religiousauthor- ingly,the rural circulation of fineware pots might rep- ity,the Mississippian elite had tocontend with dynamic, resentattempts by theselesser elites to moredirectly ever-changingcultural landscapes. The archaeological engagethe rural populace. examinationof prestige goods and othermaterial sym- Itis also possiblethat the regional circulation of Mis- bols opens a window throughwhich these changing sissippianfineware was directlyorchestrated by the landscapesand theactors that shaped them can be more Cahokianelite. To curb intensifying forces of decentrali- closelyexamined. zation,Cahokian administrators may have opted to cir- culatemore widely ceremonial items like fineware pots Notes (see Pauketat1992). Pauketat and Emerson(1991) have noteda similarlydispersed regional distribution for Acknowledgments.This paperbenefited greatly from the sugges- RameyIncised jars during the Stirling phase. They in- tionsof Vincas Steponaitis, Margie Scarry, John Scarry, Steve Davis, ideas on terpretRamey Incised jars as containersfor the central- AmberVanDerwarker, and ChrisRodning. My Mississip- ized redistributionof and pianpolitical economy and ceramictechnology have also benefited "medicines,comestibles, from conversationswith Tim Brad Pauketat and Emerson past Pauketat,John Kelly, ideology" (Emerson 1989; Koldehoff,Mintcy Maxham, and JohnWalthall. A specialthanks 1997b:271).The redundantdesign fields on RameyIn- goes to MarkRees forthe many stimulating conversations we had cisedvessel rims are thought to reference dominant elite whiledrinking coffee and eatingjambalaya. 106

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTIONOF MISSISSIPPIANFINEWARE

1 Thisis a morerestricted definition of Mississippian fineware than 1989 Water,Serpents, and theUnderworld: An Explorationinto employedby Blitz(1993) in his analysisof Mississippian ceramics Cahokia Symbolism. In The SoutheasternCeremonial Complex: fromthe Tombigbee River Valley. Artifactsand Analysis, edited by P. Galloway,pp. 45-92.Univer- 2 Age rangesfor phases are based on calibratedradiocarbon deter- sityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln. minationsas firstset be Hall (1991). 1991 Some Perspectiveson Cahokia and the NorthernMissis- 3 Holley(1989:411) identified fine grog-tempered vessels from the sippian Expansion. In Cahokiaand theHinterlands: Middle Mis- InterpretiveCenter-II tract with walls thatare "egg-shellthick sissippianCultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emersonand (2mm)." R. B. Lewis,pp. 221-36.University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 4 A totalof eight of the eleven large bowls in thissample were deco- 1997a Reflectionsfrom the Countryside on CahokianHegemony. ratedwith incised and /or excised design fields. In Cahokia:Domination and Ideologyin theMississippian World, 5 In otherportions of the Southeast this vessel shape has beenclas- editedby T. R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp. 167-189.Uni- sifiedas a short-neckbowl (Steponaitis1983:68). versityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997b CahokianElite Ideology and theMississippian Cosmos. In Cahokia:Domination and Ideologyin theMississippian World, ed- ReferencesCited itedby T. R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp. 190-228.Univer- sityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997c Cahokiaand the Power. of David G. Archaeologyof University Anderson, Tuscaloosa. 1997 TheRole of Cahokia in theEvolution of Southeastern Mis- Press, Thomas and K. and in the Emerson, E., Douglas Jackson sissippian Society. In Cahokia: Domination Ideology 1984 TheBBB MotorSite. American Bottom FAI- edited T. R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson, Archaeology, MississippianWorld, by 270 SiteReports 6. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. 167-189. ofNebraska Press, Lincoln. pp. University Emerson,Thomas E., KristinHedman, Mary Simon, and Valerie Bareis,Charles J., and JamesW. Porter Williams 1965 Megascopicand PétrographieAnalysis of a ForeignPot- 1996 New Data and intothe Cahokian Col- Vesselfrom the Cahokia Site. American 31:95-101. PreliminaryInsights tery Antiquity lapse. Paperpresented at the61st Annual Meeting of the Soci- Blitz, John etyfor American Archaeology, New Orleans. 1993 Potsfor Shots: and in a Big Big Feasting Storage Mississip- Esarey,Duane, and TimothyR. Pauketat pian Community.American Antiquity 58:80-96. 1992 TheLohmann Site: An Centerin theAmeri- David P. EarlyMississippian Braun, canBottom. American Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports 1980 ofCeramic Vessel Use on the ExperimentalInterpretations 25. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. Basisof Rim and NeckFormal Attributes. In The NavajoProject, Finney,Fred A. edited D. C. Feironet 171-231.Research No. 1. by al.,pp. Paper 1985 TheCarbon Dioxide Site. American Bottom Archaeology, FAI- Museumof Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 270Site Reports 11, Part 1. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. RichardA. and HowardD. Winters Brown,James A., Kerber, 1987 Ceramics.In TheGeorge Reeves Site, American Bottom Ar- 1990 Tradeand theEvolution of Relationsat theBe- Exchange chaeology,FAI-270 Site Reports 15, by D. L. McElrathand F.A. ofthe Period.In The Emer- ginning Mississippian Mississippian Finney,pp. 222-59,276-81, 340-46. University of IllinoisPress, gence,edited by B. D. Smith,pp. 251-280. Smithsonian Urbana. InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C. Fortier,Andrew C. Elizabeth and K. Earle Brumfiel, M., Timothy 1985 TheRobert Schneider Site. American Bottom Archaeology, 1987 and Societies:An In- Specialization,Exchange, Complex FAI-270Site Reports 11, Part 2. Universityof Illinois Press, Ur- troduction. In Specialization,Exchange, and ComplexSocieties, bana. editedby E. M. Brumfieland T. K. Earle,pp. 1-9.Cambridge Fowler,Melvin L. UniversityPress, Cambridge. 1978 Cahokiaand theAmerican Bottom: Settlement Archaeol- Rinita Dalan, ogy. In MississippianSettlement Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith, 1997 The Constructionof MississippianCahokia. In Cahokia: pp. 455-478.Academic Press, New York. Dominationand Ideologyin theMississippian World, edited by T. Frankenstein,Susan, and MichaelJ. Rowlands R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp. 89-102.University of Ne- 1978 The InternalStructure and RegionalContext of Early Iron braskaPress, Lincoln. Age Societyin SouthwesternGermany. University ofArchaeol- DeBoer,Warren R., and Donald W. Lathrap ogy Bulletin15:73-112. 1979 TheMaking and Breakingof Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In Griffin,James B. Ethnoarchaeology:Implications of Ethnographyfor Archaeology, 1949 TheCahokia Ceramic Complexes. In Proceedingsofthe Fifth editedby C. Kramer,pp. 102-138.Columbia University Press, PlainsConference, assembled by J.Chample, pp. 44-58.Labora- New York. toryof Anthropology, Notebook No. 1. Universityof Nebraska, Dye,David H. Lincoln. 1995 Feastingwith the Enemy: Mississippian Warfare and Pres- Hall, RobertL. tige-Goods Circulation. In Native AmericanInteractions: 1980 An Interpretationof theTwo-climax Model Model of Illi- MultiscalarAnalyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, nois Prehistory.In EarlyNative America: Prehistoric Demography, editedby M. S. Bassaneyand K. E. Sassaman,pp. 289-316.Uni- Economy,and Technology, edited by D. L. Browman,pp. 401-62. versityof Press, Knoxville. The Hague, Mouton. Earle,Timothy 1991 CahokiaIdentity and InteractionModels of CahokiaMis- 1990 Style and Iconographyas Legitimationin Complex sissippian. In Cahokiaand theHinterlands: Mississippian Cultures Chiefdoms. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology,edited by M. ofthe Midwest, edited by T. E. Emersonand R. B. Lewis,pp. 3- Conkeyand C. Hastorf,pp. 73-81.Cambridge University Press, 34. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. Cambridge. Hally,David J. Emerson,Thomas E. 1984 VesselAssemblages and FoodHabits: A Comparisonof Two 1984 TheStirling Phase Occupation. In TheBBB Motor Site, by T. AboriginalSoutheastern Vessel Assemblages. Southeastern Ar- E. Emersonand D. K. Jackson,pp. 197-321.American Bottom chaeology31:46-64. Archaeology,FAI-270 Site Reports 6. Universityof Illinois Press, 1986 The Identificationof VesselFunction: A Case Studyfrom Urbana. NorthwestGeorgia. American Antiquity 51:267-95. 107

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 18(2) WINTER 1999

Hanenberger,Ned H. sippianWorld, edited by T. R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp. 1990 TheKarol Rekas Site. In SelectedEarly Mississippian House- 229-247.University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln. holdSites in theAmerican Bottom, American Bottom Archaeol- Knight,Vernon James, Jr., and VincasP. Steponaitis ogy,FAI-270 Site Reports22. by D. K. Jacksonand N. H. 1998 A New Historyof Moundville of Moundville. In Archaeol- Hanenberger,pp. 425-509.University of Illinois Press, Urbana. ogyof the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by J. K. Knight,Jr. and V. Hayden,Brian P. Steponaitis,pp. 1-25.Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- 1998 Practicaland PrestigeTechnologies: The Evolutionof Ma- ington,D.C. terialSystems. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 5(1):1- Koldehoff,Brad 56. 1982 A Coles CreekVessel from Cahokia's Hinterland. Illinois Helms,Mary Antiquity14:20-23. 1979 AncientPanama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Mehrer,Mark W. Austin. Press, 1988 TheSettlement Patterns and Social Power of Cahokia's Hinter- and M. McDonald Henrickson,E., landHouseholds, Ph.D. dissertation.University of Illinois,Ur- 1983 CeramicForm and Function:An ethnographicSearch and bana. American 85:630-643. ArchaeologicalApplication. Anthropologist Million,Michael G. Holley,George R. 1975 Ceramic ofthe Nodena Phase A.D. Illi- Technology Peoples(ca. 1989 TheArchaeology ofthe Cahokia ICT-II:Ceramics. Southeastern Bulletin18:201- noisCultural Resource 11.Illinois Historic Preservation 1400-1700). ArchaeologicalConference Study 208. Agency,Springfield. R. William and E. Milner,George Iseminger, R., John Kelly 1983 TheTurner and Sites.American Bottom Archaeol- 1995 Partitioningthe Sacred Precinct. Cahokian (Summer:3-5). DeMange FAI-270Site 4. ofIllinois Press, Urbana. Jackson,Douglas K. ogy, Reports University 1984 TheJulien Site (U-S-63). American Bottom FAI- 1990a The Sandy Ridge FarmSite (ll-S-660). In SelectedEarly Archaeology, 270 Site 7. ofIllinois Press, Urbana. HouseholdSites in theAmerican Bottom, by D. K. Reports University Mississippian 1986 Period in a of Jacksonand N. H. Hanenberger,pp. 91-216.American Bottom Mississippian PopulationDensity Segment theCentral American 51:227-38. Archaeology,FAI-270 Site Reports22. Universityof Illinois MississippiValley. Antiquity Press,Urbana. 1990 The Late PrehistoricCahokia Cultural System of theMis- River and 1990b The EsterleinSite. In SelectedEarly Mississippian Household sissippi Valley:Foundations, Florescence, Fragmen- World Sites in theAmerican Bottom, by D. K. Jacksonand N. H. tation.Journal of Prehistory4:1-43. Hanenberger,pp. 91-216.American Bottom Archaeology, FAI- Muller,Jon 270Site Reports 22. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. 1997 MississippianPolitical Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Jackson,Douglas K., Andrew C. Fortier,and JoyceA. Williams Norris,F. Terry 1992 TheSponemann Site 2: TheMississippian and Occupa- 1978 Excavationat theLily Lake Site: 1975 Season. Reports in Con- tions.American Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports 24. tractArchaeology 4. SouthernIllinois Universityat Universitvof Illinois Press, Urbana. Edwardsville. Jackson,Douglas K., and Ned H. Hanenberger O'Brien,Patricia J. 1990 SelectedEarly Mississippian Household Sites in theAmerican 1972 A FormalAnalysis of CahokiaCeramics from the Powell Bottom.American Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports 22. Trflcf.Monograph3. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana. Pauketat,Timothy R. Kelly,John E. 1984 Noteson SomeNon-local Ceramics from an AmericanBot- 1980 FormativeDevelopments at Cahokia and theAdjacent Ameri- tomCollection. Illinois Antiquity 16(l):4-6. canBottom: A MerrellTract Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- 1986 PredictingOccupation Span from Ceramic Refuse: A CaseStudy sertation. Department of Anthropology,University of fromthe American Bottom. Unpublished Masters thesis. Depart- ,Madison. mentof Anthropology, University, Carbondale. 1990 The Emergenceof in theAmerican 1987 A FunctionalConsideration of a MississippianDomestic In The edited B. D. BottomRegion. MississippianEmergence, by VesselAssemblage. Southeastern Archaeology 6:1-15. 113-52.Smithsonian Institution Smith,pp. Press,Washington, 1990 Ceramics.In TheArchaeology ofthe Cahokia : The East D.C. PalisadeInvestigations, by W. R. Iseminger,T. R. Pauketat,B. 1991a TheEvidence for Prehistoric and Its Exchange Implications Koldehoff,L. S. Kelly,and L. Blake,pp. 39-76.Illinois Cultural forthe ofCahokia. In New onCahokia, Development Perspectives ResourcesStudy 14. Illinois HistoricPreservation Agency, editedby J. Stoltman, pp. 65-92.Prehistory Press, Madison. and Springfield. 1991b WellsIncised Plates: Symbolic Antecedents Spatial 1992 The and Ruinof the Lords of Cahokia: A Dialecticof Affinities. atthe 36th Annual Midwest Archaeo- Reign Paperpresented Dominance.In Lords theSoutheast: Social and the Wisconsin. of Inequality logicalConference, LaCrosse, NativeElites SoutheasternNorth edited A. W.Barker 1994 The ofthe East St. Louis Mound Center: Past of America, by Archaeology and T. R. 31-52. 3. Ameri- and Present.Illinois 6:1-57. Pauketat,pp. ArchaeologicalPapers Archaeology can D.C. 1995 The andCurtiss RoadSites: Two Phase AnthropologicalAssociation, Washington Fingers Steinberg Stirling 1993 CahokianLords: Preston Holder's 1955-1956 Exca- MississippianFarmsteads in theGoose Lake Locality. Illinois Trans- Templesfor Research No. 1. IllinoisTrans- vationsof Kunnemann Mound. Memoir 26. Museumof Anthro- portationArchaeological Reports of AnnArbor. ArchaeologicalResearch Program, University of pology,University Michigan, portation 1994 TheAscent Cahokiaand Politicsin Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. ofChiefs: Mississippian NativeNorth America. ofAlabama Tuscaloosa. 1997 TheMetroeast Emergency Project Phase I, II, andIII: Archaeo- University Press, 1997 CahokianPolitical In Cahokia:Domination and logicalInvestigations ofthe Drainage Ditch Cleanout in Madison Economy. T. R. and andSt. ClairCounties, Illinois. Research Reports No. 53. Illinois Ideologyin theMississippian World, edited by Pauketat ofNebraska Lincoln. TransportationArchaeological Research Program, University of T. E. Emerson,pp 30-51.University Press, Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. 1998 TheArchaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract-15A and Knight,Vernon James, Jr. DunhamTract Excavations. Studies in ArchaeologyNo. 1. Illi- 1997 Some DevelopmentalParallels between Cahokia and noisTransportation Archaeological Research Program, Univer- Moundville.In Cahokia:Domination and Ideologyin theMissis- sityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. 108

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MISSISSIPPIAN FINEWARE

Pauketat,Timothy R., and ThomasE. Emerson Steponaitis,Vincas P. 1991 TheIdeology of Authority and thePower of the Pot. Ameri- 1983 Ceramics,Chronology, and CommunityPatterns: An Archaeo- can Anthropologist93:919-41. logicalStudy at Moundville.Academic Press, New York. 1997a Introduction:Domination and Ideologyin theMississip- 1984 TechnologicalStudies of Prehistoric Pottery from Alabama: pian World. In Cahokia:Domination and Ideologyin theMississip- PhysicalProperties and VesselFunction. In TheMany Dimen- pianWorld, edited by T. R. Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp 1-29. sionsof Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeologyand Anthropology,edited Universityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln. byS. E. van derLeeuw and A. C. Pritchard,pp. 79-122.Univer- 1997b Conclusion:Cahokia and theFour Winds. In Cahokia:Domi- sityof Amsterdam, Amsterdam. nationand Ideologyin theMississippian World, edited by T. R. 1991 ContrastingPatterns of MississippianDevelopment. In Pauketatand T. E. Emerson,pp. 269-279.University of Nebraska Chiefdoms:Power, Economy, and Ideology,edited by TimothyEarle, Press,Lincoln. pp.193-228. Cambridge Universitv Press, Cambridge. Pauketat,Timothy R., and Neil H. Lopinot Steponaitis,Vincas P., M. JamesBlackman, and HectorNeff 1997 CahokianPopulation Dynamics. In Cahokia:Domination and 1996 Large-ScalePatterns in theChemical Composition of Mis- Ideologyin theMississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and sissippianPottery. American Antiquity 61:555-572. T. E. Emerson,pp. 103-123.University of Nebraska Press, Lin- Taft,Kristi E. coln. 1996 FunctionallyRelevant Classes of Potteryat Moundville.Un- Prentice,Guy, and MarkMehrer publishedMasters thesis. Department of Anthropology,Uni- 1981 The Lab WoofieSite (ll-S-346):An UnplowedMississip- versityof Alabama, Tuscaloosa. pian Site in the American Bottom Region of Illinois. Turner,Christy G., and LaurelLofgren MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology 6:33-53. 1966 Household Size of PrehistoricWestern Pueblo Indians. Rees,Mark A. SouthwesternJournal of Anthrovolovy22:117-132. 1997 Coercion,Tribute and ChieflyAuthority: The Regional Vogel,Joseph O. Developmentof MississippianPolitical Culture. Southeastern 1975 Trendsin CahokianCeramics: Preliminary Study of the Archaeology16:113-133. Collectionsfrom Tracts 15A and 15B.In Perspectivesin Cahokia Rice,Prudence M. Archaeology,edited by J.A. Brown,pp. 32-125.Bulletin 10. Illi- 1987 PotteryAnalysis: A Sourcebook.University of Press, nois ArchaeologicalSurvey, Urbana. Chicago. Welch,Paul D. Sackett,James R. 1991 Moundville'sEconomy. Press, 1990 Style and Ethnicityin Archaeology: The Case for Tuscaloosa. Isochrestism.In The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology,edited by M. C. Welch,Paul D., and C. MargaretScarry Conkeyand C. Hastorf,pp. 32-43.Cambridge University Press, 1995 Status-relatedVariation in Foodways in the Moundville Cambridge. Chiefdom.American Antiquity 60:397-419. Saitta,Dean J. Yerkes,Richard W 1994 Agency,Class, and ArchaeologicalInterpretation. Journal 1980 TheMississippian Component. In Investigationsatthe Labras ofAnthropological Archaeology 13:201-227. LakeSite, pp. 143-264.Department of Anthropology, University Shepard,Anna O. ofIllinois at Chicago. 1971 Ceramicsfor the Archaeologist. Publication 609. Carnegie In- stitutionof Washington, Washington, D.C.

109

This content downloaded on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:20:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions