Florida State University Libraries

2017 Foodways Archaeology: A Decade of Research from the Southeastern United States Tanya M. Peres

The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-017-9104-4

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] Foodways Archaeology: A Decade of Research from the Southeastern United States

Tanya M. Peres Department of Anthropology Florida State University 1847 W. Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32306 [email protected]

Uncorrected Author’s Version (Final, accepted). The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.1007/s10814-017-9104-4.

1 Abstract

Interest in the study of foodways through an archaeological lens, particularly in the American

Southeast, is evident in the abundance of literature on this topic over the past decade. Foodways as a concept includes all of the activities, rules, and meanings that surround the production, harvesting, processing, cooking, serving, and consumption of food. We study foodways and components of foodways archaeologically through direct and indirect evidence. The current synthesis is concerned with research themes in the archaeology of Southeastern foodways, including feasting, gender, social and political status, and food insecurity. In this review I explore the information that can be learned from material remains of the foodstuffs themselves and the multiple lines of evidence that can help us better understand the meanings, rituals, processes, and cultural meanings and motivations of foodways.

Key words: Feasts, Gender, Socioeconomic status, Food security

2 Introduction

Foodways are the foundation of all archaeological studies. Food is one of the basic necessities of life. We eat food, yet we do not eat every food available. We share food with family, friends, and strangers. Getting food takes work. Much of our ancestors’ daily lives were spent combating food insecurity. Insuring an individual, a family, or a community had enough food to eat was the most important thing in life. The consumption of food is inherently social. Food and the quest for it are the foundation of larger social changes, symbolic activities, and rules governing our associations with others in society. Understanding societal rules surrounding foodways has been the focus of anthropological studies since the early days of the discipline (Appadurai 1981;

Brillat-Savarin 1999; Douglas 1984; Meigs 1988; Mintz and Dubois 2002; Weismantel 1988).

Over the last 50 years, archaeologists working in the southeastern United States

(hereafter the Southeast) have devoted a great amount of time, resources, and published texts to identifying, analyzing, and understanding past foodways. In their retrospectives on research traditions in Southeastern archaeology, both Watson (1990) and Brown (1994) included subsistence practices as important areas of study. Over 20 years have passed since Brown’s synthesis, and interest in the study of prehistoric and historic period foodways has increased. In this article, I review the published archaeological literature pertaining to the practice of foodways in the Southeast, focusing on the years 2005–2016. During this period there has been a renewed interest in expanding methods for understanding past foodways, including the sociocultural meanings and rules of food preparation and consumption. I begin my review by first defining key terms and methods used generally in foodways studies, including an examination of the

Southeast as a study area. In the second part of the article I highlight four prevailing research themes within an archaeology of Southeastern foodways: feasting; gendered foodways;

3 socioeconomic and political variation in foodways; and food security; all which benefit from an integration of multiple lines of evidence (VanDerwarker and Peres 2010). These themes are not the sole purview of Southeastern archaeologists; however, datasets from this region are well positioned to address them.

Foodways Defined

The term “foodways” is not interchangeable with food, diet, subsistence, subsistence strategies, or cuisine. There are differences in the definitions of these specific terms and the ways in which they are studied from a social perspective. Food in its most basic form is simply plants or animals that are biologically sustaining for humans. We can identify remains of food items by means of zooarchaeology and paleoethnobotany as well as contextual analysis. Beyond its most basic definition, “food” takes on multiple layers and dimensions of meaning for any given individual or group (Holtzman 2006). Foodways are imbued with meaning at multiple levels

(Brown and Mussell 1984; Palmié 2009) and can serve to promote the act of eating into a religious ritual (e.g., the consumption of Kosher foods as part of Orthodox Judaism or the

Catholic practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat on Lenten Fridays), indicate resistance to a dominant paradigm (e.g., veganism in Western society [Varner 1998]), or help construct and maintain group identity and solidarity (e.g., Soul food [Baumann 2009; Williams

Forson 1998]).

The diet of an individual or a group encompasses all of the food eaten on a regular basis

(i.e., vegetarian diet, Mediterranean diet) without differentiating between daily and special meal occasions. For example, Archaic period hunters and gatherers’ daily meals and special meals

(feasts) might have included the same food components, but in the latter case they may have

4 been prepared and consumed in larger quantities or in ritualized contexts. Diets can be compared temporally and spatially, between cultural groups, social and economic classes, and ethnicities.

Prehistoric and historic diets also can be studied on the individual level with stable isotope analysis of bone apatite and collagen and other markers on human skeletal remains (e.g.,

Ambrose et al. 2003; Hard and Katzenberg 2011; Quinn et al. 2008;). Plant and animal remains recovered from quotidian contexts (i.e., storage pits, house features, hearths) can inform us about diets at the family or community level (e.g., Crader 1990; Hogue 2007; Messer 1984; Simmons

2012; White 1991; Young 1993).

Subsistence, often referred to as a subsistence strategy or subsistence economy, is the dominant mode in which a person or group acquires their food, such as hunting-gathering, agriculture, or fishing. Archaeologists can interpret subsistence strategies based on the composition of food remains, types of harvesting and processing technologies, environmental context, and the analysis of human skeletal remains (Ambrose 1987; Bogan 1982; Groot et al.

2013; Hedman 2006; Hedman et al. 2002; Hutchinson et al. 2016; Lapham 2011; Reitz 2004;

Reitz and Honerkamp 1983; Reitz et al. 2009; Tykot et al. 2005; VanDerwarker and Detweiler

2000; Walker 2000; Walker et al. 2001; Yerkes 2005; Young 1993).

In contrast, cuisines are often diagnostic of a region, in that they reflect local ingredients, beliefs, and preparation practices (Benson et al. 2009; Crown 2000; Joyce and Henderson 2007;

Whitney et al. 2014; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016). A cuisine’s terroir is reflective of the soil and climate in which produce is grown and livestock are raised. In addition to the types and amounts of foods consumed, socially constructed cuisine preferences can be interpreted from distribution patterns across space. The dichotomy between cuisines that are considered public or private cuisines and fancy or vernacular can be studied by contextual analyses of archaeological

5 food remains and related artifacts. The most holistic studies of cuisine incorporate multiple lines of evidence, including direct food remains recovered in distinct association with one another, evidence of cooking methods (roasting, indirect heat baking), chemical components of dishes or meals as absorbed residues in ceramics, and cooking equipment (Beehr and Ambrose 2007;

Graff and Rodriguez-Algria 2012; Reber and Evershed 2006).

Foodways studies incorporate components of the above terms in various ways. For the purposes of this article, foodways is defined as the food itself and all of the activities, rules, contexts, and meanings that surround the production, harvesting, processing, cooking, serving, and consumption of those foods (Anderson 1971). Anderson (1971, p. 277) notes that a group’s foodways are “both a complex of ideas and patterned behavior.” This idea of foodways practices being a patterned set of culturally constructed behaviors allows for their methodical study. There are a variety of ways in which we can identify and study foodways and components of foodways archaeologically, which I review below.

How Do We Study Foodways and Cuisines in the Past?

There are numerous ways to study modern foodways and those of the recent past, including media/film (Baron et al. 2014; Bower 2004); cookbooks (Mitchell 2008; Spencer 1982); other texts such as diaries, letters, and memoirs (Covey and Eisnach 2009; Dixon 2002; Walonen and

Hackler 2012); and ethnographies and oral histories (Edge et al. 2013; Kurlanskey 2009; van

Willigen and van Willigen 2006). Combined with the archaeological record, these food and non- food artifacts and cultural features gives us a broad understanding of the foodways practiced in the Southeast over the past 14,000 years. The current synthesis deals with the archaeology of

Southeastern foodways, the information that can be learned from material remains of the food

6 items themselves (foodstuffs), and also with multiple lines of evidence that can help us better understand the rituals, processes, cultural meanings, and motivations of foodstuffs and foodways.

When dealing with the foodways of the contact and historic periods in the Southeast, we can consult the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records for insight into what people were eating, how they prepared individual foods, dishes, and meals, how they were served, and the cultural restrictions around who could eat what and when. Historical documents might include journals, diaries, letters, photos, narrative accounts, cookbooks, seed catalogs, agricultural journals, horticultural handbooks, farmers’ records, government records, wills, estate records, and newspapers. The historic documentary record cannot be taken at face value though, as social and cultural biases, for instance, are evident in the Europeans’ chronicles of their encounters with

Native Americans. Letters home often reported feelings of food deprivation, when in reality, locally available nutritious plants and animals were eaten. An example from Spanish Florida drives home this point (Reitz 1992; Scarry and Reitz 1990). A Spanish soldier under Menéndez stated in official documents from 1573, “when there was nothing they ate herbs, fish and other scum and vermin” (Connor 1925, pp. 98–99 in Scarry and Reitz 1990, pp. 344–345). Clearly the soldier wanted the situation to seem dire, but archaeology exposed the reality that the food was nutritious and the Spanish living in St. Augustine, Florida, at that time were indeed not starving.

The archaeological study of foodstuffs is divided between paleoethnobotany and zooarchaeology. Since the 1960s, advances have been made in sampling strategies and recovery methods that favor the greater chances of recovering plant and animal remains from all size classes (Pearsall 2015; Peres 2010, 2014a; Reitz and Wing 2008; VanDerwarker and Peres 2010;

Wright 2010). However, each type of dataset presents unique preservational qualities, thus floral or faunal assemblages should be evaluated taphonomically in light of the objectives laid out in

7 the research design. Additionally, we need to understand that “plant assemblages are biased

towards food-processing by-products, animal assemblages are composed completely of food-

processing by-products” (VanDerwarker and Peres 2010, p. 4; italics in original). This assertion

has implications for the research questions that can be asked and how these different materials

are analyzed and the data integrated.

Human skeletal remains contain information about the types of food resources consumed

by an individual over their lifetime (Larsen 2015; Nealis and Seeman 2015; Pearsall 2015). Both

specific and nonspecific pathologies related to diet can be identified through tooth eruption

sequences and amount and type of tooth loss, caries and tooth wear, and cessation of longbone

growth during childhood, among others. These dietary-related issues provide information about

diseases, health, nutrition, and lifestyle such as whether an individual suffered from rickets or

iron deficiency anemia (Reitz et al. 2008, p. 9). The analysis of stable isotopes, trace elements, and paleofeces allows for the reconstruction of general and specific food categories that

contributed to an individual’s diet (Blakely and Beck 1981; Hard and Katzenberg 2011; Hedman

2006; Hedman et al. 2002; Hutchinson and Norr 2006; Hutchinson et al. 2016; Quinn et al. 2008;

Schoeninger and Peebles 1981; Tykot et al. 2005).

Information from technological artifact classes, such as ceramics and stone tools, helps us

understand how plants and animals were processed, cooked, and served at the household or

community level, often on a more general temporal scale (Boudreaux 2010; Sassaman 1993;

Sobolik 1996; Wilson and Rodning 2002). In the Southeast, archaeologists incorporate analytical

techniques such as absorbed residues in ceramics to the study of foodways (Beehr and Ambrose

2007; Crown et al. 2012; Evershed 2008; Gremillion 1996; Lusteck and Thompson 2007; Miller

2015; Reber 2007; Reber et al. 2004, 2010; Reber and Evershed 2004a, b, 2006; Wells et al.

8 2014). The analysis of use wear (Smallwood 2015) and residues on stone tools (Moore et al.

2016) are effective in uncovering less direct evidence for foods and foodways.

Foodways and the Southeastern United States Culture Area

The American Southeast is a culture area that has been defined in various ways by archaeologists

(e.g., Bense 1994; Dickens and Ward 1985; Johnson 1993; Steponaitis 1986; Tushingham et al.

2002). Generally speaking, the Southeast includes the portion of the continental United States bounded geographically on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, the south by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the north by the Ohio River Valley (Peres 2014) (Fig. 1). The western edge crosses the

Mississippi River into Arkansas and Louisiana. The Southeast is divided geologically into several main physiographic regions, consisting of the Coastal Plain (coastal sections of North and South Carolina, southern Georgia, all of Florida, southern and western Alabama,

Mississippi, and Louisiana), Interior Plateau (western Tennessee and Kentucky, Arkansas), the

Appalachian Highlands (northeastern Alabama, northern Georgia, western South and North

Carolina, east Tennessee, and east Kentucky), and Ouachita-Ozark Highlands (northwestern

Arkansas), which are further subdivided into provinces based on locality (Fenneman and

Johnson 1946; Miller and Robinson 1995; Peres 2014). A prevailing feature of the Southeast is the sheer amount of access to aquatic resources available to people living in this region. The

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates the total coastline and shoreline length for the states that comprise the American Southeast is 25,718 linear miles. This figure includes the “outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, bays, rivers, and creeks…to the head of tidewater or to a point where tidal waters narrow to a width of 100 feet” (NOAA n.d.). Shoreline

9 areas include highly productive estuaries and marshes as well as freshwater rivers and streams of varying size classes.

Archaeologists have long understood that a connection exists between environmental setting and human settlement (e.g., Butzer 1982; Osborne 1943). The environment plays an important role in the histories and cultures of Native American groups that inhabited the region beginning approximately 14,000 years ago (Halligan et al. 2016; Hudson 1976; Marquardt and

Payne 1992; Swanton 1987). Paleoenvironmental research in the Southeast indicates that natural resources including plants, animals, minerals, and potable water were abundant and widely available, making this region inviting to human settlements.

During the late Pleistocene, or Paleoindian period, humans entered the North American continent by 20,000 years ago (Table 1). The late Pleistocene period (ca. 12,000–10,000 BP) in the Southeast was characterized by much lower seawater levels than at present, because much of the earth's water was frozen in the glaciers at high latitudes. During this time, Florida in particular experienced some of its driest ecological conditions. Wood and organic remains recovered from sinkholes in the panhandle region of Florida imply shallow water environments in the late Pleistocene followed by what appears to be deeper water in the early Holocene. It seems that at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary, much of Florida and southern Georgia was already covered by a dry, oak-dominated, grass and herb forest punctuated with prairie-like areas. People inhabited the Florida Panhandle by 14,500 years ago, making and using stone tools and interacting with megafauna (Halligan et al. 2016). While the evidence is mounting for antecedent cultures, the most recognized diagnostic artifact for the early and middle portions of the Paleoindian period is a fluted, lanceolate stone biface called a Clovis point, interpreted as a large spear point used to kill large animals. Clovis points were generally replaced in the

10 Southeast with smaller side-notched (nonfluted) points by the late Paleoindian period. While native extant fauna and flora were exploited throughout the period (Hollenbach 2009; Walker et al. 2001; Walker and Driskell 2007), megafauna recovered archaeologically tended to overshadow all Paleoindian foodways studies.

The beginning of the Holocene is marked at 10,000 BP with the rise of pine and oak- dominated environments, as a warm, dry phase ended with an increase in precipitation in the late

Pleistocene (ca. 14,000 BP). In addition to environmental changes, an increase in style and variety of stone tools sets the Archaic period apart from the preceding Paleoindian period. The noticeable increases in tool types, some made from nonlocal materials, and numbers of archaeological sites are taken as evidence of more people on the landscape and the beginning of trade networks. Sites such as Windover, a bog cemetery on the eastern coast of Florida, bring to light the varied and complex bone, shell, wood, and textile technologies and traditions practiced by highly skilled peoples during the early Archaic (ca. 8000–6000 BC) (Doran 2002). Most foodways studies for this time period focus on sites located in upland areas and along interior river valleys (see Anderson and Sassaman 1996).

By the middle Archaic period (ca. 6000-4000 BC) many areas of the Southeast witnessed an increase in precipitation, as sea levels stabilized to modern levels by the end of this subperiod.

Generally, middle Archaic peoples are viewed as seasonally mobile hunter-gatherers living in the uplands and interior river valleys. The intensive use of freshwater shellfish is evidenced by large shell-bearing sites along the Tennessee River in Tennessee and northern Alabama, Middle

Cumberland and Duck Rivers in Tennessee, and the Green River in Kentucky (Peres and Deter-

Wolf 2016). It is notable that the targeted taxa vary between river valleys. For instance, in the

Middle Cumberland River valley (MCRV), aquatic gastropods were widely favored at numerous

11 sites in the western portion of the MCRV while freshwater bivalves were favored in the eastern portion of the MCRV and at sites along the Green River (Peres and Deter-Wolf 2016). Some archaeologists see this distinction as evidence of environmental conditions and animal availability. However, these sites also are well known as burial places with little to no evidence for long-term domestic occupation. More recently, the assumption that their placement is environmentally determined is being questioned. On the eastern coast of Florida, shellfish harvesting began about 5500 BC along the St. Johns River (Randall 2015; Saunders and Russo

2011). Earthen mound construction on a grand scale was established 2,000 years later at the

Watson Brake site in Louisiana (Saunders et al. 2005;. Saunders and Russo 2011). Subsistence remains from this site indicate people foraged for a range of plants and animals, especially nuts, deer, and fish (Saunders et al. 2005).

Large-scale architecture in the form of shell rings is one of the hallmarks of the Late

Archaic period (ca. 4000–1000 BC). Shell-ring sites are composed of marine shell, especially oyster, and dot the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the Southeast (Russo 2004. Toward the end of the

Late Archaic, fiber-tempered pottery first appeared along the southern Atlantic Coast of Georgia and Florida. Ceramics became the must-have technology and eventually spread throughout the

Southeast.

The widespread use of pottery marks the transition to the Woodland period (ca. 1000

BC–AD 950), along with cultivation of native crops in some locales, expanded mound building, especially burial mounds, the introduction/invention of the bow and arrow, a marked rise in social stratification and sedentariness, and an increase in ritual ceremonies and contexts. Ceramic technology flourished, and an increase in regional styles, vessel forms, and decorative techniques is evident. For people living during this time, many of the technologies needed for food

12 harvesting, processing, storing, and cooking were unchanged. The subsistence strategies are believed to be essentially the same as in the Archaic period with the addition of intentional cultivation of some native plants. In some areas shellfish harvesting persisted into the Woodland period.

In the Early Woodland period (ca. 1000–350 BC), ceramic producers incorporated sand and grit as common tempering agents and impressed the exteriors of pots with fabric or stamped with carved wooden paddles. Domesticated plants at this time included goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri), maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), sumpweed (Iva annua), erect knotweed

(Polygonum erectum), and sunflower (Helianthus annus), with wild plant and animal sources forming a large part of the diet. Along the Gulf Coast, Middle Woodland period (ca. 350 BC–AD

350) sites took the form of circular shell and earthen midden-mounds. Flat-topped temple or charnel-house earthen mounds were constructed in the interior Southeast. Along with increased community planning and architecture, an increase in food production is evidenced by an increase in the use of seed crop plants. Foodstuffs from coastal sites suggest people positioned themselves to exploit the rich estuarine environments and oyster bars along the Gulf Coast. Interior to these sites people hunted deer and harvested nuts, though it is likely these sites are part of the same groups’ seasonal rounds. Ceramics were decorated with intricately carved wooden paddles and traded throughout the Coastal Plain (Wallis 2011). The Late Woodland period (AD 350–950) marks a transitional time in the Southeast. In terms of foodways, the bow and arrow was introduced as well as maize agriculture. While bow and arrow technology spread rapidly, maize agriculture was adopted more slowly.

The archaeological cultures of the Late Holocene (ca. AD 900–1600) in the Southeast are referred to generally as Mississippian (Steponaitis 1986). General hallmarks of the Mississippian

13 period include the production and use of shell-tempered ceramics, intensive cultivation of maize and other domesticates that produced a surplus, large densely populated settlements often focused around earthen mound centers, increased social and political stratification, and elaboration of mortuary treatments and grave goods. Extensive social, economic, and political networks extended throughout the Southeast, of which the best known was centered at Cahokia on the Mississippi River in Illinois (see Fig. 1). The most evident change in foodways during the

Mississippian period is the addition of maize into the diet and its attenuated culinary equipment, beliefs, and ceremonial events (Briggs 2015, 2016). In the interior Southeast, white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) and the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) were regularly hunted along with a suite of native fauna (Lapham 2011). In coastal areas reliance on fish and shellfish continued and in some cases intensified (e.g., Calusa) (Hutchinson et al. 2016).

The indigenous cultures and foodways of the Southeast changed dramatically after contact and sustained interactions with Europeans.

Early ethnographers classified historic indigenous peoples based on language group

(Swanton 1987), adaptation to local environments, and relationships to one another (Hudson

1976). Precolumbian groups were mainly classified by material culture use such as lithic technologies or ceramic forms and decorative styles. Recently scholars have begun to construct a more holistic and fluid social history of pre-Columbian and historic southeastern Indian groups

(e.g., Ethridge and Hudson 2002; Pluckhahn and Ethridge 2006). This research shift has allowed

Southeastern archaeology to move past the pre-Columbian and post-European contact dichotomous scheme and look at the history of human migrations into, and out of, the Southeast over the past 10,000 years, and what these population movements have meant in terms of inter- and intragroup relationships, economies, sociopolitical organizations, and ideologies.

14 Consequently, the Southeastern culture area is not a monolithic entity, but rather a flexible construct sometimes extended to include indigenous groups inhabiting Texas, the Great Plains, and the cooler climate areas of the upper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers of the Midwest (e.g.,

Reilly 2011).

One concern that persists in archaeological studies is the reconstruction of foodstuffs and foodways from a Western Euro-American background. This is in part an issue when dealing with the residues of past lifeways and not living peoples where there is no way to consult with individuals of a society to discuss the roles of food and foodways in their everyday lives. Under the New Archaeology paradigm subsistence strategies were seen as an extrasomatic adaptation to one’s environment. The domestication of plants and animals and ultimately the adoption of agriculture were accepted as the logical conclusion to an evolutionary trajectory towards increased sedentism and sociopolitical complexity seen around the prehistoric world. More recently, Gremillion and colleagues (2014; Gremillion and Piperno 2009) argue that a human behavioral ecology framework for the study of plant and animal domestication on a global scale is applicable in different regions and environments and explains differences and similarities between them. Gremillion (1998, 2004) applies the diet breadth model to the adoption of domesticated plants by farmers in the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Kentucky. In contrast,

Smith (2015) and Zeder (2015) argue for the application of niche construction theory or a cultural niche construction framework to the study of the initial domestication of plants and animals in general and in eastern North America specifically. Zeder (2015) argues that stable and resource-rich environments enabled people to settle down, learn about and shape their environment in ways that were previously impossible, and then pass on that knowledge and skill set to the next generation. The initial investments and improvements to specific localities

15 allowed “human groups to defend resource catchment territories and continue to enhance the

growing store of ecological knowledge” thus reaping “the rewards of previous generations’

investment in modifying and shaping these environments” (Zeder 2015, p. 3196).

The post-processualism paradigm gave archaeologists the theoretical tools to push the

interpretative envelope, though many Southeast foodways studies are still heavily processual.

This facet of research is in part due to Southeastern zooarchaeologists and paleoethnobotanists

having spent the better part of the last half-century perfecting recovery methods and sampling

techniques, determining the best types of data to collect, and dealing with the backlog of primary

baseline data collection, in order to establish their professions as valid avenues of archaeological

inquiry. This foundational work by foodways specialists working in the Southeast has far-

reaching applicability (Peres 2014; Reitz et al. 2008; Reitz and Wing 2008; VanDerwarker and

Peres 2010).

Research Themes in Southeastern Foodways Archaeology

During the second half of the 20th century there was a movement toward standardizing

methods and techniques of specimen recovery (typically plant and animal remains), data

collection, data analysis, and presentation, in American archaeology generally and among

Southeastern archaeologists specifically (Brown 1994; Peres 2014; Watson 1990). This foundation has allowed for a more concerted effort in recent years by both academic and cultural resource management archaeologists to include foodways data categories in research designs, field recovery strategies, data analysis, and interpretations. In writing on the history of zooarchaeology in the American Southeast, I (Peres 2014, pp. 5–7) highlight several early projects that set the bar for giving subsistence data classes primacy, including the St. Simon’s

16 Archaeological Project along the Atlantic Coast of Georgia, directed by Fairbanks and Milanich

(Marrinan 1975); the Shell Mound Archaic Project of the Green River region in Kentucky, headed by Marquardt and Watson (2005); and work at Dust Cave, in northern Alabama (Homsey et al. 2010; Walker and Driskell 2007 ). These early projects served as the foundation and inspiration for Southeast foodways research, as can be seen in the current synthesis of research traditions and trends in the literature.

In this review of the published literature of foodways archaeology in the Southeast from

2005 to the first half of 2016, I also consulted earlier works when necessary to show the evolution of a research theme. Due diligence has been made to locate all relevant studies, though it is likely I have overlooked some. I did not undertake a comprehensive search of unpublished theses and dissertations for all such studies related to a foodways theme in the American

Southeast. There are bound to be invaluable data and studies encapsulated in these, the gray literature, and conference papers. While I regret that such studies are excluded from the current synthesis, it should be a call for archaeologists to push their studies out in more traditional published formats, self-archived in institutional repositories, curated in the Digital

Archaeological Record (tDAR), or published online with OpenContext.org to make these data and interpretations more readily accessible to the profession. In my review of the present corpus of work, four reoccurring themes in foodways studies became apparent: feasting, gender, social and political status, and food security. These topics are of broad interest to archaeologists working in other regions and time periods, and archaeological foodways datasets from southeastern sites are well suited to address them.

Feasting

17 Feasting, the “sharing of special food (in quality, preparation, or quantity) by two or more people for a special (not everyday) event” is one of the most written-about foodways topics by

Southeastern archaeologists in the past decade (Hayden and Villeneue 2011, p. 434). This is not surprising given that feasting was the focus of anthropological ethnographies and archaeological investigations for more than a century (Boas 1888; Hayden and Villeneue 2011). The tone of these studies has shifted from one of documenting grand events to crafting explanations for the cultural role they play in modern and ancient societies. Coincident with more sophisticated hypothesis and model testing is an advance in the methods used to study feasting archaeologically. Feasting studies in the Southeast benefit from the integration of multiple lines of data including floral and faunal remains, contextual analysis, and ethnographic documents.

A rich ethnographic and ethnohistoric record exists for Southeastern Indians in the post-

European contact period. For instance, Swanton (1987, p. 699) describes the food and drink consumed at the Natchez War feast and dance, which were held at the war chief’s house, as

“various articles of food, principally made of corn and venison, placed in wooden dishes, in the very center of which was a wooden dish containing a dog roasted whole.” Before they could eat, an elder spoke and then lit and circulated a calumet. Following this they “feasted on the dog meat, and drank the war drink (Ilex vomitoria) (Swanton 1987, p. 699). This example tells us the reason for the feast, the identity of the host, what was eaten, how it was served, and the timing/sequence of the event.

A different type of feast event, the Green Corn Ceremony, is known from first-hand accounts during the early historic period (Hudson 1976). During the late summer when the first corn began to ripen, Southeastern Indians celebrated the Green Corn Ceremony (or Busk), a time for fasting, forgiveness, and feasting. The term ‘busk’ is the name given to the ceremony by

18 early European settlers, an Anglicized version of the Creek ‘poskita,’ meaning to fast (Hudson

1976). The first day of the ceremony was spent feasting on the remainder of the winter food stores in preparation for the days of fasting to follow. The fasting began at sundown on the first day and was broken at sunrise on the third day. During this time certain members of the community (priests, warriors, clan leaders) purified themselves by drinking a tea made from the leaves of the yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria). The women of the community prepared an elaborate feast for the fourth day. In some accounts over 50 dishes were prepared incorporating the newly ripened corn, pumpkin, beans, fish, dried meat, and wild fruit (Hudson 1976).

Anthropologists have long been interested in understanding the motivations behind feasting activities. The two preceding examples give us insight into a feast event held before a war raid was conducted and the second was held to celebrate the success of the annual corn crop.

Archaeologists working in disparate times and places share an interest in identifying the archaeological correlates of communal eating and drinking activities and have focused their efforts on defining the theoretical and functional foundations of feasting. Hayden (2014, p. 1) states that in the past, “there may have been no more powerful engine of cultural change than feasts.” Indeed, feasting is cited globally for its role in innovations such as plant and animal domestication (Hayden 2001, 2009b, 2014), pottery manufacture (Clark and Gosser 1995;

Sassaman 1993), elaborate mortuary rituals (Claassen 2010), and creation and maintenance of social status (Blitz 1993; Dietler and Herbich 2001; Hastorf 2008; Hayden 2009a, b, 2014;

Perodie 2001). The idea of feasting as an underlying catalyst for unique human innovations is intriguing; however, there are several considerations that we must keep in mind when addressing the potential for feasting in the archaeological record.

19 The widely accepted definition of feasting reiterates that such an event is “special” and

“not everyday.” Archaeologists must consistently recognize quotidian foods and meals in the archaeological record before feasts or meals that are out of the ordinary can be confidently isolated (Pollock 2012; Twiss 2012; VanDerwarker et al. 2016, 2007). Everyday ordinary meals vary temporally and spatially and likely within a site. Identifying what constitutes “ordinary” requires the integration of data from a variety of sources (i.e., foodstuffs, vessels, processing tools, storage, context) at any given site. This is predicated on the assumption that daily and ritual meals are different enough to be distinguished from one another. As Twiss (2012) notes, the more feasts and everyday meals resemble one another, the less likely we are to identify them archaeologically. Thus the feasting sample is likely inherently biased toward those that are on the opposite end of the consumption spectrum from quotidian meals.

As the Natchez War Feast example shows, the components of a feast are culturally regulated, from the foods chosen to how they are prepared and by whom, from how they are served to who is allowed or forbidden to eat them, to the location and timing of consumption. All of these are dependent on the function of the feast—whether they are for mortuary, celebratory, competitive, war, or obligatory purposes (Dietler 1990, 1996; Hayden 1996). Thus archaeologists can expect the correlates of any particular feast to be dependent on the reason why the feast was held. VanDerwarker and colleagues (2007) note that not all feasting episodes are equal even within a single site. Their analysis of a particular feature from Upper Saratown, a contact-period (AD 1650–1710) Sara Indian site in North Carolina, revealed remains of acorns, hickory nuts, maize kernels and beans—all plants that would have been dried for storage

(VanDerwarker et al. 2007, p. 44). In comparison, a different feature at Saratown held over 2,000 fruit seeds (including grape, plum, peach, and maypop) and close to 16,000 maize cob and

20 cupule fragments, possibly from newly ripened and unprocessed corn (VanDerwarker et al.

2007, pp. 34, 41–44). All of these plants could have been eaten with minimal or no processing or cooking and based on the ethnographic literature are believed to have been the remains of a “first fruits” or Green Corn Ceremony.

Mortuary rituals, especially associated feasts, are a prominent topic of interest to archaeologists around the world (Iriarte et al. 2008; Knight 2001; Seeman 1979). Some authors have suggested that Archaic period shell-bearing sites of the Southeast functioned as feasting areas associated with mortuary activities due to a notable lack of domestic architecture, numerous human interments and dog burials, specialized mortuary artifacts, and conspicuous mounds of shell (Claassen 2010; Crothers 2004). Claassen (2010, p. 167) recognizes mortuary rituals at Archaic shell-bearing sites as, “...fires surrounding and overlying the burial pits were lighted and large quantities of food were consumed and deposited with the dead.” Crothers

(2004, p. 90), working with Archaic shell mounds on the Green River in Kentucky, while falling short of calling these sites the direct result of feasting activities, notes: “the two most common features are presumably the result of mass processing of resources. One is left with an impression of multiple, large-scale events, intensive collection of resources, and production and consumption of large amounts of food, but occupation that is of relatively short duration.” It is likely that these represent multiple large-scale feasts held in the same location over several generations.

The specific correlates of feasting (i.e., plant and animal taxa represented, cooking or presentation methods) are not constant over time and space, and we must be able to control for these variables. To define a typical every day meal, archaeologists must “recenter the mundane and [seemingly] ordinary rather than giving pride of place to the unusual and spectacular”

21 (Pollock (2012, p. 13). There seems to be an assumption among many non-foodways archaeologists that all plants and animals recovered from a site are part of the general diet, until one or two unusual taxa are identified, and then the assemblage is interpreted and glorified as feasting residues. Collaboration with foodways archaeologists and a more systematic approach to the recovery and analysis of suspected feasting deposits are necessary.

Twiss (2008, table 1) recognizes four universal components of feasting events based on cross-cultural ethnographic and ethnohistoric data of hunter-gatherer and subsistence farming societies. While there is some overlap in Twiss’s four common feasting aspects with expected material correlates of feasting in the Southeastern archaeological record, other authors include criteria taken from ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents specific to Southeastern Indians

(Table 2). The majority of feasting research in the Southeast has focused on the socially and politically stratified chiefdoms of the Mississippian period, though some attention has been given to this topic for Archaic period sites. Feasting events identified in the Southeastern archaeological record tend to be those of the large event variety with numerous people in attendance, which leaves a more noticeable signature. Thus the consumption of large quantities of food is the main aspect recognized. Foods that can be amassed in great quantities, are abundant, and can be easily replenished or stored also are a criterion (Claassen 2010; Hayden

2014; VanDerwarker 1999). This would look different in the Archaic where shellfish was the surplus resource (Claassen 2010); whereas in the later Mississippian period the assembled foodstuffs likely included large quantities of staples such as maize, deer, turkey, or fish (Jackson and Scott 1995a; VanDerwarker 1999; VanDerwarker et al. 2007).

During any time period, the presence of specially charged taxa may be an indicator of the presence of deposits associated with an extraordinary event (Hayden 2001; Russo 2004, p. 45;

22 VanDerwarker 1999), such as elk (Cervus canadensis) or black bear (Ursus americanus). Both of these animals are dangerous to capture and can provide large amounts of meat and grease or fat. Alternatively, it may be that the capture of such a prized and large animal is the impetus for the feast. Assemblages also may contain animals that take extra effort to catch, e.g., large fish such as drum or catfish caught with hook and line as opposed to small fish that can be mass- captured with nets (Claassen 2010, p. 151).

Twiss notes that in the ethnographic record a wide array of dishes are commonly served at feasts when compared to daily meals. It is difficult to consistently determine dishes from food remains, as it is possible that the same ingredients are used in a variety of recipes (i.e., hickory meat vs. hickory oil; Jackson et al. 2016), thus the material correlates of this aspect are the types of serving and cooking vessels and equipment. In the Mississippian period Southeast, expected ceramic vessel correlates of feasting include large cooking and serving vessels in nondomestic contexts (e.g., mound-related areas) (Boudreaux 2010). During the preceramic Archaic period, large cooking facilities such as earth ovens might indicate a feasting context.

In Mississippian period sites, feasting assemblages may comprise one or a few species

(low taxonomic diversity) or include animals that attain a large body size and thus have a high meat yield (Claassen 2010, p. 151; Glore 2005, p. 323; Jackson and Scott 1995a; Russo 2004, p.

46). VanDerwarker (1999) notes that this may be especially true for elite-sponsored events where it was necessary to supply food to a large crowd, and thus it was easier to serve a few staple food resources in large quantities. Evidence from Moundville, Alabama, suggests that feasting residues may be evidenced by special cuts of meat in mound or elite-associated contexts

(Jackson and Scott 1995a). In contrast to the animal portion of these assemblages, plants identified in feasting contexts may have been those eaten on a daily basis because they were in

23 season during the feast event or taken from the host’s or community’s larder (VanDerwarker et al. 2007); however, it may be the abundance of staple plants in a feasting context that sets it apart from a daily meal.

Equally important to choice of food items that were physically and visually consumed at a feast is the manner in which said foods were prepared. Joyce and Henderson (2007, p. 652) note that what sets feasts apart from everyday meals is the “experience of being the consumer of dishes created through extra labor, with special skill, and served with some degree of distinction.” Others have noted an increase in time and care in food preparation, such as bone removal and organ isolation (Claassen 2010, p. 151; Hastorf 2012), or off-site dressing of animals to allow for a “neater staging place for the feast” (Claassen 2010, p. 151).

Foodways archaeology in the Southeast has been dominated by a search for extraordinary events to make grand statements about the construction and maintenance of political and social power. While these are worthy goals, we must step back and focus on securely identifying quotidian meals for any given site in order to illuminate that which is different. Collaboration with foodways archaeologists and a more systematic approach to identifying different types of meals are necessary. As the examples presented here show, the integration of various datasets results in a more nuanced view of foodways in the past. This is especially important when we are dealing with the intersection of foodways and gender studies.

Gender and Southeastern Foodways

The relationship between gender and food has been a research topic in archaeology for over 30 years, beginning with the landmark publication of Engendering Archaeology: Women and

Prehistory (Gero and Conkey 1991). In that volume, Hastorf (1991) shows that this relationship

24 can be studied by analyzing the spatial contexts of material culture, especially plant remains. In that same volume, Southeastern foodways are spotlighted by two studies (Claassen 1991;

Watson and Kennedy 1991). Watson and Kennedy (1991) present evidence for the domestication of plants in the Eastern Woodlands by women. Claassen (1991) offers alternative gendered hypotheses for the creation and use of Archaic shell mound sites and their eventual abandonment as a product of shifting ideologies. These studies and others resulted in raising the visibility of women, women’s activities, and their roles in society and politics in the archaeological record of the American Southeast. However, apart from the scholarship discussed here, gender is hardly at the forefront of foodways (or other) studies in Southeastern archaeology.

Gender studies allow archaeologists to populate the prehistoric landscape with people rather than objects (Eastman and Rodning 2001, pp. 4–5). For instance, in her research on foodways in the late Paleoindian and early Archaic periods in the Tennessee Valley, Hollenbach

(2009) suggests that while all members of a group gathered plant and animal resources, the women most likely processed them for consumption or storage. The tools necessary for these tasks—knives,scrapers, nutting stones, and bedrock mortars—were likely made and owned by women. Hollenbach (2009, pp. 214–215) consulted cross-cultural studies of ethnographic gathering groups to offer a more robust interpretation of her data. Those that were fixed on the landscape, such as bedrock mortars, may have served to mark the resource and area as belonging to a specific group (Hollenbach 2009, p. 215).

Claassen (2010) takes a regional landscape approach to argue that people’s lives in the interior Southeast during the Archaic period were complex, meaningful, robust, and full of gendered practices. While gender identification is not the main focus of Carmody and

Hollenbach’s (2013) recent study, they do relate patterns in the archaeobotanical data from Dust

25 Cave and Stanfield-Worley bluff shelter sites in Alabama to a gendered landscape. They postulate that increased collection and processing of hickory nuts, viewed as women’s work, in the mid-South during the Middle Archaic period (ca. 6000–3000 BC) may have resulted in increased social bonds between women, and in the burying of deceased females in certain areas, which served to mark territory, access to, and control of these resources (Carmody and

Hollenbach 2013, p. 50). Building on this idea, Homsey-Messer (2015) envisions an Archaic period landscape populated by women (possibly in large work groups) responsible for secular activities (i.e., processing nuts for storage) at rockshelters. The repeated use of these sites for foodways activities resulted in them becoming highly ritualized contexts.

VanDerwarker and Detweiler (2002) explore gendered divisions of protohistoric period

Cherokee foodways by integrating ethnohistoric, ethnographic, contextual, and archaeobotanical data from the Coweeta Creek site in western North Carolina. Southeastern ethnographic and ethnohistoric records overwhelmingly indicate that women were responsible for gathering foodstuffs, preparing foods for storage, and cooking foods. VanDerwarker and Detweiler (2002, p. 26) interpret the public and communal processing of plants, specifically maize and nuts, in and around the male-centered townhouse at Coweeta Creek as the result of women’s work. The food may have been consumed at publicly held feasts or ceremonies, or the remnants of provisions given to the men that lived in the townhouse. While Cherokee men and women lived, worked, and ate in different gendered social and spatial arenas, VanDerwarker and Detweiler (2002) show that women used “typical” gendered areas (e.g., the men’s townhouse) during the processing and cooking of foods.

While the study of gender in the archaeological record is an important research avenue, some argue that “gender” has become too narrow and conflated with “women” (Stockett and

26 Geller 2006, p. 1) and that archaeologists need to move beyond looking for “women” in the archaeological record, a role that does not take into account age, rank, race, or “transformative moments in the life cycle” (Clark and Wilkie 2007, p. 4). A search for such transformative moments in the archaeological record, including menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth (and possibly death during labor and delivery for the mother or infant), instead of looking only for females of child-bearing age, allows us to advance the study of gender more critically and gives us a more nuanced view of the lived experience.

Claassen’s (2011) recent reexamination of the Newt Kash rockshelter in Kentucky gives us a rare opportunity to see a potential transformative moment of pregnancy, child bearing, and early childhood during the Terminal Archaic (ca. 3000–1000 BC) and Early Woodland periods

(ca. 1000–400 BC). The long-standing interpretation of the rockshelter as a residential base camp is demonstrated by the recovery of seeds and plant fibers, evidence of early plant domestication

(Claassen 2011). Claassen (2011) reinterprets the available data from recovered plant and animal remains, paleofecal remains, artifacts including pottery and a cradleboard, human remains, and features as the result of a liminal moment in the life of a person or persons of a specific sex and age group. Her reexamination of the original excavation documentation, artifacts, and features, combined with ethnographic and ethnohistoric information from multiple sources including the southeastern United States and Mexico, allow for a refined view of Newt Kash rockshelter as a women’s retreat. In this location, activities surrounding childbirth (menstruation, labor, delivery, and potential deaths during labor and delivery) would have been solemnized by distinctive prescribed types of food that were processed, stored, cooked, and served in special containers.

The best evidence for direct consumption of plant material, which may have been in the form of food as medicine, and not food as sustenance, is from paleofeces recovered in the rockshelter.

27 The paleofecal samples indicate that individuals at Newt Kash were eating nuts (hickory), seeds

(Iva annua, maygrass, Chenopodium), sunflower, and small mammals. The sex of the defecator(s) in Newt Kash has not been determined (Gremillion 1996). However, given the highly ritualized nature of this locale, the food remains in the paleofeces in this context are considered to be from a specific form of ritual consumption and not necessarily reflective of the general everyday diet of Terminal Archaic-Early Woodland communities. Claassen’s (2011) reinterpretation of the Newt Kash rockshelter in Kentucky is an example of looking at the totality of the archaeological record of a site combined with ethnographic information to understand foodways from a gendered perspective. A women’s retreat for menstruation and birthing is a very specific context in which to study the functions and meanings of food. Not everyone agrees with Claassen’s reinterpretation of Newt Kash. However, her abilities to pull together numerous threads of evidence and see connections from a non-normative perspective will inspire a new generation of archaeologists to explore alternative ways of looking at foodways data beyond theoretical modeling of human behavior.

Social and Political Status and Southeastern Foodways

Gastropolitics are the creation and maintenance of social and political relationships through the making and eating of meals (Appadurai 1981; Crowther 2013). In the Mississippian period

Southeast, a common expectation is that individuals holding elite status, while not part of the food-producing population, would have had differential access to food resources. Patterns of this effect should be visible in the archaeological record from elite-associated contexts in the form of food remains, special taxa, along with other indicators such as on anthropomorphized artwork.

Several sites in the Southeast with known elite contexts have been examined for access to animal

28 and plant resources based on social and political status (Jackson 2014; Jackson and Scott 1995a,

1995b, 2003; Kelly 2000, 2001; Knight 2004; VanDerwarker 1999).

The topic of status and differential access to resources has been addressed at the

Mississippian period political and ceremonial center of Moundville in Alabama (Jackson and

Scott 2003; Knight 2004; Scarry 2003; Scarry and Steponaitis 1997; Steponaitis and Scarry

2016; Welch and Scarry 1995). Moundville’s founding is marked by the construction of two mounds ca. AD 1100 (Steponaitis and Scarry 2016, followed by a period of building and planning (ca. AD 1200). The function and use of the site changed from a fortified ceremonial and residential center to a “necropolis” ca. AD 1300 (Steponaitis and Scarry 2016, p. 2). Moundville was completely abandoned by AD 1650. Moundville was a regional center located along the

Black Warrior River. Other sites in the region were either smaller single-mound villages or residential farmsteads.

Based on botanical evidence, the residents of Moundville during the community’s heyday received shelled maize from smaller sites in the region, as the surrounding agricultural fields likely did not yield enough maize to supply a large human population (Jackson et al. 2016).

Based on similar maize kernel-to-cupule ratios from elite and non-elite off-mound and mound- top deposits, provisions brought to Moundville would have been from related kin in the hinterlands and not necessarily as tribute payment to the elite (Jackson et al. 2016, p. 207). As the function of Moundville shifted over time, provisioning of the community’s residents by kin in the hinterlands declined. This is a different pattern than is seen in the faunal data. The provisioning of Moundville residents with deer meat is evident throughout the temporal sequence

(Jackson et al. 2016).

29 According to Jackson and Scott (2003), differences between elite and non-elite households at Moundville are expected and identified through a combination of species diversity, special combination of foodstuffs, presence of rare or “iconographically charged” species, cuts of meat from large mammals, and evidence of cooking/preparation. Jackson and Scott (2003) outline the expected pattern of animal use by Mississippian elite groups to include attributes such as higher percentages of meat-bearing anatomical elements, conspicuous consumption, such cooking techniques as roasting, greater number of bird taxa, and a broader range of uncommon taxa. Turkey is not considered a status marker, as it is a ubiquitous food source prevalent throughout the Southeast, although Jackson and Scott (2003, p. 566) suggest that the higher occurrence of male gobblers at Moundville may indicate an elite preference. White-tailed deer remains recovered from elite areas on Mound Q of Moundville indicate these animals were killed and butchered elsewhere, and only select cuts of meat were brought to the mound as tribute payment (Jackson and Scott 1995a, 2003; Knight 2004).

Using data from households of varying social and political status within the Moundville political region, researchers were able to compare differences in diversity and quality of foodstuffs between social classes. Scarry and Steponaitis (1997; Scarry 2003, p. 119) found that all contexts yielded edible parts of corn (i.e., the kernels), but farmsteads had higher levels of maize-processing debris (i.e., higher ratio of cupules to kernels) than the single-mound center and elite mound contexts. This suggests that the elites were provisioned or supplied with shelled corn, nut oils, nut flour or breads by people, possibly relatives, that lived at or controlled the farmsteads (Scarry 2003, p. 119). The larger view of the agricultural economy of Moundville and

Bottle Creek shows that nuts, fruits, and native crops were routinely used to supplement a diet dominated by maize (Scarry 2003, p. 119).

30 Cahokia, on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from modern day St. Louis, is the largest pre-Columbian Native American city in North America (see Figure 1). Cahokia was occupied approximately AD 600–1400, with an estimated 40,000 residents during its heyday.

There were 120 mounds during the pre-Columbian occupation of the site, of which the largest and most famous is Monk’s Mound. More than 30 years of research at Cahokia have resulted in a sizable foodways dataset (Fritz and Lopinot 2007; Kelly 2000; Pauketat et al. 2002, 2010; Simon and Parker 2006). Kelly (2000) uses these data to investigate differential access to resources between the elite and non-elite segments of the population. Using body-part representation and species diversity, she finds that the population at Cahokia generally procured deer at a distance from the site. It is unclear whether elites were provisioned with the meatiest cuts as a form of payment or tribute from populations living outside Cahokia, if elites controlled hunting territories, or if the growth of Cahokia caused people to travel farther to hunt (Kelly 2000, p. 79).

The faunal remains suggest that both elites and non-elites were involved in a public ritual and feasting activity (Kelly 2001, pp. 350–351). The importance of this assemblage is two-fold: it serves as a basis for comparison of other potential feast-related assemblages, and it shows that social relationships at Cahokia were much more complex and community-oriented than previously thought (Kelly 2001, pp. 356–357). The ritual use of beverages such as the “black drink” made from the leaves of the yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria) has been revisited via chemical analysis of absorbed residues in ceramics (Crown et al. 2012; Miller 2015).

Studies of social and political status via a foodways lens are not limited to the pre-

Columbian period in the Southeast. Over the past four decades, historical archaeologists have increasingly emphasized the study of foodways, with particular attention to consumer choice

(Perkins 1991), temporal and socioeconomic variations in diet (Lyman 1987; Reitz 1987; Reitz

31 et al. 2006), farmstead economies (Peres 2008), ethnicity and social identity (Baumann 2009;

Franklin 2001; Opie 2008; Pavao-Zuckerman 2007; Pavao-Zuckerman and Loren 2012; Yentsch

2008), slavery (Bowes 2011; Lev-Tov 2004; Mrozowksi et al. 2008; Young 1993, 1995a, b,

1997;) and regional foodways (Groover 2003, 2005; Hillard 1988; McKelway 2000; Peres 2008).

Consumer choice and socioeconomic status are intertwined, in that an individual’s wealth often determines one’s ability to purchase or barter for items; however, economic status is not always directly proportional to social status within a community. To determine status based on foodways, multiple lines of evidence must be employed, including documentary sources, architectural remains, material culture, and faunal and floral remains (O’Brien and Majewski

1989; Reitz 1987; Spencer-Wood 1987). In addition, taphonomic factors that operate directly on food artifacts need to be considered. The use of single indices may lead to the misinterpretation of the archaeological foodways record and not clearly show the effects of differential access to food on disparate economic classes.

I looked at status-related behaviors and regional foodways in antebellum Kentucky (Peres

2008). Scholars recognize a regional foodway as part of the antebellum Upland South Cultural

Tradition, based on the production of tobacco, hemp, flax, barley, rye, wheat, corn, pig, and cattle (Lev-Tov 2004; Mitchell 1972; Orser 1987; Young 1997). I examined four contemporaneous faunal assemblages representative of different societal classes living in 19th century Kentucky to gauge the extent to which this generalized version of Upland South foodways holds across economic classes (Peres 2008). This closer look reveals that many people living on Kentucky’s antebellum farmsteads struggled regularly for food security and that the idealized version of a shared Upland South foodway was restricted to the wealthy planter class that had ready access to the market economy.

32 Reitz and colleagues (2006) explore the connection between socioeconomic status and cuts of meat, especially pig, in Charleston, South Carolina. Traditionally, archaeologists have equated higher quality cuts of meat with higher economic status. Reitz et al. (2006, p. 105) caution this assumption may not hold true for all households, and that the quantity of meat consumed, and whether it was fresh or preserved, may be more closely tied to a household’s wealth. They found little difference in the consumption of pig between households of varying status. However, they did find that the use of pig and cattle varied in Charleston, possibly related to the higher social value placed on beef (Reitz et al. 2006, p. 119).

Food Security

Food security is an issue that some modern peoples struggle to meet. To what extent people in the prehistory and history of the American Southeast struggled for food security is a topic that has taken on different approaches. Refocusing our questions about the archaeological past to focus on daily foodways pursuits allows us to understand who suffered from food scarcity, whether materially or gustatory, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, who had access to plentiful foodstuffs. The latter is typically addressed through studies of feasting or differential access to food based on social and political status. A slightly different approach to food security in the Southeast is through the development and adoption of practices that allow for greater resource stability and availability. The Eastern Agricultural Complex (EAC) has long been, and continues to be, an important research topic in Southeast foodways studies. Numerous researchers have helped establish eastern North America as an independent center of plant domestication by 3800 BP (Smith and Yarnell 2009). At least three native weedy annual plant taxa were under cultivation by this time including goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri),

33 sumpweed (Iva annua), and sunflower (Helianthus annus) (Gremillion 2003; Smith and Yarnell

2009). This early cultivation took place during a time when hunting and gathering groups living in the Eastern Woodlands prospered and had a reliable surplus (Smith and Cowan 2003). Much of the recent literature on the EAC has focused on the geographic settings of the initial domestication of native crops (Gremillion 2004; Gremillion et al. 2014; Smith 2015), the biogeography of crop plants through DNA analysis (Kistler et al. 2014; Kistler and Shapiro

2011; Zeder et al. 2006), the growing, harvesting, and collecting of wild and cultivated native crops (Gremillion 2015; Gremillion et al. 2008; Scarry 2009), and less on the social causes and consequences of this shift in foodways.

VanDerwarker and Wilson (2016) investigate food insecurity from the point of families living with war during the Mississippian period—not just the aftermath of war but the day-to-day threat of violence from external groups and the resulting internal strife. Their study focuses on the lower Illinois Valley, which is technically outside of the Southeast region, but it is relevant to a discussion of Southeast foodways as the sites date to the Mississippian period in which there are strong social, cultural, economic, and trade relations between the Southeast and the Midwest, and warfare was experienced by people living in the Southeast at this time. VanDerwarker and

Wilson (2016) found that once people moved into fortified villages, they no longer foraged for plants and fish beyond the safe haven of these areas. While this may have accorded them immediate safety, it resulted in reduced diet breadth and nutritional consequences for the most vulnerable of the population.

Documentary evidence, when available, allows us a restricted view of life in specific places during specific times. Historic letters, journals, and other documents let us know about living conditions and foodways of colonists (Reitz 1992; Usner 1992). Often people living in

34 situations where they are dependent on rations or supplies from afar to maintain traditional foodways may complain of food scarcity; however, the actual physical food remains show that while native foodstuffs were not scarce, traditional foods may have been. This leads to the perception of food scarcity where scarcity may not, in fact, exist (Pavao-Zuckerman and Loren

2012; Reitz 1992; Reitz et al. 2010). Sichler (2014) examines the diet of Confederate soldiers stationed at the Florence Stockade (South Carolina) in order to explore issues of food shortage versus actual food availability. She presents a thorough overview of how rations were supplied to

Confederate soldiers serving in various roles during the Civil War. Historic documentation reveals soldiers supplemented their diets with everything from wild onions to rats and bullfrogs, and gives the sense that the food situation was dire for soldiers during this time. By examining the faunal remains recovered from areas associated with Confederate soldiers assigned to guard prisoners from September 1864 to February 1865, Sichler shows that they were able to secure locally available fresh meat. Generalizations made about soldiers’ diets during the Civil War do not necessarily apply to those stationed at the Florence Stockade during the winter months of

1864–1865.

Discussion and Future Directions in Southeastern Foodways Archaeology

In looking back at the last decade of published literature on the archaeology of foodways in the

American Southeast, a number of overarching, though not mutually exclusive research themes become apparent: feasting, gender, social and political status, and food security. There is some sentiment among foodways archaeologists that “feasting” is an overused catchall interpretative box for any deposit that seems unusual. The rush to label these deposits as evidence for feasting often comes at the expense of identifying those deposits that they are set apart from—daily

35 meals. One prevailing sentiment on the obsession with feasting deposits, which is one I share, is that focusing so much of the interpretative attention on the extraordinary casts the mundane everyday domestic food sphere in the shadows. This is problematic as it undervalues and belittles the drudgery of everyday labor, which is often the domain of women (and sometimes children), thus reiterating an imbalanced view of social, political, and economic relationships in the past

(Pollock 2012).

Daily meals have as much to tell us about social, economic, and power relations as feasts do, and are an integral part of gastropolitics. Too often the grandiose (i.e., feasts, large mammal kill sites) are seen as the purview of men. Research that focuses on topics such as feasting for political status construction and maintenance or big-game hunting during the Paleoindian period inherently emphasizes the maleness in foodways. Archaeological excavations should be designed to specifically target the recovery of the residues of everyday foodways—the remains of foodstuffs, ceramic vessels, culinary equipment, and contextual control and relationships within domestic structures and activity areas. This also will have the consequence of bringing women, and possibly children, into the sphere of light shone on the past by archaeologists. Likewise, it is the everyday food quest that can inform us of food security in the past.

Research conducted by foodways archaeologists concerned with diet, subsistence strategies, and economies over the past half-century has yielded the foundation for the studies synthesized here and those to come in the future. However, there are several areas that with improvement can push interpretations in foodways archaeology further. First and foremost, archaeologists need to consider the size and quality of our datasets and use them to answer questions that are directly proportional. By this I mean that archaeologists should answer grand anthropological questions with grand datasets. The foodways studies on the Cahokia and the

36 Moundville political regions are examples to be emulated and built on by future researchers. The studies are compelling because the datasets are robust, the result of decades of excavations and lab analyses.

Unfortunately, the rush (and pressure) to publish often means fledgling datasets are tasked with answering questions that are beyond their capacity. While there is a movement to embrace a “big data” approach to archaeological research, it often takes years to amass enough information to make this plan actionable. How does one go about integrating “big data” when they do not necessarily exist for foodways archaeology? One solution is to mine existing data curated in archives, museums, and the filing cabinets of our colleagues that can be used to increase the depth and geographical coverage of a study. If the data needed for answering large- scale questions exist only in hard copy form, then a large-scale foodways data digitization project is in order. This may simply take the form of researchers identifying existing curated datasets, requesting PDF scans of existing hand-written data sheets or cards and context notes, and then entering these data into a database or spreadsheet. The digital dataset can be sent back to the original repository for curation. The researcher then uses the dataset for her/his project with the ultimate goal of making it widely available via tDAR, OpenContext.org, or another similar repository. While most institutions are in favor of these projects and accommodate these types of requests, it is unfortunate that some do not share this forward-thinking attitude and maintain a proprietary stance on all data housed at their facility. However, as recent events like the shuttering of the Illinois State Museum and all associated research facilities have shown us, the access to such datasets are not guaranteed and can be denied due to situations outside our control.

37 Another tactic is to input data published in tables or appendices in the gray literature. One of my current collaborative projects extends the anthropological interpretation of late pre-

Columbian archaeological sites in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina by combining zooarchaeological analysis of animal species from Mississippian sites with the Native American ethnohistorical, ethnographic, and linguistic records. The data that exist only as tables in various technical reports are input into a project-specific Google Form. This allows for the data to be standardized and automatically transferred to a spreadsheet for analysis. Ultimately we will share the digital versions of these data in our publications with other researchers through the sources listed above. All data are cited as to their original source.

These large datasets enable data integration at a level never seen before archaeologically

(Kintigh 2006; Spielmann and Kintigh 2011). While I do not advocate for one data publishing or curation source over another, I can speak to the utility of tDAR for integrating large datasets collected by multiple individuals over several decades. I am a member of the Eastern Archaic

Faunal Working Group (EAFWG), and our aim is to explore how and to what extent people living in the interior of the eastern United States used aquatic animals, as the archaeological record suggests an increased use in these resources after 7,000 years ago. To this end, at least 19 datasets (nearly 300,000 specimens) from projects spanning the past half-century were uploaded into tDAR by EAFWG members (Neusius and Styles 2014). The integration tools native to tDAR are used to analyze the datasets based on a number of agreed upon variables to answer larger questions about Archaic foodways over a longer time span than can be seen at any one site alone.

Foodways studies are a necessary and exciting area of research, especially when one considers that all archaeological studies intersect with foodways at some level. When people feel

38 secure in their food resources they can focus their attentions on other pursuits—monument building, art, and experimentation. Archaeologists also study catastrophic events that reduce food security (i.e., war, climatic episodes, culture clash/contact). When archaeologists who specialize in foodways are part of projects from the start, crucial data categories are targeted for recovery and the datasets are much more robust, as evidenced by the research at Cahokia and Moundville.

Collaboration, data integration, and looking at the wider regional view will push foodways studies beyond the commonly accepted boundaries and lead to stronger and more nuanced readings of the past.

Acknowledgments

I offer my appreciation to Dr. Gary Feinman for the invitation to write this paper and to his editorial staff for their excellent guidance. Many thanks to Lacey Fleming for creating the figures. This paper benefited from the helpful comments, criticisms, and editorial suggestions provided by Dana Bardolph, Kelly Ledford, Megan Merrick, and seven anonymous reviewers.

However, the usual disclaimer that any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies are my own applies to this paper.

39 References Cited

Ambrose, S. H. (1987). Chemical and isotopic techniques of dietary reconstruction in eastern

North America. In Keegan, W. F. (ed.), Emergent Horticultural Communities of the

Eastern Woodlands, Occasional Paper No. 7, Center for Archaeological Investigations,

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 87–107.

Ambrose, S. H., Buikstra, J., and Krueger, H. W. (2003). Status and gender differences in diet at

Mound 72, Cahokia, revealed by isotopic analysis of bone. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 22: 217–226.

Anderson, D. G., and Sassaman, K. E. (1996). The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast,

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, J. (1971). “A Solid Sufficiency”: An Ethnography of Yeoman Foodways in Stuart

England, Ph.D. dissertation, Program in Folklore and Folklife, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia.

Appadurai, A. (1981). Gastro-Politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8: 494–511.

Baron, C., Carson, D., and Bernard, M. (2014). Appetites and Anxieties: Food, Film, and the

Politics of Representation, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.

Baumann, T. E. (2009). The web of cultural identity: A case study of African-American identity

and “soul food.” Tennessee Archaeology 4: 66–93.

Beehr, D. E., and Ambrose, S. H. (2007). Reconstructing Mississippian diet in the American

Bottom with stable isotope ratios of potsherd residues. In Barnard, J. H., and Eerkens, W.

(eds.), Theory and Practice of Archaeological Residue Analysis, BAR International Series

1650, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 189–199.

40 Bense, J. (1994). Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War II,

Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Benson, L. V., Pauketat, T. R., and Cook, E. R. (2009). Cahokia’s boom and bust in the context

of climate change. American Antiquity 74: 467–483.

Blakely, R. L., and Beck, L. A. (1981). Trace elements, nutritional status, and social stratification

at Etowah, Georgia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376: 417–431.

Blitz, J. (1993) Big pots for big shots: Feasting and storage in a Mississippian community.

American Antiquity 58: 80–96.

Boas, F. (1888). The Indians of British Columbia. The Popular Science Monthly 32: 628–636.

Bogan, A. (1982) Archaeological evidence of subsistence patterns in the Little Tennessee River

Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 7: 38–50.

Boudreaux, E. (2010). A functional analysis of Mississippian ceramic vessels from Town Creek.

Southeastern Archaeology 29: 8–30.

Bower, A. L. (2004.) Reel Food: Essays on Food and Film, Routledge, New York.

Bowes, J. (2011). Provisioned, produced, procured: Slave subsistence strategies and social

relations at Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. Journal of Ethnobiology 31: 89–109.

Briggs, R. V. (2016). The civil cooking pot: Hominy and the Mississippian standard jar in the

Black Warrior River Valley, Alabama. American Antiquity 81: 316–332.

Briggs, R. V. (2015). The hominy foodways of the Historic Native Eastern Woodlands. Native

South 8: 112–146.

Brillat-Savarin, J. A. (1999). The Physiology of Taste, or Meditations on Transcendental

Gastronomy. Counterpoint Press, New York.

41 Brown, I. W. (1994). Recent trends in the archaeology of the southeastern United States. Journal

of Archaeological Research 2: 45–111.

Brown, L. K., and Mussell, K. (1984). Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The

Performance of Group Identity, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Butzer, K. W. (1982). Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Carmody, S. B., and Hollenbach, K. D. (2013). The role of gathering in Middle Archaic social

complexity in the mid-South: A diachronic perspective. In Groot, M., Lentjes, D., and

Zeiler, J. (eds.), Barely Surviving or More Than Enough? The Environmental Archaeology

of Subsistence, Specialisation, and Surplus Food Production, Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp.

29–57.

Claassen, C. (1991). Gender, shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Archaic. In Gero, J. M., and

Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 276–

300.

Claassen, C. (2010). Feasting with Shellfish in the Southern Ohio Valley: Archaic Sacred Sites

and Rituals, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Claassen, C. (2011). Rockshelters as women’s retreats: Understanding Newt Kash. American

Antiquity 76: 628–641.

Clark, B. J., and Wilkie, L. A. (2007). The prism of self: Gender and personhood. In Nelson, S.

M. (ed.), Identity and Subsistence: Gender Strategies for Archaeology, AltaMira Press,

Latham, MD, pp. 276–300.

Clark, J., and Gosser, D. (1995). Reinventing Mesoamerica’s first pottery. In Barnett, W., and

Hoopes, J. (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,

DC, pp. 209–221.

42 Connor, J. T. (1925). Colonial Records of Spanish Florida 1, Florida State Historical Society,

Deland.

Covey, H. C., and Eisnach, D. (2009). What the Slaves Ate: Recollections of African American

Foods and Foodways From the Slave Narratives, Greenwood Press, Santa Barbara, CA.

Crader, D. (1990). Slave diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55: 690–717.

Crothers, G. M. (2004). The Green River comparison to the lower Mississippi Valley during the

Archaic: To build mounds or not to build mounds? In Gibson, J., and Carr, P. (eds.), Signs

of Power, University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, pp. 86–96.

Crown, P. L. (2000). Women’s role in changing cuisine. In Crown, P. L. (ed.), Women and Men

in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, School of Advanced Research

Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 221–266.

Crown, P. L., Emerson, T. E., Gu, J., Hurst, W. J., Pauketat, T. R., and Ward, T. (2012). Ritual

black drink consumption at Cahokia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

USA 109: 13944–13949.

Crowther, G. (2013). Eating Culture: An Anthropological Guide to Food, University of Toronto

Press, Ontario.

Dickens, R. S., and Ward, H. T. (1985). Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology,

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Dietler, M. (1990). Driven by drink: The role of drinking in the political economy and the case of

early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352–406.

Dietler, M. (1996). Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: Food, power and

status in prehistoric Europe. In Wiessner, P., and Schiefenhovel, W. (eds.), Food and the

Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Berghahn, Providence, pp. 87–125.

43 Dietler, M., and Herbich, I. (2001). Feasts and labor mobilization: Dissecting a fundamental

economic practice. In Dietler, M., and Hayden, B. (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and

Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, DC, pp. 240–265.

Dixon, J. (2002). The Changing Chicken: Chooks, Cooks and Culinary Culture, University of

New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Doran, G. (2002). Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida

Cemetery, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Douglas, M. (1984). Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three

American Communities, Routledge, New York.

Eastman, J. M., and Rodning, C. B. (eds.) (2001). Archaeological Studies of Gender in the

Southeastern United States, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Edge, J. T., Engelhardt, E. S., and Ownby, T. (2013). The Larder: Food Studies Methods from

the American South, University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Ethridge, R., and Hudson, C. (2002). The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, 1540–

1760, University of Mississippi Press, Oxford.

Evershed, R. P. (2008). Organic residue analysis in archaeology: The archaeological biomarker

revolution. Archaeometry 50: 895–924.

Fenneman, N. M., and Johnson, D. W. (1946). Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U.S.,

U.S. Geological Survey Special Map Series, scale 1:7,000,000.

Franklin, M. (2001). The archaeological dimensions of soul food: Interpreting race, culture, and

Afro-Virginian identity. In Orser, Jr., C. E. (ed.), Race and the Archaeology of Identity,

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 88–107.

44 Fritz, G. J., and Lopinot, N. H. (2007). Native crops at early Cahokia: Comparing domestic and

ceremonial contexts. Illinois Archaeology 15–16: 90–109.

Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (1991). Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory,

Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.

Glore, M. (2005). Zooarchaeological analysis of Bt5, Operation C. In Marquardt, W., and

Watson, P. J. (eds.), Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region, Kentucky, Monograph

No. 5, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of

Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 315–338.

Graff, S., and Rodriguez-Alegria, E. (2012). The Menial Art of Cooking: Archaeological Studies

of Cooking and Food Preparation, University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Gremillion, K. J.(1996). Early agricultural diet in eastern North America: Evidence from two

Kentucky rockshelters. American Antiquity 61: 520–536.

Gremillion, K. J. (1998). Changing roles of wild and cultivated plant resources among early

farmers of eastern Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology 17: 140–157.

Gremillion, K. J. (2003). Eastern Woodlands Overview. In Minnis, P. (ed.), People and Plants in

Ancient North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 17–49.

Gremillion, K. J. (2004). Seed processing and the origins of food production in eastern North

America. American Antiquity 69: 215–234.

Gremillion, K. J. (2015) Prehistoric upland farming, fuelwood, and forest composition on the

Cumberland Plateau, Kentucky, USA. Journal of Ethnobiology 35:60–84.

45 Gremillion, K. J., Barton, L., and Piperno, D. (2014). Particularism and the retreat from theory in

the archaeology of agricultural origins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

USA 111: 6171–6177.

Gremillion, K. J., and Piperno, D. R. (2009). Human behavioral ecology, phenotypic

(developmental) plasticity, and agricultural origins: Insights from the emerging

evolutionary synthesis. Current Anthropology 50(5): 615-619.

Gremillion, K. J., Windingstad, J., Sherwood, S. (2008). Forest opening, habitat use, and food

production on the Cumberland Plateau, Kentucky: Adaptive flexibility in a marginal

setting. American Antiquity 73: 387–411.

Groot, M., Lentjes, D., and Zeiler, J. (2013). Barely Surviving or More Than Enough? The

Environmental Archaeology of Subsistence, Specialisation, and Surplus Food Production,

Sidestone Press, Leiden.

Groover, M. D. (2003). An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: The

Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Publishers, New York.

Groover, M. D. (2005). The Gibbs Farmstead: Household archaeology in an internal periphery.

International Journal of Historical Archaeology 9: 229–289.

Halligan, J. J., Waters, M. R., Perrotti, A., Owens, I. J., Feinberg, J. M., Bourne, M. D., Fenerty,

B., Winsborough, B., Carlson, D., Fisher, D. C., Stafford, Jr., T. W., and Dunbar, J. S.

(2016). Pre-Clovis occupation 14,550 years ago at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, and the

peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600375.

46 Hard, R. T., and Katzenberg, M. A. (2011). Stable isotope study of hunter-gatherer-fisher diet,

mobility, and intensification on the Texas Gulf coastal plain. American Antiquity 76: 709–

751.

Hastorf, C. (2012). Steamed or boiled: Identity and value in food preparation. In Pollock, S.

(ed.), Between feasts and daily meals: Toward an archaeology of commensal spaces.

Journal of Ancient Studies 2 (special volume): 213–242.

Hastorf, C. (2008). Food and feasting, social and political aspects. In Pearsall, D. (ed.),

Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 1386–1395.

Hastorf, C. (1991). Gender, space, and food in prehistory. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W.

(eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 132–162.

Hayden, B. (2014). The Power of Feasts: From Prehistory to the Present, Cambridge University

Press, New York.

Hayden, B. (2009a). Funerals as feasts: Why are they so important? Cambridge Archaeological

Journal 19: 29–52.

Hayden, B. (2009b). The proof is in the pudding: Feasting and the origins of domestication.

Current Anthropology 50: 597–601.

Hayden, B. (2001). Fabulous feasts: A prolegomenon to the importance of feasting. In Dietler,

M., and Hayden, B. (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on

Food, Politics, and Power, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23–64.

Hayden, B. (1996) Feasting in prehistoric and traditional societies. In Wiessner, P., and

Schiefenhovel, W. (eds.), Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective,

Berghahn Books, Oxford, pp. 127–148.

47 Hayden, B., and Villeneuve, S. (2011). A century of feasting studies. Annual Review of

Anthropology 40: 433–449.

Hedman, K. M. (2006). Late Cahokian subsistence and health: Stable isotope and dental

evidence. Southeastern Archaeology 25: 258–274.

Hedman, K. M., Hargrave, E. A., and Ambrose, S. H. (2002). Late Mississippian diet in the

American Bottom: Stable isotope analysis of bone collagen and carbon. Midcontinental

Journal of Archaeology 27: 217–237.

Hillard, S. B. (1988). Hog meat and cornpone: Foodways in the Antebellum South. In George, B.

S. (ed.), Material Life in America, 1600-1800, Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA,

pp. 311–322.

Hogue, S. H. (2007). Mississippian and protohistoric/early contact diet and health: Biological

and cultural continuity and change in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern

Archaeology 26: 246–268.

Hollenbach, K.D. (2009). Foraging in the Tennessee Valley, 12,500 to 8,000 Years Ago.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Holtzman, J. D. (2006). Food and memory. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 361–378.

Homsey-Messer, L. (2015). Revisiting the role of caves and rockshelters in the hunter-gatherer

taskscape of the Archaic midsouth. American Antiquity 80: 332–352.

Hudson, C. (1976). The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Hutchinson, D. L., and Norr, L. (2006). Nutrition and health at contact in late prehistoric central

Gulf Coast Florida. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129: 375–386.

48 Hutchinson, D. L., Norr, L., Schober, T., Marquardt, W. H., Walker, K. J., Newsom, L. A., and

Scarry, C. M. (2016). The Calusa and prehistoric subsistence in central and south Gulf

Coast Florida. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41: 55–73.

Iriarte, J., Gilliam, C., and Marozzi, O. (2008). Monumental burials and memorial feasting: An

example from the southern Brazilian highlands. Antiquity 318: 947–961.

Jackson, H. E. (2014) Animals as symbols, animals as resources: The elite faunal record in the

Mississippian world. In Arbuckle, B. S., and McCarty, S. A. (eds.), Animals and Inequality

in the Ancient World, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 107–123.

Jackson, H. E., Scarry, C. M., and Scott, S. L. (2016). Domestic and ritual meals in the Moundville chiefdom. In Steponaitis, V. P., and Scarry, C. M. (eds.), Rethinking Moundville and Its Hinterland, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 187-232.

Jackson, H. E., and Scott, S. L. (1995a). The faunal record of the southeastern elite: The

implications of economy, social relations, and ideology. Southeastern Archaeology 14:

103–119.

Jackson, H. E., and Scott, S. L. (1995b). Mississippian homestead and village subsistence

organization: Contrasts in large mammal remains from two sites in the Tombigbee Valley.

In Rogers, J. D., and Smith, B. D. (eds.), Mississippian Communities and Households,

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 181–200.

Jackson, H. E., and Scott, S. L. (2003). Patterns of elite faunal utilization at Moundville,

Alabama. American Antiquity 68: 552–572.

Johnson, J. K. (1993). The Development of Southeastern Archaeology, University of Alabama

Press, Tuscaloosa.

49 Joyce, R. A., and Henderson, J. S. (2007). From feasting to cuisine: Implications of

archaeological research in an early Honduran village. American Anthropologist 109: 642–

53.

Kelly, L. S. (2000). Patterns of faunal exploitation at Cahokia. In Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson,

T. E. (eds.), Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, University of

Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 69–88.

Kelly, L. S. (2001). A case of ritual feasting at the Cahokia site. In Dietler, M., and Hayden, B.

(eds.) Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and

Power, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 334–367.

Kintigh, K. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American

Antiquity 71: 567–578.

Kistler, L., Montenegro, A., Smith, B. D., Gifford, J., Green, R. E., Newsom, L. A., and Shapiro,

B. (2014). Transoceanic drift and the domestication of African bottle gourds in the

Americas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 2937–2941.

Kistler L., and Shapiro B. (2011). Ancient DNA confirms a local origin of domesticated

chenopod in eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3549–3554.

Knight, V. J. (2004). Characterizing elite midden deposits at Moundville. Southeastern

Archaeology 69: 304–321.

Knight, V. J. (2001). Feasting and the emergence of platform mound ceremonialism in eastern

North America. In Dietler, M., and Hayden, B. (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and

Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, DC, pp. 311–333.

50 Kurlanskey, M. (2009). The Food of a Younger Land: A Portrait of American Food before the

National Highway System, Before Chain Restaurants, and Before Frozen Food, When the

Nation’s Food was Seasonal: Regional, and Traditional, From the Lost WPA Files,

Riverhead Books, New York.

Lapham, H. A. (2011). Animals in southeastern Native American subsistence economies. In

Smith, B. D. (ed.), Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies,

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC, pp. 401–429.

Larsen, C. S. (2015). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from Human Skeletons, 2nd ed.,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lev-Tov, J. S. (2004). Implications of risk theory for understanding nineteenth-century slave

diets in the southern United States. In O’Day, S. J., Van Neer, W., and Ervynck, A. (eds.),

Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity,

Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, No. 1,

Oxbow Books, London, pp. 304–317.

Lusteck, R. K., and Thompson, R. G. (2007). Residues of maize in North American pottery:

What phytoliths can add to the story of maize. In Barnard, J. H., and Eerkens, W. (eds.),

Theory and Practice of Archaeological Residue Analysis, BAR International Series 1650,

Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 8–17.

Lyman, R. L. (1987). On zooarchaeological measures of socioeconomic position and cost-

efficient meat purchases. Historical Archaeology 21: 58–66.

Marquardt, W. H., and Payne, C. (1992). Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa.

Monograph 1, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum

of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

51 Marquardt, W., and Watson, P. J. (2005). Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region,

Kentucky, Monograph No. 5, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,

Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,

Marrinan, R. A. (1975). Ceramics, Molluscs, and Sedentism: The Late Archaic Period on the

Georgia Coast, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,

Gainesville.

McKelway, H. S., with contributions by Crites, G. D., Greene, L. K., and Young, A. L. (2000).

Slaves and Master in the Upland South: Data Recovery at the Mabry Site (40KN86), Knox

County, Tennessee, Publications in Archaeology No. 6, Office of Environmental Planning

and Permits, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Nashville.

Meigs, A. (1988). Food as a cultural construction. Food and Foodways: Explorations in the

History of Culture and Human Nourishment 2: 341–357.

Messer, E. (1984). Anthropological perspectives on diet. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:

205–249.

Miller, J. R. (2015). Interior carbonization patterns as evidence of ritual drink preparation in

Powell Plain and Ramey Incised vessels. American Antiquity 80: 170–183.

Miller, J. H., and Robinson, K. S. (1995). A regional perspective of the physiographic provinces

of the southeastern United States. In Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Southern

Silvicultural Research Conference, November 1-3, 1994, Auburn, Alabama, General

Technical Report SRS-1, Southern Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Asheville, pp. 581–591.

Mintz, S. W., and Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review

of Anthropology 31: 99–119.

52 Mitchell, J. (2008). Cookbooks as a social and historical document: A Scottish case study. Food

Service Technology 1: 13–23.

Mitchell, R. D. (1972). Agricultural reorganization: Origin and diffusion in the Upper South

before 1860. In Adams, W. P., and Helleiner, F. M. (eds.), International Geography, Vol.

12, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 740–742.

Moore, C R., Brooks, M. J., Kimball, L. R., Newman, M. E., and Kooyman, B. P. (2016). Early

hunter-gatherer tool use and animal exploitation: Protein and microwear evidence from the

central Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 81: 132–147.

Mrozowski, S. A., Franklin, M., and Hunt, L. (2008). Archaeobotanical analysis and

interpretations of enslaved Virginian plant use at Rich Neck Plantation (44WB52).

American Antiquity 73: 699–728.

Mulligan, C. (2006). Anthropological applications of ancient DNA: Problems and prospects.

American Antiquity 71: 365–380.

Nealis, S. E., and Seeman, M. F. (2015). Dental attrition at the Indian Knoll (15OH2) and Black

Earth (11SA87) sites: Extreme wear as a stressor in late Archaic populations of the Ohio

Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 34: 57–70.

Neusius, S., and Styles, B. (2014). The Development of Integrated Faunal Databases in tDAR.

Award Abstract #1430754, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (n.d.). General coastline and

shoreline mileage of the United States. Electronic document,

https://coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/states/shorelines.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2016.

O’Brien, M. J., and Majewksi, T. (1989). Wealth and status in the Upper South socioeconomic

system of Northeastern Missouri. Historical Archaeology 23: 60–95.

53 Opie, F. D. (2008). Hog and Hominy: Soul Food from Africa to America, Columbia University

Press, New York.

Orser, Jr., C. E. (1987). Plantation status and consumer choice: A materialist framework for

historical archaeology. In Spencer-Wood, S. M. (ed.), Consumer Choice in Historical

Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 121–137.

Osborne, D. (1943). Physiography and some archaeological implications in the Kentucky Basin.

American Antiquity 9: 180–189.

Palmié, S. (2009). Intangible cultural property, semiotic ideology, and the vagaries of

ethnoculinary recognition. African Arts 42(4): 54–61.

Pauketat, T. R., Kelly, L. S., Fritz, G. J., Lopinot, N. H., Elias, S., and Hargrave, E. (2002). The

residues of feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67: 257–280.

Pauketat, T. R., Rees, M. A., VanDerwarker, A. M., and Parker, K. E. (2010). Excavations into

Cahokia's Mound 49. Illinois Archaeology 22: 397–436.

Pavao-Zuckerman, B. (2007). Deerskins and domesticates: Creek subsistence and economic

strategies in the historic period. American Antiquity 72: 5–33.

Pavao-Zuckerman, B., and Loren, D. D. (2012). Presentation is everything: Foodways,

tablewares, and colonial identity at Presidio Los Adaes. International Journal of Historical

Archaeology 16: 199–226.

Pearsall, D. M. (2015). Paleoethnobotany, Third Edition: A Handbook of Procedures, Left Coast

Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Peres, T. M. (2008). Foodways, economic status, and the Antebellum Upland South in central

Kentucky. Historical Archaeology 42: 88–104.

54 Peres, T. M. (2010). Methodological issues in zooarchaeology. In VanDerwarker, A. M., and

Peres, T. M. (eds.), Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of

Issues, Methods, and Cases, Springer, New York, pp. 15–36.

Peres, T. M. (2014). Introduction. In Peres, T. M. (ed.), Trends and Traditions in Southeastern

Zooarchaeology, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 1–23.

Peres, T. M., and Deter-Wolf, A. (2016). The shell-bearing Archaic in the middle Cumberland

River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology, DOI:10.1080/0734578X.2016.1154428

Perkins, E. A. (1991). The consumer frontier: Household consumption in early Kentucky. The

Journal of American History 78: 486–510.

Perodie, J. R. (2001). Feasting for prosperity: A study of southern Northwest Coast feasting. In

Dietler, M., and Hayden, B. (eds.), Feasts Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives

on Food, Politics, and Power, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 185–

214.

Pluckhahn, T. E., and Ethridge, R. (eds.) (2006). Light on the Path: The Anthropology and

History of Southeastern Indians, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Pollock, S. (ed.) (2012). Between Feasts and Daily Deals: Towards an Archaeology of

Commensal Spaces, Special volume of Journal for Ancient Studies 2.

Quinn R. L., Tucker, B. D., and Krigbaum, J. (2008). Diet and mobility in Middle Archaic

Florida: Stable isotopic and faunal data from the Harris Creek archaeological site (8Vo24),

Tick Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2346–2356.

Randall, A. R. (2015) Constructing Histories: Archaic Freshwater Shell Mounds and Social

Landscapes of the St. Johns River, Florida, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

55 Reber, E. (2007). The well-tempered pottery analysis: Residue and typological analysis of

potsherds from the lower Mississippi Valley. In Barnard, H., and Eerkens, J. W. (eds.),

Theory and Practice of Archaeological Residue Analysis, BAR International Series 1650,

Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 148–160.

Reber, E. A., Blitz, J. H., and Thompson, C. E. (2010). Direct determination of the contents of a

ceramic bottle from the Moundville site, Alabama. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology

35: 37–56.

Reber, E. A., Dudd, S. N., van der Merwe, N. J., and Evershed, R. P. (2004), Direct detection of

maize processing in archaeological pottery through compound-specific stable isotope

analysis of n-dotriacontanol in absorbed organic residues. Antiquity 78: 682–691.

Reber, E. A., and Evershed, R. P. (2006). Ancient vegetarians? Absorbed pottery residue

analysis of diet in the late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian periods of the

Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 25: 110–120.

Reber, E. A., and Evershed, R. P. (2004a). Identification of maize in absorbed organic residues:

A cautionary tale. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 399–410.

Reber, E. A., and Evershed, R. P. (2004b). How did Mississippians prepare maize? The

application of compound specific carbon isotopic measurements to absorbed pottery

residues from several Mississippi Valley sites. Archaeometry 46: 19–33.

Reilly, F. K., III (2011). Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the

Mississippian World, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Reitz, E. J. (2004) Aboriginal subsistence technology: A personal perspective. Southeastern

Archaeology 23: 202–207.

56 Reitz, E. J. (1992). Vertebrate fauna from seventeenth-century St. Augustine. Southeastern

Archaeology 11: 79–94.

Reitz, E. J., (1987). Vertebrate fauna and socioeconomic status. In Spencer-Wood, S. M. (ed.),

Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 101–119.

Reitz, E. J., and Honerkamp, N. (1983). British colonial subsistence strategy on the southeastern

Coastal Plain. Historical Archaeology 17: 4–26.

Reitz, E. J., Pavao-Zuckerman. B., Weinand, D. C., Duncan, G. A., and Thomas, D. H. (2010).

Mission and Pueblo of Santa Catalina de Guale, St. Catherines Island, Georgia: A

Comparative Zooarchaeological Analysis, Anthropological Papers No. 91, American

Museum of Natural History, New York.

Reitz, E. J., Quitmyer, I. R., and Marrinan, R. A. (2009). What are we measuring in the

zooarchaeological record of prehispanic fishing strategies in the Georgia Bight, USA?

Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 4: 2–36.

Reitz, E. J., Ruff, B. L., and Zierden, M. A. (2006). Pigs in Charleston, South Carolina: Using

specimen count to consider status. Historical Archaeology 40: 104–124.

Reitz, E. J., Scarry, C. M., and Scudder, S. J. (eds.) (2008). Case Studies in Environmental

Archaeology, 2nd ed., Springer Press, New York.

Reitz, E. J., and Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Russo, M. (2004). Measuring shell rings for social inequality. In Gibson, J., and Carr, P. (eds.),

Signs of Power: Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast, University of Alabama Press,

Tuscaloosa, pp. 26–70.

57 Sassaman, K. E. (1993). Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking

Technology, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Saunders, J. W., Mandel, R. D., Sampson, C. G., Allen, C. M., Allen, E. T., Bush, D. A., Feather,

J. K., Gremillion, K. J., Hallmark, C. T., Jackson, E. H., Johnson, J. K., Jones, R., Saucier,

R. T., Stringer, G. L., and Vidrine, M. F. (2005). Watson Brake: A middle Archaic mound

complex in northeast Louisiana. American Antiquity 70: 631–668.

Saunders, R., and Russo, M. (2011). Coastal shell middens in Florida: A view from the Archaic

period. Quaternary International 239: 38–50.

Scarry, C. M. (2003). The use of plants in mound-related activities at Bottle Creek and

Moundville. In Brown, I. W., and Drooker, P. B. (eds.), Bottle Creek: A Pensacola Culture

Site in South Alabama, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 114–129.

Scarry, C. M. (2009). Crop husbandry practices in North America’s Eastern Woodlands. In

Retiz, E. J., Scarry, S. M., and Scudder, S. J. (eds.), Case Studies in Environmental

Archaeology, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 391–404.

Scarry, C. M., and Reitz, E. J. (1990). Herbs, fish, scum, and vermin: Subsistence strategies in

sixteenth-century Spanish Florida. In Thomas, D. H. (ed.), Columbian Consequences, Vol.

2, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 343–354.

Scarry, C. M., and Steponaitis, V. P. (1997). Between farmstead and center: The natural and

social landscape of Moundville. In Gremillion, K. J., (ed.), People, Plants, and

Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp.

107–122.

Schoeninger, M. J., and Peebles, C. S. (1981). Effect of mollusc eating on human bone strontium

levels. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 391–397.

58 Seeman, M. F. (1979). Feasting with the dead: Ohio Hopewell charnel house ritual as a context

for redistribution. In Brose, D., and Greber, N. (eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The

Chillicothe Conference, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, pp. 39–46.

Sichler, J. (2014). “Som time I git a nuff and som times I don’t”: Confederate subsistence and the

evidence from the Florence Stockade (38FL2), Florence, South Carolina. In Peres, T. M.

(ed.), Trends and Traditions in Southeastern Zooarchaeology, University Press of Florida,

Gainesville, pp. 24–49.

Simmons, A. (2012). A foodways research recipe. Australasian Historical Archaeology 20: 43–

51.

Simon, M. L., and Parker, K. E. (2006). Prehistoric plant use in the American Bottom: New

thoughts and interpretations. Southeastern Archaeology 25:212–257.

Smallwood, A. M. (2015). Building experimental use-wear analogues for Clovis biface

functions. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7: 13–26.

Smith, B. D. (2015). A comparison of niche construction theory and diet breadth models as

explanatory frameworks for the initial domestication of plants and animals. Journal of

Archaeological Research 23: 215–262.

Smith, B. D., and Cowan, C. W. (2003). Domesticated crop plants and the evolution of food

production economies in eastern North America. In Minnis, P. (ed.) People and Plants in

Ancient Eastern North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 105–

125.

Smith, B. D., and Yarnell, R. A. (2009). Initial formation of an indigenous crop complex in

eastern North America at 3800 BP. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA

106: 6561–6566.

59 Sobolik, K. D. (1996). Lithic organic residue analysis: An example from the southwestern

Archaic. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 461–469.

Spencer, M. E. (1982). Food in Seventh-Century Tidewater Virginia: A Method for Studying

Historical Cuisine, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Human Nutrition and Foods, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Spencer-Wood, S. M. (1987). Introduction. In Spencer-Wood, S. M. (ed.), Consumer Choice in

Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1–24.

Spielmann, K., and Kintigh, K. (2011). The digital archaeological record: The potentials of

archaeozoological data integration through tDAR. The SAA Archaeological Record 11: 22-

25.

Steponaitis, V. P. (1986). Prehistoric archaeology in the southeastern United States, 1970–1985.

Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 363–404.

Steponaitis, V. P., and Scarry, C. M. (2016). New directions in Moundville research. In

Steponaitis, V. P., and Scarry, C. M. (eds.), Rethinking Moundville and Its Hinterland, ,

University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 1-22.

Stockett, M. K., and Geller, P. L. (2006). Feminist anthropology: Perspectives on our past,

present, and future. In Geller, P. L., and Stockett, M. K. (eds.), Feminist Anthropology:

Past, Present, and Future, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–20.

Swanton, J. R. (1987) The Indians of Southeastern United States, Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin No. 137, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Tushingham, S., McNutt, C. H., and Hill, J. (2002). Histories of Southeastern Archaeology,

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

60 Twiss, K. C. (2012). The archaeology of food and social diversity. Journal of Archaeological

Research 20: 357–395.

Twiss, K. C. (2008). Transformations in an early agricultural society: Feasting in the southern

Levantine pre-pottery neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:418-442.

Tykot, R. H., Kelly, J. A., and Milanich, J. T. (2005). Stable isotope analysis and subsistence

adaptations along the Gulf Coast of Florida from the Archaic through Safety Harbor

periods. In Kars, H., and Burke, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd International

Symposium on Archaeometry, April 22–26, 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, special

issue of Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies 3: 517–520.

Usner, D. (1992). Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower

Mississippi Valley before 1783, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

VanDerwarker, A. M. (1999). Feasting and status at the Toqua site. Southeastern Archaeology

18: 24–34.

VanDerwarker, A. M., Bardolph, D. N., Hoppa, K. M., Thakar, H. B., Martin, L. S., Jaqua, A.,

Biwer, M. E., and Gill, K. M. (2016). New World paleoethnobotany in the new millennium

(2000–2013). Journal of Archaeological Research 24: 125–177.

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Detweiler, K. R. (2000). Plant and animal subsistence at the Coweeta

Creek site (31Ma34), Macon County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 49: 59–

77.

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Detweiler, K. R. (2002). Gendered practice in Cherokee foodways: A

spatial analysis of plant remains from the Coweeta Creek site. Southeastern Archaeology

21: 21–28.

61 VanDerwarker, A. M., and Idol, B. (2008). Rotten food and ritual behavior: Late Woodland plant

foodways and special purpose features at Buzzard Rock II, Virginia (44RN2/70).

Southeastern Archaeology 27: 61–77.

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Peres, T. M. (2010). Integrating Zooarchaeology and

Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases, Springer, New York.

VanDerwarker, A. M., Scarry, C. M., and Eastman, J. M. (2007). Menus for families and feasts:

Household and community consumption of plants at Upper Saratown, North Carolina. In

Twiss, K. C. (ed.), The Archaeology of Food and Identity, Occasional Paper No. 34, Center

for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 16–49.

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Wilson, G. D. (2016). War, food, and structural violence in the

Mississippian central Illinois Valley. In VanDerwarker, A. M., and Wilson, G. D. (eds.),

The Archaeology of Food and Warfare, Springer Press, New York, pp. 75–105. van Willigen, J., and van Willigen, A. (2006). Food and Everyday Life on Kentucky Family

Farms, 1920-1950, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Varner, S. (1998). Pleasurable refusal: Veganism, alternative identities, and alternative

communities. Digest: An Interdisciplinary Study of Food and Foodways 18: 2–13.

Walker, K. J. (2000). The material culture of Precolumbian fishing: Artifacts and fish remains

from coastal Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19: 24–45.

Walker, R. B., Detweiler, K. R., Meeks, S. C., and Driskell, B. N. (2001). Berries, bones, and

blades: Reconstructing late Paleoindian subsistence economy at Dust Cave, Alabama.

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26: 169–197.

Walker, R. B., and Driskell, B. (2007). Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America,

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

62 Wallis, N. (2011). The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast, University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Walonen, M. K., and Hackler, M. B. (2012). Class, identity, and anxiety at the plantation table:

British travellers and antebellum southern foodways. Studies in Travel Writing 16: 17–30.

Watson, P. J. (1990). Trend and tradition in southeastern archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology

9: 43–54.

Watson, P. J., and Kennedy, M. C. (1991). The development of horticulture in the Eastern

Woodlands of North America: Women’s roles. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.),

Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 255–

275.

Weismantel, M. (1988). Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes, University of

Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Welch, P. D., and Scarry, C. M. (1995). Status-related variation in foodways in the Moundville

chiefdom. American Antiquity 60: 397–419.

Wells, III, E. W., Sherwood, S. C., and Hollenbach, K. D. (2014). Soapstone vessel chronology

and function in the southern Appalachians of eastern Tennessee: The Apple Barn site

(40BT90) assemblage. Southeastern Archaeology 33: 153–167.

White, D. (1991). Gender, diet, health, and social status in the Mississippian Powers phase

Turner cemetery population. In Claassen, C., and Joyce, R., (eds.) Women in Prehistory:

North America and Mesoamerica, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 119–

135.

63 Whitney, B. S., Dickau, R., Mayle, F. E., Walker, J. H., Soto, J. D., and Iriarte, J. (2014). Pre-

Columbian raised field agriculture and land use in the Bolivian Amazon. The Holocene 24:

231–241.

Williams Forson, P. A. (1998). "Finger lickin' good...?": Fried chicken, black folks, and the

politics of their food(ways). Digest: An Interdisciplinary Study of Food and Foodways 18:

33–36.

Wilson, G. D., and Rodning, C. B. (2002). Boiling, baking, and pottery breaking: A functional

analysis of ceramic vessels from Coweeta Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 21: 29–35.

Wright, P J. (2010). Methodological issues in paleoethnobotany: A consideration of issues,

methods, and cases. In VanDerwarker, A. M., and Peres, T. M. (eds.), Integrating

Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases,

Springer Press, New York, pp. 37–64.

Yentsch, A. (2008). Excavating the South’s African American food history. In Bower, A. (ed.),

African American Foodways: Explorations of History and Culture, University of Illinois

Press, Urbana, pp. 59–99.

Yerkes, R. W. (2005). Bone chemistry, body parts, and growth marks: Evaluating Ohio

Hopewell and Cahokia Mississippian seasonality, subsistence, ritual, and feasting.

American Antiquity 70: 241–266.

Young, A. L. (1993). Slave subsistence at the Upper Mabry site, east Tennessee: Regional

variability in plantation diet of the southeastern United States. Unpublished Master’s (MA)

thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

64 Young, A. L. (1995a). Archaeology at Locust Grove Plantation, Jefferson County, Kentucky. In

Doershuk, J. F., Bergman, C. A., and Pollack, D. (eds.), Current Archaeological Research

in Kentucky, Vol. 3, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, pp. 279–296.

Young, A. L. (1995b). Risk and Material Conditions of African American Slaves at Locust

Grove: An Archaeological Perspective, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Young, A. L. (1997). Cellars and African-American slave sites: New data from an Upland South

plantation. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22: 95–115.

Zeder, M. A., Emshwiller, E., Smith, B. D., and Bradley, D. G. (2006). Documenting

domestication: The intersection of genetics and archaeology. TRENDS in Genetics 22:

139–155.

Zeder, M. (2015). Core questions in domestication research. Proceedings of the National

Academies of Sciences USA 112: 3191–3198.

65 Bibliography of Recent Literature

Abrams, M. D., and Nowacki, G. J. (2008). Native Americans as active and passive promoters of

mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. The Holocene 18: 1123–1137.

Anderson, D. G., and Sassaman, K. E. (2012). Recent Developments in Southeastern

Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, DC.

Ashley, K., and White, N. M. (2012). Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the

Mississippian World, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Austin, R. J., Carlson, L., and Estabrook, R. W. (2009). Archaic period faunal use in the west-

central Florida interior. Southeastern Archaeology 28: 148–164.

Bardolph, D. N. (2014). Evaluating Cahokian contact and Mississippian identity politics in the

late prehistoric central Illinois River Valley. American Antiquity 79: 69–89.

Beck, R. A., Fritz, G. J., Lapham, H., Rodning, C. B., and Moore, D. G. (2016). The politics of

provisioning: Food and gender at Fort San Juan de Juora, 1566–1568. American Antiquity

81: 3–26.

Bonzani, R., Crothers, G. M., Trader, P., Ward, R. H., and Switzer, R. R. (2007). Early

sunflower remains from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, USA. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:

73–87.

Brooks, M. J., Moore, C. R., and Ivester, A. H. (2012). From gizzards to gastroliths: Early to

mid-Holocene intensive harvest and processing of migratory waterfowl at a Carolina Bay

in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Legacy 16:22–25

Broughton, J. M. (2002). Prey spatial structure and behavior affect archaeological tests of

optimal foraging models: Examples from Emeryville shellmound vertebrate fauna. World

Archaeology, 34: 60–83.

66 Byers, A. M., and Wymer, D. (eds.) (2010). Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and

Symbolic Landscapes, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Carmody, S. B. (2010). Middle Archaic foraging adaptations in northwest Alabama: A case

study from Dust Cave. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 56: 3–28.

Carstens, K. C., and Watson, P. J. (eds.) (1996). Of Caves and Shell Mounds, University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Claassen, C. (2009). Shell symbolism in North America. In Antczak, A., and Cipriani, R. (eds.),

Human Impact on Megamolluscs, British Archaeological Reports S1865, Oxford, pp. 37–

43.

Clinton, J. M., and Peres, T. M. (2011). Pests in the garden: Testing the garden-hunting model at

the Rutherford-Kizer site, Sumner County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5: 131–141.

Colaninno-Meeks, C. E., and Reitz, E. J. (2012). Animal remains from the South Adger’s Wharf

and Lower Market. In Zierden, M. (ed.), Archaeology at South Adger’s Wharf: A Study of

the Redan at Tradd Street, The Charleston Museum Archaeological Contributions,

Charleston, SC, pp. 37–69.

Connaway, J. (2007). Fishweirs. Archaeological Report No. 33, Mississippi Department of

Archives and History, Jackson.

Cook, R. A., and Price, T. D. (2015). Maize, mounds, and the movement of people: Isotope

analysis of a Mississippian/Fort Ancient region. Journal of Archaeological Science 61:

112–128.

Crothers, G. M. (2012). Early Woodland ritual use of caves in eastern North America. American

Antiquity 77:524–541.

67 Dennison, M. E, Franklin, J. D., Hays, M. A., and Dean, S. D. (2013). Linville Cave (40SL24)

revisited: Multiple lines of evidence to address assemblage formation. Tennessee

Archaeology 7: 18–41.

Deter-Wolf, A., and Peres, T. M. (2012). Recent research in the middle Cumberland River

Valley: Introduction to the special volume. Tennessee Archaeology 6: 5–17.

Deter-Wolf, A., and Peres, T. M. (2014). Embedded: Five thousand years of shell symbolism in

the Southeast. In Peres, T. M. (ed.), Trends and Traditions in Southeastern

Zooarchaeology, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 161–185.

Edge, J. T., and Wilson, C. R. (2007). The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture: Volume 7:

Foodways, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Emerson, T. E., McElrath, D. L., and Fortier, A. C. (eds.) (2009). Archaic Societies: Diversity

and Complexity across the Midcontinent, State University of New York Press, Albany.

Erickson, D. L., Smith, B. D., Clarke, A. C., Sandweiss, D. H., and Tuross, N. (2005). An Asian

origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences USA 102:18315–18320.

Fisher-Carroll, R., and Mainfort, Jr., R. C. (2012). Taxa represented by fish effigy ceramic

vessels in the Midsouth. Southeastern Archaeology 31: 1–16.

Fogle, K. R., Nyman, J. A., and Beaudry, M. S. (2015). New Perspectives on the Archaeology of

Historical Households, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Fradkin, A., Grange, R. T., and Moore, D. L. (2012). “Minoran” ethnogenesis and foodways in

Britian’s Smyrnea settlement, Florida, 1766–1777. Historical Archaeology 46: 28–48.

68 Franklin, J. D., Hammett, M. L., and Walker, R. B. (2008). The Nelson site: Late Middle

Woodland habitation on the Nolichucky River, Washington County, Tennessee. Tennessee

Archaeology 3: 181–198.

Fritz, G. J. (2016). People, plants, and early frontier food. In Beck, R. A., Rodning, C. B., and

Moore, D. G. (eds.), Fort San Juan and the Limits of Empire: Colonialism and Household

Practice at the Berry Site, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 237-270.

Frtiz, G. J. (2008). Plum Bayou foodways: Distinctive aspects of the paleoethnobotanical record.

The Arkansas Archeologist 47 & 48:31–41.

Fritz, G. J. (2007). Keepers of Louisiana’s levees: Early moundbuilders and forest managers. In

Denham, T. P., Iriarte, J., and Vrydags, L. (eds.), Rethinking Agriculture: Archaeological

and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 338–368.

Fritz, G. J. (2006). Introduction and spread of Mexican crops. In Ubelaker, D., and Smith, B. D.

(eds.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, pp. 437–446.

Gilmore, Z. I. (2016). Gathering at Silver Glen: Community and History in Late Archaic

Florida, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Green, R. (2008). Mother corn and the Dixie pig: Native food in the Native South. Southern

Cultures 14: 114–126.

Gremillion, K. (2015). Prehistoric upland farming, fuelwood, and forest composition on the

Cumberland Plateau, Kentucky, USA. Journal of Ethnobiology 35: 60–84.

Gremillion, K. (2006). Central place foraging and food production on the Cumberland Plateau,

eastern Kentucky. In Kennett, D. J., and Winterhalder, B. (eds.), Behavioral Ecology and

the Transition to Agriculture, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 41–62.

69 Groover, M. D. (2008). The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, University Press of

Florida, Gainesville.

Groover, M. D., and Hogue, S. H. (2014). Reconstructing nineteenth-century Midwest foodways:

Ceramic and zooarchaeological information from the Moore-Youse House and Huddleston

Farmstead. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39: 130–144.

Hardy, M., and Goodley, K. K. (2011). French Colonial Archaeology in the Southeast and

Caribbean, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Harke, R. M., Herbert, G. S., White, N. M., and Sliko, J. (2015). Sclerochronology of Busycon

sinistrum: Late prehistoric seasonality determination at St. Joseph Bay, Florida, USA.

Journal of Archaeological Science 57: 98–108.

Hart, J. P., and Lovis, W. A. (2013). Reevaluating what we know about the histories of maize in

northeastern North America: A review of current evidence. Journal of Archaeological

Research 21: 175–216.

Henry, E., R., Ortmann, A. L., Arco, L. J., and Kidder, T. R., (2017). Tetrahedron baked-clay

objects from an early woodland context at the Jaketown site, Mississippi. Southeastern

Archaeology 36(1): 34-45.

Hollenbach, K. (2010). Modeling resource procurement of late Paleoindian hunter-

gatherers: A view from northwest Alabama. In Hurst, S., and Hofman, J. (eds.), Exploring

Variability in Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways, University of Kansas Press,

Lawrence, pp.13-26.

Hollenbach, K. D., Sichler, J. A., and Vavrasek, J. L. (2011). Late Archaic and Woodland

foodways in Tuckaleechee Cove. In Hollenbach, K. D., and Yerka, S. J. (eds.), Archaic and

70 Woodland Occupations in Tuckaleechee Cove, Blount County, Tennessee, Archaeological

Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, pp. 354–393.

Holt, J. Z. (2005). Animal remains from the Carter Creek site: Late Woodland adaptive strategies

in the upland frontier of west central Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30:

37–65.

Holt, J. Z., Evans, T. Schroeder, M., Moore, S. L., and Buskohl, C. (2010). Late Woodland-

Emergent Mississippian occupation and plant use at the AE Harmon Site (11MS136).

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 35: 57–90.

Homsey, L. K. (2010). The Hunter-Gatherer Use of Caves and Rockshelters in the American

Midsouth: A Geoarchaeological and Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Features at Dust

Cave, BAR International Series 2129, ArchaeoPress, Oxford.

Homsey, L. K., and Capo, R. C. (2006). Integrating geochemistry and micromorphology to

interpret feature use at Dust Cave, a Paleo-Indian through Middle Archaic site in Northwest

Alabama. Geoarchaeology 21: 237–269.

Homsey, L. K., Walker, R. B., and Hollenbach, K. D. (2010). What’s for dinner? Investigating

food-processing technologies at Dust Cave, Alabama. Southeastern Archaeology 29: 182–

196.

Jackson, H. E. (2005). Darkening the sun in their flight: A zooarchaeological accounting of

passenger pigeons in the prehistoric Southeast. In Hegmon, M., and Eiselt, B. S. (eds.),

Engaged Anthropology, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp.

174–199.

71 Johnson, J. K., O'Hear, J. W., Ethridge, R., Lieb, B. R., Scott, S. L., and Jackson, H. E. (2008).

Measuring Chickawa adaptation on the western frontier of the colonial South: A correlation

of documentary and archaeological data. Southeastern Archaeology 27: 1–30.

Kassabaum, M. C., and Nelson, E. S. (2016). Standing posts and special substances: Gathering

and ritual deposition at Feltus (22Je500), Jefferson County, Mississippi. Southeastern

Archaeology 36(2): 134-154.

Kelly, L. S. (2010). A bird's eye view of ritual at the Cahokia site. In Campana, D., Crabtree, P.,

deFrance, S. D., Lev-Tov, J., and Choyke, A. (eds.), Anthropological Approaches to

Zooarchaeology: Complexity, Colonialism, and Animal Transformations, Oxbow Books,

Oxford, pp. 1–11.

Kelly, R. L. (2007). The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways, Percheron

Press, New York.

Landon, D. B. (2005). Zooarchaeology and historical archaeology: Progress and prospects.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 1–36.

Lapham, H. (2005). Hunting for Hides: Deerskins, Status, and Cultural Change in the

Protohistoric Appalachians, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Latshaw, B. A. (2009). Food for thought: Race, region, identity, and foodways in the American

South. Southern Cultures 15: 106–128.

Lemke, A., and Timperley, C. (2008). Preliminary analysis of turtle material from the Gault site,

Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 25: 115–118.

Livingood, P. C. (2010). Mississippian Polity and Politics on the Gulf Coastal Plain: A View

from the Pearl River, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

72 Marquardt, W. H. (2014). Tracking the Calusa: A retrospective. Southeastern Archaeology 33:

1–24.

Marquardt, W. H. (2010). Shell mounds in the Southeast: Middens, monuments, temple mounds,

rings or works? American Antiquity 75: 551–570.

Marquardt, W. H., and Walker, K. J. (2013). The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest

Florida Site Complex, AD 50–1710, Monograph 4, Institute of Archaeology and

Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Marrinan, R. A. (2010). Two late Archaic period shell rings, St. Simon’s Island, Georgia. In

Thomas, D. H., and Sanger, M. (eds.), Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to

the Southeastern U.S. Late Archaic? Anthropological Papers No. 93, American Museum of

Natural History, New York, pp. 71–102.

Metheny, K. B., and Beaudry, M. C. (2015). Archaeology of Food: An Encyclopedia, Volumes 1

and 2, Rowan and Littlefield, New York.

Middaugh, D. P. (2009). Putative structures and salinity gradients at the Sewee Shell Ring, South

Carolina: Evidence for ancient control of freshwater resources. Journal of the North

Carolina Academy of Science 125: 87–102.

Mikell, G. A., and Saunders, R. (2007). Terminal middle to late Archaic settlement in coastal

northwest Florida: Early estuarine exploitation on the northern Gulf Coast. Southeastern

Archaeology 26: 169–195.

Minnis, P. E. (ed.) (2014). New Lives for Ancient Crops, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Moerman, D. E. (2009). Native American Medicinal Plants: An Ethnobotanical Dictionary,

Timber Press, Portland.

73 Moore, C. R. (2010) A macroscopic investigation of technological style and the production of

middle to late Archaic fishhooks at the Chiggerville, Read, and Baker sites, Western

Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology 29: 197–221.

Moore, C. R., and Dekle, V. G. (2010). Hickory nuts, bulk-processing and the advent of early

horticultural economics in eastern North America. World Archaeology 42: 595–608.

Morgan, C. 2012. Modeling modes of hunter-gatherer food storage. American Antiquity 77: 714–

736.

Oliver, S. L. (2005). Food in Colonial and Federal America, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Orr, K. L., and Lucas, G. S. (2007). Rural-urban connections in the southern colonial market

economy: Zooarchaeological evidence from the Grange Plantation (9CH137) trading post

and cowpens. South Carolina Antiquities 39: 1–17.

Paine, R. R., and Brenton, B. P. (2006). The paleopathology of pellagra: Investigating the impact

of prehistoric and historical dietary transitions to maize. Journal of Anthropological

Sciences 84: 125–135.

Pavao-Zuckerman, B. (2000). Vertebrate subsistence in the Mississippian-historic transition.

Southeastern Archaeology 19: 135–144.

Peacock, E., Haag, W. R., and Warren, M. L. (2005.) Prehistoric decline in freshwater mussels

coincident with the advent of maize agriculture. Conservation Biology 19: 547–551.

Peacock, E. and Quitmyer, I. R. (2016). Pre-Columbian foraging in stable, inland environments:

An archaeological example from the Tombigbee River drainage, Mississippi and Alabama.

Journal of Ethnobiology 36: 294–311.

Peres, T. M. (2010). Zooarchaeological remains from the 1998 Fewkes site excavations,

Williamson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5: 100–125.

74 Peres, T. M. (2014). Foodways, economic status, and the Antebellum Upland South Cultural

Tradition in central Kentucky. In Peres, T. M. (ed.), Trends and Traditions in Southeastern

Zooarchaeology, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 50–79.

Peres, T. M., Deter-Wolf, A. M., Keasler, J., and Hodge, S. C. (2016). Faunal remains from an

Archaic period cave in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science:

Reports 8:187-199.

Peres, T. M., Deter-Wolf, A. M., and Myers, G. A. (2012). Zooarchaeological analysis of a

multicomponent shell-bearing site in Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology

6: 40–52.

Peres, T. M., and Ledford, K. L. (2016). Archaeological correlates of population management of

the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) with a case study from the

American South. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 547-556.

Peres, T. M., and Simons, E. (2006). Early Holocene vertebrate paleontology. In Webb, S. D.

(ed.), First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site on the Aucilla River,

Springer, New York, pp. 461–470.

Pluckhahn, T., Compton, J. M., and Bonhage-Freund, M. T. (2006). Evidence of small-scale

feasting from the Woodland period site of Kolomoki, Georgia. Journal of Field

Archaeology 31: 263–84.

Price, T. D. (2009). Ancient farming in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences USA 106: 6427–6428.

Rafferty, J., McCain, R., Smith, J., and Hogue, S. H. (2015). Cooking pots as burial urns.

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 40: 48–72.

75 Reber, E. A., and Kerr, M. T. (2012) The persistence of caffeine in experimentally produced

black drink residues. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 2312–2319.

Reitz, E. J. (2007). Animal remains from the eighteenth-century Charleston beef market. South

Carolina Antiquities 39: 87–103.

Reitz, E. J., and Waselkov, G. A. (2015). Vertebrate use at early colonies on the southeastern

coasts of eastern North America. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19: 21–

45.

Reitz, E. J., and Zierden, M. A. (2014). Wildlife in urban Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Anthropozoologica 49: 33–46.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E. (2005). Eating like an Indian: Negotiating social relations in the Spanish

colonies. Current Anthropology 46: 551–573.

Russell, N. (2011). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Sassaman, K. E. (2010). The Eastern Archaic Historicized, AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.

Sassaman, K. E. (2006). People of the Shoals: Stallings Culture of the Savannah River Valley,

University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Sassaman. K. E., Blessing, M. E., and Randall, A. R. (2006) Stallings Island revisited: New

observations on occupational history, community patterning, and subsistence technology.

American Antiquity 71: 539–566.

Scarry, C. M. (2008). Crop husbandry practices in North America's Eastern Woodlands. In Reitz,

E. J., Scarry, C. M., and Scudder, S. J., (eds.) Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology,

second edition, Springer Press, New York, pp. 391–404.

76 Scarry, C. M., and Hollenbach, K. D. (2012). What can plants and plant data tell us about

seasonality? In Reitz, E. J., Quitmyer, I., and Thomas, D. H. (eds.), Seasonality and

Mobility on the Georgia Bight: Methodologies and Substantive Applications,

Anthropological Papers No. 97, American Museum of Natural History, New York, pp.

187–198.

Scarry, M., and Reitz, E.J. (2005). Changes in foodways at the Parkin site, Arkansas.

Southeastern Archaeology 24: 107–120.

Scarry, C. M., and Scarry, J. F. (2005). Native American ‘garden agriculture’ in southeastern

North America. World Archaeology 37: 259–274.

Schurr, M. R., and Powell, M. L. (2005). The role of changing childhood diets in the prehistoric

evolution of food production: An isotopic assessment. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 126: 278–294.

Smith, B. D. (2011). The Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A

Handbook, Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

Smith, B. D. (2011) General patterns of niche construction and the management of ‘wild’ plant

and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 366: 836–848.

Smith B. D. (2011). The cultural context of plant domestication in eastern North America.

Current Anthropology 52: S471–S484.

Smith, B. D. (2009). Resource resilience, human niche construction, and the long-term

sustainability of pre-Columbian subsistence economies in the Mississippi River Valley

corridor. Journal of Ethnobiology 29: 167–183.

Smith, B. D. (2006). Rivers of Change, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

77 Southern Foodways Alliance. http://www.southernfoodways.org/

Speth, J. D., Newlander, K., White, A. A., Lemke, A. K., and Anderson, L. E. (2010). Early

Paleoindian big-game hunting in North America: Provisioning or politics? Quaternary

International 285: 111–139.

Staller, J., Tykot, R., and Benz, B. (2006). Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to

the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize,

Academic Press, San Diego.

Sutton, M. Q., Sobolik, K. D., and Gardner, J. K. (2010). Paleonutrition, University of Arizona

Press, Tuscon.

Thompson, V. D. (2007). Articulating activity areas and formation processes at the Sapelo Island

shell ring complex. Southeastern Archaeology 26: 91–107.

Thompson, V. D., and Andrus, C. (2011). Evaluating mobility, monumentality, and feasting at

the Sapelo Island shell ring complex. American Antiquity 76: 315–344.

Thompson, V. D., Gremillion, K. J., and Pluckhahn, T. J. (2014). Challenging the evidence for

prehistoric wetland maize agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American Antiquity 78: 181–

193.

Thompson, V. D., and Waggoner, J. C. (2013). The Archaeology and Historical Ecology of

Small Scale Economies, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Thompson, V. D., and Worth, J. E. (2011). Dwellers by the sea: Native American adaptation

along the southern coasts of eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 9:

51–101.

Thoms, A. V. (2008). Ancient savannah roots of the carbohydrate revolution in south-central

North America. Plains Anthropologist 53: 121-136.

78 Tubbs, R. M., and O’Gorman, J. A. (2005). Assessing Oneonta diet and health: Community and

lifeway perspective. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30: 119–163.

Tuma, M. W. (2006). Ethnoarchaeology of subsistence behaviors within a rural African

American community: Implications for interpreting the vertebrate faunal data from slave

quarters areas of Antebellum plantation sites. Historical Archaeology 40: 1–26.

Turner, J. C. (2011). Macrobotanical analysis of two Hopewell mound samples from the Mann

site (12PO2) in Indiana. Southeastern Archaeology 30: 365–376.

Twiss, K. C. (2007), The Archaeology of Food and Identity, Occasional Paper No. 34, Center for

Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

VanDerwarker, A. M., Marcoux, J. B., and Hollenbach, K. D. (2013). Farming and foraging at

the crossroads: The consequences of Cherokee and European interaction through the late

eighteenth century. American Antiquity 78: 68–88.

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Stanyard, B. (2009). Bearsfoot and deer legs: Archaeobotanical and

zooarchaeological evidence of a special-purpose encampment at the Sandy Site, Roanoke,

Virginia. Journal of Ethnobiology 29: 129–148.

Vanier J. A. (2010). A ceramic vessel function analysis and foodways approach to the Late

Woodland/Mississippian interface in Kershaw County, South Carolina. Unpublished

Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Wallis, N., and Blessing, M. (2015). Big feasts and small scale foragers: Pit features as feast

events in the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 1–18.

Wallis, N., and Blessing, M. (2015). Ritualized deposition and feasting pits: Bundling of animal

remains in Mississippi period Florida. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25: 79–98.

79 Wallis, N., and Randall, A. (2014). New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida, University Press of

Florida, Gainesville.

Warner, M. S. (2015). Eating in the Side Room: Food, Archaeology, and African American

Identity, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wheeler, R. J., Miller, J. J., McGee, R. M., Ruhl, D., Swann, B., and Memory, M. (2003).

Archaic period canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68: 533–551.

White, N. M. (2014). Apalachicola Valley riverine, estuarine, bayshore, and saltwater shell

middens. The Florida Anthropologist 67: 77–104.

Wilson, G. D., and VanDerwarker, A. M. (2016). Toward an archaeology of food and warfare. In

VanDerwarker, A. M., and Wilson, G. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Food and Warfare,

Springer, New York, pp. 1–11.

Windham, R. J. (2010). Exploitation and feasting at the Glass site (9TF145). Journal of Global

Initiatives 5: 19–34.

Worth, J. E. (2012). Creolization in southwest Florida: Cuban fishermen and “Spanish Indians,”

ca. 1766–1841. Historical Archaeology 46: 142–160.

Wymer, D. (2009). The paleoethnobotanical assemblage from the 1971–1977 excavations at the

Seip earthworks. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34: 123–142.

Zierden, M. A., and Reitz, E. J. (2009). Animal use and the urban landscape in colonial

Charleston, South Carolina, USA. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13:

327–365.

80 Figure 1. Physiographic features and archaeological sites discussed in the text. Sites: 1-

Charleston; 2-Florence Stockade; 3-Upper Saratown; 4-Coweeta Creek; 5-Newt Kash

Rockshelter; 6-Dust Cave; 7-Stanfield-Worley Rockshelter; 8-Moundville; 9-Lubbub Creek; 10-

Bottle Creek; 11-Yarborough; 12-Cahokia; 13-Watson Brake; 14-Windover. Rivers: 15-

Mississippi; 16-Ohio; 17-Green; 18-Cumberland; 19-Tennessee; 20-Black Warrior (figure produced by Lacey S. Fleming).

Table 1. Archaeological taxonomy of the southeastern United States.

Table 2. Attributes of feasting behaviors and material correlates in the archaeological record of the southeastern United States

81 Figure 1. Physiographic features and archaeological sites discussed in the text. Sites: 1-Charleston; 2- Florence Stockade; 3-Upper Saratown; 4-Coweeta Creek; 5-Newt Kash Rockshelter; 6-Dust Cave; 7- Stanfield-Worley Rockshelter; 8-Moundville; 9-Lubbub Creek; 10-Bottle Creek; 11-Yarborough; 12- Cahokia; 13-Watson Brake; 14-Windover. Rivers: 15-Mississippi; 16-Ohio; 17-Green; 18-Cumberland; 19- Tennessee; 20-Black Warrior (figure produced by Lacey S. Fleming) . Table 1. Archaeological Taxonomy of the Southeastern United States Date Archaeological Prevalent Subsistence Corresponding Sites Subdivisions/Complexes/Cultures Noteworthy Trends Ranges Culture Period Stragies/Foodstuffs Mentioned in Text

Upper Saratown, North Carolina; Coweeta Creek, North Carolina; Contact/Historic Contact, Proto‐Historic, Early Historic European Contact and Invasion Charleston, South Carolina; Florence Stockade, South Carolina; St. Augustine, Florida Mound building; multi‐tiered hunting, maize‐based Cahokia, Illinois; settlement hierarchy (family agriculture; introduction Moundville, Alabama; farmsteads, villages‐some of beans and squash; Lubbub Creek Fort Ancient Complex fortified, mound centers); social Mississippian deer, bear, turkey, other Archaeological Locality, Caloosahatchee Culture/Calusa stratification; elaborate burials; small mammals, reptiles, Alabama; Bottle Creek, trade networks; exotic goods and limited aquatic Alabama; Yarborough (marine shell, copper); shell‐ resources Site, Mississippi; Toqua, tempered pottery Tennessee hunting, gathering, bow & arrow, ceramics become cultivation of native Late (ca. AD 350 ‐ 950) widespread; reliance on food crops, sumpweed, Woodland Middle (ca. 350 BC ‐ AD 350) production and storage; long‐ sunflower, goosefoot, Early (ca. 1,000 ‐350 BC) distance trade networks; status hickory nuts, deer, differentiation in burials turkey, some fish and 1,000 BC ‐ Newt Kash Rockshelter, shellfish AD 950 Kentucky; base camps, seasonal rounds, floodplain settlement, increased Green River sites in acorns, hickory nuts, evidence for food storage, burials Kentucky; Cumberland Late (ca. 4,000 ‐ 1,000 BC) shellfish, fish, deer, in shell mounds/midden, mound and Tennessee rivers' Archaic Middle (ca. 6,000‐4,000 BC) turkey, other small (earth, shell) building, sites in Tennessee; Dust Early (ca. 8,000‐6,000 BC) mammals and aquatic widespread trade networks; Cave, Alabama, Stanfield‐ resources possible status differentiation in Worley, Alabama 8,000‐1,000 burials BC

highly mobile, hunting Dust Cave, Alabama; Paleoindian Late Pleistocene, fluted points and gathering, Stanfield‐Worley, 12,600‐ megafauna, extant taxa Alabama 8,000 BC Table 2. Attributes of Feasting Behaviors and Material Correlates in the Southeastern U.S. Archaeological Record.

Ethnographic and Four common behavioral Ethnohistoric Material Southeastern U.S. Archaeological aspects of feasting (after Twiss References Correlates (after Twiss Material Correlates Period 2008) 2008) Archaic ‐ Claassen 2010 shellfish Mississippian ‐ foods amassed in great fresh or dried Jackson and Scott 2005; quantities maize, fresh VanDerwarker 1999; fruit, deer, VanDerwarker et al. 2007 unusually large and dense turkey concenrations of food Claassen 2010; Glore 2005; remains; special disposal Archaic practices to cope with Russo 2004 low taxonomic diversity tremendous quantities of Consumption of large quantities trash; facilities for Mississippian Jackson and Scott 2005 of food and/or drink collecting and storing food; atypically large or numerous food cooking wasted food Archaic Russo 2004 and/or serving equipment; purposefully destroyed VanDerwarker and Idol 2008; numerous large cooking Mississippian facilities or uneaten foodstuffs VanDerwarker et al. 2007 low quantites of butchering debris, bone Archaic Claassen 2010 modification

Mississippian Jackson and Scott 2005

Consumption of unusually wide unusual variety of cooking large cooking and serving Mississippian Boudreaux 2010 variety of foods or serving equipment vessels

Mississippian ‐ Consumption of rarely eaten remains of rare or labor‐ unripened corn; large Rare taxa seen and/or symbolically important intensive species or animals (i.e., bear, elk); Jackson and Scott 2005 as the province foods preparations rare taxa (i.e., hawk) of the elite by Culinary emphasis on large remians of large animals, deer, bear, elk; choicest Mississippian Jackson and Scott 2005 animals wild or domestic cuts of meat