The social networks and structural variation of Mississippian sociopolitics in the southeastern SEE COMMENTARY

Jacob Lulewicza,1

aDepartment of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130

Edited by David G. Anderson, University of , Knoxville, TN, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Elsa M. Redmond January 16, 2019 (receivedfor review October 24, 2018) Network approaches in archaeology offer a promising avenue for and testable and serve to inform our understanding of structural facilitating bottom-up, comparative approaches to sociopolitical or- dynamics that are often difficult to detect through more qualitative ganization. While recent applications have focused primarily on approaches. The purpose of this paper is not to negate, confirm, or migration and demographic trends, identity and identity politics, even critically contemplate the concept of the chiefdom. Nor is it the and the dynamics of geopolitical and regional interaction, little in the purpose of this study to evaluate the use of the chiefdom concept in way of comparative sociopolitical organization has been attempted. navigating the deep indigenous histories of the southeastern United In this study, I present an alternative approach to the use of States. Rather, the purpose is to explore fundamental variability sociotypological models across southern . In particular, I among political landscapes and, more specifically, to explore the re- demonstrate the value in employing network analyses as a mode of lational foundations through which sociopolitical institutions were formally and quantitatively comparing the relational structures and inevitably constituted, generated, maintained, and transformed. As organizations of sociopolitical landscapes; in this case, those tradi- such, the major implications of this study include (i) an understanding tionally characterized as constellations of chiefdoms. By approaching that as regional chiefdoms developed, community leaders drew on southern Appalachian histories through the relationships upon preexisting social and political conditions to advance claims to power which social, political, and economic institutions were actually built,

and status; (ii) the realization that although networks of chiefly in- ANTHROPOLOGY I move the study of southeastern political systems beyond the use of teraction and engagement—through warfare, trade, and strategic models that emphasize the behaviors of elites and the ruling class as diplomacy—experienced cycles of development and collapse (e.g., inspired by the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records. To these – ends, using a robust regional ceramic dataset, I compare network refs. 6 8), wider networks of intimate relationships were much more histories and political landscapes for the southern Appalachian durable; and (iii) the demonstration that ethnohistoric accounts of region between ca. AD 800 and 1650. The results of these analyses the chiefdom of Coosa encountered by Spanish explorers (which have contribute insights to the study of small-scale political organizations been used intensively to interpret archaeological patterns) articu- by demonstrating that (i) as chiefdoms developed, leaders drew on late well with the archaeological network evidence for the develop- preexisting social and political conditions; (ii) while networks of ment of region-wide networks during this protohistoric period. chiefly interaction were defined by instability, wider networks of Chiefdoms, as commonly defined, are a generalized societal type interaction were much more durable; and (iii) quantitative network that refers primarily to hierarchical political organization based on analyses and qualitative ethnohistoric accounts can articulate with kinship. Such generalized patterns have been well documented one another to shed light on indigenous political organization. Significance social network analysis | sociopolitical organization | archaeology | southeastern United States An alternative approach to the use of sociotypological models in interpreting sociopolitical organization is presented. The devel- n AD 1540, Spanish explorer , traveling opment of analytical and conceptual strategies to compare and Iacross the southernmost stretch of the , describe sociopolitical organizations is a cornerstone of anthro- encountered an indigenous political landscape characterized by a pological inquiry. This study contributes to such disciplinary foci number of autonomous villages loosely bound together under the by presenting a formal, comparative approach to the study of influence of a single powerful chief, then residing at the town of sociopolitics, particularly contributing to discussions of the evo- Coosa in what is today northern (Fig. 1) (1, 2). Indeed, the lution and development of organizational complexity in small- ethnohistoric record of the southeastern United States is replete scale, nonstate societies. Beyond archaeology however, this study with descriptions of indigenous social and political organization (see demonstrates the value of a deep, historical perspective on the refs. 1 and 3–5) and has been employed extensively in archaeological evolution of human networks more broadly and highlights the contexts as a model for reconstructing political landscapes reaching value of a productive relationship between contemporary social, back centuries before European contact. Of particular import has economic, and political theory and the historical sciences for the been the use of the ethnohistoric record as a model (or at least a investigation of both past and present societies. preliminary basis) for identifying, characterizing, and interpreting the emergence and dynamics of complex social and political orga- Author contributions: J.L. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and nizations in the archaeological record of the Southeast. In this study, wrote the paper. I present an alternative, comparative approach to the use of socio- The author declares no conflict of interest. typological models in the southern Appalachian region. In particu- This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. D.G.A. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board. lar, I demonstrate the value in employing network analyses as a Published under the PNAS license. mode of formally and quantitatively comparing the relational See Commentary on page 6519. structures and organizations of sociopolitical landscapes; in this case, 1Email: [email protected]. those traditionally characterized as constellations of chiefdoms. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. The quantitative analyses employed here, which shed light on 1073/pnas.1818346116/-/DCSupplemental. the development of complex societies like chiefdoms, are replicable Published online February 19, 2019.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818346116 PNAS | April 2, 2019 | vol. 116 | no. 14 | 6707–6712 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 classic Mississippianization that includes increased sociopolitical complexity, institutionalized socioeconomic inequality, new ritual and religious practices, and intensified agricultural economies (29). For the southern Appalachian region, this includes the emer- gence of Etowah, what would have been the largest and most complex community in the region and likely coeval with the early emergence of Mississippian cultural practices at the Macon Plateau site in central Georgia (8, 30, 31). The second transition is charac- terized primarily by the abandonment of the community at Etowah ca. AD 1325 to 1350 and the subsequent reorganization of the southern Appalachian settlement landscape. In contrast to the de- velopmental sequence of Etowah and northern Georgia, such regional hierarchical organizations and intensive community aggregation seem to have been absent from the historical trajectory of communities in eastern Tennessee (32–34). To explore these political landscapes before and after these transitions, I draw on a database of roughly 350,000 ceramics from nearly 100 archaeolog- ical components from across southern Appalachia (Fig. 1). Al- though the political landscapes spanning this 850-y period have been Fig. 1. The southern Appalachian region showing the location of sites described as being dominated by chiefdom (or incipient chiefdom) used in this study. Labels indicate the most well-studied and well-known political organizations, I explore variation in the actual network Mississippian mound sites in the region: Etowah (9Br1), Wilbanks (9Ck5), topologies and structural characteristics of these landscapes. Bell Field (9Mu101), Little Egypt (9Mu102), Sixtoe Field (9Mu100), Hixon (40Ha3), Dallas (40Ha1), Hiwassee Island (40Mg31), DeArmond (40Re12), Results and Discussion (40Mr6), and Martin Farm (40Mr20). Two different kinds of networks are evaluated and compared. One set of networks is built from information on the highly visible decorative attributes adorning the exterior of ceramic vessels. The across the southeastern United States and especially the southern – other set is built on low-visibility technological choices, particularly Appalachian region (1, 2, 8 11). A product of mid-20th-century temper selection (the aplastic materials added to clay paste to alter neoevolutionism (see refs. 12 and 13), the use of sociopolitical its thermal and mechanical properties). High-visibility attributes types has dominated archaeological interpretations of social and reflect patterns of social signaling (e.g., refs. 25, 26, and 35), political organization for over a half-century, not only across the US whereas lower-visibility technological choices reflect more intimate Southeast, but across the world. Although these approaches con- networks of interaction and information exchange through com- tributed invaluably to advancing understandings of indigenous po- munities of practice (e.g., refs. 25, 36, and 37). As such, the net- litical histories, they lack the appropriate conceptual mechanisms to works considered in this study represent, first and foremost, the account for significant variation between cases. Indeed, these relational fields within which potters were embedded. Through neoevolutionary frameworks have elicited countless responses for both diachronic and synchronic comparisons of these different – refinement and nuance (e.g., refs. 14 16) as well as total aban- kinds of networks, I demonstrate the complexity of the relational donment (e.g., ref. 17). Other authors continue to propose com- foundations of political landscapes and highlight the ways in which parative approaches that move beyond categorical concepts and different kinds of relationships may be structured independently of outdated classificatory systems (e.g.,ref.18).Evenso,wecontinue one another to generate sociopolitical forms. A more in-depth, to lack any standard mode of comparing the underlying relational detailed overview of ceramic dataandvariablesisprovidedinSI structures of political landscapes. Recent network approaches in Appendix, SI Materials and Methods. – archaeology (e.g., refs. 19 21) provide a promising avenue in fa- In interpreting the network graphs in Fig. 2 and the variables cilitating a comparative approach to sociopolitical organization. related to network characteristics presented in Table 1, I draw on a Although recent applications have focused primarily on migration robust body of literature from social economics, political science, and demographic trends (e.g., refs. 22 and 23), on identity and and economic policy that correlates network structures with partic- identity politics (e.g., refs. 24 and 25), and on the dynamics of ular kinds of social capital (e.g., refs. 38–43). At its foundations, geopolitical and regional interaction (26, 27), little in the way of social capital describes relations of trust and reciprocity, the norms comparative sociopolitical organization has been attempted. and networks that enable people to act collectively, and the insti- Network analyses and frameworks highlight the role of rela- tutions that generate and sustain these norms and networks (38, 43, tionships in generating particular social, political, and economic 44). Simply, social capital is a set of “relations that enable actors to forms. Indeed, they are explicitly anticategorical (28). With this gain, maintain, or expand access to resources” (ref.42,p.112)and understanding, we can move beyond black-box approaches that references the “resources embedded in one’s social network that can attempt to explain social phenomena through the use of top- be accessed or mobilized through ties in the network” (45). As an down sociopolitical models and toward approaches that allow archaeology of sociopolitics is undoubtedly concerned with the dis- us to parse these kinds of structures into their constituent tribution, access, and control of social, political, and economic re- elements (28). By approaching the sociopolitical histories of sources (either material or immaterial), such concepts adapted to southern Appalachia from the bottom-up, through the relation- archaeological network analysis can serve as a powerful conceptual ships upon which social, political, and economic institutions are and analytical framework. However, the use of a social capital built, I move the study of southeastern political systems beyond framework in interpreting the networks presented here is merely a generalizations that emphasize the political activities of elites as preference and should not be taken as prescriptive. I follow (and inspired by the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records. expand upon) recent applications of this framework in organizing To these ends, I construct a network history for the southern archaeological network analyses (e.g., refs. 26 and 46) but do not Appalachian region between ca. AD 800 and 1650. I compare net- present such a framework as a new model of generalized typologies. works that straddle two major critical transitions. The first of these Although I choose to use network analyses to formally compare the transitions, ca. AD 1050 to 1150, is traditionally characterized by the availability and potential advantages of different kinds of social emergence of chiefdom-level political organizations associated with capital across the southern Appalachian political landscape, the

6708 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818346116 Lulewicz Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 SEE COMMENTARY ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 2. Networks based on temper (Left) and surface decoration (Right) for all three time periods considered here. Sites located in northern Georgia are shown in red. Sites located in eastern Tennessee are shown in green. The site of Etowah (9Br1) is depicted as a red star. Ties are determined using the strength of Brainerd-Robinson coefficients of similarity between individual sites. Node and tie positions are determined using a spring-embedded multidimensional scaling algorithm. A heavily annotated version of this figure depicting network features discussed in the text can be found in SI Appendix.

analyses and comparative approach presented here can be effectively finished products, raw materials, or people seem to have been deployed within a range of conceptual, middle-range frameworks in limited during this period. However, during the following period, evaluating sociopolitical organization. AD 1050 to 1325, although the general structure characterized by two geographically defined subgraphs is maintained, many more Communities of Practice (Low-Visibility Attributes). For networks connections between the two subgraphs are established. Most of based on temper, the same general topology is retained throughout these connections are funneled through the large, politico-religious the entire 850-y period (Fig. 2, Left). What the visual assessment of center of Etowah (9Br1, depicted as a red star in Fig. 2). these networks makes clear is that choice of temper is highly cor- The same general structure that characterized the AD 1050 to related with geographic proximity, as there is a clear distinction of 1325 period continued to characterize the AD 1325 to 1650 period. subgraphs between northern Georgia nodes (Fig. 2, red) and Again, although two distinct subgraphs remain, connections be- eastern Tennessee nodes (Fig. 2, green) across all three periods. tween the two subgraphs remain heightened, as evidenced by higher There are, however, some significant temporal patterns that can be average similarity coefficients and an increased number of ties highlighted. Each side of the earliest-period graph represents an between subgraphs compared with the earliest period, AD 800 to almost-complete subgraph (one for sites in Georgia and one for 1050. Thus, even after the abandonment of Etowah (ca. AD 1325) sites in Tennessee) in which connections are virtually ubiquitous and the major reorganization of the sociopolitical landscape, the among all sites, indicating a high degree of similarity in temper integrity of patterns of interactions producing these networks was usage. Even if driven primarily by raw-material variability, interac- retained. Notably, for the region as a whole, the overall similarity tions resulting in the transfer of either technological information, values between all sites were heightened compared with previous

Lulewicz PNAS | April 2, 2019 | vol. 116 | no. 14 | 6709 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 Table 1. Metrics and measurements for networks depicted in Fig. 2 Temper Surface

Measure AD 800–1050 AD 1050–1325 AD 1325–1650 AD 800–1050 AD 1050–1325 AD 1325–1650

BR cutoff for graph 80 70 100 120 155 145 Average tie strength (BR) 75 72 108 116 116 127 Network degree centrality 13 6 10 13 9 11 Node degree centralities > 1σ 0 7 030 0 Network betweenness centrality 2 1 8 3 0 7 Node betweenness centralities > 1σ 0 2 034 1 Network eigenvector centrality 6 3 8 7 3 4 Node eigenvector centralities > 1σ 1 2 130 0 Longest geodesic distance 11 18 13 14 21 9 Average geodesic distance 4.06 8.61 5.31 5.41 7.71 4.51 Compactness/cohesion 0.514 0.231 0.323 0.277 0.218 0.334 Fragmentation/breadth 0.486 0.769 0.677 0.723 0.782 0.666 Max k-core 17 15 10 5 9 9 Nodes in max k-core, % 63 38 55 19 23 50 Nodes in k-core of ≥3, % 67 100 61 85 74 78

Although the networks in Fig. 2 were constructed by binarizing ties based on a subjective BR similarity cutoff value, measures of centrality, geodesic distance, compactness, fragmentation, and k-cores are based on weighted ties between nodes, or the actual BR values, not binarized matrices of ties. Units for geodesic distances and k-cores are node counts. BR, Brainerd-Robinson coefficient of similarity.

periods, indicating more intense or frequent interactions between tie strength for the previous network, the similarity cutoff is signif- northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee communities. icantly higher. Both similarity cutoffs, however, are substantially While general network topologies remained similar, the qualities higher than the similarity values characterizing the networks based of the relationships comprising these networks changed significantly. on temper alone. In the first period, no communities emerged as particularly central. While the integration between sites is strengthened from the This also seems to be the case for the third period, AD 1325 to 1650. first to the second time period, the integration of the overall However, in the second period, AD 1050 to 1325, more nodes ex- network becomes more compartmentalized as chiefdoms fill the hibit centrality scores above the SD than in any other time period. It landscape. This is especially apparent in reviewing the geodesic is clear that there is a relationship between the emergence of distance variables in Table 1. Compared with the first period, chiefdomlike political entities (ca. AD 1050) and changes to regional geodesic distances between nodes (the number of nodes one must networks. The sociopolitical institutions that characterized the pe- pass through to move between any two nodes) are lengthened riod between AD 1050 and 1325 clearly facilitated the emergence of substantially in the second period, indicating that information, central actors in their social networks. Given the topology of these resources, and interactions would have been more restricted and networks, central actors drew on networks of interaction at the re- less freely flowing between communities. Combined with an in- gional scale, establishing connections and relationships with com- crease in the number of actors with heightened betweenness val- munities from across the southern Appalachian region as opposed ues, there would have been more potential for information, to their local networks alone. These patterns are consistent with interactions, and network flows to have been subject to control extant narratives (e.g., refs. 8 and 47) that argue for a shift toward and manipulation than they previously would have been. network-based political strategies (sensu ref. 48) just after the turn of In the final period considered here, after the collapse of the first millennium AD. Thus, as leadership roles became re- Etowah as a major regional center (ca. AD 1325), the average tie gionally centralized, political actors drew on preexisting networks of strength increases further, indicating the continued dissolution of relationship to establish a landscape of exclusive interactions. Given differences between northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee the stability of network topology through time, it can be argued that decorative traditions. In addition to the increased similarity be- the network structures through which hierarchical political organi- tween the two localities, overall network integration and co- zations and socioeconomic inequality emerged were established long hesiveness increases, with greatly declining geodesic distances before the emergence of the institutions themselves. indicating the opening up of network relationships and interac- tions and a lower degree of control and potential exclusivity Social Signaling (High-Visibility Attributes). Similar to the general within the network. The number of central nodes also continues trendidentifiedinthenetworks based on temper, the network to- to drop in this final period, with no nodes exhibiting heightened pologies for social signaling practices generally retain their struc- centrality values. Interestingly, this increased network cohesive- tures throughout the 850-y period considered here (Fig. 2, Right). In ness, likely reflecting a shift in patterns of social signaling toward contrast to the structures represented by the distribution and use of one that emphasizes region-wide participation in some loose or temper, the structures related to signaling practices are much less situational organization, occurs during the period within which segregated by geography and, indeed, much less polarizing in gen- the Coosa chiefdom would have likely begun to crystallize. eral. In each of the three networks, no distinct subgraphs emerge as they did in the temper networks. In the first period, AD 800 to 1050, Social Capital and Comparative Sociopolitical Networks. All three of the network is characterized by three weak subgroups that are all the networks based on the use of temper are defined by bonding still heavily connected to one another, all of which include sites from (i.e., strong) ties within subgraphs and by weak, bridging ties be- both eastern Tennessee and northern Georgia. In the second pe- tween subgraphs. All three of the networks based on surface dec- riod, AD 1050 to 1325, the integration between sites is further en- orations are defined by both strong and weak ties, linking nodes in hanced as any indication of subgroups disappears and a structure long strung-out networks indicative of bridging structures and characterized by a general mixture of both strong and weak ties capital. Bridging ties (long, weak ties) tend to rely not on the rule of emerges. Although the average tie strength remains the same as the enforcement or informal collective actions like bonding ties would,

6710 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818346116 Lulewicz Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 but instead depend on more formalized institutions such as legal or Appalachian society and politics were enacted, this study pro- religious organizations (ref. 38, p. 392). What this may indicate is the vides insight on how we might reconceptualize our archaeological presence of formal institutions situated at the regional scale that narratives of sociopolitical organization and change, especially in SEE COMMENTARY served to integrate populations from eastern Tennessee and north- terms of the scale, structure, and stability of southeastern chiefdoms. ern Georgia as evidenced by the distribution of decorative traditions First, it is clear that Etowah established its regional prominence, at across each locality. Further, bridging capital is argued to emerge least in part, through relationships that spanned beyond local con- from weak ties across society in which individuals and organizational texts—at regional and continental (46) scales—leveraging relation- behavior are embedded (40), but which is nevertheless held together ships forged between groups living across both eastern Tennessee through diverse group memberships and the sharing of some com- and northern Georgia. As such, in considering the geographic con- mon values (ref. 42, p. 115). In general, weak ties like those consti- tainer and social boundaries within which we situate our narratives tuting the signaling networks exist among members of social groups of political systems, we must look beyond traditional scales of that are heterogeneous, having different social identities (ref. analysis such as the individual polity or river valley. Further, we 42, p. 115). These relationships rely on earned trust among loosely cannot assume that long ties between regions are the exclusive realm connected peoples rather than on ascribed trust among a homog- of elite interactions of alliance building. Indeed, the ceramic datasets enous, strongly related group (ref. 40 and ref. 42, p. 115). All three I have employed here point toward these elite interactions as being signaling networks are consistent with characteristics of bridging underlain by wider networks of intimate relationships that were networks and are likely good indicators of loose relationships, likely in place before new political institutions were ever built. interactions, and exchanges through which generalized trust among Second, the bottom-up network approach to political organi- groups was established. These patterns of generalized trust, and zation and activity employed here allows for a finer-resolution the regional institutions maintaining and generating these patterns, interrogation of the heterogeneity of social and political structures seem to have remained stable for at least the 850-y period con- through time. When the Spanish encountered southern Appalachian sidered here. societies in the 16th century, the political landscape was composed Bonding capital emerges from strong social ties which are based of autonomous communities linked together through loose political on social identities such as family, kinship, gender, ethnicity, or or- ties, with the chief of the most powerful town at Coosa wielding ganizational culture (ref. 42, p. 114). As a consequence of cohesion, bonding capital generates a type of trust that is prescribed to significant influence over these communities. Through the study I members of a group. Such groups tend to generate high levels of have just presented, we know that this 16th-century landscape was characterized by loose, open networks of information and resource

trust, cooperation, and organization, facilitating collective action and ANTHROPOLOGY learning. Modes of production are often based on bonding ties that flows. Although these ethnohistoric accounts of political structure may be reinforced through practices of sharing resources and are often extended into the past, what has been demonstrated here redistributing profits (49). Because networks based on temper exhibit is that the political landscape 200 y before the crystallization of 16th- many of the structural characteristics of bonding networks, they are century political relationships (a landscape similarly defined by likely good referents for networks of kin or other strong relationships chiefdom political structures) seems to have been markedly differ- generating high levels of trust and reciprocity. The scale and struc- ent, characterized by restricted network flows, numerous central ture of such intimate relationships as kin ties, lineage affiliations, and actors, and the structural potential for the monopolization of social modes of intergenerational enculturation seem to have remained and political relationships. Even though the kinds of social capital intact in the context of major sociopolitical transformations. While at available to southern Appalachian communities remained stable some level the very relationships constituting the social, political, and over 850 y, it is clear that these pools of capital were leveraged in economic form of society were redefined as part of new sociopolit- unique ways and in unique sociohistorical contexts. Hernando de ical institutions and practices, the most intimate ties and relation- Soto and other Spanish explorers would not have encountered the ships among members of southern Appalachian societies seem to same political landscape had they arrived 200 y earlier. have been successfully enacted over at least 850 y. This suggests the The third way that this study contributes to the study of south- durability of some very basic social institutions, including regional eastern chiefdoms is in its implications for understanding the sta- organizations of kinship groups, patterns of marriage exchange, and bility of such political structures. Extant narratives pose that continued face-to-face interaction through communal events. In- chiefdom political structures—and the relationships that defined deed, the stability of these institutions likely worked to mediate the them—were generally unstable institutions (6, 7). The study pre- uncertainty that political transformations may have generated. sented here, however, demonstrates that the networks underlying What is clear is that southern Appalachian societies were defined political strategies, figures, and institutions were some of the most by both bridging and bonding forms of capital and would have had enduring, stable features of southern Appalachian societies. As both at their disposal. In the context of modern economic studies, it such, it would seem that it was specific elite, political practices and has been argued that economies need both types of social capital behaviors that were unstable, not the structures of relationships (42). It is necessary for a minimum amount of bonding capital to be through which these behaviors would have been enacted. present for bridging capital to emerge—that is, bridging capital builds on the social capabilities generated by bonding capital and Materials and Methods networks. While bridging capital is undoubtedly more beneficial to Data. The ceramic data used here totals to 365,331 sherds from 84 components economic and sociopolitical development, as it connects broader, across southern Appalachia, including 276,626 sherds from 43 components more diverse groups to one another, bonding capital provides the across eastern Tennessee and 88,705 sherds from 41 components across northern fertile ground upon which bridging capital can develop (ref. 42, Georgia spanning between ca. AD 800 and 1650 (SI Appendix). Raw attribute p. 116). Although sociopolitical institutions were substantially data and counts for temper and surface decoration were synthesized from transformed at roughly AD 1050 and again at ca. AD 1325, access numerous published archaeological reports (SI Appendix, Table S1)andare – to both bonding and bridging capital remained constant across included as SI Appendix,TablesS2S7. Ceramic assemblages were partitioned southern Appalachian populations. into time periods based on a regional ceramic seriation utilizing correspon- dence analysis, frequency seriation, and Bayesian chronological modeling (50, Conclusions 51). Discrete, subcommunity assemblages (e.g., pit features, house floors, midden layers) were used to conduct the seriation; however, assemblages be- The political histories of chiefs and their political strategies, as longing to the same temporal components determined through seriation were defined through the use of ethnographic models, do not necessarily aggregated to the scale of the site. That is, a single site may be present as a reflect the wider social histories of southern Appalachian peoples. node in more than one of the networks because multiple temporal compo- By accessing the underlying relationships through which southern nents were represented at the site.

Lulewicz PNAS | April 2, 2019 | vol. 116 | no. 14 | 6711 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 Network Analysis. Much like ceramic data are used here as a proxy for re- component. This process is described in more detail in SI Appendix. Nodes and lationships and connections, measures and indices of network structures are ties were positioned in graph theoretic space using a spring-embedded multi- used as proxies for the qualities of those relationships and, more specifically, as dimensional scaling algorithm, the default algorithm for node positions in proxies for the kinds of social capital available to southern Appalachian societies UCINET. Network- and node-level metrics were based on weighted tie values in responding to and mediating sociopolitical change. Similarities in the pro- (the actual similarity values between nodes, not a binarized matrix) and calcu- portions of tempering agents across assemblages were used to construct net- lated using UCINET (53) and R script written by Peeples (55). Ceramic attributes, works based on communities of practice. Similarities in the proportions of methods of determining similarity, the process of constructing networks, and surface decorations across assemblages were used to construct the signaling modes of network evaluation are reported in more detail in SI Appendix. networks. A range of quantitative measures and metrics were evaluated to fully describe network structures and node positions (SI Appendix, SI Materials and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I thank the University of Georgia Laboratory of Methods). Ceramic assemblage similarity data were prepared by executing Archaeology; the McClung Museum of Natural History & Culture; the Antonio J. script written by Peeples (52) using R (version 3.3.2) statistical software. Visu- Waring Laboratory of Archaeology; Jennifer Birch, Victor Thompson, Steve alization of network graphs was made in UCINET (version 6) (53) and NetDraw Kowalewski, Lynne Sullivan, and Tim Baumann; and two anonymous re- (54). The networks in Fig. 2 were produced using binarized ties based on a viewers and a PNAS member editor for their valuable and constructive subjective cutoff of similarity values between nodes. That is, only the stronger reviews, which have contributed greatly to the improvement of this man- ties were used to produce network visualizations, the purpose of which was uscript. Funding for this project was from the National Science Foundation to highlight the basic network structure while maintaining a single network (Award 1644359).

1. Hudson C, Smith M, Hally D, Polhemus R, DePratter C (1985) Coosa: A chiefdom in the 29. Anderson D, Sassaman K (2012) Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: sixteenth-century southeastern United States. Am Antiq 50:723–737. From Colonization to Complexity (Society for American Archaeology Press, Wash- 2. Smith M (2000) Coosa: The Rise and Fall of Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom ington, DC). (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL). 30. Schroedl G (1994) A comparison of the origins of Macon Plateau and Hiwassee Island 3. Hudson C (1990) The Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and cultures. Ocmulgee Archaeology 1936-1986, ed Hally D (Univ of Georgia Press, Ath- Tennessee, 1566-1568 (Univ of Press, Tuscaloosa, AL). ens, TN), pp 138–143. 4. Knight VJ, Jr (1990) Social organization and the evolution of hierarchy in south- 31. Williams M (1994) The origins of the Macon Plateau site. Ocmulgee Archaeology eastern chiefdoms. J Anthropol Res 46:1–23. 1936-1986, ed Hally D (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens, TN), pp 130–137. 5. Widmer R (1994) The structure of southeastern chiefdoms. The Forgotten Centuries: 32. Schroedl G, et al. (1990) Explaining Mississippian origins in east Tennessee. The Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, eds Hudson C, Tesser CC Mississippian Emergence, ed Smith B (Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL), pp (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens, TN), pp 125–155. 175–196. 6. Anderson D (1994) The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late 33. Schroedl G (1998) Mississippian towns in the eastern Tennessee Valley. Mississippian Prehistoric Southeast (Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL). Towns and Sacred Spaces, eds Lewis R, Stout C (The Univ Press of Alabama, Tusca- – 7. Hally D (1996) construction and the instability of Mississippian loosa, AL), pp 64 92. chiefdoms. Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United 34. Sullivan L (2016) Reconfiguring the Chickamauga basin. New Deal Archaeology in – States, ed Scarry J (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL), pp 92–127. Tennessee, ed Dye D (The Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL), pp 138 170. 8. King A (2003) Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital (Univ of Alabama 35. Bliege Bird R, Smith E (2005) Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic – Press, Tuscaloosa, AL). capital. Curr Anthropol 46:221 248. 9. Hally D (1994) The chiefdom of Coosa. The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans 36. Crown P (2014) The archaeology of crafts learning: Becoming a potter in the Puebloan – in the American South, 1521-1704, eds Hudson C, Tesser CC (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens, Southwest. Annu Rev Anthropol 43:71 88. 37. Gosselain O (2000) Materializing identities: An African perspective. J Archaeol TN), pp 227–256. Method Theory 7:187–217. 10. Hally D (2008) King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in 38. Adger N (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Northwestern Georgia (Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL). Econ Geogr 79:387–404. 11. Peebles C, Kus S (1977) Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. Am Antiq 39. Crowe J (2007) In search of a happy medium: How the structure of interorganizational 42:421–448. networks influence community economic development strategies. Soc Networks 29: 12. Chapman R (2003) Archaeologies of Complexity (Routledge, London). 469–488. 13. Trigger B (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge Univ Press, Cam- 40. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of em- bridge, UK). beddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510. 14. Beck R (2003) Consolidation and hierarchy: Chiefdom variability in the Mississippian 41. Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Culture and Southeast. Am Antiq 68:641–661. Politics, eds Crothers L, Lockhart C (Palgrave Macmillan, New York), pp 223–234. 15. Blitz J (1999) Mississippian chiefdoms and the fission-fusion process. Am Antiq 64: 42. van Staveren I, Knorringa P (2007) Unpacking social capital in economic development: 577–592. How social relations matter. Rev Soc Econ 65:107–135. 16. Feinman G, Neitzel J (1984) Too many types: An overview of sedentary prestate so- 43. Woolock M, Narayan D (2000) Social capital: Implications for development theory, cieties in the Americas. Adv Archaeol Method Theory 7:39–102. research, and policy. World Bank Res Obs 15:225–249. 17. Pauketat T (2007) Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions (Rowan Altamira, 44. Ostrom E, Ahn T (2008) The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. New York). Handbook on Social Capital, eds Svendsen GT, Svendsen GL (Edward Elgar, Chelten- 18. Smith M (2012) The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies (Cambridge Univ ham, PA), pp 17–35. Press, Cambridge, UK). 45. Lin N (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22:28–51. 19. Brughmans T, Collar A, Coward F (2016) The Connected Past: Challenges to Network 46. Lulewicz J, Coker A (2018) The structure of the Mississippian world: A social network Studies in Archaeology and History (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford). approach to sociopolitical interactions. J Anthropol Archaeol 50:113–127. 20. Knappett C (2013) Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional 47. Cobb C, King A (2005) Re-inventing Mississippian tradition at Etowah, Georgia. Interaction (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford). J Archaeol Method Theory 12:167–193. 21. Mills B (2017) Social network analysis in archaeology. Annu Rev Anthropol 46: 48. Blanton R, et al. (1996) A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican – 379 397. civilization. Curr Anthropol 37:1–14. 22. Mills B, et al. (2013) Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US 49. Repetti M (2002) Social relations in lieu of capital. Res Econ Anthropol 21:43–59. – Southwest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:5785 5790. 50. Lulewicz J (2018) Network histories of southern Appalachia, AD 600-1600. PhD dis- 23. Mills B, et al. (2018) Evaluating Chaco migration scenarios using dynamic social net- sertation (University of Georgia, Athens, TN). work analysis. Antiquity 92:922–939. 51. Lulewicz J (2018) Radiocarbon data, Bayesian modeling, and alternative historical 24. Borck L (2017) Lost voices found: An archaeology of contentious politics in the frameworks: A case study from the US Southeast. Adv Archaeol Pract 6:58–71. Greater Southwest, A.D. 1100-1450. PhD dissertation (University of Arizona, Tucson, 52. Peeples MA (2011) R script for calculating the Brainerd-Robinson coefficient of simi- AZ). larity and assessing sampling error. Electronic document. Available at www.mattpeeples. 25. Peeples M (2018) Connected Communities: Networks, Identity, and Social Change in net/BR.htmlhttp://www.mattpeeples.net/br.html. Accessed October 1, 2017. the Ancient Cibola World (The Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ). 53. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET for Windows: Software for social 26. Birch J, Hart J (2018) Social networks and northern Iroquoian confederacy dynamics. network analysis (Analytic Technologies, Lexington, KY), Version 6.0. Am Antiq 83:13–33. 54. Borgatti SP (2002) NetDraw: Graph visualization software (Analytic Technologies, 27. Hart JP, Birch J, Gates St-Pierre C (2017) Effects of population dispersal on regional Lexington, KY), Version 6. signaling networks: An example from northern Iroquoia. Sci Adv 3:e1700497. 55. Peeples MA (2017) Network science and statistical techniques for dealing with un- 28. Emirbayer M, Goodwin J (1994) Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. certainties in archaeological datasets. Electronic document. Available at mattpeeples. Am J Sociol 99:1411–1454. net/netstats.html. Accessed December 15, 2018.

6712 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818346116 Lulewicz Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021