The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods Author(S): Mary Beth D

Home , Spondylus

The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods Author(s): Mary Beth D. Trubitt Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 11, No. 3 (September 2003), pp. 243-277 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053199 . Accessed: 17/05/2012 05:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological Research.

The Productionand Exchangeof Marine ShellPrestige Goods

Mary BethD. Trubitt1

Marineshell ornaments have several characteristics that make them significant for archaeologicalanalysis. Made from a rawmaterial valued by cultures throughout theworld and imbuedwith water, life, health, and fertility symbolism, shell objects havefunctioned as prestigegoods. Shell prestige goods circulated between individuals,groups, and societiesand materializedinterpersonal relationships, making themvaluable for archaeologists shifting focus from objects to thepeople inpast societies.Shell ornaments had multipleroles, including ornamentation, wealth, markingstatus, and as ritualparaphernalia, and had varyingsymbolic associa- tionseven within a society.The rich ethnographic literature on shelluse provides a sourcefor archaeologicalmodel building. Marine shell artifacts often moved betweensocieties and across long distances,offering a wayfor archaeologists to exploreregional relationships and theinteractions between ancient societies. To do thisrequires using several scales ofanalysis to investigatearchaeological residuesof a systemthat includes marine shell ornaments, the social organizationof their production and exchange,and thepeople whomade, displayed, and circulatedthem.

KEY WORDS: marineshell; prestige goods; craft production; exchange systems.

INTRODUCTION

Marineshell is noordinary faunal material. In coastal regions, marine shellfish havebeen important as food(Claassen, 1998, pp. 175-195) or processedfor dye (Reese, 1980; Ziderman,1990). Theirshells found much wider utility as raw materialfor tools, containers, trumpets, ornaments, inlay and gaming pieces, and figurines(e.g., Andrews,1969; Di Peso, 1974; Holmes, 1883; Kenoyer,1985;

'ArkansasArcheological Survey, Henderson State University, Box H-7841, 1100 HendersonStreet, Arkadelphia,Arkansas 71999-0001; e-mail: [email protected].

243

1059-0 1 6 1/03/O9OO-0243/0 e 2003 PlenumPublishing Corporation 244 Trubitt

Luer et al, 1986; Reese, 1985). Prized for the shapes, colors, and shininessof theirnatural forms, shells are symbolically linked with water and the sea, and theirvalue increases with distance fromthe coast (Winters,1968). The creation of beads frommarine shell is as ancient as the Late Pleistocene (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1991; Fiedel, 1989, pp. 189-190) and continuesinto the presentday. With value added fromthe labor thattransforms hard raw materialinto shaped ornaments, marineshells have servedas prestigegoods foradornment and display,money and wealth,status markers, and ritualuse. For archaeologists,marine shell is significantfor several reasons. It was man- ufacturedinto objects thatwere used, circulated,and discarded in ways thatleft archaeologicalresidues. Marine shell is a raw materialwith an extensiveworldwide distribution,although its sources are limitedto oceans and seas. It is sourceable (more or less) and identifiableas "exotic" when found inland, making marine shell a prime material for archaeological studies of exchange and interaction. Shell ornamentstypically have been used in social exchanges thatadd prestigeto the individualswho acquire, display,and circulatethem. As prestigegoods, shell ornamentsmaterialize the social, political, and economic relationshipsbetween people at both local and regional scales (DeMarrais et a/., 1996). Discussions of themeanings and uses of marineshell ornamentsabound in ethnographicand ethnohistoricdescriptions of societies around the world and can be a rich source for archaeologistsbuilding models of prestigegoods production,exchange, and use. The researchpotential of shell has yet to be fullytapped by archaeologists. My purpose in thispaper is to review the archaeological literatureon the production and exchange of marine shell ornamentsand highlightmethods, problems, and potentialavenues formore fruitful research. I have reachedthree main conclusions. First,marine shell ornamentswere createdand used as prestigegoods to be worn,displayed, given as gifts,and exchanged. Perhapsmarine shell possesses an inherentattractiveness that makes it an ideal materialfor displays of status,health, and success (Hayden, 1998, pp. 12-13). Passing throughthe hands of manypeople over long durations,shell prestigegoods are materialsymbols of the interactions and relationshipsbetween individuals,groups, and societies in the past. They are objects that give archaeologists access to the people of the past. Second, shell ornamentsand otherprestige goods were used in multipleways, even withinone culture. The complexities of the functionsand symbolismof marine shell and shell objects can be seen fromsome of the detailed ethnographictreatments of recentshell-circulating societies. This variabilityhas sometimesbeen reduced by archaeologiststo debates over whethershell beads were used as moneyor as status markers(Prentice, 1987). Close attentionto depositionalcontexts, examination of shell imagery,and analyses thatcombine ethnographic,ethnohistoric, and archaeological data may reveal a betterunderstanding of the uses and meaningsof differentkinds of shell ornamentsin specific societies. Third,marine shell orna- mentsoften moved between societies and circulatedfor long periods of time.To The Productionand Exchangeof Manne Shell PrestigeGoods 245 understandhow people used marine shell prestige goods, archaeologists must in- vestigatelocations of ornament production as wellas consumption.It is important toresearch systems of marine shell ornament production and exchange at different scalesof analysis to incorporate the distant regions and broad time spans that were linkedby the creation, circulation, and depositionof marineshell artifacts. Costin(2001) describes"production systems" in terms of key components - people,objects, and thetechniques, mechanisms, and organization of production and exchange- and theinterrelationships between them. She identifiessix componentsof productionsystems. Discussion of the"artisans" includes the social identityof thecraft producers in termsof theirgender, age, status,ethnicity, as wellas whethercraft producers are specialists, how crafting is scheduled,and how craftersare recruited. The "means of production" component refers to raw materials andtheir procurement, and the techniques, production sequences, and production strategiesthat make up thetechnology. "Organization and social relationshipsof production"includes the spatial and physicalaspects of production activities, the social organizationof productionunits, and thecontext of production."Objects" refersto thecrafted items themselves, and theirfunctions and meaningsto their consumers.The "relationshipsof distribution"component includes not only spa- tialaspects of the movement of goods from one place toanother but understanding themechanisms for their circulation. "Consumers" includes discussion of the social identityof theusers of craftedobjects as well as the spatialpatterning of consumption(Costin, 2001). Breakingapart a productionsystem into its component parts in this way allows usto conceptualize a complex topic and organize a largeamount of information. But Costin's(2001) treatmentalso emphasizesthe interplay between the components in sucha system.Because thesedifferent components may be separatedin time and space,it is importantto conceptualizecraft production and exchangeas an interrelatedsystem. In myreview of the archaeological literature on shellworking, I adoptCostin's production system as an organizationalscheme, but I deviatefrom hersequence of components. Here, I startwith the objects themselves and the role of marineshell ornaments as prestigegoods. Because there are some key differences in theproduction and exchangeof utilitarianand prestigegoods, I beginwith a discussionof marineshell ornaments as prestigegoods and their role in prestige- goodseconomies. The subsequentsection of thispaper looks at researchon the othercomponents of marineshell ornament production and exchange systems.

MARINE SHELL ORNAMENTS AS PRESTIGE GOODS

Theethnographic and ethnohistoric literature abounds with descriptions of the display,exchange, and use ofmarine shell ornaments. In fact, marine shell is oneof thebest-documented materials used for prestige goods. I offerseveral ethnographic examplesto showhow shell ornaments have been valued as prestigegoods. 246 Tnibitt

Malinowski's anthropological classic, Argonauts of the WesternPacific ( 1922), is a studyof kula exchange in theTrobriand Islands of Papua New Guinea. Here, we are providedwith photographs of men and women makingmarine shell ornamentsand withdetailed descriptionsof men exchangingshells withpartners on differentislands. Objects of marine shell are highlyvalued even in these island societies. The exchanges of red Spondylusor Chama shell bead necklaces for white Conus armshellstake place over long distancesbetween men fromdifferent islands of theMassim region(Weiner, 1 988). Kula exchange is reciprocal,with the value of the shell given expected to closely matchthe value of the shell received, but is delayed, so thatexchange sequences have long duration.Kula shell necklaces and armshells,made at several islands in thenortheastern, northwestern, and southeasternMassim (Leach, 1983, p. 23), are rankedand valued by characteristics such as size, coloration,age, and history(Campbell, 1983). Why do Massim men engage in kula? Leach (1983) summarizesthree main explanations:kula exchanges preservepeace and facilitatetrade in otherresources between islands; kula exchanges allow men to compete forprestige; or kula exchange materializessocial networksof people thatmaintain the social order.What is interestingfrom the detailed descriptionsof kula exchange thathave been published since Malinowski's Argonautsis the variabilitywithin the Massim region. Participationin kula exchange may be limitedor more universalamong men on differentislands, the shell valuables may be used for internalexchanges within communitiesin some societies in additionto theirrole in theexternal kula exchange network,and the symbolismof the shells (for example, associations of armshells and necklaces with male or female) varies in differentparts of the Massim (see papers in Leach and Leach, 1983). What is similar across the region,and common to all three explanations for kula, is that kula shell ornamentsare highly valued even in these maritimesocieties and that theirexchanges give material formto men's relationshipswith othersbeyond theirlocal communities."In the Trobriands,where exchange is thebasic frameworkaround which formal patterns of social interactionare organized, objects become highlysignificant because in - theirmanner of presentation quality,quantity, and the like- theycan be read as an objectificationof desire and intent"(Weiner, 1976, p. 212). Shell ornaments become materialsymbols of interpersonalrelationships. Many of the early ethnographersand travelersto Oceania described strings of shell disk beads and otherornaments as money (e.g., Lewis, 1929; forwestern NorthAmerica see Gifford,1926, pp. 377-378; Loeb, 1926, pp. 176-179). Tradere in contact situationsemphasized the money functionof shell and othermaterials. Probably the best known "shell money" took the formof cowrie shells (Cypraea moneta) fromthe Indian Ocean, shipped to West Africa and used in the slave tradebetween the sixteenthand nineteenthcenturies (Gregory, 1996; Hogendom and Johnson,1986). Withmore in-depthethnography in areas of the worldwhere shell was still actively exchanged, differencesin the use of shell as valuables The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 247 becameapparent. Connell (1977) documentedtwentieth century changes in shell use in theSolomon Islands in Melanesia,where certain kinds of shellwere used in commodityexchanges and have now been replaced by Australiancash money; othershell products were used in social exchangessuch as bridewealth(see also Ross, 1981;Strathern, 1975, pp. 101-11 1). Rawa speakersin Papua New Guinea distinguishspecific kinds of shellornaments based on thekind of shellsor beads used,how they are sewnonto clothing, how they are wornand by whom(men or women),when they were traditionally worn, and whatthey can be exchangedfor (ifat all) (Dalton,1996, p. 397). Ethnographersand ethnohistorians have explored the complex uses, roles, and symbolismof shellobjects in specificsocieties. Historically, shell bead wampum innortheastern North America had numerousfunctions: as ornaments,in beltsas mnemonicrecords, and as an exchangeobject both for reciprocal gifts and non- reciprocalpayments (Ceci, 1982,1989; Smith,1983). WithEuropean contact, the moneyfunction of shell bead wampum came to be emphasizedto the exclusion of otheruses in a systemlinking coastal Algonquians, European traders, and interior Iroquois(Ceci, 1982; Slotkinand Schmitt, 1949). ForIndians in the Northeast, shell bead wampum,like gold and silver for Europeans, "served as tangiblemetaphors ofhighest cultural value: not simply wealth in theeconomic sense, but wealth as a " visiblesymbol of Veil-being' (Hamell,1996, p. 51). Wealthsymbolized health and successin a broaderand more complex sense. It has becomeclear that shell ornaments(and metals)have multiple meanings and uses bothwithin a society andas theymove between cultures.

PrestigeVersus Utilitarian Goods

Prestigegoods are used "to display wealth, success, and power. The purpose is to solve a social problemor accomplisha social tasksuch as attractingpro- ductivemates, labor, and allies or bonding members of social groupstogether via displaysof success"(Hayden, 1998, p. 11). Alternativelytermed "elite goods" "statusgoods," "primitive valuables," or "wealth,"prestige goods are valuedraw materialsor manufacturedobjects used to establishand maintainsocial and po- liticalrelationships. These objectsare necessaryitems for marriage or mortuary paymentsand othersocial exchanges,may be used as symbolsof social identity and highstatus, and can be accumulatedas wealth(Dalton, 1977; D'Altroyand Earle,1985; Dupré and Rey, 1973; Ekholm, 1 977; Friedmanand Rowlands, 1977; Meillassoux,1978). Whethermade of hardmaterials such as metalor shellor softmaterials like cloth or fur,typically they are made fromimported raw materialsor materialswith limited distributions, made withexcessive labor input or withcomplex technologies (Ekholm, 1972; Haselgrove,1982; Hayden,1998; Peregrine,1990). Peregrine (1990, pp. 149-158, 1991,pp. 3-4) identifiedethno- graphicexamples of prestigegoods that functioned as valuables,as standardized 248 TinMtt

money,as status symbols,and as political or ritualsymbols. Categories of prestige goods include both "badges of authority"that mark high statusor rank,and "generalized wealth" thatis more widely used and exchanged (Hirth,1992, p. 22). The potentialfor elite controlover acquisition,production, or exchange varies for these differentkinds of prestigegoods (Brumfieland Earle, 1987). Because marine shell is oftena valued raw materialand marineshell orna- mentscirculated as prestigegoods, theirproduction and exchange is likelyto be organized quite differentlyfrom that of utilitariangoods. Hayden (1998) makes a distinctionbetween practical technologiesthat respond to basic problemsof sur- vival and human maintenance,and prestigetechnologies that address social problems of attractingmates and allies. This distinctionbetween practical and prestige goods in partinvolves differentproduction priorities. Effectiveness and efficiency are primaryconsiderations in practical technologies,while prestigetechnologies yield objects fordisplay and social promotionthat are labor intensivein theirac- quisitionand production(Hayden, 1998, pp. 2-15). Specialized productionof utilitariangoods ofteninvolves increased productionefficiency and mass production, whereas for prestige goods, specialization may involve restrictedknowledge of complex technologiesor increases in productionlabor ("conspicuous production," Clark and Parry,1 990, p. 293 ; see also Peregrine,1 99 1). In addition,prestige goods are oftenmade of exotic (nonlocal) materials,are curatedrather than consumed, and are used in a varietyof social, economic, and political exchanges. Utilitarianand subsistence goods are often exchanged locally and may be traded between differentregions, but prestige goods, or the materials used to make them,tend to be exchanged over longer distances and between networks of elites because of theirhigh value (Hirth, 1992). Analysis of prestige-goods productionand exchange, therefore,is importantfor understanding not only local or regional but also "macroregional"relationships (Blanton et ö/., 1993; Feinman and Nicholas, 1993, pp. 103-104). While utilitariangoods are distributed,stored, and consumed, prestigegoods oftenstay in circulationfor extended periods. As theycirculate, some prestigegoods may acquire historiesor names and become more valuable as heirlooms,so a long durationmay pass beforeprestige goods are deposited in burials,caches, or hoards. Deposition or destructionof these objects was perhapsas a way of countering"inflation," converting wealth to statusthrough "conspicuous consumption,"or "promoting"oneself througha display of power (Dupré and Rey, 1973, p. 149; Halstead, 1993, p. 608; Hayden, 1998, pp. 13-14; King, 1976, p. 303). Why and when prestigegoods would be buriedis a question thatneeds furtherinvestigation, both throughethnography and archaeology.

Models of Prestige-Goods Economies

Because shell ornamentsare made to be worn,displayed, gifted,and circulated betweenpeople, manyresearchers have discussed theirrole in prestige-goods The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 249 economies. Althoughthis paper is not primarilyabout prestige-goodsexchange, marine shell ornamentshave been used in ways that contrastwith the production,exchange, and consumptionof utilitariangoods. Models of prestige-goods economies typicallystress the control of thesegoods as a source of politicalpower, but a focus on shell ornamentsshows more variation. Prestige-goodsexchange involves the circulation of valued raw materialsand craftedgoods between individuals,elites, or kin groups to amass prestige,estab- lish and maintainrank differences,and reinforcepower hierarchies(Dupré and Rey, 1973; Ekhoim, 1972, 1977; Frankensteinand Rowlands, 1978; Friedmanand Rowlands, 1977; Meillassoux, 1978). As prestigegoods are acquired, displayed, accumulated,and exchanged, they"materialize" social, political, and economic relationshipsbetween people (DeMarrais et ai, 1996), notjust locally but at regional and interregionalscales. Leaders derive status and validation throughthe accumulationof prestigegoods thatdisplay theirabilities to mobilize resources locally and regionallythrough their exchanges and interactionwith otherelites (Clark and Blake, 1994; Hirth,1992). Helms (1993) explores how long-distance acquisitionof goods demonstratesleaders' abilitiesand even cosmological power:

Prestigeis especiallyawarded when things acquired are obtained from outside and thereby containan auraof exceptionality. Prestige is also accordedin suchcircumstances because acquisitionof outsidethings reflects most favorably upon highly valued and laudedskills and personalcharacteristics of theacquirer, who has had to deal in some fashionwith a conceptuallydistinctive foreign realm qualitatively defined as involvingthe sanctified, the mystical,or thepower-filled. (Helms, 1993, p. 101)

Models of prestige-goodseconomies were originallydeveloped by French structural-marxistsinterested in the ways thatexchanges of food, prestigegoods, and marriagemates transformedsystems of seniorityinto hierarchiesof ranked lineages (Dupré and Rey, 1973; Ekhoim, 1972, 1977; Meillassoux, 1978). Control of the raw materialsand productionand distributionsystems for prestigegoods was seen as key to maintaininghierarchical systems (Ekhoim, 1972, 1977). Ex- changes of prestigegoods or valuables were importantin several of Friedmanand Rowlands' (1977) evolutionarystages. However,they distinguish systems where rankis in fluxand prestigegained throughfeasting and marriageexchanges, from systemswhere rank differencesare set, tributeis passed up the hierarchy,and prestigegoods and marriagemates are exchanged between elites of differentpoli- ties.Their prestige-goods system is a furtherelaboration, where prestige goods are passed down thepolitical hierarchyfrom elites at the centerto lesser elites in outlyingcommunities to maintainpolitical and economic loyalties. It is at thispoint thatcontrol of prestige-goodsproduction and long-distanceexchange becomes important(Friedman and Rowlands, 1977, pp. 224-228). Archaeological models of prestige-goodseconomies have emphasized the role of exchanges in status competitionand the development of ranked or hi- erarchical systems,and attemptsby emergingelites to control prestige goods productionand exchange (e.g., Blanton et ai, 1993, pp. 219-224; Frankenstein 250 TnMtt andRowlands, 1978; Friedmanand Rowlands,1977; Haselgrove, 1982; Hayden, 1998; McGuire,1985, 1989; Peregrine,1990, 1991; Welch,1991). Critiquesof prestige-goodseconomy models cite an oversimplificationofthe relationship be- tweensocial power and elite control of laborand exotics and a lackof attention to thediversity in prestige-goodseconomies (Cobb, 1993,pp. 63-64; Saitta,1999). Althoughmost definitions of prestige-goods economies focus on theissue of controlof prestige-goodsproduction and exchange,the archaeological evidence for suchcontrol is less forthcoming.Following Friedman and Rowlands (1977), I find it usefulto differentiatestages in thedevelopment of prestige-goodseconomies, each withdistinct archaeological expectations (Trubitt, 1996, pp. 36-39; see also Frankensteinand Rowlands, 1978). Early stages of prestige-goods economies vary fromlater stages in termsof rank negotiation and status differentiation and should presentdifferences interms of the centralization and control of prestige-goods production,and thecirculation of prestige goods at a local or regionalscale. Control of prestige-goodsacquisition, production, and exchangeas a sourceof political poweris expectedto be a featureof late stage or developed prestige-goods systems (Trubitt,1996, 2000). Mostdiscussions of prestige-goods economies assume this laterstage, and I suggestthat more attention be paid to thecirculation of prestige goodsin societieswith dynamic rank and prestige competition. The investigationof prestige-goodsexchange from archaeological data has focusedon thedistribution of imported,centrally produced, and locally produced prestigegoods deposited in burials of individualsof differing status and in hoards (e.g.,Frankenstein and Rowlands, 1978; Haselgrove, 1982, pp. 81-84). McGuire (1985; McGuireand Howard, 1987) investigatedthe Hohokam as a prestige-goods economyby documentingchanges in social inequalityas seen fromburials and residences,and in theproduction and exchangeof shellvaluables as seen from distributiondata. A temporalshift from the acquisition of finishedornaments to theirmanufacture atHohokam centers is identified(McGuire and Howard, 1987). Analysisof the depositional contexts of shell objects can aid in understandingthe meaningsand uses of shellprestige goods, while examination of craft production localesis neededto answerquestions about the social organizationof production and thecontrol of prestige-goods production or distribution.

INVESTIGATING SHELL ORNAMENT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Ideally,archaeologists could followmarine shell prestige goods on a trajec- toryfrom raw material acquisition and ornamentproduction by artisans,through theexchange, circulation, or distributionof finishedgoods to consumers,to their use, reuse,and finaldisposal or deposition.In reality,the archaeological literatureon marineshell artifacts has concentratedon identifyingthe types of shell objectsat coastaland inlandsites, the potential sources of theraw materials, and distributionsand depositioncontexts of finishedornaments. Archaeologists are The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 251

increasingtheir recognition and investigationof productionlocales, providing a keylink to the social organization of production. There has been little discussion of themechanisms for the movement of shell and shell objects from artisans to users, orof the social identity of producers and consumers. Conversely, the ethnographic literatureon thepeople who create, circulate, and use shellornaments is rich,and archaeologistsshould take advantage of this information for models and analogies. Withan overviewof the objects- marineshell prestigegoods - as back- ground,I nowlook at archaeologicalinvestigations of shellornament production systemsand discusssome methods,problems, and areas forfuture research. I beginwith the materials, tools, and techniquesof shell ornamentproduction. I proceedto examine research on theorganization of production, including the units andcontexts of shell ornament production. Issues of the identity of producers and consumersof shellornaments are addressed.Finally, I discussresearch on the mechanismsof distribution and circulation of shell,and theuses andmeanings of theobjects themselves.

Raw Materialsand Sources

A firststep in investigating production and exchange systems is theidentifica- tionof raw materials and their sources. For marine shell, this involves identification ofshell species and their natural ranges. Identifying species can be difficultif the originalshell has been alteredby manufactureinto ornaments, or if identifiable featureson theshell have deteriorated before or aftermanufacture and deposition (Claassen,1998, pp. 54-70, 89-90; Davis, 1989;Topping, 1989). Distinguishing recentfrom fossil shell can be problematicbut necessary for identifying sources. Shackletonand Elderfield (1990) employedstrontium isotope dating to differenti- ateolder fossil Spondylus species found in central Europe from the recent Spondy- lus specieswith a Mediterraneanrange. Identification of shellartifacts to species is compoundedby changes in biological classification by malacologists, variation in shellsize andform with age andgrowth environment, and intergradesbetween specieswith overlapping ranges. For example, archaeologists working with whelk shellornaments in easternNorth American assemblages have had somedifficulty in identifyingthe species of Busycon used andthus the source areas of the shells. Whilethe thicker-shelled, spinier, and morerobust Busycon pulleyi lives in the westernGulf of Mexico and thethinner, smoother Busycon sinistrum ranges in theeastern Gulf and southernAtlantic, these species intergrade in theMississippi Riverdelta region. Furthermore, the size, appearance, and robusticity of individual shellsis affectedby local growthenvironment (Dreiss, 1994; Lueret al, 1986). Assumingone can navigatethe malacological difficulties and identifyshell artifactsto specieswith some reliability, the problem then becomes one of pin- pointinga sourcearea. Collecting or quantifying modern shell distributions along coastscan establishranges (e.g., Hale, 1976,pp. 66-69; Kenoyer,1997, p. 274), 252 Trubitt butmarine shellfish often have large(ocean-sized) natural ranges. More precise sourcingmay be possibleif local growthenvironments ofshellfish have detectable geochemicaldifferences. Some researchhas shownthe potential of bothoxygen isotopeanalysis and chemicaltrace element analysis to sourceshells and shell artifactsto regionsof origin(Claassen, 1989, 1998,pp. 212-216; Claassenand Sigmann,1993; Kenoyer,1997, pp. 274-275; Shackletonand Renfrew,1970). These techniquesare promising for archaeologists interested in moredetailed re- constructionsof thecirculation of shellsacross regions.

Tools and Techniquesof OrnamentManufacture

Marineshell recovered from archaeological sites tends to be softand friable, butfresh shell is dense,compact, and hard. It is a rawmaterial that is surprisingly difficultto work.As Holmes(1883, p. 286) pointedout: "Let anyone whothinks lightlyof sucha work[cutting and engravingshell] undertake, without machin- eryor well-adaptedappliances, to cut a grooveor notcheven, in a moderately compactspecimen of Busycon, and he willprobably increase his good opinionof theskill and patience of the ancient workman if he does nothingelse." Shellarti- sansaround the world have faced similar problems, leading to similarsolutions in productiontools and manufacturing techniques. This becomes clear when marine shellworking is viewedcross-culturally, but often this perspective has beenlack- ing.Unlike archaeological approaches to lithicor ceramictechnologies, the shell literaturehas beenrather provincial. (The 1986Shell Bead Conferenceheld at the RochesterMuseum and Science Center and the 1995 "Shell Ornament Production: A New WorldPerspective" symposium at theSociety for American Archaeology AnnualMeeting are exceptions,but both concentrated mainly on evidencefrom theAmericas.) The formsof finishedshell ornamentshave receivedmore attention than productiontechniques or locales. A wide varietyof shellornaments are found archaeologically(e.g., Bennyhoffand Hughes,1987; Brown,1996; Ceci, 1989; Fowleret ai, 1999;Hammett and Sizemore, 1989; King, 1978). Beads weremade byperforating small, whole shells or by cutting, shaping, and perforating pieces of largeshells (e.g., Biscione etaL, 1981;Francis,1982, 1989; Miller, 1996;Moholy- Nagy,1989; Reese, 1989). Shells were cut, chipped, ground, and smoothed to form bracelets,bangles, rings, pins, pendants, and gorgets(e.g., Bradley,1993; Dales and Kenoyer,1977; Feinman and Nicholas,1993; Holmes, 1883; Kenoyer, 1985; McGuireand Howard, 1987; Tosi, 1984;Turner, 1993). Empirical documentation of thearchaeological residues of shellornament production is an importantstep in analyzingshell-working technologies. The techniquesand thetools for working shell can be gleanedfrom ethnographicand ethnohistoricdescriptions, from experimental replication, and from finishedand discardedshell ornaments,debitage, and associatedtools. From The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 253

ethnographicand ethnohistoricalsources come descriptionsof tools forcutting and shapingshell, such as flinttools and sandstonegrinding stones (e.g., Lewis, 1929;Loeb, 1926,pp. 177-178;Strathern, 1975, pp. 237-239). Malinowski(1922, pp.367-374, Plate L-LII) describesand illustrates Spondylus shell bead making by Trobrianders.Connell (1977, p. 93) providesdetails on shelldisc bead manufacture on theSolomon Islands where women make beads by breaking and shapingshell intodiscs, smoothing, and drillingholes in thecenters, traditionally using stone toolsand flint-tippedstring drills, more recently using hammers, metal cylinders, and braceand bitdrills. The finalsmoothing is done by men,who formerlyused groovedstones and a sand-waterabrasive, but more recently use importedgrind- ingblocks. Production estimates for craftswomen and men and for households are provided(Connell, 1977, pp. 93-94). Ethnographiescan provideinformation on thetime required for ornament production and the gendered tasks associated with shellcraftwork. This is importantfor archaeologists interested in thegender of craftworkers;this issue has rarelybeen addressed for shell. Replicationstudies can generatehypotheses about manufacturing sequences, identifydistinctive tools and by-productsof thefabricating process, and provide timeand laborestimates. Experimental replication of ornamentsby male and femaleresearchers might point out differencesin productiontime or strength requirements.Replication often provides a personalperspective on shellworking and use. Lewenstein(1987, pp. 66-67) describesreplicating a shelltrumpet and herslow progress sawing at the columella tip with lithic tools before hitting on the score-and-snaptechnique. After producing a loud blaston a Turbinellatrumpet fromDzibilchaltun, Mexico, Andrews (1969, p. 56) reports"I was convincedthat muchof my lip membrane was permanently destroyed and my front teeth perilously shaken."In additionto shelltrumpets, researchers have replicatedbracelets or bangles(Dales andKenoyer, 1977) and severaltypes of shellbeads (e.g., Francis, 1982,1989; Kenoyer, 1985, p. 316; Miller,1996; Morse, 1975, pp. 137-139,141, 144; Sierzchula,1980). Replicationand use of shell-workingtools led to theidentification of dis- tinctivemicrowear and polish on microlithicchert drill bits used for drilling holes in shellbeads (Allenet al, 1997,pp. 25-26; Arnold,1987a, p. 257; Lewenstein, 1987;Peterson, 1986; Pope, 1989;Yerkes, 1983, 1987, 1989a). Chertmicrodrills withthe same basic formand usewearhave now been identifiedas a specialized tool forworking shell in numerousarchaeological assemblages from both theNew World(Arnold, 1987a,b; Feinman and Nicholas,1993, p. 108,Fig. 10; Holley,1995; King, 1976, pp. 309-314; Lewenstein,1987, p. 66; Mason and Perino,1961; Masucci,1995, pp. 76-77; Morse,1975, pp. 124-145;Pope, 1989; Yerkes,1989b) and theOld World(Allen et a/., 1997; Kenoyer,1985, p. 316, 1997,p. 271; Laporte,1998; Miller, 1996, pp. 12-13). Othertools, such as sand- stonesaws, slabs, and grooved abraders (Masucci, 1995, p. 76; Morseand Morse, 1983,pp. 250-251; Pauketat,1993, pp. 92-96; Seymour,1988, pp. 821-822), or metalhammers, picks, chisels, and saws (Kenoyer, 1985, pp. 310-316), are usually 254 Trubitt identifiedas partof theshell-working "kit" based on theirassociation with shell debris.From the Archaic Indian Knoll site in Kentucky, a tool kit interpreted from a burialcontext contained pieces of shell,finished shell beads, shell bead blanks, a "bonedrift," and a "flintreamer," but was associatedwith an infantor juvenile (Webb,1974, p. 170, 192; see also Winters,1968, p. 209). Unfinishedornaments and pieces of shell often retain signs of the techniques usedfor cutting, shaping, and perforating (e.g., Di Peso, 1974,Fig. 262-2; Durante, 1979;Feinman and Nicholas, 1993, Fig. 7; Kenoyer,1985, p. 310; Laporte,1998, p. 18, Fig. 2-3; Mester,1989, Fig. 6; Turner,1993, pp. 95-102). A score-and- snaptechnique was oftenused to breakshell into pieces, and abrading or grinding shellon sandstoneslabs to shapeand polishornaments was a commonfinal step. Somepieces of shell from the Cahokia site in the Mississippi River Valley had saw marksfrom scoring with a sandstonesaw (Pauketat,1993, pp. 99-102). Worked shellpieces from the Ejutla site in Oaxaca, Mexico,indicate that cane tubedrills andstring were used for cutting shell (Feinman and Nicholas, 1993, 2000, pp. 128- 129) . Craftingof Glycymeris bracelets in the American Southwest involved cutting and chippingof thebivalve shells and extensivegrinding and smoothing,with unfinishedpieces showingchipped edges (Bayman, 1996, pp. 409-411). In a recentdiscussion of Chumash shell working, Arnold and Graesch (2001) detailthe manufacturing sequences used in theCalifornia Channel Islands to pro- duce beads fromOlivella, Haliotis, Tivela, and Mytilus shell, ornaments from a varietyof shellgenera, and fishhooksfrom Mytilus and Haliotisshell. The form ofthe manufacturing waste and by-products differs with the various raw materials and finishedproducts. Clear identificationof thesespecific by-products, such as beadblanks and beads-in-production, is necessary to interpret the spatial and social organizationof bead production(see also Laporte,1998; Miller, 1996, pp. 17-20). Expositionsof manufacturing sequences and technologies, considered essential to analysesof stonetool production,have been relativelyrare in theshell-working literature.

Social Contextsof Marine Shell OrnamentProduction

Productionareas or workshops can be identifiedfrom shell-working residues. Archaeologicalindicators of shellornament production may include unworked shells,waste pieces and smalldebris, broken or unfinishedornaments, and manufacturingtools (Dales andKenoyer, 1977, pp. 14, 18; Kenoyer,1985, pp. 325-329; Tosi,1984, p. 38; Trubitt,1996, pp. 223-242). Spatialseparation of different stages ofproduction may complicate identification ofworkshops. For example, both shell beads and thestone drills for perforating them were made at theLate Neolithic Ponthezièressite in westernFrance (Laporte, 1998, pp. 17-19),but often at sepa- ratesites in theCalifornia Channel Islands (Arnold, 1987a, pp. 216-222, 1987b, pp. 222-229). The Productionand Exchangeof Manne Shell PrestigeGoods 255

One problem has been differentiatingproduction areas from use, storage, or discard locations. Quantitiesof brokenSpondylus rings found in domestic areas at the Late Neolithic site of Dimini in Greece were interpretedas differen- tial accumulationand destruction/consumptionby certainhouseholds ratherthan evidence for specialized craftproduction (Halstead, 1993). One useful analyti- cal technique to differentiateproduction areas fromconsumption activities has been to compare ratios or proportionsof manufacturingdebris and brokenor in- process pieces to finishedshell ornaments(Arnold and Graesch, 2001; Bayman, 1996; Feinman and Nicholas, 2000; Howard, 1985, p. 461). Identifyingproduc- tion locations as opposed to storageareas may be difficult.At Casas Grandes in northernMexico, nearly4 million workedand unworkedshells along with some shell-workingtools were found in two roomblocks and interpretedas manufac- turingand storage for trade (Bradley, 1993, pp. 128, 134-137; Di Peso, 1974, pp. 383-386, 394-396, 501-505, 627-629). Because the majorityof the shell ornamentswere perforatedNassarius whole-shell beads, minimal manufacturing debris would have been produced (Bradley, 1993, pp. 135-136). Differentiat- ing between actual workshop locations and dumps of workshop debris also is a problem (Miller, 1996, p. 23). Turner(1993) used the presence of microdeb- itage fromtest excavation flotationsamples, in addition to shell and stone debris and broken ornaments,to identifyshell and fine stone lapidary workshops at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Small debris would be left in situ on workshop floors even afterclean up, and this microdebitagemay be the best indicatorof workshops as opposed to storage or dump areas (Turner, 1993, pp. 94-95; see also Feinman and Nicholas, 2000, p. 130; Mills, 2000, pp. 314-315; Seymour, 1988, pp. 816, 820-821). The location of shell ornamentproduction is archaeologicallydetectable and is thekey to understandingthe social organizationof production,that is, thesize and composition,affiliation, and distributionof productiongroups (see Costings(1991) parametersof production:scale or constitutionof productionunits and intensity, context,and concentrationof productionactivities). Shell workinghas mostoften been identifiedarchaeologically in residentialcontexts, indicating household production(either for internal use or forexchange), especially in the Americas. This may be because the labor requiredfor shell ornamentproduction is time consum- ing ratherthan requiring specific facilities or large work groups. In the American Southwest,shell-working activity areas including shell debris and broken ornaments were identifiedon house floors at Los Hornos (Howard, 1985, p. 463; McGuire and Howard, 1987, p. 123) and Snaketownin Arizona (Seymour, 1988, pp. 813, 816-820; Seymour and Schiffer,1987, pp. 585, 587). Shell ornament productionis one of the household activitieshighlighted in Flannery's The Early Mesoamerican Village (Flanneryand Winter,1976, pp. 39, 41^*2; Pires-Ferreira, 1976, pp. 315-316). More examples are emergingas "household archaeology" is employed to investigatestatus and activitydifferentiation within communities. 256 Trubitt

Althoughit is unusual to finddescriptions of largernonresidential production units, shell-workingdebris has been identifiedboth in residentialapartment areas and in nonresidentialshell workshopsat the urbancenters of Teotihuacan,Mexico, and Moenjo-daro, Pakistan (Kenoyer, 1985, pp. 326-327; Turner,1993, pp. 92-95, 106-108; Wright,1996, p. 127). We are beginningto get a sense of the variabilityin the scale and intensity of marineshell ornamentproduction, in the statusof craftworkersand consumers, and in the control of labor, materials,or exchange systemsin societies across a range of sizes, political organizations,and geographic locations. Household production of shell ornamentsranges from low-intensityproduction for domestic use evidenced by shell bead manufacturingtools and debris foundat small farm- stead sites in the El Azúcar River valley in Ecuador (Masucci, 1995, pp. 72-73), to intensiveproduction for exchange at the Ejutla site, Oaxaca, Mexico, where Feinman and Nicholas (2000) describe large quantitiesof workedshell fragments, productionfailures, and wornchert microdrills associated witha residentialstruc- ture and midden. The quantityof marine shell debris and the small proportion of the assemblage representedby finishedornaments indicates productionfor - exchange specialization- even thoughthe productionunit was the household. This household was involved in lapidaryand ceramic productionas well as shell ornamentmanufacture (Feinman and Nicholas, 2000). The identificationof shell ornamentspecialization is often hotly debated because of the linkage between craftspecialization and societal complexity(for the Mississippian Southeast, see Blitz, 1993; Brown et al, 1990; Muller, 1986, 1987, 1997; Pauketat,1997; Prentice,1983; Yerkes, 1983, 1986, 1989a,b, 1991). Specialization in shell ornamentproduction has been interpretedby archaeologists using several lines of evidence. Some researchersfocus on the quantityof shell- workingtools and debris,coupled withthe relativelack elsewhere (e.g., Feinman and Nicholas, 2000; Laporte, 1998; Moholy-Nagy, 1995). At Balakot, Pakistan, specialized productionof shell bangles was interpretedfrom the concentration of shell-workingdebris (unworked shell, grindingtools, grindingand chipping waste, bangle fragmentsin various stages of manufacture)and finishedbangles in a few areas of the site (Dales and Kenoyer, 1977, pp. 14, 18). Other methods involveestimating production output to assess theintensity of production(Yerkes, 1991), or examining standardizationin tools and in finalproducts or production success rates (Allen et al, 1997; Holley, 1995, pp. 50-53; Miller, 1996, pp. 24- 27). In the CaliforniaChannel Islands, the productionof both shell beads and the chertmicrodrills for perforatingthem has been interpretedas specialized based on the veryhigh densitiesof productiondebris thatfar exceeded what was found on mainland sites and fromhigh levels of standardizationand success rates for microdrillproduction (Arnold, 1987a,b; Arnold and Graesch, 2001). From Late Period deposits on bead-makingsites on Santa Cruz Island, Arnold(1992, p. 135) reportsaverage mean densities of 60,000 pieces of Olivella detritus,1400 bead The Productionand Exchangeof MarineShell PrestigeGoods 257 blanksand beads-in-production,and 1800 microlithsper cubic meter.This was veryintensive production of shellbeads indeed.

Shell OrnamentProducers and Consumers

The identityof bothcraftworkers and consumersof marineshell ornaments is a topicthat needs more attention and research.The social identityof artisans includesconsideration of gender,age, status,kin relations,and ethnicity.The identityof consumerscan be addressedon similarlines. Relatedconcerns are whetherproducers were specialists, the intensity or amount of time spent crafting, andhow artisans were recruited (Costin, 1998, 2001). Some researchhas focusedon thestatus of shellornament crafters and consumers,and interpretationsof the relationships between them. At theMaya site of Tikal,shell specialistsworked in householdcontexts to produceornaments forboth elites and commoners(Moholy-Nagy, 1995, pp. 8-9). Here,Moholy- Nagy (1995, p. 11) suggeststhat the same artisansmay have made both"low- status"and "high-status"shell ornaments. In theMississippian Southeast, there is evidencefor shell workingassociated with elite residences(Schnell et a/., 1981,pp. 60-61, 227, 231). I examinedthe relationship between household statusand evidencefor shell working at Cahokiaand outlyingcommunities in the MississippiRiver valley and founda strongerassociation of statusand shell workinglater in theMississippian sequence (Trubitt, 1996, pp. 246-255, 2000, p. 675). Two excavatedhousehold units from Cahokia point to an associationof moreintensive shell working with higher-status households (Kelly, 1995; Pauke- tat,1993) thatmight represent "embedded" specialists who workwithin elite householdsor whoare themselves elite (Ames, 1995, p. 158; Trubitt,1997, 2000, pp. 675-676). Discussionof theidentity of producersand consumersintersects with the issue of controlof theproduction process and theidentification of independent, attached,or embedded specialists (Ames, 1995; Brumfiel and Earle,1987; Clark, 1995;Costin, 1991). Spatial patterning of productionresidues has beenused to in- terpretcontrol of shell ornament production by elites. For example, Wright (1996, p. 127) mentionsshell inlay as an exampleof Harappan-administeredproduction basedon productiondebris in a palaceat Mohenjo-daro. Arnold and Munns (1994) investigatewhether California Channel Islands shell bead producerswere independentor attached specialists. On thebasis of data from a numberof village sites in theChannel Islands, they conclude that specialists made shell beads and chert microdrillswithout direct control by elites. Instead, elites indirectly controlled the distributionof finishedbeads to mainlandsites through their roles as canoe own- ers.The productionof valuablesby craftspecialists in a hunter-gatherersociety is unanticipatedby many models of complexity, as is a lackof centralizedcontrol ofproduction by elites (Arnold and Munns, 1994, p. 475). 258 Tnibitt

The Circulationof Marine Shell Artifacts

Archaeologicalinterpretations of the circulation of marineshell and orna- mentscome from spatial analyses of distributions atboth local andregional levels. Quantificationof shelland analysisof spatialdistributions at the intrasite and in- tersitescales have thepotential to addressissues suchas thecentralized control of,coordination of, or restrictedaccess to valuednonlocal materials. Using data fromthe Tucson Basin in theAmerican Southwest, Bayman (1992) examinedthe distributionofshell and other exotics in household middens in the Hohokam com- munityof Maraña.At theintrasite scale, he foundno cleardifferences in access to exoticsamong households within the platform-mound village, but higher fre- quenciesof exotics were found in moundvillage household middens as compared withhousehold middens at surroundingnonmound sites, suggesting people at the platform-moundvillage had a largerrole in theexchange system. Further work revealedthat both production and consumptionof shellornaments took place at theplatform-mound village, and additionalornaments were probably brought in frombeyond the community (Bayman, 1996). Archaeologically,the final deposition of marineshell ornaments is oftenfar fromthe production locale. Thus understandingshell prestige-goods production and exchangesystems also requiresthe perspective from consumer sites. Most often,studies have resulted in distributions ofshell artifacts at inlandsites by shell species,with inferences on tradenetworks or traderoutes and theirchange over time(e.g., Biscione et al, 1981; Bradley,1993; Erickson,1990, pp. 115-133; Howard,1985; McGuire and Howard, 1987; Paulsen, 1974; Pires-Ferreira, 1976; Reese,1986, 1991a,b;Sempowski, 1989; Winters, 1968). For example, Bennyhoff andHughes (1987; Hughes,1994) analyzed thousands of Olivella shell beads from sitesin the Great Basin region of the American West, looking at shell species, bead type,depositional context, and datingto reconstructlikely trade networks from fourPacific Coast shellsources and temporaltrends in shellexchange. Marineshell artifacts can be tracedfar inland from coastal sources. In North America,shell from Gulf of Mexico and Atlanticcoast sources has beenfound in thenortheastern, southeastern, and midwesternUnited States (e.g., Brown, 1983; Brownet al, 1990;Ceci, 1989; Hale, 1976;Holmes, 1883; Kelly,1991; Ottesen, 1979; Smithand Smith,1989). A fewsites in thenorthern Plains have artifacts frommarine shell sourced to theAtlantic, Gulf of Mexico,and Pacific coasts, up to2000 kmdistant (e.g., Carlson, 1997). Marine shell also traveledgreat distances in the Old World,where Indo-Pacific shell specieshave been foundat sitesin theMediterranean region and NearEast andinto northern Europe (e.g., Durante, 1979;Michaelides, 1995; Reese, 1991b).Reese (1991b) detailsthe distribution of shellsthat probably originated from the Red Sea, PersianGulf, Arabian Sea, orthe IndianOcean to sitesin Europe,the Mediterranean, and the Near East, identifying broadtemporal and spatial patterns, and tentatively discussing mechanisms for the shellexchange and theuse or meaningsof theshell based on theirdeposition in The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 259 graves or at sanctuarysites. These distributionalsummaries are a needed compo- nentof researchon shell exchange systemsbut can go furtherin addressing the mechanismsof thisexchange. Marine shell movedfrom coastal sourcesto inlandsites through several mechanisms. Groups may have obtainedshell directly,either through trips to the source by task groups or by incorporatingsuch tripsinto the seasonal movements,or indirectlyacquired shell throughintermediaries, as giftexchange, or as centrally organized trade.Hughes (1994) discusses some of the pitfallsin assuming shell farfrom the coast was traded,in assumingshell exchange increasedthrough time, and in usingethnographic descriptions to model tradebefore the disruptions of the contactera. Frequently,prestige-goods exchange has been suggestedas a mecha- nism forthe movementof shell artifacts(e.g., Bradley, 1993; Brown et a/., 1990; McGuire, 1985, 1989; McGuire and Howard, 1987; Pearson, 1990; Peregrine, 1990; Shackleton and Renfrew,1970; Trubitt,1996; Welch, 1991). Market exchange has been suggestedfor distribution of shell ornamentsto Tikal commoners (Moholy-Nagy, 1995, p. 11) and forChumash exchange in California (King, 1976). The movementof shell ornamentsvia specialized long-distancetraders or pochteca has been postulatedfor Casas Grandes,Mexico (Di Peso, 1974, pp. 620- 622, 627-629), and forthe Spiro trade networkbetween the southernPlains and the Mississippi Valley (Schambach, 1993, 1999). As with othermaterials, exchange mechanismsmay be hypothesizedfrom spatialpatterning of distributionsof goods fromknown source areas (Dixon et ai, 1972; Renfrew,1975, pp. 41-51; Renfrewand Bahn, 1996, pp. 351-356). Witha fewexceptions, interpretations of shell exchangemechanisms have notbeen based on regionalspatial analysis of ornamentdistributions. Reese (1990, p. 416, 1991b, p. 188) suggeststhat a patternof decreasing shell with distance from coastal sources and increasingspatial distributionthrough time could be interpretedas down-the- line exchangefrom Mediterranean and Red Sea sources. Althoughhe has compiled a large volume of data on shell artifactdistributions, he does not pursue a more formalspatial distributionanalysis or computefall-off curves. Bradley (2000) ex- amines the spatial distributionof shell ornamentsin the AmericanSouthwest with a model of prestige-goodsexchange. "Specifically,the primary expectation is that thedistribution of artifactswithin a prestigeeconomy should be clusteredin larger centersrather than distributedrandomly across the landscape. The items would not decrease withdistance fromthe source in a typicaldistance-decay patternbut would clusterin association withsites housingelites and elders involved in prestige alliances," (Bradley,2000, p. 180). In herinterpretation of shell distributions, the Casas Grandes networkis consistentwith expectationsfor a prestige-goods economy while the Hohokam networkis not (Bradley,2000, pp. 181-182). For the Mississippian Southeast, several researchershave quantified and mapped distributionsof shell artifacts(e.g., Brain and Phillips, 1996; Brown et a/., 1990; Ottesen, 1979). Milner (1998, p. 164) raises the issue of deteriorationof raw materialquality with increased distancefrom source areas, citingsome beads 260 Trubétt madefrom marred, wormy shells found at Cahokia.Müller (1989, pp. 22-23, 25, 1997,pp. 375-379) calculatedfall-off curves based on distributionsof engraved shellgorgets of various styles. As a result,he argues against any centralized control ofgorget exchange during the Mississippian period, suggesting instead some form of down-the-lineexchange from a "centerof distribution"for a particularstyle. Herewe havea goodexample of how fall-off curves can be usedto interpretshell exchangemechanisms, but a problemarises when the "center of distribution"or concentrationof artifactsof a decorativestyle is interpretedas the"source" or productioncenter (see also Brainand Phillips,1996, p. 116). Thereis littledi- rectevidence for the specific production locations or howfar or longthe finished productscirculated before their final deposition. Although some prestige goods may have been exchangedlocally, these engraved gorgets may have circulated forseveral generations and moved between different regions. Interestingly, Brown and Kelly (2000; Brown,1989, pp. 193-204) use stylisticconnections between engravedpottery and engravedshell to arguefor a Cahokiaproduction center for oneof these decorative styles, even though little engraved shell has beenrecovered fromthis site. As prestigegoods and objectsof exchange,shell ornaments may have been depositedfar from their place of origin or manufacture. McVicker and Palka (2001) describea Maya shellplaque, probably made in theLate Classic periodand re- carvedin theEarly Postclassic, that was recoveredfrom Tula in centralMexico. The marineshell plaque is comparedwith similar figurai plaques carved in jade. Stylisticallylinked to thelowland Maya Petenregion, these plaques are foundat sitesin theMaya highlandsand northernlowlands, Gulf Coast, and thecentral and southernMexican highland regions. The shellplaque is interpretedas an ob- ject giftedfrom high-status Maya to visitorsor foreignersas a symbolof alliance thatwas heirloomed,recarved, and circulated between other elites for a periodof timebefore being deposited or cachedat Tula as partof another ritual (McVicker and Palka,2001, pp. 190-194). Placingin caches,burying with dead individuals, or destructionprior to disposalmay indicate symbolically distinct rituals for the depositionof prestige goods. Finding shell objects far from their location of man- ufactureafter a longperiod of circulationsuggests that a largerscale of analysis at theregional level is needed.

Marine Shell Use and Consumption

The "consumption"of shellornaments by ancientsocieties is perhapseven moredifficult to revealthan their exchange patterns. Here again,the wealth of theethnographic and ethnohistoricliterature on shelluse and meaningscan in- formarchaeologists attempting to understandthe past. This literatureshows that marineshell often has symbolicassociations and that the many uses ofshell orna- mentsreflect multiple meanings of these objects. Smith (1983, pp. 227-228) lists some 40 recordeduses of shellwampum in theAmerican Northeast, with shell The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 261 beads worn as ornaments,included in burialsas grave goods, used to make com- pensationpayments and fees for services, given as gifts,and used as mnemonic devices for messages (see also Ceci, 1982; Slotkin and Schmitt, 1949; for the Northwest/Plateau,see Erickson, 1990). Shell ornamentswere used "in a social contextcomprised of diverse relations based upon gender,kinship, economics, politics,power, and status.In thiscomplex web of relations,material culture (like shell beads) does not always have the same meaning,and oftenhas multiple si- multaneousmeanings. Credible interpretationsof the past frommaterial remains mustaddress thiscomplexity" (Thomas, 1996, p. 29). Shell beads, pendants,and gorgetshave been used as adornmentand body ornamentation.Like beads of othermaterials (see papers in Sciama and Eicher, 1998), marine shell beads can serve to constructor display social identity.Rep- resentationsof humans or supernaturalbeings in ancient art may depict figures wearingshell ornaments.For example, shell beads and pendantsof thetypes found archaeologicaliy(e.g., Brown, 1996) are shownas necklaces and hairornaments on Mississippian engraved shell fromsoutheastern North America (Kneberg, 1959; Phillips and Brown, 1978, 1984). Many of the marineshell ornamentsrecovered from archaeological contexts weredeposited as gravegoods (e.g., Dreiss, 1994; Gallay and Mathieu, 1988; King, 1978; McGuire and Howard, 1987; Pearson, 1990; Reese, 1991a; Sempowski, 1989; Winters,1968). The presence of shell ornamentsis oftenseen as a status indicator.For example,Spondylus and Conus shells wereoften included with high- statusindividuals in Moche burialsin Peru,and shells also were incorporatedinto Moche iconographyin depictionsof mortuaryritual (Hill, 1998). Possible gender associations of shell ornamentsare discussed by Thomas (1996; see also Winters, 1968, pp. 197-198, 208-209). AlthoughThomas (1996) findssimilar uses of shell for men and women in a sample of Mississippian burials fromNorth Carolina, Eastman (2001) identifiescertain shell ornamentsas female-relatedgrave goods and othertypes mainly associated with young individualsin anotherstudy from fifteenthto sixteenthcentury sites in Virginiaand NorthCarolina. The common placement of shell beads in graves of childrenhas been argued as evidence of ascribed status or, conversely,parental giftsand mourningpractices (Claassen, 1998, p. 206; Dreiss, 1994; Fiedel, 1989). Why is shell so oftenfound in burials? Perhaps it is because of its restorative or healing properties(Pietak, 1998, pp. 141-146). Pietak (1998) considers the mortuaryuse of shell beads, and their later replacementwith glass beads, by seventeenthto eighteenthcentury Delaware and Munsee in easternNorth America. Shell beads in burials were primarilyused fornecklaces, decoratingthe head and upper body, and were often interredwith children. 'That children were often interredwith ornaments of shell . . . may symbolize the recognitionthat they were not permittedto attainfull social status,represented by adulthood,and thatthese materialgoods were placed on theirbodies to instantaneouslygive themaccess to the socially approved qualities of full adulthood,knowledge and understanding, 262 TniMtt

- and also to mitigatetheir pre-interment liminal state a symbolic commenton the hope forrestoration to life" (Pietak, 1998, p. 153). The restorativesymbolism of shell was later transferredto glass beads, especially white glass beads, and mortuaryuse of beads expanded to include decoratingclothing, bags, and hair in addition to encirclingthe neck and head; theiruse in burials extended to more membersof the community. Shells come fromthe oceans and are associated withwater, creation, fertility, and rebirth,but also withdeath and theunderworld (Claassen, 1998, pp. 203-209; Dreiss, 1994). White shell is symbolic of peace, fertility,ritual purity,well- being, or protectionagainst disease or restorationto health (Claassen, 1998, pp. 205-206; Hamell, 1996, p. 51; Kenoyer,1997, p. 275; Pietak, 1998; Thomas, 1996, pp. 39-40). There is color symbolismassociated withshell: whiteand purple wampum linkedwith female and male or symbolizingsocial and asocial states in the American Northeast(Ceci, 1982, p. 99; Hamell, 1996, pp. 47^8); white Strombusshell contrastingwith red Spondylus shell in Mesoamerica and South America (Mester, 1989; Moholy-Nagy, 1989, 1995); the highly valued Tyrian or Royal purple dye manufacturedfrom Murex or Thais shells associated with wealth and royaltyin the Mediterranean(Reese, 1980, 1987; Ziderman,1990). In the Andes, nacreous pearl oystershell (Pinctada or Pieria) was associated with lightness,shininess, and royalty(Mester, 1989). Saunders (1999) argues thatthe shininessof shell and pearls was linked withspirituality, life, and the supernatu- ral; these materialswere valued by Native Americansbecause of thisassociation. Contact-periodEuropeans were interestedprimarily in the commercial value of pearls butalso were drawnto theirexoticness and associations withwealth, status, and royalty.Saunders' (1999) discussion of pearl and shell use on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean offersinsights into the interactionsbetween Europeans and Native Americansin the contactperiod and theircultural valuations of pearls and shells. His studyis based on ethnographicand ethnohistoricrather than archaeological information,but approachingthese interactionsfrom the perspectivesof both participatingcultures is a fertileresearch direction. Shell "moves between and transcendscultural boundaries" (Pearce, 1993, p. 3), as exemplifiedby Indo-Pacificcowries used by Europeans,Africans, and Na- tiveAmericans and depositedat historic-periodNorth American sites. This move- mentbetween culturesseems to be an importantpart of shell symbolism.Thorny oystershell (Spondylus sp.), harvestedfrom warm ocean watersoff Ecuador, has been tradedto Peru foruse by Andean peoples forthe last several thousandyears (Paulsen, 1974; Sandweiss, 1999). In an interestinguse of the past, a Peruvian governmentalinstitution recently proposed thatSpondylus shell be adopted as a symbol of the new peaceful relationshipbetween the nationsof Ecuador and Peru (Sandweiss, 1999). Coastal peoples mayassume access to marineresources, but for inland groups, like residents of the eastern North American Carolina Piedmont during the The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 263 sixteenthto seventeenthcenturies, marine shell pendants, gorgets, and beads may have signaled theiraccess to distant,rare, coastal resources (Hammett and Sizemore, 1989, p. 133). Helms (1993, pp. 10 1-1 04) exploreshow shell acquisition fromdistant, foreign, exotic sources bringsprestige to the acquirer.By extension, shell objects become symbolsofthat prestigeand power. AVENUESFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Archaeologistscan certainlydo more than describe and quantifyshell artifacts.I share the optimismof DeMarrais et al (1996, p. 16): "Because symbols are materialobjects, theirdistributions and associations, preservedin the archaeological record,reflect broader patterns of social, political,and economic activity. These patternsinform archaeologists about unequal access to symbolsof statusor authority,the efforts of one social segmentto promoteits ideology over others,and theeffects of these strategicactivities on thedynamics of social power."There are threeareas thatI would like to see targetedwith additional archaeological research on marine shell. The firstis the organizationof shell prestige-goodsproduction and exchange; the second is the use of marineshell in past societies; and the third is the identityof the producersand consumersof these shell objects. Marine shell moved fromcoasts inland, sometimes as raw material,sometimes as finishedobjects. In order to fullyunderstand the circulationof marine shell artifactsand the interactionsystems of which they were a part, we need to look at productioncontexts to make interpretationsabout the organizationof productionand at spatial distributionsof finishedartifacts to interpretexchange mechanisms.One of the recentdevelopments in shell research is the realization thatthere are broad cross-culturalsimilarities in shell ornamentproduction tools and techniques.The identificationof similarmicrodrills used forshell bead drilling in widely separatedcultures is only one example. The residues of shell ornament manufacturingsequences, such as unworkedraw material,waste pieces and small debris,broken or unfinishedornaments, and manufacturingtools, can be used to identifyproduction locations archaeologically.Interpreting the organization or social relationsof shell ornamentproduction is decidedly more difficult,but this is whereI findthat some of themost exciting research is being done. A growingcom- parativedata set indicates thatshell ornamentproduction most oftentook place in household contexts,at least in the Americas. More comparativeinformation is needed fromsites in Europe, Africa,and Asia. We see a range in the intensityof household production,from the low-intensityproduction described by Masucci (1995) forthe El Azúcar Rivervalley of Ecuador, to the high-intensityproduction for exchange evident in the California Channel Islands (Arnold and Graesch, 2001). More attentionto the"consumption" end of the sequence is stillneeded. Dis- tributionsof nonlocal materialslike marineshell can be used to identifyinteractions 264 TVubìtt between societies. Changes in styles or types can signal the presence of social boundaries. There is much data in the literatureon distributionsof finishedartifacts,but more attention to thearchaeological correlatesof variousmechanisms for shell circulationis needed. Muller's (1997, pp. 370-379) analysisof Mississippian engravedshell gorgetsshows the potentialfor this type of analysis,but substitutes hypotheticaldistribution centers as sources. Withoutknowledge of the locations of gorgetproduction, Muller's fall-offcurves show the movementof ornaments fromdistribution centers that may or may not be productioncenters. We need morestudies that look at bothproduction and consumptionsites for a fullerpicture of the interactionsusing marineshell. For example, Bayman (1996) tracks both the productionand consumptionof shell ornamentsin a Hohokam communityin the AmericanSouthwest. By analyzingproduction evidence associated withhouseholds at the platform-moundsite and thelocation of finishedshell ornamentsas an indicationof consumptionby residentsof theplatform-mound site and outlyingsettlements, mechanisms for the movementof shell ornamentsinto and withinthe communitycan be addressed (Bayman, 1996). A second example withlonger distances comes fromthe Yoyoi period in Japan.Here, Pearson (1990) addresses boththe evidence forproduction of ornamentsfrom tropical shell species at sites in Okinawa and evidence fortheir ultimate deposition with elite burialsat sites in Kyushu,about 500 km to thenorth. Pearson (1990, pp. 920-921) postulates thatthe shell ornamentswere part of a prestige-goodseconomy in Kyushu, but underscoresthe need formore investigation to fullyunderstand the mechanisms of thisexchange, the intermediariesin the exchange system,and the transferof shell ornamentsfrom the exchange system to grave goods. Clearly, investigationsof exchange and interactionbetween people in differentregions requires both small- and large-scale research. A second area withresearch potential is theuse and symbolismof marineshell. Shell is oftenused like metals- forornaments, money, and wealth when rarebut - fortools when commonplace althoughthere are differencesin the technologies and in the symbolismof thetwo materials(there may be some overlapin symbolic associations, as seen in changes from shell to silver ornaments,e.g., Gregory, 2002). The rich ethnographicand ethnohistoricliterature can be used to model the ways that shell prestigegoods have been used by individualsand societies, and why goods are taken out of circulationand deposited into graves, caches, or structures.One fruitfulresearch directionuses ethnographicor ethnohistoric data in conjunction with archaeological data fromthe same area to reconstruct meanings of shell and changes from shell to glass beads in specific societies. Pietak's (1998) analysis of changingornament use among Delaware and Munsee Indians during the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies A.D. is an example of the potentialof combiningethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data. Oceania, Mesoamerica, and South America may be otherareas withgood potential forthis type of analysis. The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 265

The analysisof iconographyon decoratedshell and theuse of shell imageryin othermedia may be avenues to understandingthe symbolismand social functions of marineshell in human societies. Marine shell ornamentsare sometimesdeco- ratedby carving,etching, or engravingdesigns. Marine motifsare not prominent on engravedTridacna shells fromthe Near East or engraved gorgetsfrom North America (e.g., Brain and Phillips, 1996; Kneberg, 1959; Reese, 1988; Reese and Sease, 1993). Examples of shell motifsare seen in othermedia in Mesoamerica and South America,where shells are associated withsome Maya gods (Andrews, 1969, pp. 48-49) and picturedin Moche mortuaryritual iconography (Hill, 1998). Combiningnative texts and iconographyand thearchaeological evidence forshell use could be avenues forfurther research on the symbolismof marineshell in the Maya area or in the ancientNear East. Finally,it is clear thatmore researchattention is needed to explore the social identitiesof craftersand consumersof marineshell ornaments.The artisanswho craftedartifacts and the consumerswho used the objects are key componentsof productionsystems (Costin, 2001). Althoughthere has been a focus on the household as the locationand unitof shell ornamentproduction, and some discussion of the statusof shell-workinghouseholds (e.g., Moholy-Nagy, 1995; Trubitt,1996, 2000), therehas been littleeffort on analyzingdivisions of labor and task differen- tiationwithin households. In additionto statusor rank,other dimensions of social identityof shell ornamentproducers and consumerswould include gender,age, kin relations,and ethnicity(Costin, 1998, 2001, pp. 282-285; Mills, 2000, pp. 313- 316, 333). The relationshipsbetween producers and consumers, specificallyin termsof controlover materials,labor, or products,are criticalto understandingthe organizationof shell prestige-goodsproduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Marine shell prestigegoods, which so oftenmoved between people and be- tweenregions, provide an outstandingfocus forthe studyof relationshipsbetween individuals,social groups,and societies.To access thisinformation, archaeologists will need to work at several scales of analysis, fromcraft locales and household units,to sites or communities,to regions linked throughthe circulationof raw materialsand finishedornaments. Archaeological studies need to examine locations of ornamentproduction and theirultimate deposition. Shell is frequently laden withsocial meaning,meaning that can be variable and complex. The functions,roles, and symbolic associations of marineshell ornamentsmay be investi- gated throughthe analysis of spatial distributionsand archaeological contextsof deposition,through analysis of shell imageryfrom iconography and texts,and by combiningethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data forspecific societies. The time has come to stop viewing marineshell artifactsas unique. Instead we should look cross-culturallyto build a shell technologyliterature and use this 266 Trubitt primeexample of prestigegoods to contributeto a broaderunderstanding ofcraft productionand exchange systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thankJeanne Arnold, James Bayman, Gary Feinman, David Reese,and an anonymousreviewer for their constructive comments on an earlierversion of this paper.These and many other colleagues who share my interest in marine shell have offeredconversation, feedback, and copies of papers. The ArkansasArcheological Surveyhas providedme withthe time and space thatI neededto completethis work,and itis greatlyappreciated.

REFERENCES CITED

Allen,JM Holdaway, S., and Fullagar,R. (1997). Identifyingspecialisation, production and exchange in thearchaeological record: The case of shellbead manufactureon MotuporeIsland, Papua. Archaeologyin Oceania 32: 13-38. Ames,K. M. (1995). Chieflypower and household production on theNorthwest Coast. In Price,T. D., and Feinman,G. M. (eds.),Foundations of Social Inequality,Plenum, New York,pp. 155-187. Andrews,E. W., IV. (1969). The ArchaeologicalUse and Distributionof Mollusco in the Maya Lowlands,Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans. Arnold,J. E. (1987a). CraftSpecialization in thePrehistoric Channel islands, California, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley. Arnold,J. E. ( 1987b). Technology and economy: Microblade core production from the Channel Islands. In Johnson,J. K., and Morrow,C. A. (eds.), Organizationof Core Technology,Westview Press, Boulder,CO, pp. 207-237. Arnold,J. E. (1992). Culturaldisruption and thepolitical economy in ChannelIslands prehistory. In Jones,T. L. (ed.), Essays on thePrehistory of Maritime California, Vol. 10, Center for Archaeo- logicalResearch at Davis, Universityof California, Davis, pp. 129-144. Arnold,J. E., and Graesch,A. P. (2001). The evolutionof specializedshellworking among the Island Chumash.In Arnold,J. E. (ed.), The Originsof a PacificCoast Chiefdom:The Chumashof the ChannelIslands, University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City,pp. 71-1 12. Arnold,J. E., andMunns, A. (1994). Independentor attached specialization: The organizationof shell bead productionin California.Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 473-489. Bar-Yosef,D. E. (1991). Changesin theselection of marineshells from the Natufian to theNeolithic. In Bar-Yosef,O., andValla, F. R. (eds.), TheNatufian Culture in the Levant, Archaeological Series 1, InternationalMonographs in Prehistory,Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 629-636. Bayman,J. M. (1992). The circulationof exoticsin a TucsonBasin platformmound community. In Lange,R. C, and Germick,S. (eds.), Proceedingsof theSecond Salado Conference,Globe, Arizona,1992, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 31-37. Bayman,J. M. (1996). Shellornament consumption in a classicHohokam platform mound community center.Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 403-420. Bennyhoff,J. A., and Hughes,R. E. (1987). Shell bead and ornamentexchange networks between Californiaand the westernGreat Basin. AnthropologicalPapers of theAmerican Museum of NaturalHistory 64:79-175. Biscione,R., Durante,S., and Tosi, M. (1981). Conchiglie:II commercioe la lavorazionedelle conchigliemarine nel Medio Orientedal IV al II millennioA.C., Museo Nazionale d'Arte Orientale,Rome. Blanton,R. E., Kowalewski,S. A., Feinman,G. M., andFinsten, L. M. (1993). AncientMesoamerica: A Comparisonof Changein ThreeRegions, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Blitz,J. H. (1993). AncientChiefdoms of the Tombigbee, University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa. The Productionand Exchangeof Manne Shell PrestigeGoods 267

Bradley,R. J. (1993). Marineshell exchange in northwestMexico and the southwest.In Ericson, J.E., andBaugh, T. G. (eds.),The American Southwest and Mesoamerica:Systems of Prehistoric Exchange,Plenum, New York,pp. 121-151. Bradley,R. J. (2000).Networks of shell ornament exchange: A criticalassessment of prestige economies in the NorthAmerican Southwest. In Hegmon,M. (ed.), The Archaeologyof RegionalIn- teraction:Religion, Warfare, and Exchangeacross theAmerican Southwest and Beyond,Pro- ceedingsof the 1996 SouthwestSymposium, University Press of Colorado,Boulder, pp. 167- 187. Brain,J. P., and Phillips,P. (1996). Shell Gorgets:Styles of theLate Prehistoricand Protohistoric Southeast,Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Brown,J. A. (1983). Spiroexchange connections revealed by sourcesof importedraw materials. In Wyckoff,D. G., and Hofman,J. L. (eds.), SoutheasternNatives and TheirPasts: A Collection ofPapers Honoring Dr. RobertE. Bell,Oklahoma Archeological Survey Studies in Oklahoma's PastNo. 11 , andCross Timbers Heritage Association Contribution No. 2, Norman,OK, pp. 129- 162. Brown,J. A. (1989). On styledivisions of theSoutheastern Ceremonial Complex: A revisionistper- spective.In Galloway,P. (ed.), The SoutheasternCeremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, Universityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 183-204. Brown,J. A. (1996). The Spiro CeremonialCenter: The Archaeology of ArkansasValley Caddoan Culturein EasternOklahoma, Memoirs No. 29, of theMuseum of Anthropology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor. Brown,J., and Kelly,J. (2000). Cahokiaand theSoutheastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ahler,S. R. (ed.),Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica:Papers in Honor ofMelvin L Fowler,Scientific Papers SeriesVol. XXVIII, IllinoisState Museum Springfield, IL, pp. 469-510. Brown,J. A., Kerber,R. A., andWinters, H. D. (1990). Tradeand the evolution of exchange relations at thebeginning of the Mississippian period. In Smith,B. D. (ed.), TheMississippian Emergence, SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 251-280. Brumfiel,E. M., andEarle, T. K. (1987). Specialization,exchange, and complex societies: An introduction.In Brumfiel,E. M., andEarle, T. K. (eds.). Specialization,Exchange, and ComplexSocieties, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-9. Campbell,S. F (1983). Attainingrank: A classificationof kula shellvaluables. In Leach,J. W., and Leach,E. (eds.),The Kula: NewPerspectives on MassimExchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 229-248. Carlson,G. F. (1997). A preliminarysurvey of marineshell artifacts from prehistoric archeological sitesin Nebraska.Central Plains Archeology 5: 11-47. Ceci,L. (1982). The valueof wampum among the New York Iroquois: A case studyin artifact analysis. Journalof Anthropological Research 38: 97-107. Ceci,L. (1989). Tracingwampum's origins: Shell bead evidence from archaeological sites in western andcoastal New York.In Hayes,I. C. F, Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds.), Proceedingsof the 1986Shell Bead Conference:Selected Papers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, NY, pp. 63-80. Claassen,C. (1989). Sourcingmarine shell artifacts. In Hayes,I. C. F, Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds.),Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference:Selected Papers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, NY, pp. 17-23. Claassen,C. (1998). Shells, CambridgeManuals in Archaeology,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Claassen,C, andSigmann, S. ( 1993). SourcingBusycon artifacts of the eastern United States. American Antiquity58: 333-347. Clark,J. E. (1995). Craftspecialization as an archaeologicalcategory. Research in EconomicAnthro- pology 16: 267-294. Clark,J. E., andBlake, M. (1994). Thepower of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of ranksocieties in lowland Mesoamerica. In Brumfiel,E. MMand Fox, J. W. (eds.),Factional Com- petitionand PoliticalDevelopment in theNew World,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17-30. Clark,J. E., andParry, W. J.(1990). Craftspecialization and cultural complexity. In Isaac, B. L. (ed.), Researchin EconomicAnthropology, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 289-346. 268 Trubitt

Cobb,C. R. (1993). Archaeologicalapproaches to thepolitical economy of nonstratifiedsocieties. In Schiffer,M. B. (ed.), ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,Vol. 5, Universityof ArizonaPress, Tucson,pp. 43-100. Connell,J. (1977). The Bougainvilleconnection: Changes in theeconomic context of shell money productionin Malaita.Oceania 48: 81-101. Costin,C. L. (1991). Crañ specialization:Issues in defining,documenting, and explaining the organizationof production.In Schiffer,M. B. (ed.), ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, pp. 1-56. Costin,C. L. (1998). Introduction:Craft and social identity.In Costin,C. L., andWright, R. P. (eds.), Craftand Social Identity,Archeological Papers No. 8, AmericanAnthropological Association Arlington,VA, pp. 3-16. Costin,C. L. (2001). Craftproduction systems. In Feinman,G. M, andPrice, T. D. (eds.),Archaeology at theMillennium: A Sourcebook,Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York,pp. 273- 327. Dales, G. R, and Kenoyer,J. M. (1977). Shell workingat ancientBalakot, Pakistan. Expedition 19: 13-19. Dalton,G. (1977). Aboriginaleconomies in statelesssocieties. In Earle,T. K., andEricson, J. E. (eds.), ExchangeSystems in Prehistory.Academic Press, New York,pp. 191-212. Dalton,D. M. (1996).The aesthetic of the sublime: An interpretation ofRawa shell valuable symbolism. AmericanEthnologist 23: 393-415. D' Altroy,T. N., andEarle, T. K. (1985). Staplefinance, wealth finance, and storage in the Inka political economy.Current Anthropology 26: 187-206. Davis, N. (1989). Conservationof archaeologicalshell artifacts.In Hayes, I. C. R, Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds), Proceedingsof the 1986 Shell Bead Conference:Selected Pa- pers, ResearchRecords No. 20, RochesterMuseum and Science Center,Rochester, NY, pp. 13-16. DeMarrais,E., Castillo,L. J.,and Earle,T. (1996). Ideology,materialization, and powerstrategies. CurrentAnthropology 37: 15-3 1. Di Peso, C. C. (1974). Casas Grandes:A Fallen TradingCenter of theGran Chichimeca, Amerind Foundation,Dragoon, AZ. Dixon, J. E., Cann,J. R., and Renfrew,C. (1972). Obsidianand theorigins of trade.In Lamberg- Karlovsky,C. C. (ed.), Old WorldArchaeology: Foundations of Civilization, W. H. Freeman,San Francisco,pp. 80-88. Dreiss,M. L. (1994). Marineand freshwatershell artifacts. In Ricklis,R. A. (ed.), AboriginalLife and Cultureon theUpper Texas Coast: Archaeologyat theMitchell Ridge Site, 4JGV66, Coastal ArchaeologicalResearch, Corpis Christi, TX, pp. 417-445. Dupré,G., andRey, P. -P. (1973). Reflectionson thepertinence of a theoryof the history of exchange. Economyand Society2: 131-163. Durante,S. (1979). Marineshells from Balakot, Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Their significance for tradeand technologyin ancientIndo-Iran. In Taddei,M. (ed.), SouthAsian Archaeology 1977, InstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Naples, pp. 317-344. Eastman,J. M. (2001). Lifecourses and gender among late prehistoric Siouan communities. In Eastman, J. M., and Rodning,C. B. (eds.), ArchaeologicalStudies of Genderin theSoutheastern United States,University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 57-76. Ekholm,K. ( 1972). Powerand Prestige:The Rise and Fall ofthe Kongo Kingdom, Skriv Service AB, Uppsala,Sweden. Ekholm,K. (1977). Externalexchange and thetransformation of central African social systems.In Friedman,J., and Rowlands,M. J.(eds), TheEvolution of Social Systems,Duckworth, London, pp. 115-136. Erickson,K. (1990). Marineshell utilization in thePlateau culture area. Northwest Anthropological ResearchNotes 24: 91-144. Feinman,G. M., and Nicholas,L. M. (1993). Shell-ornamentproduction in Ejutla:Implications for highland-coastalinteraction in ancientOaxaca. AncientMesoamerica 4: 103-119. Feinman,G. M., and Nicholas,L. M. (2000). High-intensityhousehold-scale production in ancient Mesoamerica:A perspectivefrom Ejutla, Oaxaca. In Feinman,G. M., andManzanilla, L. (eds.), CulturalEvolution: Contemporary Viewpoints, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp.119-142. The Productionand Exchangeof Manne Shell PrestigeGoods 269

Fiedel,S. J. (1989). Social implicationsof ornamentsin hunter-gathererburials. In Hayes,I. C. F., Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds.), Proceedingsof the 1986 Shell Bead Conference:Selected Papers, ResearchRecords No. 20, RochesterMuseum and Science Center,Rochester, NY, pp. 189-197. Flannery,K. V., and Winter,M. C. (1976). Analyzinghousehold activities. In Flannery,K. V. (ed.), TheEarly Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press. New York,pp. 34-47. Fowler,M. L., Rose,J., Vander Leest, B., and Ahler,S. R. ( 1999). TheMound 72 Area: Dedicatedand SacredSpace in EarlyCahokia, Illinois State Museum Reports of InvestigationsNo. 54, Illinois StateMuseum Society, Springfield. Francis,P., Jr. (1982). Experimentswith early techniques for making whole shells into beads. Current Anthropology23: 713-714. Francis,P., Jr. (1989). The manufactureof beads fromshell. In Hayes,I. C. F., Ceci, L., and Bodner, C. C. (eds.). Proceedingsof the 1986 ShellBead Conference:Selected Papers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and Science Center, Rochester, NY, pp. 25-35. Frankenstein,S., andRowlands, M. J.(1978). The internalstructure and regional context of early Iron Age societyin south-westernGermany. Bulletin of theInstitute of Archaeology, University of London'S.li-''2. Friedman,J., and Rowlands,M. J. (1977). Notes towardsan epigeneticmodel of the evolutionof 'civilisation.'In Friedman,J., and Rowlands,M. J. (eds.), The Evolutionof Social Systems, Duckworth,London, pp. 201-276. Gallay,G., and Mathieu,G. (1988). Grabbeigabender Bandkeramik von Ensisheim, Dép. Haut-Rhin (Elsaß). Germania66: 371-389. Gifford,E. W. (1926). Clear Lake Pornosociety. University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeologyand Ethnology18: 287-390. Gregory,C. A. (1996). Cowriesand conquest:Towards a subalternatequality theory of money.Com- parativeStudies in Societyand History38: 195-2 17. Gregory,H. F. (2002). "Talihatapisa achokma":Silver ornaments, a reflection of early pan-Indianism. Paperpresented at the44th Annual Caddo Conference,Nacogdoches, TX. Hale,H. S. (1976). MarineShells in Midwestern Archaeological Sites and theDetermination of Their MostProbable Source, MA Thesis,Department of Anthropology,Florida Atlantic University, UMI, AnnArbor. Halstead,P. (1993). Spondylusshell ornaments from late Neolithic Dimmi, Greece: Specialized man- ufactureor unequalaccumulation? Antiquity 67: 603-609. Hamell,G. R. (1996). Wampum:Light, white and brightthings are good to think.In Van Dongen,A. (ed.), 'OneMan 's Trashis AnotherMan 's Treasure': TheMetamorphosis of the European Utensil in theNew World,Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam, pp. 41-51 . Hammett,J. E., andSizemore, B. A. (1989). Shellbeads and ornaments: Socioeconomic indicators of thepast. In Hayes,I. C. F.,Ceci, L., andBodner, C. C. (eds.),Proceedings of the 1986 ShellBead Conference:Selected Papers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester,NY, pp. 125-137. Haselgrove,C. (1982). Wealth,prestige and power:The dynamicsof lateIron Age politicalcentral- isationin south-eastEngland. In Renfrew,C and Shennan,S. (eds.), Ranking,Resource and Exchange:Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 79-88. Hayden,B. (1998). Practicaland prestige technologies: The evolutionof material systems. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory5: 1-55. Helms,M. W. (1993). Craftand theKingly Ideal: Art,Trade, and Power,University of Texas Press, Austin. Hill,E. (1998). Deathas a riteof passage:The iconographyof the Moche burial theme. Antiquity 72: 528-538. Hirth,K. (1992). Interregionalexchange as elite behavior:An evolutionaryperspective. In Chase, D. Z., and Chase,A. F. (eds.), MesoamericanElites: An Archaeological Assessment, University ofOklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 18-29. Hogendorn,J., and Johnson,M. (1986). The Shell Moneyof the Slave Trade,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. Holley,G. R. (1995). Microlithsand theKunnemann Tract: An assessmentof craftproduction at the Cahokiasite. Illinois Archaeology 7: 1-68. 270 Trubitt

Holmes,W. H. (1883). Art in shell of the ancientAmericans. In Second AnnualReport of the Bureauof American Ethnology, 1880-1 88 /,Smithsonian Institution, Government Printing Office, Washington,DC, pp. 179-305. Howard,A. V. (1985). A reconstructionof Hohokaminterregional shell production and exchange withinsouthwestern Arizona. In Dittert,A. E., Jr.,and Dove, D. E. (eds.),Proceedings of the 1983 HohokamSymposium, Part II, OccasionalPaper No. 2, PhoenixChapter, Arizona Archaeological Society,Phoenix, pp. 459-472. Hughes,R. E. (1994). Mosaic patterningin prehistoricCalifornia-Great Basin exchange.In Baugh, T. G., and Ericson,J. E. (eds.), PrehistoricExchange Systems in NorthAmerica, Plenum, New York,pp. 363-383. Kelly,J. E. (1991) Cahokiaand its role as a gatewaycenter in interregionalexchange. In Emerson, T. E., andLewis, R. B. (eds.) Cahokiaand theHinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest,University of IllinoisPress, Urbana, pp. 61-80. Kelly,J. E. (1995). Fromthe Ditch: The Anatomy of a MooreheadPhase House Complexalong King- shighway,St. Clair County,Illinois, Office of Contract Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Kenoyer,J. M. (1985). Shellworking at Moenjo-daro, Pakistan. In Schotsman,J. and Taddei, M. (eds.), SouthAsian Archaeology 1983, Papers From the 7th International Conference of the Association ofSouth Asian Archaeologists in WesternEurope, Dipartimento di StudiAsiatici, Series Minor XXIII, IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Naples, pp. 297-344. Kenoyer,J. M. ( 1997). Tradeand technology of the Indus Valley: New insights from Harappa, Pakistan. WorldArchaeology 29:262-280. King,C. (1976). Chumashinter- village economic exchange. In Bean, L. J.,and Blackburn,T. C. (eds.), NativeCalifornians: A TheoreticalRetrospective, Ballena Press, Socorro, NM, pp. 289- 318. King,C. (1978). Protohistoricand historicarcheology. In Heizer,R. F. (ed.), Handbookof North AmericanIndians, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 58-68. Kneberg,M. (1959). Engravedshell gorgets and their associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15: 1-39. Laporte,L. (1998). Ornamentproduction centers along the FrenchAtlantic Coast duringthe late Neolithic.In Milliken,S., and Vidale,M. (eds.), PapersFrom the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna1997, BAR InternationalSeries, Archaeopress, Oxford, do. 17-23. Leach,J. W. (1983). Introduction.In Leach,J. W., and Leach,E. (eds.), TheKula: NewPerspectives on MassimExchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-26. Leach,J. W., and Leach, E. (eds.) ( 1983). TheKula: NewPerspectives on Massim Exchange, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. Lewenstein,S. M. ( 1987). StoneTool Use at Cerros:The Ethnoarchaeological and Use-Wear Evidence, Universityof Texas Press, Austin. Lewis,A. B. (1929). MelanesianShell Money in FieldMuseum Collections, Field Museum of Natural History,Anthropological Series XDC (1), Chicago. Loeb, E. M. (1926). Pornofolkways. University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology and Ethnology19: 149-405. Luer,G., Allerton,D., Hazeltine,D., Hatfield,R., and Hood,D. (1986). Whelkshell tool blanks fiom Big MoundKey (8CH 10),Charlotte County, Florida: With notes on certain whelk shell tools. The FloridaAnthropologist 39:92-124. Malinowski,B. (1922). Argonautsof the Western Pacific, Routledge and KeganPaul, London. Mason,R. J.,and Perino,G. (1961). Microbladesat Cahokia,Illinois. American Antiquity 26: 553- 557. Masucci, M. (1995). Manne shell bead productionand therole of domesticcraft activities in the economyof theGuangala phase southwest Ecuador. Latin American Antiquity 6: 70-84. McGuire,R. H. (1985). The role of shell exchangein theexplanation of Hohokamprehistory. In Dittert,A. E., Jr.,and Dove, D. E. (eds.), Proceedingsof the1983 HohokamSymposium, Part II, OccasionalPaper No. 2, PhoenixChapter, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 473- 482. McGuire,R. H. (1989). The greatersouthwest as a peripheryof Mesoamerica.In Champion,T. C. (ed.),Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 40- 66. The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 271

McGuire,R. H., andHoward, A. V. (1987). The structureand organization of Hohokam shell exchange. TheKiva 52: 113-146. McVicker,D., and Palka,J. W. (2001). A Maya carvedshell plaque fromTula, Hidalgo,Mexico. AncientMesoame rica 12: 175-197. Meillassoux,C. (1978). 4Theeconomy" in agricultural self-sustaining societies: A preliminaryanalysis. In Seddon,D. (ed.), Relationsof Production:Marxist Approaches to EconomicAnthropology, FrankCass, London,pp. 127-157. Mester,A. M. (1989). Marineshell symbolism in Andeanculture. In Hayes,I. C. F, Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds.),Proceedings of the 1986 ShellBead Conference:Selected Papers, Research RecordsNo. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, NY, pp. 157-167. Michaelides,D. (1995). Cyprusand thePersian Gulf in theHellenistic and Romanperiods: ine case of Pinctadamargaritifera. Proceedings of theInternational Symposium, Cyprus and theSea, Nicosia,25-26 September,1993, University of Cyprus,Nicosia, pp. 21 1-226. Miller,M. A. (1996). The manufactureofcockle shell beads at early Neolithic Franchthi Cave, Greece: A case ofcraft specialization? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9: 7-37. Mills,B. J.(2000). Gender,craft production, and inequality.In Crown,P. L. (ed.), Womenand Men in thePrehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige,School of AmericanResearch Press, SantaFe, NM, pp. 301-343. Milner,G. R. (1998). TheCahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a MississippianSociety, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC. Moholy-Nagy,H. (1989). Formedshell beads from Tikal, Guatemala. In Hayes,1. C. K, Ceci, L., ana Bodner,C. C. (eds.), Proceedingsof the 1986 ShellBead Conference:Selected Papers, Research RecordsNo. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter Rochester, NY, pp. 139-156. Moholy-Nagy,H. (1995). Shellsand societyat Tikal,Guatemala. Expedition 37: 3-13. Morse,D. (1975). Reportof Excavations at theZebree Site, 1969, ResearchReport No. 4, Arkansas Archeologica!Survey, Fayetteville. Morse,D. F, andMorse, P. A. (1983). Archaeologyof the Central Mississippi Valley, Academic Kress, New York. Müller,J. (1986). Pans and a grainof salt:Mississippian specialization revisited. American Antiquity 51: 405-409. Müller,J. (1987). Salt,chert, and shell:Mississippian exchange and economy.In Bnimfiel,E. M., andEarle, T. K. (eds.), Specialization,Exchange, and ComplexSocieties, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 10-21. Müller,J. (1989). The SouthernCult. In Galloway,P. (ed.), TheSoutheastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifactsand Analysis, University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln, pp. 11-26. Muller,J. (1997). MississippianPolitical Economy, Plenum, New York. Ottesen,A. I. (1979). A PreliminaryStudy of Acquisition of Exotic Raw Materialsby Late Woodland andMississippian Groups, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, New York University, UMI, AnnArbor. Pauketat,T. R. (1993). Templesfor Cahokia Lords: PrestonHolders 1955-1^0 Excavationsoj KunnemannMound, Memoirs No. 26, Museumof Anthropology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor. Pauketat,T. R. (1997). Specialization,political symbols, and the crafty elite ot Canokia.Southeastern Archaeology16: 1-15. Paulsen,A. C. (1974). The thornyoyster and thevoice of God: Spondylusand òtrombusin Andean prehistory.American Antiquity 39: 597-607. Pearce,L. E. (1993). To whomdo theybelong/: Cowrie shells m mstoncaiarcnaeoiogy. African- AmericanArchaeology 9: 1-3. Pearson,R. (1990). Chieflyexchange between Kyushu and Okinawa,Japan, in the Yayoi period. Antiquity84: 912-922. Peregrine,P. (1990). TheEvolution of Mississippian Societies in theAmerican Midcontinent From a World-SystemPerspective, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,Purdue University, UMI, AnnArbor. Peregrine,P. (1991). Some politicalaspects of craftspecialization. World Archaeology 23: 1-11. Peterson,R. R.,Jr. ( 1986). Analysisof shell working traces on experimentaland arcnaeoiogicai oiaaeiei drills.Wyoming Archaeologist 29: 97-107. 272 Tnibttt

Phillips,P., and Brown, J. A. (1978). Pre-ColumbianShell Engravings From the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma,Part 1, paperbackedn., Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard University,Cambridge. Phillips,P., and Brown, J. A. (1984). Pre-ColumbianShell Engravings From the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma,Part 2, paperbackedn., Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard University,Cambridge. Pietak,L. M. (1998). Body symbolismand culturalaesthetics: The use of shellbeads and ornaments by Delawareand Munseegroups. North American Archaeologist 19: 135-161. Pires-Ferreira,J.W. (1976). Shelland iron-ore mirror exchange in formativeMesoamerica, with com- mentson othercommodities. In Flannery,K. V. (ed.), TheEarly Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press,New York,pp. 31 1-328. Pope, M. K. (1989). Microtoolsfrom the Black WarriorValley: Technology,use, and context.Unpublished MA Thesis, Departmentof Anthropology,State University of New York, Binghamton. Prentice,G. (1983). Cottageindustries: Concepts and implications. Midcontinental Journal of Archae- ology 8: 17^8. Prentice,G. (1987). Marineshells as wealthitems in Mississippiansocieties. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 12: 193-223. Reese, D. S. (1980). Industrialexploitation of Murexshells: Purple-dye and limeproduction at Sidi Khrebish,Benghazi (Berenice). Libyan Studies 11: 79-93. Reese, D. S. (1985). AppendixVIIIA: The Late BronzeAge to Geometricshells from Kition. In Karageorghis,V. Excavationsat KitionV, Part //, Department of Antiquities,Nicosia, pp. 340- 371. Reese, D. S. (1986). The marineand freshwatershells. In McGovern,P. E. (ed.), TheLate Bronze and EarlyIron Ages ofCentral Transjordan: The Baq'ah ValleyProject, 1977-1981, University Museum,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, pp. 320-332. Reese, D. S. (1987). Palaikastroshells and BronzeAge purple-dyeproduction in theMediterranean Basin. TheAnnual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens82: 201-206. Reese,D. S. (1988). A newengraved Tridacna shell from Kish. Journal of Near EasternStudies 47: 35-41. Reese,D. S. (1989). Treasuresfrom the sea: Shellsand shell ornaments from Hasanlu IVB. Expedition 31: 80-86. Reese,D. S. (1990). Marineand worked shells. In Algaze,G. (ed.), Townand Countryin Southeastern Anatolia,II, TheStratigraphie Sequence at KurbanHöyük, Oriental Institute Publications 110, Universityof Chicago,Chicago, pp. 410-416. Reese,D. S. (1991a). Marineshells in theLevant: Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic and Neolithic.In Bar-Yosef,O., and Valla,F. R. (eds.), TheNatufian Culture in theLevant, Archaeological Series 1, InternationalMonographs in Prehistory,Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 613-628. Reese,D. S. ( 199lb). The tradeof Indo-Pacific shells into the Mediterranean Basin and Europe. Oxford Journalof A rchaeology 10: 159- 196. Reese,D. S., and Sease, C. (1993). Somepreviously unpublished engraved Tridacna shells. Journal of Near EasternStudies 52: 109-128. Renfrew,C. (1975). Trade as actionat a distance:Questions of integrationand communication.In Sabloff,J. A., and Lamberg-Karlovsky,C. C. (eds.),Ancient Civilization and Trade,University of New MexicoPress. Albuaueraue. dd. 3-59. Renfrew,C, andBahn, P. ( 1996). Archaeology:Theories, Methods, and Practice, Thames and Hudson, London. Ross, K. (1981). Shell ornamentsof Malaita:Currency and ritualvaluables in thecentral Solomons. Expedition23: 20-26. Saitta,D. J.(1 999). Prestige,agency, and change in middle-range societies. In Robb, J. E. (ed.),Material Symbols:Culture and Economyin Prehistory, Occasional Paper No. 26,Center for Archaeological Investigations,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, dd. 135-149. Sandweiss,D. H. (1999). The returnof the nativesymbol: Peru picks Spondylus to representnew integrationwith Ecuador. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 17: 1,8-9. Saunders,N. J.(1999). Biographiesof brilliance: Pearls, transformations ofmatter and being, c. A.D. 1492. WorldArchaeology 31: 243-257. The Productionand Exchangeof Manne Shell PrestigeGoods 273

Schambach,F. F. (1993). Some newinterpretations of Spiroan culture history. In Stoltman,J. B. (ed.), Archaeologyof Eastern North America: Papers in Honorof StephenWilliams, Archaeological ReportNo. 25, MississippiDepartment of Archivesand History,Jackson, pp. 187-230. Schambach,F. F. (1999). Spiroand theTunica: A newinterpretation of the role of theTunica in the culturehistory of theSoutheast and thesouthern Plains, A.D. 1100-1750. In Mainfort,R. C, Jr.,and Jeter, M. D. (eds.),Arkansas Archaeology: Essays in Honorof Dan and PhyllisMorse, Universityof ArkansasPress, Fayetteville, pp. 169-224. Schnell,F. T., Knight,V. J.,Jr., and Schnell,G. S. (1981). Cemochechobee:Archaeology of a Mis- sissippianCeremonial Center on the ChattahoocheeRiver, Ripley P. Bullen Monographsin Anthropologyand History No. 3, Universityof Florida/Florida State Museum, University Presses ofFlorida, Gainesville. Sciama,L. D., andEicher, J. B. (eds.) (1998). Beads and Bead Makers:Gender, Material Culture and Meaning,Berg, Oxford. Sempowski,M. L. (1989). Fluctuationsthrough time in theuse of manneshell at Seneca Iroquois sites.In Hayes,I. C. F., Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds.), Proceedingsof theÌ986 ShellBead Conference:Selected Papers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester,NY, pp. 81-96. Seymour,D. J.(1988). An alternativeview of Sedentary period Hohokam shell-ornament production. AmericanAntiquity 53:812-829. Seymour,D. J.,and Schiffer,M. B. (1987). A preliminaryanalysis of pithouseassemblages from Snaketown,Arizona. In Kent,S. (ed.), Methodand Theoryfor Activity Area Research:An Eth- noarchaeologicalApproach, Columbia University Press, New York,pp. 549-603. Shackleton,J., and Elderfield, H. (1990). Strontiumisotope dating of the source of Neolithic European Spondylusshell artefacts. Antiquity 64: 312-315. Shackleton,N., andRenfrew, C. (1970). Neolithictrade routes re-aligned by oxygen isotope analyses. Nature228: 1062-1065. Sierzchula,M. C. (1980). Replicationand use studiesof theZebree microlith industry. Unpublished MA Thesis,Department of Anthropology,University of Arkansas,Fayetteville. Slotkin,J. S., and Schmitt,K. (1949). Studiesof Wampum.American Anthropologist 51: 223-236. Smith,T. J.(1983). Wampumas primitivevaluables. In Dalton,G. (ed.), Researchin EconomicAn- thropology,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 225-246. Smith,M. T., andSmith, J. B. (1989). Engravedshell masks in NorthAmerica. Southeastern Archae- ology8:9-18. Strathern,A. (1975). TheRope ofMoka: Big-Menand CeremonialExchange in MountHagen, New Guinea,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thomas,L. A. (1996). A studyof shellbeads and theirsocial contextin theMississippian Period: A case fromthe Carolina Piedmont and Mountains. Southeastern Archaeology 15: 29-46. Topping,J. M. (1989). An introductionto molluscsand theiridentification. In Hayes,I. C. F., Ceci, L., and Bodner,C. C. (eds), Proceedingsof the 1986 Shell Bead Conference:Selected Papers, ResearchRecords No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, NY, pp. 7-11. Tosi,M. (1984). The notionof craftspecialization and itsrepresentation in the archaeological record ofearly states in theTuranian Basin. In Spriggs,M. (ed.), MarxistPerspectives in Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-52. Trubitt,M. B. D. (1996). HouseholdStatus, Marine Shell Bead Production,and theDevelopment of Ca- hokiain theMississippian Period, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University,UMI, AnnArbor. Trubitt,M. B. D. (1997). Householdstatus and craft working at Cahokia.Paper presented at the62nd AnnualMeeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Nashville, TN. Trubitt,M. B. D. (2000). Moundbuilding and prestigegoods exchange:Changing strategies in the Cahokiachiefdom. American Antiquity 65: 669-690. Turner,M. H. (1993). Stylein lapidarytechnology: Identifying the Teotihuacan lapidary industry. In Berlo,J. C. (ed.),Art, Ideology, and theCity of Teotihuacan,Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary andCollection, Washington, DC, pp. 89-1 12. Webb,W. S. (1974). IndianKnoll, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Weiner,A. B. (1976). Womenof Value,Men of Renown:New Perspectivesin TrobriandExchange, Universityof Texas Press,Austin. 274 IWMtt

Weiner,A. B. ( 1988). TheTrobrianders of Papua NewGuinea, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth. Welch,P. D. (1991). Moundville'sEconomy, University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa. Winters,H. D. (1968). Valuesystems and tradecycles of thelate Archaic in theMidwest. In Binfora, S. R., and Binford,L. R. (eds.), New Perspectivesin Archaeology,Aldine, Chicago, pp. 175- 222. Wright,R. P. (1996). Contextsof specialization:V. GordonChilde and socialevolution. In Wailes,B. (ed.), CraftSpecialization and Social Evolution:In MemoryofV GordonChilde, Monograph 93, UniversityMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 123-132. Yerkes,R. W. (1983). Microwear,microdrills, and Mississippian craft specialization. American Antiq- uity48:499-518. Yerkes,R. W. (1986). Licks,pans, and chiefs:A commenton "Mississippianspecialization and salt** AmericanAntiquity 51: 402-404. Yerkes,R. W. (1987). PrehistoricLife on theMississippi Floodplain, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. Yerkes,R. W. (1989a). Mississippiancraft specialization on the AmericanBottom. Southeastern Archaeology8: 93-106. Yerkes,R. W. (1989b). Shellbead production and exchange in prehistoric Mississippian populations. In Hayes,I. C. R, Ceci, L., andBodner, C. C. (eds). Proceedingsof the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: SelectedPapers, Research Records No. 20, RochesterMuseum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, NY, pp. 113-123. Yerkes,R. W. (1991). Specializationin shellartifact production at Cahokia.In Stoltman,J. B. (ed.), New Perspectiveson Cahokia: ViewsFrom the Periphery, Monographs in WorldArchaeology No. 2, PrehistoryPress, Madison, WI, pp. 49-64. Ziderman,1. 1. (1990). Seashellsand ancientpurple dyeing. Biblical Archaeologist 53: 98-101.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

Arnold,J. E., Preziosi,A. M., and Shattuck,P. (2001). Flakedstone craft production and exchange in islandChumash territory. In Arnold,J. E. (ed.), The Originsof a PacificCoast Chiefdom: The Chumashof the ChannelIslands, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 113- 131. Bar-YosefMayer, D. E. (1997). Neolithicshell bead productionin Sinai. Journalof Archaeological Science 24:97-111. Bayman,J. M. (2002). Hohokamcraft economies and the materialization ofpower. Journal of Archae- ologicalMethod and Theory9: 69-95. Blakeslee,D. J.(1997). The marineshell artifacts of Kansas. CentralPlains Archeology 5: 3-9. Blower,D. (1996). The Questfor Mullu: Concepts,Trade, and theArchaeological Distribution, of Spondylusin theAndes (Ecuador, Peru), MA Thesis,Department of Anthropology, Trent Univer- sity,UMI, AnnArbor. Bradley,R. J. (1995). A comparisonof shellornament production strategies in theNorth American southwest.Paper presented at the60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis,MN. Bradley,R. J.E. (1996). TheRole of Casas Grandesin PrehistoricShell Exchange Networks Within theSouthwest, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,Arizona State University, UMI, AnnArbor. Bradley,R. J.(1999). Shellexchange within the Southwest: The Casas Grandesinteraction sphere. In Schaafsma,C. F., and Riley,C. L. (eds.). The Casas GrandesWorld, University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City,pp. 213-228. Carter,B. P. (1999). Beads ofchange: An experimentalapproach to shell bead production on theSanta Elenapeninsula, Ecuador. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Chicago. Descantes,C. (1998). IntegratingArchaeology and Ethnohistory:The Development of Exchange be- tweenYap and Ulithi,Western Caroline Islands (Micronesia), PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,University of Oregon,UMI, AnnArbor The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 275

Dreiss,M. L. (1995). The occurrenceof marineshell ornamentsat the MitchellRidge site on GalvestonIsland, Texas. Paper presented at the60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Minneapolis, MN. Earle,T. (1994). Wealthfinance in theInka Empire: Evidence from the Calchaqui Valley, Argentina. AmericanAntiquity 59: 443-460. Feinman,G. M., andNicholas, L. M. (1995). Householdcraft specialization and shellornament man- ufacturein Ejutla,Mexico. Expedition 37: 14-25. Fosha,M. (1997). Faces of shell:Two marineshell mask gorgets from South Dakota. Centred Plains Archeology5: 69-75. Galm,J. R. (1994). Prehistorictrade and exchangein the InteriorPlateau of northwesternNorth America.In Baugh,T. G., and Ericson,J. E. (eds.), PrehistoricExchange Systems in North America,Plenum, New York,pp. 275-305. Gassón,R. A. (2000). Quinpasand mostacillas: The evolutionof shell beads as a mediumoí exchange in northernSouth America. Ethnohistory 47: 581-609. Harris,R. N. (1999). CraftSpecialization in a 19thCentury African-American Community: The Shell Carver'sCabin on theLevi Jordan Plantation, Brazoria County, Texas, MA Thesis,Department ofAnthropology, University of Houston, UMI, AnnArbor. Hohlfelder,R. L., and Vann,R. L. (1998). Uncoveringthe maritimesecrets of Aperlae,a coastal settlementof ancientLycia. Near EasternArchaeology 61: 26-37. Hohmann,B. M. (2002). PreclassicMaya ShellOrnament Production in the Belize Valley,Belize, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,University of New Mexico,UMI, AnnArbor. Jaynes,S. (1997). Marineshell mask gorgets in Montana.Central Plains Archeology 5: 99-103. Koeppe,W. (1997). Chineseshells, French prints, and Russiangoldsmithing: A curiousgroup of eighteenth-centuryRussian table snuffboxes. Metropolitan Museum Journal 32: 207-214. Kozuch,L. (1998). Marine Shellsfrom Mississippian Archaeological Sites (Illinois,Oklahoma, Georgia,Alabama), PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, UMI, AnnArbor. Kozuch,L. (2002). Olivellabeads fromSpiro and thePlains. American Antiquity 67: 697-709. Kuhn,S. L., Stiner,M. C, Reese, D. S., and Gulec, E. (2001). Ornamentsof the earliestUpper Paleolithic:New insightsfrom the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 7641-7646. Lippincott,K. (1997). Mussels,mussel shell tools,and musseland marineshell ornamentsfrom MissouriRiver Trench sites in SouthDakota. Central Plains Archeology 5: 49-67. Marquardt,W. H. (1992). Shellartifacts from the Caloosahatchee area. In Marquardt,W. H., andPayne, C. (eds.), Cultureand Environmentin theDomain of theCalusa, Instituteof Archaeologyand PaleoenvironmentalStudies Monograph 1, Universityof Florida,Gainesville, pp. 191-221. McGuire,R. H. (1993). The structureand organizationof Hohokamexchange. In Ericson,J. E. and Baugh,T. G. (eds.),The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange Plenum,New York,pp. 95-1 19. Middleton,W. D. (1998). CraftSpecialization at Ejutla,Oaxaca, Mexico:An Archaeometric Study of theOrganization of Household Craft Production, PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, UMI, AnnArbor. Miller,M. A. (1997). Jewelsof Shell and Stone,Clay and Bone: The Production,Function, and Distributionof Aegean Stone Age Ornaments,PhD Dissertation,Department of Archaeology, BostonUniversity, UMI, AnnArbor. Mitchell,P. J.(1996). Prehistoricexchange and interactionin southeasternSouthern Africa: Marine shellsand ostrich eggshell. African Archaeological Review 13: 35-76. Moholy-Nagy,H. (1995). Contextsof shellartifact production and consumptionat Tikal,Guatemala. Paper presentedat the 60th Annual Meetingof the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Minneapolis,MN. Moholy-Nagy,H. (1997). Middens,construction fill, and offerings:Evidence for the organization of ClassicPeriod craft production at Tikal,Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 2A' 293-313. Morse,K. ( 1993). Shellbeads from Mandu Mandu Creek Rock-shelter, Cape RangePeninsula, Western Australia,dated before 30,000 b.p. Antiquity 67: 877-883. Muller,J. (1995). Regionalinteraction in thelater Southeast. In Nassaney,M. S., andSassaman, K. E. (eds.), NativeAmerican Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretationsin theEastern Woodlands,University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 317-340. 276 Trubitt

Picha,P. R., andSwenson, F. E. (1997). Whorlsand valves:Marine shell artifacts from North Dakota. CentralPlains Archeology 5: 77-97. Reese,D. S. ( 1992a). AppendixI, Recentand fossil invertebrates. In McDonald, W. A., and Wilkie, N. C. (eds.),Excavations at Nichoriain SouthwestGreece, II, TheBronze Age Occupation,University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 770-778. Reese,D. S. ( 1992b). Shells and animal bones. In Karageorghis,V, Picard,O., andlytgat, C. (eds.),La NécropoleD'Amathonte, Tombes 11 3-367, VI,Bijoux, Armes, Verre, Astragales et Coquillages, Squelettes,Etudes Chypriotes XIV, Service des Antiquitesde Chypre,Ecole Françaised* Athènes, FondationA. G. Leventìs,Nicosie, pp. 123-141. Reese,D. S. (1992c). Shellsfrom the 1986 season.In MacDonald,B. (ed.), TheSouthern Ghors and Northeast'Arabah Archaeological Survey, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 5, Department ofArchaeology and Prehistory,University of Sheffield,Sheffield, pp. 155-156. Reese,D. S. (1995a). Marineinvertebrates and fossils.In Bennett,C.-M., and Bienkowski,P. (eds.), Excavationsat Tawilanin Southern Jordan, British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 8, The BritishInstitute at Ammanfor Archaeology and History.Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 93-96, 345. Reese, D. S. (1995b). Marineinvertebrates and othershells from Jerusalem (Sites A, C and L). In Eshel,I., and Prag,K. (eds.), Excavationsby K. M. Kenyonin Jerusalem ¡961-1967, IV, British AcademyMonographs in Archaeology No. 6, BritishSchool of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 265-278. Reese, D. S. (1995c). Shells fromthe Wadi Hisma sites. In Henry,D. O. (ed.), PrehistoricCul- turalEcology and Evolution:Insights from Southern Jordan, Plenum, New York,pp. 385- 390. Reese, D. S. (1995d). The shellsfrom Upper Zohar. In Harper,R. P. (ed.), UpperZohar-^An Early ByzantineFort in PalestinaTertia, Final Reportof Excavations in 1985-1986,British Academy Monographsin Archaeology No. 9, BritishSchool of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 97-98. Reese,D. S. ( 1996). Appendix8: Animalbones and shells. In Coleman, J. E., Barlow,J. A., Mogelonsky, M. K., and Schaar,K. W. (eds.),Alambra, A MiddleBronze Age Settlement in Cyprus:Archaeo- logicalInvestigations by Cornell University, 1974-1985, Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology Vol.CXVIII, Paul AstromsForlag, Jonsered, pp. 475-514. Reese, D. S. (1998). Beads: Marineshells. In Betts,A. V. G. (ed.), The Harm and the Hamad: Excavationsand Surveysin EasternJordan 7, SheffieldArchaeological Monographs 9, Sheffield AcademicPress, Sheffield, pp. 138. Reese,D. (1999). Marineinvertebrates. In Simmons, A. H. (ed.), FaunalExtinction in an IslandSoci- ety:Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 188-191. Smith,M. T. (1997). Shell fromthe Plains: A southeasternperspective. Central Plains Archeology 5: 105-107. Snyder,G. S. (1999). Wampum:A materialsymbol of cultural value to theIroquois peoples of north- easternNorth America. In Robb,J. E. (ed.),Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, OccasionalPaper No. 26, Centerfor Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,pp. 362-381 . Stieglitz,R. R. (1994). The Minoanorigin of Tyrianpurple. Biblical Archaeologist 57: 46-54. Stiner,M. C. (1999). Paleolithicmollusc exploitation at RiparoMochi (Balzi Rossi,Italy): Food and ornamentsfrom the Aurignacian through Epigravettian. Antiauity 73: 735-754. Tooker,E. ( 1998). A noteon thereturn of eleven wampum belts to the Six NationsIroquois Confederacy on GrandRiver, Canada. Ethnohistory45: 219-236. Trubitt,M. B. D. (1995). Marineshell ornament production at Cahokia.Paper presented at the60th AnnualMeeting of theSociety for American Archaeology. Minneapolis. MN. VargasArenas, I., Toledo,M. I., Molina, L. E., and Montcourt,C. E. (1993). Los Artificesde la Concha,Contribuciones a la ArqueologíaTropical No. 1, USDA ForestService Southern Region, Organizaciónde los EstadosAmericanos. Vellanoweth,R. L. (2001). AMS radiocarbondating and shellbead chronologies:Middle Holocene tradeand interactionin westernNorth America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 941- 950. The Productionand Exchangeof Marine Shell PrestigeGoods 277

Yerkes,R. W. (1992). Microwearanalysis of microdrills.In Esarey,D., and Pauketat,T. R. (eds.), TheLohmann Site: An Early Mississippian Center in theAmerican Bottom, University of Illinois Press,Urbana, pp. 133-138. Yerkes,R. W. (1993). Methodsof manufacturingshell beads at prehistoricMississippian sites in southeasternNorth America. InBeyries, S. (ed.), Traceologieet Fonction: Le GestRetrouve, Centre de RecherchesArchéologiques du CNRS, Etudeset RecherchesArchéologiques de l'Université de Liege,Liege, Belgium, pp. 235-242.