Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550 Spring 2020
Prof. Vin Steponaitis ([email protected]; tel. 919-962-7748) Office hours by appointment in AL-109 (email or call to set up a time)
Course Description: This seminar will focus on current issues and interpretations in the archaeology of the American South. It is intended for anyone with a serious interest in the ancient Indian cultures of this region, as understood through the lens of archaeological research. Through weekly readings and discussions, students will explore the lifeways and changes that characterized each major period of the South’s ancient history, from 16,000 years ago to the beginnings of European colonization. This will be a challenging course, and students are expected to come to class prepared.
Course Structure: The seminar meets Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:00 to 3:15 pm in Alumni 203. In general, discussion topics and readings will be assigned on weekly basis, with final readings posted a full week before they’re due. Typically, the readings for each topic will include some titles that everyone reads, and others that are divided among the students in the class. Students must do the assigned readings before each class meets. In class, students will discuss the general readings, and also present brief reports and critiques on the readings specifically assigned to them. Brief written exercises may be assigned if needed. In addition, each student will be expected to write a 12-15 page term paper on a topic of their choosing; this topic must be discussed with the instructor as soon as possible, and certainly no later than February 6th. At the end of the semester, each student will briefly present the results of the term-paper project orally to the class, and will also hand in the full written version.
Course Requirements: In addition to the assigned readings, requirements include class participation (30%, including the class discussions and written exercises), an end-of-semester oral report (10%), a term paper (30%, due 4/23), and a final exam (30%, 5/4 @ 12 pm). Note that regular class attendance is essential. It will be taken into account by reducing your grade 10% for each unexcused absence. If you must miss class, please discuss it with me in advance if possible. If this is not possible, then please contact me as soon as possible afterwards. In general, illness or unavoidable family obligations (like weddings) are the only valid reasons for an absence.
Course Web Site: The syllabus, readings, and other relevant information will be posted on the course web site at
Honor Code: Students are expected to adhere to UNC's Honor Code
Schedule (as of 1/9): 1/9 Introduction and overview 1/14-1/23 Paleoindian period 1/28-2/6 Archaic period 2/11-2/13 Student research (no class) 2/28-2/20 Poverty Point and early mounds 2/25-2/27 Eastern Agricultural Complex 3/3-3/19 Woodland period 3/24-4/2 Mississippi period: Cahokia and Moundville 4/7-4/9 Mississippian iconography 4/14-4/21 Student presentations (in class) Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 1: Overviews
Part 1. To start off, I'd like you to read a review article concerning Southern archaeology, in order to get a preliminary glimpse at the “big picture.” Please read the article below. As you read, keep the following questions in mind:
* What are the major periods, and when do they date? * What are the major cultural features or innovations that mark each of these periods?
Also, come to the next class prepared to answer the following question:
* Looking at peoples’ overall way of life (economy, settlements, social organization, etc.) what are the most important trends and transformations that can be seen archaeologically? Pick at least three (not everyone needs to choose the same ones).
In reading the article, don’t let yourself get bogged down in trying to remember and understand all the details. Just focus on understanding the big picture, with particular reference to the questions above. Also be thinking about potential paper topics!
Also, if you see any terms or phrases that you don’t understand or don’t make sense, feel free to bring these questions to class.
Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1986). Prehistoric archaeology in the southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363-404.
Part 2. Now it’s time to get a sense of the lay of the land. It’s difficult to talk about or to understand the ancient history of the South without knowing something about its geography, physiography, and forests. Read the article below and then do Exercise 1, which will be handed out separately and due in class on 8/26.
Gremillion, Kristen J. (2004). Environment. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 53- 67. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 14. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. [Focus on pp. 53-60.]
More Readings (Optional):
Smith, Bruce D. (1986). Archaeology of the southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,000-500 B.P. Advances in World Archaeology, vol. 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 1-92.
Fenneman, Nevin M. (1917). Physiographic Subdivision of the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 3(1): 17-22.
Week 2: Paleoindian Arrival
The Clovis culture, traditionally dated 11,500-11,000 14C years BP has long been recognized as the earliest well-documented occupation of North America. At the same time, the question of whether “pre- Clovis” cultures existed has for decades been one of the most hotly debated questions in American archaeology. Here we will discuss the questions of when and how the South was first colonized.
Currently there are a handful of sites in the South (and nearby) for which claims of pre-Clovis antiquity are being made. These readings offer a sampling of what we know about these sites. (Note that, for better or worse, most of what we know about some of these sites comes from fund-raising newsletters, newspaper stories, TV documentaries, and press releases — in other words, not from the scientific literature.) The general readings (which everyone must read) provide the latest word on the dating of Clovis, and an overview of the sites that are allegedly pre-Clovis. The supplemental readings (which will be divided among the class participants) give additional details on these sites.
Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. (2007). Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315: 1122-1126.
Goodyear, Albert C. (2005). Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. Lepper, D. Stanford, M. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Press.
Pringle, Heather (2011). Texas Site Confirms Pre-Clovis Settlement of the Americas. Science 331: 1512.
Clausen, C. J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, J. J. Stipp (1979). Little Salt Spring, Florida. Science 203:609-614. [Focus on the earliest occupation.]
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath (1978). Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: An Overview. American Antiquity 43(4): 632-651. [Focus on the pre-Clovis assemblage and dates.]
Supplemental Readings:
Waters, Michael R., et al. (2011). The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331: 1599-1603.
McDonald, Jerry N. (2000). An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr BP. Jeffersoniana 9: 1- 59. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville.
Michael R. Waters et al. (2009). Geoarchaeological investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree sites, Allendale County, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1300–1311 [Focus on sections 1-3, 8, and 12.]
Macphail, Richard I., and Joseph M. McAvoy (2008). A Micromorphological Analysis of Stratigraphic Integrity and Site Formation at Cactus Hill, an EarlyPaleoindian and Hypothesized Pre-Clovis Occupation in South-Central Virginia, USA. Geoarchaeology 23(5): 675–694. [Focus on pp. 675-679, 691-692.] Optional Readings:
Jennings, Thomas A., and Michael R. Waters (2014). Pre-Clovis Lithic Technology at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. American Antiquity 79(1): 25-44. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 3: Paleoindian Settlement and Chronology
The conventional wisdom these days subdivides southern Paleoindian point styles into three chronological units: Early, Middle, and Late. In reading the first article, think about the basis for this classification, and whether any different arrangements are equally consistent with the evidence. The next three articles show how data on large-scale distributions of Paleoindian points have driven models for the initial colonization of the South, and the problems with assigning archaeological meaning to such data.
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman (1996). Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. University of Alabama Press. [Focus on pp. 7-15.]
Anderson, David G. (1996). Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 29-57. University of Alabama Press. [Read pp. 29-39, 53-57.]
Anderson, David G., et al. (2010). PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings. Archaeology of Eastern North America 38: 63-90. [Focus on pp. 68-78.]
Prasciunas, Mary M. (2011). Mapping Clovis: Projectile Points, Behavior, and Bias. American Antiquity 76(1): 107-126.
Optional Readings:
Anderson, David G. (1990). The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America. Research in Economic Anthropology 5: 163-216.
Anderson, David G., and J. Christopher Gillam (2000). Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65(1): 43-66.
Collins, Michael B. (2002). The Gault Site, Texas, and Clovis Research. Athena Review 3(2).
Week 4: Early Archaic Settlement Models
Our discussion will focus on recent interpretations of Early Archaic settlement patterns in the South. In doing the readings, think about the following questions: To what extent can aspects of group mobility be inferred from tool types and raw materials found in site assemblages? How convincing are the arguments of this sort that have been presented for the Early Archaic? Everyone should read all the articles, but each person should be prepared to present and critique one of the settlement models in detail.
General Background:
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman (1996). Modeling Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Historical Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 16-28. University of Alabama Press.
Binford, Lewis R. (1980). Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20.
Settlement Models:
Anderson and Hanson (1988). Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River. American Antiquity 53: 262-286.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. (2001). Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(2): 237-265.
Hollenbach, Kandace Detwiler (2010). Modeling Resource Procurement of Late Paleoindian Hunter- Gatherers: A View from Northwest Alabama. In Exploring Variability in Early Holocene Hunter- Gatherer Lifeways, edited by Stance Hurst and Jack Hofman, pp. 13-26. University of Kansas Press.
Optional Readings:
Binford, Lewis R. (1979). Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255-273.
Meltzer, David J. (1989). Was Stone Exchanged among Eastern Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Jonathan C. Lothrop, pp. 11-39. Westview Press.
Anderson, David G., and Joseph Schuldenrein (1983). Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope: A View from the Ruckers Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist 4: 177-210. (Focus on the archaeology [pp. 177-192, 199-205], not on the geomorphology.) Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 5: Middle Archaic Period
The question we will consider is the title of an oft-cited article from the 1980s: What happened in the Middle Archaic? This was a time of major changes in technology, settlement, and social arrangements. In doing the readings below, focus on what the major changes were, and what they tell us about the economic, social, and political arrangements at this time.
Background Readings:
Milner, George R. (2004). The Moundbuilders, Chapter 3, pp. 34-53.
General Readings:
Milner, George R., and Richard W. Jefferies (1998). The Read Archaic Shell Midden in Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology 17(2): 119-132.
Russo, Michael (1996). Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259-287. University Press of Florida.
Claassen, Cheryl A. (1992). Shell Mounds as Burial Mounds: A Revision of the Shell Mound Archaic. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume 2, edited by David Pollack and A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 1-11. Kentucky Heritage Council.
Marquardt, William H. (2010). Shell Mounds in the Southeast: Middens, Monuments, Temple Mounds, Rings, or Works? American Antiquity 75(3):551-570.
Jefferies, Richard W. (1996). The Emergence of Long Distance Exchange Networks in the Southeastern United States. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 222-234. University Press of Florida.
Hamlin, Christine (2001). Sharing the Load: Gender and Task Division at the Windover Site. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death, edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker, pp. 119-136. Altamira Press.
Optional Readings:
Johnson, Jay K., and Samuel O. Brookes (1989). Benton Points, Turkey Tails, and Cache Blades: Middle Archaic Exchange in the Midsouth. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2): 134-145.
Jefferies, Richard W. (1997). Middle Archaic Bone Pins: Evidence of Mid-Holocene Regional-Scale Social Groups in the Southern Midwest. American Antiquity 62(3): 464-487.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Asa R. Randall (2007). The Cultural History of Bannerstones in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2): 196-211. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and R. Jerald Ledbetter (1996). Middle and Late Archaic Architecture. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 75-96. University Press of Florida.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. (1996). Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida. [Read pp. 57-68 and the conclusion.] Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 6: Poverty Point
A unique site, Poverty Point has never fit comfortably in the overall scheme of Southeastern U.S. prehistory. Its enigmatic nature has led to decades of speculation and controversy about what it represents. Was it the capital of a centralized chiefdom or an example of monumental construction in an egalitarian society? Was it a permanently occupied town or a place of seasonal aggregation? And was it built by relatively few people over a long period of time, or by many people in a short period? These are the questions on which to focus as you do the general readings.
General Readings:
Kidder, Tristram R. (2002). Mapping Poverty Point. American Antiquity 67(1):89-101.
Gibson, Jon L. (2010). Poverty Point Redux. In Archaeology of Louisiana, edited by Mark A. Rees, pp. 77-96. LSU Press.
Gibson, Jon L. (1974). Poverty Point, the First North American Chiefdom. Archaeology 27(2): 96–105.
Gibson, Jon L. (2004). The Power of Beneficent Obligation in First Mound-Building Societies. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Complexity in the Southeast, edited by Jon L. Gibson and Philip J. Carr, pp. 255-269. University of Alabama Press.
Jackson, H. Edwin (1989). Poverty Point Adaptive Systems in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Subsistence Remains from the J.W. Copes Site. North American Archaeologist 10(3): 173-204.
Jackson, H. Edwin (1991). The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Intersocietal Trade in the Poverty Point Culture. In Between Bands and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, pp. 265-286. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Kidder, Tristram R. (2010). Hunter-Gatherer Ritual and Complexity: New Evidence from Poverty Point, Louisiana. In Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Precolumbian North America, edited by Susan M. Alt, pp 32-51. University of Utah Press.
Optional Readings:
Webb, Clarence H. (1968). The Extent and Content of Poverty Point Culture. American Antiquity 33(3): 297-321.
Gibson, Jon L. (2006). Navels of the Earth: Sedentism in Early Mound-Building Cultures in the Lower Mississippi Valley. World Archaeology 38(2): 311-329.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. (2005). Poverty Point as Structure, Event, Process. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4): 335-364.
Gibson, Jon L. (2007). "Formed from the Earth at That Place": The Material Side of Community at Poverty Point. American Antiquity 72(3): 509-523. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 7: Eastern Agricultural Complex
Eastern North America is one of the very few places in the world where farming was independently invented, and our understanding of that process has progressed greatly over the last 30 years. These readings explore the evidence that underlies this understanding, as well as some recent interpretations of how the process took place.
General readings:
Smith, Bruce D., and C. Wesley Cowan (2003). Domesticated Crop Plants and the Evolution of Food Production Economies in Eastern North America. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America, edited by P. Minnis, pp. 105-125. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Smith, Bruce D. (2006). Eastern North America as an Independent Center of Plant Domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(33): 12223–12228.
Fritz, Gayle J. (1999). Gender and the Early Cultivation of Gourds in Eastern North America. American Antiquity 64(3): 417-429.
Scarry, C. Margaret (2008). Crop Husbandry Practices in North America's Eastern Woodlands. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, C. Margaret Scarry, and Sylvia J. Scudder, pp. 391-404. 2nd edition. Springer, New York.
Supplemental readings:
Smith, Bruce D. (1985). The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Premaize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 4: 51-72. [Reprinted in Rivers of Change, chapter 5; focus on the indicators of domestication, pp. 103-115.]
Smith, Bruce D. (1992). The Economic Potential of Chenopodium berlandieri in Prehistoric Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, by Bruce D,. Smith, pp. 163-183 [chapter 7]. Smithsonian Institution Press. [Also read pp. 116-128 in Smith 1985.]
Smith, Bruce D. (1992). The Economic Potential of Iva Annua in Prehistoric Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, by Bruce D,. Smith, pp. 185- 200 [chapter 8]. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Cowan, C. Wesley (1997). Evolutionary Changes Associated with the Domestication of Cucurbita Pepo: Evidence from Eastern Kentucky. In People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp. 63-85. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cowan, C. Wesley (1978). The Prehistoric Use and Distribution of Maygrass in Eastern North America: Cultural and Phytogeographical Implications. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 263-288. Anthropological Papers 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Optional readings:
Asch, Nancy B., and David L. Asch (1978). The Economic Potential of Iva Annua and its Prehistoric Importance in the Lower Illinois Valley. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 300-341. Anthropological Papers 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chomko, Stephen A., and Gary W. Crawford (1978). Plant Husbandry in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Evidence for Its Development. American Antiquity 43(3): 405-408.
Yarnell, Richard A. (1978). Domestication of Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North America. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 289-299. Anthropological Papers 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black (1985). Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4: 93-106.
Smith, Bruce D. (1987). The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William Keegan, pp. 3-47. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. [Reprinted in Rivers of Change, chapter 3; focus on “The Domestication of Indigenous Seed Crops,” pp. 51-60.]
Smith, Bruce D. (1989). Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246: 1566-1571.
Gayle J. Fritz (1990). Multiple Pathways to Farming in Precontact Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 4(4): 387-435.
Smith, Bruce D. (1992). Is It an Indigene or a Foreigner? In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 67-100. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Harter, Abigail V., et al. (2004). Origin of Extant Domesticated Sunflowers in Eastern North America. Nature 430: 201-205.
Scarry, C. Margaret, and Richard A. Yarnell (2011). Native American Domestication and Husbandry of Plants in Eastern North America. In The Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A Handbook, edited by Bruce D. Smith. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 8: Middle Woodland
Major themes in the study of Middle Woodland cultures have been farming, long-distance circulation of goods, and mortuary ceremonialism. This week’s readings deal with each of these themes in turn. The supplemental readings give you an opportunity to explore mound construction and mortuary ritual in more detail, by focusing on the evidence from a particular site.
General Readings:
Smith, Bruce D. (1992). Hopewellian Farmers of Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, pp. 201-248. Smithsonian Institution Press. [Focus on pp. 201-229, 239-243.]
Struever and Houart (1972). An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen, pp. 47-79. Anthropological Papers 46. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Warren R. DeBoer (2004). Little Bighorn on the Scioto: The Rocky Mountain Connection to Ohio Hopewell. American Antiquity 69(1): 85-107.
Brown, James A. (1979). Charnel Houses and Mortuary Crypts: Disposal of the Dead in the Middle Woodland Period. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 211-219. Kent State University Press
Supplemental Readings:
Mainfort, Robert C. (1986). Pinson Mounds: a Middle Woodland Ceremonial Center. Research Series 7. Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Nashville. [Davis E78.T3 M35 1986]
Ford, James A., and Gordon R. Willey (1940). Crooks Site, a Marksville Period Burial Mound in La Salle Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Study 3. Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, New Orleans. [Davis E78.L8 F674 1975]
Cotter, John L., and John M. Corbett (1951). Archeology of the Bynum Mounds, Mississippi. Archeological Research Series 1. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Ford, James A. (1963). Hopewell Culture Burial Mounds near Helena, Arkansas. Anthropological Papers 50(1). American Museum of Natural History, New York. [Davis GN2 .A27 v. 50 pt. 1]
Jefferies, Richard W. (1976). The Tunacunnhee Site: Evidence of Hopewell Interaction in Northwest Georgia. Anthropological Report 1, University of Georgia, Athens. [Davis E78.G3 J45 1976]
Optional Readings:
Walthall, John (1985). Early Hopewellian Ceremonial Encampments in the South Appalachian Highlands. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 243-262. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 9: Late Woodland
This week’s readings deal with the period spanning AD 400-1000. First, we will look at some examples of community patterning and mound ritual during this period. Second, we will examine the adoption of maize agriculture. In reading the articles on the latter topic, focus on the various models that have been proposed for the adoption of maize as a staple crop. Why did people begin to farm maize intensively? And why did they do so around the end of the first millennium A.D., rather than earlier?
General Readings:
Steponaitis, Vincas P., et al. (2014). Coles Creek Antecedents. In Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World, edited by Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat, SAR Press, Santa Fe, in press.
Milanich, Jerald T., et al. (1984). McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, Orlando. [Skim chapter 2 (pp. 9-24) and read chapter 5 (pp. 91-119).]
Fritz, Gayle J. (1992). “Newer,” “Better” Maize and the Mississippian Emergence: A Critique of Prime Mover Explanations. In Late Prehistoric Agriculture: Observations from the Midwest, edited by William I. Woods, pp.19-43. Studies in Illinois Archaeology 8. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
Scarry, C. Margaret (1993). Variability in Mississippian Crop Production Strategies. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 78-90. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Optional Readings:
Rolingson, Martha Ann (1990). The Toltec Mounds Site: A Ceremonial Center in the Arkansas River Lowland. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 27-49. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Kelly, John E. (1990). Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippian Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 67-112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. [Skim the introductory material and focus on the community patterns, pp. 79-110.] van der Merwe, Nikolaas J. (1982). Carbon Isotopes, Photosynthesis, and Archaeology. American Scientist 70: 596-606.
Smith, Bruce D. (1989). Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246: 1566-1571. [Carefully read p. 1570.]
Johannessen, Sissel (1993). Farmers of the Late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 57-77. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Fritz, Gayle J. (1990). Multiple Pathways to Farming in Precontact Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 4(4): 387-435. [Carefully read the sections on maize, pp. 407-412, 415-416.] Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 10: Mississippian Origins and Cahokia
The origins of Mississippian culture and the nature of the Cahokia site have long been debated by archaeologists. Here we will consider how views on these topics have changed over the years. In reading the articles from the past decade, focus especially on current ideas regarding the role of Cahokia in the spread of Mississippian culture, and also on the role of migration in Cahokia’s formation.
General Readings:
Smith, Bruce D. (1984). Mississippian Expansion: Tracing the Historical Development of an Explanatory Model. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1): 13-32.
Pauketat, Timothy (2004). Early Cahokia. In Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians, pp. 67-95 (chapter 4). Cambridge University Press.
Pauketat, Timothy (2004). Mississippianization. In Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians, pp. 119- 144 (chapter 6). Cambridge University Press.
Alt, Susan M. (2006). The Power of Diversity: Settlement in the Cahokian Uplands. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, pp. 289-308. Occasional Paper 33. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Optional Readings:
Melvin L. Fowler (1975). A Pre-Columbian Urban Center on the Mississippi. Scientific American 233(2): 92-101.
Cobb Charles R. (2003). Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 63-84.
Milner, George R. (1990). The Late Prehistoric Cahokia Cultural System of the Mississippi River Valley: Foundations, Florescence, and Fragmentation. Journal of World Prehistory 4(1): 1-43. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 11: Moundville
Moundville is among the largest civic-ceremonial centers built in Mississippian times, second only to Cahokia. This week’s readings focus attention on studies of Moundville’s social organization, and how it articulates with the architecture, community patterns, and art.
General Readings:
Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus (1977). Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42: 421-448.
Knight, Vernon J. (1998). Moundville as a Diagrammatic Ceremonial Center. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 44-62. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1998). Population Trends at Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon J. Knight and Vincas P. Steponaitis. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, Gregory D. (2010). Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville. American Antiquity 75(1): 3-18.
Lankford, George E. (2004). World on a String. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 206-217. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Optional Readings:
Steponaitis, Vincas P., and Vernon J. Knight, Jr. (2004). Moundville Art in Historical and Social Context. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 166-181. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Welch, Paul D., and C. Margaret Scarry (1995). Status-Related Variation in Foodways in the Moundville Chiefdom. American Antiquity 60(3): 397-419.
Scarry, C. Margaret, and Vincas P. Steponaitis (1997). Between Farmstead and Center: The Natural and Social Landscape of Moundville. In People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp. 107-122. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1978). Location Theory and Complex Chiefdoms: A Mississippian Example. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 417-453. Academic Press, New York.
Knight, Vernon J., and Vincas P. Steponaitis (1998). A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon J. Knight and Vincas P. Steponaitis. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Archaeology of the American South Anthropology 550
Week 12: Mississippian Iconography and Style
The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) has long been a key concept in discussions of Mississippian art and religion. This week’s readings provide an introduction to the contemporary approaches to Mississippian iconography and style.
General Readings:
Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder (1945). A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist 47(1): 1-34. [Read pp. 1-3 and skim the rest.]
Knight, Vernon J., James A. Brown, and George E. Lankford (2001). On the Subject Matter of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Art. Southeastern Archaeology 20(2): 129-141.
Lankford, George E. (2007). Some Cosmological Motifs in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, in Kent Reilly and James Garber, eds., Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, pp. 8-38. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Lankford, George E. (2007). “The Path of Souls”: Some Death Imagery in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Kent Reilly and James Garber, eds., Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, pp. 174-212. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Optional Readings:
Knight, Vernon J. (1986). The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51: 675-687.
Reilly, F. Kent, III (2004). People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacred in Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 125-137. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Brown, James A. (2004). The Cahokian Expression: Creating Court and Cult. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 104-123. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Knight, Vernon J. (2006). Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1): 1-5.
Steponaitis, Vincas P., Samuel E. Swanson, George Wheeler, and Penelope B. Drooker (2011). The Provenance and Use of Etowah Palettes. American Antiquity 76(1): 81-106. [Focus on how palettes were used and the implications of these findings, not on the details of the chemical analyses.]