Cooking Pots as Burial Urns

midcontinental journal of archaeology, Vol. 40 No. 1, Winter, 2015, 48–72

Cooking Pots as Burial Urns Janet Rafferty, Robert McCain and Joseph Smith Mississippi State University, USA

S. Homes Hogue Ball State University, USA

Large ceramic vessels used as burial urns occasionally have been found in Late Mississippian/protohistoric contexts in Alabama and Mississippi. Ethnohistorical documents suggest that large vessels were used for cooking in a domestic context. A systematic examination of three urns from east-central Mississippi shows multiple uses prior to their final deposition with burials. Vessel size analysis of a temporal sequence of sherds from midden contexts used sherd thickness and curvature data to show that large vessels became more common. Three explanations are examined to better understand the use of large vessels during this time: bet hedging, costly signaling, and changing technology. The results confirm the use of burial urns in domestic contexts before their final use as interment containers, making technological change the most viable of the three hypotheses. keywords burial urns, Mississippian/protohistoric, function

Large ceramic vessels were used as burial containers in several parts of the southeastern United States, with concentrations on the Gulf coast of Alabama and Florida, the Atlantic coast of Georgia, and the Alabama River and the Black Warrior/Tombigbee River valleys of Alabama (McCann 1947:19). In interior Alabama, burial urns date mostly to the Late Mississippian/protohistoric period, A.D. 1400–1700 (Sheldon 1974). Such urns contain one or more burials, which may include primary infant interments or secondary burials of bones representing adult individuals. A bowl often served as a lid, with the entire urn and lid being buried upright. Burial urns that contained adult skeletons are large, up to 45 cm tall and 55 cm in diameter, based on measurements for Alabama urns given by Holmes (1992:Plate LXII), Brannon (1938:228), and Albright (1983:343–344, 381). As part of explaining why urn burial came into use in a particular area and time, it is necessary to determine whether large ceramic vessels became more common. If they did, three possible explanations for this size increase are that large vessels

© Midwest Archaeological Conference Inc 2015

DOI 10.1179/2327427114Y.0000000016

COOKING POTS AS BURIAL URNS

49

were made for use solely as burial urns, for use at feasts, or for use as part of a new food-preparation technology. These possibilities are couched below in terms of the evolutionary process of selection: the explanations treat vessel size as a functional, rather than as a stylistic, trait. The idea that large vessels came about through drift, a random process, is not considered because production cost differentials between smaller and larger vessels militate against their size being a neutral (or stylistic) trait and thus subject to drift (Dunnell 1978; Neiman 1995). Bet hedging or the waste hypothesis (Dunnell 1989; Dunnell and Greenlee 1999; Madsen et al. 1999) is one evolutionary explanation that has been offered for such apparently wasteful practices as the construction of mounds and other monumental architecture (e.g., Aranyosi 1999; Hamilton 1999). The hypothesis proposes that, as the energy spent on such activities increases, the energy used for food production stabilizes; this dampens population growth over the longer term and allows for a reservoir of energy to be maintained for wastefulness. By ceasing wasteful behaviors, energy can be made available for redirection to subsistence activities during times of lower environmental productivity. Such strategies may be strongly selected in variable environments (Madsen et al. 1999). Bet hedging hypotheses require much detailed environmental and archaeological data for full testing (see the arguments over application to Middle Archaic mound building (Hamilton 1999; Peacock and Rafferty 2012; Sampson 2008)), but they can be a fruitful way to explain changes in apparently “wasteful” activities. This general idea may be applied profitably to explain energy consumed in producing grave goods or in following specific mortuary practices, such as the manufacture of burial urns and secondary burial. A second possible explanation, costly signaling, also involves putting time and energy into pursuits that do not directly contribute to subsistence or survival (Neiman 1997). Displays of skill, strength, or ownership of expensive resources signal honest representation of an individual’s or a group’s ability to absorb costs. Costly signaling occurs in the context of competition for mates or adherents and so indirectly affects reproductive success or survival; this occurs in the shorter term compared with bet hedging (Aranyosi 1999; Hayden 1998) and requires an audience to receive the signal. Feasting, which has been proposed as having been a major mound-related activity in the region in the Mississippian period (Blitz 1993a, 1993b; Jackson and Scott 1995), is one form of costly signaling. Large-scale feasts would have involved preparation and consumption of quantities of foodstuffs that required large vessels, such as those the final use of which was as burial urns. If urns simply represent utilitarian vessels, a better explanation for their availability for use in burial might be cast in terms of their use-related traits. For instance, a new technology that was under selection, such as bone grease extraction or maize parching, may explain the manufacture of larger pots. With little or no extra cost, these could have been employed as burial containers once they became worn out or damaged. Expectations for each hypothesis are displayed in Table 1. Bet hedging involves selection for wasteful activities: these may include importation of vessels, elaborate decoration of vessels, special disposal of them, and no evidence of their utilitarian use. Costly signaling also involves waste but in a form that can be signaled effectively, such as by using highly decorated vessels, perhaps imported if that is

50

JANET RAFFERTY et al.

TABLE 1 EXPECTATIONS FOR LARGE POTTERY VESSELS ACCORDING TO THREE HYPOTHESES Bet Hedging

Costly Signaling (in the Form of Feasting)

New Technology

Use alteration

None

Present

Present, may be extensive

Decoration

Elaborate

Elaborate

None unless related to use

Source

Exotic

Exotic when signaled to an audience via decoration or other means

Local

Disposal

Special (nonhousehold) contexts

Special (nonhousehold) contexts

General household refuse

clearly signaled by their appearance, that are disposed of in relation to the signaling location. A new technology is utilitarian, directly related to subsistence; therefore, disposal is expected to occur as household or production area refuse, production is local, and surface treatment (cord- or fabric-marking, for example) is functional (Boulanger and Hudson 2012). The goal of this study is to provide a pilot test of these three explanations—bet hedging, costly signaling, and selecting for a new technology—for the use of burial urns found at archaeological sites in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi.

Chronology and archaeological context Based on archaeological evidence, the use of large urns as containers for burials started in the late Mississippian to early protohistoric period in Alabama and Mississippi (Hogue 2000; Regnier 2006; Sheldon 1974). The majority of urns from the region has been found at sites on the lower Tombigbee, Alabama, and Black Warrior rivers in Alabama, with a few also found at sites in the central part of the Tombigbee River valley (Figure 1). The latter include three urns from the Lubbub Creek site in Alabama (Albright 1983) and four urns from sites in Mississippi: one from the Yarborough site, 22CL814 (Solis and Walling 1982:60), and one each from three sites in Oktibbeha County (Atkinson 1979:65, 68; Hogue 2000). Urns from the four sites in Mississippi were found during or after construction activities, not as the result of deliberate archaeological work, so the vessels and information on their contexts are incomplete. The three Oktibbeha County urns, from 22OK756, 22OK593, and 22OK902N (see Figure 1), are the focus of this study. Ridges in and northeast of the main part of Starkville, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, are the location of numerous small Mississippian and protohistoric archaeological sites that have been interpreted as farmsteads (Hogue 2003; Rafferty 2001). Archaeological remains having been revealed by construction at house lots in the Rolling Hills residential subdivision, a number of trash pits, and burials were salvaged there in the 1970s and 1980s. Two of the burial urns considered here came from Rolling Hills sites 22OK756 (Urn 1) and 22OK593 (Urn 2). The third urn is from 22OK902N, about 1 km to the north.


51

figure 1 Location of sites producing burial urns and other sites mentioned in the text.

The mortuary pattern at these sites indicates that females and children were more likely to have been buried in urns, while males are found more often in multiple secondary burials (Hogue 2000). According to 1975 field notes by James R. Atkinson, Urn 1 contained the flexed, primary burial of an infant less than a year old (Hogue 2000). The bones in Urn 2 represented three sets of secondary remains: one 4- to 6-year-old child, one female over 25 years old, and one female between 18 and 20 years of age (Hogue 2000). Hogue (2007) found that the urn from 22OK902N contained the remains of an adult male, showing that urn burial was not reserved exclusively for females and children. Only by recovering more urn burials from the area can such patterns be explored. Hogue (2000) notes that there are no indicators of status differences linked to particular mortuary practices at the Rolling Hills sites. That Urn 2 contained multiple sets of human remains may indicate the relatedness of those interred, but it clearly shows that the individuals were deposited at the same time, much like ossuary burials. To provide a setting for examining trends through time, the three Oktibbeha County urns were dated using several absolute and relative methods. All three urns are tempered with crushed mussel shell, indicating that they were made in the Mississippian (A.D. 1100–1550) or protohistoric (A.D. 1550–1700) periods (Rafferty 2001; Steponaitis 1983). An accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon date on bone from one burial in Urn 2 and two luminescence dates, on sherds from Urns 2 and 3, were obtained (Table 2). The luminescence dates were run on sherds from the urns’ bodies. Poor preservation of the skeletal remains recovered with Urns 1 and 3 prevented the successful use of AMS dating for these burials. Of the two dates from Urn 2, the AMS date is preferred based on other evidence discussed below. The luminescence date is considerably earlier, with a 75-year gap between its range and that of the AMS date at two sigma (see Table 2) even though the events dated—the firing of the pot and the death of the person buried

52


TABLE 2 LUMINESCENCE AND RADIOCARBON DATES FROM OKTIBBEHA COUNTY URNS Sample and Number

Urn

UW 1482 (sherd)

2

22OK593

Beta-226387 (bone)

2

22OK593

UW 616 (sherd)

3

22OK902N

Site

Luminescence Date

Luminescence Date 2 sigma

A.D. 1285 ± 55

A.D. 1175–1395

— A.D. 1461 ± 58

— A.D. 1335–1587

AMS Date B.P.

AMS Date 2 sigma calibrated*

—

—

310 ± 40 —

A.D. 1470–1650 —

*Stuiver and Reimer (1993); Stuiver et al. (2005) (Calib version 6.0). AMS dates rounded to the nearest decade.

in it—presumably were close to one another in time. It seems doubtful that the pot’s use life would have been 100 or more years. The lack of agreement may be attributable to problems displayed by some thermoluminescence (TL) dates on pottery from the local area, most plausibly if vessels were not fired at high enough temperatures to allow accurate dating (Peacock and Feathers 2009:359–361). In this instance, the TL date agreed with that produced by optically stimulated luminescence and no anomalous fading was observed (Feathers 2007), so the disparity between the luminescence and AMS dates is of unknown origin. For comparison, urn dates from the Black Warrior River valley in Alabama, dated via radiocarbon on associated materials and stylistically, are assigned to Moundville IV, A.D. 1570–1700 (Little and Curren 1995:71), while those from the Alabama River area are identified with the Alabama River phase, A.D. 1550–1700 (Jenkins and Meyer 1998). As pointed out by Solis and Walling (1982:172), the burial modes and diagnostic artifact types associated with these protohistoric phases also occurred in Late Mississippian times. This suggests that regional burial urn use should date from ca. A.D. 1450–1700. The Urn 2 AMS date and the Urn 3 TL date are in this range (see Table 2). Contextual information allows further assessment of the Oktibbeha County urns’ absolute dates. The site from which Urn 1 was recovered in spring 1975 was not given a site number until it was recorded by the 1976 Mississippi State University (MSU) field school as 22OK593. The number 22OK756 was assigned to this specific location during a later survey by Rex Poole (1990). Atkinson (1979:68, 77) says that the urn was “large, globular and possessed small strap handles”; it is illustrated in a drawing in Atkinson’s article (1979:77). Only the bottom section of the vessel survives, along with some plain body sherds and one rim, which do not appear to belong to the urn but may be from the cover; no handles are now present. Several other burials and trash pits in the urn’s vicinity produced some early contact-period (A.D. 1700–1800) artifacts, such as glass beads and a brass tinkler (Atkinson 1979), while the mix of sand- and mussel shell-tempered pottery collected from the surface of the site in 1976 (Table 3) indicates a Late Mississippian/protohistoric component. Urn 2 was recovered in 1983 by a construction crew. The recovery location as described by the contractors was ascribed to the general area of 22OK593. The sherds were brought to MSU with associated human bones. Two partial mussel shell-tempered vessels were reconstructed: the bottom half of the urn and two

TABLE 3 POTTERY TYPES ASSOCIATED WITH BURIAL URNS, OKTIBBEHA, COUNTY Mussel Shell-Tempered Plain

Mussel Shell-Tempered Red Slipped

Mussel Shell-Tempered Punctate

Mussel Shell-Tempered Interior Incised and Punctate

Fossil Shell-Tempered Plain

Sand-Tempered Plain

Sand-Tempered Red Slipped

Grog-Tempered Plain

Grog-Tempered Cord Marked

Grog-Tempered Red Slipped

22OK756-Urn 1

2

—

—

—

—

17

5

—

—

—

24

22OK902N-Urn 3

12

3

9

7

1

17

8

2

2

3

64

Provenience

Total


53

54


large rim sherds with one strap handle, presumably from the urn’s cover. The rim sherds are red-slipped, while the urn is plain. No other artifacts were collected from the Urn 2 location, but measurements on the handle give some information about its relative date. Following Steponaitis’s method for dating handles from Moundville vessels (1983:122), the top, middle, and bottom widths and middle thickness of the handle were measured and the ratios computed. The top width– bottom width ratio is 2.21:1, while the middle width-to-thickness ratio is 3.14:1. The handle shape is consonant with those from Moundville belonging to the Moundville III phase, A.D. 1400–1550 (Steponaitis 1983:122). This is in agreement with the AMS date from one of the Urn 2 burials (see Table 2). Multiple non-urn secondary burials located in the vicinity of Urns 1 and 2 (Hogue 2000; Rafferty and Peacock 2008) have calibrated AMS dates (Stuiver and Reimer 1993) of A.D. 1470–1815 and A.D. 1515–1895 at two sigma, placing them within the Late Mississippian to historic periods. The third urn, from 22OK902N, was recovered in 1999. The urn, along with much of the included burial, was largely destroyed by a contractor’s bulldozer. A calibrated AMS date (2-sigma) of A.D. 1470–1655, obtained for a nearby secondary burial at the site (Hogue 2007), overlaps with the TL date obtained for Urn 3 (see Table 2). Sherds from a general surface collection from the associated site surface are listed on Table 3. The grog-tempered cord-marked pottery indicates the presence of a Late Woodland (A.D. 550–1000) component; the fossil shell-tempered sherds are diagnostic of a protohistoric component. The sand- and mussel shell-tempered types probably also date from the early protohistoric, as all are frequently represented in assemblages from this period (Rafferty 2001). This temporal placement accords well with the later end of the Urn 3 TL date range. Taking into account the absolute and relative dates on the urns, the burial, and the associated sherd collections and multiple secondary burials, all three urns likely date to the Late Mississippian or the early part of the protohistoric period, A.D. 1450– 1650. The other urns from the central Tombigbee River valley, from Yarborough (Solis and Walling 1982) and Lubbub Creek (Albright 1983), also have been placed in this period.

Evidence of use: ethnohistory Communal feasting is documented historically in the Southeast (Hudson 1976:311) and elsewhere. An excellent example is the Huron “Feast of the Dead” burial ceremony, which was held every 10–12 years. During the ceremony described by Jean de Brebeuf in 1636, the Huron gathered the bones of all individuals who had died over the years and, after feasting, the disarticulated bones were deposited together in a single pit (Ubelaker 1989). The Huron are not necessarily related to the Mississippi and Alabama groups that made use of urn burial, but this analogy presents a link between feasting as costly signaling and secondary burial, possibly a form of bet hedging. The large size of burial urns may be related to a tradition of preparing food for communal feasting that continued from Mississippian into protohistoric and historic times.


55

Ethnohistorical documents of sixteenth-century native cultures support the use of large vessels for ceremonial and feasting purposes. In four etchings by Theodore De Bry, based on the sixteenth-century expeditions and paintings of Jacques Le Moyne in Florida and John Smith in Virginia, large vessels are depicted being used for cooking, feasting, and performing ceremonies. The illustrated vessels are similar in shape and size to burial urns recovered archaeologically in the southeastern United States. One etching, Saturiba Goes to War, shows two large urns containing water used in ceremonial preparation for war (Lorant 1965:57), while another etching, A Council of State, depicts four large vessels used to boil “casina, a drink prepared from the leaves of a certain root,” which was consumed only by warriors (Lorant 1965:93). Casina is the black drink, made of Ilex vomitoria, mentioned in many ethnographic narratives on the Southeast (Hutchinson 2006). A third etching, also associated with sixteenth-century Florida natives, is called Preparing for a Feast. The description by Nicolas Le Challeux reads, “These cooks take a great round earthenware pot and put it over a large wood fire.… The head cook empties the raw food into the large pot; another keeps the fire going with a small hand fan .… Although they give big feasts, they never overeat” (Lorant 1965:91). The fourth etching, How They Boil Meat in Earthenware Pots, is based on John Smith’s travels through Virginia. The description of the print, taken from John White’s narratives, reads: Their women have the greatest skill in making large earthen pots, which are so fine that not even our own potters can make any better. These are carried from place to place just as easily as our own brass kettles. They set them on a pile of earth and then put wood underneath and kindle it, taking great care that the fire burns evenly on all sides. They fill the pot with water, then put fruit, meat, and fish into it, and let it boil together as in gallimaufry…. When it is cooled, they serve it in small dishes and set them before the company, who make good cheer together [Lorant 1965:255]. These illustrations and descriptions provide evidence that large vessels were used for everyday as well as ceremonial activities in historic times. One problem with using de Bry’s etchings as ethnohistorical support for archaeological research is illustrated by Milanich (2005), who questions whether Jacques le Moyne actually did any painting of the Florida Indians on which de Bry supposedly based his etchings. Milanich’s examination showed that many of de Bry’s etchings of Florida were based on scenes of Brazilian Indians and narratives by le Moyne and other travelers. Theodor de Bry never visited the New World (Milanich 2005), and if he took creative liberties with his etchings of Florida, his other works may be influenced as well. One ethnohistoric account of the use of urns in mortuary context was discovered by Ashley Montagu (1940). The account, written in 1694, concerns observations made in the then area of South Carolina (which included part of today’s Georgia). The steps described included burying the bones until they were defleshed, placing them into a pot that was heated over a fire until the bones were burned, covering the urn with leather, and burying it. The source did not comment on the size of the pots used as urns.

56


Evidence of use use alteration Carbon deposition, abrasion and other kinds of use alteration can provide direct evidence that vessels were used as well as how they were used and how frequently (Skibo 1992). Unremovable soot located on the exterior may indicate that the vessel was set over or near a fire, while soot on the interior may indicate that dry contents became charred in the pot (Hally 1983; Skibo 1992:147–148). Abrasion on the exterior may be due to use if on the base and to cleaning, especially if scratches are present on the sides, while scratches on the interior may be due to scrubbing or using tools while removing or stirring contents (Skibo 1992:107– 109). Breaks on the rim, mend holes, and other indications that a vessel had neared the end of its primary use life also may be significant in inferring recycling or other changes in vessel use (Skibo 1992:44). Several researchers have mentioned use wear, exterior sooting, and interior residue on burial urns. Urns from Alabama show enough evidence of use to be treated routinely as utilitarian (Regnier 2006:121; Sheldon 1974:53–54; Walthall 1980:257). However, small urns containing infant and child remains are believed to have been used only for burial (Hill 1996:21, 27), and up to three-fourths of urns from some Alabama sites contained such burials (Brannon 1938:231). Some urns found at the Town Creek site in North Carolina also appear to have been unused until the need for a burial urn arose (Coe 1995:180). They contain only primary burials of children. Examination of the remaining parts of the three Oktibbeha County urns for soot, scratches, and abrasions (Figure 2; Table 4) shows conclusively that they were used for other purposes before burial placement. This includes Urn 1, which contained a single child burial. The exteriors of all three urns display matte sooting, while the interior base is sooted on Urns 1 and 2. Nonglossy sooting, especially on the sides of the vessels, suggests that they did not contain liquid, which facilitates glossy soot formation and prevents formation of oxidized patches from heat exposure (Skibo 1992:164–165). Urn 2 shows an oxidized patch on the exterior base, coincident with the interior sooting. The base of Urn 1 is extensively abraded on the exterior, while Urn 2 shows slight basal abrasion (Table 4). Scratches are present on Urns 2 and 3, being most extensive on Urn 2’s interior middle sides and exterior

figure 2 Urns 3 (left) and 2 (right) showing interior basal sooting.


57

TABLE 4 SIZE AND USE-ALTERATION DATA ON OKTIBBEHA COUNTY URNS Urn 1

Urn 2

Urn 3

Provenience

22OK756

22OK593

22OK902N

Temper and surface finish

Mussel shell-tempered, plain

Mussel shell-tempered, plain; cover is exterior and interior red-slipped

Mussel shell-tempered, plain

Maximum height

43 cm

33 + cm (broken)

42 + cm (inferred)

Maximum diameter

43 cm

39 + cm (broken)

Unknown

Maximum base thickness

1.2 cm

1.5 cm

1.2 cm

Orifice diameter

25 cm (rim sherd possibly from cover)

33 cm (cover)

Rim sherds too small to measure

Oxidized patches

No

Exterior base

Unknown

Exterior sooting

Base, on 1 side up to break

All sides, from 2.5–26 cm height

On thickest sherds (base?), some within 7 cm of rim

Interior sooting

Base

Base

None preserved

Exterior scratches

None

Extensive, horizontal, in 10 cm-wide band on bottom half of sooted area

On a few sherds, horizontal, some near sooting

Interior scratches

None

Extensive, mostly from 12 cm above bottom to break

None

Basal abrasion

Extensive

Slight

None on thickest sherds

lower sides. The total size of use-altered surfaces on each urn could not be determined as not enough was preserved to allow for this. Whether the urns were worn out deserves examination. The rim sherds are mostly missing, but those that are present do not show evidence of nicks or mends that could substantiate that the vessels had become unusable prior to their deposition with burials. Extensive basal abrasion on Urn 1 indicates that its use life was nearing its end. It appears from use-alteration evidence that all three urns were employed extensively for cooking prior to deposition as burial urns. Interior sooting indicates that the food-preparation method was dry cooking.

Assessing bet hedging and costly signaling as explanations for burial urns After examining the results of the use-alteration analyses, bet hedging seems a nonviable explanation for the presence of these burial urns, as they were not made exclusively for burial use and they appear well-worn. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that the secondary burial regime displayed in urn burial may be explained by bet hedging. There has been much speculation about the purpose of secondary burial, which includes many urn burials. According to some archaeologists, secondary burials represent warriors or other individuals who had died away from the

58


camp (Hogue 2006; Johnson et al. 1994). Some time after exposure to the elements or a hasty burial near the site of death, the decomposed and disarticulated body would have been collected and returned to the village for final interment. This interpretation is supported by the ethnohistoric documentation of Adair, who in 1775 wrote, “that those who lose their people at war, … are so observant of this kindred duty as to appropriate some time to collect the bones of their relations: which they call bone gathering” (Williams 1930:188–189). In such cases, the level of energy and time put into traveling to, locating, and transporting the bones would have been great. Secondary burial was part of a complex ritual associated with body disposal, as is evidenced by its choice as the preferred burial mode during the protohistoric period in east-central Mississippi (Hogue 2000) and the use of charnel or mortuary houses by the Choctaw and other groups during historic times (Galloway 1995; Hutchinson 2006). That four of the five burials associated with the Oktibbeha County urns were secondary indicates extra energy expenditure that cannot easily be explained by acts of costly signaling or innovations in food-processing technology. Bet hedging cannot be used to explain large pots in this context, but the increasing use of secondary burial may be a form of bet hedging. The feasting hypothesis leads to the expectations (see Table 1) that large vessels would show evidence of use and that they might be decorated. The burial urns in this study have plain surfaces, but Urn 3 and the cover for Urn 1 are red slipped (see Table 4). Red slipping can be either a functional or a stylistic trait, depending on circumstances (Dunnell and Feathers 1991). The large vessels that became burial urns would have been heavy even when empty, as they are fairly thick walled. This, plus the substantial amount of food they could hold, might indicate use on special occasions such as feasts. The hypothesis also predicts that vessels would have been discarded in the context of feasting, which has been argued to have occurred on Mississippian mounds in the Southeast (Blitz 1993a, 1993b; Jackson and Scott 1995; Kelly 2001; Scott and Jackson 1998). Concerning the single-mound Lubbub Creek site on the Tombigbee River in western Alabama, John Blitz argued that mound-related feasting was in evidence based on vessel size comparisons between mound and village refuse (Blitz 1993a, 1993b). The measure of vessel size used was orifice diameter. Blitz found a significant difference in both jar and bowl sizes, with the mound excavations producing more large ones than excavations of the nonmound areas did (1993b:93–96). The importance of feasting also has been argued using faunal materials from Lubbub (Jackson and Scott 1995). Further evidence is adduced by Blitz for differences in jar sizes between mound and farmstead assemblages (Blitz 1993a:109–111). This difference was not seen for bowls. It is worth noting that costly signaling is not limited to feasting and can take many forms. Knight (2004:308–309) argues that mound-related subsistence refuse from Mound Q at Moundville represents elite domestic foods rather than feasting. He does recognize display of craft items and human skeletal parts on Mound Q as “proofs of the efficacy of elites as advertised to their clientele” (2004:319). This may be cast as costly signaling. Appropriate pottery data sets from local Mississippian mounds were not available for analysis to further test costly signaling in the form of feasting as an explanation


59

for the presence of large vessels. It can be noted that feasting has been detected in Early through Middle Mississippian assemblages (Blitz 1993a), when mound construction and use were at their height, rather than in Late Mississippian/protohistoric times, when mound construction had largely ceased. While a more complete test of the costly signaling hypothesis would be desirable, it is not undertaken here.

Further tests of the technological hypothesis: vessel size analysis The third hypothesis, positing a new technology for food preparation that required large vessels that might have given a selective advantage, is the focus of the remainder of this study. One important expectation of this hypothesis is that the number of large vessels discarded in household refuse would increase through time (see Table 1). To test this, it was necessary to look more broadly at sherd data. This was done using orifice diameters, rim- to body-sherd ratios, sherd thicknesses, and sherd curvature data for three chronologically ordered household refuse assemblages. In order to set some meaningful parameters on vessel size, available information on the size of the three urns was examined. The field notes describe Urn 1 as 17 inches (ca. 43 cm) high, even though the fragment remaining is only 8 cm tall (see Figure 2; Table 4). Urn 2 measures 39 cm from the base to the highest part of its broken edge; its height is inferred to have been approximately 47–53 cm. Urn 3 cannot be measured, but it contained the partial remains of an adult male skeleton whose femurs, if whole, would have been approximately 42–43 cm long, based on Mississippian and protohistoric adult male skeletons from the area. This suggests that Urn 3 was similar in height to Urns 1 and 2. Maximum diameter for Urn 1 was 43 cm (Atkinson 1979:77), and for Urn 2 it is 39 cm at the widest surviving part. Urn 3’s diameter could not be measured due to fragmentation. Information on basal-sherd thickness and orifice diameters is given in Table 4. Sherd samples were chosen from well-preserved domestic midden deposits in order to ensure pertinence and comparability. Two of the assemblages came from Lyon’s Bluff (22OK520), a Mississippian/protohistoric mound and village site in Oktibbeha County. They are from stratified middens, zones B and D, in 20N20W, a 1 m2 excavation unit that was placed approximately 20 m west of the north corner of the mound. The lower midden, Zone D, has a radiocarbon date at two sigma of A.D. 1220–1280, while the date from the upper midden, Zone B, is A.D. 1390–1480 (Peacock and Hogue 2005:51). Pottery types from the midden zones (see Table 5) are in accord with these dates: the lower zone produced mostly plain mussel shell-tempered pottery, while the upper zone had in addition a few sherds with fingernail punctates (Parkin Punctated) and applique strips (Alabama River Applique). Both types appear in Late Mississippian times (Jenkins and Meyer 1998). Fossil shell-tempered sherds make up about 5 percent of the Zone B assemblage; this tempering agent came into use in the late fifteenth century in the local area (Rafferty 2001). The third assemblage is from Feature 1, a midden-filled pit at 22OK904, a protohistoric farmstead site near 22OK902N. The pit (Peacock et al. 2005:14) produced three calibrated radiocarbon dates that range in age at two sigma from A.D. 1410–

60


TABLE 5 POTTERY TYPES FROM MIDDEN ASSEMBLAGES, 22OK904 AND 22OK520 Pottery Types

22Ok904Feature 1

22Ok520Zone B

22Ok520Zone D

175

202

Mussel shell-tempered Plain

348

Red slipped

37

36

18

Black slipped

—

—

6

5

—

—

Black painted engraved

—

1

—

Interior incised

—

1

—

1

1

—

10

—

2

Brown slipped

Interior incised red slipped Incised Incised red slipped

—

1

—

Fingernail punctate

29

8

—

Vertical applique strips

—

3

—

6

1

—

—

1

—

37

1

—

Noded

1

—

4

Brushed

1

—

—

10

—

—

Misc. decoration combinations

13

—

—

Eroded surface

64

28

142

Plain

12

1

1

Red slipped

6

—

—

Punctate and red slipped

1

—

—

289

8

—

17

4

—

Burnished Smoothed cord marked Punctate

Painted (red and white, red)

Mixed mussel shell– and grog-tempered

Fossil shell-tempered Plain Red slipped Noded

—

1

—

Incised

10

—

—

Interior incised

3

—

—

Punctate

9

—

—

Misc. decoration combinations Eroded surface

7

—

—

33

—

—

29

—

—

3

—

—

Sand-tempered Plain Red slipped

Continued

61


TABLE 5 CONTINUED Pottery Types

22Ok904Feature 1

22Ok520Zone B

22Ok520Zone D

Interior incised

2

—

—

Cordmarked

1

—

—

Misc. decorations and combinations

5

—

—

Eroded surface

1

—

—

7

—

1

Incised, Interior incised

3

—

—

Cordmarked

3

—

—

—

—

2

Plain

2

—

—

Misc. decoration combinations

3

—

—

1,008

271

378

Grog-tempered Plain

Eroded surface Mixed grog- and fossil shell–tempered

Total

1510 to A.D. 1480–1700; it also yielded a two sigma TL date of A.D. 1456–1634 (Rafferty and Peacock 2008:260–261). These dates and the pottery from the feature, a mix of mussel shell-tempered, fossil shell-tempered, and sand-tempered sherds (see Table 5), firmly situate its use as protohistoric (Rafferty 2001). Also represented are a few red-and-white painted sherds, a type that Steponaitis (1983:117, 126, 129) and Jenkins and Meyer (1998) note is typical of the late Moundville III period (A.D. 1400–1550) at Moundville and that persists into the protohistoric Alabama River phase. It was deemed desirable to control for sources of variability other than vessel size by analyzing only mussel shell-tempered sherds from the three midden samples. For example, it is known that temper/paste compositions that improve thermal shock resistance can be selected for (Braun 1983, 1987:162, 167). Restricting the analysis to shell-tempered sherds decreased the importance of such factors in accounting for observed vessel size changes. The sample sizes are 232 for Lyon’s Bluff Zone D, 229 for Zone B and 497 for Feature 1 from 22OK904 (see Table 5). In each case, sets of refit sherds were counted as one. Sherds smaller than 1 cm and those with eroded surfaces were not included in the analysis. While larger samples would be desirable, no other appropriate large samples were available. Most other Mississippian/protohistoric assemblages recovered locally are from survey collections or plow-zone contexts (Hogue and Peacock 1995; Rafferty and Peacock 2008). One exception is a collection from 22OK905, which had three midden-filled pits, Features 3, 4, and 5 (Peacock et al. 2005; Rafferty 2004). The largest sample is from Feature 3 and consists of 55 mussel shell-tempered sherds, with refit sherds counted as one for each set of refits. The large number of refits indicates that few vessels are represented, making this collection noncomparable to the ones analyzed for this study.

62


Orifice diameter measures Changes in the frequency of various vessel shapes could affect size analyses. If there was a trend through time toward smaller bowls and larger jars, the average vessel size might appear to be unchanging even though jars were becoming larger. To control somewhat for this possibility, orifice diameter was measured using rim sherds from the three contexts. It is recognized that vessels that differ in volume can have the same orifice diameter. A salient example is presented by the burial-urn jars and their bowl lids, which are similar in orifice diameter but very different in volume. Nonetheless, some kinds of changes in vessel size or shape can be reflected in orifice size (a shift to smaller bowls, as mentioned above, or an increase in numbers of bottles at the expense of numbers of jars). Only rim sherds that made up at least 5 percent of the orifice (Zone D, n = 3; Zone B, n = 8; Feature 1, n = 15) were analyzed in order to assure greater accuracy in measurement. Despite the small sample from Zone D, the results (Figure 3) show that rim sherds with the smallest (5–15 cm) and the largest (>25 cm) orifices were present in all three contexts. The average orifice size of sherds from Zone B and Feature 1 is similar (22.88 vs. 22.68 cm) and a t-test showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level between the two sample means (t = 0.5). All the rim sherds represent unrestricted or moderately restricted orifices; in all samples, a mix of bowls and jars comprised the shapes present, with jars predominating. Given sample sizes, no significant change through time in orifice diameter was seen. This indicates that there was no detectable major change in vessel shapes in use from Middle Mississippian to protohistoric times in the local area.

Rim- to body-sherd ratios Another way to examine changes in vessel shapes through time is through the ratio of rim sherds to body sherds. If only one shape were present, this would be expected to mirror changes in vessel size. If, as in the three midden samples, both bowls and

figure 3 Bar graph of orifice diameters of rim sherds from three midden samples.


63

jars are present, the ratio data become more complex. These ratios were calculated for the three samples (Table 6). For total sherds, there is an increase in the number of rim sherds compared with body sherds through time. Removing decorated and redslipped sherds from the tabulation made no significant difference to the pattern of an increase in rim sherds. Archaeologists examining regional shell-tempered sherds (i.e., Blitz 1993a:184–192, 1993b:84; Maxam 2000; Steponaitis 1983:33–45) often hold burnished sherds to represent serving vessels (mostly bowls and small jars) and unburnished sherds to be from cooking vessels (jars), so this might be seen as a fruitful way to separate small and large vessel rim and body sherds. There are so few burnished sherds in these three collections (0 from Zone D, 1 from Zone B, and 9 from Feature 1) that they cannot substitute for the rim- to body-sherd ratio analysis nor would removing them from the analysis make a difference to the results. If taken as a direct measure of vessel size, the rim–body ratios (see Table 6) would indicate that shell-tempered vessels got smaller, not larger, through time in this region. These data will be revisited below.

Sherd thickness Following the reasoning that the thickest sherds from large vessels would be thicker on average than those from smaller pots (cf. Braun 1983:122), thickness served as a proxy for vessel size. The thickness was measured in the middle of the body portion of each sherd, thus excluding collar and lip segments of rim sherds. The analysis detected a slight tendency for sherds to increase in thickness through time. This is not evident in mean thickness, as t-tests showed no significant difference (P = 0.05) between the mean sherd thickness values of the three samples (Zone D [n = 232] to Zone B [n = 229], t = 0.0006; Zone B to Feature 1 [n = 497], t = 0.744; Zone D to Feature 1, t = 0.0002). The increase in size is better reflected in the median thickness (Figure 4); the greatest change is between zones D and B at 22OK520, with a continuing slight increase between Zone B and Feature 1 at 22OK904. The hypothesis, that vessel size became larger in the time span from Middle to Late Mississippian to protohistoric and, thus, probably was under selection, is supported by these data. The change is not a dramatic one, however. The small changes in the thickness distribution data made it desirable to attempt to confirm the size change using another method. Sherd curvature was chosen, as such data have been used successfully in other studies to obtain information on vessel size (Braun 1983:120–121; Hagstrom and Hildebrand 1990). The analysis included interior angle measurements of 649 shell-tempered sherds, comprising TABLE 6 RIM- TO BODY-SHERD RATIOS FOR MUSSEL SHELL–TEMPERED SHERDS FROM THREE MIDDEN CONTEXTS 22OK520 Zone D Rim (n) Body (n) Ratio

22OK520 Zone B

22OK904 Feature 1

9

21

56

223

208

441

1:24.8

1:9.9

1:7.9

64


figure 4 Sherd thickness data for mussel shell-tempered sherds from three midden contexts. Modified box plot showing median, second and third quartiles, and outliers beyond 1.5 times the interquartile range.

152 from Zone D, 176 from Zone B, and 321 from 22OK904, Feature 1. A number of the sherds that had thickness recorded could not be measured for curvature because of their small size or interior surface erosion and were excluded from the collected data. One angle on each of two axes was recorded digitally for each sherd. The angles’ primary and secondary axes intersected orthogonally. When measuring the sherds, the intersection of the lines was placed at the approximate center (the centroid) of the interior side. A MicroScribe G2 digitizer was used to collect five three-dimensional points on the interior of each sherd. Since to our knowledge digital curvature analysis has never before been performed on sherds, measurements were taken using several techniques. The most successful method used a soft white clay, which gripped the sherds securely in place without leaving much sherd residue on the platform. This left the sherds’ structural integrity and surface decorations, such as slips, intact. Use of a low-power, red crosshair laser module made data collection simple and fast. The laser was mounted on a magnifying-glass stand and aimed vertically at the surface of the sherds. The digital readings from each point were recorded in a spreadsheet program and processed through a series of equations that computed the curvature angles for the primary and secondary axes. For each axis, the angles from the horizontal plane to the points on either side of the centroid were calculated using right triangle trigonometric equations via the ASIN (arcsine) function in Excel (Figure 5). The two angles were then added together and subtracted from 180 degrees, yielding the angle formed by the lines that connected the centroid to each endpoint along the axis,


65

figure 5 Measurement of sherd curvature. The formula is θ = arcsin × (opposite/hypotenuse).

which is a measure of sherd curvature along that axis. This method was adopted because it was not possible to discern which sherd axis represented the vessel’s horizontal and vertical axes. The difference in curvature measured along the two axes was reasoned to be the most useful way to reveal differences in vessel size across the assemblages. The profile (vertical) curvature of a vessel would be expected to flatten more rapidly than the axial (horizontal) curvature as vessel size increases. This is a result of size increasing more along the vertical than the horizontal axis. Thus, the largest differences in curvature angle between the two axes should represent the tallest jars, given that one of the angles has near zero curvature. Bowls would show decreased curvature in both directions with size increase, with a more equal change in both axes. These parameters should apply to sherds in the three samples, as long as there was no systematic difference in sherd size among them. Sherd sizes were not

figure 6 Sherd curvature data from 22OK520, Zone D midden. I—sherds from large jars; II— sherds from smaller vessels.

66


figure 7 Sherd curvature data from 22OK520, Zone B midden. I—sherds from large jars; II sherds from large bowls; III—sherds from smaller vessels.

measured for this study, but no marked differences were noted during analysis. The sets of curvature data are shown in Figures 6–8. Table 7 shows the number and frequency of sherds in each sample that were nearly flat in one dimension (angle > 179.9°) and for which the difference between that dimension and the orthogonal angle was either very small (>2 SD below the

figure 8 Sherd curvature data from 22OK904, Feature 1. I—sherds from large jars; II— sherds from large bowls; III—sherds from smaller vessels.

67


TABLE 7 SHERDS NEARLY FLAT IN ONE AXIS, SECOND AXIS CURVATURE LESS OR GREATER THAN 2 SD FROM POPULATION MEAN

Feature 1

,2 SD

,2 SD (n)

,2 SD (%)

.2 SD

.2 SD (n)

.2 SD (%)

Total Sherds

—

1

0.3

—

7

2.2

321

≤2.25°

8

4.5

176

—

2

1.3

152

Zone B

≤0.45°

3

1.7

Zone D

—

0

0

population mean, derived by combining the three samples) or very large (>2 SD above the population mean). The former cases are interpreted as likely being from large bowls and the latter as likely representing large jars (see Figures 6–8). The data on curvature differences show that Zone B produced the largest frequency of sherds from both large bowls and large jars. This indicates that there were greater numbers of especially large vessels in use during the Late Mississippian period in the local area. These large vessels never became common; especially given that they would produce more sherds per vessel, the frequency of such vessels is overestimated by the sherd curvature data. The curvature data appear to help explain the pattern shown in rim- to body-sherd ratios discussed above. The greater number of rims per body sherd through time can be reconciled with an increased number of large vessels by postulating that the proportion of small vessels also increased, resulting in more rims per body sherd. There is some evidence for such a trend (see Figures 6–8): Zone D has a low proportion of sherds that show substantial curvature in both directions (2.63 percent, 4 of 152), while Zone B shows an increase (8 percent, 14 of 176) and Feature 1 an even higher frequency (10.9 percent, 35 of 321). Thus, there appears to have been a divergence in vessel sizes, most marked in Late Mississippian times, with increasing proportions of both larger and smaller vessels. The sherd thickness and curvature analyses support the hypothesis that larger vessels became more common in domestic refuse from Middle to Late Mississippian times, the latter of which is the period of local burial-urn use. Large shell-tempered vessels appear to have become less common after this, although small ones were increasingly common. Analysis of more samples would help determine whether these changes were abrupt or gradual.

Conclusions Urn-sized pots were used, broken, and discarded in domestic contexts at several north-central Mississippi farmsteads occupied in Late Mississippian and protohistoric times. In addition to the data from Feature 1 at 22OK904 presented above, the bases of several vessels large and thick enough to have been in the urn-size range were recovered from Features 3 and 5, large midden-filled pits, at a nearby Late Mississippian farmstead, 22OK905 (Rafferty 2004), mentioned above. At the Yarborough site (22CL814), another farmstead, a number of fragments of large jars, estimated to be up to 60 cm in diameter and 45 cm deep, were found in Late Mississippian contexts (Solis and Walling 1982:102). That fragments of such large

68


vessels were found in midden deposits at farmsteads reinforces a domestic use for these kinds of pots. That their use as burial urns also was controlled by individual households is indicated by the placement of urn burials under or adjacent to residential structures, as documented at Yarborough (Solis and Walling 1982:60) and at Lubbub Creek (Albright 1983:343, 347, 377). The three urns analyzed for this study also were buried at domestic sites. Neither large pots nor those used as burial urns appear to have been restricted to mound-related use. This does not preclude the possibility that large vessels were used primarily in mound-based feasting during the earlier part of the Mississippian period, as argued by Blitz (1993a). Explanations invoking technological change appear to accord best with the data for increasing vessel size. Solis and Walling (1982:175–176) discuss two kinds of use that would require large vessels in individual households: baking and extracting bone grease. Parching corn, making hominy, and several other specific uses are also possible for these kinds of pots. One corroborating test would be to examine changes in degree of bone fragmentation, which would be expected to increase if bone-grease production became more prevalent. The bone in 22OK904 Feature 1 is highly fragmented (Peacock et al. 2005), but these data have not been compared with that from other local assemblages. If dry-roasting foods in large vessels were a new technology, evidence of interior sooting would be expected to become more common. This was not evident on sherds from the three midden samples included in the thickness study. Rather, the percentage of interior-sooted sherds stayed much the same throughout, varying from approximately 6 to 8 percent. Only 52 interior-sooted sherds, ranging over most of the thickness categories, were recorded. Larger sample sizes might allow this kind of evidence to be investigated more tellingly. The addition of new technologies is often a mark of resource intensification. In this case, more intensive processing or more efficient ways to use existing resources seems likely, as there is no indication that previously unused items were added to the diet. Such intensification can occur in variable environments when conditions deteriorate and bet hedging is abandoned, as discussed above. Locally, there is evidence that settlement was being constrained in the Late Mississippian/protohistoric period, with occupations increasingly clustered in the part of north-central Oktibbeha County where the burial urns were found (Rafferty 2001, 2003). The changing availability of water from seep springs may have been one factor leading to settlement expansion throughout the county earlier in Mississippian times and to its contraction in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Rafferty 2003). Coincidence with the inception of the Little Ice Age is suggestive, as cooler temperatures led to shorter growing seasons in many areas of Europe, but no credible connection can be made without local environmental data. Urn burial is rare in the study area—only four urns have been recovered in the past 40 years. Similarly, although the number of large vessels increased, the data show that these were relatively few. The vessel-size increase apparently did not often result in vessels large enough to accommodate adult burials. This may be compared with the central Alabama region, where large numbers of burial urns containing infants and children have been recovered but where vessel sizes have not been documented systematically. Further testing of the three hypotheses proposed


69

above, on the Alabama urns and on materials from the same periods in Mississippi, would be illuminating.

Acknowledgments Several individuals were instrumental in the completion of this research. We wish to thank Evan Peacock, Mississippi State University, who provided information and comments on various aspects of this work. Jim Feathers, University of Washington, reviewed an earlier version of the manuscript and encouraged more careful consideration of the luminescence dates. We are grateful to Nicole Rafferty for creating the box plot. Thanks also go to Karen Y. Smith and four anonymous reviewers, who improved the organization and logical flow of the paper. Funding for AMS and TL dates was available through a grant from the Robert R. Bellamy Foundation, Miami, Florida. Laboratory space and other financial support were provided by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University.

Notes on Collections Artifacts used in this research are housed at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi.

Notes on contributors Janet Rafferty (Ph.D., University of Washington-Seattle, 1974) is Professor Emerita of Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University, where she taught for 37 years. Her research interests are in settlement pattern change, the prehistoric Southeast, and the use of evolutionary theory to explain cultural change. Correspondence to: Janet Rafferty, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, P.O. Box AR, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Email: [email protected] S. Homes Hogue earned her Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and currently serves as Professor and Department Chair in the Department of Anthropology at Ball State University. Her research interests include evolutionary theory, bioarchaeology and, zooarchaeology in the Southeast and Midwest. Robert McCain received a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences from the University of Southern Mississippi in 2003 and a Master of Arts in Applied Anthropology from Mississippi State University in 2009. His research interests include bioarcheology, archeochemistry, zooarcheology, and microbiology. He was active in the Native American Student Association at Mississippi State and his memberships have included Mississippi Archeological Association and SEAC. He currently lives in Starkville, Mississippi. Joseph Smith’s academic history and interests are diverse. He received a BA in English and an MA in Foreign Language from Mississippi State University. Currently he is finishing another MA in Applied Anthropology at Mississippi State

70


University while working for the Chickasaw Nation full-time as a Preservation Specialist. His research interests include settlement pattern change, cultural transmission, stylistic and functional attribute distinctions, reconciliation of archaeological and ethnographic information, elemental and residue analyses, and scanning electron microscopy applications in archaeology.

References Albright, Caroline H. (1983) The Summerville IV Community. In Excavations in the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, Vol. I, edited by Christopher S. Peebles, pp. 309–390. Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Submitted to Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta, Georgia. Aranyosi, E. F. (1999) Wasteful Advertising and Variance Reduction: Darwinian Models for the Significance of Nonutilitarian Architecture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:356–375. Atkinson, James R. (1979) A Historic Contact Indian Settlement in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 25:61–82. Blitz, John H. (1993a) Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Blitz, John H. (1993b) Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80–96. Boulanger, Matthew T., and Corey M. Hudson (2012) Assessment of the Gripability of Textured Ceramic Surfaces. American Antiquity 77:293–302. Brannon, Peter A. (1938) Urn-burial in Central Alabama. American Antiquity 3:228–235. Braun, David P. (1983) Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by James A. Moore, and Arthur S. Keene, pp. 107–134. Academic Press, New York. Braun, David P. (1987) Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C.–A.D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 153–181. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 7. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Coe, Joffre L. (1995) Town Creek Indian Mound. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Dunnell, Robert C. (1978) Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192–202. Dunnell, Robert C. (1989) Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 35–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dunnell, Robert C., and James K. Feathers (1991) Late Woodland Manifestations of the Malden Plain, Southeast Missouri. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Michael S. Nassaney, and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 21–45. Plenum, New York. Dunnell, Robert C., and Diana M. Greenlee (1999) Late Woodland Period “Waste” Reduction in the Ohio River Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:376–395. Feathers, James K. (2007) Luminescence Dating of Two Burial Urn Sherds from Two Sites in Mississippi. Luminescence Dating Laboratory, University of Washington. Report on file, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University, MS. Galloway, Patricia (1995) Choctaw Genesis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Hagstrom, Melissa B., and John A. Hildebrand (1990) The Two-Curvature Method for Reconstructing Ceramic Morphology. American Antiquity 55:388–403. Hally, David (1983) Use-Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:3–26. Hamilton, Fran (1999) Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Example of Elaboration in a Temporally Fluctuating Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:344–355. Hayden, Brian (1998) Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:1–55.


71

Hill, M. Cassandra (1996) Protohistoric Aborigines in West-Central Alabama: Probable Correlations to Early European Contact. In Bioarchaeology of Native American Adaptation in the Spanish Borderlands, edited by Brenda J. Baker, and Lisa Kealhofer, pp. 17–37. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee. Hogue, S. Homes (2000) Burial Practices, Mortality, and Diet in East-Central Mississippi: A Case Study from Oktibbeha County. Southeastern Archaeology 19:63–81. Hogue, S. Homes (2003) Corn Dogs and Hush Puppies: Diet and Domestication at Two Protohistoric Farmsteads in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 22:185–195. Hogue, S. Homes (2006) Determination of Warfare and Interpersonal Conflict in the Protohistoric Period: A Case Study from Mississippi. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16:236–248. Hogue, S. Homes (2007) Mississippian and Protohistoric/Early-Contact Diet and Health: Biological and Cultural Continuity and Change in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 26:246–268. Hogue, S. Homes, and Evan Peacock (1995) Environmental and Osteological Analysis at the South Farm Site (22OK534), a Mississippian Farmstead in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 14:31–45. Holmes, William H. (1992) Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. In The Archaeology of William Henry Holmes, edited by David J. Meltzer, and Robert C. Dunnell. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Hudson, Charles (1976) Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Hutchinson, Dale L. (2006) Tatham Mound and the Bioarchaeology of European Contact: Disease and Depopulation in Central Gulf Coast Florida. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee. Jackson, H. Edwin, and Susan L. Scott (1995) The Faunal Record of the Southeastern Elite: The Implications of Economy, Social Relations, and Ideology. Southeastern Archaeology 14:103–119. Jenkins, Ned J., and Catherine C. Meyer (1998) Ceramics of the Tombigbee-Black Warrior River Valleys. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 44:131–187. Johnson, Jay K., Jenny D. Yearous, and Nancy Ross-Stallings (1994) Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Chickasaw Burial Mode during the Eighteenth Century. Ethnohistory 41:431–446. Kelly, Lucretia S. (2001) A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler, and Brian Hayden, pp. 334–367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Knight, Vernon J., Jr. (2004) Characterizing Elite Midden Deposits at Moundville. American Antiquity 69:304–321. Little, Keith J., and Caleb Curren (1995) The Moundville IV Phase on the Black Warrior River. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 41:55–78. Lorant, Stefan (editor) (1965) The New World: The First Pictures of America. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, New York. Madsen, Mark, Carl Lipo, and Michael Cannon (1999) Fitness and Reproductive Trade-Offs in Uncertain Environments: Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Elaboration. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:251–281. Maxam, Mintcy D. (2000) Rural Communities in the Black Warrior Valley, Alabama: The Role of Commoners in the Creation of the Moundville I Landscape. American Antiquity 65:337–354. McCann, Catherine J. (1947) Aboriginal Urn Burial in the Southeastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. UMI Dissertation Services. Milanich, Jerald T. (2005) The Devil in the Detail. Archaeology 58(3):26–31. Montagu, M. F. Ashley (1940) A Seventeenth-Century Account of Burial Customs among the Indians of South Carolina. American Anthropologist 42:177–179. Neiman, Fraser D. (1995) Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7–36. Neiman, Fraser D. (1997) Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: A Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton, and G. A. Clark. American

72


Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7: 267–290. Peacock, Evan, and James K. Feathers (2009) Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Dating of Temper in Shell-Tempered Ceramics: Test Cases from Mississippi, Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 74:351–369. Peacock, Evan, and S. Homes Hogue (2005) A New Series of Absolute Dates from Lyon’s Bluff (22OK520), East-Central Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 24:46–58. Peacock, Evan, and Janet Rafferty (2012) The Bet-Hedging Model as an Explanatory Framework for the Evolution of Mound-Building in the Southeastern United States. In Barrows and Beyond: An Environmental Archaeology of Barrows, edited by David R. Fontijn. Sidestone, Leiden, The Netherlands. Peacock, Evan, Janet Rafferty, and S. Homes Hogue (2005) Land Snails, Artifacts, and Faunal Remains: Understanding Site Formation Processes at Prehistoric/Protohistoric Sites in the Southeastern United States. In Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in Former Environments of Human Behaviour, edited by Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, pp. 6–17. Oxbow, Oxford, England. Poole, Rex D., Jr. (1990) A 5% Random Sample Survey in North Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Manuscript on file, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State. Rafferty, Janet (2001) Determining Duration at Prehistoric Sites: Short-Term Sedentary Settlement at Josey Farm, NE Mississippi. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:347–366. Rafferty, Janet (2003) Prehistoric Settlement Patterning on the Mississippi Black Prairie. In Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain, edited by Evan Peacock, and Timothy Schauwecker, pp. 167–193. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Rafferty, Janet (2004) Explaining Feature Variability at Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric Sites, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 39:85–106. Rafferty, Janet, and Evan Peacock (2008) The Spread of Shell-Tempering in the Mississippi Black Prairie. Southeastern Archaeology 27:253–264. Regnier, Amanda L. (2006) A Stylistic Analysis of Burial Urns from the Protohistoric Period in Alabama. Southeastern Archaeology 25:121–134. Sampson, C. Garth (2008) Middle Archaic Earth Mounds in the American Southeast and the Onset of Mid-Holocene El Nino/ENSO Events: Is There a Connection? In Man-Millennia-Environment: Studies in Honor of Romauld Schild, edited by Z. Sulsastawski, and A. J. Tamaszerski, pp. 133–141. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. Scott, Susan L., and H. Edwin Jackson (1998) Caddo Ritual and Patterns of Animal Use: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Crenshaw Site (3Ml6), Southwestern Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 37:1–37. Sheldon, Craig T., Jr. (1974) The Mississippian-Historic Transition in Central Alabama. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Skibo, James M. (1992) Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum, New York. Solis, Carlos, and Richard Walling (1982) Archaeological Investigations at the Yarborough Site (22Cl814), Clay County, Mississippi. University of Alabama Office of Archaeological Research, Report of Investigations 30. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Steponaitis, Vincus P. (1983) Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic, New York. Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer (1993) Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215–230. Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, and Ron W. Reimer (2005) CALIB 6.0, http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html program and documentation. Ubelaker, Douglas H. (1989) Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Taraxacum, Washington, DC. Walthall, John A. (1980) Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Williams, Samuel C. (editor) (1930) Adair’s History of the American Indian. Watauga, Johnson City, Tennessee.