Volume 1996 Article 11

1996

The RIver Valley: A New Paradigm, Revisionist Perspectives and the Archaeological Record

Robert L. Brooks Archeological Survey

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita

Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the History Commons Tell us how this article helped you.

Cite this Record Brooks, Robert L. (1996) "The Valley: A New Paradigm, Revisionist Perspectives and the Archaeological Record," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1996, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.1996.1.11 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1996/iss1/11

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Arkansas RIver Valley: A New Paradigm, Revisionist Perspectives and the Archaeological Record

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1996/iss1/11 Volume 6, Number 4 THE ARKANSAS RIVER VALLEY: A NEW PARADIGM, REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVES AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Robert L. Brooks Oklahoma Archeological Survey

INTRODUCTION

Recent articles by Schambacb (1990a, 1990b, Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula (1995) have re­ 1992, 1993a, and 1993b) have proposed a new sponded to many of Schambach's challenges paradigm for the late prehistoric period in the concerning the Sanders phase in the Red River Arkansas River Valley. These arguments chal­ Valley. Points here are not intended to defend lenge traditional and long held views on the the traditional perspectives as the gospel for the subsistence economy, architecture, material Arkansas River Caddoan tradition. Without culture, biological character, and trade relation­ doubt, a reexamination of the Arkansas River ships of the prehistoric populations of the Arkan­ Caddoan is long overdue. Much of the subsis­ sas River Valley, and the middle portion of the tence data, bioarchaeology, and non-ceremonial Red River (the Sanders phase area). My intention aspects of the material culture were derived from in this paper is to examine Scbambach's argu­ analysis completed some 30 yea.rs ago, analysis ments based on a comprehensive review of the conducted without the benefit of recent theoreti­ archaeological record and by also drawing upon cal and methodological advances. However, we explanatory models of cultural and economic must reexamine the arguments and the data in an behavior. For the most part, my comments objective, informed fashion. Only from such an approach can we generate a new paradigm pertain to the Arkansas River Valley · situation; worthy of acceptance.

REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVES

Subsistence In two recent articles Schambach (1990, 1993a) ranth, and cucurbits) and on the use of bison as has maintained that subsistence patterns in the a meat source. He further argues that this system Arkansas River valley during the late prehistoric emphasizes hoe horticulture and grain process­ period were substantially different from the ing with stone manos, grinding basins, etc., economic mix of fanning supplemented by fostering extensive dental attrition. These claims hunting and gathering previously identified merit further examination of the archaeological (Wyckoff 1980; Galm 1981). In brief, he pro­ record. A casual review of the archaeological poses that people of the Northern Caddoan area record does indeed suggest such a pattern. There were minor horticulturists with the major focus are bison in the faunal assemblages from a being on starchy seeds (e.g., chenopods, ama- number of sites in the Arkansas River Valley and

17 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

there are certainly a number of questions con­ ever, it is doubtful that this use extended beyond cerning the horticultural practices of these their selection for "wool" found in textiles. Caddoan people. But, does this evidence bear up Certainly, no bison bone ornaments or tools to closer scrutiny? Let us examine the data appear in the Spiro mortuary assemblages. In concerning these issues in greater detail. retrospect, there is no supportive evidence for bison as a food staple during Harlan and/or Spiro Much of the emphasis on bison in the diet phase times. stems from the presence of bison bone in the fauna! assemblages as well as the occurrence of The presence of the starchy seeds complex at bison bone tools at a number of Caddoan sites in Spiro comes as no surprise. At Cahokia, con­ the Arkansas River Valley. Here, Schambach sumption of large quantities of q,enopodium (1990a) cites School Land I and II, Norman, have been projected based on botanical samples Wybark, Sheffield, Tyler-Rose, Cookson, and (Lopinot 1991). The same situation has been Moore. I might add that there is also bison bone found at a number of other southeastern Middle from the Craig and Copple mounds at Spiro. Mississippian ceremonial centers and settlements. Most of the sites in question represent multiple Thus, the challenge here is to understand not the occupations. Radiocarbon dates (uncorrected) presence of these plants, but the apparent ab­ from Sheffield (A.D. 1450, 1510), Tyler-Rose sence or limited use of tropical domesticates. (A.D. 1500, 1530), and Moore (A.D. 1465, Com has been found at a number of Spiro phase 1515) demonstrate the presence of later (post sites including Norman, Bowman, Horton, and A.D. 1450) Fort Coffee phase occupations at Jones. Of these, Horton, Bowman, and Jones these villages (Rhorbaugb 1984), occupations contain multiple components and com could where bison procurement is recognized as a come from later Fort Coffee phase occupations. much more important part of the subsistence Interestingly, there is com pollen at Spiro and regime. The Cookson site, although not dated, both kernels or cupules in limited numbers were also has a Fort Coffee (or Turkey Bluff) compo­ identified in Fritz's (1989:73-75) analysis of nent that should date comparably to the Fort botanical remains from Copple Mound. Fritz also Coffee components found at the other sites found evidence for many seedy plants in the referenced above (Israel 1969). The School Land samples from Copple. These include Chenopodi­ I and II sites date to the Spiro phase and do um and amaranth, maygrass, little barley, and contain bison. However, the MNI for bison at Jcnotweed, as well as an abundance of nutshell School Land I is 3 and only one individual is from acorn, hickory, and pecan. This, coupled identified at School Land II. They are outnum­ with Burnett's bioarchaeological evidence indicat­ bered by deer in the faunal assemblage at School ing little maize dependence at Spiro, is a fairly Land I by 12 to I (Duffield 1969). In addition, compelling argument for a subsistence economy the School Land sites are on the extreme north­ tethered around a Woodland base of hunting, ern periphery of the Caddoan area, situated on gathering, and limited gardening of the starchy the Grand River in Delaware County adjacent to seed complex. This still does not, however, the tall grass prairie, and probably do not truly explain why com is present at Spiro in moderate represent a set.ting comparable to other Arkansas quantities but never forms a substantive contribu­ River Valley sites. Where the subsistence data tion to the diet. for Norman is derived from is uncertain as this site bas not been analyzed. The presence of bison There are some additional considerations as at Spiro (Copple and Craig mounds) is slight and well. As recognized by Burnett (1989), their does not appear to relate to use of bison as a analysis of Arkansas River Caddoan populations food source. As Jim Brown (1984) discusses in was secondarily derived from prior work and his study of Spiro, evidence on engraved shell was limited principally to ceremonial centers. at the site clearly attest to the use of bison. How- For example, com was recovered from 34SQ269

18 Volume 6, Nwnber 4

in the Lee Creek vaUey with an uncorrected and bum. Another fundamental question con­ radiocarbon date of A.O. 1140 (Albert 1989). It cerns the issue of agriculture and domestication. is recognized that elites in stratified societies Based on an overview by Fe

19 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter objects. Thus, we have an anomaly. Does this systemic, and chronic conditions, most likely represent a distinction in practices of Sanders bacteriological in nature. The impression that this phase populations or is it a matter of the remains is a condition that is expressed principally in the and sites we have examined? While this question Spiro populations should also be approached with has a bearing on plant processing and techno­ caution. There is evidence for these same pa­ logical adaptation, I fail to see the uniqueness of, thologies in Wister and Fourche Maline phase and consequently the argument for, distinguish­ populations in the Wister Valley. In fact, the ing Arkansas River Caddoans from other Sam site contains one burial with evidence of Caddoan groups on an issue that relates to how osteomyelitis and a radiocarbon date of300 B.C. people process their seed crops and their ethnic occurring immediately above the burial feature origin. (Galm and Flynn 1978). Thus, it is a long term condition within the region. I also suspect that it Adaptive Efficiency is highly associated with the "Black Midden The concept of adaptive efficiency bas played Mound" settlement system. Kent (1989) has a major role in examining the physical well being argued that these types of pathologies are an of village farming populations (Burnett 1989). effect of highly sedentary lifestyles more than Because of their highly sedentary way-of-life and any other agent. Thus, the settlement serves as reliance on an agricultural base, the success of the vector for the diseases. This can be corrob­ these populations' adaptation to their surround­ orated, to some extent, by the evidence of osteo­ ings has been conducive to bioarchaeological porosis, periostitis, and osteomyelitis in Washita analysis. Such analysis in the Arkansas River River and Antelope Creek phase populations -­ Valley has revealed high occurrences of periosti­ highly sedentary Plains Village groups. lo fact, tis, osteomyelitis, and osteoporosis in Spiro the ratio of individuals with this type of perioste­ phase populations (Brues n. d. ). Even with re­ al bone response may be no higher in the Ar­ mote groups thought to be associated with Spiro, kansas River Valley than in Plains Village popu­ such as those whose remains were found at the lations. Another issue addressed by Burnett and Nagle site in OkJahoma County (Brues 1957), not discussed in the restudy of the Arkansas there is clear evidence of systemic infection. River valley is that burial samples expressing Schambacb, following Brown's earlier lead, these conditions may be biased to infected indi­ argues that this represents a sexually transmitted viduals being interred in designated areas (e.g., disease (in this instance syphilis). There is also midden mounds) rather than with those individu­ a proposal that this condition extended to the als who passed away from more traditional Sanders site population. causes. In sum, these infectious diseases may potentially reflect a variety of bacteriological A number of issues surround these agents, a number of contributing vectors, and paleopathologies. First, there exists considerable cultural and o.atural eovi.ronmental factors. debate over the response of bone to infectious disease (Ortner 1991; Ortner and Putsbar 1985). From an alternative viewpoint, Owsley and his In addition, there bas been substantial discussion colleagues have recently demonstrated that of the definition and diagnosis of the various syphilis was widespread among Northern Plains bone pathologies. Suffice it to say that currently populations in late prehistoric and protohistoric there is not a consensus as to the causal agents times (Owsley, personal communication). The involved with these conditions, certainly no wide conditions which they use to document this social acceptance of syphilis as the primary contributor. disease are the same osteomyelitis and periostitis Most paleopathologists cautiously acknowledge found in the Southern Plains and the Arkansas that conditions such as osteomyelitis are physical River Valley. Based on chemical tests there expressions of the bone's response to long term, appears to be little doubt that syphilis is almost epidemic in some groups in the Northern

20 Volume 6, Number 4

Plains.If the presence of conditions such as centuries (Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula 1995). osteomyelitis and periostitis do indeed mark the These ceramics are associated with the Sanders presence of syphilis, then it is extremely com­ site as well as numerous other villages and mon among both Plains Villagers and people of mound sites on both sides of the Red River. The the Arkansas River Valley as rates of occurrence red-slipped pottery of the Spiro phase is some­ for these bone pathologies are almost identical. how linked to the development of these wares In fact, it is surprising that these conditions are within sites related to the Sanders focus. Frankly not observed among the populations of south­ (no pun intended), this phenomenon is not that western Arkansas. Typically, social diseases are big a deal. Red-slipped pottery is by no means not especially discerning of political or social a Mississippi Valley creation. A variety of wares boundaries and we should be highly skeptical of with red slips can be found in the Southwest as the absence of syphilis-like attributes among well as along the Red River. Caddo populations in Arkansas and Louisiana. What this means is that the uniqueness of the Another ceramic development of concern in Spiro people's condition is a false image. Most, Schambach's treatment of the Arkansas River if not all, late prehistoric groups across Oklaho­ Valley is the presence of textile impressions on ma, portions of Texas, and yes, even portions of vessel bases. This is stated as being absent from Arkansas probably had this condition as well. Caddoan ceramic assemblages in Arkansas and With these considerations in mind, it is not a Louisiana. I have no problem with this. I ques­ useful vehicle for distinguishing the Arkansas tion, however, whether this bas a significant River Valley people from their southern counter­ bearing on the origins or the continuity of parts. Fourche Maline, Harlan, and Spiro phase occu­ pations of the Arkansas River Valley. In search­ Architecture and Material Culture ing the literature quite thoroughly for much of A variety of issues pertaining to the material Oklahoma and over a span of some 45 years, the culture and architecture of the Arkansas River instances of ceramics with textile impressed Valley's Spiro phase have been raised by bases appears to reside almost entirely within Schambach (1992a). These include the presence what has been labeled as Williams Plain or with of red slipped pottery, ceramics with fabric synonymous styles (Bell and Baerreis 1951). impressed bases, and house and mound architec­ These are found throughout eastern Oklahoma, ture. The issues of a ground stone technology along the Red River, and at sites of the Bryan used in seed processing and the use of hoes in focus farther upstream on the Red River. agriculture have been dealt with in a previous section. There is also the issue of house form and mound construction. During the Spiro phase, The question of red-slipped pottery and its houses of wattle and daub with two center posts relation to the Spiro phase has existed for some are found. This pattern continues during the Fort time. In his work at Harlan, Bell (1972) noted Coffee phase. However, during the Fort Coffee that the site contained few of the red slipped phase, we also see the first appearance of circu­ wares that characterize the ceramic assemblage lar structures. At this time, these remain poorly found at Spiro and other Spiro phase settlements. understood. Do these represent specialized build­ Does the appearance of these wares in the Spiro ing related to social/religious behavior or are phase reveal an influence from the Mississippi these domestic dwellings? There are some paral­ River Valley? If these wares were initially found lels to this situation on the Plains. In the Washita at Spiro, there might be some justification for River phase (A.O. 1250-1450; contemporaneous this argument. However, this is not the case. with the Spiro phase), we find rectangular wattle Red-slipped wares are found in abundance in the and daub houses also with two center posts Red River Valley in the twelfth and thirteenth (Brooks 1987). By the mid-16th century, we find

21 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

Coronado encountering Plains Villagers (the we find in the southeast do not utilire such Wichita) living in circular bee-hive grass houses. highly structured (political) and formal means of Of course, this architecture is also found among trade. As well documented in the literature, the Hasinai in Northeast Texas at a slightly Jater chiefdoms relied on the use of "trading partners" date (Bolton 1987). The point here is that this (Earle and Erickson 1976). These trading rela­ pattern seems well established across Oklahoma tionships were often extensive and complex, and Texas. It is my argument that architectural sometimes involving a number of down-the-line patterns are respoDSC6 to degrees of sedentism, partners. However, they never relied on mainte­ environmental conditions, and adaptations on the nance of a permanent settlement in the foreign part of these Arkansas River and Red River territory. I would argue that Spiroan society Valley people (Brooks 1994). In a similar vein, probably maintained a trading partnership system flat-topped mounds occur in the Arkansas River with trading "power" vested in the hands of and Red River valleys. On the north side of the some of the priestly elites. We can also look at Red River, these are found at the Clement site in the ethnographic and etbnobistoric literature for McCurtain County and at the Nelson Mound in further confirmation of the "trading partners" County. In other words, I suspect the approach. Numerous French and Spanish ac­ variation observed here is expressed in an east­ counts document the presence of individuals from west difference which could be tied to environ­ another group within the settlement they were mental conditions as well as cultural theme6. visiting (John 1975). Typically, these individuals were either present to arrange a trading agree­ Trade ment or to physically exchange goods. Often, The last area pertaining to the Arkansas River these individuals would travel among a number Valley and revisionist perspectives that I wish to of groups formalizing some type ofdown -the-line address is that of trade and the entrepot model. exchange. From these accounts, the traders Schambach (1993a) has suggested that the Nagle would often visit these villages a couple of times site in Oklahoma County and the Sanders site in a year. Of greater interest is the fact that these Lamar County, Texas functioned as the equiva­ visitations were often with groups in conflict lents of "Ports of Trade" or smaller gateways to with the trader's people. There was obviously the people on the Plains. The issue of Sanders some type of arrangement whereby a trader and its importance as a trade center has been traveled under a truce flag. On the Plains, there dealt with by Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula is a sophisticated macro-economy model docu­ (1995). Thus, I will limit my comments to the menting trade between southwestern Pueblos, overall consideration of the entrepot model, the middlemen, and agricultural Plains Villagers Nagle site, and trade with the Plains. Scbambach farther east (Spielman 1983). We find numerous would have us believe that Spiro had two sub­ accounts of the Caddo or Tejas participating in stantial ports of trade on the periphery of the such trade relationships. The other type of Spiroan area of influence. The initial question exchange documented in the literature is the that should be examined is whether such a model trade fair where different groups might rendez­ is consistent with Spiroan society. Entrepots and vous for exchanges. Based on La Harpe's fa­ "trading posts" are typically found in highly mous description of the trade fair be visited structured, extended rank-level or state-level somewhere in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, societies. For example, Mayan society had numerous groups were present including some "Ports of Trade" where commerce could function who were often in conflict with one another between states that were normally at war with (Wedel 1971). All these facts point to the one another (Berdan 1978; Polanyi 1963). We entrepot model being highly unlikely for Spiroan also find the Aztec making use of entrepots and society. "Ports of Trade". Complex chiefdoms such as Concerning the Nagle site, I have a number of

22 Volume 6, Number 4 comments. First and foremost, there is no evi­ why a group would be out on the Plains, I dence of a settlement at this location or in the suspect there could be a number of reasons for immediate vicinity. This is based on Dr. Bell's this. First of all, it is well documented that efforts to find a village as well as later work by relations between Caddoan groups were often the Oklahoma Archeological Survey. It is also strained. proper fought with one another, highly unlikely that a "Port of Trade• would one confederacy against another as well conflicts include infants and young children. The 20+ within confederacies. They also had conflicts individuals recovered from the Nagle cemetery with groups such as the Wichita and the K.ichai. reflect a normaliz.ed population of an elderly I doubt that a Spiroan group would travel north male, young adult males and females, adoles­ or east because of the potential presence of cents, children, and infants. In fact, SO% of the Osage ancestral groups. They were also likely to Nagle population is under 15 years of age, encounter other Caddoan groups with whom they highly suspect for a group of traders. It is also were not on friendly terms by traveling south or unlikely that surrounding people, if on good southeast. Thus, they might move west where terms with the traders, would permit them to groups of Wichita might be encountered. It is reach the extent of malnutrition described by difficult to know whether the group they ulti­ Brues (1953) and confirmed by Owsley. I think mately encountered was Wichita or another, non­ my idea of a refugee population is more parsimo­ Caddoan, people. Regardless, this meeting was nious than that of trade. There is evidence of apparently not a friendly meeting. Enough said conflict and the population does not conform to about Nagle. what we normally find for Spiroan groups. As to

CONCLUSIONS

I find that there are substantial and important What Schambach's revisionist perspectives has differences between what I view as Caddoan brought us to, however, is the realix.ation that we populations in the Arkansas River Valley and don't really know the Arkansas River Valley all those found in southwestern Arkansas and north­ that well. There are numerous questions pertain­ western Louisiana. And, I would ask, "Why ing to subsistence, physical well being, and shouldn't there be"? To assume that all groups social/economic processes that need a lot of of a general cultural pattern are alike falls into work. Despite 50 + years of archaeology, many the trap that ethnicity sets for us. I would also of the sites excavated by the WPA have not been say that I see nothing in these differences to examined. This is also true of the physical suggest that Spiroan people are not Caddoan. populations. We desperately need detailed Along this line, I will add that Susan Vebik has ethnobotanical analysis at sites other than cere­ been examining the ethnohistoric record for any monial centers. These same conditions also hold sort of information bearing on this problem true for the Red River Valley (at least our por­ (Vehik 1995). To date, there is confirmation for tion of it). With the implementation of Wichita groups (the Tawalconis) in eastern Okla­ NAGPRA, I hope we can go forward in a coop­ homa in the 18th century. However, there is no erative spirit with the Caddo and Wichita& to indication of the presence of Tunicas. More examine these critical questions pertaining to importantly, there is no indication among the their heritage. Wichita of any contact with the Tunicas. This would be highly unlikely if the Tunicas were Before closing, there are two issues which I indeed the people responsible for Spiro. At thinlc merit discussion. These are ethnicity and present, we find no credibility to this argument. the dilemma posed between academic exercises

23 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter and political reality. for the region. When proposing ethnic relation­ ships between archaeological cultural patterns • 1. The revisionist strategy for the Arkansas and known Native American groups, multiple River Valley tradition has done a service for the paths of continuity need to be established. In academic community because it has brought us to Oklahoma, where we deal with the Caddo, the the point where we must face the issue of ethnic­ Wichita and the Pawnee, I wonder if some of the ity. In the past, archaeologists have causally problem in these revisionist perspectives is not approached ethnic diversity and cultural bound­ one of definition. Because of the multiple associ­ aries. I would argue that this can be ultimately ations, we refer to Caddoan in a big C sense, be traced back to Clark Wissler and A. L. meaning the various groups of Caddoan language Kroeber and the cultural area concept where affiliation (Caddo, Wichita, K.ichai, Pawnee, cultural and territorial boundaries neatly con­ etc.), whereas in southwestern Arkansas and formed. With passage of the Native American northwestern Louisiana, Schambach need only be Graves, Protection, and Repatriation Act we are concerned with the small c sense of the Caddo now faced with the consequence of establishing confederacies. the relationships between prehistoric material culture and contemporary groups (correctly or •2. The second issue of political reality is one erroneously). Archaeological studies of ethnicity to which all of us in the archaeological profes­ have revealed the sometimes tenuous nature of sion must become increasingly sensitive. In the these connections. In some cases, there appear to past, archaeological argument could be expressed be clearly defined correspondence between as a challenge to conventional views. Provocative material culture and identified ethnic groups. In perspectives during the early Binford years in other instances, we find substantive distinctions fact became almost •t1e rigeur•. This •shock" between groups speaking a common language approach was initially intended to bring attention such as that found between the Pawnee and to a subject. We are now faced with the situation Wichita proper. From the other perspective, we that such challenges have much broader legal and can cite examples of different and sometimes political implications. If we are to discuss issues antagonistic groups that exhibit comparable ifnot of cultural affiliation (by the definition of identical material culture patterns (e.g., the NAGPRA) and deal with ethnicity, the cases we Ari.kara and the Kansa). Where a cultural tradi­ bring forth must be well grounded empirically. tion is extremely widespread, it may be very To do otherwise poses ethical and professional difficult to define the ethnic boundaries that dilemmas to the archaeological community, existed in prehistoric times. Here, the Plains Vil­ museologists, and Native American people as lage tradition is a classic example, even consider­ well as compromising the ultimate disposition of ing our excellent ethnohistory and ethnography the resources.

24 - -

Volume 6, Number 4 REFERENCES CITED

Al~rt, Lois E. Magnaghi. University of Oklahoma 1989 National Register Testing of Archeologi­ Press, Norman. cal Sites in the Lee Creek Watershed, Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Report Boserup, Esther submitted to the Oklahoma Historical 1965 1he Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Society in fulfillment of subgrant 40-88- Aldine Press, Chicago. 30122.005. Ms. on file, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, University of Brooks, Robert L. Oklahoma, Norman. 1987 1he Arthur site: Settlement and Subsis­ tence Structure at a Washita River Altschul, Jeffrey H. (editor) Phase Village. Studies in Oklahoma's 1983 Bug Hill: Excavation of a Multicompo Past 15. Oklahoma Archeological Sur­ nent Midden Mound in the Jaclifork Val­ vey, Norman. ley, Southeast Oklahoma. Report of Investigations 81-1. New World Re­ 1994 The Case for Sedentism Among Southern search, Pollock, Louisiana. Plains Villagers. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Plains Conference, Lub­ Bell, Robert E. bock. 1972 The Harlan Site, Ck-6, A Prehistoric Mound Center in County, Brown, James Eastern Oklahoma. Memoir 2. Oklaho­ 1978 Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Spiro ma Anthropo-logical Society. Phase. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Bell, pp. 241-263. Bell, Robert E. and David A. Baerreis Academic Press, New York. 1951 A Survey of Oklahoma Archaeology. Bulletin ofthe Texas Archaeological and Brues, Alice M. Paleontological Society 22:7-100. 1957 Skeletal Material From the Nagle Site. Bulletin ofthe Oklahoma Anthropologi­ Bement, Leland C. cal Society 5:93-99. 1994 Hunter-Gatherer Mor1uary Practices During the Central Texas Archaic. ca.1977 The Spiro Skeletal Material. In The University of Texas Press, Austin. Burials, edited by James Brown. Unpaginated draft ms. prepared as Spiro Berden, Frances F. Studies 5. University of Oklahoma, 1978 Ports of Trade in Mesoamerica: A Reap­ Norman. praisal. In Mesoamerican Communica­ tion Routes and Cultural Contacts, Braseth, James E., Diane E. Wilson, and edited by Thomas A. Lee, Jr. and Timothy K. Perttula Carlos Navarette, pp. 187-198. Papers 1995 The Sanders Site: A Spiroan Entrepot in of the New World Archaeological Foun­ Texas? Plains Anthropologist dation No. 40. Provo, Utah. 40(153):223-236.

Bolton, Herbert E. Burnett, Barbara 1987 The Hasinais: Southern Caddoans as Seen 1989 The Bioarcheological Synthesis. In Hu­ by the Earliest Europeans. Edited by Russell M. man Adaptation in the Ozark and

25

- ,..

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

Ouachita Mountains, edited by George Center, Research Series 3. University of Sabo, ill, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Oklahoma, Norman. Rose, Barbara A. Burnett, Louis Vogele, Jr., and James P. Harcourt, pp. Israel, Stephen 193-220. Research Series No. 31. Ar­ 1979 Re-Examination of the Cook.ron Site. kansas Archeological Survey, Studies in Oklahoma's Past 4. Okla­ Fayetteville. homa Archeological Survey, Norman.

Duffield, Lathel F. John, Elizabeth 1969 The Vertebrate Faunal Remains from the 1975 Storms Brewed In Other Men's Worlds-. School Land I and School Land II Sites, Texas A & M Press, College Station. Delaware County, Ok1ahoma. Bulletin ofthe Oklahoma Anthropological Soci­ Kent, Susan ety 22: 1-10. 1986 The Influence of Sedentism and Ag­ gregation on Porotic Hyperostosis and Earle, Timothy K., and Jonathan E. Ericson Anemia: A Case Study. Man 21:605- (editors) 636. 1976 Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Aca­ demic Press, New York. Lopinot, Neal H. Fedick, Scott 1991 Part I: Archaeobotanical Remains. In The 1995 Indigenous Agriculture in the Americas. Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds Journal of Anthropological Research ICT-11: Biological Remains, edited by 3(4):257-304. Neal H. Lopinot, Lucretia S. Kelley, George S. Milner, and Richard Paine, Fritz, Gayle pp. 160-162,168-169. Illinois Cultural 1989 Evidence of Plant Use From Copple Resources Study 13. Springfield. Mound at the Spiro Site. In Contribu­ tions to Spiro Archeology: Mound Exca­ Ortner, Donald J. vations and Regional Perspectives, 1991 Theoretical and Methodological Issues in edited by J . Daniel Rogers, Don G. Paleopatbology. In Human Wyckoff, and Dennis A. Peterson, pp. Paleopathology, edited by Donald J. 65-87. Studies in Oklahoma's Past 16. Ortner and Arthur Auferbeide, pp. 5- Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Nor- 11. Smithsonian Institution Press, New man. York.

Galm, Jerry 1981 Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations in the Ortner, Donald J. and Walter G. J. Putsbar Wister Va/fey, East-Central Oklahoma. 1985 Infectious Diseases; ltkntification of Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State Pathological Conditions in Human University. University Microfilms, Ann Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Contribu­ Arbor. tions in Anthropology 28:104-138.

Galm, Jerry and Peggy Flynn Pauketat, Timothy 1978 The Cultural Sequence al the Scott 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mis­ (34LF-ll) and Wann (34LF-27) and sissippian Politics in Native North Amer­ Prehistory ofthe Wister Valley. Archae­ ica. l.Jnivfflity of Alabeml Pree., 1\s:aloc&. ological Research and Management

26 Volume 6, Number 4

Polyani, Karl Smith, Bruce 1963 Ports of Trade in Early Societies. The 1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North Journal of Economic History 23:30-45. America. Science 246: 1566-1571.

Rohrbaugh, Charles L. Spielmann, Katherine A. 1982 Spiro and Fon Coffee Phases: Changing 1983 Late Prehistoric Exchange Between the Cultural Complexes of the Caddoan Southwest and Southern Plains. Plains Area. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Anthropologist 28:257-272. Wisconsin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Tainter, Joseph 1980 Behavior and Status in a Middle Wood­ Schambach, Frank F. land Mortuary Population from the 1990a The Place of Spiro in Southeastern Pre­ Illinois Valley. American Antiquity history: ls It Caddoan or Mississippian? 45:308-313. Southeastern Archaeology 9(1):67-69. Vehik, Susan C. 1990b The Northern "Caddoan Area" Was Not 1995 Caddoan Occupation of Northeastern Caddoao. Caddoan Archaeology News­ Oklahoma. Paper presented at the 17th letter 1(4):1-6. Annual Flint Hills Conference, Norman.

1993a Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology of Wedel, Mildred M. Eastern North America: Papers in 1971 J.-B. Benard, Sieur De La Harpe: Visitor Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by to the Wichitas in 1719. Great Plains James B. Stoltman, pp. 187-230. Ar­ Journal 10:37-70. chaeological Report 25. Mississippi De­ partment of Archives and History, Jackson. Wyckoff, Don G. 1980 Caddoan Adaptive Strategies in the Ar­ 1993b Spiroan Entrepots at and Beyond the kansas Basin ofEastern Oklahoma. Pb. W estem Border of the Trans-Mississippi D. dissertation, Washington State Uni­ South. CaddoanArchaeology Newsletter versity. University Microfilms, Ann 4(2): l l-26. Arbor.

27