University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2017 Gender, Lithics, and Perishable Technology: Searching for Evidence of Split-Cane Technology in the Archaeological Record at the Mussel Beach Site (40MI70) Megan M. King University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation King, Megan M., "Gender, Lithics, and Perishable Technology: Searching for Evidence of Split-Cane Technology in the Archaeological Record at the Mussel Beach Site (40MI70). " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4697 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Megan M. King entitled "Gender, Lithics, and Perishable Technology: Searching for Evidence of Split-Cane Technology in the Archaeological Record at the Mussel Beach Site (40MI70)." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Anthropology. Jan Simek, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: David G. Anderson, Boyce Driskell, Julie Reed Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Gender, Lithics, and Perishable Technology: Searching for Evidence of Split-Cane Technology in the Archaeological Record at the Mussel Beach Site (40MI70) A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Megan M. King August 2017 Acknowledgments: This dissertation could not have been completed without the help, support, and encouragement of several individuals. I would first like to extend a special thanks to my committee members; Jan Simek, David G. Anderson, Boyce Driskell, and Julie Reed. Jan has provided continual guidance and insight throughout the process of organizing and writing this dissertation, I greatly appreciate your advice and feedback. David Anderson has been a continual mentor and form of support throughout my entire graduate degree. I have truly appreciated your advice and our frequent chats. I have to thank Boyce Driskell for training me in lithic analysis and providing feedback as I learned the art of functional analysis. I am also very grateful to Julie Reed for introducing me to Cherokee history and helping me navigate through the complicated world of Cherokee politics. I am forever grateful to Roger Cain and Shawna Morton Cain. Thank you first and foremost for agreeing to work with me and for your enthusiasm and excitement about this project. Thank you so much for opening up your home and community to me, and sharing with me your knowledge and passion for river cane. This project could not have been accomplished without you and I hope to be able to work with you both again in the future! I would also like to extend a thank you to several individuals within the Cherokee Nation, including Sohail Kahn, co- Chair of the Cherokee Nation IRB, Pat Gwin, and Candessa Tehee. I appreciate your guidance throughout the IRB process and for your interest and acceptance of this project. Thank you as well to Tyler Howe, fellow graduate student and former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer within the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. I have benefitted greatly from our conversations and cannot thank you enough for helping make connections within the Cherokee Nation. I would like also to extend a special thank you to the many faculty, staff, and graduate ii students within the Anthropology Department and Archaeological Research Laboratory who provided help, guidance, or support throughout this project. I have had the privilege to work with many wonderful and brilliant individuals who have been inspired me, mentored me, and provided me with space, equipment, and a fresh perspective. To my family, I cannot express in words how thankful I am for your love and support. I miss you all every day, but have found so much comfort and joy in our conversations. Thank you for making me laugh, being my friends, and knowing that my heart will always be in Buffalo no matter where this journey takes me. I am forever grateful to my mom, and feel that thank you is simply not enough. You have always supported my decisions, listened to me, and found just the right thing to say. Without you, none of this would have been possible. Finally I would like to thank the two people in my life who have made this entire journey worthwhile, my husband Brian and my sweet baby girl Mia. Brian, thank you for everything, especially for your endless and unwavering love and support. You have been patient and understanding, and you never stopped working to support our family and my dream. Thank you for our life, I love you. My last thank you is to my daughter, my funny and precocious little girl. Thank you for making me smile, for making me laugh, and reminding me every day what life is really about. You have brought me nothing but happiness, and I love you more than words can say. iii Abstract: Perishable artifacts made from plants and fibers were likely an integral part of daily life in the prehistoric Southeast. While these items rarely survive in the archaeological record, their manufacture may be identified through the examination of non-perishable tools, specifically lithic artifacts. Observations by ethnographers, travelers, and missionaries in the Southeast have cross-culturally identified women as the primary harvesters and collectors of plant materials for both subsistence and material culture production. While most accounts leave out specific details regarding the tools utilized in production of perishable objects, there is reason to suspect that lithic artifacts were used in various plant processing activities. Unfortunately there has been minimal experimentation with stone tools and native Southeastern plants, and few studies which attempt to link such activities to gendered individuals in the past. This dissertation focuses primarily on the processing of river cane for the production of split-cane technology and attempts to understand how production related activities manifest in the archaeological record. By combining an Organization of Technology Approach with an Anthropology of Technology perspective, I examine the Archaic and Woodland flake tool assemblage at the Mussel Beach site in Tennessee and attempt to understand, through changes in tool form and function, how gender and population demographics changed during each temporal occupation. As a means of inferring tool type and function, flake tools were examined and characterized by morphological and technological characteristics. In order to infer tool function, lithic artifacts from the Mussel Beach site were examined using both low and high-power microscopy. When the results of the functional analysis are combined with the data from the faunal and paleobotanical assemblages, it is possible to discuss site activities at Mussel Beach from a gendered perspective, and moreover recognize split-cane production in the archaeological record. iv Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Foundations ......................................................................................... 13 2.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 16 2.2 The Archaic and Woodland Periods in the Southeast ....................................................... 18 2.2.1 The Archaic Period (11,500 – 3,200 cal. yr. B.P.) ....................................................... 18 2.2.2 Early Archaic (11,500–8900 cal yr B.P.) ..................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Middle Archaic (8900–8500 cal yr B.P.) ..................................................................... 20 2.2.4 Late Archaic (5800–3200 cal yr B.P.) .......................................................................... 22 2.2.5 The Woodland Period (3,200 – 1000 cal yr B.P.) ........................................................ 24 2.2.6 Early Woodland (3200 – 2225 cal yr B.P.) .................................................................. 25 2.2.7 Middle Woodland (2225 – 1725 cal yr B.P.) ................................................................ 27 2.2.8 Late Woodland (1725 – 1020 cal yr B.P) ..................................................................... 29 2.3 Organization of Technology ................................................................................................. 31 2.3.1 Environment.................................................................................................................. 36 2.3.2 Economic/Social Strategies .......................................................................................... 37 2.3.3 Population Demographics