Mississippian Period (1000 Â•Fi 1700 A.D.) Wattle and Daub Construction

Home , Carson Mounds, Chucalissa, Cofitachequi, Fire hardening, Glass Site, Marshall Site

Mississippi State University Scholars Junction

Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations

8-7-2020

Mississippian Period (1000 – 1700 A.D.) wattle and daub construction in the Yazoo Basin: Comparing energy expenditure using context and construction methods

William David Harris

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td

Recommended Citation Harris, William David, "Mississippian Period (1000 – 1700 A.D.) wattle and daub construction in the Yazoo Basin: Comparing energy expenditure using context and construction methods" (2020). Theses and Dissertations. 3118. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/3118

This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Template B v4.1 (beta): Created by /15/19

Mississippian Period (1000 – 1700 A.D.) wattle and daub construction in the Yazoo Basin:

Comparing energy expenditure using context

and construction methods

By TITLE PAGE William David Harris

Approved by:

Darcy Shane Miller (Major Professor) Evan Peacock James W. Hardin David M. Hoffman (Graduate Coordinator) Rick Travis (Dean, College of Arts & Sciences)

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures

Mississippi State, Mississippi

August 2020

2020

Name: William David Harris ABSTRACT Date of Degree: August 7, 2020

Institution: Mississippi State University

Major Field: Applied Anthropology

Major Professor: Darcy Shane Miller

Title of Study: Mississippian Period (1000 – 1700 A.D.) wattle and daub construction in the Yazoo Basin: Comparing energy expenditure using context and construction methods

Pages in Study: 182

Candidate for Degree of Master of Arts

Native American societies in the Yazoo Basin during the Mississippian Period (ca. 1000 – 1700

A.D.) extensively built platform mounds often associated with “elite” or “sacred” areas, and exotic or energy expensive artifacts. Excessive energy expenditure, or “waste” behaviors, may be explained with costly signaling and bet-hedging, hypotheses stemming from evolutionary theory.

I argue that costly signaling may best explain the waste evident in hierarchical and agricultural

Mississippian Period societies of the Mississippi Valley. Consequently, I feel that differing levels of energy expenditure may be evident from the remains of perishable construction excavated from mound summits and off-mound contexts. During that time, wattle and daub was a common method of wall construction in the Yazoo Basin, leaving abundant evidence at Mississippian sites. By studying imprints from preserved daub fragments, the use of specific construction methods can be compared between mound and non-mound contexts and relative energy expenditure assessed.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to John Connaway and the late Dr. Janet Rafferty, who both showed me that the Past changes as if it were alive today.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would have been impossible without the help and interest of more people than can be accounted for here. I thank my committee member Evan Peacock, who has led me back to the bright but untrodden path many times, his work as a daub pioneer, and for his abiding support and interest. I thank my major professor D. Shane Miller for taking me on and voicing support when things were tough, and for some excellent classes and fieldwork experiences. I am extremely thankful to Jimmy Hardin who jumped on my committee when Janet passed, for always being willing to listen to my ideas, and for pointing me towards Old World analogues for my work. I thank the late Janet Rafferty who was supportive and knowledgeable about basically everything and helped steer my line of questioning. I could have also not completed this work without the contribution of John Connaway, who’s knowledge, and early daub work this is an extension of in many regards. I am extremely grateful to the Mississippi Archaeology

Association and its members, especially Anna Reginelli, Bo Pitts, Tony Payne, Benny and Gena

Roberts, Rob Bonney, all of whom contributed essential fieldwork, notes, figures, artifacts, listened to my presentations and gave good support. Jeffrey Alvey, Keith Baca, and Bradley

Carlock of the Cobb Institute’s CRM program were enormously helpful at locating old collections and documents. Dr. Tony Boudreaux and my friend Hannah Zechmann at the

University of Mississippi, Dr. Ed Jackson at the University of Southern Mississippi, Dr. Jessica

Kowalski at the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Meg Cook and Emily Clark at the Mississippi

Department of Archives and History, Jason Ervin, Jim Turner, and Lizbeth Velasquez of

iii

Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jessica Crawford and Nikki Mattson of the

Archaeological Conservancy, I thank you all with utmost sincerity, all of you helped make this happen. Finally, I thank my family for their sacrifices and support throughout the entire thesis writing process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, NATURAL SELECTION, AND ENERGY EXPENDITURE ...... 4

Architecture and Evolutionary Theory ...... 5 Hypotheses for Waste ...... 6 Waste and Mississippian Period Societies in the Yazoo Basin ...... 7

III. WATTLE AND DAUB: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL BACKGROUND ...... 12

Description of Wattle and Daub ...... 12 Daub Disintegration ...... 14 Structure Fires and the Archaeological Preservation of Daub ...... 15 Daub Identification ...... 19 Descriptive and Functional Terminology ...... 23 Issues of Sampling, Analysis, and Curation of Daub ...... 24 Classification of Daub for Relative Preservation ...... 25 Wattle and Daub in Southeastern U.S. Archaeology ...... 26 Prehistoric Structures in the Southeast ...... 26 Foundation Trenches ...... 27 Floor Plans ...... 28 Interior Features ...... 29 “Rigid Post” and “Bent-Pole” Interpretations ...... 31 Mississippian Period Mounds and Mound Summit Architecture ...... 33 House Mounds ...... 36 Materials and Architectural Components of Yazoo Basin Daub ...... 37 Clay ...... 38 v

Giant Cane ...... 40 Grasses ...... 42 Wood ...... 43 Daubed Wall Plain/Plant Texturing ...... 44 Daubed Wall Plastering, Painting, and Finishing ...... 44 Woven Split Cane Paneling ...... 48 Lashed Pole/Posts ...... 53 Previous Research ...... 58 Early Descriptions ...... 58 Reverse Engineering and Inferring Material Processing from Daub ...... 61 Systematic Architectural Analysis ...... 64 Paleoenvironmental and Seasonality Analysis ...... 65 Ethnohistoric Records for Wattle and Daub in the Midsouth and Mississippi ...... 67

IV. SPATIAL/CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND ASSEMBLAGE SAMPLING ...... 73

Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Mississippi ...... 73 Mapping Daub Reports ...... 76 Mapping Results ...... 78 Chronology of Daub ...... 79 Culture Historical Analysis Results ...... 79 Sites and Sampling Assemblages ...... 84 Hiter (22BO661) ...... 85 McKee (22CO598) ...... 86 Mullens (22CO653) ...... 86 Dog Branch (22CR522) ...... 87 Oyler (22QU984) ...... 88 McClintock #2 (22TU541) ...... 88 Blue Lake (22LF604) ...... 88 Unnamed Site (22QU799) ...... 89 Falls (22LF507) ...... 89 Hollywood (22TU500) ...... 90 West (22TU520) ...... 91 Winterville (22WS500) ...... 92 Powell Bayou (22SU516) ...... 93 Dockery (22SU510) ...... 95 Sledge (22TU510) ...... 96 Bay Lake (22SU528) ...... 96 Arcola (22WS516) ...... 98 House 4 ...... 99 House 9 ...... 100 Clover Hill (22CO625) ...... 101 House 1 ...... 101 Carson/Montgomery (22CO505/518) ...... 102 House 12 ...... 104 House 63 ...... 106 vi

Parchman Place (22CO511) ...... 107 Knox Lake (22WS575) ...... 108 Chocchuma Land Office (22GR??) ...... 109

V. METHODS ...... 116

Piece Analysis ...... 119

VI. RESULTS ...... 120

Preservation of the Sample ...... 121 Preliminary Results of the Sample as a Whole ...... 123 Comparison of Results Between Contexts ...... 125

VII. CONCLUSIONS ...... 127

Labor and Organized Construction ...... 130 Further Research ...... 131 Paleoenvironmental Modeling ...... 132 Regional and Intrasite Comparison ...... 132 Chronology ...... 133 Final Word ...... 134

REFERENCES ...... 135

APPENDIX

A. DAUB ALLOTMENT CONTEXTUAL AND RECOVERY DATA ...... 153

B. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF WATTLE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVED IN STUDY ASSEMBLAGE ...... 160

Split Cane Paneling Wattle ...... 161 Results ...... 162 Lashed Pole/Post Wattles ...... 166 Results ...... 167

C. DAUB CLASS COUNTS AND WEIGHT DATA BY ALLOTMENT ...... 175

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Theoretical classification for the identification of daub in a fired clay assemblage...... 25

Table 3.2 Ethnohistoric Off-Mound/Non-Temple Daubed Structure Data from the Midsouth and Lower Mississippi Valley ...... 72

Table 4.1 Sites with Reported Daub in the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Database – By County ...... 81

Table 4.2 Histogram data summary of components reported from daub-related sites in the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Database ...... 83

Table 4.3 Architectural and radiocarbon data from structures sampled for daub ...... 115

Table 5.1 Problem-oriented classification for comparing relative energy waste in daub ...... 118

Table 6.1 Daub assemblages by site and general context ...... 120

Table 6.2 Daub preservation in relation to context ...... 122

Table 6.3 Daub classes in relation to context ...... 124

Table 6.4 Daub modes in relation to context ...... 126

Table B.1 Data for plain plaited split cane wattle paneling imprints observed in Yazoo Basin daub ...... 164

Table B.2 Splints per weave in split cane paneling imprints ...... 164

Table B.3 Observed poles/posts data from the daub assemblage ...... 168

Table B.4 Contextual and technical data of lashed pole imprints in daub assemblage ...... 168

Table B.5 Create a short, concise table title and place all detailed caption, notes, reference, legend information, etc in the notes section below ...... 171

Table C.1 Daub class count data by allotment ...... 176

Table C.2 Daub class weight (kg) data by allotment ...... 179

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Examples of European-style wattle and daub walls...... 14

Figure 3.2 Surface collected fragments of fire-hardened wall daub, ca. 1200 - 1600 A.D...... 17

Figure 3.3 Two examples of daub falls...... 18

Figure 3.4 Differentiating fired clay from daub using context...... 20

Figure 3.5 Some structural floor plans known from the Central and Lower Mississippi Valley...... 30

Figure 3.6 Superstructure forms inferred from archaeological feature patterns at Mississippian Period sites...... 32

Figure 3.7 Idealized diagram of architectural organization and hierarchy at a Mississippian Period site in the Yazoo Basin...... 37

Figure 3.8 Imprint of a pill clam (Sphaerium spp.) valve in daub from nonspecific village plowzone context, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) ...... 39

Figure 3.9 Maturing canebrake in Hinds County, Mississippi. Author’s hand for scale...... 41

Figure 3.10 Two examples of plain/plant textured exterior-facing surfaces on daub...... 45

Figure 3.11 Daub with grass inclusions...... 46

Figure 3.12 Various examples of plastering/painting/washing found on Yazoo Basin daub...... 49

Figure 3.13 Reconstruction of the style of woven split cane paneling used as wattle in the Yazoo Basin during the Mississippian Period...... 52

Figure 3.14 Example imprints of woven split cane paneling in daub from the Yazoo Basin...... 54

Figure 3.15 Two examples of preserved Mississippian Period cane paneling from Mississippi...... 55

Figure 3.16 Two methods of splitting cane and bamboo into quarter-section splints...... 56

Figure 3.17 Imprints of pole wattles lashed to posts with bindings...... 57

Figure 4.1 Reported Daub in the Mississippi HRID Compared to Approximate Settled Regions of Late Prehistoric to Historic Native Peoples ...... 82

Figure 4.2 Excavated floor plan of House 12, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) ...... 111

Figure 4.3 Excavated floor plan of House 63, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) ...... 112

Figure 4.4 Excavated floor plan of House 66, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) ...... 113

Figure 4.5 Map of sites sampled for daub for this thesis ...... 114

Figure B.1 Technical illustration of plain plaited split cane wattle ...... 165

Figure B.2 Pole imprints in daub with imprints of hitches ...... 169

Figure B.3 Lashes and hitches useful for pole and post frame construction ...... 170

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Prehistoric humans, including those who once lived in North America, used an enormous variety of architecture to adapt to their environments (see Lacquement 2007; Nabokov and

Easton 1989; Redmond and Genheimer 2015). Before the development of relatively modern housing materials, like sheet metals, brick, sawn lumber, etc., construction often used raw inorganic materials, like mounded or packed soil and rock, that can survive centuries or millennia of disturbance. Organic materials were also used, and included plant and animal components such as hide, wood, and grass that disappeared quickly after abandonment, or even during the structure’s use life. Mixing organic and inorganic construction materials allowed prehistoric humans to pursue building methods that accentuated the strengths and minimized the risks associated with either of these material types alone. One of the most widespread and recognizable examples of this is daubed construction (wattle-and-daub, quinche, bajareque, etc.).

Wattle and daub is a method of wall building that uses sticks, poles, slats, etc. (the wattle) to form a wooden framework to which a thick layer of wet clay (daub) is applied, this clay is allowed to dry, insulating the structure’s interior.

Culture evolutionists and processual archaeologists are often interested in quantifying energy expenditure for reconstructing social systems and processes responsible for so-called

“monumental” architecture. This has been investigated in recent years through reverse- engineering construction methods evident in prehistoric buildings (Abrams 1989, 1994; Abrams

and Bolland 1999). Comparing the relative energy levels between structures through identifying tasks necessary for construction can be a means of understanding both the level of skill specialization present and how labor was controlled at different levels of a society. Access to large labor forces would supposedly allow higher-status individuals to better display their affluence to both members of and outsiders to their group, affirming their legitimacy (Abrams

1989, 1994; Abrams and Bolland 1999; see also Neiman 1998). Native American mound building and mound summit architecture during the Mississippian Period (1000-1700 A.D.) in the U.S. Southeast could be an excellent example of this phenomenon. Mound summits and off- mound areas are two context types traditionally associated by archaeologists with respectively higher and lower social status during the Mississippian period (Steere 2017). Excessive energy expense beyond the minimum cost necessary for fostering reproductive fitness is known as

“waste” and may appear in the form of “monumental” architecture (Dunnell 1989, 1999;

Aranyosi 1999). Mound summit construction versus off-mound construction at Mississippian

Period sites may best be interpreted as archaeological evidence for waste as a form of costly advertisement or signaling (see Neiman 1998; Aranyosi 1999).

The presence of densely populated and fortified Mississippian Period settlements in the

Yazoo Basin, my region of interest, suggests a competitive environment that might have encouraged wasteful behavior that allowed a group or community to signal its ability to compete with others and/or the desirability of joining it (Neiman 1998; see Aranyosi 1999). Many of these

Mississippian Period societies, not unlike the pre-Hispanic Maya, were evidently population dense, maize-dependent (see Scarry 1994) and constructed monumental architecture on a relatively large scale. Forms of wattle and daub construction were common at that time in the

Central Mississippi Valley, especially in Mississippi and Arkansas. There, fire-hardened daub rubble is regularly found in village areas, as well as on and in earthen platform mounds.

With daub, mounds, settlements being commonplace, and several active archaeological institutions in the region, daub analysis in the Yazoo Basin may be used to easily compare construction and evidence for waste from mound and off-mound contexts. I propose that analyzing the architectural imprints found in daub fragments can allow for reverse-engineering the wall construction processes of the houses they were attached to. If non-comparable levels of waste were being exerted into mound summit wattle and daub construction as opposed to off- mound construction, it would lead me to suspect that costly signaling was being selected for and influenced “monumental” Mississippian architecture. Knowing this could better illustrate how

Mississippian societies were structured in the region, whether an “elite” of individuals wielded influence over others, and whether those individuals could amass skilled and unskilled labor for the purpose of mound building and house construction alike.

CHAPTER II

ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, NATURAL SELECTION, AND ENERGY EXPENDITURE

Archaeologists often assume, whether accurately or not, that the size and complexity of construction projects are correlated with the organizational complexity or hierarchy within a society (Abrams 1989; Aranyosi 1999; Neiman 1998). “Monumental” is an adjective that appears most often used to describe architecture that is or was large or “publicly” visible, that contained or was associated with an abundance of non-utilitarian adornment or artwork, relatively complex in design, and was constructed with predominantly non-perishable material.

All of these would reflect excessive time and energy expenditure beyond the principle of least effort (Neiman 1998; see Zipf 1949). Whether intentionally or not, the monumental architecture at an archaeological settlement often becomes the predominant focus of excavators and the interested public alike, just as it possibly might have been the focus of the original inhabitants’ attention (Abrams 1989; Abrams and Bolland 1999). For example, many non-archaeologists today understand how Egyptian pyramids and Roman amphitheaters appeared originally due to their high visibility, size, and durability. More “everyday” structures such as housing, storage facilities, etc. are generally much less well understood by the public and even archaeologists.

This is because they often embody the qualities opposite of monumentality, such as unimpressive size, utilitarian nature, and a high level of perishability. There is the serious issue that the inordinate attention to these loci skew archaeologists’ perception of “everyday” prehistoric peoples. A classic example would be the two extremes of the ancient Maya repertoire of

construction – large complexes of stone pyramids, palaces, and stelae, and in contrast, the wattle and daub huts that were built by commoners among maize fields scattered throughout the rainforest (Abrams 1994; Neiman 1998; Steere 2017:188). The bias towards monumental Maya architecture led to a longstanding (and wholly inaccurate) perception by archaeologists that

Maya cities were sparsely inhabited ceremonial centers.

Why humans poured inordinate amounts of energy and resources into the construction of some buildings traditionally has been explained by archaeologists as the outcome of social differences between builders (Aranyosi 1999; Neiman 1998). Through an emic perspective, a

“commoner” may only require or afford a small house or hut of thatch and wood because they are relatively valueless or unimportant individuals. Comparatively, an “elite” would build a large palace of stone because they can afford it or are entitled to it through similar cultural beliefs and reasoning. While this may very well be the case, why exactly social status or other cultural concepts and behaviors exist, and why architectural differentiation reflects this is apparently not agreed upon.

Architecture and Evolutionary Theory

Two strains of evolutionary archaeological theory (see Dunnell 1980, 1989), cultural evolution (e.g., Abrams 1989, 1994; Abrams and Bolland 1999), and Darwinian evolution (e.g.,

Aranyosi 1999; Dunnell 1989, 1999; Neiman 1998; Peacock and Rafferty 2013) have proposed explanations that consider natural selection as the driving force for cultural change and idiosyncrasy, and by consequence. architectural differentiation. For culture evolutionists interested in architecture, the flow of energy through a society is a primary force responsible for organizational complexity, which they appear to present as evolving in a unilineal direction.

Darwinian evolutionary theory, in addition to being opposed to the concept of unilineal or 5

progressive cultural evolution (Dunnell 1980), concerns itself with, among other things, the relationship between energy expenditure and reproduction. Darwinian evolution maintains that actions are either selected for or against by their ability, or inability, to help foster reproductive

(Dunnell 1980) and/or replicative success (Leonard and Jones 1987). Neutral selection, or the lack of selection, may give rise to “stylistic” variability that neither hinders nor helps reproductive ability. Energy expenditure that does not directly contribute to reproduction, such as moundbuilding, may be referred to as “waste” (Aranyosi 1999; Dunnell 1989; 1999; Neiman

1998; Peacock and Rafferty 2013). However, according to principles of Darwinian evolution, waste must be selected for to occur or at least continue to occur over a significant period of time.

Therefore, waste must either lack a selective component, or must be positively selected for to exist.

Hypotheses for Waste

One potential benefit from waste is that it can allow for the continued survival of a population despite, or because of, a lowered reproductive rate if a group lives in a marginal environment that is populated at carrying capacity or its capacity can be easily exceeded based on unpredictable environmental fluctuations (Aranyosi 1999; Dunnell 1999; Peacock and

Rafferty 2013). Waste may cease during times of hardship and energy may be refocused on behavior necessary to foster reproduction. This pattern of wast is called “bet-hedging” and those subject to it may not consciously understand that this is the cause of their actions (Peacock and

Rafferty 2013). Famous examples of purported bet-hedging may include megalith construction by prehistoric Irish agriculturalists (Aranyosi 1999), or mound-building among non-agricultural

Archaic Period foragers in the more environmentally unstable portions of the Mississippi Valley

(the lower Yazoo Basin, Atchafalaya region in Louisiana [see Peacock and Rafferty 2013]). 6

Costly signaling is another hypothesis that that has gained both traction among evolutionary archaeologists (Aranyosi 1999; Neiman 1998) and other Darwinian and biology- influenced theoretical focuses in archaeology, including Human Behavioral Ecology (Bliege

Bird, and Smith 2005). Unlike bet-hedging, costly signaling or wasteful advertising is hypothesized to be most prevalent in areas that are not marginal and where resources are competed over. In such environments, waste may serve the purpose of demonstrating a group’s stability, security from attack, and the desirability of joining it. Again, pre-Hispanic Maya temples and pyramids are excellent examples of this phenomenon, as they were built by maize- based agricultural societies that were densely populated and highly competitive (Neiman 1998).

With a formal writing system, the Maya were perhaps the most clear-cut archaeological example of costly signaling between human populations in the New World. Surviving stone inscriptions from major sites commonly praise the lineages and potency of ritual sacrifices made by the kings of city-states, and their abilities in war over other kings (Friedel and Schele 1992; Neiman 1998).

Like the Maya, Mississippian Period societies in the Southeastern U.S. were maize dependent agriculturalists, mound builders, potters, and often densely populated. Unlike the Maya,

Mississippian Period peoples were prehistoric, and left no written record. However, evidence of what was most likely costly signaling during the Mississippian Period is clear when the archaeological record of both the Southeast and Mississippi Valley are considered.

Waste and Mississippian Period Societies in the Yazoo Basin

Mississippian Period platform mounds the most obvious and plentiful examples of prehistoric waste behavior in the U.S. Southeast, especially in the Yazoo Basin in northwest

Mississippi. So-named because its waterways drain primarily to the Yazoo River, the Yazoo

Basin is a floodplain of the Central and Lower Mississippi River Valley. Before modern 7

industrial agriculture, the Yazoo Basin was characterized by seasonally flooded hardwood bottomland forests and extensive permanent wetlands adjoining rivers and bayous. Such habitats would have readily supplied the food, hides, and construction materials needed by prehistoric humans, who inhabited the region for millennia. Before, and even after the construction of levee systems, the region was infamous for its hydrological instability and flooding (see Peacock and

Rafferty 2013). These floods, however, were the source of the deep and extensive deposits of highly fertile alluvial soils that characterize much of the region. Following European-African settlement, the expansion of industrial agriculture and overharvesting of timber led to the deforestation that characterizes most of the region today. The lower third and far eastern portions of the Yazoo Basin retain hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forests and bayous, likely owing to the heavy surface deposits of Pleistocene clays (e.g. Sharkey Clay series) that have rendered large expanses of those areas agriculturally useless.

Perhaps due to its resource richness, the Yazoo Basin is well-known as a locus of large- scale prehistoric sedentary settlement and village remains, with such sites existing from at least as early as the Poverty Point tradition (ca. 2000 – 900 B.C.) onwards (Peacock and Rafferty

2013).The fertile soils of the region overall supported densely populated communities of Native

American maize agriculturalists centuries before European contact. In addition to ethnohistoric records of maize cultivation, evidence for this is found directly in the form of securely dated preserved maize itself (Scarry 1994). In general, Mississippian Period settlement in the region appears to have prioritized arable or stable landforms that would have supported the populations present at that time. In the Lower Yazoo Basin, it is perhaps no coincidence that the major

Mississippian Period sites such as Lake George, are located on lands where agriculture is possible and continue to be farmed.

Evidence for inter-community violence often comes from the remains of defensive structures and palisades, which have been noted from at least four Mississippian sites in the

Yazoo Basin. These include the Austin site (22TU549) (Hunt 2017), Lake George (22YZ557)

(Williams and Brain 1983), the possibly Late Woodland palisade at Walford (22SU501)

(Harrison 2015), and the palisade at Carson/Montgomery (22CO505/518) (McLeod 2015). The presence of an embankment at Lake George, and the possible one at Carson (Thomas 1894), could clue into the scale of organized conflict in both halves of the Yazoo Basin at that time. Not only was conflict perhaps expected, but it may have been relatively organized enough to create a need for sophisticated defensive measures. However, even these defensive measures may have served a dual purpose for signaling to the ability of a group to prevent attack and/or the desirability of aligning with that community.

Altogether, evidence from Mississippian Period Yazoo Basin sites would suggest an environment in which wasteful advertising or costly signaling would have served a valuable purpose for settled groups. Evidence for inter-community competition and conflict, population density, agriculture, and inferred social hierarchy (see discussion on ethnohistoric evidence from platform mound construction and architecture in the next chapter) fits the notion of waste in the form of mound size and construction acting as a signal to outsiders rather than as simply an energy sink. The number and volume of Mississippian Period mounds in the Yazoo Basin is staggering, with examples exceeding 50 feet in height at the Winterville (22WS500) and Lake

George (22YZ557) sites, and around two dozen mounds of varying size observed at each.

Construction of these features would have required the intensive labor of hundreds or even thousands of coordinated individuals excavating earth, loading it in baskets, carrying, and dumping it where needed. If waste were apparent with the size of these and number of these

mounds, then so is the existence of a population large enough to construct them and periodically add to them.

In a recent survey of Native American architecture in the Southeast, Steere (2017:182) framed a comparative analysis of “elite” and “non-elite” architecture around proposed models of social hierarchy that may have existed during the Mississippian Period. The “maximalist” interpretation of hierarchy, he states, stresses the status differences between elite and non-elites and would be reflected in architectural remains by more elaborate construction from elite contexts (i.e. waste). In a “minimalist” model, one could expect the inverse, where little or no differentiation between elite and non-elite construction exists (i.e. a lack of evidence for waste), hypothetically a reflection of little or no status distinction. With an “idealist” interpretation, one could expect architectural remains to take on a semiotic dimension, in which elite and non-elite contexts were distinguished through dissimilar symbolism of some form (perhaps analogous to wasteful advertising/costly signaling), and/or connected also using symbolism that was held in common (Steere 2017:182-184). Using these models, Steere found that what he believed to be domestic structures from mound summit contexts were significantly larger than off-mound domestic structures, structures believed to be non-domestic (mortuary, ceremonial, etc.) in function were not found to be significantly different in size between both contexts during the

Mississippian Period as a whole (2017: Table 5.2, 184-185). Using the data at his disposal,

Steere argued for a mixed interpretation of hierarchical differentiation in Mississippian architecture in the Southeast that reflected all three models he proposed (Steere 2017:188-189).

Specifically, he argues that Mississippian mound summit structures displayed status differences through size but were supposedly built using the same materials and methods, symbolically

“obfuscating” visual differences between the two structure types (Steere 2017:188-189). In other

words, mound summit structures reflected differences in construction, but these were relatively minimal. This analysis was made primarily using the presence and dimensions of subsurface feature classes but did not include evidence of wall construction methods evident from preserved daub. Instead, construction methods were assumed uniform between the two because they both used similar construction materials and foundation features. However, because wattle and daub can be dynamic and variable, and is not a uniform method of construction, daub fragments could conceivably reveal considerable variability that would otherwise be invisible with foundation feature analysis alone. Secondly, his analysis did not included data from the Yazoo Basin, making this region a prime testing ground for such a comparative analysis

CHAPTER III

WATTLE AND DAUB: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL BACKGROUND

Archaeological and ethnographic evidence of daubed architecture is commonly observed across much of the world, and in some regions has been used for thousands of years (Abrams

1994:22-24; Bankoff and Winter 1979; Carbajal et al. 2005; Davies 1967; Kruger 2015;

McIntosh 1974; Nabokov and Easton 1989:96-97,332,335,340-346; Parr and Boyd 2002; Shaffer

1993, 1999; Strudwick 2005:221, Fig.3). However, only some regions, including Europe (e.g.,

Chapman 1999; Gheorghiu 2008; Shaffer 1993, 1999; Stevanovic 1997), Mesoamerica (e.g.,

Barnard 2016; Flannery 1976; Prindiville and Grove 1987; Rosenswig 2009), and

Central/Eastern North America (e.g., Connaway 1984; Cook 2005; Peacock 1993; Starr n.d.), have produced significant bodies of literature, in English, that pertain to use and manufacture of this building method prehistorically. This section will serve as a review of general aspects of daub research around the world, and how it applies to daub research in the U.S. Southeast. I will then discuss the role daub plays in the Mississippian Period architectural archaeology of the

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, and how what is currently known about these structures will frame my hypothesis. Despite the focus on the Southeastern U.S., I believe much of what I discuss here is pertinent to any prehistorian working with daub anywhere in the world.

Description of Wattle and Daub

The most common form of wattle and daub seen globally consists of small flexible sticks known as “withies” woven in-between upright posts. When assembled, the framework of withies 12

between posts resembles wicker, and is in many ways a larger form of rigid plain-plaited weaving. The wattles are then coated on either one or both sides with daub, and allowed to dry and harden in place, creating a reasonably sturdy and insulated structure. This method of wattle and daub has been used in Europe for thousands of years and was in common use until the Late

19th / Early 20th Centuries (Graham 2004). It is still uncommonly used for “antique” architectural aesthetics but is primarily found today in historic homes and structures. In the British Isles, wattle and daub was used extensively and forms a famous and distinctive aspect of the region’s architectural heritage.

Archaeological evidence for wattle and daub comes in the form of preserved buildings, fire-hardened daub from burned house remains, and ponds or pits that were originally dug out to extract clay for daub. In the British Isles, vanishing evidence also comes in the form of remnant coppice forests in which trees, known as “stools”, were deformed from decades of periodic harvesting of hazel, oak, ash, and willow withies. Withies and upright laths were often modified by splitting and quartering to make them more pliable and easier to weave (Graham 2004:24-27).

Because moisture is deleterious to the integrity of daub, the use of plasters and washes were also commonly added to the outer surface to better protect it from exposure. Scoring of the outer surface of the daub with sticks was often done to improve adhesion of the added plaster layer

(Graham 2004:29). The original proliferation of wattle and daub in Europe, and subsequent multi-millennia use, reflected the resource availability and the needs of its builders, hence a functional tradition that was positively selected for. The phasing out of wattle and daub has largely been due to the development of more stable modern building materials that are often cheaper, less time consuming, or easier to manufacture.

Figure 3.1 Examples of European-style wattle and daub walls.

Note the use of withies woven between the individually set upright posts. This is one of the most common forms of wattle and daub used around the world but was evidently rare in the Mississippian Period Southeastern U.S., and in Mississippi especially.

Daub Disintegration

For any construction method to be considered viable, its usefulness and longevity depends wholly on its ability to resist disintegration. For wattle and daub, destruction can come

from either fires or exposure to the elements. Daub is prone to erosion from rain showers

(Blanton and Gresham 2007:45; Graham 2004; Kruger 2015:887; McIntosh 1974), insect infestation (Abrams 1994:33-34; McIntosh 1974:163), and spalling or cracking from quick- drying and freezes (Blanton and Gresham 2007:45; Graham 2004:45). Suggested life spans of daubed houses range anywhere from one or two years (House 2016) to 25 years (Prindiville and

Grove 1987:75), but this could be entirely a function of climate. Houses in prehistoric

Mississippi, where modern annual rainfall occasionally exceeds 60 inches, would have likely existed in conditions conducive to very rapid deterioration if not maintained regularly (see

Graham 2004 and McIntosh 1974:163). Although historic daubed structures are commonly preserved in parts of Europe, finding an intact prehistoric daubed structure of any size is so rare that it may be considered generally impossible for most areas of the world. There are of course exceptions, most of which owe to dry climates, like Southwestern jacal (e.g. Strudwick

2005:221, Fig.3), or preservation by extraordinary events, such as burial from the pyroclastic flow of a volcanic eruption, like the daubed houses at the Ceren site in El Salvador (Sheets

2006). For everywhere else, fire-hardening is the default means of daub preservation.

Structure Fires and the Archaeological Preservation of Daub

Fire-hardened rubble from house fires is, by far, the most common means by which daub has been preserved archaeologically around the world. Daubed architecture was noted by the

Roman architect Vitruvius for being cheap, of poor quality, fragile, and so flammable that it was an existential danger to cities in which it was located (see Graham 2004:13; Shaffer 1999:105;

Stevanovic 1997:383). The flammability of a wattle and daub structure may depend on the method of wattle and daub used, amount of airflow into the structure, and the proportion of organic to inorganic material available for burning. How well-fired individual pieces are can 15

vary significantly. Much of the time, daub fragments burned to a dark reddish-orange and water insoluble brick-like state. Sometimes, daub is barely oxidized and may indicate little color change or crumble upon excavation. At other times, some pieces burned at temperatures so extreme (1000+°C) that the daub would transform into amorphous pumice-like “clinkers” or

“cinders” (e.g., Connaway 1984:28; Marcus and Flannery 1996:128 Fig.135). Such artifacts were periodically encountered during this thesis research and were distinguished by the fact that they floated on water when being washed. Some vitrification seen on daub has been hypothesized to be a product of melted phytoliths from burned organic construction materials (Childress et. al.

1994:213-218). I would argue that the relatively heavy use of grass and bamboo (cane) in the construction of Mississippian daubed structures (see below) could allow an accidental fire to easily produce these extreme temperatures, and the consequent daub, when conditions are dry.

House fires in the prehistoric Southeastern U.S. could have been caused by any number of things, including natural disasters like lightning strikes and wildfires, accidents from domestic activities like cooking, hide smoking, fire-starting, and simple carelessness. Purposeful burning for plot-clearing, ceremony, pest extermination, or violence are also possible. As of now, I know no consistent way to distinguish between purposeful and accidental fires.

“Daub falls” are commonly found in burned Mississippian structures in the region of interest (see below). These features consist of piles of fire-hardened daub deposited by the inward collapse of upper wall daub from the burning interface of thatch and cane (see Shaffer

1993). Much of the burned archaeological daub found in the world may have originally been deposited this way but was subsequently disturbed and scattered from its original context.

Several daub falls were encountered in the course of the research reported here (see below).

These features are typically removed by shovelfuls after mapping in situ and then water

screened. Much of the daub in daub falls is too poorly fired to survive this process, so a certain percentage of poorly fired material, including fragments with imprints, should be expected to disintegrate. It is also not uncommon for large fragments of charcoal to be recovered from these features.

Figure 3.2 Surface collected fragments of fire-hardened wall daub, ca. 1200 - 1600 A.D.

Fire-hardening is the primary preservative agent of daub rubble and is certain in this case as the fragments were water insoluble, hard as brick, and bright orange (oxidized) when washed. These specimens were surface collected from the prehistoric village plowzone at the Carson/Montgomery site (22CO505/518), Coahoma County, Mississippi. Similar fragments are found abundantly in this region and can be found anywhere in the world wattle and daub was used in the past. 17

Figure 3.3 Two examples of daub falls.

A is a daub fall uncovered while excavating House 63 at the Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) Coahoma County, Mississippi (see Chapter IV). B is a close-up appearance of daub fall (House 66, same site) contents when disturbed, including mottled orange and black daub from variable fire-hardening and oxidization.

Daub Identification

Burned daub very often contains imprints of the perishable construction elements that it had once adhered to. In the best of cases, these “ghost” imprints can then be used to reverse engineer exact methods of construction. Although daub is commonly found at archaeological sites around the world, unlike other artifact classes like lithic tools and pottery, standardized means of daub identification and methods of problem-oriented analysis are generally lacking. It is tempting to treat daub in a similar manner to how previous archaeologists in the Mississippi

Valley approached ceramic pottery for reconstructing time-space patterns in artifact use (e.g.

Ford 1936; Phillips, Ford, and Griffin 1951; Phillips 1970). While this may very well be possible someday, the process of identifying daub differs in a key sense from the identification of pottery, lithics and other artifacts, a potsherd is generally self-evident as a fragment of a vessel, i.e. an artifact class with a specific function. This is usually true regardless of their size, sometimes even if smaller than ¼ inch in diameter, because the diagnostic attributes of their function, two flattened and smoothed sides and the presence of a tempering agent, can survive at almost miniscule sizes. Potsherds, then, serve as effective units of analysis in and of themselves. Stone debitage is similarly useful, as even nearly microscopic flakes may retain tell-tale bulbs of percussion or striking platforms. On the other hand, an assemblage of fired clay artifacts from a prehistoric settlement cannot be assumed to simply represent daub, but must be demonstrated to be such, or must be found in a context logically associated with daub. Because daub walls were much thicker than potsherds, the representativeness of the daub function in a fired clay assemblage can be diminished if it has been sufficiently reduced in size or powdered until it no longer possesses the requisite suite of diagnostic imprints or modifications. Elucidating artifact function from an artifact assemblage then becomes a problem not unlike using diagnostic artifact

classes to identify the components and the number and span of occupations at a site.

Figure 3.4 Differentiating fired clay from daub using context.

A is a closeup photo of one of one of thousands of similar plowzone village-level furrows at the Parchman Place site (22CO11). This site contains hundreds of thousands of pounds of daub fragments, including many tens of millions of fragments that are degraded beyond visual identification, but may be identified by association with known structural remains and identifiable chunks of daub. B is an example of clay fire-hardened by a large bonfire, unrelated to the function of wattle and daub nor structural fires. B would not contain fragments with functionally diagnostic imprints.

“Fired clay” is a useful empirical unit for such artifacts found in the plowzones of prehistoric villages, as it encompasses a multitude of artifact functions within a common material found at many different sizes, including pottery, hearths, daub, etc., but does not assign specific functions if morphological or other evidence is absent.

When poorly fired daub is encountered in the plowzone of an archaeological site it is common for it to have been reduced to a fine powder that makes it difficult to distinguish it from other fired clays and the rest of the soil/midden matrix. Well-fired daub can also be difficult to discern is many circumstances. To identify daub, it is important to develop techniques of analysis using both visible attributes and contextual information. This can be done by noting the number and types of impressions on the surface of the artifact, and from looking at the context in which the artifact was recovered. For example, daub from a plowed site may be scattered relatively far away from the original context, but the clear impressions of wattle poles or paneling in hardened and insoluble clay will immediately tell the archaeologist that it is daub from some form of construction, and that it was hardened in a house fire. Conversely, much of the daub present in a wall fall of daub will have little or no impressions in it whatsoever (see below), but its presence among many hundreds of known daub fragments in one obviously discrete pile of hardened clay would be highly suggestive of daub. Daub can also be easily mistaken for brick, and vice versa.

In the late 19th century, antiquarian observation of the reddish color and hardness of daub deposits in prehistoric mounds gave rise to a short-lived misconception that the “Mound

Builders” of the Mississippi River Valley used brick in their architecture. The myth that “Mound

Builders” were brick-makers was formally dispelled by Cyrus Thomas (1894:587) and most emphatically by Gerard Fowke, who cited the shape of the material, charcoal, and fire-hardened mud-daubers’ nests associated with the burned deposits as evidence that the fired clays were

produced by the burning of prehistoric daubed houses, as opposed to the use of pre-fired brick

(1902:459-461). This same misidentification has been made at Iron Age sites in East Africa, where archaeologists have mistaken the daub from burned villages for fragments of burned brick

(Sutton 1971:163).

Means of identification are particularly important when attempting to distinguish the remains of archaeological daub from that of similar earthen building materials, such as adobe, and raw, unmixed soils and vegetation, like sod. In prehistoric Mesoamerica, co-occurrences of burned debris from sun-dried adobe brick and daub in the same village sites (Barnard 2016;

Flannery 1976:24), have the potential to confuse the identification of either structural type (e.g.,

Prindiville and Grove 1987:67-69). The same phenomenon occurs in Greece, where the convergence of Middle Eastern (adobe) and European (daub) Neolithic building methods apparently leaves evidence for both forms in the same settlements (Stevanovic 1997:344). This may also occur wherever two building traditions occupied the same area at different times. In

Mississippi and surrounding areas, sites may contain both prehistoric daub-producing components and historic components where brick was used in construction. There are hundreds of thousands of historic and thousands of prehistoric sites in my area of interest, and many cooccur on the same landforms. My own personal experience has taught me that plowing can break apart cheaper brick to a state that can make it difficult to distinguish from daub, especially if the daub on the site burned in a sufficiently oxidizing atmosphere. Whenever taking a surface collection has been necessary, it has been my own practice to gather historic visually identifiable brick fragments along with daub to show that brick may be represented within the functionally unidentifiable fragments of fired clay. Archaeological situations such as these make intensive

analysis of this material even more important for any hypotheses derived from noting its presence.

Descriptive and Functional Terminology

It should be made clear that finding daub archaeologically is not necessarily an equivalent to finding a “house” although it is often treated as if it is. Daub can, and has been, used for a variety of other structure types, including fences, palisades, storage units, screens, furnaces, and any number of containment or partitioning facilities. The study of burned daub as an artifact has been hampered by a general lack of knowledge about its appearance and a tendency to misidentify it in the archaeological record. Furthermore, there is some confusion over what terminology is appropriate for describing this material. Highly erroneous words have been used in the past whenever it was encountered, including “cinders,” “wattlework,” and

“brickettes” or “briquettes” (e.g., Marcus and Flannery 1996:127-128; Nash 1968:6; Willey et. al. 1965:220-221; see Flannery 1976:20 and Knight 2007:187). The propensity of some researchers to refer to the daub falls in house structures as “fired” or “burned” areas (more common in past decades) could instead refer to either daub, non-structural fired clay refuse, or a burned floor surface. Unfortunately, it is also clear that there has been a systematic conflation by some researchers between burned daub and fired clays in general. This is not only incorrect (cf.

Bell 1980:91), but it lends a functional connotation to fired earth refuse that can be produced by any number of domestic activities, such as cooking, heating, and storage (see Lewis and Kneberg

1946:48; O’Brien 1978:6). Researchers like Hartman (2010:35-36) do well by attempting to distinguish daub from other fired clay artifacts, in this case by sorting it into a taxonomic classification system where fired clay, then clay in general, are the greater artifact/material groups, whereas daub is merely a class of fired clay artifacts. Not all researchers make this 23

distinction, an example of the impact of misidentification being the reported daub from Middle

Archaic period (8000 – 3000 B.C.) levels at the Koster site in Illinois. This has been used as one piece of evidence for the presence of sedentariness-related architecture dating to that period

(Struever and Holton 1979:129; Fiedel 1987:94). Unfortunately, when looking at the photograph provided of these artifacts (Struever and Holton 1979:129), the pieces seem to only resemble textile or basket-impressed chunks of fired clay, possibly from a hearth. They are certainly not definitive daub and can only be thought of, at best, as “possible daub” (see Table 2.1), nor are they sufficient evidence for daubed architecture from this time, but this does not prevent Fiedel

(1987:94) from presenting them as such.

Issues of Sampling, Analysis, and Curation of Daub

The lack of knowledge about what comprises a representative sample of daub, its importance, and its enormous weight and bulkiness, all work against it as an object of study.

Daub can exist in enormous quantities, often forming entire epipedons in village sites (see Figure

3.4). It is common for excavators to simply note its presence, map it, then discard it. This is understandable given that it can weigh an enormous amount and take up large portions of space in transport and storage, both of which are expensive on a budget. In facilities where curation is steeply priced per box for outside institutions, and projects may produce thousands of boxes, a hard fiscal incentive exists against curating “unimportant” materials and culling from collections that are already curated. The issue faced here is convincing CRM project managers, curators, and governmental agencies that daub is important and has the potential to provide significant information about prehistoric societies. Until then, daub will continue to be thrown out. This is not to attack any specific excavators or other researchers working in the region, as disposing of daub is practically a discipline-wide practice. However, it is hoped with this work that discarding 24

all daub without sampling will one day be seen as reminiscent of how debitage, plain potsherds, and unmodified animal bone were commonly not curated and discarded in-excavation until the

1950s.

Classification of Daub for Relative Preservation

Based on what is known ethnographically and from direct archaeological preservation

(see below) we can assume that daub can be identified by two sets of imprints, the outer-facing surface of the wall, which was often textured, plastered or otherwise modified when wet, or the construction/wattle imprints which indicate the specific method of wall-building used. Here, I considered a piece of daub “Well Preserved” if it had both type of imprints present, “Damaged” if only one type or no imprints were discernable. To test the hypothesis (see below) and assess the relative preservation of assemblages, I had to find some way to incorporate damaged daub into my classification for the overarching hypothesis of this thesis (see below). For archaeologists to even assess relative preservation, it is necessary to understand the daub from an area of interest. Below, I will discuss at length the basic nature of daub found in Mississippi for the use of the reader and future researchers.

Table 3.1 Theoretical classification for the identification of daub in a fired clay assemblage.

Both Construction Texturing No Imprint Types Imprints Imprints Imprints Daub-Functional Daub Daub Daub Probable Context Daub Non Daub- Daub Daub Probable Unverifiable Functional Context Daub (Fired Clay)

Wattle and Daub in Southeastern U.S. Archaeology

Evidence for wattle and daub may be found anywhere in the Southeast it was used, although it has been largely overlooked in favor of other, more established avenues of research and artifact analysis, aside from specialty applications and scattered interest (e.g. Connaway

1984; Terrel and Marland 1983; Peacock 1993, 2008). Knight (2007:187) even appears to suggest that daub fragments with clear architectural imprints of a woven wattle is rare in the

Southeast, going as far as questioning “whether it exists at all.” Steere (2017:87) seems to echo some of this sentiment, questioning whether good evidence existed for the common use of daub.

The datasets that characterized these two volumes (Lacquement 2007; Steere 2017), which are the eminent works on prehistoric architecture in the Southeast, are notable for largely excluding structural data from the states of Mississippi and Arkansas. Although daub may be uncommon in the areas surveyed by those volumes, if they had not overlooked those two states in particular, it would be obvious that not only was daub present, it was well preserved and highly abundant in the Midsouth region. Even where it is found, daub has yet to make sustained inroads into the general practice of academic or cultural resource management (CRM) compliance research in the region.

Prehistoric Structures in the Southeast

Over the last century and a half, thousands of prehistoric off-mound house structures have been excavated across the Southeast, with certainly many thousands left to uncover (Knight

2007). Archaeological traces of off-mound and perishable Mississippian-period wooden architecture, including what archaeologists have interpreted as houses, corn cribs, charnel structures, etc., are regularly uncovered in the Yazoo Basin. With the re-emphasis on

Southeastern prehistoric architectural analysis and interpretation in the last two decades, 26

archaeologists have relied heavily on reverse-engineering structures through mapping and analyzing in-ground foundation features (see chapters in Lacquement 2007 and Redmond and

Genheimer 2015; Schroeder 2011; Kennedy and Carter 2015). Although many of these studies are excellent, I argue that burned daub is a key data source that is missing or underutilized from nearly all of them. The general focus on subsurface features alone has had the effect of limiting regional knowledge of architecture to what are primarily foundation remnants. These features, provided they are sufficiently undisturbed, can reliably provide information on the floor plan and foundation type (and the superstructure shape in some instances) of a structure. While fire- hardened daub itself provides a limited suite of information for interpretation, it does provide direct evidence of the appearance and construction of the more perishable parts of the superstructure apart from the posts themselves, such as the exact components of a wall and how they were assembled. This is information that usually cannot be gleaned from a subsurface layout alone. However, analyses of foundation features has been able to produce generalizations about Mississippian Period structures from certain regions, like the Lower Ohio and Central and

Lower Mississippi Valleys. These include the use of various floorplans, foundation types, and combinations thereof.

Foundation Trenches

Late prehistoric or Mississippian Period houses in the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys, and in other portions of the Southeast, often used open or closed-cornered narrow and linear foundation trenches (often called “wall trenches”) (Laquement 2007; Redmond and Genheimer

2015; Reed 2007; Steere 2017). Because prehistoric Native Americans in these areas did not possess shovels, it appears that foundation trenches were dug using stone and/or wooden hoes and mattocks. This was perhaps easier to dig than individual posts (Reed 2007). It has been 27

suggested that foundation trenches were dug to expedite the construction process, or at least make the walls and their attached paneling more easily removed and replaced (Reed 2007; see

Alt and Pauketat 2011). Well-preserved trenches can extend a foot deep or more below the plowzone and can be between 12 – 30 cm wide, although 12 – 20 might be most typical (Reed

2007; see Sullivan 2007: Table 7.1; also see descriptions of Carson/Montgomery houses below).

It is also common to find postmolds lined up within the trench, indicating their function as slots for upright structural components (Reed 2007).

Floor Plans

The most common Mississippian floor plans in the Mississippi Valley were square or quadrilateral. In some instances, especially in the Cahokia/American Bottom region of Illinois, it appears that the intention was to create a smallish and rectangular building (Alt and Pauketat

2011), while in other areas, especially in parts of the Central Mississippi Valley, including the

Yazoo Basin and Arkansas, houses appear generally larger and emulate almost perfect squares

(House 2016; McCleod 2015). In fact, the squares they form are sometimes so perfect that I suspect a means of relative measuring was used to lay out their foundations. This could be done with marked lengths of rope and stakes in which two lengths are laid out like the hypotenuses of right triangles, then using another piece to lay out the outline of an approximate square that can be adjusted to align to the hypotenuse lengths.

Circular/elliptical structures are also encountered at many Mississippian sites, and like square structures, are sometimes so perfectly round that they seem to have been also planned-out, perhaps in a manner similar to a tracing compass on paper. Such structures are well known from the Yazoo Basin (see McLeod 2015). Elliptical floorplans with foundation trenches are rare and have been only noted from Plaquemine Mississippian culture sites in Louisiana (Brown 1985), if 28

in Mississippi, they would likely be found in the Lower Yazoo Basin or Lower Loess Bluffs regions.

There are also numerous examples of Mississippian Period structures uncovered across the South that were sub-quadrilateral and built using individual poles/posts planted in the ground without trenches (e.g. Atkinson et al. 1980). Sub-quadrilateral floor plans have either rounded corners or lack clear vertices for corners, or possess expanded sides, giving a “rounded” appearance. Corner-rounded sub-quadrilateral structures appear to be the norm in many areas of the Southeast outside of the Mississippi Valley or Midsouth during the Mississippian Period (see

Steere 2017). In Mississippi, corner-rounded sub-quadrilateral floorplans are commonly associated with the Protohistoric Mississippian and Historic Indian Period settlements (e.g.

Bohannon 1972; Jennings 1941; Neitzel 1983).

Interior Features

Interior construction in Mississippian houses is often visible as postmolds and pits.

Strong cases for the functional identity of some specific feature patterns have been made, including support posts and the outlines of cane benches and beds (Polhemus 1985; Sherwood et al. 1995). Cane benches were described ethnohistorically as a widespread form of interior furniture throughout the Southeast (Adair 1775:420; Swanton 1931:37-39). These consisted of whole or split-woven canes (see discussion of paneling below) laid atop small frames built adjacent to the walls. These were supposedly designed to keep sleepers off the wet, urine-soaked floor and away from biting insects (Swanton 1931:37-39). The corners of Mississippian houses sometimes show squared outlines of what are supposedly these features. Pits containing food- related refuse may also be present, along with hard-baked clay hearths used for cooking. So-

called “smudge-pits” of charred corncobs are commonly encountered in and near Mississippian houses (Binford 1967).

Figure 3.5 Some structural floor plans known from the Central and Lower Mississippi Valley.

A, a quadrilateral plan with foundation trenches, it is perhaps the most common Mississippian floor plan in the Upper Yazoo Basin, but is found in the Lower Yazoo Basin also. The features in A’s northeast corner represent idealized corner benches and may be found in some or all four corners of quadrilateral structures, the center feature is a hearth, which can be found in all structure classes. It is common for one, both or neither of these types of interior features to be preserved. B and C are quadrilateral/square and elliptical individually-set post foundation floor plans. Inside B are support posts, and may suggest rigid framed construction, these features may also be found in any structure class. D is a foundation trenched elliptical floorplan, rare in the study area.

“Rigid Post” and “Bent-Pole” Interpretations

In North America, modern preconceptions and misapplied ethnographic data from

Mesoamerica have tended to heavily influence public reconstructions of Mississippian Period architecture (Knight 2007:187; Lacquement 2007a:6; Reed 2007). The results of these reconstructions are sometimes shown to be partly or entirely inaccurate in light of a review of archaeological evidence (Kennedy and Carter 2015:323-325; Reed 2007). One such controversy is the longstanding debate on the superstructure form used in Mississippian Period houses (Reed

2007). Two basic models have been hypothesized, the first is rigid construction with framed plates, rafters, and a hipped or gabled roof pattern, resembling a European-style house, this method has been often associated by archaeologists with individually-set post foundations. This model is how prehistoric houses, particularly Mississippian Period houses in the Southeast have been traditionally interpreted to the public (Reed 2007). The second model, “flexed-pole” or

“flexed-roof” construction entails the use of narrow, bent poles woven or lashed together at the roof summit, forming a dome/pyramidal-shaped hut-like structure. This model is traditionally associated with foundation trenches and is dissimilar to the European style (Reed 2007). Public reconstructions using this model have existed in the past (see below). Methods of estimating the use of one model or the other have included measuring the size of postmolds and noting the presence or absence of foundation trenches. These are predicated on the assumption that thicker wooden wall-posts (unlike what is generally observed in foundation trenches) would have not been flexible enough to bend together at the top, and only useful as load-bearing elements. In contrast, small vertical poles like those noted from trenches would have been flexible and poor at bearing loads, making flexed/curved roofs necessary (Reed 2007).

Figure 3.6 Superstructure forms inferred from archaeological feature patterns at Mississippian Period sites.

The first form is based on analyses in Lacquement (2007b) as well as evidence from the daub studied here. For similar interpretations, see Marshall (1986), Sullivan (2007), Lewis and Kneberg (1946), and Webb (1966, 1968). The second form follows basic shape and components of rigidly framed construction. Daub neither refutes nor demonstrates the use of either form, although the former is inferred from the sample sites discussed below.

Lacquement (2007b) found that in Mississippian structures at sites along the Black

Warrior River of Alabama, two distinct clusters of structures were indicated based on post 32

diameter. He found that the posts in foundation trenches consistently fell within the “small” cluster, as did a number of individually-set post foundations, both of which he interpreted as having flexed/bent pole superstructures. He also found individually-set posts exclusively formed the “large” post cluster, which he interpreted to have rigid-post gabled/hipped superstructures.

His comparison between the floor areas of the two groups also showed a significant difference, with the “large” diameter post cluster having much larger floor areas on average (Laquement

2007). Such a finding may suggest the limit of floor space allowable by the finite length of bent sapling poles, while much more leeway is presumably allowed with rigid posts which are not as reliant on timber length (Reed 2007). Based on Laquement’s findings, I’m inclined to interpret most foundation-trenched structures, including the ones that produced the daub used in this thesis

(see below), as having flexed/bent pole construction unless specific evidence for rigid-framing is demonstrated.

Mississippian Period Mounds and Mound Summit Architecture

Mississippian Period mounds, which are marvels of prehistoric engineering and architecture, are common in any portion of the Southeast that supported dense settlement.

Hundreds of these mounds exist or existed in Mississippi and were often surrounded by settlements of varying size. Both archaeological and ethnographic information suggests that these mounds typically supported structures or groups of structures for varied purposes, including charnel facilities, temples, or chiefly residences. It is certain that mounds and mound sites were often loci for exotic and unusual artifacts.

While mound-summit architecture has by no means been ignored in the Yazoo Basin

(e.g. Carpenter 2013; Downs 2011; Mehta et al. 2016; Williams and Brain 1983), far fewer complete examples have been uncovered than off-mound structures. Excavations of 33

Mississippian mound summits in general often reveal complicated and difficult-to-interpret superimposed patterns of architectural features such as overlapping foundation trenches and scattered posts (see Blitz 1993; Brain 1989; Carpenter 2013; Downs 2011; King et al. 2011;

Knight 2010; Mehta et al. 2016; Rafferty 1995; Williams and Brain 1983). At major sites like

Moundville, Alabama, summit architecture has been exposed in a relatively large-scale fashion, revealing foundation trenches that show one to several building construction and destruction episodes on the surfaces of most mound strata (Knight 2010). Investigations at sites in

Mississippi show similar use-patterns (Carpenter 2013; Rafferty 1995; Williams and Brain

1983), although most of these floor plans appear to have been only partially exposed. What is clear is that instead of single buildings, many Mississippian mound summits appear to have supported compounds that included multiple structures of varying size and function, as well as small areas fenced in with palisades (King 2011; Knight 2010; Williams and Brain 1983).

A cycle of mound construction emerged during the Mississippian Period that entailed the complete burning, whether accidental or purposeful, of mound top architecture, followed by the immediate addition of a thick layer of earth fill to an entire mound surface. Following this, a replacement structure or structures would usually be built on the new summit. In time, these replacement structures would burn as well, restarting the cycle. This would have increased the height and areal extent of these earthworks over decades (see Figure 3.7; Neitzel 1965; Trubitt

2009).

Ethnohistoric accounts demonstrate the continuity of this pattern of mound-summit construction well into the Protohistoric/Early Historic era in some parts of the Southeast.

Chroniclers from the De Soto expedition (1539-1543 AD) onwards described large, mound- summit building complexes that appear to have been either temples/mortuaries or the residences

of community leaders (Clayton et al. 1993a:230-231; 279-281; Clayton et al. 1993b:185-186,

295-304). The chroniclers stated that mound-summit buildings were typically covered in ornate decorations such as cane mats and were often surrounded by palisades. They also mentioned that the interiors of the buildings they observed contained shelves or benches covered in baskets holding the bones of the dead plus objects believed to be sacred. Also present were caches of weaponry and wooden and stone statuary. The most vividly described temples from these accounts were mortuary structures of the Cofitachequi polity located in modern Kershaw

County, South Carolina (Clayton et al. 1993a:230-231; 279-281; Clayton et al. 1993b:295-304).

About 150 years later, in what is now Adams County, Mississippi between the 1680s until the

Natchez Rebellion in 1729, European colonists wrote numerous and often conflicting accounts describing the appearance and use of the structures on the two actively used platform mounds at the Grand Village of the Natchez (Neitzel 1965). Both mounds supported structures that were described as much larger and more “substantial” in construction than off-mound houses in the

Grand Village. The European accounts also mention the use of finely woven cane mats on at least the temple mound, similar to Spanish descriptions of the Cofitachequi temple. One mound supported a structure that served as the home of the tribe’s ceremonial leader; the mound opposite to that one supported a temple that supposedly contained both a perpetually tended sacred fire and shelves holding baskets containing disarticulated human remains and sacred items, again strongly echoing the descriptions by De Soto’s men (Neitzel 1965). Based on these archaeological and ethnohistoric descriptions, it appears that Mississippian Period mound summits were often loci of significant energy and resource waste owing to mortuary, chiefly, or other ceremonial reasons. It could then be surmised, as Steere (2017) did, that their architectural remains would reflect this difference.

House Mounds

“House mounds” are very low, artificial rises that have been widely reported at

Mississippian sites across the Midsouth and were once fairly common in the Yazoo Basin before industrial agriculture. Plowing and disking can heavily damage these features, but land-leveling routinely obliterates them. Previous work shows that they may not always be directly constructed earthworks, but piles of domestic refuse and artifacts, including daub, that grew incrementally during their use life, however the use of purposefully mounded fill is known (Nash 1968). The

Carson/Montgomery site (22CO505/518) was reported to have had almost 90 mounds in 1894

(Thomas 1894). The ubiquity of daub deposits at this site makes me suspect that some of these were house mounds. One also wonders whether Mississippian house mounds in low-lying areas were “encouraged” to increase in size by repeated construction on the same exact spaces to gradually lift the living surface of the house above low floodwaters and muddy ground. This would have effectively increased the use life of a structure and improved the wellbeing of its occupants. Unlike the large platform mounds, house mounds do not appear to be well known as sources of energy-expensive or “wasteful” artifacts, aside from the mounding of material if done purposefully. Architectural features within them seem to suggest that they did not diverge drastically from structures that lacked house mounds (Nash 1968).

Because so many of these mounds are now invisible, there are many scatters of

“mounded” daub that no longer give indication of their original context. In this thesis, I assumed artifacts were “off-mound” if contextual data showed that it was not associated with a known platform mound, or if the context was lost and the artifacts could not be associated with a specific mound with absolute certainty. Thus, the amount of daub from mound contexts in my

assemblage is very likely underrepresented. None of my assemblage appears to come from an existing house mound, although their former presence is suspected in at least two instances.

Figure 3.7 Idealized diagram of architectural organization and hierarchy at a Mississippian Period site in the Yazoo Basin

This figure illustrates concepts that will be referenced and alluded to throughout this work. Note the cross-section of a “typical” Mississippian platform mound, revealing multiple construction stages added over several centuries plus burned structures at their summits. Note the “off- mound” structures including those built directly on the ground or those built on “house mound” features. Also note the rubble piles of burned houses at or near the surface. In this thesis, suspected house mound assemblages were not given mound-related status, as these features are typically largely destroyed and/or difficult to discern due to agricultural damage.

Materials and Architectural Components of Yazoo Basin Daub

To be able to write this section, I had to casually observe and rummage through thousands of pieces from numerous daub collections within the Yazoo Basin before I was confident that I knew the general scope of variability is possesses. Much of this was done in my own personal experience excavating and observing daub in the lab before this thesis was even 37

conceived, and some of it was done in the course of analysis for the main hypothesis discussedin

Chapter V. In the following sections on the architectural modes and materials of daub, I will discuss some general observations that I have gathered so far. First, I must discuss materials that were evidently used for wattle and daub in the region.

Clay

I know little concrete information about the sedimentology of the clays that were used in daub making, as I did not gather data explicitly for that purpose, but I will relate some general points. Because the Yazoo Basin is a floodplain with complex and high-energy hydrology, clay, which is the essential component of daub, would expected to be abundant in numerous areas near the surface and relatively easily to harvest. There seemed to be some variety to the clays being used for daub, which may change from site to site or even within a site. One house at one site may have used a clay that had little silt or sand, while the next house over may have daub so sandy that it has a gritty texture. Just as some sites may have used many clay sources, some may use only one. At this time, I cannot explain this variability.

My impression is that the proportion of clay in the daub had a positive impact on how well imprints preserved. Daub that has little or no sand and silt seems to have the clearest imprints of leaves, grass, construction elements etc., while the same things can be difficult to discern on sandy specimens. Pieces with too much sand and silt also seem to not fire as hard as purer clays. Much of the clay used as daub was apparently very wet, perhaps to the point of being drippy or runny when smeared onto the house. I believe one of the primary reasons why clear handprints are not more commonly found in daub is because of the runniness of it when applied. As the daubers smeared the clay, only wide channels where fingers dragged along the surface were left. Instead, I believe the means which fingerprints, leaves, and other imprints 38

preserved best was when the clay was “leather hard” or half-dried after several hours or days, but not too dry to lose plasticity. Because of how wet some daub was, I suspect that some daubing clays were harvested directly from areas of standing water, such as sloughs and bayous, or borrow pits that had become ponds, reducing the need for the builders to spend labor on hauling water to mix with dry clods. One small piece of evidence for this was a Sphaerium spp. pill clam valve imprint from the Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518) (Harris 2016). Species of that family live in the substrates of the beds of water bodies and remain common throughout the region. It seems likely that the clay that this animal lived in was harvested and daubed on a wall, where it stayed until the fire burned away the shell, preserving a cast of it (Harris 2016).

Figure 3.8 Imprint of a pill clam (Sphaerium spp.) valve in daub from nonspecific village plowzone context, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518)

Evidence for aquatic organisms in daub may suggest that the source of the clay used was a nearby water body. 39

Giant Cane

Observation of archaeological daub and the ethnohistorical record from Mississippi shows (see below) that there was a preponderance for the use of Giant River Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) as a building material by Native Americans living here. This is not a surprise, considering that bamboos are a dynamic, strong, and easily processed building material that have been useful to humans for thousands of years. In the same way that practically all human societies depend on and must harvest or use wood and other forest products to survive, many cultures around the world depend largely or even wholly on bamboo specifically. Even in societies like China, where superior, but more expensive building materials are available, bamboo remains a critical element of construction and industry in general. Under the proper regimes of propagation and harvesting, bamboos are abundant, easily gathered, and because they are grasses, may reproduce clonally and grow quickly.

Giant river cane can be found across practically the entire Southeastern U.S. and in southern portions of the Northeast and Midwest. Although it remains common throughout its range, tall, dense thickets of cane (known as “canebrakes”) are an ecosystem that has been driven to the brink of extinction in many regions. Individual canebrakes once covered as many as dozens of contiguous square miles in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and elsewhere (Platt and

Brantley 1997; Stewart 2007; Shoemaker 2018; Gagnon 2006; Brantley and Platt 2001).

Although canebrakes are often associated with bottomlands, natural levees and floodplains, they can be commonly found along drainages of hillsides, loess bluffs, and even on blackland prairie soils. They were noted for supporting a large variety of bird and mammal wildlife, including

American Bison (Bison bison), Western Mountain Lion (a.k.a. Panther) (Puma concolor),

American Black Bear (Ursus americana), Bachman’s Warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), Timber

Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus), and others (Platt, Brantley and Rainwater 2001). The Yazoo

Basin was historically very rich in canebrake habitats and the spread of cotton agriculture following the Civil War destroyed most of it (Shoemaker 2018).

Figure 3.9 Maturing canebrake in Hinds County, Mississippi. Author’s hand for scale.

Aside from infrequent seeding and dispersal, cane tends to reproduce clonally wherever root disturbance is moderate enough to break apart rhizomes without killing the plant (Gagnon

2006; Gagnon and Platt 2008a, 2008b; Platt, Brantley and Rainwater 2004). Deadened tree

canopy and burning of cane every 10 years or so also helps its growth immensely, in which dead plant material is removed and competition plants are killed back, allowing it to spread more easily (Gagnon 2006). Steel plows, disking, chisel-plowing and land leveling have directly destroyed thousands of canebrakes by physically pulling and tearing the rhizome from the ground, killing it (Shoemaker 2018). The same can be said for overgrazing by livestock, who show a strong preference for cane, and will eat whole canes and young shoots until the rhizome is killed from a lack of nutrients (Platt and Brantley 1997). The rapid spread of escaped feral hogs in Mississippi has further curtailed canebrake acreage, as hogs instinctively root up vegetation and target canebrakes and cane shoots heavily (Shoemaker 2018). The USDA’s largely successful programs to end the culture of habitual “woods burning” or purposeful wildfire setting in Mississippi (see Fickle 2001) may have also harmed the status of canebrakes, as cane is now known to be a moderate pyrophyte (see discussions in Gagnon 2006). However, yearly burning will easily kill a canebrake, and “woods burning” has also been pointed to as a factor in their decline (Platt and Brantley 1997). Despite all of this, Mississippi is still noted for its relative richness in canebrakes, and they can be easily observed in a diversity of habitats across the entire state. Native Americans in Mississippi continue to seek out and harvest cane for traditional crafts, most notably basketry, which has become closely associated with Choctaw identity both here and in Oklahoma.

Grasses

Aside from cane, non-woody grasses were used heavily in building many Mississippian houses, even those that did not include daub (Reed 2007). Burned swatches of grass thatching may be found in house excavations, and some studies have indicated the heavy use of Big

Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) in other parts of the Mississippi Valley (Simon 2002). The 42

presence of grass has been suggested to be evidence of an expansion of grassy areas in the Yazoo

Basin during the Mississippian period (Connaway 1984; Peacock 2008:89), what little palynological evidence exists from this region would seem to support this hypothesis (Scharf

2010). Disturbance, such as prehistoric burning, timber cutting and girdling, agriculture, followed by abandonment, would have led to the formation of “old fields” or fallow ground that could have allowed grassland and canebrakes to thrive (Connaway 1984:76-81; Platt and

Brantley 1997; see Gagnon 2006). Whether purposeful or incidental, this may have ensured regular, and manageable sources of materials for house construction

Wood

Evidence of local trees may be discovered when excavating a Mississippian house through burned posts and imprints in daub. Studies of daub from sites in the Black Prairie and

Yazoo Basin regions have allowed archaeologists in to identify a large variety of leaves and nuts from trees and plants that existed around sites during their prehistoric occupation (Peacock 1993;

Connaway 1984; Seltzer and Peacock 2011; Peacock and Reese 2003). There would have been no shortage of useful tree species for house construction in any part of the Yazoo Basin. Pine is present, but uncommon and scattered in that region, unlike the rest of Mississippi. Instead, hardwoods like various red oaks, Southern Hackberry, pecan/hickories, Sweetgum, Green Ash and Red Maple predominate on the seasonal floodplains, while Bald Cypress/Swamp Tupelo and

Black Willow groves dominate bayous. Anthracological analysis of posts from regional sites have shown the heavy use of oaks, hickories, Bald Cypress, and ashes in Yazoo Basin

Mississippian structures (Connaway 1982, 1984; see also Reed 2007).

Daubed Wall Plain/Plant Texturing

Keeping in mind the above discussion, it is extremely common for daub fragments to show imprints of plant matter, typically grass, on their outer facing surface. These impressions exist independently of binding agents mixed into the clay, and do not penetrate the surface into the matrix. There are three main hypotheses for why these imprints exist, that they are imprints of thatching, that they are a form of decoration made using grass brushes, or they were grass clippings smeared on the wall to reduce erosion. The distinctly monocot parallel veins of the grasses are very often clear and unsmudged. Some grass imprints are so large that I suspect some were made by maize leaves, which would have been common at that time and place. However, it is also common to observe smearing, nor is it uncommon to see no discernable imprints at all.

For this thesis, any daub that wasn’t painted or plastered that had the exterior surface intact was referred to as having a plain/plant textured surface.

Daubed Wall Plastering, Painting, and Finishing

In Europe (Dammers and Jeorgensen 1996; Graham 2004:29,31), Mesoamerica (Barnard

2016:42) and the Southeastern U.S. (Marshall 1986; Starr n.d., 1997:83, Phillips 1999:60,73-74), daub was occasionally coated with a finish or plastering that often resembled a thick, hard coat of paint. Ingredients for plasters and finishes can be similar to those of daub, but may also contain lime, sand, milk, or hair (Dammers and Jeorgensen 1996:639; Graham 2004:29).

Significant quantities of raw lime or milk were not available in Mississippi prehistorically, although ashes, burnt mussel shell, and calcareous clays could have conceivably been the ingredients used in the finishes seen on some daub fragments there. Plaster finishes may have had stylistic properties, including aesthetics (Phillips 1999:73-74), and functional properties such

as an increased resistance to weathering, and/or the purported antifungal and antimicrobial properties of lime when it is part of the finish recipe (Barnard 2016:42; Graham 2004:44-45).

Figure 3.10 Two examples of plain/plant textured exterior-facing surfaces on daub.

A is clearly imprinted with grasses and the monocot structure of the leaves remain visible. B is also grass imprinted, but less clearly due to the proportion of sand and silt in the clay, unequal firing temperatures may also account for this difference.

Figure 3.11 Daub with grass inclusions.

A is a fragment where the grass has not preserved. B is fragment from Mound A at the Parchman Place site (22CO511) that still contains preserved grass.

There is abundant archaeological and ethnographic evidence for the painting or finishing of daubed walls in Southeastern Indian societies. Plastered and finished daub is known from

Mississippi, including the Yazoo Basin (Brain 1989:62; Starr n.d., 1997:83; This Thesis), and the

Black Prairie (Marshall 1986). It has also been found in western Tennessee on Mound A at the

Chucalissa mound and village site in Shelby County (Hartman 2010:36), western Kentucky, southern Indiana (Phillips 1999:49-52,60,73-74), eastern Tennessee (Polhemus 1985), and

Alabama (Sherard 2009).

Evidence of surface coating often comes in the form of a red or white clay plaster or wash, and rarely these may take the form of geometric renderings or patterns (e.g., Polhemus

1985: Figure 2.1). I will note here that none of the daub used for this thesis showed any possible geometric patterning. Such patterns are evidently extremely rare or poorly preserved and should not necessarily be expected in any context. Pieces may also show multiple layers of applied and reapplied coats of alternating colors (Marshall 1986:31). Phillips (1999:49-52) goes into greater detail on the evidence for painted and finished daub in the Southeast, noting that historical references suggest that Chickasaw and Creek Indians often surfaced their daub walls with what has been described as a whitewash. William Bartram stated that Creek Indians often decorated their finished walls with natural scenes of plants and animals, including real species and chimeras with human features (Phillips 1999:49-52).

The plasters I observed varied in thickness and hardness, depending on the firing temperature and the amount of sand or silt in the mix. Like imprints, overly sandy and silty plasters seemed to be less well preserved than those made with a pure clay. Thickness of coats ranged from as thin as a coat of modern paint to several millimeters thick (see Brain 1989:62).

The presence of grass imprints observed under spalled plaster, suggests that plastering could be

underrepresented, something to consider when accounting for the measure of relative preservation. I argue that in the case of plastering/washing the outer surface, grass imprints may have helped the plaster adhere like the scoring observed in British daub (Graham 2004:45).

Jeffrey Brain made the same observation in his analysis of daub from the Winterville site (Brain

1989). Color also varied, some plasters were difficult to discern from the daub itself, save for the sandy, powdery texture that flaked away with scratching. Other times, the difference between the color of the plaster and the daub was striking. The only plaster colors I observed in the entire thesis analysis were muted variations of off-reds, browns, brown-yellows, and off-whites and grays. Clays and other sediments of these colors likely reflect the natural variability of color in local soil profiles. Whites and reds are a common motif in Mississippian Period and Historic

Indian art across the Southeast, and heavy application of these colors are perhaps not too surprising. They are often noted for their ethnographic association to ceremonial/political groups in historic Southeastern Indian societies (Hudson 1976), although I do not ascribe any specific meaning to any color here. However, future large-scale analyses of shades of plastering in relation to intra-site contexts may help to discern if specific shades hold significance in relation to certain areas within a settlement, such as proximity to mounds, plazas, etc.

Woven Split Cane Paneling

It is now obvious that the primary method of wattle construction in the Yazoo Basin involved quarter-split woven cane paneling. Building this paneling required canes to be split into quarter culms, which I refer to as “splints.” The splints were then plain-plaited together into a thin woven paneling that was attached as an independent unit to the upright post or pole wall frame of the house (Connaway 1984:30-31; Perino 1966). Plain-plaiting, also called “over- under” weaving, or 1/1 interlacing, is the predominant, and perhaps only cane panel weave that 48

has ever been observed in daub from the Midsouth (see below; for other examples see also

House 2016: Figure 2; Drooker 2003).

Figure 3.12 Various examples of plastering/painting/washing found on Yazoo Basin daub.

Example A shows what appears to be a formerly off-white paint or wash. The silty and poorly fired plastering on B has eroded, revealing the presence of grassy plain/plant texturing beneath the surface. C shows what are perhaps multiple layers of plaster more hard-fired plaster, with the topmost layer fracturing off the layer underneath. Note the grass inclusions

Because of the quarter-circle cross-section of the quarter-split cane splints used, the weaving of these panels was inherently “unbalanced”, meaning that elements in only one direction would rest closely to one another (which for this thesis I will refer to as the “Warp”), while the perpendicular elements (the “Weft”) will be forced apart and will have several inches or even a foot or so of space between them. Like traditional European wattle, this created pattern that resembled wicker weaving, but unlike European wattle, the thinness of the paneling imprints, and the lack of associated post/pole imprints leads me to believe they were affixed to the posts on the wall, rather than woven between them. The identity of cane as the weaving material is certain because imprints of nodes and septa of culms are common in daub.

It also appears that when split-cane paneling was used, that only the exterior of the house was daubed. Practically all imprints show (not counted) that that the warps splints were daubed on the concave portion of the splints, creating convex imprints, and the weft splints were practically always daubed on the convex surfaces, leaving concave imprints. This on its own suggests that the paneling was always daubed on one specific side of the paneling. If we are to assume that many or most daubed houses were built with a bent-pole framework, then the wall would have likely slanted inwards at a slight angle. My assumption is that paneling would be able to better hold onto the house, and the daub would remain better attached to the paneling if gravity was holding it down, rather than pulling it down. A possible contraindication of this was the daub fall recovered from Clover Hill House 1 (Connaway 1981), which the excavators interpreted to have fallen face down, as if the daubing was on the inside. I have not seen photos of this daub fall, and it is very possible that they are correct, but I still hold that daub almost always faced outside. The presence of plant-texturing, which could be from plant matter left on

the wall to reduce erosion from dew and rain (see above) and plastering all suggest that daubing was used only on the outside. I am not alone in this conclusion (Connaway 1984:30).

In a way, the use of split cane paneling in Mississippian wattle and daub appears analogous to the common use of fiberboard and plywood in modern construction. The sheer quantity of panel-impressed daub here and reported elsewhere shows that it was a common component of Mississippian period structures in much of Mississippi (Connaway 1984; Starr n.d., see Peacock 1993; Thomas 1894), Arkansas (House 2016; Thomas 1894; Morse and Morse

1983), Alabama (Sherard 2009; Curren 1984), Tennessee (Nash 1966), Kentucky (Webb 1952) and maybe even elsewhere. Imprints are not the only evidence archaeologists have of paneling from this state, charring and burning has preserved faint cane paneling fragments at some sites with architectural remains, including an example from the Austin mound and village site

(22TU549) in Tunica County. Very well-preserved sections of split cane paneling were also recovered from the Sturdivant Fishweir in Amite County, Mississippi (Connaway 1981). The weir was uncovered by silt erosion in the Homochitto River, the silt having preserved it exceptionally. Dates from the weir’s wooden stakes suggested that its construction materials were harvested ca. 1500 A.D., towards the end of prehistory. From photographs provided, the paneling was plain-plaited (1/1) with a weave of two weft splints intersecting single warp splints

(1x2) (Connaway 1981: Plate 42). Perhaps the best-preserved example of a quarter-split cane panel item from the Southeast was found in the Indian Creek Rockshelter (3BE8) in Benton

County, Arkansas (Scholtz 1975:59-61, Figure 75). The item was, as usual, a 1/1 weave, but with a 3x1 splint structure. Interestingly, it had a finished edge using a wrapped splint (Scholtz 1975:

Figure 75). Finished edges were not observed anywhere in my study assemblage. Splitting and processing cane or bamboo is an acquired skill, and like basket weaving, it can take years of

practice to master (King et al. 2018). Bamboo splitting and peeling is practiced across the world wherever it is processed for housing materials or basketry.

Figure 3.13 Reconstruction of the style of woven split cane paneling used as wattle in the Yazoo Basin during the Mississippian Period.

Note the opposing long-axis orientation of the vertical splints versus the horizontal splints, as is practically always seen in daub from Mississippi. The overall weave structure is known as plain plaiting or plain interlacing, often notated as 1/1 weaving. However, the use of two horizontal and vertical splints each per weave leads me to call it a 2x2 splint configuration of 1/1 weaving. Yazoo Basin daub shows that A is the outward-facing surface and was the surface that was daubed. B is the interior facing surface and would have been the visible portion of the wall’s interior to the structure occupants. I have never observed daub that was applied to the B surface.

Specific bamboo tools for quarter, third, half, fifth, and sixth splitting intervals are even manufactured and sold for this very purpose (King et al. 2018). Present-day Choctaw in

Mississippi may use purchased bamboo splitters or steel knives, depending on individual preference (see King et al. 2018). I have personally observed traditional Choctaw cane weavers use large-bladed non-serrated kitchen knives for splitting the canes into halves, and then splitting the halves into quarters. Quarter-splitting using notched larger culms pushed through crossed small culms has been noted among groups of Choctaw in Mississippi and Louisiana (see below).

I have anecdotally heard of the use of lug wrenches for this same purpose. Because prehistoric

Mississippian people did not have steel knives to aid this process, my personal belief is that the cross-culm method of splitting was probably the simplest and most efficient method available

(see Nash 1966). Regardless, the imprints in daub, and imprints of basketry, prove that cane splitting in Mississippi is a living tradition and skill that is many centuries or millennia old

(Harris and Connaway 2015).

Lashed Pole/Posts

The only other method of wall/wattle construction seen in daub from this state is the use of poles lashed to posts or other upright wall elements. In addition to the imprints studied here, this method of construction has been reported from several Yazoo Basin sites (Terrel and

Marland 1983; Stevens 2006:99-101; Connaway 1984). These imprints often show that poles, typically whole cane culms, were lashed horizontally to upright posts, then more poles may have been lashed vertically to these (Terrel and Marland 1983; Stevens 2006:99-101), creating a reinforced lattice-like structure.

Figure 3.14 Example imprints of woven split cane paneling in daub from the Yazoo Basin.

Note the varying levels of completeness of the visible weaves, while the weave structure and splint numbers per weave are clearly visible in many of the A, B, and C imprints, it is not so with D. Although from experience, I am very certain D is 1/1 plaiting, I cannot demonstrate it, nor will I ever know the number of splints per weave in either the warp or weft directions, this is representative of the majority of daub fragments with weave imprints. Note the clear example on D of the interior septum of a cane node, confirming the use of cane as the wattle.

Figure 3.15 Two examples of preserved Mississippian Period cane paneling from Mississippi.

A is the carbonized fragments of a cane panel recovered in situ from House 49 (ca. 1000 A.D., see Davis 2019) at the Austin site (22TU549), Tunica County. B illustrates several paneling fragments recovered from the Sturdivant Fishweir (22AM500) in Amite County (ca. 1500 A.D.), on display at the Museum of Mississippi History.

Figure 3.16 Two methods of splitting cane and bamboo into quarter-section splints.

A demonstrates how a modern Chinese-made bamboo splitter works. B is a traditional Choctaw method of cane splitting, and is still used today, along with purchased splitters like A. It was likely the method used to split cane that was used for wattle prehistorically. C shows some examples of finished splints. 56

Figure 3.17 Imprints of pole wattles lashed to posts with bindings.

A and B show examples of cane pole imprints, with the node in A making it the clearest example. C shows that a bundle of cane poles was bound or hitched with what appear to be peeled strips of cane like those used for basket weaving (see Harris and Connaway 2015). C was recovered from the mound excavations at the Sledge site (22TU510), see Table 7.6 for more specific information. 57

Previous Research

For more than a century, archaeologists in the Southeast have recognized that large deposits of sintered daub can be found at Mississippian Period settlement sites in the Midsouth.

Early workers in Mississippi, such as Cyrus Thomas’ excavators (1894:204-209), and Calvin S.

Brown (1926:322), correctly guessed that the concentrations of cane-impressed, fire-hardened clay found in and around late prehistoric mounds and villages were the remnants of burned wattle and daub construction. Parts of the Mississippi River Valley region in Mississippi and

Arkansas are likely some of the densest “hotspots” of prehistoric wattle and daub construction in the New World. Although unevenly distributed across the state, daub may be one of the most common artifact types by number and volume in Mississippi. This likely explains why

Mississippi has accumulated a relatively extensive (although still small) body of literature on daub and its application to prehistory building, which I attempt to summarize here. In this section, I will be reviewing some of the major developments in Mississippi and greater Midsouth daub research over time, including attempts by archaeologists to systematically study daub as an artifact class, as well as a source of paleoenvironmental data.

Early Descriptions

The first large-scale work in Mississippi to describe daub and hypothesize its origin was the Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology by Cyrus Thomas (1894). In the 1880’s, Thomas’ crew visited and excavated the Carson Mounds site (22CO505/518) (also known as the Stovall or Montgomery Mounds) an extremely large Mississippian multi-mound and settlement complex in western Coahoma County. The excavators reported finding “fire- beds” or stratified deposits of daub in every mound they dug into (Thomas 1894:253-255), which included all of the largest mounds on the site (Mounds A-F). These large mounds remain 58

relatively intact to this day and continue to produce large quantities of daub and clear architectural features (Mehta et al. 2012; Mehta et al. 2016). Thomas described the daub as hyperabundant, that it formed significant portions of the mounds themselves, had clear casts of cane and grass, and that some of it had burned hot enough to form a “slag” - like material

(1894:254; see my description of the same material above). The excavators also correctly believed that the “fire-beds” represented burned clay from collapsed wattle and daub construction (Thomas 1894:253-255). Thomas also mentioned daub being present at excavations undertaken in Sunflower, Washington, and Adams Counties (1894:258-260,266). In reporting the digs at Emerald Mound (22AD504) Thomas wrote his clearest description of daub in his book, noting that the split cane imprints were convex, rather than concave as would be expected from stick wattles or fingermarks, and that the pieces were “in every respect similar to those observed in Arkansas” (1894:266). Thomas’ digs in Arkansas also uncovered large quantities of daub, references to which can be found throughout his section on that state (Thomas 1894:198-

248). It is worth noting that his descriptions helped dispel the myth among archaeologists that the burned clay in mounds comprised the remains of brick rubble, which would have supposedly been indicative of a superior non-Indian “Mound-Builder” race (Thomas 1894:587; see above).

Despite this, his book illustrates an inaccurate interpretation of how this wattle and daub construction would have appeared, evidently based on the European style of daubed walls

(Thomas 1894: Figure 118). Decades later, Calvin Brown noted in the Archeology of Mississippi

(1926:322) that daub was quite common in the same region, and being familiar with Thomas’ work, correctly believed that it represented the remnants of Indian wattle and daub house walls, even providing a photo of two examples, one showing the intersecting weft prints of the cane paneling weave (Brown 1926:322, Figure 318).

The construction imprints evident in Mississippian daub and their importance were only periodically alluded to or discussed during the decades Culture History was the dominant paradigm in American archaeology (ca. 1920s – 1970s). Instead daub appeared to become a component of archaeological lore, an artifact whose origin was self-explanatory, but not for serious study or of importance, although the general chronology of daub was discerned at this time. Generally, archaeologists then appear to have treated it as an indicator for locating buried structures and of a Mississippian Period component, both of which it is extremely useful for (e.g.

Nelson 2016; Johnson 2000; Connaway 1981). However, once found, it was often removed as an overburden and discarded to reach “more” important architectural finds, like foundation trenches, postholes, and other subsurface features. More representative or clearly imprinted pieces may have only been occasionally gathered for public interpretation and display.

One minor exception to Culture Historians’ attitudes towards daub was James Ford’s attempted settlement/site plan analysis in Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi

Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947 (Phillips et al. 1951: Section 8). Ford treated daub as a site-level trait that, along with mound size, orientation, plaza size, etc. was to be ordered and compared through the time periods (Periods A-G) he had created based on his pottery-based seriations. The implicit reason for this appears to have been the assumption that daub represents a more “substantial” or energy-expensive method of construction than non-daubed construction, which, presumably could either be associated with large mound settlements and/or was time-dependent. Because many of the sites were multicomponent with long occupation depth, it is difficult by this work alone to gauge daub’s chronological significance, a problem I attempt to resolve below. Also notable are his notes within the tables indicating the abundance, quality, and context of daub

(e.g. “on mound only”, “scarce”, “grass-daub”) (Phillips et al. 1951:318-334). Scattered notes in

the LMS site files (see Steponaitis et al. 2002) indicate that daub was not infrequently noted at sites (see below) but was infrequently collected, and I have not been able to observe these assemblages should they survive. Small statements of the character and chronology of daub do occur elsewhere in the book, indicating that Phillips, Ford, and Griffin knew generally about its cane paneling imprints and its original function (e.g. 1951:244). Their most important statement appears during their write-up of the Lake Cormorant site, a footnote that reads plainly: “We have come to regard the presence of daub (fragments of fired clay from burned wattle-and-daub houses) as sine qua non for an occupation of the Mississippi Period” (Phillips et al. 1951:253).

This statement appears to be the source of the common understanding that daub is Mississippian.

Philip Phillip’s Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955 (1970) mentions daub several times, often while attempting to discern whether specific mounds were

Mississippian in age. As in the earlier work, he correctly distinguishes separate “split-cane” and

“brush foundation” (this likely refers to heavy grass inclusions) imprint types in daub (Phillips

1970:448,468) but does not discuss them in-depth.

Reverse Engineering and Inferring Material Processing from Daub

Museum and interpretive house reconstructions seem to be among the more detailed, albeit unpublished or obscure, early studies on Mississippian daubed construction.

Archaeologists Charles H. Nash and George A. Lidberg oversaw some pioneering excavations and reconstructions of Mississippian houses on WPA projects in western Tennessee (Sullivan

2007), some of which influenced the interpretations and illustrations of house construction found in later works (e.g. Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Sullivan 2007:132-133).

In 1939, while excavating with a WPA crew at Thompson Village (40HY5) near

Kentucky Lake, Tennessee, Lidberg directed the reconstruction of excavated Structure 9, an 61

almost perfectly square Mississippian house with a foundation trench and 4.96 x 4.87 meter dimensions (Sullivan 2007: Table 7.1, 126-133). Lidberg and his men even reused the excavated postmolds of the structure to better reflect its original size. Photos and a then-unpublished written report of the reconstruction process (Sullivan 2007: Figures 7.6-7.9, 129) clearly show that attention was paid to the imprints in the daub found in the structures the crew unearthed, evident by their use of plain-plaited split cane paneling when rebuilding the wall. The illustrations of the reconstruction show that they also understood that the daub was applied only to the exterior of the house (see Sullivan 2007: Figure 7.7 and 7.8), which as I mentioned above, would leave predominantly convex imprints of the original concave surfaces of the cane splints in the fired daub. Lidberg also relates that his crew applied the daub at a thickness of 3 – 6 cm

(Sullivan 2007:129). Regretfully, I did not gather data on daub thickness for this thesis, but I do know that this range is accurate for most examples I have studied and for other samples that have been studied (Brain 1989:62; Connaway 1984).

How cane wall paneling was attached and oriented to the posts is less certain, although

Lidberg’s experiment suggested that plaited paneling attached with the closely-spaced elements

(what I have called the warps) oriented horizontally was often too weak to hold the wet clay

(Sullivan 2007:129; c.f. my above inference). Instead, he found the method of tying down the wide-spaced splints to the posts, then weaving in the closely-spaced elements created a wall that proved sturdy enough to hold the weight of the mud (Sullivan 2007:129). However, I have never observed evidence (i.e. fastenings or cordage tying down the splints) of this latter method in any imprint of a complete weave, so it may be the case that a prefabricated panel could have functioned well enough, so long as it’s closely-spaced elements were oriented vertically.

In the 1950s - 1960s, Nash was well-known for his experimental reconstructions of

Mississippian wattle and daub houses in Tennessee (for examples, see Nash 1966, 1968). At this time, he was involved in building Mississippian houses for exhibit at the Chucalissa Indian

Village site (40SY1) museum (Nash 1966). While weaving the cane wall paneling, he was shown the most efficient way to split cane by renowned Mississippi Choctaw basket weaver, storyteller, and then Chucalissa museum employee, Esbie Gibson (Nash 1966; see also Mould

2004). The splitting process Gibson showed Nash, also seen used among Louisiana Choctaw

(Colvin 2006:79-80), consisted of notching the end of the culm cross-wise, then using two small- diameter crossed cane segments to force the culm apart into four splints (Nash 1966; Gettys

1984, see descriptions in King et al. 2018). Nash also provided photographs and descriptions of

Mississippian daub showing both quarter-split and half-split cane culms, believing that this method was also how cane was processed for Mississippian house construction (Nash 1966: Fig.

2), to which I concur (see also King et al. 2018).

Some attention to split cane in daub was also noted by Richard Marshall of Mississippi

State University, who during 1960s-1980s worked on several Mississippian mound and village salvage projects in the Yazoo Basin and Black Prairie (see below). These projects unearthed considerable amounts of daub, although relatively little was curated, nor did his work describe it beyond some specific details. Nonetheless, based on material he observed at the Lyon’s Bluff

Site (22OK520) and the Buford Site (22TL501), Marshall remarked that he believed splints of canes less than 2 cm or 1” in diameter were halved, while those greater than 2 cm or 1” in diameter were quartered, he also noted that canes 3/8” or 1 cm or less in diameter were simply used whole (Marshall 1986, 1988). Nash also noted that canes in daub were sometimes halved

(1966). My own observations of daub concur that half-split culms do sometimes occur, but my

impression has been that the culms were predominantly quarter-split, no matter their size. Unlike

Marshall, I cannot recall ever seeing whole culms used in a paneling weave.

Systematic Architectural Analysis

Beginning in the 1980s, daub gained more appreciation as an object of study for in-depth paleoenvironmental and architectural research in Mississippi. The first systematic architectural analysis of daub from Mississippi was probably Terrell and Marland’s (1983) study of daub fragments from the Lake George mound center (22YZ557). Like my attempted analysis, their study focused on the bindings and size and arrangement of visible lashed pole/posts. Unlike my analysis, their study was successful at documenting a large proportion of variability, owing to the evidently excellent preservation of daub at the site. That paper is the basis in which pole/post daub is interpreted and understood here and was closely studied for this thesis.

Next, the most ambitious undertaking until now to systematize daub research in

Mississippi was started by John Connaway (1984) during the excavation of the Late

Mississippian Wilsford Site (22CO516) in Coahoma County. This project uncovered several structures, including some that were likely built on raised wooden platforms. In addition to making numerous observations about the nature of the imprints and inclusions, Connaway developed a taxonomic, as opposed to paradigmatic (see below), classification scheme for generalized descriptive ordering of daub (1984). The taxonomic ordering is reminiscent of existing ceramic classification systems used in the Mississippi Valley and by Culture Historians generally (e.g. Phillips et al. 1951, Phillips 1970). Connaway’s system included four overarching types – A, B, C, and D, including 14 sub-types, and 4 sub-sub-types. Type A was distinguished by the presence of split cane paneling imprints (called “mats” in the original report), which

Connaway recognized as both the basal wattle, and as a woven paneling not woven in between, 64

but attached to the wall posts. Type B was characterized by the lack of wattle imprints and was only identified by the presence of a smoothed plain/plant textured or plastered/painted exterior surface. Type C was characterized as having two smoothed surfaces, and no wattle imprints.

Such pieces reflecting Type C1 were observed by me at the Clover Hill site, which I believe to be likely non-daub fragments (22CO625, see below). Type D served miscellaneous fragments that were unidentifiable in function. Connaway’s analysis inferred many of the conclusions on the basic nature of daub that I described above, and also found that there was a partial, but not complete, disconnect between the archaeological material and the ethnohistoric record on daubing by Mississippi Indians (1984:30-34). I will discuss this disconformity later.

A more recent analysis is the soon-to-be-published chapter by Mary Evelyn Starr (n.d.) on daub and clay artifacts recovered at the Oliver Mounds site (22CO503). Her study followed

Connaway’s taxonomic system and made notes on paleoenvironmentally informative imprints, reaching similar conclusions. She also is a pioneer of daub research, having consistently reported on the daub from sites she has revisited in her work, notably the Powell Bayou Mound

(22SU516) (Starr 1991, 1997) and elsewhere in the course of CRM projects (e.g. Childress et al.

1994).

Paleoenvironmental and Seasonality Analysis

The earliest resource I could find that seriously considered paleoenvironmental applications of daub in Mississippi was the report on excavation of the Mississippian

Yarborough farmstead (Caddell 1982; Solis and Walling 1982). Soon after, in the same study mentioned earlier, Connaway (1984) discussed at length the nature of plant imprints in Wilsford site daub, species evident, and what can be inferred about the immediate environment by their presence. In the decades following this, papers and theses by Evan Peacock et. al. of Mississippi 65

State University began to take up the subject in earnest, focusing their attention on the Black

Prairie (Peacock 1993, 1995, Peacock and Reese 2003; Reese 2000; Seltzer 2007; Seltzer and

Peacock 2011). The Lyon’s Bluff mound site in particular has been a locus of daub studies in addition to other paleoenvironmental experimentation. Daub from that site has produced imprints from tree species (e.g., Yellowwood, Cladrastis kentukea) (Seltzer and Peacock 2011:128) that are rare or uncommon in this region today. Peacock also discussed the potential for paleoenvironmental daub analysis in the Yazoo Basin (2008) but more literature has not been forthcoming since.

Plant impressions identified so far in Mississippi daub have included grasses (Connaway

1984; Peacock 1995:7; Peacock and Reese 2003:71-72; Peacock 2008:89) deciduous and coniferous tree leaves, nuts, and fruits (Peacock 1993; Seltzer 2007; Seltzer and Peacock 2011).

Cockleburs have also been found in daub from both the Yazoo Basin and the Black Prairie, suggestive of the disturbance regime-favored species that would have appeared in fallow or abandoned fields (Connaway 1984; Peacock 1993; Setzler and Peacock 2011). Maize (Zea mays) fields created through tree girdling, forest burning, and hand tilling were extensive in both regions during the Mississippian Period, it is perhaps no surprise to see these species present.

One of the few times cultigens were mentioned in Southeastern daub was, interestingly, Cyrus

Thomas’ work (e.g. Thomas 1894:207). While collecting data for this thesis, several imprints of prehistoric maize cobs were found, including two from Carson/Montgomery (22CO505/518) and an immature-looking distal cob imprint from the Arcola site (22WS516). It is not certain what living varieties these cobs represent, if not extinct, nor can it ever be exactly certain (Scarry

1994). However, it is known that 8 to 12-rowed flint corns (likely to be predecessors of the

present-day Northern Flint variety) were the most commonly-used maize cultivars by Native

Americans in Mississippi before European colonization (Scarry 1994).

There have been several attempts to infer the seasonality of house construction using the presence of tree leaf, cocklebur, cedar cone, and acorn imprints (Seltzer and Peacock 2011;

Caddell 1982:140; Connaway 1984:39; Starr 1997:83). However, studying daub for seasonality may only determine the season of the daubing event itself, rather than the time of house construction. Considering how daub erodes in humid climates, if the walls were not maintained sufficiently, the need to reapply daub may have arisen periodically. There is perhaps some archaeological evidence against daubing occurring only during the Fall/Winter, for data from the

Lyon’s Bluff site in Mississippi suggests that some may have occurred during the Spring (Seltzer and Peacock 2011).

Ethnohistoric Records for Wattle and Daub in the Midsouth and Mississippi

Ethnohistorical evidence of Southeastern Indian house building is often used to aid reconstruction of prehistoric houses, particularly in circumstances where subsurface features are poorly preserved. The earliest records of Native American houses in Mississippi come from the chronicles of the De Soto Expedition (1539-1543). Although the Spanish spent the early 1541 winter on the Black Prairie, and wintered at settlements across the South, they give little specific detail about the houses they squatted in, apart from the generalized descriptions of mound summit architecture (e.g. Clayton et al. 1995b:154) like the temple at Cofitachequi (see above).

One exception is found in the account of the Gentleman of Elvas, who described a transition from thatch to the use of cane and daub in the wall construction of houses when the expedition reached what is now central Georgia, where the arrangement of canes were described as being like “tile” and the daub “plastered inside and out” (Clayton et al. 1995a:75). This is evidently 67

unlike what I have observed in Mississippi. The Rangel account describes the heavy use of daub on withy-woven palisades, approximating a more European-like method of wall building

(Clayton et al. 1995a:288). The Garcilaso de la Vega account (the least chronologically reliable account [Galloway 1998]) describes structures on wooden platforms in the Mississippi Valley region of Arkansas that closely resemble platformed structure remains uncovered at the Wilsford

(22CO516) (Connaway 1984) and Carson/Montgomery sites (22CO505/518) (John Connaway pers. comm. 2018), both in Coahoma County, Mississippi.

Wattle and daub use is more consistently evident from the descriptions of French explorers in the Lower Mississippi Valley from the 1680’s onwards (see Table 3.1). By that time, the only wattle method explicitly reported by colonists were lashed pole/posts covered in daub on both sides (Table 3.1). If such accounts are true, then off-mound daub from sites of this period should be studied to see if there was an overall shift towards this wattle type. Outer coverings on the daub mentioned by these accounts included thatch, cane matting, palmetto leaves, maize leaves, and bark. Inclusions added to the daub included Spanish Moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and grass. When explicitly described, the superstructure building method in all LMV off-mound and non-temple house accounts were flexed-pole frames lashed together at the top. The floor plans of most LMV house descriptions were listed as elliptical (here I mean circular, how perfectly round is unknown) or quadrilateral, or in the case of the Tunica, sub-quadrilateral, or a house with rounded corners and straight sides (see Table 3.3). Although I did not quantify it, many of the descriptions of LMV houses, and those of the Choctaw and Chickasaw, clearly describe the use of beds and benches made of split cane paneling and whole canes (Adair 1775:420; Swanton

1911, 1931). Because they are explicitly described as split and woven, I imagine that this bed paneling was more-or-less like the paneling described at length above, however, I know of no

surviving examples to compare. Furthermore, these paneling beds seem to be the only description of paneling in any household context. If this is true, then one wonders if paneling may have disappeared as a wattle by the Historic Period.

Unlike the tribes of the LMV or the Choctaw, the Chickasaw of northern Mississippi were inclined to align with the English, who were the first Europeans to have made sustained contact with them (Atkinson 2004). Many surviving records of the Chickasaw are consequently in English and are much more accessible. Unfortunately, only a few consistent historic details have survived about their houses, and even less are known for the French-aligned Choctaw.

One of the most reprinted and cited passages on early Historic Southeastern Indian house construction is James Adair’s 18th century description of Chickasaw houses (1775:419-420). The passage lists the differences between the two main Southeastern Indian seasonal house types.

One was the “Hot” or “Winter House,” which was an elliptical hut built with rigid, individually- set posts, log plates, and rafters. “Winter” houses were daubed with a clay mixed with grass over a wattle of split sapling withies, as in the European style (Adair 1775:419-420; see Graham

2004). The “Summer House” was quadrilateral, long, only sometimes daubed, and possessed an open breezeway for cool air to travel through (Adair 1775:419-420). Some descriptions of 18th century Choctaw houses accumulated by Swanton (1931:37-39) are very similar to those of

Winter houses of the Chickasaw, specifically in that the structures were generally round, daubed, and contained interior cane benches and beds.

Bernard Romans’ description of Chickasaw houses was bare, merely stating that they were elliptical and daubed (1776:67). For Choctaw houses, Romans only states that they are exactly like Chickasaw houses (Romans 1776:83). The few English descriptions of 18th Century

Choctaw houses accumulated by Swanton (1931:37-39) also claim that they are very similar to

Winter houses of the Chickasaw, specifically in that they were round, daubed and contained interior cane benches and beds. Aside from Adair’s sole description, basically no corroborating information exists on Choctaw or Chickasaw wattle. Chickasaw references claim that their houses had elliptical or poorly defined floorplans, while Choctaw references mention sub- quadrilateral and elliptical plans. Also, if Choctaw houses were exactly alike as Romans believed

(1776:83) then, why do at least two sources mention flexed-pole superstructures, while Adair’s describes rigid posts (see Table 3.3)? But what most references adamantly mention, however, is that “typical” Chickasaw and Choctaw houses were daubed (see Table 3.3).

When ethnohistoric data is compared with the archaeological record, we find disconformities that are perplexing. For example, although described historically as round with ample daub covering, many excavated houses from the Chickasaw homeland, particularly in Lee

County, seem to be sub-quadrilateral with rounded corners (Jennings 1941). Perhaps this is why at least one reference describes the supposedly elliptical Choctaw houses appearing octagonal from the inside (see Swanton 1931:39). Strangely, there is a paucity of daub from area of the major Chickasaw settlements in modern Tupelo and Pontotoc, as well as in the Choctaw homeland in the southern North Central Hills (see below), Jennings reported finding none in his excavations (1941). A recent excavation of two largely 18th Century Choctaw period settlements

(22KE630 and 22KE718) in Kemper County, Mississippi revealed at least seven structures

(Little et. al. 2016). Almost all were clearly quadrilateral, and most had foundation trenches.

Although fired clay fragments were common, no verifiable daub was found (Little et al. 2016).

This is at odds with the accounts provided by Swanton (1931).

The fact is that house construction was not a priority subject for those who lived and traded among Mississippi tribes. We can also not assume that all structures were alike, as it is

today, for they could vary functionally and stylistically over space alone, therefore a mean “type” would not even necessarily reflect reality or function as a useful unit of analysis (see Ford 1954).

Considering all of the documentary and archaeological evidence covered in this section, I must conclude that much of the ethnohistoric record of daubed house construction is inconsistent, or as of yet unverifiable for the interior tribes of Mississippi, however for tribes near the Mississippi

River or in the Yazoo Basin, descriptions are much clearer and consistent. For some peoples, like the Chakchiuma, there are evidently no accessible descriptions of their houses or how they were built. There are few ethnohistoric descriptions of house construction within most of my area of interest, the Yazoo Basin, save that of the Yazoo and Tunica, and evidently no information from the Upper Yazoo Basin where most of my study sites were located (see Table 3.3 and Figure

4.5). This leaves me no choice but to rely primarily on archaeological data to understand the true scale of daub use in this state.

Table 3.2 Ethnohistoric Off-Mound/Non-Temple Daubed Structure Data from the Midsouth and Lower Mississippi Valley

Author Years Culture(s) Region Wattle Exterior Wall Daub Floor Superstructure Source Described Texturing/Covering Inclusions Plan(s) Form Dumont de 1710s – Yazoo Lower Lashed Attached Cypress Bark Spanish Moss Elliptical and Flexed Swanton Montigny 1730s Yazoo Basin Pole/Post and Palmetto Leaves (Tillandsia u.) Quadrilateral Pole 1911:59 Pierre Francois 1720s Natchez Loess Hills N/A Maize Leaves/Culms Grass/Straw Quadrilateral Flexed Swanton Xavier de Charlevoix (Adams Co.) and Cane Matting Pole (?) 1911:59 Le Page 1710s – Natchez Loess Hills Lashed Grass/Thatch and Spanish Moss Quadrilateral Flexed Swanton Du Pratz 1720s (Adams Co.) Pole/Post Cane Matting (Tillandsia u.) Pole 1911:60 Henri de 1680s Taensas LMV N/A Cane Matting N/A Quadrilateral Flexed Swanton Tonti Louisiana (?) Pole (?) 1911:259-260 Pierre Le Moyne 1690s Bayougoula LMV N/A Cane Matting N/A Elliptical Flexed Swanton d’Iberville Louisiana Pole (?) 1911:275 Jaques 1700s Tunica Lower Lashed Grass/Thatch N/A Sub- Flexed Swanton Gravier Yazoo Basin Pole/Post quadrilateral Pole (?) 1911:315 Unknown 1700- Choctaw East Central N/A Cypress and N/A N/A Flexed Swanton 1800 Mississippi Pine Bark Pole 1931:37 Unknown 1700s Choctaw East Central N/A N/A Grass/Straw Sub- Flexed Swanton Mississippi quadrilateral (?) Pole (?) 1931:39 Bernard 1770s Choctaw East Central N/A N/A N/A Elliptical N/A Romans Romans Mississippi 1776:83 Francis 1790s Chickasaw Black Prairie N/A N/A N/A Irregular/ N/A Baily Baily Mississippi Indeterminate 1856:366 Bernard 1770s Chickasaw Black Prairie N/A N/A N/A Elliptical N/A Romans Romans Mississippi 1776:67 James 1740s Chickasaw Black Prairie Wooden Grass/Thatch Grass/Straw Elliptical Rigid posts and Adair 1775: Adair Mississippi Withies plates w/ rafters 419-420

CHAPTER IV

SPATIAL/CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND ASSEMBLAGE SAMPLING

To gain a better understanding of the time-space dimensions of daub in Mississippi, I decided to map the known site-level reports of daub, and record the components listed at daub- producing sites found in the MDAH Historic Resources Inventory Database (HRID). Cursory reviews of the CRM literature in the state and conversation with experienced surveyors will show that daub is rarely recovered or mentioned from large expanses of the state’s interior, including the North Central Hills, Flatwoods, Pontotoc Ridge, Tombigbee Hills, Jackson Prairie,

Piney Woods, and Coastal Meadows. I propose that the predominant lack of daub in these areas reflects the demonstrated general paucity of sites with long-duration Mississippian Period components in these areas. On the other hand, the areas where daub is regularly mentioned or recovered include the Yazoo Basin, The Black Prairie, and some portions of the Loess Hills, places where both extensive and intensive Mississippian Period settlement is well documented.

The results of these analyses, in addition to the existence of curated collections, helped to influence what site assemblages were studied for daub samples. The sites chosen and contextual information of the samples will be summarized.

Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Mississippi

The density of Mississippian period settlement was not uniform across what is now

Mississippi. Instead, it appears to have generally nucleated in habitat capable of supporting large-scale maize-based agriculture. Seriations of ceramic assemblages from the state’s interior 73

hill regions seem to suggest that occupations often terminated not long after the appearance of shell-tempering, a trait that is commonly associated with the Mississippian Period (Rafferty and

Peacock 2008; Triplett 2015). At the same time, the tradition of shell-tempered ceramics continues in the Black Prairie and Yazoo Basin, where Mississippian components are common.

The North Central Hills, Tombigbee Hills and Pontotoc Ridge are and were relatively poor areas for agriculture outside of their river bottomlands, and many of the few Mississippian settlements known in these areas were relegated to floodplains or near permanent water bodies (e.g.

22LA516). Such areas in the southern portion of the North Central Hills in east central

Mississippi, for example, are heavily associated with historic Choctaw settlement and remain settled to this day by Choctaw people (Blitz 1985; Little 2016). The Piney Woods and Coastal

Meadows regions largely consisted of fire-dependent Longleaf/Slash Pine ecosystems with acidic, nutrient poor soils. While these pinelands support the greatest biodiversity in the continental U.S., and an open understory of meadow-like grass and forbs, they were notoriously poor for agriculture historically and have proved primarily useful for ranching and lumbering to this day (Fickle 2001). The Jackson Prairie, like the Black Prairie, was a mosaic woodland/black land prairie ecosystem. Unlike the Black Prairie, large portions of that region have few consistent water sources or floodplains for exploitation, and consequently little evidence of prehistoric occupation, especially during the Mississippian period when population mobility was very low

(Ivy 2017).

The Yazoo Basin, by contrast, is famed for its sheer number of Mississippian mounds and village sites and was one of the most densely settled areas in the late prehistoric United States.

Supporting this was the extremely fertile silt floodplain that comprises most of the region, which was and remains well suited to maize agriculture. Mississippian settlement on the Black Prairie,

despite being a relatively xeric area, was supported by proximity to the Tombigbee River and its tributaries, resource diversity, and its fertility. A large portion of the settlement in this region appears to have nucleated along the Line and Tibbee Creek floodplains in Clay and Oktibbeha

Counties, famously including the Lyon’s Bluff mound and village site.

The earliest verified written records of prehistoric settlement in Mississippi were those produced by the DeSoto Expedition (Clayton et al. 1995a, 1995b). DeSoto’s army was largely concerned with locating densely settled areas with food and resources to exploit. The first such area encountered in Mississippi was the abovementioned heavily settled portion of the Black

Prairie and included peoples that the chroniclers referred to as Chicaza (believed to be the later

Chickasaw), Alibamo (Alabama), and Sacchuma (Chakchiuma). The second settled region encountered by the expedition in Mississippi was the Northern Yazoo Basin, and the peoples encountered there were referred to as Quizquiz and extensively cultivated maize.

Between the two areas, all four accounts described an uninhabited wilderness (the North

Central Hills, Loess Hills, Flatwoods, and Pontotoc Ridge) that took days to cross. The third settled region known to the Spaniards, although it was not visited, or at least not extensively explored, was known as Quigualtam or Quigualtanqui, and appears to have been in the Southern

Yazoo Basin. According to the chroniclers, it was populous enough to organize hundreds of canoes for a sustained large-scale attack on the expedition’s ships when they fled down the

Mississippi (Clayton et al. 1995a, 1995b).

It is clear that the Mississippian Period ceramic lineages, moundbuilding, and settlement patterns in the northern and southern halves of the Yazoo Basin were very different. The differences are so stark that they are practically essential examples of systematic prehistoric

“phases” as defined by Robert Dunnell (see Dunnell 1970). Residential areas in and around

mounds are generally much more extensive at sites in the north (see descriptions of Parchman and Carson/Montgomery below) than in the south (Brain 1989; Kowalski 2019:27-30; Kowalski and Nelson 2020; Phillips 1970; Phillips et al. 1951; Williams and Brain 1983). Furthermore, mound centers in the southern half tend to be larger, with more mounds and mound volume at individual sites (e.g. Lake George) (Kowalski 2019, Kowalski and Nelson 2020). Although the

DeSoto chronicles only give descriptions of Yazoo Basin societies as they were in the specific years encountered, they do little to dispel the notion of the two sub-regions being different by outright stating that the societies in the northern and southern halves were distinct peoples. If this is true, then the “province” of Quizquiz would be best associated with the “Middle

Mississippian” influenced people of the northern half (exemplified by sites like Parchman Place,

Carson/Montgomery, Hollywood, etc.) (see Brown 2008) and Quigualtam with the Plaquemine

Mississippian tradition to the south (exemplified by sites like Lake George, Mayersville,

Winterville) (Barnett 2007; see Brain 1989; Williams and Brain 1983).

After the DeSoto expedition, the next recorded expeditions in Mississippi did not occur until the LaSalle expedition in 1682, and little penetration into the interior occurred before 1699 at the founding of Biloxi (Barnett 2012, see Galloway 1998). The historic record of 18th Century

Mississippi Indians give generalized descriptions of the settled territories for the Natchez,

Chickasaw, Choctaw, Yazoo, Chakchiuma, Biloxi, and Tunica (see Swanton 1911). However, the limits and exact locations of these territories are very often conflicting or were not static.

Mapping Daub Reports

To compare the distribution of reported daub in Mississippi with archaeological traditions and historically recorded peoples, a map with the approximate locations of said traditions and historic locations, plus physical regions of the state, was made for a simple aid in assessing 76

visual correlation. The first consideration is that this map would have to include reports of daub, as it would be impossible to independently verify the curated material (if any) of every listing in the database. Despite my lengthy discussion on the difficulties of daub identification, there are many experienced archaeologists in the state who accurately recognize construction imprints and correctly ascribe function to the daub they find and report it as such. Secondly, a lot of unverifiable daub actually will be daub, especially in the regions in which it is common. Another concern is whether proximity to intensively-surveying institutions (i.e. universities) will overrepresent daub. In the map that follows, while daub is heavily reported near the vicinity of

Starkville and Mississippi State University, daub appears to be practically non-existent in the area surrounding the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) and uncommon in the area around the

University of Southern Mississippi/Hattiesburg. National Forest surveys near those two universities also produced little or inconsistent evidence of daub, showing that different surveyors are obtaining similar results in this regard.

To build the map, the data gathered from the MDAH HRID was entered into Microsoft

Excel for analysis. UTM coordinates, UTM zones, site numbers, components present, physiographic region, and county data were collected for each site. The Excel data was then entered into QGIS open-sourced GIS software using a georeferenced shapefile of physiographic regions in Mississippi downloaded from the Mississippi Automated Resource Information

System (MARIS). The MDAH HRID contains privileged information, such as specific coordinate data on site locations, and last known owners. To protect sites and owner anonymity, the map scale and the resolution does not allow looters to discern a location within several square miles.

Mapping Results

The results of the map seem to support my suspicions. By far, the region with the largest share of reported daub is the Yazoo Basin, specifically the northern half of it encompassing

Coahoma, Tunica, Bolivar and Quitman Counties (Table 3.2). Close behind this area is the central portion of the Black Prairie, with most found in Clay and Oktibbeha counties. In fact,

Coahoma is the only county with more reported daub sites than Clay, with 85 and 52 sites respectively (Table 4.2). Thus, two clear concentrations of daub are found in Mississippi, both largely correlating with the densest regions of Mississippian Period settlement.

Given the discussion above concerning the two Mississippian traditions in the Yazoo

Basin, the northern cluster may be yet another reflection of this divide. Although Plaquemine sites like Lake George (22YZ557) exist with extensive daub deposits (Terrell and Marland 1983) this is evidently an exceptional circumstance and it may perhaps be largely limited to large-scale sites. The further south travelled in the Yazoo Basin, the density of daub-producing sites decreases steadily, until they are as uncommon and as randomly scattered as they are in the interior hill regions.

The cluster of sites on the Black Prairie fails to align well with the Historic Chickasaw settlements in Lee and Pontotoc Counties, with only three sites reported. Jesse Jennings made special note of the fact that there were no traces of daub to be found in the Chickasaw structures he excavated (Jennings 1941). The pattern also is even more intriguing considering the hypothesized 1400’s – 1700’s settlement shift towards the northern half of the Black Prairie

(Johnson 2000). However, unlike the Yazoo Basin, the number of daub-producing components on the Black Prairie did not collapse entirely in the Protohistoric period (Table 4.3). Although they suffered a radical decline like the rest of the state, the number of sites (approx. 25% of peak)

was sustained into the Historic Indian (Chickasaw) period. The Yazoo Basin decline, in my opinion, probably reflects the overwhelming demographic collapse of the region in the 1600’s.

However, it is possible that reported Protohistoric components are overreported in the Black

Prairie, due to the one-time conflation of shell-tempering in the Oktibbeha and Clay County area with the Protohistoric (Peacock pers. comm. 2019).

Chronology of Daub

My second question is whether daub is chronologically diagnostic? One of the reasons

James Ford’s attempted seriation of site classes (Phillips et al. 1951) failed or proved difficult to interpret, was the fact that many of the sites he chose were multicomponent and of non- comparable settlement duration. By separating the components from the sites themselves, and ordering them by physiographic region, it is conceivable that something resembling a time and space ordering of the distribution of daub reports from area to area may be achieved.

Culture Historical Analysis Results

Because most of the listed sites were multicomponent, there are almost twice as many components (754) as there are sites (383). A histogram table of components by region suggests that daub associated (and I must reemphasize, not necessarily daub producing) components start with the Paleoindian period (1 component), gradually increasing over 13,000 years until peaking at the Prehistoric Mississippian period (214 components) and declining steeply following. For the most part, Paleoindian to Early Woodland daub-related components could be the result of multicomponent sites with long or multiple occupations in areas of stable human habitat. The sole possible exception is a spike in components (28) during the Late Archaic period, compared to the Middle Archaic (11). The reason for this may be the emergence of the Poverty Point

tradition, which used and produced fired-clay artifacts to a greater extent than at any point in the preceding 10,000 years. This included the first appearance of pottery on the western Gulf Coastal

Plain (ca. 1500 B.C.), the use of millions of hand-molded clay cooking “stones” for earth ovens

(“PPOs/BCOs”), and the use of what may, in fact, be daub. There are scattered reports at Poverty

Point sites of thin fragments of fired clay showing woven cane imprints with grassy exterior surfaces, including some surface-collected at the Poverty Point site itself, along with fire- hardened mud daubers’ nests (Diana Greenlee pers. comm. 2017). These could suggest that the structures built during this time were sometimes daubed, and occasionally burned.

Considering that the received wisdom from archaeologists is that daub is a Mississippian trait, and considering the mapping results above, it is perhaps no surprise that the largest share of components date to the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods. The association of the Late

Woodland components may be due to its proximity to the Mississippian Period, although it is certainly possible that it was used extensively then as well. Following the Prehistoric era, the

Protohistoric Mississippian (1540 - 1682 A.D.) shows a sudden, radical drop (down to 34 components), a reduction of 84.11%. It is possible that this is due to either population depletion following the introduction of Old World diseases, a decrease in the use of daub, or the difficulty of distinguishing Protohistoric sites without European goods from those that are merely very

Late Prehistoric. The latter explanation cannot be discounted as it is probable that for at least some time after European/African Contact, artifact-making traditions among Native Americans did not change immediately from those of the Prehistoric era. However, demographic collapse may yet explain this change, as the Historic Indian period (1682 – ca. 1840 A.D.) shows only a very slight decrease of related components from the Protohistoric. It is during this time that the handful of ethnohistorical references were written on wattle and daub construction among

Mississippi Native Americans (see Table 3.3). Interestingly, the Historic European/African period shows a significant jump in daub-related components (97 components) with an increase in all regions except the Black Prairie. This is likely explained by European/African settlement on formerly Native American sites, activities that inadvertently fire-hardened clay to produce daub- like artifacts, or the use of daub chinking or chimney-building.

Table 4.1 Sites with Reported Daub in the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Database – By County

County Number Percentage County Number Percentage Coahoma 85 22.19 Tate 2 0.52 Clay 52 13.58 Sharkey 2 0.52 Bolivar 36 9.40 Kemper 2 0.52 Tunica 35 9.14 Lawrence 2 0.52 Oktibbeha 30 7.83 DeSoto 2 0.52 Quitman 15 3.92 Forrest 2 0.52 Washington 11 2.87 Perry 2 0.52 Chickasaw 8 2.09 Harrison 2 0.52 Attala 7 1.83 Franklin 1 0.26 Adams 7 1.83 Greene 1 0.26 Lowndes 7 1.83 Grenada 1 0.26 Tallahatchie 7 1.83 Covington 1 0.26 Holmes 6 1.57 Clark 1 0.26 Leflore 5 1.31 Carroll 1 0.26 Monroe 5 1.31 Benton 1 0.26 Panola 5 1.31 Amite 1 0.26 Sunflower 5 1.31 Jasper 1 0.26 Jackson 4 1.04 Lafayette 1 0.26 Lee 3 0.78 Lauderdale 1 0.26 Montgomery 3 0.78 Rankin 1 0.26 Tishomingo 3 0.78 Stone 1 0.26 Wilkinson 3 0.78 Union 1 0.26 Wayne 3 0.78 Warren 1 0.26 Hinds 3 0.78 Yazoo 1 0.26 Hancock 3 0.78 Total 383 99.88

Figure 4.1 Reported Daub in the Mississippi HRID Compared to Approximate Settled Regions of Late Prehistoric to Historic Native Peoples

Locations mapped include daub reports (points) plus archaeological traditions and historically referenced areas of primary settlement of Native peoples in the state from ca. 1000 – 1800 A.D. The northern Yazoo Basin Mississippian tradition is referred to as a part of the Middle Mississippian tradition, the southern is a manifestation of the Plaquemine Mississippian tradition. All such areas are approximations by necessity. 82

Table 4.2 Histogram data summary of components reported from daub-related sites in the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Database

Physiographic Yazoo North Loess Piney Flatwoods Pontotoc Black Tombigbee Coastal Jackson Region Basin Central Hills Woods Ridge Prairie Hills Meadows Prairie Hills Time Years Total % Component: Period (Approx.) Year Ratio Unidentified 12000 B.C. – 27 7 6 4 1 0 5 2 0 0 52 6.9 1:266.15 Aboriginal 1840 A.D. Paleoindian 12500 – 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.13 1:3500 9000 B.C. Non-Specific 9000 – 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 1.06 1:1000 Archaic 1000 B.C. Early 9000 – 2 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 1.19 1:333.33 Archaic 6000 B.C. Middle 6000 – 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 11 1.46 1:272.72 Archaic 3000 B.C. Late 3000 – 12 1 3 2 1 1 6 1 1 0 28 3.71 1:71.43 Archaic 1000 B.C. Non-Specific 1000 B.C. – 42 4 2 7 0 1 2 0 1 2 61 8.09 1:32.79 Woodland 1000 A.D. Early 1000 – 6 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 17 2.25 1:47.06 Woodland 200 B.C. Middle 200 B.C. – 19 1 4 4 1 1 15 1 4 0 50 6.63 1:14 Woodland 500 A.D. Late 500 – 106 4 6 4 1 0 14 1 6 0 142 18.83 1:3.52 Woodland 1000 A.D. Mississippian 1000 – 114 6 10 1 0 1 80 1 1 0 214 28.38 1:2.52 (Prehistoric) 1540 A.D. Mississippian 1540 – 3 1 5 1 0 0 23 1 0 0 34 4.51 1:4.18 (Protohistoric) 1682 A.D. Historic 1682 – 1 1 5 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 30 3.98 1:5.27 Indian 1840 A.D. Historic Euro- 1699 – 62 4 9 6 2 1 8 2 2 1 97 12.86 1:3.62 African 1950 A.D. Total 397 31 55 36 10 5 189 11 17 3 754 99.98 ----- % 52.65 4.11 7.29 4.77 1.33 0.66 25.07 1.46 2.25 0.4 99.99

Sites and Sampling Assemblages

Because it is a single physiographic region comprising similar environments over large expanses, and because it is rich in daub, the Yazoo Basin was chosen as an analytical universe for this thesis. Daub solely from this region was selected with the assumption that all or most of it would stem from one or several closely related traditions of house construction. If different traditions used non-comparable levels of energy expenditure in off or on-mound wall construction, then any differences noted may not be clear or accurate. A tradition in this sense would be regional artifact pattern whose evolution is comparable across time and space. For example - a group of sites showing identical patterns of wall construction with functional or stylistic changes occurring at the close general points in time, much like change evident in ceramic lineages. It is known that at least two broad traditions existed in the Yazoo Basin during the Mississippian Period (see above), so if generalized differences can be observed, it is hoped that this analysis will reveal them.

Due the cost and the destructive nature of excavation, a conscious attempt was made to use fieldwork as little as possible and to do so only when necessary. Even when used, fieldwork was mostly limited to surface collections, or conducted as part of a larger project in which the material was to be excavated regardless, such as the recently-finished MDAH exacavations at the

Carson/Montgomery Mound A Village site, or University of Alabama test excavations at the

Arcola Site (22WS516). Items from general surface collections (G.S.C.) taken for this thesis were collected by myself, John Connaway, Anna Reginelli, Nikki Mattson, and many interested others to whom I am grateful. Collections and curation facilities across Mississippi were scoured for Yazoo Basin daub assemblages. Convenience and opportunity were key factors regarding which sites were chosen to study. Assemblages held by the MDAH formed the bulk of this work 84

due to my proximity as a volunteer and former employee. Mississippi State University materials, although relatively little, were also taken advantage of. My residence in Oxford made it easy for me to use the University of Mississippi’s collections and others housed there for the

Archaeological Conservancy. My former residence in Jackson allowed me to also easily study the collection held by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). The only collections that required extensive travel were those held by the University of Southern

Mississippi, and even this was not too difficult. The collections from Mississippi held by the

Peabody Museum at Harvard University, Tulane University, the University of North Carolina, and most by the University of Alabama have not yet been studied by me.

In the end, I selected daub from 22 sites, including 21 with some basic contextual and recovery information from Coahoma, Tunica, Washington, Sunflower, Quitman, Leflore, Carroll and Bolivar counties. Bolivar county, despite its relatively abundant daub reports, was grossly under-sampled due to the general lack of curated daub from there in any of the institutions visited. Two sites with incomplete or missing provenience data were included in the study, including one site that is known (the former location of the Chocchuma [Chakchiuma] Land

Office in Grenada County) but does not have a site card in the Mississippi HRID discussed above. Another small MDAH collection came from the Northern Yazoo Basin, probably

Coahoma County, but had lost its exact site provenience. Basic overviews of each site, samples, and sample contexts follows below.

Hiter (22BO661)

Located on Jones Bayou southwest of the town of Mound Bayou in Bolivar County

(Section 19, Township 23N, Range 5W), the Hiter Mound Site was recorded in 1993 by MDAH archaeologist John Connaway. The file reports that the site consisted of a mound that was located 85

on a natural levee adjacent to the bayou, and that it had been land-leveled at a point prior to visiting. Because it was believed to be a mound, the daub studied here was listed as such. While the card claims that the landowner reported that the supposed mound was a small “knee-high” rise with no reported areal dimensions, it is possible that the rise was actually the natural levee itself and not mounded earth. It is also possible that the site was a house mound. The site file lists three components, Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Mississippian based on the small general surface collected assemblage. Artifacts included debitage, ground and flaked stone tools, mussel shells, shell-tempered (Mississippian) ceramics, and eight pieces (0.2 kg) of purported daub, studied here. The daub is property of MDAH.

McKee (22CO598)

Located in northwestern Coahoma County (Section 33, Township 29N, Range 4W)

McKee is an 8-acre midden near Barkley Bayou, recorded by Sam McGahey of the MDAH in

1968. Two components, Late Woodland and Mississippian, were reported at the site, and general surface collected artifacts listed as present include daub, debitage, grog-tempered and shell- tempered potsherds. The daub collected from this site includes 25 pieces (0.85 kg). No mounds or evidence of mounding was reported from this site. The only other reference to this site is an unpublished MDAH manuscript on plant remains from it and other sites in the region (Blake

1985). The daub is property of MDAH.

Mullens (22CO653)

Recorded by Connaway in 1974, Mullens (Section 31, Township 28N, Range 3W) is a 4 to 6-acre midden adjoining the Sunflower River in central Coahoma County. Two components,

Late Woodland and Mississippian, are listed on the site card due to the grog-tempered and shell-

tempered ceramics present. Like McKee village, almost no scholarly attention has been paid to this site, the sole exception appearing to be its inclusion in Brookes’ list of late Middle

Woodland Prairie Phase sites in the upper Sunflower River drainage (1980), adding a third identified component to the site. Neither the site card, nor Brookes’ reference mention the daub from the site, which was accessioned from MDAH and studied here, including 33 fragments

(1.05kg). The material appeared to be general surface collected. No mounds or mounding were reported. The daub is property of MDAH.

Dog Branch (22CR522)

Carroll County, despite laying partially in the Yazoo Basin, was also seriously under sampled for this study. The only site selected for here was Dog Branch (Sections 23 and 26

Township 20N Range 2E) a Protohistoric village and graveyard located south of Teoc on a bluff at the very edge of the Yazoo Basin. The site was listed in 1974 by John T. Penman, who did not include it in his survey report of watersheds in Mississippi (1977). Other than a conference presentation (Ross-Stallings and Connaway 2010) little has been yet published or written about the site, even though it is well-known among archaeologists and collectors in the state for producing large quantities of European trade goods. Beads, bells, iron tools, urn burials (which are more typical of Protohistoric settlements on the Black Prairie in Mississippi and Alabama, see Curren 1984) and house remains have been found on the site, including the sole large piece of Class 18 (see below) daub studied here (Connaway pers. comm. 2020). The piece was uniquely shaped, almost triangular in cross-section with one side rounded, perhaps the edge of a doorway or the exterior-facing corner fragment of a house. The piece is MDAH property but no exact contextual or recovery information was included with it. This information may be preserved in the excavation records from the site, which I have not accessed. The site card 87

mentions excavations and geophysical survey having been conducted at Dog Branch in 2004, perhaps by MDAH, but no report has yet been written, this piece may come from those investigations. No evidence of mound construction has been reported from the site.

Oyler (22QU984)

Oyler (Section 27 Township 27N Range 1W) is an approximately 2-3 acre site located south of Lambert in Quitman county. It was recorded in 2002 by Connaway, who identified both a Late Woodland and a Mississippian component based on the general surface collection of ground and flaked stone tools, ceramics, faunal remains, and 12 pieces of daub (0.8 kg). The site card notes list two concentrations of “fist-sized” daub at each end of the site, which Connaway suspected may have been a hamlet or farmstead-type settlement. Connaway also notes that the soil survey of the area listed the site as an “Indian Mound” but questions whether, like at Hiter

(22BO661), this was actually the remains of a natural levee. Other than the site card, this site appears to be unreported. The daub is property of MDAH.

McClintock #2 (22TU541)

This Tunica County site (Section 31 Township 45 Range 11W) located west of the city of

Tunica, was recorded in 1969 by Connaway. The site was evidently less than a quarter acre in size, and the only material identified was four daub fragments (0.16 kg), concluding that it was probably a “small house site.” Nothing else about the site is known. The daub is property of

MDAH.

Blue Lake (22LF604)

This site (Section 13 Township 19N Range 1E) in Leflore County, was recorded by

Penman in 1974 and listed with only an “Unknown Aboriginal” component. The only notation

on the card was that it was a “campsite” and no description of the material recovered is evident.

No report on this site was included in his book (Penman 1977). However, 16 fragments (1.23 kg) of daub from this site are extant and were studied here. The presence of daub would seem to preclude its use as solely a temporary “campsite” but I have not studied any of the other material recovered. The daub is property of MDAH.

Unnamed Site (22QU799)

The nature of this unnamed Quitman County site (Section 7 Township 26N Range 1E) makes me question whether the daub sample provenience as received was correctly labeled. This site is a NRHP ineligible lithic “scatter” adjacent to the Tallahatchie River, no daub was listed in the site card, and the component listed as present was “Unknown Aboriginal.” There are several possibilities to consider, this is the correct site and the daub was simply unreported, the sample was mislabeled, or “QU799” was the alternative site listing of a collector. To test the last possibility, no “QU799” listings were found in the alternative site numbers in the county HRID database. The second possibility was tested with searching “790”, “759”, “769”, “700” and other combinations that could have been misread with poor handwriting, none of them listed daub. I am forced to treat this site as the source of this sample, although I still question whether this is really the case. The daub that supposedly came from this site included two fragments (0.36 kg) and is property of MDAH.

Falls (22LF507)

The Falls Site in Leflore County (Section 17 Township 22N Range 1W) (LMS 17-O-08) is a prehistoric mound and village located next to Blue Lake Brake. The site was first recorded in

1941 by James B. Griffin and E. Mott Davis, a surface collection revealed both Late Woodland

and Mississippian components, with the Late Woodland accounting for the majority of the assemblage (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [17-0-08, pg. 1-2]). The site was revisited in 1967 by Clarence Webb who noted the presence of Poverty Point tradition (ca. 2000 – 900 B.C.) diagnostic artifacts on the site (Connaway 1986). It was then visited again in 1968 by William

Hony, then a student at Mississippi State University, who placed numerous units across the village and mound areas, uncovering subsurface foundation features, pits full of pottery, and sizeable middens of freshwater mussel shells (Connaway 1986). I have not been able to relocate the small report by Hony, which apparently lacks some information on the structural remains uncovered (Connaway 1986). The daub used for this thesis was surface collected in 2018 by

Connaway and Anna Reginelli who were spurred on by my need for daub assemblages. No record of this daub coming from mound-level contexts is indicated, so it is assumed that it did not. This includes 23 (1.74 kg), all are property of the MDAH.

Hollywood (22TU500)

The Hollywood Mounds site located in Tunica County (Section 33 Township 35 Range

11W) a.k.a. the Bowdre Mounds or the De Be Voise Mounds (LMS 13-O-10), has been studied and periodically excavated for nearly a century. The site possesses abundant and unmistakable evidence of large-scale organized earthmoving and construction, including a large central platform-shaped mound, a large plaza area, three other still-visible small mounds, plus several smaller mounds that have been rendered unrecognizable or invisible by plowing. Calvin Brown

(1926), the LMS (Phillips, Ford and Griffin 1951), and the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Mississippi (Johnson et al. 2000) have all researched, mapped, surface collected, or excavated the site at different times, producing a fairly well-sampled picture of its construction, dimensions, and culture history. The primary settlement interval at Hollywood 90

appears to have been the latter half of the prehistoric Mississippian Period (ca. 1300 – 1500s

A.D.). Daub is abundant on the site and has been referenced extensively by excavators working there (Johnson 2000). A 1x1 meter C.S.C. of the site by UM did not collect the daub encountered, as it was believed to be too abundant to curate. However, the number of fragments within a subsection of the meter square was tabulated, and the relative density of daub across the site was mapped, showing that the densest concentration of daub was an approximately 1000m2 area immediately west/northwest of Mound A (Johnson 2000: Figure 2.14). Gradiometer data clearly showed the foundation features of numerous structures on this same portion of the site

(Johnson et al. 2000: Figures 2.17 and 2.18).

Despite such dense deposits, I only assembled 23 fragments (0.98) from the entire site for study, all of which were G.S.C.’d material from two separate contexts. Five of these fragments were from an off-mound context listed as “Surface, S. of ditch” presumably referring to Fletcher

Bayou that borders the site to the north. Because plowing at much of the site has discontinued in recent years, these pieces may have been collected beforehand. The second context, a heavy machinery-aided excavation in Mound B, produced 18 fragments. The bag read “Mound B,

South End Dozer Cut, loose daub in Cut” suggests that these pieces were gathered as loose objects from a mound profile, I do not have records for where exactly these fragments were located in the cut. The daub appears to be either the property of the MDAH or UM.

West (22TU520)

The West Mounds site in Tunica County (Section 21 Township 65 Range 12W) (LMS 14-O-10) a.k.a. the Hood Mounds, is a large Mississippian village with three platform mounds located west of Cypress Lake. The site was originally recorded by Philip Phillips in 1940, who gathered a predominantly Mississippian Period sherd assemblage, and noted that daub was commonly 91

observed in village and mound contexts (Dye and Buchner 1988). The site was revisited in the

1980s by archaeologists from Memphis State University, who recorded mound profiles and artifacts from damaged portions of mounds A and B and conducted surface collections of the village (Dye and Buchner 1988). In Mound A, Dye and Buchner reported two burned structures separated by a layer of constructed earth fill. They reported finding fragments of daub that were imprinted with split canes and contained heavy grass inclusions, although which structure these were associated with is unclear. A surface collection of the ancient fluvial ridge running north to south between mounds A and C revealed a long Late Mississippian Period settlement midden area that ending south of C, all of which was covered in daub. The southern end of the midden revealed a Late Woodland component underneath the Mississippian (1988).

Like the Hollywood site, and Bolivar County, I have greatly under sampled this site.

Only two fragments from the entire site were readily available at the time of analysis, both of which are the property of MDAH. These may have been part of the surface collections gathered by the MDAH in the late 1960s (Connaway 1984:197). Both pieces were from the same allotment from the same context, the excavation bag number was given as “6.6” and the contextual note was “from West Mound” which I believe may refer to Mound A. These fragments may be part of the larger disturbed area in Mound A that produced the daub chunks reported by Dye and Buchner (1988).

Winterville (22WS500)

Possibly the most famous prehistoric site in Mississippi, Winterville Mounds (Section 19

Township 19N Range 8W) (a.k.a. 19-L-1) in Washington County has been described, mapped, pothunted, and excavated intermittently for nearly 200 years (Brain 1989). Numerous publications and reports on the site have been published, and its prehistory is well-known, so in- 92

depth discussion is not necessary here. I will state that the site was one of the major ceremonial centers of the Lower Mississippi Valley, and among the largest in the Southeast in general. The site is believed to have had 23 or more mounds at one point, many of which remain obvious and relatively well-preserved in the ownership of the MDAH. The primary period of occupation, especially mound construction, appears to have been during the Middle Mississippian period (ca.

1200 – 1400 A.D.) with evidence of settlement at the site dissipating not long afterwards (Brain

1989). Although there is only scant evidence of off-mound habitation outside of the immediate mound area (Brain 1989), it does exist, and such a concentration of materials were part of the assemblage described below.

The daub from Winterville used here (195 pieces/6.14 kg) was recovered during excavations undertaken by USM between 2005-2006 (village-level daub concentration west of

Mound F) and 2009-2011 (Mound C). The daub from the off-mound concentration, assuming it is derived from one structure, indicates a house with a cane paneling wattle and grass inclusions.

A single Class 18 fragment was recovered, suggesting that some portion of the house was plastered, the extent of which is unknown. The daub from Mound C reflects that of a mostly typical on-mound structure, the walls appeared to consist heavily of painting/plastering, grass inclusions, and pole/post wattle. However, a handful of fragments with cane paneling were recovered, including some unusual Class 10 and 25 pieces, which may suggest that very small parts of the structure (assuming the assemblage represents a single structure) “transitioned” from pole/posts to cane panel wattles, a lack of grass inclusions, and away from plastering/painting.

Powell Bayou (22SU516)

Powell Bayou (Section 27 Township 23N Range 3W) was recorded in 1941 by the LMS surveyors Chester Chards and E. Mott Davis (LMS 17-0-09) (Starr 1991, 1997). When first 93

noted, the site consisted of a main 12 ft high mound surrounded by a series of smaller rises covered in daub, which surveyors believed to be house mounds. Pottery from the site showed that both a Late Woodland and a Mississippian period component were present. In 1969, in anticipation of land leveling operations by the owner, salvage excavations were conducted by

John Connaway and Sam McGahey of the MDAH, aided by prisoner labor from Parchman State

Penitentiary (Connaway 2017 pers. comm.). That same year, excavation by an MSU field school led by Richard Marshall picked up where MDAH had left off (Starr 1991, 1997). This field school also spent more than a week excavating at the more-disturbed Dockery Mound site

(22SU510) six miles away (Starr 1997; see below). The good botanical preservation in the

Powell Bayou mound is well-known and included a preserved cache of acorns, various seed, charred posts, and maize cobs that were an important component of the database of prehistoric

Midsouth maize assembled by Leonard Blake (1986; Starr 1997). The three radiocarbon dates from different levels within the mound averaged to ca. 1400 A.D. (Starr 1997). Unfortunately, the excavation records of Powell Bayou were, until recently, scattered and lost, ostensibly due the loss of Marshall’s notes and materials, and other materials loaned to him by Connaway and

McGahey, to Hurricane Camille (Starr 1997). Thus, floorplans of the excavated summit structures, pits and other features remained unpublished and thought lost. Luckily, many or most of these records were recently relocated at MSU by curator Keith Baca and former head curator

Jeffrey Alvey. I have personally scanned these documents and they are now kept on file at

MSU’s curation laboratory for interested researchers. At least some of the artifacts excavated are still kept at both the Cobb Institute and at MDAH, including many botanical remains.

Even though multiple burned mound summit structures were excavated at Powell Bayou, only a small sample of daub was curated, 12 pieces (1.81 kg), all from mound contexts. 11 fragments

were recovered in Level 4 of unit 65S 60W in addition to 43 potsherds, most of them shell- tempered/plain (Starr 1991: Table 2). The excavation form for this level shows the corner portion of a closed-corner foundation trench with in-trench and support posts clearly visible (see 1969 excavation notes). The pottery and the daub was located on a portion of burned floor within the bounds of the foundation trench. The soil matrix at this level was described as a sandy clay loam intermixed with daub fragments and ashes. The pieces in this allotment were kept for perhaps the most “representative” found in this level. The 12th piece was recovered from feature 69-9 located in the north/northwest portion of Level 5 in unit 145S 0W. This feature was recorded in the notes as a “trash pit.” This daub is property of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology/MSU.

Dockery (22SU510)

Dockery is a village site with three small mounds located in Sunflower County near Long

Lake (Section 14 Township 23N Range 4W) (a.k.a. LMS 17-N-11) and was first recorded in

1941 by Chester Chards and Philip Phillips (Starr 1997). The LMS surface collection pointed to the presence of both a Late Woodland and Mississippian component, although agriculture had heavily disturbed the site even then, and was in the process of being land-leveled when revisited.

Several large units were hastily excavated in Mound C during the same 1969 field school that salvaged Powell Bayou. These digs, whose documentation is poorly preserved, uncovered burials, abundant faunal material, and multiple burned structures on the summit. Despite encountering large deposits of daub, only 7 pieces were curated (0.56 kg), all from Level 2 of the larger 10x10 foot unit (Starr 1997). The daub belongs to the Cobb Institute/MSU.

Sledge (22TU510)

The Sledge Site in Tunica County (a.k.a. the Royal Site, LMS 13-O-14, Section 3

Township 4S Range 11W) is a very small mound and village area immediately adjacent to the

Hollywood Brake bayou. The site was first recorded in 1940 by Philip Phillips who noted that artifacts were scarce on the site and that a formal collection was not taken (Steponaitis et al.

2002: site files [13-O-14, p. 1]). Phillips also reported that the mound was only 1 – 2 feet tall, and that a home had been built upon it. He also stated that the owners had reported finding burials when excavating a storm-cellar on the summit (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [13-O-

14, p. 1]). In the early 1990s, Connaway and Jay Mitchell excavated on the mound remnant at

Sledge, again uncovering more burials and large quantities of daub (Connaway pers. comm.

2020). Very soon afterwards, excavations by Dawn Ramsey Ford (then Ramsey) a Ph.D. candidate of the University of Florida were undertaken at the site along with geophysical survey, with further assistance by Connaway and Mitchell (Connaway pers. comm. 2020). Neither excavation appears to have been formally reported. Thankfully, the materials from both excavations remain, and the 69 fragments (7.88 kg) studied here were recovered from the first dig. 16 of these pieces were taken from a wall profile left by the above-mentioned cellar which was carefully removed to produce said profile, while the rest were recovered closer to the summit of the mound near Burial 3. Aerial photos show that the mound location remains very clear and fill may yet remain present along with many other site features, but its vertical integrity is not certain. This daub is property of MDAH.

Bay Lake (22SU528)

Located in Sunflower County (Section 21 Township 18N Range 5W) adjoining the Bay

Lake bayou, the Bay Lake site is a large Mississippian multi-mound and village complex. First 96

recorded in 1941 by Chester Chards and Philip Phillips, the site was described with several small mounds, including a well-preserved short rectangular platform mound, and a village area with abundant pottery and daub, as well as an area that was possibly a house mound (Steponaitis et al.

2002: site files [19-N-3, pg. 1, 4]). Although a Late Woodland and Mississippian component were identified, an overwhelming majority of Chards’ and Phillips’ surface collection of pottery

(approx. 99%) was shell-tempered, showing that the site as a whole dates well into the

Mississippian Period (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [19-N-3, pg. 4, 5]). Despite mentioning that daub was abundant across the site, the LMS crew evidently did not keep any (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [19-N-3, pg. 1, 5]). The site was revisited in 1979 during a cultural resource management survey that found that plowing had leveled two of the mounds but reaffirmed the basic conclusions of the LMS team (Huckabay and Lauro 1980:10). A surface collection recovered mostly shell-tempered/plain sherds, daub with paneling imprints was again noted to be abundant (Huckabay and Lauro 1980:10). Another CRM-related visit to the site (Chapman et al.

1995:79-87), reported that the mound remnants had been destroyed and the site chisel-plowed, but abundant deposits remained, including daub, of which 22 pieces were surface collected

(described as “cane and grass-impressed”) (Chapman et al. 1995: Table 5). The site was revisited on 11-29-19 by Anna Reginelli and myself to observe the daub in the fields, in which there remains a large quantity of sizable fragments scattered over much of the village area. This site will prove invaluable for future research in this regard.

Before then, the daub used in this thesis, 20 pieces (1.65 kg) was collected through a small G.S.C. of the village site by Connaway and Anna Reginelli in 2018.

Arcola (22WS516)

Arcola Mounds (Section 12 Township 16N Range 7W) (LMS 20-M-01) is a large

Mississippian multi-mound and village settlement complex located in Washington County, approximately one and three-quarter miles south of the town of Arcola. Mound A, the largest mound on the site stands approximately 30+ feet high, and is an imposing feature on the landscape, Mounds B and C are relatively large in their own right, each standing approximately

15 feet high. The site was first briefly noted by Calvin Brown (1926:80-81) who described six mounds, three of which were later leveled. Brown also explicitly described the presence of daub and other artifacts scattered in and around Mound A. The site was revisited and recorded in 1941 by Chester Chards and Philip Phillips, who noted a strange lack of artifacts in and around the site, save for a concentration of daub near the remains of Mound E, which they believed to be a possible house mound. A scatter of artifacts was also located between Mounds A and B

(Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [20-M-1, pg. 1]). Like Bay Lake (above) the overwhelming proportion of pottery collected by Chards and Phillips was shell-tempered (99+%), indicating a predominantly Mississippian Period occupation (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [20-M-1, pg. 4 and 6]). According to the LMS documents, three pieces of daub were collected from the site, but they were not described (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [20-M-1, pg. 6]). Although well-known and exceptionally well-preserved, little work was undertaken at Arcola until the 2010s. In 2013 –

2014, the Mississippi Mound Trail Project, headed by the University of Southern Mississippi for

MDAH, surface collected and opened four test units, one in Mounds A and B each (Kowalski et al. 2014) and two in Mound C (Jackson and Kowalski 2015). If daub was encountered in the units on A and B, it was not reported, however, daub was encountered in both units on Mound C and the first of these (Test Unit 3) contained a possible postmold, a hard-packed floor remnant,

and a probable foundation trench, at different levels. This project concluded that Late Woodland to Protohistoric Periods components are present on the site, however it is believed that much or most of the earthmoving and mound building wasn’t undertaken until the Late Mississippian

Period (ascribed in the report as late Winterville Phase/Lake George Phase, ca. 1400s – 1500s

A.D.) (Kowalski et al. 2014; Jackson and Kowalski 2015). Excavation recommenced in 2015-

2016 in the village area as part of Kowalski’s Ph.D. research into the off-mound settlement layout and site chronology (Kowalski 2019). Several potential structures were prospected using magnetometry and were targeted for testing. The daub from Arcola used in this thesis was pulled by Kowalski for my research from the units placed on Structures 4 and 9 (see Kowalski 2019) as well as a bag that was G.S.C.’d by me on 12-18-15 from the general plowzone area between

Structure 4 and Mound A. A C.S.C. of the site also showed that daub was common on the site, and was found to be densest north, northeast, and south of Mound A (Kowalski 2019: Figure

4.15). I also observed that daub is rich on the site and large-sized chunks remain widely scattered on the surface in those areas. The sample of daub from this site includes 168 pieces (17.9 kg).

The daub is possibly the property of the University of Alabama but is possibly held by the

MDAH at this time. The following house allotments were studied.

House 4

House 4 was uncovered in the block of unit N522 E275 and consisted primarily of a burned floor 8 x 8 meters with an uncertain foundation and floor plan (Kowalski 2019:181-194).

Although a wide and shallow closed-corner foundation trench was located at this location, it was found underneath the burned floor itself, suggesting it antedated House 4. Block N522 E282, a few meters east of the previous block, produced a clear and straight foundation trench, but no corners or approximate dimensions were uncovered (Kowalski 2019:181-194). A large insertion 99

trench, Feature 41, was found in the N522 E275 block, in which the post appeared to have been pulled from at some point before the fire occurred, and large fragments of daub filled in the cavity after the fact (Kowalski 2019:188). A piece of charcoal from Feature 41a produced a 13th to 14th century date (Table 4.4). The cleanliness of the floor, the partial vessel placed upon it, and the removal of the large post in Feature 41a followed by the infilling of the hole with daub, led

Kowalski to suspect that this structure was intentionally burned (Kowalski 2019:194).

The daub from this structure (72 pieces) came primarily from Feature 41a and the disturbed portion of it located above the plowzone line. If it indeed represents the daub from this singular burning event, then this structure had a wall that was typical off-mound Mississippian

Period houses from this area - cane paneling wattle, plain/plant surfacing with no obvious decoration, and no grass mixed in the clay. The number of splints per weave in the paneling imprints (2x?, 2x2, 2x3) reflects the overarching Yazoo Basin 2x2 pattern of wattle weaving (see

Appendix C).

House 9

This structure was uncovered in the N390 E212 block of the 2015 excavations (Kowalski

2019:176-181). This structure was approximately 5 x 5 meters in diameter but was mostly delineated in excavation by its hard-burned floor. The floor, like the others reported here, appeared to have baked when the structure burned, and the same event was the preserved the daub remaining on its surface. Foundation trenches that appeared to stratigraphically match the floor were uncovered on the east and southern sides, although they could not produce an obvious floor plan (Kowalski 2019:176-181). Radiocarbon dating of material on the floor suggested that it was built sometime during the 15th or 16th Centuries and was possibly Protohistoric (see Table

4.4). 100

The daub from House 9 (62 pieces) followed the recurrent pattern evident in House 4.

The complete and partial number of splints per weave in daub from House 9 (2x?, 2x2) suggests that its walls were similar to House 4 in this manner as well.

Clover Hill (22CO625)

The Clover Hill site (Section 30 Township 28N Range 3W) is a village and mound located south of the Clover Hill community in Coahoma County. The site was first recorded in

1969 by Sam McGahey, and excavation by the MDAH Clarksdale field office commenced in

1973 after learning that the site was to be land-leveled (Connaway 1981). Daub concentrations were recently plowed when work began, and surface concentrations clearly showed the location of structures. Before landowner permission was revoked, one structure near the eastern edge of the mound remnant was almost fully excavated (Structure 1) and its associated artifacts were collected (Connaway 1981).

House 1

Based on the straightness of the trench segments, and the general pattern of Mississippian construction in this portion of the state, House 1 was most likely quadrilateral, and probably more-or-less square (for similar structures in the Yazoo Basin see other chapters in Connaway

1981; see also McCleod 2015). A burned floor (much like those at Arcola) with a small scattering of artifacts on its surface was located below the thick daub fall that marked the house location. Radiocarbon samples (UGa-1889, 1890, 1891) from three burned small posts on the burned-floor surface produced dates ranging from the 13th to 17th century, although the 15th

Century is the most likely interval (see Table 4.4). A selection of partial shell-tempered plain and polychrome vessels associated with the structure were recovered from the burned floor, lining up

101

generally with a 15th Century occupation (Brown 2008). However, a 17th Century turquoise glass bead was found on the site surface, suggesting a Protohistoric component is present but otherwise not investigated (Brown 2008). Although charcoal should be cautiously used to date short-interval contexts, the three C14 samples were all taken from the Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) charred posts that were found on the burned floor. Green Ash produces strong and flexible saplings perfect for flexed-pole construction (Connaway 1981:49, 1982: Table 1). If we are to assume that these posts were harvested as saplings, as Green Ash is a fast-growing species, it is possible that the old wood problem would not contribute significant error in this circumstance. However, the outlier date may also be due to the curation of posts from previous structures, which is a potential source of bias independent of age at harvest.

This daub fall and the daub found in the fire pit on the burned floor comprised the samples studied from this site, including 1201 pieces (99.04 kg), all of it belonging to MDAH.

The daub indicates that House 1 was unique among all of the structures I have studied so far in the Yazoo Basin. Both pole/post and paneling wattles were used, as well as plastering and plain/plant surfacing, with or without daub. It appears that portions of the individual walls may have gradually shifted from one set of modes to the other, producing unusual classes, like 6, 8,

23, and 25, etc. 12 cane poles, 3 wooden posts, and 3 structural members of unknown material were observed. Splints per weave in the paneling imprints showed a huge variety of classes, atypical for most house allotments. In other words, House 1 and its daub is unique, and it is very fortunate that archaeologists at the time had the foresight to curate it.

Carson/Montgomery (22CO505/518)

I have mentioned above the early work at this site for Cyrus Thomas’ mound survey

(1894), but I will continue the description here. Carson/Montgomery is one of the largest 102

prehistoric archaeological sites in Mississippi, and at one point held nearly 90 mounds, many of which were small and possibly house mounds. This site was certainly a prominent Yazoo Basin settlement/ceremonial center during the Mississippian Period, and there is clear evidence interaction with other societies across and outside of the Southeast. The site spans an area nearly one mile in length and a half-mile at the widest (Lansdell 2009), and consists of three loci with mound and village areas that have been given different site numbers at separate times, including

Montgomery Mounds (22CO518; LMS 15-N-6), Stovall (22CO505; LMS 15-N-7), and Carson

(same as Stovall; LMS 15-N-8). All three mound areas were visited and collected by James A.

Ford and James B. Griffin of the LMS in 1940. Like Thomas, they noted that “wattle” (i.e. daub) was abundant and being plowed in large quantities from the Montgomery village area east of

Mound A (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [15-N-6, pg. 2, 7]). At Montgomery, they collected a clearly Mississippian sherd assemblage (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [15-N-6, pg. 2, 7]). At

Stovall, which is a “double” conical mound, not a platform-shaped structure, they recovered mostly grog-tempered pottery, and noted no daub, believing it to be a Woodland Period mortuary mound (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [15-N-7, pg. 2, 5]). At Carson, they noted daub on a mound summit, but found little pottery (Steponaitis et al. 2002: site files [15-N-8, pg. 2].

Although there has been scattered attention to the site over the years since, mitigation work was commenced in 2007 by the MDAH and the University of Mississippi after land leveling of the Montgomery village area uncovered numerous human burials. The Montgomery village area has since been acquired by the Archaeological Conservancy and is protected. The excavations continued in phases with the involvement of hundreds of volunteers from the MAA and the interested public, including myself, and field schools from the University of Mississippi and Tulane University, until the retirement of Connaway in late 2018. Numerous

103

theses/dissertations, papers, and conference presentations have been written on various aspects of the site, including mound-related coring and summit excavations (Carpenter 2013; Mehta et al.

2012; Mehta et al. 2016). Although partial summaries are available (see James 2010; Lansdell

2009; McLeod 2015) a complete summary of excavations and materials recovered in the

Montgomery village area has not yet appeared.

Because land-leveling and chisel-plowing had disturbed the plowzone deeply, hand and mechanical removal of the plowzone was used in the Montgomery village area until preserved stains and other features were evident. This was followed with shovel shaving until the surface was smooth and features were readily delineated and mapped. Postholes, pits, burials, hearths, daub falls, foundation trenches, etc. were traced in the ground, measured, and plotted on the site grid. Daub falls were carefully exposed, mapped, then removed, waterscreened, and curated. I personally assisted in excavating (very crudely) two daub falls at Montgomery, including the one in House 63 in 2015-2016 and the one in House 66 in 2017. Daub from both structures was used in this thesis, plus daub recovered from House 12. Daub fragments from plowzone surface collections were also sampled heavily.

House 12

House 12 was excavated in 2012 by Connaway, but its presence was originally deduced in 2009 when a large well-preserved fragment and other pieces were found at its location by Dr.

Jay Johnson of the University of Mississippi (Connaway pers. comm. 2015). Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, I have not yet been able to access many of the excavation notes of this structure, but they are currently being held and digitized at the University of Mississippi (Tony

Boudreaux pers. comm. 2020). Like most Mississippian houses in the Yazoo Basin, House 12 was an approximately 4 x 4 meter square/quadrilateral structure with open-cornered foundation 104

trenches. Unlike most houses, 12 showed evidence of an entryway built with trenches, and at least two or three rebuilding episodes. The presence of rebuilding episodes is very interesting when the feature map of the structure is overlaid with the original map of mounds on the site published by Cyrus Thomas (1894). This overlay, created by MDAH and MAA volunteer Benny

Roberts, shows or suggests that House 12 was the only clear structure that directly correlated spatially with one of Thomas’s mounds. It is very possible that this correlation is purely a chance occurrence, but other aspects of the map have proved surprisingly accurate, such as the earthwork enclosure aligning very closely with the excavated palisade. By the time digging began in 2007, there was little evidence that these small earthworks still existed, especially following the chisel plowing and land leveling that occurred shortly beforehand. They certainly did not remain visible aboveground, including the mound that may have covered House 12. If it was indeed associated with House 12, it is my opinion that it was likely a “house mound” created by the daub falls of the multiple building episodes. However, because it cannot be proven outright, I did not count the daub from this structure as occurring “on-mound.”

House 12 was oriented 22° north-northeast, approximating the orientation that most structures on the site were planned and aligned to. The interior of the structure shows dozens of postholes arranged in patterns approximating wood and cane benches, seats, storage areas, etc. that have been described ethnographically and archaeologically elsewhere (see above). Much of the original burned floor was preserved in parts of all four quadrants underneath the daub fall, including a central well-burned area in the two east quadrants. Also present were seven scattered pits and a hearth found near the center. Covering the structure remains was a daub fall that was removed and curated, forming a major component of my study sample. The material studied included 610 pieces, the overwhelming majority of which would fit the typical Yazoo Basin off-

105

mound structure, a wall with cane paneling wattle daubed on the outside only and plain outer texturing. However, a handful of fragments suggest the use of some very small portions of the wall had grass mixed into the matrix, and a sole piece appeared to show plaster.

House 12 was a wattle and daub structure that had burned. When the structure caught fire, it burned hot enough to oxidize and lightly bake the hard-packed floor, the hearth in the middle of the burned area may have been related to the fire event. As the fire ate away at the wood posts, cane paneling and thatch roof, the daub nearest to the highest heat towards the top of the wall in perhaps the southwest, southeast, and northeast corner collapsed inward into a pile, where it remained until excavation. It’s possible that the multiple rebuilding episodes produced a formerly higher pile of daub from other fires, producing the rise recorded as a mound in the

1880’s.

House 63

House 63 was located on the southwest corner of the site excavation, between 5000-

5020NS and 5000-5020EW on the site grid. 63, like 12, was a square/quadrilateral foundation trenched structure. Unlike 12, 63’s dimensions were about 5.5 x 5.5 meters and showed no evidence of rebuilding episodes following its original floorplan. It’s northwest corner overlaps with the southeast corner of House 62, and 63’s northeast corner adjoins House 61 on its southwest, both 61 and 62 are also quadrilateral with foundation trenches. 63 was oriented 26° north-northeast, close but not exactly the same as 12. Patterns of supposed benches/sitting structures were not evident in the 15 postmolds within the trench perimeter, 10 of which were in the trenches themselves. Two overlapping pits covered portions of trenches in the northeast quadrant, while three small hearths were found within the southeast quadrant. In the direct center of the structure was a large daub fall that was approximately 2 x 2.5 meters wide and 20 106

centimeters thick. Underneath the daub was a small preserved portion of burned floor with the tell-tale orange and black mottling from both oxidized and poorly oxidized firing. However, it was not hardened considerably and was easily damaged with troweling. After mapping, this daub was removed with shoveling, water screened and allowed to dry before analysis. The daub shows that House 63 was an “average” Mississippian Period off-mound house in the Yazoo Basin. The wattle was entirely composed of woven cane paneling that was daubed on the outside. There is no evidence that grass was added to the daub mixture, save for a single piece with grass imprints in its matrix, which is unlikely to be purposeful. No evidence of plastering or other decoration was evident.

Parchman Place (22CO511)

Parchman Place (Section 30 Township 29N Range 3W) (a.k.a LMS 15-N-05) is an extremely large, predominantly late prehistoric Mississippian (1300 – 1500s A.D.) multi-mound and village site complex in Coahoma County. Based on the map generated in the previous chapter, (see above) this site, like Carson/Montgomery and Clover Hill, lies directly in the heart of the “hot zone” of wattle and daub use in the state. Like Hollywood and Winterville, there has been much work conducted at this site over the last few decades, and its prehistory is relatively well-known, so overly extensive discussion is not necessary (Stevens 2006; Nelson 2016). The site consists of approximately 4-5 medium to large-sized platform mounds and an expansive village area that was one of the largest in the state. Surface collecting and geophysical prospecting has shown that there are multiple large clusters or “neighborhoods” among and away from the large mounds (Nelson 2016). The village plowzone at this site is the most prolific producer of daub I have ever observed personally. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of powdered daub cover an area of thousands of square meters, and large pieces weighing multiple 107

kilograms have been unearthed. In 1984, Connaway and MDAH volunteers mapped several daub concentrations along the eastern half of the village area, indicating the extensive distribution of structures at the site (Nelson 2016:223-225). When the site was first recorded by the LMS in

1940, there were several house mounds preserved, none of which are still visible, but subsurface evidence of these have been located (Nelson 2016:231).

Mound summit burned structural remains, again reflecting the general Mississippian pattern (Stevens 2006), have been documented at the site. Platform Mound B was damaged heavily in the 1980s (although most of it remains today) by its owner during an earth borrowing project (HRID site file). Connaway, when visiting the damage, noted a clear stratum of thatch and burned ash from a 15 – 17th Century burned structure (HRID site file). An excavation unit was put into Mound A in 2003-2004 (Stevens 2006) which uncovered multiple construction stages and intercepted the remains of multiple burned structures and daub, including some of the daub studied here.

Despite the enormous potential of this site for the study of Mississippian architecture, the quantity I obtained to study does not reflect the material available or potentially available. In all,

I studied 149 fragments (27.13 kg), much of which was not recovered from well-recorded contexts. Contexts sampled included the plowzone surface of the village area south of Mound A, material excavated from Mound A, and material recovered from unknown contexts due to being accessioned from private collections, or through provenience data loss.

Knox Lake (22WS575)

The Knox Lake site (Section 13 Township 18N Range 7W) is found in Washington

County, east of the city of Leland. The site was first recorded in 1974 by Connaway and was excavated the same year by Robert Hyatt of the Mississippi State Highway Department (later 108

Mississippi Department of Transportation) in anticipation of road widening on Highway 82, which adjoins the site (Hyatt 1975). Hyatt uncovered a small Mississippian Period settlement and the very poorly preserved remains of at least one wattle and daub structure. The structure was found in Area A, a subsection of the excavation, and no subsurface foundation features were located. Instead, the imprints of unburned poles, a very short clay partition-like feature, and burned timbers overlaying charred cane paneling, were all uncovered. The last feature shows what appears to be a portion of the superstructure frame, and the paneling that was attached to it.

However, only a little daub was found in the very southeast corner of Area A, away from the charred frame segments (Hyatt 1975). Because no foundation features were found, likely owing to the severe erosion at the site, the relative position of these structural components cannot be placed, nor can the floorplan be observed. The daub from the Area A structure suggests a typical

Mississippian Period off-mound structure in this region, the use of cane paneling, plain/plant outer wall texturing, and a lack of grass inclusions. No complete weaves were observed. Area B, which may or may not be related to the structure in Area A, produced another handful of fragments, which did not deviate in variability from those found in Area A. Daub and other materials from the site was curated and is kept at MDOT’s curation facility, including 86 fragments (4.62 kg) studied here.

Chocchuma Land Office (22GR??)

This unlisted Grenada County site (Section 19 Township 22 Range 3E), located between modern Highway 7 and the Yalobusha River, is the former location of a Federal land office set up to sell Yazoo Basin lands ceded from the Choctaw nation in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit

Creek (1830). The Chocchuma office attracted land speculators and buyers from across the country, and between 1833 – 1842 the small village of Chocchuma thrived around the office. 109

When the land office was moved to Grenada in 1842, the village went extinct soon after. Despite the name, Swanton (1911) makes no mention of a Chakchiuma settlement at this specific site, although the confluence region of the Yalobusha and Yazoo rivers was the heart of the traditional Chakchiuma homeland. The location of the Chocchuma Land Office and its immediate surroundings lie on a prominent first terrace overlooking the Yalobusha river and its bottomlands. Such a location was perfect for a prehistoric settlement, and this is borne out by the fact that daub was found in the vicinity of the site. The daub, 7 pieces (2.34 kg) was collected as part of a general surface collection undertaken of the general location of the settlement sometime in the 2010’s by Connaway and Jessica Crawford of the Archaeological Conservancy

(Connaway pers. comm. 2020).

110

Figure 4.2 Excavated floor plan of House 12, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518)

Square foundation-trenched structure showing multiple rebuilding episodes. Note the interior arrangement of postmolds that approximate the shape of corner benches. The lower orange and brown features in the center of the structure are the oxidized and poorly oxidized portions of burned floor, respectively, with the dark orange hearth near the center. The transparent overlaying feature is the daub fall. Blue features are burials, and yellow features are pits. Map credit: Benny Roberts

111

Figure 4.3 Excavated floor plan of House 63, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518)

Square structure with foundation trenches and no obvious entryway. Note the daub fall directly in the center of the structure, and three hearths at the south/southwest corner. The burned floor remnant is not mapped here. Overlapping this structure is House 62, adjacent structure at east/northeast corner is House 61. Incomplete portion of structures to the left is an unexcavated area. Map Credit: Benny Roberts.

112

Figure 4.4 Excavated floor plan of House 66, Carson/Montgomery Site (22CO505/518)

Like House 12, this is a square foundation-trenched structure showing multiple rebuilding episodes, note interior posts arranged in pattern suggestive of corner benches. Unlike 12, it lacks an entryway. Note also the central hearth and the later elliptical individually-set post structure highlighted at the north/northwest corner. Daub fall was excavated and mapped, but a shapefile has not yet been created with this data, as notes are currently in curation. Blue features are burials. Map Credit: Benny Roberts.

113

Figure 4.5 Map of sites sampled for daub for this thesis

114

Table 4.3 Architectural and radiocarbon data from structures sampled for daub

Site Structure/ Floor Foundation Approx. C14 Sample Uncalib. Calibrated Date Source Date Context Plan Dimen. (m) Sample Material Date (Oxcal 4.3) 22CO505/518 House 12 Quadrilateral/ Trench 4 x 4 Beta – Charred 350 ± 30 ybp 1458 – 1531 (41.3%) McCleod 2015: (Burned Floor) Square 370521 Wood Post 1539 – 1635 (54.1%) Table 4 22CO505/518 House 63 Quadrilateral/ Trench 5.5 x 5.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unpublished Square Site Files (U.M.) 22CO505/518 House 66 Quadrilateral/ Trench 5.5 x 5.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unpublished Square Site Files (U.M.) UGa – 1889 440 ± 60 ybp 1333 – 1337 (0.4%) Quadrilateral Charred 1398 – 1530 (72.2%) Connaway 1981: 22CO625 House 1 (Partially Trench Uncertain Wood 1539 – 1635 (22.8%) Appendix II (Burned Floor) preserved) UGa – 1890 Posts 590 ± 65 ybp 1285 – 1430 (95.4%) UGa – 1891 425 ± 55 ybp 1410 – 1529 (69.1%) 1544 – 1635 (26.3%) 22WS516 House 4 Uncertain Trench? 8 x 8 Beta - Charred 670 ± 30 ybp 1274 – 1320 (53.1%) Kowalski 2019: (Feature 41a) (Quadrilateral?) 441861 Wood Post 1351 – 1391 (42.3%) Table 5.1 22WS516 House 9 Uncertain Trench 5 x 5 Beta – Carbonized 360 ± 30 ybp 1450 – 1530 (47.7%) Kowalski 2019: (Burned Floor) 441858 Seed 1540 – 1635 (47.7%) Table 5.1 UGa – 1041 810 ± 65 ybp 1043 – 1104 (11.0%) 22WS575 Area A Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Charred 1118 – 1289 (84.4%) Hyatt 1975:59 Structure UGa – 1042 Wood 800 ± 60 ybp 1046 – 1093 (6.5%) Posts 1120 – 1141 (2.2%) 1147 – 1294 (86.7%)

115

CHAPTER V

METHODS

The hypothesis that wattle-and-daub construction on Mississippian mound summits was generally more energy expensive, or wasteful, than wattle and daub constructed off of mounds, can only be tested through piece-by-piece analysis of daub from a wide-ranging sample of sites.

To assess the relative energy expenditure in daub from multiple contexts, a paradigmatic classification system needed to be constructed to note both presence and proportions of the modes of interest from each assemblage.

Earlier, I showed that daub could present with grass inclusions or no inclusions at all, imprints of at least two different methods of wall construction or wattles, and either plain/plant texturing/smoothing, or plastering/painting of the outside wall surface. If my inferences laid out in Chapter 3 are correct, the three modes of grass inclusions present, painting/plastering exterior, and lashed pole/post wattles would altogether form the most energy expensive form of daubed wall construction. I believe this to be because of the added time and energy spent harvesting, cutting, and mixing grass into the clay would necessarily take more effort than simply using a plain unmixed clay. Wall plastering would perhaps require gathering different clays or other sediments, mixing it with water to the right consistency, and painting or scraping it on the dried outer wall surface. Pole lashing would require the use of upright posts or logs that may have required harvesting trees larger than saplings, deep planting them into the ground, and maybe even the use of plates and rafters to stabilize the frame. Cane poles would have required tight

116

lashings at every intersection with the post using cane strips, as was noted from the Lake George site (Terrell and Marland 1983). Then, daubing would have had to cover both the inside and the outside of the frame, requiring considerably more time and energy to construct than a cane paneling wattle wall daubed on one side. Out of curiosity, I wanted to assess whether incising and punctated decoration was common in daub. There are scattered and vague historic reports alluding to this in the LMV (Swanton 1911), and there were some punctated/incised daub fragments found at Toqua in Tennessee (Polhemus 1985). I decided to include this mode to test whether it was used or widespread.

The resulting paradigmatic classification (Table 5.1) was framed around the three dimensions discussed above: grass inclusions, outer surface treatment, and wattle construction method. The modes of the dimension of identifiable grass inclusions (as opposed to any other root, vegetal, or fiber matter) was exhausted by simply noting presence or absence. The surface treatment dimension was exhausted using plain/plant texturing, incising or punctated decorations, painting/plastering, but also the addition of an “Other” mode to account for unanticipated decorations, and an “Absent” to account for poor preservation or missing portions.

The dimension of construction methods was treated similarly, with modes for pole/post imprints, split cane paneling, and “Other” and “Absent” modes for the same reasons mentioned above.

This created 40 classes of daub, all of which may or may not be represented by the final tally.

The inclusion of the “Other” and “Absent” modes on each dimension have the secondary use of quantifying the true scope of variability that may be present in daub from the area of interest, but has been up to now gone unnoticed due to the overall lack of focus on it. Disregarding the classes within the “Other” and “Absent” modes, my assumption is that in well-preserved pieces of daub (i.e. pieces with both the outer surface treatments and construction imprints preserved)

117

Class 3, with painted or plastered outer surfaces, grass inclusions, and pole/post imprints, would represent the most energy expensive class of daub and method of wall construction. Inversely,

Class 26, with no grass inclusions, split cane paneling imprints, and a plain-textured surface, would represent the least energy expensive daubed wall form. The numbering of these classes was done for my convenience only, and do not reflect a comprehensive “typology” of daub from the region. Instead, they are useful for this analysis only. I make this entreaty, similar to others

(Philips et al. 1951) that these classes do not take on a life of their own, so to speak, and become the standard by which all daub is organized in the region. Because daub formation processes are not well understood at this time, and because what constitutes a representative sample of daub is unknown, artifacts needed to be tallied by number and by weight to compare the results and assess whether they differ significantly. This will be key to understanding the data below, as the weight of individual pieces can vary significantly, impacting relatively small samples.

Table 5.1 Problem-oriented classification for comparing relative energy waste in daub

Exterior/Smoothed Surface Plain/Plant Incised/ Painted/ Impressed Punctated Plastered Other Absent Grass Construction Inclusions Method Pole/Post Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Imp. Split Cane Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Present Panel Imp. Other Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 Class 14 Class 15

Absent Class 16 Class 17 Class 18 Class 19 Class 20

Pole/Post Class 21 Class 22 Class 23 Class 24 Class 25 Imp. Split Cane Class 26 Class 27 Class 28 Class 29 Class 30 Absent Panel Imp. Other Class 31 Class 32 Class 33 Class 34 Class 35

Absent Class 36 Class 37 Class 38 Class 39 Class 40

118

Piece Analysis

Each allotment of daub I studied, typically individual bags, were given a tag with a number to keep track of what had been analyzed for myself and future researchers. The numbers consisted of the county and number portions of each site trinomial and the number of the allotment analyzed. For example, CO625-13 denotes the 13th allotment of daub studied by me from the Clover Hill site in Coahoma County (22CO625). To reduce the amount of functionally unidentifiable daub, as well as create an assemblage that was manageable, I screened all material through 1” hardware cloth, pieces that went through were simply ignored. Each remaining piece then had to be visually sorted into piles of denotata that, depending on the variability of the assemblage, could cover several trays. The number of pieces in each pile of denotata were then counted, weighed using a double-beam balance, and logged. Weight was noted in kilograms down to the hundredth of a kilogram. All data was logged on hardcopy sheets, which were then entered into Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets.

119

CHAPTER VI

RESULTS

The daub analyzed for this thesis included 129 allotments from 22 sites, totaling 3914 pieces of daub weighing 248.66 kilograms (548.20 lbs). On average, each piece weighed 0.06 kg, with individual fragments weighing from 0.01 – 3.99 kg. Allotments weighed on average 1.93 kg, ranging from 0.04 – 8.33 kg, and included an average of 30.22 pieces, ranging from as little as 1 to 124. Individual site assemblages included as little as 1 piece of daub at Dog Branch, to

1837 at Carson/Montgomery. As to weight, sites produced from 0.16 kg at McClintock #2 to

99.14 kg at Clover Hill.

Table 6.1 Daub assemblages by site and general context

Quantity of Quantity Total Site Site Non- of On- Quantity Name Number Mound Mound of Daub Daub Daub # (kg) # (kg) # (kg) Hiter 22BO661 0 8 8 (0) (0.2) (0.2) Carson/ 22CO505/518 1827 0 1827 Montgomery (64.34) (0) (64.34) Parchman 22CO511 131 18 149 Place (16.32) (10.81) (27.13) McKee 22CO598 25 0 25 (0.85) (0) (0.85) Clover 22CO625 1196 0 1196 Hill (99.04) (0) (99.04) Mullens 22CO653 33 0 33 (1.05) (0) (1.05) Dog 22CR522 1 0 1 Branch (2.94) (0) (2.94) Chocchuma 22GR??? 7 0 7 Land Office (2.34) (0) (2.34) Falls 22LF507 23 0 23 (1.74) (0) (1.74) Blue 22LF604 16 0 16 Lake (1.23) (0) (1.23) 120

Table 6.1 (continued)

Quantity of Quantity Total Site Site Non- of On- Quantity Name Number Mound Mound of Daub Daub Daub # (kg) # (kg) # (kg) Unnamed 22QU799 2 0 2 Site (0.36) (0) (0.36) Oyler 22QU984 12 0 12 (0.8) (0) (0.8) Dockery 22SU510 0 7 7 (0) (0.56) (0.56) Powell 22SU516 0 12 12 Bayou (0) (1.81) (1.81) Bay 22SU528 20 0 20 Lake (1.65) (0) (1.65) Hollywood 22TU500 5 18 23 (0.08) (0.9) (0.98) Sledge 22TU510 0 69 69 (0) (7.88) (7.88) West 22TU520 0 2 2 (0) (2.77) (2.77) McClintock 22TU541 4 0 4 #2 (0.16) (0) (0.16) Winterville 22WS500 72 123 195 (1.75) (4.39) (6.14) Arcola 22WS516 168 0 168 (17.9) (0) (17.9) Knox 22WS575 86 0 86 Lake (4.62) (0) (4.62) Unknown Unknown 14 0 14 (2.17) (0) (2.17) Totals – 22 3642 257 3899 All Sites (219.34) (29.32) (248.66)

Preservation of the Sample

With the assumption that all of the artifacts I report on here functioned as daub (see discussion above), I first assessed the relative preservation of the sample as a whole, and then did so between Mound and Off-Mound contexts. To do this, I divided all daub into two classes

“Damaged” and “Undamaged.” “Undamaged” indicates that the entire wall cross-section of the fragment is present, meaning that evidence of both wattle and exterior finishing modes are preserved. 24 classes are “Undamaged,” including Classes 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34.

“Damaged” indicates all daub that lacks one or both dimensions and lacks complete information 121

or is functionally unidentifiable. There are 16 “Damaged” daub classes in this study, including

Classes 5, 10, 15-20, 25, 30, 35-40. What I found was somewhere between 53 – 63% of the sample as a whole was “Undamaged” with 36 – 46% “Damaged”. Non-mound related daub held true to the pattern of the overall sample, with between 33 – 44% showing damage, suggesting like daub from this region in general, at least 1/3 of a sample can be expected to be incomplete.

An inverse result was found with the mound-associated daub, between 60 – 80% of the daub was

“Damaged” using the above criteria. The striking difference may lie in the nature of the daub and wattle together. As I discuss below, daub on mound summits is far more likely to have grass inclusions, which may weaken the daub, causing it to fragment or erode imprints if the clay matrix is sandy. The preponderance for the use of pole/post wattle (see below) on mounds also means that less surface area of daub is in direct contact with the wattle, meaning that there will be much less opportunity to leave evidence. If preservation on mounds proves to, in fact, be relatively poor, then it could mean that the stark differences between the contexts in the results below are yet underrepresented. Another thing to consider, as I stated in the above section on painting/plastering, daub that was plastered often shows that it was “scored” or brushed with grass/plant matter before finishing. If the plaster had a tendency to flake off, then the proportion of plastering in a sample may also be underrepresented.

Table 6.2 Daub preservation in relation to context

Mound Mound Non-Mound Non-Mound All All Related Related Related Related Daub Daub # (%) kg (%) # (%) kg (%) # (%) kg (%) Preserved 51 11.59 2052 145.16 2103 156.75 Daub (19.84) (39.53) (56.34) (66.18) (53.94) (63.04) Damaged 206 17.73 1590 74.18 1796 (91.91) Daub (80.16) (60.47) (43.66) (33.82) (46.06) (36.96)

122

Preliminary Results of the Sample as a Whole

Of 40 potential classes of daub (see above) outlined in my problem-oriented classification, only 19 were represented with all 19 found on off-mound contexts and only 13 found on mound summits. Immediately, there is a difference between the two contexts, but because there are far less mound-summit fragments sampled than off-mound fragments, I do not yet know whether the total number of classes present is a product of unequal sampling representativeness or a reflection of actual differences in construction methods.

Grass inclusions in the daub matrix were found in around 20 – 25% (approximating based on either weight or count) of the entire sample. Right away, grass inclusions are evidently a common but minority component of wall construction in this region.

No evidence of decorative punctation or incising was observed in any context, nor were any “Other” methods of wall decoration or texturing identified, meaning that plain/plant texturing and plastering/painting represent the sole modes of exterior wall surfacing yet known in the Yazoo

Basin. Plain/plant texturing was by far the most common surfacing method used, with between 60

– 70% of the sample indicating it, whereas plastering/painting accounted for around 8 – 13% of the sample.

The only two modes of wattle that were identified, as I described earlier in this thesis, were split cane paneling and lashed pole/posts. Cane paneling was present in around 56 – 60% of the sample, while pole/post wattles were found in around 1 – 6%. The “Other” basal construction mode, represented solely by Class 13, was noted by 80 fragments from the Clover Hill site, all of which may not be daub at all but hearth or fire-pit fragments intermixed when recovered with the daub fall (see report in Connaway 1981).

123

It also seems that some wattle and decorative modes were either not used or uncommonly used with one another. For example, cane paneling and painting/plastering was evidently not generally used together, with only seven fragments found. The same can be said for plain/plant texturing and pole/post wattles, of which only eight fragments were found. On the other hand, plain/plant texturing associates overwhelmingly with split cane paneling, comprising more than

1900 fragments, or nearly half of the entire sample. Perhaps due to the differences in preservation mentioned above, when considering whole fragments, painting/plastering is most commonly associated with lashed pole/post wattles. However, considering the whole sample, painting/plastering was associated with absent wattles, but this was only true if it contained grass inclusions. This may be a consequence of what I suspect to be the possible problem of under- representativeness for pole/posts (see above).

Table 6.3 Daub classes in relation to context

Daub Mound Mound Non- Non- All All Class Related Related Mound Mound Daub Daub # (%) kg (%) Related Related # (%) kg # (%) kg (%) (%) 1 5 4.54 2 0.21 7 4.75 (1.94) (15.48) (0.05) (0.1) (0.18) (1.91) 3 18 3.58 17 3.28 35 6.86 (7) (12.21) (0.46) (1.5) (0.90) (2.76) 5 9 0.6 2 0.65 11 1.25 (3.5) (2.05) (0.05) (0.3) (0.28) (0.50) 6 8 2.01 61 4.22 69 6.23 (3.11) (6.86) (1.67) (1.92) (1.77) (2.50) 8 0 0 2 0.34 2 0.34 (0) (0) (0.05) (0.16) (0.05) (0.14) 10 2 0.05 21 0.62 23 0.67 (0.78) (0.17) (0.58) (0.28) (0.59) (0.27) 13 0 0 80 2.59 80 2.59 (0) (0) (2.2) (1.18) (2.05) (1.04) 16 25 3.94 78 4.7 103 8.64 (9.73) (13.44) (2.14) (2.14) (2.64) (3.47) 18 96 6.87 110 15.1 206 21.97 (37.35) (23.43) (3.02) (6.88) (5.28) (8.84) 20 46 2.95 219 7.31 265 10.26 (17.9) (10.06) (6.01) (3.33) (6.8) (4.12) 21 0 0 1 0.01 1 0.01 (0) (0) (0.03) (0.005) (0.03) (0.004)

124

Table 6.3 (continued)

Daub Mound Mound Non- Non- All All Class Related Related Mound Mound Daub Daub # (%) kg (%) Related Related # (%) kg # (%) kg (%) (%) 23 0 0 1 0.37 1 0.37 (0) (0) (0.03) (0.17) (0.03) (0.15) 25 2 0.41 1 0.07 3 0.48 (0.78) (1.4) (0.03) (0.03) (0.08) (0.19) 26 20 1.46 1885 134.08 1905 135.54 (7.78) (4.98) (51.76) (61.13) (48.86) (54.50) 28 0 0 1 0.06 1 0.06 (0) (0) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) 30 3 0.09 203 6.89 206 6.98 (1.17) (0.31) (5.57) (3.14) (5.28) (2.81) 36 2 0.04 347 15.78 349 15.82 (0.78) (0.14) (9.53) (7.19) (8.95) (6.36) Table 6.3 (continued) 38 0 0 4 0.38 4 0.38 (0) (0) (0.11) (0.17) (0.1) (0.15) 40 21 2.78 607 22.68 628 25.46 (8.17) (9.48) (16.66) (10.34) (16.11) (10.24) Totals 257 29.32 3642 219.34 3899 248.66 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Comparison of Results Between Contexts

To simplify the overall analysis, I have divided the sample into the modes of the three main dimensions and listed the denotata of the individual modes, instead of classes as above

(Table 6.4). Although the same results can be gained from the more specific data on Table 6.3, it is simply easier to communicate the results to the reader in this way. What I have found is an across the board confirmation of the hypothesis. What I surmise to be the more energy expensive modes of each dimension are far more common on mound contexts than off-mound contexts. In likely all cases (except for possibly painting/plastering, see discussion of representativeness above) the most expensive modes are the most common modes found on mound summits, aside from damaged specimens. Grass inclusions are also evident in approximately 4/5ths of mound- related daub, while present in less than 1/5th of off-mound daub. The variability in figures for pole/post wattles indicates that it was used between 6 – 30 times more frequently on mounds 125

than on off-mound contexts. Although it is unclear whether painting/plastering or plain/plant texturing is more common on mound summits, the former is far more commonly found on mounds than off mounds. All of this points to one conclusion, that in a general sense, daubed wall construction on mounds was very different and much more energy expensive than what is evident from daub that was recovered from off-mound contexts.

Table 6.4 Daub modes in relation to context

Daub Mound Mound Non-Mound Non-Mound All All Mode Related Related Related Related Daub Daub # (%) kg (%) # (%) kg (%) # (%) kg (%) Inclusions Grass 209 24.54 592 39.02 801 63.56 Inclusions (81.32) (83.7) (16.25) (17.79) (20.54) (25.56) No Added 48 4.78 3050 180.32 3098 185.1 Inclusions (18.68) (16.3) (83.75) (82.21) (79.46) (74.44) Totals (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Outer Surfacing/Texturing Plastering/ 114 10.45 215 22.12 329 32.57 Slips/Paints (44.36) (35.64) (5.90) (10.08) (8.44) (13.1) Plain 60 11.99 2374 159 2434 170.99 Texturing (23.35) (40.89) (65.18) (72.59) (62.43) (68.76) Absent 83 6.88 1053 38.22 1136 45.1 (32.3) (23.47) (28.91) (17.43) (29.14) (18.14) Totals (%) 100.01 100 99.99 100.1 100.01 100 Wall Construction Methods Pole/Post 34 9.13 28 4.59 62 13.72 Lashing (13.23) (31.14) (0.77) (2.09) (1.59) (5.52) Woven Cane 33 3.61 2173 146.21 2206 149.82 Paneling (12.84) (12.31) (59.67) (66.66) (56.58) (60.25) Absent/ 190 16.58 1441 68.54 1631 85.12 Other (73.93) (56.55) (39.57) (31.25) (41.83) (34.23) Total (%) 100 100 100.01 100 100 100

126

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier in this work, I discussed the role and trends of architectural analysis in archaeology, how differences between forms of architecture are often seen as reflections of the inequalities between contexts, individuals or groups, or other cultural differentiation within a society. I then discussed the phenomenon of waste, and the two hypotheses for the selection of waste, including costly signaling and bet-hedging. I then discussed how the costly signaling hypothesis may best explain waste behavior inferred from the archaeological record of the

Mississippi Period in the Yazoo Basin. Waste may be evidenced through inordinate and unequal energy expenditure, often distinguishing such areas that are commonly termed “monumental”,

“elite” or “sacred” places or structures from otherwise “non-monumental”, “non-elite”, or

“common” areas or structures.

The costly signaling hypothesis states that waste may be explained by and reflect a pattern of human behavior selected for to display relative affluence, strength, and the desirability of joining a group. Costly signaling is believed to best explain waste in areas of relatively stable human habitat, dense populations, and competition. The bet-hedging hypothesis states that waste behavior may be selected for in human populations that inhabit high-energy environments with a carrying capacity that is variable, where waste may serve to limit population growth to prevent the carrying capacity from being exceeded.

127

The Yazoo Basin of Mississippi experienced intensive human settlement in the late prehistoric period. Evidence of what is believed to be waste behavior has survived most visibly in the form of Mississippian Period platform mound building. For much of that time, platform mounds supported structures on their summits. These structures are often referred to as

“temples” or “chiefly residences” based on the unusual or exotic artifacts often associated with their remains and ethnohistoric accounts of mound use. Previous work in the region shows that many Mississippian structures were constructed using the wattle and daub wall-building method, and that it is common for structural fires to have hardened and preserved fragments of clay daub.

I argued that the presence of unequal levels of waste energy expenditure between Mississippian mound and non-mound structures and contexts may be demonstrated through an intensive analysis of daub rubble assemblages, instead of solely relying on excavation of in-ground foundation features.

To do this, I assembled both long-curated and recently recovered samples of daub fragments from 22 different sites scattered across the Yazoo Basin, studying only fragments that would not fall through a 1” screen, totaling 3,899 pieces. For each piece, I studied the preserved

“ghost” imprints left by the wall wattles, as well as the finishes and texturing applied to the exterior-facing surface. I also took note of the presence of grass inclusions in the daub matrix. I then accounted for the scale of variability in Yazoo Basin daub, noting the existence of two methods of wattle building, and two general methods of surfacing/texturing the exterior surface.

What was evidently the most common wattle used in the Yazoo Basin during the

Mississippian Period was a prefabricated plain-plaited paneling woven from quarter-culm splints of river cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The other wattle method used involved cane or wooden

128

poles lashed together crosswise with wooden posts. Unlike woven cane paneling, lashed poles to posts may have been less easily replaceable and more integral part of the wall.

Surfacing modes included plain/plant impressed outer surfaces which were characterized by a lack of decoration and very often imprints of grass and plant matter from thatching or other material. This was evidently the most common form of wall surfacing in this region. Plastering or painting the exterior was also observed and varied in quality and thickness but formed a minority of recovered daub. It was not uncommon to find evidence for grass inclusions in the daub matrix, but it was a minority in the regional collection as a whole.

This work was able to better show that, when both surfacing and wattle imprints are preserved, specific combinations of daub modes were more likely to form classes than with others. For example, painting/plastering was more commonly associated with grass inclusions in the matrix and pole/post wattle construction (e.g. Class 3 in the problem-oriented classification, see above), while a lack of grass inclusions, split cane paneling, and plain/plant textured surfaces were heavily associated with one another (Class 26).

Due to the additional resource gathering and the extended time and effort required in construction, plastering/painting, grass inclusions, and lashed pole/posts were all believed to all be more energy-intensive modes of wall building than their alternatives. It is also pertinent to note that this method of wall building appeared to often be daubed on both the interior and exterior of the walls, itself requiring more clay than a normal house wall. Plain/plant texturing, split cane wattle, and a lack of grass inclusions require gathering less resources, and weaving a paneling that may be removed later if necessary, pointing to a much less energy-intensive type of construction. I hypothesized that if waste behavior was being selected for in Yazoo Basin

129

Mississippian Period societies, then the former type would be more common on mound summits, while the latter type would be better associated with off-mound contexts.

My results show that this generalized trend holds true for the area of interest. Even when using a much smaller sample of fragments with modes that may not necessarily preserve as well as less energy expensive modes, daub reflecting more energy expenditure is far more common on mound summits than on off-mound contexts. With that said, off-mound structures are not entirely free of inordinate energy expenditure, examples such as House 1 at Clover Hill, House

66 at Carson/Montgomery, and much of the daub from the plowzone at Parchman Place provide some prominent exceptions. The off-mound daub concentration at Winterville for the most part showed only waste in the form of grass inclusions in the daub, with only one fragment indicated any plastering. However, I was able to easily match and exceed the quantity of “wasteful” daub found off-mound with only a few hundred pieces from a handful of mound-context samples.

Labor and Organized Construction

From this I conclude that Mississippian mound-summit architecture in the Yazoo Basin was by and large, purposefully distinguished not only by the size, as suggested by Steere (2017), the complexity of floor plans, or the fact it was on a mound, but by the very method of wall building used. To build such a structure, it probably required a team or multiple teams of workers performing specific tasks, like harvesting clay, grass, canes, and posts from the forests, old- fields, and streams adjoining these settlements, then bringing these materials to the worksite.

Once there, postholes or trenches may have been dug into the mound summit dictating the layout of the structure, requiring more earthmoving with sticks, hoes, and baskets. If rigidly framed, large posts may have needed to be inserted using dugout insertion trenches (see such features in

Connaway 1984), requiring yet even more earthmoving and coordinated heavy lifting and 130

erecting. When posts and poles were prepped, depending on their size, they may have required careful insertion with upright stabilization, while plates or rafters were assembled (if used) and while cross-poles of cane were lashed across. Clayey sediment, perhaps pre-mixed with water, had to be harvested, mixed with grass on the ground on or on the summit, hauled up the mound, and packed into the wall. Once complete, scoring of the wet outside surface with grasses and plant material may have occurred to roughen it, to which a plaster or pigment was later applied.

If this was done on both sides of the wall, then the labor was double than otherwise.

The work process of relatively easy-to-build off-mound structures would have also required coordination but would not have required excessive exertion to harvest or haul extraneous materials. The labor pool necessary to summon for this type of construction could have been considerably smaller and work completed much more quickly.

Further Research

The known excavated daub from the Yazoo Basin was by no means exhausted by this thesis, in fact I regret not being able to access a number of key collections brought to my attention. This includes daub from the mound-summit excavations at Carson/Montgomery (see

Carpenter 2013; Mehta et al. 2012; Mehta et al. 2016), daub from the recent Mound A mitigation work at Winterville (Keith Little pers. comm. 2020), and most of the daub recovered from the

Parchman Place site (Nelson 2016, Stevens 2006, Erin Nelson pers. comm. 2017). Although the curators welcomed me to study the Lake George site assemblage held at the Peabody Museum, I was frustrated at not having the time to, especially considering the importance of its original analysis (Terrel and Marland 1983). Wilsford, reported by Connaway (1984) was another oversight that I was troubled by, although it was well-studied originally. There are many more such sites than those listed here, creating ample materials to replicate or falsify my results. 131

Paleoenvironmental Modeling

As Peacock (2008) stated, the abundance of daub in this region provides an opportunity to find what are essentially negative-cast fossils and ichnofossils from plants and animals that existed in and around the villages of Mississippian Period peoples. The prehistoric presence of certain species and the season of daubing may be inferred in the best of circumstances (Seltzer and Peacock 2011). Those interested in this problem could systematically analyze assemblages by observing individual pieces closely for plant imprints, or other clues with relevance to environmental history. For example, the size of canes harvested for construction may potentially be estimated from imprints and these estimations and compared with modern stands of cane to asses size selection, or changes in cane habitat and growth since colonization. Imprints of cultigens, like those reported above, may potentially provide some information on cultivar evolution. Pieces of daub where plant material has been preserved (see Figure 3.7) can be studied by botanists to determine species presence and selection for construction.

Regional and Intrasite Comparison

The generalizations I have developed on variation and energy expenditure found in the greater Yazoo Basin may or may not hold true for all areas within the region, such as the southern third, which I have not yet sampled. As shown by the map and county-level report table

I created (see Figure 4.1, Table 4.2), daub is rare in the portion of the Yazoo Basin covered by

Warren, Yazoo, Sharkey, and Issaquena counties with 1, 1, 2, and 0 sites respectively. It is well- known that the Mississippian Period sites there represent a very dissimilar settlement and artifact tradition (the Coles Creek to Plaquemine traditions) than from what is observed in the Northern

Yazoo Basin (Kowalski 2019). The population that supported large multi-mound sites like Lake

George, Mayersville, etc. were evidently scattered, and not necessarily densely settled at the 132

mound centers themselves (Kowalski 2019). Future research in this subregion should focus on the few known daub producing sites, and questions should include whether daub occurs at isolated farmsteads, and whether it shows the same pattern of waste between the two contexts as in the more northerly parts of the Yazoo Basin. Within individual sites, comparisons may be made from structure to structure, whether proximity to plazas, mounds, or other “monumental” features have a bearing on evidence for waste in construction.

Outside the Yazoo Basin, studies of the few sites in areas not known for their

Mississippian settlement, like the North Central Hills, would prove valuable in terms of whether energy expenditure distinguishes mound and off-mound architecture there, whether waste was increased or decreased in these marginal regions compared to the Yazoo Basin, and whether labor pools were able to be assembled at a comparable scale.

Chronology

This analysis compressed centuries of cultural evolution and settlement change into one broad chronological unit, the Mississippian Period. By consequence, this has ignored chronology and refinement of our understanding of change in daubed architecture. The next important research question would be to assess whether daub is chronologically diagnostic, and if wall construction trends towards certain modes and classes through time. This would be a helpful tool for archaeologists who happen to uncover large quantities of daub and few otherwise diagnostic artifacts. The added dimension of diagnostic daub would only help to narrow down relative dates to smaller and smaller intervals and could ultimately be used along with other diagnostics and absolute dating methods. This may be best accomplished through seriation of the “preserved” daub classes reported here or of individual modes. Classes of daub similar to those I created for this energy waste analysis may serve this dual purpose. 133

Final Word

In all, daub is a valuable artifact class that, like any other, may provide information useful to prehistory building under the right circumstances. What I hope to have shown here is that it is an archaeological resource that is at least worthy of consideration and hypothesis testing among scholars in the Mississippi Valley. I argue that samples of daub are worth curating, despite the additional cost and space that they may take up. In addition to the paleoenvironmental importance of plant imprints, architectural variables may serve as indicators for waste behavior in excavation contexts at Mississippian sites, such as mounds or residential areas. Mapping such indicators across a site and comparison between broadly contemporary sites could clue archaeologists into how Mississippian Period settlements in Mississippi and elsewhere were structured, and how these may have changed between different environmental regions. Knowing this could then allow archaeologists to create testable generalizations about the role of waste in early agricultural human societies.

134

REFERENCES

Abrams, Elliot M. 1989 Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 47-87. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Abrams, Elliot M. and Thomas W. Bolland 1999 Architectural Energetics, Ancient Monuments, and Operations Management. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(4):263-291.

Adair, James 1775 The History of the American Indians. Edward and Charles Dilly, London.

Alt, Susan M. and Timothy R. Pauketat 2011 Why Wall Trenches? Southeastern Archaeology 30(1):108-122.

Aranyosi, E.F. 1999 Wasteful Advertising and Variance Reduction: Darwinian Models for the Significance of Nonutilitarian Architecture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:356-375.

Atkinson, James R. 2003 Splendid Land, Splendid People: The Chickasaw Indians to Removal. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Atkinson, James R., John C. Phillips and Richard Walling 1980 The Kellogg Village Site Investigations, Clay County, Mississippi. Department of Anthropology, Mississippi State University.

Baily, Francis 1856 Journal of a Tour of Unsettled Parts of North America. Baily Brothers, London.

Bankoff, H. Arthur, Frederick A. Winter 1979 A House-Burning in Serbia. Archaeology 32:8-14.

135

Barnard, Els 2016 Living in Mud Houses: Exploring the Materiality of Formative Mesoamerican Domestic Structures. Mexicon 38:39-45.

Barnett James F. 2007 The Natchez Indians: A History to 1735. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Bell, Robert E. 1980 Oklahoma Indian Artifacts. Contributions from the Stovall Museum, University of Oklahoma No.4. Norman, Oklahoma.

Blake, Leonard W. 1985 Plant Remains from Hackett (22QU567), Shady Grove (22QU525), Ellis (22CR507), Crenshaw Mound (22PA528), Spendthrift McKee Village (22CO598). Submitted to John Connaway, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

1986 Corn and Other Plants from Prehistory into History in the Eastern United States. In The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South: 1500-1700, edited by David H. Dye and Ronald C. Brister, pp. 3-13. Archaeological Report No. 18, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Blanton, Dennis B., Thomas H. Gresham 2007 An Experimental Perspective on Mississippian Small Pole Structures. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Laquemont, pp.32-48. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Bliege Bird, Rebecca and Eric Alden Smith 2005 Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology 46(2):221-248.

Blitz, John H. 1985 An Archaeological Study of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians. Archaeological Report No. 16, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

1993 Ancient Chiefdoms on the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bohannon, Charles F. 1972 Excavations at the Pharr Mounds, Prentiss and Itawamba Counties, and Excavations at the Bear Creek Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington.

Brain, Jeffrey P. 1989 Winterville: Late Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 23.

136

Brantley, Christopher G. and Steven G. Platt 2001 Canebrake Conservation in the Southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(4):1175-1181.

Brookes, Samuel O. 1980 The Prairie Phase: Late Marksville in the Upper Sunflower Region. Mississippi Archaeology 15(1):30-37.

Brown, Calvin S. 1926 Archaeology of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi.

Brown, Ian W. 1985 Plaquemine Architectural Patterns in the Natchez Bluffs and Surrounding Regions of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10(2):251-305

2008 Culture Contact Along the I-69 Corridor: Protohistoric and Historic Use of the Northern Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. In Times River: Archaeological Syntheses from the Lower Mississippi River Valley, edited by Janet Rafferty and Evan Peacock, pp. 357-394. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Caddell, Gloria M. 1982 Plant Remains from the Yarborough Site. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yarborough Site (22Cl814) Clay County Mississippi by Solis, Carlos and Richard Walling. Report of Investigations No. 30, Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Carbajal, Fabio, Gaby Ruiz and Cliff J. Schexneyder 2005 Quincha Construction in Peru. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.

Carpenter, Erika Cross 2013 Examination of Architectural Features on Mound C of the Carson Mound Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

Chapman, John 1999 Deliberate House-Burning in the Prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vanbok till Jarl Nordbladh, edited by A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson. Gotarc Series A, Vol. 3, pp.113-126. University of Goteborg, Goteborg, Sweden.

137

Chapman, Joseph Shawn, Richard Walling, and Terry Lolley 1995 A Cultural Resources Inventory (Phase IV Survey) of a Portion of the Big Sunflower River, Humphreys, Sunflower, and Washington Counties, Mississippi. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW38-91-D-0017.

Childress, Mitchell R., Mary Evelyn Starr, Christopher D. Koeppel, David C. Crampton, and Guy G. Weaver 1994 Archaeological investigations at Helena Slackwater Harbor, Phillips County, Arkansas. Vol. 1. Garrow & Associates, Memphis, TN.

Clayton, Lawrence. A., Vernon James Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore (editors) 1993a The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Vol. 1. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1993b The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Vol. 2. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Connaway, John M. 1981 Archaeological Investigations in Mississippi 1969-1977. Archaeological Report No. 6, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

1982 Wood Identified from Mississippi Period Houses in the Northern Yazoo Basin. Mississippi Archaeology 17(1):17-22.

1984 The Wilsford Site (22-Co-516), Coahoma County, Mississippi. Archaeological Report No. 14, Mississippi Department of Archives & History, Jackson.

1986 “Falls Site (22-Lf-507).” National Register of Historic Places ℄Inventory/Nomination Form. National Register #86000922.

Cook, Robert A. 2005 Reconstructing Perishable Architecture: Prospects and Limitations of a Fort Ancient Example. North American Archaeologist 25(4):357-388.

Curren, Caleb 1984 The Protohistoric Period in Central Alabama. Alabama Tombigbee Regional Commission, Camden, Alabama.

Dammers, Kim and Rainer Georg Joergensen 1996 Progressive Loss of Carbon and Nitrogen from Simulated Daub on Heating. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:639-648.

Davies, O. 1967 Timber Construction and Wood-Carving in West Africa in the Second Millenium B.C. Man 2:115-118. 138

Davis, Benjamin Garrett 2019 Households and Changing Use of Space at the Transitional Early Mississippian Austin Site. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

Downs, Lauren Elizabeth 2011 The Glass Site (22WR502): An Investigations of Plaquemine Culture Architecture, Occupation, and Interaction in the Northern Portion of the Natchez Bluffs Region, Mississippi. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Drooker, Penelope B. 2003 Matting and Pliable Fabrics from Bottle Creek. In Bottle Creek: A Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama. Ed. Ian W. Brown. University of Alabama Press.

Dunnell, Robert C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 35-99. Springer, New York.

1999 The Concept of Waste in Evolutionary Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:243-250.

Dye, David H. and Andrew C. Buchner 1988 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations of the West Mounds, 22-TU-520: Tunica County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 23(2):64-75.

Fickle, James E. 2001 Mississippi Forests and Forestry. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 1987 Prehistory of the Americas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Flannery, Kent V. 1976 The Early Mesoamerican House. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. by Kent Flannery. Academic Press, New York.

Ford, James A. 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Louisiana Department of Conservation, Anthropological Study No. 2, Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge.

1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56(1):42-57.

139

Fowke, Gerard 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Friedel, David and Linda Schele 1992 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company, New York.

Galloway, Patricia Kay 1998 Choctaw Genesis, 1500 – 1700. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Gagnon, Paul R. 2006 Population Biology and Disturbance Ecology of a Native North American Bamboo (Arundinaria gigantea). Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Gagnon, Paul R. and William J. Platt 2008a Multiple Disturbances Accelerate Clonal Growth in a Potentially Monodominant Bamboo. Ecology 89(3):612-618.

2008b Reproductive Seedling Ecology of a Semelparous Native Bamboo (Arundinaria gigantea, Poaceae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 135(3):309-316.

Gettys, Marshall 1984 The Choctaw Basket Tradition. In Basketry of Southeastern Indians, edited by Marshall Gettys, pp. 35-42. Museum of the Red River, Idabel, OK.

Gheorghiu, Draco 2008 Built to Be Burnt: The Building and Combustion of Chalcolithic Dwellings in the Lower Danube and Eastern Carpathian Areas. In Circumpontica in Prehistory: Western Eurasian Studies, editors Lolita Nikolova, Marco Merlini and Alexandra Comsa. British Archaeological Reports, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Graham, Tony

2004 Wattle and Daub: Craft, Conservation, and Wiltshire Case Study. Master’s dissertation. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath.

Guerrero, Anuar Terán, Avto Goguitchaichvili, Rodrigo Esparza López, Juan Morales, José Rosas Elguera, Ana María Soler, Efraín Cárdenas and Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi

2016 A detailed rock-magnetic and archaeomagnetic investigation on wattle and daub building (Bajareque) remains from Teuchitlán tradition (nw Mesoamerica). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:564-573.

140

Harris, William 2016 An Update on Daub Studies at the Carson Site (22Co505/518). Mississippi Archaeological Association Newsletter 51(1):2-4.

Harris, William and John M. Connaway 2013 Evidence of Mississippian Period Textiles in the Northern Yazoo Basin: Finds from the Carson/Montgomery (22CO505/518), Buford (22TL501), and Parchman Place (22CO511) Mounds and Village Sites. Mississippi Archaeology 48(1&2):1-22.

2015 Twining, Transposed Warps, and Twilled Cane Basketry: More Mississippian Period Textile Evidence from the Northern Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 51(1&2):29-51.

Harrison, Kimberly Nicole 2015 Temper, Mounds, and Palisades: The Walford Site (22SU501) of Sunflower County, Mississippi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

Hartman, Christopher Juston 2010 An Assessment of the Mound Summit Investigations at Mound A (Unit 5), Chucalissa (40SY1), Shelby County, Tennessee. Friends of Chucalissa Special Publication No. 1, Memphis.

Horton, Elizabeth Temple 2010 The Ties That Bind: Fabric Traditions and Fiber Use in the Ozark Plateau. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis.

House, John H. 2016 Mississippi Period and Later Native American Structures in Eastern Arkansas. The Arkansas Archeologist 55:31-62.

Huckabay A. Kate, and James Lauro 1980 Lower Bogue Phalia – Murphy Bayou Cultural Resources Survey. Report submitted to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Department of Historical Preservation. Soil Conservation Service Contract No. A628SCS-01107.

Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Hunt, Elizabeth Kay 2017 Austin (22TU549): Mississippian Emergence in the Northern Yazoo Basin. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.

141

Hyatt, Robert 1975 Archaeological Excavations at the Knox Lake Site, Washington County Mississippi. Mississippi State Highway Department Archaeological Excavation Report No. 1. Jackson.

Jackson, H. Edwin, and Jessica Kowalski 2015 Report of Investigations for the Southern Yazoo Portion of The Mississippi Mound Trail Project, 2014 Season, Issaquena, Washington, Sharkey, and Warren Counties, Mississippi. Report submitted by the University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Anthropology and Sociology to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

James, Jenna Leigh Anne

2010 Modeling Mortuary Behavior Based on Secondary Burial Data from Carson Mound Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

Jennings, Jesse 1941 Chickasaw and Earlier Cultures of Northeast Mississippi. The Journal of Mississippi History 3(3):155-226.

Johnson, Jay K.

2000 The Chickasaws. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 85-121. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Johnson, Jay K., Richard Stallings, Nancy Ross-Stallings, R. Berle Clay, V. Stephen Jones 2000 Remote Sensing and Ground Truth at the Hollywood Mounds Site in Tunica County, Mississippi. Report submitted to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Kennedy, William and Geoff Carter 2015 A Framework for Interpreting Structures. In Building the Past: Prehistoric Wooden Post Architecture in the Ohio Valley-Great Lakes, edited by Brian G. Redmond and Robert A. Genheimer. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

King, Adam, Chester P. Walker, Robert V. Sharp et al. 2011 Remote Sensing Data from Etowah’s Mound A: Architecture and the Recreation of Mississippian Tradition. American Antiquity 76(2):355-371.

142

King, Megan M., Roger Cain, Shawna Morton Cain 2018 An Experimental Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Understanding the Development of Use Wear Associated with the Processing of River Cane for Split-Cane Technology. Southeastern Archaeology https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2018.1484216

Knight Jr., Vernon J. 2007 Conclusions, Taking Architecture Seriously. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Lacquement, pp.186-192. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2010 Mound Excavations at Moundville: Architecture, Elites and Social Order. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Kowalski, Jessica 2019 Hierarchy, Scale, and Complexity: Arcola Mounds (22WS516) and Mississippian Ceremonialism in the Southern Yazoo Basin. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Kowalski, Jessica, Cecilia Henderson, and H. Edwin Jackson 2014 Excavation Summary and Ceramic Analysis for the Southern Yazoo Portion of the Mississippi Mound Trail Project, Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington Counties, Mississippi, 2013 Field Season. Report submitted by the University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Anthropology and Sociology to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Kowalski, Jessica and Erin S. Nelson 2020 Above and Below the Greenline: Variation in Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Paper given at the joint annual meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society and Mississippi Archaeological Association, February 8th, Natchez, Mississippi.

Kruger, Robert P. 2015 A Burning Question, or Some Half-Baked Ideas: Patterns of Sintered Daub Creation and Dispersal in a Modern Wattle and Daub Structure and the Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:883- 912.

Lacquement, Cameron H. (Editor) 2007 Architectural Variability in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

143

Lacquement, Cameron H. 2007a Introduction to Architectural Variability in the Southeast. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast edited by Cameron H. Lacquement. pp. 1-11. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007b Typology, Chronology, and Technological Changes of Mississippian Domestic Architecture in West-Central Alabama. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Lacquement, pp.49-72. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lafferty, Robert H. 2007 A Mississippian Sweat Lodge. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast edited by Cameron H. Lacquement. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lansdell, Brent 2009 A Chronological Assessment of the Carson Mound Group Stovall, Mississippi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

Leonard, Robert D. and George T. Jones 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6(3):199-219.

Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg 1946 Hiwassee Island: An Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

McLeod, Todd B. 2015 Developing an Architectural Sequence for a Portion of the Mound A Enclosure at the Carson Mound Group, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, University.

McIntosh, Roderick J. 1974 Archaeology and Mud Wall Decay in a West African Village. World Archaeology 6(2):154-171.

Marcus, Joyce and Kent V. Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civlilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

Marshall, Richard A. 1986 Stylistic Changes in the Mississippian House Patterns at the Lyon’s Bluff Site 22Ok1. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 32(1):25-38.

1988 Preliminary Archaeological Testing Near Mound A, Buford (22TL501) Site, Tallahatchie County, Mississippi. Cobb Institute of Archaeology Report of Investigations No. 5. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State.

144

Mehta, Jayur Madhusudan, Rachel Stout Evans and John Connaway 2012 Moving Earth and Building Monuments at the Carson Mounds Site, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Journal of Anthropology doi:10.1155/2012/192923

Mehta, Jayur Madhusudan, Rachel Stout Evans and Zhixiong Shen. 2016 Mississippian Monumentality in the Yazoo Basin: Recent Investigations at the Carson Site (22CO505), Northwestern Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 36(1):14- 33.

Morse, Dan F., Phyllis A. Morse 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.

Mould, Tom 2004 Choctaw Tales. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Nash, Charles H. 1966 Total Data. Arkansas Archeological Society Bulletin 4(5):12-15.

1968 Residence Mounds: An Intermediate Middle-Mississippian Settlement Pattern. Anthropological Research Center Occasional Paper No. 2. Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee.

Neiman, Fraser D. 1998 Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: A Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by C.M. Barton and G.A. Clark, pp. 267-290. American Anthropological Association, Arlington.

Neitzel, Robert S. 1965 Archaeology of the Fatherland Site: The Grand Village of the Natchez. Archaeological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 51, Part 1, New York.

1983 The Grand Village of the Natchez Revisited: Excavations At the Fatherland Site, Adams County, Mississippi, 1972. Archaeological Report No. 12, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Nelson, Erin Stevens 2016 Community Identity in the Late Prehistoric Yazoo Basin: The Archaeology of Parchman Place, Coahoma County, Mississippi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

145

O’Brien, Michael J. and James W. Cogswell 2001 The Construction and Abandonment of Powers Phase Structures. In Mississippian Community Organization: The Powers Phase in Southeastern Missouri, by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 141-180. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

O’Brien, Patricia J. 1978 Steed-Kisker: A Western Mississippian Settlement System. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns edited by, Bruce D. Smith. Academic Press, New York.

Parr, J. F., W. E. Boyd 2002 The Probable Industrial Origin of Archaeological Daub at an Iron Age Site in Northeast Thailand. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 17(3):285-303.

Peacock, Evan 1993 Reconstructing the Black Belt Environment Using Leaf Impressions in Daub. Southeastern Archaeology 12(2): 148-154.

1995 Test Excavations at an Upland Mississippian site in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 30(2): 1-20.

2008 Paleoenvironmental Modeling in the Lower Mississippi River Valley: Past and Future Approaches. In Time’s River Archaeological Syntheses in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, edited by Janet Rafferty and Evan Peacock, pp. 69-98. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Peacock, Evan and Janet Rafferty 2013 The Bet-Hedging Model as an Explanatory Framework for the Evolution of Mound Building in the Southeastern United States. In Beyond Barrows: Current Research on the Structuration and Perception of the Prehistoric Landscape Through Monuments, edited by D. Fontijn, A. J. Louwen, S. Van Der Vaart, and K. Wentink, pp. 253-278. Sidestone Press, Leiden, Netherlands.

Peacock, Evan, and Mary Celeste Reese 2003 A Comparison of Three Methods of Paleoenvironmental Analysis at an Archaeological Site on the Mississippi Black Prairie. In Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Nature, Culture, and Sustainability, edited by Evan Peacock and Timothy J. Schauwecker, pp.64-79. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Penman, John T. 1977 Archaeological Survey in Mississippi, 1974-1975. Archaeological Report No. 2, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Perino, Gregory 1966 The Banks Village Site, Crittenden County, Arkansas. Memoir No. 4 of the Missouri Archaeological Society.

146

Phillips, James M. 1999 Architectural Remains at Wickliffe: A Middle Mississippian House in Western Kentucky. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mississippi State University.

Phillips, Philip 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology No. 60, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Platt, Stephen and Christopher G. Brantley 1997 Canebrakes: An Ecological and Historical Perspective. Castanea 62(1):8-21.

Platt, Steven G., Christopher G. Brantley and Thomas R. Rainwater 2001 Canebrake Fauna: Wildlife Diversity in a Critically Endangered Ecosystem. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 117(1):1-19.

2004 Observations of Flowering Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) in Lousiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sciences 66:17-25.

Polhemus, Richard R. 1985 Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40MR6). Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Price, James E. 1969 A Middle Mississippian House. Museum Briefs No. 1. Museum of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Prindiville, Mary, and David C. Grove 1987 The Settlement and Its Architecture. In Ancient Chalcatzingo edited by David C. Grove. pp. 63-81. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Rafferty, Janet and Evan Peacock 2008 The Spread of Shell Tempering in the Mississippi Black Prairie. Southeastern Archaeology 27:253-264.

Redmond, Brian G. and Robert A. Genheimer (Editors) 2015 Building the Past: Prehistoric Wooden Post Architecture in the Ohio Valley-Great Lakes. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

147

Reed, Nelson A. 2007 Evidence of Curved Roof Construction in Mississippian Structures. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Lacquement, pp.12-31. University of Alabama Press.

Reese, Mary Celeste 2000 Analysis of Various Methods Used to Quantify Historical Plant Assemblages in East-Central Mississippi. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville.

Rosenswig, Robert M. 2009 Early Mesoamerican Garbage: Ceramic and Daub Discard Patterns from Cuauhtémoc, Soconusco, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16: 1- 32.

Ross-Stallings, Nancy and John Connaway 2010 The Burials at the Dog Branch Site (22CR522), a ca. 1700 A.D. Chakchiuma Village Site Located on the Yazoo River Bluffs. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, October 27, 2010, Lexington, Kentucky.

Ryan, Jennifer Ivy 2017 Prehistoric/Protohistoric-Period Settlement Patterns on the Jackson Prairie: Survey Data from the Bienville National Forest. Mississippi Archaeology 52:17-41.

Scarry, Margaret 1994 Variability in Late Prehistoric Corn from the Lower Southeast. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by Sissel Johannessen and Christine Hastorf, pp. 347-368. Westview, Boulder, CO.

Scharf, Elizabeth. A. 2010 Archaeology, Land Use, Pollen and Restoration in the Yazoo Basin (Mississippi, USA). Vegetational History and Archaeobotany 19:159-175.

Scholtz, Sandra Clements 1975 Prehistoric Plies: A Structural and Comparative Analysis of Cordage, Netting, Basketry and Fabric from Ozark Bluff Shelters. Research Series No. 9, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Schroeder, Sissel 2011 An Investigation of the Origins of Variation in Perishable Architecture at Johnathan Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2):311-336.

148

Seltzer, Jennifer L. 2007 Determining the Presence of Cultural Bias in Wood Charcoal from Lyon’s Bluff (22OK520), a Mound Center in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Mississippi State University, Starkville.

Seltzer, Jennifer L. and Peacock, Evan 2011 Determining the Season of Mississippian House Construction from Plant Impressions in Daub. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1): 123-133.

Shaffer, Gary D. 1993 An Archaeomagnetic Study of a Wattle and Daub Building Collapse. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(1):59-75.

1999 An Examination of Architectural Stability and Change, Contributions from Southern Italy. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Mediterranean. Ed. Robert H. Tykot, Johnathan Morter, John E. Robb. Specialist Studies in the Mediterranean No. 3, Accordia Research Institute, University of London, London.

Sheets, Payson 2006 The Ceren Site: An Ancient Village Buried by Volcanic Ash in Central America. Case Studies in Archaeology, Thomson Wadsworth. 2nd ed.

Sherard, Jeff 2009 An Analysis of Moundville Mound V Daub: Its Role as An Architectural Indicator. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 27: 29-42.

Simon, Mary L. 2002 Red Cedar, White Oak, and Bluestem Grass: The Colors of Mississippian Construction. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(2):273-308.

Sherwood, Sarah C., Jan F. Simek, and Richard R. Polhemus 1995 Artifact Size and Spatial Process: Macro- and Microartifacts in a Mississippian House. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 10(6):429-455.

Shoemaker, Cory M. 2018 Environmental and Landscape Factors Affecting the Continued Suppression of Canebrakes (Arundinaria gigantea, Poaceae) Within Restorations of Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 145(2):156-162.

Solis, Carlos and Richard Walling 1982 Archaeological Investigations at the Yarborough Site (22Cl814) Clay County Mississippi. Report of Investigations No. 30, Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

149

Starr, Mary Evelyn 1991 Powell Bayou: Part 1. Mississippi Archaeology 26(1):1-38.

1997 Powell Bayou (Part II) and Dockery: Two Mississippian Components in the Sunflower Basin of Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 32(2): 79-97.

2002 Late Prehistoric Architecture in the Central Valley: A Database. Proceedings of the 21st Mid-South Archaeological Conference: Ethnicity in Archaeology. Panamerican Consultants, Special Publication No. 2.

n.d. Daub and Other Baked Clay Objects from the Oliver Site. Chapter 9 in The Oliver Site, edited by John M. Connaway et al. Unpublished manuscript, Mississippi Department of Archives & History, Jackson, MS.

Steponaitis, Vincas P., Stephen Williams, R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Ian W. Brown, Tristram R. Kidder, and Melissa Salvanish (eds.) 2002 LMS Archives Online. http://rla.unc.edu/archives/lms1/ (1-8-20)

Stevanovic, Mirjana 1997 The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:334-395.

Stevens, Erin L. 2006 The Making of a Monument: Investigating Mound Stratigraphy in the Yazoo Basin. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Mississippi.

Stewart, Mart A. 2007 From King Cane to King Cotton: Razing Cane in the Old South. Environmental History 12(Jan.):59-79.

Strudwick, Ivan H. 2005 The Use of Fired Clay Daub from CA-ORA-269 in the Identification of Prehistoric Dwelling Construction Methods, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 18: 219-237.

Struever, Stuart and Felicia Antonelli Holton 1979 Koster: Americans in Search of Their Prehistoric Past. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.

Sullivan, Lynne P. 2007 A WPA Déjá Vu on Mississippian Architecture. In Architectural Variability in the Southeast, edited by Cameron H. Lacquement, pp.117-135. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

150

Sutton, J.G. 1971 The Interior of East Africa. In The African Iron Age edited by P.L. Shinnie. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Swanton, John R. 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 43, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

1931 Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 103, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Terrel, John E., and Sidney P. Marland III 1983 Appendix B: Notes on Architectural Detail Derived from Analysis of the Impressions in the Daub. In Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960, edited by Stephen Williams and Jeffrey P. Brain, pp. 443-448. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 74, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. In Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890- ’91, edited by John Wesley Powell, pp. 1-742. Washington, D.C.

Triplett, Andrew 2015 Mississippian-Period Occupations in the Ackerman Unit of the Tombigbee National Forest. Exploring Southeastern Archaeology: Essays in Honor Samuel O. Brookes, edited by Evan Peacock and Patricia Kay Galloway, pp.181-203. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson

Trubitt, Mary Beth 2009 Burning and Burying Buildings: Exploring Variation in Caddo Architecture in Southwest Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeology 28(2):233-247.

Webb, William S. 1952 The Jonathan Creek Village, Site 4, Marshall County, Kentucky. Reports on Anthropology Vol. 8 No. 1, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

White, Andrew 2015 Eastern Woodlands Archaeology Data Project. Electronic document, https://www.householdarchaeology.org/, accessed December 16, 2019.

151

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 54, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Willey, Gordon R., Richard M. Leventhal, Arthur A. Demarest, William L. Fash Jr. 1994 Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 80. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Williams, Stephen and Jeffrey Brain 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 74. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Zipf, George Kingsley 1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge.

152

APPENDIX A

DAUB ALLOTMENT CONTEXTUAL AND RECOVERY DATA

153

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method BO661-01 N/A UNK Mound Unknown Yes Unknown 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CLO-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2010 12/5/2018 MDAH MDAH Area CO505/518-04 N/A EXC House 66, Plowzone House 66 Interior No June, 2018 4/17/2019 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-05 N/A EXC House 66, Plowzone House 66 Interior No June, 2018 4/26/2019 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-06 N/A EXC House 66, Plowzone House 66 Interior No June, 2018 4/26/2019 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-07 N/A EXC House 66, Burial 82 House 66 (Burial 82 (?) pit fill) No 2017 4/26/2019 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-08 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/19/2011 4/17/2019 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-09 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No December, 2011 4/17/2019 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-10 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 5/20/2015 8/31/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-11 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2015 9/10/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-12 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No N/A 9/10/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-13 N/A EXC Plowzone, Village Daub concentration at 5013.50N No 6/4/2015 9/17/2018 Arch. UM Area 5036.40E Conserv. CO505/518-14 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No N/A 9/17/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-15 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No May, 2017 9/17/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-16 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 6/4/2015 10/3/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-17 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2015(?) 10/3/2018 Arch. UM Area Conserv. CO505/518-18 Box 21.0 UNK Unknown Unknown (Carson Family Collection) No 1950s/1960s(?) 10/3/2018 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-19 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/19/2011 10/3/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-20 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/19/2011 10/3/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-21 N/A EXC House 12 "West end, south outer trench upper No 5/22/2009 10/4/2018 Arch. UM level, floor level" Conserv. CO505/518-22 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/19/2011 10/4/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-23 N/A EXC House 12 House 12 interior, Southwest 1/4 No 2009(?) 10/7/2018 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-24 N/A GSC House 12, Plowzone House 12 plowzone surface No 2009(?) 10/7/2018 Arch. UM Conserv. 154

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method CO505/518-25 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior daub fall on burned No 11/4/2015 10/7/2018 Arch. UM Floor, Plowzone floor, also in plowzone. Conserv. CO505/518-26 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior daub fall on burned No December, 2015 10/7/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-27 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior daub fall on burned No 12/28/2015 10/9/2018 Arch. UM Floor, Plowzone floor, also in plowzone. Conserv. CO505/518-28 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior daub fall on burned No 11/16/2015 10/10/2018 Arch. UM Floor, Plowzone floor, also in plowzone. Conserv. CO505/518-29 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior daub fall on burned No 2015 10/10/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-30 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No May, 2012 11/14/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-31 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/9/2011 11/26/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-32 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/14/2012 11/27/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-33 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/19/2011 11/27/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-34 N/A EXC House 12, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 12/9/2011 11/28/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-35 N/A GSC House 12, Plowzone Surface near House 12 No June, 2009 11/28/2018 Arch. UM Conserv. CO505/518-36 "1 of 2" EXC House 12, Hearth, House 12 interior, daub in hearth on No 5/5/2012 11/28/2018 Arch. UM Burned Floor burned floor. Conserv. CO505/518-37 "2 of 2" EXC House 12, Hearth, House 12 interior, daub in hearth on No 5/5/2012 11/28/2018 Arch. UM Burned Floor burned floor. Conserv. CO505/518-38 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 12 interior, daub fall on burned No 2011/2012(?) 11/28/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. "East of North/South cross-section Conserv. profile" CO505/518-39 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 2015 11/29/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-40 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No December, 2015 12/1/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-41 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/16/2016 12/2/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-42 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 2015/2016(?) 12/2/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-43 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 2015/2016(?) 12/2/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-44 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/16/2016 12/13/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-45 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/10/2016 12/18/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-46 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 2015/2016(?) 12/18/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv.

155

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method CO505/518-47 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/16/2016 12/18/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO505/518-48 N/A EXC House 63, Burned House 63 interior, daub fall on burned No 5/16/2016 12/18/2018 Arch. UM Floor floor. Conserv. CO511-06 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No Unknown 2/9/2019 MDAH MDAH Area CO511-07 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown (Tom Davis Collection) No Unknown 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH CO511-08 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown (Tom Davis Collection) No Unknown 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH CO511-09 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown (Tom Davis Collection) No Unknown 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH CO511-10 N/A EXC Mound A Mound A "West side, deep trench." Yes 2004 8/7/2018 Arch. UM Conserv. CO511-11 N/A EXC Mound A Mound A "Ramp" Yes 2004(?) 12/9/2018 MDAH MDAH CO511-12 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown No Unknown 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CO511-13 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village "1st knoll south of Mound A" No Unknown 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH Area CO511-14 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown No Unknown 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CO511-15 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village "Slope to west of 1st knoll [south of No Unknown 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH Area Mound A]" CO598-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2018 2/9/2019 MDAH MDAH Area CO625-01 N/A EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. 70N 10W CO625-02 Box 28.4 EXC House 1, Burned House 1 interior, daub fall on burned No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Floor floor. 70N 10W CO625-03 Box 28.4 EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-04 Box 28.4 EXC House 1, Burned House 1 interior, daub fall on burned No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Floor floor. CO625-05 Box 28.4 EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-06 Box 41.6 EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-07 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown No 1972 6/19/2019 MDAH MDAH CO625-08 Box 14.2 EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-09 Box 32.8 EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. CO625-10 Box 32.8 EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. CO625-11 Box 15.4 EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. 60N - ℄ CO625-12 Box 21.6 EXC House 1 House 1 interior No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH CO625-13 Box 15.4 EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. 60N - ℄

156

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method CO625-14 Box 32.8 EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. CO625-15 Box 21.6 EXC House 1 House 1 interior No 1972 6/26/2019 MDAH MDAH CO625-16 N/A EXC House 1, Burned House 1 interior, daub fall on burned No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Floor floor. 70N 10W CO625-17 N/A EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. 80N - ℄ CO625-18 N/A EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-19 N/A EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-20 N/A EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. CO625-21 N/A EXC House 1, Hearth, House 1 interior, daub in hearth on No 1972 8/14/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor burned floor. CO625-22 N/A EXC House 1, Pit House 1 interior, Pit 2 No 1972 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CO625-23 N/A EXC House 1, Plowzone, House 1 interior, daub fall in plowzone No 1972 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH Burned Floor above burned floor. CO625-24 Box 19.8 EXC House 1 House 1 interior No 1972 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CO625-25 Box 19.8 EXC House 1 House 1 interior No 1972 8/28/2019 MDAH MDAH CO653-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 1974? 2/9/2019 MDAH MDAH Area CR522-01 N/A EXC Village Area, Unknown No Unknown 12/5/2018 MDAH MDAH Cemetery LF507-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2018 12/5/2018 MDAH MDAH Area LF507-02 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2018 12/5/2018 MDAH MDAH Area LF604-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 1974 12/9/2018 MDAH MDAH Area QU799-01 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown No Unknown 12/9/2018 MDAH MDAH QU984-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2002 9/18/2019 MDAH MDAH Area SU510-01 #17-N- EXC Mound "Level 2 16"-22" General Excavation" Yes 1969 3/1/2019 MSU Cobb Inst. of 11/69-2 Arch. SU516-01 N/A EXC Mound, Burned 65S 60W 7.0-7.5 fbs Level 4 Yes 1969 3/1/2019 MSU Cobb Inst. of Floor Arch. SU516-02 22SU516/ EXC Mound, Pit Feature "Feature 69-9 145S 0W Level 5 10.5- Yes 6/31/1969 3/1/2019 MSU Cobb Inst. of 69-18 11.0 fbs" Arch. SU528-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 2018 12/9/2018 MDAH MDAH Area TU500-01 N/A EXC Mound B "Mound B, south end dozer cut, loose Yes 10/11/1999 2/9/2019 MDAH MDAH daub in cut." TU500-02 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village "Surface, s. of ditch." No Unknown 2/9/2019 MDAH MDAH Area 157

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method TU510-01 N/A EXC Mound "Profile from historic cistern dug into Yes 1990s 12/12/2018 MDAH MDAH mound." TU510-02 N/A EXC Mound, Burial 3 "Mound summit, Burial 3." Yes 1990s 12/13/2018 MDAH MDAH TU520-01 "6.6" UNK Mound Unknown Yes Unknown 9/18/2019 MDAH MDAH TU541-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 1969 9/17/2019 MDAH MDAH Area UNK-02 N/A UNK Unknown Unknown No Unknown 12/9/2018 MDAH MDAH WS500-01 Bag 2438 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S93 W10 Feature Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 195 WS500-02 Bag 2428 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S93 W10 Feature Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 195 WS500-03 Bag 2429 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S93 W10 0-60 Yes 7/5/2009 4/3/2019 USM USM cmbs WS500-04 Bag 2428 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S93 W10 Feature Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 195 WS500-05 Bag 2428 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S93 W10 Feature Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 195 WS500-06 Bag 338 EXC Plowzone, Village Daub concentration west of Mound F at No 2005 - 2006 4/3/2019 USM USM Area N50 E130 Level 4 WS500-07 Bag 335 EXC Plowzone, Village Daub concentration west of Mound F at No 2005 - 2006 4/3/2019 USM USM Area N51 E130 WS500-08 Bag 383 EXC Plowzone, Village Daub concentration west of Mound F at No 2005 - 2006 4/3/2019 USM USM Area N51 E132 Level 4 WS500-09 Bag 3283 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM WS500-10 Bag 3230 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S95 W12 Level 3 Yes 2009 - 2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 20-30 cmbs WS500-11 Bag 2773 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S96 W8 Level 4 Yes 6/16/2011 4/3/2019 USM USM NW(1/4?) WS500-12 Bag 2850 EXC Mound C Mound C excavations, S94 W12 Level 6 Yes 6/18/2011 4/3/2019 USM USM 50-65 cmbs WS516-01 N/A GSC Plowzone, Village Village Surface Northeast of Mound A No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/ MDAH(?) Area MDAH(?) WS516-02 #650 EXC House 4, Plowzone N528 E278 0-40cmbs No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/ MDAH(?) MDAH(?) WS516-03 #649 EXC House 4, Postmold N523 E278 Feature 41a 50-70cmbs No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/\ MDAH(?) MDAH(?) WS516-04 #649 EXC House 4, Postmold N523 E278 Feature 41a 50-70cmbs No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/ MDAH(?) MDAH(?) WS516-05 #651 EXC House 9, Burned N390 E212 Block Feature 23 (Burned No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/ MDAH(?) Floor Floor) MDAH(?) WS516-06 #650 EXC House 4, Plowzone N528 E278 0-40cmbs No 12/18/2015 9/11/2018 UA(?)/ MDAH(?) MDAH(?) WS575-01 Bag EXC Village Area, Pit, "Trash Pit A-1" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.54 Area A

158

Sheet/Bag No. Other No. Recovery General Context Specific Context Mound? Recovered Analyzed Owned By Curated At Method WS575-02 Bag EXC Village Area, "Area A House Structure, Below 35 cm" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.44 Structure, Area A WS575-03 Bag UNK Unknown N/A No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.37 WS575-04 Bag GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.55 Area WS575-05 Bag GSC Plowzone, Village "Area A Midden" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.53 Area, Area A WS575-06 Bag UNK Plowzone, Village "Area B - Erosion Cut" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.51 Area, Area B WS575-07 Bag EXC Pit 1 "Refuse Pit 1" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.46 WS575-08 Bag EXC Plowzone, Village "Area B - Midden" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.50 Area, Area B WS575-09 Bag GSC Plowzone, Village N/A No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.56 Area WS575-10 Bag EXC Pit A "Refuse Pit A" No 1974 2/22/2019 MDOT MDOT A76.1.47

159

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF WATTLE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVED

IN STUDY ASSEMBLAGE

160

To better explain their use in Mississippian construction and their functional limitations, I was interested in systematically studying the wattle imprints observed in the study assemblage. My analysis above identified two methods of wattle building in the Yazoo Basin, woven quarter-split cane paneling, and lashed pole/post frames.

Split Cane Paneling Wattle

Beginning with the former, I studied the paneling imprints as textiles, since they are some of the only commonly found evidence for prehistoric weaving in the state (see Harris and

Connaway 2013, 2015). I was interested in testing for whether there exists stylistic variability in their manufacture, or if they functioned in a largely utilitarian manner. Knowing the diversity of prehistoric textiles in the Southeast, and the skill and artistry of historic cane crafts, one would expect to see twills (2/2, 3/3, 2/1 weaves etc.), triaxial weaving, and other decorative structures in the paneling imprints. Such weaves require more skill to produce than plain plaiting or interlacing, also commonly referred to as “over-under” weaving (notated as 1/1 weaving).

For plain-plaited textiles, warp and weft are traditionally distinguished as the vertical and horizontal elements, respectively. Because it is not certain which direction the paneling was originally oriented, for the purpose of this study, I arbitrarily labeled the closely spaced elements on the paneling as the warps, and the distantly spaced elements as the wefts. The difference in spacing is due to the “wicker” like nature of the weaves using split cane, which is similar in cross-section to a “half round” or semicircle basket weaving reed. If stylistic, one would expect to see a variety in the number of splints used per weave intersection, i.e. X number of warp splints intersecting with X number of weft splints, assuming that the number of each are immaterial to the construction and function of the panel. I entered this data from each weave imprint into a paradigmatic classification listing 1 – 4 splints per warp and weft each. Imprints of 161

splints that were too fragmentary to produce a certain count of warp or weft splints were marked with a “?” and tallied also.

Another source of variability is the longitudinal rotation of the weft splints in relation to the warp splints. There are two possibilities, the culm interior of the weft splint faces the culm interior of the warp splints, which I refer to as “paired surface” weaves. The alternative is the smooth exterior culm surface of the weft splints face the interior rough surface of the warp splints, which I refer to as “alternating surface” weaves. If functionality was not a concern for the use of either or, then it is expected that neither option would be used more commonly than the other.

Results

I found that there was a striking lack of what may be considered stylistic variability in split cane wattle paneling from the Yazoo Basin. Complete, structurally identifiable weaves were a third of total weaves observed (162/34.54% out of 469/100%) all of which were plain plaited, identifiable weaves that had a completely visible number of splints per warp and weft were uncommon (32/6.82%). Even weaves that were “unidentifiable” to structure in no instance hinted to being anything other than plain plaiting.

Of the 32 imprints that showed both an identifiable weave and a complete number of warp and weft splints intersecting one another, the trend indicates an overall pattern of 2 Warp splints x 2 Weft splints (2x2) (14/2.99%) or second most commonly 2 Warps x 3 Wefts (2x3)

(11/2.35%). Other numbers of splints per weave were much less common (7/1.49%). If including partial weaves, the numbers continue this trend, where the majority again show either two warp splints or two or three weft splints. Thus, 2x2 and 2x3 paneling was the most common choice for

Mississippian house construction in the Yazoo Basin. In 26 (5.54%) cases, if a weave was 162

demonstrably plain-plaited, but neither the number of warp or weft splints was clear, it was noted to be plain plaited but with a ?x? splint count. Because only 32 complete weaves were found in a multi-site assemblage with 3899 fragments of daub, a representative sample of weave imprints from a single structure or other context may be impossible to obtain in most circumstances.

Considering the high proportion of incomplete and unidentifiable weave imprints, it seems that panel weaves are a common fracture point for daub when the clay was shrinking during fire hardening, or during the wall collapse. Furthermore, there are many more weave fragments with incomplete weft numbers than there are warp numbers, this may be due to the weft imprints being the thinnest points in the daub layer. I also believe the numbers of warp and weft splints per intersection to be a result of functional selection. Variations with one warp or weft splint each may take relatively longer to weave, but may be done so more easily, though perhaps weaker than the use of multiple splints. More than two warp or weft splints per weave may have made the paneling very strong but weaving more cumbersome and difficult and may have stressed the wefts excessively. Hence, a 2x2 weave may have had the strength of multiple splints per direction, without overstressing the wefts. The relatively common appearance of 2x3 weaves may be explained by the length of the cane splints used. If paneling needed to be extended beyond the length of the weft splints, then new splints may have been inserted in with the wefts to join to another section of paneling, creating a series of 2x3 weaves for what was intended to be an overall 2x2 weave. Because of this, and because 3x2 and 3x3 weaves are relatively uncommon, I suspect that the splints I arbitrarily referred to as the warps may actually have been oriented upright when attached to the house wall. More analysis of exterior imprints, and systematic data on the width of pieces may help answer this (see Connaway 1984).

163

In 465 of 469 of observed weaves, the longitudinal rotation of the weft splints showed

“paired-surface” weaving. The four “alternating-surface” weaves appear to have been anomalous or accidental and were not all found in the same context. Obviously, this statistic shows that paired surface weaving was the preferred manner of assembling a split cane panel in the Yazoo

Basin. This leads me to conclude that this reflects functional selection, possibly making use of the friction afforded by the interior roughened surfaces holding against each other. I suspect this made the paneling stronger and more difficult for the canes to slip apart when loaded with daub.

Overall, it appears that split cane paneling wattle from this region shows little stylistic variability. All identifiable examples were plain plaited in a wicker-like weave, and the number of splints per weave trended towards 2 warps x 2 wefts. Except for four anomalous examples, almost all wefts were rotated on a longitudinal axis to, as I suppose, create friction that held the paneling together.

Table B.1 Data for plain plaited split cane wattle paneling imprints observed in Yazoo Basin daub

# of Weaves Observed 469 # of Paired-Surface Weaves 465 # of Alternating-Surface Weaves 4 # of Structure I.D.’d Weaves 162 # of Plain Plaited Weaves 162 # of Complete Weaves 32 # of Partial Weaves 130

Table B.2 Splints per weave in split cane paneling imprints

Number of Warp Splints ? 1 2 3 4 Totals ? 26 6 73 8 0 113 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 12 1 14 3 0 30 Weft

Splints 3 2 0 11 1 0 14 Number of 4 1 0 2 0 0 3 Totals 43 7 100 12 0 162 164

Figure B.1 Technical illustration of plain plaited split cane wattle

Note the distinction between the shorthand for plain plaiting (1/1) and the number of splints in each direction per weave (2x2). Also note the “paired surface” weaving of the weft splints, bringing their interior surface in contact with that of the warp splints.

165

Lashed Pole/Post Wattles

As described above, the use of poles lashed to posts was a secondary method of wattle building in the Yazoo Basin during the Mississippian Period. In some instances, the clarity of these construction imprints are striking, the daub from the Lake George Mounds famously included imprints that were whole and complete enough to show the peeled cane bindings that lashed the poles to the posts (Terrel and Marland 1983). Other possible lashing materials that would have been available prehistorically include hide strips, and braided or twisted cordage.

Imprints of lashings and hitches are an opportunity for archaeologists to study prehistoric knot craft. There are four basic types of lashings, square, shear, round, and diagonal, all of which are mostly useful for specific needs. Recording the relative proportion of lashing types in an assemblage could greatly aid in interpreting exact methods of frame assembly in prehistoric houses. For example, round lashing is excellent for joining two poles into one long structural element. Square and diagonal lashing are both useful for crosswise affixing poles to other poles and/or posts. Shear lashing is useful for creating tripods or elongated poles that articulate.

Hitches are knots used to affix excess rope lengths and better secure lashings, which must remain tight to work. Many hitches are expedient means of securing leashed animals or boats. There are far too many types to describe in detail, but the most commonly used hitch today is probably the clove hitch, and its usefulness and ease of tying makes it likely to have been used prehistorically around the world as well. Hitches, I believe are far more likely to preserve because they are small enough to not affect the thickness of daub significantly or create fracture points (see above). Each lashing may also have at least two hitches each to secure the loose ends of each cord length, and this may make them more likely to be represented. It is also worth considering

166

that hitches may have been not used in many instances, but rope was instead spun around the poles until the next lashing point. While easier, this method is wasteful if cordage is scarce.

Like the paneling analysis, I collected data on poles/post wattles that I observed in the assemblage. Specifically, I recorded their material (wood, cane, unknown, etc.) specific lashes observed, hitches observed, and the material of the bindings (cord, peeled cane, hide, etc.).

Results

First, I found is that cane culms (60/71.43%) were by far the most common non-paneling structural element found in the assemblage. This is not necessarily surprising, considering that a daubed wall of distantly spaced posts may require dozens of lashed canes to remain sturdy, which most of the daub in the wall would be attached to. Wooden post imprints (17/20.24%) were also identified, as were a handful (7/8.33%) of elements of unknown material.

Unfortunately, only three instances of binding material imprints were evident, two from an excavation unit on Mound A at the Parchman Place Mounds site (22CO511) (Stevens

2006:99-101) and one from the Sledge Mound site (22TU510) (see above). None of the imprints were complete enough to show any lashings, and only one possibly showed the very indirect imprint of a clove hitch. In all three instances, the binding material appeared to be peeled cane strips. The structural elements in the Parchman Place examples appeared to be wood, the smoothness of the bark perhaps suggesting the use of saplings as cross poles.

Though this simple count inventory produced some numbers on the proportion of structural elements and materials, relatively little more than what is already published (Terrel and

Marland 1983) has been learned about the lashed wattle in this region. As more sites are studied and inventoried, it is hoped that more exact information will be forthcoming.

167

Table B.3 Observed poles/posts data from the daub assemblage

Site Context Cane Wood Unknown Poles Posts Pole/Posts 22CO505/518 House 12 0 1 0 Mound A 0 3 1 22CO511 Village PZ 2 0 0 Unknown 1 3 0 22CO625 House 1 12 3 3 22LF507 Unknown 0 0 2 22SU516 Mound 0 0 1 22TU510 Mound 24 7 0 22WS500 Mound C 21 0 0 Totals 60 17 7

Table B.4 Contextual and technical data of lashed pole imprints in daub assemblage

Site Context Pole/Post Binding Lashing Hitch Bag/Sheet Material Material Type Type Number 22CO511 Mound A Wood Cane Unknown Clove Hitch CO511-10 Strips (?) 22CO511 Mound A Wood Cane Unknown Unknown CO511-10 Strips Bundled 22TU510 Mound Cane Cane Unknown Unknown TU510-02 Poles Strips

168

Figure B.2 Pole imprints in daub with imprints of hitches

These two photos are the 22CO511 imprints described in Table 7.6. Both imprints suggest that the bindings were peeled cane strips like those used in basketry. A shows a possible clove hitch and another length of binding going diagonally through it. B shows what appears to be a hitch, but clear enough information is not present due to damage.

169

Figure B.3 Lashes and hitches useful for pole and post frame construction

A is a simple clove hitch, all lashings here were secured with two each. B is an example of square lashing. C is round lashing. D is diagonal lashing, which functions similarly to square lashing. E is shear lashing, which is a base round lashing but with a frapping through the middle, forcing poles apart in order to articulate.

170

Table B.5 Create a short, concise table title and place all detailed caption, notes, reference, legend information, etc in the notes section below

Sheet Pair_Surf_Weave Alt_Surf_Weave Plain_Plait Unident. ?X? 1x? 1x2 ?X1 2x? ?x2 ?x3 ?x4 3x? 2x2 2x3 2x4 3x2 3X3 Totals BO661-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLO 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 CO505/518-04 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO505/518-05 4 1 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 CO505/518-06 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO505/518-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-08 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-09 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-10 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-11 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-13 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-17 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-18 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO505/518-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-20 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-21 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO505/518-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-23 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-24 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-25 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO505/518-26 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO505/518-27 9 0 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 CO505/518-28 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO505/518-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-30 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-31 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 CO505/518-32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO505/518-34 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 CO505/518-35 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 CO505/518-36 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO505/518-37 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 CO505/518-38 11 0 2 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 CO505/518-39 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CO505/518-40 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 CO505/518-41 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 171

Table B.5 (continued)

Sheet Pair_Surf_Weave Alt_Surf_Weave Plain_Plait Unident. ?X? 1x? 1x2 ?X1 2x? ?x2 ?x3 ?x4 3x? 2x2 2x3 2x4 3x2 3X3 Totals CO505/518-42 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 CO505/518-43 14 0 2 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 CO505/518-44 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CO505/518-45 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-46 10 0 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 CO505/518-47 9 0 1 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 CO505/518-48 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CO511-06 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO511-07 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 CO511-08 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO511-09 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 CO511-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO511-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO511-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO511-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO511-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO511-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO598-01 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO625-01 10 0 4 6 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 CO625-02 6 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 CO625-03 5 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 CO625-04 12 0 7 5 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 CO625-05 7 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 CO625-06 20 2 7 13 15 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 CO625-07 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO625-08 11 0 5 6 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 CO625-09 12 0 5 7 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 CO625-10 7 0 6 1 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 CO625-11 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CO625-12 9 0 1 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 CO625-13 6 0 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 CO625-14 12 0 11 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 CO625-15 12 0 7 5 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 CO625-16 13 0 6 7 7 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 CO625-17 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 CO625-18 10 0 3 7 7 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 CO625-19 9 0 2 7 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 CO625-20 9 0 4 5 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 CO625-21 8 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 CO625-22 6 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 6 CO625-23 25 0 9 16 16 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 CO625-24 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 172

Table B.5 (continued)

Sheet Pair_Surf_Weave Alt_Surf_Weave Plain_Plait Unident. ?X? 1x? 1x2 ?X1 2x? ?x2 ?x3 ?x4 3x? 2x2 2x3 2x4 3x2 3X3 Totals CO625-25 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CO653-01 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 CR522-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LF507-01 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LF507-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LF604-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QU799-01 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 QU984-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU510-01 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 SU516-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU516-02 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU528-01 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TU500-01 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 TU500-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TU510-01 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TU510-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TU520-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TU541-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNK-02 6 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 WS500-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-06 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 WS500-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS500-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS516-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS516-02 5 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 WS516-03 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 WS516-04 9 0 7 3 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 9 WS516-05 6 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 WS516-06 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 WS575-01 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 WS575-02 13 0 3 10 10 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 WS575-03 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 WS575-04 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 WS575-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173

Table B.5 (continued)

Sheet Pair_Surf_Weave Alt_Surf_Weave Plain_Plait Unident. ?X? 1x? 1x2 ?X1 2x? ?x2 ?x3 ?x4 3x? 2x2 2x3 2x4 3x2 3X3 Totals WS575-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS575-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS575-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS575-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS575-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 465 4 162 307 333 6 1 2 73 12 2 1 8 14 11 2 3 1 469

174

APPENDIX C

DAUB CLASS COUNTS AND WEIGHT DATA BY ALLOTMENT

175

Table C.1 Daub class count data by allotment

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals BO661-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 CLO-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 CO505/518-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 9 0 1 2 0 4 23 CO505/518-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 5 22 CO505/518-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 4 18 CO505/518-07 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 8 15 92 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 124 CO505/518-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 13 8 0 22 50 CO505/518-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 9 0 24 49 CO505/518-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 1 6 0 29 48 CO505/518-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 0 3 2 1 10 26 CO505/518-12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 20 0 2 9 0 10 49 CO505/518-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 3 0 1 12 CO505/518-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 8 18 CO505/518-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 CO505/518-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 9 CO505/518-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 2 7 0 20 49 CO505/518-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 10 0 0 0 7 0 1 11 0 9 49 CO505/518-19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 9 0 3 27 CO505/518-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 12 0 7 31 CO505/518-21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 8 0 3 20 CO505/518-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 2 7 0 11 33 CO505/518-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 11 0 6 26 CO505/518-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 5 10 0 18 39 CO505/518-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 5 0 5 23 CO505/518-26 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 5 6 0 5 34 CO505/518-27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 4 2 0 3 48 CO505/518-28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 2 3 0 5 26 CO505/518-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 2 3 0 1 19 CO505/518-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 17 7 0 26 65 CO505/518-31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 19 34 0 24 107 CO505/518-32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 8 0 16 39 CO505/518-33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 10 0 12 33 CO505/518-34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 6 12 0 29 63 CO505/518-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO505/518-36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 16 CO505/518-37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 4 11 CO505/518-38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 3 2 0 13 56 CO505/518-39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 8 2 0 14 55 CO505/518-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 4 1 0 3 34 176

Table C.1 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals CO505/518-41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 6 1 0 12 54 CO505/518-42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 1 0 3 25 CO505/518-43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2 4 0 4 48 CO505/518-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 8 12 0 14 87 CO505/518-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 14 0 4 41 CO505/518-46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 3 0 4 59 CO505/518-47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 13 0 6 77 CO505/518-48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 4 7 0 13 79 CO511-06 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 16 CO511-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 20 1 0 2 0 6 32 CO511-08 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 12 CO511-09 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 10 0 1 3 0 5 33 CO511-10 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 CO511-11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO511-12 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 5 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 28 CO511-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CO511-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 CO511-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 CO598-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 8 0 6 25 CO625-01 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 2 41 CO625-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 16 CO625-03 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 CO625-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 2 1 0 1 23 CO625-05 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 8 10 4 0 0 0 27 0 1 0 1 13 117 CO625-06 0 0 0 5 0 1 9 0 3 3 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 3 52 CO625-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 3 0 5 23 CO625-08 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 4 9 9 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 0 5 68 CO625-09 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 0 1 0 0 4 42 CO625-10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 48 0 1 1 0 0 55 CO625-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 16 CO625-12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 37 0 2 0 0 1 47 CO625-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 1 41 CO625-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 36 0 0 2 0 0 40 CO625-15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 1 51 CO625-16 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 40 0 6 0 0 0 53 CO625-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 1 0 1 22 CO625-18 0 4 0 3 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 38 CO625-19 0 2 0 6 0 0 11 2 3 6 0 0 1 24 0 0 1 0 4 60 CO625-20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 39 CO625-21 0 0 0 10 2 1 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 1 44 CO625-22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 4 31 CO625-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 86 0 1 1 0 3 100 177

Table C.1 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals CO625-24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 67 0 0 2 0 4 79 CO625-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 75 0 2 1 0 3 87 CO653-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 1 1 0 1 33 CR522-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LF507-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 10 LF507-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 4 13 LF604-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 16 QU799-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 QU984-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 1 0 12 SU510-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 SU516-01 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 SU516-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SU528-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 3 0 3 20 TU500-01 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 18 TU500-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 TU510-01 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 16 TU510-02 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 53 TU520-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 TU541-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 UNK-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 WS500-01 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 WS500-02 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 WS500-03 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 WS500-04 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 WS500-05 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 WS500-06 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 3 1 12 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 15 45 WS500-07 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 WS500-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 16 WS500-09 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 22 WS500-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 WS500-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 WS500-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 WS516-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 7 0 15 34 WS516-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 3 7 0 7 29 WS516-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 12 WS516-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 2 19 WS516-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1 17 0 11 62 WS516-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 12 WS575-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 10 WS575-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 1 0 0 1 46 WS575-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 WS575-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 8 178

Table C.1 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals WS575-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 WS575-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 WS575-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 WS575-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WS575-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WS575-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Totals 7 35 11 69 2 23 80 103 206 265 1 1 3 1905 1 206 349 4 628 3899

Table C.2 Daub class weight (kg) data by allotment

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals BO661-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 CLO-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.34 0 0 0 0 0 2.34 CO505/518-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.11 0.05 0 0 0 0.51 0 0.04 0.06 0 0.22 1.01 CO505/518-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0.58 0 0.05 0.01 0 0.27 1.03 CO505/518-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.24 0.07 0 0 0 0.58 0 0 0.03 0 0.15 1.12 CO505/518-07 0 0.06 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.43 0.36 2.18 0 0 0 0.21 0 0.01 0 0 0.18 3.46 CO505/518-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.28 0 0.26 0.17 0 0.43 1.16 CO505/518-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0 0.07 0.2 0 0.45 1.27 CO505/518-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.34 0 0.07 0.24 0 1.2 2.06 CO505/518-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.08 0.06 0 0 0 0.84 0 0.1 0.11 0.06 0.25 1.57 CO505/518-12 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.33 0 0 0 1.11 0 0.1 0.49 0 0.25 2.43 CO505/518-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.12 0.12 0 0.07 0.79 CO505/518-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.14 0 0.18 0.55 CO505/518-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.41 CO505/518-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0.06 0.1 0 0.1 0.7 CO505/518-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 0.27 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.09 0.31 0 0.56 1.88 CO505/518-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.37 0.06 0.23 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.06 0.67 0 0.18 1.9 CO505/518-19 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 0.09 0.24 0 0.13 1.21 CO505/518-21 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.06 0.44 0 0.11 1.1 CO505/518-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.31 0 0.08 0.18 0 0.21 0.91 CO505/518-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.66 0 0 0.74 0 0.34 1.74 CO505/518-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.12 0.47 0 0.67 1.69 CO505/518-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0.2 0 0.13 0.65 CO505/518-26 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.11 0.13 0 0.09 0.75 CO505/518-27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0 0.09 0.03 0 0.07 1.11 CO505/518-28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.03 0.08 0 0.13 0.64 CO505/518-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.02 0.64 CO505/518-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.01 0.02 0 0 0 0.63 0 0.92 0.37 0 0.82 2.79 179

Table C.2 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals CO505/518-31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.77 0 0.72 1.85 0 0.76 5.1 CO505/518-32 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.23 0.27 0 0.3 1.02 CO505/518-33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.15 0.2 0 0.24 0.67 CO505/518-34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.04 0 0.23 1.56 0 1.37 4.2 CO505/518-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 CO505/518-36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.61 0.75 CO505/518-37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 0 0.2 0.3 0 0.27 1.25 CO505/518-38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.89 0 0.05 0.03 0 0.29 1.26 CO505/518-39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0 0.17 0.03 0 0.35 1.4 CO505/518-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.77 0 0.06 0.03 0 0.06 0.92 CO505/518-41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.91 0 0.11 0.03 0 0.23 1.28 CO505/518-42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.04 0.59 CO505/518-43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0.03 0.06 0 0.06 1.25 CO505/518-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.42 0 0.16 0.29 0 0.28 2.15 CO505/518-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 0 0.01 0.29 0 0.07 0.85 CO505/518-46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.59 0 0 0.07 0 0.09 1.75 CO505/518-47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.56 0 0 0.25 0 0.1 1.91 CO505/518-48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.34 0 0.06 0.23 0 0.13 1.76 CO511-06 0.19 0.04 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.43 0.5 0.02 0 0 0 0.59 0 0 0.23 0 0.05 2.3 CO511-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.71 0 0 0 2.57 0.06 0 0.05 0 0.56 4.09 CO511-08 0 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 2.41 0 0 0 0 1.21 0 0 0 0 0.29 4.4 CO511-09 0 0.05 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0.42 0.56 0.18 0 0 0 1.4 0 0.02 0.14 0 0.15 3.06 CO511-10 0.45 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 1 1.05 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.69 CO511-11 3.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.12 CO511-12 0 0 0 0.26 0 0.06 0 0.04 0.05 0.26 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.8 CO511-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 CO511-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.57 CO511-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.64 0 0 0.04 0.24 0 0.99 CO598-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.36 0 0 0.22 0 0.21 0.85 CO625-01 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0.02 0.07 0.38 0 0 0 0 2.35 0 0 0.03 0 0.12 3.52 CO625-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 1.07 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 1.34 CO625-03 0 0 0 0.66 0 0.12 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 CO625-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.02 0 0 0 3 0 0.27 0.01 0 0.02 3.38 CO625-05 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 1.69 0.17 0.2 0.06 0 0 0 1.03 0 0.02 0 0.04 0.2 3.43 CO625-06 0 0 0.45 0 0 0.01 0.17 0 0.13 0.11 0 0 0 2.46 0 0 0 0 0.14 3.47 CO625-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.12 0 0 0.18 0 0.33 1.63 CO625-08 0 0.21 0.13 0.25 0 0.05 0 0.12 0.9 0.41 0 0 0 2.31 0 0 0.01 0 0.24 4.63 CO625-09 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0.01 0 0 0.18 3.89 CO625-10 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.56 0 0 0 0 4.34 0 0.04 0.02 0 0 5.04 CO625-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 1.63 0 0 0 0 0 1.74 CO625-12 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.34 0.07 0 0 0 3.42 0 0.07 0 0 1 4.99 CO625-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0 0 0 0 3.93 0 0 0 0 0.35 4.75 180

Table C.2 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals CO625-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.41 0.26 0 0 0 4.42 0 0 0.11 0 0 5.2 CO625-15 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.16 0.15 0.07 0 0 0 4.41 0 0 0 0 1.12 5.99 CO625-16 0 0.15 0 0.11 0 0.05 0 0.15 1.15 0.18 0 0 0 4.12 0 0.19 0 0 0 6.1 CO625-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 1.71 0 0.03 0.03 0 0.05 1.9 CO625-18 0 1 0 0.21 0 0.04 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.05 0 0 0 0 0 3.55 CO625-19 0 0.26 0 0.43 0 0 0.46 0.18 0.11 0.2 0 0 0.07 1.59 0 0 0.04 0 0.15 3.49 CO625-20 0 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.38 0.08 0 0 0 2.48 0 0 0 0 0.05 3.55 CO625-21 0 0 0 0.82 0.34 0.02 0 0 0.5 0.1 0 0.37 0 2.68 0 0 0 0 0.06 4.89 CO625-22 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.72 0 0 0 0 3.53 0 0 0 0 0.79 5.77 CO625-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 0.07 0.23 0 0 0 7.58 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.19 8.33 CO625-24 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.02 0 0 0 3.76 0 0 0.12 0 0.17 4.32 CO625-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.2 0 0 0 2.9 0 0.04 0.02 0 0.09 3.29 CO653-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.02 1.05 CR522-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.94 LF507-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0.79 0 0 0.14 0 0 1.16 LF507-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.02 0 0.42 0 0 0.13 0.58 LF604-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0 0.07 0 0 0 1.23 QU799-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 QU984-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 0 0.13 0 0.04 0 0.8 SU510-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0 0.04 0 0 0.05 0.56 SU516-01 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.53 SU516-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 SU528-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.06 0 0 0 1.11 0 0 0.27 0 0.18 1.65 TU500-01 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.09 0.03 0.25 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.9 TU500-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.08 TU510-01 0.02 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.3 0.02 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.81 TU510-02 0.07 2.62 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 2.01 2.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 7.07 TU520-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.12 2.77 TU541-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.16 UNK-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.17 0 0 0 0 0 2.17 WS500-01 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.05 0 0.49 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 WS500-02 0 0.23 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.59 WS500-03 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.14 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.23 WS500-04 0.01 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 WS500-05 0 0.07 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.43 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 WS500-06 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.1 0 0.12 0.01 0.26 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.07 0 0 0.26 0.98 WS500-07 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.05 0 0.08 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.36 WS500-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.4 0.41 WS500-09 0 0 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0.69 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 1.29 WS500-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.12 WS500-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.11 WS500-12 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 181

Table C.2 (continued)

Sheet 1 3 5 6 8 10 13 16 18 20 21 23 25 26 28 30 36 38 40 Totals WS516-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0 0.1 0.44 0 0.51 1.6 WS516-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.28 0 0.23 0.5 0 0.43 2.44 WS516-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.12 0 0 0 0 0.01 3.13 WS516-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0.18 3.51 WS516-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 0 0.16 0.8 0 0.41 3.77 WS516-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.46 0 0 0.63 0 0.36 3.45 WS575-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.62 0 0 0.04 0 0.18 0.91 WS575-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.98 0 0.02 0 0 0.03 2.03 WS575-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 WS575-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0.46 WS575-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 WS575-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.12 WS575-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.06 WS575-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 WS575-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 WS575-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 Totals 4.75 6.86 1.25 6.23 0.34 0.67 2.59 8.64 21.97 10.26 0.01 0.37 0.48 135.54 0.06 6.98 15.82 0.38 25.46 248.66

Note that sheets CO505/518-01 – 03 and CO511-01 – 05 do not exist for both Tables 7.1 and 7.2

182