DOCSLIB.ORG

Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983, (C0780)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983, (C0780) C Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983 780 10.7 linear feet This collection is available at The State Historical Society of Missouri. If you would like more information, please contact us at [email protected]. INTRODUCTION The records of an organization of amateur and professional archaeologists headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. Includes extensive members’ correspondence, membership lists, executive committee correspondence, annual meeting notes, activities of local chapters, financial records, newspaper clippings, and photographs. This collection documents and illustrates the members’ archaeological interests and the organization’s efforts to protect and preserve the archaeological resources of Missouri. DONOR INFORMATION The records were placed on contract with the University of Missouri by the Missouri Archaeological Society through Carl Chapman on 10 September 1981 (Accession No. 4367). Additions were made on 12 January 1982 (Accession No. 4398); 7 January 1985 and 5 February 1985 (Accession No. 4609); and 3 April 1986 (Accession No. 4708). ORGANIZATIONAL SKETCH In 1930 Bagnell Dam was completed and Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks was formed. When the waters swept over the area without any sort of archaeological reconnaissance the Indian remains there were lost forever. Shocked by this loss of information, Professors Jesse E. Wrench and J. Brewton Berry of the University of Missouri decided something had to be done. Within a short time they contacted those they knew to be interested in Missouri archaeology and started an archaeological survey of the state, which would utilize amateur archaeologists. These efforts proved so satisfactory that by 1934 the project was funded by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and involved seventy-five paid workers. Several thousand Indian sites were located, as well as several hundred people interested in archaeology. Amateurs, with only a little professional guidance, proved they could make a valuable contribution. By the end of 1934, federal money for the project had run out. Since many in Missouri desired the work to continue, it was believed a state organization should be formed. In December 1934 a number of interested individuals, led by Wrench, Berry and Henry Hamilton of Marshall, met in Columbia and began the State Archaeological Society of Missouri. In 1946 the name was changed to the Missouri Archaeological Society. The society was created for the purposes of preserving the remains of the prehistoric peoples of Missouri, studying those remains scientifically, publishing information about them, providing amateur and professional archaeologists with opportunities to discuss common interests, and arousing public opinion to the appreciation of Missouri’s antiquities. Closing the gap between the amateur and the professional archaeologist has been one of the society’s long-standing goals and one of its greatest accomplishments. C780 Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983 Page 2 A number of successes have been recorded by the society in attempting to preserve the remains of the prehistoric peoples of Missouri: getting a Hopewellian site added to Van Meter State Park, arranging for the restoration and protection of petroglyphs in Washington State Park, and operating field camps in various parts of the state. The latter also provided educational opportunities that helped convert “pot- hunters” into more scientifically oriented amateurs. From annual meetings, programs of local chapters, and correspondence with the society’s staff, members learned to keep records of their finds and to number artifacts to correspond with the site locations where they were found. To provide information about archaeological remains, the society began publishing a scholarly quarterly, The Missouri Archaeologist, and a newsletter. Prior to 1980, the society issued publications devoted to one theme or site, the Memoir Series and the Research Series. Articles submitted by society members in these publications disseminated information about Missouri’s archaeological resources. Talks by members to various civic organizations, schools, and clubs and newspaper articles about society activities also helped provide the public with information. Since its establishment, the Missouri Archaeological Society has worked closely with the University of Missouri. The first officers of the society were university faculty members Jesse E. Wrench, president, (from the History Department) and J. Brewton Berry, secretary, (from the Sociology Department). The society’s constitution stipulates that the secretary must be the archaeologist of the University of Missouri, and this has allowed greater coordination between amateur and professional archaeologists of the state. University students, along with amateur and professional archaeologists, have utilized the opportunities offered by the society. Following the death of Jesse E. Wrench in 1958, Henry W. Hamilton became the society’s president and served until 1980. He was succeeded by Michael R. Fisher. In 1946 Carl H. Chapman assumed the secretaryship and served until his retirement in 1980. During sabbaticals and leaves of absence, Chapman was relieved by Robert F.G. Spier, Dale R. Henning, Richard O. Keslin, and Richard A. Marshall. Other officers of the society, vice-presidents and trustees, have been mainly from Missouri and from a wide range of occupations. SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE These records document the activities of the Missouri Archaeological Society from its inception to 1983. The records have been arranged into the following two series: Correspondence and Miscellaneous. The Correspondence series is especially rich and contains correspondence from members (mainly amateur archaeologists) and includes questions regarding archaeological procedures such as site excavation, and the identification of discoveries, and drawings and photographs of artifacts. Replies from the society’s staff are written in a readily accessible, generally nontechnical, style. Inquiries concerning billing, dues, and publications also constitute a large part of the correspondence. The society’s lobbying efforts in the 1960s and 1970s for legislation to protect, in particular, Missouri’s archaeological resources may also be found in the correspondence series. Brought out also in this series is the close relationship between the University of Missouri and the Missouri Archaeological Society. Overall, the correspondence is most C780 Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983 Page 3 complete for the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s. The series has been arranged chronologically. The Miscellaneous series includes the files of the organization arranged chronologically by topic: executive committee correspondence, site preservation committee material, annual meeting notes and minutes, membership lists (partial), programs for chapters, activities of the Kansas City and Ozarks chapters (two of the more active chapters), society awards, financial records (partial), participation in the Missouri State Fair, Missouri Archaeological Survey, newspaper clippings, and photographs. While not as extensive or complete as the correspondence, the these files help present the internal dynamics of the organization. FOLDER LIST Correspondence Series Covering parts of six decades, this series generally consists of letters and cards sent to the Missouri Archaeological Society’s staff and their replies. Topics include inquiries about the identification of artifacts and other discoveries and sites and site excavations in Missouri and other states; the production of society publications; membership problems regarding dues, reception of publications, and renewals; involvement of the society and its members in the preservation of archaeological sites and in “salvage archaeology” (recording information about sites threatened by highway or reservoir construction); educational summer field camps held by the society and the University of Missouri; preparations for annual meetings; the formation of chapters and their activities and meetings; and a small amount of material specifically regarding the Missouri Archaeological Survey. f. 1-22 1934. Organization of the Missouri Archaeological Survey. f. 23-28 1935. Beginning of the Missouri Archaeological Society. f. 29-35 1936 f. 36-44 1937 f. 44-56 1938 f. 56-68 1939 f. 69-78 1940 f. 78-92 1941 f. 92-97 1942 f. 97-99 1943-1944 f. 99-104 1945 f. 104-115 1946 f. 116-145 1947 f. 146-160 1948 f. 161-179 1949 f. 179-199 1950 f. 200-220 1951 f. 221-255 1952 f. 255-291 1953 C780 Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983 Page 4 f. 191-335 1954 f. 335-373 1955 f. 373-410 1956 f. 410-447 1957 f. 448-489 1958 f. 490-495 1959 f. 495-526 1960 f. 527-558 1961 f. 559-583 1962 f. 583-603 1963 f. 604-627 1964 f. 627-630 1965 f. 630-644 1966 f. 644-663 1967 f. 663-675 1968 f. 675-680 1969 f. 680-687 1970 f. 687-694 1971 f. 694-703 1972 f. 703-710 1973 f. 711-714 1974 f. 714-715 1975 f. 715-716 1976 f. 717-718 1977 f. 718-720 1978 f. 720-724 1979 f. 724-728 1980 f. 728-729 1981-1983 f. 730 Undated Miscellaneous Series f. 731-736 Executive Committee, 1955-1978, n.d. Correspondence, minutes of meetings, and some financial records. f. 737-738 Site Preservation Committee, 1946, 1959-1974, n.d. Correspondence regarding activities of committee, preservation of Missouri archaeological sites, and lobbying efforts to preserve archaeological material or information. Includes lists of Missouri sits on National Register of Historic Places and sites threatened
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ohio History Lesson 1
    http://www.touring-ohio.com/ohio-history.html http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/category.php?c=PH http://www.oplin.org/famousohioans/indians/links.html Benchmark • Describe the cultural patterns that are visible in North America today as a result of exploration, colonization & conflict Grade Level Indicator • Describe, the earliest settlements in Ohio including those of prehistoric peoples The students will be able to recognize and describe characteristics of the earliest settlers Assessment Lesson 2 Choose 2 of the 6 prehistoric groups (Paleo-indians, Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancients, Whittlesey). Give two examples of how these groups were similar and two examples of how these groups were different. Provide evidence from the text to support your answer. Bering Strait Stone Age Shawnee Paleo-Indian People Catfish •Pre-Clovis Culture Cave Art •Clovis Culture •Plano Culture Paleo-Indian People • First to come to North America • “Paleo” means “Ancient” • Paleo-Indians • Hunted huge wild animals for food • Gathered seeds, nuts and roots. • Used bone needles to sew animal hides • Used flint to make tools and weapons • Left after the Ice Age-disappeared from Ohio Archaic People Archaic People • Early/Middle Archaic Period • Late Archaic Period • Glacial Kame/Red Ocher Cultures Archaic People • Archaic means very old (2nd Ohio group) • Stone tools to chop down trees • Canoes from dugout trees • Archaic Indians were hunters: deer, wild turkeys, bears, ducks and geese • Antlers to hunt • All parts of the animal were used • Nets to fish
    [Show full text]
  • Archeology of the Funeral Mound, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia
    1.2.^5^-3 rK 'rm ' ^ -*m *~ ^-mt\^ -» V-* ^JT T ^T A . ESEARCH SERIES NUMBER THREE Clemson Universii akCHEOLOGY of the FUNERAL MOUND OCMULGEE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GEORGIA TIONAL PARK SERVICE • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 3ERAL JCATK5N r -v-^tfS i> &, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary National Park Service Conrad L. Wirth, Director Ihis publication is one of a series of research studies devoted to specialized topics which have been explored in con- nection with the various areas in the National Park System. It is printed at the Government Printing Office and may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price $1 (paper cover) ARCHEOLOGY OF THE FUNERAL MOUND OCMULGEE National Monument, Georgia By Charles H. Fairbanks with introduction by Frank M. Settler ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER THREE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • WASHINGTON 1956 THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, of which Ocmulgee National Monument is a unit, is dedi- cated to conserving the scenic, scientific, and his- toric heritage of the United States for the benefit and enjoyment of its people. Foreword Ocmulgee National Monument stands as a memorial to a way of life practiced in the Southeast over a span of 10,000 years, beginning with the Paleo-Indian hunters and ending with the modern Creeks of the 19th century. Here modern exhibits in the monument museum will enable you to view the panorama of aboriginal development, and here you can enter the restoration of an actual earth lodge and stand where forgotten ceremonies of a great tribe were held.
    [Show full text]
  • Cahokia Mounds – Largest Archaeological Site in North America
    Cahokia Mounds – Largest Archaeological Site in North America Preserving the remains of an ancient Native American city near Collinsville, Illinois, the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site is across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. Covering more than 2,000 acres, Cahokia is the most sophisticated prehistoric Native civilization north of Mexico. Best known for large, man-made earthen structures, the city of Cahokia was inhabited from about A.D. 700 to 1400. Built by ancient peoples known as the Mound Builders, Cahokia’s original population was thought to have been only about 1,000 until about the 11th century when it expanded to tens of thousands. At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six square miles and boasted a population of as many as 100,000 people. Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city. The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away as Minnesota. The original name of the city is unknown and the inhabitants apparently never utilized writing skills. The name Cahokia is that of a unrelated tribe that was living in the area when the first French explorers arrived in the late 17th century. These ancient Indians built more than 120 earthen mounds in the city, 109 of which have been recorded and 68 of which are preserved within the site. Many others are thought to have been altered or destroyed by farming and construction. While some are no more than a gentle rise on the land, others reach 100 feet into the sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Anasazi (Pueblo Builders and Cliff Dwellers) Mound Builders
    CK_3_TH_HG_P146_194.QXD 4/11/05 10:47 AM Page 153 Some of the Inuit of today live very much the way their ancestors did. For food, clothing, weapons, tools, and fuel, they rely on the fish they catch and the caribou, seals, whales, and walruses they hunt. In winter, the Inuit live in houses made of sod, wood, and stone, and in summer, they use tents made of animal skins. Igloos, shelters made of blocks of snow, are used only when the Inuit go on hunts and then only rarely. Kayaks and dog sleds are their means of transportation. Much of the Inuit reli- gion revolves around the sea and animals. The Inuit are noted for their carvings in soapstone, ivory, and bone, which often use characters from their religious lore. Anasazi (Pueblo Builders and Cliff Dwellers) By about 2,000 years ago, the Anasazi had settled in what is known today as the four corners area of the Southwest, that is, where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah meet. Originally hunters and gatherers, the Anasazi turned to farming by around 1000 CE. Their crops were primarily maize (corn), beans, and squash. The first houses of the Anasazi were pithouses constructed below ground. By 1100 CE, however, the Anasazi were building cliff dwellings, multistoried stone apartment buildings with many rooms, set into mountainsides. By the late 1200s, for unknown reasons, the Anasazi began to abandon their cliff dwellings. Possible reasons include drought, disease, pressure from invading groups like the Apache, and internal dissension among villagers. Archaeologists have found no proof of any of these.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fine "Cup" Stone Display at November Aso Show and The
    A FINE "CUP" STONE DISPLAY AT NOVEMBER ASO SHOW AND THE ENIGMA OF A COMMON OHIO ARTIFACT by Michael Rusnak 4642 Friar Road, Stow, OH 44224 [email protected] Two impressive examples of "cup Cup stones were noted in many early suggests "a possible link to hunting, or with stones" were part of an exhibit assembled writings on American and Ohio archaeolo­ the combined activities of a seasonal hunt­ by ASO members Steve Hill and Earnest gy. Often lists of material found in mounds ing/gathering camp." He also relates similar Cook at the November ASO show in Co­ include one or more cup stones amin ong possible uses, including that they "served lumbus. Figures 1-5 show several views the tally of objects unearthed. For exam­ as the base-socket for the fire-drill, with tin­ of the two sizable examples made of ple, Gerald Folke's 1902 book Archaeo­ der piled around the rotating shaft." sandstone. Both of the stones are larger logical History of Ohio: the Mound Build­ than typical field finds and both contained ers and Later Indians describes the great Curiously, as Folke noted —cup stones multiple "cups" or depressions. One stone numbers of cup stones that were found in are found in many areas of Europe as well, has multiple depressions on both sides. Ohio: along with much speculation on their use. One study of pitted river boulders in North­ A common Ohio artifact, such stones They occur in all parts of the world ern Europe by Andreas Tvauri dates many are referred to by several names, some­ and are surpassed in numbers examples to the Bronze Age, and specu­ times called "cup stones," "pitted stones," among the larger stone objects only lates that some may have been hollows for "nutting stones," or "anvil stones" by field pitted stones and hammers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Archeology in Iowa: an Overview
    Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 82 Number 1 Part 2 Article 8 1975 The Development of Archeology in Iowa: An Overview Duane C. Anderson University of Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1975 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Anderson, Duane C. (1975) "The Development of Archeology in Iowa: An Overview," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 82(1 pt. 2), 71-86. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol82/iss1/8 This General Interest Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Anderson: The Development of Archeology in Iowa: An Overview 71 The Development of Archeology in Iowa: An Overview DUANE C. ANDERSON! This paper traces the development of archeology in Iowa through porary Period, 1951-1975. The Society served as a catalyst for three distinct periods. Workers durin&_ the period of Pioneer In­ amateur-professional interaction as research programs sprang up vestigations, 1870-1920, were preoccupied with the problem of the at various colleges, universities and museums across the state. identity of the "Mound Builders." Through their activities they Since the 1960's there has been a gradual change in research stimulated public awareness and interest and fostered the growth strategy toward the "new" archeology with its emphasis on the of scientific investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Peoples of North America
    How do people adapt to where they live? Compare and Contrast Make and label a Two-tab Foldable book before you read this unit. Label the tabs Hunter-Gatherers and Farming Cultures. Use the Foldable to organize information as you read. The Ancetral Puelbo built their =jciZg"<Vi]ZgZgh homes into the sides of cliffs at Mesa Verde. ;Vgb^c\8jaijgZh For more about Unit 1 go to www.macmillanmh.com Native Peoples OF North America 17 Maya Artifact Navajo Woman Central America Southwest Maya cities arise in Navajo settle in 250 Mexico and Guatemala 1200 the Southwest ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ 200 400 600 800 In about A.D. 250, Maya cities arose in the rain The Navajo people settled in the Southwest forests of Mexico and Central America . in about A.D. 1200. Today you can visit ruins of ancient Maya cities Today the Navajo follow many of their such as Tikal and Chichén Itzá. traditional customs. 18 Unit 1 For more about People, Places, and Events, visit www.macmillanmh.com Mississippian Artifact Iroquois Chief Mississippi River Valley Northeast Cahokia is abandoned Iroquois Confederacy 1300 1451 adopts early constitution ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ 1000 1200 1400 1600 Cahokia , a large city built by Mississippian In 1451 the five nations of the Iroquois Mound Builders , was deserted by about Confederacy adopted the “ Great Law of 1300. Peace,” an early constitution. Today you can see Cahokia’s largest mounds at Today many members of the Confederacy live a park near Collinsville, Illinois. in New York. 19 Lesson 1 Settling the VOCABULARY archaeologist p. 21 glacier p. 21 civilization p.
    [Show full text]
  • Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ethnology : [Bulletin]
    ^i SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY: J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS BY uOGY 11083 1889 LIBRARY, e^Y^^US THOMAS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 8 S !» CONTENTS, Page. lutiocUiction 7 CiiAPTKK I. Histoiieal evidence U Chaptkk II. Siiiiilarity of the arts and ciistoiiis of tlie iiioiiiid-biiildei.s to tliosc of ludiaus .. 14 Architecture 14 Tribal divinious 18 Similarity in burial customs 18 Removal of the llesh before burial I'J Burial beneath or in dwoUinys , 'Jl Burial in a sittinj^ or squatting posture 21 The use of lire iu burial ceremonies 21 Similarity of the stone implements and ornaments of various fribcs 22 Mound and Indian pottery 2)5 Chai'Tek III. Stone graves and what they teach 25 CllAPTKK I\'. The Cherokees as mound- builders :U CiiAPTEii V. The Cherokees and the Tallegwi 38 3 ILLUSTRATIONS. Fig. Till: PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. By Cyrus Thomas. rNTEODUCTION. No otboT ancient works of the United States have become so widely known or have excited so much interest as those of Ohio. This is due in part to their remarkable character but in a much greater degree to the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Talley," by Messrs. Squier and Davis, in which these monuments are described and figured. The constantly recurring question, " Who constructed these works?" has brought before the public a number of widely diiferent theories, though the one which has been most generally accepted is that they originated with a people long since extinct or driven from the country, who had attained a culture status much in advance of that reached by the aborigines inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery by Europeans.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Historic American Indian Testimony Concerning the Ancient Earthworks of Eastern North America
    EARLY HISTORIC AMERICAN INDIAN TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE ANCIENT EARTHWORKS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Bradley T. Lepper Abstract This study reports the results of a review and analysis of the historically documented views of American Indians relating to the mounds and enclosures of eastern North America with a focus on the Ohio valley. The earliest and most reliable sources indicate the American Indian tribes who occupied this region in the historic era had no traditions elucidating who built the mounds or why they had been built. The most common explanation given for the presence of these structures was that they were ancient forts. This interpretation may have been influ- enced by the idea once prevalent among European Americans, or it may have been one source of that popular, but largely erroneous conception. There is no consistent evidence that American Indians in eastern North Amer- ica uniformly regarded the earthworks as sacred or religiously significant. American Indian testimony provides no reliable support for any particular claims of cultural affiliation between any modern/historic tribe and any prehistoric earthwork in this region. Introduction toric era shared a cultural affiliation with the archaeo- logically defined cultures that built the earthworks. Increasingly, archaeologists and others are look- ing to American Indian oral traditions for insights into Methods the prehistoric past (e.g., Deloria 1995; Echo-Hawk 2000; Hall 1997). This continues a long-standing This study reports the results of a survey of the practice among archaeologists working in particular literature pertaining to historic American Indian regions, especially the American Southwest where knowledge of and attitudes towards the ancient continuity between aboriginal and contemporary Indi- earthworks of eastern North America, with emphasis an populations was clearly indicated (e.g., Fewkes on the Ohio valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Earthworks of the Mississippi Valley Illinois Kentucky
    Public Outreach Grant Outreach Public Southeastern Archaeological Conference Archaeological Southeastern Funds provided by: provided Funds Thank you to all the participating sites participating the all to you Thank Sunday 1:30pm-5:00pm. Sunday Hours: Monday - Saturday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 9:00am-5:00pm. Saturday, - Monday trail. ceremonial mounds, museum, gift shop, and nature nature and shop, gift museum, mounds, ceremonial tour a reconstructed Natchez Indian house, three three house, Indian Natchez reconstructed a tour Indians between 1682 and 1729. Visitors can can Visitors 1729. and 1682 between Indians the main ceremonial mound center for the Natchez Natchez the for center mound ceremonial main the The Grand Village of the Natchez Indians served as as served Indians Natchez the of Village Grand The NATCHEZ INDIANS NATCHEZ 15. GRAND VILLAGE OF THE OF VILLAGE GRAND 15. Hours: 9:00am-5:00pm. Friday, - Monday discovered in North America. North in discovered the site one the longest and earliest inhabited sites sites inhabited earliest and longest the one site the appointment only. only. appointment dating from about 1750 BC to 1500 AD, making making AD, 1500 to BC 1750 about from dating Closed 12:00pm-1:00pm. Saturday admission by by admission Saturday 12:00pm-1:00pm. Closed The Museum contains artifacts from Jaketown Jaketown from artifacts contains Museum The Hours: Hours: Monday - Friday, 9:00am-4:30pm. 9:00am-4:30pm. Friday, - Monday 14. JAKETOWN MUSEUM JAKETOWN 14. Louisiana’s original inhabitants. inhabitants. original Louisiana’s the enduring heritage and pride of Southern Southern of pride and heritage enduring the Sunday, 1:00pm-5:00pm.
    [Show full text]
  • AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS of the MUTABLE PERSPECTIVES on INTERPRETATIONS of MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD ICONOGRAPHY by E
    A HALLOWED PATH: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE MUTABLE PERSPECTIVES ON INTERPRETATIONS OF MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD ICONOGRAPHY By ERIC DAVID SINGLETON Bachelor of Arts/Science in History The University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma 2003 Master of Arts/Science in Museum Studies The University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma 2008 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 2017 A HALLOWED PATH: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE MUTABLE PERSPECTIVES ON INTERPRETIONS OF MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD ICONOGRAPHY Dissertation Approved: Dr. L.G. Moses Dr. William S. Bryans Dr. Michael M. Smith Dr. F. Kent Reilly, III Dr. Stephen M. Perkins ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is true that nothing in this world is done alone. I would like to thank my family and friends for all their love and support. My grandparents, parents, sister, cousin, aunts and uncles. They were the foundation of everything that has shaped my life and allowed me the strength to complete this while working full-time. And, to my fiancée Kimberly. I mention her separately, not because she is not included above, but because she is the one person who diligently edited, listened, and gracefully sat by giving up years of vacations, holidays, and parties as I spent countless nights quietly writing. I would also give the most heartfelt thank you to Dr. Moses, Dr. McCoy, and Dr. Smith. Each of you made me the historian I am today. As Dr. James Ronda told me once, pick your professors, not the school—they will shape everything.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Assessment: Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical
    1 D-3'1 ·. > "-'' • ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BARA T ARIA UNIT 1..JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK By John Stuart Speaker, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 10 e I ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BARATARIA UNIT, JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK By John Stuart Speaker, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin Contract No. PX 7530-5-0100 December 12, 1986 Submitted to: southwest Region National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior P.O. Box 728 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 Submitted by: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 1306 Burdette St. New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 ABSTRACT This archeological assessment provides an overview of the natural and cultural environment, past and present, within the Barataria unit; it represents a synthesis of the results of previous investigations of the area. The archeological record of the study area is incomplete at present. Al though there have been several cultural resource investigations conducted pr imar i 1 y wi t!}.in the core area, few have offered data necessary to fill the gaps existing in the prehistoric record. It is imperative that existing sites and data be protected from adverse effects; otherwise the research potential that exists in this rich cultural and environmental setting may never be realized. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the results of a literature review and archeological assessment of the Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park (JLNHP). During this effort, numerous environmental, archeological, and historical sources were utilized. The report identifies and discusses relevant data pert a in ing to the geomorphology, hydrology, ecology, and resource potential for the area.
    [Show full text]